Effectiveness of Leadership Coaching

Full text

V
© 2018 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525402979 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647402970

© 2018 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525402979 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647402970

Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht
Robert Wegener/Silvia Deplazes/Marianne Hänseler/
Hansjörg Künzli/Stefanie Neumann/Annamarie Ryter/
Wolfgang Widulle (Hg.)
Wirkung im Coaching
© 2018 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525402979 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647402970

Mit 31 Abbildungen und 10 Tabellen
Bibliograsche Information der Deutschen Nationalbibliothek
Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek verzeichnet diese Publikation in der
Deutschen Nationalbibliograe; detaillierte bibliograsche Daten sind
im Internet über http://dnb.dnb.de abruar.
ISBN 978-3-647-40297-0
Weitere Ausgaben und Online-Angebote sind erhältlich unter:
www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com
Umschlagabbildung: ILeysen/shutterstock.com
© 2018, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG,
eaterstraße 13, D-37073 Göttingen
www.vandenhoeck-ruprecht-verlage.com
Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Das Werk und seine Teile sind urheberrechtlich
geschützt. Jede Verwertung in anderen als den gesetzlich zugelassenen Fällen
bedarf der vorherigen schrilichen Einwilligung des Verlages.
Satz: SchwabScantechnik, Göttingen
© 2018 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525402979 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647402970

5
Inhalt
Vorwort ........................................................... 9
Dank ............................................................. 11
Einführung ........................................................ 15
Über die Notwendigkeit institutionell verankerter
Coaching-Forschung
Robert Wegener, Silvia Deplazes, Marianne Hänseler, Hansjörg Künzli,
Stefanie Neumann, Annamarie Ryter und Wolfgang Widulle
Teil 1 – Wissenschaliche Fachbeiträge
Peter oder Petra? ................................................... 27
Die Rolle von Geschlecht und Führungsqualitäten in der Bewertung
und Auswahl von Coaches
Maximilian D. Mühlberger und Eva Traut-Mattausch
Wo führt das hin? .................................................. 35
Eekte des Coaching-Führungsstils auf das Erleben der Klientinnen
und Klienten und den Coaching-Erfolg
Sabine Losch und Eva Traut-Mattausch
Die Bedeutung von Medien für die Qualität von Coaching ............. 46
Harald Geißler
Coaching und die Rolle des Unbewussten ............................ 57
Neurowissenschaliche Erkenntnisse für eine wirksame Coaching-Praxis
Alica Ryba
Das Selbst im Bild .................................................. 74
Mit Bildern Selbstreexion und Veränderung im Coaching wirksam
unterstützen
Jasmin Messerschmidt
© 2018 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525402979 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647402970

Inhalt
6
Prozessbezogene Determinanten der Wirkung von Einzelcoaching ..... 85
Ein systematischer Überblick über den internationalen Forschungsstand
Cornelia Tonhäuser
»Turning Duty into Joy!« ........................................... 95
Optimierung der Selbstregulation im Coaching durch Motto-Ziele
Julia Weber
Mein Coaching! .................................................... 105
Die Erfüllung des Bedürfnisses nach Autonomie
Sandra J. Schiemann, Christina Mühlberger, Maximilian D. Mühlberger,
Isabell Braumandl und Eva Jonas
Transferstärke-Coaching ............................................ 117
Selbstlernkompetenz fördern und Lerntransfer sichern
Axel Koch
Ambivalenzen des Coachings ....................................... 132
Über nicht intendierte Wirkungen in Zeiten der Selbstoptimierung
Laura Glauser
Das Impostor-Phänomen– ein ema im Coaching? ................. 140
Eva Traut-Mattausch und Mirjam Zanchetta
Eectiveness of Leadership Coaching ................................ 148
Willem Jan Hofmans
Teil 2 – Forschungsrelevante Beiträge aus der Praxis
Formatkompetenz von Coaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Design von maßgeschneiderten Vorgehensweisen im Coaching
Elke Berninger-Schäfer und Efriom Kineselassie
»Blended Business Coaching« mit dem Lauahnkoer HR ............ 176
Neue Formen des Coachings in der beruichen Weiterbildung
Wolfgang Eberling, Gery Bruederlin und Marion Alt
Kein Coaching ohne Evaluation der Ergebnisse ....................... 188
Niki Harramach und Nina Veličković
© 2018 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525402979 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647402970

