Content uploaded by Anthony M Grant
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anthony M Grant on Jun 02, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
A LARGE-SCALE STUDY OF EXECUTIVE
AND WORKPLACE COACHING: THE
RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF
RELATIONSHIP, PERSONALITY MATCH,
AND SELF-EFFICACY
Erik de Haan
Ashridge Business School
Anthony M. Grant
The University of Sydney
Yvonne Burger
VU University Amsterdam
Per-Olof Eriksson
Triolog, Stockholm, Sweden
This large-scale study of executive coaching explores the perceived effectiveness of
coaching from the perspectives of coach, coachee, and sponsor, and potential active
ingredients including the coach– coachee working alliance, coachee self-efficacy, per-
sonality, and “personality match” between coach and coachee. Using a retrospective
design, data was collected from 1,895 client– coach pairs (366 different coaches) from
34 countries, and 92 sponsors, for a total of 3,882 matching surveys. Results indicate that
coachee perceptions of coaching effectiveness (CE) were significantly related to both
coach- and coachee-rated strength of the working alliance and to coachee self-efficacy
but unrelated to coachee or coach personality and to personality matching. The
coachee– coach working alliance mediated the impact of self-efficacy on CE, sug-
gesting that the strength of this working alliance—particularly as seen through the
eyes of the coachee—is a key ingredient in CE. In addition, a strong emphasis on
Erik de Haan, Ashridge Centre for Coaching, Ashridge Business School; Anthony M. Grant, Coaching
Psychology Unit, The University of Sydney; Yvonne Burger, Department of Economics and Business Admin-
istration, VU University Amsterdam; Per-Olof Eriksson, Triolog, Stockholm, Sweden.
We are very grateful to the following colleagues and institutions that have helped us to gather data. Each
of the following colleagues has helped us to collect at least 50 coach– coachee pairs, and without this help the
large-scale research would not have been possible: Silvana Dini and the Society of Coaching SCP Italy; Cees
van Elst and Mieke Voogd and the Dutch Association of Coaches and Supervisors LVSC; Marnix van Abbe and
the Dutch Association of Self-Confrontation; Annette M. Mul and Kerntact & Partners; Sandor Penninga and
Van Harte & Lingsma; Jesus Mari Iturrioz of Deusto Business School; Sonja Mannhardt; Maartje van Boekholt;
Jens van der Heide; and Jolanda van Gorp. Other professional associations that have helped us with recruitment
of participants were Intercoach (Jan Piet van Berkel), the Association for Career Professionals International
(Heather Turnbull), EMCC The Netherlands (Nobco), and the Dutch Journal of Coaching. We also acknowledge
the support of Andy Copeland, office manager at Ashridge Business School, and Nadine Page, research fellow
at Ashridge Business School, for help with data collection, administration, and statistical analyses.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Erik de Haan, Ashridge Centre for
Coaching, Ashridge Business School, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire, UK, HP4 1NS. E-mail: erik.dehaan@
ashridge.org.uk
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research © 2016 American Psychological Association
2016, Vol. 3, No. 2, 000– 000 1065-9293/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000058
1
goals in the working alliance can partially compensate for low coachee self-efficacy.
The task and goal aspects of the working alliance were stronger predictors of
positive CE than the bond aspects, highlighting the importance of a task and goal
focus in the coach– coachee relationship.
Keywords: executive coaching, coaching effectiveness, client– coach relationship, active
ingredients, self-efficacy
There is now a consistent body of research that demonstrates the efficacy of coaching (for a recent
review and meta-analysis of workplace coaching see Jones, Woods, & Guillaume, 2015), and
government guidelines for the practice of organizational coaching have been developed in a number
of countries worldwide (e.g., Standards Australia, 2011). As the evidence base for the efficacy of
coaching has matured, the attention of some researchers has turned to the so-called “active
ingredients” of successful coaching—in particular the nature of the coach– coachee relationship and
its impact on coaching effectiveness (McKenna & Davis, 2009). Although the working alliance has
been comprehensively researched in the psychotherapeutic spheres, exploration of the coach–
coachee working alliance represents a new phase in coaching research. This new line of coach-
specific research has the potential to enhance our understanding of the fundamentals of effective
coaching and give us insight into how to better facilitate the process of change and goal attainment.
This paper aims to contribute to this emerging knowledge base by presenting data from a
large-scale international coaching research study involving 1,895 coach– coachee pairs (366 differ-
ent coaches) from 34 countries, and 92 organizational “sponsors” of the coaching, with a total of
3,882 completed surveys. The main focus of this paper is on the roles of the coach– coachee working
alliance, personality, and self-efficacy in relation to coaching effectiveness. Although these variables
are hypothesized to play an important part in coaching effectiveness, to date there have been no
large-scale coaching studies to explore this issue. The present study is the first to explore this issue
using a highly diverse large-scale sample of coaches and coachees.
Common Factors in the Therapeutic Relationship
A long-standing debate within the psychotherapeutic domain has focused on the relative efficacy of
different psychotherapeutic approaches. Originally this debate was seen as a contest between the
psychodynamic therapies (Freud, 1920; Jung, 1964) and behavioral therapy (Wolpe & Lazarus,
1966) or the cognitive-behaviorists (Beck, 1995). However, despite heated and often acerbic
disputes between the supporters of different theoretical approaches as to which was the “best,” there
has been little difference found among different types of empirically supported treatments in terms
of effectiveness or outcomes (Norcross & Newman, 1992). The phrase common factors hence stems
from the idea that, if all empirically supported therapies are equally effective, there may well be a
set of general active ingredients that are common to all (Rosenzweig, 1936).
There has been a considerable amount of research into common factors in therapy. A search of
PsycINFO in April 2015 using the words common factors found a total of 1,578 citations. The
importance of common factors within the therapeutic relationship is well documented. For example,
Wampold et al. (1997) emphasized the role of relationship characteristics such as empathy,
unconditional positive regard, trust, respect, and support and argued that these are the essential
components of an effective working alliance in facilitating therapeutic change. Horvath and
Symonds (1991), in a meta-analysis of 24 studies, found that the strength of the working alliance
was predictive of treatment outcomes. More recent research has upheld the notion that the
therapeutic working alliance is important in predicting outcome in patients with a range of
sociopsychological problems including eating disorders (Zaitsoff, Pullmer, Cyr, & Aime, 2015) and
social anxiety (Ngai, Tully, & Anderson, 2015). In short, a significant body of research indicates that
one of the most important factors in psychotherapeutic outcomes is the ability of the therapist to
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
2 DE HAAN, GRANT, BURGER, AND ERIKSSON
develop a strong working alliance with the client that embodies trust, warmth, and respect for the
client’s autonomy (Lampropoulos, 2000).
Although coaching is not therapy, there are some similarities, particularly where workplace or
executive coaching focuses on professional or personal development in areas such as emotional
competencies or dealing with conflict. From this perspective both coaching and psychotherapy
belong to a general class of helping relationship (see de Haan, 2008, for discussion on similarities
and differences between executive coaching and therapy).
It is not surprising then that this stream of psychotherapeutic research has influenced the
direction of some research in the coaching domain (McKenna & Davis, 2009). This new coaching
research takes as its key focus the nature of the relationship between the coachee and the coach. It
turns the focus away from an evaluation of coaching effectiveness per se and seeks to identify the
factors associated with the coaching relationship that contribute most significantly to coaching
effectiveness (de Haan, Duckworth, Birch, & Jones, 2013).
Overview of Coaching Research into the Coach–Coachee Relationship
A search of the coaching literature in April 2015 found nine studies that explored the question of
which variables within the coaching relationship had impact on coaching effectiveness.
