- The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring

The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring

Wiley-Blackwell Handbooks in Organizational Psychology Series Editor: Jonathan Passmore The aim of the Wiley-Blackwell Handbooks in Organizational Psychology is to create a set of uniquely in-depth reviews of contemporary research, theory, and practice across critical sub-domains of organizational psychology. Series titles will individually deliver the state- of-the-art in their discipline by putting the most important contemporary work at the fingertips of academics, researchers, students, and practitioners. Over time, the series will grow into a complete reference for those seeking to develop a comprehensive under- standing of the field. Books in the series The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring Edited by Jonathan Passmore, David B. Peterson, and Teresa Freire The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Leadership, Change, and Organizational Development Edited by H. Skipton Leonard, Rachel Lewis, Arthur M. Freedman and Jonathan Passmore

The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring Edited by Jonathan Passmore, David B. Peterson, and Teresa Freire A John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Publication

This edition first published 2013 © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Wiley-Blackwell is an imprint of John Wiley & Sons, formed by the merger of Wiley’s global Scientific, Technical and Medical business with Blackwell Publishing. Registered Office John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK Editorial Offices 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148-5020, USA 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services, and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell. The right of Jonathan Passmore, David B. Peterson, and Teresa Freire to be identified as the authors of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher. Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of the psychology of coaching and mentoring / edited by Jonathan Passmore, David B. Peterson, and Teresa Freire. p. cm. Includes index. ISBN 978-1-119-99315-5 (cloth) 1. Personal coaching. 2. Employees–Coaching of. 3. Mentoring in business. I. Passmore, Jonathan. II. Peterson, David B. III. Freire, Tereza. BF637.P36W535 2013 158.3–dc23 2012029596 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. Cover image: © Steve Goodwin / Shutterstock. Cover design by Cyan Design. Set in 9.5/12pt Galliard by SPi Publisher Services, Pondicherry, India 1 2013

Contents About the Editors vii About the Contributors viii Foreword by Sir John Whitmore xiv Series’ Preface xvi Railway Children xviii 1 The Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring 1 Jonathan Passmore, David B. Peterson, and Teresa Freire Section I Coaching 13 2 The Efficacy of Coaching 15 Anthony M. Grant 3 The Role of Contracting in Coaching: Balancing Individual Client and Organizational Issues 40 Robert J. Lee 4 The Development of Meaning and Identity Within Coaching 58 Mary Wayne Bush, Esra Ozkan, and Jonathan Passmore 5 Coaching Ethics 68 Rodney L. Lowman 6 The Neuroscience of Coaching 89 Miles Bowman, Kathleen M. Ayers, Joan C. King, and Linda J. Page 7 Mindfulness in Coaching: Philosophy, psychology or just a useful skill? 112 Michael J. Cavanagh and Gordon B. Spence 8 Developmental Coaching – Developing the Self 135 Tatiana Bachkirova 9 Gender Issues in Business Coaching 155 Sunny Stout-Rostron 10 Team Coaching 175 Alison Carter and Peter Hawkins

vi Contents 195 Section II Mentoring 197 11 Designing Mentoring Schemes for Organizations 217 Paul Stokes and Lis Merrick 243 12 The Efficacy of Mentoring – the Benefits for Mentees, Mentors, 266 and Organizations Chloé Tong and Kathy E. Kram 283 13 Training Mentors – Behaviors Which Bring Positive Outcomes 285 in Mentoring 298 Robert Garvey and Gunnela Westlander 319 339 14 Mentoring Programs for Under-represented Groups 365 Rowena Ortiz-Walters and Lucy L. Gilson 385 Section III Theories and Models With Implications 407 for Coaching 426 15 Humanistic/Person-centered Approaches 443 Jane Brodie Gregory and Paul E. Levy 445 16 Behavioral Coaching 471 Fiona Eldridge and Sabine Dembkowski 483 501 17 Cognitive Behavioral Approaches Stephen Palmer and Helen Williams 524 18 Motivational Interviewing Approach Tim Anstiss and Jonathan Passmore 19 Psychodynamic Approach Michael A. Diamond 20 Gestalt Approach Juliann Spoth, Sarah Toman, Robin Leichtman, and Julie Allan 21 Narrative Approaches Reinhard Stelter 22 Positive Psychology Approaches Teresa Freire Section IV Issues in Coaching and Mentoring 23 Conducting Organizational-Based Evaluations of Coaching and Mentoring Programs Siegfried Greif 24 The Role of Emotions in Coaching and Mentoring Kate Hefferon 25 Cross-cultural Working in Coaching and Mentoring Geoffrey Abbott, Kate Gilbert, and Philippe Rosinski 26 Virtual Coaching and Mentoring Niloofar Ghods and Camala Boyce Index

About the Editors Jonathan Passmore, D.Occ.Psych Jonathan is a chartered psychologist, an accredited Association of Coaching coach, a trained coaching supervisor and holds five degrees. He has wide business and consulting experience, having worked for PricewaterhouseCoopers, IBM Business Consulting and OPM and as a chief executive and company chairman. He developed the UK’s first Master’s in coaching psychology and the first online coaching Master’s. He now divides his time between a part-time role as a professor in leadership and coaching and as a management consultant in private practice. Jonathan is the author of 14 books and 100 articles on organizational change, coaching and leadership. He is also a regular conference speaker, having spoken across the world, from Israel to the United States and South Africa to Estonia. Jonathan was awarded the AC Coaching Award in 2010 for his contribution to coaching research and practice. He has two small children and lives in the UK. He can be contacted at: [email protected]. David B. Peterson, PhD David is Director, Executive Coaching and Leadership at Google, Inc. Prior to that, he served as SVP and leader of PDI Ninth House’s coaching services. A pioneer in the field of executive coaching, he has written best-selling books and dozens of popular articles on coaching and leadership development, as well as conducting ground-breaking research. A Fellow of the American Psychological Association, the Society of Consulting Psychology, and Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, he received his PhD in I/O and counseling psychology from the University of Minnesota. David lives in San Francisco, with wife Alexis and an adorable Tibetan terrier named Pinot. Teresa Freire, PhD Teresa is assistant professor in the School of Psychology, at the University of Minho (Braga, Portugal), where she teaches graduate and postgraduate students. She coordinates the research line on positive psychology for master and doctoral students and leads the research group for the study of optimal functioning. She develops group and community interventions, being the coordinator of the Peer Tutoring and Coaching Project, and the Director of the Service of Psychology in the School of Psychology, University of Minho, Portugal. She belongs to the European Network for Positive Psychology (ENPP), and is a member of the Management Board Committee. She has a number of national and international publications in books and peer review journals.

About the Contributors Geoffrey Abbott Geoffrey is Corporate Educator at the Queensland University of Technology Business School in Brisbane, Australia. Geoff is an experienced international coach and is co-editor of the Routledge Companion to International Business Coaching. Geoff’s doctoral thesis explored how executive coaching might assist expatriate managers in cultural adjustment. He can be contacted at: [email protected] Julie Allan Julie coaches and consults to organizations and is an educator, supervisor, and speaker. She serves on the British Psychological Society Committees for Ethics and Coaching Psychology, is involved in developing coaching psychology standards and has chapters in The Handbook of Coaching Psychology (Gestalt) and Supervision in Coaching (Ethics). Her practitioner research concerns developing corporate wisdom. She can be contacted at: [email protected]. Tim Anstiss Tim is a medical doctor with a Master’s degree in sports medicine and a diploma in occupational medicine. A member of the British Psychological Society, Tim spends a lot of his time working with clinicians and managers, helping them have more person-centered, guiding, and empowering conversations with patients and employees respectively. He can be contacted at [email protected]. Kathleen M. Ayers Kathleen has worked in the mental health field since 1991, provid- ing assessment and psychotherapy for all age groups. She has also worked in research and currently teaches psychology graduate students, medical students, and physician assistant students. Kathleen has also had extensive experience in civil forensic neuropsychology. She can be contacted at: [email protected]. Tatiana Bachkirova Tatiana is an academic, coach, and coaching supervisor with a par- ticular expertise in coaching psychology and coaching supervision. She is based at Oxford Brookes University and leads the MA in Coaching and Mentoring Supervision, as well as supervising doctoral students. Tatiana is an active researcher and author. Miles Bowman Miles received his doctorate from Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. After completing his degree, he joined the coaching profession and

About the Contributors ix obtained his certification through CTI shortly thereafter. He presently lives in Port Hope, Ontario where he runs his coaching business and does sessional work with universities in the surrounding area. He can be contacted at: [email protected]. Camala Boyce Camala is a consulting psychologist working globally to bring greater trust and cohesion to virtual, geographically distributed teams and coaching high per- forming leaders for increased success. She leads workshops on emotional intelligence and is on faculty at the California School of Professional Psychology, Alliant International University. Mary Wayne Bush Mary Wayne holds a Master ’s degree from Yale University and a doctorate in Organizational Change from Pepperdine University. In addition to writing and speaking on the subject of coaching, she teaches in a doctoral program at Colorado Technical University. Mary Wayne is a member of several international editorial and advi- sory boards that contribute to the field of coaching, and she was the Director of Research for the Foundation of Coaching, (now known as the Harvard Institute of Coaching). Alison Carter Alison is an independent researcher and evaluator in HR, leadership and coaching, and a Principal Associate with the Institute for Employment Studies (IES) in the UK. She has an MBA from Henley Business School and a professional doctorate. Alison was a founding Director of the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (2003–5), Co-chair of the 2nd International Coaching Research Forum (2009) and is on the edito- rial board of Coaching at Work magazine. Michael J. Cavanagh Michael is both a Coaching and Clinical Psychologist. He holds a BA (Hons, first class) in Psychology from the University of Sydney, and a PhD and Masters of Clinical Psychology from Macquarie University. Michael is Deputy Director of the Coaching Psychology Unit at the University of Sydney and was the key instigator of the Global Convention on Coaching. He has published widely and is the editor of the International Coaching Psychology Review. Sabine Dembkowski Sabine is founder and director of the Coaching Centre in London and Cologne. With her team she supports senior executives and high-potentials in Fortune 500, DAX 30, and other leading firms across Europe. Previously she was a strategic man- agement consultant with A.T. Kearney and Monitor Company in London. Michael A. Diamond Michael A. Diamond is Professor and Director of the Center for the Study of Organizational Change at the University of Missouri. His latest (2009) book Private Selves in Public Organizations is published by Palgrave Macmillan. He is past president of the International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations. He can be contacted at: http://csoc.missouri.edu. Fiona Eldridge Fiona is director of The Coaching and Communication Centre and also Senior Leadership Advisor at the National College of Police Leadership. She is an experi- enced non-executive Director and Chairman, taking one organization from start up to a mature top three business in its field via three MBOs and CEOs. Robert Garvey Bob is Professor of Business Education at York St John Business School, York. He is one of Europe’s leading academic practitioners in coaching and mentoring. He

x About the Contributors is in demand internationally as a keynote conference speaker and has presented papers and made keynote conference presentations around the world. Bob is widely published in a range of journals and books. Niloofar Ghods Niloofar is a consultant with Cisco’s Center for Collaborative Leadership’s Executive Development Practice, where she assesses and coaches Cisco’s SVP and VP talent pipeline. Prior to Cisco, Niloofar consulted for YSC, assessing and coaching senior executives of Fortune 100 multinational organizations and Dell’s Global Talent Management Team. Kate Gilbert Kate is Senior Lecturer in Coaching and Mentoring at Oxford Brookes University. She has been fascinated by the potential of cultural experiences for personal growth ever since her first trip to the United States as a young student. Her doctoral research was on the cultural aspects of management development programs for Russian leaders in the 1990’s transition period, and it was during this period that she was con- verted to coaching. Kate is currently researching attitudes to cultural awareness in UK businesses, and enjoys teaching research methods. Lucy L. Gilson Lucy is an Associate Professor at the University of Connecticut (PhD and MBA Georgia Institute of Technology, BSc from Georgetown School of Foreign Service). She serves as the Management’s PhD Coordinator and Women’s MBA Association faculty advisor. Lucy’s research primarily focuses on teams and creativity. She is also inter- ested in mentoring, employee empowerment, diversity, fairness issues, and virtual communication. Anthony M. Grant Tony is Director of the world’s first Coaching Psychology Unit at Sydney University and Visiting Professor at Oxford Brookes University. In 2007 he was awarded a British Psychological Society Award for outstanding scientific contribution to Coaching Psychology. In 2009 he was awarded the “Vision of Excellence Award” from Harvard University for his pioneering work in developing a scientific foundation to coach- ing. He also plays loud (but not very good) blues guitar. Jane Brodie Gregory Brodie is currently a Visiting Assistant Professor of Social and Organizational Psychology at Washington & Lee University. Most recently she worked in Global Leadership Development with the Procter & Gamble Company, where she led the coaching program and performance management process. Dr Gregory completed her PhD in Industrial/Organizational Psychology at The University of Akron. Siegfried Greif Siegfried is managing director of a consulting institute (www.ifp.de). He was professor at the Free University of Berlin and had the chair of Work and Organizational Psychology at the University of Osnabrueck (Germany). He is editor of a book series on Innovative Management and the editor/author of 14 titles, including a German book series on coaching. Peter Hawkins Peter is Emeritus Chairman of Bath Consultancy Group, Professor of Leadership at Henley Business School, and is a leading coach, consultant, writer, and researcher in organizational strategy, leadership, team, and board development. He is the author of many books, including Leadership Team Coaching, Creating a Coaching

