international coaching psychology revieworganisationalpsychology.nz/wp-content/uploads/... ·...

Interest Group in Coaching Psychology

ISSN: 1750-2764

International Coaching Psychology ReviewVolume 10 No. 1 March 2015

International Coaching Psychology ReviewEditorial BoardCo-ordinating EditorsUnited Kingdom: Stephen Palmer, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit, Department of Psychology, City University London, Northampton Square, London, UK.Australia: Sandy Gordon, PhD, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.Co-EditorsMichael Cavanagh, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit, School of Psychology, Sydney University, Australia.Anthony M. Grant, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit, School of Psychology, Sydney University, Australia.Travis Kemp, PhD, International Graduate School of Business, University of South Australia, Australia.David Lane, PhD, Middlesex University, London, UK.Alex Linley, PhD, School of Psychology, University of Leicester, UK.Alison Whybrow, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit, City University London, UK.

SubscriptionsInternational Coaching Psychology Review (ICPR) is published in March and September. It is distributed free of charge to members ofthe British Psychological Society Special Group in Coaching Psychology and the Australian Psychological Society Interest Group inCoaching Psychology members. It is available to non-members (Individuals £50 per volume; Institutions £60 per volume; single copies£25) from: The British Psychological Society, SGCP, St. Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester LE1 7DR. UK.

Abstracting and indexing: The ICPR is abstracted in psycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts and Google Scholar. The ICPR is included Cabell's Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Educational Psychology and Administration and Cabell'sDirectory of Publishing Opportunities in Educational Curriculum and Methods.

Notes for ContributorsThe ICPR is an international publication with a focus on the theory, practice and research in the field of coaching psychology.Submission of academic articles, systematic reviews and other research reports which support evidence-based practice are welcomed.The ICPR may also publish conference reports and papers given at the British Psychological Society Special Group in CoachingPsychology (BPS SGCP) and Australian Psychological Society Interest Group in Coaching Psychology (APS IGCP) conferences, noticesand items of news relevant to the International Coaching Psychology Community.

Case studies and book reviews will be considered. The ICPR is published by the BPS SGCP in association with the APS IGCP.

1. CirculationThe circulation of the ICPR is worldwide. It is available in hardcopy and PDF format. Papers are invited and encouraged from authorsthroughout the world. It is available free in paper and PDF format to members of the BPS SGCP, and free in PDF format to APS IGCPmembers as a part of their annual membership.

2. LengthPapers should normally be no more than 6000 words, although the Co-Editors retain discretion to publish papers beyond this lengthin cases where the clear and concise expression of the scientific content requires greater length.

3. ReviewingThe publication operates a policy of anonymous peer review. Papers will normally be scrutinised and commented on by at least twoindependent expert referees (in addition to the relevant Co-Editor) although the Co-Editor may process a paper at his or herdiscretion. The referees will not be aware of the identity of the author. All information about authorship including personalacknowledgements and institutional affiliations should be confined to the title page (and the text should be free of such clues asidentifiable self-citations, e.g. ‘In our earlier work…’).

Continued on inside back cover.

International Editorial BoardHilary Armstrong, PhD, Institute of Executive Coaching,Sydney, Australia.Paul Atkins, PhD, Australian National University,Canberra, Australia.Tatiana Bachkirova, PhD, Oxford Brookes University, UK.John Bennett, PhD, Queen’s University of Charlotte, North Carolina, USA.Michael Carroll, PhD, University of Bristol, UK.Ian Cockerill, PhD, University of Birmingham, UK.Cary Cooper, PhD, Lancaster University, UK.Sarah Corrie, PhD, Middlesex University, London, UK.Paula Cruise, PhD, University of Cambridge, UK.Susan David, PhD, Melbourne University, Australia.Suzy Green, PhD, University of Wollongong, NSW Australia.Kate Hefferon PhD, University of East London, UK.

Stephen Joseph, PhD, University of Warwick, UK.Carol Kauffman, PhD, Harvard Medical School, USA.Roy Moodley, PhD, University of Toronto, Canada.Richard Nelson-Jones, PhD, Cognitive Humanistic Institute,Thailand.Lindsay Oades, PhD, University of Wollongong, Australia.Jonathan Passmore, PhD, Evora University, Portugal.James Pawelski, PhD, Positive Psychology Center,University of Pennsylvania, USA.Gordon Spence, PhD, University of Wollongong, NSW Australia.Ernesto Spinelli, PhD, Regent’s College, UK.Catherine Steele PhD, University of Worcester, UK.Reinhard Stelter, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit,University of Copenhagen, Denmark.Lewis R. Stern, PhD, Harvard University Medical School, USA.Dianne Stober, PhD, Fielding University, USA.Mary Watts, PhD, City University, London, UK.

The British Psychological SocietySpecial Group in Coaching Psychology

k

The Australian Psychological Society LtdInterest Group in Coaching Psychology

k

InternationalCoaching Psychology Review

k

Volume 10 No. 1 March 2015

k

2 International Coaching Psychology Review l Vol. 10 No. 1 March 2015

BPS SGCPAnnual Conferenceto be held in December 2015.

Provisional dates:10–11 December 2014.

Location: London, United Kingdom.

Details of how to submit abstracts forpapers and posters, and how to register

will be announced soon.

For further information visit theSGCP website:

www.sgcp.org.uk

International Coaching Psychology Review l Vol. 10 No. 1 March 2015 3

Contents4 Editorial: Celebrating our 10th volume of the

International Coaching Psychology ReviewStephen Palmer & Sandy Gordon

Papers

6 How coaching helps leadership resilience: The leadership perspectiveCarmelina Lawton Smith

20 There is no leadership if no-one follows: Why leadership is necessarily a group processMichael J. Platow, S. Alexander Haslam, Stephen D. Reicher & Niklas K. Steffens

38 Differences between critical moments for clients, coaches, and sponsors of coachingErik de Haan & Christiane Nieß

62 Helping people to ‘make things happen’: A framework for proactivity at work Sharon K. Parker & Ying Wang

76 The experience of cognitive behavioural group coaching with college students: An IPA study exploring its effectivenessPepita Torbrand & Vicky Ellam-Dyson

94 Clients’ experiences of Intentional Personality Change CoachingLesley S. Martin, Lindsay G. Oades & Peter Caputi

Reports

109 Special Group in Coaching Psychology NewsDasha Grajfoner

111 Interest Group in Coaching Psychology News Nic Eddy

THIS YEAR we celebrate the 10th volumeof the International Coaching PsychologyReview (ICPR). During the past 10 years,

the articles published in this journal haveadded to the evidence base of coaching andcoaching psychology. This is an excellenttime to thank the co-editors, authors, inter-national editorial board members and articlereviewers for their immense contribution tothe theory, research and practice of the disci-pline of coaching psychology and also to thedevelopment of this peer-reviewed publica-tion. The ICPR highlights what can beachieved by the British Psychological SocietySpecial Group in Coaching Psychology andthe Australian Psychological Society InterestGroup in Coaching Psychology workingcollaboratively together.

In this March issue of the ICPR, in addi-tion to papers, we have also included articlesbased on keynote papers. The first twopapers are on leadership. We start with thepaper, ‘How coaching helps leadershipresilience: The leadership perspective’. Thisgrounded theory research study undertakenby Carmelina Lawton Smith, focused on twokey areas: to assess if existing coaching mightalready be affecting resilience, despite thatnot being a contracted objective; and toidentify what aspects of coaching might bemost influential in leadership resilience.

The first keynote presentation in thisissue is from Michael Platow (The AustralianNational University, Canberra) and hiscolleagues S. Alexander Haslam, StephenReicher and Niklas Steffens. Entitled ‘Thereis no leadership if no-one follows: Why lead-ership is necessarily a group process’ the

paper is based on Michael’s Invited Keynotepresentation at the APS Coaching Psycho-logy Interest Group’s 4th InternationalCongress on Coaching Psychology, 13–15November, in Melbourne. Platow and associ-ates use both social identity and self-cate-gorisation theory analyses to argue thatleadership is ‘fundamentally a groupprocess’. They conclude by reviewing theIdentity Leadership Inventory.

In the next paper, ‘Differences betweencritical moments for clients, coaches, andsponsors of coaching’, Erik de Haan andChristiane Nieß have extended earlierstudies. In this study descriptions of criticalmoments of coaching as experienced byexecutive coaching clients, their coaches andtheir sponsors are analysed and compared tofind out more about how coaching conversa-tions are experienced. The results suggestthat clients and coaches are considerablymore aligned in what they regard as criticalin their coaching assignments whencompared to their alignment with sponsors’views.

The second keynote paper from SharonK. Parker and Ying Wang (The University ofWestern Australia, Perth) is based onSharon’s Invited Keynote presentation at thesame conference. Entitled ‘Helping peopleto “make things happen”: A framework forproactivity at work’ the paper discusses theimportance of proactivity at work anddifferent perspectives and motivational path-ways such as ‘can do’, ‘reason to’, and ‘ener-gised to’. The paper concludes with adiscussion on applications of proactivity forcoaching at work.

4 International Coaching Psychology Review l Vol. 10 No. 1 March 2015© The British Psychological Society – ISSN: 1750-2764

Editorial: Celebrating our 10th volume of the International Coaching PsychologyReviewStephen Palmer & Sandy Gordon


Editorial

In the next paper, Pepita Torbrand andVicky Ellam-Dyson undertook a pilot studywhich investigated the application of groupcognitive behavioural coaching (CBC) withcollege students in order to reduce procras-tination and avoidance behaviours. Based ontheir results they suggest that brief groupCBC may be a cost-effective and learner-focused approach in contrast to one-to-onecoaching for performance related issues andwell-being. It is an area that needs furtherresearch.

Lesley Martin, Lyndsay Oades and PeterCaputi (University of Woolongong) presenttheir third paper relating to personalitychange coaching. In a previous issue of theICPR their first and second papers described,respectively, the development and assess-ment of a step-wise process of intentionalpersonality change coaching. This thirdpaper explores the qualitative impact of theprocess of personality change coaching andspecifically the practical benefits such as heightened levels of self-awareness,authentic identity, confidence and enjoy-ment.

We finish with reports from the BPS SGCPChair and APS IGCP Convenor. Both reportshighlight the 4th International Congress ofCoaching Psychology 2014 events run by theSGCP and the IGCP last year.l Coaching Excellence in Practice.

Melbourne, 13–15 November 2014.l Changing Lives, Changing Worlds –

Inspiring Collaborations. London, 11–12December 2014.

Our colleagues in the American Psycho-logical Association, Society of ConsultingPsychology (Division 13) are to be congratu-lated and thanked for hosting their congressevent last month in San Diego. This was thefirst coaching psychology congress to be heldin the United States. Interest in coachingpsychology around the world continues todevelop and we hope to include additionalkeynote papers in the ICPR that you may nothave had the opportunity to experience atone of these events. Do visit the congresswebsite if you wish to keep up-to-date withother international events.

