Executive coaching

The effect of working alliance discrepancy

on the development of coachees self-efcacy
Louis Baron, Lucie Morin and Denis Morin
Universite du Quebec a` Montreal, Montreal, Canada
Abstract
Purpose Despite its growing popularity in applied settings, executive coaching has to date received
little attention in empirical research, especially in regard to the coaching process. This paper aims to
investigate the effect of working alliance rating discrepancies on the development of coachees
self-efcacy, a key outcome in leadership development.
Design/methodology/approach The paper reports on a pre- post-test study of a leadership
development program taking place in a large North American manufacturing company. Data were
collected from two samples: managers receiving coaching over an eight-month period and internal
certied coaches. In total, 30 coach-coachee dyads were analyzed.
Findings Results from an analysis of covariance did not support the authors hypothesis, by
indicating that coachees having worked with a coach who underestimated the working alliance,
in relation to his or her coachee, experienced more growth in self-efcacy than coachees who worked
with a coach who either accurately estimated or overestimated the working alliance.
Practical implications The results sugges that coaches should coach with an ongoing and
deliberately maintained doubt as their only certainty. The importance for coaches to be sensitive to
signs of what the coachee is experiencing, and to take the initiative to verify the coachees comfort level
with the way coaching is proceeding is addressed.
Originality/value This study intended to delve deeper into the complexities of the coaching
process by linking a key coaching process variable, the relationship, to coaching outcomes.
Keywords Executive coaching, Coaching relationship, Working alliance, Discrepancy, Self-efcacy,
Management development, Leader ship
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Executive coaching has come to play a key role in the eld of leadership and
management development (OLeonard, 2009; Bono et al., 2009). A recent survey from
the Conference Board of Canada (Hughes and Campbell, 2009) revealed that 72 percent
of organizations surveyed use coaching to support leadership development.
However, despite its growing popularity in applied settings, this developmental
intervention has to date received little attention in empirical research. Few rigorous
quantitative empirical studies have been conducted, and most of them have
focused on the effectiveness of coaching (Kampa-Kokesch and Anderson, 2001;
Smither et al., 2003).
With respect to the coaching process or, in other words, the conditions favoring
effective 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 University
for Outstanding Practice-Based Paper on Management Consulting at the Academy of
Management 2010 Conference.
Executive
coaching
847
Received 4 July 2010
Revised 26 July 2010
Accepted 13 October 2010
Journal of Management Development
Vol. 30 No. 9, 2011
pp. 847-864
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0262-1711
DOI 10.1108/02621711111164330
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 been
widely documented in the psychotherapy literature (Castonguay et al., 2006; Horvath,
2005; Martin et al., 2000), to our knowledge, only a very small number of studies have
investigated the concept of working alliance in a coaching context (Baron and Morin,
2009; Berry, 2005; Dingman, 2004). Furthermore, none of these empirical studies have
compared the working alliance ratings of the coach and coachee. What happens when
these two individuals have a different perception of the working alliance between them?
This question is very pertinent, given that in a psychotherapeutic context, similar
client-therapist alliance ratings in the middle and late phases of treatment are positively
linked with treatment outcomes (Horvath and Bedi, 2002).
The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of working alliance
rating discrepancies on the development of coachees self-efcacy. This study
endeavored to contribute to the literature in two ways. First, it aimed to increase our
knowledge of the working alliance concept in the context of executive coaching.
Although, authors have suggested that this variable plays a key role in coaching
effectiveness, empirical research is lacking on the topic. Second, and most importantly,
this study intended to delve deeper into the complexities of the coaching process. Given
the increased use of executive coaching by organizations, an understanding of the
conditions under which coaching is most effective is highly relevant (Paradise and
Mosley, 2009).
Conceptual framework
Executive coaching
Many denitions have been proposed for the concept of executive coaching (Hall et al.,
1999; Stober and Parry, 2005; Kilburg, 2000). In this study, we relied on the denition
proposed 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 to
develop themselves and become more effective (Peterson, 1996). Executive coaching involves
the teaching of skills in the context of a personal relationship with the learner, and providing
feedback on the executives interpersonal relations and skills (Sperry, 1993). An ongoing
series of activities tailored to the individuals current issues or relevant problem is designed
by the coach to assist the executive in maintaining a consistent, condent focus as he or she
tunes strengths and manages shortcomings (Tobias, 1996).
Among the various reasons cited in the popular literature to explain
the 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, new
forms of work organization) have created a need to develop management skills,
especially interpersonal skills (Zeus and Skifngton, 2001).