Scoular and Linley (2006) looked at how both (a) explicit goal-setting at the beginning of the
coaching conversation and (b) personality (dis-)similarities between coach and coachee in terms of
Myers-Briggs Type Inventory (MBTI; Myers, McCaulley, Quenk, & Hammer, 1998) affected
perceived effectiveness. The sample included 117 clients and 14 experienced coaches, and the
coaching consisted of 30-min “one-off’ sessions. No difference resulted for outcome measurements
at 2 and 8 weeks after the session between “goal-setting” and “no goal-setting”; but when the coach
and coachee differed more on aspects of their MBTI profiles, the outcome scores were significantly
higher.
Stewart, Palmer, Wilkin, and Kerrin (2008) looked at how both coachee personality and coachee
self-efficacy predicted coaching effectiveness. They measured the Big Five personality traits
(Digman, 1990) and general self-efficacy (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995) for 110 coachees (after an
average of seven sessions with mostly an experienced external coach) and correlated these with
coaching effectiveness. They found moderate positive effects for Conscientiousness, Openness,
Emotional Stability, and general self-efficacy but cautioned that other factors are likely to play a role
as well.
Boyce, Jackson, and Neal (2010) studied 74 coach– coachee relationships with an average of
eight sessions and “leader coaches” of “various levels of training” within a U.S. military academy
where the coachees were cadets and the coaches were senior military leaders who had had some
training in executive coaching. The study analyzed the impact of the coach– coachee relationship (in
terms of rapport, trust, and commitment) and matching criteria (demographic commonality, behav-
ioral compatibility, and coach credibility) on coaching effectiveness. Their main findings were that
matching was not related to outcome although outcome was significantly related to the relationship
as assessed by both the coach and the coachee. The coachee ratings were more highly related to
outcome than the coach ratings (explained proportion of variance around 50% vs. around 25%).
Moreover, the coachee ratings fully mediated the other dependencies, suggesting that variables such
as credibility and compatibility positively impact coaching effectiveness through supporting the
development of the coaching relationship.
Baron and Morin (2009, 2012) studied 31 internal coach– coachee pairs involved in on average
five sessions as part of a leadership-development program at a manufacturing company with
leader-coaches having had 2 days of coaching-related training. They showed that the coaching
relationship, as measured by coachee’s ratings of the Working Alliance Inventory (Horvath &
Greenberg, 1986), predicted coaching effectiveness in terms of changes in coachee self-efficacy
(with explained proportion of variance around 25%). However, coaches’ ratings of the working
alliance did not predict this outcome significantly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
3A LARGE-SCALE STUDY OF EXECUTIVE COACHING
de Haan, Culpin, and Curd (2011) examined how various executive coaching interventions (at
least four sessions each with professional external coaches) make a difference to coachees.
Seventy-one coachees, from as many organizations, reported on the various coaching interventions,
and these ratings were compared with their ratings of the effectiveness of the conversations. There
were no effects for specific coach interventions, leading to the conclusion that coaching effective-
ness is not a function of specific techniques or interventions as much as effectiveness is a function
of factors common to all coaching, such as the quality of the coaching relationship, empathic
understanding, positive expectations, and so forth.
Smith and Brummel (2013) explored the relationship between three of the four active ingredi-
ents of therapy (therapeutic relationship; expectancy, hope, and placebo effects; and theory and
technique) and a specific measure of executive coaching success— change in leadership competen-
cies—that were in themselves the focus of the coaching engagement (30 clients who spent on
average 82 hours being coached by external coaches or doing their “coaching homework”). The
results indicated that these three active ingredients were significantly related to coaching success. It
is of note that Smith and Brummel (2013) also found that those coachees who set developmental
plans (a technique frequently used in coaching engagements) were statistically more likely to
experience competency improvement compared to those who did not create developmental plans.
Given the findings in the goal-theory literature that creating goals and action plans improves
performance and facilitates goal attainment (Gollwitzer, 1999), Smith and Brummel (2013) con-
cluded that goal theory has much to offer in augmenting our understanding of what constitutes an
effective coach– coachee relationship.
de Haan et al. (2013) built on de Haan et al.’s (2011) study to research the relative impact and
importance of various common factors in executive coaching for 156 coachees and 34 experienced
external coaches (an average of eight coaching sessions). The purpose of this research was to look
at various “common factors” and to measure which of these are likely to have the highest positive
impact on coachees. The study showed that coachee perceptions of the outcome of coaching were
significantly related to their perceptions of the working alliance, coachee self-efficacy and percep-
tions of coaching interventions (“generalized techniques”) of the coach. Coach and coachee
personality differences or matching in terms of MBTI showed no significant correlation with
effectiveness. The coach– coachee working alliance explained 25% of the variance and strongly
mediated the impact of self-efficacy and the majority of techniques on coaching effectiveness
(except for perceived explicit focus on goals and helping the coachee to make discoveries),
suggesting again that the relationship is the key factor in coaching effectiveness.
Grant (2014a) compared four aspects of the coach– coachee relationship to investigate which
was more related to specific measures of coaching success. The four aspects were (a) autonomy
support (bonding); (b) the extent to which a coachee feels satisfied with the actual coach– coachee
relationship; (c) the extent to which the coaching relationship was similar to an “ideal” coach–
coachee relationship; and (d) a goal-focused coach– coachee relationship. In a within-subject study,
49 coach– coachee dyads conducted four coaching sessions over a 10- to 12-week period (as part of
a 5-day coach training program). Results indicate that satisfaction with a coach– coachee relation-
ship does not predict successful coaching effectiveness (r⫽.25; ns); autonomy support (r⫽.29;
p⬍.05) and proximity to an “ideal” relationship (r⫽.30; p⫽.05); moderately predicted coaching
success; and a goal-focused coach– coachee relationship was a more powerful predictor of coaching
success (r⫽.43; p⬍.01). The findings affirm the importance of goals in the coaching process.
Gessnitzer and Kauffeld (2015) analyzed the working relationship of 31 videotaped coaching
dyads by means of interaction analysis and questionnaires. They found that coachee-initiated goals
and tasks were positively related to coaching success. However, coach-initiated goals and tasks had
the opposite effect. They also found that bonding behaviors did not influence coaching success.
Major Limitations of Past Research
One limitation of much of the past coaching research into the coach– coachee relationship relates to
sample sizes and their homogenous nature. Even though similar effects have been found for both
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
4 DE HAAN, GRANT, BURGER, AND ERIKSSON
experienced and inexperienced coach samples, much of the past work has involved relatively small
sample sizes, and the coachees in each study have tended to be drawn from the same population and
have tended to be coached using broadly similar approaches within each study. In addition, different
studies have used different measures of the coach– coachee relationship.
Although this might tell us useful information about the role of the coach– coachee relationship
within each individual study, it tells us less about the role of the coach– coachee relationship in
general, or within the broader coaching-industry context. What is needed to explore this issue in
more depth is a large-scale study that draws on a broad range of coachee populations, that includes
a variety of coaches who are employing a number of coaching methodologies, and that uses one
measure of the coach– coachee relationship.
Present Study
The present study examines the relative impact of various common factors for the largest hetero-
geneous coaching sample to date: 1,895 coachees who were receiving executive coaching and their
executive coaches, together with 92 organizational “sponsors” such as the coachee’s manager or HR
director.
Working Alliance
One purpose of this research was to study elements common to all coaching approaches (i.e.,
common factors) that are likely to be active ingredients of coaching. We based our predictions about
the impact of common factors on findings from the coaching studies reviewed above, which are
broadly in alignment with psychotherapy outcome studies and suggest that common factors are
likely to have a positive impact on coaching effectiveness. The most consistent effect among the
common factors studied in earlier research has been for the strength of the coach– client relationship,
or the working alliance (see, e.g., Baron & Morin, 2009, and de Haan et al., 2013).
Hypothesis 1: The strength of the coaching working alliance will predict coaching effective-
ness (CE), (a) as measured by the coachee, (b) as measured by the coach, and (c) as measured
by the sponsor.