CorrespondenceStephen PalmerCoaching Psychology Unit,Department of Psychology,City University London,Northampton Square,London, UK.Email: [email protected]

Sandy GordonThe University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.Email: [email protected]

WebsiteThe International Congress of CoachingPsychology events are listed on the groupwebsite. Check for updates: www.coachingpsychologycongress.org

ESILIENCE has traditionally beenstudied within the developmental(Benard, 1993; Masten & Reed, 2005)

and clinical arena (Friborg et al., 2005) buthas more recently entered the organisationalliterature as a key attribute in dealing withrapidly changing and challenging situations.In organisational settings much of theexisting work is based in military or nursingcontexts (Bartone, 2006; Maddi, 2007;Tusaie & Dyer, 2004) and deals with adversityand coping skills. However, there has beenincreasing interest in promoting resilienceto a wider organisational population.Luthans (2002, p.702) proposes thatresilience is one of four essential psycho-

logical capabilities (PsyCap) for anysuccessful leader, in addition to hope, opti-mism and confidence. Resilience in thismodel is defined as ‘the capacity to reboundor bounce back from adversity, conflict,failure, or even positive events, progress, andincreased responsibility’. The PsyCap modelsuggests that leadership resilience can beenhanced through personal growth and thatsuch learning will contribute to wider organ-isational resilience. As a consequence ofsuch interest, enhancing resilience throughcoaching has become a focus of someinterest in the literature (Palmer, 2013; Sherlock-Storey, Moss & Timson, 2013)


Paper

How coaching helps leadership resilience:The leadership perspectiveCarmelina Lawton Smith

Objectives: Resilience has grown as a topic of interest to coaches and increases in resilience as a result of specificcoaching programmes are often reported (Grant, Curtayne & Burton, 2009). However, the perspective of thecoached leaders has remained largely unexplored. This study seeks to gain the leadership perspective on two keyareas. Firstly to assess if existing coaching might already be affecting resilience, despite that not being a contractedobjective. Secondly, to identify what aspects of coaching might be most influential in leadership resilience. Design: The study was positioned in the pragmatic paradigm using a grounded theory approach (Charmaz,2006). Interview data was gathered from eight senior managers who had previously had coaching. Analysiswas based on the grounded theory coding approach using NVivo software.Methods: Eight leaders volunteered to be interviewed on the topic of resilience and had to have completed aprogramme of coaching at least one year prior to data collection. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews askedabout the coaching that they had received and if they felt it had affected their resilience.Results: The results indicated that leaders did perceive coaching to have affected their resilience, even if thiswas not a defined objective for the coaching. In addition leaders reported that coaching helped in five ways.It helped them reclaim their self-belief, it contributed to their learning, it helped them see the wider perspective,it provided a supportive relationship and gave them a thinking space.Conclusion: Leaders often came to coaching as the result of facing a challenge and experienced significantexperiential learning in relation to their resilience as a by product of coaching. While the development ofcertain cognitive strategies proved helpful, participants expressed the importance of the supportive coachingrelationship during times of challenge where resilience was required. This questions how far resilience can beenhanced as a proactive preventative approach through training. Recommendations are made to supportcoaches when dealing with leaders in a resilience context.Keywords: resilience; leadership coaching; confidence.

R

Literature reviewThere is growing evidence that coaching canenhance resilience. Sherlock-Storey et al.(2013) used a ‘brief and structured, skillsbased coaching approach’ and foundincreased levels of resilience as measured bythe Psychological Capital Questionnaire(Luthans, Youssef & Avolio, 2007). Thisstudy asserts that ‘coaching builds resilience’but the quantitative approach employedgives little detail on what might have beenthe most significant aspects of the coachingthat contributed to the reported change. Asa consequence, it is unclear if alternativeconceptions of coaching which are less struc-tured would have had a similar effect. Giventhe breadth of alternative approaches tocoaching it would be valuable to understandthe specific components of coaching thatwere felt to affect resilience.

Grant, Curtayne and Burton (2009) alsoreported increases in resilience following a10-week Solution-Focussed Coaching pro-gramme for health care managers. Again, itis unclear how the change was achieved. Theprogramme used a Cognitive-BehaviouralApproach and resilience was measured usingthe Cognitive Hardiness Scale (Nowack,1990). It is interesting to note that this studywas not designed specifically to enhanceresilience and yet an increase in resiliencewas measured. The aim of the programmewas ‘to develop the leadership and manage-ment capability of executives and seniormanagers’ (Grant et al., 2009, p.398). Forthe coaching profession this raises an inter-esting issue about the broader impact ofcoaching and the potential for unintendedconsequences. Given these findings, it islikely that much existing coaching is alreadyaffecting resilience but has not been overtlymeasured as an outcome.

One possible reason for the reportedeffect of coaching on resilience is the exten-sive overlap between methods used incoaching and those proposed to promoteresilience. A cognitive behavioural method-ology is a common approach in coaching(Williams, Edgerton & Palmer, 2010) and

Neenan (2009) asserts that individuals canlearn to deal with adversity through learningthe application of such cognitive behaviouraltechniques. Neenan (2009) proposes usingthis cognitive focus to enhance resilience bydeveloping a set of core strengths: high frus-tration tolerance, self-acceptance and theability to keep things in perspective. A cogni-tive approach is also used by the PennResiliency Programme (Seligman, 2011)teaching people to ‘think like optimists’.Evidence from this programme supports theidea that resilience can be ‘taught’ throughtraining. Adapting the cognitive behaviouralapproach to the coaching context, Palmer(2013) suggests a role for ‘ResilienceEnhancing Imagery’ in coaching. It isproposed this can enhance self-efficacy to‘assist in building up confidence prior,during or after challenging events’ (p.50).

The cognitive approach linked with apositive psychology focus was also the basisfor the Promoting Adult Resilience Pro-gramme (PAR; Millear et al., 2008). The PARprogramme is a ‘strengths-based resiliencebuilding programme that integrates inter-personal and cognitive behaviour therapyperspectives’ (p.215). The programme wasdesigned for the workplace context to‘promote mental health and individualresilience’. Short group training sessionsover an 11-week period saw a reported rise incoping self-efficacy that was maintained sixmonths after completion of the programme.The participants on this programme ratedlearning positive self-talk as the most valu-able skill learned, which is also commonlyused in the coaching context. The authorsconclude that resilience can be taught in theworkplace as a preventative intervention.

The evidence, therefore, suggests thatresilience can be enhanced proactively inthe working context through approachesthat are also common in coaching. Coachingcould, therefore, be a valuable route forenhancing resilience as a preventativestrategy to support those in challengingcontexts. Using coaching may present anumber of benefits over and above the


How coaching helps leadership resilience: The leadership perspective

training option. Firstly, personal coachingoffers the opportunity for a confidential andprivate discussion that may be moreconducive to open discussion about difficul-ties. Thus, issues that might require workingin the resilience domain may be more likelyto surface. Secondly, coaching is often deliv-ered in a proactive context to enhance skills.A recent meta-analysis of resilience literaturesuggests that enhancing protective factorssuch as self-efficacy, positive affect and self-esteem may be more effective than reducingrisk factors such as anxiety (Lee et al., 2013).This means that working proactively onpreventative attributes may be more benefi-cial to resilience than attempting to reduceanxiety through such approaches as ‘stressmanagement’ training. Coaching forresilience may also gain more engagementfrom the management population, thaninterventions aimed at stress reduction asthey are seen as more acceptable (Palmer,2013).

Coaching, therefore, appears to behaving an impact on resilience already basedon a number of measures but it is unclearhow this is being achieved. While a numberof quantitative approaches suggest a role forcoaching, there is little which adds thecoachee perspective to this body of work.This study will address this gap with an initialexploration of what leaders perceive to bethe role of coaching in supporting theirresilience.

AimThe aim of this study was twofold. Firstly toassess if existing coaching might already beaffecting resilience, despite that not being acontracted objective. It is important tounderstand what effect coaching is havingon our clients and the literature suggeststhat at present resilience may be an unin-tended outcome of coaching. While somemight see this as a positive additionalcoaching contribution, it suggests thatcoaches are not aware of the consequencesof their interventions. This presents twopotential issues: The first is that coaches may

stray into areas beyond their competence byusing approaches that open up domains theywere not expecting: The second is thatcoaches could find themselves working inthe personal resilience space that is beyondthe contracted objectives that may be seen asinappropriate or unecessary by the client orsponsor.

The second aim of this study was to iden-tify what aspects of coaching might be mostinfluential in leadership resilience. There issignificant overlap in the approaches used incoaching and resilience training, however,coaching approaches vary widely. The objec-tive is to identify specific aspects of coachingthat are most pertinent to the developmentof resilience. This will be valuable informa-tion to inform coaches who wish to enhanceresilience.

Methodology ParadigmThis research was conducted within a prag-matic paradigm. ‘Pragmatism is notcommitted to any one system or philosophyand reality’ (Cresswell, 2003, p.12). Fishman(1999) likens it to using different pairs ofglasses, and glasses are chosen according towhich pair ‘is most useful in meeting ourparticular, practical goals in that situation’(p.83). The aim of this research was toprovide knowledge and understanding toinform the practice of coaching in relationto resilience. It therefore provided an appro-priate paradigm for the practical andapplied nature of the problem under investi-gation.

While there is significant work onresilience there is no coherent theory thataddressed the leadership perspective on thisexisting phenomenon. The aim was, there-fore, to build a theoretical model based inexisting practice which led to groundedtheory (GT) as a potential methodology.Grounded theory has been proposed as avaluable approach to investigate leadership(Kempster & Parry, 2011) because it can‘produce a social theory of a particularphenomenon from the relational experi-


Carmelina Lawton Smith

ences of participants’ (p.108). Charmaz(2006, p.6) proposes that grounded theorycan produce some ‘explanatory theoreticalframeworks, thereby providing abstract,conceptual understanding of the studiedphenomena’. GT, therefore, was expected tohelp explicate the leadership perspective onthe role of coaching in resilience and thusinform coaching practice.

Suddaby (2006) has described GT as a‘pragmatic approach’ and most suited ‘toefforts to understand the process by whichactors construct meaning out of inter-subjec-tive experience’ (p.634). ‘Usefulness’ is alsohighlighted as a key element for a GT study(Strauss & Corbin, 1998). This alignmentwith usefulness and the construction ofmeaning showed a clear synergy with thepragmatic paradigm within which thisresearch was positioned leading to GT as theadopted methodology.

ParticipantsThe participants were eight senior leaders(department manager to chief executive)across both private and public sector organi-sations in the UK. None of the participantswere known to the researcher prior to theinterview. All eight leaders were agedbetween 35 and 65, and comprised of twofemales and six males. They were recruitedusing a snowballing approach throughcoaches. All participants had taken part in aformal coaching programme with sevendifferent coaches. However, no specificcoaching approach was stated as a require-ment (e.g. cognitive-behavioural) so thatfindings were not limited to a singlecoaching paradigm. The aim was to collectinformation from the coachee perspective soit was important to gather personal descrip-tors rather than bound the findings withinthe language of one specific coaching para-digm. Participants had completed theircoaching more than one year prior to datacollection. This delay was felt to be impor-tant so that experiences to test resiliencewere more likely to have taken place. To askquestions about resilience too soon after any

intervention may have resulted in conjecturerather than experiences on which to basetheir responses.

ProcedureAll participants volunteered to take partfollowing a recommendation from a prac-ticing coach, who may not have been theirown coach. After they received the Partici-pant Information Sheet they were contactedto ask if they were still prepared to take part.The first eight affirmative responses wererecruited as participants.

A mutually convenient time and locationwas arranged for a one hour interview. Thisinterview asked for their understanding andexperiences of resilience and then requestedspecific information about the coaching theyhad received and if they perceived any rela-tionship to their resilience. If there was aperceived relationship, the interview wenton to discuss which aspects of their coachingthey felt had made the difference.

All interviews were recorded and tran-scribed with pseudonyms used throughout.Data was analysed in line with constructivistgrounded theory (Charmaz, 2006) usingNVivo software. Initial open coding wasfollowed by focused and axial codingrevealing five emergent themes.

All data collection and storage was in linewith ethical procedures and frameworksrequired by Oxford Brookes University.

ReflexivityThe researcher came to the research with nopreconceived ideas of what might emerge,however as Morgan (2007, p.69) states:

‘research questions are not inherently“important”, and methods are not auto-matically “appropriate”. Instead, it is weourselves who make the choices about what isimportant and what is appropriate, and thosechoices inevitably involve aspects of ourpersonal history, social background, andcultural assumptions.’

It should, therefore, be noted that a singleresearcher conducted the research andanalysis which may lead to a particular



perspective on the interview data. However,even without an initial position thereremains a danger that the first interviewmight colour all those that follow, so thechallenge for the researcher is more generic;how to avoid formulating and testing anypotential hypothesis wherever it originated,even if unconsciously. Here the need forreflexivity and awareness is vital to reliabledata. To minimise such effects reflexivity andmemos were used together with constantcomparison, being sensitive to multiplemeanings (McLeod, 2001) in an effort toensure quality.