(2) Traditional training methods, such as the classroom seminar do not appear
to meet these organizational needs (Whetten and Cameron, 2007; Baron and
Morin, 2010).
JMD
30,9
848
Moreover, Fatien and Amado (2009, p. 4) suggested that:
[. . .] the collective setting (associated with traditional training methods) sometimes does not
facilitate self-expression, or does not allow for intimate self-disclosure. And in a society that
requires more and more subjective involvement, one may need to discuss personal issues
face-to-face.
Professional and personal development, as these authors suggest, is seldom realized in
one-shot or one-size-ts-all interventions. Executive coaching provides an opportunity
to create a genuine personal relationship between the coach and coachee through a
consistent focus on the attainment of signicant individual developmental goals, and it
is this relationship that appears to be key in supporting managers and leaders in their
development.
To date, from an empirical point of view, few quantitative empirical studies have
investigated 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 of
executive coaching, these studies have helped conrm that this type of intervention
seems effective. Yet, we still know little about why it works, or more specically,
under which conditions executive coaching is most effective. In response, authors have
recommended looking at the working alliance between the coach and coachee ( Joo, 2005;
Latham and Heslin, 2003). These authors argued that the effectiveness of coaching is
likely 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 authors
have further advanced the notion that a positive working alliance between the coach and
coachee 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 alliance
The concept of working alliance has its roots in the psychotherapy literature. Broadly
speaking, working alliance refers to the quality and strength of the collaborative
relationship between client and therapist in therapy (Horvath and Bedi, 2002, p. 41).
Various conceptualizations have been proposed to dene the therapist-client relationship
(Bordin, 1979; Greenson, 1965; Luborsky, 1976). For the purposes of this study, we relied
on the broadened conceptualization of working alliance advanced by Bordin (1979), which
includes all change-inducing relationships (Horvath and Greenberg, 1989). This
conceptualization highlights the interdependence of the therapist and the client in the
development of the alliance. Furthermore, Bordin (1979) suggests that the strength of the
alliance rests on the existing agreement between the client and the therapist concerning
the following three aspects: the objectives of the therapy, the tasks required to reach those
objectives, and the bond that develops between the client and the therapist. Awide range
of 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 empirical
studies have consistently shown that the strength of the working alliance is a highly
signicant predictor of a therapys success. It is estimated that the therapeutic alliance
accounts 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; Horvath
and Symonds, 1991). Castonguay et al. (2006) strongly argued that any study examining
the process of psychotherapy should include the concept of the working alliance.
Executive
coaching
849
Few empirical studies have examined the concept of working alliance in executive
coaching. One of them, a retrospective study by McGovern et al. (2001), reported that
84 percent of coachees identied the quality of the relationship with their coach as
critical to the success of coaching. However, due to the post-facto design and
descriptive nature of the study, no statistical correlation could be established between
the 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 coaching
process. Results revealed a signicant positive correlation between the quality of the
coaching relationship and the coachees self-efcacy. 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 development
goals. A sample of 102 professional coaches responded to an online survey. Findings
indicated a signicant positive correlation between the relationship and change,
as evaluated by the coaches but only in the distance coaching condition. Coachees were
not surveyed in this study. Finally, results from Baron and Morin (2009) showed that
the coach-coachee relationship plays a mediating role between the amount of coaching
received and the development of coachees self-efcacy. This result suggests that it is
through its effect on the coach-coachee relationship that the amount of coaching
received inuences the development of the coachee. This, in turn, suggests that the
coach-coachee relationship constitutes a prerequisite for coaching effectiveness.
In short, as is the case in psychotherapy, the working alliance appears to have a
signicant role in the context of executive coaching. However, none of the published
studies have examined the impact of a discrepancy between the coachees rating and
the coachs rating of the working alliance. Could a discrepancy between ratings have
an impact on executive coaching outcomes? The next section discusses the working
alliance discrepancy.
Working alliance discrepancy
The psychotherapy literature on working alliance indicates that the clients views of
the moderate correlation between client and psychotherapist ratings of the therapeutic
alliance (Cecero et 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 a
symmetrical relationship. Therapists responsibilities are different from those of clients,
and therapists phenomenological experience of the relationship is contextualized by their
theoretical perspectives and clinical experience. The clients felt experience in therapy is not
only the result of the dialectical experience in the therapy room, but is also construed in the
light of past relational history.
For their parts, Bedi et al. (2005) suggested that clients and therapists can diverge in
their perceptions of what elements are important in the development of the therapeutic
alliance.