About the Contributors xi Culture, and Coaching, Mentoring and Organizational Consultancy: Supervision and Development with Nick Smith. Kate Hefferon Kate graduated from the University of Ottawa with a BA in English Literature and Psychology, followed by a BA in Psychology from Carleton University. This led to the completion of an MSc in Performance Psychology at Edinburgh University. Kate’s PhD thesis was on the experience of post-traumatic growth among female breast cancer survivors and the role of the body in the recovery and growth process. She now teaches positive psychology at the University of East London. Joan C. King Joan received her PhD in neuroscience from Tulane (1972). Currently a Professor Emeritus Tufts University School of Medicine, Master Certified Coach and Board Certified Coach, Joan directed research and taught neuroscience prior to founding Beyond Success LLC (1998). Joan trains coaches in the Success Unlimited Network™ Program and mentors coaches in several coaching programs. Her concept of Cellular Wisdom™ is explored in a series of books. She can be contacted at: joanking@cellular- wisdom.com. Kathy E. Kram Kathy is the Shipley Professor in Management at the Boston University School of Management. Her primary interests are in the areas of adult development, men- toring, relational learning, and diversity issues in executive development. She is currently exploring the nature of peer coaching dyads, group peer coaching, and developmental networks. She can be contacted at: [email protected]. Robert J. Lee Robert is Managing Director of iCoachNewYork, a coach training group. He is affiliated with The New School University and Baruch College. Previously he was the CEO of the Center for Creative Leadership and of Lee Hecht Harrison. He is co- author of Becoming an Exceptional Executive Coach. Robin Leichtman Robin is finishing her PhD in Counseling Psychology at Cleveland State University and engaged in Gestalt Training (GTP XIV) at the Gestalt Institute in Cleveland, Ohio. With two Master’s degrees, she is a licensed teacher and a licensed pro- fessional counselor in the State of Ohio. Paul E. Levy Paul is a Professor and Chair of the Department of Psychology at The University of Akron. Dr Levy received his PhD in I/O psychology from Virginia Tech in 1989. He is a fellow of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology and the American Psychological Association. His research interests include performance appraisal, feedback, coaching, and motivation. Rodney L. Lowman Rodney is Distinguished Professor at Alliant International University, San Diego and President, Lowman & Richardson Consulting Psychologists. He has written or edited nine books (including The Ethical Practice of Psychology in Organizations), over one hundred articles, and made hundreds of conference presenta- tion. He is a Fellow in three of the American Psychological Association divisions 12, 13, and 14 and past president of two psychology associations, the Society of Consulting Psychology and the Society of Psychologists in Management. He received his PhD in psy- chology (specializing in I-O and clinical psychology) at Michigan State University, USA.

xii About the Contributors Lis Merrick Lis is Managing Director of Coach Mentoring Ltd, a consultancy, which specializes in mentoring and coaching solutions to clients on a global basis. She is also a Module Leader and Senior Lecturer within the Coaching and Mentoring Research Unit (C&MRU) at Sheffield Business School and a Senior Consultant at Clutterbuck Associates. Rowena Ortiz-Walters Rowena is an Associate Professor of Management at Quinnipiac University. Her research interests include mentoring relationships as a career developmen- tal tool for women and racial minorities, and issues of diversity in the workplace. She received her PhD from the University of Connecticut. Her research has appeared in the Journal of Organizational Behavior and Journal of Vocational Behavior. Esra Ozkan Esra is a cultural anthropologist and holds a doctorate in Science, Technology, and Society from MIT. She wrote her dissertation on the emergence and development of coaching as a professional field of expertise in the United States. Currently, Esra is a visiting scholar at Parsons, the New School for Design, where she teaches and conducts research on the field of information visualization. Linda J. Page Linda is President and Founder of Adler Graduate Professional School located in Toronto, Canada. A graduate of Princeton University and Adler’s Professional Coaching Program, Linda is Co-Chair of the Academic Standards Committee of the Graduate School Alliance for Executive Coaching (GSAEC). She is co-author with David Rock of Coaching with the Brain in Mind (2009). She can be contacted at: ljpage@ adler.ca. Stephen Palmer Stephen is the Founder Director of the Centre for Coaching, International Academy for Professional Development. He is an Honorary Professor of Psychology at City University London and Director of their Coaching Psychology Unit. He is president of the International Society for Coaching Psychology. He has authored numerous articles on coaching, stress management, and counseling, and has authored or edited over 40 books. Philippe Rosinski Philippe is the author of several books, including Coaching Across Cultures and Global Coaching. He was the first European ICF Master Certified Coach and  is a visiting professor at universities in Tokyo and Prague. He is the principal of Rosinski & Company. Gordon B. Spence Gordon is a lecturer and researcher at Sydney Business School, University of Wollongong. He is a qualified psychologist with particular interests in leader- ship, mindfulness, peak performance, employee engagement, and workplace well-being. Gordon has over 20 refereed articles and book chapters, regularly speaks at national and international conferences and is Co-chair of the Scientific Advisory Council, Institute of Coaching at McLean Hospital/Harvard University. Juliann Spoth Juliann is an executive coach, consultant, educator, author, and speaker with over 30years of experience in individual, team, and organizational development and coaching practice that has spanned 14 countries. Juliann is the principal of Spoth & Associates, the principal of Spoth & Associates, the Chair and faculty for the Gestalt Institute of Cleveland (GIC) Coach Certification Program coaching faculty for the National Training Institute

About the Contributors xiii (NTL) and a Master Coach for Case Western Reserve University. She has published in the organizational behavior field. She can be contacted at: [email protected]. Reinhard Stelter Reinhard, PhD in psychology, is an accredited member and honorary vice-president of the International Society of Coaching Psychology, is professor of Coaching and Sport Psychology and head of the Coaching Psychology Unit, Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sport Sciences, University of Copenhagen, visiting professor at Copenhagen Business School, and fellow at the Institute of Coaching at Harvard. He can be contacted at: www.rstelter.dk. Paul Stokes Paul is a senior lecturer at Sheffield Hallam University where he teaches on the coaching and mentoring program. He is a member of the European Mentoring and Coaching Council, external examiner at the universities of Hertfordshire and Teeside, and has published widely in the field. Sunny Stout-Rostron Sunny is Executive Director of Sunny Stout-Rostron Associates (Cape Town), and Research Mentor at the Institute of Coaching at Harvard/McLean Medical School. With a wide range of experience in leadership development and business strategy, and over 20 years as an executive coach, Sunny works with international leaders to help them achieve individual, team, and organizational goals. Sunny recently published Business Coaching International. Sarah Toman Sarah is an associate professor at Cleveland State University and faculty at the Gestalt Institute of Cleveland. Sarah has published in both the career development and Gestalt therapy fields. She and Ansel Woldt co-edited, Gestalt Therapy: History, Theory and Practice. Sarah maintains a psychotherapy practice in Medina, Ohio. Chloé Tong Chloé is a Business Psychologist. She has particular knowledge and exper- tise in designing and delivering high quality assessment and development programs. She has previously published in the field of emotional intelligence development through coaching. Gunnela Westlander Gunnela is Professor Emeritus in Social and Organizational Psychology and has held since 1995 expert appointments with the University of Linköping, the Royal Institute of Technology, and Stockholm University. Research areas include: quality of work life; human-computer interaction; technological change; human aspects of intervention strategies; organizational change; and development. Helen Williams Helen is an occupational and coaching psychologist specializing in solution-focused and cognitive behavioral coaching. An associate consultant at the Centre for Coaching, she is an HPC registered member and a member of the BPS SGCP, ISCP, and AC. Helen has co-authored several publications on assessment, coaching in organiza- tions, cognitive behavioral and solution-focused coaching.

Foreword This book is an important addition to the library of books on the psychology of coaching and mentoring. It bridges the gap that exists between scholars and practitioners, helping establish the science behind the practice. I understand this conflict well since I studied psychology as a practice and felt that that was much more valuable than any academic theory. In fact I believe that many academics lack real hands-on experience and therefore fall short of good therapeutic or applied process. I would argue that the same is true of coaching and I have little time for theoretical coaches who talk up an essay but don’t deliver well. Jonathan, David, and Teresa have proven track records in both academic research and in workplace practice in the United Kingdom, United States, and Portugal. I think this book bridges the gap well. It illustrates practice well with a wide number of models that are wisely used by coaches and mentors, and offers insights into the growing research literature across coaching and mentoring, with contributions from the leading names in this emerging field of psychology. I have personally worked with Jonathan on a number of projects, including improv- ing police car driving, and Jonathan has published a number of research studies which provide evidence that coaching is a highly effective method for learning. In this book Jonathan, David, and Teresa offer value material for Master’s students and academics to build a scientific basis for their studies and future research. They also aims to win over the skeptics who still tend to hold onto the long redundant autocracy and hier- archy still found in the workplace, by providing clear evidence of coaching’s impact and potential. The authors refer to a large number of examples provided by coaches from across the globe showing the importance of subtle language and cultural differences and the role coaching can play in helping build effective leaders and better organizations. I believe it is worth adding here that coaching and its derivatives are not simply a useful tool, but a more advanced way of leading and managing others than instruction. Since a primary goal of coaching is to build self-responsibility in others, it is, in fact, an evolutionary need for humankind, for we have to move on beyond parental autocracy

Foreword xv and hierarchy which are in general rather primitive states for adults. Humanity needs to continue to grow up and coaching and this book will contribute to our evolutionary process for many years to come. Defining it well and clearly, as this book does, will con- tribute to this process. Sir John Whitmore, PhD Coach and author

Series’ Preface Welcome to this second book in the Wiley-Blackwell Industrial and Organizational Psychology series. This title in the series focus is on coaching and mentoring, which are two fairly recent developments in I/O psychology. In terms of research, coaching and mentoring have only really come to the fore since 2000. Over this period in the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom we have seen a growing number of university programs offer coaching or coaching and mentoring Mas- ter’s programs, including a small number of coaching psychology programs. In addition we have seen a significant growth in the number of coaching and mentoring PhDs and published research papers, which have made a book such as this possible. We believe this series differs in three significant ways from other titles in the field. First, the focus for the title is towards the researcher and student, as opposed to the practitioner, although scholar practitioners may also find this an interesting read. The aim of this book is to offer a comprehensive coverage of the main topics of inquiry within the domain and in each of these to offer a comprehensive critical literature review. Each chapter is thus an attempt to gather together the key papers, book chapters, and ideas and to present these for the serious researcher, student, and academic as a starting point for research in the key topics of I/O psychology. Second, while many books take a UK/European or a US/North American approach with contributors drawn predominately from one continent or the other, in this series we have made strenuous efforts to create an international feel. For each title in the series we have drawn contributors from across the globe, and encouraged them to take an interna- tional as opposed to national or regional focus. Such an approach creates challenges. Chal- lenges in terms of language and spelling, but also in the way ideas and concepts are applied in each region. We have encouraged our contributors to highlight such differences. We encourage you as the reader to reflect on these to better understand how and why these differences have emerged and what implications these have for your research and practice. Third, the chapters avoid offering a single perspective, based on the ideas of the contrib- utor. Instead we have invited leading writers in the field to critically review the literature in their areas of expertise. The chapters thus offer a unique insight into the literature in each of these areas, with leading scholars sharing their interpretation of the literature in their area.