ResultsAll respondents reported that they feltcoaching had enhanced their perceivedresilience. Five overarching themes emergedthat described how participants felt this wasachieved.1. Reclaim my self-belief.2. Learning.3. Seeing wider perspective.4. Supportive relationship.5. Thinking space.In analysing these emergent five themesthere was significant interaction and overlapbetween them. As a result they can be repre-sented as overlapping elements, as shown inFigure.1.



Figure 1: How coaching helped – five elements.

5. Thinkingspace

4. Supportiverelationship

1. Reclaim myself-belief

2. Learning

3. Seeing widerperspective

1. Reclaim my self-beliefThis theme reflected feelings the leaders hadabout themselves and seemed to imply havinglost something they once had, this manifestsas self-doubt. This self-doubt made leadersquestion their own judgement and there wasa clear implication that coaching helpedthem feel validated. Jack explains how he nolonger trusted his own judgement and thatvocalising with a coach helped gain clarity.

I think part of how the coaching helped, you’resort of bouncing ideas off and thinking, wellactually these don’t seem like total nonsense,they are quite coherent, quite consistent, there’sa logical strand to them. …I suppose you do geta sense of validation or clarity really, becauseyou realise yourself, oh yes, that probably is agood idea or no, it’s not the right time for that,or it’s not a priority. (Jack)

This example suggests validation for ideas.There were also examples of validation ofperceptions or courses of action. Validationof feelings was also important for someleaders, and was supported by the coacheffectively giving permission for their feel-ings, as expressed by Rachel.

I think it’s important to have someone say, ‘It’s okay to feel like you do. It’s understandablethat you feel like you do.’ (Rachel)

Once leaders gained a sense that theirthinking was still sound and it was both accept-able and logical to feel as they did, they wereopen to a realisation that the situation was notalways their fault. It may be because leadersare so used to exercising control and takingresponsibility that they adopt responsibility forthe difficulties they are facing. Yet the coach isable to help them step outside that position,and separate themselves from the situation.

…it’s that business of looking at yourself andrealising that actually it’s not all you, it’slargely the environment and things like that…because there is a tendency to think the situationis down to me. Being able to step back from thata little to say well okay perhaps I amcontributing in these areas, but actually this isa pretty bad situation, it would be a pretty badsituation regardless of who was sitting here, isquite a useful discussion. (Brian)

The descriptions give the impression thatleaders can almost lose their ability to eval-uate themselves as separate from the organi-sation and lose their individual worth.

They become part of the system and nolonger feel they have worth outside thatsystem. They often describe it as having lostconfidence or self-belief as Brian went on todescribe.

And strangely enough you have to have certainamounts of self-confidence to go and look foranother job for a start, and self-belief, and I hadalmost got to the point of thinking, ‘well if I can’t cope with this job why should I look foranother one’, which is a slightly daft approach,but never mind. You need to be able to step backand look at yourself and look at the situation[…] and I think a good coach helps you dothat, and that’s quite a powerful part of it.(Brian)

Working with a coach, therefore, starts toreplace this confidence that had somehowbeen lost. However, the clearest indicationthat this confidence was ‘reclaimed’ undercertain conditions came from James whoexplained how the coach was able to ‘bringback that inner self’:

So if you’re faced with a dilemma, if you’re facedwith a question, if you’re faced with a directionof where you’re going to go, you often have thatinner self who talks to you, don’t you? You say,‘Should I really be doing this?’ and then thatinner self says, ‘Yeah of course you should, youshould go for it, it’ll be great.’ I think if youdon’t have any resilience that inner voicesuddenly disappears you don’t hear it and I think that’s almost what I got from [coach]was to bring back that inner self who wouldquestion me and say, ‘You don’t need to be soworried. Get out there, stand proud, thishappens to everybody.’ (James)

So the coaching enabled leaders to regain aself-belief that they had temporarily lost thatcontributed to their resilience in dealingwith difficult situations. This resonates withprevious research that identifies how impor-tant a supportive relationship can be inbuilding aspects of the self (Wilson & Ferch,2005).



2. LearningThroughout the interviews leadersexplained how much coaching hadcontributed to their learning long term. As explained by George.

I think for each and every session that I hadwith [coach] there was stuff that I would takeaway and it has now become part of […] theway that you dealt with things. (George)

Leaders refer to learning about specifictopics or situations but also learnt a greatdeal about themselves. This self-learninghelped support self-acceptance, or instigatedthe motivation to change. For example, oneleader began to appreciate that others donot expect 100 per cent accuracy, so hebecame more accepting of his own failingsand started to work on changing hisapproach to tasks.

The biggest thing of all and I still struggle withthis was… the 80/20 rule is good enough. Youdon’t have to do everything to 100 per cent.And she made me practise, and it’s a hard thingto do things to a lower standard than you’dnormally do and I really struggle. (Mark)

This shows a clear overlap in how learningcan support the reclaiming of self-belief. Hisself-belief was predicated on perfectionismthat was not sustainable. Learning this abouthimself helped him see what needed tochange.

For Mark this self-awareness went hand inhand with the adoption and application ofresilience strategies. He started to appreciatehow to recognise the triggers that signalled aneed to use a particular tool or technique.

I thought I was resilient before, I feel now thatthat was a fairly brittle resilience, that was fineif I could just keep powering through, I thinkI’ve now got many more tools in the toolkit toenable me to do that and also to recognise whenI need to get some of them out. …The first step I think is recognising it as an issue. It’s as simpleas that, recognising that resilience is an issueand however strong I am, I’m going to need myown time to rest, relax, recover, recharge. (Mark)

The coaching, therefore, contributed to thedevelopment of resilience through the appli-cation of tools, self insight and awareness

that came together to create a far moreholistic change in the individual that oftenwent far beyond the component parts, asexplained by Rachel.

So there have been moments where I’ve hadcoaching with [coach] where I’ve had a real sortof duh, and those are things I can hold on to,they’re not just about that, they’re aboutsomething much bigger… but noticing more isthe biggest one, because that is kind of a way ofbeing. (Rachel)

The perception of enhanced resilience istherefore not just based on specific learningbut rather a more integrated developmentthat enables leaders to be in the world in adifferent way.

Learning, therefore, happens in anumber of ways. Leaders learn about others,about situations, and about tools and tech-niques. Interestingly, very limited referencewas made to specific tools, it seemed moreimportant to learn about themselves, thiscontributed to their self-belief, so they ulti-mately develop in a more holistic way.

3. Seeing wider perspectiveThe ability of the coach to help see the widerpicture was a vital coaching contribution thathelped avoid the ‘tunnel vision’ described byJack.

[coach] helped me to question and identifypriorities, reprioritise things in my own mindand look at things from a slightly different anglethan I wouldn’t naturally on my own. […] sotalking to the coach, I suppose kept me aware ofthe need to not get tunnel vision. (Jack)

Participants reported being able to step outof the situation and through these widerperspectives, stimulate new ideas andconsider implications as explained byGeorge.

…the ability to see it from other people’sperspectives, and the role of coaching, would beto throw up those kind of questions…sometimes, some of the suggestions that I cameup with, even if I didn’t act on them, made mefeel like I knew I had that course of action opento me, broadened my horizons in terms ofthinking about the problem. (George)



By contributing wider perspectives thecoaching is still supporting learning as theindividual learns how to adopt another pointof view. This other point of view extends tothe view they have of themselves, thussupporting the re-building of self-belief. Byseeing their own performance from anotherperspective they can start to appreciate theyare not as incompetent as they may feel.

One of the most perceptive explanationsof how this alternative perspective manifestscame from Rachel. She likened pressure to‘getting trapped’ on the dance-floor in anightclub, unable to get back onto thebalcony. So the role of the coach was toenable her to gain distance, and see thebigger picture.

…it’s feeling unable to get back onto the balcony.It’s when you’ve got trapped on the dance-floorin a fast salsa or something. There is a sense thatyou know something more is required of you andyou can’t find quite what it is. (Rachel)

This may lend support to the view that pres-sure results in a narrowing of focus as in themodel of dynamic affect (Zautra et al.,2005). In a leadership context this results inan effective paralysis and a failure to see away forward which may be due to theinability to gain distance on the issue. A similar effect would be predicted by the‘broaden and build’ theory where a lack ofpositive emotion created by pressure wouldreduce creative possibilities (Fredrickson,2009). Yet, coaching seems to help the indi-vidual regain perspective on the issue andmay cause a reverse effect. Whereas positiveemotion is said to enhance creativity andgenerate a wider perspective, perhaps thereverse is also possible: Creating a widerperspective through coaching generatespositive emotion. Alternatively, it may be thatthe generation of ideas supported by thewider perspective taking builds hope assuggested by Snyder, Rand and Sigmon(2005) in Hope Theory. Such potentialmechanisms might be fruitful areas forfuture investigation.

The coach, therefore, encourages a widerperspective and in so doing contributes to

learning how to adopt another point of viewthat may reveal new ideas. This can alsobring a new perspective to individualstrengths and weaknesses that support self-belief.

4. Supportive relationshipWhen elaborating on the coaching contribu-tion to resilience, participants often talked ofproviding a sounding board and the value ofhaving an outsider to talk to. This perceivedneutrality and impartiality was vital increating a safe environment, as explained byJack.

Because sometimes when things are verycomplex, it’s helpful to have that externalsounding board, to help clarify your ideas…,getting good coaching, takes you out of the datathat you are in, puts you into a context whichis neutral, non-threatening, and not directlyconnected to work, and allows you to then thinkthrough what’s going on in the other context, ina fairly safe environment. And I think that’sthe key. (Jack)

This concept of a safe environment meantleader participants could obtain honest feed-back that they found valuable, because thecoach could highlight potential issueswithout creating tension. The supportiverelationship created a trusting and safe spacethat allowed honest or challenging feedbackto be discussed which was vital to being ableto see the wider perspective. This helpedleaders become aware of their own errors orshortcomings when seen from a differentperspective. It enabled true feelings to bedisclosed and acknowledged, that createdcandid reflection on the situation.

This safe environment also made itacceptable to disclose feelings which couldnot be shared with others. James explainedhow honest disclosure was difficult withfamily or friends, ‘But with somebody like[coach] who is divorced from the whole thing, it’smuch easier to communicate what you’re reallyfeeling.’ (James)

Therefore, the coach contributedemotional support but in a unique way thatcould not be provided by family or individ-



uals within the organisation. By virtue ofbeing outside the system, the coach was seenas neutral and this gave the coach significantcredibility. Because the coach has no rela-tionship or vested interest, their opinion isgiven more weight than a family memberwho is seen as partisan and just trying tomake you feel better.

You might have a family member who would saythat to you as well, but I think hearing it fromsomebody who gets paid to coach lots and lots ofdifferent people, and to improve and expandtheir comfort zones carried a different weight…He was just inquisitive ‘what are you going todo… what’s your next move?’ and that reallywas deep down coaching for resilience, but itdidn’t feel like it. It just felt like someone I couldtalk to, who was just divorced from everythingand somebody that I trusted. (James)

But leaders also drew attention to this beinga unique relationship because of the abilityto focus on ‘yourself’ which leaders rarelyget the chance to do.

A coaching relationship is about you, and therearen’t very many relationships that you have,that are focused around yourself. Certainly notthat I have anyway. And so, that’s quite uniqueas well, because most of the time when you’rediscussing – it’s focused about something else.(Brian)

In times of difficulty the power of narrativehas been shown to confer unique benefitsthat may account for the processes at workhere (Niederhoffer & Pennebaker, 2005).Niederhoffer and Pennebaker (2005) high-light that ‘not talking about emotionalupheaval was ultimately unhealthy’ (p.575)because suppression of these thoughts oremotions, required physiological work,reflected in central nervous system activity.However, expressing this emotion in verbalform seems to confer benefits above andbeyond other expressive mediums such asdance or art. It appears that simply ‘lettinggo’ of these emotions through art or musicdoes not show the equivalent healthoutcomes seen as a result of expressivewriting. The processes proposed to accountfor the increased benefit of verbal expres-

sion rely on two factors. Firstly, in order toconstruct a coherent narrative that can beconveyed to another person the individualneeds to order events that give a sense ofcontrol. Secondly, once formed, this narra-tive can be ‘summarised, stored and ulti-mately forgotten’ (p.576). These cognitiveprocesses give a sense of meaning andclosure to potentially difficult events.

