Content uploaded by Gil Bozer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gil Bozer on Dec 03, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
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. 10, No. 1, February 2012
Page 14
Examining the Effectiveness of Executive Coaching on Coachees'
Performance in the Israeli Context
Gil Bozer, Human Resources Management Department, Sapir Academic College, Israel
James C. Sarros, Management Department, Monash University, Australia
Contact Email: gilbotzer@gmail.com
Abstract
While executive coaching is a key means by which organisations and individuals build
executives’ capabilities, very little research has investigated how effective or beneficial this
development tool is to the individuals or the organisations in which they work. The purpose of this
study was to examine executive coaching effectiveness by investigating whether executive coaching
has an impact on coachee performance outcomes as well as individual outcomes as manifested by self
awareness, career satisfaction, job affective commitment, and job performance. Coaching outcomes
were examined through a quasi-experimental field pre-post design with an untreated control group.
The study participants (n=197) were drawn from the client bases of four Israeli-based firms whose
primary professional services focused on executive coaching. The primary conclusion is that
executive coaching may be a mechanism by which executives could be helped in improving and
maintaining a high level of career satisfaction. The results should assist organizations in designing
more effective executive coaching programs, and in making informed decisions about implementing
and measuring executive coaching.
Key words: executive coaching, executive leadership, developmental relationships, quantitative
research
Introduction
The use of executive coaching has become an increasingly popular trend in the corporate
world over the past several decades, and is seen as a key developmental intervention by which
organisations build executives’ capabilities (Bono, Purvanova, Towler, & Peterson, 2009; Bozer &
Pirola-Merlo, 2007; Dutton, 1997; Feldman & Lankau, 2005; Jones, Rafferty, & Griffin, 2006;
Kombarakaran, Yang, Baker, & Fernandes, 2008; Levenson, 2009; Luebbe, 2005; Passmore &
Gibbes, 2007; Thach, 2002). In 2003, the annual revenue generated by coaching was worth $US1
billion worldwide (Ferguson & Whitman, 2003), which increased to $US1.5 billion by 2007
according to an ICF global coaching study (ICF, 2008). This emergence of executive coaching as a
new management tool to increase productivity and efficiency at work is a product of and a response to
the rapidly changing global economy where continuous improvement is required to adapt to the
volatility and complexity of changes (Gyllensten & Palmer, 2007; Ozkan, 2008). Executive coaching
as a person-centred, action-learning, process-personalised on the job approach focusing on real-life
challenges is aligned with executives' corporate settings which emphasise constant retraining that is
versatile, pragmatic, and fragmented. This opportunity for gaining an understanding of how one is
perceived by others in the organizational context is vitally important to leadership and managerial
effectiveness, both of which are underlying outcomes of executive coaching initiatives (Ashford,
1989; Bandura, 1982; Bass & Yammarino, 1991; Yammarino & Atwater, 1993). Moreover, executive
coaching represents an opportunity for the executive to gain a deeper understanding regarding specific
organizational issues and imperatives. This understanding includes awareness about discontent,
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. 10, No. 1, February 2012
Page 15
possible undiscovered opportunities, and the executive's own strengths related to the issues and
imperatives (Moen & Kralsund, 2008).
Justification for the Study
While executive coaching is a key means by which organisations build executives’
capabilities, currently, neither the coach nor the coachee and his/her organisation know with any
scientific certainty what are the expected outcomes from engaging in executive coaching
(Kombarakaran, Bsker, Yang, & Fernandes, 2008; Luebbe, 2005). There have been only a handful of
empirical studies on the effectiveness and benefit of executive coaching as a development tool to the
individuals or the organisations in which they work (Blackman, 2006; Kampa-Kokesch & Anderson,
2001; Levenson, 2009; Lowman, 2005; Natale & Diamante, 2005; Passmore & Gibbes, 2007;
Smither, London, Flautt, Vargas, & Kucine, 2003; Spence, 2006; Wasylyshyn, 2003). Further, these
studies primarily have used short term affective reactions as outcome measures, and ignored coachee
learning, behavioural changes and organisational outcomes as effectiveness indicators (Feldman &
Lankau, 2005; Kombarakaran, Yang, et al., 2008). In order to redress this gap, this study uses
established, reliable and valid measures to examine pre-and post executive coaching outcomes.
This failure to specify the impact of executive coaching is a critical limitation of existing
research, because executives have a major influence on the viability and, ultimately, the success of the
organisations in which they operate (Aitken & Malcolm, 2010; Bertrand & Schoar, 2003; Jung, Wu,
& Chow, 2008; Kaiser, Hogan, & Craig, 2008; Kirwan & Brichall, 2006). This influence is
increasingly relevant given the changing nature of work (Arthur & Rousseau, 1996; King, 2004), the
uncertain environment (Waldman, Ramírez, House, & Puranam, 2001), and the growing recognition
by organisations that in order to address the economic, political and social changes in their
environment that require continuous innovation and managerial flexibility (Aitken & Malcolm, 2010;
Moen & Allgood, 2009; Yukl & Mahsud, 2010), they need to invest in their human resources
development (Antonacopoulou, 2000). Further, because executive coaching programs are a significant
expense, it is essential for organisations that manage these programs, as well as coaches who work
with executives, to consider new ways of increasing executive coaching effectiveness. Given the early
state of the practice, and the dearth of agreed-upon definitions and standards, more theoretical and
empirical research on executive coaching effectiveness is required (Collings & Mellahi, 2009). It is
hoped that this study will contribute to executive coaching as an emerging evidence-based profession.
The purpose of this article is to empirically examine executive coaching effectiveness by
investigating whether executive coaching has an impact on coachee performance as reflected in
greater levels of individual outcomes. The research question that was designed to fulfil the purpose of
the study is: "Does executive coaching have a positive influence on coachee performance as reflected
in greater levels of individual outcomes?" This research question guides the literature review and
assists in establishing related hypothesis.
Review of Literature
At its broadest level, coaching is generally defined as a process of equipping individuals with
the tools, knowledge, and opportunities they need to develop themselves and become more effective
(Feldman & Lankau, 2005; Peterson, 1996). More recently, in the 1990s, executive coaching per se
emerged as an intervention focused on managers and senior leaders in organisation (Kampa-Kokesch
& Anderson, 2001; Stern, 2004). This intervention geared specifically to changing the behaviour of
middle-and senior-level managers (Feldman & Lankau, 2005). Unlike life coaching, executive
coaching involves a third party, the organisation that employs the executive. Usually, the organisation
is represented by human resources or by the executive's manager (Gyllensten & Palmer, 2007).
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. 10, No. 1, February 2012
Page 16
Defining Executive Coaching
Numerous definitions of executive coaching exist, ranging from the specific to the
comprehensive, and are influenced by practitioner backgrounds, theories, and models. Some authors
define executive coaching as a training technique specifically focused at the individual level (Kampa-
Kokesch & Anderson, 2001; McCauley & Hezlett, 2001; Orenstein, 2002; Pemberton, 2006; Peterson,
1996), while others adopt a broader definition, extending executive coaching to the team and
organisational levels (Bacon & Spear, 2003; Hall, Otazo, & Hollenbeck, 1999; ICF, 2008; Kilburg,
1996a, 1996b, 2000).
While there is no universal definition of executive coaching, the different forms of executive
coaching do share certain defining characteristics mentioned by various authors. Executive coaching
always involves a highly confidential partnership between an executive and a coach (Blackman, 2006;
Brotman, Liberi, & Wasylyshyn, 1998; Kiel, 1996; Natale & Diamante, 2005; Wasylyshyn, 2003).
