Content uploaded by Erik de Haan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Erik de Haan on Oct 08, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
‘This book presents the entire spectrum of empirical coaching research to date and
depicts an almost complete status quo of coaching research.
The book is therefore suitable for researchers to identify the gaps that coaching
research has not yet addressed and for practitioners of any school and any
methodological background who either want to read up on the subject of eectiveness
or are motivated to gain inspiration on how to enrich their coaching practice with
evidence-based elements and ‘magic ingredients’ that help their clients the most.
I am convinced that this book will be a future standard reference for coaching
researchers and practitioners interested in evidence-based coaching and, despite the
title, definitely is not limited to executive coaching.’
—DrKatharina Ebner, Senior Lecturer, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität
Erlangen-Nürnberg, Germany
This book reviews the full coaching outcome research literature to examine the
arguments and evidence behind the use of executive coaching. Erik de Haan presents
the definitive guide to what works in coaching and what changes coaching brings
about, both for individual coaches and for organisations and commissioners.
Accessibly written and based on contemporary quantitative research into coaching
eectiveness, this book considers whether we know that coaching works, and, if so,
whom it works for, and what it oers to those involved. What Works in Executive
Coaching considers the entire body of academic literature on quantitative research
in executive and workplace coaching, assessing the significant results and explaining
how to apply them. Each chapter contains direct applications to coaching practice
and clearly evaluates the evidence, defining what really works in executive coaching.
Alongside its companion volume Critical Moments in Executive Coaching, this
book is an essential guide to evidence-based eectiveness in coaching. It will be a key
text for all coaching practitioners, including those in training.
Erik de Haan studied Theoretical Physics and undertook his PhD in Psychophysics.
He is Director of the Ashridge Centre for Coaching at Hult International Business
School, UK, and Professor of Organisation Development at the VU University in
Amsterdam, the Netherlands. He is the programme leader of Ashridge’s MSc in
Executive Coaching and PG Diploma in Organisational Supervision. He has published
more than 200 professional and research articles and 14 books, covering his expertise
as an organisational consultant, therapist, and executive coach.
What Works in Executive Coaching
What Works in Executive
Coaching
Understanding Outcomes Through
Quantitative Research and Practice-Based
Evidence
Erik de Haan
First published 2021
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor& Francis Group, an informa business
© 2021 Erik de Haan
The right of Erik de Haan to be identified as author of this work has been
asserted by him in accordance with sections77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or
registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation
without intent to infringe.
Extract from Little Gidding by T. S. Eliot, as printed in Four Quartets (1942)
appears here by kind permission of Faber and Faber Ltd.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
A catalog record for this book has been requested
ISBN: 978-0-367-64942-5 (hbk)
ISBN: 978-0-367-64943-2 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-12705-5 (ebk)
Typeset in Sabon
by Apex CoVantage, LLC
To my friend Tony Grant, leader in quantitative research in
coaching, who left us too soon
We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the rst time.
T.S. Eliot, Little Gidding, 1942
Contents
Highlights of the book xv
Introduction 1
An interlude before Chapter1 11
1 Does executive coaching work? Is coaching worth the eort? 13
Part A: some controversies 14
Controversy 1: how universal and generalisable are the
results? 14
Controversy 2: choice-supportive biases skewing the results
towards false positives 15
Controversy 3: if the same people are asked to measure all
variables, biases will result 17
Controversy 4: the Hawthorne eect 17
Controversy 5: realistic settings do not satisfy lab research
conditions 18
Controversy 6: the diminishing power of statistical tests on the
same data 19
Controversy 7: nonattendance of participants in coaching and in
research 20
Controversy 8: nonrepresentative samples 20
Controversy 9: coaching is not very sharply defined 21
Part B: how to establish whether coaching works 22
Part C: overview of outcomes of coaching research with randomised
control groups 25
1 Randomised controlled experiments in health coaching 25
2 Randomised controlled experiments in workplace coaching 28
3 Limitations of past research 35
Part D: what it means for coaching practice 36
xii Contents
An interlude before Chapter2 39
2 What works in executive coaching? What makes coaching really
worthwhile? 41
Part A: some controversies 41
Controversy 1: what to do with studies of a dierent standard
thanRCTs 42
Controversy 2: the technique versus common-factors debate 43
Controversy 3: dicult to compare dierent studies when they
usedierent constructs 44
Controversy 4: where does ‘technique’ end and do ‘common
factors’ begin? 45
Part B: how to establish the ‘active ingredients’ 46
Part C: overview of more evidence with an eye for possible active
ingredients of coaching 49
1 Overview of coaching outcome research I: evaluation or field
studies 50
2 Overview of coaching outcome research II: incorporating
objective outcome variables 52
3 Manager-as-coach research with objective outcome
variables 54
4 Overview of coaching outcome research III: employing control
groups 56
5 Overview of coaching research which compares conditions 61
6 Overview of coaching research which compares techniques
ofcoaching 67
7 Overview of coaching research which compares virtual and face-
to-face coaching 72
Part D: what it means for coaching practice 73
An interlude before Chapter3 85
3 The coaching relationship as ‘best predictor’? How does the working
alliance help to achieve outcomes? 87
Part A: some controversies 88
Controversy 1: does the ‘medical model’ apply? 90
Controversy 2: does the ‘therapy model’ apply? 90
Controversy 3: causality is still open to debate 91
Controversy 4: the puzzle of ‘the’ relationship 91
Controversy 5: what is the core of ‘the’ relationship? 92
Controversy 6: how to optimise the relationship factor 92
Part B: what we need to know about this ‘best predictor’ 93
Contents xiii
Part C: overview of coaching relationship outcome research 95
1 A brief review of research on the coaching relationship 95
2 A brief review of relevant mentoring outcome research 95
3 Longitudinal research on the coaching relationship 96
4 An interpretation of these findings 98
5 Future research: time to think dierently about active
ingredients 99
Part D: what it means for coaching practice 100
An interlude before Chapter4 103
4 Which outcomes does coaching actually deliver? What does
executive coaching work on? 105
Part A: some controversies 106
Controversy 1: very high diversity of study methods 106
Controversy 2: some contradictory findings 107
Controversy 3: the possibility of moderation 108
Controversy 4: it’s hard to see the wood for the trees, because of
many weak results 108
Part B: how to establish dierent coaching outcomes 109
Part C: overview of what we know about outcome measures 113
1 Changes to objective measures 114
2 Changes to multi-source performance measures 116
3 Changes to self-rated personality measures 118
4 Changes to self-rated preparedness or well-being measures 119
5 Changes to self-rated goal-attainment measures 121
6 Changes for the coach rather than the coachee 121
Part D: what it means for coaching practice 122
An interlude before Chapter5 127
5 What perceptual biases may be at play? Can we trust a coach’s
perceptions of coaching? 131
Part A: some controversies 131
Controversy 1: what is so bad about the biases in self-scores? 133
Controversy 2: what is so bad about using self-scores for
research? 133
Controversy 3: is the distinction between self- and other-scores not
artificial? 133
Part B: how to establish coaching self-perception outcomes 134
1 Research showing coaching changes personal ratings of
performance 134
xiv Contents
2 Research showing the coach’s mindset about change is an
important predictor of outcomes 134
3 Research showing that mindsets of coach and coachee about
change strengthen one another 135
4 Research showing that coaches develop perceptual biases in
looking at their own skills 135
Part C: overview of what we know about perceptual biases in
coaches about their own coaching 136
1 A brief review of research on coaching interventions 136
2 Research on coaching interventions using the Coaching
Behaviours Questionnaire 138
3 Significant dierences found for gender, age, job, and nationality
of the coach 140
4 An interpretation of these findings 142
Part D: what it means for coaching practice 144
An interlude before Chapter6 147
6 What about negative side eects of coaching? Are there risks?
Cancoaching do harm? 151
Part A: some controversies 152
Controversy 1: can we actually treat ‘negative’ outcomes separate
from ‘positive’ ones? 152
Controversy 2: is there an assumption that reported experiences
are significant outcomes? 153
Controversy 3: there seems to be a dierence between the coaching
and mentoring literature 154
Part B: how to establish negative side eects of coaching 155
Part C: overview of what we know about side eects 157
Part D: what it means for coaching practice 160
1 What do coaches need to know about negative (side) eects in
coaching? 160
2 What expert advice can we give to coaches who want to do
quantitative research? 161
3 What moral advice can we give to coaches who want to do
quantitative research? 162
References 165
Subject index 180
Author index 181
Highlights of the book
• The definitive guide about what works in coaching and what changes coaching
brings about
• The coaching ‘evidence base’ made accessible without formulas, statistics, and
nearly no numbers
• Containing a section in every chapter about what it all means for coaching
practice:
• What it means for your clients if you are a coach
• What it means for your organisation if you are a commissioner of coaching
• Do we know coaching works? (the answer: ‘yes, probably’)
• If coaching works, for whom does it work?
• If coaching works, what does it give to coachees, their reports, and their
organisations?
• For your coaching to work, what do you need to emphasize in your coaching
conversations?
• Including some early explorations of negative side eects of coaching
Introduction
This book captures our best answers to the question ‘What works in executive coach-
ing?’ at the time of writing. Ianalyse all findings about eectiveness and outcome in
executive and workplace coaching, by looking at three core questions: can we dem-
onstrate eectiveness? Do we know the circumstances in which coaching is (most)
eective? Do we know the kind of eectiveness that coaching has, i.e. the outcomes
or impact that coaching tends to have, e.g. on the coachee and more widely on
organisations?
It is ironic that virtually every coaching research article begins with the observation
that despite the rapid growth in application, coaching has essentially been under-
researched and that we know very little about its eectiveness. However, this is no
longer true! The last 15years have seen a veritable explosion of coaching research,
and it has now become very easy to find hundreds of original, good-quality research
articles with interesting experiments and significant findings. If we compare this with
the larger field that coaching is a part of: leadership and organisation development,
then we realise that coaching has a much stronger evidence base than its first cousins
and may even begin to inform those wider professions and lend them the beginnings
of an understanding whether, how, and towards what they may contribute to today’s
organisations.
I have endeavoured to capture the entire workplace and executive coaching litera-
ture to date. In my keenness to include the broadest range of quantitatively rigorous,
valid research Iwent slightly outside the domain of executive coaching per se. Not so
much into psychotherapy outcome research, which Ihave done already in Relational
Coaching (De Haan, 2008) and which has since been summarised by many others.
This time Ibroadened out to other organisational interventions with some similarity
to executive coaching, which have been equally well researched. Managerial and life
coaching, mentoring, multi-source feedback, and corporate training all have some
good evidence behind them. In this book Imake fairly extensive excursions in those
other directions: the impressive number of health-coaching randomised controlled
trials (in Chapter1), the management-coaching (‘manager as coach’) outcome litera-
ture (in Chapter2), and the mentoring outcome literature (in Chapter3); moreover,
some eectiveness studies of 360-degree feedback and training or instruction are also
mentioned, e.g. when the word ‘coaching’ was used in that research. All in all, Ihave
selected well over 200 original empirical studies all using valid statistical analysis.
