Content uploaded by Signe Vesso
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Signe Vesso on Jun 19, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 3.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
“Characteristics of a coaching culture in leadership style: the leader’s
impact on culture”
AUTHORS Signe Vesso
Ruth Alas
ARTICLE INFO
Signe Vesso and Ruth Alas (2016). Characteristics of a coaching culture
in leadership style: the leader’s impact on culture.
Problems and
Perspectives in Management
,
14
(2-2). doi:10.21511/ppm.14(2-
2).2016.06
DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.14(2-2).2016.06
JOURNAL "Problems and Perspectives in Management"
FOUNDER LLC “Consulting Publishing Company “Business Perspectives”
NUMBER OF REFERENCES
0
NUMBER OF FIGURES
0
NUMBER OF TABLES
0
© The author(s) 2018. This publication is an open access article.
businessperspectives.org
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 14, Issue 2, 2016
306
SECTION 2. Management in firms and organizations
Signe Vesso (Estonia), Ruth Alas (Estonia)
Characteristics of a coaching culture in leadership style:
the leader’s impact on culture
Abstract
This article develops a theoretical framework for coaching-related issues, and two models are described. The first is the
“Coaching Culture Characteristics in Leadership Style” model (3C model), which evaluates the characteristics of a
coaching culture in the leadership style of organizations. The second model “Leader’s Impact on Culture” (LIC model)
describes how the impact of leaders, relationship orientation in teams and task/change orientation are interconnected. In
order to study the characteristics of a coaching culture in leadership style and the leader’s impact on culture, the
authors conducted an empirical survey in 2015. Results indicate that most Estonian companies are in phase two of the
3C model. According to the survey results, the most important development areas for Estonian leaders are leader
trustworthiness and behavior towards team members.
Keywords: coaching, coaching-based leadership, coaching culture, leaders’ impact, Estonia.
JEL Classification: M140.
Introduction
Coaching has been one of the most significant
developments in leadership and management practice
in the last thirty years (Hawkins, 2012). Evered and
Selman (1989) pointed out a paradigm in which ‘the
process of creating an organizational culture for
coaching becomes the core managerial activity’, and
where coaching is viewed ‘not as a subset of the field
of management, but rather as the heart of
management’. Increasingly, organizations are
beginning to embrace a new management culture
based on inclusion, involvement and participation,
rather than on the traditional command, control and
compliance paradigm (Hamlin et al., 2006).
According to research in 2014 by the International
Coaching Federation (ICF) in collaboration with the
Human Capital Institute (HCI), more and more
organizations have recognized the value of building a
culture of coaching that offers employees at all levels –
not just executives and managers – the opportunity to
grow their skills, enhance their value and reach their
professional goals (Bawany, 2015). As more and more
organizations use coaching as their way to lead people,
it is important to study the characteristics of coaching
culture in management styles more deeply.
This article provides a theoretical framework for
coaching, coaching culture and coaching in
management and describes two models: first, the
“Coaching Culture Characteristics in Leadership
Style” model (3C model) to evaluate the
characteristics of the coaching culture in the leadership
style of organizations. The model describes four
Signe Vesso, Ruth Alas, 2016.
Signe Vesso, Ph.D. Student, Estonian Business School, Estonia.
Ruth Alas, Ph.D., Professor, Head of Management Department,
Estonian Business School, Estonia.
phases for achieving a coaching culture. The second
model “Leaders Impact on Culture” (LIC model)
describes how the three levels – leader impact,
relationship orientation in team and task/change
orientation are interconnected.
In order to study the characteristics of a coaching
culture in leadership styles and leader impact on
culture in Estonian companies, an empirical survey
was conducted in 2015 involving 183 respondents.
1. Theoretical framework
1.1. Coaching. In general, coaching is a discipline
that is being constantly developed. There are
different types of coaching ranging from external
professional coaches and several forms coaching
used as a development tool inside the organzation.
Internal coaching is provided via in-house coaches
or when managers use a coaching-based leadership
style. Both the external and internal coaching may
provide individual coaching, group coaching or
team coaching. This article focuses on coaching
provided by managers.
It has been stated that coaching is the process of
challenging and supporting a person or a team in
order to develop ways of thinking, ways of being
and ways of learning. The purpose is to achieve
personal and/or organizational goals (Berg, 2006).
Emphasizing action, accountability and personal
responsibility, coaching support provides leaders
with a safe environment for learning how to
creatively manage change and conflict, improve
communication, strengthen self-confidence, retool
skills, and foster multicultural relationships in a
positive and constructive way (Bennet et al., 2009).
Wujec (2013) analyzed literature concerning coaching
from the last 40 years and identified the components
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 14, Issue 2, 2016
307
that should be dominant in an intervention for it to be
termed coaching. These include: attitude towards
developing the potential of the person and the
environment they develop in, striving for the
achievement of goals, finding solutions, improvement
in efficiency, support for the development of coachees
that is consistent with the values they believe in,
partnership relations between coach and coaches,
emphasizing that this is a process of support, being
based on the conversation of feedback to coachees,
caring for coachees to find solutions by themselves;
supporting coachees in overcoming internal limitations
and emphasis on short-term interventions.
Coaching can be viewed as a partnership relation
based on mutual trust between a properly prepared
coach and coachee where, through conversation, the
coach asking questions, receiving feedback and
helping remove internal barriers, coachees are
motivated to determine the goal they aim to achieve
and to achieve the goal based on their own values
and resources (Randak-Jezierska, 2015).
In conclusion, coaching is described as a process that
emphasizes both relationship and task orientation and
consists of the process of learning and transformation.
1.2. Coaching as a new paradigm for
management. Managerial coaching is increasingly
used in organizations; coaching is becoming a core
skill for managers (CIPD, 2012). Several authors
have pointed out the shift from a classical
management style towards a management style
using the coaching philosophy and approach.
Almost 20 years ago, Bartlett and Ghoshal described
the envisioned evolution in organizational design
involving a reconfiguration of the managerial role, a
shift in the relationship between employee and
manager, and extensive use of coaching to provide
performance feedback to subordinates. They argue
that, in a turbulent economic environment, middle
managers have to change their goals and related
behaviors to be more focused on coaching support
rather than administrative control. They also suggest
executive managers have to create a challenging
environment, which facilitates the development of
individual entrepreneurial initiatives (Bartlett,
Ghoshal, 1997). The concept of coaching has
emerged as a new paradigm or metaphor for
management (Ellinger et al., 2003).