General Self-Efficacy
General self-efficacy is the belief in one’s competence to cope with a broad range of stressful or
challenging demands (Luszczynska, Scholz, & Schwarzer, 2005) and has been found to be a valid
construct in a broad range of ethnic and cultural settings globally (Luszczynska et al., 2005;
Schwarzer, Bäßler, Kwiatek, Schröder, & Zhang, 1997). Thus general self-efficacy may be an
important variable that may mediate the effect of the coach– coachee relationship on CE. Research
by Anderson and Betz (2001) showed that a person’s self-efficacy expectations have a direct bearing
on his or her personal and career development. Sherer et al. (1982) found that personal self-efficacy
expectations are often regarded as primary determinants of behavioral change. Within the coaching
outcome literature, Stewart et al. (2008) and de Haan et al. (2013) have shown that general
self-efficacy predicts coaching effectiveness, while Evers, Brouwers, and Tomic (2006) found that
coaching enhanced self-efficacy. Grant (2014b) demonstrated that executive coaching during a
period of organizational change increased leadership self-efficacy. Hence, a coachee’s general
self-efficacy ratings can be expected to predict his or her own coaching outcomes. Conversely, a
coach’s general self-efficacy ratings should predict his or her own ratings of coaching effectiveness
but not the coachee’s rating of coaching effectiveness.
Hypothesis 2a: General self-efficacy of the client will predict CE as scored by coach, client
and sponsor.
Hypothesis 2b: General self-efficacy of the coach will only predict CE as scored by coaches
themselves.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
5A LARGE-SCALE STUDY OF EXECUTIVE COACHING
Personality Measure
Personality potentially has an important mediating role in the coach– coachee relationship, so we
wanted to explore this issue in the present study. Past research (Scoular & Linley, 2006) has found
that personality dissimilarity as measured by (self-reported) MBTI was related to CE. However, de
Haan et al. (2013) did not find any significant correlations between personality differences or
personality matching in terms of (self-reported) MBTI and CE. We acknowledge that the MBTI has
only “sufficient” levels of reliability and validity and is a poor predictor of managerial effectiveness,
job performance, and employee commitment (Gardner & Martinko, 1996). On the other hand, the
MBTI is still one of the most frequently and internationally used psychometric instruments and has
been used by previous researchers; moreover Bell (2006) has shown that although the MBTI did not
correlate with actual CE, a sample of 67 coachees varied significantly across their MBTI types in
terms of their perceptions of CE. Because we expect to find zero effect for different coach and
coachee personalities in terms of their MBTI profiles (as in de Haan et al., 2013), we feel justified
in this case to put forward the null hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3: Coach-coachee personality dissimilarity and matching (as characterized by the
MBTI profile) will not predict CE or the strength of coaching relationships.
Mediation
As previously argued, we posit that the coachee’s perception of the coach– coachee relationship may
be a fundamental active ingredient in CE and a determining factor of the influence of the other active
ingredients. In other words, if the relationship is weak, none of the other factors can make up for it.
On the other hand, if the relationship is strong, it facilitates the effects of the other factors. The
results of Boyce et al. (2010) and de Haan et al. (2013) indeed have shown that in their data the
strength of the coaching relationship as seen by the coachee mediated the significant effects found
for other variables.
Hypothesis 4: The strength of the coaching working alliance will mediate the effects of
coachee’s general self-efficacy on CE.
Figure 1 shows the various common factors hypothesized to have a positive impact on the
outcomes of coaching. This figure also demonstrates how the impact of these common factors may
be mediated through the relationship, as predicted by Hypothesis 4.
Method
Sample Recruitment Process
The participating coach– coachee pairs were selected through our own networks of experienced and
qualified executive coaches. We made clear that we were primarily interested in executive coaches
but we did not exclude other coaches from our sample. The coaches were employed by or associated
with different institutions, such as Ashridge Business School, the Society for Coaching Psychology
in Italy, the Dutch Association for Coaching and Supervision, Intercoach, and the Oxford School for
Coaching and Mentoring, among others. A snowball sampling technique was used, as follows. Each
coach completed an online “coach survey” and then invited clients to complete an online “client
survey.” Clients nominated an organizational sponsor, who was invited by us to complete the
equivalent “sponsor survey” where appropriate.
From an initial dataset of 4,070 coach and coachee questionnaires, 3,790 matching coach and
coachee questionnaires could be identified, so it was possible to study a total of 1,895 coaching
relationships. The exact number of coaching relationships included in each analysis varies according
to coach and coachee completion rates. It was not possible to ensure the full completion of all scales
or prevent the possibility of errors and missing data and thus the sample size reported differs
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
6 DE HAAN, GRANT, BURGER, AND ERIKSSON
according to the scale being analyzed. Data collection took place over an 18-month period from
November 2011 to May 2013.
Coach Details
Of a total of 366 coaches from 22 different countries with an average experience of 13.3 years
(SD ⫽7.2) and a minimum experience of less than 1 year and a maximum of 43 years, 118 were
male and 226 female (22 did not report gender). The majority of coaches were external coaches (308
external; 56 internal; 2 not reported) and worked as executive, business, or career coaches (158
executive/business coaches; 86 career coaches; 61 life coaches; 15 counselors; 45 others; 1 not
reported). The majority of coaches were undertaking stand-alone coaching assignments (n⫽248)
rather than coaching as part of a team- or organizational-development intervention (n⫽30), a
leadership-development program (n⫽55), or other coaching assignment (n⫽28), with n⫽5 not
reported.
Coachee Details
There were 875 male and 918 female coachees (99 did not indicate gender). The number of sessions
that coach and coachee had undertaken at the point that data was collected ranged from one to more
than 40, with an average of eight, a median of seven, and four to six coaching sessions being the
modal group (n⫽733) and 4 to 6 months the modal relationship length (n⫽554). Coachees were
being coached on a broad range of issues from basic management and workplace skills to complex
issues related to personal and leadership development. Thus the coachee sample was heterogeneous
in terms of goals for coaching, and we know from speaking with some of the participating coaches
that there were “remedial” as well as “developmental” assignments in the sample. The heteroge-
neous nature of this sample reflects the aim of this study to test our hypotheses using a sample that
accurately represented the highly diverse nature of coaching engagements in the real world.
Figure 1. Graphical depiction of the various common factors studied as independent variables. In our
analysis we investigated both direct influences of the independent variables on CE (dependencies B and
C) and the probability of mediation of this influence through the strongest dependency, the coaching
relationship (dependency A plus B as compared to C).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
7A LARGE-SCALE STUDY OF EXECUTIVE COACHING
Coaching Sponsor Details
There were 92 organizational sponsors in the sample with a relatively even gender split of 43 males
and 49 females.
Measures
All coach and coachee surveys could be completed in 10 min. The coach surveys collected relevant
background information on gender, MBTI type, coaching credentials, and self-efficacy. For every
assignment, the coaches answered questions about the type of coaching and the context of coaching
(e.g., stand-alone or part of leadership development). The coachee survey asked for name, gender,
MBTI type, nationality, professional role, and for permission to contact a “manager,” “HR director,”
or “business partner” who had sponsored the coaching work.
For the remainder of the questionnaires, the coach and coachee questionnaires were identical
and included number of sessions to date, months of coaching to date, own initial expectations, and
the coach/coachee’s initial expectations of outcomes.
CE. CE was assessed using four items on a 7-point response scale: (a) “successful in creating
reflective space”; (b) “successful in creating new insights”; (c) “successfully engaged in new action
or behavior”; and (d) “overall coaching outcome.” Responses were calculated as the averaged score
across these four items.
Coach– coachee relationship. The Working Alliance Inventory (WAI) was used as a measure
of the strength of the coach– coachee relationship (Horvath & Greenberg, 1986). Prior permission
was obtained to adapt this 36-item instrument, which is used widely in therapy for measuring the
strength and quality of the relationship between therapist and client, in order to measure the
coach– coachee relationship. The WAI consists of three subscales: Task, Goal, and Bond.
