Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjtr20
Journal of Trust Research
ISSN: 2151-5581 (Print) 2151-559X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjtr20
Trust me, I am a caring coach: The benefits of
establishing trustworthiness during coaching by
communicating benevolence
Sandra J. Schiemann, Christina Mühlberger, F. David Schoorman & Eva Jonas
To cite this article: Sandra J. Schiemann, Christina Mühlberger, F. David Schoorman & Eva Jonas
(2019): Trust me, I am a caring coach: The benefits of establishing trustworthiness during coaching
by communicating benevolence, Journal of Trust Research, DOI: 10.1080/21515581.2019.1650751
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2019.1650751
© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa
UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group
Published online: 06 Aug 2019.
Submit your article to this journal
View Crossmark data
Trust me, I am a caring coach: The benefits of establishing
trustworthiness during coaching by communicating
benevolence
Sandra J. Schiemann
a
, Christina Mühlberger
a
, F. David Schoorman
b
and Eva Jonas
a
a
Department of Psychology, University of Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria;
b
Krannert School of Management,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
ABSTRACT
A client’s trust in the coach is essential for a well-functioning
coaching interaction. This trust depends on the coach’s
trustworthiness in terms of ability, integrity, and benevolence. In
three mixed-method studies, we investigated how these
components of trustworthiness were established by the coach
asking inexperienced (N
1
= 42) and experienced (N
2
= 29) coaches
as well as clients (N
3
= 24). An inductive qualitative content
analysis revealed a range of approaches to establish
trustworthiness that varied depending on the coach’s experience:
Inexperienced coaches (Study 1) and clients of inexperienced
coaches (Study 3) focused most on the coach’s ability, whereas
experienced coaches (Study 2) focused most on the coach’s
benevolence. As the client’s autonomy need is important in
coaching, questions about the need (Study 2) and its fulfilment
(Study 3) were added and it was hypothesised that
communicating benevolence is autonomy need supportive. The
results revealed that when a coach perceived a higher client
autonomy need they focused more on communicating
benevolence (Study 2). In accordance, when the client reported
that the coach communicated more benevolence they felt more
autonomy need fulfilment (Study 3). Thus, communicating
benevolence can support the client’s autonomy need.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 30 January 2019
Accepted 25 July 2019
ACTION EDITOR
Michele Williams
KEYWORDS
Trust; coaching; benevolence;
trustworthiness; coach
Imagine you are a coaching client and after your first session you sense that you cannot
trust your coach: You have concerns about the coach’s competence, you wonder if the
coach is being honest with you, and you do not think the coach cares about you.
Would you feel that you could open yourself up to the coach and talk about your
dreams, goals, and desires or would you not share this sensitive information? This
thought experiment indicates the importance of the coach’s trustworthiness. Although
the coach’s trustworthiness is central to coaching, the establishment of this trustworthi-
ness during the coaching process has not yet been fully explored. In three studies we
© 2019 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
CONTACT Sandra J. Schiemann sandra.schiemann@sbg.ac.at Department of Psychology, University of Salzburg,
Hellbrunnerstr. 34, Salzburg 5020, Austria
JOURNAL OF TRUST RESEARCH
https://doi.org/10.1080/21515581.2019.1650751
examined this process, looking specifically at how coaches communicate their ability,
integrity, and benevolence –three key components of trustworthiness –to their clients
from both the coach’s and the client’s point of view. We begin by defining trust and its
importance for coaching.
Trust and its benefits for coaching
The definition of trust can vary between cultures and backgrounds (Simpson, 2007). One of
the most widely recognised definitions was suggested by Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman
(1995): Trust is being vulnerable within a social interaction (McEvily & Tortoriello, 2011).
More specifically, trust is ‘the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of
another party based on the expectation that the other will perform a particular action
important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other
party’(Mayer et al., 1995, p. 712). Other definitions also highlight the vulnerability or
risk involved in trust (e.g. Boon & Holmes, 1991; Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998; Rousseau,
Sitkin, Burt, & Camerer, 1998). Thus, trust is the willingness to be vulnerable or the willing-
ness to take risks (Schoorman, Mayer, & Davis, 2007). The price to pay for taking risks and
being vulnerable seems to be fairly high, but in general, trust is worth the effort.
Previous studies have highlighted the beneficial consequences of trust as ‘one of the
most important components –and perhaps the most essential ingredient –for the
development and maintenance of happy, well-functioning relationships’(Simpson,
2007, p. 587). Research on trust has concluded that trust leads to healthier and more
secure relationships (Simpson, 2007), trust can lead to enhanced and more open com-
munication with more information, for instance, within partnerships or between entities
(Abrams, Cross, Lesser, & Levin, 2003;Mohr&Spekman,1994), and trust can be seen as
glue for the interaction, as it can help people openly share information and openly
display their emotions (Van Lange & Rusbult, 2012). Thus, trust is the basis on which
these exchanges can be open and secure (Bachmann & Zaheer, 2006;Simpson,2007).
In this regard, trust can be especially helpful for coaching interactions, as clients have
to share their secrets, honest feelings, and thoughts with their coach (Alvey & Barclay,
2007).
The human resource development approach of coaching can lead to several beneficial
outcomes (Grover & Furnham, 2016), in which a trusting coach–client relationship is
important (Alvey & Barclay, 2007; Baron & Morin, 2009; De Haan & Mannhardt, 2013; Duck-
worth & de Haan, 2009; Grover & Furnham, 2016;O’Broin & Palmer, 2009). With the help of
trust, clients feel able to openly communicate their wishes and dreams (Baron & Morin,
2009; Jowett, Kanakoglou, & Passmore, 2012), as trust helps in contexts with high vulner-
ability, such as sharing wishes and dreams (Gyllenstein & Palmer, 2007; Mishra & Mishra,
2013; Schoorman et al., 2007). Without trust, clients may feel unsafe talking about their
wishes and dreams, which can hinder the coaching process, as coaching is based on
this openness to reflecting on oneself and one’s values (see coaching definition by
Grant, Passmore, Cavanagh, & Parker, 2010; Greif, 2008). Thus, trust promotes openness
and, therefore, sets the basis for goal attainment and coaching success (Duckworth &
de Haan, 2009; Joo, 2005), leading to the importance of the coach’s establishment of trust-
worthiness (Bluckert, 2005).
2S. J. SCHIEMANN ET AL.
The establishment of trust and trustworthiness
According to Mayer et al.’s(1995)definition, trust depends not only on one’s own willing-
ness to trust but also on the interaction partner’s trustworthiness and the situation. In this
definition, both loops and their interdependence within an interaction are taken into
account. This interaction aspect of trust is also highlighted in Hardin’s(2003)definition
of trust, which sees trust as a function with three components: Itrust YOU to do X.In
other words, it depends on (a) the willingness or propensity to trust of the truster (I),
who can be very trusting or very skeptical, (b) the trustworthiness of the trustee (YOU),
who can be very trustworthy or very untrustworthy, and (c) the respective situation (X),
as the situation may force one person to trust another or it may be optional to trust or
not to trust. As these three factors have many aspects, they are dealt with in more detail.
I: The truster’s willingness or propensity to trust
Depending on the truster’s disposition, the truster is more or less likely to trust people in
general (generalised trust; Rotter, 1967). In other words, some clients trust the coach more
than others. This general tendency is called the propensity to trust (Mayer et al., 1995). This
propensity is contingent on the truster’s personality or even on the truster’s culture, as, for
instance, Americans trust others more easily than Asians do (Schoorman et al., 2007). This
propensity to trust can be regarded as a baseline. However, in an interaction, the truster’s
willingness becomes less important than the trustee’s trustworthiness (Johnson-George &
Swap, 1982; Schoorman et al., 2007; Williams, 2012).