Ibelieve Ihave surveyed this database from a wider perspective– the perspective of
what it all means and how it can inform our coaching– for the first time.
2 Introduction
I am conscious that there are many more coaching articles than I have brought
together here, that oer definitions and experiences of coaching, and Isummarise a
smaller cross-section of these articles. Iam also aware that there are thousands more
‘practitioner articles’ that oer views and opinions about coaching trends. Trying to
bring all of those into this overview would have been ponderous and something of
a distraction since neither of these large classes of coaching articles oers any new
statistical evidence. The only class of articles that are not covered by this book but
are nevertheless worth reading because they bring in evidence of a dierent kind, are
the over 100 qualitative articles in coaching, which Ihave analysed separately, in De
Haan, 2019a, 2019b.
In this way, the book neatly complements the companion volume Critical Moments
in Executive Coaching (De Haan, 2019a), where around 100 original qualitative
research studies in coaching are summarised and analysed to extract their advice for
practicing coaches. Here, Ihope to do the same for quantitative research, where we
have around three times as large a research base, leading to many more findings with
advice for coaches. Whilst in the earlier book coaches can recognise themselves in all
the cases and field studies but are never quite sure what recommendations to take
from those cases, in this book coaches will occasionally struggle to see how the rather
general and abstract knowledge can be useful for their own practice and clients, even
if this time the advice is clear, unambiguous, and backed up by numbers, even by
‘evidence’ (evidence usually consisting of significant eects or demonstrably likely null
results). Very few of the studies that went into Critical Moments in Executive Coach-
ing are used again in this book: only those that were able to assemble many hundreds
of qualitative ‘data points’ that then could be reaped in terms of general, quantifiable
conclusions and ‘evidence’ statements.
I think this book will be controversial and should be controversial, just as all quan-
titative research is and has to be controversial, until such a time that we have emerg-
ing, broad agreement about findings, like in the much larger and established research
bases of medicine and the natural sciences– albeit that the most advanced research
in those fields will be equally competitive, controversial, and polemic as it is for us in
executive coaching. Iwill shed a light on controversy at the beginning of every chapter,
highlighting at least three areas each chapter where there is disputation, controversy,
or dogmatic squabbling. Feelings may run high and convictions may run deep. Iper-
sonally love this aspect of research; it gives a great passion and liveliness to what are
essentially cold numbers about no one in particular. What I have tried to do with
these passions is mainly to be as explicit about them as Icould, including about my
own. Iam a physicist by background, so Ihave a basic trust in statistics to ultimately
lead us beyond controversy, and Iam also a ‘psychoanalytical’ psychotherapist and
a ‘relational’ coach which may mean that Ihave more faith in some approaches than
in others; although ultimately Ihave the most faith in ‘having faith’ (i.e. the powerful
‘allegiance’ to your own approach, whichever it is) than in any particular creed or
methodology of coaching.
I give most space to what are objectively more rigorous, larger-scale, and more
significant studies; to highly original yet thorough methodologies; and to counterex-
amples. Less rigorous studies only get a brief mention or do not figure at all in this
book, e.g. if they are very small scale and do not make use of control groups. The
choice regarding how much space to give any single study was often a dicult one,
What works in executive coaching? 3
and it was usually made on the basis of how unique the study was, whether it was a
single counter-example to a series of other articles that had demonstrated a significant
relationship, or whether it was another supportive source for a fairly well-established
result. Ihad to make these decisions in order to keep the book easily readable and
not too unwieldy. Moreover, it would have felt distinctly unfair and unscientific if
much less rigorous studies would have been given equal space and attention in the
book. Ido realise though that in the end this remains a highly subjective choice and
that Ican be accused of partisanship, bias, favouritism, perhaps blind admiration or
conversely, exaggerated scepsis and doubt. One thing Ilearned in science is that we
all have our biases.
Notwithstanding my biases, Itried to select objectively and summarise frankly and
to the best of my ability, on the basis of merit within the context of all coaching
outcome studies, and without taking into consideration the personal reputations of,
let alone my personal acquaintances with any of the authors. The tremendous risk
of false positives in executive-coaching research (which will be argued in Chapter1)
has also been explored by Grover and Furnham (2016) in their review of coaching
outcome research. Iam glad to say that my choices and summaries overlap with their
risk estimates, i.e. Ihave mostly based my conclusions on their ‘low-risk’ papers and
others such, which Ihave found independently.
It is surprising that some of the best, most credible, and most rigorous studies
(Duijts et al., 2008; Liu& Batt, 2010, just to name a few), are actually amongst the
least-known and least quoted in the coaching research literature, and have often been
overlooked in review studies and meta-analyses. Ido not know if this is because they
were published slightly outside the typical ‘coaching’ journals or for other reasons.
Let me mention a few of my convictions when it comes to ‘doing’ the research and
‘publishing’ it that have played on my mind as Iwas writing this book. They made it
harder in some cases to come to a valid and reasonably objective summary of certain
contributions. Firstly, Ihave encountered the problem of publishing several seemingly
original articles which nevertheless refer to the same dataset, a practice sometimes
called ‘data slicing.’ Moen and Skaalvik’s dataset can be found four times in peer-
reviewed journals, headed up by dierent co-authors, so it takes a while to realise that
they are all essentially the same experiment. And there are other examples of single
studies reported over a series of articles, e.g. the works mentioned with first author
Bozer, Baron and MacKie in this book. Secondly, Ihave come across the related prob-
lem of original research papers which include older datasets that had already been
published. The Zimmermann and Antoni and the Kaueld et al. references are just
some examples of this phenomenon, where we are left in the dark as to what propor-
tion of the findings is based on new data collected specifically for the particular article.
In such cases, where conclusions based on only the new data might be contradictory or
insignificant on their own, the studies may artificially boost significance or gloss over
other dierences within their spread-out data. It has been impossible to check if later
measurements and additions are dependent upon the earlier reported significances.
I know that in some cases in the book (e.g. Teemant, 2014; Vande Walle et al., 2020)
the interventions which were being called ‘coaching’ were perhaps better described as
‘instruction’ or ‘mentoring,’ i.e. a rather dierent intervention that has actually been
demonstrated to have dierent eects (see, e.g., Sun et al., 2013; Hui et al., 2013;
Deane et al., 2014, for articles comparing coaching and instruction). I believe it is
4 Introduction
still too early to separate out from the coaching outcome literature all directive, edu-
cational, and instructional interventions which still go by the name of ‘coaching,’ so
Ihave kept all of those in with a warning to the reader.
Does this book now summarise the whole quantitative research literature in coach-
ing? We will never know. Even if it does, it will probably be incomplete in only a few
months’ time. Moreover, I do know that a certain type of article, the fairly typical
pre- and post-measurement evaluative field study without a control group (i.e. what is
often called a ‘within-subjects analysis’), with only self-reported variables, has not been
completely represented. After reading maybe a hundred of these papers, Idecided to
keep just a few of the best ones in, add the ones that are most often quoted, and then
close the shop for all the others. Iregret therefore that Icould not incorporate many
local samples in this category, from dierent geographies and organisations. Ihave
also checked but then disregarded many studies with tiny sample sizes, where the out-
comes reported could just as well be a chance occurrence in such a small population.1
In fact, if there were one way in which we can improve coaching outcome research
for the future, then it would be simply by increasing our sample sizes: we could fore-
stall so many (unfortunately there are many!) false positives or studies where only the
inherently biased ‘self-scores’ reach statistical significance.
In order to make all the studies in this book easiest to compare Ihave converted
all reported eects (in η-squares, F’s, proportions of explained variability, correlation
coecients, β-coecients, success rates, odds ratios, etcetera) to the standard ‘eect
size’ δ. It may be good to be reminded that generally a range of δ up to 0.1 is consid-
ered ‘no eect’ (although many cancer treatments are still based on such low δ’s and
do save many lives!), then from 0.1 to 0.4 δ signifies a small eect, then from 0.4 to
0.7 an intermediate eect, and any δ above 0.7 is termed a large eect (Cohen, 1988),
just because the dierence (delta, δ) between the distributions (e.g. involving ‘coach-
ing’ and ‘no coaching’) is getting progressively larger.
No introduction to a research analysis book would be complete without a word
of ‘kudos’ to all the many coaching researchers who have been so dedicated and
thorough to bring their experiments to an end and stick with the ups and downs
of the editorial process. They are applying huge eorts to produce those deltas and
other hunches, often in their spare time and weekends. It is high time we dedicate
a book to the fruits of these quantitative coaching researchers. I think it is safe
to say that they are the most courageous, serious, and hardworking in our wider
profession:
Courageous because they dare to challenge and explore with an open mind the
time-honoured truths in the profession, or at least, when their strong beliefs and
opinions are underpinning their commitment as researchers, they dare to put
their own fond ideas to the test, where there is always a chance they will have to
reconsider them. Researchers open themselves up to doubt, and coaches know
from experience how important the courage to doubt is in coaching conversa-
tions too (De Haan, 2008).
Serious because they will only listen to empirical findings and to arguments that
can be backed up by data and valid information. And they will consider those
arguments and views critically, so as to investigate whether dierent conclusions
can be based on the same data.
What works in executive coaching? 5
And hardworking because they stick with their research designs and bring them all
the way to publication (in most cases). From my early days when Iwas a full-time
researcher Ican calculate the time it has cost me to produce one peer-reviewed
paper: Iwrote four articles in a little over four years (1990–1994), i.e. Iexpended
at least 1,600, possibly 2,000hours per article. Compare that with an opinion
piece that most of us can write in a day, something of the scope of this Introduc-
tion: just ten hours and therefore only half a percent of the time it would take to
undertake a proper scientific investigation. Iknow this number of hours per scien-
tific publication drops over the years, and for me it has made a real dierence that
Inow have generous support in the areas of library services (thank you so much
Rachel Piper and Claire Shaw), data administration (thank you again Audrey
Vandenborne, Sue Gammons, and Judy Curd) and statistical analysis (thank you
profoundly Viktor Nilsson and Nadine Page). Nevertheless, Iwould estimate it
is still many hundreds of hours of work for every single article, and such hours
need to be multiplied by close to the number of authors above an empirical article.
We as practicing coaches need to make use of what these industrious and conscien-
tious researchers bring us, if only because it is the single verifiable and objective source
of ‘hard’ data that we can glean about our own hunches, doubts, contracts, oers of
help, and sessions of coaching– the only compass that can tell us if what we are doing
now, bringing the best of our judgement, will make sense, add value, acquire meaning,
or develop an organisation that hires us.
Even after a few hundred rigorous empirical research studies in coaching, i.e. pos-
sibly millions of hours of work for all the researchers involved, there are still so many
unanswered questions, new untested hypotheses that the research has generated, and
uncharted territories: the coming years in this profession will be no less fascinating
than the busy decade behind.