The term Task refers to what coach and coachee agree need to be done in order for the coachee
to reach his or her goals for coaching. A typical item is, “I am clear as to what my coach wants me
to do in these sessions.”
The term Goal refers to the outcomes that the coach/coachee hopes to gain from coaching. A
typical item is, “The goals of these sessions are important to me.”
The term Bond refers to what extent the coach/coachee trusts, respects, and feels confidence in
the other person. A typical item is, “I believe my coach is genuinely concerned for my welfare.”
General self-efficacy. The General Self-Efficacy scale was used to assess the coach/coachee
self-efficacy (Schwarzer & Jeruzalem, 1995). This scale consists of 10 items on a 4-point Likert
scale. Sample items include: “I can always manage to solve difficult problems if I try hard enough,”
“If someone opposes me, I can find the means and ways to get what I want,” and “It is easy for me
to stick to my aims and accomplish my goals.”
Sponsor questionnaire. The sponsor questionnaire contained only the questions about initial
expectations (for themselves and their colleagues) and the questions about effectiveness.
Reliability estimates were calculated for all of the scales (see Table 1) and ranged from adequate
to (mostly) high.
Data Preanalysis Checks
We conducted preanalysis checks to test for the influence of coach and coachee characteristics and
other dimensions of the coaching relationship on CE in order to eliminate the possibility of
confounding variables. We tested for the effect of the length of the coaching relationship and
number of coaching sessions, the type of coaching, and coach and client gender. There were few
significant differences. As we expected, CE, working alliance (“Bond”), and self-efficacy all
increase with the length of the coaching relationship (p⬍.01), and data from different types of
coaching (executive coaching, career coaching, external, internal, as part of a leadership program,
etc.) did not behave differently, so pulling together all this data for the main analysis was warranted.
Moreover, we are confident that the career counselors, life coaches, and psychological counselors
that contributed to this study were indeed submitting only clients of work-based helping conver-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
8 DE HAAN, GRANT, BURGER, AND ERIKSSON
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics, Reliability Estimates, and Intercorrelations Among Study Variables
Variable Items NMSDRange
r
1234567891011
1. Coach perceived CE 4 1894 24.40 3.51 4–28 .91
2. Coach WAI–task 12 1892 72.35 7.23 27–84 .56
ⴱⴱ
.83
3. Coach WAI–bond 12 1892 72.92 6.86 19–84 .43
ⴱⴱ
.65
ⴱⴱ
.66
4. Coach WAI–goal 12 1892 70.82 8.07 26–84 .56
ⴱⴱ
.82
ⴱⴱ
.63
ⴱⴱ
.84
5. Coach self-efficacy 10 1627 33.37 3.41 23–40 .12
ⴱⴱ
.21
ⴱⴱ
.12
ⴱⴱ
.17
ⴱⴱ
.79
6. Coachee perceived CE 4 1777 24.31 3.33 4–28 .22
ⴱⴱ
.18
ⴱⴱ
.15
ⴱⴱ
.19
ⴱⴱ
.01 .90
7. Coachee WAI–task 12 1758 72.30 7.84 11–84 .21
ⴱⴱ
.19
ⴱⴱ
.16
ⴱⴱ
.20
ⴱⴱ
.02 .55
ⴱⴱ
.82
8. Coachee WAI–bond 12 1758 73.11 7.65 9–84 .16
ⴱⴱ
.13
ⴱⴱ
.16
ⴱⴱ
.15
ⴱⴱ
⬍.01 .46
ⴱⴱ
.68
ⴱⴱ
.78
9. Coachee WAI–goal 12 1758 73.11 7.65 12–84 .23
ⴱⴱ
.20
ⴱⴱ
.17
ⴱⴱ
.21
ⴱⴱ
.03 .56
ⴱⴱ
.81
ⴱⴱ
.68
ⴱⴱ
.84
10. Coachee self-efficacy 10 1722 32.06 3.86 10–40 .09
ⴱⴱ
.06
ⴱ
.07
ⴱ
.04 .03 .24
ⴱⴱ
.24
ⴱⴱ
.20
ⴱⴱ
.27
ⴱⴱ
.85
11. Sponsor perceived effectiveness 4 92 23.36 2.53 17–28 ⫺.04 ⫺.09 ⫺.08 ⫺.004 .13 .14 .07 .18 .06 .02 .75
Note. Cronbach alphas of every multi-item variable are on the diagonal in the intercorrelations section of the table. CE ⫽Coaching effectiveness; WAI ⫽Working Alliance
Inventory.
ⴱ
p⬍.01.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.004.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
9A LARGE-SCALE STUDY OF EXECUTIVE COACHING
sations, conversations that they would call workplace or executive coaching, because of the way we
recruited subjects for the research.
There were some small significant patterns in the coach group: (a) External coaches self-
reported higher CE than internal coaches, p⬍.01; (b) similarly, coaches working on a leadership
program self-reported higher CE as compared to others; (c) executive or business coaches self-
reported a higher Bond in the working alliances with their clients. The only noteworthy effect was
better CE for female coaches as compared to male coaches, as reported by coachees: t(1709) ⫽1.96,
p⫽.05. Moreover, coachee-reported working alliances for female coaches are also higher across
Task, t(1688) ⫽2.31, p⫽.02; Bond, t(1688) ⫽2.72, p⫽.007; and Goal t(1688) ⫽2.09, p⫽.04.
Despite the statistical significance of these differences, the magnitude of the effects was small
according to Cohen’s dconventions (d⫽.12; .14; .10; .09, respectively; Cohen, 1988) and therefore
coach gender was not controlled for in the main analysis.
The main dependent variable was “coaching effectiveness” (CE; the average of the four
different outcome items), and the independent variables were the working alliance (as assessed by
coach and coachee independently), the 16 different Myers-Briggs “types” of coach and coachee, and
the self-efficacy of the coachee. All scale scores were computed as the sum of all item responses.
Descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and intercorrelations are reported in Table 1. Table 2
shows descriptive statistics for coach and coachee MBTI scores. Please note that, as in other studies,
there is a strong bias of the clients, who are mostly managers, toward “NT” (e.g., self-selection ratios
for INTP and ENTJ larger than 5, meaning these are 5 times more prevalent than in the general
population, replicating Carr, Curd, Dent, Davda, & Piper, 2011) and a bias of coaches toward “NFP”
(e.g., self-selection ratios for INFP and ENFP larger than 4, replicating Passmore, Holloway, &
Rawle-Cope, 2010).
Results and Preliminary Discussion
Overview of Analysis Process
The model specified in Figure 1 was tested separately for coaches and coachees in two multiple
regression models with mediation analyses. Ideally, we would have tested the models in one
overarching model through the use of structural equation modeling; however, given the degree
of uncertainty surrounding the precise nature of the relationships coupled with the changing
sample size for different variables, we were forced to analyze these data using several bivariate
correlations and regression. We acknowledge that proceeding in this way inflates the probability
of the Type I error rate, and thus in order to compensate for this we use a Bonferroni-corrected
significance level of .01 to assess the significance of results. As shown in Table 1, all but two
of the significant correlations remained significant at this more stringent alpha level.
Hypothesis 1. the Strength of the Working Alliance Will Predict CE
Regarding Hypothesis 1, we found there was a positive correlation, r⫽.58 (n⫽1,891, p⬍
.01), between the coaches’ experienced overall working alliance and CE as measured by the
coach, and similar correlations for the three working alliance subscales (Task r⫽.56, n⫽
1,891, p⬍.01; Bond r⫽.43, n⫽1,891, p⬍.01; Goal r⫽.56, n⫽1,891, p⬍.01).
