The Effect from Executive Coaching on Performance Psychology

Abstract

In this study, the authors explore the effects of an executive coaching programme on important performance psychology variables (self-efficacy, causal attribution, goal setting, and self- determination). One hundred and forty-four executives and middle managers from a Fortune high-tech 500 company participated in the experiment over a period of one year. Twenty executives participated in an external executive coaching programme and one hundred and twenty four middle managers participated in a coaching based leadership programme. Findings indicate that there are significant effects of external coaching on psychological variables affecting performance such as self-efficacy, goal setting, intra-personal causal attributions of success and need satisfaction. Findings also indicate that there are significant effects of coaching based leadership on self-efficacy among middle managers. However, the effects regarding coaching based leadership are not as strong as those from external executive coaching.

Full text

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.business.brookes.ac.uk/research/areas/coachingandmentoring/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 7, No. 2, August 2009
Page 31
The Effect from Executive Coaching on Performance Psychology
Frode Moen, Department of Education, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim.
Einar Skaalvik, Department of Education, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim
Contact Email:
frmoe@online.no
Abstract
In this study, the authors explore the effects of an executive coaching programme on important
performance psychology variables (self-efficacy, causal attribution, goal setting, and self-
determination). One hundred and forty-four executives and middle managers from a Fortune high-tech
500 company participated in the experiment over a period of one year. Twenty executives participated
in an external executive coaching programme and one hundred and twenty four middle managers
participated in a coaching based leadership programme. Findings indicate that there are significant
effects of external coaching on psychological variables affecting performance such as self-efficacy,
goal setting, intra-personal causal attributions of success and need satisfaction. Findings also indicate
that there are significant effects of coaching based leadership on self-efficacy among middle
managers. However, the effects regarding coaching based leadership are not as strong as those from
external executive coaching.
Key words: Executive coaching, self-efficacy, causal attribution, goal-setting, self-determination
Introduction
In achievement oriented environments exposed to competition, such as companies in business,
the performance of individuals is measured by tangible, objective outcomes based on expectations and
previous accomplishments. Therefore, companies frequently focus on the growth and development of
requisite skills among their employees aimed at maximizing individual performance and corporate
financial return. In order to drive growth and development in such environments, the essential
components needed to optimize psychological factors impacting human performance should be of
great interest to management and employees.
Since 1976 a number of studies have looked at the effects of psychological factors impacting human
performance. Self-efficacy has been found to be one of the most important factors contributing to
success in different areas of life (Grant & Greene, 2004; Marsh, 1993; Bandura, 1986) and refers to a
judgment of ability to perform a specific task within a specific domain (Bandura, 1997). Goal setting
theory has developed over a period of almost four decades and initially emerged from the hypothesis
that conscious goals strongly impact performance, achievement and success at a task (Ryan, 1970). A
goal is typically defined as achieving a specific standard of achievement within a specified time
(Locke & Latham, 2002). The intra-personal approach to causal attribution theory also has a well
documented influence on self efficacy and thereby performance (Arbin, Appleman, & Burger, 1980;
Marsh, 1984, 1986; Marsh, Carins, Relich, Barnes, & Debus, 1984; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2005). In its
most basic form, intra-personal attribution theory is concerned with the reasons used by individuals to
explain why they either succeeded or failed at a given task. Self determination theory states that social
environments which fulfil basic psychological needs for individual growth and development will result
in motivated, engaged and successful individuals (Deci & Ryan, 2002).
Executive coaching is a fairly new discipline related to growth and development, and interest in it has
escalated during the last decade (Grant, 2006; Hall, Otazo & Hollenbeck, 1999). Until recently,

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.business.brookes.ac.uk/research/areas/coachingandmentoring/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 7, No. 2, August 2009
Page 32
evidence that executive coaching could influence individual performance at work was quite
insufficient for such claims (Passmore & Gibbes, 2007) and theorists argue that more empirical
research needs to be conducted (Grant, 2006). The overarching goal of coaching is to actualize the
coachee’s potential capacities, abilities and talents (Moen & Kvalsund, 2008).
In the present study, one hundred and twenty seven executives and middle managers in a high-tech
Fortune 500 company participated voluntarily in an experiment over a period of one year. The main
purpose of this study was to explore the effects from executive coaching on psychological factors such
as self-efficacy, goal setting, causal attribution, and need satisfaction.
Theoretical Background
Coaching
The term ‘coach’ often used as a metaphor for someone who takes people to a desired place
(Zeus & Skiffington, 2002; Gjerde, 2003). Coaching is therefore about establishing a helping
relationship between the coach and the person with whom the coach is engaged. In this study this
person is defined as the coachee.
Theorists tend to describe coaching as a new route to growth and development, which means that at
least some people agree that coaching is different from counseling, consultation, teaching, mentoring
and other helping relationship roles (Downey, 1999; Whitmore, 2002; Flaherty, 1999). In general, the
field can be divided into two different schools of thought, those who claim that coaching is everything
an executive consultant or coach does to realize the coachee’s potential (Kinlaw, 1989; Schein, 2006;
Hargrove, 2003) and those who claim that coaching is a specific method to realize that potential
(Downey, 1999; Whitmore, 2002; Flaherty, 1999). The first group places less emphasis on the
importance of active participation and responsibility by the coachee, and claims that coaching is
everything that is done which results in growth and development. The second group argues that
coaching refers to a particular method and focuses on empowerment of the coachee through active
participation and responsibility in the coaching process.
Both groups agree that the overall goal of coaching is to achieve growth and development. Today,
companies spend millions of dollars annually developing teams and individuals in order to drive
growth and deliver appropriate results, and the marketplace is still growing: in 2006 it was estimated
to be at a global $2 billion per annum (Fillery-Travis & Lane, 2006). Successful organizations in
today’s emerging knowledge economy have to innovate continually to maintain their place in the
dynamic marketplace. Employees are expected to (and expect to) constantly upgrade their technical
and leadership skills (Fillery-Travis & Lane, 2006). In this very practical sense, the growth and
development of employees should be an important factor for organizational success. Self-actualization
is the process of being true to oneself and fully committed to developing one’s competence defined as
“the total knowledge, skills, abilities and attitudes enabling [one] to perform particular tasks and
functions according to defined goals
1
” (Lai, 2004, p.48). Based on this, the following definition is
offered in this study: Coaching is a method which aims to achieve self actualization by facilitating
learning and developmental processes to promote the resource base of another person. The method is
characterized by its active involvement of the coachee through powerful questioning and active
listening.
Executive coaching is recognized as a way for organizations and individuals to improve executives’
performance (Morgan, Harkins & Marshall, 2005). It can be understood as a sub-category of a generic
business coaching term which is primarily concerned with improving performance at work and
1
Translated from Norwegian by the authors.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.business.brookes.ac.uk/research/areas/coachingandmentoring/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 7, No. 2, August 2009
Page 33
facilitating professional development (Zeus & Skiffington, 2002). In business, coaching is usually
delivered by two different types of people (Hall, Otazo & Hollenbeck, 1999); those who are internal to
the organization and those who are external consultants. This study will focus on both external
coaching of executives in business and executives using coaching based leadership with their line
managers for whom they have management responsibility.
Performance psychology
There is a significant amount of research aimed at exploring the effect of psychological factors
on performance outcomes, goal attainment and achievement. For the purposes of this investigation, the
term performance psychology will be used to describe those psychological factors believed to most
directly impact performance in achievement oriented environments.