In order to tell the story to a coach theleader is, therefore, engaged in cognitivemeaning making that is, in itself, a valuableprocess to reduce the emotional impact, buttelling the story then reduced the physio-logical strain caused by inhibition. Once thestory is created and told it is suggested thatthis brings a secondary benefit in creatingsocial connection. Without the ability tocommunicate and tell the story to others theindividual is likely to become isolated asexplained by Niederhoffer and Pennebaker(2005).

‘Suppressing thoughts on a daily basis is a largecognitive load, making it difficult to organisethoughts about the event and to make sense ofwhat happened. Thus, the keeper of the secret ismore guarded, and the surrounding people whowill be unaware of the individual’s thoughtsand feelings cannot offer sympathy or help. As a result, the individual becomes moreisolated.’ (p.577)

This effect was seen in this study as leadersoften described disconnection as a key char-acteristic of not being resilient. Therefore,the coaching relationship may provide aunique way to reduce the cognitive loadcreated by inhibition. The coaching relation-ship can, in one place, remove the inhibitionby allowing emotion to be expressed, facilitatethe building of a coherent story by being avail-able to listen and provide a form of socialsupport reducing the sense of isolation.

5. Thinking spaceThe last theme that emerged was ‘thinkingspace’ that expressed the value of dedicatedreflection. Jack reflected a common viewthat coaching enabled reflection andthinking. Having this dedicated time was



seen as important to the process of makingsense of the situation.

I think that came out of talking it through, andreflecting, and refining things in my ownmind… […] I suppose you set aside time toproblem solve to a certain extent, whereas youmight just be thinking, that it might be flowingin and out of your mind, whereas if you setdiscrete time aside to focus on things, it helps tomove your thinking forward. (Jack)

This lack of reflective time is compoundedfor leaders who often feel they cannot taketime for themselves, so coaching allows themprotected time as expressed by Amanda.Having this dedicated thinking time seemedto support meta-reflection that helped heranalyse and observe her own thinking.

And I think it just made me think about whywas I thinking like that, […] So it made melook at myself and think, well actually youwouldn’t get to where you were if other peoplethought that you couldn’t do the job, so why isit now that you’re thinking you can’t do the job?So I think it made me think more, and take timefor me. (Amanda)

This quote clearly shows a widening ofperspective that contributes to her learningand is starting to help her reclaim her senseof self-belief, demonstrating the interactionbetween the themes.

This thinking space is consistentlyexplained as valuable, yet it is clear thatleaders rarely engage in this alone, and forsome, like Rachel, this would not be an effec-tive strategy as she highlights the benefits ofusing a coach to aid reflection.

One knows that the right thing to do is to reflectregularly but knowing it and doing it areentirely different things, and reflecting properlyon your own is really, really hard I think,especially when you’re extroverted. I needsomeone else bouncing back in order to help mereflect properly. (Rachel)

The value of vocalisation to ‘bounce back’ideas may indicate the conversion of rumi-nations into a verbal narrative supportingthe work of Niederhoffer and Pennebaker

(2005) discussed above. Brian also high-lighted the value of ‘turning it into consciousthought’ through vocalisation that could bean indication of the cognitive processessuggested.

…because it just gets it out there in the openand allows you to think it through… Becauseyou might not be verbalising it, otherwise youmight not actually be turning it into somethingwhich is conscious thought. And for me, that’squite useful because I don’t think I’mparticularly good at listening to my feelings.(Brian)

The thinking space provided by the coach isa special place where leaders can retreat andthink through actions and events, gainingpersonal insight and reaching decisions. Theprocess of vocalisation helps them organisetheir thoughts and they can focus on theirown needs, instead of the needs of othersand the organisation that usually takepriority. Yet without the justification of acoaching interaction leaders do not, orcannot justify thinking time. Even if theycould, there are questions about how effec-tive this might prove for some.

Coaching was clearly perceived by theresearch participants to support develop-ment of their resilience and five keyelements were identified as importantcomponents of coaching practice that helpsupport resilience. However in many casesthe leaders described issues and events thatwere current and alive at the time of thecoaching. In fact, seven of the eight leadersinterviewed highlighted that they engaged incoaching specifically because they werefacing a difficult issue at the time. This raisesquestions about the potential efficacy of pro-active resilience building programmeswithout the experiential learning that seemsto be happening in the reported situations.Coaching can undoubtedly support leader-ship resilience but may need to be usedselectively at times of difficulty to maximiselearning and development.



DiscussionImplications for coaching practiceCoaching was reported as a useful resiliencebuilding intervention by leaders, althoughthere are questions about how effective pro-active programmes might be for this popula-tion. Leaders report experiences thatsuggest many have demonstrated significantresilience to previous events, which may havecontributed to their rise into leadership posi-tions. However, when challenges do arisecoaching can be a valuable learning vehicleto make sense of the experience and developfurther. Using the real life experiences,leaders are supported through the eventsbut also learn more about themselves andapproaches that can help them longer term.There is, therefore, both a short-term andlong-term benefit when coaching in relationto resilience.

In terms of the significant elements thatleaders felt contributed to building theirresilience, five key areas were identified:Participants reported that coaching helpedthem, reclaim their self-belief, to learn bothnew techniques and about themselves andalso helped them see the wider perspective.The relational aspect was also important withthe supportive relationship highlighted,which helped contribute to the uniquethinking space. These five areas show signifi-cant interaction but are aspects common tomost genres of coaching. Wang (2013) iden-tified that despite the variety of coachingapproaches used some common factorscontribute to effective coaching. Theseinclude, building a supportive collaborativerelationship, paying attention to context andapplying a learning process, which showsignificant synergy with the factors high-lighted by participants. Therefore, it is likelythat most genres of coaching will impactresilience in some way.

For those wishing to enhance resiliencespecifically the research highlights some keyareas of focus.

Firstly, the need to create a supportiverelationship that gives individuals space andtime to reflect. While this is a core founding

principle of coaching, what also appearsimportant is that the relationship is seen asexternal and neutral. While internalcoaching can be a valuable resource inorganisations (St. John Brooks, 2014), whereresilience is the focus it may be necessary toemploy independent professionals to offercredible and effective support. This is impor-tant because the client needs independentface validity in order to accept and engagewith the coaching. Both the responses andalternative perspectives provided are onlyseen as believable and credible when comingfrom an independent source with no vestedinterest. A representative of HR or the ODdepartment may fail to achieve enhancedresilience, not because they lack coachingskills, but simply because the client does notengage with them.

Secondly, it is important for the coach tomodel acceptance and to validate boththoughts and feelings. Only by allowing allsuch aspects to be discussed can the clientstart to make sense of the experience andthus reduce the cognitive load. It is clear thatduring times of challenge leaders can expe-rience significant changes to their normalmodus operandi. Despite a usually confidentand assertive approach leaders can experi-ence self-doubt which can lead to ques-tioning of worth and competence leading todisconnection. The coach may, therefore,find that their client needs a very differentapproach to that normally employed. A coach in a long-term relationship with aleader may need to moderate their use ofchallenge under such circumstances. Thisserves to highlight the importance of thedynamics of the coaching relationship andhow the coach needs to adapt not only toeach client but also to situational factorswithin each meeting with a client. This hasbeen described as the coaching ‘dance’ thatrequires attendance to ‘rhythm and reci-procity’ for each dance (Wang, 2013) notjust each client.

Thirdly, while learning and change maybe at the ‘heart of coaching practices’(Bachkirova, Cox & Clutterbuck, 2010), for



resilience it forms only a small part of theequation. Coaches need to beware of tryingto address resilience issues with leaders froma purely educative perspective. Programmesaimed at supporting resilience often focuson the importance of such things asreframing events and handling failure. Yetleaders are often well versed in such tech-niques so coaching can bring a new dimen-sion to learning in the context of resilience.The learning required is often about the self,awareness of the triggers that lead to issuesand building an appreciation of the personalstrategies that are most appropriate for thatindividual: Learning about how to managethemselves in a more resilient and holisticway rather than just learning tools and tech-niques to apply.

Study limitations and future researchThis study was a small-scale study with anumber of limitations. The small number ofparticipants means that the findings mightbenefit from validation with a larger andmore diverse sample group. The factorsidentified may not, therefore, be compre-hensive in reflecting all the potentially rele-vant factors in coaching.

The invitation to participants asked forthose who had received coaching and wereinterested in discussing resilience. Theremay, therefore, be a bias towards those whofelt there was in fact a connection betweenthese two aspects. It was, therefore, morelikely that participants would report a posi-tive relationship that may not be common toall coachees. However, since this is a qualita-tive study it does report the views of thosewho took part so represents a starting pointfor further investigations.

Future research might focus on a morediverse group with a longitudinal approachthat would avoid the retrospective memorybound aspects of this study. With a more in-depth and contemporary approach itmight also be possible to investigate themechanisms involved. Both the ‘broadenand build theory’ (Fredrickson, 2009) andHope Theory (Snyder et al., 2005) suggest

possible explanations for some of the find-ings which might merit further investigation.

ConclusionThis study had two aims. Firstly to assess ifexisting coaching might already be affectingresilience, despite that not being acontracted objective. Leaders reported aclear perception that coaching they hadreceived had helped their resilience. Partici-pants in this study often brought currentchallenges to coaching and by working withthese seemed to experience an increase inresilience as a by product of their coaching.Coaches, therefore, need to be aware thattheir coaching may already be affectingresilience, but also that when resilience isunder threat they may need to adapt theircoaching style to support resilience overtly.

The second aim of this study was to iden-tify what aspects of coaching might be mostinfluential in leadership resilience and thusmight inform the coaching style that coacheschoose to adopt. Participants highlightedfive key aspects of the coaching they receivedthat they felt contributed to their resilience.Firstly, it helped them reclaim their self-belief as a result of the validation and accept-ance that they experienced. Secondly, theyreported learning tools and techniques thathelped, but also learning about themselvesand how to recognise and manage issuesthrough this enhanced self-awareness.Thirdly, the coach brought a wider point ofview that facilitated thinking, helpinggenerate new ideas and a sense of perspec-tive. The importance of the supportive rela-tionship was the fourth factor identified, andsignificantly the independent and externalnature of this relationship was seen as key.Finally, leaders highlighted the importanceand value of the dedicated time and spaceavailable through coaching. Difficult timesare often characterised by very busy andhectic schedules with a need to focus on keybusiness priorities. The coaching space gaveleaders the time required for reflection andthe interaction needed to support self-analysis. Without this time and stimulus



leaders often found it difficult to justify thetime for reflection and self-focus that is socritical to reflective learning and develop-ment.

These findings, therefore, go some way toexplaining how generic coaching pro-grammes appear to show an impact onresilience (Grant et al., 2009; Sherlock-Storey et al., 2013). There is also clearsupport for the importance of buildingconfidence and self-efficacy to supportresilience (Palmer, 2013). However, the find-ings also highlight the importance of asupportive relationship during times of chal-lenge and that just learning about tools andcognitive strategies alone may not beadequate.

Leaders often came to coaching as aresult of facing challenge but did notcontract for resilience outcomes specifically.They were frequently experiencing a loss ofconfidence and an inability to step back andtake a wider perspective on the situation.Coaches might, therefore, consider thefollowing as key steps to consider whenworking with leaders in the resiliencedomain.1. Self-belief. Even leaders who are very

senior and may have previouslydemonstrated exceptional confidencemay need interventions to re-build self-confidence. The level of challenge mayneed to be reduced with a higher focus onvalidation and support.

