Content uploaded by Stephen Palmer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Stephen Palmer on Aug 22, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Psychology in executive coaching:
an integrated literature review
Yi-Ling Lai
Department of Organisation Studies and HRM, Faculty of Business and Law,
University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK, and
Stephen Palmer
Wales Academy for Professional Practice and Applied Research,
University of Wales Trinity Saint David, Carmarthen, UK
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to identify essential psychological-informed executive coaching
approaches that enhance the organisational learning and development process and outcomes through
integrating existing research evidence. Since coaching has been widely used in leadership development
related areas and previous studies confirmed that this generates positive effects on individual-level learning
in the organisational setting. The identified frameworks and influential factors outlined in this paper can
serve as explicit guidelines for the organisation and management team when setting selection and evaluation
benchmarks for employing executive coaches.
Design/methodology/approach –An integrated review approach was applied to narratively synthesise
234 (k¼234) identified peer-review articles between 1995 and 2018. This review followed a rigorous
protocol that the authors consulted ten (n¼10) experts in the field. Both qualitative and quantitative
psychological-focused research evidence was included in this study.
Findings –First, certain psychological approaches, such as cognitive behavioural, solution-focused,
GROW and strength-based approaches, were highlighted in current research evidence. Second, the
essential factors and skills, for instance, building trust, transparency and rapport, and facilitating learning
were identified. Third, the main organisational learning and development outcome evaluation methods
were outlined in this review, such as the self-efficacy scale, organisational commitment, workplace
psychological well-being, 360-degree feedback and the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.
Research limitations/implications –It is always challenging to integrate research evidence on coaching
because of the diversity of theoretical disciplines upon which coaching interventions draw. Therefore, it is
difficult to generate a meta-analytic review which can generate statistical results. This review also reveals
room for improvement in the quality of existing coaching evidence in accordance with the criteria for
evidence-based management or practice (Briner et al., 2009), such as research methodology and evaluation
design. Moreover, there is a lack of evidence on this reflective process which helps professional coaches to
ensure the quality of their practice and organisational support.
Practical implications –This review offers a new perspective on the role psychology plays in the
organisational learning and development practices. The identified coaching approaches, influential
interpersonal skills and outcome evaluation methods can serve as practical guidelines when applying
external coaching to facilitate a better organisational learning and development process and outcome.
Originality/value –This is the first literature review to focus on contemporary psychological-informed
coaching evidence (between 1995 and 2018) in the workplace setting. Despite the rapid growth in
demand for professional coaching practitioners (International Coach Federation, 2016), there is a lack of
research-informed evidence to overcome the challenges faced by organisations when employing external
coaches, such as what selection criteria or evaluation benchmarks to use. This review takes a practical
perspective to identify essential body of knowledge and behavioural indicators required for an executive
coach to facilitate an effective learning and development outcome.
Keywords Executive coaching, Literature review, Organizational learning and development,
Coaching psychology, Integrated review
Paper type Literature review
Journal of Work-Applied
Management
Emerald Publishing Limited
2205-2062
DOI 10.1108/JWAM-06-2019-0017
Received 7 June 2019
Revised 18 June 2019
Accepted 19 June 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/2205-2062.htm
© Yi-Ling Lai and Stephen Palmer. Published in Journal of Work-Applied Management. Published by
Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0)
licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both
commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and
authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Psychology
in executive
coaching
1. Introduction
This paper presents an integrated literature review on psychological-focused executive
coaching evidence. Executive coaching has been applied extensively in management
learning strategy to support organisational outcomes according to the annual survey of the
CIPD (2015, 2016): three quarters of the organisations surveyed offered coaching to their
employees as well as 69 per cent of them expected to increase their capacity for coaching.
Although a coach’s academic background in psychology was examined being a positive
mediator to enhance the executive coaching outcomes, such as the coachee’s self-awareness
and job performance as reported by the direct supervisor (Bozer et al., 2014), there is still a
lack of evidence in psychology to contribute to this area. Accordingly, an integrated
evaluation across all relevant research evidence is required to specify in what way
psychological interventions facilitate better desired coaching outcomes.
Briner (2012) has previously raised questions about the inadequacy of scientific evidence
on coaching interventions, including the inadequacy of rigorous experimental trials and
systematic reviews. In response to his scepticism about the effectiveness of coaching, a
number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of workplace coaching were promptly
published (Graßmann et al., 2019; Athanasopoulou and Dopson, 2018; Bozer and Jones, 2018;
Blackman et al., 2016; Grover and Furnham, 2016; Jones et al., 2016; Sonesh et al.,2015;
Theeboom et al., 2014). These reviews established a solid foundation for the development
of evidence-based coaching by confirming coaching generates positive effects on
individual-level learning in the organisational setting. Nevertheless, specific practical
coaching frameworks or disciplines were yet spelled out. To distinguish from previous
reviews of coaching and respond to the latest coaching research trend, “how does coaching
work?”(Theeboom et al., 2014), we scrutinised the relevant psychological-informed evidence
on executive coaching interventions (between 1995 and 2018), in order to outline the trend and
gaps in current executive coaching literature as well as informing future practice.
A total of 234 (k¼234) primary studies (both quantitative and qualitative) investigating the
effects of psychological coaching approaches wereidentified in this review. The review results
confirmed that the frameworks of psychotherapy (e.g. cognitive behavioural approach and
therapeutic working alliance) play a key role in the effectiveness of executive coaching,
including the coaching relationship and coachees’self-efficacy, affective organisational
commitment, workplace well-being (e.g. stress) and leadership behaviours of coachees.
Furthermore, several essential interpersonal coaching skills which require fundamental
understanding of psychological theories (e.g. emotional support and enhancing motivation)
were distinguished in this review. However, our review results indicated some gaps in the
current coaching literature. First, more substantial evidence is required in other executive
coaching disciplines, such as a statistical investigation (e.g. meta-analysis) on psychological
coaching approaches (e.g. cognitive behavioural or solution-focused coaching) or a more
process-based investigation to study “how”or “why”certain mechanisms facilitate better
desired outcomes. Second, a need for the further development of coaching outcome
evaluations emerges in this review study, as evaluation methods currently used were varied
and drawn from other similar disciplines (e.g. counselling or training). This review results can
serve as a preliminary guideline for the organisations when applying executive coaching
(Smither, 2011) as a clear scope of what is known what is unknown in this area is presented.
2. What is executive coaching in the organisation?
Given that the ultimate goals of coaching engagements are all related to change
(e.g. behavioural, attitudinal or motivational) in individuals, the process is seen as a
socratic-based, future-focused dialogue between a facilitator (coach) and a participant
(coachee/client), whose purpose is to stimulate the self-awareness and personal responsibility
of the participant (Passmore and Fillery-Travis, 2011). Accordingly, our understanding of
JWAM
executive coaching is being a coachee-centred learning and development intervention that
aims to maximise the coachee’s potential, motivation and improvement. With the increase of
employing independent coaching professionals to facilitate senior managers’learning and
development (CIPD, 2016), and a recent study ( Jones et al., 2018) indicating external coaching
services generated better effects on the participant’s emotional outcomes (e.g. self-efficacy)
than other coaching formats, we accordingly include coaching studies which employ
independent coaching practitioners in this review to maintain the focus.
