What Are Executive Coaches Actually Doing and When Are They Doing It? A Systematic Review of Coaching Behavior

被引:0
|
作者
Calasso, Lara F. [1 ,2 ]
Kunzli, Hansjorg [2 ]
Burtscher, Michael J. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Zurich, Dept Psychol, Zurich, Switzerland
[2] Zurich Univ Appl Sci, Dept Appl Psychol, Sect Diagnost & Counselling, Pfingstweidstr 96, CH-8037 Zurich, Switzerland
基金
瑞士国家科学基金会;
关键词
coaching behaviors; success factors; executive/business coaching; coaching processes; process-outcome research; CHANGING WORK-ENVIRONMENT; INTEGRATIVE MODEL; PSYCHOTHERAPY; INSTRUMENT; ALLIANCE; SCIENCE; CLIENTS;
D O I
10.1037/cpb0000267
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
In recent years there has been an increase in research about factors that make executive coaching effective. These are termed success factors and shape the coaching process as well as different coaching outcomes. The current review aims to contribute to this stream of research by specifying (a) the actual behaviors underlying success factors and (b) the temporal order in which they should be implemented over the course of the coaching process. Coaching behaviors are influenced by success factors and describe what coaches actually do during the coaching process. Specifically, actual behavior constitutes the visible and observable part of success factors. We contend that it is not sufficient to know which success factors are important because it remains unclear "how" and "when" they are implemented. We found 19 empirical studies that assessed actual coaching behavior in the context of executive coaching. The identified behaviors were summarized and classified into common themes using thematic analysis and in the next step arranged in a temporal order to specific coaching phases. The temporal order was informed by the GROW model by Whitmore (1996). The resulting temporal model of executive coaching behavior includes five categories: contact phase, exploration phase, operationalization phase, conclusion phase, and recurring coaching behavior category. Results indicate that coaching behavior differs across phases. Our findings contribute to a more detailed picture of what happens within executive coaching on a behavioral level. Moreover, understanding the underlying mechanisms of effectiveness helps identify the coaching behaviors that need further investigation.
引用
收藏
页数:22
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] What are people doing when they assign everyday emotion terms?
    Cowie, R
    [J]. PSYCHOLOGICAL INQUIRY, 2005, 16 (01) : 11 - 15
  • [42] What were you doing when your graft blocked?
    Smith, FCT
    Penny, L
    Ridler, BMF
    Campbell, WB
    Thompson, JF
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 1998, 85 : 94 - 94
  • [43] Differented Aproaches for Fracture Treatment in the Hand - when doing what?
    Pillukat, Thomas
    Muehldorfer-Fodor, Marion
    van Schoonhoven, Jorg
    [J]. HANDCHIRURGIE MIKROCHIRURGIE PLASTISCHE CHIRURGIE, 2022, 54 (03) : 217 - 222
  • [44] Doing What Is Best for the Patient When Surgical Volume Matters
    Brown, Douglas N.
    [J]. OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2018, 131 (06): : 977 - 979
  • [45] What kills the "bad guys" in feedstocks when doing vermicomposting?
    Ingham, E
    [J]. BIOCYCLE, 1998, 39 (11) : 18 - 18
  • [46] WHAT ARE WE DOING WHEN WE PRAY - BRUMMER,V
    HELM, P
    [J]. RELIGIOUS STUDIES, 1985, 21 (03) : 421 - 423
  • [47] WHO ARE WE WHEN WE ARE DOING WHAT WE ARE DOING? THE CASE FOR MINDFUL EMBODIMENT IN ETHICS CASE CONSULTATION
    Frolic, Andrea
    [J]. BIOETHICS, 2011, 25 (07) : 370 - 382
  • [48] Research, When You Know What You're Doing: A Review of Essentials of Qualitative Inquiry
    Allen, Daniel C.
    [J]. QUALITATIVE REPORT, 2015, 20 (04) : 451 - 453
  • [49] What can go wrong when doing right? A pictorial review of iatrogenic genitourinary complications
    Chahine, Reve
    Mendiratta-Lala, Mishal
    Consul, Nikita
    Wang, Jeffrey
    Stein, Erica B.
    Roseland, Molly E.
    Aslam, Anum
    [J]. ABDOMINAL RADIOLOGY, 2024,
  • [50] What to do when you don't know what you are doing
    Coates, Joseph F.
    [J]. TECHNOLOGICAL FORECASTING AND SOCIAL CHANGE, 2016, 113 : 74 - 75