In this book Iwill analyse all findings pertaining to eectiveness and outcome by
looking at three core review questions: (1) Can we demonstrate eectiveness? (2) Do
we know the circumstances in which coaching is (most) eective? (3) Do we know the
kind of eectiveness that coaching has, i.e. the impact that coaching tends to have?
The six chapters of this book analyse a comprehensive coaching research literature
with those three review questions in mind. Chapters1, 2, and 4 summarise the full
evidence base in terms of the three review questions:
1 whether coaching works (Chapter1)
2 which contents or aspects of coaching work (Chapter2)
3 towards what kinds of changes coaching works (Chapter4)
Or, to put it still more concisely, whether it works Chapter1, how it works Chapter2,
and for whom it works Chapter4.
The other three chapters are more narrowly focused. They deal with three conten-
tious issues in the field: whether the coaching relationship is the ‘best predictor’ of the
coaching outcomes that we have, as some say (Chapter3), how self-perceptions and
biases distort the coaching results yet at the same time help the coach to do good work
(Chapter5), and whether there are any contraindications or negative side eects of
coaching that need to be taken into account (Chapter6).
6 Introduction
I believe that this larger overview can do more than simply provide executive
coaches with the latest information on ‘what works’ in their field. The results as sum-
marised here may be the best guidance on objective outcomes that we can provide in
adjacent fields as well. Team coaching, organisation-development consulting, process
consultation, even expert consulting– they all have a lot less research behind them
than (executive) coaching. They are, however, equally conversational in nature, so one
would expect similar factors to be evidenced when rigorous research could be done
in those fields. In fact, for group and team coaching one might expect slightly higher
eectiveness than for individual coaching, because such has been found in the adjacent
field of psychotherapy (Yalom& Leszcz, 2005).
If you want to quickly find out about the eectiveness of coaching and about what
science has to say about what works and for whom and what it delivers, this can all
be done in five minutes, by reading the special one-page summaries at the end of each
of the six chapters. Idare say they tell you all a coach needs to remember from what
quantitative research has demonstrated.
Every chapter is also preceded by a short ‘case vignette’ from my own coaching
practice, anonymised in the usual way (they are mostly amalgamations of dierent
client assignments, and in those instances where they are based on specific work,
Ihave asked the main client for permission to publish in this anonymised form).
The case material is not intended to demonstrate anything that is argued within
the chapter. It is only to make sure that we do not lose sight of the work itself, the
beauty of coaching. In other words, these ‘interludes’ are intended as gentle remind-
ers of what coaching is about and what knotty issues and complexities coaches
face that will have to be entirely overlooked by the data gatherers of quantitative
research. Inescapably, all of this content in coaching conversations gets skimmed
over to collect the one or two data points that the quantitative researcher needs,
which is why it is so hard for some of us coaches to understand that the fruits
of research still have an important bearing on practice. All statistically signifi-
cant trends amongst research variables play a hidden role in every coaching case,
almost like the individual subconscious, guiding and moulding the work in the
background, striking us like the sudden appearance of a deus ex machina, or
accompanying us like a guardian angel – and so it might really pay o to know
about them.
Finally, here is what Iwould personally really like to know next about coaching–
all are areas that have never been researched as far as Iknow but that are amenable to
quantitative research. With some eort we could begin to test these assertions:
• The importance of allowing the client to take charge (nondirectiveness)
• The importance of relational work with clients including here-and-now hypotheses
• The importance of a conducive organisational environment for coaching
• And conversely, the impact of coaching on third parties in the organisation
• The importance of coaching with a truly open mind (‘without memory or desire’)
• The importance of the very beginning of the session for our understanding
• The importance of ruptures and staying with ruptures
• The importance of completing a qualification or accreditation as a coach
• The unimportance of experience for the eectiveness of a coach
What works in executive coaching? 7
I would like to profusely thank a few very kind people. Claire Shaw, Lisette Tepe,
and Rachel Piper of the VU and Hult Ashridge university libraries: without your
ability to trace and source all those quantitative studies– even the original, unpub-
lished ones in PhD dissertations, this book would never have come into existence.
My father, Laurens de Haan, who is emeritus professor of statistics, read the manu-
script and oered very valuable advice. My colleague David Birch improved the
style of the introduction. Arend van Dam drew the cartoons at the beginning of
each chapter.
Last but not least I would like to thank the amazing co-authors that have helped
with the outcome studies that I am reporting on again in this book: David Birch, Sally
Bonneywell, Yvonne Burger, Vicki Culpin, Judy Curd, Anna Duckworth, Per-Olof
Eriksson, Tony Grant, David Gray, Claire Jones, Joanna Molyn, and Viktor Nilsson.
After completing the book, Iasked seven fellow researchers in the coaching profes-
sions to check my data and interpretations, and to come up with a few sentences to
describe the book. Here are the conclusions they came to upon reading the book:
This is a great contribution to the practice and science of coaching. I find the
controversy issues raised at the opening of each chapter very useful and essential
as they provide us with a more balanced perspective of the story that is being
told in each chapter. Ialso greatly value the guidelines for both practitioners and
researchers to better assess and interpret coaching research findings and ultimately
become more informed consumers of coaching research. This book celebrates the
exciting journey of discovery that workplace coaching scholars have achieved to
date and on the same breath highlights areas that need to be further addressed.
– Gil Bozer, PhD, Sr Lecturer of Coaching,
Sapir Academic College, Israel
This book will be an instant classic! It can advance coaching research in many
ways. Not only does it provide a comprehensive review of the literature to date, it
also reviews this literature in an open, critical, courageous, and creative way. The
book goes beyond summarizing the results and pointing out directions for future
research. It challenges your way of thinking about (executive) coaching, about
what eectiveness means, about how we can and should measure it, and about
how we should continue to build an evidence base for (executive) coaching. This
book should be on the reading list for everyone who is professionally involved in
coaching in any way.
– Dr. Tim Theeboom, Sr Lecturer at Center for Coaching,
VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
I found this book extremely interesting, very well written and actually a pleasure
to read. Iloved the vignettes at the beginning of each chapter: they fit very well.
Ialso appreciated that every chapter starts with the controversies – as a way to
acknowledge the issues even before the successes of coaching, which is rare com-
pared to a lot of uncritical enthusiasm that coaching often elicits. All eect sizes
are made comparable by transforming them into standard delta’s. At the end of
the book there is an impeccable guide for good (ethical) research. Thank you for
8 Introduction
a very fine book that is rigorous, scholarly and solid but speaks to a very broad
audience.
– Silvia Dello Russo, Associate Professor,
Toulouse Business School, France
This is a wonderfully interesting book that helps clearing up lots of enquiries,
rumours and controversy about coaching. Unlike many other practitioner books,
you base your discussion on a solid and comprehensive review of prior research
studies. More importantly, you provide a wider and more inclusive view about
coaching that will benefit researchers and practitioners alike.
– DrRay Hui, Assistant Professor, NUCB Business School,
Nagoya University of Commerce and Business, Japan
Thank you for the opportunity to read your new book which builds bridges and
at the same time oers both interesting controversies and new impulses. Ilove the
way you write: well understandable; reflective; tying all these loose ends in coach-
ing research; and interesting for both practitioners and researchers. Only someone
with rich practical and scientific experience could have written such a book! And
what an impressive task to gather and analyze all those research articles. Iparticu-
larly enjoyed and was challenged by your thoughts regarding the research on the
working alliance. Irealized Inow may have to abandon well known, comfortable,
widely shared perspectives on the working alliance. Iam not sure if Ihave already
‘bought in’ but your thoughts stimulate me to think again about the complex rela-
tional dynamics that take place between coaches and clients.
– Professor Patrizia Ianiro-Dahm, University of
Applied Sciences Bonn-Rhein-Sieg, Germany
Navigating the field ofcoachinghas always been a challenge. Twenty years ago,
the salient questions were, What is it really?Who should I use? and Where’s
the research?Two decades on, the emergence of a decent and growingevidence-
basehas created other navigational challenges, with stakeholders left to wonder,
What sort ofevidence is best? andWhat can be said to work?Inthis book vital
navigationalassistance is provided, by addressingthese and many other questions.
Importantly, Ilike that the bookprovidesaneminently clear expression of the
factors that contribute to quality inquantitative research in coaching, andover-
views the intricacies of research in a way that is accessible and should increase the
researchliteracy of readers. What Iespecially appreciated was the view that good
qualitycoaching research is bloody hard to do; something that (I suspect)is not
sowellappreciated. Particularlythe sort ofresearch that is more valuable:designs
thathave someecological validity to them and resemble what happens in the real
world. So much of what you say is not just relevant for practitioners andthepur-
chasers of coaching, but also for researchers, who can sometimes become blink-
ered intheir work andbenefit fromhelpful reminders.
– Dr. Gordon Spence, Senior Lecturer, Sydney Business School,
University of Wollongong, Australia
London, Erik de Haan, July2020
What works in executive coaching? 9
Note
1 To be more precise in terms of the selection criteria in this book, Iaccepted all original empiri-
cal articles in all languages, which had dependent variables (coaching outcomes) and at least
a sample size of N > 20 which included a comparison group or a comparison condition, i.e.
no pre-/post-studies without comparisons of which there are very many, but arguably they
cannot demonstrate much. Although 99% of the studies selected were peer reviewed and
published as dissertations or journal articles, I did also accept unpublished studies where
Icould find them.
References
1 This can be a real killer for executives: asking someone to be more ‘strategic’ or ‘proactive.’
It means asking them at the same time to obey you and follow your lead, and to be more
spontaneous and follow their own best insight. It will be impossible to satisfy the internal
contradictions in that request so that usually the coachee gets stuck in what is technically
called a ‘paradoxical injunction,’ an instruction to do something that is rendered impossible
by the instruction itself.
1 In physics however the five sigma threshold is generally agreed upon as the hallmark of a
‘scientific discovery,’ because it has only a one-in-3.5million chance of a false positive; e.g.
when the Higgs boson was confirmed to be first detected in 2012. Within the same year the
particle was confirmed even with seven sigma accuracy, which seems important enough
given that it was an entirely new and highly foundational building block of matter.
2 See Myers et al. (1998) for background on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator MBTI.
3 See Hogan and Hogan (1997) for background on the Hogan suite of personality instruments.
4 See Smith et al. (2008) for background on the Brief Resilience Scale.
5 Self-ecacy measures were introduced by Bandura (1997).
6 See Tennant et al. (2007) for the Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale WEMWBS.
7 For Zimet’s multidimensional scale of Perceived Social Support see Zimet et al., 1988.
8 For Ashridge’s Coaching Behaviours Questionnaire see De Haan and Nilsson (2017) and
Chapter5 of this book.