2. Learning.Maintaining a focus on learningby directing attention to create holisticlearning about self, others and personalstrategies may prove more valuable thatjust teaching cognitive strategies. Whiletools and techniques might prove useful,personal learning seems more valuable.

3. Seeing the wider perspective. It appearsthat pressure can narrow the focus ofattention for individuals so continuedattention to the wider system, otherpotential points of view and alternativeperspectives can be helpful.

4. Supportive relationship.Highlighting theindependence and neutrality of thecoaching space and allowing emotionalexpression may reduce the resourcesoccupied in the suppression of feelings.This may give benefits through the releaseof energy.

5. Thinking space.Maintaining and protect-ing the private thinking space that focuseson personal needs rather than justproblem solving is important. Whileleaders are busy and are often overlyfocussed on the needs of others andtaking action, they need to understandthe benefit of the personal reflective spacethat coaching can provide. While counter-intuitive this ‘time-out’ may ultimatelyprovide a solution that might never haveemerged from endless rumination andanalysis.

Leadership resilience has become a topic ofsignificant interest to coaches in recent yearsbut the leadership perspective on thisphenomenon has remained largely unex-plored. This study has elucidated the leader-ship perspective on resilience and howleaders perceive coaching helps. It is hopedthis can help coaches support leaders moreeffectively in the future and raises a numberof new areas for future exploration.

The AuthorDr Carmelina Lawton SmithOxford Brookes University,Faculty of Business,Wheatley Campus, Wheatley,Oxford OX33 1HX.

CorrespondenceDr Carmelina Lawton SmithEmail: [email protected]



Bachkirova, T., Cox, E. & Clutterbuck, D. (2010).Introduction. In E. Cox, T. Bachkirova & D.Clutterbuck (Eds.), The complete handbook ofcoaching (pp.1–20). London: Sage.

Bartone, P.T. (2006). Resilience under militaryoperational stress: Can leaders influencehardiness? Military Psychology, 18 (Suppl.):S131–S148.

Benard, B. (1993). Fostering resiliency in kids.Educational Leadership, 51(3), 44–48.

Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis.London: Sage.

Cresswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative,quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Fredrickson, B. (2009). Positivity. New York: Crown. Fishman, D. (1999). The case for pragmatic psychology.

New York: New York University Press.Friborg, O., Barlaug, D., Martinussen, M., Rosenvinge,

J.H. & Hjemdal, O. (2005). Resilience in relationto personality and intelligence. InternationalJournal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 14(1),29–42.

Grant, A., Curtayne, L. & Burton, G. (2009). Executivecoaching enhances goal attainment, resilienceand workplace well-being: A randomisedcontrolled study, The Journal of Positive Psychology,4(5), 396–407.

Kempster, S. & Parry, K. (2011). Grounded theory andleadership research: A critical realist perspective,The Leadership Quarterly, 22(1), 106–120.

Lee, J., Nam, S., Kim, A., Kim, B., Lee, M. & Lee, S.(2013). Resilience: A meta-analytic approach.Journal of Counseling and Development, 91(3),269–279.

Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning ofpositive organisational behaviour. Journal ofOrganisational Behaviour, 23(6), 695–706.

Luthans, F., Youssef, C. & Avolio, B. (2007).Psychological capital. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Maddi, S.R. (2007). Relevance of hardiness assessmentand training to the military context. MilitaryPsychology, 19(1), 61–70.

Masten, A. & Reed, M. (2005). Resilience indevelopment. In C. Snyder & S. Lopez, Handbookof positive psychology. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

McLeod, J. (2001). Qualitative research in counselling andpsychotherapy. London: Sage.

Millear, P., Liossis, P., Shochet, M., Biggs, H. & Donald,M. (2008). Being on PAR: Outcomes of a pilottrial to improve heath and well-being in theworkplace with the Promoting Adult Resilience(PAR) programme. Behaviour Change, 25(4),215–228.

Morgan, D. (2007). Paradigms lost and pragmatismregained. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1),48–76.

Neenan, M. (2009). Developing resilience: A cognitive-behavioural approach. New York: Routledge.

Niederhoffer, K. & Pennebaker, J. (2005). Sharingone’s story: On the benefits of writing or talkingabout emotional experience. In C. Snyder & S. Lopez, Handbook of positive psychology. Oxford:Oxford University Press.

Nowack, K. (1990). Initial development of aninventory to assess stress and health risk. StressManagement, 4(3), 173–180.

Palmer, S. (2013). Resilience enhancing imagery: A cognitive behavioural technique which includesresilience undermining thinking and resilienceenhancing thinking. The Coaching Psychologist 9(1),48–50.

Seligman, M. (2011). Building resilience. HarvardBusiness Review, 89(4), 100–106.

Sherlock-Storey, M., Moss, M. & Timson, S. (2013).Brief coaching for resilience during organisa-tional change – an exploratory study. The CoachingPsychologist, 9(1), 19–26.

Snyder, C., Rand, K. & Sigmon, D. (2005). HopeTheory: A member of the positive psychologyfamily. In C. Snyder & S. Lopez, Handbook ofpositive psychology.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

St. John-Brooks, K. (2014). Internal coaching. London:Karnac Books.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitativeresearch (2nd ed.). London: Sage.

Suddaby, R. (2006). What grounded theory is not.Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642.

Tusaie, K. & Dyer, J. (2004). Resilience: A historicalreview of the construct. Holistic Nursing Practice,18(1), 3–8.

Wagnild, G. & Young, H. (1993). Development andpsychometric evaluation of the resilience scale.Journal of Nursing Measurement, 1(2), 165–178.

Wang, Q. (2013). Structure and characteristics ofeffective coaching practice. The CoachingPsychologist, 9(1), 7–17.

Williams, H., Edgerton, N. & Palmer, S. (2010).Cognitive behavioural coaching. In E. Cox, T.Bachkirova & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The completehandbook of coaching (pp.37–53). London: Sage.

Wilson, S.M. & Ferch, S.R. (2005). Enhancingresilience in the workplace through the practiceof caring relationships. Organizational DevelopmentJournal, 23(4), 45–60.

Zautra, A., Affleck, G., Tennen, H., Reich, J. & Davis,M. (2005). Dynamic approaches to emotions andstress in everyday life: Bolger and Zuckermanreloaded with positive as well as negative affects,Journal of Personality, 73(6), 1–28.



References

OUR WORKING ASSUMPTION in thispaper is that leadership is not aboutindividuals who occupy roles. It is,

instead, about group processes morebroadly. The concept of leadership is sense-less when abstracted and decontextualisedfrom the group. It does not differ from othergroup processes (e.g. co-operation, groupdecision-making, social loafing) or groupoutcomes (e.g. social norms) in its necessaryemergence from, and boundedness within,groups (Haslam, Reicher & Platow, 2011;Platow et al., 2003). This simple assumptioncan be understood by the even simplerobservation that the absence of followersindicates the clear absence of leadership.Gibb (1947) recognised this over half-a-century ago when he observed, ‘there can beno leader without followers’ (p.270); this wasrecently reaffirmed by King (2010), whonoted that, ‘when individuals follow

another’s actions, they make that individuala leader’ (p.671).

Gibb’s (1947) and King’s (2010) observa-tions (among others, for example, van Knip-penberg et al., 2005; Yorges, Weiss &Strickland, 1999) are critical in anotherrespect; they point to social influence as theessential conceptual linchpin underlying theprocess of leadership (Turner, 1991).Amongst other things, this means that noanalysis of leadership is complete – and thatno analysis of leadership will be conceptuallyand functionally successful – without aproper analysis of social influence. Ulti-mately, as we and others have outlined previ-ously (Haslam et al., 2011; Hogg, 2001),leadership is the process (not a person; see, forexample, Hollander & Julian, 1969; Vander-slice, 1988) of influencing others in a mannerthat enhances their contribution to the realisationof group goals. At the heart of our analysis,


Paper

There is no leadership if no-one follows:Why leadership is necessarily a groupprocessMichael J. Platow, S. Alexander Haslam, Stephen D. Reicher& Niklas K. Steffens

In this paper, we put forward the thesis that leadership is fundamentally a group process: leaders must be ‘oneof us’. We build our argument around recent social identity theory and self-categorisation theory analyses ofleadership. In doing so, we highlight the essential nature of shared psychological group memberships as thekey mediating processes through which leadership develops. Through a review of existing research, we thendemonstrate: (1) how leadership is exerted through in-group-based social influence; (2) how the more that groupmembers capture the attributes of ‘us-in-context’ – the more they are in-group prototypical – the greater will betheir leadership potential; and (3) how common attributes associated with leadership (i.e. trust, charisma,fairness) can all be understood as outcomes of shared psychological group membership. Leadership, however, isnot simply about ‘being’, it is about ‘doing’ as well. In this manner, we discuss the importance of acting toadvance the group (in the form of social identity advancement) and crafting a sense of the group (in the formof social identity entrepreneurship). We conclude by reviewing a recently-developed Identity LeadershipInventory that allows practitioners to take these ideas from concepts to practice.Keywords: social identity; psychological group membership; social influence; in-group prototypicality; socialidentity advancement; social identity entrepreneurship.

then, are groups, influence and processes(not individuals or roles).

Scope of analysis: Psychological groupsand psychological leadershipOur positioning of leadership firmly withinthe domain of group processes is far fromunique, despite many analyses seeking toidentify or list the individual attributes (e.g.Bartone et al., 2009; Bass, Avolio & Good-heim, 1987) and personal developmentalexperiences (Avolio & Gibbons, 1988) ofleaders. For example, Gibb’s (1969) analysisof leadership in Lindzey and Aronson’ssecond edition of their Handbook of SocialPsychology began with just the same premise,as did Stogdill’s (1950) analysis before him.Before even defining leadership, theseauthors provided theoretical overviews ofcontemporary understandings of socialgroups. We follow a similar path, both forconceptual clarity, and to outline the scopeof our review and analysis. By positioningour analysis of leadership within the domainof group processes, we knowingly restrict thisscope to be within specific theoretical andempirical parameters. Of course, thedomain of ‘group processes’ is substantial inits own right (Burn, 2004; Cartwright &Zander, 1960; Forsyth, 1999). Clearly, then,our chosen definition of a group will estab-lish a second scope condition, binding theparameters of our leadership analysis. Associal psychologists, the focus our analysiswill be on psychological groups in contrast tosociological groups (cf., Deutsch, 1949).

In our usage of these terms, a key featureunderlying sociological groups is that theparameters defining them can be identified,observed, and measured by independentobservers, regardless of whether supposed groupmembers see themselves as such. Many of theseparameters were central to original social-psychological work in group dynamics, suchas interdependence (Lewin, 1951; Thibaut &Kelley, 1959) and structure, roles, and norms(Sherif & Sherif, 1969). Other criteria ofteninvolved in identifying sociological groupsare biological or, at least, consensually agreed

upon, inclusionary criteria, such as thosebased on sex, race, and ethnicity. Delineatingsuch third-party observer criteria aidsresearchers’ and practitioners’ attemptsclearly to operationalise constructs; it is arelatively easy task to justify to readers thatone is examining group and intergroup rela-tions when one studies formal organisationsor inter-ethnic attitudes (e.g. prejudice).Moreover, social and psychological processesoperating within and between sociologicalgroups are often the precise focus of thetheoretical, empirical, and applied questionsbeing asked (Katz & Kahn, 1966). Frankly,many decision makers want to know how bestto choose a successful person to manage theircompany to achieve sought-after materialoutcomes; and many activists want to knowhow best to reduce and eradicate realmaterial prejudices and discrimination.