Self-efficacy. Social cognitive theory is rooted in a view of human agency whereby individuals are
viewed as executors proactively engaged in their own development and who actively control their
actions. The notion of human agency is rooted in the belief that “what people think, believe, and feel,
affect how they behave" (Bandura, 1986, p. 25). Self-efficacy refers to a specific aspect of the self,
concerned with what the individual can do with the skills and capabilities he or she possesses. Bandura
provided a view of human behaviour in which the belief that people have about themselves related to
task specific capabilities are critical elements in the exercise of control and personal agency. Bandura
defined self-efficacy as follows: “Perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one’s capabilities to
organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997,
p.3). Thus, self-efficacy, often called specific self-confidence, is the aspect of self which refers to how
sure (or how confident) individuals are that they can successfully perform requisite tasks in specific
situations given their unique and specific capabilities. This explanation implies a judgement
concerning how well they are able to plan and execute the necessary actions to successfully
accomplish the task. The cognitive aspect of self is therefore prominent, significant and influential in
terms of performance, outcome and success.
Self-efficacy is linked strongly to a variety of behavioural outcomes such as engagement, persistence,
strategy use, reduced anxiety and task performance (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1996; Pajares & Schunk,
2001; Schunk, 1989, 1995). High self-efficacy is also associated with greater cognitive flexibility for
example, through effective use of goal setting, resistance to negative feedback, and self-regulation in
academic situations even when ability is controlled (Bandura, 1993; Zimmerman & Bandura, 1994).
Thus, of all the thoughts that affect human functioning, self-efficacy beliefs stand at the very core of
social cognitive theory.
Coaching is about building competence (Kvalsund, 2005, p.19). Thus, successful executive coaching
should lead to raised self-efficacy beliefs when it comes to specific leadership capabilities. On this
basis, the following hypothesis was developed: H1: Executive coaching improves executive’s and
middle manager’s self-efficacy related to specific leadership capabilities.
Goal Setting
Locke and Latham (2002) highlight several factors which are essential for goals to affect
performances positively (Locke & Latham, 1990):
(1) The goal has to be specific, meaning that it must be both observable and measurable relative to the
desired outcome. This can be demonstrated by achieving concrete results on specific tasks. This
phenomenon of specificity and observation will be referred to as goal setting clarity in the present
study.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.business.brookes.ac.uk/research/areas/coachingandmentoring/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 7, No. 2, August 2009
Page 34
(2) The perceived level of difficulty of the specific achievement task through goal achievement. This
is difficult to measure objectively based on a universal standard of difficulty and is not particularly
desirable according to Locke and Latham (1990). Rather, it is the specific judgement made by the
individual which is the critical element relative to assessing task difficulty. Tasks which are at the
limit, or close to the limit of the individual's capability (rather than being too high or too low) have the
optimal degree of difficulty in order to positively affect self-efficacy (Bandura, 1986). This factor will
be referred to as goal setting difficulty in the present investigation.
(3) The relationship between performance and goal setting is strongest when the individual is deeply
committed to the goal (Seijts & Latham, 2001). The strength of this engagement is referred to as goal
setting commitment in this study. The importance of goal commitment is especially prominent when
the goals are viewed as difficult by the individual (Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck & Alge, 1999).
Difficult goals require greater effort and are associated with lower chance for success than for easier
goals (Erez & Zidon, 1984).
(4) In order for goals to be effective, effective and ongoing feedback regarding one's progress in
relation to goal achievement is necessary (Locke & Latham, 2002). In order to both improve and
achieve the desired performance outcome, individuals need to know how closely their performance
approximates or deviates from the intended task. As Folkman (2006, p. xv) aptly states, “Without
feedback we are flying blind”. The influence of this important moderating variable is referred to as
goal setting feedback in the current investigation.
(5) As the complexity of the tasks needed to achieve a particular goal increases, the individual’s
capability to possess and effectively implement efficient and effective goal attainment strategies is
essential. Since people vary greatly in their ability to do so, the effect of goal setting on performance is
smaller on complex tasks than it is on simple tasks (Locke & Latham, 2002). The individual's ability
to execute necessary task strategies is therefore an important moderating variable related to goal
setting and performance. In the present study, this construct will be referred to as goal setting strategy.
These five factors are defined as goal setting moderators by Locke and Latham (2002).
One of the major responsibilities for a coach is to discover, clarify, and align with what the coachee
wants to achieve (ICF
2
). Thus, successful coaching should influence the moderators of goal setting. On
this basis, a second hypothesis was developed: H2: Executive coaching improves executive’s and
middle manager’s goal setting through the moderators’ clarity, strategy, feedback, commitment and
difficulty.
Causal Attributions
Intra-personal causal attribution theory focuses on the internal processing done by individuals
regarding the thoughts and feelings present during this process of judgement and evaluation (Martinko
& Thomson, 1998). The present study will focus exclusively on intra-personal attributions.
Causal attribution and self efficacy. The influence on self-efficacy is related to different dimensions of
causality for one's successful and unsuccessful achievements. While Weiner (1989) states that in
authentic, applied performance situations, there are literally thousands of possible reasons people give
for success and failure (Weiner, 1989). He hypothesized that attributions hinge on three primary
dimensions; (1) locus of causality (internal vs. external), (2) stability (whether the causes change over
time) and (3) locus of controllability (whether the cause is or is not under the individual's control)
2
International Coaching Federation www.coachfederation.org

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.business.brookes.ac.uk/research/areas/coachingandmentoring/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 7, No. 2, August 2009
Page 35
(Weiner, 1985). Theorists agree that people have a general tendency to utilize self-protecting and self-
enhancing attributional patterns (Skaalvik, 1990, 1994; Zuckerman, 1979; Withley & Frieze, 1985)
which implies that individuals tend to attribute their own success to internal, stable, controllable
factors such as effort and ability, and their failures to external factors that are both unstable and out of
their control.
Self-enhancing attributions generally strengthen an individual's self view and perceptions of
competence, ability and control. Consequently, individuals who attribute their successful
performances to their own abilities should experience concomitant increases in self-efficacy. Because
successful outcomes are judged to result from the individual’s own capabilities and strengths and to be
under his or her personal control, it seems reasonable to hypothesize a positive relationship between
self-efficacy and internal, controllable and stable causal attributions following successful performance.
Because of the tendency toward self-protection, unsuccessful achievements are generally not attributed
to low ability or competence abilities (Skaalvik, 1990, 1994). Research shows that individuals tend to
protect the self by attributing unsuccessful outcomes to controllable factors (e.g. “I can work harder or
work smarter next time”) or to external factors that are unstable or due to external variables such as
another person or the situation (e.g., I didn't succeed because of the unique circumstances in this task
and as soon as those circumstances change, I shall be successful”) (Skaalvik, 1990, 1994; Zuckerman,
1979; Withley & Frieze, 1985). In general, internal, unstable and controllable attributions following
failure lead to positive future expectations of success because the individual believes that he or she can
control the cause of the unsuccessful behaviour (Bandura, 1997). On the other hand, attributions made
to internal, stable and uncontrollable causes after failure, such as lack of ability, may, over time, lead
to negative future expectancies and 'learned helplessness' because the individual perceives that he or
she has little control over the cause of his or her unsuccessful behaviour (Abramson, Seligman, &
Teasdale, 1978; Maier & Seligman, 1976; Dweck, 1975). Because people tend to engage in self-
protecting attributions when experiencing failure in achievement situations, there should be little or no
reduction to self-efficacy beliefs.