9 Working alliance, as originally defined by Greenson (1965), is a measure for the strength of
the coaching relationship. Bordin (1979) suggested that the working alliance can be thought
of as a combination of agreement on tasks, agreement on goals and strength of bonds. Based
on Bordin’s (1979) model, Horvath and Greenberg (1986) designed the Working Alliance
Inventory with three sub-variables: tasks, goals, and bonds. This is now the most widely
used of many well-validated tools to measure working alliance
10 In the earlier Vale et al. (2002) randomised controlled trial with 245 coronary heart disease
patients, the eect size had been very similar (δ=6.0; p < 0.0001), and an equivalence was
found between the four phone coaching sessions in the trial and lipid-lowering pharmaco-
therapy. Just as in psychiatry we find here that helping conversations and drugs are about
equally eective (compare Wampold, 2001).
11 Viktor Nilsson and I will publish our meta-analysis of those 34 coaching randomised con-
trolled trials where we could retrieve all relevant data, in 2021.
1 This is the only reference in this book that Iwas not able to read in full. Ibase myself on long
summaries kindly communicated to me by the project’s supervisor, Siegfried Greif.
2 This phenomenon has also been found in psychotherapy, e.g. Goldberg et al. (2016), where
other explanations are given than the one in George et al. (2020).
1 We find that the three components of the working alliance go up from session to session by
1 to 2%. We also find that coachees’ ratings of the working alliance components are 10%
more stable than coaches’ ratings, as expressed by the standard deviations.
1 The first version of the questionnaire was created and used by Richard Phillips in 1994, and
subsequent versions were developed with help from Alex Davda, Helen Lockett, John Pate-
man, and Judy Curd at Ashridge.
Agarwal, R., Angst, C. M.& Magni, M. (2009). The performance eects of coaching: Amul-
tilevel analysis using hierarchical linear modeling. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 20, 2110–2134.
Alameddine, M. B., Englesbe, M. J.& Waits, S. A. (2018). Avideo-based coaching interven-
tion to improve surgical skill in fourth-year medical students. Journal of Surgical Educa-
tion,75(6), 1475–1479.
Allan, J., Leeson, P., De Fruyt, F. & Martin, S. (2018). Application of a 10 week coaching
program designed to facilitate volitional personality change: Overall eects on personality
and the impact of targeting. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentor-
ing,16(1), 80–94.
Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E.& Lima, L. (2004). Career benefits associated
with mentoring for protégés: Ameta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 127–136.
Andreano, J. (2016). Issues in conducting quantitative studies on the impact of coaching and
mentoring in higher education. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Men-
toring, 10, 202–216.
Anthony, A., Gimbert, B. & Fultz, D. (2013). The eect of e-coaching attendance on alter-
natively certified teachers’ sense of self-ecacy.Journal of Technology and Teacher Educa-
tion,21(3), 277–299.
Athanasopoulou, A.& Dopson, S. (2018). Asystematic review of executive coaching outcomes:
Is it the journey or the destination that matters the most? The Leadership Quarterly,29(1),
70–88.
Atkins, P. W. & Wood, R. E. (2002). Self-versus others’ ratings as predictors of assessment
center ratings: Validation evidence for 360-degree feedback programs. Personnel Psychol-
ogy,55(4), 871–904.
Aust, B., Rugulies, R., Finken, A.& Jensen, C. (2010). When workplace interventions lead to
negative eects: Learning from failures.Scandinavian Journal of Public Health,38(Suppl. 3),
106–119.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-ecacy: The exercise of control. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Baron, L.& Morin, L. (2009). The coach‐coachee relationship in executive coaching: A field
study.Human Resource Development Quarterly,20(1), 85–106.
Baron, R. M.& Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator– Mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Behrendt, P. (2006). Wirkung und Wirkfaktoren von psychodramatischem coaching – Eine
experimentelle Evaluationsstudie. Zeitschrift für Psychodrama und Soziometrie, 5(1), 59–87.
Bennett, J. A., Perrin, N. A., Hanson, G., Bennett, D., Gaynor, W., Flaherty‐Robb, M., Joseph,
C., Butterworth, S. & Potempa, K. (2005). Healthy aging demonstration project: Nurse
coaching for behavior change in older adults. Research in Nursing& Health, 28(3), 187–197.
Berglas, S. (2002). The very real dangers of executive coaching. Harvard Business Review, June,
86–92.
Blackman, A., Moscardo, G.& Gray, D. E. (2016). Challenges for the theory and practice of
business coaching: Asystematic review of empirical evidence.Human Resource Development
Review,15(4), 459–486.
Bonrath, E. M., Dedy, N. J., Gordon, L. E.& Grantcharov, T. P. (2015). Comprehensive surgical
coaching enhances surgical skill in the operating room.Annals of Surgery,262(2), 205–212.
Bordin, H. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance.
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 16, 252–260.
Bowles, S. V., Cunningham, C. J. L., De La Rosa, G. M. & Picano, J. J. (2007). Coaching
leaders in middle and executive management: Goals, performance, buy-in. Leadership and
Organization Development Journal, 28(5), 388–408.
Bowles, S. V.& Picano, J. J. (2006). Dimensions of coaching related to productivity and quality
of life.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58(4), 232–239.
Boyce, L. A., Jackson, R. J.& Neal, L. J. (2010). Building successful leadership coaching rela-
tionships: Examining impact of matching criteria in a leadership coaching program. Journal
of Management Development, 29, 914–931.
Bozer, G., Baek-Kyoo, J. & Santora, J. C. (2015). Executive coaching: Does coach-coachee
matching based on similarity really matter? Consulting Psychology Journal: Theory and
Practice, 67(3), 218–233.
Bozer, G., Sarros, J. C.& Santora, J. C. (2013). The role of coachee characteristics in executive
coaching for eective sustainability. Journal of Management Development, 32(3), 277–294.
Bozer, G., Sarros, J. C.& Santora, J. C. (2014). Academic background and credibility in execu-
tive coaching eectiveness. Personnel Review, 43, 881–897.
Braunstein, K.& Grant, A. M. (2016). Approaching solutions or avoiding problems? The dif-
ferential eects of approach and avoidance goals with solution-focused and problem-focused
coaching questions. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice,
9(2), 93–109.
Bright, D.& Crockett, A. (2012). Training combined with coaching can make a significant dif-
ference in job performance and satisfaction.Coaching: An International Journal of Theory,
Research and Practice,5(1), 4–21.
Briner, R. B. 2012. Does coaching work and does anyone really care? Occupational Psychology
Matters, 16, 4–11.
Buljac-Samardzic, M.& Van Woerkom, M. (2015). Can managers coach their teams too much?
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30(3), 280–296.
Burk, H. G. & Eby, L. T. (2010). What keeps people in mentoring relationships when bad
things happen? Afield study from the protégé’s perspective.Journal of Vocational Behav-
ior,77(3), 437–446.
Burke, D.& Linley, P. A. (2007). Enhancing goal self-concordance through coaching.Interna-
tional Coaching Psychology Review,2(1), 62–69.
Burt, D.& Talati, Z. (2017). The unsolved value of executive coaching: Ameta-analysis of
outcomes using randomised control trial studies.International Journal of Evidence Based
Coaching and Mentoring,15(2), 17.
Carson, J. B., Tesluk, P. E.& Marrone, J. A. (2007). Shared leadership in teams: An investi-
gation of antecedent conditions and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 50,
1217–1234.
Caulat, G.& De Haan, E. (2006). Virtual peer consultation: How do virtual leaders learn?
Organisations& People, 13(4), 24–32.
Cerni, T., Curtis, G. J.& Colmar, S. H. (2010). Executive coaching can enhance transforma-
tional leadership.International Coaching Psychology Review, 5(1), 81–85.
Chan, Y. H. (2003). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) – Sample size: The magic number?
Singapore Medical Journal, 44(6), 172–174.
Chen, G. H., Ai, J.& You, Y. (2014). Managerial coaching behaviours and their relations to job
satisfaction, life satisfaction and orientations to happiness. Journal of Human Resource and
Sustainability Studies, 2, 147–156.
Chinn, A. T., Richmond, J. P.& Bennett, J. L. (2015). Walking a mile in an executive’s shoes:
The influence of shared client-coach experience on goal achievement.International Coaching
Psychology Review,10(2).
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum.
Cooper, M. (2008).Essential research findings in counselling and psychotherapy: The facts are
friendly. London: Sage.
Crits-Christoph, P., Gibbons, M. B. C., Hamilton, J., Ring-Kurtz, S.& Gallop, R. (2011). The
dependability of alliance assessments: The alliance– Outcome correlation is larger than you
might think. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 79, 267–278.
Dahling, J. J., Taylor, S. T., Chau, S. L.& Dwight, S. A. (2016). Does coaching matter? Amulti-
level model linking managerial coaching skill and frequency to sales goal attainment. Person-
nel Psychology, 69, 863–894.
De Haan, E. (2005). From stigma to status: Coaching comes of age. The Ashridge Newsletter,
Summer, 4.
De Haan, E. (2008). Relational coaching– Journeys towards mastering one-to-one learning.
Chichester: Wiley.
De Haan, E. (2019a). Critical moments in executive coaching: Understanding coaching process
through research and evidence-based theory. London& New York: Routledge.
De Haan, E. (2019b). Asystematic review of qualitative studies in workplace and executive
coaching: The emergence of a body of research. Consulting Psychology Journal, 71(4),
227–248.
De Haan, E.& Burger, Y. (2005). Coaching with colleagues: An action guide for one-to-one
learning. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
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.
De Haan, E.& Duckworth, A. (2013). Signaling a new trend in coaching outcome research.
International Coaching Psychology Review, 8(1), 6–20.
De Haan, E., Duckworth, A., Birch, D. & Jones, C. (2013). Executive coaching outcome
research: The contribution of common factors such as relationship, personality match, and
self-ecacy. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 65(1), 40–57.
De Haan, E., Grant, A., Burger, Y.& Eriksson, P.-O. (2016). Alarge-scale study of execu-
tive coaching outcome: The relative contributions of working relationship, personality
match, and self-ecacy. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 68(3),
189–207.
De Haan, E., Gray, D. E.& Bonneywell, S. (2019). Executive coaching outcome research in
a field setting: Anear-randomized controlled trial study in a global healthcare corporation.
Academy of Management Learning and Education, 18(4), 1–25.
De Haan, E., Molyn, J.& Nilsson, V. O. (2020). New findings on the eectiveness of the coach-
ing relationship: Time to think dierently about active ingredients? Consulting Psychology
Journal, 72(3), 155–167.
De Haan, E.& Nilsson, V. (2017). Evaluating coaching behaviour in managers, consultants
and coaches: Amodel, questionnaire, and initial findings. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, 69(4), 315–333.
Deane, F. P., Andresen, R., Crowe, T. P., Oades, L. G., Ciarrochi, J.& Williams, V. (2014).
A comparison of two coaching approaches to enhance implementation of a recovery-
oriented service model.Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Ser-
vices Research,41(5), 660–667.
DeBar, L. L., Ritenbaugh, C., Aickin, M., Orwoll, E., Elliot, D., Dickerson, J., Vuckovic, N.,
Stevens, V. J., Moe, E. & Irving, L. M. (2006). YOUTH: A health plan– Based lifestyle
intervention increases bone mineral density in adolescent girls. Archives of Pediatrics &
Adolescent Medicine,160(12), 1269–1276.
