International Coaching Psychology Review · relationship in the coaching engagement. While strong goal setting and performance enhancement are important features of coaching for clients,

The British Psychological SocietySpecial Group in Coaching Psychology

❋

The Australian Psychological Society LtdInterest Group in Coaching Psychology

❋

InternationalCoaching Psychology Review

❋

Volume 2 No. 2 July 2007

❋

Contents

115 EditorialStephen Palmer & Michael Cavanagh

116 The state of executive coaching research: What does the current literature tell us andwhat’s next for coaching research?Jonathan Passmore & Carla Gibbes

129 A preliminary evaluation of executive coaching:Does executive coaching work for candidates on a high potential developmentscheme?Amanda J.W. Feggetter

143 Strengths use, self-concordance and well-being: Implications for Strengths Coachingand Coaching PsychologistsReena Govindji & P. Alex Linley

155 GAS powered coaching: Goal Attainment Scaling and its use in coaching research and practiceGordon B. Spence

168 The coaching relationship: An interpretative phenomenological analysisKristina Gyllensten & Stephen Palmer

178 Coaching with emotion: How coaches deal with difficult emotional situationsElaine Cox & Tatiana Bachkirova

191 Coaching: A process of personal and social meaning makingReinhard Stelter

202 Contributions of evidence-based developmental coaching to coaching psychology and practiceOtto Laske

213 Book Reviews

114 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 2 No. 2 July 2007

International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 2 No. 2 July 2007 115© The British Psychological Society – ISSN: 1750-2764

EditorialStephen Palmer & Michael Cavanagh

IN THIS ISSUE OF THE ICPR we havethree types of research, empirical data onthe outcomes of coaching interventions,

empirical data on the internal dynamics ofthe coaching relationship and theoreticalresearch into nature of the coaching enterprise.

Passmore and Gibbes present a thought-provoking article on the state of executivecoaching research. They draw parallelsbetween the counselling research literatureand the coaching literature, and identify anumber of potential pitfall and suggestionfor the future.

Feggetter reports on the results of amulti-method empirical study investigatingreturn on investment (ROI) and success ingaining promotion among 10 highperforming Ministry of Defence personnel.Her results suggest that participants ratedthe coaching positively and felt that theirleadership skills had benefited. Althoughworking with small sample sizes, preliminaryresults suggest a positive ROI beyondimproved leadership, promotion and skillstransfer.

Govindji and Linley present empiricalevidence which supports the use of strengthsbased approach to coaching. Their studyusing 214 college students suggests thatwhich suggest that when a strengths basedapproach is used, people are likely to experi-ence an increased sense of authenticity,vitality and well-being.

Spence presents both the benefits andlimitations of measuring progress incoaching using Goal Attainment Scaling. Hepresents in some detail this method oftracking progress and shows its applicabilityfor both research and day to day practice.

Gyllensten and Palmer present qualita-tive data on the role of the coach-coacheerelationship in the coaching engagement.

While strong goal setting and performanceenhancement are important features ofcoaching for clients, the authors also findthat the relationship is highly valued aspectof the engagement. This value is related tothe level of trust and transparency in thecoaching relationship. This has clear impli-cations both for the way in which coacheswork with clients and for contracting onissues such as confidentiality.

Cox and Bachirova examine 39 coaches’use of emotion in the coaching session. Inthis qualitative study they find that coachestend to deal with difficult emotional one offour ways ranging from self reflectionthrough to termination of the coachingengagement. This paper raises a number ofissues regarding the boundary betweencoaching and therapy and for the trainingand supervision of coaches.

In two quite different ways, Stelter andLaske present papers which seek to under-stand the purpose of the coaching engage-ment. Stelter looks at coaching as a processof making meaning from a social construc-tivist and phenomenological perspective.Based on the work of Piaget and Kegan,among others, Laske takes a cognitive devel-opmental perspective on the coaching enter-prise. He presents a model of coachingwhich sees development as a gradual processof diminishing egocentricity.

The growing proportion of empiricalpapers in this issue appears to be indicativeof a growing body of research andresearchers in coaching. It is this growingresearch agenda that will ultimately deter-mine the place of coaching and coachingpsychology in the world.

Stephen Palmer & Michael Cavanagh

116 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 2 No. 2 July 2007© The British Psychological Society – ISSN: 1750-2764

OVER THE PAST five years thecoaching marketplace has becomecrowded with potential coaches all

offering executives the chance to ‘fulfil theirpotential’, ‘achieve excellence’ or ‘find theinner hero’. In a global $2 billion per annummarket (Fillery-Travis & Lane, 2006), whatcan coaching psychologists offer?

The unrestricted use of the term‘psychologist’ in the UK does not help thosewho have trained for up to five years toachieve a clear and precise standard. Inbusiness consulting it is not uncommon tofind people who claim to be ‘psychologists’.In fact they often have, at best, an under-graduate degree in psychology and some-times little more than training in a level Bpsychometric instrument. The situation incoaching is worse, with limited training avail-able, no regulation and no licensing in theUK, Australia (Spence, Cavanagh & Grant,2006) or in the US (Nowack, 2003).

So what can coaching psychologists bringto coaching that is unique and distinctive?Garman, Whiston and Zlatoper (2000),writing in the US (where the term ‘psycho-logist’ is more strictly regulated) haveargued that licensed psychologists do have

unique skills. These skills are in under-standing and working with the diversity ofhuman behaviour. However, they note thatthese skills are rarely recognised by themedia. In fact, with the confusion aroundthe term ‘psychologist’, organisationalclient’s or coachee’s rarely understand theunique contribution psychologists can make.

Berglas (2004) has offered an alternativeperspective to the debate on the contributionof psychologists in coaching. He suggests thatthe unique contribution is the ability to iden-tify and work with dysfunctional behaviour.Such behaviour he suggests is more commonin the board room, as such individuals aredriven to succeed, a point echoed byFurnham (2005). However, having attainedthe most senior positions, the individuals andtheir organisations are vulnerable to cata-strophic failure from dysfunctional behav-iour, which may include inappropriate risktaking or a failure to understand and workwith the more subtle human emotions of keystakeholders or partners.

An additional potential differentiator isthe knowledge psychologists have or canacquire in specialist areas, using newevidence-based methodologies such Motiva-

The state of executive coaching research:What does the current literature tell usand what’s next for coaching research?Jonathan Passmore & Carla Gibbes

This paper asks the question; what do coaching psychologists bring to the developing market of executivecoaching? While psychologists are trained in human behaviour, this paper argues that their real uniquecontribution may be their ability to undertake high quality research. The paper moves to summariseexecutive coaching research to date, and to suggest new areas for study, drawing from a review ofcounselling research history over the past five decades. Finally, the paper calls for coaching psychologists toaddress three key research strands, with the objectives of; evidencing the impact of coaching on performance,improving coaching practice and assisting in identifying the key components required for effective coachingtraining.Keyword: executive coaching, coaching research, counselling research, evidenced-basedcoaching.

International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 2 No. 2 July 2007 117

tional Interviewing (Miller & Rollnick, 2002;Passmore & Whybrow, in press). These tech-niques often demand specialist or accreditedtraining, but can be acquired by psycho-logists, as the knowledge builds on anexisting understanding of human behaviour(Passmore, 2007).

The most powerful differentiator,however, is a desire and commitment toundertake, contribute to, share and incorpo-rate into their practice the outcomes fromcoaching research. Psychological trainingequips the coaching practitioner with theability to undertake research within the

scientific tradition of randomised controltrails, as well as within the qualitative tradi-tions using methodologies such as Interpre-tative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA),Grounded Theory and discursive tech-niques. These can add richness and depth toquantitative studies.

Executive coaching researchAs recently as four years ago the evidencethat executive coaching could transformindividual performance at work was scant. AsKampa-Kokesch (2001) reminded us duringher own coaching research in 2001/2002 at

Table 1: Summarised executive coaching impact research up to 2000.

Author Key points

Foster & Lendl (1996) A review of the impact of EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization andReprocessing) procedures on four executive coaches, which suggested that EMDR was an effective intervention for desensitising workplace experiences.

Olivero, Bane & A comparative study of training and training complemented byKopelman (1997) behavioural coaching to enhance performance in a public sector agency.

The study was based on a sample of 31 participants. The resultssuggested that coaching increased performance by 88% while training only intervention resulted in an increase of only 22%.

Judge & Cowell (1997) A study of managers using a variety of interventions (behavioural topsychodynamic coaching).

Gerger (1997) A masters level study based on a sample of 48 participants reviewing the impact of coaching on management behaviour, in particular the adoption of a coaching management style. The results suggested that between 70 to 93% of executives made a change in behaviour.

Hall, Otazo & A study consisted of interviews with 75 executives who had receivedHollenbeck (1999) coaching. The results of the study was a list of coaching behaviours

which coachee’s found help and less helpful, and a comparison with coaches perceptions of coaching behaviours. A fuller review is set out in Table 2.

Laske (1999) A study is also an unpublished dissertation. He interviewed a small sample of six executives. His conclusion was that executive coaching is only of value if the executive is ready for development. This implies a need for a stronger assessment stage prior to commencing coaching.

Garman, Whiston & The study involved a content analysis of coaching publications and thus Zlatoper (2000) failed to demonstrate based on primary empirical research clear

evidence of the impact of an executive coaching intervention.

The state of executive coaching research


Jonathan Passmore & Carla Gibbes

Table 2: What works best in coaching?

From executives From coaches

Honest, realistic, challenging feedback Connecting personally, recognising where the Good listening coachee isGood action points ideas Good listeningClear objectives ReflectingNo personal agenda CaringAccessibility , availability LearningStraight feedback Checking backCompetence, sophistication Commitment to coachee successSeeing a good model of effectiveness Demonstrating integrityCoach has seen other career paths Openness and honesty

Knowing the ‘unwritten rules’.Pushing the coachee where necessary

Western Michigan University, the number ofimpact studies totalled seven in 2000. Unfor-tunately, few of the studies provided compa-rable data points and in many cases failed tosummarise the key points of their study suchas research design, sample size, samplingprocedures and a description of the method-ology. The papers were reviewed in herpaper, but for convenience a short summaryis provided in Table 1.

The most interesting of these studies forcoaching practice, was Hall, Otazo andHollenbeck’s (1999) work which, whilebased solely on coachee perceptions, doesoffer some interesting insights into under-standing the perceived value of coaching inthe eyes of the coachee. Aspects such aslistening and questioning skills are present,alongside integrity, caring and the ability tochallenge constructively.

Since Kampa-Kokesch’s literatureresearch was published in 2001, the trickle ofempirical studies into the impact of executivecoaching has continued (Bush, 2005; Conway,2000; Dawdy, 2004; Evers, Brouwers & Tomic,2006; Gonzalez, 2004; Gyllensyen & Palmer2005a; Jones & Spooner, 2006; Kampa-Kokesch, 2002; Orenstein, 2006; Passmore2006; Smither & London, 2003; Sue-Chan &Latham, 2004; Wang & Wentling, 2001).

This research data, both published inpeer reviewed journals and unpublishedstudies conducted in university settings, isbeginning to build a wider literature base ofevidence about the impact of coaching andits potential to assist individuals in the work-place. Echoing Kampa-Kokesch’s work, thispaper sought to draw these recent studiestogether in summary form, includingmasters and doctoral level studies whichhave been conducted. As with the previousreview of papers it can be difficult to drawcomparisons between papers as authorsfrequently miss out key information aboutthe sample size, sampling process, method-ology and occasionally fail to adequatelysummarise their results. Following thisreview, the paper moves on to considerwhere coaching research should turn itsattention to next.

McGovern, Lindeman, Vergara, Murphy,Baker and Warrenfeltz (2001) (commonlyreferred to as the Manchester Review study)sought to explore coaching return on invest-ment (ROI). The study involved a sample of100 executives in the US who had receivedcoaching during the previous four years. Theparticipants were interviewed and asked toquantify the impact which the coaching had

(From Hall, Otazo & Hollenbeck, 1999)


made on their business. Secondly, they wereasked to estimate the confidence level oftheir estimates. Costs were collected on thecost of the coaching received and a ROI wasundertaken using a simple formula;

ROI (%) = adjusted ROI – cost of thecoaching received x100

cost of the coaching received.

To create the adjusted ROI figure, adjust-ments were made to isolate the effects ofother factors and the confidence level wasused to further adjust down the potentialimpact. Having made these adjustments thestudy concluded that coaching made a ROIof 545 per cent, or that for every dollarinvested in coaching, executives estimatedthat it contributed $5.45 to the business.

Wang and Wentling, 2001 – This study wasbased on a group of participants from aWorld Bank of Asia training programme.Participants attended a three-week courseand were supported with six months’ onlinecoaching. In addition to supporting transferof skills from the training programme, theresearchers also found that online coachingimproved relationship, problem solving andenhanced motivation.

Kampa-Kokesch, 2002 – This study used theMulti-factor leadership questionnaire(MLQ) to assess the impact of coaching onleadership behaviour. The study was basedon a sample of 50 coachees and 27 coaches.In reviewing the biographical data one of thesuggestion made in the paper was thatcoaching may be an intervention associatedwith enhancing good behaviour rather thanaddressing under-performance. The resultssuggested that coaching did impact on lead-ership behaviour with increased ratings oncharismatic behaviour, impact on followersand inspiration action.

Smither and London, 2003 – This was alongitudinal study of over 400 managersfound that executives who worked with a

coach showed an improvement in perform-ance in terms of direct report and supervisorratings using a multi-rater feedback instru-ment.

Sue-Chan and Latham, 2004 – This paper re-visited work by behaviourial psychologist,Monroe Lefkowitz on influencing under-taken during the 1950s. The 2004 studylooked at the skills of experts, colleagues andthe individual to bring about personalchange. It confirmed the important role ofan expert whose opinion mattered. In estab-lishing credibility one important feature washow individuals dressed. The study foundthat influencing was increased by 35 per centwhen the authority figure (coach) wore a tie.

Dawdy, 2004 – This was a study conducted atCapella University, US. It aimed to measurethe effectiveness of executive coaching ofcoachees who had used a coach for morethan six months in 30- to 60-minutecoaching sessions, compared with thepersonality type of the coachee using a US-based product; Peoplemap question-naire. Peoplemap clusters individuals into sixtypes; leader-free spirit, leader-task, leader-people, free spirit-task, people-task andpeople-free spirit. The results suggest thatcoaches need to adapt their coaching style tocoachee preferences.

Gonzalez, 2004 – The study reviewedcoachees perceptions of what contributedtowards the coaching process. The studyinvolved a sample of 12 coachees; six maleand six female who had received coachingusing a collaborative coaching style. Partici-pants were interviewed through a semi-struc-tured interview methodology and the datawas analysed using thematic analysis toreduce and cluster the data. The findingshighlight that for positive progress to bemade the coach needed to commandrespect, work collaboratively, use a discursiverather than instructional approach and actauthentically. The research identified theneed for a combination of action and reflec-




tion using gentle probing for transforma-tional learning to occur.

Bush, 2005 – This study, undertaken atPepperdine University, used a phenomeno-logical methodology to assess effectiveness ofcoaching based on coachee perceptions.The results suggested that coaches have animpact on the overall effectiveness ofcoaching. Key aspects of this were the expe-rience of the coach in the eyes of thecoachee, the use of a structured process anda focus on development. In addition theresearch identified that coachees’ and theclient organisation have important roles toplay through, selection of the coach, organi-sational culture and coachee commitment.

Gyllensyen and Palmer, 2005b – This controlgroup study involving 103 participants fromthe UK and Scandinavia, examined thepotential of coaching as an intervention toreduce workplace stress. The study using acorrelation design found that workplacecoaching was not a significant predictor ofdepression, anxiety and stress. However,participants reported high levels of coachingeffectiveness. The study found lack ofcontrol and role ambiguity were significantpredictors of stress.

Passmore (forthcoming) – A doctoral studyof executive coaches perceptions of the exec-utive coaching process. The study usedGrounded Theory to explore coachees’perceptions of the coaching relationshipand the key elements which they valued. Thestudy went on to construct a theoreticalmodel of executive coaching which high-lighted the importance of previous experi-ences in shaping expectations, the behaviourof the coach in balancing challenge and rela-tionship and the selection of homeworktasks which take account of the executivesorganisational role and preferences.

Evers, Brouwers and Tomic (2006) – Thisstudy involved a pre- and post-test measure-ment of individuals and used a control

group drawing on a group of 60 managers ina public service organisation; split betweenthe control and experimental conditions.Participants in the control group benefitedfrom a behavioural coaching interventionbased on the co-coaching model (Whit-worth, Kimsey-House & Sandahl; 1998). Theresults found significant different betweenthe two groups and in favour of coaching ontwo of six variables measured; outcomeexpectations with respect to acting in abalanced way and self-efficacy beliefs withrespect to setting ones own goals. Theauthors’ concluded that coaching had a posi-tive effect, but noted that the self-reportnature of the study limited the conclusionswhich could be drawn from the results.

Orenstein (2006) – This study used theEmpathic Organic Questionnaire (Brown,1972) to assess the efficacy of coaching on anindividual manager. The manager under-went a period of coaching and was reviewedby a group of 20 colleagues to identifychange at the end of the period. The resultssupported the research hypothesis that thecoachee was rated to have changed most inbehaviours which were the subject of thecoaching. Behaviours indirectly related tothe objectives changed, while behavioursunrelated to coaching changed least.

Jones and Spooner (2006) – This studyinvolved used semi-structured interviews toexplore the experiences of high achieversdrawn from business and sport and theircoaches. They sought to identify whichfactors were perceived as critical forcoaching success. The researchers inter-viewed 21 high achievers and seven coaches.The results echoed the earlier work abovehighlighting the role of trust, credibility andchallenge. In addition the researchers drewout the need for the coach to act as a sponge,to be friendly without becoming a friend, tooffer rapid results and for the coach to beconfident but focused exclusively on theneeds of the coachee.


In addition to the impact-focused studiesthere have been a number of other valuablecontributions to coach research.

Liljenstrand, 2004 – A study undertaken atAlliant International University, San Diego,which compared the coaching practices ofindividuals from backgrounds in clinicalpsychology, occupational psychology andbusiness. The study drew on 928 practicingcoaches who undertook a survey describingtheir behaviours. Differences were identifiedbetween the groups at the level of frequencyand length of session, use of assessmenttools, perceptions of what constituted uneth-ical practice and views on certification. Thestudy points towards the existence of two ormore markets in the US.

Luebbe, 2005 – This study was in two parts.The first part of the study was a qualitativestudy of 13 participants who were interviewedregarding their experiences of coaching. Thesecond part involved a survey of 66 coaches.The results indicated that trust is the highestrated attribute, confirming that the relation-ship is a key component in bringing aboutchange. Secondary aspects were the coaches’skills in summarising, providing candid feed-back, fostering independence and self aware-ness in the coachee and building apartnership with the client organisation. Alsoimportant was the role of the organisation incommunicating the role and purpose ofcoaching to ensure coach and coachee wereappropriately matched.

Turner, 2004 – This study examinedmanagers’ perceptions of coaching behav-iours in supporting the transfer of learningfrom a leadership programme to workplacepractice. The participants attended a two-week leadership programme involvingstrategic thinking, marketing and employeeinvolvement. The programme was supportedby coaching both during the event and post-event. The researcher used a combination ofqualitative and quantitative unspecifiedmethodologies to assess the impact of the

programme and coaching support. Theresults suggest that the process was mosteffective in assisting coachees to developmore effective coaching behaviours, while itwas marginally less effective in supportinglearning transfer.

Life coaching researchA small number of non-work-based coachingstudies too have been gathering andpublishing evidence of the impact ofcoaching. While these are not the focus of thispaper, the can provide useful insights into theparallel processes between executive coachingand health and life coaching. Two examples ofthese are Grant’s paper (2003) on lifecoaching and goal attainment, and his studycomparing cognitive with behaviouralcoaching (Grant, 2001). The study, based onpopulation of postgraduate students, revealedthat participation in the life coachingprogramme was associated with goal attain-ment. In addition, coaching impacted posi-tively on depression, anxiety and stress, whilethe level of self-reflection increased amongparticipants. As Grant noted one of the keyweaknesses of this, as with many other studies,was the lack of a control group. The 2001study was based on a non-clinical populationof trainee accountants and included the use ofa control group. The study employed threeparallel groups who were offered cognitive,behavioural and cognitive-behaviouralcoaching. Participants in the cognitive onlystream benefited from ‘deep’ and ‘achieving’approaches to learning, reduced anxiety andlower levels of depression. However, academicperformance declined relative to the controlgroup. Participants in the behavioural onlycoaching benefited from reduced anxiety andimproved academic performance. Thecombined stream also benefited fromimproved academic performance along withreduced anxiety.

The role of coaching case studiesWhile these empirical studies have beenunder way, others (Tobias, 1996; Giglio,Diamante & Urban 1998; Kraji, 2001;




Cooper & Quick, 2003; Schnell, 2005;Winum, 2005; Blattner, 2005) have beenpublishing their own case studies.

Lowman (2001) has argued that casestudies provide excellent evidence forbuilding the case for coaching, and wereused extensively at the start of psychology bypsychodynamic thinkers. He cautions that tobe useful the case studies should adhere to aset of guide principles:1. Description of case events;2. Diagnostic interpretation by the

psychologist;3. Specific intervention used;4. Results;5. Possible explanations for the results.However, the evidence from psychologicalresearch suggests that while case studies havetheir place, the case for coaching needs to bebuilt on control group studies with randomselection of participants between the studygroup and a wait list group. Where studentsand others are drawn to use case studies, thefollowing guidance might provide the readerwith an improved understanding of the study(see Table 3).

The evidence appears to be building tosupport the claim that coaching does havepositive impacts in a range of areas fromstress management to self-regard andperformance. However a word of cautionfrom the wider evidence on one-to-one inter-ventions shows that the evidence is nottotally conclusive. One example is the meta-study on feedback (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996).The meta-research of 600 studies on feed-back interventions suggests that in just over

30 per cent of cases feedback was followed bya decrease in performance. As feedback isoften seen by coaches as a key tool in devel-oping self awareness, caution should beadvised when offering it. While the evidenceis not available to confirm this, gentlybuilding the evidence from feedback, moni-toring the coachee’s changing reactions andresponding appropriately, may be featureswhich reduce the potential negative effects.A second issue, common to all scientificresearch, is that while studies showing posi-tive results are published, those that fail tofind an impact go unrecorded.

As a result, it is fair to say, that theevidence for coaching having an impact onwork-based performance was weak, but isslowly beginning to build. Three generic criticisms can be made of many of the 20 orso studies to date. The studies have typicallybeen based on a small sample size. In themain they have failed to use control groups.They have lacked a random allocation togroups. If coaching is to evidence, withoutdoubt its impact, and answer the questionwhich Filery-Travis and Lane (2006) reflectedon, then more robust studies are needed.

The first conclusion from this paper isthat coaching research needs to continue,and that studies using larger sample sizes,control groups and random allocation ofparticipants should become the norm notthe exception. But in which direction shouldcoaching research travel? For the answer tothis question, this paper looks to researchwork in counselling which has a 50-year headstart on coaching.

Table 3: Guidelines for coaching case studies.

● Description of the context (organisational setting).● Description of the coachee’s issue.● Objectives agreed by the coach and coachee.● Selection of approach by the coach.● Description of what happened during the coaching relationship.● Outcomes and how were these measured/assessed.● Reflections on lessons learnt by the coach.


Counselling psychology researchOne obvious comparison of the coachingprocess is with counselling, as both involvesone to one relationship, which are largelyconfidential, between a paid worker andcustomer and employ a series of techniquesto help the person achieve a goal set at thestart of the relationship. There are also ofcourse some important differences, such asclient group and presenting issues. Whatdoes a review of the counselling literaturereveal about the research into behaviours inthe counselling room?

An initial review of the counselling litera-ture suggests that counselling research hastravelled a similar pathway. As a one-to-oneworking relationship, counselling’s hundredyear history has provided evidence fromthousands of studies. There is a good under-standing of what work, some shared assump-tions about why this works and evidencebased practice which has emerged as a resultof this history of research.

Fillery-Travis and Lane (2006) asked acrucial initial question of coaching; does itwork? The answer from the research intocounselling is ‘yes’, and the evidence fromcoaching appears to be heading towards asimilar conclusion. While in counselling thisis a strong conclusion to reach, meta-analysisof 475 controlled outcome studiesconcluded that, at the end of the treatment,the average client was 80 per cent better offthan a similar untreated client (Smith, Glass& Miller, 1980). Other meta-studies havereached similar conclusions for the impactof counselling (Lambert, Shapiro & Bergin,1986; Howard, Kopt, Krause & Orlinsky,1986) although with different rates of gainfor treated over untreated clients. The trendis clear, counselling as an interventionproduces beneficial results as evidenced inmultiple control group studies.

This conclusion for counselling was notreached without much trial and error. Earlystudies neglected the use of control groups,as counsellors did not wish to excludepeople from treatment. Once control groupswere established, this was done through

waiting list groups, with participants wereseen on the basis of need. The result was thatstudy results were challenge over the lack ofrandom allocation of participants to groups.As the number of studies increased theseprocedural issues were gradually overcomeand the evidence of counselling as an effec-tive intervention became compelling(Lambert & Cattani-Thompson, 1980).Coaching psychology is inching towards thisoutcome, at present, with a pre-dominanceof poor quality studies.

Once an answer to the question ‘Does itwork?’ was resolved in counselling, theresearch question was redefined. The nextchallenge was to understand what withincounselling produced the positive impact onclients who themselves had diverse needs.The research question generated significantnumbers of comparative studies (Hill &Corbett, 1993). The result of this research isthat many forms of intervention appear toproduce a positive effect across a wide groupof needs in varying timescales. The one excep-tion, agreed international, to this is anxietydisorders which appears to be best treated bycognitive behaviour therapy (Barlow, Craske,Cern & Klossko, 1989; Lambert & Bergin,1992). In the UK, opinions are strongerregarding the potential advantages of cogni-tive behavioural therapy (CBT) over otherinterventions. This view is built upon the workof the National Institute for Health andClinical Excellence (NICE, 2005), a Govern-ment agency reviewing clinical impacts,whose research supports the claims that CBTis the most effective one-to-one interventionsfor mental health treatment.

Luborsky, Singer and Luborsky, (1975)have argued that all counselling interven-tions make a positive contribution, what everthe methodology. Further US meta-analysiscomparing different theoretical approachesconcluded there was no significant differencebetween interventions which were intendedto be therapeutic (Wamplod, 1997).

One of the problems is that there wereno agreed assessments for client level ofneed or of the outcome achieved over a




defined period in counselling. This led todisputes about which intervention worksbest, and what is best anyway. In responseseveral changes have been made to stan-dardise the input (client need), process(counsellor behaviour) and outcome (clientimprovement). Outcome batteries weredeveloped to measure client outcomes(Waskow & Parloff, 1975). Behaviour ques-tionnaires have been developed to assessclient need (Lambert & Hill, 1994) andmanuals devised to assist counsellor’s inadherence to the methodology (Lambert &Ogles, 1988). This work has helped NICEand others to attempt a more balancedcomparison of interventions.

This debate is beginning to occur incoaching psychology (Kilburg, 2004). Atpresent there is limited evidence-basedresearch (Grant’s 2003 study being theexception) to support which interventionsgenerate the most positive outcomes forcoachees, or which methodologies work bestwith which coachee problems. Kilburg(2004) has argued the results from coachingresearch will be the same as in counselling,and that ‘all should have prizes’. His conclu-sion is that, psychologists should focus atten-tion on other areas of research as opposed toresearching which method works best.

However, the evidence from Grant’sstudy (2003) and the NICE research in theUK suggests that this area may be worthy offurther research, and that differences maybefound between different interventions. Thisdifference may be magnified given thediverse range of needs in the non-clinicalpopulation, that different interventionsmaybe more suited to both different individ-uals (Dawdy, 2004) and to different issues(Passmore, forthcoming).

In counselling there has been a steadyshift towards the blending of differentmethods to form an integrated approach(Smith, 1982). Hill and Corbett (1993) note;‘few therapists now rigidly adhere to a singletheoretical model’. Instead most blendscognitive, with behavioural and humanisticelements.

If we can make progress on the evidenceof using different methodologies, what roledoes the counsellor or coach play in theprocess? Research in counselling suggeststhat the therapist has a crucial role to play. A key skill in this regard is empathy. Earlyresearch (Robinson, 1950) demonstratedthat a counsellor’s remarks did have animpact on the client’s next statement andthat contribute to the process of clientchange. What has been more difficult hasbeen to capture the behaviours.

In executive coaching this research hasbegun and has started to identify commoncoach behaviours which may be most benefi-cial. These include; using a collaborativeapproach with the coachee (Gonzalez, 2004;Luebbe, 2005; Jones & Spooner, 2006), anorganisation culture which is open about thereasons for coaching and offers widersupport to the coachee (Luebbe, 2005; Bush,2004), being authentic or congruent in thework with the coachee (Gonzalez, 2004) andbeing seen by the coach as experienced orcredible (Bush, 2005; Jones & Spooner,2006). In the UK the work of the EuropeanMentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC)(Willis, 2005), using the Adelphi techniqueof an expert panel has developed a set ofcoaching competencies which are believedto contribute to positive outcomes.

The history of counselling research alsoreveals similar problems to those suggestedearlier for coaching (Roth & Fonagy, 2005).Firstly counselling has seen a tendency topublish only positive outcome studies.Studies with null or with negative findings(damage to coachees) are either neversubmitted or are rejected during the peerreview process. This is the ‘file drawer’problem; with unsuccessful studies being leftin the drawer. Secondly the measures ofsuccess vary widely. Thirdly the successcriteria are not always full described. Finally,many studies have suffered from small popu-lation sizes which impacts on the ability to domore sensitive analysis of the data.


The implications for coachingpsychologyWhat are the implications of counsellingresearch for executive coaching? Firstly weneed more research to understand theimpact of coaching on performance. Indoing such research we need to clearlydefine what aspect of performance we areseeking to assess, and to describe the natureof the coaching intervention, frequency andmethodology. We also need to be explicitabout the results which are expected. Suchstudies at postgraduate level can begin tobuild a useful bank of evidence for subse-quent meta-studies.

At present much of the coachingresearch from the US is postgraduate innature and largely unpublished. As we havehighlighted, it has been undertaken withsmall sample sizes, no control groups and norandom allocation of participants. Further,the studies frequently fail to define ordescribe the coaching intervention ormethodology employed. If real progress is tobe made, the research needs to be withsamples of 100+ participants in randomisedcontrol studies. We believe this may best beachieved through the involvement of profes-sional bodies such as the BPS, AmericanPsychological Association (APA), CharteredInstitute of Personnel & Development(CIPD), Association for Coaching (AC),European Mentoring and Coaching Counciland the International Coaching Federation(ICF), as well as funding bodies such asEuropean Social Research Council (ESRC)and the Foundation for Coaching to fund aseries of doctoral level studies at institutionscurrently offering coaching and occupa-tional psychology programmes.

The commercial sector too can make apositive contribution. The main largenational and multi-national organisationsusing coaching could commission longitu-dinal research, to assess the impact ofcoaching on team performance over time. A typical study might involve offeringcoaching to members of a team over adefined period in geographical location,

while the control study received structuredconversations, thus removing the potentialof positive gain from the Hawthorn effect.Agreed targets could be set and measured atthe start, at an intermediate point and six or12 months after the coaching has beenconcluded.

Through a series of published studies wecan, over the coming three to five years,build up the evidence to confirm what manycoaching psychologists intuitive believe; thatcoaching does positively impact on work-place performance.

A second focus of study is around thedifferent coaching methodologies. Researchin the UK (Palmer & Whybrow, 2006) identi-fied the three most popular coachingmethodologies as facilitative, cognitive andbehavioural coaching. What is less clear is;what do these different approaches consistof? And which approach is the most effectfor the different challenges which executivecoaches face? So is cognitive behaviouralcoaching the most effective intervention foraddressing self-regard, and low self-esteem.Is behavioural coaching best at addressingbehavioural skills? Is facilitative the mosteffective for complex problem solving?

A third area of study is on the behaviourswhich coaches use. This is the subject of ourresearch at UEL. At the root of this is a desireto begin to understand what behaviours makea difference in coaching? The experiences ofcounselling suggest that this is a complex anddifficult question. The efforts to explore thisthrough micro skills and behavioural codingshave failed to provide a definitive answer. Itwould seem that with the substantial overlaybetween different interventions in the behav-iours used. It might be hypothesised thatsimilar conclusions may be true for coaching.It might equally be hypothesised that moreexperienced coaches intuitively discover whatworks overtime and unconsciously incorpo-rate this into their behaviour.

The benefits of coaching researchThe coaching profession is still in its infancybut psychology has a significant role to play.




We have suggested that one unique role is touse coaching practice for informing ourunderstanding through research.

Three strands of research on coachingefficacy, the efficacy of different interven-tions and the coaching behaviours can helpin three different aspects of coaching life.The benefits for organisations are to under-stand more accurately whether coaching isan effective investment, and what outcomescan be anticipated.

The benefits of coaching research forcoaching practitioners is to help us betterunderstand which interventions work andwhen. Many coaching psychologists alreadyhave an intuitive feel for what works andwhen, but research provides the evidence forour practice. Coaching psychology should beabout evidence-based practice.

The benefits for those in training are animprovement in the quality of trainingoffered. To ethically train coaches, coachingpsychologists need a clear and evidencedbased approach. Psychologists also need, intheir role as coaching trainers, an under-standing of which behaviours have impact,

and how they interact. Many have a viewabout this, drawing from experience andfrom research in other one to one relation-ships, but even here the research base, suchas counselling, is weak, and coachingpsychology has more work to do.

ConclusionsThe psychological profession is only onegroup laying claim to the important area ofcoaching. However, psychological trainingand understanding of human behaviour putsthe coaching psychologists in a strong posi-tion to contribute towards this new profes-sion. This contribution can be throughresearch based practice for the benefits oforganisations, coaching practitioners andtrainees.

CorrespondenceJonathan Passmore & Carla GibbesDepartment of Psychology, University of East London,London, UK.E-mail: [email protected]: [email protected]

RefrencesAlderfer, C.P. & Brown, L.D. (1972). Designing an

‘empathetic questionnaire’ for organisationalresearch. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 456–460.

Barlow, D.H., Craske, M., Cerny, J.A. & Klossko, J.(1989). Behavioural treatment of panic disorder.Behavioural Therapy, 20, 261–282.

Berglas, S. (2002). The very real dangers of executivecoaching. Harvard Business Review, June, 86–92.

Blattner, J. (2005). Coaching: The successful adven-ture of a downwardly mobile executive.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,57(1), 3–13.

Bush, M.W. (2005). Client perception of effectivenessin coaching. Dissertation Abstract InternationalSection A: Humanities & Social Science, Vol. 66 (4-A). 1417. Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest, Interna-tional Microfilms International.

Copper, C.L. & Quick, J. (2003). The stress and lone-liness of success. Counselling Psychology Quarterly,16(1), 1–7.