Since two major responsibilities for a coach are to elicit coachee generated solutions and strategies,
and hold the coachee responsible and accountable in the learning process (ICF), one effect of the
coaching should be to increase the tendency to attribute achievement outcomes to internal, unstable
and controllable factors, especially to strategy. Based on this a third hypothesis was developed:
H3: Executive coaching strengthens executive’s and middle manager’s causal attributions to internal,
unstable and controllable factors, such as strategy.
The Environmental Influence and Self determination Theory
Based on the view of social cognitive theory described by Bandura (1997), individuals are
both products and producers of their environment and of their social systems. In essence, people are
viewed as self-organizing, proactive, self-reflecting and self-regulating. Human functioning is viewed
as the product of a dynamic interplay of personal, behavioural, and environmental influences.
Therefore, it is important to investigate environmental influences related to performance psychology.
Most researchers agree that motivation has two elements: extrinsic and intrinsic. With extrinsic
motivation, reward comes from the environment in some capacity, either from significant others or
from the use of salient rewards. Individuals also strive for achievement because of internal factors. The
value and importance of intrinsic motivation in the achievement process cannot be overstated. Deci
and Ryan (1985, p. 8) define intrinsic motivation as: the life force or energy for the activity and for the
inward pursuit to feel competent, self-determining and to enjoy the activity. Further, Deci and Ryan
(2002) suggest two approaches to intrinsic motivation:

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.business.brookes.ac.uk/research/areas/coachingandmentoring/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 7, No. 2, August 2009
Page 36
(1) First, they explain intrinsically motivated behaviour as independent of external reward. This means
that individuals find internal, personally gratifying interest in the task and find their reward in a form
of pleasure resulting from trying their best, improving their skills and simply engaging in the activity
to experience enjoyment, competence and personal growth;
(2) Secondly, one basic foundation of self determination theory supports the existence of basic needs
which must be satisfied in the individual’s environment in order to achieve personal growth and
development (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Thus, in order for individuals to proactively engage in their own
learning and development, intrinsic motivation is a requisite and desirable component of achievement
pursuits. Social cognitive theory emphasizes the importance and presence of necessary conditions in
the environment in order to achieve, maintain or increase intrinsic motivation. Furthermore, Deci and
Ryan (2002) believe these needs are fundamental for all humans regardless of culture or stage of
development. They especially emphasize the importance of three main groups of psychological needs,
forming the foundation for a persisting and enduring intrinsic motivation. These three psychological
needs are: (a) the need for competence, (b) the need for autonomy and (c) the need for relatedness.
The need for competence refers to a general feeling of functioning effectively in the social and
achievement environment. The need for competence in the environment highlights the importance of
experiences, or the lack of experiences, where individuals have the opportunity optimally to utilize and
display their strengths and capacity (Deci, 1975; Harter, 1983; White, 1959). The need for competence
also leads humans to seek challenges which are optimal in relation to their ability, skills and capacity.
Bandura (1986) argues that successful accomplishments in these types of task, where demands match
capacity, have an especially desirable, strengthening and positive effect on self efficacy.
The need for self determination, or autonomy, refers to the individual’s perception or understanding
being the source or origin of the achievement behaviour (de Charms, 1968; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan
& Connell, 1989). Self determination implies that actions originate from one's own interests and
values and emanate from personal initiative. Even though actions and behaviour could be affected by
external sources such as requirements for certain tasks or in agreement with determined values, the
individual can still feel a sense of autonomy and self-determination.
The need for relatedness highlights the feeling of connectedness and attachment to other people. It
carries a dual view that the individual is taking care of others and that others are caring for the
individual. Humans have the need to feel that they belong to and with other people, with individuals
and in a community or larger society (Baumeister
& Leary, 1995; Bowlby, 1979; Ryan, 1995). The need for relatedness does not consider the wishes of
others as the sole or primary determinant for specific outcomes, but rather desires a feeling of
integration, acceptance and support from others as members in a mutually safe community.
Self determination theory states that social environments which fulfil the basic psychological needs for
individual growth and development will result in motivated, engaged and successful individuals, who
achieve the desired outcomes in specific, achievement related tasks. Another major responsibility for
the coach is to encourage coachee self-discovery (ICF). Facilitating individual power in favour of the
coachee, through facilitating coachee-generated answers and strategies, is an important issue in
coaching. Thus, successful coaching should influence both self-determinate and competence values.
Based on this, the forth and final hypothesis was developed: H4: Executive coaching leads to
increased need satisfaction among executives and middle managers.
Method
Participants and Procedure

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.business.brookes.ac.uk/research/areas/coachingandmentoring/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 7, No. 2, August 2009
Page 37
One hundred and forty four executives (N=20) and middle managers (N=124) in a branch
leading Norwegian Fortune 500 company voluntarily participated in an experiment over a period of
one year. The twenty executives in the study were the company’s CEOs (Chief Executive Officers)
and they were all in the company’s top management group. Twelve of the executives were chosen for
the experiment group in the project and eight were chosen for the control group. The middle managers
in the study were the line managers for whom the executives had management responsibilities. They
were office managers in different departments in the company. Middle managers who were managed
by executives from the experiment group were chosen for the experiment group for middle managers
whereas middle managers who were managed by executives from the control group were chosen for
the control group. Sixty one middle managers were in the experiment group, and sixty three middle
managers were in the control group at the pre-test.
Pretest- Posttest Control- Group design
After the assignment of the executives and middle managers into experimental and control
groups, a pre-test was administrated. The executives and middle managers participated in an online
questionnaire which measured psychological variables concerning their thoughts, feelings and actions
at work. Then an executive coaching programme was administrated at two levels for a period of one
year; (1) External executive coaching and coaching training of the executives in the experiment group
and (2) Coaching based leadership of the middle managers in the experiment group. Out of the 20
executives who participated in the project at the pre-test, 19 participated on the post-test after one year
(95 %) (11 in the experiment group and 8 in the control group). Out of the 124 middle managers who
participated in the project, 108 participated on the post-test after one year (87 %) (52 in the experiment
group and 56 in the control group).
The executive coaching programme.
At level one, external executive coaching and coaching training, only the executives in the
study participated, they were given experiences as students, coaches, observers and coachees during
the training through three phases:
(a) Coach specific training through workshops (May 2007-December 2007). The executives completed
five two day specific coach training programmes, each lasting for about 16 hours. The aim was to
teach and train the executives in how to use coaching in their executive leadership role, in meetings,
conversations and mandatory results- and appraisals conversations with their employees.
(b) Group coaching (May 2007-November 2007). The executives who participated in the coaching
programme were divided into three different groups (4 executives each). Each group completed four
group coaching sessions for about three hours with the external coaches in the project.
(c) Individual external executive coaching (January 2008- March 2008). Each executive who
participated in the coaching programme completed seven individual coaching sessions with external
coaches. The coaching sessions lasted for about 1-1 ½ hour and were completed both through face to
face meetings and by telephone. The aim was to support the executive’s development and progress as
leaders.
The coaching based leadership program.
At level two the coaching programme involved both the executives and the middle managers.