Dejonghe, L. A. L., Becker, J., Froboese, I. & Schaller, A. (2017). Long-term eectiveness of
health coaching in rehabilitation and prevention: Asystematic review.Patient Education and
Counseling, 100, 1643–1653.
Dello Russo, S., Miraglia, M.& Borgogni, L. (2017). Reducing organizational politics in per-
formance appraisal: The role of coaching leaders in appraising age-diverse employees. Human
Resource Management, 56, 769–783.
Deviney, D. E. (1994).The eect of coaching using multiple rater feedback to change supervisor
behavior(Doctoral dissertation). Nova University, DAI-A 55/01, p.114.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model.Annual Review
of Psychology,41(1), 417–440.
Dion, K., Berscheid, E.& Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good.Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 24(3), 285–290.
Duijts, S. F. A., Kant, I., Van den Brandt, P. A.& Swaen, G. M. H. (2008). Eectiveness of a
preventive coaching intervention for employees at risk for sickness absence due to psycho-
social health complaints: Results of a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Occupational
Environmental Medicine, 50(7), 765–776.
Dyrbye, L. N., Shanafelt, T. D., Gill, P. R., Satele, D. V.& West, C. P. (2019). Eect of a profes-
sional coaching intervention on the well-being and distress of physicians: Apilot randomized
clinical trial. Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine, 179, 1406–1414.
Ebner, K., Schulte, E., Souček, R.& Kaueld, S. (2017). Coaching as stress-management inter-
vention: The mediating role of self-ecacy in a framework of self-management and cop-
ing.International Journal of Stress Management, 25, 209–233.
Ebner, K., Souček, R.& Kaueld, S. (2020). Incongruities between values, motives, and skills:
Exploring negative eects of self-exploration in career coaching. British Journal of Guid-
ance& Counselling, 1–23.
Eby, L. T., Allen, T. D., Evans, S. C., Ng, T.& DuBois, D. L. (2008). Does mentoring mat-
ter? Amultidiscinplinary meta-analysis comparing mentored and non-mentored individuals.
Journal of Vocation Behaviour, 72, 254–267.
Eby, L. T., Durley, J. R., Evans, S. C.& Ragins, B. R. (2008). Mentors’ perceptions of negative
mentoring experiences: Scale development and nomological validation. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 93, 358–373.
Eby, L. T.& McManus, S. E. (2004). The protégé’s role in negative mentoring experiences.Jour-
nal of Vocational behavior,65(2), 255–275.
Eby, L. T., McManus, S. E., Simon, S. A. & Russell, J. E. (2000). The protege’s perspective
regarding negative mentoring experiences: The development of a taxonomy.Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior,57(1), 1–21.
Edelman, D., Oddone, E. Z., Liebowitz, R. S., Yancy, W. S., Olsen, M. K., Jereys, A. S., Moon,
S. D., Harris, A. C., Smith, L. L., Quillian-Wolever, R. E.& Gaudet, T. W. (2006). Amul-
tidimensional integrative medicine intervention to improve cardiovascular risk.Journal of
General Internal Medicine,21(7), 728–734.
Egan, T. & Song, Z. (2005). A longitudinal quasi-experiment on the impact of executive coach-
ing. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organi-
zational Psychology, Los Angeles.
Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E.& Keller, S. B. (2003). Supervisory coaching behaviour, employee
satisfaction, and warehouse employee performance: Adyadic perspective in the distribution
industry.Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(4), 435–458.
Ely, K., Boyce, L. A., Nelson, J. K., Zaccaro, S. J., Hernez-Broome, G.& Whyman, W. (2010).
Evaluating leadership coaching: Areview and integrated framework. Leadership Quarterly,
21(4), 585–599.
Emmons, K. M., Puleo, E., Greaney, M. L., Gillman, M. W., Bennett, G. G., Haines, J.,
Sprunck-Harrild, K.& Viswanath, K. (2014). Arandomized comparative eectiveness study
of healthy directions 2– Amultiple risk behavior intervention for primary care.Preventive
Medicine,64, 96–102.
Evers, W. J. G., Brouwers, A.& Tomic, W. (2006). Aquasi-experimental study on manage-
ment coaching eectiveness. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58,
174–182.
Eysenck, H. J. (1952). The eects of psychotherapy: An evaluation.Journal of Consulting Psy-
chology, 16(5), 319–324.
Falkenström, F., Granström, F. & Holmqvist, R. (2013). Therapeutic alliance predicts
symptomatic improvement session by session. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 60,
317–328.
Finn, F. A. (2007). Leadership development through executive coaching: The eects on leaders’
psychological states and transformational leadership behavior (Unpublished doctoral thesis).
Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
Finn, F. A., Mason, C. M.& Bradley, L. M. (2007). Doing well with executive coaching: Psy-
chological and behavioural impacts. Paper presented at the Academy of Management Annual
Meeting Proceedings, Philadelphia.
Fischer, X., Kreppke, J., Zahner, L., Gerber, M., Faude, O.& Donath, L. (2019). Telephone-
based coaching and prompting for physical activity: Short- and long-term findings of a ran-
domized controlled trial (movingcall). International Journal of Environmental Research and
Public Health, 16(140), 2626.
Fisher, E. B., Strunk, R. C., Highstein, G. R., Kelley-Sykes, R., Tarr, K. L., Trinkaus, K.&
Musick, J. (2009). Arandomized controlled evaluation of the eect of community health
workers on hospitalization for asthma: The asthma coach.Archives of Pediatrics& Adoles-
cent Medicine,163(3), 225–232.
Flückiger, C., Del Re, A. C., Wlodasch, D., Horvath, A. O., Solomonov, N.& Wampold, B. E.
(2020). Assessing the alliance– Outcome association adjusted for patient characteristics and
treatment processes: Ameta-analytic summary of direct comparisons. Journal of Counseling
Psychology.
Fontes, A.& Dello Russo, S. (2020). An experimental field study on the eects of coaching: The
mediating role of psychological capital.Applied Psychology.
Franco, A., Malhotra, N. & Simonovits, G. (2014). Publication bias in the social sciences:
Unlocking the file drawer. Science, 345, 1502–1505.
Franklin, J.& Doran, J. (2009). Does all coaching enhance objective performance indepen-
dently evaluated by blind assessors? The importance of the coaching model and content.
International Coaching Psychology Review, 4(2), 128–144.
Gan, G. C. &Chong, C. W. (2015). Coaching relationship in executive coaching: AMalay-
sianstudy. Journal of Management Development, 34(4), 476–493.
Gardiner, M., Kearns, H. & Tiggemann, M. (2013). Eectiveness of cognitive behavioural
coaching in improving the well-being and retention of rural general practitioners. Australian
Journal of Rural Health, 21(3), 183–189.
Gattellari, M., Donnelly, N., Taylor, N., Meerkin, M., Hirst, G.& Ward, J. E. (2005). Does
‘peer coaching’ increase GP capacity to promote informed decision making about PSA screen-
ing? Acluster randomised trial. Family Practice, 22, 253–265.
Gentry, W. A., Hannum, K. M., Ekelund, B. Z.& de Jong, A. (2007). Astudy of the discrep-
ancy between self- and observer-ratings on managerial derailment characteristics of European
managers. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 16, 295–325.
Gentry, W. A., Katz, R. B.& McFeeters, B. (2009). The continual need for improvement to avoid
derailment: Astudy of college and university administrators. Higher Education Research and
Development, 28, 335–348.
George, E. R., Hawrusik, R., Delaney, M. M., Kara, N., Kalita, T. & Semrau, K. E. (2020).
Who’s your coach? The relationship between coach characteristics and birth attendants’
adherence to the WHO safe childbirth checklist.Gates Open Research,4(111), 111.
Geraedts, A. S., Kleiboer, A. M., Twisk, J., Wiezer, N. M., Van Mechelen, W. & Cuijpers,
P. (2014). Long-term results of a web-based guided self-help intervention for employ-
ees with depressive symptoms: Randomized controlled trial. Journal of Medical Internet
Research,16(7), e168.
Gessnitzer, S.& Kaueld, S. (2015). The working alliance in coaching: Why behaviour is the
key to success. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 51(2), 177–197.
Gessnitzer, S., Schulte, E. M.& Kaueld, S. (2016). “Iam going to succeed”: The power of self-
ecient language in coaching and how coaches can use it. Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, 68(4), 294–312.
Go, P., Goldring, E., Guthrie, J. & Bickman, L. (2014). Changing principals’ leadership
through feedback and coaching. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(5), 682–704.
Goldberg, S. B., Rousmaniere, T., Miller, S. D., Whipple, J., Nielsen, S. L., Hoyt, W. T.& Wam-
pold, B. E. (2016). Do psychotherapists improve with time and experience? Alongitudinal
analysis of outcomes in a clinical setting.Journal of Counseling Psychology,63(1), 1–11.
Grant, A. M. (2002). Towards a psychology of coaching: The impact of coaching on metacogni-
tion, mental health and goal attainment. Dissertation Abstracts International Section B, 63,
6094 and downloadable at http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED478147.pdf.
Grant, A. M. (2012). Making positive change: Arandomized study comparing solution-focused
vs. problem-focused coaching questions. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 31(2), 21–35.
Grant, A. M. (2014a). The ecacy of executive coaching in times of organizational change.
Journal of Change Management, 14(2), 258–280.
Grant, A. M. (2014b) Autonomy support, relationship satisfaction and goal focus in the coach–
Coachee relationship: Which best predicts coaching success? Coaching: An International
Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 7(1), 18–38.
Grant, A. M.& Cavanagh, M. (2007). The goal-focused coaching skills questionnaire: Prelimi-
nary findings. Social Behaviour and Personality, 35(6), 751–760.
Grant, A. M., Curtayne, L.& Burton, G. (2009). Executive coaching enhances goal attainment,
resilience and workplace well-being: Arandomized controlled study. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 4(5), 396–407.
Grant, A. M.& Gerrard, B. (2020). Comparing problem-focused, solution-focused and com-
bined problem-focused/solution-focused coaching approach: Solution-focused coaching
questions mitigate the negative impact of dysfunctional attitudes. Coaching: An International
Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 13(1), 61–77.
Grant, A. M., Green, L. S.& Rynsaardt, J. (2010). Developmental coaching for high school
teachers: Executive coaching goes to school. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 62(3), 151–168.
Grant, A. M.& O’Connor, S. A. (2018). Broadening and building solution-focused coaching:
Feeling good is not enough. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and
Practice, 11(2), 165–185.
Graßmann, C.& Schermuly, C. C. (2016). Side eects of business coaching and their predictors
from the coachees’ perspective. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 15, 152–163.
Graßmann, C.& Schermuly, C. C. (2018). The role of neuroticism and supervision in the rela-
tionship between negative eects for clients and novice coaches.Coaching: An International
Journal of Theory, Research and Practice,11(1), 74–88.