Series’ Preface xvii Finally, as series editor I have invited contributors and editors to contribute their roy- alties to a charity. Given the international feel for the title we selected an international charity – Railway Children. This means approximately 10 percent of the cover price has been donated to charity. With any publication of this kind there are errors; as editors we apologies in advance for these. Jonathan Passmore Series Editor, I/O Psychology

Railway Children Railway Children supports children alone and at risk on the streets of India, East Africa, and the United Kingdom. Children migrate to the streets for many reasons, but once there they experience physical and sexual abuse, exploitation, drugs, and even death. We focus on early intervention, getting to the street kids before the street gets to them, and where possible we reunite them with their families and communities. In addressing the issue we work through our three-step change agenda to: • Meet the immediate needs of children on the streets – we work with local organizations to provide shelter, education or vocational training, counseling, and, if possible, rein- tegration to family life. • Shift perception in the local context – we work with local stakeholders to ensure that street children are not viewed as commodities to be abused and exploited – but as children in need of care and protection. • Hold governments to account – if we are to see a long-term, sustainable change for the children with whom we work, we must influence key decision makers, ensuring that provisions for safeguarding children are made within their policies and budgets. Last year we reached over 60,000 children across India, East Africa and the UK. In 2010 we launched an extensive qualitative piece of research ‘Off The Radar’ which highlighted the reasons behind children leaving or being forced from their homes and the services they needed to be safe. The recommendations from this report informed our model of practice here in the UK we call ‘Reach’, that offers services to children both before, during and after they runaway from home. Last year we reached over 37,000 children here in the UK through preventative work in schools, emergency refuge, detached street work and therapeutic family intervention. To find out more about our work, or to help us support more vulnerable children, please go to: www.railwaychildren.org.uk or call 01270 757596

1 The Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring Jonathan Passmore, David B. Peterson, and Teresa Freire Introduction In this short introduction we aim to explore the nature of coaching and mentoring as tools  for individual and organizational change. We will also consider the developing notion of coaching psychology and what this means for mentoring. Finally, we will briefly set out for the reader what follows in this edited title. What is Coaching? The issue of a definition in coaching is one which has been actively explored in the literature, in a way which is not found in mentoring. A host of papers have considered the  question, some focusing on reviewing previous definitions, others offering new definitions. This activity reflects the immature nature of the domain and the desire to delineate boundaries and mark out territory for coaching being a different and distinctive intervention to other organizational interventions such as mentoring, careers counseling, appraisals, and feedback. The reality, in our view, is that coaching has many similarities and overlaps with many of these interventions. Tobias (1996) suggested a more extreme position, arguing that executive coaching was really a repackaging of activities and techniques borrowed from other disciplines such as counseling, psychology, learning, and consulting. This position, however, is not typical, and most writers have suggested that coaching is different and distinctive, while having areas of overlap with many other interventions. Several papers have reviewed and debated the nature of coaching and its boundaries with counselling (Bachkirova and Cox, 2004; Passmore, 2007), as well as the emerging domain of coaching psychology (Sperry, 2008; Stewart et al., 2008). However, after a decade of debate, there is as yet no agreed standard definition of coaching. This diversity The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring, First Edition. Edited by Jonathan Passmore, David B. Peterson, and Teresa Freire. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

2 The Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring may reflect both the multiple applications of the approach, with multiple clients and multiple environments, and more importantly a lack of a single body to pull together diverse strands and establish a single overarching definition. Key early writers such as Whitmore (1992) and Whitworth et al. (1998) provide definitions that have informed the course of the debate. One of the most frequently quoted defintions is Whitmore’s. He suggests that: “Coaching is unlocking people’s potential to maximise their own performance. It is helping them to learn rather than teaching them” (Whitmore, 1992, p. 10). Here Whitmore draws on the work of Gallwey’s Inner Game (1986). Gallwey notes in his own writing the critical nature of the self in enhancing personal performance; the “opponent within one’s own head is more formindable that the one on the other side of the net.” Whitmore’s response to overcome the self, is to use the self as a tool for reflection, raising self-awareness and through this personal responsibility for success or failure. Whitworth places a stronger focus on the relational aspects of coaching, which are fostered by the coach. She notes coaching is, “a form of conversation with unspoken ground rules of certain qualities that must be present: respect, openness, compassion, and rigour, our committment to speaking the truth” (Whitworth et al., 1998). Both definitions are simple and widely drawn. In this sense it may be argued that they fail to deliniate coaching from many of the other interventions identified above, although their wide embracing nature makes them attractive. In short these may be considered “big tent” definitions of coaching. Other writers have attempted to be more specific in defining the nature of coaching, with the objective of more clearly establishing boundaries with other interventions. Grant and Stober (2001) in their largely Australian edited textbook of evidenced based coaching offer a definition: “A collaborative and egalitarian relationship between a coach, who is not necessarily a domain-specific specialist, and Client, which involves a systematic process that focuses on collaborative goal setting to construct solutions and employ goal attainment process with the aim of fostering the on-going self-directed learning and personal growth of the Client” (Grant and Stober, 2006, p. 2). This view of coaching can be contrasted with other definitions in edited texts. Peltier (2001) in his US edited textbook of executive coaching psychology suggested that those trying to define coaching often start by stating what coaching is not: “Coaching is specifically not therapy.” After a review of systems and consulting psychology, Peltier offers his own definition of coaching: “Someone from outside an organisation uses psychological skills to help a person develop into a more effective leader. These skills are applied to specific present moment work problems in a way that enables this person to incorporate them into his or her permanent management or leadership repertoire” (Peltier, 2001, p. xx). Peltier’s definition reflects his background in psychology, combined with a desire to encourage the development of a stronger evidenced-base approach. This contrasts with earlier writers, such as Whitworth, who highlighted the strong intuitive nature of coaching. As a comparison with another popular UK edited title Cox and her colleagues (Cox et al., 2010) offer a “workman-like” definition: “Coaching can be seen as a human development process that involves structured, focused interaction and the use of appropriate strategies, tools, and techniques to promote desirable and sustained change for the benefit of the coachee and potentially other stakeholder” (Cox et al., 2010). However, in the following debate they acknowledge that coaching is difficult to define. They note that definitions often seek to define coaching through reference to its ultimate purpose (what’s it for), the type of clients (who uses the service), or the process (how is it

The Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring 3 done). They note that many definitions offer little fresh insight, as their broad and all encompassing natures fail to distinguish them from other human development interventions. For a more organizational perspective, Kilburg suggested that coaching needed to offer  both individual and organizational benefits. He suggested the following definition of coaching: Helping a relationship formed between a client who has managerial authority and responsibility in an organization and a consultant who uses a wide variety of behavioural techniques and methods to help the client achieve a mutually identified set of goals to improve his or her professional performance and personal satisfaction and, consequently, to improve the effectiveness of the client’s organization within a formally defined coaching agreement. (Kilburg, 2000, p. 142) Kilburg’s definition mixes psychological practice with organizational consulting and has become a standard defintion, frequently quoted alongside Whitmore’s catchy definition, offering a contrast for readers in peer reviewed papers between the simple and more complex. In reflecting on the research and publications over the past decade, Passmore and Fillery-Travis (2011) have attempted to offer a broad definition of coaching, which captures the three elements, “how, what and who for” highlighted by Cox and colleagues in their discussion about definitions. Passmore and Fillery-Travis suggest coaching is: “A Socratic based future focused dialogue between a facilitator (coach) and a participant (coachee/ client), where the facilitator uses open questions, summaries and reflections which are aimed at stimulating the self-awareness and personal responsibility of the participant.” Passmore and Fillery-Travis suggested that the “who for” can be vaguely defined as a “participant”, that is someone actively and voluntarily participanting in the activity. The  “how” of the process are the common techniques which underpin all coaching interventions, from cognitive behavioral to solution focus, and motivational interviewing to GROW. The outcome in this definition, too, is vaguely stated and is not goal focused, although this is included, but is instead rooted in Whitmore’s view that in essence coaching is about self-awareness and personal responsibility. In this definition the writters suggest, in using the term “Socratic dialogue”, that the coachee already has within them the answer to the question, and thus the role of the coach is not socio-educational as it might be within approaches such as CBT, but is primarily faciliative. What is Coaching Psychology? Alongside the debate about the nature of coaching, a new debate has emerged with the growing popularization in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Europe of coaching psychology. Writers have suggested that coaching psychology is different from coaching, and by implication psychologically trained practitioners operate in a different way to coaching. Some of the coaching writers have alluded to psychological principles, while not making an explicit coaching psychology definition, for example Peltier (2001). The coaching psychology movement has emerged from two corners – in Australia from the work of Anthony Grant, who’s doctoral thesis examined the emerging phenomena

4 The Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring of coaching in 2001 and led to the creation of the Coaching Psychology Unit at Sydney University, with Michael Cavanagh in 2001. This unit was later supported by the emergence of an Australian Psychology Society’s Interest Group in Coaching Psychology. Second, the work of a small group of coaching psychology practitioners in the UK, led by Stephen Palmer, but including Alison Whybrow, Pauline Willis, and Jonathan Passmore, who in 2002 formed the Coaching Psychology Forum. The forum led to the development of the British Psychology Society’s Special Interest Group in coaching psychology. Over the following years, coaching psychology groups have emerged across the world. In parallel with its growth in popularity, there is discussion as to whether coaching psychology or coaching psychologists are distinctive and if so in what way are they distinctive to others who practice coaching. At the heart of this is the question: “What is coaching psychology?” Grant and Palmer (2002) defined coaching psychology as: “Coach- ing psychology is for enhancing performance in work and personal life domains with normal, non-clinical populations, underpinned by models of coaching grounded in established therapeutic approaches.” This definition implies that coaching psychology is distinctive from coaching. Further, this definition of coaching psychology makes clear that the intervention is one targeted at “normal” and “non-clinical” populations. While this may have been true in 2002, the spread of coaching has taken coaching into new areas, including health (Anstiss and Passmore, in press) and education (Van Nieuwerburgh, in press). Coaching psychologists now work with non-adult populations in schools, with clinical populations in hospitals and with a wide range of individuals in care settings. Second, Grant and Palmer’s original definition suggests that coaching psychology must draw on models grounded in therapeutic approaches. This definition thus limited coaching pscyhology and restricted the development of this emerging approach. In response to these, and other points, Palmer and Grant updated their definition. A revised version of the definition for coach- ing  psychology offered by the writers is: “Coaching Psychology is for enhancing well- being and performance in personal life and work domains, underpinned by models of coaching grounded in established adult learning or psychological approaches” (adapted from Grant and Palmer, 2002). While this deals with many of the concerns expressed about the original definition, some writers (including ourselves) have been concerned about creating an artifical distinction between coaching practice and coaching psychology practice, without evidence to support such a distinction. In fact research by Passmore et al. (2010) has suggested that there is little evidence to support differences in practice, at least within the UK coaching population – when comparing chartered pscyhologsits with the practices of coaches from other professional coaching bodies. A US survey, on which the UK survey was based, did find some small differences in practice, but these were tiny in comparison to the areas of commonality between coaching practitioners and coaching psychologists (Bono et al., 2009). In short, coaching practitioners and coaching psychology practitioners appear to use similar behaviors within their coaching practice. This is not to say that there is not a distinction between evidenced-based coaching practice and some of the practices adopted by coaches who Sherman and Freas (2004) might have included within their “wild west” of coaching when they highlighted concerns about a lack of training, regulation, and maturity in organizations in appointing professional practitioners. In fact many of these concerns still exist today. Coaching still has zero barriers to entry, there is no regulation of coaches and there are frequent examples of poor quality coach commisioning by organizations, reflecting the immature nature of the market.

The Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring 5 Given this evidence, an alternative approach to coaching psychology is to consider it as the study of coaching practice as opposed to a distinctive aspect of coaching practice itself. Passmore (2010) has offered the following definition: “Coaching psychology is the scientific study of behaviour, cognitive and emotion within coaching practice to deepen our understanding and enhance our practice within coaching.” This approach to coaching psychology mirrors the definitions used for health, occupational, and other psychology disciplines and reflects a view that psychology is the scientific study of practice as opposed to the practice itself – which maybe evidenced based or not. Coaching psychology can study both and identify areas of excellence and areas of concern. We would argue that all coaching practice should be evidenced based and that while this is not the case at present, coaches should be asserting their voice to protect their domain from spurious practices, which in the long term will have a detrimental impact on the reputation of coaching. This book has adopted this defintion of coaching psychology. Coaching psychology is concerned with the study, critical review, and sharing of evidenced-based coaching practice, as opposed to a distinct or seperate way of undertaking coaching with clients. One issue not explored in this discussion is the lack of recognition around group and team coaching, as well as virtual coaching. The research on team coaching is at a lower level of maturity than one-to-one coaching, but there is a developing literature within the realm of team effectiveness (Mathieu et al., 2008). Specifically, Wageman (1997, 2001) has made a substantial contribution, culminating in the publication of a theory of team coaching with Hackman (Hackman and Wageman, 2005). In addition, there is a small literature on virtual coaching. We have included both issues within this publication. What is Mentoring? The complexity of the debate on definition within coaching has been matched in mentoring. Jacobi (1991) identified 15 different definitions of mentoring across the education, psychological, and management literature. Other researchers have made similar observations, noting the diversity in defining this organizational intervention (Burke, 1984; Merriam, 1983). As with coaching, the debate on definitions has created a challenge in trying to clarify the issue of impact and also the distinctive practices within mentoring that contribute to successful outcomes. Given mentoring researchers longer history, over the past three decades, the topic has broadened and developed, allowing the emergence of both greater clarity on definitions and acceptance of diversity of practice depending on the mentoring goal and the client. Within organizational mentoring, there is broad agreement about the nature of the topic. As Ragins and Kram (2007) note, the term “mentoring” is popularly used to denote a relationship between an older, more experienced mentor and a younger, less experienced protégé for the purposes of supporting the career development of the protégé. The mentor may not work in the same organization as the protégé, but is likely to work in the same sector or bring a deep understanding of the issues and challenges faced by the protégé. Eby et al. (2007) offer the following definition, which we have used for this publication: “Workplace mentoring involves a relationship between a less experienced individual (protégé) and a more experienced person (the mentor), where the purpose is the personal and professional growth of the protégé … and where the mentor may be a peer at work, a  supervisor someone else within the organization, but outside the protégé’s chain of