3. Current challenges in executive coaching research
With the increase in employing executive coaching services, several issues arise. First, it is
usually more challenging to align the personal goals of coachees with organisational objectives
considering the triangular contracting process (Stokes and Jolly, 2018; Louis and Fatien
Diochon, 2014). An executive coaching contracting process by external practitioners is often
affected by the contextual factors, power dynamics and hierarchical positions in the
organisation. Accordingly, some potential conflicts between the coach–coachee–organisation in
the coaching process like confidentiality issues and loyalty conflicts occur in a triangular
coaching relationship (Louis and Fatien Diochon, 2014). Second, most executive coaching
practices remain shrouded in mystery due to the nature of coaching intervention: one-on-one
interactions and conversations between the coach and coachee (Ellinger et al., 2016). Therefore,
assessing and identifying the most appropriate coaching professionals becomes one of the key
challenges when leveraging executive coaching services. Following from the debates whether
an executive coach needs a background in psychology (Bozer et al., 2014), we aim to identify the
key research areas in psychological-informed coaching approaches to initially inform what is
known and what is unknown through integrating existing research evidence:
RQ1. What are the key research topics in relation to executive coaching engagements in
the contemporary psychological-informed coaching study?
4. The growth of psychological approaches in coaching context
The use of psychology in leadership coaching started in late 1990s (Harris, 1999). Some
coaching papers (e.g. Bono et al., 2009) have argued that there is little evidence of differences in
practice when comparing chartered psychologists with coaches from other professional
disciplines. Nevertheless, psychology which a theoretically grounded science that underpins
the processes and understanding of human change is still considered as the key element in
generating better coaching outcomes (Grant, 2008; Gray, 2006; Kilburg, 2004). Bono et al.
(2009) indicated psychologist coaches were more likely to use multisource behavioural data as
diagnostic and assessment tools (d¼0.54) as well as to establish behavioural change goals
(d¼0.22) in comparison with non-psychologist coaches. Bozer and Jones’(2018) systematic
review outlined seven psychology-related influential factors (e.g. self-efficacy, coaching
motivation and trust) inan effective coaching process and outcomes. However, therehas yet to
be a review that integrates all relevant and up-to-date evidence to specify which areas in
psychology have been mostly applied into organisational learning and development (hereafter
OL&D) strategy:
RQ2. What are the essential psychological-informed coaching approaches and
theoretical frameworks in the current scientific literature? In what way do these
psychological frameworks enhance the coaching process and its outcomes?
5. The development of evidence-based practice in coaching
Aligning with Briner’s (2012) criticism of coaching research, the quality of existing coaching
evidence is questionable, for instance the rigorousness of the research methodology and
Psychology
in executive
coaching
outcome evaluations; the appropriateness of sampling strategies (Athanasopoulou and
Dopson, 2018; Grover and Furnham, 2016). Regarding coaching as an intervention for
developing people (either behaviourally or psychologically), fundamental questions
concerning the effectiveness of coaching and the factors essential for an effective
coaching outcome need to be answered through the scientific research process. For example,
randomised controlled trials (hereafter RCTs) comparing coaching and its outcomes with
those of other learning interventions would go beyond short-term self-reports. In
comparison with other scientific subjects, such as medical science, the number of trials
performed for organisational coaching remains inadequate ( Jones et al., 2016). Hence, a
review that synthesises the quality of all available existing evidence is the crucial initial step
in developing evidence-based practice.
In fact, evidence-based practice or management is more than just using RCTs or
quantitative studies in coaching research. It is defined as a scientific decision-making
process that promotes the use of the best available research evidence (Briner et al., 2009).
Based on the standard of evidence-based practice, this review considered three main aspects
when assessing the studies included: the research methodology, evaluation method and
sampling strategy used. This kind of analysis will provide a better picture of the quality of
existing coaching research:
RQ3. What is the quality of contemporary coaching psychology evidence? (a) What are
the main research methodologies used in the psychological-informed executive
coaching studies reviewed? (b) What are the most commonly used coaching
outcome evaluation methods in the existing coaching literature? (c) What are the
participation profiles in these studies?
6. Review methods
This review adopted a quasi-systematic review methodology to scrutinise and synthesise all
available relevant evidence through an explicit, transparent and accountable process
(Denyer and Tranfield, 2011) due to the complexity of coaching research design. Three
review processes are presented in Figure 1.
6.1 Developing the review protocol
To ensure that the review was based on a rigorous and logical process, ten coaching experts
(academics or practitioners) from international locations were invited to comment on the
draft proposal. Our review panel consisted of nine chartered psychologists whose main
focus was the organisational coaching domain (either research or practice) along with one
well-experienced scholar in organisational development, to ensure a balanced view.
After consolidating all their comments, a total of 58 search terms (e.g. cogniti* and
coaching) and 8 databases (e.g. PsycINFO) were confirmed. In addition, five inclusion
Evaluating and synthesising the
included studies
Undertaking the literatur search
and screening the references
Developing the reviw protocol
(1) 58 seraching terms
(2) 8 electronic databases
(3) 5 inclusion criteria
(4) 3 review questions
Final review papers
k=234
Psychological
coaching
frameworks models
(i.e. trials) (k=36)
Constructive
coaching
relationships
(k=32)
Effective
attributes for
a coach (k=30)
General
investigation of
coaching
(k=132)
Psychometric
assessments in
the coaching
context (k=4)
Initial search
k=25,615
Figure 1.
Overview of the
review process
JWAM
criteria were defined, as follows: written in English; published between 1995 and 2018;
empirical research (both quantitative and qualitative studies) setting out clear research
methods, participants or evaluations and outcomes; focused on executive coaching; and
clearly stated psychological coaching approaches and frameworks, including any
psychological mediators, such as interpersonal interactive variables or working alliance.
6.2 Screening the references and synthesising the included studies
The aim of this stage is to conduct the literature search and extract the studies meeting the
inclusion criteria. Initially, 25,615 papers were identified. Next, duplicated studies were
screened out (k¼1,201) and the five inclusion criteria are used to extract critical references.
Ultimately, a total of 234 (k¼234) studies were included in the final review. All the included
studies were listed in an Excel table and clustered into groups on the basis of their research
objectives. Afterwards, a narrative synthesis was conducted by integrating their results.
7. Findings
7.1 An overview of existing evidence
This review found that more than half (k¼139) of these coaching studies were published in
psychology-focused peer-review journals; and nearly 40 per cent (k¼95) were in
management-related publications. This finding is not surprising as we used several
searching keywords related to psychology; nevertheless, this also meets our review purpose
to outline a scope of psychological-informed coaching approaches. Unlike in previous
coaching reviews (e.g. Athanasopoulou and Dopson, 2018), the impact number of the
journals was not used as an evaluation criterion here. Regarding psychological-focused
coaching as a fairly new research domain, most of the studies were published in
coaching-focused journals (Allen, 2016). In addition, people who conduct coaching research
are often pracademics (i.e. an academic and practitioner) and tend to publish their studies in
more practitioner-focused journals. Despite some criticisms of potential bias as a result of
the dual roles of some researchers, the majority of experimental trials in coaching, which are
seen as being at the upper levels in the hierarchy of research evidence (Guyatt et al., 1995),
were published in these coaching-focused and practitioner-favoured, peer-review
publications. Hence, in this particular case it would have been prejudicial to judge the
quality of the evidence on the ranking of the journals.
The awareness of the need to apply more rigorous research methodology to examine the
effectiveness of specific coaching frameworks has increased. The number of psychological
coaching studies has increased considerably since the start of the twenty-first century.
A total of 67 were published in the first decade of this century (between 2000 and 2009).
Moreover, the number of published studies on psychological coaching was more than
double this (k¼164) between 2010 and 2018 (Figure 2). Looking at psychological coaching
trials specifically (k¼36), 75 per cent (k¼27) were published after (and including) 2010.
7.2 RQ1. The key research topics in relation to psychological-focused workplace coaching
The most researched coaching psychology topics identified by this review were examining
certain coaching frameworks or models (i.e. trials) (k¼36), distinguishing essentials factors
for constructive coaching relationships (k¼32) and identifying effective attributes for a
coach (k¼30). The remaining papers were categorised into general investigation of
coaching interventions (k¼132) and individual psychometric assessments in the coaching
context (k¼4).