YOU: The trustee’s trustworthiness
Within an interaction, trust depends more on the trustee’s trustworthiness than on the
truster’s propensity to trust. Trustworthiness means the capacity to fulfil others’expec-
tations of trust (Levine, Bitterly, Cohen, & Schweitzer, in press). This trustworthiness is
formed by the trustee’sability,integrity, and benevolence: Ability refers to the trustee’s
skills, competencies, and expertise; integrity describes the trustee’s honesty, authenticity,
and value-congruency; and benevolence is expressed by the trustee’s positive, valuing,
and caring attitude (Mayer et al., 1995). The assessment or judgment of these components
can develop differently: Trust in the trustee’s ability can already manifest before the inter-
action and is domain specific (e.g. recommendation or before-known skills); trust in the
trustee’s integrity can also be established early (e.g. statements fit actions); however,
trust in benevolence takes time to develop in order to see the trustee’s positive and
valuing attitude towards the truster (e.g. empathy) (Schoorman et al., 2007). Trustworthi-
ness is a strong predictor of the decision to trust; nevertheless, also the situation has to be
taken into account (Nooteboom, Berger, & Noorderhaven, 1997).
X: The situation
With regard to trust, the situation is important, as the situation has to be risky to involve
trust (e.g. coaching versus small talk), as the trustee’s trustworthiness can be situation
specific (e.g. coach-specific versus house-building skills) (Schoorman et al., 2007), and as
JOURNAL OF TRUST RESEARCH 3
factors such as a previous interactions or a third party can influence the level of trust (e.g. a
previous coaching) (Kelley et al., 2003; Nooteboom, 2003; Schoorman et al., 2007).
In sum, trust is a relational construct, depending on the truster, the trustee, and the situ-
ation (Hardin, 2003; Mayer et al., 1995; Schoorman et al., 2007). Thus, trust depends on
both the truster’s likelihood of trusting and the trustee’s likelihood of being trustworthy:
The trust outcome is determined by how the trusting and the trustworthiness are per-
ceived, as well as how the perception differs from the actual attributes (complete
model of interpersonal trust; Levine et al., in press). The models proposed by Hardin
(2003), Schoorman et al. (2007), and Levine et al. (in press) highlight the importance of
not only the truster’s willingness to trust but also the trustee’s trustworthiness, that is,
the trustee’s capacity to fulfil the truster’s expectations.
Afirst attempt to look at establishing trust as a coach was done by Alvey and Barclay
(2007), who interviewed coaching clients with regard to trust development. The authors
found that trust depends on the client (propensity to trust), the coach (e.g. experience,
credibility, supportive behaviour), and the situation (e.g. organisational context, arrange-
ments, confidentiality agreement). These findings are in line with the three components
of the trust definition as an interaction between truster (client), trustee (coach), and situ-
ation (Hardin, 2003; Mayer et al., 1995). Although the findings shed light on the relevance
of the coach’s trustworthiness, it is unclear what approaches coaches used to establish the
trust (e.g. how coaches established credibility) and what kind of trustworthiness may be
most important.
The particular importance of benevolence in coaching
Coaching is a human resource development approach that is based on supporting a client
achieve self-valued goals by helping the client to reflect on self-valued goals, wishes, and
dreams (Grant et al., 2010; Greif, 2008). In other words, coaching is about the client’s self-
congruency, value-congruency, and self-determination (Bachkirova & Lawton Smith, 2015;
Grant et al., 2010; Greif, 2008). As the need for autonomy is the need to be self-congruent,
value-congruent, and self-determined (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017), the client’s
autonomy need plays a central role in coaching (Jonas, Mühlberger, Böhm, & Esser, 2017;
Schiemann, Mühlberger, & Jonas, 2018). Moreover, previous findings indicate that the
coach’s or consultant’s behaviour can positively or negatively influence the client’s auton-
omy-need fulfilment (Gessnitzer & Kauffeld, 2015; Gessnitzer, Schulte, & Kauffeld, 2016;
Klonek, Lehmann-Willenbrock, & Kauffeld, 2014; Miller & Rollnick, 2013; Schiemann, Mühl-
berger, Loehlau, & Jonas, 2019).
This autonomy need supportive behaviour is about ‘acknowledging an individual’s feel-
ings and unique perspective, by using neutral language and refraining from excessive
control and pressure, by providing choices and options, and by providing informational
positive feedback’(Gorin, Powers, Koestner, Wing, & Raynor, 2014, p. 333). For example,
one way of supporting the autonomy via acknowledgement is by communicating
empathy in terms of active listening and paraphrasing (Schiemann et al., 2019). This
empathic, acknowledging and valuing behaviour reminds of communicating benevolence
(Mayer et al., 1995). This similarity of benevolence and autonomy need supportive behav-
iour indicates that communicating benevolence may be a way of showing autonomy need
support.
4S. J. SCHIEMANN ET AL.
The present research: the coach’s establishment of trustworthiness
In the current research, we investigated coaches’approaches to establishing trustworthi-
ness, specifically with regard to ability, integrity, and benevolence. Thus, our first research
question was on how coaches communicate trust. For this question, we asked inexperi-
enced coaches (Study 1), experienced coaches (Study 2), and coaching clients (Study 3)
how the coach established the client’s trust within that coaching process. We were
further interested in the role of benevolence as an autonomy need support. Thus, we
second research question was on whether communicating benevolence can be an auton-
omy need support. For this, we assessed whether the client’s autonomy need (Study 2) and
its fulfilment (Study 3) are linked to the coach’s communicating benevolence.
Mixed-method approach
In all three studies, we used a mixed-method approach, both inductively analysing the
content of the free-text items and counting the number of entries for each item. Moreover,
Study 2 and 3 also included quantitative questionnaires. We used this partly qualitative
approach as it is more informative and extensive than quantitative data (Noyes, Popey,
Pearson, Hannes, & Booth, 2008). Regarding the inductive qualitative analysis, there are
many ways to analyse text data. We used the approach proposed by Mayring and Fenzl
(2017). As we had three free-text items –one for ability, one for integrity, and one for ben-
evolence –we had already divided the answers into the categories that we were looking
for; the coders were, therefore, able to be open-minded about what coaches and clients
wrote in their answers. In this case, the inductive method is the best way to analyse the
content (method-appropriate criteria; Flick, 1992). We followed Mayring’s(2001,2012)
seven steps for qualitative content analysis to analyse the coach’s establishment of trust
by asking both coaches and clients after their coaching sessions how the coach estab-
lished trust in terms of ability, integrity, and benevolence. For each study, we used
three coders with coaching experience and inductive content analysis training who did
not participate in the experiment. To ensure reliability, only if all coders agreed was a sub-
category coded. The coders were asked to code only explicitly mentioned approaches
(coding unit: phrases or clauses; context unit: one person’s writing) and not to assign
more than one code to a coding unit. Coders were instructed to devise code labels with
a low to middle level of abstraction, so that they were very close to what the participants
wrote, but nominalizations and anonymizations were allowed. The data was analysed with
the QCAmap software (www.qcamap.org; Mayring & Fenzl, 2017).
Study 1: Inexperienced coaches
The coach’s communication of trust. In our first study, we focused on inexperienced coaches
interacting with their first client. As inexperienced coaches lack references and experience,
they lack in ability (Schoorman et al., 2007). To establish evidence of their ability, they may
communicate ability during their coaching interaction.