Computation of Fisher’s r-to-ztransformation showed that the task and goal aspects of the
working alliance were significantly stronger compared to the bond aspect (Z⫽5.31, p⬍.01;
Z⫽5.31, p⬍.01, respectively).
There was a positive correlation, r⫽.58 (n⫽1,741, p⬍.01), between the coachees’
experienced overall working alliance and CE as measured by the coachee, and similar correlations
for the three working alliance subscales (Task r⫽.55, n⫽1,741, p⬍.01; Bond r⫽.46, n⫽1,741,
p⬍.01; Goal r⫽.56, n⫽1,741, p⬍.01). Computation of Fisher’s r-to-ztransformation showed
that the task and goal aspects of the coaching working alliance were significantly more strongly
related to the effectiveness of coaching than the bond aspect was related to the effectiveness of
coaching (Z⫽3.57, p⬍.01; Z⫽4.00, p⬍.01, respectively).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
10 DE HAAN, GRANT, BURGER, AND ERIKSSON
There was also a positive and significant correlation between the coaches’ measure of the CE
and the coachees’ measure of CE, r⫽.22 (n⫽1,755, p⬍.01), and working alliance for all aspects
(Task, r⫽.21, n⫽1,755, p⬍.01; Bond r⫽.16, n⫽1,755, pⱕ.01; Goal, r⫽.23, n⫽1,755,
p⬍.01). This is consistent with previous research by Baron and Morin (2009), Boyce et al. (2010),
and de Haan et al. (2013). Computation of Fisher’s r-to-ztransformation showed that the task and
goal aspects of the working alliance were significantly stronger compared to the bond aspect (Z⫽
3.57, p⬍.01; Z⫽4.43, p⬍.01, respectively).
In contrast to our expectations, we did not find significant relationships between coach or
coachee ratings of CE with sponsor rating of CE (r⫽⫺.04, n⫽92, p⫽.72; r⫽.14, n⫽92,
p⫽.19, respectively). The latter correlation, between coachee and sponsor ratings of effec-
tiveness, is directionally consistent with the one between coachee and coach ratings of
effectiveness (which is r⫽.22; see Table 1); however the correlations with sponsor data are
not significant because of the much smaller n. This correlation had been significant on an
earlier, partial measurement of the dataset so we would speculate that with more sponsor data
it would become significant.
Table 2
Coachee and Coach MBTI Preferences and Profiles
Personality type
Coachee Coach
Count Percentage Count Percentage
ENFJ 24 6.5 69 10.3
ENFP 34 9.3 178 26.7
ENTJ 66 18.0 56 8.4
ENTP 35 9.5 68 10.2
ESFJ 17 4.6 31 4.6
ESFP 4 1.1 3 .4
ESTJ 38 10.4 49 7.3
ESTP 15 4.1 5 .7
INFJ 11 3.0 28 4.2
INFP 21 5.7 116 17.4
INTJ 27 7.4 17 2.5
INTP 14 3.8 16 2.4
ISFJ 13 3.5 9 1.3
ISFP 2 .5 2 .3
ISTJ 39 10.6 18 2.7
ISTP 7 1.9 2 .3
EvsI
E 233 63.5 462 69.3
I 134 36.5 205 30.7
SvsN
S 133 36.2 117 17.4
N 234 63.8 550 82.6
TvsF
T 243 66.2 226 33.9
F 124 33.8 441 66.1
JvsP
J 232 63.2 275 41.2
P 135 36.8 392 58.8
Note.E⫽Extraversion; I ⫽Introversion; S ⫽Sensing; N ⫽Intuition; T ⫽Thinking; F ⫽Feeling; J ⫽
Judging; P ⫽Perceiving.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
11A LARGE-SCALE STUDY OF EXECUTIVE COACHING
Hypothesis 2. General Self-Efficacy Will Predict CE
Hypothesis 2 was supported in that (a) coachee self-efficacy was positively and significantly related
to CE, r⫽.24, n⫽1,708, p⬍.01, and the strength of the coaching working alliance, r⫽.27, n⫽
1,722, p⬍.01, as reported by the coachee and also the CE and strength of working alliance as
reported by the coach (r⫽.09, n⫽1,721, p⬍.01; r⫽.06, n⫽1,719, p⫽.01, respectively); while
(b) coach self-efficacy was positively and significantly related only to CE, r⫽.12, n⫽1,626, p⬍
.01, and working alliance, r⫽.19, n⫽1,627, p⬍.01, as reported by coach but not coachee. Again,
this aligns with results from an earlier study (de Haan et al., 2013) and in a related field: significant
correlation between self-efficacy and perceived outcome in self-regulated learning (e.g., Schunk,
1990). Because of low numbers we could not establish a significant relationship between coachee
self-efficacy scores and sponsor ratings of CE.
Hypothesis 3. No Effect for Coach–Coachee Personality and Matching
Regarding Hypothesis 3, we used ttests to evaluate differences in the reported CEs for each of the
four MBTI coach and coachee personality dichotomies and for MBTI matches between coach and
coachee. Out of 96 possible relationships only eight were significant and made intuitive sense:
however they were all small effects, which confirms that personality types and matching on MBTI
do not strongly interact with effectiveness or working alliance. This supports findings from de Haan
et al. (2013) and differs from results reported by Scoular and Linley (2006). The latter may be due
to differences in the design of the two studies: Our data was drawn from a number of longer-term
coaching relationships with a large number of coaches, whereas the data from Scoular and Linley
(2006) came from single 30-min sessions with only 14 coaches (Anne Scoular, personal commu-
nication, January 27, 2010).
The eight small but significant results (p⬍.02) that were found fall in three clusters, one
in relation to the E/I preference, one in relation to the S/N preference, and one in relation to the
T/F preference. With respect to the first, results seem to indicate that extraverted coaches and
coachees achieve more agreement on tasks (and on one occasion on goals) within the working
alliance, which is perhaps a consequence of interacting more. With respect to the second,
coaches with an N preference may achieve slightly higher outcomes, which confirms the trends
in self-selection ratios reported earlier: N preferences align with the coaching profession. And
finally, with respect to the third, the F/F match seems to result in the highest bond, yet at the
same time also in the lowest effectiveness. The higher bond data are understandable in terms
of two “feeling” types interacting and perhaps finding more affection; and to the low effec-
tiveness we will return in the Discussion section below.
Hypothesis 4. Coaching Working Alliance Mediates Effects of Client General
Self-Efficacy on CE
In line with the model specified in Figure 1, Hypothesis 4 predicts that the strength of the
working alliance mediates significant influences of (a) coach personality, (b) coachee person-
ality, (c) coachee self-efficacy, and (d) coach self-efficacy on CE as reported by coach and
coachee. As coach– coachee personality differences did not predict CE, and separately coach
and coachee personality were weak predictors of CE with only small effects, and as there was
no clear pattern of effect of coach– coachee personality match/mismatch on CE, we reduced the
model and used mediation analysis (Baron & Kenny, 1986) to regress self-efficacy and aspects
of the working alliance (Task, Bond, Goal) on CE separately for coachee and coach both within
and across the samples.
When self-efficacy and task aspects of the working alliance were regressed on coachee-rated
CE, Task was significantly related to CE, ⫽.24, t(1705) ⫽25.58, p⬍.001, and coachee
self-efficacy remained significant but was weaker, ⫽.10, t(1705) ⫽5.52, p⬍.001. The results
of Sobel’s test showed that the parameter estimate for the relationship between coachee self-efficacy
and CE as reported by coachee was not significantly lower in the mediated condition, Z⫽.47, p⫽
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
12 DE HAAN, GRANT, BURGER, AND ERIKSSON
.63, suggesting that the effect of coachee self-efficacy was not mediated by task aspects of the
working alliance but instead had a direct effect.