The executives in the experiment group implemented coaching based leadership with the middle

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.business.brookes.ac.uk/research/areas/coachingandmentoring/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 7, No. 2, August 2009
Page 38
managers for whom they had management responsibility (May 2007-March 2008). The executives
were required to hold a minimum of one coaching session between the coach specific training
workshops with each of the middle managers for whom they had personnel management
responsibility. Each executive completed 1-3 coaching sessions between each of the workshops. After
the final workshop they completed two coaching sessions with their own employees as a final exam.
The exams were judged by an independent external coach and the results were very good.
The executive coaching programme satisfies the training part required by the International Coaching
Federation ACC
3
(Associate Certified Coach) certificate standards except for the requirement of the
100 hours coaching experience with client coaching. The one year executive coaching programme was
developed, led and managed by an experienced coach with a MCC
4
(Master Certified Coach)
certificate. A total of three external coaches worked with the implementation of the coaching
programme.
Instruments
Two of the instruments used in this study were based on previously developed scales (causal
attribution and self-determination) and two were developed for the purpose of this particular study
(self-efficacy and goal setting). The two previously developed scales were translated into Norwegian
by the authors and with minimal adjustments as a result of the translation. All instruments used a
seven point scale, ranging either from completely untrue (1) to completely true (7), or from not at all
certain to very certain (self-efficacy).
Self-efficacy. The importance of reflective and accurate conceptual analysis and expert knowledge of
what it takes to succeed in a given pursuit is essential in constructing self-efficacy scales (Bandura,
1997; Pajares & Urdan, 2006). Therefore, an investigation of the most important requirements viewed
by participants in order to succeed in their specific and demanding achievement oriented environment
was done. This process of inclusion of items was done in close co-operation with the executive leader
group in this particular company. A 32 item scale was developed to measure self-efficacy related to
specific leadership capabilities which were viewed as important. For example: “How certain are you
that you can manage reorganisations and be in charge of internal changes without causing any
particular turbulence.” “How certain are you that you can pay attention to and challenge employees
through encouraging and constructive feedback?” “How certain are you that you can cooperate in an
effective and constructive manner with employees, for instance through establishing effective and
efficient teams?” The participants were asked to consider how certain they were that they could
manage these different tasks and situations on the seven point scale ranging from not at all certain (1)
to very certain (7). The tasks and situations represented challenging obstacles to overcome for the
participants (Bandura, 2006). The measurement is treated as a one dimensional scale because of a high
Cronbach’s alpha (Table 1 and Table 2) and difficulties finding more than one factor during factor
analysis. In order to assure high validity, additional items were developed to measure the perceived
importance of the content of each item, for example, “How important do you think it is to manage
reorganisations and be in charge of internal changes without causing any particularly turbulence?”
Importance was measured on a seven point scale ranging from not important (1) to really important
(7). The mean score for 'perceived importance' for the total scale was 6.2 with a standard deviation of
3
http://www.coachfederation.org/NR/rdonlyres/0B15493D-9EC4-4211-A698-
250FA031F372/7574/CredentialRequirementsChart3.pdf
4
Master Certified Coach educated by the International Coaching Federation,
http://www.coachfederation.org/ICF/For+Current+Members/Credentialing/Become+Credentialed/MCC/

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.business.brookes.ac.uk/research/areas/coachingandmentoring/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 7, No. 2, August 2009
Page 39
.65, indicating that the participants perceived that the leadership capabilities described in the self-
efficacy scale were truly important for them in their roles as executives.
Goal setting. The importance of goal setting moderator variables in order for goals to have a desirable
and positive effect on performance is quite clear from the goal setting literature (Locke & Latham,
2002). A measurement for goal setting based on these important moderators was therefore developed,
resulting in a 15 item questionnaire, measuring the five sub scales. Participants were asked to consider
how true each statement was on a seven point scale concerning their thoughts about their own work.
For example (Clarity): “I have specific, clear goals to aim for in my job.” (Difficulty): “An average
individual will think my goals at work are difficult.” (Feedback): “I receive concrete feedback related
to my goal attainment at work.” (Strategy): “I have concrete plans which tell me how to reach my
goals at work.” (Commitment): “It’s difficult for me to be serious about my goals at work.” All sub
scales had three items. The Cronbach’s alpha of the instruments is shown in Table 1 and Table 2.
Attribution. The 20 - Item, forced choice Attributional Style Assessment Test (ASAT - I) developed
by Anderson, Jennings, and Arnoult (1988), was adjusted and used to measure intra-personal
attributional style in specific work related situations. The adjusted instrument was a six item
questionnaire for specific work related situations (three for positive outcomes and three for negative
outcomes). Four different choices were offered for each item, relating to strategy, ability, effort and
circumstances, which yielded eight different sub-scales. The participants were asked to consider the
causality of their performance at work on a seven point scale, for each of the 4 variables (strategy,
effort, ability and circumstances). For example (item 1, positive outcome): “You have just received
successful feedback on tasks performed at work.” (a) “I used the correct strategy to achieve it”, (b)
“I’m good at this”, (c) “I worked really hard to achieve it”, (d) “Other circumstances (people,
situation, etc.) influenced the result”.
Self-determination. Since the concept of basic psychological needs is central to self determination
theory, the most often implemented tool where used for this study, namely, the Basic Psychological
Need Satisfaction at Work Scale (Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004). The scale is originally a 21 item
questionnaire measuring three need satisfaction sub scales. The authors translated the questionnaire
into a 20 item questionnaire, including: autonomy (6 items), competence (6 items) and relatedness (8
items). The participants were asked to consider their feelings about their job during the last year and to
indicate how true the 20 statements were on a seven point scale. For example (autonomy): “I feel like I
can make a lot of input in deciding how my job gets done.” (Competence) “People at work tell me I
am good at what I do.” (Relatedness) “I really like the people I work with.” The reliability for the total
need satisfaction scale was reported to be .89, and the three sub scales autonomy, competence and
relatedness .79, .73 and .84, respectively (Deci et. al., 2001).
