SE Coaching

8/12/2019 SE Coaching

1/18

Executive coachingThe effect of working alliance discrepancy

on the development of coachees self-efficacyLouis Baron, Lucie Morin and Denis Morin

Universitedu Quebec a Montreal, Montreal, Canada

Abstract

Purpose Despite its growing popularity in applied settings, executive coaching has to date receivedlittle attention in empirical research, especially in regard to the coaching process. This paper aims toinvestigate the effect of working alliance rating discrepancies on the development of coacheesself-efficacy, a key outcome in leadership development.

Design/methodology/approach The paper reports on a pre- post-test study of a leadershipdevelopment program taking place in a large North American manufacturing company. Data werecollected from two samples: managers receiving coaching over an eight-month period and internalcertified coaches. In total, 30 coach-coachee dyads were analyzed.

Findings Results from an analysis of covariance did not support the authors hypothesis, byindicating that coachees having worked with a coach who underestimated the working alliance,in relation to his or her coachee, experienced more growth in self-efficacy than coachees who workedwith a coach who either accurately estimated or overestimated the working alliance.

Practical implications The results sugges that coaches should coach with an ongoing anddeliberately maintained doubt as their only certainty. The importance for coaches to be sensitive tosigns of what the coachee is experiencing, and to take the initiative to verify the coachees comfort levelwith the way coaching is proceeding is addressed.

Originality/value This study intended to delve deeper into the complexities of the coachingprocess by linking a key coaching process variable, the relationship, to coaching outcomes.

KeywordsExecutive coaching, Coaching relationship, Working alliance, Discrepancy, Self-efficacy,Management development, Leader ship

Paper typeResearch paper

IntroductionExecutive coaching has come to play a key role in the field of leadership andmanagement development (OLeonard, 2009; Bono et al., 2009). A recent survey fromthe Conference Board of Canada (Hughes and Campbell, 2009) revealed that 72 percentof organizations surveyed use coaching to support leadership development.However, despite its growing popularity in applied settings, this developmentalintervention has to date received little attention in empirical research. Few rigorousquantitative empirical studies have been conducted, and most of them havefocused on the effectiveness of coaching (Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson, 2001;Smitheret al., 2003).

With respect to the coaching process or, in other words, the conditions favoringeffective executive coaching, numerous authors have suggested that a good working

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm

An earlier version of this paper has won the Graziadio Business School/Pepperdine Universityfor Outstanding Practice-Based Paper on Management Consulting at the Academy ofManagement 2010 Conference.

Executivecoaching

847

Received 4 July 2010Revised 26 July 2010

Accepted 13 October 2010

Journal of Management Development

Vol. 30 No. 9, 2011

pp. 847-864

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0262-1711

DOI 10.1108/02621711111164330


2/18

relationship constitutes an essential condition for successful executive coaching(Kilburg, 2001; Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson, 2001; Lowman, 2005; Kampa and White,2002). Although the impact of the working alliance on treatment outcomes has beenwidely documented in the psychotherapy literature (Castonguayet al., 2006; Horvath,

2005; Martinet al., 2000), to our knowledge, only a very small number of studies haveinvestigated the concept of working alliance in a coaching context (Baron and Morin,2009; Berry, 2005; Dingman, 2004). Furthermore, none of these empirical studies havecompared the working alliance ratings of the coach and coachee. What happens whenthese two individuals have a different perception of the working alliance between them?This question is very pertinent, given that in a psychotherapeutic context, similarclient-therapist alliance ratings in the middle and late phases of treatment are positivelylinked with treatment outcomes (Horvath and Bedi, 2002).

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of working alliancerating discrepancies on the development of coachees self-efficacy. This studyendeavored to contribute to the literature in two ways. First, it aimed to increase ourknowledge of the working alliance concept in the context of executive coaching.Although, authors have suggested that this variable plays a key role in coachingeffectiveness, empirical research is lacking on the topic. Second, and most importantly,this study intended to delve deeper into the complexities of the coaching process. Giventhe increased use of executive coaching by organizations, an understanding of theconditions under which coaching is most effective is highly relevant (Paradise andMosley, 2009).

Conceptual frameworkExecutive coachingMany definitions have been proposed for the concept of executive coaching (Hallet al.,

1999; Stober and Parry, 2005; Kilburg, 2000). In this study, we relied on the definitionproposed by Douglas and Morley (2000, p. 40) for whom coaching is:

[T]he process of equipping people with the tools, knowledge, and opportunities they need todevelop themselves and become more effective (Peterson, 1996). Executive coaching involvesthe teaching of skills in the context of a personal relationship with the learner, and providingfeedback on the executives interpersonal relations and skills (Sperry, 1993). An ongoingseries of activities tailored to the individuals current issues or relevant problem is designedby the coach to assist the executive in maintaining a consistent, confident focus as he or shetunes strengths and manages shortcomings (Tobias, 1996).

Among the various reasons cited in the popular l iterature to explainthe growing interest in coaching, the following two have particular bearing on this

study:(1) The numerous and frequent changes experienced within organizations

(e.g. mergers and acquisitions, changes in management philosophies, newforms of work organization) have created a need to develop management skills,especially interpersonal skills (Zeus and Skiffington, 2001).

(2) Traditional training methods, such as the classroom seminar do not appearto meet these organizational needs (Whetten and Cameron, 2007; Baron andMorin, 2010).

JMD30,9

848


3/18

Moreover, Fatien and Amado (2009, p. 4) suggested that:

[. . .] the collective setting (associated with traditional training methods) sometimes does notfacilitate self-expression, or does not allow for intimate self-disclosure. And in a society thatrequires more and more subjective involvement, one may need to discuss personal issuesface-to-face.

Professional and personal development, as these authors suggest, is seldom realized inone-shot or one-size-fits-all interventions. Executive coaching provides an opportunityto create a genuine personal relationship between the coach and coachee through aconsistent focus on the attainment of significant individual developmental goals, and itis this relationship that appears to be key in supporting managers and leaders in theirdevelopment.