6 The Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring command” (Eby et al., p. 16). What is of interest, since the seminal work by Kram (1985) and the emergence of a mentoring research agenda, is that there has been no discussion about “mentoring psychology” as a distinct or separate area of practice or research. We would hold the view that coaching and mentoring share many qualities and as coaching has looked to counseling, coaching should over the coming decade also look to mentoring  research for insights into the design of mentoring/coaching programs and how coaching can contribute to individual development. Given this belief we have asked leading mentoring researchers to share their insights from three decades of work. The Developing Research Agenda for Coaching and Mentoring Our hope is that this title will be a useful resource for postgraduate researchers, students, and academics alike, looking for a comprehensive review of the literature as a starting point for their own research and for scholar-practitioners to gain a full understanding of  the depth and scope of the literature in their area of interest, with the objective of enhancing evidence-based practice and stimulating further research. The book is structured using four sections focused on coaching, mentoring, theories and models, and a final section on issues in coaching and mentoring. We recognize this is only one of a number of ways we could have clustered these chapters. Together these sections combine what are the most important questions, conceptual frameworks, and practices related to the coaching and mentoring fields. The first section comprises nine chapters devoted to coaching in general. The aim of this section is to present the state of the art about coaching issues that have been studied from a psychological perspective. A set of scholars, researchers, and professionals in the area of coaching discuss different concepts considered relevant for a better understanding of coaching science and practice. Chapter 2 of this volume explores the efficacy of coaching. In this chapter Anthony Grant discusses two main questions, about organizational coaching efficacy and cost effectiveness. The author offers processes for answering these questions, which includes the discussion and definition of other main aspects, such as, the meaning of coaching, the nature of coaching- related evidence, the measurement of coaching effectiveness, and effective methodologies for assessing coaching outcomes. Grant also presents some broad delineations of coaching and the possible future directions for the measurement of coaching efficacy. In Chapter 3 Robert Lee discusses the role of contracting in coaching, balancing individual and organizational issues. Lee reviews the literature regarding contracting as used in the field of executive coaching to provide insight into methods for establishing productive expecta- tions among the multiple parties involved in an executive coaching engagement. Along the chapter all aspects related to contracting are discussed, underlying the notion that good contracts among all parties are a requirement for good coaching. The development of meaning and identity within coaching is the focus of Chapter 4. This chapter explores how issues of meaning and identity relate to coaching individuals and groups. The authors argue that meaning and identity are foundational to all coaching practice and that these topics become involved at some point in all coaching. Such issues arise for both individuals and groups at key times of change and transition: when there are endings and/or new beginnings; when a person or team seems “stuck”, or unable to move forward.

The Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring 7 The importance of ethics is highlighted in Chapter 5, where Rodney Lowman discusses whether coaching is (or has the potential) to become a separate and distinct profession. The chapter moves on to consider the nature of ethics and its application by three bodies: the American Psychological Association (APA), the Canadian Psychological Association (ACA), and the British Psychology Society (BPS). Finally, the chapter offers a review of the small but growing list of papers which have explored coaching ethics. In a more internal perspective, Bowman and colleagues present the neuroscience of coaching in Chapter 6. They provide an overview of some of the emerging science from neuro-psychology and raise questions about the implications for coaching practice. They argue that while neuroscience may be a new field, it has potential to be a useful ally for those engaged in personal development. Mindfulness in coaching is the focus of Chapter 7. In this chapter Michael Cavanagh and Gordon Spence seek to answer several main questions about mindfulness as a construct or as an intervention. The authors examine the conceptual and definitional issues related to mindfulness, and present a model to assist in clarifying these. They also consider the potential mechanisms by which mindfulness may have its beneficial effects in coaching, presenting a theoretical model of these mechanisms. Cavanagh and Spence show the important contributions that mindfulness makes to coaching efficacy at the level of the coach, the coachee and the coaching relationship itself. Coaching is also discussed from a developmental perspective. In line with this, Tatiana Bachkirova discusses developmental coaching in Chapter 8, presenting a new theory and  framework for practice. She discusses two potential perspectives on developmental coaching, namely developmental coaching and practical approaches based on adult development theories. Bachkirova offers a new approach to developmental coaching based on re-conceptualization of the self that leads to facilitating change in coaching. Gender issues in business coaching, is considered by Sunny Stout-Rostron in Chapter 9. This chapter reviews the contemporary literature relevant to gender as it affects organiza- tional and institutional coaching. The author explores gender diversity and gender coaching, discussing the definition of gender; the challenges which gender presents; the wider research on the gender debate and coaching as a solution to build organizations. Finally, and as the last chapter of this first section, Alison Carter and Peter Hawkins focus on team coaching. The two authors critically review the team literature and explore its relevance for coaching in group and team settings. Section II of the book focuses on mentoring, with four chapters from leading authors around the world. The first chapter of this section – Chapter 11 – relates to designing mentoring schemes. Lis Merrick and Paul Stokes critically examine the design of mentoring schemes and programs, drawing out the lessons for future practice in relation to issues concerning the different modes of mentoring, in particular electronic and mutual mentoring. Kath Kram and Chloe Tong provide a comprehensive review of the literature relating to  the efficacy of mentoring in Chapter 12. The chapter introduces the reader to the various benefits of mentoring, exploring the benefits of traditional mentoring relationships for the individual partners, the protégé, and the mentor, and the benefits to the organiza- tion. The difficulties with the mentoring literature to date are discussed, followed by the variations on traditional mentoring relationships and their unique benefits. The authors highlight the need to consider the changes in contemporary organizational contexts. In Chapter 13, Robert Garvey and Gunnela Westlander explore the issue of training mentors. The chapter considers the behaviors in mentoring that bring positive

8 The Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring outcomes.  The authors discuss the main issues related to mentoring, with a particular emphasis on mentor education and curriculum for mentors. They highlight the need for training, recognizing the underlying complexity of these processes and the dynamic nature of organizational environments, where successful behaviors in the previous year can spell disaster in the following year. Finally in this section, in Chapter 14, Rowena Ortiz-Walters and Lucy Gilson discuss mentoring programs for under-represented groups. They highlight the fact that although companies around the world and across industries are implementing mentoring programs to provide career, leadership, and personal development for employees, the employees have limited access to mentoring. For this, the authors argue that research and broader understanding is greatly needed. Section III of this title focuses on theories and models with implications for coaching. Leading authors present different psychological theories and models, drawing on their expertise and previous publications. They offer insights into the origins of each model, its research and theoretical framework, and finally its application within coaching. In total, eight chapters on models are presented. In the first chapter of this section – Chapter 15 of the book – entitled “Humanistic and Person-centered Approaches,” Jane Brodie Gregory and Paul Levy discuss how to provide structure and clarity to the notion of humanistic coaching, including techniques that can be incorporated into its practice. Some contributions from other psychological areas are discussed, namely the contribution from positive psychology, showing how coaches can maximize human potential of their clients throughout the practice of humanistic coaching. Next, in Chapter 16, Sabine Dembkowski and Fiona Eldridge consider behavioral coaching. In this chapter the authors explore the influence and impact of behaviorism on  developing effective executive coaching practice. For the authors, behavioral-based coaching is one of the most popular coaching models, although coaches and aspiring coaches are unaware of the theoretical basis of the models they learn about and apply, and of the consequences for their practice. This chapter aims to redress this balance. Cognitive behavioral approaches are the focus of Chapter 17 authored by Stephen Palmer and Helen Williams. The authors review the historical development of the cognitive behavioral approach, detailing its philosophical routes and theoretical foundations, summarize the research evidence for the approach, detail the development of CBC in coaching and offer some examples of how the concept has been applied by coaching practitioners through new models and tools. Tim Anstiss and Jonathan Passmore discuss, in Chapter 18, the motivational interviewing approach. After reviewing the origins, theory, and practice of motivational interview- ing with clinical populations, the authors suggest that the approach has equal value with non-clinical clients where readiness to change is a challenge. They suggest that while the research with non-clinical populations is less extensive the approach will offer significant benefits in helping individuals prepare for change. Michael Diamond in Chapter 19 presents psychodynamic executive coaching, aiming to explain the three major perspectives that underline this kind of coaching. Each of these theories illuminates different dimensions that executive coaches encounter relative to lead- ership, groups, and organizational dynamics. Along the chapter, the author shows how psychodynamic approaches to executive coaching offer consultants a better understanding and consideration of the impact of psychological reality on organizational roles and working relationships; and how it is intended to help leaders and executives by engaging them in authentic and reflective dialogue.

The Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring 9 From another point of view, Juliann Spoth, Sarah Toman, Robin Leichtman, and Julie Allen, in Chapter 20, present how gestalt approach can create a unique approach to coaching. Along their chapter on gestalt coaching the authors explore gestalt theoretical approaches and their applications to coaching, with an emphasis also on gestalt coaching methods, that enables gestalt coaches to work at a deeper level and bring about powerful shifts. In Chapter 21, Reinhard Stellar discusses the characteristics and potentialities of narrative approaches for coaching, showing how narrative coaching is representative of the new wave – or third generation – of coaching practice. The chapter is aimed to present coaching as a narrative-collaborative practice, an approach that is based on phenomeno- logy, social constructionism, and narrative theory. Seeing narrative coaching as a collaborative practice, the author highlights how it leads to reflecting on the relationship between coach and coachee(s) in a new way. Stellar underlines the contribution of using coaching as a narrative-collaborative practice to the development of social capital. Finally in Chapter 22, the last in the Third section, Teresa Freire discusses how coaching can benefit from the science of positive psychology, specifically in relation to questions regarding work, life, and organizations. The author presents the main concepts and approaches that justify the intersection of positive psychology and coaching in terms of research, methodologies, and practices, contributing to the definition of the positive coaching psychology field. In the final section in this book, related to issues in coaching and mentoring, four chapters are presented. These explore issues of equal consideration for both coaching and mentoring such as evaluation, emotions, relationship, cross-cultural perspectives, and virtual working. Chapter 23, by Siegfried Greif, deals with conducting organizational based evaluations of coaching and mentoring programs. This chapter highlights the main issue related to the evaluation of the effects of coaching and mentoring programs in organizations. Therefore, the primary aim of this chapter is to inform the reader about evaluation models and methods that meet high standards of quality and can be recommended for use in program evaluation studies. In Chapter 24 Kate Hefferon focuses on the area of emotion research and its role in coaching and mentoring, from both the coach/mentor and client perspective, with special emphasis on the importance of happiness in the development of fulfilled individuals. In Chapter 25, Geoffrey Abbott, Kate Gilbert, and Philippe Rosinski explore the role of cross-cultural themes in coaching and mentoring. They consider the differences of each and their cultural fit, as well as reviewing different models which may be helpful in deep- ening our understanding of culture within coaching and mentoring within organizations. In the final chapter of the book Niloofar Ghods and Camala Boyce explore virtual coach- ing and mentoring. Virtual work involves working with those who are not co-located in the same space or are working with technology (i.e. telephone, email, text) as a replacement for face-to-face interactions. The authors note the particular challenges such media bring, and share the growing research in this area of practice. Conclusion In this title we have taken a strongly academic approach to coaching, which contrast with other popular texts such as Peltier (2001, 2010), Passmore (2006, 2010), Palmer and Whybrow (2007), Cox et al. (2010), and Wildflower and Brennan (2011), which each offer

10 The Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring a  stronger practitioner focus. Our aim has been to offer an edited title, with leading international writers and critical literature reviews across a wide area of both coaching and mentoring, and through this to encourage stronger cross-fertilization between these areas of research, as well as to encouraging researchers to draw on the wider psychological (research-based) literature to inform further research and practice. We believe the development of evidenced based practice through high quality research is vital if coaching and mentoring are to achieve their full potential as tools to support individuals at work reaching their full potential. References Anstiss, T. and Passmore, J. (in press) Health Coaching. London: Karnac Press. Bachkirova, T. and Cox, E. (2004) A bridge over troubled water: Bring together coaching and counselling. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching, 11(1). Bono, J., Purvanova, R.,Towler, A.J., and Peterson, D.B. (2009) A survey of executive coaching practices. Personnel Psychology, 62, 361–404. Burke, R. (1984) Mentoring in organizations. Group and Organizational Studies, 9, 355–72. Cox, E., Bachkirova, T., and Clutterbuck, D. (2010) The Complete Handbook of Coaching. London: Sage. Eby, L.T., Rhodes, J., and Allen, T.D. (2007) Definition and evolution of mentoring. In: T.D. Allen and T.D. Eby (eds) Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives Approach. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 7–20. Gallwey, W.T. (1986) The Inner Game of Tennis. London: Pan Books. Grant, A.M. and Palmer, S. (2002) Coaching psychology workshop. Annual conference of the Division of Counselling Psychology, BPS, Torquay, May 18. Grant, A.M. and Stober, D. (2001) Introduction. In: D. Stober and A. Grant (eds) Evidence Based Coaching: Putting Best Practices to Work for your Clients. New Jersey: Wiley and Sons. pp. 1–14. Grant, A.M. and Stober, D. (2006) Introduction. In: D. Stober and A. Grant (eds) Evidence Based Coaching: Putting Best Practices to Work for your Clients. New Jersey: Wiley and Sons. pp. 1–14. Hackman, J.G. and Wageman, R. (2005) A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 269–87. Jacobi, M. (1991) Mentoring and under graduate academic success. A literature review. Review of Educational Research, 61, 505–32. Kilburg, R.R. (2000) Executive Coaching: Developing Managerial Wisdom in a World of Chaos. Washington, DC. American Psychological Association. Kram, K. (1985) Mentoring at Work: Developmental Relationships at Work. Glenview, II: Scott, Foreman and Co. Mathieu, J., Maynard, M.T., Rapp, T., and Gilson, L. (2008) Team Effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. Journal of Management, 34(3), 410–76. Merriam, S. (1983) Mentors and protégés: A critical review of the literature. Adult Education Quarterly, 33, 161–73. Passmore, J. (2007) Coaching and mentoring: The role of experience and sector knowledge International Journal of Evidence based Coaching and Mentoring, Summer, 10–16. Passmore, J (2010) Excellence in Coaching: The Industry Guide (2nd edn). London: Kogan Page. Passmore, J. and Fillery-Travis, A. (2011) A critical review of executive coaching research: A decade of progress and what’s to come. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Practice and Research, 4(2), 70–88.

The Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring 11 Passmore, J. Palmer, S., and Short, E. (2010) Results of an online UK survey of coaching and coach- ing psychology practitioners. Unpublished survey. Peltier, B. (2001) The Psychology of Executive Coaching. Theory and Application. New York: Brunner-Routledge. Peltier, B. (2010) The Psychology of Executive Coaching: Theory and Application (2nd edn). New York: Brunner-Routledge. Ragins, B.R. and Kram, K. (2007) The Handbook of Mentoring at Work: Theory, Reseach and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sherman, S. and Freas, A. (2004) The Wild West of Coaching. Harvard Business Review. November. Retrived on December 7, 2011 from http://www.rocroseconsulting.com.au/Pdf%20Files/ The%20Wild%20West%20of %20Executive%20Coaching%20(2).pdf. Sperry, L. (2008) Executive coaching: An intervention, role function or profession? Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(1), 33. Stewart, L.J., O’Riordan, S., and Palmer, S. (2008) Before we know how we’ve done, we need to  know what we’re doing: Operationalising coaching to provide a foundation for coaching evaluation. The Coaching Psychologist, 4(3), 127–33. Tobias, L.L. (1996) Coaching executives. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48(2), 87–95. Van Nieuwerburgh, C. (in press) Coaching in Education. London: Karnac Press. Wageman, R. (1997) Critical success factors for creating superb self-managing teams. Organisational Dynamics, 26(1), 49–61. Wageman, R. (2001) How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus hands-on coaching. Organisation Science, 12(5), 559–77. Wildflower, L. and Brennan, D. (2011) The Handbook of Knowledge Based Coaching. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. Whitmore, J. (1992) Coaching for Performance. London: Nicholas Bearley. Whitworth, L., Kimsey-House, H., Kimsey-House, K., and Sandahl, P. (1998) Co-active Coaching: New Skills for Coaching People Toward Success in Work and Life. London: Nicholas Brealey.

Section I Coaching

2 The Efficacy of Coaching Anthony M. Grant Introduction Is coaching effective? Is it cost-effective? The answers to these questions depend heavily on the contextual and situational factors at play and who is asking the question – and why. A professional coach or purveyor of coaching services asking the above questions may well  take the growth of the coaching industry worldwide as one indicator of whether coaching is effective and “works”, and it is clear that in the last 10 or 15 years workplace and executive coaching has grown from a relatively novel and little used intervention to a mainstream activity in organizations worldwide. The annual revenue expended on corporate coaching has been estimated to be in the region of US$1.5 billion, and in 2009 it was estimated that there were approximately 40,000 professional coaches globally (Frank Bresser Consulting, 2009) up from approxi- mately 30,000 in 2006 (International Coach Federation, 2006), and the figures are probably even higher today despite the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Indeed for some organizations the pressures and tensions inherent in the GFC served only to highlight the  need to provide good coaching to key staff (Farndale et al., 2010). In the United States, 93 percent of US-based Global 100 companies use executive coaches (Bono et al., 2009). In the United Kingdom, 88 percent of organizations use coaching (Jarvis et al., 2005). In 2006 in Australia, 64 percent of business leaders and 72 percent of senior managers reported using coaches (Leadership Management Australia, 2006), and following the GFC, Australian businesses perceived a need for coaching in terms of the increased importance of developing new perspectives in tough economic times, renewed emphasis on communicating effectively with employees, and building trust and resilience with staff increased dramatically (Leadership Management Australia, 2009). But the growth of the coaching industry and industry’s recognition of the important role of coaching in both good and tough economic times is not a reliable indicator of coaching’s efficacy or validity. Indeed, given that coaching is playing an increasing role in The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring, First Edition. Edited by Jonathan Passmore, David B. Peterson, and Teresa Freire. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2013 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

16 Coaching organizations worldwide, it is important that we are able to reliably access the effectiveness of coaching interventions and develop an evidence base for professional coaching. Is coaching effective and do we yet have an evidence base for coaching? To begin the process of answering these questions, we need to determine what we mean by coaching, delineate the nature of coaching-related evidence, work out how to measure coaching effectiveness, and determine effective methodologies for assessing coaching outcomes, and do so in relation to the extant coaching literature. Drawing on past work in this area (Grant, 2011; Grant et al., 2010), and beginning with some broad delineations of coaching, I review the recent extant research into the efficacy of coaching and highlight possible future directions for the measurement of coaching efficacy. Seek First to Understand Before we can meaningfully discuss the efficacy of coaching we need to understand the nature of coaching itself. Although the widespread use of the term “coaching” suggests that it is a monolithic activity, in fact coaching methodologies are highly diverse and heterogeneous approaches to creating and facilitating purposeful positive individual and organizational change. Despite such diversity, most understandings of coaching are underpinned by the view of coaching as a collaborative relationship formed between a coach and the coachee for the purpose of attaining professional or personal development outcomes which are valued by the coachee (Spence and Grant, 2007). Thus, typically, coaching is a goal-focused activity; clients come to coaching because there is a problem they need or want to solve or a goal they want to attain, and they a looking for help in constructing and enacting solutions to that problem. At its core the coaching process is a relatively straightforward one in which the coach helps stretch and develop the coachee’s current capacities or performance, by helping individuals to: (1) identify desired outcomes, (2) establish specific goals, (3) enhance motivation by identifying strengths and building self-efficacy, (4) identify resources and formulate specific action plans, (5) monitor and evaluate progress towards goals, and (6) modify action plans based on such feedback. The monitor-evaluate-modification steps of this process constitute a simple cycle of self-regulated behavior, and this is a key process in creating intentional behavior change (Carver and Scheier, 1998). The role of the coach is to facilitate the coachee’s movement through this self-regulatory cycle by helping the coachee to develop specific action plans and then to monitor and evaluate progression towards those goals (Grant et al., 2010). Sounds Simple: So Coaching Should be Easy to Evaluate? Thus, in theory at least, the essence of coaching is a relatively straightforward process of setting goals, developing action plans, and managing progress towards those goals. Therefore, it might be entirely reasonable to assume that assessing the efficacy of coaching should be a comparatively easy process. However, coaching as a broadly-applied human change methodology has been used with a vast range of issues, including: reducing workplace stress (Wright, 2007); creating organizational cultural change (Anderson et al., 2008); business coaching (Clegg et al., 2005); facilitating work performance in cross cultural contexts (Peterson, 2007); dealing

The Efficacy of Coaching 17 with resistance to change in low-performing managers (Passmore, 2007); enhancing sales force performance (Agarwal et al., 2009); helping learner drivers develop driving skills  (Passmore and Mortimer, 2011); improving communication and leadership skills (Wilson, 2004); helping with career development (Scandura, 1992); team building and group development (Cunha and Louro, 2000); and coaching to improve performance in job interviews (Maurer et al., 1998) – an almost endless list of applications. In addition to these rich and diverse applications, coaching in the workplace is con- ducted at all levels of the organization. Executive coaching for executive level employees is typically conducted within a formal coaching agreement with external coaches, using sit-down coaching sessions and encompasses a vast range of services and specialties: coaching for enhanced strategic planning; presentation skills; anger and stress management; executive management team building; and leadership development – all outcomes that are difficult to quantify. In contrast, workplace coaching in organizations can be under- stood as coaching that takes place in workplace settings with non-executive employees aimed at enhancing workplace performance and work-related skills. As such, it is often an internal coaching intervention delivered on the job by line managers and supervisors, or by employees specially designated as being in the coaching role. This kind of coaching often involves impromptu or “corridor coaching”, rather than formal sessions (Grant et al., 2010). Thus, the aims and processes of workplace coaching interventions are often somewhat different to those in executive coaching. Furthermore, and adding to the complexity of evaluating coaching in the workplace, is the fact that organizations tend to use a combination of both external and internal coaching approaches, for example one UK survey found that 51 percent of UK organizations used external coaches, 41 percent trained their own internal coaches, and 79 percent used managers as coaches (Kubicek, 2002). Reviewing the Efficacy of Coaching is Complex, and the Literature is Disjointed Because coaching interventions cover such a broad range of applications, and are conducted with such a wide and diverse range of participants, it is perhaps not surprising that the academic outcome literature on coaching is disjointed and somewhat fragmented. There is an increasing amount of coaching-specific, practitioner-generated research. Practitioner research in general tends to be conducted by independent practitioners on client outcomes associated with their own personal business. Practitioner research, especially as part of  one’s reflective practice, has the potential to be extremely valuable and has made a significant contribution to the emergence and development of an evidence base for coach- ing. However, a key limitation of practitioner research is that many practitioners are not trained in research methods or in the dissemination of findings. Further, most practitioner research tends not to use standardized or validated outcome measures, typically construct- ing pre-post surveys or questionnaires that target the specific behaviors that are the focus of the coaching intervention, or presenting estimates of financial return on investment (ROI: McGovern et al., 2001). Whilst such idiosyncratic outcome measures may be very useful to the client and often form valuable material in terms of marketing for coaching service providers, their relevance  to the broader coaching-specific knowledge base is often limited. It should be noted, however, that the quality of coaching practitioner research is improving. Where some past coaching research seemed to be primarily aimed at marketing coaching services

18 Coaching (Corbett, 2006), recently there are many more well-grounded examples of contemporary thought in this area, particulary in relation to the evaluation of executive coaching (for some useful examples see Coutu and Kauffman, 2009; Hernez-Broome and Boyce, 2011). As regards the peer-reviewed academic literature on the efficacy of coaching: as of January 2011 there were a total of 634 published scholarly papers or dissertations on coaching listed in the databases PsycINFO and Business Source Premier, beginning with Gorby’s (1937) report of senior staff coaching junior employees on how to save waste. This figure of 634 includes life (or personal coaching) and executive and workplace coaching, but excludes papers on other applications of coaching such as sports or athletic coaching, forensic, clinical or psychotherapeutic populations, educational coaching or coaching for faking on psychometric or educational tests, which are not relevant to this chapter. It is clear that the coaching literature has grown significantly in recent years. Between 1937 and January 1, 2011 there were a total of 634 published papers. In terms of assessing the efficacy of coaching there have been 234 outcome studies published since 2000 (to January 2011); 131 case studies, 77 within-subject studies, and 25 between-subject studies. Of the 25 between-subject studies, 14 were randomized studies (see Table 2.1 for a summary of the 25 between-subject studies). Many of the published empirical papers are surveys about different organizations’ use of  coaching (e.g., Douglas and McCauley, 1999; Vloeberghs et al., 2005), or studies examining the characteristics of coach training schools (e.g., Grant and O’Hara, 2006). That is, most of the empirical literature to date is contextual or survey-based research about the characteristics of coaches and coachees or the delivery of coaching services. Whilst this is useful information for both the coaching industry and the purchasers of coaching services, it does not tell us a great deal about the efficacy of coaching per se. Outcome Studies The first published empirical outcome study exploring the efficacy of coaching in the academic literature was Gershman’s (1967) dissertation on the effects of specific factors of  the supervisor-subordinate coaching climate upon improvement of attitude and performance of the subordinate, showed initial support of the efficacy of coaching approaches in the workplace. No other coaching outcome studies were published until Duffy’s (1984) dissertation on the effectiveness of a feedback-coaching intervention in executive outplacement. Peterson’s (1993) thesis on behavior change in an individually tailored management coaching program marked the dawning of a contemporary phase of coaching outcome research (prior to 1990 there had been only six published coaching outcome studies examining the efficacy of coaching). Most of the 131 case studies in the coaching literature are purely descriptive, tending to emphasize practice-related issues rather than presenting rigorous evaluations of the coach- ing intervention. Very few of these case studies used established and validated quantitative measures, and few used case study methodology beyond a purely descriptive fashion. Two Key Case Studies From this author’s perspective two case studies stand out in the coaching literature as exemplifying good practice in using case study methodologies to explore the efficacy of coaching. The first is Libri and Kemp’s (2006) A-B-A-B single case design with a sales