Hypothesis 1: Inexperienced coaches will focus more on communicating ability than integrity
or benevolence.
JOURNAL OF TRUST RESEARCH 5
Method
Sample
In 2015 and 2016, we asked 42 inexperienced coaches to reflect on their first coaching
process in terms of trust. The inexperienced coaches were mostly female (64.3%),
between 21 and 32 years old (M= 24.64 years, SD = 2.37, 6 missing), and psychology stu-
dents in their second term of a master’s programme on social interactions in economy and
society. Their respective clients were also mostly female (71.4%) and between 21 and 51
years old (M= 26.50 years, SD = 5.49).
Procedure and measures
The inexperienced coaches had their first client, while they were still under supervision
(see Appendix A1 for the description of the coaching). After the coaching, the inexperi-
enced coaches wrote case documentation about their first client as part of the completion
of the coach training.
1
The coach’s trust establishment
As part of the case documentation, the inexperienced coaches were asked to reflect on
how they had established their client’s trust during the coaching process, following a
booklet provided by Böhm and Bilang (2014). This booklet described the three pillars of
trust, ability, integrity, and benevolence, and provided reflection questions, such as
‘What makes you a competent coach?’(ability), ‘How did you show the client that you
value and accept him/her?’(benevolence), and ‘Describe yourself and your behaviour
when you are authentic’(integrity). For the case documentation, they were explicitly
asked to write about all three aspects of trust (free text of individual length).
Results
The coach’s communication of trust. Inexperienced coaches named 83 different aspects of
establishing their client’s trust during the coaching process (for an overview see Table 1). In
accordance with our hypothesis, that inexperienced coaches would focus on communicat-
ing ability, participants named more aspects concerning ability than benevolence, p
< .001, or integrity, p< .001; benevolence and integrity did not differ, p= .669, F
Green-
house–Geisser(1.71, 70.14) = 14.86, η2
= .27 (see Table 2).
Discussion
In the first study we examined how inexperienced coaches established the trust of their
client. Consistent with our hypothesis, inexperienced coaches focused mostly on commu-
nicating ability. This focus on ability may have been based on a high need to establish
competence, as communicating competence can be a motivated behaviour that fulfils a
competence need (Jonas & Mühlberger, 2017). This competence need might have been
quite high, as these coaches had just had their first client and uncertainty, as well as a
lack of control, comes with a new job (Singer, 1978; Wanous, 1981). For instance, a quali-
tative study revealed that new employees focus on writing about competence and confi-
dence during their first year (Renn & Hodges, 2007). Inexperienced coaches may, therefore,
6S. J. SCHIEMANN ET AL.
Table 1. Overview of all trust-building approaches mentioned by inexperienced coaches (Study 1),
experienced coaches (Study 2), and clients (Study 3), arranged according to three aspects of trust.
Trust aspect Inexperienced coaches (N= 42) Experienced coaches (N= 29) Clients (N= 24)
Ability Transparency, preparation,
experience, powerful
questioning, process
management competence,
professional appearance,
expertise, self-confidence,
composure, self-efficacy,
commitment, sense of
responsibility, self-reflexivity,
confidentiality clause, time
management, good start, post-
processing, networking
competence, flexibility, social
competence, ask for trust credit,
conscientiousness, client’s
expectations, client as shaper,
trust in the client, client’s self-
efficacy expectation, client’s
competence, client’s self-
reflection, client’s goal orientation,
client’s expertise, creating a
professional atmosphere, trust in
coaching, rituals, trust in the
process
Transparency, preparation,
experience, powerful
questioning, process
management competence,
professional appearance,
expertise, self-confidence,
composure, framework
conditions, references,
consulting, entitlements,
comprehension competence,
goal orientation, selected
language, solution orientation,
grasp of the key topic, rapport,
ability to learn quickly,
congruency
Transparency, preparation,
experience, powerful
questioning, process
management competence,
professional appearance,
expertise,self-confidence,
professional care, good
consulting, good approaches,
materials and homework,
reliability, constructive
conversation, competence in
exercises, good explanations,
structure, good exercises,
flexibility, comprehension of
client’s goals, focus on client,
solution focused, preplanning
Benevolence Appreciation,honest interest,
attentiveness,active listening,
empathy,creating a
comfortable atmosphere,
openness, accepting,
understanding, staying in the
background, benevolence,
responding to the client, creating
social proximity, collaboratively
designed process, offering
support, fairness, goodwill,
decisions remain with the client,
responding to a client’s needs,
pro client, developing a sense of
the client, friendly behaviour,
activation of strengths and
resources small talk, respect,
respect personal limits, see eye
to eye, procedural justice, caring,
perspective taking, eye contact,
mimicry, reciprocal sympathy,
optimism, client’s positive feeling,
framework programme, client’s
social competence, voluntary
Appreciation,honest interest,
attentiveness,active
listening,empathy,creating
a comfortable atmosphere,
openness, accepting,
understanding, staying in the
background, benevolence,
responding to the client,
creating social proximity,
collaboratively designed
process, offering support,
feedback orientation,
recognition, on a par,
responding to a client’s needs,
consent, decisions remain with
the client, friendly behaviour,
friendship, laughing together,
developing a sense of the
client, humorous provocation,
inner attitude, solution
orientation, caring but critical,
benevolent facial expression
and gestures, receiver mode,
pro client, pause, positive
reinforcement, sensitivity,
sharing client’s happiness,
respect personal limits,
nonjudgmental, flexibility,
questioning to get to the
bottom, paraphrasing,
activating positive thinking,
reframing, activation of
strengths and resources,
tactfulness, impartiality,
verbalisation, conveying
acceptance of self and
Appreciation,honest interest,
attentiveness,active
listening,empathy, creating
a comfortable atmosphere,
sensitivity, perspective taking,
liking, patience, mindfulness,
paraphrasing, warmth, client:
enjoying the coaching process,
getting praised, sharing
happiness, emotionally
involved, focused on client’s
needs
(Continued)
JOURNAL OF TRUST RESEARCH 7
be too focused on competence. Thus, we decided to conduct a second study focusing on
experienced coaches who would probably still have a high competence need but would
be more able to focus on both their own and their client’s needs. To better understand the
coach’s and client’s needs, we included questions on this topic.
Study 2: Experienced coaches
The coach’s communication of trust. The experienced coaches in our second study differed
from our inexperienced coaches of Study 1 in that they already had experience and refer-
ences and had probably already developed their own coaching style. This led us to a
different assumption about the coaches’focus: The experienced coaches would probably
not focus on establishing trust in terms of ability, as they had experience and references
(Schoorman et al., 2007); furthermore, given their years of practice in which they could
develop their own coaching style, we expected they would not need to focus on integrity.
However, benevolence, has to be established in every relationship (Schoorman et al., 2007).
Hypothesis 2.1: Experienced coaches will focus more on communicating benevolence than
ability or integrity.
The perceived client’s autonomy need and the coach’s communication of benevolence. On
the basis of previous findings, we expected the client’s autonomy need to be most
Table 1. Continued.