To date, from an empirical point of view, few quantitative empirical studies haveinvestigated executive coaching (Evers et al., 2006; Luthans and Peterson, 2003;Olivero et al., 1997; Smither et al., 2003; Thach, 2002). By focusing on the effectiveness ofexecutive coaching, these studies have helped confirm that this type of intervention

seems effective. Yet, we still know little about why it works, or more specifically,under which conditions executive coaching is most effective. In response, authors haverecommended looking at the working alliance between the coach and coachee ( Joo, 2005;Latham and Heslin, 2003). These authors argued that the effectiveness of coaching islikely to depend on the mutual agreement of the goals, the paths chosen to attain them,and the level of interpersonal comfort between the coach and coachee. Other authorshave further advanced the notion that a positive working alliance between the coach andcoachee is an essential condition of coaching success (Kampa and White, 2002; Lowman,2005). The following section presents the concept of the working alliance in more detail.

Working allianceThe concept of working alliance has its roots in the psychotherapy literature. Broadly

speaking, working alliance refers to the quality and strength of the collaborativerelationship between client and therapist in therapy (Horvath and Bedi, 2002, p. 41).Various conceptualizations have been proposed to define the therapist-client relationship(Bordin, 1979; Greenson, 1965; Luborsky, 1976). For the purposes of this study, we reliedon the broadened conceptualization of working alliance advanced by Bordin (1979), whichincludes all change-inducing relationships (Horvath and Greenberg, 1989). Thisconceptualization highlights the interdependence of the therapist and the client in thedevelopment of the alliance. Furthermore, Bordin (1979) suggests that the strength of thealliance rests on the existing agreement between the client and the therapist concerningthe following three aspects: the objectives of the therapy, the tasks required to reach thoseobjectives, and the bond that develops between the client and the therapist. A wide rangeof empirical evidence supports the relevance of working alliance in predicting therapy

outcomes (Eames and Roth, 2000; Horvath and Greenberg, 1989; Martin et al., 2000;Mallinckrodt, 1992; Horvath and Symonds, 1991). Moreover, results from empiricalstudies have consistently shown that the strength of the working alliance is a highlysignificant predictor of a therapys success. It is estimated that the therapeutic allianceaccounts for somewhere between 7 and 17 percent of the variance in therapy outcomes,and effect sizes for this relationship range from 0.22 to 0.26 (Martin et al., 2000; Horvathand Symonds, 1991). Castonguayet al.(2006) strongly argued that any study examiningthe process of psychotherapy should include the concept of the working alliance.

Executivecoaching

849


4/18

Few empirical studies have examined the concept of working alliance in executivecoaching. One of them, a retrospective study by McGovern et al. (2001), reported that84 percent of coachees identified the quality of the relationship with their coach ascritical to the success of coaching. However, due to the post-facto design and

descriptive nature of the study, no statistical correlation could be established betweenthe working relationship and the success of the executive coaching. In a second study,Dingman (2004) polled, via the internet, 92 coachees who had completed a coachingprocess. Results revealed a significant positive correlation between the quality of thecoaching relationship and the coachees self-efficacy. A third study by Berry (2005)compared face-to-face coaching with distance coaching by examining two variables:the coach-coachee relationship and the extent of change in the coachees developmentgoals. A sample of 102 professional coaches responded to an online survey. Findingsindicated a significant positive correlation between the relationship and change,as evaluated by the coaches but only in the distance coaching condition. Coachees werenot surveyed in this study. Finally, results from Baron and Morin (2009) showed thatthe coach-coachee relationship plays a mediating role between the amount of coaching

received and the development of coachees self-efficacy. This result suggests that it isthrough its effect on the coach-coachee relationship that the amount of coachingreceived influences the development of the coachee. This, in turn, suggests that thecoach-coachee relationship constitutes a prerequisite for coaching effectiveness.

In short, as is the case in psychotherapy, the working alliance appears to have asignificant role in the context of executive coaching. However, none of the publishedstudies have examined the impact of a discrepancy between the coachees rating andthe coachs rating of the working alliance. Could a discrepancy between ratings havean impact on executive coaching outcomes? The next section discusses the workingalliance discrepancy.

Working alliance discrepancyThe psychotherapy literature on working alliance indicates that the clients views ofthe moderate correlation between client and psychotherapist ratings of the therapeuticalliance (Ceceroet al., 2001; Fenton et al., 2001). To explain the discrepancy in ratings,Horvath and Bedi (2002, p. 51) advanced that:

[. . .] while the alliance is understood to involve collaboration and mutuality, it is not asymmetrical relationship. Therapists responsibilities are different from those of clients,and therapists phenomenological experience of the relationship is contextualized by theirtheoretical perspectives and clinical experience. The clients felt experience in therapy is notonly the result of the dialectical experience in the therapy room, but is also construed in thelight of past relational history.

For their parts, Bedi et al. (2005) suggested that clients and therapists can diverge intheir perceptions of what elements are important in the development of the therapeuticalliance.

Findings from empirical studies have indicated that the clients view of the workingalliance is a better predictor of the success of a therapy than the therapists view(Horvath and Bedi, 2002). Other research has further shown that similarity or lowdiscrepancy between client and therapist alliance ratings in the middle and late phasesof treatment is a consistent predictor of positive outcomes (Hersoug et al., 2002;Kivlighan and Shaughnessy, 1995).

JMD30,9

850


5/18

In light of all the above information, it seems reasonable to expect that the impactsof a discrepancy in alliance ratings noted in psychotherapeutic contexts would also beobserved in the executive coaching process. If so, divergent assessments of the alliancecould present a problem, in that a coachs inaccurate assessment may lead them to

neglect to work on critical relational issues of which they are unaware. Moreover,a coachs over- or under-estimate might mean that the coach is not in tune with hiscoachee, or that he or she is not able to recognize the clients perspective about theirrelationship, the objectives they are pursuing, the tasks required to reach thoseobjectives, or the bond that has developed between them.