Results
Table 1 shows the statistical means and the standard deviations of the psychological variables
for the pre-test in the investigation. Table 1 also shows the p-values from the Independent-Samples T
Test, analysing differences in variable values between the experiment groups and the control groups,
and the Cronbach’s alpha for the measurements used in the study. The values are separated into two
major groups, CEO executive and Middle manager. Further, the CEO executive group is separated
into experiment group (external executive coaching) and control group, and the Middle manager group
into experiment group (coaching based leadership) and control group. There were significant
differences in values only in the CEO executive group at the pre-test; self-efficacy and goal clarity
were significantly higher in the control group, whereas attribution of success to circumstances and
attribution of failure to effort were significantly lower in the control group.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.business.brookes.ac.uk/research/areas/coachingandmentoring/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 7, No. 2, August 2009
Page 40
Table 1: Means, standard deviations (SD) and p-values analysing the difference between the experiment
and the control groups on the pre-test
Study variables
CEO executive
Middle manager
Cronbach’s
Alpha
experiment
(N=12)
control
(N=8)
experiment
(N=61)
control
(N=63)
Pre-test
mean SD
mean SD
p
mean SD
mean SD
p
1. Self-efficacy
181.4
21.4
191.1
12.2
*
183.5 20.4 176.6 29.7 .97
2. Goal clarity
17.2
2.7
18.8
1.4
*
17.7 3.3 17.4 2.9 .70
3. Goal feedback 16.4 4.0
16.3 2.3
17.1 3.6 17.0 3.1 .77
4. Goal difficulty 18.0 2.5
16.4 2.9
16.2 3.5 15.2 4.4 .90
5. Goal strategy 16.8 2.4
17.8 1.8
17.2 2.6 16.4 3.0 .76
6. Goal commitment 26.6 2.4
27.3 0.9
26.1 2.1 25.6 2.5 .49
7. Need satisfaction at
work
106.1 8.6
106.3 5.4
105.9 9.9 106.1 10.6 .83
8. Autonomy 25.8 1.8
26.1 1.4
25.2 2.8 24.8 2.6 .71
9. Competence 36.7 4.7
36.0 4.7
35.9 4.5 36.4 4.0 .71
10. Relatedness 39.2 3.4
39.3 1.6
39.9 4.5 40.2 5.3 .67
11. Attribution success
strategy
17.4 2.3
18.1 1.9
17.9 2.5 17.6 2.4 .85
12. Attribution success
ability
17.3 1.9
17.8 1.8
17.6 2.5 17.5 2.4 .85
13. Attribution success
effort
16.1 3.0
17.0 3.7
17.0 3.1 17.0 3.3 .88
14. Attribution success
circumstances
15.6
2.4
14.3
4.2
*
14.8 4.0 14.6 3.5 .83
15. Attribution failure
strategy
13.6 3.7
14.6 4.1
14.5 4.2 15.2 3.5 .80
16. Attribution failure
ability
11.6 3.8
10.4 4.6
9.3 4.2 9.7 4.0 .82
17. Attribution failure
effort
15.1
2.9
13.0
5.8
*
12.7 5.1 12.0 5.2 .88
18. Attribution failure
circumstances
10.3 3.5
10.9 3.7
12.0 4.0 11.3 3.8 .84
Note. Significant different variable values between the experiment group and the control group are marked with
bold (* = p < .05).
Table 2 shows similar data from the post-test in the investigation. There were significant
differences in values in both the CEO executive group and Middle manager group. In the CEO
executive group significantly higher values were found in the experiment group for goal difficulty and
attribution of success to strategy and ability, whereas attribution of failure to strategy was significantly
higher in the control group. Worth noting is that self-efficacy and goal clarity which were significant
higher in the control group at the pre-test (Table 1), are now higher in the experiment group. However,
these differences are not significant. Also worth noting is that attribution of failure to circumstances,
which was higher in the experiment group at the pre-test, now is lower in the experiment group, the
difference is not significant. In the Middle Manager group significantly higher values were found in
the experiment group for goal clarity, need satisfaction at work, autonomy and relatedness.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.business.brookes.ac.uk/research/areas/coachingandmentoring/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 7, No. 2, August 2009
Page 41
Interestingly, there were no significant differences between the experiment and the control group at the
pre-test.
Table 2: Means, standard deviations (SD) and p-values analysing the difference between the experiment
and the control groups on the post-test
Study variables
CEO executive
Middle manager
Cronbach’s
Alpha
experiment
(N=11)
control
(N=8)
experiment
(N=52)
control
(N=56)
Post-test
Mean SD
mean SD
p
mean SD
mean SD
P
1. Self-efficacy 202.3 19.2
192.1 12.5
189.7 18.6 181.3 24.6 .97
2. Goal clarity 19.5 1.5
18.9 1.6
17.4 3.2 17.1 3.1 .82
3. Goal feedback 19.0 2.2
17.8 1.8
16.5 3.6 16.7 2.9 .79
4. Goal difficulty
18.0
3.8
16.6
1.3
**
16.4 2.9 16.2 3.9 .91
5. Goal strategy 19.2 1.8
17.3 1.7
17.2 2.7 16.5 3.0 .86
6. Goal commitment 27.4 1.0
26.3 1.8
25.6
2.2
24.8
3.4 * .69
7. Need satisfaction at
work
115.4 7.8
105.0 8.6
107.6
9.1
103.6
12.4 * .86
8. Autonomy 26.8 1.6
25.6 2.0
25.6
2.2
24.2
3.1 ** .78
9. Competence 38.7 4.7
36.9 3.1
36.9 3.5 35.6 4.7 .71
10. Relatedness 44.7 2.9
37.5 5.1
39.7
4.6
38.9
5.9 * .75
11. Attribution success
strategy
19.5
1.9
18.3
0.9
**
18.3 2.2 18.0 2.5 .90
12. Attribution success
ability
19.2
2.5
17.8
1.4
*
18.2 2.1 17.6 2.4 .90
13. Attribution success
effort
18.4 2.3
16.9 3.7
17.3 3.1 17.2 3.5 .93
14. Attribution success
circumstances
14.8 5.8
15.0 3.9
14.4 3.6 14.5 3.9 .91
15. Attribution failure
strategy
14.8
6.8
15.6
2.6
*
15.2 4.3 15.4 3.9 .85
16. Attribution failure
ability
8.5 4.8
11.6 5.4
9.3 4.5 181.3 24.6 .90
17. Attribution failure
effort
13.6 5.7
15.0 4.1
11.7 4.9 17.1 3.1 .88
18. Attribution failure
circumstances
9.5 5.0
11.5 3.7
12.9 3.6 16.7 2.9 .88
Note. Significant different variable values between the experiment group and the control group are marked with
bold (* = p < .05) and (** = p < .01).
Table 3 shows the means, standard deviation and the p-values for paired sample t-tests testing
differences between the pre- and the post-test for the CEO executive group receiving external
coaching in the experiment. Separate analysis was conducted for the experiment- and the control
group. The analysis revealed significant and positive changes for self-efficacy, goal clarity, goal
feedback, goal strategy, need satisfaction at work (autonomy and relatedness), and attribution of
successful achievement to strategy and ability in the experiment group. Attribution of unsuccessful

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.business.brookes.ac.uk/research/areas/coachingandmentoring/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 7, No. 2, August 2009
Page 42
achievements to ability was significantly lower at the post-test. There were no significant changes in
means in the control group.
Table 3: Means, standard deviations (SD) and p-values for the CEO executives receiving external coaching
and the control group
Study variables
Experiment group (N=11)
Control group (N=8)
pre
Post
Pre
Post
mean SD
Mean SD
p
mean SD
mean SD
p
1. Self-efficacy 179.4 21.2
202.3
19.2
**
191.1 12.2 192.1 12.5
2. Goal clarity 16.9 2.7
19.5
1.5
**
18.8 1.4 18.9 1.6
3. Goal feedback 16.2 4.1
19.0
2.2
**
16.3 2.3 17.8 1.8
4. Goal difficulty 17.7 2.5
18.0 3.8
16.4 2.9 16.6 1.3
5. Goal strategy 16.6 2.4
19.2
1.8
**
17.8 1.8 17.3 1.7
6. Goal commitment 26.5 2.5
27.4 1.0
27.3 0.9 26.3 1.8
7. Need satisfaction at
work
105.5 8.8
115.4
7.8
**
106.3 5.4 105.0 8.6
8. Autonomy 25.5 1.7
26.8
1.6
*
26.1 1.4 25.6 2.0
9. Competence 36.4 4.8
38.7 4.7
36.0 4.7 36.9 3.1
10. Relatedness 39.3 3.5
44.7
2.9
**
39.3 1.6 37.5 5.1
11. Attribution success
strategy
17.3 2.3
19.5
1.9
**
18.1 1.9 18.3 0.9
12. Attribution success
ability
16.9 1.5
19.2
2.5
*
17.8 1.8 17.8 1.4
13. Attribution success
effort
16.2 3.1
18.4 2.3
17.0 3.7 16.9 3.7
14. Attribution success
circumstances
15.5 2.5
14.8 5.8
14.3 4.2 15.0 3.9
15. Attribution failure
strategy
13.3 3.4
14.8 6.8
14.6 4.1 15.6 2.6
16. Attribution failure
ability
12.1 3.5
8.5
4.8
*
10.4 4.6 11.6 5.4
17. Attribution failure
effort
15.0 3.0
13.6 5.7
13.0 5.8 15.0 4.1
18. Attribution failure
circumstances
10.3 3.6
9.5 5.0
10.9 3.7 11.5 3.7
Note. Significant changes in variable values between the pre- and the post-test are marked with bold (* = p < .05)
and (** = p < .01).