Trust aspect Inexperienced coaches (N= 42) Experienced coaches (N= 29) Clients (N= 24)
situation, disturbance-free
setting
Integrity Authenticity, honesty, personal
style (language), openness,
humour, accepting own
mistakes, own values, own
personality, coach–self balance,
staying true to moral values,
client’s openness, client’s
authenticity, client’s interest in my
person
Authenticity, honesty, personal
style (language), openness,
humour, accepting own
mistakes, own values, own
personality, comments,
personal working style, coach
as sounding board, showing
one’s rough edges,
consistency, interpersonal
closeness, personal interest,
framework conditions,
sensitivity, not to reveal values,
relationship on a par,
creativity, engage oneself,
staying true to moral values
Authenticity, honesty,
speaking dialect, insight into
his/her own life, validity, self-
contented
Note: Approaches that were named by all three groups are highlighted in boldface. Approaches that considered not the
coach’s but the client’s doing are highlighted in italics. Ability = trust in the trustee’s skills, competencies, and expertise.
Benevolence = trust in the trustee’s positive, valuing, and benevolent attitude. Integrity = trust in the trustee’s honesty,
authenticity, and value congruency. Inexperienced coaches (Study 1) = Coaches having their first client. Experienced
coaches (Study 2) = Coaches with at least 3 years of practical experience. Clients (Study 3) = coaching clients.
Table 2. Aspects of trust mentioned by the inexperienced coaches.
Trust aspect M (SD) of category frequency Range of category frequency Example of an aspect
Ability 12.52 (5.22) 4–26 Transparency
Benevolence 7.14 (5.96) 4–20 Appreciation
Integrity 6.52 (5.20) 0–23 Authenticity
Note: Category value with highest frequency is written in bold.
8S. J. SCHIEMANN ET AL.
important for a typical coaching and therefore to be supported (Schiemann et al., 2018).
Moreover, we expected the experienced coaches to focus and act on the client’s needs
(Greif, 2014).
Hypothesis 2.2: Coaches will perceive the client’s autonomy need as most important.
Hypothesis 2.3: There will be a positive relationship between the coaches’rating of the client’s
autonomy need and their writing about benevolence.
Method
Sample
In 2016, we asked 30 coaches with more than 2 years of coaching experience about how
they established their trustworthiness in their last coaching process. One coach did not
answer the question on trust establishment and was therefore excluded. The remaining
29 coaches were between 32 and 67 years old (M= 48.72 years, SD = 8.38) and had
between 3 and 25 years (M= 12.69 years, SD = 7.61) of coaching experience (see Appendix
A2). As a thank you, participants received a trust booklet (Böhm & Bilang, 2014), which they
could download at the end of the questionnaire.
Procedure and measures
Via an online questionnaire (LimeSurvey GmbH, version 2.65.7), coaches provided demo-
graphic data, answered questions about their own and their client’s needs in the coaching
process, and wrote about how they had established trust during their last coaching
process.
Needs questionnaire. A basic psychological needs scale was used to measure both the
coaches’and the perceived clients’needs in terms of autonomy, competence, and relat-
edness (self-determination theory; Deci & Ryan, 2000). Coaches were first asked about
their own needs in the coaching and then about their client’s needs. A total of nine
items each (coach and client) covered the need for autonomy, competence, and related-
ness; answers were given on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (applies not at all)to5
(applies very well) (see Appendix A3).
2
Trust establishment. After filling out the needs questionnaire, the coaches received brief
information about trustworthiness and its three components, ability, integrity, and
benevolence:
Trust can be divided into three components: 1. Ability: How competent do I feel as a coach and
what impression do I make on the client, e.g. knowledge, expertise? 2. Benevolence: How ben-
evolent am I toward my client, e.g. appreciation, empathy? 3. Integrity: How authentic am I
during coaching, e.g. own personality, own values?
The coaches were then asked to think about their last coaching process and how they
had established their client’s trust regarding these three components, writing in a free-
text field of individual length that was located directly below the trust component
description.
JOURNAL OF TRUST RESEARCH 9
Results
The coach’s communication of trust. The experienced coaches wrote between two sen-
tences and half a page about their trust-building approaches. They reported 111
different aspects regarding how they had established their client’s trust in the coaching
process (for an overview see Table 1). In line with Hypothesis 2.1, that experienced
coaches would focus on communicating benevolence, aspects concerning benevolence
were named more often than aspects concerning ability, p< .001, or integrity, p< .001,
F(2, 56) = 15.02, η
2
= .35 (see Table 3).
The perceived client’s autonomy need and the coach’s communication of benevolence. In
line with Hypothesis 2.2, that coaches would perceive their client’s autonomy need as
most important, coaches indicated that their client’s need for autonomy (M= 4.13, SD =
0.67) was significantly higher than the need for competence (M= 3.79, SD = 0.86), p
= .033, and relatedness (M= 3.59, SD = 0.71), p< .001. There was no difference in ratings
between the client’s need for competence and the need for relatedness, p= .145, F
(2,56) = 8.19, η
2
= .23. In fact, the need for autonomy was most relevant for clients in
coaching.
3
Moroever, the results reveal that a higher rating of the client’s autonomy
was positively correlated with the amount of the coaches writing about benevolence, r
= .46, p= .013, in line with Hypothesis 2.3 (see Figure 1).
4
Discussion
In Study 2 we sought to examine how experienced coaches established their trustworthi-
ness and how this was connected to their client’s needs. We assumed that experienced
coaches would focus more on benevolence, given its importance in every relationship
and because they already had enough experience for their ability to be recognised as
well as enough of their own coaching style for integrity to be perceptible (Schoorman
et al., 2007). In accordance with this hypothesis, experienced coaches focused mostly
on perceived benevolence.
In consideration of previous findings, we expected that the client’s autonomy need
would be most important in coaching, which should, therefore, be supported by the
coach (Schiemann et al., 2018). In line with this hypothesis, we found that the client’s
autonomy need was rated as most important and the need for autonomy and the
amount of communicating benevolence were correlated. Hence, communicating benevo-
lence would be an autonomy-need supportive behaviour. This finding is in accordance
with our hypothesis regarding benevolence and autonomy-need support as both
acknowledging and valuing the other person’s feelings and perspective (Gorin et al.,
2014; Mayer et al., 1995). Although this result indicates the importance of benevolence
as an autonomy-need support, the study is based on a self-report from the coaches
without the perspective of their clients. The client’s perspective is important as well
Table 3. Aspects of trust mentioned by experienced coaches.
Trust aspect M(SD) of category frequency Range of category frequency Example of an aspect
Ability 2.90 (1.86) 0–8 Transparency
Benevolence 5.00 (2.58) 1–13 Appreciation
Integrity 2.83 (2.04) 0–8 Authenticity
Note: Category value with highest frequency is written in bold.
10 S. J. SCHIEMANN ET AL.
(e.g. in therapy; Murphy & Cramer, 2014). Thus, in the third study, we investigated the
client’s perspective on the coach’s establishment of trustworthiness.
Study 3: Clients
The coach’s communication of trust. In Study 3, we investigated clients of inexperienced
coaches. Based on the results of Study 1, we investigated the perception of clients
about the communication by the coach.
Hypothesis 3.1: Clients would write more about their coach’s ability than their coach’s integrity
and benevolence.
The coach’s benevolence and the client’s autonomy need fulfilment. We also looked at the
connection between the clients’perception of their coach’s establishment of trustworthi-
ness and the clients’autonomy need fulfilment. Based on previous findings (Schiemann
et al., 2018) and the results from Study 2, we tested the following hypotheses.
Hypothesis 3.2: There will be a positive relationship between the clients’writing about their
coach’s benevolence and the clients’autonomy need fulfillment following the coaching.
