Management Coaching Model and Impact of its Activities on Employee Satisfaction

Abstract

The article tries to answer the research question: What is the potential additive effect on employee satisfaction when using management coaching model and its activities? The purpose of the article has been to form a model of management coaching and of the influence of its activities on employee satisfaction based on theory review and field study results. We have confirmed the main hypothesis (H1: Implementing management coaching model positively influences employee satisfaction) and all of the secondary hypotheses (Hi,j: Implementing activity »i« of the management coaching model positively influences factor »j« of employee satisfaction; i = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; j = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) with our empirical study, focused on the employees. The topic is of practical value and it will help managers in Slovenia and abroad understand the effect of the activities of coaching on employee satisfaction.

Perspectives on Teacher Education and Development

“…However, when the players were more relaxed and had a sense of the desired result in their heads, they were consequently more successful. The main message of the book is that, in order to master a certain skill, it is necessary to pay attention to the "inner game" that takes place in the mind (Cajnko, 2014).…”

“…There are various definitions of coaching (European Coaching Institute, 2007;Čeč, 2006;Megginson & Clutterbuck, 2007;Leshinsky, 2007;Stemberger, 2008;Cajnko, 2014;ICF, 2021 and others). It would be better to say that there are as many different definitions of coaching as there are schools for it.…”

A Journay into the Heart of Coaching-based Leadership: Empirical Findings within the Organizational Context

“…To calculate the sample, we considered 54 studies because three of the selected articles included two studies each (Cajnko et al, 2014;David & Matu, 2013;Kim et al, 2014).…”

“…Two manuscripts used the whole instrument (Kunst et al, 2018;Lin et al, 2016), and the other two used only one dimension measuring facilitation (Pousa et al, 2017;Pousa, Richards, et al, 2018). Furthermore, seven studies (Cajnko et al, 2014;Cummings et al, 2014;Dahling et al, 2016;David & Matu, 2013;DiGirolamo & Tkach, 2019;Liu & Batt, 2010;Zuñiga-Collazos et al, 2019) used surveys developed specifically to assess coaching/leadership, and two studies (Latham et al, 2012;Moen & Skaalvik, 2009) did not measure these constructs because they were quasi-field experiments based on the effects of an intervention on work-related outcomes. Moreover, the two mix-methods studies used surveys developed specifically for the research to measure leaders' coaching behaviours (Wageman, 2001), and coaching skills, ability to apply coaching, quality of leadership, and ability to recognise when to coach (Grant & Hartley, 2014).…”

“…Other studies (N = 7) collected objective metrics such as archival organizational records (Dahling et al, 2016) or different company performance indicators (i.e. product profitability, cost management, profit ;Cajnko, et al, 2014), and only two studies used previously validated (Sue-Chan et al, 2011) or developed scales (Wageman et al, 2001) along with objective performance. An overview of the general study characteristics and data collection methods can be found in Table 2.…”