Hunt and Weintraub introduced the term ‘coaching
manager’ which they identify with ‘business leaders
and managers who help their employees learn and
develop through coaching, who create workplaces
that make learning, growth and adaptation possible,
and who also combine leadership with a genuine
interest in helping those with whom they work’
(Hunt, Weintraub, 2002).
Agarwal et al. (2009) suggested that an effective
organizational response to the pressures of an
increasingly dynamic and unpredictable environment
demands that organizations abandon the classical
authority-based hierarchy that dominated relationships
between superiors and subordinates for decades. As
individual initiative and entrepreneurship arguably
become more important for organizational success
than a prescriptive, control-oriented mode of
operation. A new management paradigm calls for
facilitative behaviors that focus on employee
empowerment, learning and development, in other
words, coaching (Agarwal et al., 2009).
Managers using the coaching style develop some
beliefs and behaviors that help them to evaluate and
stimulate others to think and act independently, and to
encourage them to take responsibility for the effects of
work (Randak-Jezierska, 2015). Coaching
relationships require that executives in their roles as
coaches surrender some of their control to the other
person (employee/coachee) in the relationship. In this
case, two different views regarding power inside an
organization seem to be important: (a) the
organizational hierarchy of leadership, responsibility
and power, and (b) the feeling of empowerment or
execution of power, which arises when people inside
the organization are working and learning together. An
optimal coaching process might, therefore, have the
potential to empower the coachee, regardless of the
organizational hierarchy (Moen et al., 2012).
In conclusion, organizations need to be aware of the
concept of coaching, and also the advantages and
limitations of managers using coaching inside
organizations. Coaching as a tool can help leaders to
create and implement change. Coaching consists of
several techniques and mind-sets that support
participation, consistency and responsibility from
the employees. The managers need to develop a
coaching philosophy and approach.
1.3. Coaching culture. Culture can be analyzed at
three levels: artefacts, espoused values, and basic
underlying assumptions (Schein, 1992). Several
theorists have pointed out task-orientation and
relationship-orientation of organizational culture:
Kilmann and Saxton (1983) and Cooke and Lafferty
(1986) focus on people versus task; Goffee and
Jones (2001) separate sociability, which is similar to
relationship-orientation and solidarity, similar to
task-orientation; Harrison (1995) distinguishes
between power culture, role culture, achievement
culture and support culture. Roots (2002), in his
monograph on the typologies of organizational
culture, points out that from these four types two –
achievement culture and support culture – are more
relevant for today than the others. According to
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 14, Issue 2, 2016
308
these approaches to culture and the coaching
process described above, it can be concluded that a
coaching culture is a type of culture where a balance
exists between support and achievement.
Denison and Mishra (1995) developed a model of
organizational culture and effectiveness based on
four traits of organizational culture: involvement,
consistency, adaptability and mission. Two of the
traits, involvement and adaptability, are indicators
of flexibility, openness and responsiveness, and
were strong predictors of growth. The other two
traits, consistency and mission, are indicators of
integration, direction and vision, and were better
predictors of profitability. They suggest that specific
culture traits may be useful predictors of
performance and effectiveness.
According to the Denison culture model, the
coaching culture predicts growth and profitability,
as involvement and adaptability were strong
predictors of growth, and consistency and mission
were better predictors of profitability, and all these
traits are familiar to coaching.
A coaching culture is described in the literature as a
paradigm (Hart, 2005), a development model
(Bawany, 2015) or a culture with certain
characteristics (Jones et al., 2014; Hawkings, 2012;
Ketz de Vries, 2008). A coaching culture is a
paradigm for organizational cultures in which
coaching takes place on a formal and informal basis,
and has been ingrained in the fabric of
organizational life (Hart, 2005). Hawkings (2012)
draws out five different levels of an organizational
coaching culture – artefacts, behaviors, mind-sets,
emotional ground and motivational roots.
Artefacts: The organization espouses the importance of
coaching in its key strategy and mission statements
and coaching appears as a key competency and
capability for all leaders and managers.
Behaviors: A coaching style of engaging is used in
one-to-one, as well as team meetings, as a way of
encouraging both problem solving and continuous
team and personal development.
Mind-sets: It is important to help people to think
through the choices and options; through inquiring
together, we can arrive at better responses to new
challenges than by thinking alone.
Emotional ground: High levels of personal
engagement and responsibility.
Motivational roots: People are both committed to
their own development, and the potential of others
to learn continuously. People believe collective
performance can improve through learning and
development (Hawkings, 2012).
A coaching culture is an organizational development
model that provides the structure that defines how the
organization’s members can best interact with their
working environment, and how the best results are
obtained and measured. A coaching culture needs the
discipline of building a shared vision, learning and a
desire for personal mastery to realize its potential.
Openness is required by all to unearth shortcomings in
current processes. Team learning develops the skills of
groups of people to look for the larger picture that lies
beyond individual perspectives (Bawany, 2015).
A coaching culture is described also as a culture
where people are empowered and where coaching
happens at every level. And, not only does it happen
at every level, but also it adds to bottom line
performance. It is recognized as a development tool
that touches every part of the employee life cycle
(Jones et al., 2014). A coaching culture contributes
to a sense of mutual ownership, better networking,
more effective leadership practices and higher
commitment, creating better results across the
organization. Not surprisingly, companies with a
successful coaching culture report significantly
reduced staff turnover, increased productivity, and
greater job satisfaction (Kets de Vries, 2008).
1.4. Leaders impact. Leaders develop an
organization’s culture through their actions in creating
the organization. Once the culture evolves, the culture
has an increasingly important role in determining the
context and the extent of the need for leadership. If the
culture becomes dysfunctional, then, leadership has a
responsibility to fix the culture. In organizational
climates of perpetual change, culture is particularly
difficult to manage. Consequently, the challenge is to
create a culture in which learning, innovation, change
and adaptation are the norms (Schein, 1992).