Dawdy, G.N. (2004). Executive coaching: A compara-tive design exploring the perceived effectivenessof coaching and methods. Dissertation AbstractInternational Section B: The Sciences & Engineering,Vol. 65 (5-B) 2674. Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest,International Microfilms International.

Evers, W.J.G., Brouwers, A. & Tomic, W. (2006). A quasi-experimental study of managementcoaching effectiveness. Consulting PsychologyJournal: Practice and Research, 58(3), 174–182.

Foster, S. & Lendl, J. (1996). Eye Movement Desensi-tization and Reprocessing: Four case studies of anew tool for executive coaching and restoringemployee performance after setbacks. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48(3),155–161.

Fillery-Travis, A. & Lane, D. (2006). Does coachingwork or are we asking the wrong questions?International Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1),23–36.


Furnham, A. (2005). Derailing behaviours of executives.Paper to Chartered Institute of Personnel &Development Conference, London. April 2005.

Garman, A.N., Whiston, D.L. & Zlatoper, K.W.(2000). Media perceptions of executive coachingand the formal preparation of coaches.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,48, 155–205.

Gerner, C. (1997). Coaching: Theory and practice.Unpublished masters thesis. California: University ofSan Francisco,

Giglio, L. Diamante, T. & Urban, J. (1998). Coachinga leader: Leveraging change at the top. Journal ofManagement Development, 17(2), 93–105.

Gonzalez, A.L. (2004). Transforming conversations:Executive coaches and business leaders in dialog-ical collaboration for growth. Dissertation AbstractInternational Section A: Humanities and SocialScience, Vol. 65 (3-A) 1023. Ann Arbor, MI:Proquest, International Microfilms Interna-tional.

Grant, A.M (2001). Coaching for enhanced performance:Comparing cognitive and behavioural approaches tocoaching. Paper presented to Spearman Seminar:Extending Intelligence, Sydney.

Grant, A.M. (2003). The impact of life coaching ongoal attainment, meta-cognition and mentalhealth. Social Behaviour and Personality, 31(3)253–264.

Gyllensyen, K. & Palmer, S. (2005a). The relationshipbetween coaching and workplace stress. Inter-national Journal of Health Promotion and Education,43(3), 97–103.

Gyllensyen, K. & Palmer, S. (2005b). Can coachingreduce workplace stress: A quasi-experimentalstudy. International Journal of Evidence-basedCoaching & Mentoring, 3(2) 75–87. Ann Arbor,MI: Proquest, International Microfilms Interna-tional.

Hall, D.T., Otazo, K.L. & Hollenbeck, G.P. (1999).Behind closed doors: What really happens inexecutive coaching. Organisational Dynamics,27(3), 39–52.

Hill, C.E. & Corbett, M.M. (1993). A perspective onthe history of process and outcome research incounselling psychology. Journal of CounsellingPsychology, 40(1), 3–24.

Howard, K.I., Kopt, S.M., Krause, M.S. & Orlinsky,D.E. (1986). The dose-effect relationship inpsychotherapy. American Psychologist, 41, 159–164.

Jones, G. & Spooner, K. (2006). Coaching highachievers. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practiceand Research, 58(1), 40–50.

Kampa-Kokesch, S. (2002). Executive coaching as anindividually tailored consultation intervention:Does it increase leadership? Dissertation AbstractsInternational: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering,Vol. 62 (7-B). 3408. Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest,International Microfilms International.

Kampa-Kokesch, S. & Anderson, M. (2001). Execu-tive coaching: A comprehensive review of theliterature. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practiceand Research, 53(4), 205–227.

Kilburg, R. (2004). Trudging towards Dodoville:Conceptual approaches and cases studies inexecutive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal:Practice and Research, 56(4).

Kralj, M.M. (2001). Coaching at the top: Assisting achief executive and his team. Consulting PsychologyJournal: Practice and Research, 53(2), 108–116.

Kruger, A. & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feed-back interventions on performance: An historicalreview, meta-analysis and preliminary feedbacktheory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–285.

Lambert, M.J., Shapiro, D.A. & Bergin, A.E., (1986).The effectiveness of psychotherapy. In S.L.Garfield & A.E. Bergin (Eds.), Handbook ofpsychotherapy and behaviour change (3rd ed.,pp.157–212). New York: Wiley.

Lambert, M.J. & Bergin, A.E. (1992). Achievementsand limitations of psychotherapy research. In D.K. Freedman (Ed), History of psychotherapy: A century of change (pp.360–390). WashingtonDC: American Psychology Association.

Lambert, M.J. & Cattani-Thompson, K. (1996).Current findings regarding the effectiveness ofcounselling: Implications for practice. Journal ofCounseling and Development, 74, 601–608.

Lambert, M.J. & Hill, C.E. (1994). Methodologicalissues in studying process and outcome. In A.E.Bergin & S.L. Garfield (Eds.), Handbook ofpsychotherapy and behaviour change (4th ed.). New York: Wiley.

Lambert, M.J. & Ogles, B.M. (1988). Treatmentmanual: Problems and promise. Journal of Integra-tive and Eclectic Psychotherapy, 7, 187–204.

Jones, G. & Spooner, K. (2006). Coaching highachievers. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practiceand Research, 58(1), 40–50.

Laske, O.E. (1999). Transformative effects ofcoaching on executive’s professional agendas.Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: TheSciences & Engineering 60(5-B) 2386. Ann Arbor,MI: Proquest, International Microfilms Interna-tional.

Liljenstrand, A.M. (2004). A comparison of practicesand approaches to coaching based on academicbackground. Dissertation Abstracts International:Section B: The Sciences & Engineering 64(10-B)5261. Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest, InternationalMicrofilms International.

Lowman, R. L. (2001). Constructing a literature fromcase studies: promises and limitations of themethod. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice andResearch, 53(2), 119–123.



Luborsky, L., Singer, B. & Luborsky, L (1975).Comparative studies of psychotherapies: Is it truethat ‘everyone has won and all must have prizes’?Archives of General Psychiatry, 32, 995–1008.

Luebbe, D.M (2005). The three-way mirror of execu-tive coaching. Dissertation Abstracts International:Section B: The Sciences & Engineering 66(3-B) 1771.Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest, International Micro-films International.

McGovern, J., Lindeman, M., Vergara, M., Murphy,S., Baker, L. & Warrenfeltz, R. (2001).Maximising the impact of executive coaching:behavioural change, organisational outcomesand return on investment. The Manchester Review,6(1), 1–9.

Miller, W. & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational inter-viewing: Preparing people for change (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2005).Clinical guidelines for treating mental health problems.London: National Institute for Clinical Excel-lence.

Olivero, G., Bane, K. & Kopelman, R. (1997). Execu-tive coaching as a transfer of training tool: Effectson productivity in a public agency. PublicPersonnel Management, 26(4), 461–469.

Orenstein, R. (2006). Measuring executive coachingefficacy? The answer was right here all the time.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,58(2), 106–116.

Passmore, J. & Whybrow, A. (in press) Motivationalinterviewing. In S. Palmer & A. Whybrow (Eds.), The handbook of coaching psychology. London:Brunner-Routledge.

Passmore, J. (Ed.) (2006). Excellence in coaching: Theindustry guide to best practice. London: Kogan Page.

Passmore, J. (2007). Integrative coaching. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 59(1).

Passmore. J. (forthcoming). Unpublished Doctoratein Occupational Psychology. The Psychology of Executive Coaching. University of East London.

Robinson, F.R. (1950). Principles and procedures instudent counselling. New York: Harper.

Roth, A. & Fonagy, P. (2005). What works for whom? A critical review of psychotherapy research. New York:Guilford Press.

Schnell, E.R. (2005). A case study of executivecoaching as a support mechanism during organ-isational growth and evolution. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57(1),41–56.

Smith, D. (1982). Trends in counselling andpsychotherapy. American Psychologist, 37, 807–809.

Smith, M.L Glass, G.V. & Miller, T.I. (1980). The benefits of psychotherapy. Baltimore: JohnHopkins University Press.

Smither, J. & London, M. (2003). Can working withan executive coach improve multi-source feed-back ratings over time? A quasi-experimentalfield study. Personnel Psychology, 56, 23–44.

Spence, G., Cavanagh, M. & Grant, A.M. (2006). Dutyof care in an unregulated industry: Initial find-ings on the diversity and practice of Australiancoaches. International Coaching PsychologicalReview, 1(1), 71–85.

Sue-Chan, C. & Latham, G.P. (2004). The relativeeffectiveness of expert, peer and self coaches.Applied Psychology, 53(2), 260–278.

Tobias, L.L (1996). Coaching executives. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 43(2),87–95.

Turner, C.A. (2004). Executive coaching: Theperception of executive coaching from the exec-utive’s perspective. Dissertation Abstracts Interna-tional: Section A: Humanities & Social Science65(1-A) 48. Ann Arbor, MI: Proquest, Interna-tional Microfilms International.

Wamplod, B.E., Mondin, G.W., Moody, M., Stich, G.,Benson, K. & Ahn, H. (1997). A meta-analysis ofoutcome studies comparing bona-fidepsychotherapies: Empirically ‘all must haveprizes’. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 203–215.

Wang, L. & Wentling, T. (2001). The relationshipbetween distance coaching and transfer of training.Paper presented at The Academy of HumanResource Development, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 4 March.

Waskow, I.E. & Parloff, M.B. (Eds) (1975).Psychotherapy change measures (DHEW Publica-tions No. 74–120). Washington DC: GovernmentPrinting Office.

Whitworth, J., Kimsey-House, H. & Sandahl, P.(1998). Co-coaching: New skills for coaching peopletowards success in work and life. Palo Alto: DaviesBlack Publishing.

Whybrow, A. & Palmer, S. (2006). Taking stock: A survey of coaching psychologists’ practice andperspectives. International Coaching PsychologyReview, 1(1) 56–70.

Willis, P. (2005). Competency Research Project: Phase 2Output. London: European Mentoring andCoaching Council.Downloaded on 12 October, 2006, from:http://www.coachingpsychologist.net/Forums/showthread.php?t=47.

Winum, P.C. (2005). Effectiveness of a high potentialAfrican American executive: The anatomy of anexecutive engagement. Consulting PsychologyJournal: Practice and Research, 57(1), 71–89.


BackgroundCaveat. The work reported is preliminary,and the numbers are too small to be consid-ered in terms of statistical significance never-theless the findings and discussion arepresented to show how coaching is beingintegrated within the Ministry of Defence(MoD).

Background. The Ministry of Defence needsto obtain, retain and sustain its talent andeven more importantly identify to-morrowstop leaders to-day. The selection and devel-opment of leaders to meet the current andfuture demands is itself a skill requiring theidentification of high calibre performers andsubsequently the ability to nurture their

talent. Alongside the initial selection succes-sion planning is essential so that businesscontinues no matter what outside influencesoccur. To meet this MoD has introduced adevelopment scheme for those with poten-tial for promotion into the Senior CivilService (SCS) (which equates to a DirectorGeneral level). The MoD has a suite oflearning and development opportunitiesthat are perceived to add value to these indi-viduals. One of these opportunities isexternal executive coaching. Using theguidelines prepared by the Chartered Insti-tute of Personnel Management (CIPD) Jarvis(2004) the MoD commissioned an externalcontractor to undertake executive coaching

A preliminary evaluation of executivecoaching: Does executive coaching workfor candidates on a high potentialdevelopment scheme?Amanda J.W. Feggetter*

Objectives: This paper describes a preliminary attempt to evaluate executive coaching for 10 members whoare on a High Potential Development Scheme within the Ministry of Defence (MoD). Design: A multi-method approach was taken which comprised the use of questionnaires to survey schememember’s perceptions, a Return on Investment (ROI) study and a follow-up of members to determine theirsuccess in gaining promotion. Results: The analysis showed that all 10 who had been coached rated their experience positively. All ratedtheir own progress within the Development Scheme as High and in particular they perceived it was theirleadership skills that had benefited. A preliminary ROI calculation also indicated that the benefits exceededthe costs. Other benefits included promotion, broader leadership skills, and skills transfer within the MoD. Conclusions: The results indicate that within the context of the Development Scheme coaching provides apotential financial ROI. The findings also show that coaching impacts positively on scheme members suchthat they are highly committed to demonstrating and exhibiting leadership behaviours and that there is someevidence of a broader impact on the Department as a whole with generalised skills transfer.Keywords: Coaching Psychology, high potential development schemes, talent management,Return on Investment (ROI), leadership, skills transfer.

*The views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Ministry of Defence.©British Crown Copyright 2007/MOD.Published with the permission of the Controller of Her Britannic Majesty’s Stationery Office.



for personnel on a talent managementscheme. Scheme members have been identi-fied, by means of an independent assess-ment, as having the potential to reach theSCS1 within a five-year time frame. Thecoaching process is targeted to meet theneeds of both the individual schememember and the MoD. The aim is to coachmembers on leadership behaviours that havebeen identified as needing developmentbefore they are considered of sufficient stan-dard to meet the standard of the SCS. Thereis much debate about whether or notcoaching works and indeed Fillery-Travis andLane (2006) suggest that this is the wrongquestion to ask and that it is critical to takeinto account how coaching is being used.Phillips (2006) in his discussion article notesthat that it is the conditions around thecoaching experience that may be critical toits success. There is also more recentresearch that personality can act as a moder-ating variable thereby effecting an indi-vidual’s experience of developmentinitiatives Bywater, Hurst and Berrisford(2007). This study seeks to determine theevidence whether within the context of theMoD external coaching adds value.

AimThe purpose of this study is to make apreliminary assessment about whetherexternal executive coaching works within thecontext of members of a high potentialscheme of civil servants who have been iden-tified as having the potential to reach theSCS in the MoD.

The requirementAt present there are 32 scheme members.The independent assessment identifies candi-dates’ strengths and development needs interms of the MoD SCS Core Competences.These have been identified using the SCSCompetence Framework developed in 2004.

Figure 1 illustrates the development needprofile in percentage terms for all those onthe scheme.

The evidence presented in Figure 1 indi-cates the areas where there is a developmentneed in particular over 50 per cent ofmembers need to improve their people skills(getting the best from people, making apersonal impact and giving purpose anddirection). These are the areas wherecoaching will have an impact. Schememembers are diverse in terms of their indi-vidual development needs and work areas sothe coaching techniques must be flexibleand broad including performance anddevelopmental type coaching. Interestinglylearning and development is identified as adevelopment need for only nine per cent ofthis group. This figure appears to be low,however, they are a highly talented groupand highly motivated towards achievingpromotion and so their learning and devel-opment may be included as part of all theiridentified development needs.

ProcessThe number of coaching sessions is pre-specified2 and the contractor is providedwith the development needs as identified bythe Independent Assessment of the schememember and assigns a coach for an initial‘chemistry meeting’. Depending upon theresults of meeting the coaching process willstart. Importantly the coach is expected tomeet with the scheme member’s linemanager at the start and on completion ofthe process. The coach is working within anagreed framework and to a specific agendaagreed by the MoD.

EvaluationMethod. A multi-method approach has beentaken towards evaluation. This includes aquestionnaire survey administered to allthose who completed the coaching. The

1 The assessment is undertaken by outside consultants and consists of psychometric testing, one-to-one inter-views and other techniques to confirm potential and development needs against the SCS core skills.2 Those identified as ready within 12 months receive eight coaching sessions (six face-to-face and two tele-phone). Everyone else on the scheme have six sessions (four face-to-face and two telephone).

Amanda J.W. Feggetter


A preliminary evaluation of executive coaching

purpose of which was to systematically gathertheir perceptions about the process. A ROIstudy was undertaken which examined thecoaching costs versus the benefits. Finally, acomparison for the first quarter of 2006 wasmade between those who had been coachedand those who had not in terms of beingsuccessful at being appointed to a SCS post.

Sample. The sample comprised 10 Schememembers (eight men and two women) whohad completed their coaching sessioncontract. They had all undergone an Inde-pendent Assessment to identify their devel-opment needs. The assessments indicatedthat they had the potential to reach the SCS.The average age was 40 years old (maximum49 years and minimum 31 years). They allhad an initial coaching package comprisingfour face-to-face sessions of two- to three-hours and two telephone coaching session of90 minutes.

Feedback Analysis. In order to capture theviews of those who had been coached all 10

members who had completed the coachingwere invited to complete a questionnaire.The purpose of the questionnaire was tosystematically capture data that would helpevaluate the programme. A copy of the ques-tionnaire is to be found in Appendix A. Theresults were collated and analysed using asimple calculator rather than any statisticalprogramme as the findings are very muchpreliminary and the numbers involved donot stand up to statistical analysis.

Measure of Success. The programme was newand so scheme members have not actuallyhad time physically to pass through thescheme, be appointed in an SCS post andundertake the job for a year. In view of this acriteria measure that was available was theability of candidates to obtain an SCSappointment between January and April,2006. There was a simple comparison groupavailable of those who had been independ-ently assessed as ready for the SCS, but whohad not been coached. Both groups wereable to compete for posts.

Figure 1: Development needs in terms of SCS competences identified byIndependent Assessment (IA) for all current scheme members (N=32).

Focusing on delivery

Learning and improving

Getting the best from people

Thinking strategically

Making a personal impact

Giving purpose and direction

0 20 40 60 80Percentage

SCS

Com

pete

ncie

s

% of members having development needs


Return on Investment. McGovern et al. (2001)published a study that quotes a Return onInvestment (ROI) of 5.7 for evaluatingcoaching. In attempting to undertake a smallROI study the outlay or costs of executivecoaching were looked at in relation to thenumbers being promoted into the SCS withthe leadership behaviours.

Results Overall Scheme Members’ Perception. The ques-tionnaire comprised a seven-point ratingscale with the extremes defined as ‘verypoor’ (rated 1) and ‘very good’ (rated 7). All10 candidates completed the questionnaire.The findings were extremely positive. Thedetailed results can be found in Appendix B.Overall 100 per cent of the members ratedthe overall coaching process on a seven-point scale as 6 and above, where 7 is ‘verygood’. They also rated their own overallprogress as good, all rating 5 and above. Insummary everyone was very positive aboutthe process and its value. Since memberswere being coached primarily on their ‘lead-ership behaviours which comprised in partthe ‘people skills’ they therefore perceivedthat it was these behaviours that benefitedmost through the coaching process. Theintangible result for the MoD was the factthat members clearly had an improvedperception of their leadership behaviours.For the specific questions:

Question 1: Coaching objectives.The content analysis of the free textcomment confirms that the candidatescoaching objectives reflected the coachingneeds that had been identified in Figure 1.In other words most of the free commentcould be included within the skills PersonalImpact and Getting the Best from People.

Question 2: Progress against achievingobjectives.One-hundred per cent of the members ratedtheir progress 5 and above with 10 per centbeing 7 ‘very good’.

Question 3: Summary question.1. Overall coaching process: 100 per cent

rated 6 and above. 2. Content of each session: 100 per cent

rated 5 and above.3. Listening skills: 100 per cent rated 6 and

above.4. Variety of questioning and interventions:

100 per cent rated 6 and above.5. Care and focus of coach on your needs:

100 per cent rated 5 and above.6. Amount of challenge and stretch from

coach: 100 per cent rated 5 and above.7. The ability to apply the session within

your work: 100 per cent rated 5 andabove.

8. Your openness and honesty: 100 per centrated 6 and above.

9. Your commitment to applying yourlearning: 100 per cent rated 4 and above.

Question 4: Feedback received from othersabout their perception of your behaviourchange.A content analysis of the free text indicatesthat most team members, and their linemanagers, perceived changes to the teammembers’ behaviour. Three candidates hadpositive 360 degree feedback results. This ineffect indicates that those being coached arereporting that colleagues have seen a change.

Question 5: The contribution of coaching toon-the-job performance and any commercial benefit.Content analysis indicated nine positivecomments and no negative ones. But candi-dates had difficulty in quantifying anybenefit. One person gave a subjective esti-mate of £10K another considered that theypreformed at least 15 per cent better interms of less time and effort required.

Question 6: Most appreciated things fromcoaching.Content analysis indicated that the feedbackwas one of the key things that candidatesappreciated and most of them stressed thehonesty and independence of the feedback.




Question 7: How to improve coaching.In terms of improvement by the coach twopeople indicated that they would have likedto have been clearer about the process at thestart. One indicated that the coach did notunderstand the Senior Staff AssessmentProcess3 and this had been an obstacle. Onecandidate felt that the coach could havebeen harder on him. In terms of improve-ments by the candidate the main theme wasbetter preparation and understanding by thecandidates prior to the session as they all saidthat they had improved as the processprogressed.

Question 8: Undertake coaching again.All, but one of the candidates said that theyhad already made arrangements to continuewith coaching and were funding it from theirown budgets. One candidate said that thereshould be a final line when coaching shouldcease.

Question 9: Any other comments.All the comments were positive. Again themajority expressed the value of honest feed-back and the opportunity to talk to someoneindependent.

Analysis of success Following the SSAP 2005, nine candidates(two women and seven men) were inde-pendently assessed as being ready for thePromotion scheme and were, therefore, putdirectly onto the Promotion list. Ten othercandidates (three women and seven men)who had been on the development schemeand who had been coached, were put ontothe list. These included some of those whohad been in the first study, but not all.Consequently in January, 2006, 19 peoplewere on the promotable list and technicallywere ready to be appointed into an SCS job.

Table 1 shows the number of individualson the 2006 Promotable list who have beenappointed or not appointed to an SCS postagainst whether, or not, they had an execu-tive coach.

In other words 40 per cent of those whoreceived executive coaching were appointedinto the SCS within the first four months ofbeing on the list compared with 22 per centof those who had not received any executivecoaching. Clearly there are many otherfactors that impact on whether, or not, candi-dates on the promotable list are selected forjobs, for example, specialist area, whether ornot they choose to apply for a specific post,

3 The Senior Staff Assessment Panel (SSAP) comprises a panel of skills champions who consider all the evidencepresented by applicants for promotion and who recommend those that should be independently assessed todetermine their potential for the Senior Civil Service.

Table 1: Number of Candidates on the Promotable List being appointed to an SCS Postas at 24 April, 2006.

‘Promotable’ list Promoted to an Not Promoted TotalSCS Job

Coached 4 6 10

Not coached 2 7 9

Total 6 13 19


competition with their peers, but thesefactors are likely to apply to both groups andthe bottom line is that those who have beenthrough coaching and, therefore, the devel-opment scheme appear to be being selectedabove those who are deemed ready. Thenumbers are very small but neverthelessthese preliminary findings are interesting.Those that have been coached appear to beperceived as stronger candidates for promo-tion. It may be that a candidate who has beenon the development scheme is preferred toone who had not.

Return on investment.The approximate cost of coaching for ascheme member for one year (six to eightsessions) is £3K. At the end of the year theMoD can be certain that the member meetsthe SCS standard in the specific behavioursthat have been coached. Taking the worstcase in which a scheme member is at the topof the Band B salary scale (and most arenot). The difference between a Band Bsalary and a new entry into the SCS salary isapproximately £5K per year. If the MoDpromotes an ineffective and ‘limited’ personto Pay Band 1 of the SCS, for example, a 50-year-old who can only do one tour, the MoDwill in effect have wasted £5K per year. So foran investment of £3K the MoD can beassured that the individual can not only meetthe requirements of the initial SCS post intheir first year of appointment, but can alsocontinue in other areas at that level. Theappointment of a 50-year-old ‘limited’person means that after the first four-yeartour they have a further six years duringwhich they are paid £5K over their compe-tence level during which time they may wellnot be able to pick up another appointment.At its worst they may be made redundantwith the associated compensation costs. Atbest they will remain in the SCS being paid£5K per year over their competence, i.e.£30K total.

The coaching process ensures that thescheme members are broader in their lead-ership skills and therefore more versatile

giving the MoD a wider choice of candidatesfor the senior positions as well as giving thecandidates themselves flexibility to under-take more than one job.

Each scheme member has built on theirexperience of being coached and is aDepartmental mentor. This skills transfer hasbeen embraced enthusiastically and may beseen as a ‘spend to save’ and a rapid way ofcascading coaching techniques and styleswithin the department and giving linemanagers further tools and techniques fortheir staff management role.

Discussion and conclusion Executive coaching has been a positive expe-rience for those on the DevelopmentScheme. There are several explanations ofthe findings. It could simply that coaching isperceived to be beneficial by those who areassessed as likely to benefit from it in otherwords those who are on the DevelopmentScheme. Alternatively it could it be a resultof the Hawthorne Effect, Adair (1984) sincethose on the Development Scheme knowthat they are being assessed and may wellmodify their behaviour. Similarly schememembers have been identified as ‘talent’ andthere is the possibility of the ‘Pygmalioneffect’ (Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968, 1992)in that those identified as talent become aself fulfilling prophecy. Nevertheless allscheme members reported that they liked tobe coached and perceived it to impact posi-tively on their effectiveness in the job. Thefindings from the evaluation appear todemonstrate that ‘it works’. It has beenperceived by all scheme members to be ofgreat value and in terms of developmentthey have embraced it enthusiastically.

When evaluating coaching Fillery-Travisand Lane, op. cit. state that it is important totake account of context and the coachingagenda. The evidence presented here indi-cates that there are positive intangible bene-fits such as the affect on leadershipbehaviours. Further work is required to try torelate and quantify these behaviours to thebottom line of producing a more effective




SCS one who is more rounded meeting therequired competences, but who also delivers.In the future and as the numbers increasemore tangible measures of assessing theirperformance could be looked such as staffappraisals, job patterns in terms of numberand type of SCS posts taken up by schememembers, project delivery rates whereappropriate and staff turnover within theirDepartments.

Although multiple factors, such as theenvironment, attitudes beliefs and values,and personality have an impact on whether,or not, coaching itself makes the difference,it is clear that those that are coachedperceive themselves and they believe thatthose with whom they interact also perceivethat they have improved their leadershipskills. Frequently the scheme members havesaid that it is often the first time they havereceived and perhaps more importantly theyhave accepted honest feedback about theirbehaviour. This in itself may affect their self-belief which in turn is likely to impact ontheir motivation, and commitment todemonstrating leadership skills with theresult that they are highly likely to deliverthese skills at the standard required for theSCS. In other words coaching within thecontext of a Development Scheme providesa financial ROI as well as ensuring that thosewho are placed on the promotable list arehighly committed to demonstrating anddelivering the SCS leadership behaviours.

Toscano (2006) suggests that there areaalso more hidden and as yet not measuredqualitative benefits such as:● The cascade affect: as the skills of the

members and those of other coachescascade upwards and downwardsthroughout the Department as linemanagers see the benefits in terms ofimproved performance on the job.

● Staff feeling more valued.

This has not been specifically examinedwithin the scope of this study but there isevidence that those who have had executivecoaching are themselves mentors and it islikely that there is a skills transfer bothupwards and downwards within the Depart-ment.

SummaryThe MoD seeks a tangible outcome from theprocess of employing external executivecoaches. This study has tried to show thatcoaching delivers and that it gives addedvalue to those on a Development Schemeand more widely to the Department as awhole. The ultimate criteria would beperformance in the SCS job. It is too early touse this as a criterion nevertheless thepresent findings highlight the fact thatcoaching appears to enhances the likelihoodof achieving an SCS job. There is also somesmall evidence that it is having an impact onleadership behaviours and that it providessome ROI. Within MoD Executive Coachingis perceived as a positive experience forthose identified as High Potential the factthat MoD is prepared to invest in this as adevelopment tool impacts on the candidatesperceptions, motivation and commitmentand leadership behaviours.

CorrespondenceDr Amanda J.W. Feggetter06. N.23. Main Building,Ministry of Defence,Whitehall,London SW1A 2HB.E-mail: [email protected]


Adair, G. (1984). The Hawthorne effect: A reconsid-eration of the methodological artefact. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 69(2), 334–345.

Bywater, J., Hurst, A. & Berrisford, L. (2007). Person-ality and people development. Selection and Development Review, 23(2), 8–12.

Fillery-Travis, A. & Lane, D. (2006). Does coachingwork or are we asking the wrong question? International Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1),23–36.

Jarvis, J. (2004). Coaching and buying coaching services:A guide. London: CIPD.

Palmer, S. & Cavanagh, M. (2006). Editorial –Coaching Psychology: Its time has finally come.International Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1), 1–3.

McGovern, J., Lindemann, M., Vergara, M., Murphy,S., Barker, L. & Warrenfeltz, R. (2001). Maximising the impact of executive coaching:Behavioural change, organisational outcomes,and return on investment. The Manchester Review,6(1), 1–9.

Phillips, P.S. (2006). What value does coaching add toTalent Management programmes? Selection andDevelopment Review, 22(5), 5–8.

Rosenthal, R. & Jacobson, L. (1968, 1992). Pygmalionin the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. New York: IrvingtonPublishers.

Toscano, J. (2006). The case for coaching. Selection &Development Review, 22(2), 12-13.

References




Name:.............................................................. Date:................................................................

Question 1. What were your coaching objectives?

............................................................................................................

Question 2. How would you rate your progress against achieving these objectives? (tick box)

Question 3. How would you rate each of the following? (tick box)

Overall coaching process

Content of each session

Listening skills of coach

Validity of questioning and interventions

Care and focus of coach on your needs

Amount of challenge and stretch from coach

The ability to apply the session within your work

Your openness and honesty

Your commitment to applying your learning

Question 4. What feedback, if any, have you received from othersabout a change in their perception of your behaviour?

..................................................................................................................................................

Question 5. How has the coaching contributed to your on-the-job performance?What commercial benefit (£) has the organisation gained from your coaching?

..................................................................................................................................................

Question 6. What have you appreciated most from coaching?

..................................................................................................................................................

Question 7. How could the coaching be improved…

…by coach? ...............................................................................................................................

…by you? ..................................................................................................................................

Question 8. Given your experiences to date, would you undertake coaching again? If yes, under what circumstances? If no, why not?

..................................................................................................................................................

Question 9. Are there any other comments you wish to make?

..................................................................................................................................................

Appendix A: Executive Coaching Evaluation Questionnaire.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Very Verypoor Adequate good

1 2 3 4 5 6 7



Question 1: What were your coaching objectives?● Develop a more authoritative personal presence.● Delegating more, with less anxiety.● Other lower priority objectives available on request.● Addressing how to improve my personal impact and get the best from people.● To develop my competences to a level that satisfy the SCS requirements, by paying

particular attention to the development areas identified in my Independent Assessment(Giving Purpose & Direction and Personal Impact).

● To coach me on specific issues or problems that may arise.● Thinking and operating strategically.● Time management.● Active Listening.● To consider, prioritise, and set out to plan to address those development needs highlighted

from the SCS assessment process and discussion with Line manager.● Making a personal impact (ensuring that my work and input is recognised at a 2* level and

above).● Getting the best from people.● Broadening experience of Departmental Business.● Learning and Improving.● Thinking strategically.● Getting the best from People.● Making a Personal impact.● To develop greater self belief in my abilities so that it is conveyed in my interaction with

others.● To develop my verbal conceptualisation skills.● Improve ability to influence others looking at styles and non verbal signals.● Improve ability to work at strategic level.● Understand how best to use own resources.● Initially to develop apparent areas fro the development scheme then to address the

leadership challenge in the current role.

Question 2: How would you rate your progress against achieving these objectives: % rating?

Appendix B: Executive Coaching Evaluation Questionnaire. Detailed results.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

20% 70% 10%





Question 3: How would you rate each of the following (tick box) (N=10)

Question 4: What feedback, if any, have you received from others about a change in theirperception of your behaviour?● In terms of top two priorities very positive feedback from line manager and team members.

I believe senior colleagues have noticed the difference even if they have not explicitly said so.● None at this point I was expecting to follow up with my first and second Reporting Officer

in terms of my annual report.● Favourable comment received from members of my team about me being more succinct.● I suggest I can now perform to my pre-coaching level with 15 per cent less time/effort.● My improved ways of working will have leverage through my direct reports and team

members.● Favourable comments from team members about more succinct meetings and presenta-

tions and there had been good take-up on my open surgeries.● Band C1s welcomed their structured coaching.● My direct reports like their more structured one to ones, my better time management and

my clearer delegation.● My line manager has commented that my progress looks impressive.● There was the coach’s comments to the Promotion Panel and the fact that they placed me

on the promotable list.● Greater self-awareness and involvement in the strategic aspects of the Top Level Budget.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

70% 30%

20% 70% 10%

40% 60%

50% 50%

10% 50% 40%

10% 50% 40%

20% 30% 50%

60% 40%

10% 50% 40%


Overall coaching process

Content of each session

Listening skills of coach

Variety of questioning and interventions

Care and focus of coach on your needs

Amount of challenge and stretchfrom coach

The ability to apply the session withinyour work

Your openness and honesty

Your commitment to applying your learning


● Recent 360 feedback as part of a Leadership and Management Development Programmeshowed that I was performing well across the competences, but most notably, had improvedin respect of taking a wider perspective. Developing Policies and Programmes and EnablingOthers to give of their best since my earlier 360.

● I use a 360 feedback and management team meetings to fully demonstrate my behaviourhad changed. I also asked various peers and senior staff if they had noticed any change inmy behaviour. The vast majority has so demonstrating that I have embedded thebehavioural change required to develop. I undertook some formal training that assisted mydevelopment and assimilated and applied those lessons in my work.

● Good feedback leading to success at applying for promotion.● My best sources of open and honest feedback – given I am currently outside the Dept. is

through the Public Sector Leadership Scheme Action Inquiry Group.

Question 5: How has the coaching contributed to your on-the-job performance?What commercial benefit (£) has the organisation gained from your coaching● Without the coaching one very significant change in my performance (in relation to

personal presence) simply would not have happened. I couldn’t put a price on it, butI hope the lone term benefit to the organisation will be considerable.

● I pay more attention to using a range of approaches, as suitable to the circumstances, inworking with others, I am also more conscious of making the best use of time.

● My improved ways of working will have leverage through my direct reports and teammembers.

● My improved behaviours which have ensured that I am working far more effectively andefficiently on the job. It is, however, difficult to translate this effectiveness and efficiencyinto a financial benefit. I suggested that I can now perform to my pre-coaching level with15 per cent less time/effort. Furthermore, my improved ways of working will have leveragethrough my direct reports and team members, enabling the whole team work moreeffectively.

● Difficult to measure in short space of time, but certainly meetings are more concise andtargeted to needs of individual who is coming to see me. Better prepared and able tocontribute at 1* level thus raising the profile and input of J8 in operational business. Moreaware of importance of others.

● Since starting coaching I have been given the opportunity to perform at a higher level in arole that directly aids my personal development as well as highlighting the potential forefficiencies within Defence Analytical Service Agency.

● Coaching has enabled me to become a better manager and overall a better leader. This isdifficult to quantify in £ but I would state was as a team are more efficient and less proneto waste than before so could argue savings in £10K but that is a very subjective estimate.

● My performance has improved.● Coaching has considerably improved my day-to-day efficiency through tools and techniques

to best use my own internal resources. I am also better able to deal with work.

Question 6: What have you appreciated most from coaching?● Coaching has worked for me – it has made me do things differently permanently in a way

other techniques have not done so successfully, it has also, as an aide, very nice to talk tosomeone with no agenda other than one’s own personal development.

● The honestly, challenge and sustained enquiry, which led me to understand my own goalsand motivations, and the consequences of these, much better by the end than at the start.