Findings from empirical studies have indicated that the clients view of the working
alliance 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 low
discrepancy between client and therapist alliance ratings in the middle and late phases
of treatment is a consistent predictor of positive outcomes (Hersoug et al., 2002;
Kivlighan and Shaughnessy, 1995).
JMD
30,9
850
In light of all the above information, it seems reasonable to expect that the impacts
of a discrepancy in alliance ratings noted in psychotherapeutic contexts would also be
observed in the executive coaching process. If so, divergent assessments of the alliance
could 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 his
coachee, or that he or she is not able to recognize the clients perspective about their
relationship, the objectives they are pursuing, the tasks required to reach those
objectives, or the bond that has developed between them.
Auseful framework for examining the working alliance discrepancy in the context of
executive coaching is the self-other agreement paradigmthat issues fromthe leadership
literature. Though the evaluation of the working alliance does not constitute in itself an
evaluation of the coach, the latter may feel a greater responsibility in facilitating the
developmental exercise than the coachee. In line, empirical results indicate that clients
view the psychotherapist as primarily responsible for alliance formation (Bedi et al.,
2005; Bachelor, 1995), a perception that might be shared by the therapist since
establishing a good relationship with the client is a key component of any training or
certication in psychotherapy, or in executive coaching. Self-other agreement represents
the 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 the
congruence 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 and
under-estimators of their leadership behaviors in comparison with ratings from their
followers (Atwater et al., 1995; Atwater and Yammarino, 1992). Empirical evidence has
shown that self-other agreement can be used to predict performance as well as work
related 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; Day et al., 2002; Furnham and Stringeld, 1994; Sosik and
Megerian, 1999; Van Velsor et al., 1993; Whittington et al., 2009). In short, overestimation
leads to diminished outcomes, accurate estimation leads to enhanced performance, and
underestimation is associated with mixed outcomes (Yammarino and Atwater, 1997).
These authors explain these ndings by proposing that when there is a consensus
regarding the expectations of behavior and performance of both the leader and the
followers, a solid foundation of trust and commitment develops between them
(Whittington et al., 2009).
Self-efcacy: a proxy to performance
In situations where training aims to develop management skills, the measurement of
skills transfer is often a considerable challenge. Consequently, many researchers opt for
the measurement of self-efcacy as the main outcome of training, and some coaching
studies have begun to do the same (Baron and Morin, 2010; Evers et al., 2006).
Self-efcacyis denedas the belief that a personhas of beingcapable of accomplishing
a given task (Bandura, 1997). The relationship between self-efcacy and various aspects
of organizational life have been observed in numerous studies. For example, in the
industrial and organizational psychology, more than 800 articles on self-efcacy have
been published in scientic journals in the last 25 years ( Judge et al., 2007). These studies
Executive
coaching
851
have notably examined group efcacy (Prussia and Kinicki, 1996), adaptation stress
(Schaubroek and Merritt, 1997), creativity and productivity (Tierney and Farmer,
2002), management efcacy, performance and idea generation (Gist, 1989; Luthans and
Peterson, 2002; Wood and Bandura, 1989), and adaptation to organizational changes
( Judge et al., 1999). The connection between self-efcacy and the performance of complex
interpersonal tasks such as negotiationhas also been demonstrated many times (Gist and
Stevens, 1998; Gist et al., 1991). Furthermore, the results of a meta-analysis of 114 studies
published between 1976 and 1998 conducted by Stajkovic and Luthans (1998) showed a
signicant correlation between self-efcacy and work performance which, according to
the 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 working
alliance will not foster as good coaching outcomes as coaches who accurately estimate
the working alliance. By extension, coachees who work with over- or under-estimators
will 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 to
coachees ratings will develop more than coachees who work with a coach
who is an under- or an over-estimator.
Method
Field setting
This study was conducted in a large North American manufacturing company
that offered its junior and mid-level managers an eight-month leadership development
program that addressed various topics, such as leadership, interpersonal
communication, power and delegation, and employee development and mobilization.
In that program, executive coaching consisted of face-to-face, 75-minute sessions
between a certied internal coach and a manager participating in the leadership
development program. During the rst coaching session, managers were asked to
establish three main goals they wanted to work on. These goals had to be related to the
skills addressed inthe leadership development program. Following a structured process,
the coaches main responsibility was to guide and support coachees in the attainment of
their established goals. Although, the development program suggested one coaching
session every two weeks, the specic scheduling was left to the discretion of the coaches
and coachees. Participants received between three and eleven coaching sessions during
eight months, representing a mean of 5.77 sessions. Qualitative data indicates that lack
of time and schedule conicts were the two key reasons reported by coachees and
coaches for not attending one or several coaching sessions. While some dyads have met
once almost every two weeks, others, for reasons cited above, have met on a less regular
basis.