Our concern with examining leadershipwithin the context of sociological groups istwo-fold. First, sociological groups them-selves vary greatly. There is a substantialdifference between large-scale companies,for example, and interdependent communi-ties confronted with the realities of, say,water conservation. Both represent collec-tions of interdependent individuals and,hence, both qualify under some analyses asbeing groups (sociological groups, in ourterminology). But undoubtedly, studyingleadership in one or the other is likely toyield very different conclusions about lead-ership in general (e.g. Ergi & Herman,2000). Without moving our theoretical workfurther, we are likely to be left with inde-pendent lists of attributes, qualities, or evenprocesses associated with our ever-increasinglists of sociological groups (see Platow et al.,2003). Again, developing, say, an inde-pendent model of environmental leader-ship, as opposed to one of corporateleadership (e.g. Peterson et al., 2003;Russell, 1990), is likely to help answer valuedapplied questions. However, as long as theindependent lists remain independent, thentheir theoretical and applied utility remainssubstantially limited.


Leadership requires followership

Second, although researchers and practi-tioners can independently identify others asbeing members of one group or another, if these others fail to recognise or accept this independent labelling, then theirbehaviours are unlikely to be influenced bythe group processes the researcher is exam-ining. If individuals do not see themselves asmembers of the same group as potentialleaders – or, for that matter, if potentialleaders do not see themselves as members ofthe same group as potential followers – theyare likely to behave in one of two ways: (1) asunique individuals (albeit defined by thesuperordinate societal and cultural group towhich they belong); or (2) as members of adifferent group. In both cases, co-ordinatedleader-follower behaviour is likely to be hardto achieve, at best, if not impossible. In theformer case, when individuals act as individ-uals, then their behaviours will be guidedonly by their individual self-interests, notthose of the broader collective (i.e. groupthat the erstwhile leader is seeking to lead).Certainly, leadership models have beendeveloped to understand this situation(Blau, 1964), but this leadership-by-buyingbegins to appear less like leadership, andmore like purchasing. In the latter case,when would-be leaders are forced to ‘crossthe divide’ (Pittinsky, 2009), obtaining anysort of following becomes nearly impossible(even most American Democrats would haverather followed George W. Bush than Osamabin Laden when the latter was alive). Again,as another form of leadership-by-buying, would-be leaders can wield resource power(Reynolds & Platow, 2003) over would-befollowers, but this is not likely to result in anyfollowing once the power is removed(French & Raven, 1960; Turner, 2005).

In either one of these two cases, the factthat an independent observer (a researcheror practitioner) notes, for example, that aparticular manager and a set of generalemployees are both part of the same broaderorganisation is not enough for successfulprediction of behaviour. In fact, the inde-pendent observer could easily identify (or

impose) a sociological group upon individ-uals, fail to observe anticipated group-basedbehaviours (in our case, leadership), and conclude that the to-be-examinedbehaviours were simply not group-based. Butthis conclusion may well derive from aninferential error, if one that assumes that thesocial reality identified by the independentobserver is understood identically by thesubjects of his or her observations. There isnow a broad consensus within socialpsychology, however, that this assumption isfaulty, as people’s own subjective representa-tions of the context in which they find them-selves – which routinely differ from those ofother parties (e.g. social scientists, manage-ment consultants) – prove to be strongpredictors of their behaviours (Augoustinos,Walker & Donaghue, 2006; Fiske & Taylor,1991; Markus & Zajonc, 1985). This appliesto perceptions of group membership as well(Dawes, van de Kragt & Orbell, 1988;Kramer & Brewer, 1984). It is thus psycho-logical group memberships (i.e. first-personbeliefs that one is a group member, regard-less of third-party labels) that we propose arelikely to capture the true processes under-lying the social psychology of leadership.

On psychological group membershipsThe processes underlying psychologicalgroup memberships are most clearlyoutlined in the twin theories of social iden-tity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and self-categorisation theory (Turner et al., 1987),as well as other similar theories of psycho-logical group membership and leadershipprocesses (e.g. Gaertner et al., 1993; Lord,Brown & Freiberg, 1999; Marques, Abrams &Serôdio, 2001; Shamir, House & Arthur,1993). Self-categorisation theory, in partic-ular, outlines key features of psychologicalgroup memberships. The theory assumes,amongst other things, that people’s self-concepts are comprised of cognitive self-categorisations, in which perceivers seethemselves as similar to (more or less inter-changeable with) others at various levels of inclusion. At one extreme, people self-


Michael J. Platow, S. Alexander Haslam, Stephen D. Reicher & Niklas K. Steffens

categorise with no-one else; this is akin to apersonal identity, as the self is seen as uniqueand different from others. At the otherextreme, people self-categorise with allhumanity. Between these two extremes areall other in-group, out-group self-categorisa-tions, such as ‘self as a ‘company man’ or‘company woman’’, ‘self-as-an-American’,‘self-as-an-Indigenous Australian’, and so on;these are social identities. The theoryassumes that when any given social identity issalient, people cognitively depersonalise, sothat self-perception is not as a unique indi-vidual but as a group member (Turner,1984). From this, people are hypothesised toact in accordance with the norms and valuesof that group (Reicher, Spears & Postmes,1995; Spears, Lea & Lee, 1990). Importantly,it is the psychological process of depersonal-isation that is assumed to make groupprocesses possible at all, including co-opera-tion, norm formation, and, most relevant topresent considerations, social influence andleadership (Turner et al., 1987).

It is important to note that the bound-aries of psychological groups can be isomor-phic with those of sociological groups.Indeed, interdependence, one definingfeature of sociological groups, often serves tocreate a psychological, social self-category(Turner, 1985; see also Platow et al., 2008).But interdependence is not only unneces-sary for psychological group formation(Tajfel et al. 1971), it can actually be theoutcome of psychological group formation(Platow, Grace & Smithson, 2012; Turner &Bourhis, 1996). Our essential point,however, is that people must understand andaccept as self-defining specific groupmemberships before group-based processes,including leadership, will emerge. Leaderscertainly have a role to play in constructingthe boundaries and meanings of these cate-gories (Haslam et al., 2011; Reicher, Haslam& Hopkins, 2005). However, a would-beleader should expect no followers by simpleposition of a formal role (e.g. CEO, Univer-sity Vice Chancellor), at least without buyinghis or her followership.

Thus far, we have put forward two thesesin our analysis of leadership, each with anassociated corollary. These are:

Thesis 1: Leadership is a group process.Corollary 1: Leadership is a psychologicalgroup process.Thesis 2: There is no leadership if no onefollows.Corollary 2: Leadership is a social influenceprocess.

Social influence as an outcome ofpsychological group membershipAs we outlined above, central to our defini-tion of leadership is our claim that leadershipis essentially a process of group-based socialinfluence (Turner, 1991; Turner & Oakes,1989). This is a view with a long theoreticaland empirical tradition within socialpsychology. Indeed, from a Lewinian perspec-tive on group dynamics, Cartwright (1951,p.338) argued over a half-century ago that:

If the group is to be used effectively as amedium of change, those people who areto be changed and those who are to exertinfluence for change must have a strongsense of belonging to the same group.

Empirically, we can begin by reflecting onthe classic experimental analysis of socialinfluence provided by Asch (1956). Asch’sstudies are often cited as demonstrating thepower of others to induce conformity,although Friend, Rafferty and Bramel(1990) demonstrate that Asch also observeda great deal of non-conformity (see alsoJetten & Hornsey, 2012). Social influencewas, thus, undoubtedly present in his studies,but undoubtedly, too, it was absent.

Bond and Smith’s (1996) meta-analysis ofstudies using an Asch-like paradigm(including Asch’s own original studies)provides some insight into the basis of thisvariability. Among other things, this revealssignificantly lower levels of social influencewhen the potential influencing agents werelikely to be perceived as out-group members.So, part of the apparent independenceobserved in Asch’s original studies is likely tohave emerged from the failure of psycho-



logical out-group members to be influential(see Abrams et al., 1990, for a direct test).Indeed, similar failures of out-groupmembers to be influential have beenobserved in other, less reactive, paradigms(Bourgeois & Hess, 2008; Yabar et al., 2006).

Importantly, there are now several directtests of the self-categorisation, social-influ-ence hypothesis and the outcomes of eightspecific tests are summarised in Figure 1. Thefirst two tests represent analyses of influenceupon group-members’ interpretations of thesocial context confronting them, and theirown subjective experiences of that reality(e.g. what may otherwise be called ‘intellec-tual stimulation’ on the part of the leader;Bass, 1985, p.98; see also Bass & Riggio,2006). Panel A of Figure 1 displays the resultsof an experiment in which either an in-groupor an out-group influencing agent providedan interpretation of a potentially stress-arousing task (a mathematics exam) as beingeither ‘a challenge’ or ‘stressful’ (Haslam etal., 2004). As can be seen, participants’ ownstress levels were influenced by the agent’sinterpretation of the task only when thatagent was a fellow in-group member; thewould-be influencing agent who was an out-group member simply had no effect onparticipants’ understandings of their ownsubjective reality. Panel B is even morestriking (Platow et al., 2007). Here, partici-pants’ levels of physiological arousal weremeasured in a pain-inducing situation viagalvanic skin responses. After a first trialexperiencing the pain – induced by immer-sion of a hand into ice-water – participantswere reassured about the ease of the secondtrial by either a fellow in-group member oran out-group member, or they received noreassurance at all in a control condition. Ascan be seen in Panel B, in a setting known toinduce pain, participants were physiologicallycalmer when they received reassurance froma fellow in-group member than when theyreceived the same reassurance from an out-group member. Indeed, notice that out-group reassurance was no better thanreceiving no reassurance at all.

Panels C and D of Figure 1 both demon-strate the effects of in-group-based socialinfluence on overt behaviours. In theformer, participants listened to an audiotapeof a comedian delivering jokes (Platow et al.,2005). In some recordings the comedianspoke with no audible responses from anaudience; in other recordings, however,canned laughter overlayed the comedian’sdelivery. Critically, participants were led tobelieve that the audience comprised eitherin-group or out-group members. As is clearlyseen, only laughter from in-group membersled to an enhancement of participantlaughter over a no-laughter baseline. Inother words, the identical canned-laughterrecording from an out-group was unable toaffect participants’ behaviour. Panel D showsa similar pattern. Here, participants’ foodconsumption was recorded after an in-groupmember or an out-group member indicatedthat she had eaten a lot or a little herself (i.e.establishing a norm of consumption or non-consumption). Only the behaviour of afellow in-group member led participants tofollow through their own eating behaviour(Cruwys et al., 2012).