● The brutal honesty and challenge from the coach.




● The fact that it made me realise that not everything I did was bad and that it provided anopportunity to sit and discuss different ways of working in a completely safe environment.

● Independent feedback and advice based on behaviour and style rather than purelyobjective-focused. Holistic approach to development needs, drawing on past experience.

● The support has received from MoD in allowing me the time to undertake coaching andcomplete follow-up actions. This was certainly aided by the willingness of my coach to meetwith my line management and countersigning officer. My coach has been very good atlistening to information on the way I work and has asked probing questions that haveencouraged me to think about the alternative ways of behaving to improve my effectiveness.

● I appreciate the different perspective of me from someone who was trained to look at otherangles in an external fashion. I wanted to explore myself and polish my abilities rather thanhave a huge step change. I also went down avenues I had not thought about followed by areinforcement of my behaviour. This was not all theory but practice and review so it was anincremental change.

● An independent person to provide honest feedback to support me in my personaldevelopment and perhaps more importantly to challenge me to improve in some areas.

Question7: How could the coaching be improved……By coach?● Coach could have been a little harder on me on occasion in term so making sure I was

really setting myself targets that were challenging and ensuring that I stuck to themparticularly in our sessions (e.g. being concise and sticking to the point).

● Perhaps a slightly clearer view of the coach can and cannot provide ahead of the initialsession.

● The coach might benefit from advance sight of the assessment report.● In the first session where I had no idea what to expect or how long each coaching session

would take. I went along for what I thought would be a short introductory chat say of up toan hour (in practice it was about 2 and half hours). I had done little preparation (otherthan to bring along my Personal Development Plan, 360 degree feedback and IndependentAssessment) and in hindsight would probably have befitted from a short prior brief on howcoaching operates what to prepare and how long to put aside.

● The coach is very busy and it is quite difficult to find time in his schedule, otherwise he isvery good a his job.

● When we were dealing with my application for promotion the lack of understanding ofMOD process was an obstacle – but my circumstances were particularly unique.

…By you?● Better preparation.● Get the best outcomes by applying my behavioural improvements to non-work

environments as well as doing them on the job.● I could have been a little harder on myself in terms of applying really stretching targets

particularly towards the end of the series of sessions in order to better ensure that thelearning was tested while there was still time to review it.

● Prior discussion with others who had undergone coaching might have been helpful.● It helped when I worked out that I needed to be more receptive t the non-obvious in

identifying causes of and solutions to development areas.● The first two sessions felt like an interrogation, i.e. I felt like I was constantly being asked if

I had tried this method or another method, etc. Because I felt I was trying to provide thecoach with full details of my experience and development to date. I think I came across asdefensive, i.e. rather than just accepting the coaching ideas and mulling over how I might

apply/reapply the ideas to the latest situations. If felt like I changed my behaviour in thesubsequent sessions which enabled me to listen and learn more from the probing andchallenging nature of the coach’s questions.

● I want to push boundaries and explore more of myself both the good and not so good – I like exploring the areas and testing them in ways I had not thought of before.

● I have got better as the process has gone on the more you put in the more you get out.● At time I found it hard to make the time to carry out the things I had promised and,

therefore, sometimes bunched them up in hurry before the next session – this was more ofan issue at the start than the end of the process as once I had seen successes the motivationwas there.

Question 8: Given your experiences to date, would you undertake coaching again?If yes under what circumstances? If no, why not? ● Yes I have a plan which I have agreed with to re-engage my coach as soon as I have a new

job lined up at 1* level.● Yes – I have paid for another series from own training budget.● Yes – am doing so again this year on the development scheme – yes particularly in respect

of continuing to understand and develop interpersonal skills and techniques.● Already extended by coaching funded locally.● Yes I feel that I gained a lot from coaching and I continue to surprised myself when I find

that I am still sub-consciously applying some of the little techniques and lessons.● Yes where I had a particular developmental need identified which I felt could be addressed

through coaching.● Yes on development scheme.● Yes if I felt I needed support in changing a behaviour.● I have continued with the coaching company.● Think it is good when structured allied to structured training for me.● Should be a final line when coaching should cease.

Question 9: Are there any other comments you wish to make? ● The issue of feedback is an important one. It is very difficult to get feedback from bosses,

and even harder from peers and team members.● I think those who have not had coaching before should be given more guidance about what

to expect.● Coaching was the most effective training/development I think I’ve ever had.● I found it very useful and illuminative and not always terribly comfortable.● I believe that provision of long-terms coaching relationships is key to enable higher

performance by a Band B or SCS mentor.● Simply that coaching is something I would recommend as something to help you identify

your own development needs and also provide for working through.● I am grateful for the opportunity the coaching and for the real support advice and

assistance I received from my coach.● Found it valuable experience that has certainly aided my development.● Enjoyable – the ability to talk frankly about personal issues in confidence is also why

coaching has to be this close professional relationship.● It took some time to get going but once it was I found it stimulating and enjoyable.



POSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY came about toredress the perceived imbalance inpsychology, resulting from the excess

focus that had been given to negative statesand pathology, and the insufficient attentionthat had been given to strengths and well-being (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).Similarly, coaching psychology arose asthrough a focus on building performanceand enhancing well-being in non-clinicalpopulations, leading commentators to notethe parallels between the emergence of thetwo movements (Linley & Harrington, 2005).

This renewed emphasis in focusing onthe positive aspects of human experience, inboth positive psychology and coachingpsychology (see Linley & Kauffman, 2007),has led to increased research into theconcept of strengths, whether defined ascharacter strengths (Peterson & Seligman,2004), strengths in occupational settings(Buckingham & Clifton, 2001), or moregeneral applications of strengths in work andlife (Linley & Harrington, 2006a; Linley,Harrington & Hill, 2005), including specifi-cally in relation to coaching psychology

(Linley & Harrington, 2006b). This articleextends this focus on strengths through anempirical consideration of how strengths useand strengths knowledge may be associatedwith vitality and well-being, simultaneouslytesting the role of self-concordance that hasbeen linked to strengths coaching in earlierwork (Burke & Linley, 2007; Linley &Harrington, 2006b).

Research has now shown that strengthsare remarkably consistent in their endorse-ment across cultures (Park, Peterson &Seligman, 2005), that strengths are mean-ingfully associated with well-being (Park,Peterson & Seligman, 2004; Peterson et al., inpress), that certain strengths are more preva-lent following recovery from serious illness(Peterson, Park & Seligman, 2006), thatstrengths profiles shifted in interpretabledirections following the 11 September, 2001,terrorist attacks on the US (Peterson &Seligman, 2003), and that using strengths atwork drives employee engagement (Harter,Schmidt & Hayes, 2002). Further, it has beenshown that inviting people to use their char-acter strengths in new and different ways

An emphasis of the coaching psychology and positive psychology movements has been strengths and well-being. This study examined two generic aspects of strengths – strengths knowledge and strengths use,together with organismic valuing, and their relations with subjective well-being, psychological well-being,and subjective vitality. Theory suggests that people who know their strengths, use their strengths, and followthe directions that are right for them (i.e. organismically valuing) will be happier. Participants (N=214)completed measures of these variables, as well as measures of self-esteem and self-efficacy. Analyses showedthat strengths knowledge, strengths use, and organismic valuing were all significantly associated with well-being and vitality. Regression analyses showed that self-esteem, organismic valuing, and strengths use allpredicted unique variance in subjective well-being and psychological well-being, but only self-esteemsignificantly predicted unique variance in subjective vitality. The discussion locates the findings in relationto strengths coaching, and suggests directions for future research and coaching psychology applications.Keywords: strengths, well-being, vitality, strengths coaching.

Strengths use, self-concordance and well-being: Implications for StrengthsCoaching and Coaching PsychologistsReena Govindji & P. Alex Linley



Reena Govindji & P. Alex Linley

each day led to significant increases in happi-ness and significant decreases in depression,which were sustained over a six-monthfollow-up period (Seligman et al., 2005).

From what has so far been put forwardabout a theoretical understanding ofstrengths, strengths are understood to benatural capacities that we yearn to use, thatenable authentic expression, and that ener-gise us. For example, Clifton and Anderson(2002) defined talent (here understood as‘strength’) as ‘a naturally recurring patternof thought, feeling, or behaviour that can beproductively applied…a great number oftalents naturally exist within you…They areamong the most real and most authenticaspects of your personhood…’ (Clifton &Anderson, 2002, p.6)

Similarly, the first criterion for a char-acter strength proposed by Peterson andSeligman (2004) was that ‘a strengthcontributes to various fulfillments thatconstitute the good life, for oneself and forothers’ (Criterion 1, pp.17–18). Theysuggested possible exemplars that wouldconstitute this first criterion, including: ‘a sense of ownership and authenticity (‘thisis the real me’) vis-à-vis the strength…a senseof yearning to act in accordance with thestrength; a feeling of inevitability in usingthe strength, as if one cannot be stopped ordissuaded from its display…invigorationrather than exhaustion when using thestrength…intrinsic motivation to use thestrength’ (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p.18).

These characteristics of using strengths –authenticity, vitality, invigoration, intrinsicmotivation, and yearning – were linked byLinley and Harrington (2006b) to the viewsof human nature offered by Karen Horneyand Carl Rogers, amongst others. BothHorney (1951) and Rogers (1963) arguedthat people have within them constructivedirectional tendencies that guide themtowards realising their potentialities. ForHorney, this was the tendency toward self-realisation, and for Rogers, the actualisingtendency. Both Horney and Rogersdescribed people’s yearning to express and

activate themselves, believing that whenpeople were enabled to do so, they weremore themselves, acting authentically andachieving well-being and vitality as a result.

More recent empirical evidence supportsthis premise, since it has been found thatpeople pursuing more self-concordant goalsare more likely to achieve them (Sheldon &Elliot, 1999), and to become happier as aresult (Sheldon & Houser-Marko, 2001). It had also been found that people whochange their goals over time are more likelyto change them in directions that are self-concordant (Sheldon, Arndt & Houser-Marko, 2003), a finding that has been takento support the idea of an organismic valuingprocess (OVP) As described by Sheldon andElliot, the OVP can be understood as aninner voice that guides us in the directionsthat are right and satisfying for us: ‘alongwith Rogers (1961), we believe that individ-uals have innate developmental trends andpropensities that may be given voice by anorganismic valuing process occurring withinthem. The voice can be very difficult to hear,but the current research suggests that theability to hear it is of crucial importance forthe pursuit of happiness’ (Sheldon & Elliot,1999, p.495). Further, research has shownhow coaching interventions may impact self-concordance, which is one possible mecha-nism through which coaching enables goalattainment (Burke & Linley, 2007).

Noting the similarities between these coreelements of human nature, and the charac-teristics put forward for using strengths,Linley and Harrington (2006b) argued thatstrengths are consistent with, and can belinked to following one’s organismic valuingprocess: ‘strengths are natural, they comefrom within, and we are urged to use them,develop them, and play to them by an inner,energising desire. Further, that when we useour strengths, we feel good about ourselves,we are better able to achieve things, and weare working toward fulfilling our potential’(Linley & Harrington, 2006b, p.41).

Building on these theoretical integra-tions, the focus of the current research was


to test these premises empirically. Given thatprevious research has largely focused on aparticular conceptualisation of strengths(e.g. character strengths, Peterson &Seligman, 2004), we set out to examine theconcept of strengths knowledge andstrengths use more generically, how theserelated to organismic valuing, and togetherhow these variables related to subjective well-being, psychological well-being, and vitality.

On the basis of extant theory andresearch, we hypothesised that strengthsknowledge and strengths use would be posi-tively associated with each other and withorganismic valuing, and that each of themwould be positively associated with subjectivewell-being, psychological well-being, andvitality. It has been suggested that subjectivewell-being (life satisfaction and affectivebalance) and psychological well-being(engagement with the existential challengesof life) are correlated but distinct (Keyes,Shmotkin & Ryff, 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2001),while subjective vitality represents a moredynamic aspect of well-being (Ryan & Fred-erick, 1997). Hence, we included measuresof each of these aspects of well-being.

Further, to control for possible overlapwith other more established psychologicalconstructs, we included measures of self-esteem and self-efficacy. Self-esteem refers toan overall positive evaluation of oneself(Rosenberg, 1979) and self-efficacy to one’sbelief in one’s ability to achieve goals(Bandura, 1997). Self-esteem and self-effi-cacy are both positively associated with avariety of well-being indicators (Lucas,Diener & Suh, 1996), and it is important todemonstrate effects for strengths knowledge,strengths use, and organismic valuing thatare independent of these more establishedconstructs.

In short, this study examined the associa-tions between strengths use, strengths know-ledge, and organismic valuing, and theirrelations with three aspects of well-being.The study was designed to provide a prelimi-nary empirical basis for coaches andcoaching psychologists who are working with

their clients to try and harness theirstrengths more, through exploring thepotential impact of strengths across differentindicators of well-being.

MethodParticipants Participants were 214 college students (129females, 85 males). They were enrolled on avariety of course programmes, includingpsychology (42.1 per cent), science (20.4 percent), humanities (6.3 per cent), law (5.9per cent) and government and politics (4.1per cent). Their mean age was 22.78 years(SD=7.90, range 18–58 years), and they werepredominantly from a White ethnic back-ground (64 per cent), the next highestrepresentations being Indian (20 per cent)and Chinese (4 per cent). Participants weretypically single (79.6 per cent) or married(10.9 per cent), and all spoke English astheir first language.

MaterialsRosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1979).This is a 10-item scale that assesses explicitself-esteem; five items are reverse scored.Items were scored from 0 (strongly disagree)to 3 (strongly agree), giving a potential rangeof 0–30, with higher scores indicating higherself-esteem. The scale is one of the mostwidely used measures of explicit self-esteem(Blascovich & Tomaka, 1991).

General Self-Efficacy Scale (Chen, Gully &Eden, 2001). Eight items assess general self-efficacy, for example, ‘In general, I think I canobtain outcomes that are important to me’, usinga five-point Likert scale from 1 (stronglydisagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The scale hasa potential range of 8 to 40, with higherscores indicating higher general self-efficacy.

Scales of Psychological Well-Being (Ryff & Keyes,1995). Eighteen items assess six dimensions ofpsychological well-being (three items perdimension: autonomy, environmentalmastery, positive relations with others,personal growth, purpose in life, and self-

Strengths use, self-concordance and well-being



acceptance). Participants responded using asix-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (stronglydisagree) to 6 (strongly agree), giving apotential range of 18 to 108. Six items arereverse scored. An overall psychological well-being score was computed, with higher scoresindicating greater psychological well-being.

Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al.,1985). Participants rated five items (e.g. ‘Theconditions of my life are excellent’) on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (stronglydisagree) to 7 (strongly agree), giving apotential range of 5 to 35. Higher scores indi-cate higher levels of life satisfaction.

Positive and Negative Affect Scales (PANAS;Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988). ThePANAS is a 20-item scale that measures 10positive (e.g. ‘interested’, ‘excited’) and 10negative (e.g. ‘irritable’, ‘nervous’) affects,using single adjectives that were rated on a 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely)frequency scale for the past week. ThePANAS has excellent psychometric proper-ties, and is one of the most widely usedmeasures of positive and negative affect.

Subjective Vitality Scale (Ryan & Frederick,1997). Participants responded to seven itemsmeasuring levels of vitality (e.g. ‘I feel aliveand vital’), on a seven-point Likert scaleranging from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (verytrue), indicating ‘the degree to which the state-ment is true for you in general in your life.’

One item is reverse scored. Higher scoresindicate higher levels of subjective vitality.

Organismic Valuing Scale. An initial item poolof 20 items was developed from the theoret-ical and empirical literature on the organ-ismic valuing process (Rogers, 1964;Sheldon et al., 2003). Participants were askedto respond ‘about how you feel in your daily life’using a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (stronglyagree) scale. Seven items of the initial itempool were reverse scored. Principal compo-nents analysis of the items revealed fivecomponents with eigenvalues greater thanone. Cattell’s (1966) scree test showed asingle component above a marked elbow.Principal components analysis of the eightitems comprising this component showedthem to load at .60 to .85 on a single ‘organ-ismic valuing’ factor which accounted for39.5 per cent of the variance (see Table 1).These eight items were taken forward toconstitute the Organismic Valuing Scale.

Strengths Knowledge Scale. An initial item poolof 20 items was developed to assess strengthsknowledge, that is, people’s awareness andrecognition of their strengths. Participantswere informed ‘the following questions ask youabout your strengths, that is, the things that youare able to do well or do best’, and were asked torespond using a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7(strongly agree) scale. Three items werenegatively scored. Principal componentsanalysis of the items revealed three compo-

Table 1: Principal Components Analysis of the Organismic Valuing Scale.

Item No. Item Loading

4. I know the things that are right for me .606. I get what I need from life .777. The decisions I take are the right ones for me .858. I feel that I am in touch with myself .679. I feel integrated with myself .6710. I do the things that are right for me .8014. The decisions I make are based on what is right for me .6917. I am able to listen to myself .65

Note: All items loaded on a single Organismic Valuing factor.


nents with eigenvalues greater than one.Cattell’s (1966) scree test showed a singlecomponent above a marked elbow. Principalcomponents analysis of the eight itemscomprising this component showed them toload at .50 to .74 on a single ‘strengthsknowledge’ factor that accounted for 46.7per cent of the variance (see Table 2). Theseeight items were taken forward to constitutethe Strengths Knowledge Scale.

Strengths Use Scale. An initial item pool of 19items was developed to assess strengths use,that is, how much people use their strengthsin a variety of settings. Participants were

informed ‘the following questions ask you aboutyour strengths, that is, the things that you are ableto do well or do best’, and were asked to respondusing a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (stronglyagree) scale. Principal components analysis ofthe items revealed three components witheigenvalues greater than one. Cattell’s (1966)scree test showed a single component above amarked elbow. Principal components analysisof the 14 items comprising this componentshowed them to load at .52 to .79 on a single‘strengths use’ factor that accounted for 56.2per cent of the variance (see Table 3). These14 items were taken forward to constitute theStrengths Use Scale.

Table 2: Principal Components Analysis of Strengths Knowledge Scale.


4. Other people see the strengths that I have .515. I have to think hard about what my strengths are .5011. I know what I do best .5725. I am aware of my strengths .6629. I know the things I am good at doing .7431. I know my strengths well .7035. I know the things I do best .6840. I know when I am at my best .72

Note: All items loaded on a single Strengths Knowledge factor.

Table 3: Principal Components Analysis of the Strengths Use Scale.


2. I am regularly able to do what I do best .793. I always play to my strengths .676. I always try to use my strengths .629. I achieve what I want by using my strengths .5410. I use my strengths everyday .5418. I use my strengths to get what I want out of life .5221. My work gives me lots of opportunities to use my strengths .5324. My life presents me with lots of different ways to use my strengths .5326. Using my strengths comes naturally to me .6028. I find it easy to use my strengths in the things I do .6030. I am able to use my strengths in lots of different situations .6337. Most of my time is spent doing the things that I am good at doing .5138. Using my strengths is something I am familiar with .6739. I am able to use my strengths in lots of different ways .75

Note: All items loaded on a single Strengths Use factor.




ProcedureParticipants were invited to take part in thestudy at a range of locations around a majoruniversity. They were informed of their rightto withdraw their data from the study at anytime; and were assured of the anonymity andconfidentiality of their responses. Partici-pants followed the written instructions in thequestionnaire about responding to eachscale, and were encouraged to take theirtime in completing the questionnaire. Theydid not receive any incentive or remunera-tion for taking part in the study. The ques-tionnaires were presented in four differentorderings in order to control for potentialorder effects (Krosnick & Alwin, 1987).

Data AnalysesScores for negative affect, positive affect, andlife satisfaction were standardised, and thennegative affect was subtracted from the sumof positive affect and life-satisfaction toproduce a composite SWB variable, follow-ing previous research (e.g. Diener & Lucas,1999; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999).

Correlation analyses were used to assess therelationships between study variables. Multi-variate analysis of variance was used to examinegender differences. Multiple regressionanalyses were used to examine the unique asso-

ciations of study variables with the outcomevariables. All statistical analyses are reportedwith two-tailed levels of significances, withalpha set at .05, unless indicated otherwise.Data screening did not reveal any violations ofassumptions for the statistical analyses used.

ResultsGender differencesWe examined possible gender differences bycomputing a multivariate analysis of varianceincluding each of the study variables. In eachcase, there were no significant gender differ-ences for any of the study variables (all p>.10).

Correlations between Study VariablesThe internal consistency reliabilities, means,standard deviations, and observed ranges forthe study variables are presented in Table 4.The intercorrelations between study variablesare presented in Table 5. As hypothesised,organismic valuing, strengths knowledge,and strengths use were all significantly corre-lated with each other. Further, as hypothe-sised, each of them was also significantlycorrelated with subjective well-being, psycho-logical well-being, and subjective vitality.Organismic valuing, strengths knowledge,and strengths use were also significantly asso-ciated with self-esteem and self-efficacy.

Table 4: Descriptive Statistics for Study Variables.

Variable Alpha (α) M SD Observed Range

Strengths Knowledge .89 40.03 9.15 18-61Strengths Use .95 64.83 14.09 30-98Organismic Valuing .91 40.09 8.01 15-56Self-Esteem .87 20.52 5.22 6-30Self-Efficacy .87 29.53 4.82 14-40Positive Affect .89 33.08 7.49 11-50Negative Affect .88 20.79 8.20 10-50Satisfaction with Life Scale .86 22.89 6.70 5-35Subjective Well-Being – 35.23 16.78 –32–75Psychological Well-Being .76 76.40 9.56 52-97Subjective Vitality .91 31.25 7.60 13-49


Table 5: Intercorrelations between Study Variables.

SKS SUS OVS S-EST S-EFF SWB PWB SVS

SKS – .85*** .62*** .61*** .59*** .46*** .53*** .42***SUS – .60*** .56*** .63*** .51*** .56*** .45***OVS – .64*** .53*** .59*** .60*** .41***S-EST – .64*** .62*** .84*** .51***S-EFF – .50*** .56*** .44***SWB – .70*** .52***PWB – .51***SVS –

Note: SKS = Strengths Knowledge Scale. SUS = Strengths Use Scale. OVS = Organismic Valuing Scale. S-EST = Self-Esteem Scale. S-EFF = Self-Efficacy Scale. SWB = Subjective Well-Being. PWB = Psychological Well-Being.SVS = Subjective Vitality Scale.***p<.001. All two-tailed tests.

Multiple Regression AnalysesTo test our hypotheses that organismicvaluing, strengths use, and strengths know-ledge would be associated with subjectivewell-being, psychological well-being, andsubjective vitality when controlling for self-esteem and self-efficacy, we conducted threestandard multiple regressions with simulta-neous entry of the predictor variables.

Subjective well-being. Self-esteem was thestrongest unique predictor of subjective well-being, but organismic valuing and strengthsuse also made significant unique contribu-tions to the variance explained. Strengthsknowledge also made a marginally signifi-cant unique contribution (see Table 6). Themodel as a whole explained 46 per cent ofthe variance in subjective well-being(adjusted R2=.46).

Psychological well-being. Similarly for psycho-logical well-being, self-esteem was thestrongest unique predictor, but organismicvaluing and strengths use again made signif-icant unique contributions to the varianceexplained (see Table 6). The model as awhole explained 54 per cent of the variancein subjective well-being (adjusted R2=.54).

Subjective Vitality. In contrast, for subjectivevitality, self-esteem was the only significantunique predictor, although strengths use wasthe next strongest predictor (p<.10). (seeTable 6). The model as a whole explained 30per cent of the variance in subjective well-being (adjusted R2=.30).

DiscussionThis study found that organismic valuing,strengths knowledge, and strengths use wereall significantly associated with each otherand with subjective well-being, psychologicalwell-being, and subjective vitality. Whencontrolling for self-esteem and self-efficacy,both organismic valuing and strengths useremained significant (together with self-esteem) in predicting subjective well-beingand psychological well-being (but not subjec-tive vitality, for which self-esteem was theonly significant predictor).

Our findings indicate that people whoare in touch with their own feelings, needs,and values (that is, who are organismicallyvaluing) and who are using their strengthsmore experience greater well-being in termsof both subjective well-being (affectivebalance and life satisfaction) and psycholog-ical well-being (engagement with the exis-tential challenges of life) although on the




basis of this research we cannot of coursespecify directionality. In contrast, strengthsknowledge was not a significant independentpredictor of either, suggesting that it is moreimportant to use your strengths rather thansimply to know what they are. This finding isnotable, given that strengths use andstrengths knowledge were substantially andsignificantly correlated, and yet had differ-ential predictions of well-being indicators. Assuch, we would exercise caution before auto-matically seeking to combine the scalesbecause of their high intercorrelations.

These findings are consistent with organ-ismic valuing theory (Joseph & Linley, 2005;Rogers, 1964; Sheldon et al., 2003) and theextant research on self-concordant goalstriving (Burke & Linley, 2007; Sheldon &Elliot, 1999), both of which form the theoret-ical basis for person-centred coachingpsychology (Joseph, 2006), and suggest thatbehaving authentically promote psycho-logical growth and fulfillment, a view that is

consistent with a range of studies, methodolo-gies and approaches showing that SWB andPWB results from engaging in self-concor-dant, internalised, intrinsic behaviour (e.g.Kasser & Ryan, 1996; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999).

These findings also support the tentativetheoretical understandings that have beenput forward for strengths (Clifton &Anderson, 2002; Peterson & Seligman,2004), which suggest that people haveintrinsic motivation and a yearning to usetheir strengths, and that when they do so,they experience authenticity, vitality andwell-being. Overall, our findings empiricallysupport the theoretical integrations putforward by Linley & Harrington (2006b) inrelation to strengths coaching: strengthsknowledge and strengths use are associatedwith organismic valuing, and in turn withwell-being and vitality.

The unique variance explained by self-esteem for each of the three types of well-being examined bears comment. Many

Table 6: Multiple Regression of Study Variables on Subjective Well-Being, Psychological Well-Being, and Subjective Vitality.

Variable B SE (β) β

Subjective Well-BeingSelf-esteem .07 .02 .39***Self-efficacy .02 .02 .08Organismic valuing .03 .01 .26**Strengths use .02 .01 .26*Strengths knowledge –.02 .01 –.21^

Psychological Well-BeingSelf-esteem .76 .13 .41***Self-efficacy .21 .14 .10Organismic valuing .27 .08 .22***Strengths use .17 .07 .24*Strengths knowledge –.12 .10 –.11

Subjective VitalitySelf-esteem .07 .02 .31***Self-efficacy .03 .02 .13Organismic valuing .00 .01 .03Strengths use .02 .01 .21Strengths knowledge –.00 .01 –.02

Note: All variables entered simultaneously into the regression analysis. ^p=.05. *p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.


authors regard self-esteem as fundamental topsychological health (e.g. Korman, 1970;Rosenberg, 1979), and these data supportthat view. It appears that those high in self-esteem are more likely to be able to followtheir OVP, and to have greater knowledgeabout their strengths as well as more confi-dence in using them. This combination ofattributes appears to explain a substantialproportion of variance in both subjectivewell-being and psychological well-being.

Our findings suggest that organismicvaluing and strengths use are both importantand independent influences on our well-being. This is as predicted by theoreticalunderstandings of strengths from the field ofpositive psychology (Peterson & Seligman,2004) and especially its intersections withcoaching psychology (Linley & Harrington,2006b). To our knowledge, this is the firstempirical research to link strengths withorganismic valuing, and to link strengths usewith well-being outcomes, thereby providingan important – but preliminary – basis fordeveloping and designing coachingapproaches, or integrating new coachingtechniques, that draw from the field of posi-tive psychology and the possibilities for inte-gration between the two fields (Linley &Harrington, 2005). Going forward, werecommend that these approaches aresubjected to the evidence-based evaluationrecommended by Grant (2005) for coachingpsychologists in practice.

Despite its contributions, the study alsohas its limitations, and these may form thefocus of future research. First, the organ-ismic valuing, strengths knowledge, andstrengths use scales were all developed forthis study and would benefit from furthervalidation, although we note that they wereinternally consistent and correlated mean-ingfully and in hypothesised directions withall of the study variables.

Second, the study was cross-sectional, andfuture work would improve by the longitu-dinal examination of these issues, exploringif organismic valuing and strengths usepredict increases in well-being over time, and

if so, whether there is an upward spiral effectas has been found for self-concordant goalstriving (Sheldon & Houser-Marko, 2001).Extending this, future longitudinal work mayseek to assess whether there are contingentor interacting relationships between thefactors we have examined here. For example,are strengths knowledge and organismicvaluing necessary preconditions forsuccessful strengths use? Do self-esteem andstrengths use interact over time to predicthigher levels of well-being? These questionsremain to be answered by future research.

Third, future work may seek to assess howstrengths use influences goal pursuit, goalattainment, and well-being. It appears likelythat people using their strengths morewould be more likely to attain their goals,but to our knowledge this has not beenempirically tested to date. Relatedly, wecaution that more may not always be betterfor strengths use. Empirical work has shownthat reporting more of a strength may beconsistently associated with higher levels ofwell-being (Park et al., 2004), but there arealso perspectives suggesting that strengthscan be overdone (Kaplan & Kaiser, 2006;Peterson, 2006) and these bear future empir-ical consideration.

Fourth, the pattern of associations withvitality were mixed, and we note that similarmixed findings were reported by Sheldonand Kasser (1995), who found that bothstrong extrinsic valuing and strong intrinsicvaluing were both associated with higherlevels of vitality, despite having divergentcorrelations with other variables. The natureof vitality as a dynamic indicator of well-being, and its associations with and influencefrom other variables, clearly merits futureresearch consideration.

We believe it also bears note that incompleting the scales, many participantscommented that various questions, particu-larly about their strengths, prompted themto ponder upon aspects of their lives andexperiences that they had not previouslyconsidered. A number of participants spon-taneously commented that this was helpful




to them in thinking about their future lifedirections, and as such could readily belinked to applications in career coaching(Bench, 2003), as well as those instances inthe coaching relationship when a person isstruggling with the consideration of what todo and where to go next. Coaching has oftenbeen cited as giving people a space and timefor self-reflection (Burke & Linley, 2007),and it appears that asking people about theirstrengths does this similarly.

In conclusion, these findings highlightthat people do not always consciously thinkabout their strengths, and suggest thatfuture coaching interventions that aredesigned to help people understand theirstrengths better, as well as using them more,would have a range of positive implications.In our view, such actions merit a worthy goalfor future research and applications at theintersection of coaching psychology andpositive psychology, and in relation tostrengths coaching particularly.

AcknowledgementAn informal summary of a portion of thisresearch appeared as: Govindji, R. & Linley,P.A. (2007). Going from strength tostrength. Coaching at Work, 2(2), 44–47.

CorrespondenceReena Govindji & Dr P. Alex LinleyCentre for Applied Positive Psychology,Barclays Venture Centre,University of Warwick Science Park,Sir William Lyons Road,Coventry CV4 7EZ,UK.E-mail: [email protected]: [email protected]

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.New York: Freeman.

Bench, M. (2003). Career coaching: An insider’s guide.Washington, DC: Davies-Black Publishing.

Blascovich, J. & Tomaka, J. (1991). Measures of self-esteem. In J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver & L.S.Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality andsocial psychological attitudes (Vol. 1, pp.121–123).San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Buckingham, M. & Clifton, D. (2001). Now, discoveryour strengths. New York: Free Press.

Burke, D. & Linley, P.A. (2007). Enhancing goal self-concordance through coaching. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 2(1), 62–69.

Cattell, R.B. (1966). The scree test for number offactors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1,245–276.

Chen, G., Gully, S.M. & Eden, D. (2001). Validationof a new general self-efficacy scale. OrganizationalResearch Methods, 4, 62–83.

Clifton, D.O. & Anderson, E. (2002). StrengthsQuest:Discover and develop your strengths in academics,career, and beyond. Washington, DC: The GallupOrganization.

Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J. & Griffin, S.(1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 49, 71–75.

Diener, E. & Lucas, R.E. (1999). Personality andsubjective well-being. In D. Kahneman, E. Diener& N. Schwarz (Eds.), Well-being: The foundations ofhedonic psychology (pp.213-229). New York: RussellSage Foundation.

Grant, A.M. (2005). What is evidence-based execu-tive, workplace and life coaching? In M.Cavanagh, A.M. Grant & T. Kemp (Eds.),Evidence-based Coaching Volume 1: Theory, Researchand Practice from the Behavioural Sciences (pp.1–12).Bowen Hills, Queensland: Australian AcademicPress.

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. & Hayes, T.L. (2002).Business-unit-level relationship betweenemployee satisfaction, employee engagement,and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journalof Applied Psychology, 87, 268–279.

Horney, K. (1951). Neurosis and human growth: Thestruggle toward self-realization. London: Routledge& Kegan Paul.

Joseph, S. (2006). Person-centred coachingpsychology: A meta-theoretical perspective. International Coaching Psychology Review, 1, 47–54.

Joseph, S. & Linley, P.A. (2005). Positive adjustmentto threatening events: An organismic valuingtheory of growth through adversity. Review ofGeneral Psychology, 9, 262–280.

References


Kaplan, R.E. & Kaiser, R.B. (2006). The versatile leader:Make the most of your strengths – without overdoing it.New York: Pfeiffer Wiley.

Kasser, T. & Ryan, R.M. (1996). Further examiningthe American dream: Differential correlates ofintrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 22, 280–287.

Keyes, C.L.M., Shmotkin, D. & Ryff, C.D. (2002).Optimising well-being: The empirical encounterof two traditions. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 82, 1007–1022.

Korman, A.K. (1970). Toward an hypothesis of workbehaviour. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 31–41.

Krosnick, J.A. & Alwin, D.F. (1987). An evaluation ofa cognitive theory of response order effects insurvey measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly, 51,201–219.

Linley, P.A. & Harrington, S. (2005). Positivepsychology and coaching psychology: Perspec-tives on integration. The Coaching Psychologist,1(1), 13–14.

Linley, P.A. & Harrington, S. (2006a). Playing to yourstrengths. The Psychologist, 19, 86–89.

Linley, P.A. & Harrington, S. (2006b). Strengthscoaching: A potential-guided approach tocoaching psychology. International CoachingPsychology Review, 1, 37–46.

Linley, P.A., Harrington, S. & Hill, J.R.W. (2005).Selection and development: A new perspectiveon some old problems. Selection and DevelopmentReview, 21(5), 3–6.

Linley, P.A. & Kauffman, C. (2007). Positive coachingpsychology: Integrating the science of positivepsychology with the practice of coachingpsychology. International Coaching PsychologyReview, 2(1), 5–8.

Lucas, R.E., Diener, E. & Suh, E.M. (1996). Discrimi-nant validity of well-being measures. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 71, 616–628.

Park, N., Peterson, C. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2004).Strengths of character and well-being. Journal ofSocial and Clinical Psychology, 23, 603–619.

Park, N., Peterson, C. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2006).Character strengths in 54 nations and the 50 USstates. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 118–129.