This personal outcome-focused activity focuses not only on interpersonal issues, but also on
intrapersonal ones (Greene & Grant, 2003; O'Brien, 1997; Witherspoon & White, 1996a). Although
executive coaching may be initiated by the executive independently, there is usually another party in
the executive coaching relationship, namely, the organisation (Ennis et al., 2004; Luebbe, 2005;
Scriffignano, 2009). Executive coaching is, most often, provided by the organisation and involves a
clear link between the individual goals of the coachee and the strategic goals of the organisation
(Ennis, et al., 2004). In this context, executive coaching has been defined as an ongoing relationship,
usually lasting anywhere from a few months to a year or more (D Coutu et al., 2009; Diedrich, 1996;
Levinson, 1996). Differing from therapy, most definitions assume an absence of serious mental health
problems in the coachee (Brock, 2008; Cavanagh, 2005; Kilburg, 2004; Ozkan, 2008), and share the
notion that the coachee is resourceful (Berg & Szabo, 2005). Overall, the executive coaching
relationship is described as a partnership of equals in which the coach does not have any direct
authority over the executive (Diane Coutu et al., 2009; Evers, Brouwers, & Tomic, 2006; Grant, 2006;
Rogers, 2004; Witherspoon & White, 1996a), and may not be a specialist in the executive's focus area
or professional field (Eggers & Clark, 2000; Hart & Kirkland, 2001; London, 2001). This
collaborative relationship is one in which the executive coach is a facilitator of the process, rather than
a director, and distinguishes executive coaching from the other developmental aspects of normal
supervisory or managerial roles (Tett, Hal, Bleier, & Murphy, 2000).
For the purpose of this study, executive coaching is defined as a one-on-one relationship
between a professional coach and an executive (coachee). The purpose of executive coaching is to
enhance the coachee's behavioural change through self-awareness and learning, and ultimately
contribute to individual and organisational success. This definition comprises three parts. First,
executive coaching is defined as a service delivered in a one-on-one format. Second, the coachees are
not direct reports of the coaches. Although this study focus on coaches whose exclusive responsibility
is client coaching and have no formal authority over client, it is recognised that internal coaching
provided by stakeholders within the organisation (e.g. supervisor, peer, human resource professionals)
may be a legitimate part of organisations' managerial development programs. Finally, the focus is on
performance improvement within the context of a specific organization.
Outcomes of Executive Coaching
Research on executive coaching, while relatively a new field of endeavour, is only now
beginning to build a wider evidence base about the impact of executive coaching on organizational
and individual outcomes (Passmore & Gibbes, 2007). Research suggests that executive coaching can
lead to improvements at the individual and unit-levels, with the majority of studies measuring
individual outcomes. Overall, studies have consistently found a positive relationship between
executive coaching and both executive effectiveness and job performance, based on multiple
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. 10, No. 1, February 2012
Page 17
perspectives, including self, supervisor, subordinate, human resource brokers, and other stakeholders
(Finn, 2007; McGovern et al., 2001; Olivero, Bane, & Kopelman, 1997; Passmore & Gibbes, 2007;
Smither, et al., 2003; Thach, 2002).
In order to identify the effectiveness indicators of executive coaching in our study, we
consulted the existing literature and had discussions with several practising coaches in Israel and
Australia. In reviewing the previous existing empirical research on executive coaching, support for a
number of points discussed in the practice-based literature was found. Specifically, executive
coaching was suggested as a means for increasing productivity, learning, job satisfaction, and
behaviour change (Finn, 2007; Garman, Whiston, & Zlatoper, 2000; Gegner, 1997; Hall, et al., 1999;
Judge & Cowell, 1997; Kampa-Kokesch, 2001; Luthans & Peterson, 2003; Olivero, et al., 1997;
Parker-Wilkins, 2006; Smither, et al., 2003; Starman, 2007; Sue-Chan & Latham, 2004). Accordingly,
the effectiveness of an executive coaching intervention in this study is assessed using individual
indicators, which can be aggregated into two clusters, proximal outcomes, and distal outcomes.
Proximal outcomes refer to the immediate behavioural, attitudinal, and cognitive changes of
the coachee and include positive feelings towards the organisation (Finn, 2007), increased self-
awareness, and enhanced learning (Baek-Kyoo, 2005; Feldman & Lankau, 2005; Finn, 2007; Hall, et
al., 1999). The positive feelings of the coachee can be expressed as satisfaction with the coaching
process and the coach (Gegner, 1997; Hall, et al., 1999; Smither, et al., 2003), as well as increased
self-awareness (Baek-Kyoo, 2005; Feldman & Lankau, 2005; Hall, et al., 1999; Luthans & Peterson,
2003). Nonetheless, executive coaching does not always end with positive feelings or self-awareness.
Joo (2005, p. 481) suggested that executive coaching can be a strategic learning tool for organisations,
with “learning in executive coaching . . . focused on cognitive and affective learning”. The proximal
outcomes of executive coaching assessed in this study capture the immediate individual, behavioural,
attitudinal, and cognitive changes experienced by the coachee as a result of his/her engagement in
executive coaching, and include increased levels of coachee self-awareness, increased coachee career
satisfaction, and job affective commitment.
In comparison, distal outcomes, the ultimate purpose of executive coaching, consist of
individual success and organisational success (Baek-Kyoo, 2005). The evidence for executive
coaching having a positive impact on work-based performance is weak, but it does support the claim
that executive coaching is positively associated with stress management, job satisfaction, self-regard,
and leader development and performance (Jones, et al., 2006; Passmore & Gibbes, 2007). Jarvis
(2004) suggested that individual success may be captured via increased managerial and interpersonal
skills, greater problem solving skills, increased confidence and an improved adaptability to change,
better relationships, a better work-life balance, and reduced stress levels. This argument is empirically
supported by Gegner’s (1997), and Hall et al’s (1999) findings. Smither et al. (2003) found that
executives who worked with coaches (compared to those who did not) set more specific goals, were
more open in sharing their feedback, received action ideas from their supervisors, and had improved
performance according to multi-source rating.
The distal outcomes of executive coaching assessed in this study include a measure of
individual “success”, namely self-reported job performance which should translate into organisational
success (Baek-Kyoo, 2005; Kaiser, et al., 2008). Organisational success is expected to result from an
improvement in coachee job satisfaction, and job commitment (Wanberg, Welsh, & Hezlett, 2003).
Additionally, organisational indicators of success, namely improvement in coachee job performance
as reported by his/her direct supervisor, and improvement in supervisory-rated task performance
(Luthans & Peterson, 2003) are also examined in this study. Thus, the following hypothesis is
proposed:
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. 10, No. 1, February 2012
Page 18
Hypothesis 1: Coachee (experimental group) performance will be improved to a greater
degree than peer (control group) performance as reflected in greater levels of individual
outcomes.