The most commonly applied psychological coaching frameworks, effective attributes of
coaches and essential factors of an effective coaching relationship are discussed further in
the following section (RQ2). The general investigation of psychological coaching
Psychology
in executive
coaching
approaches mainly consists of case studies or interviews exploring coachees’perspectives
on the psychological mechanisms of the coaching process, such as leader–member
exchange, positive emotion, cognitive behavioural coaching (CBC) experience and so on (e.g.
Elston and Boniwell, 2011). However, it is difficult to integrate these results as they
generally explore coachees’immediate reactions after the coaching programme without
explicit outcome evaluations. Additionally, a few psychometric tests were developed for the
purpose of understanding the coachee’s workplace motivation, strengths and behaviours,
such as the Strengthspotting Scale (Linley et al., 2009) and Hogan’s personality inventory
(Mansi, 2007).
7.3 RQ2. Most frequently used psychological coaching frameworks and influential factors
From our initial analysis, several frequently examined psychological coaching frameworks
and factors were identified: the CBC and coaching relationship. However, the majority of
psychological coaching trials in the workplace combined frameworks (e.g. CBC combined
with solution-focused) or adopted coaching methods developed by their authors (e.g.
cognitive-experiential self-theory and emotional dimensions). A meta-analysis of these
psychological coaching trials was not considered in this review because our main
purpose was to draw a big picture of existing scientific evidence and identify the essential
elements/indicators of an effective coaching process and outcomes. Table I summarises the
psychological coaching approaches identified.
Psychotherapeutic theory-cognitive behavioural coaching. CBC was the most frequent
exclusively studied framework in this review (k¼8, n¼570). CBC is defined as an integrative
approach that combines the use of cognitive, behavioural, imaginal and problem-solving
techniques and strategies within a cognitive behavioural framework to enable coachees to
achieve their realistic goals by helping them to overcome blocks to change (adapted Palmer
and Szymanska, 2019, p. 108). CBC originated in cognitive behavioural and problem-solving
therapies in the USA and UK. The evidence of CBC in an organisational context was first
published by Moen and Allgood (2009). Overall, these studies revealed positive associations
between CBC and coachees’self-efficacy, self-awareness and organisational commitment
(Bozer et al., 2013, 2015; Bozer and Sarros, 2012). The first objective outcome evaluation
of a CBC trial was not published until 2012 (Bozer and Sarros, 2012). A nine-month CBC
programme with 72 executives (n¼72) was conducted. The results showed that job
performance as reported by direct supervisors (F(1,50) ¼20.41, po0.001, ηp
2
¼0.29) and
3
121
34
78
14
12
15
25
13
25
20
24
22
11 12 12
0
Before 2000
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
5
10
15
20
25
30
Paper numbers
Paper numbers
Figure 2.
Distribution of
year of publication
JWAM
supervisor y-rated task perform ance ( F(1,94) ¼14.40, po0.001, ηp
2
¼0.22) were significantly
better post-coaching compared with a pre-coaching measurement. This was also the first
workplace coaching trial we found that invited coachees’supervisors (n¼28) to participate in
the outcome evaluation process.
CBC was also combined with several other psychological-informed coaching
frameworks, such as solution-focused and GROW model (k¼5, n¼206). Most of
the evaluations still stay at the coachee’s cognitive level; for instance, the improvement
of the self-efficacy (e.g. Grant, 2014), affective job commitment (e.g. Bozer et al., 2014) or
workplace resilience (e.g. Grant et al., 2010).
The working alliance in the coaching process. The professional working relationship
between coach and coachee was identified as key psychological mediator for greater
coaching outcomes in this review. In addition, trust and transparency were the two key
elements for supporting a constructive coaching relationship (Gyllensten and Palmer, 2007).
Later, a number of coaching relationship studies (e.g. Baron and Morin, 2009) took up the
concept of a therapeutic working alliance in the coaching context to confirm the interrelation
between working alliance and coaching outcomes (e.g. self-efficacy). The working alliance
theory which is referred to the quality and strength of the collaborative relationship between
the client and therapist (Hatcher and Barends, 2006) supplies clearer purposive paths for the
collaboration. The working alliance includes three features: mutual agreed goals,
development tasks and bonds (Bordin, 1979) and they offer specific aspects the helper
may concentrate on in the collaborative relationship.
The field of coaching relationship was categorised by the match between coach and
coachee (e.g. gender or personality) and the contributions of coach and coachee to this
alliance (e.g. coaches’behaviours affecting coachees’motivation to change) in this review.
Several coaching relationship papers (e.g. de Haan and Duckworth, 2012; Gray and
Goregaokar, 2010) examined whether gender, personality (e.g. Myers–Briggs type indicator)
or perceived similarity is the main factor determining the quality of the professional
relationship between coach and coachee. None of them reported statistically significant
results. In fact, Baron and Morin’s (2009) study suggested that the working alliance
develops during the coaching process rather than being reliant on an objective matching.
Therefore, some researchers (Gessnitzer and Kauffeld, 2015) have proposed that “the
coaching provider and receiver’s behaviours”and the “incidents”(e.g. building trust,
commitment and rapport for a coachee-centred process) that occur during the coaching
Coaching approach No. of papers Research method
Cognitive behavioural coaching (CBC) 8 RCT (k¼1)
Between-subject (k¼4)
Within-subject (k¼3)
GROW model 4 RCT (k¼2)
Between-subject (k¼1)
Within-subject (k¼1)
Strength-based coaching 3 Between-subject (k¼3)
Mixed (e.g. CBC+GROW or CBC +solution-focused) 7 RCT (k¼2)
Between-subject (k¼4)
Within-subject (k¼3)
Others (e.g. 360 degree or emotional dimensions, etc.) 14 RCT (k¼7)
Between-subject (k¼3)
Within-subject (k¼4)
Total 36
Note: RCT, randomised controlled trail
Table I.
The overview of
psychological
coaching frameworks
Psychology
in executive
coaching
process influence the effectiveness of the coaching alliance. In addition, coachees’motivation
to transfer and readiness to change have been identified as key factors in the workplace
coaching alliance (Baron and Morin, 2009; Grant et al., 2009) .
A total of 30 included studies (k¼30) investigated effective attributes of a coach that
enable a constructive coaching relationship. Bozer et al. (2014) distinguished that a coach’s
academic background in psychology improved coachees’self-efficacy and job performance
as reported by their direct supervisors. However, other studies indicated both psychology
and management-related theories (e.g. leadership and management) play equally parts in
existing coaching research domain (Maritz et al., 2009; Wasylyshyn, 2003). In relation to
individual coach’s attributes, interpersonal skills, emotional support; facilitating learning;
motivation enhancement; and building the coaching relationship were specified (e.g.
de Haan et al., 2011; Passmore, 2010; Stevens, 2005) (Table III). Some studies demonstrated
(e.g. de Haan et al., 2010; de Haan and Nieß, 2012) coaches and coachees often have shared
critical moments; and as a coach, being able to deal with one’s own critical moments
during the coaching process is one of the essential indicators in the formation of an
effective coaching relationship (Day et al., 2008). The triangular coaching relationship
(coach–coachee–organisation) which considers the social context in the coaching process
received some scholars’attention in recent years (e.g. Louis and Fatien Diochon, 2014),
nevertheless, further investigation is required.
7.4 RQ3. The quality of existing coaching evidence
The research methods used in the studies were mainly case studies (k¼72), questionnaires
(k¼43) and interviews (k¼35). This implies current stage of coaching studies remained at
the level of general investigation and exploration because coaching is still a very young
research domain.