Inhalt 7
Führung entwickeln und Wirkung entfalten .......................... 197
Zum Zusammenhang von Coaching und Change-Management
Mathias Hofmann
Coaching-Kultur in deutschsprachigen Organisationen ............... 210
Das Konzept der resilienten und agilen Organisation
Axel Klimek und Werner Stork
Die Autorinnen und Autoren, Herausgeberinnen und Herausgeber ..... 221
© 2018 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525402979 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647402970

148
Effectiveness of Leadership Coaching
Willem Jan Hofmans
The evaluation of the impact of coaching is lagging behind as demonstrated
by the few empirical studies which link coaching to outcomes. This quasi-ex-
perimental study on the effectiveness of leadership coaching was completed
during a doctoral research project. The contribution of this study is that it
is a mixed-methods pre/post longitudinal study. It was approached from
the field of business and only professional, certified external coaches were
involved. The research used multi-source feedback and reports on multi-level
effects, while taking formative evaluations into consideration. Six coaches
worked with 30 clients during an average period of 8.7 months to collect
data for this project. The results suggest that after leadership coaching there
is a significant positive change in clients’ mindfulness, a positive, though
not statistically significant, improvement in the leadership effectiveness
of clients, and a slight, statistically insignificant, improvement in business
results. Whereas client satisfaction appears to have a significant impact
on the outcome of the coaching, the client-coach relationship and coach
satisfaction do not. The achievement of the clients’ coaching objectives cor-
relates significantly with leadership competencies, but coaching outcomes
do not change significantly enough as a result of achieving objectives.
e world of coaching is a booming business without regulation which everyone
can freely enter. According to eeboom, Beersma and van Vianen (2014), Ely
et al. (2010) and De Meuse, Dai and Lee (2009) there is a lack of empirical evi-
dence that coaching delivers the desired results. Organisations for coaches, like
the International Coach Federation (ICF)1, actively promote the professionali-
sation of coaching by means of accredited education, certication and research.
An opportunity to complete a Doctorate in Business Administration (DBA) in
2009 provided an ideal opportunity to focus research on the ecacy of coaching.
1 e ICF is the leading global organisation advancing the coaching profession with over
20,00 0 members worldwide
© 2018 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525402979 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647402970

Effectiveness of Leadership Coaching 149
ere are few empirical studies which link coaching to improved results.
From a managerial point of view, the issue has been that the Return on Invest-
ment (ROI) of coaching is not easily measurable (AMA, 2008). From an aca-
demic perspective, the problem is that “little guidance exists on how to evalu-
ate this unique leadership development practice” (Ely et al., 2010, p. 585). De
Haan, Duckworth, Birch and Jones (2013) have proposed that similar outcome
results as in psychotherapy can be assumed. is may be sucient for this dis-
cipline, but the business view is presumed dierent, as tangible results are typ-
ically required in this eld.
is study focused on coaching leaders in organisations. It drew on resources
from the elds of leadership, management, psychology and training & devel-
opment. e question it has aspired to answer is: “What does the application
of an integrated evaluation framework tell us about the eectiveness of lead-
ership coaching?”
Findings from the meta-analysis of research projects on the impact of coach-
ing from eeboom et al. (2014), Ely et al. (2010) and De Meuse et al. (2009), in
combination with the work of Donald Kirkpatrick (1996) on evaluating train-
ing programs and Chen (1989) on the evaluation of program theory, support
the development of an integrated evaluation framework:
Client’s Coaching
Objectives
Achievement
Client-Coach
Relationship
Leadership
Effectiveness Mindfulness&Leadership
Effectiveness Mindfulness&
Business Results (T1) Business Results (T2)
Pre-Coaching (T1) Post-Coaching (T2)
(H2)(H3)
(H1)
(H4)
Integrated Evaluation Framework
Figure 1: Integrated evaluation framework
© 2018 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525402979 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647402970