Participants
The participants in this study were divided into two groups: coachees and coaches. The
coachees were managers who had voluntarily signed up for a leadership development
program(n 127). Of these, 118 managers completed our rst questionnaire, and 80 of
these managers responded to the questionnaire administered at the end of the program.
Survey non-response was mostly attributable to participant absences at the time
JMD
30,9
852
questionnaires were distributed, and in a small number of cases, to managers who
simply refused to answer. Of this group of 80 participants, seven respondents were
excluded from the analysis because they had participated in the program to a very
limited extent. Our nal 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 a
manager was 4.7.
The coaches group consisted of 64 executives who had participated in a coaching
certication program. Prior to the start of the management skills development program,
these senior managers had received two days of coaching training, given by an outside
consultant. They then completed their certication by participating in four 2-hour
individual meetings with a master coach and four 4-hour action learning workshops.
Among these participants, 24 (21 men, three women) returned the questionnaire that was
sent 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 two
coachees for the duration of the program. Pairings were arranged to ensure that no coach
had 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 education
and their average number of years as a manager was 9.3.
Data collection
The data collection procedure was as follows: prior to the coaching sessions, we collected
an initial measure of the coachees self-efcacy as well as some socio-demographic data
on both coaches and coachees. Eight months later, at the end of the coaching,
we collected a second measure of the coachees self-efcacy as well as a measure of the
working alliance from both the coaches and the coachees. At both times, paper surveys
were used.
Measures
Self-efcacy. In this study, we had the opportunity to collect data for one outcome of
coaching, namely self-efcacy with respect to management soft skills. This variable
was assessed following the recommendations of Bandura (1997) and Lee & Bobko
(1994). These last authors mention that when measuring self-efcacy strength,
researchers typically ask individuals for the degree of condence to perform at specic
levels on a specic task (rated on a near-continuous scale) at each specic performance
level. Specically, we used an eight-item, 11-point Likert scale developed specically
for this study, where 0 indicated Not at all condent and 10 represented Completely
condent. All items were created to reect the content of the leadership development
program (e.g. Today, as a manager, I feel condent in my ability to help my employees
learn lessons from the difculties and setbacks they may encounter.). All items
were examined by two subject matter experts, namely an academic specializing in
management skills and the senior consultant who designed the training program. The
a coefcients were 0.89 (pre-coaching) and 0.88 (post-coaching).
Working alliance. This variable was measured using the Working Alliance
Inventory short version (WAI-S) (Corbie`re et al., 2006; Tracey and Kokotovic, 1989),
a 12-item, seven-point Likert scale. In this study, the wording of the original version
was slightly adapted to t the coaching context (e.g. coach instead of therapist
Executive
coaching
853
and development needs instead of problems). The WAI-S is widely used in
psychotherapy research (Martin et al., 2000). Validation studies have shown that the
WAI-S has good construct validity and high reliability (Corbie`re et al., 2006; Tracey
and 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 my
situation); and
(3) bonding (e.g. My coach and I have developed mutual trust).
Both coaches and coachees completed the WAI-S. a-coefcients were 0.90 (coaches)
and 0.93 (coachees).
Working alliance discrepancy. To measure this variable, we followed the procedure
rst developed by Atwater and Yammarino (1992) and reproduced by other studies
(Sosik and Megerian, 1999; Ostroff et al., 2004). In short, coaches were categorized into
one of the three agreement groups, relative to the ratings of coachees. The rating
difference for each coach-coachee dyad was computed and then each coachs difference
score was compared to the mean difference score. Specically, as in previous studies
cited above, coaches whose difference scores were one-half of a standard deviation or
more above the mean difference were categorized as over-estimators. Coaches whose
difference scores were one-half of a standard deviation or more below the mean
difference were categorized as under-estimators. Coaches whose difference scores were
within one-half of a standard deviation of the mean difference were categorized as
accurate estimators (Atwater and Yammarino, 1992, p. 152). Frequencies of the
categorizations were as follows: 11 coaches were categorized as accurate estimators,
ten as overestimators, and nine as underestimators.