Table 4 shows the means, standard deviation and the p-values from the paired sample t-test
between the pre- and the post-test for the Middle manager group receiving coaching based leadership
in the experiment as well as for the control group. We found significant increases for self-efficacy and
attribution of successful achievements to ability in the experiment group. There were also significant
changes in the control group, however all changes were negative; goal commitment and need
satisfaction at work (autonomy, competence and relatedness).

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.business.brookes.ac.uk/research/areas/coachingandmentoring/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 7, No. 2, August 2009
Page 43
Table 4: Means, standard deviations (SD) and p-values for the Middle managers receiving coaching based
leadership and the control group
Study variables
Experiment group (N=52)
Control group (N=56)
Cronbach’s
Alpha
Pre
Post
Pre
Post pre Post
mean SD
mean SD
P
mean SD
mean SD
P
1. Self-efficacy 182.1 20.2
189.7
18.6
**
177.6 29.7 181.3 24.6 .97 .97
2. Goal clarity 17.6 3.0 17.4 3.2
17.3 2.9 17.1 3.1 .70 .82
3. Goal feedback 16.9 3.5 16.5 3.6
17.0 3.0 16.7 2.9 .77 .79
4. Goal difficulty 15.8 3.5 16.4 2.9
15.3 4.5 16.2 3.9 .90 .91
5. Goal strategy 17.1 2.3 17.2 2.7
16.4 3.0 16.5 3.0 .76 .86
6. Goal commitment 26.1 2.1 25.6 2.2
25.7 2.3
24.8
3.4 * .49 .69
7. Need satisfaction at
work
105.3 9.4 107.6 9.1
107.0 10.2
103.6
12.4 ** .83 .86
8. Autonomy 24.9 2.8 25.6 2.2
25.0 2.5
24.2
3.1 * .71 .78
9. Competence 35.8 4.0 36.9 3.5
37.0 3.4
35.6
4.7 ** .71 .71
10. Relatedness 39.7 4.2 39.7 4.6
40.4 5.4
38.9
5.9 * .67 .75
11. Attribution success
strategy
17.7 2.2 18.3 2.2
17.7 2.2 18.0 2.5 .85 .90
12. Attribution success
ability
17.4 2.3
18.2
2.1
**
17.6 2.2 17.6 2.4 .85 .90
13. Attribution success
effort
16.9 3.1 17.3 3.1
17.0 3.1 17.2 3.5 .88 .93
14. Attribution success
circumstances
14.8 4.0 14.4 3.6
14.7 3.3 14.5 3.9 .83 .91
15. Attribution failure
strategy
14.2 3.7 15.2 4.3
15.4 3.5 15.4 3.9 .80 .85
16. Attribution failure
ability
9.2 4.1 9.3 4.5
9.4 3.9 9.8 4.5 .82 .90
17. Attribution failure
effort
12.3 4.8 11.7 4.9
12.0 5.3 12.5 5.0 .88 .88
18. Attribution failure
circumstances
12.3 3.9 12.9 3.6
11.4 3.9 11.9 3.6 .84 .88
Note. Significant changes in variable values between the pre- and the post-test are marked with bold (* = p <
.05) and (** = p < .01).

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.business.brookes.ac.uk/research/areas/coachingandmentoring/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 7, No. 2, August 2009
Page 44
Discussion
The main purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of executive coaching (external
executive coaching and coaching based leadership) on variables central to performance psychology.
All four predictions, specified in our four hypotheses, were confirmed for the participants receiving
external executive coaching. The first hypothesis predicted a positive change in self-efficacy as a
result from the experiment. The finding from the paired sample t-test (Table 3) supports that effective
external executive coaching increases self-efficacy. The second hypothesis predicted a positive change
in goal setting through the important moderators’ clarity, difficulty, commitment, feedback and
strategy. This hypothesis was partly confirmed, the variables clarity, feedback and strategy increased
in the experimental group (Table 3). The third hypothesis predicted an increased tendency to attribute
successful performances to internal, unstable, and controllable factors. This hypothesis was confirmed
in that both causal attributions to strategy and ability increased during the experiment (Table 3). The
last hypothesis predicted a positive change in need satisfaction among the participants in the
experiment group. This hypothesis was also confirmed; there was a positive change in the total need
satisfaction among the executives in the experiment group, especially through the needs for autonomy
and relatedness (Table 3). In comparison, there were no positive significant changes in the control
group.
For the executives receiving coaching based leadership, only the first hypothesis was confirmed, i.e.
that which predicted a positive change in self-efficacy (Table 4). Interestingly, there were several
significant changes in the control group. However, and what makes this finding interesting, all
changes were negative; the variables measuring goal commitment and need satisfaction (autonomy,
competence and relatedness) all decreased during the experiment.
Self-efficacy is predictive of effort, persistence in the face of difficulty, and performance (Bandura,
1997). It is therefore particularly important to note that self-efficacy was strengthened among both the
CEO executives receiving external coaching and the middle managers receiving coaching based
leadership. The changes were significant at the p<.01 level for both groups. Since self-efficacy is
found to be one of the most important factors impacting human performance in general (Bandura,
1997; Grant & Greene, 2004), and leadership self-efficacy is found to be an effective mean to predict,
understand, and develop effective leadership (Anderson, Krajewski, Goffin & Jackson, 2008), the
findings imply that both external executive coaching and coaching based leadership may be used as
one means of increasing performance. It is also worth noting that the self-efficacy level was high
before the experiment started both among the CEO executives and the middle managers in both the
experiment- and in the control groups (means= 5.6, 6.0, 5.7, and 5.6, respectively
5
).
Goal setting theory states the importance of clear goals with related strategies in order to influence
performance (Locke & Latham, 2002). Coaching is about making changes and building competence,
thus, making coachees’ aware of what to achieve in the future (goals) and explore and agree upon
specific actions (strategies) are important elements of coaching. The second hypothesis predicted that
the experiment would increase goal setting through the goal setting variables clarity, feedback,
difficulty, strategy and commitment. The findings among the executives receiving external coaching
partly support this, as the goal setting variables, which are focused in the coaching process, increased
significantly during the experiment.
