The impact of common factors on coaching outcomes

Abstract

Previous studies examining coaching outcomes generally rely on cross-sectional data which limits our understanding of the enduring and long-term effects of coaching. To address this issue, this study, based on longitudinal data, explores several popular variables associated with coaching outcomes. The study is underpinned by Lambert's [(1992). Lambert, M. J. (1992). Psychotherapy outcome research: Implications for integrative and eclectic therapists. In J. C. Norcross, & M. R. Goldfried (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy integration (pp. 94-129). Basic Books] four-factor model of common factors and recognises them as variables which are customary to all coaching approaches contributing to coaching outcomes. The study considers stress, wellbeing, resilience, goal attainment and coaching effectiveness as coaching outcomes. Working alliance mediates the impact of self-efficacy, outcome expectations; and perceived social support which are regarded as the predictors of the coaching outcomes. The results indicate that social support predicts working alliance, and working alliance in turn predicts wellbeing and coaching effectiveness over time. The findings suggest that it is vital for coaches to monitor changes in the coachees' social networks and their working alliance since these have a significant bearing on the effectiveness of the sessions and the coachees' wellbeing.

Coaching Approach as A Sustainable Means of Improving Communication Skills of Management Students

“…We can identify various elements as barriers that prevent organizations from using coaching organizational culture; insufficient understanding of the value of coaching; coaching is not considered a business priority; resistance from top management; low level of coaching skills and experience within the organization; lack of time and financial resources [42][43][44][45].…”

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

“…That indication may mean that additional sessions do not impact up and that even short-term coaching may have a beneficial impact on client goal attainment. Most recently, some coaching effectiveness outcome studies (de Haan et al, 2019 ; Molyn et al, 2019 ; Zimmermann and Antoni, 2020 ) have found that, while the effectiveness of coaching grew over the course of the coaching engagement as an overall measure, the level of effectiveness in terms of outcomes changed from session to session. This may be the result of each consecutive session in the coaching engagement, having its own specific challenges (and, therefore, levels of effectiveness in terms of outcomes).…”

“…This indication is corroborated in studies investigating dynamic change processes (i.e., forming, norming, storming, performing phases) in team development (e.g., Kozlowski and Chao, 2018 ), which report that team-level processes and outcomes are multilevel phenomena that emerge and bottom up from the interactions among team members over time, under the shifting requirements of each work context. In one particular coaching study (Molyn et al, 2019 ), only some process variables such as the task-focus component of working alliance predicted outcomes when measured at the outset and if regressed against the last session outcome. In-between sessions, only task-focus predicted a coaching outcome, and this task-outcome effect was not found to be produced for each data point.…”

Sport Communication: Revealing the Use of Instructional Communication on Football Coaching Process

“…Third, motivational content aims to improve students' psychological and mental conditions in playing football. SP, HN, and TP ASIFA coaches believe that the motivation conveyed by the coaches can have an impact on the psychology of the students, namely forming the students' spirit and mentality in undergoing training and matches (Molyn et al, 2021).…”