When both self-efficacy and bond aspects of the working alliance were regressed on coachee-
rated CE, Bond was significantly related to CE, ⫽.20, t(1705) ⫽20.34, p⬍.001, and coachee
self-efficacy remained significant but was weaker, ⫽.13, t(1705) ⫽7.05, p⬍.001. The results
of Sobel’s test showed that the parameter estimate for the relationship between coachee self-efficacy
and CE as reported by coachee was significantly lower in the mediated condition, Z⫽2.65, p⬍.01,
suggesting that the effect of coachee self-efficacy was partially mediated by bond aspects of the
working alliance.
When both coachee self-efficacy and goal aspects of the working alliance were regressed on
coachee-rated CE, Goal was significantly related to CE, ⫽.23, t(1705) ⫽25.74, p⬍.001, and
coachee self-efficacy remained significant but was weaker, ⫽.08, t(1705) ⫽4.77, p⬍.001. The
results of Sobel’s test showed that the parameter estimate for the relationship between coachee
self-efficacy and CE as reported by coachee was significantly lower in the mediated condition, Z⫽
2.77, p⬍.01, but remained significant. The effect of coachee self-efficacy was partially mediated
by goal aspects of the working alliance.
When coach self-efficacy and task aspects of the working alliance were regressed on coach-rated
CE, Task was significantly related to CE, ⫽.28, t(1623) ⫽26.11, p⬍.001, and coach
self-efficacy became nonsignificant, ⫽.001, t(1623) ⫽⫺.03, p⬍.97. The results of Sobel’s test
showed that the parameter estimate for the relationship between coach self-efficacy and CE as
reported by coach was significantly lower in the mediated condition, Z⫽2.84, p⫽.004, suggesting
that the effect of coach self-efficacy was fully mediated by task aspects of the working alliance.
When coach self-efficacy and bond aspects of the working alliance were regressed on coach-
rated CE, Bond was significantly related to CE, ⫽.22, t(1623) ⫽17.90, p⬍.001, and coach
self-efficacy remained significant but was a weaker predictor, ⫽.07, t(1623) ⫽3.00, p⫽.003.
The results of Sobel’s test showed that the parameter estimate for the relationship between coach
self-efficacy and CE as reported by coach was significantly lower in the mediated condition, Z⫽
4.70, p⬍.001, but remained significant, suggesting that the effect of coach self-efficacy was
partially mediated by bond aspects of the working alliance.
When coach self-efficacy and goal aspects of the working alliance were regressed on coach-
rated CE, Goal was significantly related to CE, ⫽.24, t(1623) ⫽25.98, p⬍.001, and coach
self-efficacy became nonsignificant, ⫽.03, t(1623) ⫽1.26, p⫽.21. The results of Sobel’s test
showed that the parameter estimate for the relationship between coach self-efficacy and CE as
reported by coach was significantly lower in the mediated condition, Z⫽6.35, p⬍.001, suggesting
that the effect of coach self-efficacy was fully mediated by goal aspects of the working alliance.
When coachee self-efficacy and task aspects of the working alliance were regressed on
coach-rated CE, Task was significantly related to CE, ⫽.09, t(1718) ⫽7.85, p⬍.001, and
coachee self-efficacy became nonsignificant, ⫽.04, t(1718) ⫽1.86, p⫽.06. The results of the
Sobel’s test showed that the parameter estimate for the relationship between coachee self-efficacy
and CE as reported by coach was significant, Z⫽7.08, p⬍.001, suggesting that the effect of
coachee self-efficacy was fully mediated by task aspects of the working alliance.
When coachee self-efficacy and bond aspects of the working alliance were regressed on
coach-rated CE, Bond was significantly related to CE, ⫽.06, t(1718) ⫽5.43, p⬍.001, and
coachee self-efficacy remained a significant predictor, ⫽.06, t(1718) ⫽2.66, p⫽.008. The
results of Sobel’s test showed that the parameter estimate for the relationship between coachee
self-efficacy and CE as reported by coach was significantly lower in the mediated condition, Z⫽
4.64, p⬍.001, suggesting that the effect of coachee self-efficacy was partially mediated by bond
aspects of the working alliance.
When coachee self-efficacy and goal aspects of the working alliance were regressed on
coach-rated CE, Goal was significantly related to CE, ⫽.10, t(1718) ⫽8.91, p⬍.001, and
coachee self-efficacy became a nonsignificant predictor, ⫽.03, t(1718) ⫽1.37, p⫽.17. The
results of Sobel’s test showed that the parameter estimate for the relationship between coachee
self-efficacy and CE as reported by coach was significantly lower in the mediated condition, Z⫽
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
13A LARGE-SCALE STUDY OF EXECUTIVE COACHING
3.65, p⬍.001, suggesting that the effect of coachee self-efficacy was fully mediated by goal aspects
of the working alliance.
This result is similar to those of Baron and Morin (2009), Boyce et al. (2010), and de Haan et
al. (2013), who also found that the relationship significantly mediates the other independent
variables that correlate with CE.
Main Discussion
The research confirms Hypothesis 1(a) and (b) but not (c), Hypothesis 2, both (a) and (b),
Hypothesis 3, and Hypothesis 4 on the impact of common factors on CE. We have found strong
indications that the working alliance as rated by both the coach and coachee correlates with coach-
and coachee-rated CE to a considerable degree. As always with statistical correlation, we need to
realize that this does not imply causality; that is, CE may predict a strong relationship just as much
as the relationship may predict good CE (see the double-headed arrow “B” shown in Figure 1). We
have also found indications that coachee self-efficacy correlates with coach- and coachee-rated CE.
Finally, we have found very little evidence for a differential impact of coachee personality, coach
personality, or coach-coachee personality matching. This means our results are aligned with those
reported by Baron and Morin (2009), Boyce et al. (2010), and de Haan et al. (2013) regarding the
coaching relationship and with those reported by Stewart et al. (2008) in the area of self-efficacy.
We have not been able to confirm the contrasting findings in the area of personality matching by
Scoular and Linley (2006).
MBTI Findings and a Word of Caution
There are only very few indications for a differential impact of matching on the MBTI. This would
indicate that the importance of coach– coachee matching in terms of personality or demographics
(see Boyce et al., 2010) might be overstated in the coaching practitioner literature. It might be more
important to focus on coach selection—in terms of qualifications, accreditation, and supervision
records—than on coach– coachee matching, as Wycherley and Cox (2008) and de Haan et al. (2013)
also suggest.
However, it must be borne in mind that our findings in relation to the MBTI should be
interpreted with some caution. Because of the large size of the sample and the need to minimize the
time the coachees spent completing the survey questionnaires, we could not require the participants
to complete a full MBTI questionnaire. We fully recognize the limitations of a self-reported
personality type based on recall, and we are aware of the various controversies surrounding the use
of the MBTI in research settings (Pittenger, 2005). Nevertheless, we decided to utilize this approach
because the MBTI is so widely used in business and coaching settings (Zickar & Kostek, 2013) and
also in the earlier CE studies that we cited.
General Observations on the Role of the Working Alliance
We have found good support for the importance of the working alliance (as judged by the coachee),
and this aligns with past research in the coaching literature. In the present study the working-alliance
scores by coachees predict 31% of total proportion of variance of CE and the working-alliance
scores by coaches predict 4% of total proportion of variance of CE (see Table 1).
The significant relationship between working alliance and effectiveness has been found before
in psychotherapy (Horvath & Symonds, 1991), and it is important to emphasize that in both
coaching and therapy WAI scores by coaches or therapists correlate much less with outcome than
WAI scores as rated by coachees or clients. However much we realize the importance of the
coaching relationship in terms of outcomes, and for convenience the coaching literature tends to
speak about “the coaching relationship” as if it is a singular or monolithic experience, we must also
understand that the coachee and coach have their own unique experience of their relationship and
may judge it differently, as the lower correlation between their relationship estimates indicates. This
is an important point as it suggests that coaches may not be as in tune with their coachees as they
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
14 DE HAAN, GRANT, BURGER, AND ERIKSSON
typically assume. It may also help coaches to appreciate the extent to which their experience in
coaching can differ from that of their coachees, and, as a result, remind them to apply a more
open-minded curiosity about the coachee’s experience, both about the coaching relationship and
about their progress in coaching.