Peterson, C. (2006). The Values In Action (VIA) clas-sification of strengths. In M. Csikszentmihalyi &I.S. Csikszentmihalyi (Eds.), A life worth living:Contributions to positive psychology (pp.29–48). New York: Oxford University Press.

Peterson, C., Park, N. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2006).Greater strengths of character and recovery fromillness. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 17–26.

Peterson, C., Ruch, W., Beermann, U., Park, N. &Seligman, M.E.P. (in press). Strengths of char-acter, orientations to happiness, and life satisfac-tion. Journal of Positive Psychology.

Peterson, C. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2003). Characterstrengths before and after September 11. Psycho-logical Science, 14, 381–384.

Peterson, C. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2004). Characterstrengths and virtues. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Rogers, C.R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston,MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Rogers, C.R. (1963). The actualizing tendency inrelation to ‘motives’ and to consciousness. In M.R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on moti-vation (Vol. 11, pp.1–24). Lincoln, NE: Universityof Nebraska Press.

Rogers, C.R. (1964). Toward a modern approach tovalues: The valuing process in the matureperson. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,68, 160–167.

Rosenberg, M. (1979). Conceiving the self. New York:Basic Books.

Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2001). On happiness andhuman potentials: A review of research onhedonic and eudaimonic well-being. In S. Fiske(Ed.), Annual Review of Psychology (Vol. 52,pp.141–166). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews, Inc.

Ryan, R.M. & Frederick, C.M. (1997). On energy,personality and health: subjective vitality as adynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Person-ality, 65, 529–565.

Ryff, C.D. & Keyes, C.L. (1995). The structure ofpsychological well-being revisited. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 69, 719–727.

Seligman, M.E.P. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. AmericanPsychologist, 55, 5–14.

Seligman, M.E.P., Steen, T.A., Park, N. & Peterson, C.(2005). Positive psychology progress: Empiricalvalidation of interventions. American Psychologist,60, 410–421.

Sheldon, K.M., Arndt, J. & Houser-Marko, L. (2003).In search of the organismic valuing process: Thehuman tendency to move towards beneficial goalchoices. Journal of Personality, 71, 835–869.

Sheldon, K.M. & Elliot, A.J. (1999). Goal striving,need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being:The self-concordance model. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 71, 835–869.

Sheldon, K.M. & Houser-Marko, L. (2001). Self-concordance, goal-attainment, and the pursuit ofhappiness: Can there be an upward spiral?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,152–165.

Sheldon, K.M. & Kasser, T. (1995). Coherence andcongruence: Two aspects of personality integra-tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68,531–543.

Watson, D., Clark, L.A. & Tellegen, A. (1988). Devel-opment and validation of brief measures of posi-tive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.



THE SPECIAL GROUP IN COACHING PSYCHOLOGY

3rd

National Coaching Psychology Conference17th and 18th December 2007

To be held at City University, London, UK

Keynote Speakers will include:

Dr Tony Grant, Coaching Psychology Unit, Sydney

Dr Carol Kauffman, Harvard Medical School, Harvard

Prof Ernesto Spinelli, Regents College, London

Sir John Whitmore, UK

Dr Alison Whybrow, BPS SGCP Chair Elect 2006-7

Building on our previous successes, we are putting together an exciting and topical conference examining the latest theory and practice in Coaching Psychology with keynote

papers, full-day masterclasses, research and case study presentations, skills-based sessions and round-table discussions.

The programme will be delivered by national and international leaders in the field.

Conference Themes and Call for Papers:

Capitalising on emerging research and practices relevant in today’s context, our conference themes include: • Transpersonal Coaching • Multicultural Coaching • Health Coaching • The Coaching Relationship • The Evidence base for Coaching Psychology• Coaching Psychology and Return on Investment

For further information about the conference and information about submitting a paper or workshop, please see the ‘News Page’ of the SGCP

website on: http://www.sgcp.org.uk/coachingpsy/news or email [email protected]

The 2007 membership fee to join SGCP is £3.50. SGCP membership benefits include membership rates at our events and free copies of the ‘International Coaching

Psychology Review’ and ‘The Coaching Psychologist’. BPS members can join now and obtain the discounted conference fee.

COACHING RESEARCH is currently onthe rise, with a clutch of outcomestudies recently reported on the effi-

cacy of coaching programmes (Chapman,2005; Grant, 2003; Green, Oades & Grant,2006; Ladyshewsky & Varey, 2005; Olivero,Bane & Kopelman, 1997; Spence & Grant, inpress; Sue-Chan & Latham, 2004). Thistrend suggests that the coaching communityhas finally begun to prioritise the validationof its methods, in line with recent calls fromseveral authors (Bennett, 2006; Grant &Cavanagh, 2004; Grant & Stober, 2006;Kilburg, 2004; Lowman, 2005; Stober &Parry, 2005). Whilst these developments areencouraging, coaching research has a longway to go before it can be considered amature field of study. For that to happen avibrant research agenda will need to bemaintained, one that is informed by thepractical, theoretical and empirical ques-tions posed by practitioners and researchers.

Arguably one of the most importantissues facing coaching researchers relates tothe measurement of goal attainment.

As coaching is a goal-focused process (Grant,2006), goal attainment represents a keydependent variable for any coaching inter-vention. To date, however, early outcomestudies have shown a tendency to rely onsimple quantitative self-report measures ofgoal attainment (e.g. Grant, 2003; Green etal., 2006; Spence & Grant, in press), withonly the occasional study employing moreobjective methods of measurement (Oliveroet al., 1997).

This paper questions the use of suchsimplistic methods. Whilst the use of self-report measures is widely accepted in socialpsychological research, it will be argued thatthe centrality of goal attainment requirescoaching researchers to find ways ofmaximising objectivity in their data sets. Thisis important because goal attainment ratingsbased solely on a coachee’s subjective assess-ment of performance are highly susceptibleto various forms of distortion and bias (e.g.performance rationalisations, recall inaccu-racy), raising doubts about the degree towhich reported changes in goal attainment

GAS powered coaching:Goal Attainment Scaling and its use incoaching research and practiceGordon B. Spence

As the demand for an evidence-based approach to coaching grows, so does the need for rigourous outcomemeasures. However, despite the fact that coaching is a goal-focused process, there has been little discussionin the coaching literature about different approaches to measuring goal attainment. Given that goalattainment represents a key dependent variable for coaching interventions, it is important that this gap inthe literature be addressed. This paper seeks to stimulate discussion about this important issue by describingan approach to the measurement of goal outcomes, Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS), and discussing thestrengths and limitations of the approach. Whilst goal attainment processes are multifaceted andmeasurement is complicated by a multiplicity of goal constructs and the inherent instability of goals, it isargued that the GAS methodology offers coaches a way of neutralising some of these challenges. In addition,GAS has the potential to stimulate dialogue between practitioners and researchers, as it could provide amethodological framework and language accessible to both. Keywords: Coaching outcomes, goal attainment scaling, methodology, practitioners,researchers.



reflect actual changes in that variable.Ideally, coaching research would involve theuse of methodologies that control for thesesources of distortion and bias. In this regardit will be suggested that one methodology,Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS), has thepotential to provide coaching researcherswith a more rigourous approach to the meas-urement of goal attainment, therebyenhancing the quality of coaching research.

Aside from its value as a research tool,there are features of the GAS method makeit an attractive proposition for practitioners.Foremost among these is the intensive cogni-tive processing that the use of GAS is likely toelicit from coachees. As it will be shown, theGAS process engages individuals in detailedpre-intervention discussions about theirgoals. It is conceivable that such discussionscatalyse important goal striving processes,such as action planning and behaviouralmonitoring, increasing the likelihood ofgoal attainment. Given these and other posi-tive attributes (which will shortly beoutlined), the use of GAS in coachingresearch and practice seem worthy of exploration.

The measurement of goal attainment in coachingresearchThe measurement of goal attainment incoaching research has tended to follow thewell-established procedures employed inpersonal goal research (e.g. Emmons, 1986;Sheldon & Elliot, 1998; Sheldon, Kasser,Smith & Share, 2002). Typically, the meas-urement process begins with a request thatparticipants record a specified number ofgoals in a personal goal questionnaire orworkbook. In many of these studies, goalattainment ratings are obtained in one oftwo ways.

First, a pre-coaching goal attainmentscore is obtained by having participants ratetheir success for each goal on a simple five-point Likert scale (e.g. 1 = per centsuccessful; 5 = 100 per cent successful).These ratings are then summed and dividedby the total number of goals to obtain a

mean attainment score for Time 1. Thisprocess is then repeated at the post-interven-tion interval (Time 2), along with any follow-up intervals (Time 3, Time 4, etc.). Havingobtained a series of attainment scores, datafrom multiple time points can be statisticalanalysed to determine the impact of an inter-vention on goal attainment. Of the coachingoutcome studies mentioned earlier, bothGreen et al. (2006) and Spence and Grant(in press) have employed this method.

Second, the method outlined above canbe extended by the addition of a difficultyrating that (like attainment) can be meas-ured on a Likert scale (ranging from, say, 1 =very easy to 4 = very difficult). This approachcalculates goal attainment scores in thefollowing way:

The major advantage of this method is that,by weighting each goal for its perceived levelof challenge, the measure becomes moresensitive to change, as goals with higher diffi-culty ratings exert more influence the overallattainment scores than goals with lowerratings. Thus, if the difficulty rating for Goal1 is 4 (very difficult) and Goal 2 is 2 (moderatelyeasy), and the same amount of progress isobserved for both goals between two timepoints, then a greater degree of attainmentwill be recorded for Goal 1 than Goal 2, dueto the greater weighting it has received. Thisapproach has been used by Grant (2003a)and more recently by Spence (2005).

Limitations of existing methodsWhilst there are some advantages associatedwith the use of these methods (such assimplicity, ease of use), the accuracy andvalidity of these measures is open to ques-tion. First, these methods tend to lock indi-viduals into particular goal(s) withoutspecifying what a ‘near-miss’ looks like. This can be problematic because when one’s

Goal Attainment =(Goal 1 Difficulty x Attainment) +

(Goal 2 Difficulty x Attainment) + (…)

Total Number of Goals

Gordon B. Spence


GAS powered coaching

goal-directed efforts are not aligned to thespecifications of a goal, the evaluation ofattainment becomes post-hoc and subject tomultiple distortions (such as self-servingbiases, performance rationalisations and/orinaccuracy during memory recall). Second,demand characteristics are another poten-tial source of distortion. Research partici-pants can sometimes be inclined to reportoverly positive outcomes, as a way of pleasingor rewarding a researcher (or practitioner).

Finally, the articulation of personal goalsin coaching research has generally beenachieved via a goal-setting workshop (forgroups), or some form of structured goal-setting questionnaire or self-coachingmanual (for individuals). As theseapproaches do not usually involve much one-on-one assistance, they are usually both timeand cost effective. Yet, the absence of indi-vidualised assistance during goal-setting maylead to a lack of ‘quality control’ which nega-tively affects research outcomes. Forexample, participants may select goals thatare unrealistic, misaligned with other impor-tant goals, or simply excessively vague andtherefore difficult to measure accurately.

Goal Attainment ScalingGAS is a method of programme impact eval-uation that has been used in a variety ofapplied settings, such as occupationaltherapy (Ottenbacher & Cusick, 1993),paediatric and geriatric rehabilitation(Mitchell & Cusick, 1998; Stolee, Zaza,Pedlar & Myers, 1999), psychotherapy(Shefler, Canetti & Wiseman, 2001) as well asmulti-disciplinary health initiatives, such asthe delivery of rural and remote healthservices (Cox & Amsters, 2002). Originallydeveloped for the mental health field byKiresuk and Sherman (1968), GAS hasproven to be extremely useful for evaluatingprogress towards programme-specific goals(MacKay & Lundie, 1998). It is typically usedas a clinical tool to help address the physicalor psychological needs of clients. Anappealing aspect of GAS is the active collab-oration that it promotes between a client, a

helper and the client’s family or significantothers (Schlosser, 2004). Thus far, however,there has been little discussion of its poten-tial use within non-clinical contexts, eventhough goal constructs are widely used bycoaches and applied positive psychologists.

Description and procedure GAS can be summarised as involving: (i) theconstruction of a scale based on a desiredlevel of goal attainment, and (ii) the use ofthat scale to monitor progress and evaluateperformance at time points of interest(Ottenbacher & Cusick, 1990). The GASprocess begins with the preparation of a goalchart (see Table 1).

GAS charts articulate goals at two ormore levels of abstraction. At the first levelgoals are stated as general objectives thatvary from vague, global statements (e.g.‘Become more social’), to more definitivestatements related to particular areas identi-fied for growth and development (e.g.‘Increase number of social interactions toovercome shyness’). At the second levelthese general goals are expressed accordingto a set of specific behavioural units that areeasily observable, measurable and, mostimportantly, realistic for the client (e.g.‘Initiate conversations with two new peopleevery day’).

Once the client and the helper agree onthe specific behaviours that representimprovement, agreement is also sought on aspecific level of attainment that represents arealistic (but stretching) goal for the client.Once agreed, this becomes the scale mid-point (Expected Outcome). After a realisticgoal has been set, four alternative levels ofaccomplishment are agreed (i.e. BestExpected Outcome, More than ExpectedOutcome, Less than Expected Outcome,Worst Expected Outcome) in order topermit programme outcomes to be meas-ured with a greater degree of accuracy. Theimportant steps and considerations for thecompletion of GAS charts are outlined inTable 2.


After establishing a goal chart, the inter-vention commences and runs for a specifiedperiod of time. Having determined how goalattainment data will be collected prior to thecommencement of the programme (see Step4, Table 2), data collection should be unam-biguous, relatively simple and as immediateas possible (rather than retrospective). TheGAS data is assembled and presented to allthose involved in the goal setting process(i.e. client, helper, significant others), suchthat an agreement can be reached on whatlevel of goal attainment has been achieved(Schlosser, 2004). This concludes the scalingprocess.

The calculation of GAS scores The use of GAS scales is especially attractiveto some researchers because they can betransformed into standard scores and usedfor the purpose of comparison betweendifferent programme groups (Kiresuk,Smith & Cardillo, 1994). Upon completionof the goal attainment chart a numericalvalue is assigned to each outcome level (i.e.,worst expected = -2, less than expected = -1,expected = 0, more than expected = +1, bestexpected = +2), along with a numerical

weighting that reflects the relative impor-tance of each goal (MacKay & Lundie,1998). At a predetermined future point, thisfive-point scale (which has an assumed meanof 0 and a standard deviation of 1) is used toquantify goal attainment by taking thecollected outcome data, comparing it to thescale and calculating how much this deviatesfrom the mean of 0.

Total goal attainment scores can then becalculated using the following formula,which yields a standard score, or T-score,with a (hypothesised) mean of 50 and a stan-dard deviation of 10 (Kiresuk & Sherman,1968):

Higher order goalsGoal 1 Goal 2

‘Become more social’ ‘Become more serene’

Lower order goalsIncrease number of social Increase serenity by doing

interactions to overcome shyness more meditation practiceGAS Levels

Best expected Initiate conversation (min. 5 mins) Complete 20-min. guidedoutcome with >4 new people per day meditation every day of the weekMore than expected Initiate conversation (min. 5 mins) Complete 5–6 x 20-min. guidedoutcome with 3–4 new people per day meditations per weekExpected Initiate conversation (min. 5 mins) Complete 4 x 20-min. guided outcome with 2 new people per day meditations per weekLess than expected Initiate conversation (min. 5 mins) Complete 2–3 x 20-min. guided outcome with 1 new person per day meditations per week (C)Worst expected No conversations with Complete <2 x 20-min. guidedoutcome anyone new (C) meditations per week

Table 1: Example of a Goal Attainment Scaling Chart.

(C) = Current level of attainment

10Σwixi√(1–ρ)Σwi2 + ρ(Σwi)2

T=50+

Where:wi = weights assigned for each particular goal;xi = the attainment score for each goal(a value from –2 to +2);ρ = the average intercorrelation ofattainment scores (assumed to be 0.30).

Gordon B. Spence



T-scores are useful for evaluation not onlybecause they provide an index of individualperformance within different interventiongroups, but also because obtaining a stan-dardised unit of goal progression allowsstatistical comparisons to be made betweengroups (MacKay & Lundie, 1998). A fullyworked example of a T-score calculation isprovided by Schlosser (2004).

GAS: Strengths and LimitationsThere are several potential advantages thatpractitioners and researchers may gain fromusing the GAS methodology to measurecoaching outcomes. These will now be exam-ined, along with some important issues thatmay limit its use in both applied andresearch settings.

StrengthsThe advantages of using GAS forprogramme evaluations has been widelyreported (MacKay & Lundie, 1998; Otten-bacher & Cusick, 1990; Schlosser, 2004) andcan be summarised as follows:i. GAS is not bound to any theoretical

orientation, type of intervention oroutcome measure. This makes theprocedure very flexible and suitable formeasuring performance across a widerange of applied settings;

ii. GAS reduces the likelihood of erroneouspost-hoc evaluations of success becauseindividuals have stated for themselves thealternative levels of attainment and,therefore, should be able to measuretheir performance more accurately;

Table 2: The Goal Attainment Scaling Process.

Step Description

1. Identify overall Client and coach discuss and agree on the general goal(s) of the objective programme (e.g. improve physical fitness).

2. Identify specific Requires prioritisation of problem areas (e.g. physical inactivity)problem areas to be and reduction to observable and reportable components addressed (e.g. preferred form of exercise, frequency).

3. Identify behaviours Involves outlining the operational detail needed for the scale tothat would indicate be a useful instrument in evaluating performance improvement (e.g. defining ‘exercise’ in terms of completed gym sessions).

4. Determine how goal Decisions made regarding the collection of goal attainment data:attainment will be Who will collect it? In what setting it will be gathered? measured (e.g. exercise diary completed by client).

5. Select ‘Expected A critical step. Both the client and coach appraise and agree on aOutcome’ level of level of attainment that is both meaningful and realistic for theperformance client given their history and current situation.

6. Identify alternative In addition to the ‘Expected Outcome’, four other levels oflevels of attainment attainment are identified in order to quantify greater and lesser

levels of performance.

7. Check for overlapping Overlapping goals can be used but they must be mutuallygoals and gaps exclusive and internally consistent. Gaps between levels are notbetween levels permissible and can be addressed by defining a behavioural range

for each goal level.

8. Ascertain current Discuss past and present goal attainment with the client tolevel of attainment determine the GAS level that is ‘current’. A timetable for future

evaluations should also be agreed at this point.

Adapted from Ottenbacher & Cusick (1990).


iii. Outcomes are not based solely onsubjective assessments of performance.Rather they are determined as a result ofconsensus between an individual andtheir helper (i.e. practitioner orresearcher) using data collected duringthe course of the intervention. Thisprovides the process with greaterobjectivity, as the helper can askquestions about the attainment data andseek clarification on issues that mightotherwise distort or bias the results;

iv. Finally, the calculation of GAS scoresprovides a numeric index that can permitperformance to be accessed over timeand used for both within-subjects andbetween-group comparisons. However, asit will be shown, the validity of GAS scoreshas been widely questioned, which maymake this aspect of the methodologyinappropriate in some circumstances.

LimitationsDespite its appeal, several aspects of GAShave been called into question. Arguably themost contentious issue relates to the psycho-metric properties of GAS scores and theargument that they are ‘a parametric expres-sion of non-parametric information’(Schlosser, 2004, p.231). This criticismrevolves around the calculation of T-scoresand the observation that whilst outcomescores such as –2 to +2 are ordinal data, GAScomputations treat them as interval data, inorder to allow their transformation into stan-dard scores (MacKay & Lundie, 1998).

Second, the calculation and interpretationof GAS scores relies upon a number ofassumed values. These values, which includean assumed mean of 50 and a standard devia-tion of 10, are required to permit the para-metric analysis of GAS data. In addition, thecalculation of T-scores involves the use of aconstant value (ρ) to represent the expectedoverall inter-correlation among an individual’sgoal scores. Kiresuk and Sherman (1968) orig-inally assumed this value to be equal to 0.30.Critics have seriously questioned the assign-ment of these arbitrary values, arguing that

their use makes T-scores almost meaningless(MacKay & Lundie, 1998).

Third, GAS is time consuming andlabour intensive. Regardless of whether it isused by researchers or practitioners, aconsiderable amount of time, energy andcare is needed to ensure that: (i) theconstruction of GAS charts is completed withprecision; (ii) the measurement systems aresuitable; and (iii) the assessment ofoutcomes is rigourous and objective. Finally,Cytrynbaum et al. (1979) have noted the likelihood of floor effects in GAS data. Giventhat the 0-point on a GAS scale representsthe client’s goal, it is likely that currentattainment for most clients will be at lowerlevels on the scale (i.e. the –1 or –2 levels).As such, goal regression may not be easilydetected as the scale provides little or noopportunity to measure deterioration inperformance.

Research considerationsSeveral recommendations have been maderegarding the use of GAS for researchpurposes (for a comprehensive discussionsee Lewis, Spencer, Haas & DiVittis, 1987).As shown by Shefler and colleagues (2001),the psychometric properties of GAS improveif certain methodological requirements aremet. For example, to prevent bias of GASscores, it is strongly recommended that thefollow-up assessments be conducted blindly(that is, with no knowledge of the researchhypotheses, the initial status of participantsor their group assignment) and by evaluatorsnot otherwise involved in the intervention(Ottenbacher & Cusick, 1993; Shefler et al.,2001). In addition, researchers have beenencouraged to minimise threats to internalvalidity by using control conditions(Schlosser, 2004), randomly assigning partic-ipants to groups after the completion of goalsetting (Ottenbacher & Cusick, 1990), andensuring that research staff are adequatelytrained in all aspects of goal scaling, such asthe assessment of initial attainment status(Cytrynbaum, Ginath, Birdwell & Brandt,1979; Shefler et al., 2001).

Gordon B. Spence



The analysis of Ordinal DataAs mentioned earlier, the transformation ofGAS data into standard scores (for thepurpose of quantitative evaluation) has beenstrongly criticised. In response to these criti-cisms, MacKay and Lundie (1998) haveproposed that goal-scale ratings may bebetter treated as ordinal data (therebymaking fewer assumptions about the data)and presented as frequency counts on dimen-sions such as post-intervention attainmentlevels, goal categories, goal weightings, etc.

Table 3 displays how a post-interventionevaluation might be presented for individ-uals pursuing three goals each in a group-based coaching programme. As shown, theoutcome data is displayed according to thelevel of attainment achieved by each indi-vidual for each goal. Alternatively, datamight be displayed dichotomously,according to the frequency of attainmentlevels that fall ‘Below Goal’ or ‘At or AboveGoal’ (i.e. expected outcome), or accordingto the amount of movement from baselinelevels of attainment (i.e. pre-interventionlevels). The statistical analyses of such datacould then be performed by using theappropriate non-parametric tests for thepurpose of hypothesis testing (such as theWilcoxon rank sum or the chi-square test ofindependence).

Similar presentations are also possible bycreating a selection of appropriate goal cate-gories (e.g. weight loss, social interactions)or by goal weightings, whereby post-inter-vention attainment levels would be reportedrelative to their level of importance (forexamples, see MacKay & Lundie, 1998).

Although there is no reason why theseprocedures could not also be utilised bypractitioners to document outcomes, itshould again be noted that the validity ofGAS is dependent upon certain conditionsbeing met (as outlined earlier). Thus,researchers and practitioners should takesimilar precautions (e.g. the use of inde-pendent judges) when attempting to removedistortion and bias from GAS data. Whilstsuch precautions add additional demands oftime, effort and resources to the use of GAS,they cannot be ignored as they are necessaryto ensure the credibility of the data (Shefleret al., 2001).

GAS Powered Coaching: Additional benefitsThere are several additional features of GASthat are likely to appeal to both practicingcoaches and coaching researchers. First, it isa methodology that appears to fit neatlywithin the boundaries of coaching engage-ments and could form a natural part of thecollaborative exchanges that take placebetween a client and a coach. Second, GASdoes not rely on the costly central reportingsystems that produce many of the metricsroutinely used in executive or workplacecoaching (e.g. personality inventories, multi-rater feedback tools). Rather, GAS scales canbe produced relatively easily with minimalcost, and yield data that can be displayed ina variety of ways (i.e. tables, graphs, etc.).Finally, as GAS operates on a set of simplegoal setting principles, the adoption of GASmethods should be relatively straightforwardfor coaches and researchers already trainedin these principles;

Given these benefits (along with othersoutlined earlier), it is somewhat surprisingthat GAS has yet to be adopted withincoaching contexts. To date only one study

Table 3: The Ordinal Display of GAS Data.

GAS Outcome Levels

Client–2 –1 0 +1 +2

Name

David 0 1 1 0 1Claire 0 2 0 1 0Louise 1 0 2 0 0Peter 1 1 1 0 0

Total 2 4 4 1 1


has attempted to integrate GAS methodsinto coaching practice (Spence, 2006). Datafrom this study (which was conducted withina health coaching context) is useful toconsider at this point as it provides someindication of the utility of GAS. Rather thanreport its major findings, the next sectionwill focus on data collected during the studyon how participant’s perceived the use ofGAS methods.

Some preliminary dataWhilst the use of GAS in this study followedthe protocols outlined earlier (see Table 2),it is necessary to provide a brief descriptionof the methodology employed. During thepre-coaching phase, 42 participants wereasked to complete a goal-setting bookletprior to attending a GAS interview, at whichtrained facilitators stepped the participantsthrough the GAS process. Once the inter-views were completed, a GAS chart wasprepared and checked for specificity, meas-urability and consistency. Participants werethen provided with a handbook thatcontained their GAS chart and a series ofweekly monitoring sheets. After randomassignment to one of two coaching condi-tions or a placebo control, participantscompleted a six-week coaching programmewith outcome data obtained from partici-pant handbooks. Data was treated as ordinal(in line with MacKay & Lundie’s (1998)proposal) and analysed using non-para-metric tests (chi-square test of independ-ence).

To assess the participant’s attitudestowards the GAS method, a short question-naire was designed and included in themeasures taken at the midpoint in the study.Using a five-point rating scale (1 = Stronglydisagree, 5 = Strongly agree), participants wereasked to respond to the following questions:1. Having a goal chart has been useful for

me;2. I find that I ‘carry’ the goal chart around

in my head;3. Monitoring my goals like this isn’t the

way I usually do things;

4. I seem to be planning my daily activitiesbetter these days;

5. I tend to focus on the ‘ExpectedOutcome’ level more than any other;

6. I would prefer it if the goal chart didn’tshow other levels of attainment (e.g.‘Best expected’, ‘Worst expected’);

7. The goal chart has helped me to staymotivated.

As can be seen in Figure 1, the presence of aGAS chart was generally perceived to be auseful addition to the programme (Q1), withparticipants indicating that the chartshelped to maintain a high level of awarenessabout their health goals (Q2). In addition,although participants reported that explic-itly monitoring goal progression was notsomething that the usually did (Q3), therewas general agreement that the planning ofdaily activities had improved (Q4).

Questions 5 and 6 were included to assessthe degree to which participants focused onthe Expected Outcome level of the chart (i.e.the goal), as opposed to the four alternativeoutcome levels. This was of interest becausethe multiple levels of a GAS chart may poten-tially be demotivating if individuals becomemore concerned with over-performance orunder-performance, rather than theexpected (and realistic) level of attainment(i.e. the 0-point). According to the data,however, participants appeared to focusmost of their attention on the ExpectedOutcome level (Q5), whilst also indicatingthat the display of alternative levels of attain-ment was not unduly bothersome (Q6).Given that participants also reported that thecharts helped with motivation (Q7), it isreasonable to conclude that GAS charts haveseveral properties likely to support goal-directed self-regulation.

DiscussionGoal setting is vital for self-regulationbecause ‘the goal defines for the personwhat constitutes an acceptable level ofperformance’(Latham & Locke, 1991,p.234). However, there are complexitiesassociated with goal constructs that can

Gordon B. Spence



make goal setting and goal attainment chal-lenging to facilitate. As it will now be shown,the use of GAS may help to mitigate some ofthese challenges.

Goal instabilityThe self-regulation of behaviour is relativelystraightforward whilst a goal remainsunchanged. However, goals are unstableconstructs. Clients will sometimes find thattheir aspirations, intentions and motivationschange over time. For some this might occuras a consequence of changed personalcircumstances (e.g. personal injury, job loss)or because an individual is not committed tothe goal and not appropriately energisedtowards it. For researchers and practitionerswho are interested in using GAS to measurecoaching effectiveness, changes in goals areproblematic because they require a newscale to be developed every time a goalchanges.

While there is no way to ensure thestability of any client’s goals over time, theuse of GAS does seem to provide a way tomaximise goal stability. The establishment ofa GAS chart promotes a thorough examina-tion of goals and aspirations. A GAS inter-view provides an individual with the

opportunity to discuss, clarify and realitycheck the appropriateness of their goals (a process that may be further assisted by ashort period of reflection). Given the intensecognitive processing that GAS encourages, itseems reasonable to assume that these goalsmight be less susceptible to change.

Multi-dimensionalityIndividuals have been shown to express goalsacross a number of different dimensions. Forexample, the abstract-concrete dimensionreflects differences in the degree of speci-ficity reflected in a person’s goals (e.g. ‘To bea top student’ versus ‘To do two hours ofstudy a day’) (Emmons, 1992). In contrast,the approach-avoidance dimension reflectsan individual’s general orientation towardsparticular goals (e.g. ‘Be more appreciativeof my partner’s efforts’ versus ‘Avoid arguingwith my partner’) (Elliot & Sheldon, 1997).Finally, the autonomous-control dimensionreflects the feeling of subjective ownershipone has towards a goal (e.g. (‘Get a promo-tion because I would enjoy the work’ versus‘Get a promotion because my Dad would beproud’) (Sheldon & Elliot, 1998).

The abstract-concrete dimension isparticularly important to the present discus-

Figure 1: Participant perceptions of GAS charts.

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7

Rati

ng

Items


sion because a client’s willingness (or unwill-ingness) to engage in GAS may simply reflecta preferred tendency to express goals at aparticular level of abstraction. According toEmmons (1992) these differences arerelated to ‘low-level’ or ‘high-level’ thinking.Low-level thinkers are likely to find GASnaturally appealing, as they can expressdesired outcomes as a series of well-definedbehavioural units. On the other hand, high-level thinkers are likely to find the expres-sion of specific goals as overly simplistic,uninteresting, or even insulting, given theirpreference for thinking more broadly.

Regardless of these individual differ-ences, there seems to be some virtue inencouraging people to understand howabstract and concrete goals fit together, asthis can allow coaches to engage clients in‘big picture’ discussions about their personalgoal systems and the degree to which theirgoals are congruent (i.e. reflect their valuesand interests) and coherent (i.e. relativelyfree of competing goals) (Sheldon & Kasser,1995). The use of GAS may be helpful forfacilitating such discussions due to the factthat it requires individuals to express theirgoals at more than one level of abstraction.

Given these complexities, goal settingshould not to be underestimated. Indeed,being able to distinguish between differenttypes of goals, knowing how they relate togoal attainment and understanding how tomaximise client motivation should be keycompetencies for coaches. As has beenargued, GAS has many positive attributesthat appear well suited to coaching. Byfinding ways of adapting GAS to coachinginterventions, researchers and practitionerswould be making valuable contributions tothe development of the field.

Some closing remarksA few closing remarks are now offered onthe use of GAS methods in coachingresearch and practice. First, GAS providescoaches with a useful framework for usingtheir goal-setting expertise. The possessionof this expertise does not guarantee its use,

however, as coaching is underpinned by abasic assumption that clients are functional,the experts in their own lives and capable ofmaking important decisions, such as thearticulation of goals (Whitworth, Kimsey-House & Sandahl, 1998). Anecdotal reportssuggest that this philosophical stance may beso pervasive that many coaches feel uncom-fortable about using technical expertise, lestthey become too directive and commit aviolation of core Rogerian and solution-focused principles.

Yet, as Cavanagh (2005) notes, the use ofdomain specific knowledge is vital to effec-tive coaching because sometimes ‘the clientsimply does not have access to what theyneed to know, and no amount of questioningwill change that’ (p.4). Thus, one way inwhich GAS may enhance coaching practiceis by providing practitioners with a welldefined process that can allow them to injecttheir expertise into coaching conversationsand better direct goal setting activities.

Second, GAS may also prove to be usefulfor stimulating meaningful communicationbetween researchers and practitioners.Although both share an interest in the formalassessment of coaching interventions, theyare likely to be drawn towards differentoutcome measures. For example, researchersinterested in the psychological effects ofcoaching will tend to be drawn towards quan-titative measures that permit within-subjectand between-group effects to be detected onvariables of interest (e.g. emotional intelli-gence). In contrast, an executive coach will bemore interested in assessing and reporting onmore tangible coaching outcomes (such asthe attainment of sales targets), data that ismore likely to capture the attention of organ-isational stakeholders. Nevertheless, coachingresearchers and practitioners are always likelyto share an interest in goal attainment.Should the use of GAS become widespread,dialogue between the two could be enhancedby the presence of a methodological frame-work and language that is accessible to both.

Third, the utility of GAS may extend wellbeyond the measurement of outcomes to the

Gordon B. Spence



facilitation of goal attainment (Schlosser,2004). Whilst this hypothesis remainsuntested, such an effect seems plausiblegiven the cognitive effort a client is encour-aged to expend during the GAS process.That is, setting specific and realistic goalsrequires a client to think clearly about whatthey want to achieve and how much they arecapable of doing. As Locke (1996) hasnoted, there is overwhelming evidence thatintensive cognitive processing is a majorfactor in successful goal attainment.

Thus, the use of GAS in coaching seemssensible because increased self-reflectivity,the collaborative nature of the process andthe formal agreement of goals, may allinteract to stimulate goal-oriented cogni-tions (e.g. planning) and behaviour (e.g.monitoring), whilst enhancing goal commit-ment; other variables known to be importantfor successful self-regulation (Locke, 1996).If so, GAS may play an important additionalrole in goal attainment by helping an indi-vidual to move from a deliberative to animplementation mindset (Gollwitzer &Kinney, 1989).

Finally, GAS has been described in thispaper according to its traditional usage inclinical settings. Whilst the formality of theapproach might appear somewhat dry anduninspiring to some, there are many ways inwhich GAS can be ‘brought to life’ byretaining and working with its basic princi-ples. For example, a coachee could beencouraged to generate their own labels foreach level of attainment. So, rather than relyon the traditional ‘Expected Outcome’, ‘Morethan Expected Outcome’, and ‘Best ExpectedOutcome’ levels; scale labels might become‘Well Done!’, ‘Awesome!’ and ‘Absolutely Superb!’By utilising the flexibility inherent in GAS,practitioners and researchers have theopportunity to both customise the approachfor coaching and explore ways of increasingcoachee engagement by encouragingcreativity.

ConclusionThis review suggests that there is much torecommend the use of GAS in coachingresearch and practice. Not only is themethodology flexible, cost effective andcongruent with the collaborative nature ofcoaching, it also brings a measure of objec-tivity to the measurement of coachingoutcomes that does not currently appear toexist. As the volume of coaching researchcontinues to increase, it is likely to be accom-panied by a demand for outcome measuresthat are rigourous and objective. Althoughthe measurement of goal attainment can bea complex affair, it cannot be ignored by thecoaching community. It is only throughexploring the use of methodologies like GASthat this challenge can hope to beadequately met.