Method
The Sampling Strategy
This quasi-experimental study was conducted in Israel over a period of approximately nine
months. The participants (n=197) drew on the client base of four Israeli firms whose primary
professional services focused on executive coaching in the commercial, government, and education
sectors throughout Israel. The four executive coaching firms participating in this study were identified
and accessed by the researchers through a public domain source. Executive coaches from these four
firms were contacted by an initial contact letter emailed to them by the researchers inviting them to
participate in the study. All four executive coaching firms in this study were similar in terms of
employee numbers, organisational structure, processes, and the type of clients (middle to senior level
managers). Under direction from the researchers, the executive coaching firms contacted their clients
who were about to commence executive coaching programs and invited them, their peers, and their
direct supervisors to participate in this study. Similar methods for distributing survey materials were
used and described in previous research on executive coaching (Gegner, 1997; Kampa-Kokesch,
2001). The number of executives (i.e., coachees), peers and their direct supervisors who received this
initial invitation was not tracked in this study due to confidentiality clauses imposed by the Monash
University Standing Committee on Ethics in Research Involving Humans. The participants in this
study were offered a summary feedback report that was prepared by the researcher upon completion
of their executive coaching program and analysis of the results.
Approach
The executive coaching approach underlying the current research represents a cognitive-
behavioural approach, where the coach and the coachee together work through a process of
behavioural change. The executive coaching process implemented by all the coaches participating in
the study included 10-12 coaching sessions with weekly interventions. All executive coaching
endeavours commenced with an assessment and identification of a developmental issue, followed by a
feedback session, goal setting, action planning, and follow-up coaching sessions, and concluded with
an evaluation of outcomes. This approach of executive coaching is similar to coaching adopted by
many organisations (Ennis, et al., 2004; Feldman & Lankau, 2005; Finn, 2007; Natale & Diamante,
2005). Though the coaches in the present study followed the same executive coaching process, each
had the flexibility to tailor the executive coaching content to meet the specific needs and
circumstances of their coachees. Multiple coaches were involved in the executive coaching programs
in this study. Therefore, it was not feasible to account for the potential impact of factors such as
coaching style, techniques, and tools in this study's results.
Participants and Procedure
In total, 72 executives (coachees), 68 coaches, 29 peers and 28 direct supervisors agreed to
participate in the pre-test (i.e., prior to the commencement of the executive coaching program)
administered from August to December 2008. All of these participants also completed the post-test
(immediately after the executive coaching program was completed) from January to April 2009. The
study included one data set with two groups. The two groups in the study are referred to as the
experimental group (Group A), and untreated control group (Group B). The experimental group
comprised executives who participated in executive coaching programs provided by the four
executive coaching firms described previously (n=72), their coaches (n=68), and their direct
supervisors (n=28). The control group (n=29) comprised their peers, namely, executives from the
same organisations from which the experimental group was obtained. The research design graphically
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. 10, No. 1, February 2012
Page 19
presented in Figure 1 shows that participants in the experimental group (Group A) engaged in
executive coaching programs and were distributed surveys prior to and following the executive
coaching intervention. Additionally, the participants in the control group (Group B) who did not
engage in an executive coaching program were distributed surveys identical to the participants in the
experimental group (excluding those that measure the executive coaching experience) at the same
times (i.e., prior to and following the executive coaching intervention).
Group A Pre-coaching Executive Post-coaching
(experimental) Surveys Coaching Intervention Surveys
--------------------------0 months-------------3-6/9 months-----------------------9 months
Group B t1 No t2
(control) Surveys Intervention Surveys
Figure 1 - Experimental and Control Group Research Phases
Measures
Before considering the hypothesised relationships among the constructs of interest, the
accuracy of the measures with respect to the data was examined. In order to test the hypothesis of
interest in this study, measures of five distinct theoretical constructs via previously published scales
were used to collect data relevant for the study. There are many advantages in using standardised
instrumentation. For example, results of different studies using the same instrument can be compared,
and replication is facilitated (Gay & Diehl, 1992). Another advantage of using instruments that have
already been developed is that validity and reliability data are available. Detailed information on each
instrument follows.
Coachee job performance was measured using Griffin et al's (2007) job performance scale
(which is three subscales in their general job performance scale) designed to measure three sub
dimensions of job performance. The measure consists of nine items. A representative item from this
scale is: “How often you had carried out the core parts of your job well". All items are answered using
a five-point rating scale ranging from (1)=very little to (5)=a great deal. The coefficient alpha of .70
was recorded for this measure in Griffin et al's (2007) study. In the current study, coefficient alphas of
.83, and .91 as reported by coachee and direct supervisor respectively were recorded. Coachee
supervisory-rated task performance was measured using Walumbwa et al's (2008) supervisory-rated
task performance scale designed to measure the performance of followers as rated by their immediate
supervisors. The measure consists of four items. A representative item from this scale is: “All in all,
how competently does this individual perform the job?" All items are answered using a five-point
rating scale ranging from (1)=consistently performs way below expectations to (5)=consistently
performs way beyond expectations. The coefficient alpha of .86 was recorded for this measure in
Walumbwa et al's (2008) study, and .91 in the current study. Coachee self-awareness was measured
using Grant et al's (2002) self insight scale designed to measure the clarity of understanding one's
thoughts, feelings, and behaviour. The measure consists of eight items. A representative item from
this scale is: “I am usually aware of my thoughts". All items are answered using a six-point rating
scale ranging from (1)=strongly disagree to (6)=strongly agree. The coefficient alpha of .87 was
recorded for this measure in Grant et al's (2002) study, and .82 in the current study. Coachee job
affective commitment was measured using Meyer et al's (1993) job affective commitment scale
designed to measure commitment as an affective attachment to the organisation. The affective
dimension of organizational commitment has been noted for its unique contribution, given it captures
the employee’s affective desire to remain with the organization versus a calculative conclusion
(Frisch, 2001) and is often used as a single dimension in organizational research (e.g., Frisch, 2001;
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. 10, No. 1, February 2012
Page 20
Wycherley & Cox, 2008). The measure consists of five items which were a modified version of the
scale reported by Allen and Meyer (1990). A representative item from this scale is: “I would be very
happy to spend the rest of my career with this organisation". All items are answered using a seven-
point rating scale ranging from (1)=strongly disagree to (7)=strongly agree. The coefficient alpha of
.85 was recorded for this measure in Meyer et al's (1993) study, and .80 in the current study. Coachee
career satisfaction was measured using Greenhaus et al's (1990) career satisfaction scale designed to
measure the career satisfaction among black and white managers from three organisations. The
measure consists of five items. A representative item from this scale is: “I am satisfied with the
progress I have made toward meeting my goals for advancement". All items are answered using a
five-point rating scale ranging from (1)=strongly disagree to (5)=strongly agree. The coefficient alpha
of .88 was recorded for this measure in Greenhaus et al' (1990) study, and .84 in the current study.
Analyses Approaches
The first stage of the quantitative analysis involved descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics
(univariate) such as frequencies and means were used to understand the structure and nature of the
data. This approach also served the purpose of clarifying the most appropriate statistical methods to
subsequently use. As Tukey (1977) suggested, exploratory data analysis can highlight aspects of the
data that are unexpected. Descriptive statistics were used to describe and summarize the data to
identify any patterns in the data distribution. Several procedures for examining the individual variable
in this study were performed, such as measures of frequency and central tendency. Exploratory
statistics (bivariate and multivariate) such as correlation analysis, analysis of variance, t-tests, and
exploratory factor analysis were used to investigate the relationships among the variables.
Hierarchical regression analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were used to examine complex
relationships among the variables and to validate the study's scales.