Self-Efficacy
Although the quality of the experienced relationship is important, general self-efficacy also has a
vital role in determining CE. Given the magnitude of past research on the importance of self-efficacy
as a determinant of self-regulated behavior (Bandura, 1991), this finding is unsurprising. However,
it should be noted that the strength of the working alliance appears to mediate the impact of
self-efficacy on CE. This makes sense in that, if the coach– coachee relationship is poor, this is likely
to reduce the coachee’s level of confidence in his or her own ability to achieve the goals related to
coaching. Furthermore, the relationship of self-efficacy to CE is also impacted by the goals aspect
of the working alliance: A strong emphasis on goals in the working alliance may partially
compensate for low coachee self-efficacy. These are important points for coaches to keep in mind;
a strong coach– coachee relationship and appropriate goal-setting seem to be fundamental aspects of
effective coaching.
Differential Effects of Bond, Task, and Goal Aspects of the
Coach–Coachee Relationships
Although we found that there was a positive correlation between the experienced overall working
alliance and CE, we also found good evidence for differential effects of various aspects of the
coach– coachee working alliance. The task and goal aspects of the working alliance, as rated by the
coachee, were significantly more strongly related to CE than the bond aspect. This effect was also
observed for the coach ratings: Coaches’ assessment of the task and goal aspects of the working
alliance are significantly more related to CE than the coaches’ assessment of the bond aspect of the
working alliance. Moreover, there is confirmation in the significant effect we found in our
personality measure: The F/F match seems to result in the highest bond, yet at the same time also
in the lowest effectiveness.
These findings stand in contrast to research into the therapeutic working alliance, which has
highlighted the relative primacy of the bond or emotional rapport aspects of the therapeutic working
alliance, particularly in psychodynamic and client-centered settings (Ackerman & Hilsenroth, 2003;
Horvath & Luborsky, 1993; Mallinckrodt & Nelson, 1991); that is, in therapy it appears that the
bond is a vital precursor to client engagement in therapy (Bachelor, 2013; Rogers, 1951), whereas
data from the present study would suggest that in coaching the goal and task aspects are of greater
importance.
The relationship between different aspects of the working-alliance scores and CE found in the
present study echoes Grant’s (2014a) findings that the bond aspect of the coach– coachee relation-
ship (as measured by the amount of autonomy support experienced by the coachee) was a less
powerful predictor of effectiveness than the goal-focused aspect of the coach– coachee relationship.
These findings are also in alignment with Gessnitzer and Kauffeld (2015) that goal and task aspects
are far more predictive of CE than the bond aspects of the relationship.
Hence, the findings of the present study, when aligned with Grant’s (2014a) and Gessnitzer and
Kauffeld’s (2015) research, are a poignant reminder to coaches that coaching is an inherently goal-
and task-focused enterprise; coachees come to coaching seeking to make changes in their personal
or professional lives, and it is the explicit role of the coach to support and facilitate such changes.
While the bond aspects of the relationship are important, as coaches we need to place attention on
the coachee’s goals and the tasks required to attain them.
These findings also point toward a possible new direction in research into the coach– coachee
relationship—the effect of different types of coach– coachee relationship on CE. Peterson (2010)
presents a nuanced view of the coach– coachee relationship as one that needs to change over the
course of a coaching engagement—something we also found as regards the bond aspects of the
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
15A LARGE-SCALE STUDY OF EXECUTIVE COACHING
working alliance (see the Method section above; see also Grant, 2006; Prochaska & DiClemente,
1982). Here the relationship is a tool used to facilitate certain aspects of the change process— being
challenging, sceptical, or supportive as the coachee, change, or situation requires.
In addition, it may be that different aspects of the coach– coachee relationship impact differ-
entially depending on the type of coaching. For example, successful skills coaching (which is akin
to training) may not require a deep coaching “bond.” What counts here is the coach’s ability to
impart skills to the coachee—a supportive relationship may not be important at all. In contrast, a
supportive relationship may be far more important in executive coaching (more akin to therapy),
particularly if, for example, goals are related to conflict or personal values (for a discussion of these
points see Peterson, 2010).
This issue was not explored in depth in the present study because executive, career, or
development coaching yielded very similar characteristics. However, the findings of the present
study, which incorporate skills, performance, and development coaching with remedial, reactive,
and proactive coaching, suggests that the working alliance is indeed an important factor in CE,
regardless of the type of coaching—with the task and goal aspects playing a particularly important
role.
Limitations
There are a number of limitations in the present research. First, every coaching relationship
studied was measured only once. Second, our nested design meant that on average 4.85
coaching relationships involved the same coach, and we had insufficient statistical power to do
hierarchical linear modeling. This particularly affects the variables provided by the coaches: the
coaches’ perceived strengths of the relationship and the coaches’ MBTI scores and hence also
the conclusions on MBTI matching. Third, as previously discussed, we recognize the limitations
of a self-reported personality type based on recall and the various controversies surrounding the
use of the MBTI in research settings when interpreting these findings. Although there is a strong
case to be made for the use of a Five Factor Model of personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992) in
preference to the MBTI, we chose to use the MBTI because it is commonly used, including in
other coaching outcome studies, and easy to recall. Despite these shortcomings, we believe that
this study has made important contributions to our understanding of coaching and the role of
the coach– coachee relationship in facilitating successful coaching outcomes.
Summary and Future Directions
This is one of the first studies to systematically explore and compare the contribution of various
“common factors” that are deemed to predict CE. We have found good evidence for the central
importance of the strength of the working alliance as seen from both the coachee’s and the coach’s
perspective. We have also found evidence that the contribution of tasks and goals is more important
than that of bonds. This finding may be an important point that differentiates coaching from
therapeutic work, and we suggest that future research explore the coach– coachee relationship in
more detail.
Second, we have found that coachee self-efficacy is an active ingredient of CE, albeit one that
is mediated by predominantly the task and goal aspects of the coach– coachee working alliance.
Third, this study suggests that personality factors and personality matching may play a lesser
role as a predictor of success in executive coaching. However, given the methodological issues we
encountered in exploring personality factors, we recommend future research continue to explore this
issue.
These findings extend past work and provide research that may help guide the coaching industry
and the development of evidence-based approaches to coaching, as well as inform the choices that
are made in the recruitment, development, deployment, and matching of executive coaches.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
16 DE HAAN, GRANT, BURGER, AND ERIKSSON
References
Ackerman, S. J., & Hilsenroth, M. J. (2003). A review of therapist characteristics and techniques positively
impacting the therapeutic alliance. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-
7358(02)00146-0
Anderson, S. L., & Betz, N. E. (2001). Sources of social self-efficacy expectations: Their measurement and
relation to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 98 –117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/
jvbe.2000.1753
Bachelor, A. (2013). Clients’ and therapists’ views of the therapeutic alliance: Similarities, differences and
relationship to therapy outcome. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 20, 118 –135. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1002/cpp.792
Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50, 248 –287. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L
Baron, L., & Morin, L. (2009). The coach– coachee relationship in executive coaching: A field study. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 20, 85–106.
Baron, L., & Morin, L. (2012). The working alliance in executive coaching: Its impact on outcomes and how
coaches can influence it. In E. de Haan & C. Sills (Eds.), Coaching relationships (pp. 213–226). Faringdon,
UK: Libri.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological
research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
51, 1173–1182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
Beck, J. (1995). Cognitive therapy: Basics and beyond. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Bell, S. E. (2006). Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and executive coaching: Participants’ self-perceptions about the
effectiveness of the two when used together. Dissertation Abstracts International, Section B: Sciences and
Engineering, 66(7-B), 3980.