CorrespondenceGordon B. SpenceCoaching Psychology Unit, School of Psychology,Griffith Taylor Building,University of Sydney, NSW 2006,Australia.Tel: (61 2) 9036 9191Fax: (61 2) 9036 5223E-mail: [email protected] [email protected]


Bennett, J.L. (2006). An agenda for coaching-relatedresearch: A challenge for researchers. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58,240–249.

Chapman, M. (2005). Emotional intelligence andcoaching: An exploratory study. In M. Cavanagh,A.M. Grant & T. Kemp (Eds.), Evidence-basedcoaching: Theory, research and practice from the behav-ioural sciences (Vol. 1, pp.183–192). Bowen Hills,Qld: Australian Academic Press.

Cox, R. & Amsters, D. (2002). Goal attainmentscaling: An effective outcome measure for ruraland remote health services. Australian Journal ofRural Health, 10(5), 256–261.

Cytrynbaum, S., Ginath, Y., Birdwell, J. & Brandt, L.(1979). Goal attainment scaling: A critical review.Evaluation Quarterly, 3, 5–40.

Elliot, A.J. & Sheldon, K.M. (1997). Avoidanceachievement motivation: A personal goalsanalysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,73(1), 171–185.

Emmons, R.A. (1986). Personal strivings: Anapproach to personality and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51, 1058–1068.

Emmons, R.A. (1992). Abstract versus concrete goals:Personal striving level, physical illness, andpsychological well-being. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 62(2), 292–300.

Gollwitzer, P.M. & Kinney, R.F. (1989). Effects ofdeliberative and implementational mindsets onillusion of control. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 73, 186–199.

Grant, A.M. (2003). The impact of life coaching ongoal attainment, metacognition and mentalhealth. Social Behavior and Personality, 31(3),253–264.

Grant, A.M. (2006). An integrative goal-focusedapproach to executive coaching. In D.R.Stober &A.M. Grant (Eds.), Evidence-based coaching hand-book: Putting best practices to work for your clients(pp.153–192). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.

Grant, A.M. & Cavanagh, M. (2004). Toward a profes-sion of coaching: Sixty-five years of progress andchallenges for the future. International Journal ofEvidenced-Based Coaching and Mentoring, 2(1),7–21.

Grant, A.M. & Stober, D.R. (2006). Introduction. InD.R. Stober & A.M. Grant (Eds.), Evidence-basedcoaching handbook: Putting best practices to work foryour clients (pp.1–14). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley &Sons.

Green, L.S., Oades, L.G. & Grant, A.M. (2006).Cognitive-behavioural, solution-focused lifecoaching: Enhancing goal striving, well-being,and hope. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(3),142–149.

Kilburg, R.R. (2004). Trudging toward Dodoville:Case studies and conceptual approaches in exec-utive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal:Practice and Research, 56, 203–213.

Kiresuk, T.J. & Sherman, R.E. (1968). Goal Attain-ment Scaling: A general method for evaluatingcomprehensive community mental healthprogrammes. Community Mental Health Journal, 4,443–453.

Kiresuk, T.J., Smith, A. & Cardillo, J.E. (Eds.) (1994).Goal Attainment Scaling: Applications, theory, andmeasurement. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

Ladyshewsky, R.K. & Varey, W. (2005). Peer coaching:A practical model to support constructivistlearning methods in the development of mana-gerial competency. In M. Cavanagh, A.M. Grant& T. Kemp (Eds.), Evidenced-based coaching:Theory, research and practice from the behaviouralsciences (Vol. 1, pp.171–181). Brisbane: AustralianAcademic Press.

Latham, G.P. & Locke, E.A. (1991). Self-regulationthrough goal setting. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 50(2), 212–247.

Lewis, A.B., Spencer, J.H., Haas, G.L. & DiVittis, A.(1987). Goal Attainment Scaling: Relevance andreplicability in follow-up of inpatients. Journal ofNervous and Mental Disease, 175, 408–417.

Locke, E.A. (1996). Motivation through consciousgoal setting. Applied & Preventive Psychology, 5,117–124.

Lowman, R.L. (2005). Executive coaching: The roadto Dodoville needs paving with more than goodassumptions. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practiceand Research, 57, 90–96.

MacKay, G. & Lundie, J. (1998). GAS released again:Proposals for the development of goal attain-ment scaling. International Journal of Disability,Development and Education, 45(2), 217–231.

Mitchell, T. & Cusick, A. (1998). Evaluation of aclient-centred paediatric rehabilitationprogramme using goal attainment scaling.Australian Occupational Therapy Journal, 45, 7–17.

Olivero, G., Bane, K.D. & Kopelman, R.E. (1997).Executive coaching as a transfer of training tool:Effects on productivity in a public agency. Public Personnel Management, 26(4), 461–469.

Ottenbacher, K.J. & Cusick, A. (1990). Goal Attainment Scaling as a method of clinicalservice evaluation. American Journal of Occupa-tional Therapy, 44(6), 519–525.

Ottenbacher, K.J. & Cusick, A. (1993). Discriminativeversus evaluative assessment: Some observationson goal attainment scaling. American Journal ofOccupational Therapy, 47(4), 349–354.

References

Gordon B. Spence



Schlosser, R.W. (2004). Goal Attainment Scaling as aclinical measurement technique in communica-tion disorders: A critical review. Journal of Commu-nication Disorders, 37, 217–239.

Shefler, G., Canetti, L. & Wiseman, H. (2001).Psychometric properties of Goal AttainmentScaling in the assessment of Mann's time-limitedpsychotherapy. Journal of Clinical Psychology,57(7), 971–979.

Sheldon, K.M. & Elliot, A.J. (1998). Not all personalgoals are personal: Comparing autonomous andcontrolled reasons for goals as predictors ofeffort and attainment. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 24(5), 546–557.

Sheldon, K.M. & Kasser, T. (1995). Coherence andcongruence: Two aspects of personality integra-tion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 68,531–543.

Sheldon, K.M., Kasser, T., Smith, K. & Share, T.(2002). Personal goals and psychological growth:Testing an intervention to enhance goal attain-ment and personality integration. Journal ofPersonality, 70(1), 5–31.

Spence, G.B. (2005). Developing mindfulness: A compar-ison of alternative approaches. Paper presented atthe 2nd Australian Evidence-Based CoachingConference, Sydney, Australia; July.

Spence, G.B. (2006). Measuring the impact of healthcoaching: Goal Attainment Scaling. Paper presentedat the 1st Australian Psychological Society HealthCoaching Symposium, Sydney, Australia; March.

Spence, G.B. & Grant, A.M. (in press). Professionaland peer life coaching and the enhancement ofgoal striving and well-being: An exploratorystudy. Journal of Positive Psychology.

Stober, D.R. & Parry, C. (2005). Current challengesand future directions in coaching research. In M.Cavanagh, A.M. Grant & T. Kemp (Eds.),Evidence-based coaching: Theory, research and practicefrom the behavioural sciences (Vol. 1, pp.13–19).Bowen Hills, Qld: Australian Academic Press.

Stolee, P., Zaza, C., Pedlar, A. & Myers, A.M. (1999).Clinical experience with Goal Attainment Scalingin geriatric care. Journal of Aging and Health,11(1), 96–124.

Sue-Chan, C. & Latham, G.P. (2004). The relativeeffectiveness of external, peer, and self-coaches.Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(2),260–278.

Whitworth, L., Kimsey-House, H. & Sandahl, P.(1998). Co-active coaching: New skills for coachingpeople towards success in work and life. Palo Alto, CA:Davies-Black.

168 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 2 No. 2 July 2007168 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 2 No. 2 July 2007© The British Psychological Society – ISSN: 1750-2764

THE IMPORTANCE OF the coachingrelationship has been acknowledgedfrom psychology research, commenta-

tors on the industry, and managementperspectives. Indeed, in the relevant litera-ture the coaching relationship is viewed as avehicle for change. Nevertheless, there are alack of studies investigating the coachingrelationship (O’Broin & Palmer, 2006a, b).

However, a number of studies havereported findings that relate to the coachingrelationship. For example, Leedham (2005)conducted a study where 180-degree feed-back questionnaires completed by coachingclients were analysed. The comments werecategorised and the most commonlymentioned benefit was ‘increased confi-dence, feeling good, believe in myself,higher morale, growth’. The second mostcommon benefit was receiving support andfeeling valued in the coaching and the thirdwas improved career. Another study investi-

gating the perceived benefits of coachingwas conducted by Wales (2003). The studyused a qualitative methodology and theparticipants were managers who had takenpart in coaching. A phenomenologicalapproach was used to analyse the data and itwas found that the coaching relationship wasa safe and supportive environment wherefears and anxieties could be discussed. More-over, a study that investigated the credentialsfor effective coaches and coaching tools wasconducted by Wasylyshyn (2003). Personalcharacteristics of an effective coachincluded, ability to form a strong connec-tion, professionalism, and a clear coachingmethodology. Using a rating scale from 1 to10, the highest rated coaching toolsincluded coaching sessions (9.2), 360 feed-back (9.0), relationship with coach (8.3),testing (7.7), and readings on leadership(7.0). Wasylyshyn (2003) suggested that thehigh ratings of the coaching sessions and

The coaching relationship: An interpretative phenomenological analysisKristina Gyllensten & Stephen Palmer

Objectives: There is a lack of research on the coaching relationship (O’Broin & Palmer, 2006a). The current paper will present the findings from a qualitative study that explored experiences of workplacecoaching including the coaching relationship. Design: The study adopted a qualitative design and the data was analysed by InterpretativePhenomenological Analysis (Smith, Jaraman, & Osborn, 1999).Methods: Nine participants, from two large organisations, were interviewed about their experiences ofcoaching. Results: ‘The coaching relationship’ was identified as a main theme which, in turn, comprised of three sub-themes; valuable coaching relationship; trust; and transparency. These themes highlighted that thecoaching relationship was very valuable for the participants and that this relationship was dependent ontrust and improved by transparency. Conclusions: It was concluded that it is important that coaches are aware of, and are working with, thecoaching relationship. Nevertheless, the participants also highlighted that the relationship was not the onlyfactor that made coaching useful. Working towards goals and improving performance were also valuablecomponents of the coaching. It was, therefore, suggested that coaching may be most beneficial if itincorporates a number of components, including a focus on the relationship. Keywords: the coaching relationship, coaching, Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis;valuable coaching relationship; trust; and transparency.


relationship indicated that face-to-facecontact and frequency are important forsuccessful coaching. Similarly, Schmidt(2003) conducted a study of success factorsin coaching (study reported by Dembkowski& Eldridge, 2004). Questionnaires werecompleted by coachees and factor analysiswas used to identify the main success factorsin coaching. One of the main factors identi-fied was involvement of the coach; thisinvolved the coach’s ability to develop trustwithin the coaching. A second factor wasclarity of goals; this included clarity of roles,methods, and actions in the coaching. Co-operation was another factor that emerged;this related to the development of a soundrelationship and a sense of sharing betweenthe client and the coach. Similarly, trust andquality of the coaching relationship was afurther factor; this relates to the importanceof the coach being supportive and the devel-opment of an open and accepting relation-ship with the coach. A further study thathighlighted the importance of the coachingrelationship was conducted by Wilkins(2000). The study used qualitative method-ology and aimed to understand the processof coaching, and skills and strategies used incoaching. Grounded theory was used toanalyse the data and a model of coachingemerged. According to the model, coachingis an interaction between the coach and thecoachee in which the coaching purpose,process, and relationship function in orderto develop the coachee to their highestpotential. Hall, Otazo and Hollenbeck(1999) also conducted a qualitative coachingstudy. Executives from Fortune 100 compa-nies and executive coaches were interviewed.The study explored the application ofcoaching, the effectiveness of coaching, andwhat lessons can be learned from coachingpractice. Regarding the effectiveness ofcoaching, Hall et al. (1999) reported that thebest coaching was results oriented, andexamples of good coaching includedhonesty, challenging feedback and helpfulsuggestions. The overall effectiveness ofcoaching was rated to be ‘very satisfying’.

The coaches agreed with the executives onwhat characterised good coaching althoughthe coaches were more likely to also focus onthe coaching relationship and process.

In summary, previous studies have foundthat support from the coach is highly valuedwithin coaching (Leedham, 1995; Wasylyshyn,2003) and that coaching provided a safe andsupportive environment where anxietiescould be discussed (Wales, 2003). Moreover, ithas been found that the involvement of thecoach, a sound, supportive, open relationshipare success factors in coaching (Schmidt,2003, study reported by Dembkowski &Eldridge, 2004). Nevertheless, these are fewstudies and further research will contribute tothe knowledge of the coaching relationship.

The aim of the current studyThe aim of the current study was to investi-gate participants’ experiences and views ofcoaching, specifically, the process ofcoaching, evaluation of coaching (was thecoaching beneficial or not – how, in what way)and if/how coaching impacted on stress.

The study used a qualitative methodologyand was Part III of a larger piece of researchon coaching and stress. This paper will onlypresent a section of the findings from PartIII of the study.

Methods Interpretative Phenomenological AnalysisQualitative research is interested in richdescriptions of the topic under investigation(Denzin & Lincoln, 2000). The researchprocess is flexible, and it enables thediscovery of novel and uncommon themesand new insights into the topic under inves-tigation (Holliday, 2002) and Coe (2004) hassuggested that qualitative approaches can bevaluable in the evaluation of, the complexhuman process of coaching. As the currentstudy aimed to investigate individuals’ expe-riences of coaching in a flexible and openmanner and receive rich data, a qualitativemethod was suitable.

Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis(IPA) was used to analyse the data from the

The coaching relationship


Kristina Gyllensten & Stephen Palmer

interviews. The analysis was conducted inaccordance with Smith, Jaraman andOsborn’s (1999) guidelines to doing IPA. IPAaims to explore and understand meanings ofexperiences of the participants (Smith &Osborn, 2004). Within IPA it is recognisedthat the research process is dynamic. Indeed,the researcher takes an active role inattempting to get an insider’s perspective ofthe participant’s experiences. This is donewith a process of interpretation (Smith &Osborn, 2003). It is assumed that there is arelationship between individuals’ verbalaccounts and their cognitions and emotionsalthough individuals may have difficultiesreporting what they are thinking or/and theymay not want to self-disclose (Smith &Osborn, 2003). IPA is a systematic and prac-tical approach to analysing rich data (Baker,Pistrang & Elliot, 2002). According to Smithand Osborn (2004) IPA is appropriate for arange of psychological research questionswhere the aim is to investigate the meaningof the participants’ experiences. However,Smith and Osborn (2004) suggest that IPA isparticularly useful if the area of investigationis under-researched or new. This was in accor-dance with the present study that aimed toinvestigate individuals experiences ofcoaching – an under-researched area.

Analysis Smith and Osborn’s (2003) step-by stepapproach to doing IPA was used in theanalysis of the data. An ideographicapproach to analysis was used. The analysisbegins with a detailed investigation of onecase before the other cases are incorporatedand a more general categorisation is devel-oped. A transcript of one of the cases wasread a number of times and notes ofanything interesting were made in the left-hand margin. In the next step the transcriptwas read again and possible theme titles wererecorded in the right-hand margin. At thisstage a higher level of abstraction andpsychological terminology are introduced inthe analysis (Smith & Osborn, 2003). Theemerging themes were noted and clusters of

themes that represented, most strongly, theparticipant’s views of a particular topic weregiven names and represented the superordi-nate themes. Identifiers and keywords wererecorded indicating where examples of thetheme could be found in the transcript. Inthe next stage the themes were orderedcoherently and a table of themes wasrecorded. The same process of analysis wasrepeated for the remaining transcripts. A final table of themes and subthemes wasconstructed for the whole group of partici-pants. This process involves reduction andprioritising of the data and Smith andOsborn (2003) highlight that this stage canbe challenging. It is important to note thatprevalence within the data is not the onlyimportant factor when themes are selected,ability to explain other aspects of the inter-view and richness of text passages and arealso important factors (Smith, Jaraman &Osborn, 1999). Four main themes withrelated sub-themes were identified in thestudy: management of stress, confidence, thecoaching relationship, coaching = invest-ment in staff. As the topic of this article is thecoaching relationship the focus will be onthis main theme.

Participants Two organisations participated in the study,one UK organisation from the finance sectorand one Scandinavian organisation from thetelecommunications sector. The organisa-tions had in excess of 3000 employees andmainly focused on telephone based work.Participants were selected on the basis ofhaving participated in workplace coachingwithin their organisation. Nine participantswere interviewed, six from the UK organisa-tion and three from the Scandinavian organ-isation. Three males and six femalesparticipated and the mean age was 33 yearswith a range of 23 to 52 years. Four of theparticipants held management positions.

Procedure Semi-structured interviews were used tocollect the data as they are suitable for IPA


studies and enable the collection of rich data(Smith & Osborn, 2003). Participants fromthe UK organisation were interviewed at oneof the organisations sites and the partici-pants from the Scandinavian organisationwere interviewed over the phone. The inter-views were recoded and transcribed in theirentirety. Lines in the transcript werenumbered for ease of reference. Participantswere assigned one of the first nine letters ofthe alphabet in the transcripts. The letter ‘I’was used to denote the Interviewer.

The coaching intervention The coaching intervention did not follow aspecific protocol and was focused on theissues the coachees wanted to focus on.Issues included improving self-confidence,getting a promotion, improving presenta-tion skills. Reflective listening was an impor-tant part of the coaching. The GROW model(Whitmore, 1992) was used and the coachesdid also use NLP (neuro linguistic program-ming) theory and techniques. A number oftechniques were used including affirmationcards, imagery exercises, cognitive restruc-turing, and assertiveness training. Numberof coaching sessions differed between theparticipants.

Evaluating the analysis It is important to highlight that qualitativeanalysis is a subjective process and differentresearchers may have conducted a differentanalysis. The researcher’s personal frame ofreference inevitably influences the analysisin IPA (Golsworthy & Coyle, 2001).According to Elliot, Fisher and Rennie(1999) good qualitative practice involvesresearchers specifying their personalperspective relevant to the study. In thecurrent study the researcher’s interpretativeframework has been influenced by; trainingand practice in counselling/coachingpsychology, working with work stress issues;previous experience of research on stress.Regarding the coaching relationship, theresearcher was aware of the importance andvalue of the relationship from previous coun-

selling practice and literature. Indeed, effortwas made to minimise unwarranted idiosyn-cratic interpretations or unwarranted selec-tive attention during the interviews. In orderto evaluate qualitative studies Elliot et al.(1999) have suggested that it is important tosituate the sample. Basic descriptive dataabout the participants have been presentedin the current study. Moreover, the methodshave been described to allow replication andexamples of the data have been provided toillustrate each theme as suggested by Baker,Pistrang and Elliot (2002).

Results Four main themes emerged in the analysis:management of stress, confidence, thecoaching relationship, coaching = invest-ment in staff. As the topic of this paper is thecoaching relationship the focus will be onthis main theme.

The theme ‘The coaching relationship’consisted of three sub-themes: trust; trans-parency; and valuable coaching relationship.Figure 1 illustrates how trust and trans-parency leads to, and is a part of, a valuablerelationship between the coachee and thecoach.

Trust The development of a good relationshipbetween the coach and the coachee wasclearly very important (as indicated under‘Valuable coaching relationship’) and trustwas a very vital part of this relationshipaccording to the participants:

I think you both need to have that sort of trust.(E: 470).

It would appear that the confidentiality ofthe coaching sessions played a vital role inhelping to build and maintain the trustbetween the coach and the coachee. Whentrust and confidentiality were present it waspossible for the coachee to ‘let their guarddown’ and share sensitive information withthe coach including aspects of themselvesperceived as less than perfect:

I think it is the person. It is complete trustbecause I know whatever would be said that is




it, it is never repeated, even if you are being alittle irrational. I feel confident to probably letyour guard down in front XXX (name ofcoach), to know that you aren’t perfect at doingeverything. (F: 232–235)

According to some of the participants thecoaches in their organisation had proved tothe employees that they were trustworthyand this was viewed as the reason to why theyhad been successful:

And I think that is why our guys (referring tothe coaches) have been quite successful. It is thefact that they can be trusted, they areconfidential. (F: 311–312)

In some coaching relationships one of theparties may have more power and be moresenior in the organisation. However, it wasstated that it was indeed possible to getbeyond the issue of power and build a goodrelationship if trust was developed:

My own personal view is that if you are able toestablish trust the issues whether one is themanager or not is not relevant. (G: 197–198)

Transparency The coaches in the two participating organi-sations appeared to have been transparent intheir coaching practice and had explainedthe process and theory supporting the

various coaching interventions. This trans-parency was viewed very positively by theparticipants as highlighted by the followingquote:

And what he did though as well, which wasreally good, he explained this process. Whatidea was behind it what theory was behind itso I knew where I was in every stage ofeverything I was doing. (A: 280–282)

An important positive consequence of thecoach being transparent was that the partici-pants felt included in the coaching process:

I was told of every stage and what we weredoing and what technique we were adapting toa given situation and I felt included. (A: 785–786)

Because the coach had been open and trans-parent with the coaching process someparticipants felt that there was little thatcould have been improved in the coachingsessions. Thus, some participants clearlyviewed transparency as one of the mostimportant aspects of the coaching:

But that again in my experience there is little I feel could have been improved. Because as I said he was very open and kept me wellinformed in every stage of the process. (A: 800–802)

Figure 1: The Coaching Relationship.

Valuable coachingrelationship

Transparency Trust

Coaching


Valuable coaching relationship Trust and transparency were two factors thathelped to create a good coaching relation-ship. Indeed, the relationship between thecoach and the coachee appeared to be oneof the most essential aspects of coaching.The importance of this relationship washighlighted by the participants:

And also, you know, we have got really quiteclose relationships and it is quite valuedactually. (F: 677–678)

The relationship was the basis upon whichthe coaching was built and without a rela-tionship the coaching would not be as effec-tive as it could be. The following quotedescribes how the relationship is the firstthing that happens in coaching:

I think you need to get on with your coach, ifyou don’t get on with him you are not going tosort of achieve what you need to achieve. (E: 468–469) So the relationship is firstbecause that is the first thing that is going tohappen isn’t it, you are going to build yourrelationship. (E: 471–473)

Prior to starting coaching most participantsappeared to experience an uncertaintyregarding what to expect and for some therehad been an initial scepticism. However, thecoaches’ approach and manner had helpedto make the participants feel comfortable inthe coaching situation within a short spaceof time:

I was a little bit apprehensive and not surewhat to expect and what I found, I am notquite sure if it was a technique, but he kind ofput me at easy straight away. (A: 253–254)

A reason for some of the initial apprehen-sion of coaching was based on uncertaintyregarding how the coach would view thepresenting problem. However, the coacheshad not been patronising regarding thepresenting problems but had instead beenempathic with the participants’ feelings:

And at no stage did I ever feel patronised, andagain I had a problem that was mammoth tome but to a lot of people it is quite insignificant‘you soft bugger why don’t you go up and talkto people it is no big deal’. And I think itwould be quite easy for somebody in a coaching

situation to take that attitude of ‘what is upwith him he has got an insignificant problem’.But I did not get any of that he was reallyempathic with the way I felt. (A: 790–794)

A positive consequence of feeling comfort-able with the coach was that the participantswere willing to continue with the coaching.This highlights the importance of devel-oping a good relationship, from the begin-ning, for the development of coaching:

I suppose it was from my first occasion I though’ I feel really comfortable with whatyou are doing’. That is why … that is a kindof customer isn’t it, if you are happy with aservice you go back to the same provider. (A: 242–144)

In addition, the coaches played an importantrole in being supportive listeners. Indeedhaving the opportunity to be listened to wasquite rare for some participants:

I think the listening side of things is a massivepart of it, because it is not very often that yousit down and actually tell someone exactly howyou feel. (D: 507–508)

Despite the fact that the coaching relation-ship was viewed as important the participantsmade clear that the relationship was not theonly important aspect of the coaching. Tech-niques used in the coaching sessions werealso essential in order for the coaching to besuccessful:

It is the relationship but it also that typical …what do you call it … from coaching you getsomething in your bag. A good piece of advicea good way to solve a problem, it gets my eyes toopen in another way. (G: 437–439)

Important factors in coaching appeared tobe a good coaching relationship, learningskills, and working towards and reachingspecific goals:

On the one side yes they have helped me reachmy goals promotion, different skills that theyhave taught me. But on the other side I do usethem as a sounding board. (C: 423–424). Soit has benefited me in both ways, they haveincreased my performance and they have alsobeen someone that I can turn to and discussissues with. (C: 426–428)




Discussion Summary of findings The aim with the study was to investigate theparticipants’ experiences of coaching. A main theme that emerged was thecoaching relationship. It was found that therelationship between the coach and thecoachee was viewed as very important andnecessary for the coaching to develop. Thisrelationship was dependent on trust andimproved by transparency.

Previous literatureIn the current study the coaching relation-ship was found to be important to the partic-ipants. Similarly, after reviewing the literatureand conducting a study on the benefits ofcoaching Leedham (2005) found that theclients’ satisfaction with the coaching rela-tionship was a central factor in the evaluationof the coaching. In addition, the findings inthe current study were similar to those of theWales (2003) qualitative study, with regardsto the value of the coaching relationship.Wales (2003) found that the coaching rela-tionship was a safe and supportive environ-ment where fears and anxieties could bediscussed. The importance of the coachingrelationship was also found in Wasylyshyn’s(2003) study using a sample of executivescoaching clients. Similarly, Wilkins (2000)found that the coaching relationship was afactor that helped to develop the coachee totheir highest potential.

The coaching relationship was found tobe important in the current study and trustand transparency played central roles in thedevelopment of this relationship. These find-ings were similar to Schmidt’s (2003) studyof success factors in coaching (reported byDembkowski & Eldridge, 2004) where one ofthe main factors identified was involvementof the coach. This factor involved the coach’sability to create a coaching relationshipinvolving trust. Clarity of goals was a furtherfactor that included clarity of roles, methods,and actions in the coaching. Dembkowskiand Eldridge (2003) suggest that trans-parency increases trust in the coaching rela-

tionship and without trust the client sharesless information and, consequently, does notgain the full benefits of the relationship.Similarly, in a study on coaching, from theviewpoint of the coach and coachee, Hall etal. (1999) found that good coachingincluded honesty, challenging feedback, andhelpful suggestions.

When referring to the coaching relation-ship it is useful to note that the value andimportance of the therapeutic relationshiphas long been recognised within counsellingand therapy practice, research and theory.There is a great amount of focus on the ther-apeutic relationship within the therapy andcounselling literature (for example, Bedi,Davis & Williams, 2005; Horvath & Green-berg, 1994). Psychotherapy research hasfound that that therapist variables (e.g. ther-apist attributes), facilitative conditions (e.g.empathy), and therapeutic alliance (e.g.bond) are important factors that influencetherapy outcome (O’Broin & Palmer, 2006a).

Limitations of the study When there is a small sample there is a riskthat recruitment bias will have an impact onthe research (Chapman, 2002). The partici-pants in the study reported mainly positiveexperiences of coaching. Perhaps individualswith positive experiences were more likely totake part in the study compared to individ-uals with negative experiences. In addition,the contact persons, at the organisations,may have suggested individuals who heldpositive attitudes towards coaching. Theinterviews were analysed as one samplealthough six participants were from the UKorganisation and three from the Scandina-vian organisation. Thus, it is possible that theresults are more representative of the UKorganisation. The participants from the UKorganisation were interviewed in personwhereas the participants from the Scandina-vian organisation were interviewed over thephone. Conducting some of the interviewsover the phone may have had a negativeimpact on the alliance between theresearcher and the coachee. Nevertheless,


the researcher believed that a good alliancewas developed in all interviews. Moreover,the coaching differed to some extentbetween the organisations and this will havehad an impact on the participants’ experi-ences of coaching. It is also important torecognise that the researcher’s experiencesand perspectives will have had an influenceon the analysis of the data, and that anotherresearcher may have developed a differentanalysis, resulting in different outcomes. Inaddition, various issues and ways of evalu-ating qualitative research have beendiscussed in the methods section.

Implications and conclusion The coaching relationship was viewed asimportant and valuable in the current study.Participants reported that unless a goodenough relationship was developed in thecoaching, relevant achievements would notbe made. It is, therefore, important thatcoaches are aware of, and are working with,the coaching relationship. This appears to beparticularly important at the start of thecoaching as many of the participants reportedthat they were feeling sceptical of thecoaching in the beginning. There was alsofear regarding how the coach would view thepresenting problem. Thus, the current studysuggests that it is important that a positiveatmosphere is developed between the coachand the coachee from the beginning of thecoaching in order for the coachee to feelcomfortable to share information about theproblem. Moreover, it appears that a goodrelationship makes it more likely that thecoachee will continue with the coaching andconsequently gain something from it. Never-theless, the participants highlighted that therelationship was not the only factor that madecoaching useful, rather working towards goalsand improving performance were also valu-able components. It is, therefore, suggestedthat coaching may be most beneficial if itincorporates a number of components,including a focus on the relationship.

The current study found that trust was animportant aspect of a good coaching rela-

tionship. Trust enables the coachee to beopen, even about personal limitations anddifficulties, and this is, of course, vital for thedevelopment of coaching. According to theparticipants, confidentiality helped to builda relationship of trust with the coach. There-fore, in order to develop trust within therelationship, the coach would benefit fromclearly stating the terms of the confiden-tiality at the onset of the coaching. Likewise,it could be suggested that it is very importantto highlight the limitations of confidentialityas the organisation may demand feedbackregarding the coachees’ development.

Transparency on the behalf of the coachwas viewed as very helpful in the currentstudy as this lead the coachee to feel fullyincluded in the coaching process. It could,therefore, be suggested that an under-standing of the steps taken in coaching, anda feeling of being included in the process,could have a positive effect on the subse-quent commitment to the coaching. Thus,by being transparent and open, the coachmay help the client to feel more inspired totake part in the process. It could besuggested that when the coach is completelyopen about the process the client is in abetter position to evaluate the coaching andtake decisions based on a full knowledge ofwhat the coaching entails. Consequently, it isreasonable to assume that coaches couldbenefit from being transparent regardingthe coaching process with their clients,regardless of their theoretical orientation.

Future research Further, qualitative studies could investigatethe development of the coaching relation-ship. How is the relationship developedduring the different stages in coaching?What factors are important in a goodcoaching relationship? How are trust andtransparency viewed? What factors can havea negative effect upon the relationship? Howimportant is the relationship in relation tocoaching effectiveness, and is the relation-ship more important with some issues andsome clients compared to others?




CorrespondenceThis paper was a collaborative project under-taken by the Coaching Psychology Unit, CityUniversity, UK and the Swedish Centre forWork Based Learning, adSapiens Sweden.

Dr Kristina Gyllensten &Professor Stephen PalmerCoaching Psychology Unit,Department of Psychology,Northampton Square,London EC1V 0HB, UK.E-mail: [email protected]: [email protected]

Swedish Centre for Work Based Learning,adSapiens AB, Skeppsbron 5-6, 411 21 Göteborg,Sweden.

ReferencesBaker, C., Pistrang. N. & Elliot, R. (2002). Research

methods in clinical psychology: An introduction tostudents and practitioners (2nd ed.). Chichester:John Wiley & Sons.

Bedi, R.P., Davis, M.D. & Williams, M. (2005). Criticalincidents in the formation of the TherapeuticAlliance from the Client’s perspective.Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training,42, 311–323.

Chapman, E. (2002). The social and ethical implica-tions of changing medical technologies: Theviews of people living with genetic conditions.Journal of Health Psychology, 7, 195–206.

Coe, S. (2004). Evaluating a personal experience ofcoaching – an insider's account. The InternationalJournal of Mentoring and Coaching, 2(2).

Elliot, R., Fisher, C.T. & Rennie, D.L. (1999).Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitativeresearch studies in psychology and related fields.British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 215–229.

Golsworthy, R. & Coyle, A. (2001). Practitioners’accounts of religious and spiritual dimensions inbereavement therapy. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 14, 183–202.

Hall, D.T., Otazo, K.L. & Hollenbeck, G.P. (1999).Behind closed doors: What really happens inexecutive coaching. Organisational Dynamics, 27,39–53.

Holliday, A. (2002). Doing and writing qualitativeresearch. London: Sage.

Horvath, A.O. & Greenberg, L.S. (Eds.). (1994). The working alliance: Theory, research, and practice.New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Leedham, M. (2005). The coaching scorecard: Anholistic approach to evaluating the benefits ofbusiness coaching. International Journal of EvidenceBased Coaching and Mentoring, 3(2), 30–44.

O’Broin, A. & Palmer, S. (2006a). The coach-clientrelationship and contributions made by thecoach in improving coaching outcome. TheCoaching Psychologist, 2(2), 16–20.

O’Broin, A. & Palmer, S. (2006b). Win-win situation?Learning from parallels and differences betweenCoaching Psychology and Sport Psychology. TheCoaching Psychologist, 2(3), 17–23.

Schmidt, T. (2003). Cited in Dembkowski, S. &Eldridge, F. (2004). The nine critical successfactors in individual coaching. The InternationalJournal of Mentoring and Coaching, 2(2).

Smith, J., Jaraman, M. & Osborn, M. (1999). DoingInterpretative Phenomenological Analysis. In M.Murray & K. Chamberlain (Eds.), Qualitativehealth psychology (pp.218–240). London: Sage.

Smith, J.A. & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretativephenomenological analysis. In J.A. Smith (Ed.),Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to researchmethods (pp.51–80). London: Sage.

Smith, J.A. & Osborn, M. (2004). Interpretativephenomenological analysis. In G.M. Breakwell(Ed.), Doing social psychology research(pp.229–254). Oxford: BPS Blackwell.

Wales, S. (2003). Why coaching? Journal of ChangeManagement, 3, 275–282.

Wasylyshyn, K.M. (2003). Executive coaching: Anoutcome study. Consulting Psychology Journal:Practice and Research, 55, 94–106.

Whitmore, J. (1992). Coaching for performance.London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Wilkins, B.M. (2000). A grounded theory study ofpersonal coaching. Dissertation Abstract Interna-tional, A, (Humanities and Social Sciences), 61(5):1713.


AppendixInterview Schedule

Biographical detailsAge ......................................................................................................................................................Gender ................................................................................................................................................Job title................................................................................................................................................Full-time/Part-time ............................................................................................................................Length of time in company ..............................................................................................................

Details of coaching When did you go to coaching? .........................................................................................................How many sessions and how often?..................................................................................................What was the initial reason to why you decided to start coaching? ...............................................Your view of coaching before you attended/your view now. ..........................................................Internal/External coaching ..............................................................................................................

The coaching process How would you describe the coaching? What did it involve?.........................................................Did you decide on goals for the coaching?......................................................................................Confidentiality....................................................................................................................................

