No abstract

Research into work-based coaching has been led by the need of a new discipline to demonstrate effectiveness of this practice, often assuming that coaching is a homogeneous activity. A multifaceted and multi-purposeful nature of coaching now requires development of meaningful typologies that reflect this diversity and grounded in the analysis of coaching process. There are many reasons empirical investigations of the coaching process are extremely rare. The aim of this article is to present such a study leading to an empirically derived model representing a 4demensional coaching typology. The research was based on a 'qualiquantological' Q methodology involving 47 participants. Actual coaching sessions were evaluated from the perspective of professional coaches, their clients and professional coaches observing recordings of these sessions. A Q methodological factor analysis led to a clear identification of two types of coaching: 'Client-led coaching' in which the coach and client work together in a flowing dialogue exploring the client's issues and 'Process-led coaching,' characterized by an actively engaged coach using a wide range of coaching techniques, visibly structuring the coaching process. There was partial support for a third type of 'Dialogic Coaching' and a fourth approach was inferred as being the inverse type of client-led coaching.

To enhance the value of coaching provision, coaching sessions are assessed as part of the accreditation of coaches by professional bodies and through the selection of coaches for programmes in organisations. However, the idea of the quality of a coaching session and a valid standpoint from which such an assessment can be made, remain problematic. Using constructivist grounded theory, this study explores how coaching sessions are perceived by three parties: clients, coaches and groups of coaches acting as observers. Analysis of the multiple perspectives on each of six sessions shows a significant discrepancy between them supporting the relevance of the Rashomon effect in coaching, based on Kurosawa's (1950) film in which different witnesses provide conflicting accounts of the same events. The study questions the practice of prioritising first or third-person perspectives when the quality of a coaching session is assessed and addresses the potential implications of the identified issues for coaches, assessors and educators of coaching. Practice points To which field of practice area(s) in coaching is your contribution directly relevant? Evaluation of coaching practice, assessment and selection of coaches, continuing professional development of coaches, coaching education. What do you see as the primary contribution your submission makes to coaching practice?The study identifies ambiguities and challenges in the typical practices currently used in the coaching field. It provides a potential explanation for their origin with implications for practitioners, professional bodies and educators. What are its tangible implications for practitioners? Changing the way coaching sessions are evaluated  Changing the way coaches are assessed and selected  Changing coaching education programmes.

No abstract