Method
Sample
In 2017 and 2018, we asked 24 clients about how their coach had established trust during
their coaching process. The clients (N= 24) were mostly female (66.7%) and between 20
and 58 years old (M= 28.63 years, SD = 9.46). Their coaches, who were also mostly
female (75.0%), between 21 and 32 years old (M= 24.33 years, SD = 2.76), can be seen
as inexperienced coaches, as they were students in the second term of a master’s
Figure 1. Correlation between coaches feeling that their client’s need for autonomy was important and
the coaches’writing about benevolence.
JOURNAL OF TRUST RESEARCH 11
programme on social interactions in economy and society, at the end of their coach train-
ing, meeting their first client.
Procedure and measures
The coaching was about career goals and consisted of five 2-hour sessions, with one
session every 1–3 weeks. As in Study 1, the coaching sessions were based on the
concept of Braumandl and Dirscherl (2005). After the coaching ended, the clients were
asked to write about the coach’s establishment of the client’s trust, the coach’s trustworthi-
ness, the perceived coach’s autonomy-need support, and their basic psychological need
fulfilment.
5
Coach’s trust establishment. The clients received the same brief information about the
three components of trust, ability, integrity, and benevolence as in Study 1 and were
then asked to think about their coaching process and how their coach had established
their trust regarding these three components.
Coach’s trustworthiness. In addition, the clients were asked about the degree of trust-
worthiness of their coach with a scale developed by Mayer et al. (1995, p. 12 items; α
= .92). For this, they answered questions about ability (4 items; α= .89; e.g. ‘My coach
was very competent in his/her job’), integrity (4 items; α= .87; e.g. ‘My coach was honest
and authentic’), and benevolence (4 items; α= .88; e.g. ‘My wishes and needs were important
for my coach’), indicating their agreement with the statements on a 5-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (not at all)to5(fully).
Basic psychological need fulfilment. To measure need fulfilment, we developed a scale
(18 items; α= .93) based on the Balanced Measure of Psychological Needs Scale (Neubauer
& Voss, 2016) and the need definitions proposed by Deci and Ryan (2000), measuring
autonomy-need fulfilment (6 items; α= .84; e.g. ‘It is important to me to feel free to
express own ideas and opinions’), competence-need fulfilment (6 items; α= .89; e.g. ‘It is
important to me to learn new and interesting skills’), and relatedness-need fulfilment (6
items; α= .77; e.g. ‘It is important to me to get along with people I come into contact with’).
Participants rated their agreement on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all)to7(fully).
Results
The coach’s communication of trust. The analysis of the client writings showed that the
clients named 79 different aspects (for an overview see Table 1). In line with Hypothesis
3.1, the clients wrote more about the coach’s approaches concerning ability, p< .001,
than integrity, F(2,46) = 18.92, η
2
= .45; although the clients wrote more about ability
than benevolence, the difference was not significant, p= .669; in addition, benevolence
was named more often than integrity, p< .001 (see Table 4). This partly supports our
hypothesis.
The coach’s benevolence and the client’s autonomy need fulfilment. In addition, we looked
at the clients’writing about the three aspects of trust and their ratings of their coach’s
establishment of trustworthiness (Hypothesis 3.2). Perceived ability was significantly posi-
tively correlated with their rating of the coach’s ability (r= .46, p= .024); the same
12 S. J. SCHIEMANN ET AL.
significant correlation was found between writing about benevolence and ratings of ben-
evolence (r= .41, p= .049) but also for writing about benevolence and ratings of integrity
(r= .41, p= .046; see Appendix A5). When we looked at the autonomy-need fulfilment and
the trustworthiness scale, only the coach’s perceived benevolence had a positive
influence, β= .63, p= .051, while competence, β= .13, p= .659, and integrity, β=−.19, p
= .544, had no effect, R
2
= 0.31, F(3,20) = 2.94 (see Figure 2).
6
This supports our hypothesis.
Discussion
As in Study 1, ability was the aspect of trust mentioned most often by clients of inexperi-
enced coaches. However, the number of times ability was mentioned did not significantly
differ from the number of times benevolence was mentioned. In line with the assumption
of the perceived coach’s benevolence having a positive relationship with the clients’
autonomy-need fulfilment, we found that the more benevolent the coach was perceived
to be, the more the clients’autonomy need was fulfilled. This underlines the assumption
that benevolence as an aspect of trust is autonomy-need supportive.
General discussion
The client’s trust in the coach is often highlighted as a major component of the coaching
relationship (De Haan, Culpin, & Curd, 2011; Wasylyshyn, 2003), and is an essential
Table 4. Aspects of trust mentioned by coaching clients.
Trust aspect M (SD) of category frequency Range of category frequency Example of an aspect
Ability 3.21 (2.15) 0–9 Transparency
Benevolence 3.00 (2.25) 0–8 Appreciation
Integrity 0.71 (0.75) 0–2 Authenticity
Note: Category value with highest frequency is written in bold.
Figure 2. The relation between the client-perceived coach’s benevolence and the clients’autonomy-
need fulfilment.
JOURNAL OF TRUST RESEARCH 13
coaching success factor (Grover & Furnham, 2016). Thus, it is crucial to know what
approaches coaches use to establish trust (Bluckert, 2005). We asked experienced and
inexperienced coaches as well as coaching clients about how trust was established by
the coach with regard to three components: ability, benevolence, and integrity (Mayer
et al., 1995; see Table 1).
Our results suggest that inexperienced coaches focused their trust-building behaviour
on communicating their ability (Studies 1 and 3). This focus on trust in terms of ability can
be explained by a high need for competence to be recognised, as the coaches were inex-
perienced and, thus, may have felt less competent. A high competence need can lead
people to focus on exactly this need (e.g. Renn & Hodges, 2007). In contrast, the experi-
enced coaches (Study 2) focused their trust-building behaviour on communicating bene-
volence. This may have had to do with the experienced coaches having enough
experience (ability) and character (integrity) to obviate the need to focus on those
aspects of trust (Schoorman et al., 2007). Furthermore, when experienced coaches
thought their client’s autonomy need was important, they focused more on benevolence
(Study 2). Similarly, clients writing more on the coach’s benevolence indicated that they
were more fulfilled in their autonomy need after the coaching. In sum, the results show
that inexperienced coaches differ from experienced coaches in how they established
their trustworthiness, and focusing on benevolence seems to be autonomy-need
supportive.
Comparing the three studies, we found a variety of ways a coach can communicate
ability, benevolence, and integrity, but only a few approaches were similar between inex-
perienced coaches, experienced coaches, and coaching clients (see Table 1). This suggests
that trust can be established in many different ways. We found that clients wrote much
less about the coach’s trustworthiness (10–165 words) than coaches did (16–1,211
words). This may have been because clients were focused more on their own process
and less on the coach (Greif, 2008). To address this variance, a quantitative measure
based on Table 1 could be useful for future studies, to better identify overlaps between
clients and coaches.
Another finding was that experienced coaches wrote about trust-building approaches
that involved handing out advice or giving criticism (see Table 1). This behaviour is against
many coaching education facilities’ethics: Many coach trainers say that coaches should
not give advice, as this hinders the client’s autonomy (Gessnitzer & Kauffeld, 2015; Gess-
nitzer et al., 2016). Also, criticism should not be used, as clients should feel valued in
their self-congruent decision making (Kohli, 2016). Future studies should focus on the
negative effect of advice or criticism on trust establishment.