It is argued that, to promote a coaching culture within
organizations, the managers need to use more of an
approach of inquiry and questioning to help their
subordinates learn to think for themselves rather than
using a telling and directing approach (Mukherjee,
2012). Creating a coaching culture involves
transitioning managers away from providing directive
solutions and towards empowering others to find their
own solutions. This moves the manager-subordinate
relationship away from one of paternalism towards one
of mutual respect and collaboration (Wood, 2012).
O’Connor et al. (2012) shared their logic model for
success, which is related to leader trustworthiness.
Leaders must act in a trustworthy way, so that the
organization functions optimally; the social
architecture must be created to enable two-way
communication and organizational conversation, and,
lastly, individual behavior and organizational
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 14, Issue 2, 2016
309
structures such as corporate policies and (customized)
rewards must be aligned with those elements of a
healthy culture (O’Connor et al., 2012).
Therefore, to create a coaching culture, the
manager’s main role is to change, firstly,
themselves. So, there is a need to describe the
coaching-based management style, which will help
to clarify the development areas for managers.
1.5. Coaching culture characteristics in
leadership style. The theoretical model “Coaching
culture characteristics in leadership style” (3C
model) (Vesso, 2014) describes how the
characteristics of a coaching culture are expressed
behaviorally in the leadership style of the
organization (Figure 1).
The phases of the development of a coaching culture
have been dealt with following a multi-stage
principle moving from less developed forms and
simpler tasks to more developed forms and ambitious
tasks. The model describes the behavior of the team
leader and the team members moving from the initial
phase to the mature phase of the development.
Fig. 1. 3C model “Coaching Culture Characteristics in
Leadership Style”
The model is divided into four phases according to
the level of maturity of the coaching culture in the
organzation. Phase 1 describes behaviors where the
characteristics of a coaching culture are missing in
the leadership style. In phase 2, some characteristics
of a coaching culture are present in the leadership
style. In phase 3, moderate characteristics of a
coaching culture are present throughout the
leadership style and, in phase 4, the characteristics
of a coaching culture are strong throughout the
leadership style.
Each phase of the model is described through 3
aspects:
1. Trust and finding solutions that describe the
existence of trust in finding solutions to
everyday problems and sharing responsibilities
and decision-making power.
2. Establishing agreements and maintaining them
describe relationship orientation in the team –
how cooperation agreements are arranged.
3. Creating and implementing a vision describe
task and change orientation in the team – how
vision is created and implemented.
The model describes the extent to which the practice
of involvement, consistency and taking
responsibility exists in all three aspects.
In the first phase, the practice of involvement,
consistency, responsibility is the weakest and, in the
fourth phase, the strongest. When the practice of
involvement, consistency, responsibility is weak, it
does not support the implementation of a coaching
culture, because a coaching culture requires strong
involvement, consistency, responsibility.
1.6. Leaders’ impact on culture. The leader has
the greatest impact on culture. Leadership scholars
frequently define leadership in terms of the leaders
‘role in bringing about change (Bass et al., 2008).
Therefore, the author has studied the leaders’ impact
on the characteristics of a coaching culture in their
leadership style. The theoretical model for the study
“Leaders impact on culture” (LIC) (Vesso, 2015)
consists of three parts: Leader (L), Team –
Relationship Orientation (RO), and Task and
Change Orientation in Team (TO) (Figure 2).
Yukl et al. (2002) point out that studies of
leadership behavior have previously focused on two
categories, task and relationship oriented behaviors,
and change-oriented behaviors have been ignored.
Their solution is a hierarchical taxonomy with three
meta-categories (task, relationship and change
oriented behavior). These meta-categories are
included in the LIC model. In addition, the model
consists of the leader and the team levels, and their
interactions.
At the heart of most business literature is the
assumption that trust must exist, and information
must flow freely in multiple directions for
solutions to work consistently (O’Connor et al.,
2013). All three parts of the LIC model are divided
into two sub-levels. The Leader (L) consists of the
leader’s trustworthiness (LT) and the leader’s
behavior (LB). The Team-Relationship Orientation
(RO) is divided into the team members’ attitude
towards each other (ROA) and the team members’
behavior towards each other (ROB). Task and
Change Orientation in Team (TO) consists of
individual and team goals (TOG) and the
achievement of goals (TOA) The sub-levels
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 14, Issue 2, 2016
310
“Leader” and “Team-Relationship Orientation” are
developed based on the principle that attitudes
impact behavior. The leader’s trustworthiness (LT)
impacts the leader’s behavior (LB), and the team
members’ attitude towards each other (ROA)
impacts the team members’ behavior towards each
other (ROB). The sub-levels “Task and Change
Orientation” are developed according to the
principle that individual and team goals (TOG) are
essential for the achievement of goals (TOA).
Fig. 2. LIC Model “Leaders’ impact on culture”
All parts of the LIC model are interconnected and
influence the leaders’ ability to manage change. The
leader has the most influence on the implementation
of organizational change. Two aspects have been
highlighted from leadership in this model: the
leader’s trustworthiness and the leader’s behavior.
The first aspect explores questions such as: Does the
leader create trust? How easy is it to communicate
with the leader? Can these people dare to be
honest with the leader? Can the leader create
the necessary positive energy through his/her
behavior for successful change initiation
and implementation? The second aspect explores
questions such as: Is the leader instructing and
coaching team members? Is the leader meeting the
top management? Does the leader notice everyday
successes? In regard to these two aspects, the leader
has the strongest influence through trustworthiness.
The Team-Relationship Orientation describes two
aspects. The first is the team members’ attitude
towards each other and explores questions such as:
How well do the team members know each other?
Do they have fun together? How open are they to
helping each other? The readiness to contribute to
achieving common goals depends on these
elements. The second aspect is the team members’
behavior towards each other and explores questions
such as: How much do people encourage and
acknowledge each other and give supportive
feedback to improve results? These demeanors can
help to achieve goals.
The third part of the model is Task and Change
Orientation in the team, which has two components.
The first is setting individual and team goals, and
explores questions such as: Does everyone have
clear and measurable personal goals? Does the team
have a goal to achieve at the team level? Is the team
focused on finding solutions? Are there team “game
rules”? This forms the prerequisite for
implementation. The second component is the
achievement of goals, and explores such questions
as: How well is the team informed about how close
they are to achieving their goals? Do they take time
to analyse together? Are they doing the right things
and are they doing them right? How persistent are
they and is success celebrated?