Results
Preliminary analyses
Before proceeding with the testing of our hypothesis, we rst tested for signicant
differences between the 30 coachees for whom we were able to obtain data from their
respective coaches and the 43 coachees for whom we had no data from their coaches
(as mentioned above, only 24 coaches lled out all questionnaires). Findings showed no
signicant differences in regard to the following socio-demographic characteristics:
age, gender, education, or number of years as a manager. Results also indicated no
signicant difference between these two groups for pre-coaching self-efcacy
(t
71
1.10, n.s.) and post-coaching self-efcacy (t
71
20.49, n.s.).
Descriptive analyses
Table I presents both the descriptive statistics and partial intercorrelations of the
variables under study. Partial correlations were made, controlling for pre-coaching
self-efcacy, because we were interested in examining the effect of working alliance
discrepancy on the development of self-efcacy. Post-coaching self-efcacy,
thus served as the dependant variable (DV).
It is interesting to note that the means of the working alliance ratings as assessed by
coachees and coaches are quite similar, and relatively strong. We can also observe
that the correlation between these two variables is marginally signicant
JMD
30,9
854
(r
p
0.35, p ,0.10) and a little stronger than the low to moderate correlation observed
in previous studies (Cecero et al., 2001; Fenton et al., 2001). Table II presents the means
for working alliance ratings and post-coaching self-efcacy for the three
categorizations under study, namely the under-estimators, accurate estimators and
over-estimators.
Testing our hypothesis
To test our hypothesis, a one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted
with post-coaching self-efcacy as the DV and pre-coaching self-efcacy and coachees
working alliance assessment as the two covariates. Since the correlation between
coachees working alliance assessment and our DV is strong (r
p
0.51, p , 0.01),
using the former variable as a covariate controlled for the effect it might have on
another correlation, namely the correlation between working alliance discrepancy and
the DV. After all, according to our results, if coachees rate their alliance as high, they
are most likely to present a high score on their self-efcacy post-coaching, and their
coaches are more likely to be categorized as under-estimators. The independent
variable, namely the working alliance discrepancy, was composed of the following
three groups: under-estimators, accurate estimators, and over-estimators. Table III
presents the results of the ANCOVA.
Results from the above table show that no signicant effects were observed for
pre-coaching self-efcacy (F
(1,25)
3.25, p n.s., partial h2 0.12) or for coachee
working alliance assessment (F
(1,25)
0.42, p n.s., partial h2 0.02. Second,
ndings indicate a signicant group effect on post-coaching self-efcacy after
controlling for the two covariates (F
(2,25)
9.57, p , 0.001). Results also demonstrate
a very strong relationship between the working alliance discrepancy and self-efcacy,
as assessed by a partial h2, with the working alliance discrepancy accounting for
43 percent of the variance of the dependent variable, holding pre-coaching self-efcacy
and 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
* *
0.30
3. Working alliance discrepancy 0.004 0.78 . 20.72
* *
4. Post-coaching self-efcacy 0.88 7.96 0.75
Notes:
*
p , 0.05,
* *
p , 0.01,
* * *
, 0.10, n 30; control variable for correlations, pre-coaching
self-efcacy; mean 6.96; SD 0.96
Table I.
Means, standard
deviations and partial
correlations for variables
under study
Group n
Mean coachees
working alliance
ratings SD
Mean coaches
working alliance
ratings SD
Mean post-
coaching self-
efcacy
a
SD
Under-estimators 9 6.33 0.77 5.43 0.72 8.61 0.57
Accurate estimators 11 6.03 0.60 5.97 0.67 8.05 0.51
Over-estimators 10 5.37 0.35 6.25 0.42 7.28 0.44
Note:
a
Adjusted means
Table II.
Means for working
alliance and
post-coaching
self-efcacy
Executive
coaching
855
Follow-up tests were conducted to evaluate pairwise differences among the adjusted
means of the three groups. The Holms sequential Bonferroni procedure was used to
control for Type I errors across the three pairwise comparisons (Field, 2005; Thompson,
2006). Signicant differences were found in the adjusted means between groups.
Specically, contrast analysis revealed that coachees in the over-estimators group had a
signicantly different post-coaching self-efcacy than coachees in the under-estimators
group (contrast estimates 1.34, p , 0.001) and coachees in the accurate estimators
group (contrast estimates 0.77, p , 0.001). There was also a signicant difference
between the accurate estimators group and the under-estimators group (contrast
estimates 20.53, p , 0.05). In short, these results revealed that greater the
coach-favouring discrepancy in views about the working alliance, the less his or her
coachee developed. Our hypothesis, which stated that coachees who work with a coach
who is an accurate estimator in comparison with coachees ratings will develop more
than coachees who work with a coach who is an under- or over-estimator, is not
supported.
