The Relative Effectiveness of External, Peer, and Self‐Coaches

Abstract

Deux recherches poursuivies sur deux continents ont fait appel à deux variables dépendantes différentes pour étudier l'efficacité relative du coach externe, du pair coach et de l'autocoaching sur la performance des participants (maîtrise de gestion). La première investigation concernait trente étudiants en gestion canadiens. Ceux qui étaient suivis par un coach extérieur présentaient une meilleure adaptation au travail collectif que ceux qui avaient un pair pour coach. La seconde recherche portait sur 23 managers en gestion australiens. Ceux qui étaient suivis soit par un coach externe, soit par eux-même, ont obtenu des résultats significativement plus élevés que ceux qui étaient accompagnés par un pair. Dans les deux études, le coach externe avait aux yeux de l'intéressé une plus grande crédibilité que le pair. Dans la seconde étude, l'autocoaching était mieux vu que le coaching du pair. La satisfaction relative à l'ensemble du processus était plus forte chez les managers pourvus d'un coach externe.Two studies in two different continents using two different dependent variables examined the relative effectiveness of external, peer, and self-coaches on the performance of participants in two MBA programs. The first study involved MBA students in Canada ( n = 30). Those who were coached by an external coach exhibited higher teamplaying behavior than did those who were coached by peers. The second study involved EMBA managers in Australia ( n = 23).Those who were either coached by an external coach or who were self-coached had significantly higher grades than those who were coached by a peer. In both studies, an external coach was perceived by the participants to have higher credibility than their peers. In the second study, self-coaching was perceived to be more credible than coaching from peers. Satisfaction with the coaching process was highest among the managers who had an external coach.

The coach‐coachee relationship in executive coaching: A field study

“…The International Coaching Federation (ICF) alone numbered 15,000 members in 90 countries in 2008. However, many authors have noted the lack of scientific studies on the process and the outcome of executive coaching (see Lowman, 2005;Sue-Chan & Latham, 2004), and others have argued that this development approach is overused considering the paucity of research on the subject (McGovern et al, 2001). In short, the results from empirical studies indicate that executive coaching is positively associated with self-efficacy (Baron & Morin, 2007;Evers, Brouwers, & Tomic, 2006), leadership (Thach, 2002) (Smither, London, Flautt, Vargas, & Kucine, 2003).…”

An evaluation of management training and coaching

“…• Participants believed that external coaches had more credibility than peer coaches • Individuals with an external coach were more satisfied with the coaching process, compared with individuals who had peer coaches • Coaching from an external coach resulted in higher performance than coaching from a peer According to Sue-Chan and Latham (2004), implications from this study are that it not sufficient to only make use of peer coaching to achieve expected results. This is why some training programs include team coaching as a complementary method, such as the one we are studying.…”

Health Care Professionals and Family Perspectives of Youth’s Trauma: Suggestions for Coaching and Self-Leadership

“…Self-coaching interventions help the individual to construct a positive image of self [12], and is more effective than coaching from a peer or an external coach [13] and provide individuals with an edge over their un-coached peers [14] when considering their own self-leadership capabilities. Self-coaching harnesses intrinsic and extrinsic resources to become compassionate witnesses, thereby changing the behaviour and reactions of families and communities to violence and trauma [15].…”