Results
Coach Demographics
Coaches were asked to provide basic demographic information and coaching-specific
information on the following: age, gender, level of education, employment background, executive
coaching experience and training, and a description of their executive coaching engagement (e.g.
length of program, amount and frequency of meetings, form of interactions). Table 1 presents
descriptive information about the coach participants. All of the executive coaches (n=68) in this study
resided in Israel. The sample of coaches consisted of 26 (38%) males and 42 (62%) females. These
findings are consistent with previous research (Aiken & West, 1991; Spence, 2006) suggesting that
coaching in Israel is currently predominantly a female profession. The highest proportion of coaches
in this study was between 45-55 years of age, and the mean age was 45 years (SD=9.14). In line with
previous studies (Aiken & West, 1991; Australia, 2010; Brooks & Wright, 2007; Judge & Cowell,
1997), most coaches in this study were university educated (83%). Seven coaches (10%) indicated
high school as their highest educational level, five (7%) indicated a certificate/diploma, 27 (40%)
indicated Bachelor degrees, and 29 (43%) indicated Masters degrees. These results are consistent with
previous research and support the concern expressed in the literature regarding the variety of
professionals identifying themselves as coaches (Australia, 2010; Feldman & Lankau, 2005; Grant &
Cavanagh, 2007; Hall, et al., 1999; Judge & Cowell, 1997).
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. 10, No. 1, February 2012
Page 21
Demographics
n
%
Mean
SD
Gender
Male
26
38.2
Female
42
61.8
Age
45.13
9.15
Education Level
High-school
7
10.3
Certificate / Diploma
5
7.4
Bachelors
27
39.7
Masters
29
42.6
Professional Association Membership
Yes
36
52.9
No
32
47.1
Training in learning and development
Yes
30
44.1
No
38
55.9
Background in psychology
Yes
41
61.2
No
26
38.8
Background in management
Yes
60
89.6
No
7
10.4
Is executive coaching your major current
profession?
Yes
37
54.4
No
31
45.6
Does the coach work with a coaching firm?
Yes
23
33.8
No
45
66.2
Employment status
Full time
5
7.4
Part time
7
10.3
Independent
56
82.4
Executive Coaching experience (years)
1.86
1.37
Table 1 - Descriptive Statistics of Coaches
The Executive Coaching program
The coaches (n=68) in this study were asked to provide details on the executive coaching
program they provided, as presented in Table 2. The average executive coaching program in this study
lasted 3.7 months (SD=0.7), with 88% of coaches working with their coachees for 3 to 4 months. The
average executive coaching program included 6.8 face-to-face sessions (SD=4.6) of 80 minutes each.
The average face-to-face coaching session lasted 1.3 hours (SD=0.37). The coaching session duration
was from 30 to 120 minutes, and the mode (88%) duration of each coaching session was 60 to 90
minutes. This finding in relation to coaching sessions duration is similar to a mean of 77 minutes
reported by a recent survey among 229 Australian coaches (Australia, 2010). In addition to the face-
to-face coaching sessions, coaching over the phone or online coaching by emails were also widely
practised among the coaches in this study with an average of eight non–contact engagements per
program (SD=5.22). These data are in line with previous studies conducted overseas (Bono, et al.,
2009; Brooks & Wright, 2007; Collings & Mellahi, 2009; Grant & Zackon, 2004; Gyllensten &
Palmer, 2007; ICF, 2008; Spence, 2006).
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. 10, No. 1, February 2012
Page 22
Variable
Means
SD
Executive coaching program duration (months)
3.66
0.68
Face to face meetings (number)
6.75
4.60
Face to face meetings duration (hours)
1.32
0.37
Non-physical interaction (e.g., phone, email etc)
7.63
5.22
Table 2 - Descriptive Statistics of Executive Coaching Program
Coachee/Peer Demographic Information
Demographic variables of coachee and peer participants (i.e., experimental and control groups
respectively) are presented in Table 3. The study's participants were 101 executives (72 coachees and
29 peers) from Israel-based organisations who represented diverse professional specialities, including
education, information technology, human resources, operations, finance and insurance, legal,
marketing and advertising, and client services. The sample of coachees and peers comprised 53
(52.5%) males and 48 (47.5%) females. In terms of marital status, nineteen (18.8%) were single,
seventy two (71.3%) were married, and ten (9.9%) were divorced/separated. Coachee participants
averaged 4.02 years of experience in their current position. Similarly, peer participants averaged 3.03
years of experience in their current position. Twenty two (21.8%) participants in the coaches/peers
groups were in some supervisory or team leadership positions, 31 (30.7%) were in middle
management positions, 39 (38.6%) were in upper management positions, and nine (8.9%) were in top
positions (i.e., CEOs or presidents). The average age of coachee participants was 41 (SD=10.19)
compared to 34 (SD=5.6) among peer participants. Most participants in this study were university
educated (81%) with almost a third of participants (32%) having a Masters degree. As the average age
of the coachees was significantly higher than the peer respondents, it follows that coachees reported
longer full-time employment (M=16.49, SD=10.3) compared to their peers (M=10.45, SD=6.43).
Demographics
Peer
Coachee
Total
n
%
n
%
n
%
Gender
Male
14
48.3
39
54.2
53
52.5
Female
15
51.7
33
45.8
48
47.5
Total
29
100
72
100
101
100
Marital status
Single
8
27.6
11
15.3
19
18.8
Married
17
58.6
55
76.4
72
71.3
Divorced / Separated
4
13.8
6
8.3
10
9.9
No. of children
None
18
62.1
31
43.1
49
48.5
One
2
6.9
11
15.3
13
12.9
Two
7
24.1
21
29.2
28
27.7
Three
2
6.9
9
12.5
11
10.9
Organizational level
Top
2
6.9
7
9.7
9
8.9
Senior Management
13
44.8
26
36.1
39
38.6
Middle Management
6
20.7
25
34.7
31
30.7
Some supervisory or
team leader
8
27.6
14
19.4
22
21.8
Organization size (no.
of employees)
50 or less
6
20.7
17
23.6
23
22.8
50-99
10
34.5
15
20.8
25
24.8
100-249
5
17.2
13
18.1
18
17.8
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. 10, No. 1, February 2012
Page 23
Demographics
Peer
Coachee
Total
n
%
n
%
n
%
250 or more
8
27.6
27
37.5
35
34.7
* p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001
Table 3 - Descriptive Statistics of Experimental (Coachee) and Control (Peer) Groups
Supervisor Demographic Information
The sample consisted of twenty eight executives who were the direct supervisors of the
coachees and peers who participated in this study. As presented in Table 4, 19 participants (68%)
were male and nine (32%) female. Supervisors recorded a mean age of 44.18 (SD=5.38), with a mean
of 5.79 years in their current positions. The highest proportion (n=14, 50%) of participants worked in
large-size organisations with more than 249 employees, 12 worked in medium-sized organisations
(100-249 employees), and two worked in small-sized organisations (under 100 employees).
Demographics
n
%
Mean
SD
Gender
Male
19
67.9
Female
9
32.1
Age
44.18
5.38
Years in current position
5.79
3.70
Organization size (no. of employees)
50-99
2
7.1
100-249
12
42.9
250 or more
14
50.0
Table 4 - Descriptive Statistics of Supervisors
Testing the Research Hypothesis
The research question addressed by this study was "Does executive coaching have a positive
influence on coachee performance as reflected in greater levels of individual outcomes?" Hypothesis
1 was related to Research Question 1:
H1: Coachee (experimental group) performance will be improved to a greater degree than
peer (control group) performance as reflected in greater levels of individual outcomes.