Graßmann, C., Schermuly, C. C.& Wach, D. (2019). Potential antecedents and consequences
of negative eects for coaches.Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and
Practice,12(1), 67–88.
Graßmann, C., Schölmerich, F.& Schermuly, C. C. (2020). The relationship between working
alliance and client outcomes in coaching: Ameta-analysis. Human Relations.Human Rela-
tions,73(1), 35–58.
Gray, D. E. (2019).Doing research in the business world. 2nd Edition. London: Sage.
Gray, D. E.& Goregaokar, H. (2010). Choosing an executive coach: The influence of gender on
the coach-coachee matching process. Management Learning, 41(5), 525–544.
Green, L. S., Grant, A. M.& Rynsaardt, J. (2007). Evidence-based life coaching for senior high
school students: Building hardiness and hope. International Coaching Psychology Review,
2(1), 24–32.
Green, L. S., Oades, L. G.& Grant, A. M. (2006). Cognitive-behavioural, solution-focused life
coaching: Enhancing goal striving, well-being, and hope. The Journal of Positive Psychology,
1(3), 142–149.
Greenson, R. R. (1965). The working alliance and the transference neuroses. Psychoanalysis
Quarterly, 34, 155–181.
Gregory, J. D.& Levy, P. E. (2011). It’s not me, it’s you: Amulti-level examination of variables
that impact employee coaching relationships. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 63(2), 67–88.
Grencavage, L. M.& Norcross, J. C. (1990). Where are the commonalities among the thera-
peutic common factors?Professional Psychology: Research and Practice,21(5), 372–378.
Grover, S.& Furnham, A. (2016). Coaching as a developmental intervention in organizations:
Asystematic review of its eectiveness and the mechanisms underlying it. PLoS One, 11(7),
1–41.
Gyllensten, K.& Palmer, S. (2005). Can coaching reduce workplace stress? Aquasi-experimen-
tal study. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 3(2), 75–85.
Hazucha, J. F., Hezlett, S. A.& Schneider, R. J. (1993). The impact of 360-degree feedback on
management skills development.Human Resource Management, 32(2–3), 325–351.
Hein, H. R. (1990). Psychological type, coaching activities and coaching eectiveness in cor-
porate and middle managers (Doctoral dissertation). University of Bridgeport. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 50 (10-A), 3293.
Heron, J. (1975). Helping the client: Acreative practical guide. London: Sage.
Heslin, P. A. & Latham, G. P. (2004). The eect of upward feedback on managerial behav-
iour.Applied Psychology: An International Review,53,23–37.
Heslin, P. A., Vandewalle, D.& Latham, G. P. (2006). Keen to help? Managers’ implicit person
theories and their subsequent employee coaching.Personnel Psychology, 59(4), 871–902.
Hogan, R.& Hogan, J. (1997). Hogan development survey manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assess-
ment Systems.
Hooijberg, R.& Lane, N. (2009). Using multisource feedback coaching eectively in executive
education. Academy of Management Learning& Education, 8(4), 483–493.
Horvath, A. O.& Greenberg, L. S. 1986. The development of the Working Alliance Inventory:
Aresearch handbook. In L. S. Greenberg& W. Pinso (Eds.), Psychotherapeutic processes:
Aresearch handbook. New York: Guilford Press.
Hoven, H., Ford, R., Willmot, A., Hagan, S.& Siegrist, J. (2014). Job coaching and success in
gaining and sustaining employment among homeless people. Research on Social Work Prac-
tice, 26(6), 668–674.
Howard, A. R. (2015). Coaching to vision versus coaching to improvement needs: Aprelimi-
nary investigation on the dierential impacts of fostering positive and negative emotion dur-
ing real time executive coaching sessions.Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 455.
Hsu, Y. P., Chun-Yang, P., Pi-Hui, T.& Ching-Wei, T. (2019). Managerial coaching, job perfor-
mance, and team commitment: The meditating eect of psychological capital. Advances in
Management and Applied Economics, 9(5), 101–125.
Huang, J. T. & Hsieh, H. H. (2015). Supervisors as good coaches: Influences of coaching on
employees’ in-role behaviors and proactive career behaviors.The International Journal of
Human Resource Management,26(1), 42–58.
Hui, T. Y., Lee, Y. K.& Sue-Chan, C. (2017). The interactive eects of coaching styles on stu-
dents’ self-regulatory emotions and academic performance in a peer-assisted learning scheme.
Paper presented at the IEEE International Conference of Teaching.
Hui, T. Y.& Sue-Chan, C. (2018). Variations in coaching style and their impact on subordi-
nates’ work outcomes.Journal of Organizational Behavior,39(5), 663–679.
Hui, T. Y., Sue-Chan, C.& Wood, R. E. (2013). The contrasting eects of coaching style on task
performance: The mediating roles of subjective task complexity and self-set goal. Human
Resource Development Quarterly,24(4), 429–429.
Hui, T. Y., Sue-Chan, C.& Wood, R. E. (2019). Performing versus adapting: How leader’s
coaching style matters in Hong Kong.The International Journal of Human Resource Man-
agement, 1–27.
Hunt, C. M., Fielden, S.& Woolnough, H. M. (2019). The potential of online coaching to
develop female entrepreneurial self-ecacy.Gender in Management: An International Jour-
nal, 34(8), 685–701.
Ianiro, P. M.& Kaueld, S. (2014). Take care what you bring with you: How coaches’ mood
and interpersonal behaviour aect coaching success.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice
and Research, 66, 231–257.
Ianiro, P. M., Lehmann-Willenbrock, N.& Kaueld, S. (2015). Coaches and clients in action:
Asequential analysis of interpersonal coach and cliënt behaviour. Journal of Business and
Psychology, 30(3), 435–456.
Ianiro, P. M., Schermuly, C. C.& Kaueld, S. (2013). Why interpersonal dominance and ali-
ation matter: An interaction analysis of the coach-client relationship. Coaching: An Interna-
tional Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 6(1), 25–46.
Jack, A. I., Boyatzis, R. E., Khawaja, M. S., Passarelli, A. M.& Leckie, R. L. (2013). Visioning
in the brain: An fMRI study of inspirational coaching and mentoring. Social Neuroscience,
8(4), 369–384.
Jarzebowski, A., Palermo, J.& Van de Berg, R. (2012). When feedback is not enough: The
impact of regulatory fit on motivation after positive feedback.International Coaching Psy-
chology Review,7(1), 14–32.
Jones, R. A., Raerty, A. E.& Grin, M. A. (2006). The executive coaching trend: Towards
more flexible executives. Leadership& Organization Development Journal, 27(7), 584–596.
Jones, R. J., Woods, S. A. & Guillaume, Y. (2015). The eectiveness of workplace coaching:
Ameta-analysis of learning and performance outcomes from coaching. Journal of Occupa-
tional and Organizational Psychology, 89(2), 249–277.
Jones, R. J., Woods, S. A. & Hutchinson, E. (2014). The influence of the five factor model of
personality on the perceived eectiveness of executive coaching.International Journal of Evi-
dence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 12(2), 109–118.
Jones, R. J., Woods, S. A.& Zhou, Y. (2019). The eects of coachee personality and goal
orientation on performance improvement following coaching: A controlled field experi-
ment.Applied Psychology. doi/abs/10.1111/apps.12218.
Jordan, S., Gessnitzer, S.& Kaueld, S.(2016). Eects of a group coaching for the vocational
orientation of secondary school pupils. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory,
Research and Practice,9(2),143–157.
Jordan, S., Gessnitzer, S.& Kaueld, S. (2017). Develop yourself, develop others? How coaches
and clients benefit from train-the-coach courses. Coaching: An International Journal of The-
ory, Research and Practice, 10(2), 125–139.
Jordan, S.& Kaueld, S. (2020). Amixed methods study of eects and antecedents of solution-
focused questions in coaching.International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Men-
toring,18(1), 57–72.
Junker, S., Pömmer, M.& Traut-Mattausch, E. (2020). The impact of cognitive-behavioural
stress management coaching on changes in cognitive appraisal and the stress response: Afield
experiment. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 16, 1–18.
Kim, S.& Kuo, M. (2015). Examining the relationships among coaching, trustworthiness, and
role behaviors: A social exchange perspective. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51,
152–176.
Kines, P., Andersen, L. P. S., Spangenberg, S., Mikkelsen, K. L., Dyreborg, J. & Zohar, D.
(2010). Improving construction safety through leader-based verbal safety communication.
Journal of Safety Research, 41, 399–406.
Kiresuk, T. J.& Sherman, R. E. (1968). Goal attainment scaling: Ageneral method for evaluat-
ing comprehensive community mental health programs. Community Mental Health Journal,
4, 443–453.
Klonek, F., Will, T., Ianiro-Dahm, P.& Kaueld, S. (2020). Opening the career counseling black
box: Behavioral mechanisms of empathy and working alliance. Journal of Career Assess-
ment,28(3), 363–380.
Kochanowski, S., Seifert, C. F. & Yukl, G. (2010). Using executive coaching to enhance the
eects of behavioural feedback to managers. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Stud-
ies, 17, 363–369.
Kombarakaran, F. A., Yang, J. A., Baker, M. N.& Fernandes, P. B. (2008). Executive coaching:
It works! Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(1), 78–90.
Ladegard, G.& Gjerde, S. (2014). Leadership coaching, leader role-ecacy and trust in subor-
dinates. Amixed methods study assessing leadership coaching as a leadership development
tool. Leadership Quarterly, 25(4), 631–646.
Lambert, M. J. (1992). Psychotherapy outcome research: Implications for integrative and eclec-
tical therapists. In J. C. Norcross& M. R. Goldfried (Eds.),Handbook of psychotherapy
integration(pp.94–129). New York: Basic Books.
Latham, G. P., Ford, R. C.& Tzabbar, D. (2012). Enhancing employee and organizational per-
formance through coaching based on mystery shopper feedback: Aquasi‐experimental study.
Human Resource Management, 51(2), 213–230.
Leary, T. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality. New York: The Ronald Press.
Leonard-Cross, E. (2010). Developmental coaching: Business benefit– Fact or fad? An evalua-
tive study to explore the impact of coaching in the workplace. International Coaching Psy-
chology Review, 5, 36–47.
Liu, X. & Batt, R. (2010). How supervisors influence performance: A multilevel study of
coaching and group management in technology-mediated services. Personnel Psychology,
63, 265–298.
Losch, S., Traut-Mattausch, E., Mühlberger, M. D.& Jonas, E.(2016). Comparing the eec-
tiveness of individual coaching, self-coaching, and group training: How leadership makes the
dierence.Frontiers in Psychology,7, 1–17 [629].
Luthans, F.& Peterson, S. J.(2003). 360-Degree feedback with systematic coaching: Empirical
analysis suggests a winning combination.Human Resource Management,42(3), 243–256.
MacKie, D. (2014). The eectiveness of strength-based executive coaching in enhancing full
range leadership development: Acontrolled study. Consulting Psychology Journal: Theory
and Research, 66(2), 118–137.
