Content uploaded by Anthony M Grant
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anthony M Grant on Jan 29, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 1 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
Designing Positive Psychology: Taking Stock and
Moving Forward
Kennon M. Sheldon, Todd B. Kashdan, and Michael F. Steger
Print publication date: 2011
Print ISBN-13: 9780195373585
Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: May 2011
DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195373585.001.0001
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Anthony M. Grant
Michael J. Cavanagh
DOI:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195373585.003.0019
Abstract and Keywords
The past decade has seen the use of coaching in personal,
health, workplace, and executive settings grow from being a
novel and somewhat derided methodology to a mainstream
activity in business organizations and health settings
worldwide. This chapter takes stock of the current state of
coaching research and practice, and then highlights how
coaching could make important contributions to the future of
positive psychology. In taking stock of the present state of play
in coaching, it begins with definitions and delineations of
coaching. It then reports on the professional status of
coaching and the bodies that seek to accredit and organize
coaches. Research into the efficacy of coaching is briefly
discussed. The chapter presents an overview of a future
coaching-related research and practice agenda. It concludes
by outlining some potentially fruitful lines of inquiry for future
work in this emerging and exciting sub-field of psychological
research.
University Press Scholarship Online
Oxford Scholarship Online
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 2 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
Keywords: coaching research, positive psychology, coaching, business, practice
agenda
The past decade has seen the use of coaching in personal,
health, workplace, and executive settings grow from being a
novel and somewhat derided methodology to a mainstream
activity in business organizations and health settings
worldwide. Recently, the annual revenue expended on
corporate coaching has been estimated to be at US$1.5 billion,
with approximately 30,000 professional coaches globally
(International Coach Federation, 2006). The UK Chartered
Institute of Personnel and Development reports that 88% of
UK organizations use coaching (Jarvis, Lane, & Fillery-Travis,
2005). In Australia, 64% of business leaders and 72% of senior
managers report using coaches, with 96% rating the
experience as beneficial (Leadership Management Australia,
2006). The use of health coaching in medical settings for
helping patients recover from physical illness has also
significantly grown (Newham-Kanas, Goreznski, Morrow, &
Irwin, 2009), and personal coaching is being increasingly used
as a means of enhancing psychological well-being in addition
to goal attainment (Grant, 2007).
The recent growth of coaching and coaching psychology
parallels the development of the positive psychology
movement. The core principles and foci of interest of positive
psychology are evidenced throughout the history of philosophy
and psychology. However, it was only in the latter 1990s that
psychologists and behavioral scientists explicitly articulated
an agenda for a sub-discipline of psychology that focused
attention on sources of psychological health, well-being, and
the scientific study of the factors that enable individuals,
organizations, and communities to flourish and thrive (see for
example the Akumal Manifesto, 1999 and Seligman &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). Similarly, although methodologies for
helping individuals reach their goals and fulfill their personal
potential had long been in existence in therapeutic and non-
therapeutic domains, it was only during the latter 1990s that
coaching began to emerge as a popular human change
methodology. The emergence of coaching was propelled by
many of the same socio-cultural factors that underpinned the
positive psychology movement: dissatisfaction with traditional
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 3 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
approaches to facilitating human change (Spence, 2007a) and
a frustration with established psychological teaching,
research, and practice (for a detailed history (p.294) of the
contemporary coaching movement, see Brock, 2008). Thus,
coaching and positive psychology share common historical
roots and interests and, potentially, a common future.
In this chapter, we draw on and extend our previous work (e.g,
Grant, Passmore, Cavanagh, & Parker, 2010) and take stock of
the current state in relation to coaching research and practice
and then highlight how coaching could make important
contributions to the future of positive psychology. In taking
stock of the present state of play in coaching, we begin with
definitions and delineations of coaching; we then report on the
professional status of coaching and the bodies that seek to
accredit and organize coaches. Research into the efficacy of
coaching is briefly discussed. Moving forward, we present an
overview of a future coaching-related research and practice
agenda. We conclude by outlining some potentially fruitful
lines of inquiry for future work in this emerging and exciting
sub-field of psychological research.
Taking Stock: What Is Coaching?
Coaching is a relationship formed between a coach and the
coachee for the purpose of attaining valued professional or
personal outcomes (for a recent discussion, see Spence &
Grant, 2007). Hence, coaching is a goal-driven activity. This is
true whether the coaching is focused on instilling skills,
improving performance, or developmental growth. In most
coaching engagements, the coaching process facilitates goal
attainment and enhances well-being by helping individuals to
(i) identify desired outcomes, (ii) establish specific goals, (iii)
enhance motivation by identifying strengths and building self-
efficacy, (iv) identify resources and formulate action plans, (v)
monitor and evaluate progress, and (vi) modify action plans.
The monitor-evaluate-modification steps of this process
constitute a simple cycle of self-regulated behavior, and this is
a key in creating intentional behavior change (Carver &
Scheier, 1998). It requires some considerable skill on the part
of the coach to properly facilitate this process, not least in
assisting the coachee to keep focused on his or her goals over
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 4 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
time and helping him or her to develop and implement
innovative solutions to the ongoing challenges that invariably
arise during the goal-striving process.
Coaching and Coaching Psychology
Coaching psychology is “coaching” that draws on and develops
established psychological approaches, and coaching
psychology involves the systematic application of behavioral
science to the enhancement of life experience, work
performance, and well-being. It is important to note that, at
this point in time, most coaches do not have explicit training in
the behavioral sciences or in positive psychology, nor are they
registered psychologists (Grant & Zackon, 2004).
Furthermore, most coaches tend not to use theoretically
coherent approaches or scientifically validated techniques and
measures (Grant and O’Hara, 2006). Interestingly, whilst the
discipline of psychology would appear to be an ideal
grounding for the practice of coaching, a psychology
background has not been viewed as essential for coaching by
the coaching industry (Coutu & Kauffman, 2009; Garman,
Whiston, & Zlatoper, 2000).
We do not argue that a psychological education or training in
positive psychology is essential for solid coaching practice.
Indeed, many great coaches do not have a formal education in
psychology, and the relevance of a psychological background
will vary depending on the focus of the coaching engagement.
However, we contend that, whilst non-psychology-based
approaches to coaching have merit, utility, and a clear place in
the human change enterprise, coaching psychology adds a
depth and grounding to contemporary coaching practice,
particularly where the coaching addresses personal or
emotionally laden issues.
We do argue that both coaching psychology and positive
psychology have much to offer the field of coaching. Many
psychologists have a grounding in a scientist-practitioner or
scholar-practitioner model. This is invaluable in the generation
and validation of practical knowledge. Psychological education
also builds critical thinking skills critical to understanding the
dynamic link between theory and change methodologies.
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 5 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
These skills, derived from a long-standing tradition of research
and a broad base of tested theory, can bring much needed
rigor to the coaching arena. (For a discussion of the
application of the scientist practitioner model in coaching, see
Cavanagh & Grant, 2006.)
Coaching has a broad remit and has been applied to many
areas of human change, including: business coaching (Clegg,
Rhodes, Kornberger, (p.295) & Stilin, 2005), dealing with
workplace stress (Wright, 2007), learning how to work with
difficult people, leadership and sales skills development
(Wilson, 2004), career coaching (Scandura, 1992), team
building (Cunha & Louro, 2000), coaching to improving sales
performance (Rich, 1998), and coaching to improve job
interview performance (Maurer, Solamon, & Troxtel, 1998).
While the above coaching activities address clearly
substantive issues, some coaching applications seem trivial or
even farcical. Seligman (2007) has observed that the scope of
present coaching practice is almost without limits, with life
coaches offering to coach you in arranging your closet,
fighting dark thoughts, or organizing your memories in a scrap
book! From such a perspective, it is hard to see that such
activities bear the hallmark of a genuine helping profession.