Hofmans
150
Leadership “involves persuading other people to set aside for a period of time
their individual concerns and to pursue a common goal that is important for
the responsibilities and welfare of a group”, and “concerns building cohesive and
goal-oriented teams; there is a causal and denitional link between leadership
and team performance” (Hogan & Curphy, 1994, p. 493). Leadership eective-
ness is this link between the leader and organisational performance. Leadership
coaching is “a relationship between a client and a coach that facilitates the client
becoming a more eective leader” (Ely et al., 2010, p. 585).
e theory of resonant leadership of Goleman, Boyatzis and McKee (2013)
is a basis for this research. is theory is closely tied to both emotional intelli-
gence (EQ) and mindfulness, as one of the three elements supporting renewal.
Both are linked to a measurement of leadership eectiveness from a sustainable,
long-term point of view. Mindfulness is “being aware, awake and attending to
ourselves and the way around us” (McKee & Boyatzis, 2006, p. 34). e origins
of mindfulness stem from Buddhist philosophy and are focused on the signi-
cance of consciousness. Being alert to mental contents as well as accepting and
not judging are key parts of mindfulness. e assertion is that people who are
mindful tend to be faster, have better ideas, are happier in life and, most cru-
cially within the context of this research, are usually more eective. Passmore
and Marianetti (2007) report that mindfulness is used in dierent elds, amongst
those is the corporate world. ey also mention various studies in which the
signicant benets of mindfulness training, amongst which improvements in
physiology (e. g. well-being, reduced blood pressure and cortisol levels), satisfac-
tion (with the job), communication, creativity and productivity were reported.
ese research projects also showed a decrease in stress, tension and anxiety.
Self-reporting by clients and/or coaches in outcome studies has been
described as an issue, because of the potential lack of the objectivity of results.
Collection of multi-source data, consideration of multi-level eects and forma-
tive evaluations of the client, coach, client–coach relationship and coaching pro-
cess have, therefore, been recommended. According to De Meuse et al. (2009),
only three publications have focused on executive coaching engagements, pro-
vided by an external coach, based on a pre/post-coaching design and with
reported statistics in the article.
e relevance of this research for the eld of management is that it aims to
provide a framework for managers to evaluate the eectiveness of executive/
leadership coaching through the application of an integrated evaluation frame-
work. In terms of the academic elds of management, leadership and psychol-
ogy, this research aspires to provide empirical evidence regarding the impact
of leadership coaching engagements.
© 2018 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525402979 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647402970

Effectiveness of Leadership Coaching 151
e hypotheses, which consider summative, i. e. changes in outcomes (H1
and H4), and formative evaluations of two key aspects of coaching (H2 and H3),
as depicted in Figure 1, are:
(H1) Coaching outcomes*2* have improved aer leadership coaching.
(H2) e relationship between client and coach has a positive impact on
coaching outcomes.
(H2.a) Client satisfaction with the coach and (H2.b) coach satisfaction with
the client have a positive impact on coaching outcomes.
(H3) e achievement of the client’s coaching objectives has a positive impact
on coaching outcomes.
(H4) Business results are better aer leadership coaching.
Methods
Pre-coaching (T1) and post-coaching (T2) data was collected between July
2011 and November 2014 for N = 30 client engagements with three female and
three male professional external coaches. e clients included 11 women and
19 men: 20 worked for the same company, ve for another company and the
other ve for dierent companies. Of the clients, 13 worked with the author as
their coach, 15 (6, 6 and 3 each) with the three female coaches and one each
with the two other male coaches. Characteristics of the coaching programme
are described in Table 1.
Tab le 1: Descriptive statistics of the coaching programme
NRange Min Max Mean Standard
deviation
length_leadership_
coaching (in months)
30 3811 8.67 .884
number_of_coaching
sessions
30 8 6 14 11. 8 3 2.408
number_of_hours 30 28 8 36 16.59 4.995
average_duration_coach-
ing session (in hours)
30 1.57 1.00 2.57
1.4097
.29530
number_of_3ways_with_
boss
30 3142.73 .868
Valid N (listwise) 30
2* Coaching outcomes as measured by leadership eectiveness and mindfulness.
© 2018 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525402979 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647402970