Table 2.1 Summary of 25 between-subjects studies to January 1, 2011. Study Intervention overview Type of study Key findings Miller (1990) 33 employees. Some received coaching Quasi-experimental field study No sig. differences pre-post for interpersonal Deviney (1994)* by their managers over 4 weeks. (a) Coaching group; (b) Control group. communication skills. Taylor (1997)* 45 line supervisors at a nuclear power Randomized controlled study No sig. differences in pre-post feedback plant. Some received feedback and (a) Feedback plus coaching, behavior. Grant (2002)* coaching from their managers over (b) Feedback with no coaching, 9 weeks. (c) Control group. Coaching reduced stress more than training. Miller et al. (2004)* Participants undergoing a medical Randomized controlled study Combined cognitive and behavioral coaching college admission test preparation (a) Training only; (b) Coaching only; most effective in increasing grade point Sue-Chan and course. (c) Training plus coaching; average, study skills, self-regulation, and Latham (2004) (d) Control group. mental health. GPA gains maintained in 62 trainee accountants received group 12 month follow-up. coaching over one semester. Randomized controlled study (a) Cognitive coaching only; Relative to controls, the 4 trained groups 140 licensed substance abuse (b) Behavioral coaching only; had gains in proficiency. Coaching and/or professionals learnt motivational (c) Combined cognitive and behavioral feedback increased post-training interviewing via a range of methods. coaching; (d) Control groups for each proficiency. condition. 53 MBA students in two studies in Study 1: External coaching associated Canada and Australia. Randomized controlled study with higher team playing behavior than (a) Workshop only; (b) Workshop plus peer coaching; Study 2: External and feedback; (c) Workshop plus coaching; self coaching associated with higher (d) Workshop, feedback, and coaching; grades than peer coaching. or (e) Waitlist control group. (continued ) Random assignment (a) External coach; (b) Peer coach or (c) Self-coached.

Table 2.1 (continued) Study Intervention overview Type of study Key findings Bennett and 111 individuals randomized to nurse Randomized controlled study Intervention group had significantly less Perrin (2005)* coaching group or usual-care (a) Health coaching; (b) Control illness intrusiveness and health distress control group with coaching group. than controls at 6 months. Nurse-delivered conducted by nurses on phone and MI, primarily using the telephone and email. Randomized controlled study email, is a feasible method to facilitate (a) Peer coaching and educational well-being with older adults. Gattellari et al. 277 GPs in total. Some received 2 resources; (b)  Control group. (2005)* phone-based peer coaching sessions Compared to controls, peer coaching integrated with educational Quasi-experimental field study increased GPs’ ability to make informed Gyllensten and resources. (a) Coaching group; (b) Control group. decisions about prostate-specific antigen Palmer (2005) screening. 31 participants from UK finance Quasi-experimental field study Evers et al. organization. (a) Coaching group; (b) Control group. Anxiety and stress decreased more in the (2006) coaching group compared to control group. 60 managers of the federal Randomized controlled study Green et al. government. (a) Group-based life coaching; Coaching increased outcome expectancies (2006)* (b) Waitlist control. and self-efficacy. 56 adults (community sample) took part in SF-CB life coaching program Randomized controlled study Coaching increased goal attainment, (a) Coaching group; (b) Waitlist control well-being, and hope. 30-week follow-up Green et al. 56 female high school students took group. found gains were maintained. (2007)* part in SF-CB life coaching program for 10 individual coaching sessions Randomized controlled study Coaching increased cognitive hardiness, Spence and over 2 school terms. (a) Professional coaching group; mental health and hope. Grant (2007)* (b) Peer coaching group; (c) Waitlist 63 adults (community sample) took control group. Professional coaching more effective part in SF-CB life coaching in increasing goal commitment, goal program. Randomized controlled study: attainment and environmental mastery. (a) 6 month course of preventive Duijts et al. Dutch employees assessed for the coaching; (b) control group. Significant improvements in health, life (2007) * effectiveness of a preventive satisfaction, burnout, psychological coaching program on sickness well-being but no improvement in absence due to psychosocial health self-reported sickness absence. complaints and on well-being outcomes

Spence et al. 45 adults (community sample) took (a)Randomized controlled study: Goal attainment greater in coaching than in (2008)* part in mindfulness-based health SF-CB coaching followed by the educative/directive format. No coaching over 8 weeks. mindfulness training (MT); significant differences were found for goal Fielden et al. (b) Mindfulness training followed by attainment between the two MT/CB-SF (2009) Nurses from 6 UK health care trusts SF-CB coaching; (c) Health education conditions. were allocated to a coaching group only control group. Franklin and (N = 15) or a mentoring group Quasi-experimental field study Mentoring was perceived to be “support” Doran (2009)* (N = 15). (a) Coaching group; (b) Mentoring and coaching was “action”. Both reported group in six-month coaching/ significant development in career (Grant et al., First-year students: co-coaching with mentoring program. Qualitative and development, leadership skills, and 2009) * preparation, action, adaptive quantitative data at (T1 = baseline, capabilities; mentees reported the highest learning coaching, or self-regulation T2 = 4 months and T3 = 9 months). level of development, with significantly coaching PAAL (N = 27) or higher scores in 8 areas of leadership and self-regulation (N = 25) A double-blind random control trial in management and in 3 areas of career which participants were randomly impact. 41 executives in a public health agency allocated to either a preparation, action, received 360-degree feedback and adaptive learning (PAAL), or a Both co-coaching conditions produced four SF-CB coaching sessions over self-regulation co-coaching. significant increases in self-efficacy and 10-week period. resilience; however, only those in the Randomized controlled study PAAL condition performed significantly (a) Coaching group; (b) Waitlist control better on decisional balance, hope, group. self-compassion, the incremental theory of change, and independently assessed academic performance. Coaching enhanced goal attainment, resilience and workplace well-being and reduced depression and stress and helped participants deal with organizational change. (continued)

Table 2.1 (continued) Study Intervention overview Type of study Key findings Quasi-experimental field study Aust et al. Seven intervention units (N = 128) and In the intervention units there was a (2010) seven non-randomized reference (a) Coaching group; (b) Control group. statistically significant worsening in units (N = 103) of a large hospital in 6 out of 13 work environment scales. Denmark participated in an Pre-test, post-test control-group The decrease was most pronounced for intervention project with the goal of research design aspects of interpersonal relations and improving the psychosocial working (a) Coaching group; leadership. In comparison, the reference conditions. (b) Control group. group showed statistically significant changes in only 2 scales. Process evaluation Cerni et al. 14 secondary school principals: all This study was both an experimental revealed that a large part of the (2010) school staff in the 14 schools were (randomly assigned) and a WS implementation failed and that different invited to rate their school principal (pre-post) study. implicit theories were at play. Grant et al. using the MLQ (5X) questionnaire. (2010)* Quasi-experimental follow-up research This study provides initial evidence that by 44 high school teachers were design with a sample of 64 bank creating changes to rational and randomly assigned to either SF-CB employees (N = 32 in each training constructive thinking, it is possible to coaching or a waitlist control group. group) is used. increase coachee’s use of transformational leadership techniques. Kauffeld and Spaced and massed training are Lehmann- compared using behavioral and Participation in coaching was associated with Willenbrock outcome criteria; 64 bank increased goal attainment, reduced stress (2010) employees (N = 32 in each training and enhanced workplace well-being and group). resilience. Pre-post analyses for the coaching group indicated that coaching enhanced self-reported achievement and humanistic-encouraging components of constructive leadership styles. Spaced rather than massed training practice resulted in greater transfer quality, higher self-reports of sales competence and improved key figures. Spaced training did not surpass massed training in terms of transfer quantity.

Kines et al. Foremen in 2 intervention groups are A pre-post intervention-control design Coaching construction site foremen to (2010) coached and given bi-weekly with 5 construction work gangs: include safety in their daily verbal feedback about their daily verbal foremen-worker verbal safety exchanges exchanges with workers has a significantly Kochanowski safety communications with their (experience sampling method, N = 1693 positive and lasting effect on the level et al. (2010) workers. interviews), construction site safety level of safety, which is a proximal estimate (correct vs. incorrect, N = 22,077 single for work-related accidents. Leonard-Cross Experimental group of managers observations), and safety climate (2010) received individual coaching several (7 dimensions, N = 105 questionnaires), Coaching significantly increased the use weeks after attending a feedback measured over 42 weeks. of collaboration with subordinates, but workshop. The control group of results for the other three “core” tactics managers also attended a feedback Quasi-experimental field study were mixed. workshop but did not receive the (a) Feedback plus coaching group; follow-up coaching. (b) Feedback only control group. Participants that had received developmental coaching (N = 61) had higher levels of Investigated the impact and process of The study used action research (Lewin, self-efficacy than the control group of developmental coaching evaluating 1946) and a quasi-experimental participants (N = 57) who had not received coaching which took place over a method. Coachees and the comparative coaching. two-year period. group of non-coached staff completed questionnaires. Notes: SF-CB = solution-focused cognitive behavioral; * = randomized controlled study.

24 Coaching executive that used established and validated self-report quantitative measures of anxiety (Beck and Steer, 1993), depression (Beck et al., 1996), and core self-evaluations (Judge et al., 2003), in addition to objective measures of sales performance, including the number of client leads, client loan interviews, loan applications, and number of loans approved each week. This case study of the efficacy of coaching serves as a useful case study exemplar of the blending of the psychological with the pragmatic in that the case reports both on quantitative psychological facets and workplace performance. The second case study, that in many ways is the antitheses of the Libri and Kemp (2006) paper, is Freedman and Perry’s (2010) qualitative report. This detailed and highly descriptive paper describes the development and trajectory of an initially non-voluntary shadow coaching and consulting engagement with a somewhat reluctant client in the nuclear industry. The case study explores the efficacy of coaching from both the coach’s and the client’s perspective, and the paper is somewhat unusual in that both coach and client jointly contributed to its writing. This paper gives the reader detailed insight into the actual process of shadow coaching and consulting, including access to the cognitive and emotional responses of both the coach and client, and in this way sheds light on inner workings of the executive coaching relationship. From the perspective of Freedman and Perry’s (2010) paper, investigation of the efficacy of coaching is more than just reports of coaching outcomes or goal attainment. Such narrative accounts of the coach’s and client’s internal process provide valuable information about the efficacy of coaching from a completely different perspective to that offered by numerical data, and are of great value to those seeking such insights. However, they do not allow us to make more generalized evaluations of the efficacy of coaching or compare results between different coaching interventions. For that type of evaluation we need to turn our attention to group-based evaluations of the efficacy of coaching. Within-subject Outcome Research Within-subject studies are those that compare the impact of coaching on a group of individuals. The group was assessed before and following the coaching interventions. The 74 within-subject studies published to January 2011 represent the largest single group- based methodological approach to quantitative empirical coaching research. This group of studies into the efficacy of coaching cover a wide range of issues including: workplace coaching to reduce waste (Sergio, 1987); improvement in managers’ leadership skills as a result of feedback and coaching (Conway, 2000); the impact of life coaching on goal attainment, insight and mental health (Grant, 2003); the use of team coaching in supporting team reflection and learning in global research and development project teams (Mulec and Roth, 2005); the cognitive and behavioral flexibility in executives who received coaching (Jones et al., 2006); the attainment of organizational quota and personal goals within an army recruiting organization (Bowles et al., 2007); changes in leadership competencies and learning agility amongst senior executives in the IT industry (Trathen, 2008); increases in measures of operational and fiscal performance in medical settings (Bacigalupo et al., 2009) and the impact of peer coaching on well-being amongst psychology undergraduate students (Short et al., 2010). Of particular interest in the group of within-subject studies is Solansky’s (2010) evaluation of two key leadership development program components. This paper is of interest to those concerned with the development of the literature base on the efficacy

The Efficacy of Coaching 25 of coaching as it is one of few coaching-related empirical papers published in a top-tier academic journal. To date, the vast majority of coaching research has been published in second-or third-level journals. Whilst the level of prestige accorded to a journal by an elitist section of the academic community may have little or no relevance for the vast majority of readers interested in coaching, the small but increasing number of coaching publications in top-tier journals indicates that coaching as a human change methodology is finding increasing acceptance within the academic community. To the extent that such publications are an indicator of the increasing recognition of coaching as a valid approach to facilitating human change, this trend is welcome and it is hoped it will continue. Within-subject studies can provide useful quantitative data and allow for the use of inferential statistics, provided that the studies are well designed and use validated and reliable measures. However, by comparing the results of the intervention to a matched group that did not receive coaching, a between-subject design can give greater assurance that the results are due to the coaching intervention itself, and not to some broader influence such as the mere passage of time or changes in, for example, workplace culture or environment. The use of random assignment to a coaching or non-coaching control group means greater control over extraneous, individual differences, and gives some sections of the coaching community and interested onlookers greater comfort in the certainty of reported coaching efficacy. Between-subject and Randomized Controlled Studies Conducting evaluations of real-life coaching intervention is a complex and time consum- ing process. Recruiting participants, managing the process of collecting data, organizing the coaches and coachees, and ensuring that there is a broad consistency in the way that the actual coaching is conducted presents unique and difficult challenges. These are made particularly complicated when the coaching is conducted in organizational settings where there are often competing political or operational agendas, and the structure and priorities of the organization may change substantially over the course of the coaching engagement. It is thus not surprising that there are few between-subject studies in the coaching literature. As of January 2011 in the PsycINFO database there are only 25 published between-subject studies and only 14 of those used randomized controlled designs. The 14 randomized controlled studies of coaching that have been conducted to date indicate that coaching can indeed improve performance in various ways. Four of these fourteen studies have been in the medical or health areas of work. Taylor (1997) found that solution-focused coaching fostered resilience in medical students. This study appears to be the first reporting on the impact of solution-focused coaching. Solution-focused approaches parallel the aims of appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider et al., 2000), in that solution-focused coaching focuses specifically on the individual’s strengths and goals, rather than taking a reductionist, diagnostic approach. Gattellari et al. (2005) found that peer coaching by general practitioners improved the coachee’s ability to make informed decisions about prostate-specific antigen screening. Miller et al. (2004) found that coaching with feedback was superior to training-only conditions, in a program designed to help clinicians learn motivational interviewing skills. Spence et al. (2008) found that goal attainment in a health coaching program was greater in the coaching condition when compared to an education-only intervention.