1.7. Interrelations between the LIC model
“Leaders Impact on Culture” and the 3C model
“Coaching culture characteristics in leadership
style”. The LIC and 3C models are interrelated. Both
models consist of the 3 parts shown in Figure 3.
Fig. 3. The interrelations between the 3C and LIC models
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 14, Issue 2, 2016
311
First parts of the LIC and 3C models are connected
with trust, second parts are connected with
relationships agreements on the team and third parts
are connected with achievement-task and change
orientation.
The LIC model focuses on these issues through the
leaders impact – what is the leader’s impact on
relationship and task or change orientation, and what
kinds of interrelations exist.
The 3C model focuses on concrete leader behaviors
related to the style of coaching leadership to evaluate
the level of the characteristics of the coaching culture.
The first common category “Trust” is presented in the
LIC model as part of “Leader – trustworthiness and
behavior”, and in the 3C model it is part of “Trust and
finding solutions”. A high level of trustworthiness
makes it possible to share responsibilities and move
towards a higher level of coaching culture.
The second common category “Relationship
orientation” is presented in the LIC model as “Team-
relationship orientation”, and in the 3C model as
“Establishing and maintaining agreements”. A strong
positive attitude and positive behavior towards each
other makes functioning agreements possible, which
are an essential condition for moving towards higher
levels of coaching culture.
The third common category “Task and change
orientation” is presented in the LIC model as “Task
and change orientation”, and in the 3C model as
“Creating and implementing the vision”. A strong
focus on solutions, ambitiousness, persistence and
reflection in the team enables the implementation of a
common vision within the coaching culture mind-set.
There are three common categories in both models
(Table 1).
Table 1. Common categories in the 3C and LIC models
Common category “Trust” Part 1
A high level of trustworthiness facilitates sharing
responsibilities
LIC Leader trustworthiness and behavior
3 C Trust and finding solutions
Common category "Relationship orientation" Part 2
A strong positive attitude and strong behavior towards each
other facilitates functioning agreements
LIC Team-relationship orientation
3 C Establishing and maintaining agreements
Common category "Task and change orientation" Part 3 A strong focus on solutions, ambition, persistence and
reflection in the team facilitates implementing a common
vision.
LIC Task and change orientation
3 C Creating and implementing a vision
2. Empirical study
2.1. Research questions. The research task for
the empirical study was to have an overview of
the state of the characteristics of coaching culture
in the leadership style of Estonian organizations
and to increase our understanding of the team
leaders’ impact on culture. The author developed
six research questions based on the proposed
theoretical models “Coaching Culture
Characteristics in Leadership Style” (3C) and
“Leaders impact on culture” (LIC).
Based on the 3C theoretical model three research
questions were formulated:
RQ 1. How are the characteristics of a coaching
culture in the leadership style manifested in
Estonian organizations?
RQ 2. How do team leaders and team members
perceive the characteristics of a coaching culture in
the leadership style in Estonian organizations?
RQ 3. How are the characteristics of a coaching
culture in the leadership style represented in
different types of organizations?
Based on the LIC theoretical model, the following
three research questions were formulated:
RQ 4. How do respondents in Estonian
organizations perceive the impact of leader
trustworthiness and behavior, and relationship, task
and change orientation based on the LIC model?
RQ 5. What is the difference between the high,
medium and low evaluated leaders, according to the
LIC model?
RQ 6. Are there interconnections between the
characteristics of a coaching culture in leadership
styles and the leaders’ impact based on the 3C and
LIC models?
2.2. Sample and method. In order to study the
characteristics of the coaching culture in the leadership
style and the leaders’ impact on culture in Estonian
companies, the authors conducted an empirical survey
in 2015. The total number of respondents was 183: 80
were team leaders and 103 team members from
Estonian organizations; 42 participants were
representatives of large enterprises, 41 from middle-
sized enterprises, 33 were from small businesses and
67 were from state-owned companies.
Two questionnaires were used in empirical survey
corresponding to the “Coaching culture
characteristics in leadership style” (3C model)
(Vesso, 2014) and the “Leaders’ impact on culture”
(LIC model) (Vesso, 2015).
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 14, Issue 2, 2016
312
2.2.1. The first questionnaire was developed using 3
scales based on existing literature and theoretical
model “Coaching culture characteristics in leadership
style” (3C).
The first scale – “Creating and implementing the
vision” – which is characterized by a task and change
of orientation was drawn up from 7 statements that
describe seven different situations, where, in the first
situation, there are no signs of a coaching culture in the
leadership style, in the second, there are very minor
signs of a coaching culture in the leadership style, etc.,
up to the seventh, where there are strong signs of a
coaching culture in the leadership style.
The second scale – “Establishing and maintaining
agreements” – which is characterized by relationship
orientation was drawn up from 6 statements that
describe six different situations, where, in the first
situation, there are no signs of a coaching culture in the
leadership style, in the second, there are very minor
signs of a coaching culture in the leadership style, etc.,
up to the sixth, where there are strong signs of a
coaching culture in the leadership style.
The third scale – “Trust and finding solutions” – which
characterizes how power, responsibility and trust is
distributed in problem-solving was drawn up from 9
statements that describe nine different situations,
where, in the first situation, there are no signs of a
coaching culture in the leadership style, in the second,
there are very minor signs of a coaching culture in the
leadership style, etc., up to the ninth, where there are
strong signs of a coaching culture in the leadership
style.
The statements set out in the scales, in turn, are divided
into four phases, according to the strength of the
coaching culture in leadership style: Phase 1
(characteristics of a coaching culture in the leadership
style are missing), Phase 2 (limited characteristics of a
coaching culture in the leadership style are present),
Phase 3 (moderate characteristics of a coaching culture
in the leadership style are present) and Phase 4 (the
characteristics of a coaching culture in the leadership
style are strong).
In order to find answers to the research questions,
groups of respondents were compared using ANOVA
and T-tests.
2.2.2. The second questionnaire was developed using
3 scales based on existing literature and the
theoretical model “Leaders impact on culture” (LIC).