Hofmans
152
For the 30 client engagements a total of N = 376 evaluators completed 360 ° feed
-
back during the pre-coaching and N = 310 during the post-coaching phase. 208
of these 310 (67.1 %) were the same evaluators as during the pre-coaching phase.
e following instruments were used to collect the data as described in Fig-
ure 2:
Ȥ
e Leadership Circle Prole™ (
TLCP
), a 124-item scientically validated
multi-source instrument with the responses based on a nine-point Likert
scale (Anderson Jr., 2006b), which includes a summary measure for lead-
ership eectiveness.
Ȥ e Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI), a 14-item semantically robust
and psychometrically stable, validated tool based on a four-point Likert scale
(Walach, Buchheld, Buttenmüller, Kleinknecht & Schmidt, 2006).
Ȥ e Business Performance Index (BPI), a 6-item tool developed by TLCP,
collects business results data from clients and their bosses based on a sev-
en-point Likert scale.
Ȥ An evaluation of the coaching programme both by the client – an 11-item
questionnaire, and the coach – a 10-item questionnaire, and in terms of the
achievement of the coaching objectives, all using a ve-point Likert scale.
360° Feedback
pre-coaching
with TLCP™,
BPI and FMI
pre-coaching
Define & agree
key coaching
objectives
Coaching 2 × month,
1–2 hours per session
for 6 months
Coachee
debrief
360° Feedback
post-coaching
with TLCP™,
BPI and FMI
post-coaching
Final
Debrief
3-Way Check-in:
– Client, Boss & Coach
– at 2, 4 and 6 months
intervals
Client-coach,
coach-client and
objectives
evaluation
Coaching Programme
Figure 2: Coaching programme
© 2018 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525402979 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647402970

Effectiveness of Leadership Coaching 153
e variables within the research model are expressed in the following way:
Ȥ Coaching outcomes as expressed by the dierence between TLCP leader-
ship eectiveness (all evaluators) and FMI mindfulness both before and aer
leadership coaching.
Ȥ Business results as reported by the dierence of overall performance on the
Business Performance Index (BPI), as assessed by the boss, before and aer
leadership coaching.
Ȥ Client satisfaction, which refers to the client’s level of satisfaction with the
coach as derived from the client’s evaluation of the coach.
Ȥ Coach satisfaction, which refers to the coach’s level of satisfaction with the
client as derived from the coach’s evaluation of the client.
Ȥ e Client-Coach Relationship Index (CCRI) as calculated by dividing the
client satisfaction score by the coach satisfaction score with an index of 1.00
indicating a well-balanced relationship; variations indicate that the client
either experienced the relationship as more (> 1.00) or less (< 1.00) positive
than the coach.
Ȥ
e Client’s Coaching Objectives Achievement (
CCOI
) is the average of
the scores for the objectives, with a score of 1.00 indicating that the objec-
tives have been achieved, a score of below and above 1.00 indicating that the
objectives have not been achieved and exceeded respectively.
Correlations between the key variables of the integrated evaluation framework
are summarised in Table 2:
Tab le 2 : Correlation of key variables. N = 30, except for Business Performance Index (N = 27);
* p <.05; ** p <.01. Cronbach’s alphas appear along the diagonal in parentheses.
Variable MSD 1 234567
1.Client-Coach
Relationship
Index
1.08 .13 ----
2. Client
Satisfaction
49.93 3.30 .37* (.82)
3.Coach
Satisfaction
46.90 5.07
-.85**
.17 (.86)
4.Coaching Ob-
jectives Achieve-
ment Index
.96 .22 .00 .35 .17 ----
5.Leadership Ef-
fectiveness_diff
(all evaluators)
.09 .34 -.12 -.25 .02 -.18 (.95)
© 2018 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525402979 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647402970