A third finding was that inexperienced coaches not only wrote about them as the
trustee but also about the client as the trustor and the coaching situation as trustful
or not trustful. This is in line with Hardin’s(2003) formula and Mayer et al.’s(1995)
definition of trust. However, it is important to keep in mind that trusting the client
does not mean that the client trusts the coach. This reciprocity of trust was refuted in
a previous study (Schoorman et al., 2007). As also shown in Table 1, there are similarities
between the coaches’and clients’writings: For example, in all three studies, the partici-
pants wrote about trust-building approaches involving transparency, appreciation, and
authenticity.
14 S. J. SCHIEMANN ET AL.
Implications for theory and practice
Theoretical implications
This research intended to identify the different approaches coaches use to establish
trustworthiness within coaching. To do this, we conducted a qualitative analysis of
content data. Of course, qualitative content analysis has some drawbacks, such as
the dependence on the motivation of the participants to give a written response
and the analysis being partial. Still, this qualitative approach helped us get many
different ways to establish trustworthiness in terms of ability, integrity, and benevo-
lence. Taking these three categories by Mayer et al. (1995) is the most common classifi-
cation; still, there are other ways to classify trustworthiness that have more than just
three factors (Butler, 1991; Cunningham & MacGregor, 2000; Mishra, 1996). It is impor-
tant to note that the amount of trustworthiness does not reflect the amount of trust
(Mayer et al., 1995). Future studies should use Table 1 to analyse trust establishment
quantitatively with an open item for additional remarks. This would help identify
which of the named approaches are effective for trust establishment. Regarding such
studies, it is important to change what is treated as the independent and the depen-
dent factor, as not only might more trustworthiness lead to more trust, but more trust
might lead to more trustworthiness. Future research should include looking at the trus-
ter’s propensity to trust, the exact situation (e.g. kind of coaching; if coach and client
knew each other before), and also the development of trust within the process (e.g.
before and after each session or via video analysis; A trusts B to do X when Z pertains;
Dietz & Den Hartog, 2006).
Practical implications
Table 1 provides many ideas for coaches on how to build trust. Although some of the
ideas may not fit every coach because of differences in coaching philosophy or per-
sonal coaching method, it provides a repertoire of trust-building behaviours. As bene-
volence is important for autonomy-need support, especially young coaches should
focus more on this aspect. Thus, coach training should focus not only on building
up coaching abilities and competencies but also on ways to establish benevolence,
such as training attentive and active listening, as well as empathy. Furthermore,
before coaching, each coach could write down all the reasons why he/she appreciates
the client.
Conclusion
Past research has shown the importance of the client’s trust in their coach; for instance,
you may remember how you felt with the initial example of an untrustworthy coach.
Our research demonstrates not only ways the coach can establish trust but also that ben-
evolence is most important when it comes to the client’s autonomy-need support in
coaching. Thus, it is essential to particularly communicate benevolence by, for example,
giving the client the feeling of being accepted. As our research states various methods
to communicate benevolence, ability, and integrity, future research should investigate
the most effective strategies for coaching.
JOURNAL OF TRUST RESEARCH 15
Notes
1. The clients of these coaches were assessed by other measures that were separate from this
one and will be used for different studies. These measures included, for instance, evaluation
of the client’s goal and goal attainment, the client’s perception of the coach’s trustworthiness,
and the client’s satisfaction.
2. At the end of the questionnaire, we added an open question, asking the coaches whether there
was a coach or client need that we did not take into account; there was no answer that was
named more than twice; thus, we did not include this question in our computation.
3. The coaches’needs within coaching. The coaches’need for competence (M= 4.23, SD = 0.90) was
significantly higher than their need for autonomy (M= 3.62, SD = 0.83), p= .002, and their need
for relatedness (M= 2.28, SD = 0.60), p< .001. In addition, the coaches’need for autonomy was
significantly higher than their need for relatedness, F(2,56) =55.59, p< .001, η
2
= .67.
4. In addition, the coaches’feeling that their client’s need for competence was important was
positively correlated with the coaches writing about competence, r= .45, p= .015.There was
no significant correlation between the client’s autonomy need and the coaches’communi-
cation of ability, r= .02, p= .916, or integrity, r= .14, p= .472; also, there was no significant cor-
relation between the client’s competence need and the coaches’communication of
benevolence, r= .27, p= .151, or integrity, r= .22, p= .259; similarly, there was no significant
correlation between the client’s relatedness need and the coaches’communication of
ability, r= .15, p= .444, benevolence, r= .14, p= .477, or integrity, r= .23, p= .229. As the Cron-
bach’s alpha of the relatedness scale was very low, we computed correlations with the single
items of the scale, finding that the only significant correlation was between the relatedness
item ‘My client wants to perceive me, the coach, as a friend’and communication of integrity,
r= .50, p= .005 (see Appendix A4).
5. The clients of these coaches were assessed with other measures that will be used for different
studies. These measures included, for instance, assessments of the coach’s leadership skills.
6. Regarding competence-need fulfilment, benevolence was a positive predictor, β= .64, p
= .058, whereas integrity was a negative predictor, β=−.67, p= .051, R² = 0.23, F(3,20) =
2.03; ability had no significant effect, β= .24, p= .335. Regarding relatedness-need fulfilment,
ability was a positive predictor, β= .62, p= .016, R² = 0.29, F(3,20) = 2.71; both benevolence, β
= .11, p= .715, and integrity, β=−.33, p= .304, had no significant effect.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Isabell Braumandl, head of the university’s coaching education programme
(CoBeCe), who made the data collection for Studies 1 and 3 possible.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
A workshop on qualitative content analysis in order to analyse the data was fully funded by the first
author’s research grant from the University of Salzburg.
Notes on contributors
Sandra J. Schiemann is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Psychology, researching coaching from
a social psychology point of view. Complementing her research, she has completed programmes in
coaching education, training education, and mentoring education.
16 S. J. SCHIEMANN ET AL.
Dr. Christina Mühlberger is a postdoctoral researcher in the Division of Social Psychology, research-
ing how people deal with different kinds of discrepancies (e.g. goal discrepancies, threats to people’s
needs). She investigates different development formats (e.g. coaching, training, mentoring) from a
social psychology point of view. She is a certified career coach and Zurich Resource Model trainer.
Prof. F. David Schoorman is the Associate Dean for Executive Education and Global Programs and a
Professor of Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management. He has published exten-
sively on organisational trust.
Prof. Eva Jonas is the head of the Division of Social Psychology. In her research she focuses on motiv-
ated social cognition, researching people’s reactions to threats, the processes involved in social inter-
actions (e.g. advisor–client interactions, fairness), and different development formats (coaching,
training, mentoring, supervision).
Data availability statement
The quantitative data that supports the findings of these studies are openly available to
the reviewers in OpenScienceFramework under the following link: https://osf.io/tw5gj/?
view_only=17255dfb4f874fde80aaf23c97c61e15. The qualitative raw data that supports
the findings of these studies are available upon reasonable request, as this data includes
personal information and needs to be securely exchanged due to data-handling restric-
tions. Furthermore, regarding Study 3, we excluded the additional variables measured
from the data set, as another research group has the rights for these measures.
ORCID
Sandra J. Schiemann http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7188-7548
References
Abrams, L. C., Cross, R., Lesser, E., & Levin, D. Z. (2003). Nurturing interpersonal trust in knowledge-
sharing networks. Academy of Management Perspectives,17(4), 64–77. doi:10.5465/ame.2003.
11851845
Alvey, S., & Barclay, K. (2007). The characteristics of dyadic trust in executive coaching. Journal of
Leadership Studies,1(1), 18–27. doi:10.1002/jls.20004
Bachkirova, T., & Lawton Smith, C. (2015). From competencies to capabilities in the assessment and
accreditation of coaches. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring,13(2),
123–140.