Among the middle managers receiving coaching based leadership however, there were no significant
effects on these goal setting variables during the experiment (Table 4). These results are also
5
Table 3 and Table 4, Self-efficacy mean/number of items.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.business.brookes.ac.uk/research/areas/coachingandmentoring/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 7, No. 2, August 2009
Page 45
interesting and worth noting. In an achievement oriented corporate environment demands for results
are high and the focus on goal setting was probably emphasized prior to the experiment. Goal setting
theory states the importance of goal setting through the important variables clarity, strategy, difficulty,
commitment and feedback. Goal structure, however, is defined as the signals an environment
emphasizes as important and valuable in order to achieve (Ames, 1992). Research has focused on two
types of goal structures: (a) mastery goal structure and (b) performance goal structure (Lau & Nie,
2008). Mastery goal structure emphasizes learning, task mastery and trying hard to improve one’s
skills, whereas performance goal structure emphasizes results and the importance of demonstrating
competence. Researchers recommend a mastery oriented goal structure in order to enhance motivation
and performances (Meece, Anderman & Anderman, 2006). In order to fully understand the results
related to goal setting an investigation of the goal structure in the environment would have been
helpful. After working with the Fortune 500 Company for over one year, the team of external coaches
and the researcher sensed a typical performance oriented goal structure in the company. During
mandatory results- and appraisals conversations employees were measured against typical
performance oriented results, such as the amount of clients they had worked with (Client Base), new
clients they have achieved the last period (New Clients), customers without registered turnover (Lost
Clients) and so forth. These were all parts of the company’s Key Performance Indicators (KPI). The
measurements used in this study however, cannot tell if the goal setting moderators are mastery
oriented or performance oriented, or a mix with both. This is important in order to find evidence for
both motivational and performance effects from the experiment through goal setting. Coaching is
focused on growth and development (Moen & Kvalsund, 2008), thus, coaching has a mastery oriented
goal structure. The self-efficacy measurement was also mastery oriented, in the sense that the
participants had to consider how sure they were to achieve important leadership tasks in their roles in
their company, not to achieve certain results (as for example improving the results on the company’s
KPI’s). Improved performance (self-efficacy) in both experiment groups (external coaching and
coaching based leadership) could therefore have been influenced through goal setting by affecting the
goal structure. The positive effect on the goal setting variables in the CEO executive group receiving
external coaching is therefore worth noting and raises a number of questions: Was the goal structure
among the CEOs in the company a more mastery oriented goal structure and did this affect the goal
setting variables - clarity, feedback and strategy? Are these results an indication that external coaching
is more effective than coaching based leadership? Or are these results indicating that the CEO
executives using coaching based leadership needed more time
6
to implement the coaching based
leadership being thought to them to achieve results on the goal setting variables? Future research
should be designed to test such questions. Moreover, the missing goal structure variable is in our
opinion a weakness in goal setting theory. Our results show the complexity of performance
psychology, as several psychological variables interplay in order to affect performance.
We found an increased tendency both among the executives receiving external coaching and the
middle managers receiving coaching based leadership to take credit for their successful performances.
Among the executives receiving external coaching there was a significant increase in the attribution of
successful performances both to strategy and ability as a result of the experiment (Table 3). Among
the middle managers receiving coaching based leadership there was a significant increase in the
attribution of successful performances to ability (Table 4). Coaching emphasizes the importance of
coachee generated solutions and strategies through facilitating for individual empowerment and
competence values. Thus, coaching emphasises that the coachee is responsible and should be in
control of the situation. The findings among the executives receiving external coaching support that
causal attributions to internal, unstable and controllable factors such as strategy, have increased among
the CEO executives. This is a typical self-enhancing attribution pattern, which strengthens the
6
The external coaching programme was more intensive than the coaching programme involving executives
using coaching based leadership.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.business.brookes.ac.uk/research/areas/coachingandmentoring/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 7, No. 2, August 2009
Page 46
executive’s self view and perceptions of competence, ability and control by taking responsibility for
one’s successes. The lack of significant changes of attribution of successful performances to strategy
among the middle managers receiving coaching based leadership is interesting. This is once more a
reason to argue that external coaching is more effective than coaching based leadership. Also, the
results could indicate that the coaching based leadership programme needed more time to produce
expected results.
The increased change in attribution of successful achievements to ability among the executives
receiving external coaching is worth noting. A possible explanation of this finding may be that
executives in this achievement-oriented environment perceived ability as a prerequisite for choosing
and employing effective and adaptive strategies when working with a task. Thus, the change in causal
attribution of successful achievements to ability and strategy might indicate that the executives’
receiving external coaching perceived that their strategic skills were predicted by their abilities. Such a
view is congruent with the contention of several motivational researchers (e.g., Dweck, 2006). As
Dweck (2006, p.7) argued; “This growth mindset is based on the belief that your basic qualities are
things you can cultivate through your efforts”. People with such a mindset believe that a person’s true
potential is unknown (and unknowable) and that it is impossible to foresee what can be accomplished
after years of passion, toil and quality training.
Balancing the power of individuals to make important decisions for themselves without being
influenced by others (autonomy), and the demands in the working environment for results and certain
behaviours, is the true challenge in executive coaching (Moen & Kvalsund, 2007). The fourth
hypothesis predicted that the self-determinate nature of coaching also should facilitate competence
values. Thus, it is the individual’s competence which is the origin for strategies and solutions,
facilitated by the coach, which again will improve own competence. The findings among the
executives receiving external coaching partly support this notion, as the result of the experiment is
increased need satisfaction, especially through the needs autonomy and relatedness (Table 3). There is
also a change in the need for competence among the executives receiving external coaching; however
the change is not significant at the p< .05 level. We should point out that the number of participants in
this group was only 11, which makes it difficult to find significant changes.
The significant change in relatedness indicates that the executives feel better connectedness and
attachment to their fellow workers as a result of the coaching programme. A possible explanation is
that their relational skills had been affected as a result of the coaching programme and the intensive
work shop training and group coaching. However, this is mostly a speculation and needs to be tested
in future research.
The paired sample t-test (Table 3) showed a number of significant positive changes among the
executives receiving external coaching, for instance in self-efficacy, autonomy, and relatedness. In
comparison, no positive changes were found among middle managers receiving coaching based
leadership. The differential outcomes of the coaching programme may be given different explanations
which need to be tested in future research. One possible explanation is that the middle managers were
not coached by professional coaches. The CEO executives served as coaches at the same time that they
were receiving coaching themselves. One possible reason for the results among the middle managers
is therefore that it takes more time and training to develop effective coaching skills than was available
in this experiment. Another possible reason for the differential results in the two groups may be that
external coaching per se works better than coaching based leadership. In coaching based leadership the
executives have two possibly conflicting roles; one role as a coach facilitating autonomy, relatedness,
and attribution to strategy, and one role being responsible for productivity and control of results as
well as processes. However, as pointed out, these speculations need to be tested in future research.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.business.brookes.ac.uk/research/areas/coachingandmentoring/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 7, No. 2, August 2009
Page 47
Future research should also include qualitative studies exploring how different types of coaching are
perceived or experienced both among the coaches and coachees.
Conclusion
This study gives evidence that external executive coaching is effective in order to improve
performance psychological variables, as all our four hypothesis were confirmed. The results indicate
that executive coaching can be used to transform individual performance at work. The number of
participants in this study was small, which makes it more difficult to show significant changes. A
positive change in performance psychological variables is expected to result in, and may already have
resulted in, improved performances. On the other hand, this study only partly gives evidence that
coaching based leadership is effective in order to improve performance psychological variables, as
only one out of our four hypotheses were confirmed. This raises important questions for future
research. The results give reasons to discuss whether external coaching and coaching based leadership
facilitate different psychological processes with different potential for driving growth and
development.