Credentialing, Professional Status, and
Professional Bodies
Indeed, when judged against the commonly accepted criteria
for professional status, coaching presently fails to display the
key hallmarks of a profession. There are no barriers to entry,
no minimal educational process or training route, and no
binding ethical or practice standards (Sherman & Freas,
2004). Anyone can call themselves a coach, and the practice of
coaching is unregulated. In calling for a greater degree of
scientific and professional rigor in coaching, Seligman (2007)
has commented that:
People who call themselves coaches and get paid for
coaching have an enormous range of academic
qualifications from none at all to bachelor’s degrees in
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 6 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
almost anything, to masters degrees in counselling,
education, social work, or positive psychology, to
doctorates in psychology, medicine, and philosophy…
Some have taken face-to-face or telecourses in coaching,
but many have not. Some are “accredited” by the self-
appointed International Coach Federation… but most are
not. The right to call oneself a coach is unregulated. And
this is why a scientific and a theoretical backbone… (is
essential)…” (Seligman, 2007, p. 266).
The issue of the accreditation of coaches is somewhat
controversial. In the recent past, much of the coach training
industry appears to have been driven by a quest for quick
credibility and status (Grant & Cavanagh 2007). Worldwide
there is a veritable industry offering a range of “coach
certifications.” Indeed, some coach training organizations
seem to be little more than credentialing mills where,
following a few days training and payment of the appropriate
fee, one can be awarded the title of “Professional Certified
Master Coach” or the like (Grant & O’Hara, 2006). The value
of these certifications is highly questionable. This is an
important issue because the general public are not well-
informed about the value of various genuine psychological
qualifications, let alone coaching qualifications, and may rely
on impressive-sounding titles to guide them in selecting a
coach or coach training program.
However, there is growing recognition of the need for well-
grounded and commonly accepted standards of accreditation.
Some coaching organizations, like the European Mentoring
and Coaching Council (EMCC; UK-based, has more than 3,000
members) and the International Coach Federation (ICF; U.S.-
based, 15,000 members in nearly 90 countries), have put
considerable effort into establishing credentialing processes
and developing coaching competencies. The recent Dublin
Declaration of the Global Coaching Convention (GCC, 2008)
saw leaders and members of many international and national
coaching bodies call for international collaboration on
developing common frameworks of understanding around
training, ethics, and accreditation. Some of these
organizations (e.g., the EMMC and the ICF) are beginning to
collaborate in the development of aligned ethical standards.
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 7 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
Such efforts are important moves toward genuine
professionalism.
The role of accreditation by such bodies is becoming more
salient. Within both the U.S. and Australia, some commercial
and government organizations are beginning to require that
external coaches be accredited by different bodies as a
condition of employment. This may reflect a search for some
security on the part of organizations and government
departments, in a market that is marked by variable service
standards and a lack of clearly articulated alternative
accreditation models. It may also reflect effective lobbying on
the part of various industry bodies to be seen as the
representatives of “professional” coaching. Such a
development is likely to exacerbate the tension felt by some
coaches who have many years of psychological training and
who would argue that their training represents a (p.296)
superior preparation for the role of coach, both practically and
academically.
The Current Academic Status of Coaching
Psychology as a body of knowledge and as a professional
practice has traditionally been slow to engage with the
public’s demand for personal and professional development,
leaving the way open for other, possibly less qualified,
individuals to dominate the market (Fox, 1996). Recognizing
the importance of psychology’s role in coaching, a number of
professional psychological societies have now established
formal coaching psychology groups, including the Australian
and British Psychological Societies, the Danish Psychological
Association, the Swedish Psychological Association, and the
Federation of Swiss Psychologists. Many other groups around
the world, such as the Society for Industrial and
Organisational Psychology in South Africa (SIOPSA), are
developing strong interests in coaching. Most recently (April,
2008), the Psychological Society of Ireland’s Division of Work
and Organisational Psychology established a Coaching
Psychology Group to further develop coaching psychology as a
psychological subdiscipline.
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 8 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
In addition, worldwide there are now a number of universities
offering coaching degree programs. Since the commencement
in 2000 of the first postgraduate degree in coaching
psychology at Sydney University, Australia now has three
universities offering master’s-level coaching degrees and
doctoral programs. In the UK there are several degree
programs operating, with coaching psychology units now
established at City University and the University of East
London, and professional mentoring and coaching programs
up to doctoral level at universities such as Oxford Brookes and
Sheffield Hallam. The University of Copenhagen in Denmark
has also recently established a coaching psychology unit.
Between Australia and the UK, there are at least eight
university-accredited master’s degrees in coaching
psychology. In the U.S., at least seven universities offer
coaching degree programs, with a Coaching and Positive
Psychology Initiative recently being established at Harvard
University. It appears that coaching is becoming increasingly
accepted within the academic sphere. We envisage that the
increasing availability of specialist professional qualifications
in coaching psychology, like those available in clinical,
organizational, and forensic psychology, will do much to raise
the bar for the coaching industry in general.
Of course both psychologists and non-psychologists have much
to contribute to professional coaching. Indeed, most of the
coaching degrees worldwide are offered by business or
education faculties, rather than from within schools of
psychology. The challenge for psychology is to engage with
other sectors of the coaching industry in a way that brings the
best of both to the fore and provides a solid educational
grounding for professional coaching practice (Cavanagh &
Palmer 2006).
Regardless of whether such programs are housed within
schools of psychology or not (or indeed whether coaching is
primarily conducted by psychologists or non-psychologists),
the development of a professional approach to coaching is
reliant on a rigorous and coherent body of coaching-specific
research (Grant & Cavanagh, 2007). It is to this issue we now
turn.
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 9 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
Coaching Research: What Do We Know?
The first coaching citations listed in PsycINFO are Gorby’s
(1937) report of senior staff coaching junior employees on how
to save waste and Bigelow’s (1938) article on how best to
implement a sales coaching program. Despite these early
citations, research in the area of coaching is in its infancy.
There has been significant growth in the coaching literature in
recent years, and the bulk of the literature on coaching is less
than 10 years old. As of February 2009, there were more than
520 published scholarly papers or dissertations on coaching
cited in PsycINFO, yet in the 62 years between 1937 and 1999
only 93 papers were published (note that these figures include
life (or personal coaching) and workplace and executive
coaching, but exclude papers on less relevant applications
such as sports coaching, clinical or therapeutic populations,
educational coaching, or coaching for psychometric or
educational tests).
There has been significant growth in the coaching literature in
recent years. Between 2000 and February 2009, more than
360 peer-reviewed papers were published. However, of these
papers, approximately 60% have been articles, opinion papers,
descriptive articles, or theoretical discussions and about 30%
empirical studies (20% of all these have been PhD
dissertations). Many of the published empirical papers are
surveys (e.g., Fanasheh, 2003) or descriptive studies into the
(p.297) nature of executive coaching or life coaching (e.g.,
Griffiths & Campbell, 2008; Schnell, 2005), investigations into
organizations’ use of coaching (e.g., Douglas & McCauley,
1999; Vloeberghs, Pepermans, & Thielemans, 2005; Wycherley
& Cox, 2008), or examinations of different perceptions of
coaching (e.g. Garman, Whiston & Zlatoper, 2000). That is,
most of the empirical literature is contextual or survey-based
research about coaching as a professional service activity or
about the characteristics of coaches and coachees, rather than
outcome research examining the efficacy of coaching as a
means of creating individual or organizational change.
Outcome Studies
The first published empirical outcome study on workplace
coaching in psychology literature was Gershman’s (1967)
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 10 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
dissertation on the effects of specific factors of the supervisor-
subordinate coaching climate upon improvement of attitude
and performance of the subordinate. No other coaching
outcome studies were published until Duffy’s (1984)
dissertation on the effectiveness of a feedback-coaching
intervention in executive outplacement.
We located a total of 81 outcome studies that have examined
the effectiveness of coaching since 1980. There have been a
total of 27 case studies, 40 within-subject studies, and 15
between-subject studies.