The first scale Leader (L) was composed of 6
questions – 3 questions about the leader’s
trustworthiness (LT) and 3 questions about the leader’s
behavior (LB). The second scale Team-Relationship
Orientation (RO) was composed of 6 questions – 3
questions about the team members’ attitudes toward
each other (ROA) and 3 questions about the team
members’ behavior toward each other (ROB). The
third scale Task and Change Orientation in teams (TO)
was composed of 8 questions – 4 questions about
setting individual and team goals (TOG) and 4
questions about achieving goals (TOA).
The respondents were asked to evaluate 20
questions on a 10-point Likert scale. The questions
were grouped using the SPSS program.
The internal consistency, or Cronbach’s Alpha
coefficient, is between .848 and .923 for all scales.
To compare different groups of respondents, an
ANOVA test and a T-test were completed.
To identify what kinds of connections characterize the
elements of the LIC model, the whole sample was
divided into three equal groups according to how
respondents rated Leader’s Trustworthiness. The result
was three groups: groups with low, medium and high
evaluations of leader trustworthiness. The average
indicators for the rest of the 5 scales have been
calculated for those groups. According to the Anova
test, in all five scales the averages were statistically
significantly different.
Linear regression analyses and correlation analyses
were used to discover the structure of the connections.
3. Results
Based on the 3C and LIC models, the authors posed
six research questions (RQ).
RQ 1. How are the characteristics of a coaching
culture in the leadership style manifested in
Estonian organzations?
In 2015, 23% of companies are in phase 1, 29% are
in phase 2, 28% are in phase 3 and 19% are in phase
4 (Table 2). The characteristics of a coaching
culture in the leadership style were missing or were
only present, to some extent, in 52% of companies
and were moderate or strong in 47% of companies.
Table 2. Characteristics of a coaching culture in the leadership style in 2015 (based on the 3C model) – % of
firms in each phase
Phase 1 Phase
2
Phase 3
Phase 4
Creating and implementing a vision 32 30
12
24
Establishing and maintaining agreements
14 40
30
15
Trust and finding solutions 22 17
41
18
Total: characteristics of a coaching culture in
the management style 23 29 28 19
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 14, Issue 2, 2016
313
RQ 2. How do team leaders and team members
perceive the characteristics of a coaching culture
in the leadership style in Estonian organizations?
According to the T-test, all indicators of team-
leaders were statistically significantly higher than
subordinates; team-leaders perceive the parts of
the 3C model higher than team-members on all
scales (Table 3).
Table 3. Comparison of the characteristics of a coaching culture in the leadership style perceived by team-
leaders and team-members in 2015 based on the 3C model
Creating and implementing the vision
Establishing and maintaining agreements Trust and finding solutions
Mean SD
Mean
SD
Mean SD
Team-leaders N=80, 2015 2.45 1.221
2.48
0.875
2.73 0.967
Team-members N=103, 2015 2.08 1.273
2.37
1.013
2.35 1.160
Total N=183, 2015 2.27 1.247
2.43
0.944
2.54 1.063
T -test, p 0.000 0.000
0.000
RQ 3. How are the characteristics of a coaching
culture in the leadership style represented in
different types of organizations?
The large companies (2.39) and medium-sized
companies (2.39) presented the highest results after
state companies (2.42) (Table 4).
In “Creating and implementing the vision” the large
companies’ results (2.45) were higher than those
from the state companies (2.34). Similarly, the
lowest results were in small companies (1.79). In
“Establishing and maintaining agreements”, the
highest results were in small companies (2.68) and
the lowest results in large companies (2.19). In
“Trust and finding solutions”, the highest results
were in small companies (2.8) and the lowest in
state companies (2.46).
In conclusion, there are no great differences in the
characteristics of coaching culture in the leadership
style (according to the 3C model) in large, medium-
sized and state companies (Table 4). In small
companies, the biggest difference is in respect to
“Creating and implementing the vision”.
Table 4. Characteristics of a coaching culture in the leadership style in different types of organizations in
2015 based on the 3C model
Creating and implementing the
vision
Establishing and
maintaining
agreements
Trust and finding
solutions Total
Mean SD
Mean
SD
Mean SD Mean
SD
State companies 2015, N=67 2.34 1.398
2.45
1.004
2.46 1.034 2.42
1.145
Large companies 2015, N=42 2.45 1.347
2.19
0.862
2.54 1.163 2.39
1.134
Medium-sized companies 2015, N=41 2.22 1.060
2.42
0.948
2.54 1.164 2.39
1.0572
Small companies 2015, N=33 1.79 0.992
2.68
0.944
2.58 1.031 2.35
0.989
2015, Total N=187 2.24 1.260
2.43
0.961
2.52 1.086 2.40
1.100
A
nova-test, p 0.000 0.000
0.000
RQ 4. How do respondents in Estonian organizations
perceive the impact of leader trustworthiness and
behavior, and relationship, task and change orientation
based on the LIC model? According to the T-test,
teamleaders perceive the elements of LIC higher than
team members in all scales (Table 5). In the Leader
scale, the difference in ratings was 1.15. In the Team
scale, the difference in ratings was 0.33. In the Task
and Change Orientation scale, the difference in ratings
was 0.02.
Table 5. The perception of team leaders and team members of elements of LIC (impact of leader trustworthiness
and behavior, and relationship, task and change orientation) in Estonian organzations in 2015
Leader (L) Team -
Relationship Orientation (RO)
Task and Change Orientation in team (TO)
Mean SD
Mean
SD
Mean SD
Team-leaders 2015 N=80 7.25 2.0
7.04
1.85
6.56 1.93
Team-members 2015 N=103 6.1 2.67
6.74
2.29
6.54 2.29
T
-test, p 0.000 0.000
0.000
Note: Bold indicates statistically significant differences according to T-test.
VAovam-size Companies, esis found oartratings was
in Survey 1 1.36 and in Survey 5 1.15. In the scale
According to Table 6, the results for small companies
in all scales are higher than other types of companies.
At the same time, the results in different types of
companies are quite similar: for Leader between 6.43-
7.22, for Team between 6.65-7.24 and for Task and
Change orientation between 5.98-6.42.