26 Coaching Four outcome studies have been in the life (or personal) coaching domain with community samples and with students. These have indicated that coaching can improve or indeed facilitate goal attainment and reduce anxiety and stress (Grant, 2003), enhance psychological and subjective well-being (Green et al., 2006; Spence and Grant, 2007) and resilience, while reducing depression, stress, or anxiety (Green et al., 2007). There have been only two randomized controlled studies of workplace coaching. Deviney (1994) examined the efficacy of supervisors acting as internal workplace coaches, finding no changes in supervisors’ feedback skills following a multiple-rater feedback intervention and coaching from their managers over nine weeks. The reason for this is not clear, but it may be because the training processes for giving the supervisors’ workplace coaching skills was not effective. The difficulties of developing managers’ coaching skills is well-recognized (Grant, 2010). Duijts et al. (2008) examined the effectiveness of coaching as a means of reducing sickness absence due to psychosocial health complaints and on well-being outcomes and found that coaching led to significant improvements in health, life satisfaction, burnout, and psychological well-being, but found no improvement in self-reported sickness absence, concluding that coaching can enhance the general well-being of employees. There has been only one randomized controlled study of the effectiveness of executive coaching, with participants receiving 360-degree feedback followed by four sessions of executive coaching. The coaching was found to improve goal attainment, increase resilience, and reduce stress and depression (Grant et al., 2009). For some observers the small number of randomized controlled outcome studies may be considered to be the major shortcoming in the literature on coaching efficacy. Although the data obtained from quantitative, randomized, controlled outcome studies cannot provide the rich detailed insights afforded by well-written qualitative case studies (e.g., see Peterson and Millier, 2005), and many might contest their practical utility, they are currently held to be the “gold standard” in quantitative outcome research (for discussion on this issue in relation to coaching see Cavanagh and Grant, 2006). Certainly there is a considerable section of the coaching and general scientific community that sees randomized controlled studies as essential for establishing the credibility of coaching interventions, and in this author’s view such research indeed provides one extremely important part of the foundation for an evidence-based approach to coaching. However, in real-life coaching research, unlike laboratory-based studies or clinical drug trials, genuine randomized allocation to intervention or control is often extremely difficult, if not impossible. Because of these difficulties many coaching outcome studies have used single group, pre-post, within-subject designs (e.g., Grant 2003, Jones et al., 2006; Olivero et al, 1997; Orenstein, 2006). There have been a number of quasi-experimental studies that have used pre-test and post-test comparisons with non-randomized allocation to a coaching or control group. Miller (1990) examined the impact of coaching on transfer of training skills, but the drawing of conclusions was restricted by a high rate of participant drop out: 91 participants began the study but only 33 completed the final measures. Gyllensten and Palmer (2005) found that, compared with a no-coaching control group, coaching was associated with lower levels of anxiety and stress. Evers et al. (2006) found that executive coaching enhanced participants’ self-efficacy and their beliefs in their ability to set personal goals, but they did not measure actual goal attainment. Barrett (2007) used a quasi-experimental, modified post-test only control group design, finding that group coaching reduced burnout but did not improve productivity.

The Efficacy of Coaching 27 In an interesting use of workplace coaching to improve safety in the building industry, Kines et al. (2010) found that coaching construction site foremen to include safety in their daily verbal exchanges with workers had a significant positive and lasting effect on the level of safety. Kochanowski et al. (2010) compared a feedback only group with a feedback plus coaching group of managers on a leadership development program, finding that coaching significantly increased the use of collaboration with subordinates. Recent research also includes quasi-investigations into the differential effects of spaced versus massed training and coaching strategies, finding that spaced rather than massed training practice resulted in greater transfer quality, higher self-reports of sales competence and improved key performance criteria (Kauffeld and Lehmann-Willenbrock, 2010). Longitudinal Studies: Is Coaching Effective Over Time? In order to truly assess the efficacy of coaching interventions we need to know if any reported effects maintain over time. However, thus far there have been very few longitu- dinal studies. The few that have been conducted indicate that coaching can indeed produce sustained change. In a 12-month follow-up, Miller et al. (2004) found coaching with feedback was superior to training-only conditions in maintaining clinicians’ interviewing skills. Green et  al. (2006) found that gains from participation in a ten-week solution-focused cognitive-be- havioral life coaching were maintained at a 30-week follow-up. Using an A-B-A-B design in a signal subject case study with an 18-month follow-up, Libri and Kemp (2006) found that cognitive-behavioral coaching enhanced sales performance and core self-evaluations. Gauging Efficacy Through Measuring Outcomes of Coaching It would appear from this review that coaching outcome research, as a relatively new area of empirical study, is progressing through the “natural” stages of research development, from descriptive or qualitative case studies, through to quantitative within-subject studies, and on to quasi-experimental and randomized, controlled between-subject designs. Indeed, the 234 outcome studies published between 2000 and January 2011 provide a useful foundation for future research and are indicative of the emergence of an evidence base for coaching, and the amount of research is increasing over time. However, a major potential problem for the development of a coherent body of knowledge about the effectiveness of coaching, and further establishment of an evidence- based framework for coaching, is the fact that there is little consistency in the use of outcome measures in coaching research. Indeed, the lack of consistency could prove to be a significant barrier to the development of an evidence base for coaching, and could even possibly lead to the decline of a coherent coaching literature as onlookers struggle to make sense of a potentially amorphous mass of data. For example, in relation to executive coaching, the topics addressed within the coaching interventions vary widely and include interpersonal skills, stress management, strategic thinking, time management, dealing with conflict, leadership and management styles, delegation, staffing issues, as well as sales or financial performance (Bono et al., 2009). Not surprisingly the ways such goals are measured also vary considerably. However, there is considerable variation between studies in the use of outcome measures, which makes it

28 Coaching very difficult to draw meaningful comparisons between studies, and this is an important issue that researchers into coaching will need to address if a coherent body of knowledge about coaching efficacy is to be developed over time. An overview of the outcome literature in executive and workplace coaching illustrates the diversity of variables used to measure the outcome of executive coaching. The following are some representative examples of outcome measure from the literature. Executive Coaching Efficacy Measures Peterson (1993) provides a valuable example of how to develop coaching assessments to  suit the idiosyncratic goals of individual coaching clients. Peterson used multiple customized rating inventories and rating scales based on each coachee’s individual train- ing  objectives, and drew data from a number of raters to assess the effectiveness of an individualized coaching program for managers and executives. Steinbrenner and Schlosser (2011) and Orenstein (2006) have reported on the use of similar techniques. Not surprisingly in executive coaching, customized surveys targeting the specific goals of the coaching intervention, and reports completed by the coachee, their managers, or  peers form the largest single group of outcome measures in executive coaching outcome research. For example, Jones et al. (2006) developed a customized self-report inventory based on aspects of transactional and transformational leadership (Bass and Avolio, 1994), and self-reported measures of managerial flexibility. Although in this case such measures were theoretically grounded, no reliability or validity data (beyond face validity) was reported – a common shortcoming in much of this literature. Olivero et al. (1997) used behavioral, task-specific outcome measures (the timely completion of patient evaluation forms), to assess the relative impact of training and coaching, report- ing that coaching and training combined was more effective than training alone. Gravel (2007) investigated the efficacy of executive coaching workshops with high school principals using customized surveys assessing time spent on administrative tasks and overall job satisfaction. Given that most executives and senior managers participate in 360-degree assessments, and that such assessments are frequently used at the beginning of a coaching assignment in order to define the coaching goals (Coutu and Kauffman, 2009), it is surprising that more outcome studies do not use 360-degree assessments or validated leadership style assessments as outcome measures. Of those that did, Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson (2002) used the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ; Bass and Avolio, 1990), a well-validated and widely-used leadership assessment tool (Lowe et al., 1996), to assess changes in leadership style. However, only coachees’ self-ratings were taken following the coaching program – probably due to the complexity of conducting follow-up research with non-participants (Grant et al., 2010). Thach (2002) used a customized 360-degree feedback tool which drew on previously validated items to assess the impact of executive coaching, collecting ratings from the coachees themselves, their mangers, and their direct reports, finding that coaching increases leadership effectiveness. Moving beyond merely assessing outcomes, Thach (2002) also conducted a number of additional analysis including exploring and reporting positive correlational relationships between the number of coaching sessions attended and increases in self-reported leadership effectiveness, giving possibly useful insights into some of the mechanisms underpinning effective coaching.

The Efficacy of Coaching 29 Also exploring both outcomes and the mechanisms underpinning effective coaching, Trathen (2008) used Choices Architect®, a research-based 360-tool designed to measure learning agility (Lominger, 2009), collecting data from both participates and their managers before and after coaching, finding a meaningful and significant association between changes in leadership competences and learning agility among those participating in executive coaching. In a randomized controlled study of executive coaching in the health industry Grant et al. (2009) reported on the use of the Human Synergistics Life Styles Inventory (LSI; Lafferty, 1989) for 360-degree feedback, and on the use of the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS; Lovibond and Lovibond, 1995), and the Workplace Well-being Index (WWBI; Page, 2005) for assessment of the impact of coaching on individual participants’ mental health. For an assessment of the impact of coaching on goal attainment Grant et al. (2009) used goal attainment scaling (see Spence, 2007), a process in which participants set personal goals and rate their goal progression before and after the coaching intervention. Coaching was associated with improved outcomes on all these measures. More recently Cerni et al. (2010) used a pre-test, post-test control-group research design to assess the impact of a ten-week coaching intervention program based on cognitive-experiential self theory on transformational leadership among 14 secondary school principals using the MLQ (Bass and Avolio, 1990), finding a significant difference between the pre-test and post-test scores for the intervention group, as rated by their school staff, whereas the control group remained unchanged. Cerni et al. (2010) reported qualitative findings indicating that school principals in the intervention group became more reflective about their thinking processes and leadership practices. However, although the aforementioned studies that have employed 360-degree feedback assessments show that such assessment is indeed a viable outcome measure in coaching, it is nevertheless true that one key barrier to the common use of 360-degree assessments, as an assessment of the efficacy of coaching interventions, is that the collection of such data pre- and post-coaching intervention is often an extremely time consuming and challenging process, involving coordinating time-poor employees and senior executives at multiple time points. Nevertheless, when reliable and well-validated 360-degree tools are used appropriately, such research can provide important standardized data about the  efficacy of coaching that is important for the advancement of coaching. It is recommended that far more research be conducted long these lines. Workplace and Personal Coaching Measures A similarly diverse pattern is evident in the outcome literature on workplace coaching with non-executive employees. It is also notable that a number of these studies have employed objective outcome measures, important indices in assessing the efficacy of coaching interventions. For example, Sergio (1987) reported on a workplace coaching intervention aimed at modifying six specific behaviors of 24 male forming-machine operators in a mid-sized fastener manufacturing organization with the outcome measures being actual observed behaviors, and most importantly, a reduction in actual wasted material. Another interesting study that used actual observable behaviors as a measure of the efficacy of workplace coaching was Kines et al. (2010) who explored the use of coaching to improve safety behaviors on construction sites. Foremen were coached to increase the