Bachmann, R., & Zaheer, A. (2006). Handbook of trust research. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
doi:10.4337/9781847202819
Baron, L., & Morin, L. (2009). The coach-coachee relationship in executive coaching: A field study.
Human Resource Development Quarterly,20(1), 85–106. doi:10.1002/hrdq.20009
Bluckert, P. (2005). Critical factors in executive coaching—The coaching relationship. Industrial and
Commercial Training,37(7), 336–340. doi:10.1108/00197850510626785
Böhm, A., & Bilang, J. (2014). Trust-Tool-Kit: Vertrauen im coaching. Salzburg, Austria: University of
Salzburg.
Boon, S., & Holmes, J. (1991). The dynamics of interpersonal trust: Resolving uncertainty in the face of
risk. In R. Hinde & J. Gorebel (Eds.), Cooperation and prosocial behaviour (pp. 190–211). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Braumandl, I., & Dirscherl, B. (2005). Karriere-Coaching (CoBeCe) [Career coaching (CoBeCe)].
Unpublished training concept.
JOURNAL OF TRUST RESEARCH 17
Butler, J. K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of a con-
ditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management,17(3), 643–663. doi:10.1177/01492063910
1700307
Cunningham, J. B., & MacGregor, J. (2000). Trust and the design of work complementary constructs in
satisfaction and performance. Human Relations,53(12), 1575–1591. doi:10.1177/0018726700
5312003
De Haan, E., Culpin, V., & Curd, J. (2011). Executive coaching in practice: What determines helpfulness
for clients of coaching? Personnel Review,40(1), 24–44. doi:10.1108/00483481111095500
De Haan, E., & Mannhardt, S. (2013). Coaching-Studie—Die Zutaten des Erfolgs [Coaching study: The
ingredients of success]. Training Aktuell, August, 6-7.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what”and “why”of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-
determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry,11(4), 227–268. doi:10.1207/s15327
965pli1104_01
Dietz, G., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2006). Measuring trust inside organisations. Personnel Review,35(5),
557–588. doi:10.1108/00483480610682299
Duckworth, A., & de Haan, E. (2009, August). What clients say about our coaching. Training Journal
Online,64–67.
Flick, U. (1992). Triangulation revisited: Strategy of validation or alternative?. Journal for the Theory of
Social Behaviour,22(2), 175–197. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5914.1992.tb00215.x
Gessnitzer, S., & Kauffeld, S. (2015). The working alliance in coaching: Why behaviour is the key to
success. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,51(2), 177–197. doi:10.1177/0021886315576407
Gessnitzer, S., Schulte, E.-M., & Kauffeld, S. (2016). “I am going to succeed”: The power of self-efficient
language in coaching and how coaches can use it. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research,68(4), 294–312. doi:10.1037/cpb0000064
Gorin, A. A., Powers, T. A., Koestner, R., Wing, R. R., & Raynor, H. A. (2014). Autonomy support, self-
regulation, and weight loss. Health Psychology,33(4), 332–339. doi:10.1037/a0032586
Grant, A. M., Passmore, J., Cavanagh, M., & Parker, H. (2010). The state of play in coaching today: A
comprehensive review of the field. International Review of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology,25, 125–167. doi:10.1002/9780470661628.ch4
Greif, S. (2008). Coaching und ergebnisorientierte Selbstreflexion: Theorie, Forschung und Praxis des
Einzel- und Gruppencoachings [Coaching and goal-oriented self-reflection: Theory, research and
practice of individual and group coaching]. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Greif, S. (2014). Wie wirksam ist coaching? [How effective is coaching]. In R. H. Wegener, A. Fritze, & M.
Loebbe (Eds.), Coaching-Praxisfelder. Praxis und Forschung im Dialog [Coaching fields: Practice and
research in a dialogue] (pp. 161–182). Wiesbaden, Germany: Springer VS. doi:10.1007/978-3-658-
10171-8_9
Grover, S., & Furnham, A. (2016). Coaching as a developmental intervention in organisations: A sys-
tematic review of its effectiveness and the mechanisms underlying it. PLoS ONE,11(7), 1–41.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159137
Gyllenstein, K., & Palmer, S. (2007). The coaching relationship: An interpretative phenomenological
analysis. International Coaching Psychological Review,2(2), 168–177.
Hardin, R. (2003). Gaming trust. In E. Ostrom & J. Walker (Eds.), Trust and reciprocity: Interdisciplinary
lessons from experimental research (pp. 80–101). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Johnson-George, C., & Swap, W. C. (1982). Measurement of specific interpersonal trust: Construction
and validation of a scale to assess trust in a specific other. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,43(6), 1306–1317. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.43.6.1306
Jonas, E., & Mühlberger, C. (2017). Editorial: Social cognition, motivation, and interaction: How do
people respond to threats in social interactions? Frontiers in Psychology,8.doi:10.3389/fpsyg.
2017.01577
Jonas, E., Mühlberger, C., Böhm, A., & Esser, V. (2017). Motivkongruenz in sozialen Austausch- und
Interdependenzprozessen im Karrieremanagement [Motive congruency in social exchange and
interdependence processes in career management]. In S. Kauffeld & D. Spurk (Eds.), Handbuch
Laufbah- und Laufbahnnmanagement [Handbook career management] (pp. 1–35). Heidelberg,
Germany: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-45855-6_31-1
18 S. J. SCHIEMANN ET AL.
Joo, B.-K. (2005). Executive coaching: A conceptual framework from an integrative review of practice
and research. Human Resource Development Review,4(4), 462–488. doi:10.1177/1534484305280
866
Jowett, S., Kanakoglou, K., & Passmore, J. (2012). Application of the 3+1Cs relationship model in
executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,64(3), 183–197. doi:10.
1037/a0030316
Kelley, H. H., Holmes, J. G., Kerr, N., Reis, H., Rusbult, C., & van Lange, P. A. (2003). An atlas of interper-
sonal situations. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Klonek, F. E., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N., & Kauffeld, S. (2014). Dynamics of resistance to change: A
sequential analysis of change agents in action. Journal of Change Management,14(3), 334–360.
doi:10.1080/14697017.2014.896392
Kohli, A. (2016). Effective coaching, and the fallacy of sustainable change. Cham, Switzerland: Springer
International. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39735-1_3
Levine, E. E., Bitterly, T. B., Cohen, T. R., & Schweitzer, M. E. (in press). Who is trustworthy? Predicting
trustworthy intentions and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.doi:10.2139/ssrn.
2910069
Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities.
Academy of Management Review,23(3), 438–458. doi:10.5465/amr.1998.926620
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust.
Academy of Management Review,20(3), 709–734. doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335
Mayring, P. (2001). Combination and integration of qualitative and quantitative analysis. Forum:
Qualitative Social Research,2(1). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs
Mayring, P. (2012). Mixed methods: Ein Plaedoyer für gemeinsame Forschungsstandards qualitativer
und quantitativer Methoden [Mixed methods: A pleading for common research standards of
qualitative and quantitative methods]. In M. Glaeser-Zikuda, T. Seidel, C. Rohlfs, A. Groescher, &
S. Ziegelbauer (Eds.), Mixed methods in der empirischen Bildungsforschung [Mixed methods in
empirical education research] (pp. 287–300). Muenster, Germany: Waxmann.