A useful framework for examining the working alliance discrepancy in the context ofexecutive coaching is the self-other agreement paradigm that issues from the leadershipliterature. Though the evaluation of the working alliance does not constitute in itself anevaluation of the coach, the latter may feel a greater responsibility in facilitating thedevelopmental exercise than the coachee. In line, empirical results indicate that clientsview the psychotherapist as primarily responsible for alliance formation (Bedi et al.,2005; Bachelor, 1995), a perception that might be shared by the therapist sinceestablishing a good relationship with the client is a key component of any training orcertification in psychotherapy, or in executive coaching. Self-other agreement representsthe degree to which individuals see themselves as others see them (Atwater et al., 1998;Whittington et al., 2009). Typically, difference scores are used to represent thecongruence between two constructs, which is then treated as a concept in its own right(Edwards, 2001, p. 265). Difference scores can be treated as a continuous variable,or categorized into one of three agreement groups: over-estimators, accurate andunder-estimators of their leadership behaviors in comparison with ratings from theirfollowers (Atwateret al., 1995; Atwater and Yammarino, 1992). Empirical evidence hasshown that self-other agreement can be used to predict performance as well as workrelated perceptions, such as organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and trust

(Alimo-Metcalfe, 1998; Atwater et al., 1998, 2005; Atwater and Yammarino, 1992;Bass and Yammarino, 1991; Dayet al., 2002; Furnham and Stringfield, 1994; Sosik andMegerian, 1999; Van Velsor et al., 1993; Whittington etal., 2009). In short, overestimationleads to diminished outcomes, accurate estimation leads to enhanced performance, andunderestimation is associated with mixed outcomes (Yammarino and Atwater, 1997).These authors explain these findings by proposing that when there is a consensusregarding the expectations of behavior and performance of both the leader and thefollowers, a solid foundation of trust and commitment develops between them(Whittingtonet al., 2009).

Self-efficacy: a proxy to performanceIn situations where training aims to develop management skills, the measurement of

skills transfer is often a considerable challenge. Consequently, many researchers opt forthe measurement of self-efficacy as the main outcome of training, and some coachingstudies have begun to do the same (Baron and Morin, 2010; Evers et al., 2006).

Self-efficacy is defined as the beliefthat a person has of being capable of accomplishinga given task (Bandura, 1997). The relationship between self-efficacy and various aspectsof organizational life have been observed in numerous studies. For example, in theindustrial and organizational psychology, more than 800 articles on self-efficacy havebeen published in scientific journals in the last 25 years (Judge et al., 2007). These studies

Executivecoaching

851


6/18

have notably examined group efficacy (Prussia and Kinicki, 1996), adaptation stress(Schaubroek and Merritt, 1997), creativity and productivity (Tierney and Farmer,2002), management efficacy, performance and idea generation (Gist, 1989; Luthans andPeterson, 2002; Wood and Bandura, 1989), and adaptation to organizational changes

(Judge et al., 1999). The connection between self-efficacy and the performance of complexinterpersonal tasks such as negotiation has also been demonstrated many times (Gist andStevens, 1998; Gist et al., 1991). Furthermore, the results of a meta-analysis of 114 studiespublished between 1976 and 1998 conducted by Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) showed asignificant correlation between self-efficacy and work performance which, according tothe authors, translates into a 28-percent improvement in work performance.

In line with the above psychotherapy and leadership literature, one can argue that,relative to coachees estimates, coaches who overestimate or underestimate the workingalliance will not foster as good coaching outcomes as coaches who accurately estimatethe working alliance. By extension, coachees who work with over- or under-estimatorswill develop to a lesser extent than coaches who work with accurate estimators. As such,we tested the following hypothesis in this study:

H1. Coachees who work with a coach who is an accurate estimator in relation tocoachees ratings will develop more than coachees who work with a coachwho is an under- or an over-estimator.

MethodField settingThis study was conducted in a large North American manufacturing companythat offered its junior and mid-level managers an eight-month leadership developmentprogram that addressed various topics, such as leadership, interpersonalcommunication, power and delegation, and employee development and mobilization.In that program, executive coaching consisted of face-to-face, 75-minute sessions

between a certified internal coach and a manager participating in the leadershipdevelopment program. During the first coaching session, managers were asked toestablish three main goals they wanted to work on. These goals had to be related to theskills addressed in the leadership development program. Following a structured process,the coaches main responsibility was to guide and support coachees in the attainment oftheir established goals. Although, the development program suggested one coachingsession every two weeks, the specific scheduling was left to the discretion of the coachesand coachees. Participants received between three and eleven coaching sessions duringeight months, representing a mean of 5.77 sessions. Qualitative data indicates that lackof time and schedule conflicts were the two key reasons reported by coachees andcoaches for not attending one or several coaching sessions. While some dyads have metonce almost every two weeks, others, for reasons cited above, have met on a less regular

basis.

ParticipantsThe participants in this study were divided into two groups: coachees and coaches. Thecoachees were managers who had voluntarily signed up for a leadership developmentprogram (n 127). Of these, 118 managers completed our first questionnaire, and 80 ofthese managers responded to the questionnaire administered at the end of the program.Survey non-response was mostly attributable to participant absences at the time

JMD30,9

852


7/18

questionnaires were distributed, and in a small number of cases, to managers whosimply refused to answer. Of this group of 80 participants, seven respondents wereexcluded from the analysis because they had participated in the program to a verylimited extent. Our final sample was thus composed of 73 coachees (63 men, ten women)

for a response rate of 57.5 percent. The average age of the coachees was 38 years,63 percent had a university-level education and their average number of years as amanager was 4.7.

The coaches group consisted of 64 executives who had participated in a coachingcertification program. Prior to the start of the management skills development program,these senior managers had received two days of coaching training, given by an outsideconsultant. They then completed their certification by participating in four 2-hourindividual meetings with a master coach and four 4-hour action learning workshops.Among these participants, 24 (21 men, three women) returned the questionnaire that wassent to them at the end of the program, for a response rate of 37.5 percent. In total,30 coach-coachee dyads were formed, whereby some coaches were paired with twocoachees for the duration of the program. Pairings were arranged to ensure that no coachhad a pre-existing organizational authority over the managers he or she coached.The average age of the coaches was 41 years, 79 percent had a university-level educationand their average number of years as a manager was 9.3.

Data collectionThe data collection procedure was as follows: prior to the coaching sessions, we collectedan initial measure of the coachees self-efficacy as well as some socio-demographic dataon both coaches and coachees. Eight months later, at the end of the coaching,we collected a second measure of the coachees self-efficacy as well as a measure of theworking alliance from both the coaches and the coachees. At both times, paper surveyswere used.

MeasuresSelf-efficacy. In this study, we had the opportunity to collect data for one outcome ofcoaching, namely self-efficacy with respect to management soft skills. This variablewas assessed following the recommendations of Bandura (1997) and Lee & Bobko(1994). These last authors mention that when measuring self-efficacy strength,researchers typically ask individuals for the degree of confidence to perform at specificlevels on a specific task (rated on a near-continuous scale) at each specific performancelevel. Specifically, we used an eight-item, 11-point Likert scale developed specificallyfor this study, where 0 indicated Not at all confident and 10 represented Completelyconfident. All items were created to reflect the content of the leadership developmentprogram (e.g. Today, as a manager, I feel confident in my ability to help my employees

learn lessons from the difficulties and setbacks they may encounter.). All itemswere examined by two subject matter experts, namely an academic specializing inmanagement skills and the senior consultant who designed the training program. Thea coefficients were 0.89 (pre-coaching) and 0.88 (post-coaching).