Hofmans
154
Variable MSD 1 234567
6.Mindfulness_
diff
4.35 4. 76 -.46* -.09 .45* .08 .32 (.81)
7.Business
Performance In-
dex_diff (boss)
.02 1.04 -.07 .04 .07 -.08 .14 -.03 ----
e strong negative correlation between the T1-T2 dierence in mindfulness
and the Client-Coach Relationship Index (
CCRI
) indicates that if a coach is
less satised with the client than the client is with the coach, mindfulness is
impacted negatively and vice versa as corroborated by the strong positive cor-
relation between the change in mindfulness and coach satisfaction. CCRI has
a strong negative correlation with coach satisfaction, with lower levels of coach
satisfaction associated with higher levels of CCRI.
ree areas were analysed to investigate possible impact on the results:
1. 20 of the 30 clients were part of a leadership development programme that
included 5 days of workshops in addition to the coaching. An independ-
ent-samples t-test suggested no signicant dierence in the scores for those
who attended the leadership programme in terms of coaching outcomes and
the ones who did not.
2. Eight clients had a change in boss. Independent-samples t-tests comparing
key variables, in which the boss was involved in evaluating clients who had
a change in boss during the programme and for those who did not, showed
that the dierences were insignicant (eect sizes as measured by eta squared
ranged from.00 to.04).
3.
A mixed within subjects and in-between subjects analysis of variance showed
no signicant correlations or interactions between the number of sessions,
hours and length of leadership coaching, the number of 3-way conversations
between client, boss and coach, client and coach demographics with coach-
ing outcomes, except between coach gender and the change in mindfulness.
A paired samples t-test will be performed to test H1 and H4 and the related
sub-hypotheses. Given the sample size of n = 30 AN OVA (analysis of variance)
and applying Bonferroni condence interval adjustment, it will be used to test
the interactions of hypotheses and sub-hypotheses for H2 and H3. Since there
will be an opportunity to analyse the data, in particular the multi-source data,
from multiple points of view, the results will also be analysed in terms of these
dierent sources, i. e. self, boss, boss’s boss, direct reports, peers and others,
where appropriate.
© 2018 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525402979 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647402970

Effectiveness of Leadership Coaching 155
Results
e paired-samples t-tests to evaluate H1 showed that the change in leadership
eectiveness (all evaluators) (M =.09, t(29) = 1.28, p =.212), though positive, was
not statistically signicant. However, mindfulness had increased signicantly
with a mean increase in mindfulness scores of 4.35 (p<.001) with a 95 % con-
dence interval ranging from 2.57 to 6.13. Cohen’s (1988) d =.75, indicating a
large ES. H1, is thus only partially accepted.
To enable comparisons with other studies, paired-samples t-tests for the change
in leadership eectiveness, as evaluated by the client him/herself as well as his/
her boss, direct reports, peers and others, were also carried out. Only the changes
in the boss’s evaluation (M = 0.27, t(22) = 2.30, p<.05 with a 95 % condence
interval ranging from 0.03 to 0.52 with Cohen’s d = .46 indicating a medium ES)
and in the self-evaluations (M = .26, t(29) = 2.11, p<.05 with a 95 % condence
interval ranging from.01 to .51 with Cohen’s d = .38 indicating a small ES) were
statistically signicant.
e mixed within subjects and in-between subjects analyses of variance
3
, used
to review the impact of the various aspects of the relationship between client
and coach on coaching outcomes (H2), rst indicated there were no signicant
interactions between the CCRI and coaching outcomes. Secondly, there were
signicant interactions between client satisfaction and leadership eectiveness,
Wilks Lambda = .47, F(9,20) = 2.53, p<.05, partial eta squared = .53 and mindful
-
ness, Wilks Lambda = .37, F(9,20) = 3.79, p<.01, partial eta squared .63. irdly,
there were no signicant interactions between coach satisfaction and coaching
outcomes. Only H2.a has therefore been accepted.
Regarding the impact of the achievement of coaching objectives (CCOI) on
coaching outcomes, the results of the mixed within subjects and in-between
subjects analyses of variance showed no signicant interaction between CCOI
and leadership eectiveness, Wilks Lambda = .42, F(11,18) = 2.25, p = .061, par-
tial eta squared.58, and
CCOI
and mindfulness, Wilks Lambda = .56, F(11,18) =
1.29, p = .303, partial eta squared .44. is hypothesis has therefore been rejected.
e paired-samples t-test for the fourth hypothesis indicated a statistically
insignicant increase in the Business Performance Index (as assessed by the
bosses) and the hypothesis has therefore been rejected.
3 Bonferroni condence interval adjustment has been applied to all analyses of variance.
© 2018 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525402979 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647402970