The operational definition of executive coaching effectiveness, for the purpose of this
research study, is the extent to which individual outcomes are achieved due to participation in an
executive coaching intervention. Executive coaching effectiveness was measured by the difference in
scores between post-coaching and pre-coaching sessions. Individual outcomes refer to the behavioral,
attitudinal, and cognitive benefits experienced by the experimental group (i.e., coachees) as a result of
engaging in an executive coaching program and include increased levels of self awareness (Baek-
Kyoo, 2005; Feldman & Lankau, 2005; Hall, et al., 1999; Luthans & Peterson, 2003), increased levels
of job affective commitment and career satisfaction (Jarvis, 2004; Luthans & Peterson, 2003),
improvement in job performance as reported by the coachee (Hall, et al., 1999; Olivero, et al., 1997;
Smither, et al., 2003; Wanberg, et al., 2003), improvement in coachee job performance as reported by
his/her direct supervisor, and improvement in supervisory-rated task performance (Luthans &
Peterson, 2003).
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. 10, No. 1, February 2012
Page 24
Data were collected at the individual level of analysis. The analyses focused on individual-
level changes in executive coaching effectiveness measured twice (i.e., pre-and post-coaching) over
nine months (August 2008-April 2009). Reliability analyses were used to assess the internal
consistency of the measures of the constructs in the hypothesised research model. Hypothesis 1 was
examined by using two-way repeated measures ANOVA in order to examine differences in executive
coaching effectiveness categorized by group (coachees vs. peers) and time (pre-and post-coaching
intervention). The results are presented in Table 5.
Coaching
Pre test
Post test
F values
Effectiveness
Measures
Group(n=)
M
SD
M
SD
Group
Time
Interaction
Self-reported job
performance
Peer(28)
3.50
0.56
3.85
0.40
5.13*
20.1***
0.27
Coachee(68)
3.74
0.58
4.02
0.45
Total(96)
3.67
0.58
3.97
0.44
Self-awareness
Peer(28)
4.78
0.71
4.74
0.59
0.58
0.81
2.33
Coachee(68)
4.56
0.81
4.72
0.79
Total(96)
4.63
0.78
4.73
0.74
Job affective
commitment
Peer(28)
5.89
0.90
5.84
1.05
8.16**
0.25
0.75
Coachee(68)
5.00
1.34
5.16
1.55
Tota(96)
5.26
1.29
5.36
1.45
Career
satisfaction
Peer(28)
3.64
0.54
3.31
0.39
2.01
0.14
15.2***
Coachee(68)
3.54
0.78
3.81
0.79
Total(96)
3.57
0.72
3.67
0.73
Job performance
reported by
supervisor
Peer(27)
3.77
0.74
4.15
0.41
0
20.4***
0.01
Coachee(25)
3.78
0.40
4.14
0.48
Total(52)
3.77
0.59
4.15
0.44
Supervisory-rated
task performance
Peer(27)
3.54
0.72
4.08
0.53
2.04
14.4***
5.89*
Coachee(25)
3.96
0.49
4.08
0.70
Total(52)
3.74
0.65
4.08
0.61
* p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001
Table 5 - Means, Standard Deviations and F values of Coaching Effectiveness Categorized by
Group and Time
As Table 5 indicates, there were statistically significant differences between pre-and post-
coaching for the following measures: self-reported job performance (F(1,94)=20.15, p<.001,
ηp2=0.18), job performance as reported by direct supervisor (F(1,50)=20.41, p<.001, ηp2=0.29), and
supervisory-rated task performance (F(1,94)=14.40, p<.001, ηp2=0.22). Scores of these measures
were significantly higher among both groups (i.e., experimental and control groups) in the post-
coaching measurement than in the pre-coaching measurement. For self-reported job performance, the
post-coaching scores were higher (M=3.97) than the pre-coaching scores (M=3.67) for the two
groups. For job performance as reported by direct supervisor, the post-coaching scores were higher
(M=4.15) than the pre-coaching scores (M=3.77) for the two groups. For supervisory-rated task
performance, the post-coaching scores were higher (M=4.08) than the pre-coaching scores (M=3.74)
for the two groups.
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. 10, No. 1, February 2012
Page 25
When ANOVA results indicated a statistically significant interaction, a Bonferroni procedure
was applied to examine the source of the interactions. As shown in Figures 2 and 3, there was partial
support for hypothesis 1, with career satisfaction of coachees exceeding that of their peers post-
coaching (F(1,94)=15.20, p<.001). In comparison, peers recorded a higher level of supervisory-rated
task performance compared with coachees post-coaching (F(1,50)=5.89, p<.05). For both groups,
significant improvement by time (i.e., pre-post-coaching) was recorded in self-reported job
performance (F(1,94)=20.15, p<.001, ηp2=0.18), job performance as reported by direct supervisor
(F(1,50)=20.41, p<.001, ηp2=0.29), and supervisory-rated task performance (F(1,94)=14.40, p<.001,
ηp2=0.22). These three executive coaching effectiveness measures were significantly higher post-
coaching compared to the pre-coaching measurement.
Figure 2 - Interaction Effects of Pre- and Post-coaching Intervention on Coachee Career
Satisfaction
Figure 3 - Interaction Effects of Pre- and Post-coaching Intervention
on Supervisory-rated Task Performance
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. 10, No. 1, February 2012
Page 26
Discussion
The primary purpose of this study was to empirically investigate how effective or beneficial
executive coaching is as a development tool for individuals and the organisations in which they work.
This study addressed the research question "Does executive coaching have a positive influence on
coachee performance as reflected in greater levels of individual outcomes?" Hypothesis 1 was related
to Research Question 1:
H1: Coachee (experimental group) performance will be improved to a greater degree than
their peers (control group) as reflected in greater levels of individual outcomes.
Hypothesis 1 was partially supported, with coachee (i.e., experimental group) career
satisfaction improving to a greater degree than their peers (i.e., control group). It is fair to note that the
evidence for executive coaching having a positive impact on work-based performance was weak.
However, research about executive coaching is slowly beginning to point to the fact that most
executives who have engaged in executive coaching do find it beneficial in a range of areas (Dawdy,
2004; Hall, et al., 1999; Judge & Cowell, 1997; Wasylyshyn, 2003), from stress management and
satisfaction to self-regard and leader development and performance (Jones, et al., 2006; Passmore &
Gibbes, 2007). Our finding regarding the coachee's improvement in career satisfaction is in line with
Luthans and Peterson (2003) who reported a significant improvement in managers' work attitudes
(including job satisfaction) as a result of 360-degree feedback combined with coaching. Through
executive coaching, executives can focus on professional development areas as they face a succession
of career challenges (Marshall, 2000). Brown and Hockman (2004, p. 42) stated that "from senior
executives to up-and-comers, people who hire coaches are learning how to set better goals for
themselves, and develop strategies that improve their overall quality of life." Similarly, two-thirds of
the participants in Blackman's (2006) study indicated that executive coaching had offered them the
best way to achieve their goals. The participants in Evers et al's (2006) quasi-experimental study
indicated satisfaction with the improvement in their effectiveness, in particular, in the domain of
acting in a balanced way and goal setting. These results suggest that executive coaching may be a
mechanism by which executives could be helped in improving and maintaining a high level of career
satisfaction. Career satisfaction is an outcome toward which future studies of executive coaching can
turn when considering a broader class of outcomes beyond performance in evaluating executive
coaching effectiveness.