Working alliance. This variable was measured using the Working AllianceInventory short version (WAI-S) (Corbiereet al., 2006; Tracey and Kokotovic, 1989),a 12-item, seven-point Likert scale. In this study, the wording of the original versionwas slightly adapted to fit the coaching context (e.g. coach instead of therapist

Executivecoaching

853


8/18

and development needs instead of problems). The WAI-S is widely used inpsychotherapy research (Martin et al., 2000). Validation studies have shown that theWAI-S has good construct validity and high reliability (Corbiere et al., 2006; Traceyand Kokotovic, 1989). Our adapted version of the WAI-S measured three components

of the coach-coachee working alliance:(1) goals (e.g. We are working toward goals that we have agreed on);

(2) tasks (e.g. My coach and I agreed on the steps to follow to improve mysituation); and

(3) bonding (e.g. My coach and I have developed mutual trust).

Both coaches and coachees completed the WAI-S. a-coefficients were 0.90 (coaches)and 0.93 (coachees).

Working alliance discrepancy. To measure this variable, we followed the procedurefirst developed by Atwater and Yammarino (1992) and reproduced by other studies(Sosik and Megerian, 1999; Ostroffet al., 2004). In short, coaches were categorized into

one of the three agreement groups, relative to the ratings of coachees. The ratingdifference for each coach-coachee dyad was computed and then each coachs differencescore was compared to the mean difference score. Specifically, as in previous studiescited above, coaches whose difference scores were one-half of a standard deviation ormore above the mean difference were categorized as over-estimators. Coaches whosedifference scores were one-half of a standard deviation or more below the meandifference were categorized as under-estimators. Coaches whose difference scores werewithin one-half of a standard deviation of the mean difference were categorized asaccurate estimators (Atwater and Yammarino, 1992, p. 152). Frequencies of thecategorizations were as follows: 11 coaches were categorized as accurate estimators,ten as overestimators, and nine as underestimators.

ResultsPreliminary analysesBefore proceeding with the testing of our hypothesis, we first tested for significantdifferences between the 30 coachees for whom we were able to obtain data from theirrespective coaches and the 43 coachees for whom we had no data from their coaches(as mentioned above, only 24 coaches filled out all questionnaires). Findings showed nosignificant differences in regard to the following socio-demographic characteristics:age, gender, education, or number of years as a manager. Results also indicated nosignificant difference between these two groups for pre-coaching self-efficacy(t71 1.10, n.s.) and post-coaching self-efficacy (t71 20.49, n.s.).

Descriptive analysesTable I presents both the descriptive statistics and partial intercorrelations of thevariables under study. Partial correlations were made, controlling for pre-coachingself-efficacy, because we were interested in examining the effect of working alliancediscrepancy on the development of self-efficacy. Post-coaching self-efficacy,thus served as the dependant variable (DV).

It is interesting to note that the means of the working alliance ratings as assessed bycoachees and coaches are quite similar, and relatively strong. We can also observethat the correlation between these two variables is marginally significant

JMD30,9

854


9/18

(rp 0.35,p ,0.10) and a little stronger than the low to moderate correlation observedin previous studies (Ceceroet al., 2001; Fentonet al., 2001). Table II presents the meansfor working alliance ratings and post-coaching self-efficacy for the threecategorizations under study, namely the under-estimators, accurate estimators and

over-estimators.

Testing our hypothesisTo test our hypothesis, a one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conductedwith post-coaching self-efficacy as the DV and pre-coaching self-efficacy and coacheesworking alliance assessment as the two covariates. Since the correlation betweencoachees working alliance assessment and our DV is strong (rp 0.51, p , 0.01),using the former variable as a covariate controlled for the effect it might have onanother correlation, namely the correlation between working alliance discrepancy andthe DV. After all, according to our results, if coachees rate their alliance as high, theyare most likely to present a high score on their self-efficacy post-coaching, and theircoaches are more likely to be categorized as under-estimators. The independent

variable, namely the working alliance discrepancy, was composed of the followingthree groups: under-estimators, accurate estimators, and over-estimators. Table IIIpresents the results of the ANCOVA.

Results from the above table show that no significant effects were observed forpre-coaching self-efficacy (F(1,25) 3.25, p n.s., partial h2 0.12) or for coacheeworking alliance assessment (F(1,25) 0.42, p n.s., partial h2 0.02. Second,findings indicate a significant group effect on post-coaching self-efficacy aftercontrolling for the two covariates (F(2,25) 9.57, p , 0.001). Results also demonstratea very strong relationship between the working alliance discrepancy and self-efficacy,as assessed by a partial h2, with the working alliance discrepancy accounting for43 percent of the variance of the dependent variable, holding pre-coaching self-efficacyand coachee working alliance assessment constant.

Variables a Mean SD 2 3 4

1. Working alliance coachee 0.93 5.90 0.78 0.35 * * * 0.56 * * 0.52 * *

2. Working alliance coach 0.90 5.91 0.70 0.58 * * 0.303. Working alliance discrepancy 0.004 0.78 . 20.72 * *

4. Post-coaching self-efficacy 0.88 7.96 0.75

Notes: *p , 0.05, * *p , 0.01, * * * , 0.10, n 30; control variable for correlations, pre-coachingself-efficacy; mean 6.96; SD 0.96

Table I.Means, standard

deviations and partialcorrelations for variables

under study

Group n

Mean coacheesworking alliance

ratings SD

Mean coachesworking alliance

ratings SD

Mean post-coaching self-

efficacya SD

Under-estimators 9 6.33 0.77 5.43 0.72 8.61 0.57Accurate estimators 11 6.03 0.60 5.97 0.67 8.05 0.51Over-estimators 10 5.37 0.35 6.25 0.42 7.28 0.44

Note:aAdjusted means

Table II.Means for working

alliance andpost-coaching

self-efficacy

Executivecoaching

855


10/18

Follow-up tests were conducted to evaluate pairwise differences among the adjustedmeans of the three groups. The Holms sequential Bonferroni procedure was used tocontrol for Type I errors across the three pairwise comparisons (Field, 2005; Thompson,2006). Significant differences were found in the adjusted means between groups.

Specifically, contrast analysis revealed that coachees in the over-estimators group had asignificantly different post-coaching self-efficacy than coachees in the under-estimatorsgroup (contrast estimates 1.34, p , 0.001) and coachees in the accurate estimatorsgroup (contrast estimates 0.77, p , 0.001). There was also a significant differencebetween the accurate estimators group and the under-estimators group (contrastestimates 20.53, p , 0.05). In short, these results revealed that greater thecoach-favouring discrepancy in views about the working alliance, the less his or hercoachee developed. Our hypothesis, which stated that coachees who work with a coachwho is an accurate estimator in comparison with coachees ratings will develop morethan coachees who work with a coach who is an under- or over-estimator, is notsupported.

DiscussionThe objective of this study was to explore the effect of working alliance ratingdiscrepancies on one key coaching outcome, namely self-efficacy. Our results indicatethat coachees having worked with coaches who overestimate the working allianceexperienced less growth in self-efficacy than coachees having worked with coacheswho accurately estimated the working alliance and that coachees having worked withcoaches who accurately estimated the working alliance experienced less growth inself-efficacy than coachees having worked with coaches who underestimated theworking alliance. Thus, in this study, coaches underestimation of the working allianceis the best predictor of post-coaching self-efficacy in coachees. This result differs fromfindings in the psychotherapy literature, which have shown that similarity or low

client-therapist rating discrepancies in working alliance is the best predictor of positivetherapy outcomes (Hersoug et al., 2002; Kivlighan and Shaughnessy, 1995).

One possible explanation for our findings comes from de Haan (2008, p. 104), whoadvances that:

[. . .] coaches all have the tendency to want to eliminate doubts and anxieties. [. . .] The morewe coach, the more we ourselves build up long-term defenses against our tensionsand existential doubts without realizing it. This is perhaps the main reason whyinexperienced therapists often appear to perform better than experienced ones (Dumont,1991). They set to work with more enthusiasm, involvement and vulnerability.

Source of variation Sum of squares df Mean2 F-statistics Prob.

Corrected model 10.245 4 2.561 10.492 0.001Intercept 5.680 1 5.688 23.299 0.001Pre-coaching self-efficacy 0.794 1 0.794 3.253 0.08Working alliance coachee 0.102 1 0.102 0.417 0.52Working alliance discrepancy (three groups) 4.673 2 2.336 9.570 0.001Error 6.103 25 0.244Total 1,918.391 30Corrected total 16.348 29

Table III.ANCOVA analysisresults

JMD30,9

856


11/18

In consequence, this author encourages coaches to coach with an ongoingand deliberately maintained doubt as their only certainty (p. 106). According tothis argument, coaches who overestimate the alliance with their coachee may feeloverconfident about the coaching they are providing, which might lead them to be less

sensitive to signs of what the coachee is experiencing, and not take the initiative toverify the coachees comfort level with the way coaching is proceeding. On the otherhand, coaches who underestimate the alliance with their coachee may be more humbleand have more doubts about their capacity to support the development of others. Thisstance may lead them to pay closer attention to what the client is experiencing and,consequently, to offer a coaching that is more person-centered than problem-centered.Since the only thing the coach can actually influence to exert albeit an indirectinfluence on the outcome of coaching is the relationship between coach and coachee(de Haan, 2008, p. 53), a coach who puts greater emphasis on the coaching relationshipmight provide better support to the development of others and, in so doing, facilitatethe enhancement of others self-efficacy.

Another explanation for our findings rests on a coachs inability to perceivewhat is called an alliance rupture or a breakdown in the collaborative process in thepsychotherapy literature (Safran and Muran, 2006). This inability might be asdetrimental in the context of executive coaching as it is in the psychotherapy context(Safran and Muran, 1996, 2000). In line, results from empirical studies have suggestedthat, when faced with therapeutic impasses, therapists rigid adherence to prescribedtechniques failed to repair such ruptures and even exacerbated them (Castonguayet al.,1996). These results suggest that in a coaching context, a coach who feels that theworking alliance or the coachee are not developing as well as they should be mightbecome more concerned with procedures and results. This in turn would negativelyimpact the coachee. A coach absolutely needs to be sensitive to the coach-coacheeinteraction during the session, in the here and now (Rogers, 1961).

Results for this study have important practical implications for coaching. First, theysuggest that a coach should regularly evaluate the working alliance with his or hercoachee to make sure that he or she adequately perceives feelings from the client inregard to the coaching process. To do so, one might use a formal questionnaire (e.g. theWAI-S) or simply proceed with an open discussion. If this (regular) exercise reveals agap in working alliance perceptions, addressing that gap should take precedence over allother goals for the coach (Castonguay et al., 2006). To maximize success, coaches canalso take into account advice given to therapists about the working alliance (Safran etal.,2001, 1990). This advice is as follows: First, therapists should be aware thatpatients often have negative feelings about the way therapy is going or the therapeuticrelationship, but fearing the negative reactions of their therapist, they are reluctant toaddress them. Therapists should thus take the initiative in exploring what is transpiring

in the relationship when signs of alliance rupture appear, for instance overt expression ofnegative sentiments, hostility, disagreement about the goals or tasks, and complianceand avoidance maneuvers, to name a few (for an extended review of alliance rupturemarkers, Safran et al., 1990). Second, it is important for clients to have the opportunity toexpress negative feelings about the therapeutic process, should they emerge.Third, when this takes place, therapists should adopt an open, non-defensive stanceand accept responsibility for their contribution to the interaction, while empathizingwith the clients experience.

Executivecoaching

857


12/18

Some research evidence suggests that resolution of working alliance impasses can bepotential change events associated with good therapy outcomes. For this reason,coaches must be sensitized to the importance of addressing these impasses, even thoughit may be an uncomfortable or threatening experience for them one that activates

concerns around competency as a [coach] (Safranet al., 1990, p. 164). This clarificationof what each party is experiencing could also allow the coachee to gain an awareness ofthe role he or she plays in the difficulties encountered in the coaching relationship, whichin turn could help the coachee to adopt a different stance from that point forward. Insummary, a coach should exercise caution about his or her perceptions of what is goingon in the coaching room, and not take for granted the satisfaction of his or her client.

LimitationsThere are several limitations associated with the study. First and foremost, a largersample would have provided more statistical power and allowed us to use moresophisticated analyses than difference scores and categories to represent agreement.

A discrepancy in working alliance ratings can be considered as a difference score,or algebraic scores, a type of analysis that has been criticized (Edwards, 1994b, 1995,2001, 2002; Irving and Meyer, 1999). Among its limitations, authors note low reliability,especially when the two components of the difference score are strongly correlated, as itis often the case. In line, we observe a non significant moderate effect between the twocomponents of our difference score, namely working alliance assessed by the coach andworking alliance assessed by the coachee (rp 0.35, n.s.), which could have lighten thereliability problem. These authors also suggest that the integration of two componentsin one difference score does not allow the estimation of their differentiate effects on thedependent variable, and due to statistical constraints, lower significantly the varianceassociated with the dependent variable (26 percent according to Edwards (2001).

To address such limitations, Edwards (1994a) and Edwards and Parry (1993)

suggested using polynomial regression to obtain results that illustrate more deeplythe complexity of the congruence effects. Indeed, the response surface methodologyassociated with this type of regression use three components in its analysis (the twoassessments and their difference score) instead of the two components of the algeabricscore, then allowing the estimation of the differentiate effects of the two assessmentson the dependent variable. In replication studies, Ostroffet al.(2004) and Atwateret al.(1998), instead of using categories of difference score (over-, under-estimators, accurate),have used polynomial regression to explore consequences of inter-raters congruence onmanagerial efficacy. Their results point toward the same conclusions than their paststudies that used difference scores. However, the explained variance was higher.

Unfortunately, our small sample did not produce enough statistical power for theapplication of polynomial regression. However, given the number of participants

involved in coaching programs offered in-house by organisations, which is seldomsuperior to 100, it becomes difficult for researchers to study such developmental exercisewith large sample, especially with the constraintsof a pre-post design and the pairings ofcoaches and coachees. In parallel, few studies about coaching compared more than thenumber of dyads we have studied (Luthans and Peterson, 2003; Evers et al., 2006;

Jones et al., 2006; Olivero et al., 1997). Also, the few studies that had a large sampledid not paired coachees and coaches as we did (Smither et al., 2003; Thach, 2002). Thesize sample limitation in coaching contexts represents an important challenge for

JMD30,9

858


13/18

researchers aiming to analyze the complexity of the coaching process with multivariatestatistics. We encourage researchers in coaching interested in studying dyads tocontinue their quest toward larger samples, which could permit the application ofpolynomial regression. Such statisticalanalysis could reproduce or nuance the resultswe

obtained. At last, it is important to underline that our results probably under-estimatethe impact of the coach-coachee relationship on the coachees self-efficacy sincepolynomial regression allows to enhance the explained variance while eliminatingthe methodological difficulties associated with algeabric scores.

Furthermore, there are some limitations as to the generalization of this studysfindings. First, the context of this study was rather unique, in that it was conducted ina field setting that used recently trained internal coaches, who may differ significantlyin competencies from external coaches. In general, external coaches have extensivecoaching training, either in psychology or in coaching per se, as well as an expertisedeveloped from multiple situations and organizational contexts they have encountered.For a description of pros and cons associated with the utilization of internal vs externalcoaches, see Wasylyshyn (2003) and de Haan (2008).

Despite these limitations, the present study makes several noteworthy contributionsthat shed light on the coaching process. Furthermore, it confirmed the theoretical andpractical importance of the working alliance factor in the field of coaching. Givenorganisations increasingly prominent use of executive coaching, understanding theconditions under which coaching works best is highly relevant (Paradise and Mosley,2009).

References

Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1998), 360 degree feedback and leadership development, InternationalJournal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 35-44.

Atwater, L.E. and Yammarino, F.J. (1992), Does self-other agreement on leadership perceptions

moderate the validity of leadership and performance predictions?,Personnel Psychology,Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 141-64.

Atwater, L.E., Roush, P. and Fischthal, A. (1995), The influence of upward feedback on self-andfollower ratings of leadership, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 35-59.

Atwater, L.E., Ostroff, C., Yammarino, F.J. and Fleenor, J.W. (1998), Self-other agreement: does itreally matter?, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 3, pp. 577-98.

Atwater, L.E., Waldman, D., Ostroff, C., Robie, C. and Johnson, K.M. (2005), Self-otheragreement: comparing its relationship with performance in the US and Europe,

International Journal of Selection and Assessment, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 25-40.

Bachelor, A. (1995), Clients perception of the therapeutic alliance: a qualitative analysis,Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 323-37.

Bandura, A. (1997), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, W.H. Freeman, New York, NY.

Baron, L. and Morin, L. (2009), The coach-coachee relationship in executive coaching:a field study, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 85-106.

Baron, L. and Morin, L. (2010), The impact of executive coaching on self-efficacy related tomanagement soft-skills, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1,pp. 18-38.

Bass, B.M. and Yammarino, F.J. (1991), Congruence of self and others ratings of naval officersfor understanding successful performance,Applied Psychology An International Review,Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 437-54.

Executivecoaching

859


14/18

Bedi, R.P., Davis, M.D. and Williams, M. (2005), Critical incidents in the formation of the

therapeutic alliance from the clients perspective, Psychotherapy: Theory, Research,Practice, Training, Vol. 42 No. 3, pp. 311-23.

Berry, R.M. (2005), A comparison of face-to-face and distance coaching practices: the role of the

working alliance in problem resolution, Department of Counselling an PsychologicalServices, Doctoral thesis, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA.

Bono, J.E., Purvanova, R.K., Towler, A.J. and Peterson, D.B. (2009), A survey of executive

coaching practice, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 62 No. 2, pp. 361-404.

Bordin, E.S. (1979), The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance,

Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, and Practice, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 252-60.

Castonguay, L.G., Constantino, M.J. and Holtforth, M.G. (2006), The working alliance: where are

we and where should we go?,Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, Vol. 43No. 3, pp. 271-9.

Castonguay, L.G., Goldfried, M.R., Wiser, S., Raue, P.J. and Hayes, A.M. (1996), Predicting the

effect of cognitive therapy for depression: a study of unique and common factors,

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 497-504.Cecero, J.J., Fenton, L.R., Frankforter, T.L., Nich, C. and Carrol, K.M. (2001), Focus on therapeutic

alliance: the psychometric properties of six measures across three treatments,

Psychotherapy, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 1-11.

Corbiere, M., Bisson, J., Lauzon, S. and Ricard, N. (2006), Factorial validation of a french

short-form of the working alliance inventory, International Journal of Methods inPsychiatric Research, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 36-45.

Day, D.V., Schleicher, D.J., Unckless, A.L. and Hiller, N.J. (2002), Self-monitoring personality at

work: a meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 2, pp. 390-401.

de Haan, E. (2008), Relational Coaching: Journeys Towards Mastering One-to-One Learning,Wiley, West Sussex.

Dingman, M.E. (2004), The effects of executive coaching on job-related attitudes. Virginiabeach, Doctorate thesis, Regent University, Virginia.

Douglas, C. and Morley, W. (2000), Executive Coaching: An Annotated Bibliography, Center for

Creative Leadership, Greensboro, NC.

Dumont, F. (1991), Expertise in psychotherapy: inherent liabilities of becoming experienced,

Psychotherapy, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 422-8.

Eames, V. and Roth, A. (2000), Patient attachment orientation and the early working alliance:

a study of patient and therapist reports of alliance quality and ruptures, Journal ofPsychotherapy Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 421-34.

Edwards, J.R. (1994a), Regression analysis as an alternative to difference scores, Journal ofManagement, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 683-9.

Edwards, J.R. (1994b), The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: critiqueand proposed alternative,Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 58No. 1, pp. 683-9.

Edwards, J.R. (1995), Alternatives to difference scores as dependent variables in the study of

congruence in organizational research, Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 307-24.

Edwards, J.R. (2001), Ten difference score myths, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 4No. 3, pp. 265-87.

JMD30,9

860


15/18

Edwards, J.R. (2002), Alternative to difference scores: polynomial regression analysis and

response surface methodology, in Drasgow, F. and Schmitt, N. (Eds), Measuring andAnalysing Behavior in Organizations, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 350-99.

Edwards, J.R. and Parry, M.E. (1993), On the use of polynomial regression equations as an

alternative to difference scores in organizational research, Academy of ManagementJournal, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 1577-613.

Evers, W.J.G., Brouwers, A. and Tomic, W. (2006), A quasi-experimental study on management

coaching effectiveness, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 58No. 3, pp. 174-82.

Fatien, P. and Amado, G. (2009),Value of Ambiguity The Case of Executive Coaching, EuropeanGroup for Organizational Studies (EGOS), Barcelona.

Fenton, L.R., Cecero, J.J., Nich, C., Frankforter, T.L. and Carrol, K.M. (2001), Perspective is

everything: the predictive validity of six working alliance instruments, Journal ofPsychotherapy Practice and Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 262-8.

Field, A. (2005), Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, Sage, London.

Furnham, A. and Stringfield, P. (1994), Congruence of self and subordinate ratings ofmanagerial practices as a correlate of supervisor evaluation, Journal of Occupational &Organizational Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 57-67.

Gist, M.E. (1989), The influence of training method on self-efficacy and idea generation among

managers, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 42 No. 4, pp. 787-805.

Gist, M.E. and Stevens, C.K. (1998), Effects of practice conditions and supplemental training

method on cognitive learning and interpersonal skill generalization, OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 75 No. 2, pp. 142-69.

Gist, M.E., Stevens, C.K. and Bavetta, A.G. (1991), Effects of self-efficacy and post-training

intervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills,

Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 837-61.

Greenson, R.R. (1965), The working alliance and the transference neuroses, PsychoanalysisQuarterly, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 155-81.

Hall, D.T., Otazo, K.L. and Hollenbeck, G.P. (1999), Behind closed doors: what really happens in

executive coaching, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 39-52.

Hersoug, A.G., Monsen, J.T., Havik, O.E. and Hoglend, P. (2002), Quality of early working

alliance in psychotherapy: diagnoses, relationship and intrapsychic variables as

predictors, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, Vol. 71 No. 1, pp. 18-27.

Horvath, A.O. (2005), The therapeutic relationship: research and theory. An introduction to the

special issue, Psychotherapy Research, Vol. 15 Nos 1/2, pp. 3-7.

Horvath, A.O. and Bedi, R.P. (2002), The alliance, in Norcross, J.C. (Ed.), PsychotherapyRelationships that Work: Therapists Contributions and Responsiveness to Patients,

Oxford University Press, New York, NY, pp. 37-69.Horvath, A.O. and Greenberg, L.S. (1989), Development and validation of the working alliance

inventory, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 223-33.

Horvath, A.O. and Symonds, B.D. (1991), Relation between working alliance and outcome in

psychotherapy: a meta-analysis, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 38 No. 2,pp. 139-49.

Hughes, P.D. and Campbell, A. (2009), Learning and Development Outlook 2009: Learning inTough Times, Conference Board of Canada, Ottawa, ON.

Executivecoaching

861


16/18

Irving, P. and Meyer, J. (1999), On using residual and difference scores in the measurement ofcongruence The case of met expectations research, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 1,pp. 85-95.

Jones, R.A., Rafferty, A.E. and Griffin, M.A. (2006), The executive coaching trend: towards more

flexible executives,Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27No. 7, pp. 584-6.Joo, B.K. (2005), Executive coaching: a conceptual framework from an integrative review of

practice and research,Human Resource Development Review, Vol. 4 No. 4, pp. 462-88.

Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Pucik, V. and Welbourne, T.M. (1999), Managerial coping withorganizational change: a dispositional perspective,Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84No. 1, p. 107.

Judge, T.A., Jackson, C.L., Shaw, J.C., Scott, B.A. and Rich, B.L. (2007), Self-efficacy andwork-related performance: the integral role of individual differences, Journal of Applied

Psychology, Vol. 92 No. 1, pp. 107-27.

Kampa, S. and White, R.P. (2002), The effectiveness of executive coaching: what we know andwhat we still need to know, in Lowman, R.L. (Ed.), The California School of OrganizationalStudies. A Comprehensive Guide to Theory, Skills, and Techniques: Handbook of

Organizational Consulting Psychology, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA, pp. 139-58.

Kampa-Kokesch, S. and Anderson, M.Z. (2001), Executive coaching: a comprehensive review ofthe literature, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 53 No. 4,pp. 205-28.

Kilburg, R.R. (2000), Executive Coaching: Developing Managerial Wisdom in a World of Chaos,American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.

Kilburg, R.R. (2001), Facilitating intervention adherence in executive coaching: a model andmethods, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 251-67.

Kivlighan, D.M.J. and Shaughnessy, P. (1995), An analysis of the development of the workingalliance using hierarchical linear modeling, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 42No. 3, pp. 338-49.

Latham, G.P. and Heslin, P.A. (2003), Training the trainee as well as the trainer: lessons to belearned from clinical psychology, Canadian Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 218-31.

Lee, C. and Bobko, P. (1994), Self-efficacy beliefs: comparison of five measures, Journal ofApplied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 364-9.

Lowman, R.L. (2005), Executive coaching: the road to Dodoville needs paving with more thangood assumptions, Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 57 No. 1,pp. 90-6.

Luborsky, L. (1976), Heling alliances in psychotherapy, in Cleghorn, J.L. (Ed.), SuccesfulPsychotherapy, Brunner/Mazel, New York, NY.

Luthans, F. and Peterson, S.J. (2002), Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy, Journalof Management Development, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 376-87.

Luthans, F. and Peterson, S.J. (2003), 360-degree feedback with systematic coaching: empiricalanalysis suggests a winning combination, Human Resource Management, Vol. 42 No. 3,p. 243.

McGovern, J., Lindemann, M., Vergara, M., Murphy, S., Barker, L. and Warrenfeltz, R. (2001),Maximizing the impact of executive coaching: behavioral change, organizationaloutcomes, and return on investment, The Manchester Review, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-9.

Mallinckrodt, B. (1992), Clients representations of childhood emotional bonds with parentssocial support, and formation of the working alliance, Journal of Counseling Psychology,Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 401-9.

JMD30,9

862


17/18

Martin, D.J., Gaske, J.P. and Davis, M.K. (2000), Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcomeand other variables: a meta-analytic review,Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,Vol. 68 No. 3, pp. 438-50.

OLeonard, K. (2009),The Corporate Learning Factbook: Statistics, Benchmarks, and Analysis of

the US Corporate Training Market, Bersin & Associates, Oakland, CA.Olivero, G., Bane, K.D. and Kopelman, R.E. (1997), Executive coaching as a transfer of training

tool: effects on productivity in a public agency, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 26No. 4, pp. 461-9.

Ostroff, C., Atwater, L.E. and Feinberg, B.J. (2004), Understanding self-other agreement: a lookat rater and rate characteristics, context, and outcomes, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 57No. 2, pp. 333-75.

Paradise, A. and Mosley, J. (2009), Learning in a down economy, TD, Vol. 63 No. 4, pp. 44-9.

Peterson, D.B. (1996), Executive coaching at work: the art of one-on-one change, ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 78-86.

Prussia, G.E. and Kinicki, A.J. (1996), A motivational investigation of group effectiveness using

social-cognitive theory, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 2, pp. 187-98.Rogers, C. (1961), On Becoming a Person, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, MA.

Safran, J.D. and Muran, J.C. (1996), The resolution of ruptures in the therapeutic alliance,Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 458-77.

Safran, J.D. and Muran, J.C. (2000),Negotiating the Therapeutic Alliance: A Relational TreatmentGuide, Guilford Press, New York, NY.

Safran, J.D. and Muran, J.C. (2006), Has the concept of the therapeutic alliance outlived itsusefulness?,Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 286-91.

Safran, J.D., Crocker, P., McMain, S. and Murray, P. (1990), Therapeutic alliance rupture as atherapy event for empirical investigation,Psychotherapy, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 154-65.

Safran, J.D., Muran, J.C., Samstag, L.W. and Stevens, C.K. (2001), Reparigin alliance ruptures,

Psychotherapy, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 406-12.Schaubroek, J. and Merritt, D.E. (1997), Divergent effects of job control on coping with work

stressors: the key role of self-efficacy, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 3,pp. 738-54.

Smither, J.W., London, M., Flautt, R., Vargas, Y. and Kucine, I. (2003), Can working with anexecutive coach improve multisource feedback ratings over time? A quasi-experimentalfield study, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 23-44.

Sosik, J.J. and Megerian, L.E. (1999), Understanding leader emotional intelligence andperformance: the role of self-other agreement on transformational leadership perceptions,Group & Organization Management, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 367-90.

Sperry, L. (1993), Working with executives; consulting, counseling, and coaching, IndividualPsychology, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 257-66.

Stajkovic, A.D. and Luthans, F. (1998), Self-efficacy and work-related performance:a meta-analysis,Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124 No. 2, pp. 240-61.

Stober, D.R. and Parry, C. (2005), Current challenges and future directions in coaching research,in Grant, A.M., Cavanagh, M.J. and Kemp, T. (Eds), Evidence-Based Coaching:Contributions from the Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 1, Australian Academic Press,Bowen Hills, pp. 13-19.

Thach, E.C. (2002), The impact of executive coaching and 360 feedback on leadershipeffectiveness, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23 Nos 3/4, p. 205.

Executivecoaching

863


18/18

Thompson, B. (2006), Foundations of Behavioral Statistics: An Insight-Based Approach,The Guilford Press, New York, NY.

Tierney, P. and Farmer, S.M. (2002), Creative self-efficacy: its potential antecedents andrelationship to creative performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45 No. 4,

pp. 1137-48.Tobias, L.L. (1996), Coaching executives,Consulting Psychology, Vol. 48 No. 2, pp. 87-95.

Tracey, T.J. and Kokotovic, A.M. (1989), Factor structure of the working alliance inventory,Psychological Assessment, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 207-10.

Van Velsor, E., Taylor, S. and Leslie, J.B. (1993), An examination of the relationships amongself-perception accuracy, self-awareness, gender, and leader effectiveness, Human

Resource Management, Vol. 32 Nos 2/3, pp. 249-63.

Wasylyshyn, K.M. (2003), Executive coaching: an outcome study, Consulting PsychologyJournal: Practice and Research, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 94-106.

Whetten, D.A. and Cameron, K.S. (2007), Developing Management Skills, 7th ed., PearsonPrentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Whittington, J.L., Coker, R.H., Goodwin, V.L., Ickes, W. and Murray, B. (2009), Transactionalleadership revisited: self-other agreement and its consequences, Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, Vol. 39 No. 8, pp. 1860-86.

Wood, R. and Bandura, A. (1989), Social cognitive theory of organizational management,Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 361-84.

Yammarino, F.J. and Atwater, L.E. (1997), Do managers see themselves as others see them?Implications of self-other rating agreement for human resources management,Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 35-44.

Zeus, P. and Skiffington, S. (2001), The Complete Guide to Coaching at Work, McGraw-Hill,Roseville, CA.

Corresponding author

Louis Baron can be contacted at: [email protected]

JMD30,9

864

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

Documents

SE Coaching