Evaluation of coaching Were you satisfied with your coaching? ............................................................................................Benefits of coaching:● Did you reach goals, short-term benefits, long-term benefits? .................................................● Benefits related to work ...............................................................................................................● Benefits related to home life .......................................................................................................● Self-awareness ...............................................................................................................................● Other benefits...............................................................................................................................What was it about coaching that was beneficial? .............................................................................Could your coaching have been improved – how?..........................................................................Negative effects of coaching..............................................................................................................

Coaching and stressIndirect effects on stress ....................................................................................................................Did you suffer from work stress before you attended coaching? ...................................................Do you suffer from work stress at present? ......................................................................................Did coaching help to reduce work stress?........................................................................................Is coaching suitable for workplace stress? ........................................................................................

Would you recommend coachingIn what situations?..............................................................................................................................


178 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 2 No. 2 July 2007178 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 2 No. 2 July 2007© The British Psychological Society – ISSN: 1750-2764

OVER THE LAST DECADE OR SOthere has been a considerableincrease in research into the impact

and management of emotions in organisa-tions and questions have been raised aboutthe invisibility or marginalisation ofemotionality in organisational life (Gher-ardi, 1995). This growing emphasis on theuse and management of emotion in theworkplace implies that coaches need to beaware of both their own and their clients’emotional reactions, and the contexts inwhich they occur, in order to be in a positionto help their clients. Indeed, Whitmore(1996) has urged coaches to ‘tap’ theemotions.

However, there may be significant appre-hension felt by coaches in relation to overtdisplays of emotions by clients. There mayyet be the thought among coaches thatemotions should only be explored within acounselling setting and, as in many organisa-tions, the traditional view that emotion inter-feres with rationality may still influence

thinking. Both of these notions may lead toover-management of what are considered tobe difficult emotions.

Following a review of how emotions havebeen perceived in organisations, difficultemotions are defined. Then the method-ology is explained and the three themes thatemerged are explored in turn using exam-ples from the data. In the conclusion theimplications for coaching practice andfurther research are considered.

The place of emotion in the workplaceThe work of Fineman (2000) has beenimportant in securing the place of emotionin organisational contexts, countering argu-ments from early philosophers such as Platoand Kant. Fineman highlights the maintension between rationality and emotion anddescribes three possible positions that couldbe held:● Emotions interfere with rationality;● Emotions serve rationality;● Emotions and rationality entwine.

Coaching with emotion: How coaches dealwith difficult emotional situations Elaine Cox & Tatiana Bachkirova

Objectives: The coaching process can arouse emotion for both the client and the coach. Coaches then havea choice between either minimising the attention paid to emotional phenomena or working with emotionsto achieve results. The objectives of this study were to investigate coaches’ personal theories of emotion andin particular their approach to dealing with difficult emotional situations within the coaching relationship.Design: A qualitative study was designed in order to explore coaches’ perspectives, theories and strategiesfor dealing with emotions. Data was analysed using a grounded theory approach to elicit a number ofthemes. Methods: The study collected data from 39 UK coaches, using a stem-sentence questionnaire approach.Results: Findings suggest that coaches can have very different viewpoints in relation to dealing withdifficult emotional situations that arise when working with clients, dealing with them in one of four ways:using self-reflection or supervision, avoiding tackling the emotion considering it to belong to the client,actively exploring with the client, or referral of the client/termination. They also see control of their ownemotions as important and recognised some gender related issues.Conclusions: Recommendations are made for an understanding of emotions to be included in the educationand training of coaches. The strengthening of supervision provision for coaches is also suggested.Keywords: Coaching, difficult emotions, control of emotion, gender, supervision.


The prevailing view has been that emotionsinterfere with rationality: Pizarro (2000,p.356) confirms that Kant, influentially,believed emotional forces to be ‘sources thattainted the process of moral thinking, prima-rily because they were antagonistic to thereasoning process’ and goes on tosummarise the three main reasons for theperpetuation of this view:1. Emotions can be seen to be partial in that

they are aroused in relation to things andpeople we care about.

2. Emotions arise due to the presence ofarbitrary factors.

3. Emotions are beyond our voluntarycontrol and are passively experienced.

Thus emotions, particularly so called ‘diffi-cult’ emotions, have been seen as interferingwith rationality, harmful to decision makingand as unruly, undesirable and needing to bemanaged in the workplace in order toreduce unpredictability (Speedy, 2005).Indeed, Smith and Sharma (2002, p.197)confirm that within organisations emotionalreactions are seen as disruptive, illogical,biased and weak and consequently as ‘anti-thetical to performance’.

However, Pizarro refutes this traditionaljudgement on emotion, arguing that we havethe capacity to regulate our emotions; thatemotions reflect our pre-existing concerns(our values and our principles). The sugges-tion here is that emotions help reasoning byfocusing our attention on the problem,‘allowing us to pay attention to features ofthe situation that may escape us otherwise’(Pizarro, 2000, p.358). Gross et al. (2006,p.2) also focus on acknowledging andmanaging emotion, suggesting that strongemotions need to be managed ‘if we are tokeep our appointments, careers and friend-ships’. They claim that ‘successful emotionregulation is a pre-requisite for adaptivefunctioning. To get along with others, wemust be able to regulate which emotions wehave and how we experience and expressthese emotions.’

Simpson and Smith (2005, p.1) confirmthat the ‘entrance of emotion into consider-

ations of work and organisation hasoccurred alongside other significant devel-opments concerning the growth in theservice economy’. This has led to a greatneed to focus on the eliciting of desiredemotions. Emotional labour, sometimesknown as ‘emotion work’, has become afeature of the work of many employees, espe-cially in service sectors such as the healthservice and education. Such public servicesrequire employees to be even-tempered andagreeable in the workplace: ‘the majorobject of emotional labour is to providepredictability and maintain harmony in theworkplace, while enhancing competitiveproductivity’ (Speedy, 2005, p.4).

The most substantial incursion ofemotion into organisational consciousnesshas, arguably, come through the concept ofemotional intelligence (EI). One of the mostfrequently used definitions of EI is given bySalovey and Meyer (1990, p.189) as ‘theability to monitor one’s own and other’s feel-ings and emotions, to discriminate amongthem, and to use this information to guideone’s thinking and action’. However, areview of both emotion work and emotionalintelligence carried out by Opengart (2005,p.57) concludes that the application ofemotional intelligence is incomplete withoutan understanding of emotion work, as, sheclaims, the two function together. She high-lights how the emotional display rules thatguide emotional expression are ‘learnedwithin an employee’s particular workcontext’ and so the management ofemotions requires not only emotional intelli-gence, but the ability to perceive, learn, andadjust behaviour as necessary. Opengart alsoargues that it is difficult to assess and inter-pret emotional expression without contex-tual knowledge, since there would be ‘nobasis from which to understand whysomeone chooses to express a particularemotion’ (2005, p.57).

It can be seen from the brief survey ofliterature above that there has been renewedinterest in the role of emotion in organisa-tional contexts resulting in a burgeoning

Coaching with emotion


Elaine Cox & Tatiana Bachkirova

literature on the topic (ten Bos & Willmott,2001; Smith & Sharma, 2002; Mark, 2005).Gender stereotypes in relation to emotionare also being questioned and Brody (1997,p.369) has argued that ‘stereotypes aboutgender and emotional expression tend to beimprecise and misleading. They fail toacknowledge situational, individual, andcultural variations in males’ and females’emotional expressiveness’. In addition, reser-vations are now being expressed in relationto the extreme rationality that has tended togovern bureaucratic organisational struc-tures in the past and a more receptive view ofemotion as a resource is emerging. A rangeof factors are seen as influencing this situa-tion; for example, the growth of emotionwork, the impact of globalisation and theinflux of more women and people fromdifferent cultures into organisations.

Defining difficult emotionsAgainst the backdrop of conflicting views inrelation to the role of emotions in the work-place, coaches have to consider their ownposition. This study highlights how coachescurrently deal with the difficult emotionsthey encounter in their practice.

Some specific emotions have beendescribed as ‘difficult’ or ‘negative’. Tiedens(2001), for example, has suggested thatinwardly directed ‘negative’ emotions, suchas depression or fear, have fewer short-termpositive functions and tend to elicit negativeemotions in others. More recently, Fineman(2005, p.12) has questioned whether itmakes sense to ‘bracket off’ positiveemotions, in the way proposed in positivepsychology, since this would assume that theyare separate states with their own profile andstructure, and not intrinsically linked tonegative emotions. However, Greenberg(2003, p.43) explains how primary emotions,such as fear, are essentially positive. Hesuggests that primary emotions are eitheradaptive (healthy feelings) or maladaptive(bad feelings) and suggests that theemotions can be divided into four cate-gories:

1. A healthy core feeling (an adaptiveprimary emotion).

2. A chronic bad feeling (a maladaptiveprimary emotion).

3. A reactive or defensive emotion that canobscure a primary feeling (a secondaryemotion).

4. An influencing or manipulative emotionused by people to get what they want (an instrumental emotion).

In this model all emotions are seen asnormal and ‘positive’ and become maladap-tive, secondary or instrumental as a result ofan intervention, such as thinking, or ofcircumstance. Fineman (2005, p.13)confirms this view, arguing that ‘the valua-tion of an emotion by self or others has nonecessary universality’. He cites Bagozzi(2003), stressing that the ‘same’ emotioncan be felt differently and responded todifferently depending on extant cultural andsocial factors.

For the purposes of this article we want todefine difficult emotional situations as thosethat give the coach a ‘bad feeling’, i.e. thosethat tend make the coach feel uncomfort-able in some way, and to acknowledge thatwhat is termed a difficult emotion may varyfrom coach to coach and be dependentupon a number of internal and externalfactors.

MethodologyThis article reports on findings from a widerresearch study aimed at exploring thepersonal theories of a sample of organisa-tional and life coaches in order to understandhow they deal with difficult emotional situa-tions. The study was aimed at finding out:● What role emotions play in coaching

according to coaches; ● What it is like for them to deal with

emotional side of the process;● What personal theories coaches have

about dealing with emotions ● How these theories affect their practice.


This article explores three important themesthat emerged from the study, which focusspecifically on how coaches deal with diffi-cult emotional situations:1. Difficult situations in terms of dealing

with clients’ emotions.2. Difficult situations in terms of coaches’

emotions.3. Differentiated and potentially proble-

matic views on male/female clientemotions.

The study was intended to uncover the rangeof possible positions held by coaches in rela-tion to emotion in coaching. In order to dothis an interpretative phenomenologicalstudy (Smith & Osborn, 2003) was designedthat would allow data to be gathered oncoaches’ personal theories and strategies inrelation to emotions in coaching.

We used a questionnaire method builtaround a set of stem sentences that wouldengender open, spontaneous and possiblyemotional responses. The questions wereeduced from a detailed reading of the litera-ture combined with the researchers’ ownexperiences of emotional triggers. Sixtyquestionnaires were distributed amongstpracticing executive and life coaches in theUK, and 39 were completed – a nearly 70 percent return rate. The coaches werepresented with a series of unfinishedsentences, which they then had to completein a quick and spontaneous manner. Crotty(1996, p.278) uses stem sentences toencourage development of metaphors andsimiles, such as ‘Learning to start my newsmall business is like … walking through ahall of mirrors’. This spontaneity andfreedom of response is something that wewanted to encourage in our study. Crotty alsosuggests that the stem sentence method is aninvitation to ‘open ourselves to the phenom-enon as the object of our immediate experi-ence’ (1996, p.278). This appeared to fit wellwith the research questions and with ourproposed grounded theory approach to thedata analysis. As a form of phenomenolog-ical inquiry grounded theory focuses on thequestion: ‘what is the structure and essence

of experience of this phenomenon for thesepeople?’ (Merleau-Ponty, 1992, p.5). Thisanalysis method thus ensured that the know-ledge of the respondents was given prece-dence over that of the researchers.

The stem sentence questionnaireincluded 21 stems for completion such as:

When/If my client presents an intense emotion,I…Painful emotions during the coaching processare…Control of emotions during coaching is…Those who freely express their emotion atwork…Emotions that are more difficult for me to dealwith in coaching are…Consequences of suppressed emotions incoaching…

Because of the highly interpretative natureof this study, and the lack of existingresearch in this area, the grounded theorymethod of analysis was designed to takeaccount of the differing perspectives of thethree researchers involved in the data collec-tion. Analysis of this stage of the researchwas, therefore, a co-ordinated interpretationof data and themes. The answers for eachstem sentence were analysed and categorisedby each of the three researchers separately,and the categories compared, discussed andagreement reached for each stem sentence.The agreed categories were then analysed inrelation to all stem sentences, the over-arching categories were identified, and theemerging themes discussed and agreed. This‘triangulation’ involved significant discus-sion of the findings as they emerged andensured that interpretation was as true torespondents’ meanings as possible.

FindingsSix initial themes emerged from the datawhich reflect the personal theories of thesample of coaches. Three of these themeswere related to dealing with difficultemotions and are examined here:




1. Difficult situations in terms of dealingwith clients’ emotions.

2. Difficult situations in terms of coaches’emotions.

3. Differentiated views on clients’ emotions.Each of these three themes is explored indepth below, using extracts from the data.Respondents’ identities are protected usingan alpha-numerical code.

1. Difficult situations in terms ofdealing with clients’ emotionsOur analysis of stem responses indicates thatthere are a number of difficult situations inthe coaching process that coaches perceivedas relating to the emotional state of theclient. They identified examples of where aclient may not be aware of the emotionshe/she is presenting, or emotions are notcongruent to the coaching process, orhe/she is emotionally detached or anxious.The coaches’ responses to these situationsappear to take five directions:(i) Coaches analyse their own discomfort

in the situation and consider it as aresponse to an underlying client issue.In this example the coach infers thatthe client is not expressing emotionadequately: He/she will often displace their feelingsand/or negate others. (R8)In a similar response the coach con-firmed that it would be necessary to:Probe to find out what he/she (the client) iscovering up. (R16)

(ii) Coaches deem the difficult situation tobe an outcome of their own actions orthe failing dynamics of the relationship:I ask myself what’s going on here… am Imissing something. Am I misaligned with where the client is at?(R4)I wonder to what extent they are engaged withthe coaching relationship. (R7)

(iii) The coach tries to actively influence theclient’s emotion:I have a lot of different options and have toact fast. (R2)

I look for ways of engaging their physicality.(R39)It is important to take time to discuss andwork on making them congruent. (R37)I will try to help them to discuss their anxietyperhaps using metaphors or cue cards to helpexpress the nature of this anxiety. (R22)

(iv) The coach considers referral (withoutmention of supervision):I would suggest they may need a differentkind of intervention, e.g. counselling ortherapy. (R7)I may call a halt or suggest a referral. (R16)

(v) The coach sees emotions as normalreactions:I try to remain calm, recognise the emotionand talk about it, ask them what is helpful.(R32)Blocks and defences occur. (R11)It opens up possibilities. (R29)

Many of these responses appear to reflectwhat Fineman (2000) calls the quarrelbetween rationality and emotion. Coachesthat considered referral, as in (iv) above,may hold to the notion that emotions inter-fere with rationality and so need to beexplored outside of the coaching relation-ship, maybe in a counselling orpsychotherapy setting. Responses in (i) and(ii) also imply that there is something wrongwith emotions and the coaches seem toattribute the problem either to the client(covering up or displacing) or they attribute itto themselves and the relationship they havecreated (missing something, misalignment, arethey engaged?).

Where the coach decides to actively influ-ence the emotion, as in (iii) above, it couldalso be seen as a distrustful reaction toemotion, albeit covert. Although they do notgive up on the client immediately, and at firstglance it seems that the coach is workingpositively with the client, they could, in fact,be seen as trying to change or control theemotion, which subtly implies that there isno room for difficult emotions in thecoaching process.

These results on the whole imply that thefirst reaction to emotions by many coaches is


to associate them with problems. Emotionsare frequently viewed as needing to bemanaged somehow and some might evenargue that control of emotions is a functionof coaching. However, research by Richardsand Gross (2005) suggests that control ofemotions can come at a ‘cognitive price’ inthat it may impair the memory of emotionalevents. Similarly, Bono et al. (2005) reportthat employees required to manage theiremotions at work experience more stressand lower job satisfaction. However, they alsopoint out that if managers use transforma-tional and empowering leadership behav-iours then the negative effects of emotionalregulation are reduced. Since ‘transforma-tional’ and ‘empowering’ are terms that epit-omise the coaching relationship it wouldappear that there is a role for coaching herein helping clients to reduce problems suchas stress at work – not through control andregulation of their emotions, but by acknow-ledging and understanding them as normal.

A number of coaches did describe howthey would work with an emotion, helpingthe client to express it more fully, name itand use it productively. It could be assumedfrom their answers that these coaches, at thevery least, are not suspicious of any type ofemotion and they would explore them andwork with them. Examples from the data aregiven in (v) above and could be seen tosupport the aims of coaching. This concurswith Patrick’s (2004) research with coachingclients, which suggests that those who workto understand, rather than control theiremotions, are more likely to experiencesignificant growth.

Our first finding has confirmed that aproportion of coaches in the current studyactively try to influence client emotions.However, some would refer a client,suggesting that emotions are considered asunhelpful to the coaching process, or thatthey need to be managed in some way.Others described a more client-centredapproach that would allow exploration: therole for coaches being to acknowledge andunderstand emotion as normal.

2. Difficult situations in terms ofcoaches’ emotionsThis theme is divided into two parts, A and B.Part A identifies the emotions and emotionalsituations that coaches report impact most ontheir own emotions and test the boundariesof their work as coaches. Part B then moveson to explore the ways in which coaches dealwith these emotional responses.

Part AIn addition to perceived difficult situationsin relation to client emotions, there seems tobe a range of emotions presented by theclient that can affect a coach’s own emotionsand so also create difficult situations in thecoaching process. Our study suggests thatcoaches see difficult emotional situations astesting their understanding of the bound-aries of the profession.

A coach needs to understand the fine linebetween coaching and counselling. (R22)I would suggest they may need a different kindof intervention – e.g. counselling or therapy.(R7)

This is not surprising in the light of themessages given to coaches in statements,such as that provided by the InternationalCoaching Federation, that clearly suggestthat working with emotions belongs todomains other then coaching: ‘Coachingassumes the presence of emotional reactionsto life events and that clients are capable ofexpressing and handling their emotions.Coaching is not psychotherapy’ (ICF, 2002).Some emotions could indeed indicateunderlying issues that may not be appro-priate to work with in coaching and it hasbeen argued elsewhere (Bachkirova & Cox,2004) for the importance of psychologicalliteracy of coaches in order to define if andwhen a referral is necessary. However, state-ments such as the ICF’s may lead to coachesbeing wary of all emotions.

Occasionally client emotions were identi-fied by coaches as impacting on their ownemotions. When this occurs, the client’sstrong or seemingly inappropriate emotionstrigger emotions in the coach, making it




hard for the coach to maintain control ofhis/her own emotions. Control of these isseen as good and necessary. When askedwhat kinds of emotions were more difficultto deal with, and why, coaches replied:

Ones that I can relate to personally might makeme feel emotional too. (R38)They irritate me, and force me to spend some ofmy energies concentrating on dealing with myown emotions. (R16)I get wrapped up in myself and my owninternal dialogue and reasons etc. Self-justification, etc. (R10)

These examples indicate that some coachesare identifying with the client’s emotion insome way. Such identification could be inter-preted as suggesting a lack of understandingby the coach of the role of empathy. In person-centred therapy and counselling empathy isan expression of values and understandingthat results in a ‘principled non-directivity’(Schmid, 2001, p.1). Schmid goes on toremind us that in therapy the attempt tounderstand is not used ‘in order to’. Whencoaches work to understand an emotion inorder to do something with it, or try to useclient emotions in order to help them achievegoals or help them to manage their emotionsin order to placate work colleagues, this couldbe seen as a lack of understanding and, itcould be argued, is a move away from client-centredness. Similarly if coaches avoid partic-ular emotions because they find themuncomfortable to work with, as in the exam-ples above, then this could be seen as a lack ofempathy. Empathy involves being in theclient’s place moment by moment and ‘feelingas if’ (Schmid, 2001, pp.2–3). Schmidconfirms that it is this ‘as if’ that is importantsince it distinguishes empathy from identifica-tion: ‘identification does not pay attention to,and even ignores, the otherness of the Other.Interpretation closes the eyes to his or heruniqueness.’ Although closely related,empathy and identification are also differentin the affects they produce. Empathy producesacceptance, whilst identification may result intransference/countertransference. For someof our coaches the dangers of identification,

or of ignoring the boundaries between coachand client, are very real and could be seen asunhelpful. There are implications here forcoach training and supervision.

In addition, a spectrum of specific clientemotions was perceived by coaches as beingmore difficult to deal with professionally.These included:

Anger (R8, R12, R13…)Apathy and resignation (R3)Lack of drive, detachment (R33)My own fears (R6)Despair, futility (R22)Hopelessness (R25)

Le Bon (2001, p.86) argues that a centralelement in emotions is our beliefs, evalua-tion and judgements. The feeling of anger,he confirms, includes a judgement thatsomeone has committed a wrong. Thisimplied judgement could account for thefact that, in this study, anger appears mostoften as a ‘difficult’ emotion. Our findingsalso support Tiedens (2001) contention thatdepression or fear tend to elicit negativeemotions in others by evoking uncertainty,pessimism and risk averse choices. Similarly,Fischer et al. (2004) report that emotionssuch as sadness or despair produce reactionsof powerlessness and helplessness in others.

There was, however, some usefulevidence of self-awareness in relation tothese specific emotions and the effect theywere having, plus recognition of coaches’own vulnerability in terms of human rela-tionships. This level of self-awareness isessential for further personal and profes-sional development of coaches. In theresponses below the indication is that arational judgement is being made by coachesregarding their abilities to deal with certainemotions. In particular coaches expresseduncertainty in how to handle emotions theyperceived as difficult, and some indicated aneed for ongoing development or training.

I am not sure how to handle them and I get asense of panic. (R28)I am not sure I have the right tools/training orexperience to deal with them effectively. (R36)


Part BWe now consider how coaches reported thatthey deal with perceived difficulties associ-ated with their own emotions. When theyfeel a strong emotion coaches tended torespond in one of four ways:(i) Through reflection and self-

examination, either internally, orexternally through supervision, seeingit in one of two ways:(a) their own issue:

I will reflect on why this is. (R28)I would need to be aware of the impact on my coaching – stand back and reassess the situation. (R38)

(b)or as their client’s issue:I try to get over it but am always aware they might also provoke this in other people so I would consider whether this was my stuff or part of the client issue. (R10)I look for what they are doing to trigger it. (R39)

(ii) Through actively exploring the issuewith a client

Flag it up or bring it into the room. (R11)Will if appropriate discuss this with them. (R34)

(iii) By termination of coaching processI question whether I should have that relationship with that individual. (R24)I wouldn’t continue the relationship. (R35)

(iv) By taking the issue to supervision(although very few respondentsmentioned this)

I need at least to discuss this with a supervisor. (R9)I call my supervisor/mentor for guidance. (R25)

Only one response was to continue theprocess on the professional level (this isnot unusual for similar professions, e.g.counselling)I will discuss with a supervisor tounderstand why. Professionally, I should notneed to feel enthusiastic about all my clientsto be effective. (R9)

The strategy in terms of responsiblecoaching, so as not to recycle problems, is touse some form of supervision. The responsesin (i) (b), above, might well indicate unre-solved personal issues that may interferewith the coach’s ability to work with clients.For example, there could be irrational fearsthat these coaches have in relation to theirexperience, and an outcome would bepossible termination and giving up on theirown and their client’s development, as in(iii). Coaches are not required to work withtheir personal issues in the way counsellorsare, and as a consequence may be unawareof their limitations in relation to theirpersonal ‘stuff’. This appears to reinforce aneed for supervision.

By contrast, in (ii) above there is an indi-cation of a high level of awareness of thecoach, one who is prepared to work in depth.But even actively exploring emotions in thisway needs to be reflected on carefully becauseit could still mask issues such as transferenceor counter-transference. Thus all responsesshould be explored in supervision.

The second theme has identifiedresponses to difficult emotional situationscaused by the range of emotions presentedby the client. Two categories of clientemotion have been identified as having mostimpact: strong emotions and inappropriateemotions and some of these appeared toaffect a coach’s own emotions, in some casesrevealing a strong identification with theemotion. It was evident that most coaches inthis study however, were aware of the bound-aries between themselves and their client.The results suggest that coaches deal withemotional situations in one of three ways: 1. They take time out to analyse and

reflect on the emotion, either viewingthe issue as their own and self reflectingor taking it to supervision, or they see itas belonging to their client.

2. They actively explore the emotion withthe client in the coaching session andtry to use the energy they perceive ascaptured within it.




3. They refer the client or terminate theprocess.

Coaches perceived a range of emotions asdifficult, but saw control of their ownemotions during the coaching process asvitally important.

3. Differentiated views on clients’emotions Court (1995) considers that beliefs aboutemotions are still highly gendered. Thisdifferentiated aspect of emotion could alsohave the potential to lead to complexemotional situations for the coach. In theworkplace, for example, it has been reportedthat female executives are expected tocontrol their emotions as any display of feel-ings can be perceived as weak or irrational(Sachs & Blackmore, 1998). Lupton (1998)also confirms that femininity has been asso-ciated with the emotional and the private,whilst masculinity has been associated with amore rational and public persona.

Gender issues in relation to emotionwere evident in a variety of responses fromcoaches:(a) Some coaches reported no gender

differences in dealing with emotions.When prompted with the stem ‘When afemale/male client presents anemotional reaction, I …’ responsesincluded:

Behave exactly as I would with a male. (R23)Respond the same way I would if a female client did so. (R7)Treat it on the emotion – not their gender. (R21)Respond appropriately irrespective of gender. (R37)

(b) Others had somewhat gender biasedresponses indicating more tolerance tofemale emotions and more discomfortin working with male emotions:

I can probably empathise better. (R2)I would probably feel less comfortable than I would if it were a female client. (R5)

Can probably empathise, being a female myself. (R39)Try to deal with it in a professional, sympathetic, but detached way (I am male). (R9)

The recognition by coaches that genderdifferences exist and that they mightapproach them differently, reflects the situa-tion in the workplace. The conventionallymale attributes of rationality, control andlogic are still positively imbued and in oppo-sition to the traditional female qualities ofemotionality and irrationality.

The heightened awareness necessarywithin coaching suggests that coaches needto recognise that they may hold to certainstereotypes and that there is a need to reflecton this. In (b) above it was evident that evenin an overtly non-judgmental occupationsuch as coaching, some coaches where awarethat they are conditioned by stereotypical,gender-biased cultures. Some coachesconsidered that they would have moreempathy with someone of the same sex andmay feel less comfortable with male expres-sions of emotion.

Conclusion and further researchIn this paper we have presented an investiga-tion of how coaches deal with difficultemotional situations in their coaching rela-tionships. The study suggests that coacheshave very different viewpoints in relation todealing with challenging emotional situa-tions and that an enhanced awareness of thisis essential.

In the workplace, especially with thecurrent stress on being ‘emotionally intelli-gent’, or with emphasis on controlling andusing the emotions purposefully, as in thecase of emotional labour, it is important forcoaches to be aware of how emotions canhelp or hinder the client’s progress. It isimportant too, that they are aware of theirown responses, biases and limitations.Although there was evidence in this study ofconsiderable reflective practice and a focuson development as a coach, the resultssuggest that there is a significant role for


supervision. However, very few immediateresponses of coaches to difficult emotionalsituations included reference to supervision,illustrating probably a stage in the develop-ment of the profession when supervision isonly gradually starting to playing an impor-tant role.

In relation to gender stereotyping somecoaches saw no gender difference in relationto how they would deal with emotions, butothers admitted they may be more tolerantwith females and experience more discom-fort when males displayed their feelings.This is an illustration of how unexaminedassumptions about emotions, absorbed froma dominant culture, might hamper thecoaching process, and points again to thevalue of supervision.

This paper has also shown that coachesare significantly affected by their clients’emotions: none of the coaches appears tohave been involved in a practice where theycould avoid emotion as the ICF statementabove seemed to imply. In fact, the responsesof this sample of coaches show that fullinvolvement in the coaching process impliesinvolvement of the total person, includingtheir emotional characteristics. This maywell lead to situations that the coach mayidentify as difficult.

A further observation relates to the indi-vidual responses to our stem sentence ques-tionnaire which reveal a large variety ofintentions and strategies in terms of dealingwith emotional situations. We believe thatthis variety is partly an outcome of the verymixed attitudes to emotions evident in organ-isations (Fineman, 2000). These attitudesrange from suppression and rationalisationto acceptance and high expectations, espe-cially in relation to the ability of emotionalintelligence to deliver performance relatedoutcomes. We have described elsewhere howthis ambiguity contributes to the spectrum ofpersonal theories of emotions that coacheshold (Bachkirova & Cox, 2007).

In addition, the stem sentence methodmirrors the spontaneity and immediacy ofthe coaching conversation and so we would

suggest reveals individual tendencies, which,in turn, are coloured by elements of profes-sional background and experience. Thus wewould argue that the coaches’ responses todifficult emotional situations and theirpersonal theories (articulated or uncon-scious) might be influenced by current atti-tudes towards emotions, particularly inorganisations, but also by their individualdifferences. Such individual differencesinclude their tolerance of the affective statesof others, their own ‘emotionality’, theirgender and their professional training. Thisis an area for further research

The implications of these findings for thecoaching and mentoring profession aretwofold:1. Education and training would need to

include the nature of emotions andtheir function in individual change; theissue of emotional intelligence withsufficient criticality applied to theconcept, its measurement andcommercial use; the role of individualdifferences in dealing with emotions;the difference between empathy andidentification.

2. The study shows that coaches needappropriate support in order to advancetheir awareness and understanding ofspecific emotions in the coachingprocess and their individual capacity andstyle of working with these. However, inthis study very few coaches identified thissupport with supervision and are,therefore, missing the opportunity toenhance the quality of their coachingwork through individually tailoredprofessional support.

This paper has highlighted some of the waysin which coaches currently deal with difficultemotional situations and has reinforced thecall for supervision for coaches. However,more research is needed. The next stage ofour own project is to examine some of thestrategies coaches have for helping clientsbecome aware of their emotions and to seehow they perceive the role of emotion inaiding performance and well-being.




CorrespondenceElaine Cox & Tatiana BachkirovaWestminster Institute of Education,Oxford Brookes University,Harcourt Hill, Oxford, OX2 9AT,UK.E-mail: [email protected]: [email protected]

ReferencesBachkirova, T. & Cox, E. (2004). A bridge over trou-

bled water: Bringing together coaching andcounselling. International Journal of Mentoring andCoaching, II(I).

Bachkirova, T. & Cox, E. (2007). Coaching withemotion in organisations: Investigation ofpersonal theories, leadership and organisationdevelopment. In press.

Bagozzi, R.P. (2003). Positive and negative emotionsin organisations. In K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton, &R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organisational scholar-ship. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Bono, J.E., Jackson, H.E., Vinson G. & Muros, J.(2005). Under review at Journal of AppliedPsychology.

Brody, L. (1997). Gender and emotion: Beyondstereotypes. Journal of Social Issues, 53(2), 369.

Court, M. (1995). Good girls and naughty girls. In B.Limerick & R. Lingard (Eds.), Gender andchanging emotional management. Sydney: Hodder &Stoughton.

Crotty, M. (1996). Doing phenomenology. In P. Willis& B. Neville (Eds.), Qualitative research practice inadult education. Melbourne: David LovellPublishing.

Ellis, D. & Cromby, J. (2004). It’s not always good totalk. The Psychologist, 17, 630–631.

Fineman, S. (Ed.) (2000). Emotions in organisations(2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Fineman, S. (2005). Appreciating emotion at work:paradigm tensions. International Journal of WorkOrganisation and Emotion, 1(1), 4–19.

Fischer, A., Rotteveel, M., Evers, C. & Manstead, A.(2004). Emotional assimilation: How we areinfluenced by others’ emotions. Cahier dePsychologie Cognitive, 22, 223–245.

Gherardi, S. (1995). Gender, symbolism, and organiza-tional cultures. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publica-tions.

Greenberg, L. (2003). Emotion focused therapy. Wash-ington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Gross, J., Richards, J. & John, O. (2006). Emotionregulation in everyday life. In D. Snyder, J.Simpson & J. Hughes (Eds.), Emotion regulation incouples and families: Pathways to dysfunction andhealth. Washington DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

ICF (2002). The Nature and Scope of Coaching,International Coaching Federation,.http://www.coachfederation.org/ICF/For+Coaching+Clients/Selecting+a+Coach/Nature+and+Scope+of+Coaching/Accessed 3 April, 2006.

Le Bon, T. (2001). Wise therapy. London; Continuum.Lupton, D. (1998). The emotional self. London: Sage.Mark, A. (2005). Organising emotions in health care.

Journal of Health Organization and Management,19(4/5), 277–289.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1992). Phenomenology of perception.London: Routledge.

Opengart, R. (2005). Emotional intelligence andemotion work: Examining constructs from aninterdisciplinary framework. Human ResourceDevelopment Review, 4(1), 49–62.

Patrick, C. (2004). Coaching: Should we enquire intoemotional aspects of the client’s experience? OxfordBrookes University: MA Thesis.

Pizarro, D. (2000). Nothing more than feelings? Therole of emotions in moral judgement. Journal forthe Theory of Social Behaviour, 30(4), 355–374.

Richards, J. & Gross, J. (2005). Personality andemotional memory: How regulating emotionimpairs memory for emotional events. Journal ofResearch in Personality (need volume no)

Sachs, J. & Blackmore, J. (1998). You never show youcan’t cope: Women in school leadership rolesmanaging their emotions. Gender and Education,10(3), 265–279.

Salovey, P. & Mayer, J. (1990). Emotional intelligence.Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185–211.

Schmid, P. (2001). Comprehension: The art of notknowing. Dialogical and ethical perspectives onempathy as dialogue in personal and person-centred relationships. In S. Haugh & T. Merry(Eds.), Empathy. Llongarron, Ross-on-Wye: PCCSBooks.


Simpson, R. & Smith, S. (2005). Emotional labourand organisations: A developing field. Highlights,Autumn.http://www.inderscience.com/www/newsletterarticle_winter2006.pdf Accessed 31 October, 2006.

Smith, J. & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretativephenomenological analysis. In J. Smith (Ed.),Qualitative psychology. London: Sage.

Smith, P. & Sharma, M. (2002). Rationalising thepromotion of non-rational behaviours in organi-sations. The Learning Organization, 5(2), 197–201.

Speedy, S. (2005). Emotions and emotionality inorganisations. Australian Journal of Business andSocial Inquiry, 3.www.scu.edu.au/schools/socialsciences/ajbsi/papers/Vol3/speedy.pdfAccessed 18 April, 2006.

ten Bos, R. & Willmott, H. (2001). Towards a post-dualistic business ethics: Interweaving reasonand emotion in working life. Journal of Manage-ment Studies, 38(6), 769–793.

Tiedens, L.Z. (2001). Anger and advancement versussadness and subjugation: The effect of negativeemotion on social status conferral. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 80, 86–94.

Whitmore, J. (1996). Coaching for performance.London: Nicholas Brealy Publishing.