Hofmans
156
Discussion
is study shows that, whereas leadership eectiveness (all evaluators) does not
show a statistically signicantly increase aer leadership coaching, mindfulness
and leadership eectiveness (as evaluated by the bosses and the clients them-
selves) have increased signicantly. e results in this study range from Cohen’s
d = .75 (change in mindfulness) to d = .46 (boss-assessed leadership eective-
ness) and d = .38 (self-assessed Leadership Eectiveness). Table 3 shows these
results within the context of other outcome studies that have reported Cohen’s d.
Tab le 3 : Comparison to other outcome studies
Author Outcome Significance* Issue
Peterson
(1993)
Measures related to ob-
jectives of coaching
d > 1.5 Self-reports &
supervisory ratings
only
Smither et al.
(2003)
Working with a coach as
opposed to not
d = .17 Direct reports and
superiors only
Evers et al.
(2006)
Self-efficacy beliefs and
outcome expectancies
d = .5 Self-reports only
Perkins
(2009)
Leadership behaviours in
meetings
d > .95 Coach ratings only
Nieminen et al.
(2013)
Mission- and adaptability
focused leadership
behaviours
d = .17 and .27 Self-reports only
Hofmans
(2015)
Leadership Effectiveness
(LE) & Mindfulness
LE all evaluators:
insignificant.
Boss (d = .46),
Self (d = .38), Mind-
fulness (d = .75)
Evaluator/rater
consistency (67.1 %)
and Sample size
(N = 30)
*Cohen’s d are classified as Small, d = .2, Medium, d = .5 or Large, d = .8.
ere are three signicant ndings regarding the impact of the client-coach rela-
tionship on coaching outcomes. Firstly, while using a more objective assessment
of the coaching outcome, the relationship between the client and the coach does
not appear to signicantly impact coaching outcomes. Even though set in a dif-
ferent environment (military), these results appear to be in line with the ones
from Boyce, Jackson and Neal (2010). Baron and Morin (2009) and de Haan
et al. (2013) found a high correlation between the client-coach relationship and
the coaching outcome (self-report from the clients). is appears to point more
towards the second nding in this study, i. e. client satisfaction signicantly
© 2018 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525402979 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647402970