Conclusions and Implications
Much of the existing coaching literature considers executive coaching as a relatively new and
promising discipline related to growth and development, but empirical evidence in support of these
observations remains limited (Bono, et al., 2009; Feldman & Lankau, 2005; Finn, 2007; Hall, et al.,
1999; Levenson, 2009; Passmore & Gibbes, 2007). However, when it comes to a real, measureable
improvement of coaches that can be directly attributable to their engagement in coaching results are
much more sporadic (Haan & Nieb, 2011).This study provides some support for the conclusion that
executive coaching has a beneficial impact on executives. Specifically, the career satisfaction of
coachee participants in this study improved to a greater degree when compared with their peers. The
information from this study should assist in designing more effective executive coaching programs,
and enable individuals and organisations in making informed decisions about implementing, and
measuring executive coaching programs. These outcomes are important for the development of
healthy individuals and organisations, and are essential to the long term success of executive coaching
as a solid evidence-based field.
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. 10, No. 1, February 2012
Page 27
This study has filled some of the gaps in the executive coaching literature. Methodologically,
this research adopted a quasi-experimental design that drew on experimental and control groups in its
data collection and analysis. The use of a quasi-experimental design allowed the examination of
causal relationships in a complex field setting, and the ability to eliminate alternate explanations of
the effects reported. In addition, unlike many previous studies in the area that have relied merely on
self-report assessments of executive coaching effectiveness, this current study drew on multiple raters
in its collection of data, namely coaches, coachees, direct reports, and supervisors, and utilised a
control group.
In terms of advancing research in this area, there are only a handful of extant studies that
empirically examine the outcomes of executive coaching interventions. Within this set, the bias has
been to use short term affective reactions as outcome measures, and to ignore coachee learning,
behavioural changes and organisational outcomes as effectiveness indicators (Feldman & Lankau,
2005; Kombarakaran, Yang, et al., 2008). In order to redress this gap, this study improves our
understanding of executive coaching outcomes by using established, reliable and valid measures to
examine pre-and post executive coaching performance. This study provides evidence for the impact of
executive coaching on individual outcomes, improving executive coaching practice, and assisting in
identifying the individual outcomes of effective executive coaching. This is an important contribution
as much of the previous executive coaching research could not delineate the effects of executive
coaching from other developmental interventions, such as training programs, 360 degree feedback,
environmental factors, or prior exposure to coaching (e.g., Kampa-Kokesch, 2001; Luthans &
Peterson, 2003; Olivero, et al., 1997; Saling, 2005; Smither, et al., 2003; Thach, 2002). In contrast, the
design of this research, though not without limitations, facilitates a better understanding of executive
coaching outcomes distinct from other developmental interventions.
There are only a handful of extant studies that empirically examine the outcomes of executive
coaching interventions. Within this set, the bias has been to use short term affective reactions as
outcome measures, and to ignore coachee learning, behavioural changes and organisational outcomes
as effectiveness indicators (Feldman & Lankau, 2005; Kombarakaran, Yang, et al., 2008). In order to
redress this gap, this study improves our understanding of executive coaching outcomes by using
established, reliable and valid measures to examine pre-and post executive coaching performance.
Finally, it should also be noted that the intervention study presented in this dissertation was
specifically designed to reflect certain "real-world" realities or, as described by Hall et al (1999, p.
39), to identify what really happens in executive coaching "behind closed doors". As such, this study
was conducted with an adult business community sample, delivered by several executive coaching
firms across an extended timeframe (9 months), and used executive coaching methods that allowed
coaches the flexibility to tailor the executive coaching context to meet the coachee's needs and
circumstances. These decisions regarding the nature of the study were taken to ensure that the
research did not become overly sanitised. The findings of this study should provide a useful agenda
for future theoretical and empirical research on executive coaching as an emerging form of
management development, as well as providing clearer guidelines and benchmarks for practitioners
and consumers of executive coaching. Without a strong theoretical foundation backed by empirical
research, executive coaching runs the risk of becoming a passing fad like many other forms of
consulting in business.
Future Research
Given the early stages of executive coaching research, there are many avenues for future
research arising from this 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. 10, No. 1, February 2012
Page 28
The present study provided some support for the conclusion that executive coaching has a
beneficial impact on executives' individual outcomes. Specifically, the results of this study suggest
that executive coaching may be a mechanism by which executives improve their career satisfaction.
Career satisfaction as an outcome of executive coaching should be examined beyond standard
performance measures when evaluating executive coaching effectiveness. As empirical research on
executive coaching outcomes is limited, much more rigorous research is needed to improve our
understanding of whether executive coaching really does make a difference to long term improvement
in coachee and organisation performance. These results suggest that executive coaching may be a
mechanism by which executives could be helped in improving and maintaining a high level of career
satisfaction. Career satisfaction is an outcome toward which future studies of executive coaching can
turn when considering a broader class of outcomes beyond performance in evaluating executive
coaching effectiveness.
This study provided longitudinal data through a pre-test-post-test design which assessed the
effects of executive coaching over time (before coaching and immediately after coaching was
completed). It is now recommended that future research assess the long-term progress made by
executive coaching on individual and organisational performance to understand the sustainability of
executive coaching benefits. Data should be collected at various intervals after executive coaching is
completed (post-test measurement) and involve three longitudinal follow-ups for both experimental
and control groups. In particular, future research should collect post-coaching data immediately after
coaching is completed, six months after coaching is completed, and then one year after coaching is
completed. This is an important design feature that enables tracking the impact of executive coaching
at multiple points in time, and thus examining the long-term effects of executive coaching on
individual and organisational outcomes. Furthermore, long-term indications of executive effectiveness
will ensure that executive coaching dollars are well spent.
This study was limited by the collection of questionnaire-based data and the analysis of
quantitative data. It would be useful to collect qualitative data to triangulate the research and
investigate some of the questions raised by this study. As noted by Greene, Caracelli, and Graham
(1989), multiple methods research designs strengthen the validity of research findings. Through
qualitative research, richer information about executive coaching can be obtained from executives,
their supervisors, their peers, and coaches, and provide further insight into how executive coaching is
associated with psychological and behavioural effects. The less structured nature of the qualitative
research would also provide the opportunity to identify additional factors which are important in the
success of executive coaching. Qualitative data would broaden the theoretical base of executive
coaching, and potentially contribute practical strategies to maximise its benefits.
References
Aiken, S. G., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park
Sage Publications.
Aitken, P., & Malcolm, H. J. (2010). Developing change leaders-The principles and practices of change
leadership development. Oxford: Elseveir.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative
commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 63(1), 1-18.
Antonacopoulou, E. P. (2000). Employee development through self-development in three retail banks Personnel
Review, 29(4), 491 - 508 doi: 10.1108/00483480010296294
Arthur, M. B., & Rousseau, D. M. (1996). The boundaryless career as a new employment principle. In M. B.
Arthur & D. M. Rousseau (Eds.), The boundaryless Career: A new employment principle for a new
organizational era (pp. 3-20). New York: Oxford Uninversity 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. 10, No. 1, February 2012
Page 29
Ashford, S. J. (1989). Self-assessments in organizations: A literature revuew and integrative model. Research in
Organizational Behaviour, 11, 133-174.
Australia, S. (2010). Coaching in organizations-Survey of coaches. Report of Survey. Standards Australia.
Sydney.
Bacon, T. R., & Spear, K. I. (2003). Adaptive coaching: The art and the practice of a client-centered approach
to performance improvement. CA: Davis-Black.
