Coaching: client factors & contextual dynamics in the change process

Abstract

Context-sensitivity appears to be a key factor in developing the knowledge base of coaching as a change process. As an alternative perspective to the more widely held cause-effect explanations on coaching, this view puts the focus on clients and their contexts as integral to understanding how coaching might work and why it is effective. In response to general limitations of quantitative and mixed-method approaches to understanding the contribution of client factors and contextual factors in coaching effectiveness, our systematic metasynthesis of 110 peer-reviewed qualitative studies identifies the client factors and contextual conditions that have been proposed to affect when and how clients engage in effective coaching. In mapping clients' intrapersonal and interpersonal dynamics in coaching, the Integrative Relationship Model introduced in this meta-synthesis interprets the possible influence of these dynamics on clients' change process through the uniquely integrative lens of qualitative studies. This integrative perspective appears necessary to give quantitative researchers future directions in how to investigate coaching effectiveness.

Change Process in Coaching: Interplay of Nonverbal Synchrony, Working Alliance, Self-Regulation, and Goal Attainment

“…This study provides evidence that coaching is not a linear input-output mechanism but a complex dynamic changeprocess (Erdoes et al, 2020). In particular, interaction terms in network models suggest that higher levels of synchrony may be interpreted as an indicator of some "correctional mechanism" that may emerge at a point in time where the coaching process is perceived to be deteriorating.…”

“…As mentioned above, so-called “weak coupling” may, indeed, be an important condition for successful social or collaborative interaction (Wiltshire et al, 2018 ). Given the non-experimental character of the present study, this question remains unanswered, but we think that future studies should try to control for and specifically focus on contextual factors of coaching interactions (Erdoes et al, 2020 ).…”

“…Thus, we are interested in how the quality of this relationship, which is commonly referred to as "working alliance" (Bordin, 1979) affects clients' self-regulation over the course of coaching. In sports coaching, the interplay between the coach-athlete relationship and self-regulation has been repeatedly reported (Jowett, 2017;Collins et al, 2018), and our recent literature review (Erdoes et al, 2020) indicated that change outcomes are driven by two main aspects: a client's cognitive and emotional processes.…”

Workplace coaching: testing whether personality traits and their ABCD components predict authentic self-development via affect balance

“…higher levels of AB over the course of coaching partially explained associations between personality and dimensions of ASD) highlight the importance of supporting a more optimal affective experience for clients during workplace coaching. As affect is an internal experience, we propose that future studies examine whether external/contextual factors of coaching strengthen/weaken client's positive internal coaching experiences (Erdös et al. , 2020).…”

Movement Synchrony Over Time: What Is in the Trajectory of Dyadic Interactions in Workplace Coaching?

“…This interest is grounded in the nature of coaching as an interactional change process that is viewed as a “complex adaptive system” (O'Broin and Palmer, 2010 , p. 28) rather than a linear input-output mechanism. Therefore, this paper answers calls from coaching scholars (e.g., Bachkirova, 2017 ; Myers, 2017 ; Erdös et al, 2020 ) to focus scientific efforts on exploring the impact of generic factors (i.e., dyadic interactional processes, time, and number of sessions) on the coaching process rather than specific techniques associated with any coaching method (Bachirova and Lawton Smith, 2015 ). Indeed, progressing the body of knowledge of generic factors on coaching may have the capacity to advance coaching as a purposeful meaning-making process (Drake, 2015 ).…”