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 14, Issue 2, 2016
314
Table 6. The perception of elements of LIC (impact of leader trustworthiness and behavior, and relationship,
task and change orientation) in different types of Estonian organzations in 2015
Leader (L)
Mean, SD
Team -
Relationship Orientation (RO)
Mean, SD
Task and Change Orientation in team (TO)
Mean, SD
Large companies N =42 6.48 2.67 6.65 2.24
6.24 2.46
Middle companies N= 41 6.51 2.44 6.72 2.06
5.98 2.14
Small companies N= 33 7.22 1.77 7.24 1.77
6.42 1.67
State companies N=67 6.43 2.63 6.91 2.01
6.07 2.21
Total N=183 6.67 2.39 6.83 2.16
6.31 2.25
A
NOVA test, p 0.000 0.000
0.000
RQ 5. What is the difference between the high,
medium and low evaluated leaders, according to the
LIC model?
To find answers to research question the whole
sample was divided into three equal groups
according to how the respondents rated Leader
Trustworthiness. The result was three groups: low,
medium and high evaluations of the leader’s
personality. The average indicators for the rest of
the 5 scales have been calculated for those groups.
According to the ANOVA test, the averages were
statistically significantly different in both surveys
for all five scales.
A Linear Regression analysis was also conducted.
According to the results in Table 7, the higher group
has high L and also high RO and TO. The higher
group is characterized by the following order of LIC
elements: L (8.52), RO (8.14) and TO (7.48). The
medium group is characterized by the following order
of LIC elements: L (6.9), RO (6.9) and TO (6.4).
The lower group is characterized by the fact that L
was lower than RO and TO. The lower group is
characterized by the following order of LIC
elements: R (5.18), TO (4.21) and L (3.78). In the
High group, the LIC pattern is L – RO – TO. In the
Medium group the LIC pattern is L = RO – TO. In
the Low group the LIC pattern is RO – TO – L.
In all types of companies, the team-relationship
orientation (RO) is evaluated the highest. Only in
small companies is RO almost same as leader (L).
The next is team-relationship orientation (RO). The
task and change orientation (TO) is the lowest.
Table 7. Comparison of companies according to lower, medium and higher group of LIC characteristics in 2015
Leader’s
trustworthiness
Leader’s
trustworthi
ness (LT)
Leader’s
behavior
(LB)
Leader
(L)
Team-
members’
attitude
towards
each other
(ROA)
Team-
members’
behavior
towards each
other (ROB)
Relation
ship
Orientati
on in
Team
(RO)
Individual
and team
goals
(TOG)
Achieveme
nt of goals
(TOA)
Task
Orientat
ion in
team
(TO)
Total 6
scales
Lower group Mean 3.83 3.73 3.78
5.68
4.68
5.18
4.53
3.87 4.21 4.39
N=57 SD 1.73 1.76 1.75
1.91
1.78
1.85
1.87
1.72 1.80 1.80
Medium group Mean 7.46 6.40 6.91
7.14
6.66
6.90
6.43
6.37 6.40 6.74
N=51 SD 0.71 1.74 1.23
1.57
1.55
1.56
1.42
2.18 1.80 1.53
Higher group Mean 9.27 7.78 8.53
8.43
7.86
8.15
7.51
7.46 7.48 8.05
N=75 SD 0.50 1.50 1.00
1.29
1.47
1.38
1.58
1.72 1.65 1.34
Total Mean 7.07 6.12 6.60
7.21
6.53
6.87
6.28
6.03 6.15 6.54
N=336 SD 2.55 2.38 2.47
1.96
2.08
2.02
2.06
2.27 2.17 2.22
A
NOVA test, p 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000 0.000 0.000
Note: Bold indicates statistically significant differences, according to ANOVA test.
RQ 6. Are there interconnections between the
characteristics of a coaching culture in leadership
styles and the leaders’ impact based on the 3C and
LIC models? According to the LIC model, the
highest characteristics of a coaching culture in the
leadership style are in the High group (Table 8). The
lowest characteristics of a coaching culture in the
leadership style are in the Low group.
Table 8. Characteristics of a coaching culture in the leadership style (based on the 3C model) in high,
medium and low groups, according to the LIC model, in 2015
The high, medium and lower groups
according to LIC model
Creating and
implementing the vision
Trust and finding
solutions
Establishing and
maintaining agreements
Total: characteristics of a coaching
culture in the leadership style
High N = 75 2.7 2.9
2.8
2.8
Medium N = 51 2.2 2.7
2.5
2.5
Low N = 57 1.7 1.9
1.9
1.8
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 14, Issue 2, 2016
315
Table 8 (cont.). Characteristics of a coaching culture in the leadership style (based on the 3C model) in high,
medium and low groups, according to the LIC model, in 2015
The high, medium and lower groups
according to LIC model
Creating and
implementing the vision
Trust and finding
solutions
Establishing and
maintaining agreements
Total: characteristics of a coaching
culture in the leadership style
Total N =183 2.2 2.5
2.4
2,4
A
NOVA test, p, 0.000 0.000
0.000
0.000
All results are statistically significant differences according to the ANOVA test.
Conclusions
As more and more organizations use coaching to
lead people, it is important to study the
characteristics of a coaching culture in leadership
style more deeply.
According to the results of the author’s empirical
survey in 2015, the largest share of Estonian
companies is in phase two of coaching culture,
according to the 3C model. Comparatively speaking,
23% of companies were in phase one, 29% were in
phase two, 28% were in phase three and 19% of
companies were in phase four in 2015.
The poorest aspect was “Creating and implementing
the vision”. Team leaders perceive the elements of
the 3C model higher than team members. There are
no great differences in the characteristics of the
coaching culture in large, medium-sized and state
companies. In small companies, the aspect
“Creating and implementing the vision” was lower
than in all other types of companies.
These results correspond to the survey by Zernand
(2014) about management ideas in Estonia for 1996
until 2011 when no coaching was mentioned.
The Estonian Management Practices survey (2015)
also showed that 7.3% of respondents to the survey
have used coaching as a leadership tool.
Team leaders perceived all elements of LIC higher
than team members. The highest difference was in
evaluations about the leadership: leaders rated leader
trustworthiness and behavior higher than employees.
Therefore, the leaders and team members see the
situation differently and also react differently.
It seems that the representation of LIC elements
does not depend so much on company type. The
differences are very small in different companies
types.