Baek-Kyoo, B. J. (2005). Executive coaching: A conceptual framework from an integrative review of practice
and research. Human Resource Development Review, 4(4), 462-488.
Bandura, A. (1982). The self and mechanisms of agency. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives (Vol. 1).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Bass, B. M., & Yammarino, F. J. (1991). Congruence of self and others' leadership ratings of naval officers for
understanding successful performance. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 40(4), 437-454.
Berg, I. K., & Szabo, P. (2005). Brief coaching for lasting solutions (1 ed.). New-York: W.W. Norton &
Company.
Bertrand, M., & Schoar, A. (2003). Managing in style: The effect of managers on firm policies. Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1169-1208.
Blackman, A. (2006). Factors that contribute to the effectiveness of business coaching: The coachees
perspective. The Business Review, Cambridge., 5(1), 98-104.
Bono, J. E., Purvanova, R. K., Towler, A. J., & Peterson, D. B. (2009). A survey of executive coaching
practices. Personnel Psychology, 62(2), 361-404.
Bozer, G., & Pirola-Merlo, A. (2007). Executive coaching effectiveness:
A conceptual framework. Monash Business Review, 2(2), 44-45.
Brock, V. G. (2008). Grounded theory of the roots and emerfence of coaching. Doctoral dissertation.
International University of Professional Studies. Makawao, Maui.
Brooks, I., & Wright, S. (2007). A survey of executive coaching practices in new Zealand. International Journal
of Evidence based Coaching and Mentoring, 5(1), 30-41.
Brotman, Liberi, & Wasylyshyn. (1998). Executive coaching: The need for standards of competence. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 50(1), 40-46.
Brown, M., & Hockman, J. (2004). Right, coach. Association Management, 56(12), 41-43.
Cavanagh, M. J. (2005). Mental healh issues and challenging clients in executive coaching. In M. J. Cavanagh,
A. M. Grant & T. Kemp (Eds.), Evidence-based coaching: Theory, research and practice from the
behavioral sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 21-36). Brisbane: Australian Academic Press.
Collings, D. G., & Mellahi, K. (2009). Strategic talent management: A review and research agenda. Human
Resource Management Review, 19(4), 304-313
Coutu, D., Kauffman, C., Charan, R., Peterson, D. B., Maccoby, M., & Scoular, P. A. (2009). What can coaches
do for you? Harvard Business Review, 87(1), 91-97.
Coutu, D., Kauffman, C., Charan, R., Peterson, D. B., Maccoby, M., Scoular, P. A., & Grant, A. M. (2009).
What can coaches do for you? Harvard Business Review, 87(1), 91-97.
Dawdy. (2004). Executive coaching: A comparative design exploring the perceived effectiveness of coaching
and methods. Dissertation. Capella University. Minneapolis.
Diedrich, R., C. (1996). An iterative approach to executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice
& Research, 48(2), 61-66.
Dutton, G. (1997). Executive coaches call the plays. Management Review, 86(2), 39-43.
Eggers, J. H., & Clark, D. (2000). Executive coaching that wins. Ivey Business Journal, 65(1), 66-71.
Ennis, S. A., Hodgetts, W. H., Otto, J., Stern, L. R., Vitti, M., & Yahanda, N. (2004). The executive coaching
handbook: Principles and guidelines for a successful coaching partnership (3 ed.): The Executive
Coaching Forum.
Evers, W., Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2006). A quasi-experimental study on management coaching
effectiveness, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 58(3), 174-182.
Feldman, D. C., & Lankau, M. J. (2005). Executive coaching: A review and agenda for future research. Journal
of Management 31(6), 829-848.
Ferguson, N., & Whitman, M. (2003). Corporate therapy. Economist, 369(8350), 61.
Finn, F. A. (2007). Leadership development through executive coaching: The effects on leaders' psychological
states and transformational leadership behaviour. PhD, Queensland University of Technology,
Brisbane.
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. 10, No. 1, February 2012
Page 30
Frisch, M. H. (2001). The Emerging Role of the Internal Coach. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 53(4), 240-250.
Garman, A. N., Whiston, D. L., & Zlatoper, K. W. (2000). Media perceptions of executive coaching and the
formal preparation of coaches. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research 52(3), 201-205.
Gay, L. R., & Diehl, P. L. (1992). Research Methods for Business and Management New-York: Maxwell
Macmillan International.
Gegner, C. (1997). Coaching: Theory and practice. Management. Unpablished master's thesis. University of
California. San Francisco.
Grant, A. M. (2006). A personal perspective on professional coaching and the development of coaching
psychology. International Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1), 12-22.
Grant, A. M., & Cavanagh, M. J. (2007). Coaching psychology: How did we get here and where are we going?
InPsych, 29(3), 6-9.
Grant, A. M., Franklin, J., & Langford, P. (2002). The self-reflection and insight scale: A new measure of
private self-consciousness. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal, 30(8), 821.
Grant, A. M., & Zackon, R. (2004). Executive, workplace and life coaching: Findings from a large-scale survey
of International Coach Federation members. International Journal of Evidence based Coaching and
Mentoring, 2(2), 1-15.
Greene, J., & Grant, A. M. (2003). Solution-focused coaching: Managing people in a complex world. Harlow,
GB: Pearson Education
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method
evaluation desgins. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.
Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., & Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on organizational experiences,
job performance, evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of management journal, 33(1), 64-86.
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance: positive behavior in
uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of management journal, 50(2), 327-347.
Gyllensten, K., & Palmer, S. (2007). The coaching relationship: An interpretative phenomenological analysis.
International Coaching Psychology Review, 2(2), 168-177.
Haan, E. d., & Nieb, C. (2011). Change through executive coaching: The organizational perspective. Training
Journal, 66-70.
Hall, D. T., Otazo, K. L., & Hollenbeck, G. P. (1999). Behind closed doors: What really happens in executive
coaching. Organizational Dynamics, 27(3), 39-43.
Hart, W. E., & Kirkland, K. (2001). using your executive coach. Greensbord, North Carolina: Center for
Creative Leadership.
ICF. (2008) Retrieved 13.02.08, 2008, from http://www.coachfederation.org/ICF/
Jarvis, J. (2004). Coaching and buying coaching services Retrieved 02/03/2007, 2007
Jones, Rafferty, & Griffin. (2006). The executive coaching trend: Towards more flexible executives. leadership
& Organization Development Journal, 27(7), 584-596. doi: 10.1108/01437730610692434
Judge, W. Q., & Cowell, J. (1997). The brave new world of executive coaching. (Cover story). Business
Horizons, 40(4), 71-77.
Jung, D., Wu, A., & Chow, C. W. (2008). Towards understanding the direct and indirect effects of CEOs'
transformational leadership on firm innovation. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), 582-594.
Kaiser, R. B., Hogan, R., & Craig, S. B. (2008). Leadership and the fate of organizations. American
Psychologist, 63(2), 96-110. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.2.96
Kampa-Kokesch, S. (2001). Executive Coaching as an Individually Tailored Consulation Intervention: Does It
Increase Leadership? Doctor of Philosophy Doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University,
Michigan.
Kampa-Kokesch, S., & Anderson, M., Z. (2001). Executive coaching: A comperhensive review of the literature.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 53(4), 205-228.
Kiel, F., Rimmer, Eric, Williams, Kathryn, Doyle, Marilyn (1996). Coaching at the top. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice & Research, 48(2), 67-77.