MacKie, D.(2015). The eects of coachee readiness and core self-evaluations on leadership
coaching outcomes: A controlled trial. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory,
Research and Practice,8(2),120–136.
Martin, D. J., Garske, J. P.& Davis, M. K. (2000). Relation of the therapeutic alliance with
outcome and other variables: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 68, 438–450.
McDermott, M., Levenson, A.& Newton, S. (2007). What coaching can and cannot do for
your organization. Human Resource Planning, 30(2), 30–37.
McDowall, A., Freemann, K.& Marshall, K. (2014). Is feed forward the way forward? Acom-
parison of the eects of feed forward coaching and feedback.International Coaching Psy-
chology Review,9(2), 135–146.
McGonagle, A. K., Beatty, J. E.& Joe, R. (2014). Coaching for workers with chronic illness:
Evaluating an intervention.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 19(3), 385–398.
McGonagle, A. K., Schwab, L., Yahanda, N., Duskey, H., Gertz, N., Prior, L., Roy, M.&
Kriegel, G. (2020). Coaching for primary care physician well-being: Arandomized trial and
follow-up analysis.Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 25(5), 297–314.
McGovern, J., Lindemann, M., Vergara, M., Murphy, S., Barker, L.& Warrenfeltz, R. (2001).
Maximizing the impact of executive coaching: Behavioural change, organizational outcomes,
and return on investment. The Manchester Review, 6, 1–9.
McKenna, D. D.& Davis, S. L. (2009). Hidden in plain sight: The active ingredients of execu-
tive coaching. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Prac-
tice, 2, 244–260.
Miller, D. J. (1990). The eect of managerial coaching on transfer of training. Dissertation
Abstracts International Section B, 50(2435).
Miller, W. R., Yahne, C. E., Moyers, T. B., Martinez, J.& Pirritano, M. (2004). Arandomized
trial of methods to help clinicians learn motivational interviewing.Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology,72(6), 1050–1062.
Moen, F.& Skaalvik, E. (2009). The eect from executive coaching on performance psychol-
ogy. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 7(2), 31–49.
Mukherjee, S. (2012). Does coaching transform coaches? A case study of internal coach-
ing.International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 10(2), 76–87.
Myers, I. B., McCaulley, M. H., Quenk, N. L.& Hammer, A. L. (1998). MBTI manual. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Neipp, M. C., Beyebach, M., Nuñez, R. M.& Martínez-González, M. C. (2016). The eect
of solution-focused versus problem-focused questions: Areplication.Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 42(3), 525–535.
Newsom, G.& Dent, E. B. (2011). Awork behaviour analysis of executive coaches. Interna-
tional Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 9(2), 1–22.
Nieminen, L. G., Smerek, R., Kotrba, L.& Denison, D. (2013). What does an executive coach-
ing intervention add beyond facilitated multisource feedback? Eects on leader self-ratings
and perceived eectiveness. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 24(2), 145–176.
Niglio de Figueiredo, M., Krippeit, L., Ihorst, G., Sattel, H., Bylund, C. L., Joos, A., Bengel, J.,
Lahmann, C., Fritzsche, K.& Wuensch, A. (2018). ComOn-coaching: The eect of a varied
number of coaching sessions on transfer into clinical practice following communication skills
training in oncology: Results of a randomized controlled trial.PLoS One,13(10), e0205315.
Noer, D. M. (2005). Behaviourally based coaching: Across-cultural case study. International
Journal of Coaching in Organizations, 3, 14–23.
Noer, D. M., Leupold, C. R.& Valle, M. (2007). An analysis of Saudi Arabian and U.S. mana-
gerial coaching behaviours. Journal of Managerial Issues, 19(2), 271–287.
Norcross, J. C. (Eds.). (2011). Psychotherapy relationships that work, 2nd Edition. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Nowack, K. M. (2003). Executive coaching: Fad or future? California Psychologist, 26(4),
16–17.
Oberschachtsiek, D. & Scioch, P. (2015). The outcome of coaching and training for self-
employment. Astatistical evaluation of outside assistance support programs for unemployed
business founders in Germany.Journal for Labour Market Research, 48,1–25.
O’Connor, S.& Cavanagh, M. (2013). The coaching ripple eect: The eects of developmental
coaching on wellbeing across organizational networks. Psychology of Well-Being: Theory,
Research and Practice, 3(2), 1–23.
Olivero, G., Bane, K. D.& Kopelman, R. E. (1997). Executive coaching as a transfer of train-
ing tool: Eects on productivity in a public agency. Public Personnel Management, 26(4),
461–469.
Orenstein, R. L. (2006). Measuring executive coaching ecacy? The answer was right here all
the time.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58(2), 106–116.
Page, N.& De Haan, E. (2014). Does coaching work ... and if so, how? The Psychologist,
27(8), 582–586.
Parker-Wilkins, V. (2006). Business impact of executive coaching: Demonstrating monetary
value. Industrial and Commercial Training, 38(3), 122–127.
Passmore, J.& Rehman, H. (2012). Coaching as a learning methodology: A mixed methods
study in driver development. Arandomized controlled trial and thematic analysis. Interna-
tional Coaching Psychology Review, 7(2), 166–184.
Passmore, J. & Theeboom, T. (2015). Coaching psychology: A journey of development in
research. In L. E. Van Zyl, M. W. Stander,& A. Odendal (Eds.), Coaching psychology: Meta‐
theoretical perspectives and applications in multi‐cultural contexts. New York: Springer.
Passmore, J.& Velez, M. J. (2012). Coaching fleet drivers: Arandomized controlled trial (RCT)
of short coaching’ interventions to improve driver safety in fleet drivers. The Coaching Psy-
chologist, 8(1), 20–26.
Peláez, M. J., Coo, C.& Salanova, M. (2019). Facilitating work engagement and performance
through strengths-based micro-coaching: Acontrolled trial study. Journal of Happiness Stud-
ies, 21(4), 1265–1284.
Peláez, M. J., Salanova, M.& Martínez, I. M. (2020). Coaching-based leadership intervention
program: Acontrolled trial study. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 3066.
Perkins, R. D. (2009). How executive coaching can change leader behavior and improve meeting
eectiveness: An exploratory study. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,
61(4), 298–318.
Peterson, D. B. (1993). Measuring change: A psychometric approach to evaluating individ-
ual coaching outcomes. Presented at the annual conference of the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, San Francisco.
Pittenger, D. J. (2005). Cautionary comments regarding the Myers-Briggs type indicator. Con-
sulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57, 210–221.
Poepsel, M. (2011). The impact of an online evidence-based coaching program on goal striving,
subjective well-being, and level of hope (Doctoral dissertation). Capella University. ProQuest
No: 3456769.
Poluka, L. A. & Kaifi, B. A. (2015). Performance coaching within the telecommunications
industry. Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 20(4), 49–65.
Pousa, C.& Mathieu, A. (2014). The influence of coaching on employee performance: Results
from two international quantitative studies. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 27(3),
75–92.
Ragins, B. R., Cotton, J. L.& Miller, J. S. (2000). Marginal mentoring: The eects of type of
mentor, quality of relationship, and program design on work and career attitudes. Academy
of Management Journal, 43(6), 1177–1194.
Rank, J.& Gray, D. E. (2017). The role of coaching for relationship satisfaction, self-reflection,
and self-esteem: Coachees’ self-presentation ability as a moderator. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, 69(3), 187–208.
Reyes Liske, J. M.& Holladay, C. L. (2016). Evaluating coaching’s eect: Competencies, career
mobility and retention. Leadership& Organization Development Journal, 37(7), 936–948.
Roberts, B. W., Luo, J., Briley, D. A., Chow, P. I., Su, R.& Hill, P. L. (2017). Asystematic review
of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin, 143(2), 117–141.
Safran, J. D., Muran, J. C.& Eubanks-Carter, C. (2011). Repairing alliance ruptures.Psycho-
therapy, 48(1), 80–87.
Schermuly, C. C. (2014). Negative eects of coaching for coaches: An explorative study. Inter-
national Coaching Psychology Review, 9, 167–182.
Schermuly, C. C., Schermuly-Haupt, M. L., Schölmerich, F. & Rauterberg, H. (2014). Zu
Risiken und Nebenwirkungen lesen Sie...– Negative Eekte von Coaching [For risks and
side eects read...– negative eects of coaching]. Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisation-
spsychologie, 58, 17–33.
Schermuly, C. C., Wach, D., Kirschbaum, C.& Wegge, J. (2020). Coaching of insolvent entre-
preneurs and the change in coping resources, health, and cognitive performance. Applied
Psychology.
Schlosser, B., Steinbrenner, D., Kumata, E.& Hunt, J. (2007). The coaching impact study:
Measuring the value of executive coaching. International Journal of Coaching in Organiza-
tions, 5(1), 140–161.
Schwarzer, R.& Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized self-ecacy scale. Measures in health psy-
chology: Auser’s portfolio. Causal and Control Beliefs, 1, 35–37.
Scoular, A.& Linley, P. A. (2006). Coaching, goal-setting and personality type: What matters?
The Coaching Psychologist, 2, 9–11.
Scrignano, R. S. (2011). Coaching within organizations: Examining the influence of goal
orientation on leaders’ professional development. Coaching: An International Journal of
Theory, Research& Practice, 4(11), 20–31.
Seifert, C. F., Yukl, G. A.& McDonald, R. A. (2003). Eects of multisource feedback and a
feedback facilitator on the influence behaviour of managers toward subordinates.The Jour-
nal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 561–569.
Shanock, L. R.& Eisenberger, R. (2006). When supervisors feel supported: Relationships with
subordinates’ perceived supervisor support, perceived organizational support, and perfor-
mance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(3), 689–695.
Singh, P., Aggarwal, R., Tahir, M., Pucher, P. H.& Darzi, A. (2015). Arandomized controlled
study to evaluate the role of video-based coaching in training laparoscopic skills.Annals of
surgery,261(5), 862–869.
Slegers, A. S., Gültuna, I., Aukes, J. A., Van Gorp, E. J. J. A. A., Blommers, F. M. N., Niehof,
S. P.& Bosman, J. (2015). Coaching reduced the radiation dose of pain physicians by half
during interventional procedures. Pain Practice, 15, 400–406.
Smith, B. W., Dalen, J., Wiggins, K., Tooley, E., Christopher, P.& Bernard, J. (2008). The brief
resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. International Journal of Behavioural
Medicine, 15(3), 194–200.
Smith, I. M.& Brummel, B. J. (2013). Investigating the role of the active ingredients in execu-
tive coaching. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 6,
57–71.
Smither, J. W., London, M., Flautt, R., Vargas, Y.& Kucine, I. (2003). Can working with an
executive coach improve multisource feedback ratings over time? Aquasi-experimental field
study. Personnel Psychology, 56, 23–44.
Sonesh, S. C., Coultas, C. W., Marlow, S. L., Lacerenza, C. N., Reyes, D.& Salas, E. (2015).