THE SPECIAL GROUP IN COACHING PSYCHOLOGY

3rd

National Coaching Psychology Conference17th and 18th December 2007

To be held at City University, London, UK

Invitation to submit a Paper, Poster or Symposium onCoaching Psychology

The SGCP 3rd National Conference will provide an engaging forum toexplore, understand and discuss topics central to Coaching Psychology.

We are keen to encourage the research and study of CoachingPsychology across personal, organisational and training contexts.

Your contribution is central to our conference. If you are conducting newor ongoing research, or have completed research in any area ofCoaching Psychology theory or professional practice, we would

welcome your submission of a Focused Paper, Poster, Skills-basedsession or Symposium.

Conference Themes:

Capitalising on emerging research and practices relevant in today’s context, ouremerging themes of the 3rd National Conference include:

• Transpersonal Coaching • Multicultural Coaching• Health Coaching • The Coaching Relationship• The Evidence Base for Coaching

Psychology• Coaching Psychology and Return on

Investment

However, research submissions on any area in coaching psychology are welcome.

For further information about the conference please see the ‘News Page’ of the SGCP

website on: http://www.sgcp.org.uk/coachingpsy/news. For an Abstract SubmissionForm and guidelines for submission, email Tracy White on [email protected].

The 2007 membership fee to join SGCP is £3.50. SGCP membership benefits include membership rates at our events and free copies of the ‘International Coaching Psychology

Review’ and ‘The Coaching Psychologist’. BPS members can join now and obtain the discounted conference fee.

COACHING SHALL BE presented as aspecific form of conversational processbetween a coach and a focus person –

the coachee – with the aim to give the focusperson a developmental space and therebythe possibility for reflection and renewedunderstanding: (1) about his/her own expe-riences in relation to a specific context; and(2) about specific relationships, co-ordi-nated actions with others and about theprocesses of negotiation in a specific socialsituation.

What is coaching?Coaching – in this case individual coaching –shall be defined as the coach’s participationin the development and learning process ofthe person in focus. This process creates thefoundation for new, alternative, or revisednarratives of the focus person’s personal andprofessional life.

Coaching is a form of conversation whichalways shall be related to a specific contextand situation in which the focus person isexperiencing something significant andchallenging – challenging in the sense thatthe focus person is governed by a desire foran in-depth reflection, understanding andchange of him- or herself and certaincircumstances in their life or work (see:

Stober & Parry, 2005). Coaching shall bediscussed in relation to learning and devel-opment and as processes that can be relatedto the focus person’s interest and funda-mental preparedness to have their currentview of reality unravelled. In coaching, theperson’s own dialogue will be stimulated byplacing an emphasis on selected situations,contexts and challenges, and in such aprocess the coach is acting as a facilitator ofthis dialogue. In spite of the focus person’srelatively central position in his or her owndevelopmental process one must, neverthe-less, be aware that new realities and newnarratives are formed by the focus persontogether with the coach through their conver-sation and co-creation of meaning. In thisdialogue the coach must take on a position,in which he or she is aware of the risk ofinadvertedly influencing the process of co-creation. Thus, it is important that thecoach, through education and supervision,has been addressing his or her own weak-nesses and possible problem areas. This self-knowledge of the coach is the basis for aprofessional attitude and work ethics whichhelp to prevent an uncontrollable influenceof coach interventions in the progress of theconversation.

Coaching: A process of personal andsocial meaning makingReinhard Stelter

In this article, coaching shall be presented as a specific form of conversational process between a coach anda focus person – the coachee – with the aim to give the focus person a developmental space and thereby thepossibility for reflection and renewed understanding: (1) about his/her own experiences in relation to aspecific context; and (2) about specific relationships, co-ordinated actions with others and about theprocesses of negotiation in a specific social situation. Theoretically, the ambition is to combine aphenomenological and experience-based perspective with a social constructionist-relational perspective. Bothapproaches base their ideas on concepts of meaning. It is the aim of the author to integrate these twoapproaches both theoretically and in regard to their applicability in the coaching process. Keywords: coaching, meaning making, narrative, social constructionist, coaching relationship,phenomenology.



Reinhard Stelter

Meaning as a central concept incoachingIn the following meaning is introduced as acentral concept for the purpose of under-standing the focus person’s personal andsocial reality and his or her pattern of actionand practice. Meaning is essential becausepeople ascribe their experiences, theiractions in life or work and their interactionswith specific meanings. Things appear asmeaningful when people understand andmake sense of their way of thinking, feelingand acting. People do, for instance, createspecific narratives about themselves and theworld they live in. This understanding is acontinuous interpretative process which is,amongst other things, based on the indi-vidual’s previous knowledge, experiences,emotions, believes and attitudes towards anactual situation. This process forms the indi-vidual’s current sense of reality. Meaning isfar from being the same as the term informa-tion as used in the concept of data processingin common information technology. Thehuman being functions in a totally differentway than a computer, as is emphasised byJerome Bruner (1990), an influential advo-cate of a culture and action orientation inpsychology. In Bruner’s understanding,human beings are not a ’data processingdevise’ but, rather, are interpreting theirsurroundings, other people and themselveson the basis of their dynamic interactionwith the surrounding world.

The article is based on the understandingof two essential ways of meaning makingwhich will be presented and related to twoconcepts of learning and understanding thatcan characterise the process of coaching:1. Meaning is formed through the actual

experiences and (implicit) knowledgethe individual acquires in the differentlife contexts. This concept of experientialmeaning making will be linked to theconcept of aesthetic learning.

2. Meaning is shaped through socialnegotiation and narratives that describethe focus person’s life practice. Thisprocess of meaning making will be

related to a form of social learningaiming at understanding relationshipsand the importance of others for creatingreality.

These two concepts of meaning making arevital for the theoretical foundation forcoaching presented in this article. If thecoach does not support the focus person inthe process of meaning making coachingbecomes a superficial conversation whichdoes not seriously affect the focus person’sunderstanding of reality and life practice.The following presentation can therefore beviewed as a meta-theoretical framework forthe coaching process, which is the founda-tion for the very method and technique inthe coaching intervention.

The article is divided in two central chapters presenting these two essentialapproaches and their implications for thecoaching practice:

I. Experiences and knowledge – about aesthetic learning in coachingOur actions and ways of living and workingare influenced by earlier experiences andknowledge and are at the same time based on:(1) how we sense things in the here-and-nowand, thus, how we relate to the situation andcontext that we currently are in or which we,in a coaching session, convey to the presentmoment of the conversation. Often, thissensing and experiencing of the situation ispre-reflective (i.e. it is preconscious and notverbalised). In many situations we act on our‘auto pilot’, which means on the basis ofhabits, routines and internalised processes.In that way we are able to handle complexlife situations without experiencing an over-load of our mental processing. Therefore,the individual will often be acting on thebasis of a tacit or implicit knowledge which isonly available through immediate action in aknown context or through conversationwhere one attempts to transfer the tacitknowledge to language (Polanyi, 1966).

The objective is that coaching can be animportant way to help the focus person toput the implicit into words, and thereby


make his or her actions reflective andpresent. In this way coaching is facilitatingan aesthetic awareness. The focus person isgiven the opportunity to revisit and speakabout previous significant or challengingsituations and thereby achieves a deeperunderstanding of his/her thinking, feelingsand reflections in the given course ofactions. With this focus on implicit, tacit andprocedural knowledge coaching can helpstimulate aesthetic learning processes. Ineveryday language the word aesthetic is asso-ciated with artistic expression and the beau-tiful, but here the original linguisticmeaning of the aesthetic concept is used.This concept stems from the two Greekwords, aisthetikos, which means ‘as regards tosensing’, and aisthanesthai, which means‘sense, feel’. This awareness on the aestheticand the reflections developed during theconversation with the coach can be a goodpoint of departure for the creation of alter-native narratives in relation to the specificchallenge and the development of newperspectives on certain tasks and situationswith which the focus person is faced.

Aesthetic learningI will consider aesthetic learning as a partic-ular cognitive process based on a bodily-perceptual involvement from a first-personperspective, a pre-reflective approach to theworld that does not immediately offer accessto a reflexive and verbal realisation. It is‘lived experience associated with cognitive andmental events’ (Varela & Shear, 1999, p.1).By focusing on the first-person perspectiveand by trying to verbalise the implicit in thecoaching process, the focus person creates agood basis for an understanding of theaesthetic-sensual perception and experiencein actual situations. This perspective will beexplored in the following way:● The first-person approach is a perceptual

and embodied perspective. This means thatcognitive processes are situated, concreteand incorporated by the individual. Thisunderstanding of cognitive processes isalso gaining ground in cognitive science

– and represents a movement away fromthe idea that our cognition and thinkingare functioning as a kind of computerand towards an understanding which isbased on sensory-motor coordination.Varela, Thompson and Rasch (1993, p.9)talk about ‘cognition as enaction’.

● Through the intermediate sensory experienceand orientation which is provided by thefirst-person perspective, the focus persongains access to an understanding of him-or herself and the world which goesdeeper than the ordinary reflective andlinguistically rooted understanding. Theaesthetic-sensual understanding is builton the basis of an analogue mode ofinformation processing where the worldis perceived of in complete entities andnot in fractions and is best verbalised bythe use of metaphors or linguisticpictures of the things one wishes todescribe (Lakoff, 1987).

● The sensory-aesthetic and first-personperspective rests on the person’s directrelation to the specific situation, which isembedded through concrete actions orimagined actions (i.e. visualisation) in thepresent moment. The first-person approachtakes place through sensory governedand situated actions (Varela, Thompsonand Rosch, 1993). The body isincorporating the situation, and the selfis embedded in the context. This sensoryand mindful attention is the basis for ameaningful understanding of thesituation.

● The first person approach is producingpersonal meaning and significance that isbased on the person’s experience,interpretation and understanding of thesituation. The focus person is sensinghis/her surroundings and creatinghis/her own reality through the meaningcreating interplay which the person ishaving with the context. Through theincorporation of the surroundings thesituation is experienced as meaningful(Merleau-Ponty, 1962).

Coaching: A process of meaning making


Reinhard Stelter

● The first person approach is orientatedtowards knowing-how (Ryle, 1949); that is,I am involved in the situation, I amperceptually governed via the immediateinvolvement and handling of thesituation; I am in the situation via the pre-reflexive and practically embeddedintentionality; I do not think about rulesfor my actions, and things happen while Iact. My action is based on a spontaneousand non-verbal knowledge. My actionsare part of my sensory-motor habits andmy practical consciousness.

By being coached from the first-personperspective the focus person gets an imme-diate and initial understanding of his or herposition in the actual context and situationwhich he or she has chosen to take up in theconversation with the coach. This approachto coaching shall be described more in-depth in the following section.

Coaching can uncover the implicitIn the aesthetic perspective the coachingprocess revolves around attention to andperceptual awareness of specific and selectedsituations with a focus on revisiting an eventfrom a here-and-now perspective. Coachingdeals with putting words on one’s felt sense(Gendlin, 1997) and this warrants a transfor-mation (Stelter, 2000) in the following way:The felt sense is reformatted in a process ofsymbolisation into linguistic expression. Thechallenge lies in the focus person’s ability toexpress experiences in a language. Stevens(2000) describes the challenges in thisprocess as follows:

If I wish to communicate to you anexperience I have had, I can only do itthrough some system of symbolic forms,probably words. But, there are seriousdifficulties here for a listener who wantsto understand what I am expressing. It isnot a simple question of getting therecord of the actual words I use or havein mind. It is about knowing whatmeanings they signify (i.e. about themeaning systems they relate to). Oneproblem here is that communication

depends on the experiencers’ ability toexpress themselves: how articulate, howskilled and expressive they are in the useof language. Another is that the wordsused relate to a diffuse network ofsemantic assemblies both for the speakerand the listener: even if we attempt toarticulate a particular cluster, where dowe begin and stop? Thirdly, we dependon the researcher’s or listener’s ability toreconstruct or interpret what is heard.We share understanding with the speakeronly in so far as we have equivalentsemantic systems (and ones related tosimilar linguistic tags) which can bestimulated in us. (p.115)

The coach should support this process ofverbalising experiences and knowledge by,for example, inviting the focus person toemploy metaphors and analogies in his/heruse of language. The aim is to facilitate thefocus person in getting in contact withhis/her implicit knowledge and felt sense inrelation to a specific situation. With this chal-lenge in mind some key elements and prin-ciples will be presented in the following:

Attention on the present momentThe first fundamental principle that enablessensory-aesthetic experiences is the indi-vidual’s orientation towards the situationhere-and-now. In the present moment thefocus is on the immediate experiences thatare connected to this situation. Daniel Stern(2004) describes the present moment as asubjective, psychic process unit that one isaware of. He highlights that the presentmoment is not the verbal description of amoment. The experience enacted in thepresent moment gives rise to both Erlebnis(immanent lived experience) and Erfahrung(experiential apprehension of self and situa-tion). The present moment can be experi-enced in the concrete situation: I am aware ofwhat I am doing and things are developingin the flow of the action. The Greek describethis perspective as kairos which stands for ’theappropriate moment’ or the moment wherethings happen. Kairos is orientated towards


action – an action that is emerging, butwhich one is far from able to describethrough words. Kairos is being related toknowing how. There is an inherent ‘logic’ inpractice, and this logic takes shape in thepresent moment which is, at the same time,containing kairos. The quality of thismoment lies in the individual’s attentivefocus on the flow of the action and thefactors in the environment, the task and theperson that actually define the action. Theindividual’s alertness and sensory awarenessin the situation develop an orientation thatmakes the individual ready to verbalise someof the experiences of the moment andthereby to work towards new perspectives.This internal readiness is also an importantelement in the psychological understandingwhich Stern also considered in his ideasabout present moments in psycho-therapyand everyday life.

Being in epochéThis attention and perceptual awarenesstowards the here-and-now of a situation isbased on epoché, meaning suspension of judge-ment. The term comes originally from Greekphilosophy, there defined as a principle orig-inally espoused by non-dogmatic philoso-phical Sceptics of the ancient GreekAcademy. Scholars used epoché when theyviewed an epistemological problem as insolv-able. When a controversy arose, the proposalwas then to show an attitude of non-involve-ment in order to gain peace of mind for dailyliving. Edmund Husserl (1985), the founderof Phenomenology, saw epoché or the methodof phenomenological reduction as the ‘basicmethod to a pure psychology’ (p.201). Hedescribed his understanding of epoché as anopportunity to sharpen consciousness. Thefreedom from judgment that describes epochécan also be seen as a fundamental attitudeboth of the coach towards his or her focusperson and of the focus person in order to move closer to the core of thechallenge or the situation which he or shehas chosen to address. Depraz and Varela(2000) present three phases in the epoché:

1. Suspension of the habitual thoughts; 2. Conversion or reorientation of attention from’the external’ to ’the internal’; and, 3. Letting-go or responsiveness towards theimmediate experiences and knowledge.Epoché implies an attentive and non-judge-mental shift of the focus person to the actand activity itself, a shift which is based onbeing in the present moment.

Attention on and awareness of the person-situation relationshipThis absorption in and awareness of the situ-ation is based on two forms of intentionalrelation which the focus person has towardshis or her environment: 1. The person has an immediate, implicit

and often non-verbalised relationship tohis or her environment and the actualsituation (Merleau-Ponty, 1994). In theinterplay between perception and action,the focus person relates him- or herself toa specific context in a specificenvironment. Coaching questions in thisline of thought would draw on methodswhich in example are based on epoché orfocusing (Gendlin, 1982).

2. The focus person has an intentionalrelationship to the environment which isbased on goal-orientation (Frese &Sabini, 1985). This type of intentionalorientation is generally easier to describein words than is the former. Here, thecoaching conversation has its point ofdeparture in questions about values,purposes and goals in relation to a specificactivity which the focus person isoccupied with.

The presented ideas of intentionality can berelated to the (mental) ecological psycho-logy (e.g. Gibson, 1966, 1979), who used theterm affordance – here defined as an actionpossibility from the environment which the actoris aware of and which then might lead tospecific intentions and actions in the contextgiven. A specific constellation in the environ-ment invites the individual to carry out anaction where the interaction between theperson and the environment leads to a



Reinhard Stelter

mutual match of the two. Here, Gibsonemphasises the fundamental informationwhich is encoded in the environment andwhich appears in the form of affordances(Gibson, 1979). In order to strengthen thefocus person’s perceptual awareness on envi-ronmental possibilities, the coach might askquestions that help the focus person tobecome more sensitive about the chosen situ-ation, to discover other possible ways ofunderstanding it and finally to develop newways of acting in similar and future situations.

The following graphical presentationsketches a number of focus points that mightsupport the coach to develop questions thatencourages the focus person to elaborate onhis or her position and orientation towardsthe actual situation which the focus personregards as challenging and wishes toexamine in-depth (see Figure 1).

These focus points can also be used whenthe coach chooses to ask hypothetical ques-tions (De Jong & Berg, 1997) that invite thefocus person to reflect on selected situationsin which the focus person could act/couldhave acted differently or that could be desir-able or exceptional.

Figure 1: Focus points for the development of questions in relation to the actual context and situation which the focus person wishes to examine in the

coaching session.

Theconcretesituation

Competences

Relationshipsto other

individuals

Anticipatedconsequences

Expectations

Perspectiveon actions(Values, plans,

purposes, goals)

Views and positions of others

Contextualframework

Interest

Personal belief and attitudes


This article’s first main section can beconcluded in the following way: The focushere was on experience and (tacit) knowledge ofconcrete situations and contexts and theirimportance to the focus person’s opportunityto interpret and develop his or her under-standing of his own subjective reality. Coachingin this domain facilitates the focus person’saesthetic learning processes. The coachingconversation must give the focus person anopportunity for immediate awareness andperceptual examination of experienced real-ities in the past, present and possible future.At the same time the conversation shouldinvite alternative interpretations of these real-ities and focus the attention on a situation-specific view in a possible future. In essence:It is the individual who through his or herinteraction with the environment is shapinghis or her own subjective reality, a reality whichis not finite but one which is changing whenlooking at it from a new perspective – aperspective which is facilitated by the coachthrough questions that sharpen the attentionon the situation and context chosen by thefocus person.

II. Negotiation in practice –understanding relational processes incoachingIn the following section the particular focuswill be on social meaning-making as the secondmeta-theoretical basis for coaching. Socialmeaning-making is based on the socialconstructions of reality, a reality which isconstructed exclusively though joint-actionor co-action with others (e.g. in a workplace,family, or class at school) and which isformed in the relations that the focus personis part of (Gergen, 1994). Although thefocus person may have an impression ofacting on the basis of his or her own inten-sions and will, all these actions are at thesame time based on an interaction withother people in the concrete context inwhich one is taking part in. In this line ofthought, all actions can be defined as joint-actions or co-actions with concrete or imag-ined others. Meaning is developed in

interaction with others in a form of negotia-tion which generates a specific social realitywhich then is experienced as meaningful tothe implicated parties (Bruner, 1991). As thisreality is constructed in socially co-ordinatedprocesses, it is also shaped differently as itdepends on the context (e.g. a situation atwork, in the family or in the company offriends). Pearce and Cronen (1980) describethis social interrelatedness with the term Co-ordinated Management of Meaning (CMM).We co-create a specific life or work practicewith the people involved in specific contexts.These contexts produce a practice that comesinto play in co-actions or joint-actions withthe participants that are part of a certaincommunity of practice, e.g. a work unit, aproject group, a sports team, a school class.These actions are concrete and physical (e.g.writing on a computer, moving stones,playing ball, having a meeting together) andthese actions are often integrated in conver-sations. The practice we have together, isshaped, developed and changed through thejoint-actions as described above. In this wayevery participants in a community of practicecreate a social reality which is changedthrough the continuous dynamics in thispractice.

This practice is manifested both inconcrete terms (such as a work plan or theuse of specific tools) and through the waythe participants talk with each other (e.g. theway of exchanging opinions or form of aconversation between colleagues handling adifficult task). In the following two forms ofmanifestations or ‘thingness’ (Wenger, 1998,p.58) will be highlighted as based on joint-actions in the concrete practice:1. Acts in a certain context of practice are

established through and formed byspecific reifications, a kind ofobjectification which is created andformed in a specific community ofpractice (e.g. a work unit, a team).

2. Simultaneously the practice people arecarrying out together unfolds throughlinguistic discourses that end up as specificnarratives about this practice.



Reinhard Stelter

These two forms of manifestation of practicecan be seen as an important framework forthe coach in his or her way of leading theconversation with the focus person. Thisframework can be the basis for the develop-ment of an in-depth understanding of thejoint-actions and conversations that thefocus person is part of in his/her practice.Action and language should here be under-stood as connected phenomena that have acircular or interwoven relationship to eachother (Cronen & Lang, 1994). Therefore,the following two separate sections only existout of analytical reasons, but should beperceive as one unit.

ReificationThe use of this concept is based on the workof the Swiss-American educationalresearcher, Etienne Wenger (1998) whostates the following:

I will use the concept of reification verygenerally to refer to the process of givingform to our experience by producingobjects that congeal this experience into‘thingness’. In doing so we create pointsof focus around which the negotiationsof meaning becomes organised (p.58).

Wenger continues:With the term reification I mean to covera wide range of processes that includemaking, designing, representing,naming, encoding and describing, as wellas perceiving, interpreting, using,reusing, decoding, and recasting.Reification occupies much of ourcollective energy (p.59).

Wenger sees reification as a connectionbetween the process in which participants ofthe community of practice are part and themanifestations or objects that this process isproducing. When people carry out joint-action (= the process) they create somethingtogether (= the product). In their jointpractice they produce meaning as an expres-sion of their co-ordinated actions, and reifi-cation appears then as a materialisation oftheir joint practice of meaning making. Thisreification can take up various forms, such as

an abstract formula, a set of rules in a ballgame, a construction drawing, a draft for awork plan or as a specific gesture after alengthy discussion. The joint practice in awork relationship can end up in a funda-mental and more homogenous intentionalorientation in the involved parties. In thebest case this ‘synchronisation’ will lead to awell-functioning and well-co-ordinated coop-eration. If this co-ordination does not takeplace, the process can also produce reifica-tions that express this missing co-operation(e.g. a dispute or the dismissal from the job).However, a certain reification (such ashaving the tables in a class room placed in au-shape rather than in rows) can alsoimprove communication and co-operation.

Linguistic discourses in, and narratives about,practiceLinguistic discourses shall be defined as anumber of statements and language acts, byindividuals in a given context, which are thebasis for developing linguistic systems ofmeaning. In linguistic discourses knowledge,understanding and concepts are shaped insuch a way that they find acceptance in thesocial space and help form the very samecontext. Certain discourses contribute to theestablishing of certain power relations thatfavor certain ways of talking about things andat the same time suppress other perspectives(Foucault, 1972). This understanding appliesboth to small groups (e.g. a division in a work-place or a family) or to society in general (e.g.the way in which people talk about culturaland social integration of immigrants).

In a systemic perspective, this linguisticco-ordination can be described as a structuralcoupling which, according to Maturana andVarela (1987) is present whenever there isprocess of engagement which effects a ‘… history or recurrent interactions leadingto the structural congruence between two(or more) systems’ (p.75). The systems canbe either individuals in dialogue and inter-action with each other (such as a soccer teamor a school class) or organisations (such aspolitical parties and trade unions). All inter-


action revolves around people talking andacting in a specific way that leads to a specificco-ordination of actions and where languagecan be regarded as a particular form of co-ordination of action.

In contrast to the systemic approach,social constructionism does not focus on enti-ties like systems but considers relationshipsbetween people as the central point of depar-ture (Gergen, 1994): Joint-actions in aspecific community of practice developcertain relations, and the meaningfulness inthese actions is developed and manifestedthrough, for example, narratives, which canbe understood as a certain form of reificationof this co-ordination of action and speech.Narratives create cohesion in life. Narrativesalways tie in with the concrete context and tospecific actions and events which the personeither is or has been part of, and they areoften related to other players (such as part-ners, colleagues at work, fellow professionals,friends or opponents). A narrative is formedwith a specific ‘plot’ which gives the narrativea specific coherence in terms of action andmeaning and which provides a basic orienta-tion in form of a guiding clue of the story(Polkinghorne, 1988). Encouraging anduplifting narratives help strengthen corpora-tion in the community of practice. On theother hand narratives can also create mythsabout, for example, certain people in thework place, external relations or certainevents. In this way narratives can create oneform of reality which comes into existencethrough the specific social discourse of theinvolved parties. Events and courses of actioncan take a form or a set of dynamics that lifta team, a work unit or the individual partici-pant and thereby strengthen team spirit andperformance (Patriotta, 2003; Rhodes &Brown, 2005). Accounts and narratives aboutthese events can be formed in such adramatic composition and plot so that theyhelp create a good corporation amongst theinvolved parties. However, narratives can alsoappear and take on a shape that makes itdifficult to develop a good corporation, inter-nally as well as externally.

Coaching: Reflecting on reification anddiscourses aimed at a new practiceThe task of the coach is to support the focusperson in reflecting on the practice whichthe focus person has been involved in. Thispractice is producing certain types of reifica-tion as well as forms of joint-action and joint-speech which the focus person intends toview in a different light and to possibly influ-ence and change.

The coaching conversation can helpdevelop the focus person’s understanding ofhis or her patterns of actions and interac-tions with other people, for example, inwork unit, in a team or in class room. In thatsense coaching facilitates a social learningprocess (Wenger, 1998). An examination ofreification and discourses may, during thecourse of the coaching conversation, creategreater insights in the focus person, withregard to: ● How the co-operation (for example, in

the project group) is functioning.● How the different participants contribute

to the process.● What is being created together with

others in the form of processes,conversations and products.

● What meanings evolve in the communityof practice and how these meanings maydiffer depending on the participants.

● Which values, attitudes and viewpointsare expressed by oneself and others.

● Which differences and similarities arebeing expressed or suppressed.

● Where has one stalled, and where areother participants seen as a hindrance.

● What would one like to see different, orwhat does one dream about.

In a coaching conversation we can also focuson the outline of the conversation in aspecific context, on the practice or onspecific conversations which the focusperson is involved in. It is relevant to ask thefocus person about specific discourses andthe manner in which the involved partiestalk or do not talk, act or does not act, in relation to certain events, tasks and challenges.



Reinhard Stelter

● How do you talk about things thatconcern all parties (such as workingovertime, long term illness, stress, orarriving late at meetings)?

● How do you talk about your own andother successes or poor results?

● How do you talk about the group’ssuccesses or poor results?

● How do you talk about other people(such as colleagues, other work units,managers, customers or trainees)?

● How do you talk and what do you talkabout when you are working togetherwith others?

● How do you talk when things are notgoing well?

The shaping of these discourses is often notobvious, spoken about or directly referredto. Therefore, a coaching conversation canhelp the focus person to improve his/herunderstanding of discourses and co-actionsin relation to the implicated persons and therelations (of power) in which the differentparticipants play their part. Creating anawareness of these relationships, discoursesand co-actions is often the first step to actingdifferently in future situations.

ConclusionMeaning and meaning making have beenpresented as central dimensions in thecoaching process. The coach’s professionalintention and objective is to support thefocus person in order to examine meaning,both in relation to the individual experienceof the context and in relation to the reflec-tion of joint-actions with others in a concretecommunity of practice. In order to gaindepth in the coaching conversation it seemsto be essential to include both the focusperson’s perspective on the experience andto highlight the joint practice and the rela-tions which the focus person is a part of.These reflections about practice – facilitatedby the coach – are the cornerstone forlearning and development which the focusperson is involved in and which should leadtowards a new or extended understanding ofthe focus person’s practice. New perspectivesand new knowledge – possibly evolvedthrough new narratives formed in thecoaching process – can be the starting pointfor an implementation of new practices inrelation to the concrete situation.

CorrespondenceDr Reinhard StelterAssociate Professor,Section of Human and Social Sciences,Institute of Exercise and Sport Science,University of Copenhagen,Nørre Allé 51,DK-2200 Copenhagen N,Denmark.Tel: +45 3532 0866Fax: +45 3532 1747E-mail: [email protected]


Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge:Harvard University Press.

Bruner, J. (1991). The narrative construction ofreality. Critical Inquiry, 18(1), 1–21

Cronen, V. & Lang, P. (1994). Language and action:Wittgenstein and Dewey in the practice oftherapy and consultation. Human Systems: TheJournal of Systemic Consultation & Management, 5,5–43.

De Jong, P. & Berg, I.K. (1997). Interviewing for solutions. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Depraz, N. & Varela, F. J. (2000). The gesture ofawareness. In M. Velmans, Investigating phenome-nological consciousness (pp.121–136). Amsterdam:John Benjamins.

Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge andthe discourse on language. New York: Pantheon.

Frese, M. & Sabini, J. (Eds.) (1985). Goal-directedbehaviour: The concept of action in psychology.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gendlin, E.T. (1982). Focusing. New York: BentamBooks.

Gendlin, E.T. (1997). Experiencing and the creation ofmeaning (original from 1962). Evanston: North-western University Press.

Gergen, K.J. (1994). Realities and relationships – sound-ings in social construction. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press.

Gibson, J.J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptualsystems. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visualperception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Husserl, E. (1985). Encyclopaedia Britannica. In E. Husserl, Die phänomenologische Methode I(pp.196–206). Stuttgart: Reclam.

Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire and dangerous things.Chicago & London: University of Chicago Press.

Maturana, H. & Varela, F. (1987). The tree of knowledge.Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Merleau-Ponty, M. (1962). Phenomenology of perception.London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Patriotta, G. (2003). Sensemaking on the shop floor:Narratives of knowledge in organisations. Journalof Management Studies, 40(2), 349–375.

Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Polkinghorne, D.P. (1988). Narrative knowing and thehuman sciences. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Pearce, W.B. & Cronen, V. (1980). Communication,action and meaning. New York: Praeger.

Rhodes, C. & Brown, A. D. (2005). Narrative, organi-sations and research. International Journal ofManagement Reviews, 7(3), 167–188.

Ryle, G. (1949). The concept of mind. London: Hutchinghouse.

Stelter, R. (2000). The transformation of body expe-rience into language. Journal of PhenomenologicalPsychology 31(1), 63–77.

Stern, D.N. (2004). The present moment in psychotherapyand everyday life. New York: Norton.

Stevens, R. (2000). Phenomenological approaches tothe study of conscious awareness. In M. Velmans,Investigating phenomenal consciousness (pp.99–120).Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

Stober, D.R. & Parry, C. (2005). Current challengesand future directions in coaching research. In M.Cavanagh, A.M. Grant, & T. Kemp (Eds.),Evidence-based coaching, Vol. 1: Theory, research andpractice from the behavioural sciences (pp.13–20).Bowen Hills: Australian Academic Press.

Varela, F.J. & Shear, J. (1999). First-person method-ologies: What, why, how? In F. Varela & J. Shear(Eds.), The view from within. First-person approachesto the study of consciousness (s.1-14). Thorverton:Imprint Acadamic. (also: Journal of ConsciousnessStudies, 6, 2–3).

Varela, F.J., Thompson, E. & Rosch, E. (1993). Theembodied mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice. Learning,meaning and identity. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

References


202 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 2 No. 2 July 2007© The British Psychological Society – ISSN: 1750-2764

THE TEXT is in six parts, each outlininga different contribution of evidence-based developmental coaching to

coaching psychology: 1. Epistemological contribution: Frame of

Reference.2. Methodological contribution: Structure

vs. Content. 3. Cognitive contribution: Current poten-

tial capability (sense making).4. Social-emotional contribution: Emergent

potential capability (meaning making).5. Clinical-developmental contribution:

Work Capacity indicators.6. Outlook on integrating the develop-

mental paradigm into coachingpsychology.

1. Frame of Reference (FoR)It is one of the central tenets of research inhuman development since Piaget (1925)and Kohlberg (1970) that the major struc-tural occurrence in human life span devel-opment is the mounting loss of ego-centricity inall of its forms. By ego-centricity is meant astructural state of affairs in both cognitivesense making and social-emotional meaningmaking in which human consciousness lacksappropriate operations and tools for de-centring from its own subjective orbit.

In cognitive terms, ego-centricity mani-fests as lack of dialectical thinking beyondformal logic (Basseches, 1984), while social-emotionally, it is apparent in confinement tolower stages of meaning making (Kegan,1982). In terms of Freud’s ‘what Id is shallEgo become,’ ego-centricity determines waysof love and social relating generally, while in the

Contributions of evidence-baseddevelopmental coaching to coachingpsychology and practice*Otto Laske

In this article, some of the major contributions to coaching psychology made by evidence-baseddevelopmental coaching, a form of coaching based on research in adult development, are outlined.‘Coaching Psychology’ is seen as a behavioural discipline (Stober & Grant, 2006). Therefore, the emphasisis put, not on the developmental paradigm per se, but on how it relates to working with behavioural datain coaching practice. This amounts to shedding light on the limits of a strictly behavioural coachingparadigm, however evidence-based it may be. Positively speaking, it entails pointing to the enrichment ofcoaching psychology by way of acknowledging and integrating developmental research methods andfindings about coaches as well as clients, and thus their interaction.

There is a common thematic denominator of disciplines using a developmental paradigm in Piaget’scentral notion of increasing loss of ego-centricity over the life span. This notion straightforwardly extendsto behaviour, in the sense of Freud’s ‘what Id is shall Ego become,’ in that Freud’s Ego is exactly where ego-centricity imposed by Id is being lost. If, as happens in developmental coaching, behaviour is seen, as wellas measured, in terms of a person’s level of ego-centricity in its many forms, new perspectives on ‘helping’and ‘consultation’ including coaching arise that are unknown in a behavioural universe of discourse.Keywords: Evidence-based developmental coaching, coaching psychology

*This article is based on an invited paper given at the 1st International Coaching Psychology Conference, City University, London, UK, on 18 December, 2006.


world of work it shows up in the profile of aworker’s psychogenic needs regarding selfconduct, approach to tasks, and emotionalintelligence (Aderman, 1969; Murray, 1938).In Jaques’s perspective on work capability,ego-centricity hampers a person’s Capacityto realise developmental potential, or mappotential into applied Capability (Jaques,1994, 1998). The more a person remainscentred on his/her psychogenic (inborn)needs, the less is there a capacity to ‘put towork’ existing developmental resources,whether cognitive or social-emotional.

In short, prevalence of high degrees ofego-centricity is the hallmark of early devel-opmental stages, whether in thinking, socialrelating, faith development, role play, workcapacity, and other dimensions of humanendeavour. Importantly, this prevalence is anatural occurrence, not a deficiency. It onlybecomes a deficiency when its durationextends beyond certain period boundariesof mental growth (such as ‘late adolescence’or ‘middle adulthood’), at which point itappears as developmental delay (Piaget’sdecalage) or arrest. Thus, ego-centricityentails a lack of readiness (potential Capa-bility) to move on to higher developmentalstages or phases typical of adults.

Admittedly, for a profession such ascoaching – a consultation to anotherperson’s mental process in the broad senseof both ‘emotion’ and ‘thinking’ – thenotion of level of ego-centricity is of centralimportance. In a state of prolonged focus ofa client [or coach] on his/her own orbit, nocoaching method [or coaching practice] willultimately be effective.