Kilburg. (2004). Trudging toward dodoville: Conceptual approaches and case studies in executive coaching.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 56(4), 203-213.
Kilburg, R. R. (1996a). Foreword: Executive coaching as an emerging competency in the practice of
consultation. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 48(2), 59-60.
Kilburg, R. R. (1996b). Toward a conceptual understanding and definition of executive coaching. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 48(2), 134-144.
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. 10, No. 1, February 2012
Page 31
Kilburg, R. R. (2000). Executive coaching: Developing managerial wisdom in a world of chaos. Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
King, Z. (2004). Career self-management: Its nature, causes and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior
65, 112-133.
Kirwan, C., & Brichall, D. (2006). Transfer of learning from management development programmes: Testing
the Holton model. International Journal of Training and Development, 10(4), 252-268.
Kombarakaran, F. A., Bsker, M. N., Yang, J. A., & Fernandes, P. B. (2008). Ececutive coaching: It works!
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(1), 78-90.
Kombarakaran, F. A., Yang, J. A., Baker, M. N., & Fernandes, P. B. (2008). Executive coaching: It works!
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 60(1), 78-90.
Levenson, A. (2009). Measuring and maximaizing the business impact of executive coaching. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 61(2), 103-121.
Levinson, H. (1996). Executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 48(2), 115-
123.
London, M. (2001). Leadership development: Paths to self-insight and professional growth. Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Lowman, R. L. (2005). Executive coaching: The road to dodoville needs paving with more than good
assumptions. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 57(1), 90-96.
Luebbe, D. M. (2005). The three-way mirror of executive coaching. Ph.D., Union Institute and University,
United States -- Ohio. Retrieved from http://ezproxy-authcate.lib.monash.edu.au/cgi-
bin/authcate.pl?url=http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?did=888851991&Fmt=7&clientId=16397&RQT
=309&VName=PQD
Luthans, F., & Peterson, S. J. (2003). 360-degree feedback with systematic coaching: Empirical analysis
suggests a winning combination. Human Resource Management, 42(3), 243-256.
Marshall, L. (2000). Coaching for culture change. Executive Excellence, 17(3). Retrieved from
McCauley, C. D., & Hezlett, S. A. (2001). Individual development in the workplace. In N. Anderson, D. S.
Ones, H. K. Sinangil & C. Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational
psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 313-335). London: Sage Publications.
McGovern, J., Lindemann, M., Vergara, M., Murphy, S., Barker, L., & Warrenfeltz, R. (2001). Maxinizing the
impact of Executive coaching: Behavioral change, organizational outcomes, and return on investment.
The Manchester Review, 6(1), 1-9.
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and
test of a three-componenet conceptalization. Journal of Applied psychology, 78(4), 538-551.
Moen, F., & Allgood, A. (2009). Coaching and the effect on self-efficacy. Organization Development Journal,
27(4), 69-82.
Moen, F., & Kralsund, R. (2008). What communications or relational factors characterize the method, skills and
techniques of executive coaching? . Journal of Coaching in Organisations 2, 102-123.
Natale, S. M., & Diamante, T. (2005). The five stages of executive coaching: Better process makes better
practicr. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(4), 361-374.
O'Brien, M. (1997). Executive coaching. Supervision, 58(4), 4-6.
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.
Orenstein, R. L. (2002). Executive coaching, it's not just about the executive. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 38(3), 355-374.
Ozkan, E. (2008). Executive coaching: Crafting a versatile self in corporate America. Doctor of Philosophy,
Massachuestts Institute of Technology, Boston.
Parker-Wilkins, V. (2006). Business impact of executive coaching: Demonstrating monetary value. Industrial
and Commercial Training, 38(3), 122-127.
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, 2(2), 116-128.
Pemberton, C. (2006). Coaching to Solutions: A managers toolkit for performance delivery. Oxford: Elsevier
Ltd.
Peterson, D., B. (1996). Executive coaching at work: The art of one-on-one change. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice & Research, 48(2), 78-86.
Rogers, J. (2004). Coaching skills: A handbook. Maidenhead, Berkshire, Uk: Open University 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. 10, No. 1, February 2012
Page 32
Saling, N. E. (2005). An Empirical study comparing the effect of feedback, training, and executive coaching on
leadership behavior change. Doctoral dissertation. North Carolina State University.
Scriffignano, R. S. (2009). Examining the influence of goal orientation on leaders' professional development
during executive coaching engagements. Doctor of Philosophy, Northcentral University, Prescott
Valley.
Smither, J. W., London, M., Flautt, R., Vargas, Y., & Kucine, I. (2003). Can working with an executive coach
improve multisource feedback ratings over time? A quasi-experimental field study. Personnel
Psychology, 56(1), 23-44.
Spence, G. B. (2006). New directions in the psychology of coaching: The integration of mindfulness training
into evidence-based coaching practice. Doctor of Philosophy, Sydney University, Sydney.
Starman, J. (2007). The impact of executive on job performance from the perspective of executive women.
Capella University. Available from Monash University ProQuest database.
Stern, L. R. (2004). Executive coaching: A working definition. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice &
Research, 56(3), 154-162.
Sue-Chan, C., & Latham, G. P. (2004). The relative effectiveness of external, peer, and self-coaches. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 53(2), 260-278.
Tett, R. P., Hal, G. A., Bleier, A., & Murphy, P. (2000). Development and content validation of a
"Hyperdimensional" taxonomy of managerial competence. Human Performance, 13(3), 205-251.
Thach, L. (2002). The impact of executive coaching and 360-feedback on leadership effectiveness. Leadership
& Organization Development Journal, 23(4), 205-214.
Tukey, J. W. (1977). Exploratory Data Analysis New York: Addison-Wesley.
Waldman, D. A., Ramírez, G. G., House, R. J., & Puranam, P. (2001). Does leadership matter? CEO leadership
attributes and profitability under conditions of perceived environmental uncertainty. The Academy of
Management Journal, 44(1), 134-143.
Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., & Zhu, W. (2008). How transformational leadership weaves its influence on
ondividual job performance: The role of identification and efficacy beliefs. Personnel Psychology,
61(4), 793-825.
Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, L., & Hezlett, S. (2003). Mentoring: A review and directions for future research. In J. J.
Martocchio (Ed.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 22, pp. 39-124).
Oxford Elsevier Science Ltd.
Wasylyshyn, K. M. (2003). Executive coaching: An outcome study. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice &
Research, 55(2), 94-106.
Witherspoon, R., & White, R., P. (1996a). Executive coaching: A continuum of roles. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice & Research, 48(2), 124-133.
Wycherley, M., & Cox, E. (2008). Factors in the selection and matching of executive coaches in organizations.
Coaching: An international Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice, 1(1), 39-53.
Yammarino, F. J., & Atwater, L. E. (1993). Understanding self-perception accuracy: Implications for human
resource management. Human Resource Management, 32(2-3), 231-247.
Yukl, G., & Mahsud, R. (2010). Why flexible and adptive leadership is essential. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice & Research, 62(2), 81-93.
Dr Gil Bozer a lecturer at the Human Resources Department, Sapir Academic College has
recently completed his PhD at Monash University, Australia focusing on the key determinants of
executive coaching effectiveness and their relationships with coaching outcomes
Dr James C. Sarros is Professor of Management, Monash University, Australia. His key
research areas are executive leadership, succession planning, corporate culture and character, and
strategic planning.