Discussion
The objective of this study was to explore the effect of working alliance rating
discrepancies on one key coaching outcome, namely self-efcacy. Our results indicate
that coachees having worked with coaches who overestimate the working alliance
experienced less growth in self-efcacy than coachees having worked with coaches
who accurately estimated the working alliance and that coachees having worked with
coaches who accurately estimated the working alliance experienced less growth in
self-efcacy than coachees having worked with coaches who underestimated the
working alliance. Thus, in this study, coaches underestimation of the working alliance
is the best predictor of post-coaching self-efcacy in coachees. This result differs from
ndings in the psychotherapy literature, which have shown that similarity or low
client-therapist rating discrepancies in working alliance is the best predictor of positive
therapy outcomes (Hersoug et al., 2002; Kivlighan and Shaughnessy, 1995).
One possible explanation for our ndings comes from de Haan (2008, p. 104), who
advances that:
[. . .] coaches all have the tendency to want to eliminate doubts and anxieties. [. . .] The more
we coach, the more we ourselves build up long-term defenses against our tensions
and existential doubts without realizing it. This is perhaps the main reason why
inexperienced 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 Mean
2
F-statistics Prob.
Corrected model 10.245 4 2.561 10.492 0.001
Intercept 5.680 1 5.688 23.299 0.001
Pre-coaching self-efcacy 0.794 1 0.794 3.253 0.08
Working alliance coachee 0.102 1 0.102 0.417 0.52
Working alliance discrepancy (three groups) 4.673 2 2.336 9.570 0.001
Error 6.103 25 0.244
Total 1,918.391 30
Corrected total 16.348 29
Table III.
ANCOVA analysis
results
JMD
30,9
856
In consequence, this author encourages coaches to coach with an ongoing
and deliberately maintained doubt as their only certainty (p. 106). According to
this argument, coaches who overestimate the alliance with their coachee may feel
overcondent 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 to
verify the coachees comfort level with the way coaching is proceeding. On the other
hand, coaches who underestimate the alliance with their coachee may be more humble
and have more doubts about their capacity to support the development of others. This
stance 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 inuence to exert albeit an indirect
inuence 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 relationship
might provide better support to the development of others and, in so doing, facilitate
the enhancement of others self-efcacy.
Another explanation for our ndings rests on a coachs inability to perceive
what is called an alliance rupture or a breakdown in the collaborative process in the
psychotherapy literature (Safran and Muran, 2006). This inability might be as
detrimental 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 suggested
that, when faced with therapeutic impasses, therapists rigid adherence to prescribed
techniques failed to repair such ruptures and even exacerbated them (Castonguay et al.,
1996). These results suggest that in a coaching context, a coach who feels that the
working alliance or the coachee are not developing as well as they should be might
become more concerned with procedures and results. This in turn would negatively
impact the coachee. A coach absolutely needs to be sensitive to the coach-coachee
interaction during the session, in the here and now (Rogers, 1961).
Results for this study have important practical implications for coaching. First, they
suggest that a coach should regularly evaluate the working alliance with his or her
coachee to make sure that he or she adequately perceives feelings from the client in
regard to the coaching process. To do so, one might use a formal questionnaire (e.g. the
WAI-S) or simply proceed with an open discussion. If this (regular) exercise reveals a
gap in working alliance perceptions, addressing that gap should take precedence over all
other goals for the coach (Castonguay et al., 2006). To maximize success, coaches can
also take into account advice given to therapists about the working alliance (Safran et al.,
2001, 1990). This advice is as follows: First, therapists should be aware that
patients often have negative feelings about the way therapy is going or the therapeutic
relationship, but fearing the negative reactions of their therapist, they are reluctant to
address them. Therapists should thus take the initiative in exploring what is transpiring
inthe relationshipwhensigns of alliance rupture appear, for instance overt expressionof
negative sentiments, hostility, disagreement about the goals or tasks, and compliance
and avoidance maneuvers, to name a few (for an extended review of alliance rupture
markers, Safran et al., 1990). Second, it is important for clients to have the opportunity to
express negative feelings about the therapeutic process, should they emerge.
Third, when this takes place, therapists should adopt an open, non-defensive stance
and accept responsibility for their contribution to the interaction, while empathizing
with the clients experience.
Executive
coaching
857
Some research evidence suggests that resolution of working alliance impasses can be
potential change events associated with good therapy outcomes. For this reason,
coaches must be sensitized to the importance of addressing these impasses, even though
it may be an uncomfortable or threatening experience for them one that activates
concerns around competency as a [coach] (Safran et al., 1990, p. 164). This clarication
of what each party is experiencing could also allow the coachee to gain an awareness of
the role he or she plays in the difculties encountered in the coaching relationship, which
in turn could help the coachee to adopt a different stance from that point forward. In
summary, a coach should exercise caution about his or her perceptions of what is going
on in the coaching room, and not take for granted the satisfaction of his or her client.