Leader trustworthiness influences the other elements
of the LIC model. In the group with lower
evaluations of leader trustworthiness, team
relationship orientation and task and change
orientation were also lower than in groups with high
evaluations of leader trustworthiness.
As the high group evaluations (LIC model) were
characterized by high leader trustworthiness, it is
possible to conclude that leader trustworthiness is a
prerequisite for developing a coaching culture.
According to the survey results, the most important
coaching areas for Estonian leaders are awareness of
the impact the leaders’ trustworthiness and behavior
on team members. The other important development
areas are the goal setting on individual and team
level and achievement of these goals.
To conclude, in order to develop a coaching culture
in Estonian organizations, the most important
development areas for Estonian leaders are the
awareness of the impact leader trustworthiness and
behavior on team members.
Implications
1. Implications for organizations in relation to
implementing a coaching culture in the
leadership style.
The main strategy in starting to develop a coaching
culture described in the literature is through
executive coaching or coaching skill training. For
phase 4, this can be a good solution, according to
the 3C model (Figure 4) (Vesso, 2014). But, for
phases 1 and 2, according to the 3C model, this may
not lead to success, because, inside the company,
there is a lack of practice with involvement,
consistency, responsibility, collaboration and
positive team norms. All, too often, organizations
invest time, effort and money in developing the
coaching skills of their leaders and managers only to
find that, despite initial high levels of enthusiasm,
they fail to adopt the taught coaching skills in the
workplace and end up slipping back into old
command-and-control leadership behavior patterns
(Grant et al., 2013). This is because ingrained
behaviors are difficult to change (Prochaska,
Velicier, Rossi & Goldstein, 1994).
Therefore, the strategy for starting with group
coaching or team coaching is much more efficient
for developing a coaching culture. First, group
coaching or team coaching helps to develop the
practice of involvement, consistency, responsibility,
collaboration and positive team norms inside the
team. Secondly, a parallel learning process is taking
place in the organization. The participants learn
coaching attitudes and skills through their own
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 14, Issue 2, 2016
316
experiences. When the characteristics of the
coaching culture in a company’s leadership style are
in phase 1, it is useful to add the learning process
designed to help the reflection process. This is
because there might be a low level of reflection
competence in the team due to the lack of habit.
Team learning entails shared cognition in terms of
the integration of knowledge, experiences and
perspectives, and a social context that nourishes the
willingness to engage in these knowledge building
practices (Van den Bossche et al., 2006). Team
learning refers to a continuous process of reflection
and action directed toward obtaining and processing
information to detect, understand and adapt to
changes in an environment, and to improve the
performance of a team (Edmondson, 1999).
The transformation from phase three to phase four,
according to the 3C model, is most fluent through
team coaching. Executive group coaching can also
be a suitable strategy to use. However, Clutterbuck
stated that, in recent years, practical experience and
interviews with hundreds of HR practitioners have
convinced him that the fulcrum for achieving a
coaching culture is, in reality, at the level of the
team (Clutterbuck, 2013).
To support coaching based activities, leaders need
to learn how to create an environment of
involvement, consistency, responsibility,
collaboration and positive team norms. The authors
do not recommend training in coaching skills for
companies in phase one and two, because the skills
are rooted in beliefs and attitudes. Beliefs and
attitudes are very hard to change, and learning by
experimenting is more effective. Therefore, it is
important to enable leaders via the positive
personal experience of coaching.
Fig. 4. Implications for organizations regarding developing coaching culture: what kind of outside support to use?
Notes: team coaching – participants are the team-leader and team-members; group coaching – participants are the members of the
organization (e.g., group of team-leaders, group of specialists etc.).
2. Implications for team leaders in relation to
implementing a coaching culture in the
leadership style.
For teams in phase one, according to the 3C
model (Vesso, 2014), to start moving towards a
coaching culture there are some important initial
steps (Figure 5):
1. The team leader and team members need to
discuss their common vision about the future
and to write it down.
2. The team leader and team members need to set
the goals to reach this vision.
3. Even when the team leader has his/her own
solutions to problems, he/she must also ask for
other opinions at the meeting and take them into
account.
4. The team leader and team members need to
discuss the norms of the team culture and to
make agreements.
For teams in phase two, according to the 3C model,
to start moving towards higher phases in a coaching
culture there are several important steps:
1. Team members have set challenging individual
goals in accordance with the common goal and
vision.
2. According to decision-making and problem-
solving, the team leader and team start to find
out solutions together and decide on the best
solution together.
3. The team regularly analyzes the agreed team
norms.
For teams in phase three, according to the 3C
model, to move to phase four of a coaching culture,
the following steps are necessary:
1. Action plans are made to implement challenging
individual goals in accordance with the common
goal and vision. Follow ups are carried out.
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 14, Issue 2, 2016
317
2. Team finds themselves solutions to problems
and reports to the team leader or implements
solutions and reports afterwards.
3. Team regularly analyzes agreed team-norms,
focuses on success and appreciation by giving
concrete examples.
Fig. 5. Implications for team leaders regarding implementing a coaching culture in the leadership style based on the 3C model
3. Implications for team leaders and HR specialists
Organizations need to ensure feedback for leaders to
develop their self-awareness in terms of what is
essential for self-leading. To implement the coaching
principles, the team needs to have a common vision
of the reality and the future. Therefore, dialogue
about the common reality is essential. Until trust is
established, it is difficult to enter the ‘manager as
coach’ role in the performance management context
(Ladyshewsky, 2010). It is worth investing in
developing leader trustworthiness. The leader’s
trustworthiness influences the coaching outcomes. In
groups with lower evaluations of leader
trustworthiness, the relationship and task orientation
of the team were also lower than in groups with high
evaluations of leader trustworthiness.
References
1. Agarwal, R., Angst, C.M. and Magni, M. (2009). The performance effects of coaching: a multilevel analysis using
hierarchical linear modelling, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20 (10), pp. 2110-2134.
2. Bartlett, C.A. and Ghoshal, S. (1997). The Myth of the Generic Managers: New Personal Competencies for New
Management Roles, California Management Review, 40 (1), pp. 92-116.
3. Bass, B.M. and Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial
applications. 4th ed. New York, NY, USA: The Free Press.