Effectiveness of Leadership Coaching 157
impacts coaching outcomes. erefore, it is not so much the relationship but
more how satised the client is with the coach that impacts the outcome of the
coaching programme. While measured in a dierent way, this conrms the nd-
ings of de Haan et al. (2013), i. e. a strong positive correlation between how the
client experiences the relationship and the coaching eectiveness.
Even though there is not a signicant impact on the coaching outcome, the
third nding is that the coach’s assessment of the relationship with the client has
a much stronger inuence on the said relationship with the client than how the
client evaluates this as illustrated by the correlations (Table 2). Boyce et al. (2010)
and Baron and Morin (2009) also found a greater signicance in the coach’s
rating of the relationship. Despite the insignicant interactions that have been
found for coach satisfaction and coaching outcomes, the positive correlation
between coach satisfaction and mindfulness (r =.45, n = 30, p <.05) could pos-
sibly conrm a more signicant impact of coach satisfaction on coaching out-
comes, which is consistent with Boyce et al. (2010). What this suggests is that,
contrary to what has been reported by de Haan et al. (2013), the way the coaches
feel about the relationship with the client has a more signicant inuence on the
relationship between client and coach, and possibly coaching outcomes, than
previously believed. is strengthens the argument that “Coaches may not be as
‘in tune’ with their clients as they typically assume” (de Haan et al., 2013, p. 54).
A statistically signicant result has not been obtained regarding H3, but the
signicance of the achievement of the client’s coaching objectives with p =.061
appears to be very close to being a predictor for coaching outcome. It is impor-
tant to highlight that an as-close-as-possible objective measure for the deter-
mination of the coaching outcome was used and the low rater consistency may
have inuenced the outcome. Correlations between 90 of the 95 objectives, as
classied under the leadership dimensions of the Leadership Circle Prole, and
coaching outcomes were strong (p<.01) for all four dimensions and leadership
eectiveness (.70 to.88) and signicant (p<.05) for the relating (.37) and self
awareness (.41) dimensions and mindfulness. Bowles, Cunningham, De La Rosa
and Picano (2007), Evers, Brouwers and Tomic (2006) and Orenstein (2006)
have also documented positive ndings with regard to setting goals in coaching.
e ideal outcome would have been to objectively show an improvement in
business results for the area that the leader, who has been coached, is respon-
sible for, aer leadership coaching (H4). Even though the results show a slight
increase, as assessed by the leaders’ bosses aer coaching, they are not statis-
tically signicant. ese ndings are dierent to the ones found by Anderson
(2006a, 2006b) in which a correlation of .612 was reported between leadership
eectiveness and business performance. e sample size (N = 486) was signif-
© 2018 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525402979 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647402970

Hofmans
158
icantly larger and only one measurement was used instead of the longitudinal
measurements reported here.
Limitations and implications for research and practice
ere are a number of limitations in this study. e rst one has to do with the
sample size. It is recognised that with a sample of N = 30 it is dicult to gen-
eralise the results. Since the literature on sample size appears to be inconsistent
in terms of what is a required sample size, an area for future research could be
to take the proposed framework and methodology to continue the collection
of data until a sample size has been determined that allows for the results to
be generalised. In addition, using a control group in the design could comple-
ment future research.
A second limitation has to do with the 67.1 % rater consistency. Despite
possible issues related to rater bias, multi-source feedback has been described
as being closest to an objective measurement of progress. It would be interest-
ing to nd out what makes evaluators decide to either complete a request for
such feedback or not and to understand the pre-requisite conditions under
which evaluators will complete both multi-source feedback requests in a pre/
post-coaching research design.
irdly, given that self-reporting has been identied as a limitation in coach-
ing eectiveness literature, it could be seen as a limitation that results for mind-
fulness if only self-assessed data has been obtained. e question is how someone
else other than the individual concerned could correctly assess how mindful that
person is. Given the signicance of the changes in mindfulness and its impor-
tance for leadership eectiveness, another area for future research could be to
include a measurement of mindfulness as experienced by others.
A fourth limitation relates to how events outside the realm of coaching have
impacted the outcome. Whereas the impact of the changes of bosses has been
analysed more deeply and found not to have impacted the results, the same can-
not be said for the analysis of the impact of other, e. g. organisational, changes.
Today’s organisational world is characterised by constant change, and research
into how these changes impact leadership coaching engagements could possi-
bly assist organisations in determining the planning of these leadership devel-
opment interventions.
Finally, a h limitation could be that two-thirds of the clients received
coaching as part of a leadership development programme that also included
other interventions. Given the reported statistically insignicant dierences and
© 2018 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525402979 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647402970