Boyce, L. A., Jackson, R. J., & Neal, L. J. (2010). Building successful leadership coaching relationships:
Examining impact of matching criteria in a leadership coaching program. Journal of Management Devel-
opment, 29, 914 –931. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621711011084231
Carr, M., Curd, J., Dent, F., Davda, A., & Piper, N. (2011). MBTI research into distribution of type (2nd ed.).
Berkhamsted, UK: Ashridge Business School. Retrieved from https://www.ashridge.org.uk/Media-Library/
Ashridge/PDFs/Publications/MyersBriggs.pdf
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five-Factor Inventory:
Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
de Haan, E. (2008). Relational coaching: Journeys towards mastering one-to-one learning. Chichester, UK:
Wiley.
de Haan, E., Culpin, V., & Curd, J. (2011). Executive coaching in practice: What determines helpfulness for
clients of coaching? Personnel Review, 40, 24 –44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00483481111095500
de Haan, E., Duckworth, A., Birch, D., & Jones, C. (2013). Executive coaching outcome research: The
contribution of common factors such as relationship, personality match, and self-efficacy. Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 65, 40 –57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031635
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the Five Factor Model. Annual Review of Psychology,
41, 417–440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.41.020190.002221
Evers, W. J. G., Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2006). A quasi-experimental study on management coaching
effectiveness. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58, 174 –182. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/1065-9293.58.3.174
Freud, S. (1920). A general introduction to psychoanalysis. New York, NY: Boni & Liveright. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1037/10667-000
Gardner, W. L., & Martinko, M. J. (1996). Using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator to study managers: A
literature review and research agenda. Journal of Management, 22, 45–83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
014920639602200103
Gessnitzer, S., & Kauffeld, S. (2015). The working alliance in coaching: Why behavior is the key to success. The
Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51, 177–197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0021886315576407
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54,
493–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.493
Grant, A. M. (2006). An integrative goal-focused approach to executive coaching. In D. Stober & A. M. Grant
(Eds.), Evidence-based coaching handbook (pp. 153–192). New York, NY: Wiley.
Grant, A. M. (2014a). Autonomy support, relationship satisfaction and goal focus in the coach– coachee
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
17A LARGE-SCALE STUDY OF EXECUTIVE COACHING
relationship: Which best predicts coaching success? Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research
and Practice, 7, 18 –38.
Grant, A. M. (2014b). The efficacy of executive coaching in times of organizational change. Journal of Change
Management, 14, 258 –280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2013.805159
Horvath, A. O., & Greenberg, L. (1986). The development of the Working Alliance Inventory. In L. Greenberg
& W. Pinsoff (Eds.), Psychotherapeutic processes: A research handbook (pp. 529 –556). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Horvath, A. O., & Luborsky, L. (1993). The role of the therapeutic alliance in psychotherapy. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61, 561–573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.61.4.561
Horvath, A. O., & Symonds, B. (1991). Relation between working alliance and outcome in psychotherapy: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 139 –149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0167.38.2.139
Jones, R., Woods, S., & Guillaume, Y. (2015). The effectiveness of workplace coaching: A meta-analysis of
learning and performance outcomes from coaching. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychol-
ogy, 89, 249 –277. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/joop.12119
Jung, C. G. (1964). Man and his symbols. London, UK: Aldus Books.
Lampropoulos, G. K. (2000). Definitional and research issues in the common factors approach to psychotherapy
integration: Misconceptions, clarifications, and proposals. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 10, 415–
438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009483201213
Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2005). The general self-efficacy scale: Multicultural validation
studies. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 139, 439 –457. http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/
JRLP.139.5.439-457
Mallinckrodt, B., & Nelson, M. L. (1991). Counselor training level and the formation of the psychotherapeutic
working alliance. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38, 133–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0167.38.2.133
McKenna, D., & Davis, S. L. (2009). What is the active ingredients equation for success in executive coaching?
Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 2, 297–304. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01153.x
Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L., & Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI manual. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Ngai, I., Tully, E. C., & Anderson, P. L. (2015). The course of the working alliance during virtual reality and
exposure group therapy for social anxiety disorder. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 43, 167–181.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S135246581300088X
Norcross, J. C., & Newman, C. F. (1992). Psychotherapy integration: Setting the context. In J. C. Norcross &
M. R. Goldfrie (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy integration (pp. 3–45). New York, NY: Basic Books.
Passmore, J., Holloway, M., & Rawle-Cope, M. (2010). Using MBTI type to explore differences and the
implications for practice for therapists and coaches: Are executive coaches really like counsellors? Coun-
selling Psychology Quarterly, 23, 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09515071003679354
Peterson, D. B. (2010). Executive coaching: A critical review and recommendations for advancing the practice.
In S. Zedeck (Ed.), APA handbook of industrial and organizational psychology: Vol. 2.Selecting and
developing members of the organization (pp. 527–566). Washington, DC: American Psychological Associ-
ation.
Pittenger, D. J. (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Consulting Psychol-
ogy Journal: Practice and Research, 57, 210 –221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.57.3.210
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1982). Transtheoretical therapy: Toward a more integrative model of
change. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 19, 276 –288. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0088437
Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications, and theory. London, UK:
Constable.
Rosenzweig, S. (1936). Some implicit common factors in diverse methods of psychotherapy. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 6, 412–415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.1936.tb05248.x
Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy during self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist,
25, 71–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2501_6
Schwarzer, R., Bäßler, J., Kwiatek, P., Schröder, K., & Zhang, J. X. (1997). The assessment of optimistic
self-beliefs: Comparison of the German, Spanish, and Chinese versions of the General Self-Efficacy Scale.
Applied Psychology, 46, 69 –88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01096.x
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright, & M.
Johnston (Eds.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37).
Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
18 DE HAAN, GRANT, BURGER, AND ERIKSSON
Scoular, A., & Linley, P. A. (2006). Coaching, goal-setting and personality type: What matters? The Coaching
Psychologist, 2, 9 –11.
Sherer, M., Maddux, J. E., Mercandante, B., Prentice-Dunn, S., Jacobs, B., & Rogers, R. W. (1982). The
self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports, 51, 663–671. http://dx.doi.org/
10.2466/pr0.1982.51.2.663
Smith, I. M., & Brummel, B. J. (2013). Investigating the role of the active ingredients in executive coaching.
Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 6, 57–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
17521882.2012.758649
Standards Australia. (2011). Handbook for coaching in organisations (HB 332–2011). Sydney, Australia:
Author.
Stewart, L. J., Palmer, S., Wilkin, H., & Kerrin, M. (2008). The influence of character: Does personality impact
coaching success? International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 6, 32–42.
Wampold, B. E., Mondin, G. W., Moody, M., Stich, F., Benson, K., & Ahn, H. (1997). A meta-analysis of
outcome studies comparing bona fide psychotherapies: Empiricially, “all must have prizes.” Psychological
Bulletin, 122, 203–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.122.3.203
Wolpe, J., & Lazarus, A. (1966). Behavior therapy techniques. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.
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, 39 –53.
Zaitsoff, S., Pullmer, R., Cyr, M., & Aime, H. (2015). The role of the therapeutic alliance in eating disorder
treatment outcomes: A systematic review. Eating Disorders: The Journal of Treatment & Prevention, 23,
99 –114. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10640266.2014.964623
Zickar, M. J., & Kostek, J. A. (2013). History of personality testing within organizations. In N. D. Christiansen
& R. P. Tett (Eds.), Handbook of personality at work (pp. 173–190). New York, NY: Routledge.
Received May 30, 2015
Latest revision received January 31, 2016
Accepted February 1, 2016 䡲
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
19A LARGE-SCALE STUDY OF EXECUTIVE COACHING
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Consulting Psychology Journal Practice and Research
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