A major issue for coaching effectivenessis thus the state of developmental readinessof a client, whether in life or businesscoaching. The same must be said of thecoach whose capability to assist clientsdepends on his/her level of adult develop-ment relative to that of clients. (Whereclients’ maturity exceeds that of the coach,developmental arrest, thus harm, is in theoffing for them.)

It is one of the major contributions ofdevelopmental psychology to coaching thatthe coach becomes no less a centre of atten-tion than the client. Talking about ‘clients’without first attending to how coachesgenerate models of clients is one of the defi-ciencies of present coaching research thatoccurs when there is a lack of sensitivity tothree major developmental tenets:● Coaching outcome is ultimately decided

by the Frame of Reference (FoR) of thecoach which is determined by his or herdevelopmental profile [not by anytechniques or expert knowledge].

● To consult professionally to another party,the coach has to understand that party’sFoR. Otherwise, the coach simplyinterprets the client from his or her owndevelopmental level, therebymisconstruing the other party’s sense andmeaning making.

● A coach can support a client only to theextent that s(he) is herself ahead of theclient developmentally, and then onlywithin the limits of the client’sdevelopmental potential. A coach whooperates at a lower developmental levelthan the client, while s(he) may be ableto provoke behavioural changes, can notonly not promote developmental shifts inthe client; s(he) may even delay or arrestthe client’s adult development.

Informally, FoR is simply ‘how the worldshows up for’ either coach and/or client(Flaherty, 1999), determining what is ‘real’and worthy of goal pursuit for them. In terms of developmental research, FoR results from development in fourdimensions:● Perception and Learning (P&L);● Capacity (psychological Need/Press

Profile, or NP);● Cognitive Development (CD);● Social-emotional Development (ED),as shown in Figure 1.

Contributions of evidence-based developmental coaching…


Otto Laske

As indicated, for both coach and client,FoR is a result of complex interactionsbetween both horizontal (P&L andCapacity) and vertical dimensions (CD andED). The two latter define Capability, whileCapacity (in the horizontal dimension) actsas a filter that determines to what extent aperson’s Capability (developmental poten-tial) can be actualised in performance(applied capability). For this reason, cuttingpeople down to their performance levelunduly reduces the mandate of coachingwhose primary function is to act as a‘transfer function’ inducing higher levels ofFoR, and thus affecting the interplay of allfour dimensions presented in the diagram.

Based on Figure 1, we can methodologi-cally distinguish several kinds of coaching:1. behavioural coaching (disregarding FoR,

and confined to applied capability orperformance, without access to develop-mental insight);

2. cognitive-behavioural coaching (disregard-ing FoR, and focusing on behaviourusing ‘thinking’ tools, without access todevelopmental insight);

3. cognitive coaching (centred on boosting ofCD and P&L, and disregarding social-emotional research findings);

4. social-emotional coaching (focused onemotional intelligence excludingdevelopmental insight; -- much‘leadership coaching’ is of this ilk)

5. developmental coaching (integratingbehavioural and developmental researchfindings, and focused on understandingclient’s FoR).

In terms of Figure 1, it’s clear that develop-mental coaching best does justice to thecomplexity of FoR involved, and thatcoaching psychology is less than it could bewithout integrating developmental insights.For coaching to become a profession suchintegration is indispensable.

Figure 1: The Anatomy of Frame of Reference in Coaching

Capability

CognitiveDevelopment (CD)

Social-EmotionalDevelopment (ED)

Perception andLearning

Capacity FoR

COACHING

WORK


2. Methodological contributionHow, the reader may ask, can consultantsdetermine a client’s Frame of Reference(FoR) empirically? It is here that a secondcontribution to coaching psychology can benoted. The short answer is: by semi-struc-tured interviews that are ‘scored’ (evaluated)for structure, not content. This statementneeds further elaboration.

Everyday discourse is content-, not struc-ture-focused, and, therefore, does not in andby itself deliver valid cues for how a personpresently makes meaning (ED) or sense(CD) of experiences. However, a develop-mental coach has acquired skills (and theo-retical background) to create specialconversations in which clients are led to revealthe way the world shows up for them, bothcognitively and social-emotionally. We speakof ‘developmental interviews,’ and therebymean structured conversations. Such conversa-tions are different from coaching discourse,since they aim for discerning a client’s levelof ego-centricity and thus FoR. In develop-mental coaching, they form the assessmentphase preceding coaching proper; they alsobring a coaching period to a close whenempirical proof of coaching effectiveness isdesired.

Beginning with Piaget, different kinds ofinterviews have been created as tools fordelving into the structure of individuals’ FoR(Basseches, 1984; Lahey et al., 1988; King &Kitchener, 1994; Jaques, 1994; Laske, 1999).Carrying out such interviews requiresknowing the theory of cognitive and social-emotional development, and the tools forprobing ego-centricity as an indicator ofsuch development. In contrast to sentencecompletion tests (Loevinger, 1976) and thelike, interviews are not ‘tests’ but are conver-sations building trust prior to actualcoaching. The notion is that one doescannot know ‘what to coach for’ withoutdevelopmental data.

In these interviews, learning is potentiallylife-changing for both coach and client. Forthe client this is so since the conversationscalled ‘Professional Agenda Interview’ (for

CD) and ‘Subject-Object Interview’ (for ED)uniquely center on the client’s way ofknowing the world, the self, and his/hertasks, staying very close to his or her train ofthought elicited either by ‘cognitive probes’(CD) or ‘social-emotional prompts’ (ED).For coaches, learning these interviews isequally life-changing because they acquirean inkling of their own developmentalprofile, henceforth no longer taken forgranted. (In addition, they learn what it feelslike to be interviewed developmentally.)

A short ED-example will have to suffice. If, in the context of a social-emotional

interview, a client tells you that she recentlyexperienced a situation in her workplacethat ‘embarrassed’ her, you as interviewerhave to determine what level of meaningmaking generated the embarrassment. Theclient might be embarrassed on an other-dependent level where s(he) is definingherself by the expectation of others. In thiscase, the embarrassment arose out of notliving up to others’ expectations. Anotherform of embarrassment is one generated bythe client’s view not to have lived up to herown values and principles. In this case,meaning making is occurring at a self-authoring level which requires different feed-back and coaching interventions. This is asomewhat simplistic example since there areintermediate steps between these twodifferent ED-levels.

Obviously, developmental interviewing isan art as well as a science, that of develop-mental listening, which on the side of thecoach requires complete internalisation oftheory. It is this internalisation that is lifechanging, certainly consciousness-raising,and fortifies professionalism to a highdegree. Why? Because it replaces the coach’sown little personality by a professional personathat rests on impersonating developmentaltheory!

The basic notion in the interview conver-sations is that LANGUAGE SAYS IT ALL,meaning that developmental interviewingunlocks FoR in an inter-rater reliable way.Based on analysing interviews, results



Otto Laske

emerge that professional coaches can agreeand give feedback on. What is more, thecoach can base the formulation of coachingplans on developmental data elicitedthrough these kinds of structured interview.

3. Cognitive contribution (CD)We have seen that eliciting FoR is an skillrequired for determining clients’ degree ofego-centricity in all of its forms, understoodas something that keeps them at lower levelsof realised potential. We have also seen thatFoR has two distinct aspects, a cognitive andsocial-emotional one. As to the former,cognitive, aspects of FoR, it’s important tounderstand that they remain out of reach incognitive-behavioural coaching, simply because‘FoR-CD’ does not have to do with behav-iour, but with what underlines and deter-mines behaviour, so that ‘behaviour’ is anepi-phenomenon.

In researching the development of adultthinking, several different paths have beenfollowed:1. psychometric;2. ‘cognitive’;3. neo-Piagetian;4. ‘contextual’.Berg and Sternberg, addressing adult cogni-tion as ‘intelligence’ (in my view, not a goodchoice), say regarding this classification(2003, p.103):

These four perspectives on adultintelligence offer different answers to twoquestions that have guided the field ofadult intelligence: (1) What isintelligence throughout adultdevelopment? And (2) how doesintelligence develop across the adultlifespan? The psychometric and cognitiveperspectives define intelligence to belargely the same throughout the lifespan…The neo-Piagetian and contextualperspectives hold that intelligence maychange in its composition across theadult lifespan as individuals integrate theemotional and non-rational into thinkingsystems. …these four differentperspectives chart different develop-

mental trajectories for adult intelligence(i.e. decline, maintenance, and improve-ment). However, all struggle with thepotential for both gains and losses at anypoint during adult development (seeBaltes, Lindenberger & Staudinger,1998).

From a constructivist developmental vantagepoint, separating the ‘neo-Piagetian’ and‘contextual’ perspectives is hard if notimpossible to do. In a Piagetian perspective,cognition is based on a balance of accommo-dation to what’s ‘out there’ and its assimilationto existing cognitive structures. While inearly development, accommodation wins outover assimilation, increasingly the latterovertakes the former, and the predominanceof assimilation results in higher levels ofabstract thinking called ‘dialectical’. This isthe meaning of cognitive development over thelifespan adopted for developmental coachingand coach education at the Interdevelop-mental Institute.

In terms of coaching practice, what is thefocus when centring on clients’ cognitivedevelopment? Essentially, it means that inboth cognitive assessments and cognitivelyfocused coaching interventions the coachfocuses on how far clients ‘integrate(s) therational with emotional and interpersonalways of understanding’ (Berg & Sternberg,2003, p.114). Typically, this is accomplishedby way of increasingly systemic thinking which‘sees’ reality as a living system undergoingunceasing transformation, with the self as asystem embedded in other systems. Morebroadly, it means expanding formal intodialectical logic in order to do justice to thecomplexities of what is experienced as real.

When viewing cognitive developmentwith a focus on the development of systemicthinking and reflective thinking, we candistinguish three eras of cognitive developmentbeyond common sense (see Figure 2).


The trajectory is as follows. Late adoles-cents develop the ability to use abstractions,a development that culminates in the abilityto think in terms of formal logic at about age25. Following that achievement – whichneuropsychologically is based on the matu-ration of the frontal lobes – adults developincreasing capability to think in abstractionsat higher and higher, ‘dialectical’ levels.(‘Dialectic’ refers to the ability to ‘split off’one abstraction from another, and therebyrelate one abstraction to other, relatedabstractions not initially acknowledged bythe thinker.) The dialectical turn of adultthinking is dependent upon adults’ evolvingepistemic position – having to do with what forthem is the nature of knowledge and truth,thus their stage of reflective judgment (King& Kitchener, 1994).

How clients ‘think about’ knowledge andtruth shows up in how they justify beliefs inwhat is true for them. As long as the nature oftruth is to be certain, thinking and belief donot differ. They only begin to differ to theextent that truth is seen as uncertain, andthus as requiring justification of belief. Howthis is accomplished is different in the twodifferent logics named in Figure 2, namely

formal and dialectical logic. As shown in thefigure, these logics developmentally overlapduring adolescence until dialectical thinkingincreasingly transcends formal logicalconstraints. When dialectical thinking –thinking in polarities that are broughttogether at a higher level – becomes secondnature, we speak of Practical Wisdom,meaning an effortless kind of systemicthinking focused, not on static things, but onthings seen as ever-changing forms.

These notions seem rather academicuntil one realises that the extent of a client’sdialectical – systemic – thinking or lackthereof determines his/her answers to thecrucial question of WHAT CAN I DO, ANDWHAT ARE MY OPTIONS? At IDM, coacheslearn to determine clients’ FoR-CD by way ofa special interview that is evaluated based onstructure in terms of Thought Forms ratherthan content. To do so enables coaches togive clients feedback on the strength of theircritical vs. constructive thinking regardless ofany specific content. We speak of a client’scurrent potential capability which decides whatthe client can currently do in terms of real-ising his/her present cognitive potential.

Figure 2: Trajectory of cognitive development from a Piagetian perspective.

Start Finish

Practical Wisdom

UnderstandingDevelopment of Logical Thinking

(10–25 years)

ReasonDevelopment of Dialectical Thinking

(18 years f.)

Epistemic PositionDevelopment of Reflective Judgement

(6 years f.)

4 stages

4 phases

7 stages



Otto Laske

4. Social-emotional contribution (ED)In addition to the cognitive ‘what can I do?’question, clients implicitly or explicitly ask asecond focal question, namely: WHATSHOULD I DO, AND FOR WHOM? Answersto this question reveal the social-emotionalaspect of their FoR. With R. Kegan (1982),we can conceptualise social-emotional devel-opment as occurring discontinuously, instages. This development is centred aroundthe relationship of SELF and OTHER, or MEand NOT-ME. Focus on ME is, by definition,ego-centric, but different levels of ego-centrism need to be distinguished. The rela-tionship of FoR-ED to FoR-CD isstraightforward (see Table 1).

In strictly social-emotional terms, the five‘main’ stages – intermediate stages aside –appear in Figure 3.

As depicted in Figure 3, a social-emotional stage is a mode of functioning deter-mined by how an individual’s focus on Self isnegotiated in relation to that on Other(NOT-ME). For instance, focus on Self instage 2 (the ‘instrumentalist’ stage) is verydifferent from that in stage 4 where a self-authoring view of self, manifest in authenticand idiosyncratic values and principles, has

emerged. Considering that there are fourintermediate stages [not shown] betweenthe main stages shown in Figure 3, it’s clearthat transition between main stages can takea decade to occur. In addition, nobody everlives at a single stage. Rather, clients act froma Centre of Gravity, oscillating between one ortwo stages below and above the center, andthis oscillation is assessed by way of a ‘Risk-Clarity-Potential Index’. The index is of highimportance in coaching since it suggests to acoach whether attending to developmentalrisk is a priority, rather than attending todevelopmental potential. Students at IDMlearn to determine a client’s Centre ofGravity, as well as the oscillations around thecenter in terms of lower and higher stagesthrough semi-structured interview.

For example, a client may have behav-ioural (or even clinical) symptoms having todo with relating to others. A developmentalcoach approaches such symptoms very differ-ently if the client defines herself by theexpectations of others (Stage S-3), comparedto a self-definition based on her own valuesand principles (Stage S-4). The behaviouralsymptom in question is the same in bothcases, but its meaning for the client is decid-

Table 1: Correspondence between FoR-ED and Epistemic Position underlying FoR-CD.

Social- Relationship of Self (S) to Approximate Epistemic Position as to theemotional Other (O) Nature of Truth and Knowledge

Stage

1 S is merged with O 1

2 S and O are opposites, 2with O opposite to S and an instrument for S

3 S ‘internalises’ O, becoming 3–4defined by O

4 S experiences itself as a system 5related to, but other than, O

5 S knows to be incomplete without 6–7O and is dialectically linked to O with which it shares common ground


edly different at different stages, and, there-fore, requires different interventions. In thiscontext, having available data on a client’sdevelopmental risk and potential (index) isof great benefit to the coach.

5. Clinical-Developmental contributionWhen bringing together the three dimen-sions of CDF – social-emotional, cognitive,and psychodynamic (‘behavioural’) – eitherin feedback to or work with clients, it isimportant to understand the different levelsof generality of CDF findings, as shown inFigure 4.

While social-emotional findings arehighly generic – there are millions of peoplefunctioning at the same developmental level– cognitive developmental findings are morehighly individuated. As a result, manydifferent cognitive profiles can potentially beassociated with one and the same level ofsocial-emotional development.

Even more diverse are clinical-develop-mental data of the form the ‘Need/PressQuestionnaire’ (NP) elicits which point tothe concrete singularity of an individual

(Aderman, 1967; Murray, 1938). The ques-tionnaire is a deep-digging assessment toolwhose outcomes lend themselves to inter-pretation from a social-emotional as well ascognitive perspective.

Without going into extensive detail, thepsychodynamic data provided by the NPquestionnaire focuses on self-conduct, approachto tasks, and interpersonal perspective of an indi-vidual in an organisational environment. Thequestionnaire views behaviour from thevantage point of psychogenic needs in relationto pressures self-imposed by the client in termsof aspirations [ideal Press] and by the socialenvironment [actual Press] (Aderman,1967). The 18 variables of the questionnaireare evaluated along a Likert scale from 0 to 9referenced to a managerial norm. Wherevera client’s outcomes for these variables lie atextreme ends of the scale, or significantlydeviate from the managerial norm, acoaching problem is indicated.

For instance, under Self-Conduct, aclient may present with a self concept that iseither at 0 (arrogant, unbending, rigid self-perception) or 9 (lack of confidence, self-

Figure 3: The social-emotional trajectory of adult development.

Stage 2 (ca. 15 years)



Toward Stage 5

Focuson

SELF

Focuson

OTHERS

Stage1



Otto Laske

doubts). In this case, there is a significantdeviation from the managerial norm of 3especially on the far end of the scale, indi-cating behavioural difficulties that a coachwould want to attend to. (The finding mayalso indicate clinical symptoms, in whichcase the client would have to be referred to aclinical psychologist.)

When considering psychological data of abehavioural nature (like the above) from adevelopmental point of view, we are essen-tially asking: Why should these symptoms exist?That is, we consider developmental informa-tion as explanatory of behavioural data. A related question is: Given our developmentalinterpretation of these symptoms, what is theoptimal approach to the client in regard to thesesymptoms?

For instance, let’s say we elicited thefollowing data about our client’s interper-sonal perspective (emotional intelligence):● Limited ability to distinguish own

motivations from those of others.● Cloudy regarding own motivations and

their impact on others.● Limited ability to empathise with others.● Somewhat distant and aloof,

undemonstrative.● Likely to question others’ motive.As developmental coaches we ask ourselvestwo fundamental questions:1. What is the developmental explanation

for these symptoms, either in thecognitive or social-emotional domain, orboth?

2. How, given the client’s developmentalprofile (FoR), should the coach workwith the client, and what would seem tobe an optimal coaching plan forapproaching these issues?

The nature of a coaching intervention in thiscontext would strongly depend on how theclient defines herself social-emotionally andcognitively. An ‘other-dependent’ client(stage 3) would have a fundamentallydifferent understanding of these findingscompared to a ‘self-authoring’ client (stage4). Also, depending on the client’s presentcognitive profile, strength or weakness ofsystemic thinking would matter considerablyin terms of how to proceed. (See Laske,2006, Appendix B, for more details on thecase of Sarah.)

6. Outlook on integrating thedevelopmental paradigm into coachingpsychologyAs noted by D. Stober (2006), ‘coaching is allabout human growth and change.’ In lightof this insight, it stands to reason thatcoaching psychology will remain less profes-sional than it could be wherever develop-mental methodology and findings are notfully integrated.

What is perhaps less clear to the coachingpsychologist coming from a behaviouraltradition is the fact that developmental datalies in a different dimension compared tobehavioural findings. Developmental dataflows from a different paradigm that has

Figure 4.

Hierarchy of degrees of generalityof CDF scores

Social-emotional score

Cognitive score

Capacity score


consequences not only for clients, but forcoaches as well. Most simply, developmentaldata lie in a ‘vertical’ dimension that explainsbehavioural data, and thus transcends behav-ioural arguments. This is highlighted byFigure 1 at the beginning of the chapter.

In light of the Constructive-DevelopmentalFramework (CDF) briefly outlined above,there presently exists a ‘black hole’ not onlyin coaching practice but also in coachingresearch. This black hole is due to assump-tions made by the international ‘coachingcommunity’ that closely approximate social-emotional level 3, of other-dependence(Kegan, 1994; Laske, 2006).

Level 3 meaning making fertilises thenotion that ‘coach and client speak the samelanguage and see the world from the samevantage point’ (O’Connor, 2007) while atthe same time the coach as a professionalclaims a self-authoring position (Kegan’slevel 4) as any piece of the coaching litera-ture will show. This espousal of a professional,level 4, position associated with a level 3 method-ology is based on lack of self-awareness, and isa clear hindrance to making coaching a trueprofession. The espousal will continue aslong as coaches do not know their own devel-opmental level and do not regard their levelof self-development as the basis of theireffectiveness with clients.

There would be much to say about thecurriculum changes in coaching psychologythat would need to occur for the integrationsuggested above to occur. I have outlinedsuch changes in a previous article (Laske,2006) when presenting the curriculumfollowed by the Interdevelopmental Insti-tute. Present commercial pressures leadingto a portrayal of coaching as an industryservice make it difficult to ‘come clean’regarding the pedagogical changes thatneed to be made, even in academia.

The pedagogical changes that seemrequired for closing the black holementioned above all regard the fact that, bylaws of human mental growth, coaches live atdifferent developmental levels and ‘coach’accordingly. Coaching from a specific devel-opmental level concretely means that thepractitioner’s model defining ‘who the clientis’ is a function of his/her present way ofmeaning – and sense-making, or self-defini-tion. Developmental levels define limitationsthat cannot be overcome by mere espousal,but require mental growth to occur bothcognitively and social-emotionally. It there-fore stands to reason that coach ‘training’ –or rather ‘education’ – would be the best wayto make a first step in closing the black holeof coaching. Perhaps then, out of an‘industry service’ may arise a ‘profession.’

CorrespondenceDr Otto LaskeInterdevelopmental Institute,51 Mystic Street,Medford, MA 02155,US.E-mail: [email protected].



Aderman, M. & Hershneson, D.B (1967). IndustrialPersonnel Inventory. Chicago.

Aderman, M. (1969). Company Climate Inventory, IdealCompany Climate Inventory and Industrial PersonnelInventory (revised). Chicago.

Bhaskar, R. (1993). Dialectic: The pulse of freedom.London: Verso.

Basseches, M. (1984). Dialectical thinking and adultdevelopment. New Jersey: Ablex.

Basseches, M. (1989). The development of dialecticalthinking. In E.P. Maimon, B.F. Nodine & F.W.O’Connor (Eds), Thinking, reasoning, and writing.Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.

Berg, C.A. & R.J. Sternberg (2003). Multiple perspec-tives on the development of adult intelligence. In J. Demick & C. Andreoletti, Handbook of adultdevelopment. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Cavanaugh, J.C. & S.K. Whitbourne (2003). Researchmethods in adult development. In J. Demick & C. Andreoletti, Handbook of adult development. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

Gerson, M. (1969). Need-Press interaction as related torelevant industrial criteria. Unpublished Doctoraldissertation. Chicago: Illinois Institute of Tech-nology.

Hawkins, R. (1970). Need-Press interaction as related tomanagerial styles among executives. Doctoral disser-tation. Chicago: Illinois Institute of Technology.

Jaques, E. (1989). Requisite organization. Falls Church,VA: Cason Hall Publishers.

Jaques, E. & K. Cason (1994). Human capability. Falls Church, VA: Cason Hall Publishers.

Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self. Cambridge, MA.Harvard University Press.

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

King, P.M. & K.S. Kitchener (1994). Developing reflec-tive judgment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Laske, O. (1999a). Transformative effects of coaching onexecutives’ professional agenda. Doctoral dissertation(2 vols.). Boston, MA: Massachusetts School ofProfessional Psychology.

Laske, O. (1999b) An integrated model of develop-mental coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal51(3), 139–159.

Laske, O. (2006a). Measuring hidden dimensions(Vol. 1). Medford, MA: IDM Press.

Laske, O. (2006b). From coach training to coacheducation. Intern. J. Coaching & Mentoring, 4(1),45–57.

Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development: Conceptions andtheories. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Murray, H. (1938). Explorations in personality.New York: Oxford University Press.

Murray, H. (1948). OSS Assessment of men: Selection ofpersonnel for the Office of Strategic Service. New York:Rinehart.http://allpsych.com/personalitysynopsis/murray.html (see below)http://murray.hmdc.harvard.edu/.www.wilderdom.com/personality/ traits/PersonalityTraitsNeedsHenryMurray.html.

O’Connor, J. (2007). The tale of two books. IDM Newsletter, May, ISSN 1559-7512.

Stober, D.R. & Grant, A.M. (2006). Evidence-basedcoaching handbook. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &Sons.

References

Otto Laske


Excellence in Coaching: The Industry GuideJonathan Passmore (Ed.)London: Kogan Page.222 pages. Paperback. £24.95ISBN: 0-7494-4637-4

Reviewed by Clare Huffington

This book, which came about as a result of aconversation at an Association for Coachingevent, brings together an illustrious group ofauthors, all top coaches and experts in theirindividual fields. In it they aim to set outwhat excellence currently means in thedynamic and evolving field of coaching.They cover this both in terms of presenting adiversity of models and approaches and interms of setting out standards of professionalpractice to which we should all aspire. As an‘industry guide’, it is written primarily forcoaches rather than purchasers of coaching.

The book is divided into three parts. Thefirst, called ‘The Business of Coaching’,covers ‘coaching basics’; ‘What is coaching?’by Frank Bresser and Carol Wilson;‘Coaching with organisations’ by KatherineTulpa and ‘Running your coaching practice’by Alex Szabo. It is intended for thosestarting or studying coaching or setting up acoaching practice.

The second part, called ‘CoachingModels and Approaches’ forms the bulk ofthe book. It contains a selection of eight ofthe most popular coaching models andapproaches( actually six models followed bytwo approaches) with chapters by leadingwriters in each of these areas: ‘Behaviouralcoaching – the GROW model’ by GrahamAlexander; Solution-focused coaching’ byAnthony M. Grant; ‘Cognitive-behaviouralcoaching’ by Michael Neenan; ‘NLPcoaching’ by Ian McDermott; ‘Transpersonalcoaching’ by John Whitmore and HettyEinzig; ‘Integrative coaching’ by JonathanPassmore; ‘Intercultural coaching’ byPhilippe Rosinski and Geoffrey Abbott and

‘Coaching andstress’ by MariaAlicia Pena andCary L. Cooper.The aim is thatthese chaptersare practical andaccessible andmight lead coaches to develop their practicefurther both by reading and securingtraining.

The third part, called ‘ProfessionalIssues’, covers ‘Coaching ethics: Integrity inthe moment of choice’ by Allard de Jong and‘Coaching supervision’ by Peter Hawkins.This section is aimed to take forward thedebate in these areas.

Overall this is an impressive book, largelyfor the achievement of gathering togetherthe luminaries in the field and producing aconsistently organised, accessible and prac-tical read for coaches. Particularly helpfulwas the repeated ‘10 questions to help youon your way’ at the end of each of the chapters on models.

However, with a title like Excellence inCoaching, I had expected a number of thingsI did not get;1. More depth. The downside of the book’saccessibility and practicality was the lack ofdepth and debate in this complex field. Anexample would be the concern about theboundaries between coaching and psycho-therapy/counselling and how to managethem. A key anxiety of those new to coachingis that they will stray into territory outside ofa coaching remit which they feel ill equippedto tackle. 2. There was a significant omission in notincluding in Part 2 a chapter on the psycho-dynamic model. There were severalmentions of the ‘unconscious’ and psycho-dynamic approaches (for example, inJonathan Passmore’s chapter on Integrativecoaching). But he was overly dismissive inthis comment; ‘While many of the psycho-

Book Reviews


Book Reviews

dynamic techniques may work well in thecounselling room, they lack face validity forwork with coaches and are less appropriatefor the short and more focussed work ofcoaching’ (p.142). I have to declare apersonal interest in the systems psycho-dynamic model in that my organisation runsa well-received training in this approach. It isnow a popular rather than fringe model –there have been two books on the subjectpublished in 2006 alone (Newton, J. Long, S.& Sievers, B.(Eds.) and Brunning, H. (Ed.)).3. More was needed on professional practiceand less on models/approaches. The biggaps in the field at present, and acknow-ledged by Passmore in the introduction tothe book, are for outcome research, devel-opment of an agreed competency model,definition of coaching standards and agreedaccreditation routes for coaches, coachingtraining and also for coaching supervisionand supervision training. These issues arebeing seriously addressed by some practi-tioners in the field (for example, Fillery-Travis & Lane, 2006, and Whybrow & Palmer,2006). It would have been helpful if some ofthe key tensions and issues around definingcoaching as a profession had been more fullyset out. 4. I would also have liked to see more inSection 1 on ‘Why coaching?’ in terms ofwhat needs it is meeting in organisationstoday. One of my clients said; ‘Coaching isthe new organisational consultancy’. If this istrue, coaches need a better understanding ofthe organisational issues that individuals aretrying to fix via coaching as this sets a contextfor the huge growth of the market in the last20 years. In my view, it is not just aboutpersonal development (Huffington, 2006).

As well as covering how to sell yourself as acoach into organisations (Chapter 2 on‘Coaching within organisations’ byKatharine Tulpa), it would have been helpfulto hear more about what is going on inorganisations at the moment and what theirneeds are overall and from key individuals inleadership roles so coaches can preparethemselves for what may be asked of them,both achievable and unachievable in acoaching frame.

However, no book on coaching canachieve all that is needed in this growingfield. What is clear is that more scholarly aswell as practically-based books are needed. I would recommend this one as a valuableprimer and handbook for those new to thefield.

Clare HuffingtonDirector,The Tavistock Consultancy Service,Centre Heights, 137 Finchley Road,London NW3 6JG.

ReferencesBrunning, H. (Ed.) (2006). Executive coaching: Systems

psychodynamic approach. London: Karnac Books.Fillery-Travis, A. & Lane, D. (2006). Does coaching

work or are we asking the wrong question? Inter-national Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1), 23–37.

Huffington, C. (2006). Chapter 2, A contextualisedapproach to coaching. In H. Brunning (Ed.),Executive coaching: Systems psychodynamic approach.London: Karnac Books.

Newton, J., Long, S. & Sievers, B. (Eds.) (2006).Coaching in depth: The organisational role analysisapproach. London: Karnac Books.

Whybrow, A. & Palmer, S. (2006). Taking stock: A survey of Coaching Psychologists’ practices andperspectives. International Coaching PsychologyReview, 1(1), 56–71.


Improving Employee Performance throughWorkplace Coaching: A practical guide toperformance managementEarl M.A. Carter & Frank A. McMahonLondon: Kogan Page, 2005.178 pages. Paperback. £18.99ISBN: 0-7494-4464-9

Reviewed by Manfusa Shams

Depicting both positive (happy) and nega-tive (sad and despair) emotional expressionson a human face in the front page, this bookmakes an emotional appeal to offer practicalworkplace coaching guidance to improveemployee performance. It sets out to outlinean interpersonal approach to workplacecoaching. There are nine chapters, the firstfour chapters deal with theoretical ground-work and the last five chapters provide apractical guide to workplace coaching.

Coaching practice is increasinglybecoming a profession on its own. There is agrowing need for a practical guide to helpsetting up a coaching practice as a standalone practice, and this book is a timelyproduction to meet such need, a usefulcompendium for practitioners in coachingpsychology.

The book begins with an introduction topeople management to highlight the impor-tance of an effective performance manage-ment system in the workplace. This briefintroductory section (pp.1–10) shows howeffective coaching practices can improveemployee performance. It presents nineprinciples of a performance managementsystem and highlights the importance ofcoaching rather than supervision in manage-ment in the workplace. The section isfollowed by the first chapter (pp.15–21) on‘managing people’. The chapter starts withan introduction of who is the approach forand the benefits of coaching to improveemployee management and performance.The discussion is presented with key featuresof coaching for people management.

Chapters 2 and 3 provide the ground-work for the practical application of work-

place coaching to improve employeeperformance, hence the discussion outlinesthe essential elements of workplace coachingand focuses on how to get started.

Chapters 4 and 5 present an excellentdiscussion of the way workplace coachingcan improve day-to-day job performance(chapter four), and a detailed practical step-by-step guide to design a structure for aformal review is presented in Chapter 5.Chapter 5 also elaborates the groundworknecessary for conducting a performance-related review for employees and providessome good tips for a coach to manage behav-ioural and emotional aspects during thereview process, for example, good listeningskills, nonjudgemental attitudes confidencebuilding with acceptance from employeeswithin a strict, continuous professionalboundary. Compared to the previous chap-ters, Chapter 6 focuses on actual coachingpractice used by the line managers. Thischapter shows the application of a perform-ance-based approach, which is essentially thelevel of competence required of a coach, andcriterion-based approach, which refers to theconditions accompanying performance andstandard of performance. This chaptercould do with a few more examples to clarifythese theoretical constructs. As it is, thereaders have to try hard to work out whatconditions within employment need to beconsidered by a coach while reviewing and/monitoring an employee’s performance.

The discussions in Chapters 7 and 8 arecentred around the application of effectivecoaching practices to organisationalperformance. Chapter 7 focuses on discipli-nary practice for underperformers andmisconduct at work place with examplesfrom two case studies (pp.115, 119). Chapterseven is useful as it shows the transition fromcoaching mode to discipline mode foremployees from a managerial perspective,i.e. when a line manager can switch fromcoaching employees to a disciplinary action.

The coaching approach to ‘risk manage-ment’ is discussed in chapter eight. Thischapter shows a cost-effective coaching

Book Reviews


approach to assess the risk at workplaceincluding the consequences of dismissal(Chapter 7). A practical guide to coachingpractice involving employees’ code ofconduct is also provided.

Chapter 9 provides a summary of theprevious chapters and includes a reminderof the nine principals of people manage-ment and their use in workplace coaching.The authors have provided dynamic discus-sions in each chapter to show the way each ofthese nine steps can be implemented, theyhave also cautioned about the knowledgerequired to run key activities on peoplemanagement within these nine steps. Theauthor’s reminder for the usefulness of ninesteps for middle managers is particularlyvaluable here. In Chapter 9, readers are alsoinvited to reflect on the discussion aroundapplying the nine principles, as the authorssay, ‘You have now read the book, so you cannow make a judgement about how easy it isto comprehend and learn’ (p.139).

From a practitioner’s perspective, thisbook is undoubtedly an excellent practicalguide to workplace coaching. The authorhas provided a thoughtful critical analysis oforganisational performance with the use ofappropriate coaching approaches, and prac-tices. The discussion of nine principles inemployee management is outstanding. Thisdiscussion confirms that the organisationalculture itself can be a barrier to employeemanagement and performance. In thisdiscussion, the author reconfirms the impor-tant role of organisational culture toemployee management and performance.

A simple yet informative discussion ofbarriers to improve employee management isdefinitely a pragmatic step to ensure theimportance of a practical and appropriatecoaching model (nine steps as outlined in thisbook) to improve employees performance.

The Appendices in this book must not beoverlooked, as here rich case studies arepresented, alongside discussions aroundcodes of conduct, key performance indica-tors, and an executive coaching model. Theauthors’ emphasis on good practice in work-place coaching with specific attention tomanager’s accountability as one of the deter-mining factors around the maintenance andenhancement of employee performance isindicated. Workplace coaching is not aboutjust coaching senior managers with regardsto employee performance but also aboutimproving the senior manager’s perform-ance in relation to employee performance.

The author has used simple language,provided appropriate examples with casestudies, presented diagrams to clarify prac-tical steps, a clear set of professional guide-lines for dealing with employeeperformance, ethics and professionalaccountability. Areas that are not explicitlycovered that the reader might find usefulinclude cultural specific coaching practicesfor minority ethnic employees and specificworkplace coaching practices tailored tomeet the needs of employees in various typesof organisations (such as self-employment,virtual organisations and transculturalbusiness organisations).

Dr. Manfusa ShamsConsulting Editor,The Coaching Psychologist.

Book Reviews

Documents

International Coaching Psychology Review · relationship in the coaching engagement. While strong goal setting and performance enhancement are important features of coaching for clients,