Frode Moen is a PhD student in the Department of Education of the Norwegian University of Science
and Technology in Trondheim.
Einar Skaalvik, PhD, is a Professor, also based in the Department of Education of the Norwegian
University of Science and Technology.
References
Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned helplessness in humans:
Critique and reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 49-74.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84, 261–271.
Anderson, C. A., Jennings, D. L., & Arnoult, L. H. (1988). Validity and utility of the attributional style
construct at a moderate level of specificity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55,
979-990.
Anderson, D. W., Krajewski, H. T., Goffin, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (2008). A leadership self-efficacy
taxonomy and its relation to effective leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 19 (5), p.595-608.
Arbin, R. M., Appleman, A. I., & Burger, I. M. (1981). Social anxiety, self-presentation, and the self-
serving bias in causal attribution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 23-35.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational
Psychologist, 28 (2), 117-148
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2006).Guide for Constructing Self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajeras., & T. Urdan. (Eds.).
Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents (pp.307-337). Connecticut: Greenwich
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of
performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34,
2045-2068.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments
as a Fundamental Human Motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117 (3), 497-529.
Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. London: Tavistock.
De Charms, R. (1968).
Personal Causation. New York: Academic Press

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.business.brookes.ac.uk/research/areas/coachingandmentoring/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 7, No. 2, August 2009
Page 48
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Publishing Co.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need
satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former Eastern Bloc
country. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930-942.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, New York:
University of Rochester Press.
Downey, M. (1999). Effective coaching. London. Orion Business.
Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new Psychology of Success. New York: Random House
Erez, M., & Zidon, I. (1984). Effects of goal acceptance on the relationship of goal setting and task
performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 69–78.
Fillery-Travis, A., & Lane, D. (2008). Research: does coaching work? In Palmer, S., & Whybrow, A.
(Eds). Handbook of Coaching Psychology. New York: Routledge
Flaherty, J. (1999). Coaching, Evoking Excellence in others. Boston: Butterworth- Heinemann.
Folkman, J. R. (2006). The power of feedback: 35 principles for turning feedback from others into
personal and professional change. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Gjerde, S. (2003). Coaching, hva, hvorfor, hvordan. Norway: Fagbokforlaget.
Grant, A., & Greene, J. (2004). Coach yourself: make real changes in your life. Momentum. 2
nd
edition.
Grant, A. M. (2006). Workplace and Executive Coaching: A Bibliography from the Scholarly
Business Literature. In Grant, A. M., & Stober, D. R. (Eds), Evidence Based Coaching. New
Jersey: Wiley & Sons
Hall, D. T., Otazo, K. L., & Hollenbeck, G. P. (1999). Behind Closed Doors: What really happens in
executive coaching? Organizational Dynamics, 27, 39-53.
Hargrove, R. (2003). Masterful coaching. California: Pfeiffer.
Harter, S. (1983). Developmental perspectives on the self-system. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook
of Child Psychology, (Volume IV, 4th edition, pp. 275-385). New York: Wiley.
Kinlaw, D. C. (1989). Coaching for Commitment, San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer & Co.
Klein, H., Wesson, M., Hollenbeck, J., & Alge, B. (1999). Goal commitment and the goal-setting
process: Conceptual clarification and empirical synthesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,
885–896.
Kvalsund, R. (2005). Coaching, metode: prosess: relasjon. Norway: Synergy Publishing.
Lai, L. (2004). Strategisk kompetansestyring. Norway: Fagbokforlaget. Bergen
Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2008). Interplay Between Personal Goals and Classroom Goal Structures in
Predicting Student Outcomes: A Multilevel Analysis of Person–Context Interactions. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 100, 15-29.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a Practical Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task
Motivation: A 35-year Odyssey. American Psychologist, 57 (9), 705-717.
Maier, S. F., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1976). Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 105, 3-46.
Marsh, H. W. (1984). Relationship among dimensions of self-attribution, dimension of self-concept
and academic achievements. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1291-1308.
Marsh, H. W. (1993). Academic self-concept: Theory, measurement, and research. In J. Suls (Ed),
Psychological perspectives on the self, Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum
Marsh, H. W., Carins, L., Relich, I., Barnes, I., & Debus, R. L. (1984). The relationship between
dimensions of self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 3-32.
Martinko, M. J., & Thomson, N. F. (1998). A synthesis and extension of the Weiner and Kelly
attribution models. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 20, 271-284.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.business.brookes.ac.uk/research/areas/coachingandmentoring/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 7, No. 2, August 2009
Page 49
Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student
motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487–503.
Moen, F., & Kvalsund, R. (2007). How do subjective beliefs about organizational culture affect the
coaching process? Journal of Human Subjectivity, 5(1), 23-43.
Moen, F., & Kvalsund, R. (2008). What communications or relational factors characterize the method,
skills and techniques of executive coaching? Journal of Coaching in Organisations
Morgan, H., Harkins, P., & Marshall, G. (2005). The Art and Practice of Leadership Coaching. 50 Top
Executive coaches reveal their secrets. New Jersey: Wiley.
Pajares, F. (1996). Self beliefs in academic settings. Review of Educational Research, 66, 543-578.
Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-beliefs and school success: Self-efficacy, self-concept, and
school achievement. In R. Riding, & S. Rayner (Eds.), Self-perception (pp. 239-266). London:
Ablex Publishing
Pajares, F., & Urdan, T. (2006). Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents. Connecticut: Greenwich
Passmore, J., & Gibbes, C. (2007). The state of executive coaching research: What does the current
literature tell us and what’s next for coaching research? International Coaching Psychology
Review, No. 2, pp.116-128.
Ryan, T. A. (1970). Intentional behavior. New York: Ronald Press.
Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of
Personality, 63, 397-427.
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining
reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749-
761.
Schein, E. H. (2006). Coaching and Consultation Revisited: Are they the same? In Goldsmith, M., &
Lyons, L. (Eds), Coaching for Leadership, San Francisco: Pfeiffer & Co.
Schunk, D. (1989). Self-efficacy and achievement behaviors. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 173-
208.
Schunk, D. (1995). Self-efficacy, motivation, and performance. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology,
7, 112-137.
Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2001). The effect of learning, outcome, and proximal goals on a
moderately complex task. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 291–302.
Skaalvik, E. M. (1990). Gender differences in general academic self-concept and success expectations
on defined academic problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 591-598.
Skaalvik, E. M. (1994). Attribution of perceived achievement in school in general and in maths and
verbal areas: Relations with academic self-concept and self-esteem. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 64, 133-143.
Skaalvik, E. M. & Skaalvik, S. (2005): Skolen som læringsarena: Selvoppfatning, motivasjon og
læring. Norway: Oslo Universitetsforlaget.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological
Review, 92, 548-573.
Weiner, B. (1989). Human Motivation. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of Competence. Psychological Review,
66, 297-333.
Whitmore, J. (2002). Coaching for Performance. Growing People, Performance and Purpose
. 3rd ed.
London : Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Withley, B. E., & Frieze, I. H. (1985). Children’s causal attribution for success and failure in
achievement settings: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 5, 608-616.
Zeus, P., & Skiffington, S. (2002). The Coaching at Work Toolkit. A Complete Guide to Techniques
and Practices. Australia: McGraw Hill.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Bandura, A. (1994). Impact of self-regulatory influences on writing course
attainment. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 845-862.