Towards a process-based typology of workplace coaching: An empirical investigation.

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.

A systematic review of qualitative studies in workplace and executive coaching: The emergence of a body of research.

“…On reviewing their own sessions with the help of a Q-sort procedure, coachees focused mainly on their interpersonal needs and on the space and structure to develop new perspectives, whereas coaches focused more on the application of their expertise and on choices made during their interventions. Factor analysis showed that all Q sorts spanned only two factors: client-led coaching and process-led (directive) coaching (Myers & Bachkirova, 2018). Two sessions could be shown to be more client-centered and two more directive (with the other two in between).…”

“…In all these apparently important ingredients of coaching, the eye of the beholder matters a great deal: Coachees, coaches, and observers look very differently at their common endeavor (see, e.g., de Haan & Nieß, 2015; Myers & Bachkirova, 2018; Will et al, 2016). When studying important aspects such as the coaching relationship, trust, and the coach’s empathy, it is important therefore to specify the perspective.…”

“…Work has included: Case studies based on coachee or coach experiences (see, e.g., Levenson, 2009). Process research conducted by studying reports or direct recordings of sessions (see, e.g., Ianiro, Schermuly, & Kauffeld, 2013; and Myers & Bachkirova, 2018). Process research via interviews and surveys (see, e.g., Wasylyshyn, 2003).…”

“…Process research conducted by studying reports or direct recordings of sessions (see, e.g., Ianiro, Schermuly, & Kauffeld, 2013; and Myers & Bachkirova, 2018).…”

Introduction to the Special Issue on Advances in the Psychology of Workplace Coaching

“…An important consideration for future research is the collection of multiple sources of data among key stakeholders in the coachee's environment (e.g., coach, line manager, subordinates, peers, human resource development personnel) to overcome or reduce the risk of bias associated with self‐reported ratings. This recommendation becomes highly important as qualitative studies (e.g., De Haan, 2019; Lai & Smith, 2021; Myers & Bachkirova, 2018) demonstrate how the multi‐purpose and multifaceted nature of coaching is reflected in varied agendas and objectives among coaching stakeholders in the three‐way joint coaching alliance (i.e. coach, coachee, sponsor organization).…”