Limitations
There are several limitations associated with the study. First and foremost, a larger
sample would have provided more statistical power and allowed us to use more
sophisticated 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 it
is often the case. In line, we observe a non signicant moderate effect between the two
components of our difference score, namely working alliance assessed by the coach and
working alliance assessed by the coachee (r
p
0.35, n.s.), which could have lighten the
reliability problem. These authors also suggest that the integration of two components
in one difference score does not allow the estimation of their differentiate effects on the
dependent variable, and due to statistical constraints, lower signicantly the variance
associated 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 deeply
the complexity of the congruence effects. Indeed, the response surface methodology
associated with this type of regression use three components in its analysis (the two
assessments and their difference score) instead of the two components of the algeabric
score, then allowing the estimation of the differentiate effects of the two assessments
on the dependent variable. In replication studies, Ostroff et al. (2004) and Atwater et al.
(1998), instead of using categories of difference score (over-, under-estimators, accurate),
have used polynomial regression to explore consequences of inter-raters congruence on
managerial efcacy. Their results point toward the same conclusions than their past
studies that used difference scores. However, the explained variance was higher.
Unfortunately, our small sample did not produce enough statistical power for the
application of polynomial regression. However, given the number of participants
involved in coaching programs offered in-house by organisations, which is seldom
superior to 100, it becomes difcult for researchers to study such developmental exercise
with large sample, especially with the constraints of a pre-post design and the pairings of
coaches and coachees. In parallel, few studies about coaching compared more than the
number 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 sample
did not paired coachees and coaches as we did (Smither et al., 2003; Thach, 2002). The
size sample limitation in coaching contexts represents an important challenge for
JMD
30,9
858
researchers aiming to analyze the complexity of the coaching process with multivariate
statistics. We encourage researchers in coaching interested in studying dyads to
continue their quest toward larger samples, which could permit the application of
polynomial regression. Suchstatistical analysis couldreproduce or nuance the results we
obtained. At last, it is important to underline that our results probably under-estimate
the impact of the coach-coachee relationship on the coachees self-efcacy since
polynomial regression allows to enhance the explained variance while eliminating
the methodological difculties associated with algeabric scores.
Furthermore, there are some limitations as to the generalization of this studys
ndings. First, the context of this study was rather unique, in that it was conducted in
a eld setting that used recently trained internal coaches, who may differ signicantly
in competencies from external coaches. In general, external coaches have extensive
coaching training, either in psychology or in coaching per se, as well as an expertise
developed from multiple situations and organizational contexts they have encountered.
For a description of pros and cons associated with the utilization of internal vs external
coaches, see Wasylyshyn (2003) and de Haan (2008).
Despite these limitations, the present study makes several noteworthy contributions
that shed light on the coaching process. Furthermore, it conrmed the theoretical and
practical importance of the working alliance factor in the eld of coaching. Given
organisations increasingly prominent use of executive coaching, understanding the
conditions under which coaching works best is highly relevant (Paradise and Mosley,
2009).
References
Alimo-Metcalfe, B. (1998), 360 degree feedback and leadership development, International
Journal 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 inuence of upward feedback on self-and
follower 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 it
really 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-other
agreement: 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-efcacy: The Exercise of Control, W.H. Freeman, New York, NY.
Baron, L. and Morin, L. (2009), The coach-coachee relationship in executive coaching:
a eld 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-efcacy related to
management 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 ofcers
for understanding successful performance, Applied Psychology An International Review,
Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 437-54.
Executive
coaching
859
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 Psychological
Services, 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. 43
No. 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.
Corbie`re, 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 in
Psychiatric 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. Virginia
beach, 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 of
Psychotherapy Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 421-34.
Edwards, J.R. (1994a), Regression analysis as an alternative to difference scores, Journal of
Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 683-9.
Edwards, J.R. (1994b), The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: critique
and proposed alternative, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Vol. 58
No. 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 Decision
Processes, Vol. 64 No. 3, pp. 307-24.
Edwards, J.R. (2001), Ten difference score myths, Organizational Research Methods, Vol. 4
No. 3, pp. 265-87.
JMD
30,9
860
Edwards, J.R. (2002), Alternative to difference scores: polynomial regression analysis and
response surface methodology, in Drasgow, F. and Schmitt, N. (Eds), Measuring and
Analysing 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 Management
Journal, 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. 58
No. 3, pp. 174-82.