Coaching in the wild: Identifying factors that lead to success.Consulting Psychology Journal:
Practice and Research, 67(3), 189–217.
Spence, G. B., Cavanagh, M. J.& Grant, A. M. (2008). The integration of mindfulness training
and health coaching: An exploratory study. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory,
Research and Practice, 1, 145–163.
Spence, G. B.& Grant, A. M. (2007). Professional and peer life coaching and the enhancement
of goal striving and well-being: An exploratory study. Journal of Positive Psychology, 2,
185–194.
Stewart, L. J., Palmer, S., Wilkin, H. & Kerrin, M. (2008). The influence of character: Does
personality impact coaching success? International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and
Mentoring, 6(1), 32–42.
Stiles, W. B., Barkham, M., Connell, J. & Mellor-Clark, J. (2008). Responsive regulation of
treatment duration in routine practice in United Kingdom primary care settings: Replication
in a larger sample.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76(2), 298–305.
Stiles, W. B., Barkham, M. & Wheeler, S. (2015). Duration of psychological therapy: Rela-
tion to recovery and improvement rates in UK routine practice.British Journal of Psychia-
try,207(2), 115–122.
Stiles, W. B., Glick, M. J., Osatuke, K., Hardy, G. E., Shapiro, D. A., Agnew-Davies, R., Rees, A.&
Barkham, M. (2004). Patterns of alliance development and the rupture-repair hypothesis: Are
productive relationships U-shaped or V-shaped. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 81–92.
Strijk, J. E., Proper, K. I., Van Mechelen, W.& Van der Beek, A. J. (2013). Eectiveness of a work-
site lifestyle intervention on vitality, work engagement, productivity, and sick leave: Results of
a randomized controlled trial.Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment& Health, 66–75.
Sue-Chan, C. & Latham, G. P. (2004). The relative eectiveness of external, peer and self-
coaches. Applied Psychology, 53(2), 260–278.
Sue-Chan, C., Wood, R. E.& Latham, G. P. (2012). Eect of a coach’s regulatory focus and an indi-
vidual’s implicit person theory on individual performance.Journal of Management,38(3), 809–835.
Sun, B. J., Deane, F. P., Crowe, T. P., Andresen, R.& Oades, L. G. (2013). Apreliminary explo-
ration of the working alliance and ‘real relationship’ in two coaching approaches with mental
health workers. International Coaching Psychology Review, 8(2), 6–17.
Taie, E. S. (2011). Coaching as an approach to enhance performance. The Journal for Quality
and Participation, 34, 34–38.
Taylor, L. M. (1997). The relation between resilience, coaching, coping skills training, and
perceived stress during a career threatening milestone (Doctoral dissertation). Georgia State
University, DAI-B 58/05, p.2738.
Tee, D., Shearer, D.& Roderique-Davies, G. (2017). The client as active ingredient: ‘Core self-
evaluations’ as predictors of coaching outcome variance. International Coaching Psychology
Review, 12(2), 125–132.
Tee, D., Shearer, D.& Roderique-Davies, G. (2019). Goal attainment scaling and coaching cli-
ent core self-evaluations. The Coaching Psychologist, 15(1), 47–54.
Teemant, A. (2014). A mixed-methods investigation of instructional coaching for teachers of
diverse learners. Urban Education, 49(5), 574–604.
Telle, N. T., Moock, J., Heuchert, S., Schulte, V., Rössler, W.& Kawohl, W. (2016). Job main-
tenance through supported employment PLUS: Arandomized controlled trial. Frontiers in
Public Health, 4, 194.
Tennant, R., Hiller, L., Fishwick, R., Platt, S., Joseph, S., Weich, S., Parkinson, J., Secker, J.&
Stewart-Brown, S. (2007). The Warwick-Edinburgh mental well-being scale (WEMWBS):
Development and UK validation. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5, 63.
Thach, L. (2002). The impact of executive coaching and 360 feedback on leadership eective-
ness. Leadership& Organization Development Journal, 23(4), 205–214.
Theeboom, T., Beersma, B. & van Vianen, A. E. M. (2014). Does coaching work? A meta-
analysis on the eects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context.
The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 1–18.
Theeboom, T., Beersma, B.& Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2016). The dierential eects of solution-
focused and problem-focused coaching questions on the aect, attentional control and cog-
nitive flexibility of undergraduate students experiencing study-related stress. The Journal of
Positive Psychology, 11(5), 460–469.
Toegel, G.&Nicholson, N.(2005). Multisource feedback, coaching, and leadership development:
Personality and homophily eects.Sixty-Fifth Academy of Management Annual Meeting,f1–f6.
Ungerer, C., Heinzelmann, N., Baltes, G. H. & König, M. (2019). The Eect of Business Coach-
ing on NTBF Survival–Findings and Lessons Learned from a Randomized Controlled Trial.
In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE/
ITMC) (pp. 1–10). IEEE.
Vale, M. J., Jelinek, M. V., Best, J. D., Dart, A. M., Grigg, L. E., Hare, D. L., Ho, B. P., New-
man, R. W. & McNeil, J. J. (2003). Coaching patients on achieving cardiovascular health
(COACH): Amulticenter randomized trial in patients with coronary heart disease.Archives
of Internal Medicine,163(22), 2775–2783.
Vale, M. J., Jelinek, M. V., Best, J. D.& Santamaria, J. D. (2002). Coaching patients with
coronary heart disease to achieve the target cholesterol: Amethod to bridge the gap between
evidence-based medicine and the “real world” – Randomized controlled trial. Journal of
Clinical Epidemiology,55(3), 245–252.
Van Berkel, J., Boot, C. R., Proper, K. I., Bongers, P. M.& Van der Beek, A. J. (2014). Eec-
tiveness of a worksite mindfulness-based multi-component intervention on lifestyle behav-
iors.International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity,11(1), 9.
Van Dun, R. (2020). Coaching als energiebron: Wat is de samenhang tussen coaching en vitaliteit
en welke rol speelt de relatie tussen coach en coachee binnen de uitkomsten van coaching?
[The link between coaching and vitality; and what role for the relationship between coach
and coachee for outcomes of coaching?] (MSc thesis). Open University, Heerlen, NL.
Van Meurs, N. (2003). Negotiations between British and Dutch managers: Cultural values,
approaches to conflict management, and perceived negotiation (PhD thesis). University of
Sussex, Brighton.
Vande Walle, K. A., Pavuluri Quamme, S. R., Leverson, G. E., Engler, T., Dombrowski, J. C.,
Wiegmann, D. A., Dimick, J. B.& Greenberg, C. C. (2020). Association of personality and
thinking style with eective surgical coaching.JAMA Surgery,155(6), 480–485.
Vandekerckhove, L. (2010). Coaching and the Flemish medical entrance exam: Ecacy and
self-selection. Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov, VII, 3(52), 121–140.
Vidal-Salazar, M. D., Ferrón-Vílchez, V. & Cordón-Pozo, E. (2012). Coaching: An eective
practice for business competitiveness. Competitiveness Review: An International Business
Journal, 22(5), 423–433.
Viering, S., Jäger, M., Bärtsch, B., Nordt, C., Rössler, W., Warnke, I.& Kawohl, W. (2015).
Supported employment for the reintegration of disability pensioners with mental illnesses:
Arandomized controlled trial. Frontiers in Public Health, 3, 237.
Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster self-managing team eectiveness: Design choices ver-
sus hands-on coaching. Organization Science, 12, 559–577.
Walker, A.& Smither, J. W. (1999). Afive-year study of upward feedback: What managers do
with their results matters.Personnel Psychology, 52(2), 393–423.
Wampold, B. E. (2001; updated 2015). The great psychotherapy debate: Models, methods, and
findings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ward, M. K., Meade, A. W., Allred, C. M., Pappalardo, G.& Stoughton, J. W. (2017). Careless
response and attrition as sources of bias in online survey assessments of personality traits and
performance. Computers in Human Behaviour, 76, 417–430.
Wasylyshyn, K. M., Gronsky, B. & Haas, W. (2006). Tigers, stripes, and behaviour change:
Survey results of a commissioned coaching program. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice
and Research, 58(2), 65–81.
Weer, C. H., DiRenzo, M. S. & Shipper, F. M. (2016). A holistic view of employee coaching:
Longitudinal investigation of the impact of facilitative and pressure-based coaching on team
eectiveness.The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,52(2), 187–214.
Will, T., Gessnitzer, S.& Kaueld, S. (2016). You think you are an empathic coach? Maybe
you should think again. The dierence between perceptions of empathy vs. Empathic behav-
iour after a person-centred coaching training. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory,
Research and Practice, 9(1), 53–68.
Will, T., Schulte, E. & Kaueld, S. (2019). Coach’s expressed positive supportive behaviour
linked to client’s interest to change: An analysis of distinct coaching phases.Coaching The-
ory& Praxis,5,1–10.
Williams, J. S. & Lowman, R. L. (2018). The ecacy of executive coaching: An empirical
investigation of two approaches using random assignment and a switching-replications
design.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 70(3), 227–249.
Willms, J.-F. (2004). Coaching zur Umsetzung persönlicher Ziele. Entwicklung, Durchführung
und Evaluation. Universität Osnabrück: Diplomarbeit im Fachgebiet Arbeits- und Organisa-
tionspsychologie, Germany.
Wolever, R. Q., Dreusicke, M., Fikkan, J., Hawkins, T. V., Yeung, S., Wakefield, J., Duda, L.,
Flowers, P., Cook, C.& Skinner, E. (2010). Integrative health coaching for patients with type
2 diabetes.The Diabetes Educator,36(4), 629–639.
Woo, H. R. (2017). Exploratory study examining the joint impacts of mentoring and manage-
rial coaching on organizational commitment. Sustainability, 9(2), 181–196.
Yalom, I. D. & Leszcz, M. (2005). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy. 5th Edi-
tion. New York: Basic Books.
Zanchetta, M., Junker, S., Wolf, A. M.& Traut-Mattausch, E. (2020). “Overcoming the fear
that haunts your success” – The eectiveness of interventions for reducing the impostor phe-
nomenon.Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 405.
Zilcha-Mano, S. (2017). Is the alliance really therapeutic? Revisiting this question in light of
recent methodological advances. American Psychologist, 72, 311–325.
Zilcha-Mano, S., Dinger, U., McCarthy, K. S. & Barber, J. P. (2014). Does alliance predict
symptoms throughout treatment, or is it the other way around? Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 82, 931–935.
Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G.& Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional scale
of perceived social support. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 30–41.
Zimmermann, L. C.& Antoni, C. H. (2018). Problem-specific coaching interventions influence
goal attainment via double-loop learning.Zeitschrift Für Arbeits-Und Organizationspsychol-
ogie, 62(4), 188–201.
Zimmermann, L. C.& Antoni, C. H. (2020). Activating clients’ resources influences coaching
satisfaction via occupational self-ecacy and satisfaction of needs.Zeitschrift für Arbeits-
und Organizationspsychologie, 64(2), 149–169.