In order to draw a clear picture of the current evidence, we identified the most commonly
used evaluation methods from these experimental studies (Table II). A total of 119 evaluations
were used (m¼3.30) across these trails (k¼36). Hence, the range of workplace coaching
evaluations was considerably diverse.
Objective performance or behavioural evaluations (i.e. rated by a third-party), such as the
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, were adopted by more than half (k¼20) of these
trials (Table II). In addition, coachees’job satisfaction and organisational commitment were
often measured after the coaching sessions (k¼11). Job satisfaction is a set of favourable or
unfavourable feelings and emotions through which employees view their work (Newstrom,
2007), while organisational commitment is defined as the “strength of a person’s bond with
the organization”(Wahn, 1998, p. 256). Several studies found positive associations between
employees’job satisfaction, organisational commitment and job performance (e.g. Sharma
and Dhar, 2016), and hence we have classified them into the same evaluation group in this
review. Moreover, coachees’self-efficacy levels were evaluated in several CBC and GROW
model coaching papers (e.g. Grant, 2014). Self-efficacy is described as people’s beliefs about
their ability to have an effect (Bandura, 1979). Such beliefs have been identified as being the
key mechanism for enhancing job performance (Alessandri et al., 2015). Accordingly,
self-efficacy scales have been increasingly used as a preliminary indicator of the
effectiveness of learning interventions. Furthermore, the psychological well-being and states
of coachees following coaching intervention also appear to be of concern to organisations,
such as coachees’level of resilience, stress and anxiety (e.g. Grant, 2014)
The majority of the psychological coaching trials reviewed in this study employed
scientific-based approaches to measure coachees’specific proximal and distal outcomes
(Greif, 2013). However, the self-report evaluations still play a dominant role in contemporary
coaching research.
JWAM
Authors Year Journal/Issue Coaching model
Theoretical
foundation
Research
method
No. of
evaluations Evaluations Participant
Bozer and
Sarros
2012 International
Journal of
Evidence Based
Coaching and
Mentoring, 10(1)
CBC Psychotherapy Between-
subject
5 Self-job performance scale
Supervisory-rated task performance
scale (O)
Coachee’s self-awareness
Coachee’s self-job affective
commitment
Coachee’s career satisfaction
96 (Ex:68, Con:
28): Israel
Bozer et al. 2015 Consulting
Psychology
Journal: Practice
and Research,
67(3)
CBC Psychotherapy Within-
subject
6 Gender (coach–coachee match)
Coachee’s job satisfaction
Coachee’s organisational
commitment
Coachee’s self-awareness
Personality match
Performance outcome (O)
36: Israel
Bozer et al. 2013 Journal of
Management
Development,
32(3)
CBC Psychotherapy RCT 9 Coachee’s learning goal orientation
Coachee’s pre-training motivation
Coachee’s feedback receptivity
Coachee’s developmental self-efficacy
Coachee’s job performance by
coachee and direct supervisor (O)
Coachee’s supervisory-related task
performance (O)
Coachee’s career satisfaction
Coachee’s self-awareness
Coachee’s job affective commitment
101 (Ex:72,
Con: 29): Israel
Bright and
Crockett
2012 Coaching: An
International
Journal of
Theory, Research
and Practice,5(1)
CBC Psychotherapy Between-
subject
1 Performance strategy inventory (PSI) 115: USA
(continued )
Table II.
List of the most
studied psychological
coaching frameworks
Psychology
in executive
coaching
Authors Year Journal/Issue Coaching model
Theoretical
foundation
Research
method
No. of
evaluations Evaluations Participant
David et al. 2016 Journal of
Rational-Emotive
and Cognitive-
Behavior
Therapy,34
CBC Psychotherapy Within-
subject
4 Performance appraisal
Profile of Emotional Distress
General Attitudes and Beliefs Scale
Manager Rational and Irrational
Beliefs Scale
59: Italy
Markus 2016 The Journal of
Applied
Behavioral
Science, 52(2)
CBC –immunity to
change
Psychotherapy Within-
subject
2 Motivation measures
Perceived progress measures
71 (Ex:46,
Con:25): USA
Moen and
Allgood
2009 Organization
Development
Journal, 27(4)
Cognitive-process Psychotherapy Between-
subject
1 Leadership self-efficacy 127 senior
managers and
executives (no
other details):
Norwegian
Ratiu et al. 2016 Journal of
Rational-Emotive
and Cognitive-
Behavior
Therapy,35
CBC Psychotherapy Within-
subject
1 Multifactor leadership questionnaire
(O)
11 mid-level
managers:
Romania
Nielsen et al. 2015 Safety Science,
71 (B)
GROW Behaviourism RCT 8 Process evaluation: safety
participation (O)
Process evaluation: affective
commitment
Process management: trust
Effect evaluation: safety behaviour
(O)
Safety leadership (O)
Safety knowledge (O)
Safety involvement (O)
92 (coaching
only):
Denmark
Moen and
Federici
2012 Coaching: An
International
Journal of
GROW Behaviourism RCT 3 Goal setting
Self-efficacy
20 executives:
Norwegian
(continued )
Table II.
JWAM
Authors Year Journal/Issue Coaching model
Theoretical
foundation
Research
method
No. of
evaluations Evaluations Participant
Theory, Research
and Practice,5(2)
Attribution Style Assessment Test
(ASAT)
Burke and
Linley
2007 International
Coaching
Psychology
Review, 2(1)
GROW Behaviourism Within-
subject
3 Self-concordance-perceived locus of
causality (PLOC) –type of motivation
Alignment with personal value
Coachee’s commitment
26 senior
managers
Evers et al. 2006 Consulting
Psychology
Journal: Practice
and Research,
58(3)
GROW Behaviourism Between-
subject
2 Outcome expectations
Self-efficacy beliefs
60 (Ex:30,
Con:30)
MacKie 2014 Consulting
Psychology
Journal: Practice
and Research,66
(2)
Strength-based Positive
psychology
Between-
subject
4 Realise2 Strength Inventory
Multifactor leadership questionnaire
(O)
Adherence to strengths protocol scale
(process)
Manual adherence checklist
31(Ex:14,
Con:17):
Australia
MacKie 2015a Coaching: An
International
Journal of
Theory, Research
and Practice,8(2)
Strength-based Positive
psychology
Between-
subject
4 Multifactor leadership questionnaire
(O)
Belief coaching readiness
Core self-evaluation scale (CSES)
Developmental readiness
questionnaire
30 (Ex:13
Con:17):
Australia
Mackie 2015b International
Coaching
Psychology
Review, 10(2)
Strength-based Positive
psychology
Between-
subject
1 MLQ 360-multifactor leadership
questionnaire (O)
31(Ex:14,
Con:17):
Australia
Bozer et al. 2014 Personnel Review,
43(6)
CBC +solution-focused Psychotherapy Between-
subject
7 Academic background
Credibility of coaching source
measure
Job performance (Griffin et al., 2007,
27-item scale
101 (Ex:72,
Con:29): Israel
(continued )
Table II.