Effectiveness of Leadership Coaching 159
the diculties encountered in obtaining an acceptable sample size, the belief
is that it has been a reasonable choice to include the data for all these coaching
engagements in this study. Based on the results from Olivero, Bane and Kopel-
man (1997), in which they found training only increased productivity by 22.4 %,
training-with-coaching increased productivity by 88 % in a public agency. e
results of this study further reinforce the impact of coaching as a developmen-
tal intervention. Nevertheless, another area for future research would be to only
focus on coaching engagements without any other types of leadership develop-
ment mixed in. is would further validate the nding of this and other empir-
ical research that coaching, as a standalone leadership development interven-
tion, produces positive results.
References
AMA (2008). Coaching: A Global Study of Successful Practices. New York, NY: American Man-
agement Association.
Anderson Jr., R. J. (2006a). e Leadership Circle and Organizational Performance.http://execed-
programs.nd.edu/assets/190513/the_leadership_circle_and_organizational_performance.pdf
[17.3.3017].
Anderson Jr., R. J. (2006b). e Leadership Circle Prole: breakthrough leadership assessment tech-
nology. Industrial & Commercial Training, 38 (4), 175–184. doi.org/10.1108/00197850610671946.
Baron, L., Morin, L. (2009). e Coach-Coachee relationship in Executive Coaching: A Field Study.
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20 (1), 85–105.
Bowles, S., Cunningham, C. J. L., De La Rosa, G. M., Picano, J. (2007). Coaching leaders in middle
and executive management: Goals, performance, buy-in. Leadership & Organization Develop-
ment Journal, 28 (5), 388–408. doi.org/10.1108/01437730710761715.
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 Manage-
ment Development, 29 (10), 914–931. doi.org/10.1108/02621711011084231
Chen, H. (1989). e conceptual framework of the theory-driven perspective. Evaluation and Pro-
gram Planning, 12 (4), 391–396. doi.org/10.1016/0149–7189(89)90057–8.
De Meuse, K. P., Dai, G., Lee, R. J. (2009). Evaluating the eectiveness of executive coaching: Beyond
ROI? Coaching: An International Journal of eory, Research and Practice, 2 (2), 117–134. doi.
org/10.1080/17521880902882413.
Ely, K., Boyce, L. A., Nelson, J. K., Zaccaro, S. J., Hernez-Broome, G., Whyman, W. (2010). Evalu-
ating leadership coaching: A review and integrated framework. e Leadership Quarterly, 21
(4), 585–599. doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2010.06.003.
Evers, W. J. G., Brouwers, A., Tomic, W. (2006). A Quasi-experimental Study on Management
Coaching Eectiveness. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 58 (3), 174–182.
doi.org/10.1037/1065–9293.58.3.174.
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., McKee, A. (2013). Primal Leadership: Unleashing the Power of Emo-
tional Intelligence (10 th ed.). Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Haan, E. de, Duckworth, A., Birch, D., Jones, C. (2013). Executive coaching outcome research:
e contribution of common factors such as relationship, personality match, and self-ecacy.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 65 (1), 40–57. doi.org/10.1037/a0031635.
© 2018 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525402979 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647402970

Hofmans
160
Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J. (1994). What we know about leadership? American Psychologist, 49 (6), 493.
Kirkpatrick, D. (1996). Great ideas revisited. Training & Development, 50 (1), 54.
McKee, A., Boyatzis, R. E. (2006). Renewing and sustaining leadership. Leader to Leader, 2006
(40), 30–36. doi.org/10.1002/ltl.175.
Olivero, G., Bane, K. D., Kopelman, R. E. (1997). Executive coaching as a transfer of training tool:
Eects on productivity in a public agency. Public Personnel Management, 26 (4), 461.
Orenstein, R. L. (2006). Measuring Executive Coaching Ecacy? e Answer Was Right Here
All the Time. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 58 (2), 106–116. doi.
org/10.1037/1065–9293.58.2.106.
Passmore, J., Marianetti, O. (2007). e role of mindfulness in coaching. e Coaching Psychol-
ogist, 3 (3), 130–136.
eeboom, T., Beersma, B., Vianen, A. E. M. van (2014). Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on
the eects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context. e Journal
of Positive Psychology, 9 (1), 1–18.
Walach, H., Buchheld, N., Buttenmüller, V., Kleinknecht, N., Schmidt, S. (2006). Measuring mind-
fulness--the Freiburg Mindfulness Inventory (FMI). Personality and Individual Dierences, 40
(8), 1543–1555. doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.11.025.
© 2018 Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht GmbH & Co. KG, Göttingen
ISBN Print: 9783525402979 — ISBN E-Book: 9783647402970