30 Coaching number of times that they included safety-related comments in their day-to-day dealings with construction site workers. The foremen set specific personal goals about the number of times they wished to refer to safety behaviors in their interactions with workers, and the foremen then received bi-weekly feedback and coaching on their actual performance. Compared to control groups the coaching condition increased safety on a number of  observable measures, including the number of times workers reported having had a safety-related conversation with their foreman, observed safety performance, and the authors concluded that feedback-based coaching to construction site foremen regarding the content of their daily verbal exchanges resulted in significant increases in workers’ safety performance and the physical safety level of the work site. Also exploring the effect of coaching on objective measures of performance in university students, Franklin and Doran (2009) conducted a well-designed, double-blind, random, control trial in which participants were randomly allocated to either a preparation, action, adaptive learning (PAAL) coaching condition, or to a self-regulation co-coaching program with blind assessment of subsequent academic performance – an objective behavioral measure of the efficacy of the coaching intervention. A third no-treatment condition was used for additional comparison and control of expectancy effects. Participants in both coaching conditions reported significant improvements in self-efficacy and resilience, but only those in the PAAL condition experienced significant increases in decisional balance, hope, self-compassion, and belief in the incremental theory of change. Moreover, participants in the PAAL condition experienced significantly greater increases in six of the seven dependent variables than participants in the self-regulation condition. Relative to the no treatment control group, PAAL participants performed 10 percent better in independently assessed academic performance, whereas those in the self-regulation coaching condition only performed 2 percent better. Other workplace coaching studies have used self-reported measures of workplace performance and mental health to good effect. Duijts et al. (2008) conducted a randomized controlled study into the impact of coaching on employees’ sickness absence due to psy- chosocial health complaints and on the general well-being of employees using self-reported measures including the Short Form Health Survey (Ware and Sherbourne, 1992), the General Health Questionnaire (Koeter and Ormel, 1991), the Dutch Questionnaire on Perception and Judgment of Work (Veldhoven and Meijmen, 1994), and the Dutch ver- sion of the Maslach Burnout Inventory (Schaufeli and Dierendonck, 2000), which are all well-validated measures. In a quasi-experimental study examining the impact of workplace coaching on mental health with finance industry employees, Gyllensten and Palmer (2005) used the DASS (Lovibond and Lovibond, 1995) as an outcome measure and found that levels of anxiety and stress had decreased more in the coaching group compared to the control group, and were lower in the coaching group compared to the control group at the end of the study. Evers et al. (2006) report on an executive coaching intervention with managers of the US federal government using self-report measures of self-efficacy beliefs and outcome expectancies that were linked to three central domains of functioning: setting one’s own goals, acting in a balanced way, and mindful living and working. Comparing the relative impact of a feedback workshop with attendance at the workshop followed by coaching sessions, Kochanowski et al. (2010) found that coaching signifi- cantly increased manager’s use of collaboration with subordinates, which was assessed using the Influence Behaviour Questionnaire (IBQ; Yukl et al., 2008) which measures 11 proactive influence tactics.

The Efficacy of Coaching 31 In relation to coaching in non-workplace settings, the outcome measures used to assess the efficacy of coaching interventions have been similarly varied and have included personality inventories (Norlander, 2002), students’ well-being (Short et al., 2010), improvement of techniques in Aikido (Negi and Shimamline, 2010), goal self-concordance (Burke and Linley, 2007), and body mass index (Zandvoort et al., 2009), as well as measures of mental health (Spence and Grant, 2007), well-being (Green et al., 2007), and self-refection and insight (e.g., Grant, 2008). The observed extensive variations in outcome measures is to be expected given that coaching is a highly individualized human change methodology and is used in a wide range of contexts. Coaching outcome measures are purposefully aligned with individual client’s goals; thus, it is inevitable that outcome measures will vary considerably between studies. However, as previously mentioned, the idiosyncratic use of measures means that it is difficult for a coherent body of knowledge to develop over time. For such a body of knowledge to develop we need to augment the idiosyncratic measures necessary to assess the efficacy of specific coaching engagement with common standardized, validated, and psychometrically reliable measures (Passmore, 2008). Using Validated Measures to Assess Efficacy: Mental Health and Goal Attainment It is surprising that few studies have used commonly-available, well-validated measures of mental health and well-being given that coaching is frequently promoted as being effective as a means of enhancing both goal attainment and well-being (e.g., Levine et al., 2006; Passmore and Gibbes, 2007). This is despite the fact that there are many such measures designed for use in non-clinical populations. Such measures include the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (Lovibond and Lovibond, 1995), the Psychological Well-being Scale (Ryff and Keyes, 1996), the Satisfaction With Life Scale (Diener et al., 1985), and the Cognitive Hardiness Scale (Nowack, 1990). Coaching is a goal-orientated change methodology. Thus, goal attainment is an important outcome measure in coaching. However, few outcome studies have used goal attainment scaling as a measure of coaching efficacy. Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS) tech- niques offer a useful methodology for measuring goal progression towards predetermined objective success benchmarks. For a comprehensive discussion of the use of GAS in coaching see Spence (2007). The broader use of GAS could provide a means of making comparisons between studies and its use in coaching efficacy research would significantly help to further build a coherent body of knowledge about the efficacy of coaching. GAS would also help address the serious limitations of the few studies that have examined return on investment (ROI) in coaching using subjective post-coaching ratings of success (e.g., McGovern et al., 2001). Is Return on Investment a Reliable Measure of Coaching Efficacy? Return on investment is often presented as being the most important indicator of coaching efficacy in organizational coaching contexts. Return on investment data is calculated using metrics such as growth in sales, market share, or organizational profitability, and is

32 Coaching frequently used by coaching and consulting organizations as a marketing tool in order to promote and sell their coaching and consulting services. Return on investment figures of 788 percent (Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson, 2001) and 545 percent (McGovern et al., 2001) are commonly reported as being the ROI for executive coaching and are frequently touted as being a key rationale of the use of coaching in organizational settings (Grant et al., 2010). But is ROI a reliable measure of coaching efficacy? On the surface the idea that spending money on coaching services will make the organization more money in return, seems like a persuasive argument for the use of ROI as both a measure of coaching efficacy and as a means of promoting coaching as a viable and reliable change methodology. However, I believe that there are some significant problems in using ROI as a measure of coaching efficacy. To understand these problems we need to examine how ROI is typically calculated. In essence, ROI is calculated by subtracting the value of the outcomes of coaching from the costs of coaching and then expressing this as a percentage (((coaching benefits – costs of coaching)/costs of coaching)) x 100 percent). There are a number of different variations on this formula, for example, including factoring into the calculation a rating of the coachee’s level of confidence that all or some of the perceived benefits are in fact due to coaching, or deliberately underestimating the financial return (Grant et al., 2010). However, whilst ROI can provide some indications about the impact of a specific coaching intervention in a specific context, I argue that ROI has serious limitations as a benchmark outcome measure for coaching effectiveness. The use of ROI may well give purchasers of coaching services and those who seek to market their coaching and consul- tancy services a sense of comfort and some reassurance that their coaching is effective and valuable, but does ROI really measure the true impact of coaching? Most definitely not. It is important to note that the ROI metric depends on two key things: (1) the costs of the coaching intervention, including the amount that the coaches charge and asso- ciated costs of implantation, and (2) the financial benefit obtained by the organization. These are highly idiosyncratic factors. Thus at best ROI can only be indicative of a single specific coaching engagement, and is a somewhat spurious measure of coaching outcome. Do We Yet Have an Evidence Base for the Efficacy of Coaching? It is clear from this review of the literature on the efficacy of coaching that the amount and quality of coaching outcome research is increasing and, importantly, applications are  becoming more diverse over time. The quality and sophistication of the research is increasing, but it is also clear that there are no standardized or even particularly commonly used measures of coaching efficacy. The indicators of efficacy reviewed here include leadership style, reductions in wastage in manufacturing settings, psychological well-being, employees’ absence due to sickness, personal resilience, workplace well-being, sales perfor- mance, safety behaviors on construction sites, ROI, and goal attainment, to name just a few. It is indeed heartening to see coaching methodologies being used so broadly. But the wide success of coaching also brings its own problems. The questions remain: Do we yet have an evidence-base for the efficacy of coaching? Can we now say that coaching is an effective human change methodology?

The Efficacy of Coaching 33 I suggest that the above review indicates that we do indeed have an emergent evidence base for the efficacy of coaching, and that we can certainly say that coaching can be a very effective human change methodology. But we must also recognize that the evidence base at present is somewhat unsophistic- ated in comparison to areas such as medicine and health – domains typically taken to rep- resent aspirational benchmarks as other disciplines move towards their own evidence base (for discussion on this point in relation to the debate on an evidence base for industrial and organizational psychology see Potworowski and Green, 2011). Indeed, alternative per- spectives could suggest that we do not have sufficient well-conducted between-subject studies to constitute a true evidence base for coaching and, furthermore, the notion of evidence-based coaching is highly unrealistic because coaching does not have and is unlikely to ever develop a sophisticated knowledge base such as that found in the domains of medicine and health. In short, they might argue, the notion of an evidence-base for coaching is simply not achievable. However, such an argument is based on the assumption that a discipline of professional coaching should aspire to development along the lines of evidence-based practice (EBP) as delineated by the medical model. I am not at all convinced that this should be the case. Where much of the medical, health, and clinical psychological literature appears to hold tightly to the medical model of EBP, prizing randomized controlled trials above other forms of empirical enquiry, there has been considerable debate about the applicability of evidence based approaches to “real world” organizational contexts in the industrial and organizational (I/O) psychology literature (e.g., Briner and Rousseau, 2011) – contexts highly familiar to much coaching research and practice. It is important to note that an evidence base per se does not purport to prove that any specific intervention is guaranteed to be effective, nor does it require that a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial is held as being inevitably and objectively better than a qualitative case study approach. Inclusivity in Establishing Efficacy An evidence-base for coaching should recognize that, as in the case of I/O psychology, real-world research is not easy. In the real world, allocation to intervention or control is not always possible, and moreover, as this chapter’s earlier discussion of the Freedman and Perry (2010) case study clearly shows, well-conducted qualitative research into coaching can provide important insights that are simply not possible with quantitative approaches – and a true evidence base for any discipline should recognize and respond to diversity of practice by providing reliable information for a wide range of applications, contexts, and methodologies. This view of evidence-based approaches is deliberately broad, and this broad perspective represents current thinking in this area (Cronin and Klimoski, 2011) – and I posit that it is this view that should inform the development of an evidence base for coaching. Within this view many forms of enquiry are welcome and valued. The key criteria for evaluation and tests of efficacy should thus be the rigor and coherence of the enquiry, the  insights it generates, and its contribution to the broader knowledge research and practice of coaching, rather than whether it is a qualitative, single case study or a large-scale randomized controlled study. Each has its place and each can contribute to the continued development of our understanding of the efficacy of this exciting human change methodology that we call coaching.

34 Coaching Conclusion There can be little doubt that the academic and research base for coaching has grown substantially, and all signs indicate that this growth will continue into the near to mid future at the very least. Coaching has definitively moved from fad to fixture in organizational contexts, and in the areas of personal and developmental coaching, too. Applications of coaching are highly diverse and measures of coaching efficacy are similarly varied. The lack of consistency associated with such diversity could prove to be a significant obstacle in the development of an evidence base for coaching as onlookers struggle to make sense of a potentially amorphous mass of data. In order to move the evidence base for coaching further forward we need to increase the use of standardized outcome measures and this will give greater consistency to the research literature. This is not to decry the use of idiosyncratic measures that reflect the individual- istic goals that often lie at the heart of the coaching endeavor. Rather, it is a call to augment those so that a common language of coaching efficacy can develop. Goal attainment scaling may be one measure of efficacy that can provide the syntax necessary to enable this language, and could well provide the framework to facilitate communication across the broad range of contexts in which contemporary coaching is practiced and researched. In this way we have the opportunity to demonstrate that the diversity of coaching is indeed its key strength. References Agarwal, R., Angst, C.M., and Magni, M. (2009) The performance effects of coaching: A multilevel analysis using hierarchical linear modeling. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(10), 2110–34. Anderson, M.C., Anderson, D.L., and Mayo, W.D. (2008) Team coaching helps a leadership team drive cultural change at Caterpillar. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 27(4), 40–50. Bacigalupo, A., Hess, J., and Fernandes, J. (2009) Meeting the challenges of culture and agency change in an academic health center. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 30(5), 408–20. Barrett, P.T. (2007) The effects of group coaching on executive health and team effectiveness: A quasi-experimental field study. Dissertation Abstracts International Section A, 67, 26–40. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1990) Transformational Leadership Development: Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Bass, B.M. and Avolio, B.J. (1994) Improving Organisational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership. London: Sage. Beck, A.T. and Steer, R.A. (1993) Beck Anxiety Inventory Manual. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation. Beck, A.T. Steer, R.A., and Brown, B.S. (1996) Beck Depression Inventory Manual (2nd edn). San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation. Bennett, J.A. and Perrin, N.A. (2005) Healthy aging demonstration project: Nurse coaching for behavior change in older adults. Research in Nursing and Health, 28(3) June. Bono, J.E., Purvanova, R.K., Towler, A.J., and Peterson, D.B. (2009) A survey of executive coaching practices. Personnel Psychology, 62(2), 361–404. Bowles, S., Cunningham, C.J., De La Rosa, G.M., and Picano, J. (2007) Coaching leaders in middle and executive management: Goals, performance, buy-in. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 28, 388–408.