Psychology
in executive
coaching
Authors Year Journal/Issue Coaching model
Theoretical
foundation
Research
method
No. of
evaluations Evaluations Participant
Coachee’s supervisory-rated task
performance (O)
Coachee’s self-awareness
Coachee’s job affective commitment
Coachee’s job satisfaction
Lemisiou 2018 International
Coaching
Psychology
Review, Vol. 13
No. 2
(1) Solution-focused
(2) Strength-based
Psychotherapy
and positive
psychology
Within-
subject
1 Emotional and social intelligence was
the ESCI-360o (O)
44: Greece
Grant 2014 Journal of
Change
Management,
14(2)
CBC +solution-focused Psychotherapy Within-
subject
6 Goal attainment scale (GAS)
Solution-focused thinking
Change readiness
Leadership self-efficacy
Resilience
Workplace satisfaction
38
Grant et al. 2009 Journal of
Positive
Psychology, 4(5)
(1) 360-degree
(2) CBC
(3) Solution-focused
(4) GROW
Psychotherapy RCT 4 Goal attainment scale (GAS)
Resilience
Depression, anxiety and stress
(DASS-21)
Workplace well-being index
41 executives:
Australia
Yu et al. 2008 International
Coaching
Psychology
Review, 3(2)
CBC +solution-focused Psychotherapy Within-
subject
8 Taking charge
Core performance behaviours (O)
Innovative behaviour measure (IBM)
(O)
Goal attainment scale (GAS)
Self-reflection self-insight (SRIS)
Motivation-role-breadth self-efficacy
scale (RBSES)
Positive affect - negative affect
(PANAS)
10 managers:
Australia
(continued )
Table II.
JWAM
Authors Year Journal/Issue Coaching model
Theoretical
foundation
Research
method
No. of
evaluations Evaluations Participant
Scales of psychological well-being
(SPWB)
Grant et al. 2010 Consulting
Psychology
Journal: Practice
and Research,
62(3)
CBC+GROW +solution-
focused
Psychotherapy
and
behaviourism
RCT 5 Goal attainment scale
Resilience
Depression, anxiety and stress
Workplace well-being index
Leadership style
45 leaders in
schools:
Australia
Weinberg 2016 International
Coaching
Psychology
Review, 11(1)
(1) Solution-focused
(2) 360 feedback
Psychotherapy
and
behaviourism
Between-
subject
2 The General health Questionnaire
(GhQ-12)
Workplace environment (oMWe)
76 (Ex:46,
Con:30)
Sherlock-
Storey et al.
2013 The Coaching
Psychologist, 9(1)
(1) Positive psychological
capacities through micro-
interventions
(2) Resilience
intervention
Positive
psychology
Within-
subject
2 Psychological capital questionnaire
Attitude to organisational change
measure (readiness for change)
12 managers
Howard 2015 Frontiers in
Psychology,
6(445)
Role of the positive
emotional attractor
(PEA) vs negative
emotional attractor
(NEA) in intentional
change
Positive
psychology
RCT 1 360 feedback on emotional
competence inventory (O)
18
Salazar et al. 2012 Competitiveness
Review: An
International
Business Journal,
22(5)
Emotion dimensions,
constructive approach to
the psychology of
learning
Between-
subject
3 Level of acceptance of proposed
improvement measures
Level of application of the measures
Level of satisfaction among
participating managers
240
Moen and
Federici
2012 Organization
Development
Journal, 30(3)
Self-directed learning
-interpersonal skills and
coachees’motivation
Person-centred
coaching
psychology/
humanistic
perspective
RCT 1 Needs satisfaction work scale 144 executives
and middle
managers
(Ex:70, con:74):
Norwegian
(continued )
Table II.
Psychology
in executive
coaching
Authors Year Journal/Issue Coaching model
Theoretical
foundation
Research
method
No. of
evaluations Evaluations Participant
Nieminen
et al.
2013 Human Resource
Development
Quarterly, 24(2)
MSF-multisource
feedback
Behaviourism Within-
subject
1 MSF-multisource feedback (O) 469 managers
(Ex:227,
Con:242): USA
Jarzebowski
et al.
2012 International
Coaching
Psychology
Review, 7(1)
Positive and authentic
feedback
Positive
psychology
RCT 3 Coachee’s motivation level
Coachee’s mood scale
Regulatory focus questionnaire (RFQ)
29 (Ex:17,
Con:12):
Australia
Olivero et al. 1997 Public Personnel
Management,
26(4)
Goal setting and
feedback
Constructive,
behaviourist
and
experiential
psychology
Within-
subject
1 Coachee’s productivity 23: USA
Jones et al. 2006 Leadership and
Organization
Development
Journal, 27(7)
Building relationship,
GROW and 360 feedback
Psychotherapy
and
behaviourism
RCT 1 Individual flexibility scale
(proactivity, adaptability, resilience
and general flexibility)
67 (Ex:23,
Con:44):
Australia
Cerni, T.,
Curtis, G.J.
and Colmar, S.
H.
2010a International
Coaching
Psychology
Review, 5(1)
Epstein CEST-
constructive thinking
Psychotherapy RCT 1 Multifactor leadership questionnaire
(MLQ) 5X (O)
14 school
principals
(Ex:8, Con:6)
Luthans and
Peterson
2003 Human Resource
Management,
42(3)
360 feedback coaching Behaviourism Within-
subject
4 Managerial feedback profile (MFP)-
360 degree (O)
Coachee’s job satisfaction
Coachee’s organisational
commitment
Coachee’s turnover intention
20 managers
Cerni, T.,
Curtis, G.J.
and Colmar, S.
2010b Journal of
Leadership
Studies,4(3)
Cognitive-experiential
self-theory (CEST)
Psychotherapy RCT 3 Multifactor leadership questionnaire
(MLQ) 5X (O)
Rational-experimental inventory-long
from (REI-L)
Constructive thinking inventory
(CTI)
14 school
principals
(Ex:8, Con:6)
(continued )
Table II.
JWAM
Authors Year Journal/Issue Coaching model
Theoretical
foundation
Research
method
No. of
evaluations Evaluations Participant
Kochanowski
et al.
2010 Journal of
Leadership and
Organizational
Studies, 17(4)
Positive feedback Behaviourism
and positive
psychology
Between-
subject
1 Influence behaviour questionnaire
(IBQ)(O)
30 managers
(Ex:15, Con:15):
USA
Bowles et al. 2007 Leadership and
Organization
Development
Journal, 28(5)
Goal setting Constructive,
behaviourist
and
experiential
psychology
Between-
subject
3 Participant buy-in (rated by the
coach) (O)
Leadership competency (rated by the
coach)(O)
Performance (rated by subordinates)
(O)
30 middle
managers and
29 executive
managers:
USA Army
Williams and
Lowman
2018 Consulting
Psychology
Journal: Practice
and Research,
70(3)
Goal-focused coaching
and process oriented
coaching
Constructive,
behaviourist
RCT and a
switching-
replications
2 Leadership competencies
Overall leadership behaviours (O)
Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI)
(O)
64: USA
Notes: Ex, experimental group; Con, control group; O, objective evaluation
Table II.
Psychology
in executive
coaching
In relation to the research participants in the studies, we first reviewed the 39 experimental
trials. More than half of these studies (k¼20) involved the coachees’organisations (e.g. line
managers or subordinates) in the evaluation process by adopting objective, behaviour-based
assessment schemes (e.g. 360-degree feedback) (see Table II). However, organisational
perspectives were not extensively canvassed in the majority of studies. A few of the
qualitative ones invited the coaching sponsors, such as HR practitioners and line managers,
to articulate their views on the essential ingredients of an effective coaching process
(Dagley, 2010). Furthermore, de Haan and Nieß (2015) applied a combined research
methodology (interviews with a quantitative coding process) to analyse the critical moments
for the coach, coachee and sponsors during the coaching process in terms of enhancing the
coaching relationship and outcomes.
8. Conclusion
This review clarifies the psychological research evidence, such as cognitive behavioural
approach, in the workplace learning domain, specifically in executive coaching setting. In
addition, the research focus of workplace learning has been shifted to process orientation by
investigating contextual factors like the professional helping relationship between the
coaching dyad that enhance coaching outcomes.
Overall, this review suggests that a forward-looking cognitive state in coachees should
be encouraged at the initial stage of the coaching engagement. Also, a coaching
relationship is more likely to be effective when coachees have sufficient understanding of
themselves (i.e. self-realisation) and when their long-term considerations (i.e.
self-actualisation) are prioritised above short-term development goals. Accordingly,
psychology can play an important role in executive coaching engagements, especially the
application of psychotherapeutic theories in order to facilitate realistic thinking and
motivation to change. Considering the lack of a standardised benchmark for external
coaching selection and evaluation purposes, the conceptual psychological-focused
coaching framework presented below can serve as preliminary guideline for the
organisation when employing executive coaching services. In general, there are three
messages for the future workplace learning practices, in particular in coaching
intervention. First, the employed executive coach should obtain fundamental
psychological knowledge, such as cognitive- and behavioural-based science since some
frameworks like CBC and GROW model have been indicated to establish the learner’s
(i.e. coachee) positive mindset for change. Second, the executive coach should build up an
effective professional helping relationship with coachees at the initial stage by using the
behaviours identified from this review, for instance interpersonal skills and emotional
support and motivation enhancement (Table III). Third, scientific validated evaluations
should be adopted to promote evidence-based practice. This review has identified certain
most frequently applied coaching evaluations, for example, 360-degree multifactor
feedback, self-efficacy belief, organisational commitment and psychological well-being
(Table II and Figure 3).
This review took a distinct angle and approach to scrutinise psychological-informed
executive coaching evidence. This review initially clarifies a prolonged debate
between psychological and non-psychological coaching practice. Despite the intensive
literature discussion on the significant role psychology plays in the executive coaching
context; our review results reveal existing scientific evidence only indicated
psychotherapeutic-rooted theories (e.g. CBC and working alliance) with stronger
foundation on executive coaching outcomes. Our intention is not to examine which
psychological approach stands out but to raise awareness of the need to incorporate
psychological-informed coaching practice into OL&D strategy, and the identified research
gaps can be research trends to follow up.
JWAM
References
Studies marked with a * are included in this review.
Alessandri, G., Borgogni, L., Schaufeli, W.B., Caprara, G.V. and Consiglio, C. (2015), “From positive
orientation to job performance: the role of work engagement and self-efficacy beliefs”,Journal of
Happiness Studies, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 767-788.
Allen, K. (2016), Theory, Research, and Practical Guidelines for Family Life Coaching, Springer.
Athanasopoulou, A. and Dopson, S. (2018), “A systematic review of executive coaching outcomes: is it the
journey or the destination that matters the most?”,Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 70-88.
Bandura, A. (1979), “Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change”,Psychology Review,
Vol. 84 No. 2, pp. 191-215.
*Baron, L. and Morin, L. (2009), “The coach–coachee relationship in executive coaching: a field study”,
Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 85-106.
Blackman, A., Moscardo, G. and Gray, D.E. (2016), “Challenges for the theory and practice of business
coaching: a systematic review of empirical evidence”,Human Resource Development Review,
Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 459-486.
Bono, J., Purvanova, R., Towler, A. and Peterson, D. (2009), “A survey of executive coaching practices”,
Personnel Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 361-404.
Bordin, E. (1979), “The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance”,
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 252-260.
*Bowles, S., Cunningham, C.J., De La Rosa, G.M. and Picano, J. (2007), “Coaching leaders in middle and
executive management: goals, performance, buy-in”,Leadership & Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 28 No. 5, pp. 388-408.
Theme Behaviours/Skills References
Interpersonal
skills and
emotional
support
Emotional support
Communication skills (e.g. active listening,
approachable and open)
Dealing with clients’critical moments
Empathy
Cox and Bachkirova (2007), O’Dell (2011),
Greif (2010), Maritz et al. (2009), Passmore
(2010), de Haan and Nieß (2012)
Facilitating
learning
Willingness to help
Promoting a learning orientation
Creating a learning environment
Stevens (2005), Gettman (2008), Drum
(2007), de Haan et al. (2011)
Motivation
enhancement
Motivational reinforcement
Helping clients to overcome negative
mindsets
Marshall (2006), Gettman (2008)
Building the
relationship
Authenticity
Honesty
Building trust and rapport
Maritz et al. (2009), Drum (2007), Stevens
(2005), Griffiths and Campbell (2008),
Passmore (2010), Kleinberg (2001)
Table III.
Essential effective
attributes, skills and
behavioural indicators
for an external coach
Psychotherapeutic
appcoach
Cognitive-behavioural
approach (CBC)
Positive cognitive
states
Job affective
commitment
Job related
outcomes
Working alliance Self-determination
Self-efficacy
Intrinsic
motivation
Figure 3.
A preliminary
psychological-focused
coaching framework
at the workplace
Psychology
in executive
coaching
Bozer, G. and Jones, R.J. (2018), “Understanding the factors that determine workplace coaching
effectiveness: a systematic literature review”,European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 342-361.
*Bozer, G. and Sarros, J.C. (2012), “Examining the effectiveness of executive coaching on coachees’
performance in the Israeli context”,International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and
Mentoring, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 14-32.
*Bozer, G., Joo, B.K. and Santora, J.C. (2015), “Executive coaching: does coach-coachee matching based
on similarity really matter?”,Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 67 No. 3,
pp. 218-233.
*Bozer, G., Sarros, J.C. and Santora, J.C. (2013), “The role of coachee characteristics in executive
coaching for effective sustainability”,Journal of Management Development, Vol. 32 No. 3,
pp. 277-294.
*Bozer, G.C., Sarros, J. and Santora, J.C. (2014), “Academic background and credibility in executive
coaching effectiveness”,Personnel Review, Vol. 43 No. 6, pp. 881-897.
*Bright, D. and Crockett, A. (2012), “Training combined with coaching can make a significant
difference in job performance and satisfaction”,Coaching: An International Journal of Theory,
Research and Practice, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 4-21.
Briner, R.B. (2012), “Does coaching work and does anyone really care?”,OP Matters, Vol. 16 No. 17,
pp. 4-12.
Briner, R.B., Denyer, D. and Rousseau, D.M. (2009), “Evidence-based management: concept cleanup
time?”,Academy of Management Perspectives, Vol. 23 No. 4, pp. 19-32.
*Burke, D. and Linley, P.A. (2007), “Enhancing goal self-concordance through coaching”,International
Coaching Psychology Review, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 62-69.
*Cerni, T., Curtis, G.J. and Colmar, S.H. (2010), “Executive coaching can enhance transformational
leadership”,International Coaching Psychology Review, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 81-85.
*Cerni, T., Curtis, G.J. and Colmar, S. (2010), “Increasing transformational leadership by developing
leaders’information‐processing systems”,Journal of Leadership Studies, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 51-65.
CIPD (2015), “Annual survey report 2015 learning and development”, Chartered Institute of Personnel
and Development, London, available at: file:///C:/Users/yilin/AppData/Local/Packages/
Microsoft.MicrosoftEdge_8wekyb3d8bbwe/TempState/Downloads/learning-
development_2015_tcm18-11298.pdf
CIPD (2016), “Preparing for the future of learning”, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development,
available at: www.cipd.co.uk/Images/preparing-for-the-future-of-learning_2016-a-changing-
perspective-for-l-and-d-leaders_tcm18-13846.pdf
*Cox, E. and Bachkirova, T. (2007), “Coaching with emotion: how coaches deal with difficult emotional
situations”,International Coaching Psychology Review, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 178-189.
*Dagley, G.R. (2010), “Exceptional executive coaches: practices and attributes”,International Coaching
Psychology Review, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 63-80.
*David, O.A., Ionicioiu, I., Imbăruş, A.C. and Sava, F.A. (2016), “Coaching banking managers through
the financial crisis: effects on stress, resilience, and performance”,Journal of Rational-Emotive &
Cognitive-Behavior Therapy, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 267-281.
*Day, A., de Haan, E., Sills, C., Bertie, C. and Blass, E. (2008), “Coaches’experience of critical moments
in the coaching”,International Coaching Psychology Review, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 207-218.
*de Haan, E. and Duckworth, A. (2012), “The coaching relationship and other ‘common factors’in
executive coaching outcome”, in de Haan, E. and Sillis, C. (Eds), Coaching Relationships: The
Relational Coaching Field Book, Libri, Oxfordshire, pp. 185-196.
*de Haan, E. and Nieß, C. (2012), “Critical moments in a coaching case study: illustration of a process
research model”,Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 198-209.
*de Haan, E. and Nieß, C. (2015), “Differences between critical moments for clients, coaches, and
sponsors of coaching”,International Coaching Psychology Review, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 38-61.
JWAM
de Haan, E., Culpin, V. and Curd, J. (2011), “Executive coaching in practice: what determines
helpfulness for clients of coaching?”,Personnel Review, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 24-44.
*de Haan, E., Bertie, C., Day, A. and Sills, C. (2010), “Critical moments of clients and coaches:
a direct-comparison study”,International Coaching Psychology Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 109-128.
Denyer, D. and Tranfield, D. (2011), “Producing a systematic review”, in Buchanan, D. and Bryman, A.
(Eds), The Sage Handbook of Organisational Research Methods, SAGE, London, pp. 671-689.
*Drum, J. (2007), “A fruitful soil: what coaches can learn from how theatre directors in rehearsal create
a learning environment”,International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 34-44.
Ellinger, A.D., Hamlin, R. and Beattie, R. (2016), “Coaching in the HRD context”, in Bachkirova, T.,
Spence, G. and Drake, D. (Eds), The Sage Handbook of Coaching, SAGE, London, pp. 470-485.
*Elston, F. and Boniwell, I. (2011), “A grounded theory study of the value derived by women in
financial services through a coaching intervention to help them identify their strengths and
practice using them in the workplace”,International Coaching Psychology Review, Vol. 6 No. 1,
pp. 16-32.
*Evers, W.J., Brouwers, A. and Tomic, W. (2006), “A quasi-experimental study on management
coaching effectiveness”,Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 58 No. 3,
pp. 174-182.
*Gessnitzer, S. and Kauffeld, S. (2015), “The working alliance in coaching: why behavior is the key to
success”,Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 51 No. 2, pp. 177-197.
*Gettman, H.J. (2008), “Executive coaching as a developmental experience: a framework and measure
of coaching dimensions”, PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD.
Graßmann, C., Schölmerich, F. and Schermuly, C.C. (2019), “The relationship between working alliance
and client outcomes in coaching: a meta-analysis”,Human Relations, pp. 1-24.
Grant, A.M. (2008), “Past, present and future: the evolution of professional coaching and coaching
psychology”, in Palmer, S. and Whybrow, A. (Eds), Handbook of Coaching Psychology: A Guide
for Practitioners, Routledge, London, pp. 23-39.
*Grant, A.M. (2014), “The efficacy of executive coaching in times of organisational change”,Journal of
Change Management, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 258-280.
*Grant, A.M., Curtayne, L. and Burton, G. (2009), “Executive coaching enhances goal attainment,
resilience and workplace well-being: a randomised controlled study”,Journal of Positive
Psychology, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 396-407.
Grant, A.M., Green, L.S. and Rynsaardt, J. (2010), “Developmental coaching for high school teachers:
executive coaching goes to school”,Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 62
No. 3, pp. 151-168.
Gray, D. (2006), “Executive coaching: towards a dynamic alliance of psychotherapy and transformative
learning processes”,Management Learning, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 475-497.
*Gray, D. and Goregaokar, H. (2010), “Choosing an executive coach: the influence of gender on the
coach–coachee matching process”,Management Learning, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 525-544.
Greif, S. (2010), “A new frontier of research and practice: observation of coaching behaviour”,The
Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 6 No. 2, pp. 97-105.
Greif, S. (2013), “Conducting organizational-based evaluations of coaching and mentoring programs”,
in Passmore, J., Peterson, D.B. and Freire, T. (Eds), The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of the
Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring, Wiley-Blackwell, West Sussex, pp. 443-470.
Griffin, M.A., Neal, A. and Parker, S.K. (2007), “A new model of work role performance: positive
behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts”,Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 50
No. 2, pp. 327-347.
*Griffiths, K.E. and Campbell, M.A. (2008), “Regulating the regulators: paving the way for
international, evidence-based coaching standards”,International Journal of Evidence Based
Coaching and Mentoring, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 19-31.
Psychology
in executive
coaching
Grover, S. and Furnham, A. (2016), “Coaching as a developmental intervention in organisations:
a systematic review of its effectiveness and the mechanisms underlying it”,PloS One, Vol. 11
No. 7, pp. 1-41.
Guyatt, G.H., Sackett, D.L., Sinclair, J.C., Hayward, R., Cook, D.J. and Cook, R.J. (1995), “Users’guides to
the medical literature”,Journal of the American Medication Association, Vol. 274 No. 22,
pp. 1800-1804.
*Gyllensten, K. and Palmer, S. (2007), “The coaching relationship: an interpretative phenomenological
analysis”,International Coaching Psychology Review, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 168-177.
Harris, M. (1999), “Practice network: look, it’s an I-O psychologist. No, it’s a trainer. No, it’s an executive
coach”,The Industrial and Organizational Psychologist, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 38-42.
Hatcher, R.L. and Barends, A.W. (2006), “How a return to theory could help alliance research”,
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 292-299.
*Howard, A.R. (2015), “Coaching to vision versus coaching to improvement needs: a preliminary
investigation on the differential impacts of fostering positive and negative emotion during real
time executive coaching sessions”,Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 6 No. 455, pp. 1-15.
International Coach Federation (2016), “Global coaching study executive summary”,
available at: https://coachfederation.org/app/uploads/2017/12/2016ICFGlobalCoachingStudy_
ExecutiveSummary-2.pdf (accessed 10 June 2019).
Jarzebowski, A., Palermo, J. and van de Berg, R. (2012), “When feedback is not enough: the impact of
regulatory fit on motivation after positive feedback”,International Coaching Psychology Review,
Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 14-32.
Jones, R., Woods, S. and Guillaume, Y. (2016), “The effectiveness of workplace coaching: a meta-analysis
of learning and performance outcomes from coaching”,Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 2, pp. 249-277.
*Jones, R.A., Rafferty, A.E. and Griffin, M.A. (2006), “The executive coaching trend: towards more
flexible executives”,Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 584-596.
Jones, R.J., Woods, S.A. and Zhou, Y. (2018), “Boundary conditions of workplace coaching outcomes”,
Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 33 Nos 7/8, pp. 475-496.
Kilburg, R. (2004), “When shadows fall: using psychodynamic approaches in executive coaching”,
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 246-268.
*Kleinberg, J.A. (2001), “A scholar-practitioner model for executive coaching: applying theory
and application within the emergent field of executive coaching”,Humanities and Social
Sciences, Vol. 61 No. 12, pp. 48-53.
*Kochanowski, S., Seifert, C.F. and Yukl, G. (2010), “Using coaching to enhance the effects of
behavioral feedback to managers”,Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 17 No. 4,
pp. 363-369.
*Lemisiou, M.A. (2018), “The effectiveness of person-centered coaching intervention in raising
emotional and social intelligence competencies in the workplace”,International Coaching
Psychology Review, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 6-26.
Linley, P.A., Woolston, L. and Biswas-Diener, R. (2009), “Strengths coaching with leaders”,
International Coaching Psychology Review, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 37-48.
Louis, D. and Fatien Diochon, P. (2014), “Educating coaches to power dynamics: managing multiple
agendas within the triangular relationship”,Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational
Culture, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 31-47.
*Luthans, F. and Peterson, S.J. (2003), “360‐degree feedback with systematic coaching: empirical
analysis suggests a winning combination”,Human Resource Management, Vol. 42 No. 3,
pp. 243-256.
*MacKie, D. (2014), “The effectiveness of strength-based executive coaching in enhancing full range
leadership development: a controlled study”,Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, Vol. 66 No. 2, pp. 118-137.
JWAM
*MacKie, D. (2015a), “The effects of coachee readiness and core self-evaluations on leadership coaching
outcomes: a controlled trial”,Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and
Practice, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 120-136.
*Mackie, D. (2015b), “Who sees change after leadership coaching? An analysis of impact by rater level
and self-other alignment on multi-source feedback”,International Coaching Psychology Review,
Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 118-130.
*Mansi, A. (2007), “Executive coaching and psychometrics: a case study evaluating the use of the
Hogan Personality Inventory (HPI) and the Hogan Development Survey (HDS) in senior
management coaching”,The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 53-58.
*Maritz, J.E., Poggenpoel, M. and Myburgh, C.P. (2009), “Core competencies necessary for a managerial
psycho-educational training programme for business team coaches”,SA Journal of Human
Resource Management, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
*Markus, I. (2016), “Efficacy of immunity-to-change coaching for leadership development”,The Journal
of Applied Behavioral Science, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 215-230.
*Marshall, M.K. (2006), “The critical factors of coaching practice leading to successful coaching
outcomes”, PhD thesis, Antioch University, CA.
*Moen, F. and Allgood, E. (2009), “Coaching and the effect on self-efficacy”,Organization Development
Journal, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 69-81.
*Moen, F. and Federici, R.A. (2012), “The effect from external executive coaching”,Coaching: An
International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 113-131.
Newstrom, J.W. (2007), Organizational Behaviour-human Behaviour at Work, McGraw Hill
International Edition, New York, NY.
*Nielsen, K.J., Kines, P., Pedersen, L.M., Andersen, L.P. and Andersen, D.R. (2015), “A multi-case study
of the implementation of an integrated approach to safety in small enterprises”,Safety Science,
Vol. 71, Part B, pp. 142-150.
*Nieminen, L.R., Smerek, R., Kotrba, L. and Denison, D. (2013), “What does an executive coaching
intervention add beyond facilitated multisource feedback? Effects on leader self‐ratings and
perceived effectiveness”,Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 24 No. 2, pp. 145-176.
*O’Dell, J. (2011), “An evaluation of coaching from a psychological perspective”, PhD thesis, University
of Manchester, Manchester.
*Olivero, G., Bane, K.D. and Kopelman, R.E. (1997), “Executive coaching as a transfer of training tool:
effects on productivity in a public agency”,Public Personnel Management, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 461-469.
*Palmer, S. and Szymanska, K. (2019), “Cognitive behavioural coaching: an integrative approach”,in
Palmer, S. and Whybrow, A. (Eds), The Handbook of Coaching Psychology: A Guide for
Practitioners, Routledge, New York, NY, pp. 108-127.
*Passmore, J. (2010), “A grounded theory study of the coachee experience: the implications for training and
practice in coaching psychology”,International Coaching Psychology Review, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 48-62.
Passmore, J. and Fillery-Travis, A. (2011), “A critical review of executive coaching research: a decade of
progress and what’s to come”,Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and
Practice, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 70-88.
*Ratiu, L., David, O.A. and Baban, A. (2016), “Developing managerial skills through coaching: efficacy
of a cognitive-behavioral coaching program”,Journal of Rational-emotive & Cognitive-Behavior
Therapy, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 244-266.
*Salazar, V., Dolores, M., Ferrón-Vílchez, V. and Cordón-Pozo, E. (2012), “Coaching: an effective practice
for business competitiveness”,Competitiveness Review, Vol. 22 No. 5, pp. 423-433.
Sharma, J. and Dhar, R.L. (2016), “Factors influencing job performance of nursing staff: mediating role
of affective commitment”,Personnel Review, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 161-182.
*Sherlock-Storey, M., Moss, M. and Timson, S. (2013), “Brief coaching for resilience during organisational
change –an exploratory study”,The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 91 No. 1, pp. 19-26.
Psychology
in executive
coaching
Smither, J. (2011), “Can psychotherapy research serve as a guide for research about executive
coaching? An agenda for the next decade”,Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 2,
pp. 135-145.
Sonesh, S.C., Coultas, C.W., Lacerenza, C.N., Marlow, S.L., Benishek, L.E. and Salas, E. (2015), “The
power of coaching: a meta-analytic investigation”,Coaching: An International Journal of Theory,
Research and Practice, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 73-95.
*Stevens, J.H. Jr (2005), “Executive coaching from the executive’s perspective”,Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 274-285.
Stokes, J. and Jolly, R. (2018), “Executive and leadership coaching”, in Cox, E., Bachkirova, T. and
Clutterbuck, D. (Eds), The Complete Handbook of Coaching, 3rd ed., SAGE, London, pp. 247-261.
Theeboom, T., Beersma, B. and van Vianen, A. (2014), “Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on the
effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context”,Journal of Positive
Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Wahn, J.C. (1998), “Sex differences in the continuance component of organizational commitment”,
Group and Organization Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 256-266.
*Wasylyshyn, K.M. (2003), “Executive coaching: an outcome study”,Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 94-106.
*Weinberg, A. (2016), “The preventative impact of management coaching on psychological strain”,
International Coaching Psychology Review, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 93-105.
*Williams, J.S. and Lowman, R.L. (2018), “The efficacy of executive coaching: an empirical
investigation of two approaches using random assignment and a switching-replications design”,
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 70 No. 3, pp. 227-249.
*Yu, N., Collins, C.G., Cavanagh, M., White, K. and Fairbrother, G. (2008), “Positive coaching with
frontline managers: enhancing their effectiveness and understanding why”,International
Coaching Psychology Review, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 110-122.
Further reading
Joo, B. (2005), “Executive coaching: a conceptual framework from an integrative review of practice and
research”,Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 462-488.
*Moen, F., Federici, R.A. and Abrahamsen, F. (2015), “Examining possible relationships between
mindfulness, stress, school-and sport performances and athlete burnout”,International Journal
of Coaching Science, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 3-19.
About the authors
Yi-Ling Lai (PhD, CPsychol) is currently Senior Lecturer at the University of Portsmouth. Her main
research areas include common factors for an effective coaching alliance and the psychological effects
on the workplace coaching outcomes. In addition, Yi-Ling’s recent research project focuses on the
application of psychological-focused coaching interventions into workplace well-being issues. Yi-Ling
has published several journal papers and book chapters on the psychological theories in the coaching
process. Yi-Ling Lai is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: yi-ling.lai@port.ac.uk
Stephen Palmer (PhD) is a leading Coaching Psychologist and is President of the International
Society for Coaching Psychology. He is Founder Director of the Coaching Psychology Unit at City,
University of London. He is Professor of practice at the Wales Academy for Professional Practice and
Applied Research, University of Wales Trinity Saint David, and Adjunct Professor of Coaching
Psychology at the Coaching Psychology Unit, Aalborg University. He was the first Chair of the
British Psychology Society Special Group in Coaching Psychology. He has written/edited over
50 books including the Handbook of Coaching Psychology: A Guide for Practitioners (2nd edition)
(with Whybrow, 2019).
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
JWAM