Crucial evidence of social influencedirected toward promoting collective welfareis displayed in the next two Panels of Figure1. The data represented in Panel E werecollected in a context in which monetarycontributions to the Salvation Army weresought from sport fans attending AustralianRules football games (Platow et al., 1999).Here one can see that fans contributed morewhen the collector supported the same teamas they did than when the collectorsupported the opposing team. Note thatthese contributions were not distributed tothe opposing teams themselves, but, in allcases to the identical, neutral third-party,known for its charity; yet it was in-groupmembers who exerted the strongest influ-ence on fans to contribute to the broader,collective good. Panel F shows clear in-groupsocial influence in a bystander-interventionparadigm (Levine et al., 2002). Here the self-reported likelihood of helping was





Figure 1. Results from eight direct tests of the self-categorisation, social-influence hypothesis.

lity

ea

4

5

s

ChallangeA

foi

Stressful

5.0

1rofing

l

iatRbje

ctiSu

ea

Rfo

snetat

rreptererp

nIIn

1

2

3

4

)rereffffuSssertS(puorg-tuO G-nI

sngiatRe v

bjecti

Su

rotr

)tnedutSwolleF(puorG

5.2-

-2

5.1-

-1

5.0-

0

ll

ortnoc((cGSR

2e

Tim

GSR)

1e

Tim

lortnoC strA(puorG-tuO)srjoam

G-nI

ecniecS(puorG)srjoam

ili/S

mili

Sm

ofnt

Am

ruioou

av

t Be

e

errt

Ov

1

2

3

4

5

+

ngili/S

mngili

Sm

ofnt

ouAm

gnihguaL

rethguaLoN uaL

rethgu

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

edums

onCn

pcor

Po

ofnt

ouAm

)sam

gr(

mroNnoitpmusnoCwoLmroNnoitpmusnoChgiH

e

arre

ela

We

llectiv

1lanioitsoppO(puorG-tuO

)ytraPl aictlioP-nI

30

40

50

60

mea

-s

anFedfiti

enId ngiaton

)yitsreivnUemaS(puorG- 0

4

5

6

7

tood

hoelikLI

d e

envr

tnerefifffD(puorG-tuO)yitsreivnU

(puorG-nIsreivnU

noitnevretnIoN noitnevretnI

emaS()yits

o

Cto

gtin

uibbu

trri

noC

0

10

20

rotcelloCl artueN rG-tuOcelloC

tencr

Peea

Toff onD

6

n i

puorrotc

puorG-nIrotcelloC

1

2

3

flSe

-te

orepR

teIn

2

tnerefifffD(puorG-tuO)yitsreivnU

(puorG-nIsreivnU

ytirojaM

emaS()yits

ce

en

lu

fflnIInit

rrioMin

0

1

2

3

4

5

puorG-tuOl imainMyitroinM

M

inc

e uefl

al In

ic S

ooff

eeregD

ding

unFd arwto

detuiAt

t

yitroinMpuorG-nIl imainM-2

-1

0

1

ord arwto

nce

uefl Inof

eeregD

rebimT-orP(puorG-tuO)yrtsudnI

puorG-nImnoirvnE

ytironiM

-orP()tnem

)yrtsudnI mnoirvnE

)tnem

A B

C D

E F

G H

completely unaffected by the presence orabsence of out-group bystander interven-tion. However, there was a relative decreasein the likelihood of helping when in-groupmembers failed to intervene, and a substan-tial increase in the likelihood of helpingwhen in-group members actually did inter-vene to help. In short, it was in-groupmembers, and not out-group members, wholed the way toward helping others.

The final two Panels of Figure 1 relate tosimilar in-group-based processes thatoperate in the context of minority influence,a situation often confronted by leaders.Specifically, in Panel G, participants’ atti-tudes toward educational funding increaseswere influenced more by a minority opinionexpressed by in-group members than by out-group members (Martin, 1988). Finally,Panel H displays results from a directcomparison between majority and minorityinfluence (David & Turner, 1996). Here,positive values represent attitudinal move-ment toward the influencing agent, whilenegative values represent movement awayfrom the influencing agent. From this twopatterns can be discerned. First, it is clearthat group members aligned their own atti-tudes more with in-group than with out-group others. Second, this in-group-basedinfluence occurred even when the originalview was a minority view. Indeed, we see thatout-group members were unable toengender any minority influence at all.

These eight studies (and, indeed, otherstoo, for example, Grace, David & Ryan, 2008;Oldmeadow, Platow & Foddy, 2005;Oldmeadow et al., 2003; Puhl, Schwartz &Bronwell, 2005; Sechrist & Young, 2011)provide clear evidence that supports self-categorisation theory’s hypothesis that theprimary mechanism through with socialinfluence occurs is shared group member-ship between the would-be influencing agentand the targets of influence. The final ques-tion, however, is whether this in-group-basedsocial influence represents sheep-like,thoughtless conformity, or whether would-befollowers actually reflect actively upon the

information provided. Mackie, Worth andAsuncion (1990) and McGarty et al. (1994)independently sought to answer this ques-tion, with both confirming the active cogni-tive processing of in-group communications;Mackie et al.’s work, in particular, was able toshow the scope of this processing. In thisstudy, when the issue at hand was relativelyunimportant to the group members, partici-pants were persuaded more by fellow in-group members than by out-groupmembers, regardless of the strength of the argu-ments put to them. However, when the issue athand was relatively important, a morecomplex pattern emerged. First, would-beinfluencing agents who were out-groupmembers exerted little effect over partici-pants’ own attitudes, again, regardless of thestrength of the arguments. However, in-group members were indeed influential –and substantially so – on this in-group rele-vant topic, but only when they put forwardstrong arguments; weak arguments actuallycaused participants to move away from thewould-be influencing agent’s views. The keypoint that this study makes is that when theissue is relevant to their in-group, groupmembers will not blindly follow an in-groupmember; that in-group member still has towork for his or her leadership position.Again, though, out-group members remainlargely incapable of exerting influence –regardless of the quality of their ideas.

Variability in ‘in-groupness’: Leadershipand relative in-group prototypicalityOur argument thus far implies that, to be aleader, all one need to do is be an in-groupmember. Leadership, of course, is patentlynot so simple. We share group membershipwith many people, and not all are equallyinfluential. A key factor that affects the rela-tive degree of influence within a group is therelative in-group prototypicality of a person,idea or behaviour (McGarty, 1999; Turner etal., 1987). Relative in-group prototypicality isthe self-categorisation theory concept usedto capture relative ‘in-groupness’. Definedformally through a meta-contrast ratio (e.g.



Turner, Wetherell & Hogg, 1989), it repre-sents the degree to which, say, an individualgroup member is similar to all other in-group members while being different fromcontextually relevant out-group members.The greater this contrast is, the more in-group prototypical the person will be. Criti-cally for leadership, the more in-groupprototypical a group member is, the moreinfluential he or she is hypothesised to be(Turner, 1991). Thus, to the degree thatthere is variability in relative in-group proto-typicality among group members, there willbe a relative influence gradient within thegroup. At any given time, and in any givenintergroup context, the most prototypicalgroup member is expected to be the mostinfluential; this person is thus predicted todisplay the greatest leadership. Note too thatchanging the comparative out-group canchange the relative prototypicality of one’sin-group members (Turner & Haslam,2001). In this way, relative in-group proto-typicality – and, hence, leadership – is notconsidered to be a stable characteristic of anindividual group member; instead, it is adynamic outcome of group and intergroupprocesses.

One early demonstration of the role ofrelative in-group prototypicality in affectingability to influence others was reported byMcGarty et al. (1992). These researchersmeasured the in-group prototypical attitudeamong their participants along a variety ofattitudinal domains (e.g. attitudes towardnuclear power, capital punishment, andlegalisation of cannabis). Participants thentook part in a face-to-face group discussion aweek later. In two separate studies, withdifferent attitudes and different participants,significant positive relationships between thepost-discussion attitudes and the in-groupprototypical positions were observed. Simi-larly, van Knippenberg, Lossie and Wilke(1994) presented law students with argu-ments for and against university entranceexams supposedly written by in-group proto-typical or in-group non-prototypical groupmembers. As expected, the participants

aligned their own private attitudes moreclosely with the communications from the in-group prototypical source than with thosefrom the in-group non-prototypical source,regardless of the position he or she wasarguing for (i.e. for or against the exams).

Finally, Reid and Ng (2000) also exam-ined the role of in-group prototypicality inface-to-face interactions. They broughtgroups of six people together for a 30-minutediscussion about capital punishment. Threeof these people had previously indicated thatthey supported capital punishment (‘pro’),and three had indicated that they wereagainst capital punishment (‘anti’). Impor-tantly, the experimenter identified these twogroups of three people to participants, sothat they knew who was in their opinion-based in-group and who was in the out-group(cf., Musgrove & McGarty, 2008). After thediscussion, participants rated how influentialeach member of their in-group (themselvesincluded) was in the overall discussion, andhow in-group prototypical each person was.As expected, discussants who were seen asmore in-group prototypical were also seen asmore influential.

We have now put forward one morethesis in our analysis of leadership, this timewith two associated corollaries:

Thesis 3: Social influence takes placewithin of a psychological in-group.Corollary 3a: The more in-groupprototypical someone is, the moreinfluence that person will exert.Corollary 3b: The more in-group proto-typical someone is, the more he or she willbe able to display leadership.

In this manner, leaders are ‘one of us’, not different or separate from ‘us’.

Leadership attributions as outcomes ofpsychological group membershipOur claim that leaders are not different orseparate from ‘us’ may seem at odds withother literature that suggest that leadershipentails the expression of specific traits, qual-ities, or behaviours (e.g. Conger & Kanungo,1987; Ensari et al. (2011). In particular,



research and theory within the social cogni-tive tradition that examines how peoplemake attributions of leadership has identi-fied characteristics such as trustworthiness,fairness, and charisma as being key attributesthat potential followers look for whenattributing (or not attributing) leadership toanother person (Lord, Foti & De Vader,1984; Lord, Foti & Phillips, 1982). This iscertainly not unreasonable, as other workhas demonstrated quite clearly that – atminimum – followers’ perceptions thatwould-be leaders express these attributes areassociated with a variety of positive personaland group-oriented outcomes (DeGroot,Kiker & Cross, 2000; Dirks & Ferrin, 2002;Koivisto, Lipponen & Platow, 2013). In ourown analysis, we do not question the veracityof these data; they are powerful andundoubtedly true. Nevertheless, we do ques-tion whether we need to examine theseattributes as belonging uniquely to individ-uals, setting them apart from those they seekto lead – or whether, in fact, they are actuallyoutcomes of shared group membership (seePlatow et al., 2003).

In-group-based trustThere is now strong evidence demonstratingthat shared in-group membership providesthe basis for establishing trust relationships.Indeed, people routinely report that theytrust in-group members more than out-group members (Platow, McClintock &Liebrand, 1990). However, there is moredirect evidence of this trust. For example,Foddy, Platow and Yamagishi (2009)conducted an experiment in which partici-pants were allowed to place their fate in thehands of either an in-group stranger or anout-group stranger (with the groups basedon university of attendance). In doing so,participants had the opportunity to chooseone of two unknown amounts of money(between $0 and $16) donated by each ofthe strangers. When participants knew thatthe in-group and out-group donors also knewthe participants’ own group membership(referred to as a ‘common knowledge’

condition), 100 per cent placed their fate inthe fellow in-group member’s hands.However, when participants believed that thedonors did not know participants’ own groupmembership (i.e. under ‘unilateral knowl-edge’ conditions), this dropped to 53 percent (i.e. effectively at chance levels). Theresearchers concluded that people trust in-group members to treat them well as fellowin-group members. It was not the case thatpeople believed their fellow in-groupmember would be trustworthy to all people,only that he or she would be trustworthy tothose in his or her own in-group. Thispattern was replicated in a second study,extending the finding to demonstrate thattrust was maintained even when the stereo-type of the out-group was more favourable thanthe stereotype of the in-group. Out-grouptrust did seem to emerge under unilateralknowledge conditions when the out-groupstereotype was more favourable than the in-group stereotype; here, when there was nochance that the donor could treat partici-pants well as fellow in-group members(because of a lack of knowledge), peoplehad to rely on group-based stereotypes tomake their trust decisions.

Platow et al. (2012) extended this workby observing relative in-group trust undercommon knowledge conditions even whenparticipants had the ability to opt out of thetrust relationship for a known, assured posi-tive outcome. Overall, the key point for ourcurrent analysis of leadership is that whenparticipants believe that others with resourcecontrol over their (i.e. the participants’)future outcomes, fellow in-group membersare seen as more trustworthy than out-groupmembers, at least when these in-group and out-group members also know of the participants’ owngroup membership. Trust, then, can be under-stood to be an outcome of known, sharedpsychological group membership.