4. Bawany, S. (2015). Creating a Coaching Culture, Leadership Excellence Essentials, 32 (2), p. 43.
5. Bennett, J. and Bush, M. (2009). Coaching in organizations, OD Practitioner, 41 (1), pp. 2-7.
6. Berg, M.E. (2006). Coaching. Universitetsforlaget.
7. Bresser, F. and Wilson, C. (2010). What is coaching. Excellence in coaching: The industry guide, 2.
8. Building a Coaching Culture. (2014). ICF (International Coaching Federation) and HCI (Human Capital Institute),
CIPD Learning and Development, Annual Surveys.
9. Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development – CIPD. (2012). Learning and talent development. Annual
Survey Report. London: CIPD. Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/research/_learning-talent-development.
Accessed on 22.07.14.
10. Clutterbuck, D. (2013). Teaming up for a coaching culture, Training Journal, February.
11. Cooke, R.A. and Lafferty, J.C. (1986). Organzational Culture Inventory (Form III). Plymouth, MI: Human Synergetics.
12. Denison, D.R. and Mishra, A.K. (1995). Toward a Theory of Organizational Culture and Effectiveness,
Organization Science, 6 (2), pp. 204-223.
13. Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams, Administrative Science
Quarterly, 44 (2), pp. 350-383.
14. Ellinger, A.D., Ellinger, A.E. and Keller, S.B. (2003). Supervisory Coaching Behavior, Employee Satisfaction, and
Warehouse Employee Performance: A Dyadic Perspective in the Distribution Industry, Human Resource
Development Quarterly, 14 (4), pp. 435-458.
15. Evered, E.D. and Selman, J.G. (1989). Coaching and the Art of Management, Organizational Dynamics, 18 (2),
pp. 16-23.
16. Goffee, R. and Jones, G. (2001). Organzational Culture: A Sociological Perspective. In Cooper, C.L., Cartwright, S. and
Earley, P.C. (Eds.). The International handbook of Organzational Culture and Climate. John Wiley & Sons, pp. 3-20.
Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 14, Issue 2, 2016
318
17. Grant, A.M. and Hartley, M. (2013). Developing the leader as coach: Insights, strategies and tips for embedding
coaching skills in the workplace, Coaching: an International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 6 (2), pp.
102-115.
18. Hamlin, R.G., Ellinger, A.D. and Beattie, R.S. (2006). Coaching at the heart of managerial effectiveness: A cross-
cultural study of managerial behaviors, Human Resource Development International, 9 (3), pp. 305-331.
19. Harrison, R. (1995). The Collected Papers of Roger Harrison. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco.
20. Hart, W. (2005). Getting culture: Imbuing your organization with coaching behavior, Leadership in Action, 25 (4),
pp. 7-10.
21. Hawkings, P. (2012). Creating a Coaching Culture: Developing a Coaching Strategy for Your Organization.
Berkshire, England.
22. Hunt, J.M. and Weintraub, J.R. (2007). The coaching organization: a strategy for developing leaders. Thousand
Oaks: Sage Publications.
23. Jones, G. and Gorell, R. (2014). How to create a Coaching Culture. Kogan, p. 264.
24. Kets de Vries, M. (2008). Leadership Coaching and Organizational Transformation: Effectiveness in a World of
Paradoxes. INSEAD Working Paper Series 2008/71/EFE.
25. Kilmann, R.H. and Saxton, M.J. (1983). The Kilmann-Saxton Culture-Gap Survey. Pittsburgh: PA Organzational
design Consultants.
26. Ladyshewsky, R.K. (2010). The manager as coach as a driver of organizational development, Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 31 (4), pp. 292-306.
27. Moen, F. and Federici, R.A. (2012). The Effect of External Executive Coaching and Coaching-Based Leadership
on Need Satisfaction, Organization Development Journal, 30 (3), pp. 63-74.
28. Mukherjee, S. (2012). Does Coaching Transform Coaches? A Case Study of Internal Coaching, International
Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 10 (2), pp. 6-87.
29. O’Connor, D. and Jones, V. (2012). Trust, conversation and creativity: Designing an intentional culture of success,
Journal of Professional Communication, 2 (2), pp. 33-138.
30. Prochaska, J.O., Velicier, W.F., Rossi, J.S. and Goldstein, M.G. (1994). Stages of change and decisional balance
for 12 problem behaviors, Health Psychology, 13 (1), pp. 39-46.
31. Randak-Jezierska, M. (2015) Coaching in Managerial Work. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on
Management 2015. Management, Leadership and Strategy for SME’s Competitiveness. ICM 2015. 18-19th June
2015, Godollo, Hungary.
32. Roots, H. (2002). Organisatsioonikultuuri tüübid. Tallinn: Sisekaitseakadeemia.
33. Schein, E. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership. 4 ed. Wiley: Jossey-Bass.
34. Survey of the Estonian Management Practices in 2015. (2015). Civitta, Estonian Business School.
35. Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W.H., Segers, M. and Kirschner, P.A. (2006). Social and cognitive factors driving
teamwork in collaborative learning environments team learning beliefs and behaviors, Small Group Research,
37 (5), pp. 490-521.
36. Vesso, S. (2014). Coaching Culture Characteristics in Estonian Companies, Journal of Management and Change,
32/33 (1/2), pp. 109-131.
37. Vesso, S. (2015). Strengthening leader’s impact and ability to manage change through group coaching.
In F.P. Dievernich, K.O. Tokarski, J. Gong (Eds.). Change management and the human factor: Advances,
challenges and contradictions in organizational development. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International
Publishing, pp. 91-107
38. Wood, P. (2011). Creating a coaching culture, Human Resources Magazine, 16 (5), pp. 20-21.
39. Wujec, B. (2013). Origins and definitions of coaching, Coaching Review, 1 (4), pp. 4-28.
40. Yukl, G., Gordon, A. and Taber, T. (2002). A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership behavior: Integrating a half
century of behavior research Journal, Leadership and Organizational Studies, 9 (1), pp. 15-32.
41. Zernand-Vilson, M. (2014). Adoption and implementation of new management ideas in Estonian business
organzations. Doctoral Thesis in Management, Estonian Business School, No.19, Tallinn.