Fatien, P. and Amado, G. (2009), Value of Ambiguity The Case of Executive Coaching, European
Group 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 of
Psychotherapy Practice and Research, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 262-8.
Field, A. (2005), Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, Sage, London.
Furnham, A. and Stringeld, P. (1994), Congruence of self and subordinate ratings of
managerial practices as a correlate of supervisor evaluation, Journal of Occupational &
Organizational Psychology, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 57-67.
Gist, M.E. (1989), The inuence of training method on self-efcacy 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, Organizational
Behavior 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-efcacy 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, Psychoanalysis
Quarterly, 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.), Psychotherapy
Relationships 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 in
Tough Times, Conference Board of Canada, Ottawa, ON.
Executive
coaching
861
Irving, P. and Meyer, J. (1999), On using residual and difference scores in the measurement of
congruence The case of met expectations research, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 1,
pp. 85-95.
Jones, R.A., Rafferty, A.E. and Grifn, M.A. (2006), The executive coaching trend: towards more
exible executives, Leadership &Organization Development Journal, Vol. 27 No. 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 with
organizational change: a dispositional perspective, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 84
No. 1, p. 107.
Judge, T.A., Jackson, C.L., Shaw, J.C., Scott, B.A. and Rich, B.L. (2007), Self-efcacy and
work-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 and
what we still need to know, in Lowman, R.L. (Ed.), The California School of Organizational
Studies. 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 of
the 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 and
methods, 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 working
alliance using hierarchical linear modeling, Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 42
No. 3, pp. 338-49.
Latham, G.P. and Heslin, P.A. (2003), Training the trainee as well as the trainer: lessons to be
learned from clinical psychology, Canadian Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 218-31.
Lee, C. and Bobko, P. (1994), Self-efcacy beliefs: comparison of ve measures, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 3, pp. 364-9.
Lowman, R.L. (2005), Executive coaching: the road to Dodoville needs paving with more than
good 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.), Succesful
Psychotherapy, Brunner/Mazel, New York, NY.
Luthans, F. and Peterson, S.J. (2002), Employee engagement and manager self-efcacy, Journal
of Management Development, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 376-87.
Luthans, F. and Peterson, S.J. (2003), 360-degree feedback with systematic coaching: empirical
analysis suggests a winning combination, Human Resource Management, Vol. 42 No. 3,
p. 243.
McGovern, J., Lindemann, M., Vergara, M., Murphy, S., Barker, L. and Warrenfeltz, R. (2001),
Maximizing the impact of executive coaching: behavioral change, organizational
outcomes, and return on investment, The Manchester Review, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-9.
Mallinckrodt, B. (1992), Clients representations of childhood emotional bonds with parents
social support, and formation of the working alliance, Journal of Counseling Psychology,
Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 401-9.
JMD
30,9
862
Martin, D.J., Gaske, J.P. and Davis, M.K. (2000), Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome
and 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. 26
No. 4, pp. 461-9.
Ostroff, C., Atwater, L.E. and Feinberg, B.J. (2004), Understanding self-other agreement: a look
at rater and rate characteristics, context, and outcomes, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 57
No. 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, Consulting
Psychology 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 Mifin, 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 Treatment
Guide, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Safran, J.D. and Muran, J.C. (2006), Has the concept of the therapeutic alliance outlived its
usefulness?, 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 a
therapy 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-efcacy, 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 an
executive coach improve multisource feedback ratings over time? A quasi-experimental
eld study, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 56 No. 1, pp. 23-44.
Sosik, J.J. and Megerian, L.E. (1999), Understanding leader emotional intelligence and
performance: 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, Individual
Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 257-66.
Stajkovic, A.D. and Luthans, F. (1998), Self-efcacy 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 leadership
effectiveness, Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 23 Nos 3/4, p. 205.
Executive
coaching
863
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-efcacy: its potential antecedents and
relationship 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 among
self-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 Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 94-106.
Whetten, D.A. and Cameron, K.S. (2007), Developing Management Skills, 7th ed., Pearson
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Whittington, J.L., Coker, R.H., Goodwin, V.L., Ickes, W. and Murray, B. (2009), Transactional
leadership revisited: self-other agreement and its consequences, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 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 Skifngton, S. (2001), The Complete Guide to Coaching at Work, McGraw-Hill,
Roseville, CA.
Corresponding author
Louis Baron can be contacted at: baron.louis@uqam.ca
JMD
30,9
864
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com
Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints