Week 1 Flashcards
(19 cards)
Behrendt et al. (2021) derived 3 essential coach functions to:
1) create effective working relationships
2) facilitate goal attainment
3) create memorable experiences to sustain change
Behrendt et al. (2021) came up with 3 meta-categories to describe coach behavior:
1) relationship-oriented behavior that fosters effective working relationships
2) purpose-oriented behavior that directly supports goal accomplishment
3) change-warranting behavior that fosters information processing which sustains change and entails the creation of memorable experiences
Relationship-oriented coach behaviours entail:
Behrendt et al. (2021)
1) providing structured guidance
2) providing personalised support
3) activating resources
Purpose-oriented coach behaviours entail:
Behrendt et al. (2021)
1) enhancing understanding
2) strengthening motivation
3) facilitating implementation
Change-warranting coach behaviours entail:
Behrendt et al. (2021)
1) the creation of memorable experiences
What did Bozer & Jones (2018) want to achieve with their paper?
2 goals
1) to critically examine the theoretical constructs operationalized in past coaching research in order to provide a deeper understanding as to why these factors are important in understanding what determines coaching effectiveness
2) to identify and discuss fundemental questions and appropriate research methodologies that can advance workplace coaching research and practice
What are factors that determine workplace coaching effectiveness according to Bozer & Jones (2018)?
7 factors
1) self-efficacy
2) coaching motivation
3) goal orientation
4) trust
5) interpersonal attraction
6) feedback intervention
7) supervisory support
Describe the results of Bozer & Jones (2018) regarding self-efficacy.
- Coachee self-efficacy: important atecedent of affective coaching outcomes (perceived coaching effectiveness, improved coachee self-awareness, improved coachee responsibility) & skill-based outcomes (self-reported job performance, transformational leadership)
- Coachee self-efficacy: affective coaching outcome
Limitation: self-efficacy has generally been measured at 1 time point on
Describe the results of Bozer & Jones (2018) regarding coaching motivation.
- Coaching motivation: atecedent to coaching outcomes
- Coaching readiness: sig. predictor of skill-based outcomes (improved transformational leadership behavior)
Mostly qualitative studies. Should also be considered an outcome.
Describe the results of Bozer & Jones (2018) regarding goal orientation.
- In a training and learning context, learning goal orientation is considered to be a major individual motivational factor that influences the allocation of effort to learn and perform, and it facilitates training transfer (trainees with a learning goal orientation are more likely to make sustained efforts, seek feedback, have higher self-efficacy and greater performance in training interventions).
- Coachee learning goal orientation was positively related to skill-based outcomes (improved self-reported job performance & professional development focus).
Future research: longitudinal studies measuring goal orient. over time.
Describe the results of Bozer & Jones (2018) regarding trust.
- Two opposing theoretical perspectives to viewing trust in leadership:
1) Focus on the nature of coach-coachee relationship: Trust operates according to a social exchange process.
2) Focus on the leader’s character and how it influences a follower’s sense of vulnerability in a hierarchical relationship. - Bozer: in a coaching relationship, the coachee needs to believe that they can trust their coach so thay can allow themselves to be vulnarble and transparent in order to explore their weaknessses.
- Boyce et al.: Coachees’ ratings of trust = sig. predictor of affective coaching outcomes (coachees’ ratings of satisfaction, utility, and success of their coaching programme); however, they were not a predictor of skill-based outcomes.
Describe the results of Bozer & Jones (2018) regarding interpersonal attraction.
- Similarity paradigm: mechanism explaining why humans have a natural tendency to identify with and attract individuals that they perceive as similar to themselves. Similarity of personal characteristics implies common values, perspectives, and interests => relationships of mutual trust and effective interpersonal communication. Research has found benefits for interpersonal comfort, process engagement, and successful outcomes.
- Same-gender coaching dyads were positively related to affective coaching outcomes (increasef coachee self-awareness) and skill-based outcomes (improvement in coachees’ multisource ratings).
- Coach-coachee perceived similarity in temrs on attitudes, values, and beliefs (as rated by the coach) was postiively related to skill-based outcomes (improvement in coachees’ supervisory-rated task performance).
- However, it can be argued that there is a curvilinear relationship: in the later stages of coaching, coachees might benefit from a dissimilar coach who challenges them to get out of their comfort zone and offers them an alternative perspective.
Describe the results of Bozer & Jones (2018) regarding feedback intervention.
- Coach credibility as a feedback source characteristic was found to be an antecedent of coaching effectiveness.
- Other follow-up activities that support and compliment the ffedback process can enhance the benefits of the feedback intervention.
At what stage of coaching is incorporating feedback most impactful?
Describe the results of Bozer & Jones (2018) regarding supervisory support.
- Supervisory support has a positive impact on pre-training motivation and skills transfer.
- The support of the supervisor might reinforce the perceived value of the coaching process and therefore encourage the coachees’ efforts to develop.
What are limitations of Bozer & Jones’s (2018) study?
- Most of the theoretical constructs are from training literature and have been explored in isolation.
- Strict inclusion/exclusion criteria.
De Haan (2021) discussed some controversies in their article. What are they?
4 controversies
Controversy 1: What do do with studies of a different standard than RCTs?
Controversy 2: The technique vs. common-factors debate.
Controversy 3: It is difficult to compare different studies when they use different constructs.
Controversy 4: Where does ‘technique’ end and ‘common factors’ begin?
What did De Haan (2021) reccomend to do with studies of a different standard then RCTs?
controversy 1
- In order to establish what works in coaching, we do not need to establish that coaching works.
- To find sig. patterns in terms of what works in coaching interventions, we only need to make comparisons within a sufficiently representative sample.
What are ‘techniques’ according to De Haan (2021)?
controversy 2
What are ‘common factors’ according to De Haan (2021)?
controversy 2