Mayring, P., & Fenzl, T. (2017). Qualitative content analysis // QCAmap [online]. Retrieved from https://
www.qcamap.org/
McEvily, B., & Tortoriello, M. (2011). Measuring trust in organisational research: Review and rec-
ommendations. Journal of Trust Research,1(1), 23–63. doi:10.1080/21515581.2011.552424
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2013). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change (3rd ed.). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Mishra, A. K. (1996). Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of trust. In R. M. Kramer & T. R.
Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 261–287). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781452243610.n13
Mishra, A. K., & Mishra, K. E. (2013). The research on trust in leadership: The need for context. Journal
of Trust Research,3(1), 59–69. doi:10.1080/21515581.2013.771507
Mohr, J., & Spekman, R. (1994). Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, com-
munication behaviour, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal,15(2),
135–152. doi:10.1002/smj.4250150205
Murphy, D., & Cramer, D. (2014). Mutuality of Rogers’s therapeutic conditions and treatment progress
in the first three psychotherapy sessions. Psychotherapy Research,24(6), 651–661. doi:10.1080/
10503307.2013.874051
Neubauer, A. B., & Voss, A. (2016). Balanced measure of psychological needs scale: German version.
PsycTESTS Dataset. doi:10.1037/t48790-000
Nooteboom, B. (2003). Learning to trust (CentER Discussion Paper No. 2005-47). Rochester, NY: SSRN.
doi:10.2139/ssrn.706942
Nooteboom, B., Berger, H., & Noorderhaven, N. G. (1997). Effects of trust and governance on relational
risk. Academy of Management Journal,40(2), 308–s338. doi:10.5465/256885
Noyes, J., Popey, J., Pearson, K., Hannes, K., & Booth, A. S. (Eds.). (2008). Cochrane handbook for sys-
tematic reviews for interventions 5.0. Cochrane Collaboration. Retrieved from http://www.
cochrane-handbook.org
JOURNAL OF TRUST RESEARCH 19
O’Broin, A., & Palmer, S. (2009). Co-creating an optimal coaching alliance: A cognitive behavioural
coaching perspective. International Coaching Psychology Review,4(2), 184–194.
Renn, K. A., & Hodges, J. (2007). The first year on the job: Experiences of new professionals in student
affairs. NASPA Journal,44(2). doi:10.2202/0027-6014.1800
Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality,35
(4), 651–665. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01454.x
Rousseau, D. M., Sitkin, S. B., Burt, R. S., & Camerer, C. (1998). Not so different after all: A cross-disci-
pline view of trust. Academy of Management Review,23(3), 393–404. doi:10.5465/amr.1998.926617
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation,
development, and wellness. New York, NY: Guilford.
Schermuly, C. C., & Graßmann, C. (2016). Die analyse von Nebenwirkungen von Coaching für Klienten
aus einer qualitativen Perspektive [The analysis of coaching side effects for clients from their quali-
tative perspective]. Coaching Theorie und Praxis,2(1), 33–47. doi:10.1365/s40896-016-0012-2
Schiemann, S. J., Mühlberger, C., & Jonas, E. (2018). Striving for autonomy: The importance of the
autonomy need and its support within coaching. Journal of Evidence-Based Coaching and
Mentoring, Special Issue,12,98–110. doi:10.24384/000543
Schiemann, S., Mühlberger, C., Loehlau, N., & Jonas, E. (2019). How to show empathy as a coach: The
effects of the coach’s imagine-self versus imagine-other empathy on the client’s perception of the
coach, self-change, and coaching satisfaction. Manuscript under review.
Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past,
present and future. Academy of Management Review,32(2), 344–354. doi:10.5465/amr.2007.
24348410
Simpson, J. A. (2007). Psychological foundations of trust. Current Directions in Psychological Science,16
(5), 264–268. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2007.00517.x
Singer, J. (1978). Round-table discussion: Current issues in stress research. National American
Psychological Association Meetings, Toronto, Canada.
Van Lange, P. A. M., & Rusbult, C. E. (2012). Interdependence theory. In P. A. M. van Lange, A. W.
Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 251–
272). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412994088.n190
Wanous, J. P. (1981). Organizational entry. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Wasylyshyn, K. M. (2003). Executive coaching: An outcome study. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research,55(2), 94–106. doi:10.1037/1061-4087.55.2.94
Williams, M. (2012). Building and rebuilding trust: Why perspective taking matters. In R. M. Kramer, &
T. L. Pittinsky (Eds.), Restoring trust in organizations and leaders: Enduring challenges and emerging
answers (pp. 171–184). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/
9780199756087.003.0009
Appendices
Appendix A1. Description of the coaching
The coaching focused on career goals and consisted of five 2-h sessions, with one session every 1–3
weeks. Based on the coach-training concept of Braumandl and Dirscherl (2005), the five sessions
were structured uniformly: The first session served as a preliminary meeting, in which coach and
client clarified the reason for the coaching, set the coaching goals, and agreed on terms and con-
ditions; the second session was about the client’s strengths and development opportunities with
regard to the coaching goal(s); the third session focused on identifying resources, competencies,
and strategies for the attainment of the coaching goal(s); the fourth session was about planning
and decision making regarding the coaching goal(s); and the last session completed the coaching
process by focusing on the transfer after coaching, relapse prevention, and the client’s evaluation
of the coaching.
20 S. J. SCHIEMANN ET AL.
Appendix A2. Description of the experienced coaches
The majority of the participants were female (69%). Most of the experienced coaches offered execu-
tive coaching (n= 11) and business coaching (n= 11). Some coaches offered career coaching (n= 6),
personality coaching (n= 6), and team coaching (n= 4); family coaching (n= 3) and conflict coaching
(n= 3) were named less often. Only a few coaches offered life coaching (n= 2), health coaching (n=
2), and intercultural competence coaching (n=1; five were unspecific; open-answer question with
multiple answers possible).
Appendix A3. Needs questionnaire
Need
Cronbach’sα
(coach/
client) Example item (coach/client)
Autonomy .71/.64 I as a coach want to decide for myself how to design the coaching. / My client wants to
decide for him-/herself how to design the coaching.
Competence .76/.75 I as a coach want to feel competent in the coaching. / My client wants to feel competent in
the coaching.
Relatedness .13/.40 I as a coach want to get along well with my client. / My client wants to get along well with
me as his/her coach.
Appendix A4. Correlations between the three relatedness items and writing
about ability, benevolence, and integrity
Relatedness item
Writing
Ability Benevolence Integrity
My client wants to get along well with me
as his/her coach.
r= .11 ( p= .583) r= .19 ( p= .332) r= .05 ( p= .796)
My client wants to perceive me, the coach,
as a friend.
r= .23 ( p= .235) r= .25 ( p= .195) r= .50 ( p= .005)
My client wants me as a coach to take
care of her/him.
r=−.03 (p= .867) r=−.14 (p= .480) r=−.11 (p= .580)
Note: Marginally significant correlations appear in bold.
Appendix A5. Correlations between clients’writing about ability, benevolence,
and integrity and clients’ratings of coaches’communication of trustworthiness.
Writing
Coaches’communication of trustworthiness
Ability Benevolence Integrity
Writing about ability r= .46 (p= .024) r= .36 ( p= .081) r= .31 ( p= .142)
Writing about benevolence r= .33 (p= .115) r= .41 (p= .049) r= .41 (p= .046)
Writing about integrity r= .10 (p= .647) r= .01 (p= .949) r=−.01 ( p= .949)
Note: Coaches’communication of trustworthiness rated on a scale of 1–5. Marginally significant cor-
relations appear in bold.
JOURNAL OF TRUST RESEARCH 21