Of course, single case designs can provide useful data-driven
evaluations. However, many of the 27 case studies in the
coaching literature are purely descriptive and emphasize
issues related to practice rather than the development of
theory or coaching outcomes (Kilburg, 2004). Very few of
these case studies incorporated established and validated
quantitative measures (one exception is Libri & Kemp, 2006).
The 40 within-subject studies represent the largest single
methodological approach to coaching outcome research. While
within-subject studies can provide useful quantitative data and
allow for the use of inferential statistics, provided that the
studies are well-designed and use validated and reliable
measures, randomized controlled studies are frequently held
to represent best practice in researching the impact of specific
interventions.
Randomized Controlled Studies
Eleven of the 15 between-subject outcome studies used a
randomized controlled design (Deviney 1994; Duijts, Kant, van
den Brandt, & Swaen, 2008; Taylor, 1997; Grant, 2002; Miller,
Yahne, Moyers, Martinez & Pirritano, 2004; Gattellari et al.,
2005; Green, Oades & Grant, 2006; Green, Grant & Rynsaardt,
2007; Spence & Grant, 2007, Grant, Frith, and Burton, in
press; Spence, Cavanagh, & Grant, 2008). Sue-Chan and
Latham (2004) used random assignment to self, peer, or
external coaching group but did not use a no-intervention or
placebo intervention control group. Table 19.1 presents
summaries of the 15 between-subject studies.
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 11 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
The 11 randomized controlled studies of coaching that have
been conducted to date indicate that coaching can indeed
improve performance in various ways.
Four of these 11 studies have been in the medical or health
areas. Taylor (1997) found that solution-focused coaching
fostered resilience in medical students. Gattellari et al. (2005)
found that peer coaching by general practitioners improved
coachees’ ability to make informed decisions about prostate-
specific antigen screening. Miller, Yahbe, Moyers, Martinez, &
Pirritanol (2004) found that coaching with feedback was
superior to training-only conditions, in a program designed to
help clinicians learn motivational interviewing skills. Exploring
the utility of mindfulness training when used within health
coaching and comparing this to a health education seminar
intervention, Spence, Cavanagh, & Grant (2008) found that
the mindfulness/coaching intervention was superior to the
health education seminar intervention.
Four outcome studies have been in the life (or personal)
coaching domain with community samples and students. These
have indicated that coaching can improve and indeed facilitate
goal attainment and reduce anxiety and stress (Grant, 2003),
enhance psychological and subjective well-being (Green,
Oades, & Grant, 2006; Spence & Grant, 2007) and resilience,
while reducing depression, stress, or anxiety (Green, Grant, &
Rynsaardt, 2007).
There have been only three randomized controlled studies of
coaching in the workplace. Deviney (1994) examined the
efficacy of supervisors acting as internal workplace coaches,
finding no changes in supervisors’ feedback skills following a
multiple-rater feedback intervention and coaching from their
managers over nine weeks. Duijts, Kant, van den Brandt, &
Swaen, (2008) examined the effectiveness of coaching as a
means of reducing sick leave and found that although
coaching did not reduce the amount of (p.298)
Table 19.1 Summary Table of Between-Subjects
Studies to 2009
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 12 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
Study Intervention
Overview
Type of
Study
Key Findings
Miller
(1990)
33 employees.
Some
received
coaching by
their
managers
over four
weeks
Quasi-
experimental
field study
(a) Coaching
group;
(b) Control
group
No sig.
differences pre-
post for
interpersonal
communication
skills
Deviney
(1994)*
45 line
supervisors at
a nuclear
power plant.
Some
received
feedback and
coaching from
their
managers
over nine
weeks
Randomized
controlled
study
(a) Feedback
plus
coaching;
(b) Feedback
with no
coaching;
(c) Control
group
No sig.
differences in
pre-post
feedback
behavior
Taylor
(1997)*
Participants
undergoing a
Medical
College
Admission
Test
preparation
course
Randomized
controlled
study
(a) Training
only;
(b) Coaching
only;
(c) Training
plus
coaching;
(d) Control
group
Coaching
reduced stress
more than
training
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 13 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
Study Intervention
Overview
Type of
Study
Key Findings
Grant
(2002)*
62 trainee
accountants
received
group
coaching over
one semester
Randomized
controlled
study
(a) Cognitive
coaching
only;
(b)
Behavioral
coaching
only;
(c) Combined
cognitive and
behavioral
coaching;
(d) Control
groups for
each
condition
Combined
cognitive and
behavioral
coaching most
effective in
increasing grade
point average,
study skills, self-
regulation, and
mental health.
GPA gains
maintained in 12
month follow-up
Miller,
Yahne,
Moyers,
Martinez,
&
Pirritano
(2004)*
140 licensed
substance
abuse
professionals
learned
Motivational
Interviewing
via a range of
methods
Randomized
controlled
study
(a) Workshop
only;
(b) Workshop
plus
feedback;
(c) Workshop
plus
coaching;
(d)
Workshop,
feedback,
and
coaching;
or (e)
Waitlist
control
group
Relative to
controls, the 4
trained groups
had gains in
proficiency.
Coaching and/or
feedback
increased post-
training
proficiency
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 14 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
Study Intervention
Overview
Type of
Study
Key Findings
Sue-Chan
& Latham
(2004)
53 MBA
students in
two studies in
Canada and
Australia
Random
assignment
(a) External
coach;
(b) Peer
coach;
(c) Self-
coached
Study 1:
External
coaching
associated with
higher team
playing behavior
than peer
coaching; Study
2: External and
self coaching
associated with
higher grades
than peer
coaching
Gattellari,
M., N.
Donnelly
et al.
(2005)*
277 GPs in
total. Some
received two
phone-based
peer coaching
sessions
integrated
with
educational
resources
Randomized
controlled
study
(a) Peer
coaching and
educational
resources;
(b) Control
group
Compared to
controls, peer
coaching
increased GPs
ability to make
informed
decisions about
prostate-specific
antigen
screening
Gyllensten
& Palmer
(2005)
31
participants
from UK
finance
organization
Quasi-
experimental
field study
(a) Coaching
group;
(b) Control
group
Anxiety and
stress decreased
more in the
coaching group
compared to
control group
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 15 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
Study Intervention
Overview
Type of
Study
Key Findings
Evers,
Brouwers,
& Tomic
(2006)
60 managers
of the federal
government
Quasi-
experimental
field study
(a) Coaching
group;
(b) Control
group
Coaching
increased
outcome
expectancies’
and self-efficacy
Green,
Oades, &
Grant
(2006)*
56 adults
(community
sample) took
part in SF-CB
life coaching
program
Randomized
controlled
study
(a) Group-
based life
coaching;
(b) Waitlist
control
Coaching
increased goal
attainment, well-
being, and hope.
30-week follow-
up found gains
were maintained
Green,
Grant, &
Rynsaardt
(2007)*
56 female
high school
students took
part in SF-CB
life coaching
program for
10 individual
coaching
sessions over
two school
terms
Randomized
controlled
study
(a) Coaching
group;
(b) Waitlist
control
group
Coaching
increased
cognitive
hardiness,
mental health,
and hope
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 16 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
Study Intervention
Overview
Type of
Study
Key Findings
Spence &
Grant
(2007)*
63 adults
(community
sample) took
part in SF-CB
life coaching
program
Randomized
controlled
study
(a)
Professional
coaching
group;
(b) Peer
coaching
group;
(c) Waitlist
control
group
Professional
coaching more
effective in
increasing goal
commitment,
goal attainment,
and
environmental
mastery
Duijts,
Kant, van
den
Brandt, &
Swaen
(2008)*
Dutch
employees
assessed for
the
effectiveness
of a
preventive
coaching
program on
sickness
absence due
to
psychosocial
health
complaints
and on well-
being
outcomes
Randomized
controlled
study
(a) 6-month
course of
preventive
coaching;
(b) Control
group
Significant
improvements in
health, life
satisfaction,
burnout,
psychological
well-being, but
no improvement
in self-reported
sickness
absence
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 17 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
Study Intervention
Overview
Type of
Study
Key Findings
Spence,
Cavanagh,
& Grant
(2008)*
45 adults
(community
sample) took
part in
mindfulness-
based health
coaching over
eight weeks
Randomized
controlled
study
SF-CB
coaching
followed by
mindfulness
training
(MT);
(b)
Mindfulness
training
followed by
SF-CB
coaching;
(c) Health
education
only control
group
Goal attainment
greater in
coaching than in
the educative/
directive format.
No significant
differences were
found for goal
attainment
between the two
MT/CB-SF
conditions
Grant,
Curtayne,
& Burton,
2009
41 executives
in a public
health agency
received 360-
degree
feedback and
four SF-CB
coaching
sessions over
10-week
period
Randomized
controlled
study
(a) Coaching
group; (b)
Waitlist
control
group
Coaching
enhanced goal
attainment,
resilience, and
workplace well-
being and
reduced
depression and
stress and
helped
participants deal
with
organizational
change
Notes: SF-CB = Solution-focused cognitive behavioral; * =
Randomized controlled study
(p.299) (p.300) self-reported sick leave, the coaching
intervention group reported statistically significant improvements
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 18 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
in health, reduced psychological distress, lower rates of burnout,
less need for recovery, and an increased satisfaction with life.
Grant, Frith, & Burton (in press) found that short-term solution-
focused, cognitive behavioral executive coaching consisting of four
coaching sessions over 10 weeks increased resilience and
workplace well-being, and reduced stress and depression. These
studies indicate that coaching in the workplace can have a positive
effect on general well-being of employees (for a recent review of
coaching, see Joo, 2005; Passmore & Gibbes, 2007).
The lack of randomized controlled studies is a major
shortcoming in the coaching literature. While there is debate
over the practical utility of randomized controlled trials, they
are currently held to be the “gold standard” in quantitative
outcome research where interventions are used to produce
specific outcomes. However, true randomized allocation to
intervention or control is often extremely difficult in real-life
field research. Thus, most coaching outcome studies have
used single-group, pre-post within-subject designs (e.g., Grant
2003, Jones, Rafferty, & Griffn, 2006; Olivero, Bane, &
Kipelman, 1997; Orenstein, 2006).
There have been some quasi-experimental studies with pretest
and posttest comparisons and non-randomized allocation to an
experimental or control group. Miller (1990) examined the
impact of coaching on transfer of training skills, but the
drawing of conclusions was restricted by a high rate of
participant dropout: 91 participants began the study, but only
33 completed the final measures. Gyllensten and Palmer
(2005) found that, compared with a no-coaching control group,
coaching was associated with lower levels of anxiety and
stress. Evers, Brouwers, and Tomic (2006) found that
executive coaching enhanced participants’ self-efficacy beliefs
in personal goal setting, but they did not measure goal
attainment itself. Barrett (2007) used a quasi-experimental,
modified posttest-only control group design, finding that group
coaching reduced burnout but did not improve productivity.
Longitudinal Studies
Not surprisingly, the number of longitudinal studies conducted
in coaching is small. The few follow-up studies that have been
conducted indicate that coaching can indeed produce
sustained change. Grant (2002) investigated the effects of
cognitive-only, behavioral-only, and combined cognitive and
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 19 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
behavioral coaching and found that only the gains from the
combined cognitive-behavioral coaching were maintained at a
six-month follow-up. In a 12-month follow-up, Miller et al.,
(2004) found coaching with feedback was superior to training-
only conditions in maintaining clinicians’ interviewing skills.
Green, Oades, & Grant, (2006) found that gains from
participation in a 10-week solution-focused cognitive-
behavioral life coaching were maintained at a 30-week follow-
up. Libri & Kemp (2006) provide a refreshing example of a
well-designed case study of cognitive-behavioral executive
coaching. Using an A-B-A-B design with an 18-month follow-
up, they found that cognitive-behavioral coaching enhanced
the coachees’ sales performance and core self-evaluations.
Measuring Outcomes of Coaching
It appears that coaching outcome research, as a relatively new
area of study, may be moving through the “natural” stages of
research development, from case studies, through to within-
subject studies, and on to quasi-experimental and randomized
controlled between-subject designs. Indeed, the 55 within-
subject or between-subjects outcome studies conducted to
date are a useful foundation for knowledge about the
effectiveness of coaching. Encouragingly, the amount of
research is increasing over time.
However, a major problem in this body of work is lack of
consistency between studies in the use of outcome measures,
seriously limiting meaningful comparison between studies.
The idiosyncratic use of measures means that it is difficult for
a coherent body of knowledge to develop over time. Many
researchers develop their own somewhat simplistic
“satisfaction with coaching” surveys, and the validity and
reliability of such measure is unknown.
Given that coaching is frequently promoted as being effective
in enhancing goal attainment and well-being (e.g., Levine,
Kase, & Vitale, 2006; Passmore & Gibbes, 2007), it is
surprising that few studies to date have used well-validated
measures of mental health and well-being, despite the fact
that there are many such measures designed for use in non-
clinical populations. For example, the Depression, Anxiety, and
Stress Scale (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995); the Psychological
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 20 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
Well-being Scale (Ryff & Keyes, 1996); and the Cognitive
Hardiness Scale (Nowack, 1990) fit such a description.
(p.301) As a goal-focused change methodology, goal
attainment is an important outcome measure in coaching.
However, few outcome studies have measured the impact of
coaching on goal attainment. Goal attainment scaling (GAS)
techniques offer a useful means of measuring goal progression
in relation to predetermined objective success benchmarks
(see Fillery-Travis & Lane, 2006) and can provide a means of
making comparisons between studies. Well-conducted GAS
would also help address the serious limitations of the few
studies that have examined return on investment in coaching
using subjective post-coaching ratings of success (e.g.,
McGovern et al., 2001). See Spence (2007) for a
comprehensive discussion of the use of GAS in coaching.
Coaching and Therapy: Sorting out the
Boundaries
Of particular importance for future research is the boundary
between coaching and therapy. While often mentioned in the
coaching literature, little by way of empirical research has
been conducted into the prevalence of mental health issues in
coaching populations. This area was given prominence by
Berglas’s (2002) somewhat controversial article on the
potential danger of psychologically naïve coaches unwittingly
reinforcing unhealthy patterns in those they coach. Until
recently, much of the concern with mental health in the
coaching community has focused on identifying depression in
coaching. However, while important, a singular focus on
depression is insufficient (Cavanagh 2005). It seems
reasonable to suspect that Mental health is a major
moderating factor for coaching effectiveness yet, to date, we
have little empirical understanding of the nature and
prevalence of mental health issues in personal or workplace
coaching.
Some mental health-related data has been gathered in studies
of life coaching clients. Green, Oades, and Grant (2006) and
Spence & Grant (2007) found clinically significant levels of
mental distress in 52% and 26% of participants seeking life
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 21 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
coaching in their studies respectively. While it seems likely
that those presenting for executive and workplace coaching
will have a different profile than people presenting for free life
coaching as part of a research study, little deliberate research
has been conducted into the mental health of executive and
workplace coaching clients. Our experience tells us that it is
not a question of whether mental health issues are an
important consideration in coaching, but the extent to which
this is so. We would argue that research into the prevalence of
the full range of mental health issues in coaching is both
important and sorely needed (Cavanagh, 2005; Cavanagh and
Grant, 2004)).
Return on Investment: A Valid Outcome Measure for Coaching?
Return on investment (ROI) using metrics typically valued by
organizations (e.g., growth in market share, profitability,
sales, etc.) is often promoted as being the most important
indicator of coaching success in organizational settings.
Return on investment figures are frequently used by coaching
and consulting organizations as sales or marketing tools in
order to promote their coaching products. Return on
investment figures of 788% (Kampa-Kokesch & Anderson,
2001) and 545% (McGovern et al., 2001a) are commonly
reported as being “the” ROI for executive coaching.
Return on investment is essentially calculated by subtracting
the value of the outcomes of coaching from the costs of
coaching and then expressing this as a percentage (coaching
benefits – costs of coaching/costs of coaching × 100%). There
are a number of variations to this formula, for example,
including factoring into the equation a rating of the coachee’s
level of confidence that all or some of the perceived benefits
are in fact due to coaching, or deliberately undervaluing the
benefits of coaching.
However, we argue that whilst ROI can provide some
guidance as to the perceived impact of a coaching
intervention, it has serious limitations as a benchmark
outcome measure for coaching effectiveness. Reducing the
benefits of coaching to a single financial amount may give the
purchasers of coaching services a sense of comfort and some
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 22 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
reassurance that their money has beenwell spent, but does it
truly measure the impact of coaching? We think not.
The point here is that the ROI metric depends on two key
variables: (1) the amount the coach charges and the costs of
the coaching intervention, and (2) the financial benefit
obtained. These are highly vague and contextually bound
variables. What counts as costs? How are benefits assessed
and what causal chain links the coaching to those benefits?
Even if there were some clearly accepted standard for
measuring costs and benefits, making general claims about
the effectiveness of coaching (p.302) based on ROI data
would remain extremely problematic. For example, company X
employs a coach who charges $1,000 for the coaching
engagement. The coach works with an executive who is
working on a $10 million deal. The deal is done, and the
executives estimates that 50% of the result is due to the coach
(and let us assume that this estimate is fair and accurate). In
this case, ROI is 49,000%. Can we now claim that the ROI for
executive coaching is in the region of 50,000%? Of course not.
At best, ROI can be indicative of only a single specific
coaching engagement. In order to make any meaningful
statement about ROI, and in order to compare ROI across
different coaching studies, all facets of the coaching
engagement, including coaching costs, benefits (and
importantly, the opportunities available to the executive to
derive benefits, must be accounted for and controlled across
studies.
Cause and effect is an important issue in assessing the efficacy
of coaching interventions. While organizations often seek to
improve financial performance via coaching, such measures
are typically not the direct focus of coaching interventions. It
is often difficult to draw clear lines of causality between
coaching and shifts in wider organizational metrics. Here
coaching research has much to learn from research
methodologies used in areas such as training, education, and
organizational psychology. As more researchers move into the
coaching arena, we expect to see increases in greater
interpenetration with these more established fields of
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 23 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
research, and an increased sophistication in the coaching
literature around the measurement of coaching outcomes.
It is of note that all the ROI research that we could identify in
researching for this chapter had been conducted by
consultants and organizations that supply coaching services,
and/or by the human resources professionals that employ
them to provide coaching services to their organization. Thus,
as is sometimes the case with practitioner research, there may
well be some vested interests in demonstrating success and
reporting value for money. This is not to imply misreporting of
results. Rather, it suggests that these issues may
unconsciously effect the way in which participants answer
questions and the ways in which data is interpreted. For this
reason, such research should be conducted and read with
some caution.
Finally, as we will discuss in the “moving forward” section of
this chapter, we believe that there are far more important,
informative, and valuable outcome measures for coaching than
a single ROI metric.
Moving Forward: Game Plans for the Future
In discussing the future of coaching as an applied positive
psychology, we want to focus on three key areas: (1) The use
of coaching as an experimental methodology for investigating
the psycho-mechanics of purposeful positive human change;
(2) the use of coaching in organizational settings as a means of
facilitating positive individual and organizational change; and
(3) the role of coaching in catalysing systems change at local
national and global levels.
Coaching as an Experimental Methodology for Studying Positive
Change
While coaching, and particularly coaching psychology, is
connected to more than a century of psychological theory,
research, and development, it often seems as if our
understanding of what makes for effective positive human
change is still in its infancy and that the potential research
agenda is vast. We believe that coaching has a vital role to
play in defining the research agenda and in assisting
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 24 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
researchers in understanding the dynamics of positive human
change.
In terms of the agenda for research, there is a clear need to
focus on conducting large-scale efficacy studies of coaching.
Multiple studies using randomized controlled designs are
required to assess the efficacy of coaching within different
populations and its suitability as an intervention for a range of
different issues and goals. In other words, we are still largely
ignorant, at a scientific level, as to what kinds of coaching
interventions work best, for which change agendas, and for
whom.
The problem here is that there is a serious bottleneck in our
ability to conduct research. Although the coaching industry
and the number of coaching practitioners are growing rapidly,
the number of coaching researchers is small. Indeed, most
coaching services providers are small businesses, employing
between one and ten employees. Most do not have training in
research methodologies, and the industry as a whole tends to
use idiosyncratic outcome measures. In short, the scientist
practitioner model used in psychology is largely unknown in
coaching (Cavanagh & Grant, 2006).
(p.303) One solution to this bottleneck would be to enable
professional coaches who are not trained in conducting
research to contribute to the body of knowledge in coaching.
Here the establishment of a Web-based research platform
such as that used by Seligman and Peterson to study the
efficacy of PP interventions might be very helpful. This would
enable coaches to assess the efficacy of their coaching
interventions while providing a large-scale database of
coaching outcomes. Variables could include standard outcome
measures such as measures of mental health and stress as
well as positive psychology measures of well-being, goal
attainment, and assessment of the quality of the relationship
between coach and coachee.
Coaching has also great potential to be used to explore the
psycho-mechanics of human change. Coaching can be used as
a means of manipulating or purposefully altering specific
aspects of the change process. These might include goal
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 25 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
formation, action planning, attentional focus, formulation,
rehearsal, emotion, cognition, behavior, and contextual
modification, to name but a few potential contributors to the
change process. Such research would help to develop
frameworks of case conceptualizations that will help integrate
positive psychology theories such as Deci and Ryan’s Self-
Determination Theory, Csikszentmihalyi’s concept of flow, and
Fredrickson’s broaden-and-build theory.
The use of positive psychology in coaching may also help to
elucidate the boundary between coaching and therapy. As
noted above, the boundary between coaching and therapy is
often mentioned in the coaching literature. However, the tenor
of this complex debate is often rather unidimensional and
superficial. Coaching and therapy as often seen as either/or
options the choice of which is determined by the presence of
diagnosable mental illness. Even at this level, little by way of
empirical research has been conducted into the prevalence of
mental health issues in coaching populations. While the
investigation of mental illness in coaching represents a
significant and worthwhile research agenda in its own right,
we believe that the debate on the boundary between coaching
and therapy should be based on a more solid empirical footing
—one that includes both mental illness and mental health.
Indeed, both are present simultaneously to varying degrees
over time. Hence, we would advocate that coaching research
also investigate the way in which coaching methodologies
promote resilience and human flourishing in the presence of
mental health issues (Cavanagh & Grant 2004; Grant &
Cavanagh 2004). Of course, ethical practice dictates that any
such research needs to hold the safety and wellbeing of
participants as paramount, and should not be seen as a license
for unqualified coaches to practice beyond their skillset or
knowledge.,
Coaching as a Means of Effecting Organizational Change
The second major focus for future research and practice
concerns the extended impact of coaching on organizations. Of
course, this includes research into the return on investment
(ROI) for coaching programs but goes beyond this to establish
the nature and extent of the impact of coaching interventions
on a range of workplace outcomes. This research also spans
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 26 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
the impact of interventions, not just on the individuals, but on
different groups, organizations, and indeed the wider
community. In this way, coaching can be assessed as a
developmental tool with the potential to create stronger, more
resilient individuals, organizations, and communities. We
believe that coaching will become increasingly used as a
means of facilitating organization-wide change. Indeed, such
interventions are being increasingly reported in the
professional and trade media (e.g., Anderson, Anderson, &
Mayo, 2008).
The needs of organizational change will continue to shape the
type of research conducted in executive and workplace
coaching. Hence, aside from research into ROI, we expect that
there will be greater levels of research into the interplay
between complex systems dynamics and coaching. Complexity
theory has for some time been applied to organizations
(Stacey, 2000; Waldrop, 1992; Wheatley, 1999) and has more
recently been applied to coaching (Cavanagh, 2006). The
emerging science of networking theory has clear application
to coaching in organizations. This area of theoretical
development considers the dynamics that shape connectivity
in complex natural networks such as cells, organs, and
ecosystems, and social networks such as organizations,
professional networks, the Internet, and even terrorist groups
(Kilduff, Crossland, Tsai, Krackhardt, 2008). Given that one of
the major areas of coaching intervention is communication
within and across networks, the application of both complexity
and network theories would seem a fruitful avenue of
research.
Over the last 20 years in psychology, we have seen a renewed
interest in areas of psychological (p.304) research that were
hitherto viewed as somewhat peripheral and perhaps even
scientifically marginal. For example, there is currently great
interest in both the clinical and positive psychology literature
on mindfulness meditation, or the intentional use of attention.
We expect that the application of mindfulness and other
metacognitive techniques in coaching will be an increasing
area of focus. (For a fuller exploration of the use of
metacognition and mindfulness to coaching, see Collard &
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 27 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
Walsh, 2008; Passmore & Marianetti, 2007; Spence,
Cavanagh, & Grant, 2006).
Coaching also has much to contribute to the emerging Positive
Organizational Scholarship (POS) movement (Cameron,
Dutton, & Quinn, 2003). The aims of POS is to focus on the
dynamics in organizations that lead to developing human
strengths, producing resilience, fostering vitality, and
understanding how to enable human excellence in
organizations and to facilitate positive human and
organization welfare (Cameron & Caza, 2004). The focus on
well-being, functionality, and performance articulated within
the coaching agenda receives even greater explicit emphasis
within POS, and we believe that a conjunction of the two will
form an important future framework in organizational
settings. Indeed, a number of papers have foreshadowed this
development (e.g., Boyatzis, Smith, & Blaize, 2006; Luthans &
Youssef, 2007). However, as in much of the positive
psychology literature, the POS literature tends to report
theoretical, cross-sectional, or correlational research rather
than interventions designed to enhance workplace well-being
and performance (e.g., Luthans, 2002; Muse, Harris, Giles, &
Feild, 2008; Spreitzer, Sutcliffe, Dutton, Sonenshein, & Grant,
2005; Wright, 2003; Zhong, 2007). Coaching may well provide
an applied methodology for implementing the insights
developed in such research.
Coaching is increasingly seen as an applied arm of the rapidly
developing positive psychology movement (Grant & Cavanagh
2007). As both coaching and positive psychology develop, it
appears likely that there will be a greater cross-pollination of
ideas, models of practice, and research between them. Indeed,
both Seligman (2007) and Kauffman (2006) contend that
research in the area of positive psychology can help to
scientifically ground the field of coaching, claiming that that
“positive psychology theory and research will provide the
scientific legs upon which the field of coaching can firmly
stand” (Kauffman, 2006; p.221). We would also contend that
coaching offers to positive psychology a valuable methodology
for assessing the utility and adequacy of its theories.
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 28 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
Coaching as a Means of Catalyzing Systems Change
While the youthfulness of coaching as an area of research
presents challenges, it also presents exciting opportunities.
Coaching is ideally placed to be a point of connection between
disparate areas of research. The knowledge base of coaching
remains an open question, and coaches can and do utilize
multiple theories and models drawn from traditional
psychology, positive psychology, and wider fields of endeavor
such as management, medicine, biology, sociology, complexity
and systems research, spirituality, education, and philosophy.
While this certainly adds complexity to the work of coaches
and researchers, it also makes coaching ideally suited as a
means of catalyzing change in systems at the local, national
regional, and global levels.
Our world is beset by major challenges, the likes of which we
have never seen before: global warming, environmental
degradation, increasing frequency of extreme weather events,
energy and water shortage, economic upheaval, terrorism, and
social dislocation. Scientists and thinkers and Nobel laureates
from every field of endeavor have argued cogently that as a
species we have reached a rapidly diminishing window of
opportunity to make the choices needed to shape a sustainable
future. If these people are correct, to date, it seems that not
enough has been done to change our trajectory away from
catastrophic and chaotic change at the hands of the systems
forces our behavior has unbalanced, toward a new sustainable
equilibrium.
According to some authors (see Lazlo, 2006) solutions for
these problems are not primarily to be found in technology or
even politics (though these need to be involved in the solution.
Rather, they argue that the primary issue we face is one of
consciousness. As Einstein so elegantly said, the significant
problems we face cannot be solved with the same level of
thinking we were at when we created them. The simple
application of technology without a radical shift in the
relationship we have with ourselves, our communities, and our
planet will not lead to a new equilibrium. What is required is a
new level of thinking—a new perspective upon ourselves,
others, and the world. This is essentially a developmental shift
in thinking toward a whole of systems understanding. (p.305)
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 29 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
What role do coaching and positive psychology have to play in
such large-scale events?
There is a growing awareness of the need for more holistic
approaches. The current ascendency of positive psychology as
a field of research reflects this. Reductionist and
individualistic or atomistic approaches that focus on
identifying linear chains of cause and effect are unable to
grasp the unique and emergent dynamics of complex adaptive
systems, whether at the level of the individual, dyad
community, or planet. By taking wholeness seriously, positive
psychology and coaching are in a position to support and
catalyze a larger view capable of new approaches and
solutions.
We are not suggesting that coaching and positive psychology
should become some sort of medium through which a new
social orthodoxy is to be imposed on our clients, either
explicitly or implicitly. Indeed, such an approach would be
merely another manifestation of a linear control mentality that
has created the significant issues we face. Rather, we are
suggesting that coaching is fundamentally about assisting
clients to find new, more effective pathways via the art of
dialogue and reflective practice. The coach’s role is largely
one of asking questions that open new possibilities for
understanding, make new connections and new meanings and,
ultimately, new patterns of action. It is clear that positive
psychology can be valuable in informing this meaning making.
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 30 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
In order to be consistent with the emerging understanding of
complex systems gleaned from the sciences and social
research, the role of the developmental coach is not to impose
solutions but to assist clients in noticing connections and
engaging with the tensions and paradoxes inherent in any
complex system. It is in the tensions and paradoxes on the
edge of chaos that new understandings and creative
possibilities emerge. While coaching and positive psychology
may scaffold this process, they cannot control the outcome.
This understanding of complexity leads to three main tasks in
developmental coaching:
1. To assist clients in noticing and making connections
on and between three levels: intrapersonal,
interpersonal, and systemic.
2. to develop and support processes of communication
that enable connectedness at the intrapersonal,
interpersonal, and systemic levels, and sustain that
connection long enough for new possibilities to emerge.
3. to assist clients to articulate goals and processes of
action that are congruent with and respectful of the
new understanding and connectedness that have
emerged through the process.
As it is often currently practiced, coaching for skills
acquisition and performance enhancement reverses the order
of these three tasks. It begins by articulating a goal toward
which the elements of the system are shaped (i.e.,
intrapersonal, interpersonal, and systemic elements). Patterns
of communication are then developed to maximize the
probability of goal attainment and the system monitored for
impacts of these processes. This is a perfectly fine model if
one is seeking to work within existing systems and
frameworks in a way that maintains existing understandings
and meaning making, but it is unlikely to produce the shift in
thinking that is required to address the significant problems
we face. It is a type of horizontal development, rather than the
vertical development of reaching new understandings.
Both types of development are needed. The development of a
new perspective often requires the acquisition of new skills, or
the redeployment of old skills. The linear development of skills
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 31 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
acquisition and performance enhancement helps to thicken up
one’s ability to function following the upheaval associated with
a new way of seeing one’s relationship to the self, to others,
and to the wider world.
Conclusion
As a young enterprise, coaching has all the problems and the
promise associated with youth. It is in a process of formation
but has the possibility to grow into more than its parent
disciplines. It has the opportunity to gather knowledge and
information from disparate and distant sources, and the
flexibility to develop entirely new understandings and
processes for developing understanding. This makes it ideally
suited to engage with the challenges of our day.
The current interest in mindfulness, dialogue, wisdom,
creativity, meaning, well-being, and wholeness we see in
positive psychology is also a manifestation of the challenge of
our time. From a systems perspective, the ongoing and
increasing popularity of coaching as a process of change in
organizations and individuals, and the emergence of positive
psychology, are not random (p.306) events, mere quirks of
management or academic fashion. Positive psychology and the
coaching approach have arisen and are developing in response
to the growing forces of the systems in which we live. These
forces seek new understandings and new approaches to
engagement. In complexity terms, coaching and positive
psychology are both being shaped by and shaping the
attractors and phase space of the system. From this
perspective, the task for us is to continue to develop in
dialogue with each other and with the systems in which we
live.
References
Bibliography references:
Anderson, M. C., Anderson, D. L., & Mayo, W. D. (2008). Team
coaching helps a leadership team drive cultural change at
Caterpillar. Global Business & Organizational Excellence,
27(4), 40–50.
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 32 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
Barrett, P. T. (2007). The effects of group coaching on
executive health and team effectiveness: A quasi-experimental
field study. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 67,
26–40.
Berglas, S. (2002). The very real dangers of executive
coaching. Harvard Business Review (June), 87–92.
Bigelow, B. (1938). Building an effective training program for
field salesmen. Personnel, 14, 142–150.
Boyatzis, R. E., Smith, M., L., & Blaize, N. (2006). Developing
sustainable leaders through coaching and compassion.
Academy of Management Learning & Education, 5(1), 8–24.
Brock, V. (2008). Grounded theory of the roots and emergence
of coaching. Unpublished dissertation: International University
of Professional Studies.
Cameron, K. S., & Caza, A. (2004). Contributions to the
Discipline of Positive Organizational Scholarship. American
Behavioral Scientist, 47(6), 731–739.
Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (Eds.) (2003).
Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new
discipline. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation
of behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cavanagh, M. (2005). Mental-health issues and challenging
clients in executive coaching. In M. Cavanagh, A. M. Grant, &
T. Kemp (Eds.), Evidence-based coaching (vol. 1):
Contributions from the behavioural sciences (pp. 21–36). Qld:
Australian Academic Press.
Cavanagh, M., & Grant, A. M. (2004) Executive Coaching in
Organisations: The personal is the professional. International
Journal of coaching in Organizations 2, 6–15.
Cavanagh, M., & Grant, A. M. (2006). Coaching psychology
and the scientist-practitioner model. In S. Corrie & D. Lane
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 33 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
(Eds.), The modern scientist practitioner (pp. 146–157). New
York: Routledge.
Cavanagh, M., & Palmer, S. (2006). The theory, practice and
research base of coaching psychology is developing at a fast
pace. International Coaching Psychology Review, 1(2), 5–7.
Clegg, S., Rhodes, C., Kornberger, M., & Stilin, R. (2005).
Business coaching: Challenges for an emerging industry.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 37(5), 218–223.
Collard, P., & Walsh, J. (2008). Sensory awareness
mindfulness training in coaching: Accepting life’s challenges.
Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive Behavior Therapy,
26(1), 30–37.
Coutu, D., & Kauffman, C. (2009). The Realities of Executive
Coaching. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Research
Report.
Cunha, P. V., & Louro, M. J. (2000). Building teams that learn.
Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 152.
Deviney, D. E. (1994). The effects of coaching using multiple
rater feedback to change supervisor behavior. Dissertation
Abstracts International Section A, 55, 114.
Douglas, C. A., & McCauley, C. D. (1999). Formal
developmental relationships: A survey of organizational
practices. Human Development Quarterly, 10(3), 203–220.
Duffy, E. M. (1984). A feedback-coaching intervention and
selected predictors in outplacement. Dissertation Abstracts
International Section B, 45, 1611.
Duijts, S. F. A. P., Kant, I. P., van den Brandt, P. A. P., &
Swaen, G. M. H. P. (2008). Effectiveness of a preventive
coaching intervention for employees at risk for sickness
absence due to psychosocial health complaints: Results of a
randomized controlled trial. Journal of Occupational &
Environmental Medicine, 50(7), 765–776.
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 34 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
Evers, W. J., Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2006). A quasi-
experimental study on management coaching effectiveness.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 58, 174–
182.
Fanasheh, H. A. (2003). The perception of executive coaching
among CEOs of America’s top 500 companies. Los Angeles:
Pepperdine University.
Fillery-Travis, A., & Lane, D. (2006). Does coaching work or
are we asking the wrong question? International Coaching
Psychology Review, 1(1), 23–35.
Fox, R. E. (1996). Charlatanism, scientism, and psychology’s
social contract. American Psychologist, 51(8), 777–784.
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 and
Research, 52(3), 201–205.
Gattellari, M., Donnelly, N., Taylor, N., Meerkin, M., Hirst, G.,
& Ward, J. (2005). Does peer coaching increase GP capacity to
promote informed decision making about FSA screening? A
cluster randomised trial. Family Practice, 22, 253–265.
Gershman, L. (1967). The effects of specific factors of the
supervisor-subordinate coaching climate upon improvement of
attitude and performance of the subordinate. Dissertation
Abstracts International Section B, 28, 2122.
Gorby, C. B. (1937). Everyone gets a share of the profits.
Factory Management & Maintenance, 95, 82–83.
Grant, A. M. (2002). Towards a psychology of coaching: The
impact of coaching on metacognition, mental health and goal
attainment. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A:
Humanities and Social Sciences, 63(12), 6094.
Grant, A. M. (2003). The impact of life coaching on goal
attainment, metacognition and mental health. Social Behavior
and Personality: An International Journal, 31(3), 253–264.
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 35 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
Grant, A. M. (2007). A languishing-flourishing model of goal
striving and mental health for coaching populations.
International Coaching Psychology Review, 2(3), 250–264.
Grant, AM & Cavanagh, M. (2004), Toward a Profession of
Coaching: Sixty five years of progress and challenges for the
future. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and
Mentoring 2: 8–21
Grant, A. M., Passmore, J., Cavanagh, M. J., & Parker, H.
(2010). The State of Play in Coaching Today: A Comprehensive
Review of the Field. International Review of Industrial and
Organisational Psychology 2010, 25, 125–168.
Grant, A. M., & Cavanagh, M. J. (2007). Evidence-based
coaching: Flourishing or languishing? Australian Psychologist,
42(4), 239–254.
Grant, A. M., Curtayne, L., & Burton, G. (2009). Executive
coaching enhances goal attainment, resilience and workplace
well-being: A randomised controlled study. Journal of Positive
Psychology, 4(5), 396–407.
Grant, A. M., & O’Hara, B. (2006). The self-presentation of
commercial Australian life coaching schools: Cause for
concern? International Coaching Psychology Review, 1(2), 20–
32.
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.
Green, L., Oades, L., & Grant, A. (2006). Cognitive-behavioral,
solution-focused life coaching: Enhancing goal striving, well-
being, and hope. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(3), 142–
149.
Green, S., Grant, A., & Rynsaardt, J. (2007). Evidence-based
life coaching for senior high school students: Building
hardiness and hope. International Coaching Psychology
Review, 2, 24–32.
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 36 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
Griffiths, K., & Campbell, M. A. (2008). Semantics or
substance? Preliminary evidence in the debate between life
coaching and counselling. Coaching: An International Journal
of Theory, Research and Practice, 1(2), 164–175.
Gyllensten, K., & Palmer, S. (2005). Can coaching reduce
workplace stress: A quasi-experimental study. International
Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 3(2), 75–
85.
Federation International Coach (2006). Global coaching study.
Retrieved October 20, 2008.
Jarvis, J., Lane, D., & Fillery-Travis, A. (2005). Making the case
for coaching: Does it work? London: Chartered Institute of
Personnel and Development.
Jones, R. A., Rafferty, A. E., & Griffn, M. A. (2006). The
executive coaching trend: Towards more flexible executives.
Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 27, 584–
596.
Joo, B-K. (2005). Executive Coaching: A conceptual framework
from an integrative review of practice and research. Human
Resource Development Review, 44, 462–488.
Kampa-Kokesch, S., & Anderson, M. Z. (2001). Executive
coaching: A comprehensive review of the literature.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 53(4),
205–228.
Kauffman, C. (2006). Positive psychology: The science at the
heart of coaching. In D. R. Stober & A. M. Grant (Eds.),
Evidence based coaching handbook: Putting best practices to
work for your clients (pp. 219–253). Hoboken, NJ, US: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Kilburg, R. R. (2004). “Trudging Toward Dodoville: Conceptual
Approaches and Case Studies in Executive Coaching.”
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research 56(4):
203–213.
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 37 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
Kilduff, M., Crossland, C., Tsai, W., & Krackhardt, D. (2008).
Organizational network perceptions versus reality: A small
world after all? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 107, 15–28.
Lazlo, E. (2006). The chaos point: The world at the crossroads.
Virginia: Hampton Roads.
Leadership Management Australia (2006). The L.E.A.D. Survey
2005/6. Melbourne: Leadership Management Australia
Levine, T., Kase, L., & Vitale, J. (2006). The successful coach:
Insider secrets to becoming a top coach. New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Libri, V., & Kemp, T. (2006). Assessing the efficacy of a
cognitive behavioural executive coaching programme.
International Coaching Psychology Review, 1(2), 9–18.
Lovibond, S. H., & Lovibond, P. F. (1995). Manual for the
Depression Anxiety Stress Scales. Sydney: Psychology
Foundation of Australia.
Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive
organization behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
23(6), 695–706.
Luthans, F., & Youssef, C. M. (2007). Emerging positive
organizational behavior. Journal of Management, 33(3), 321–
349.
Maurer, T., Solamon, J., & Troxtel, D. (1998). Relationship of
coaching performance with performance in situational
employment interviews. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(1),
128–136.
McGovern, J., Lindermann, M., Vergara, M. A., Murphy, S.,
Barker, L., & Warrenfelz, R. (2001). Maximizing the impact of
executive coaching: Behavioral change, organizational
outcomes and return on investment. The Manchester Review,
6(1), 1–9.
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 38 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
Miller, D. J. (1990). The effect of managerial coaching on
transfer of training. Dissertation Abstracts International
Section B, 50(8–A) 2435.
Miller, W. R., Yahne, C. E., Moyers, T. B., Martinez, J., &
Pirritano, M. (2004). A randomized trial of methods to help
clinicians learn motivational interviewing. Journal of
Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 72(6), 1050–1062.
Muse, L., Harris, S. G., Giles, W. F., & Feild, H. S. (2008).
Work-life benefits and positive organizational behavior: Is
there a connection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29,
171–192.
Newham-Kanas, C., Goreznski, P., Morrow, D., & Irwin, J. D.
(2009). Annotated bibliography of life coaching and health
research. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching
and Mentoring, 7(1), 39–103.
Nowack, K. M. (1990). Initial development of an inventory to
assess stress and health. American Journal of Health
Promotion, 4, 173–180.
Olivero, G., Bane, K., & Kipelman, R. E. (1997). Executive
coaching as a transfer of training tool: Effects on productivity
in a public agency. Public Personnel Management, 26(461–
469).
Orenstein, R. L. (2006). Measuring executive coaching
efficacy? The answer was right here all the time. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 58(106–116).
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
Psychological Review, 2(2), 116–128.
Passmore, J., & Marianetti, O. (2007). The role of mindfulness
in coaching. The Coaching Psychologist, 3(3), 130–136.
Rich, G. A. (1998). Selling and sales management in action:
The constructs of sales coaching: Supervisory feedback, role
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 39 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
modeling and trust. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales
Management, 18(1), 53–63.
Ryff, C., & Keyes, C. (1995). The structure of psychological
well-being revisited. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 69, 719–727.
Scandura, T. (1992). Mentoring and career mobility: An
empirical investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
13(2), 169–174.
Schnell, E. R. (2005). A case study of executive coaching as a
support mechanism during organizational growth and
evolution. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice &
Research, 57(1), 41–56.
Seligman, M. E. (2007). Coaching and positive psychology.
Australian Psychologist, 42(4), 266–267.
Seligman, M. E., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive
psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–
14.
Sherman, S., & Freas, A. (2004). The Wild West of executive
coaching. Harvard Business Review, 82(11), 82–90.
Spence, G. B. (2007a). Further development of evidence-based
coaching: Lessons from the rise and fall of the human
potential movement. Australian Psychologist, 42(2), 255–265.
Spence, G. B. (2007). GAS powered coaching: Goal Attainment
Scaling and its use in coaching research and practice.
International Coaching Psychology Review, 2, 155–167.
Spence, G. B., Cavanagh, M., & Grant, A. M. (2006). Duty of
care in an unregulated industry: Initial findings on the
diversity and practice of Australian coaches. International
Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1), 71–85.
Spence, G. B., Cavanagh, M. J., & Grant, A. M. (2008). The
integration of mindfulness training and health coaching: an
exploratory study. Coaching: An International Journal of
Theory, Research and Practice, 1(2), 145–163.
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 40 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
Spence, G. B., & Grant, A. (2007). Professional and peer life
coaching and the enhancement of goal striving and well-being:
An exploratory study. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2,
185–194.
Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, S., & Grant,
A. M. (2005). A socially embedded model of thriving at work.
Organization Science, 16(5), 537–549.
Stacey, R. D. (2000). Strategic management and
organizational dynamics (3 ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson
Education.
Sue-Chan, C., & Latham, G. P. (2004). The relative
effectiveness of expert, peer and self coaches. Applied
Psychology, 53(2), 260–278.
Taylor, L. M. (1997). The relation between resilience,
coaching, coping skills training, and perceived stress during a
career-threatening milestone. Dissertation Abstracts
International Section B, 58(05), 27.
Vloeberghs, D., Pepermans, R., & Thielemans, K. (2005). High-
potential development policies: an empirical study among
Belgian companies. Journal of Management Development,
24(6), 546–558.
Waldrop, M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science at the
edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Wheatley, M. (1999). Leadership and the new science:
Discovering order in a chaotic world. San Francisco: Berrett-
Koehler.
Wilson, C. (2004). Coaching and coach training in the
workplace. Industrial & Commercial Training, 36(3), 96–98.
Wright, J. (2007). Stress in the workplace: A coaching
approach. Work: Journal of Prevention, Assessment &
Rehabilitation, 28, 279–284.
Wright, T. A. (2003). Positive organizational behavior: An idea
whose time has truly come. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 24(4), 437–442.
Coaching and Positive Psychology
Page 41 of 41
PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2015. All
Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a
monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy). Subscriber:
University of Sydney; date: 28 January 2016
Wycherley, I. M., & Cox, E. (2008). Factors in the selection
and matching of executive coaches in organisations. Coaching:
An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice,
1(1), 39–53.
Zhong, L. (2007). Effects of psychological capital on
employees’ job performance, organizational commitment, and
organizational citizenship behavior. Acta Psychologica Sinica,
39(2), 328–334.
Access brought to you by: University of Sydney