In-group-based charismaCharisma is another quality stereotypicallyassociated with leadership (DeGroot, et al.,2000; House, Spangler & Woycke, 1991), and



seen to be an important aspect of transfor-mational leadership (Avolio & Yammarino,2013). This is because charismatic leadersare understood to inspire group members totranscend their own personal self-interests inpursuit of new possibilities for the greatergood (sometimes referred to as idealisedinfluence; Bass, 1985, 1999). To achievecharismatic leadership, some authors haveoutlined key sets of behaviours that would-beleaders ought to enact (e.g. Frese, Beimel &Schoenborn, 2003). However, two separatestudies by Platow et al. (2006) demonstratedhow the ascription of this attribute can alsoemerge from shared group membership. Inthis study, university students read about asupposed student leader. Although alwaysdescribed as sharing the same university in-group membership, the leader wasdescribed as being highly in-group proto-typical or in-group non-prototypical. InStudy 1, greater levels of charisma wereattributed to the in-group prototypical thanin-group non-prototypical leader regardless ofthe self-oriented vs. group-oriented nature of asupposed speech made by this leader. In Study2, similar effects emerged using a differentmanipulation of relative in-group prototypi-cality. This time, however, the in-group non-prototypical leader was able to gain inperceived charisma with an in-group-oriented (rather than self-oriented) speech.Overall, these two studies demonstrate howenhancing one’s in-group credentials eitherby being relatively high on in-group proto-typicality or by pursuing group-orientedgoals can lead to enhanced charisma asperceived by would-be followers. Like otherleader attributes, we thus see that charismatoo can be understood to be an outcome ofshared psychological group membership.

In-group-based fairnessA third characteristic often attributed toleaders is that of fairness. Indeed, it iscertainly the case that authorities perceivedto be fair are more likely to encouragefollowership than those perceived as unfair(Tyler & Degoey, 1995; Tyler, Rasinski &

McGraw, 1985). But the perennial questionremains: how is fairness to be defined? In light of the complexities of group life, thephilosopher, Oldenquist (1982, pp.180–181,emphasis added) made the following obser-vation with regard to distributive fairness:

Should university administrators,community leaders, mayors or presidentsalways adopt the so-called ‘impartial’point of view regarding the allocation ofgoods? They often will be disloyal to theirconstituencies if they do, and they will bejudged unethical, from the point of the‘general good’, if they do not… It is notobvious that wider loyalties always takemoral precedence over narrower ones…The demand for impartiality is never trueimpartiality, it is merely an invitation to giveone’s loyalty to a larger whole with whichsomeone identifies.

Here, Oldenquist (1982) is rhetoricallyasking, inter alia, whether fair leaders willalways be the ones who garner the greatestsupport. Experimental research suggests theanswer is ‘no.’

Speaking to this point, Platow et al.(1997) presented a series of studies in whichan in-group leader made resource distribu-tions between two fellow in-group membersor between one in-group member and anout-group member. Research participantswere then asked to judge the relative fairnessof the leader in each context. As expected,when allocating within the in-group, percep-tions of the leader’s fairness were alwaysgreater following equal rather than unequaldistributions. This finding is wholly consis-tent with the conclusions of the previousliterature on leader fairness. Given thatthere was no equitable basis for inequality,the equal distributions were both norma-tively and subjectively fair. However, whenthe identical resource distributions weremade between an in-group and an out-groupmember, the pattern of fairness perceptionschanged dramatically. Critically, in all ofthese studies, the inequality between groupsalways favoured the in-group over the out-group member. Under these intergroup



circumstances, the perception of greaterfairness of the equal over unequal leadersignificantly decreased and, in one study,even reversed. In this latter study, partici-pants actually perceived the unequal, in-group-favouring leader to be more fair thanthe leader who distributed equally betweenthe two groups. Similar findings wereobserved by Platow et al. (1995). Overall,then, these findings support the conclusionthat the perceived fairness of a leader is anoutcome not only of his or her behaviour,but of potential followers’ understanding ofthat behaviour with respect to salient psycho-logical group membership.

In this section, we have thus outlined afourth thesis regarding leadership processes:Thesis 4: Stereotypical leader attributes areoutcomes of shared psychological groupmembership.

Leadership is more than just beingUp until this point, a reader could reason-ably assume from our analysis that all oneneed to do to lead is simply be an in-groupmember, particularly a prototypical one.Leadership, though, is about more than just‘being’, it is about ‘doing’ as well. There areat least two key aspects of behaviour thatenhance the prospects of a group memberemerging as a leader: engaging inbehaviours that ‘do it for us’, and activelyconstructing and reconstructing the verymeaning of ‘us’. We consider each of thesein turn.

Doing it for us: Social identity advancementThere is now a substantial body of literaturedemonstrating that would-be leaders receivestronger endorsements when they pursuegroup-oriented over self-oriented behaviours(van Knippenberg & van Knippenberg,2005; Yorges, Weiss & Strickland, 1999). Wesaw some of this in our analysis of the groupbasis of charisma, where an in-group non-prototypical leader was able to gain in charis-matic standing following a group-orientedspeech. More recently, Grace and Platow (2015) demonstrated very clearly how an in-

group member who is otherwise com-pletelyanonymous to would-be followers can beseen to be showing leadership to a greaterdegree when he or she pursues activities(even counter-normative ones, such as graf-fiti writing) to advance the cause of thegroup more than him or herself personally.

Moreover, the research reviewed above inour analysis of fairness demonstratesprecisely how leaders can promote follower-ship by engaging in in-group-promotingbehaviour. In their third study, for example,Platow et al. (1997) described the behaviourof a CEO of a local regional health authority.As described above, this leader’s behaviourwas seen as relatively fair when distributingresources equally between two in-groupmembers, but was also seen as relatively fairwhen favouring an in-group member over anout-group member. Critically, these fairnessperceptions translated into both leadershipendorsement and social influence. Specifi-cally, although an equally distributing leaderreceived stronger endorsement and was ableto influence potential followers more thanan unequally-distributing leader within the in-group, this pattern reversed in an inter-group context and when the inequality wasin-group favouring. Simply put, when theleader ‘did it for us’ – when the leaderfavoured ‘us’ over ‘them’ – he or she wasable to garner the greatest followership.Haslam and Platow (2001) followed this upby showing that an in-group favouring leaderwas also able to enhance potential followers’willingness to enact his vision more than onewho distributed resources equally betweengroups. In these studies, the leaders are notsimply promoting the material welfare of in-group members, but are enhancing thesocial identity of participants by positivelydifferentiating ‘us’ from ‘them’ (e.g. Platowet al., 2008). This leads to our fifth thesis,and its associated corollary:

Thesis 5: Leadership is about ‘doing it for us’.Corollary 5: Leadership involves socialidentity advancement.



Crafting a sense of us: Social identity entrepreneurshipWe have been writing, thus far, as if psycho-logical groups, along with their meaning andcontent, came to people in some essen-tialised, pre-fabricated manner. We havebeen speaking about groups as if theysomehow exist ‘out there,’ and people canchoose to become members and/or subjec-tively identify with whatever the socialcontext offers them. But groups are notsimply prêt-à-porter, and leaders have a lot ofsay in the process of defining, creating, andre-creating psychological groups. Reicher,Hopkins and Condor (1997), for example,deconstruct the language used by variousScottish politicians from parties across thepolitical spectrum. They demonstrate howthese leaders, each vying for influence withinthe group as a whole, actively constructimages of the group (in this case, Scots andScotland) in a manner that situates theirown political views as the most in-groupprototypical. Those on the far right, forexample, defined Scots’ as having inde-pendent natures, while those on the leftdefined the very same Scot’s as communi-tarian. In this way, each politician wasactively constructing a meaning of Scots andScotland that the Scottish populace wouldaccept as accurate and true. The debate was,thus, less about specific political policies inthe abstract, and more about the verymeaning of ‘us’ (both who we are now andwho we want to be in the future).

Similarly, Reicher and Hopkins (1996)analysed the speeches of the then BritishPrime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, and theLeader of the Opposition, Neil Kinnock, asthey each defined, and constructed mean-ings around, group memberships associatedwith wide-spread industrial strikes. ForThatcher, who promoted an avid anti-unionstance, it was ‘us British’ and ‘them unions’.For the Labour opposition leader, however,it was ‘us British’ and ‘them Thatcherites’. In each case, the leader was claiming groundfor their political position as being essen-tially British, while those opposed to their

positions were something clearly ‘un-British’. More recently, Augoustinos and De Garis (2012) made a similar analysis ofspeeches by the United States President,Barack Obama. This leads to our sixth lead-ership thesis, and associated corollary:

Thesis 6: Leadership is about defining andcreating psychological in-groups.Corollary 6: Leadership involves identityentrepreneurship.

Moving from concepts to practiceAlthough our analysis of leadership is basedstrongly on empirical evidence, we recognisethat it is highly conceptual as well. Readerscan rightly say, ‘Yes, this all seems reasonable,but how do I engage with these ideas in myown practice?’ This is a reasonable question,as the practicalities of leadership as it playsout in real time and in sociological groupscomprise the very domain for which peopleseek guidance. People’s lives are lived in sociological groups as well as psychologicalgroups, and managing one’s way throughthe complexities of the two often can notonly be frustrating, but can also lead to sub-optimal outcomes if not done well. Accord-ingly, in an attempt to move from thedomain of concepts into the domain ofpractice, Steffens et al. (2014) recently devel-oped a practical tool, referred to as the‘Identity Leadership Inventory’ (ILI) toallow for assessment of the leadershipprocesses outlined above. The ILI does notmeasure supposed context-independentqualities of would-be leaders; instead, itfollows Thesis 2 above – in which the pres-ence of followers is the prima facie evidenceof leadership – in measuring potentialfollowers’ perceptions of potential leaders.In completing the ILI, group members arethus asked to make judgements of would-beleaders across four sub-scales, three of whichfollow directly from the theoretical analysiswe have outlined thus far.

The first sub-scale is that of Identity Proto-typicality, and follows from Thesis 3 and itsassociated corollaries. Example itemsinclude, ‘This leader is representative of



members of [the group]’, and ‘This leaderexemplifies what it means to be a member of[the group]’. As can be seen with theseexamples (and the others to follow), framingthe items with the words ‘this leader’ presup-poses the target is, in fact, a leader. Thesewords, however, can easily be replacedtargets’ names or roles (e.g. ‘the manager’)to ensure a unbiased measurement ofperceived leadership. Following Thesis 5 andits Corollary, the second sub-scale measuresperceptions of Identity Advancement (e.g.‘When this leader acts, he or she has [thegroup’s] interests at heart’, ‘This leaderpromotes the interests of members of [thegroup]’). And the third sub-scale followsThesis 6 and its Corollary, measuring percep-tions of Identity Entrepreneurship (e.g. ‘Thisleader develops an understanding of what itmeans to be a member of [the group]’, ‘Thisleader shapes members’ perceptions of [thegroup’s] values and ideals.’).

The final sub-scale derives from princi-ples outlined in a more detailed analysis ofleadership by Haslam, Reicher and Platow(2011). This demonstrates how, for leader-ship to be sustained, leaders must imbed thevery essence of ‘us’ into the activities, struc-tures and symbols around which social iden-tities are built, managed, and maintained.This Identity Impresarioship is closely alignedto the classic leadership construct of initi-ating structure (Judge, Piccolo & Ilies, 2004)– but makes the point that is not ‘any-oldstructure’ that leaders need to initiate.Rather, these structures need to be identityembedding. Accordingly, sub-scale items ofthe ILI include, ‘This leader creates struc-tures that are useful for [group members]’and ‘This leader devises activities that bring[the group] together.’

Overall, the practical value of the ILI liesits ability to measure quantitatively leader-ship processes in on-going sociologicalgroups. Its power can be enhanced bycoupling it with one or another establishedscales that measure group members’ relativelevels of social identification with the groupin question (e.g. Postmes, Jans & Haslam,

2013). By employing these latter scales,researchers and practitioners will be able toassess the degree to which the sociologicalgroup also represents a psychological groupfor the would-be followers. If levels of socialidentification with the group are low, thenthe group identified in the ILI is not likely tobe serving as a meaningful psychologicalgroup for respondents. This would meanthat expected group processes, includingleadership, are not likely to unfold in themanner otherwise expected. It becomesincumbent, then, for users of the ILI toensure that ‘the group’ identified in the ILIis, in fact, an appropriate psychologicalgroup.

ConclusionsIn this article, we have presented an analysisof leadership as fundamentally a groupprocess. In doing so, we have differentiatedour analysis from others that focus oninherent attributes of would-be leaders. Forus, leadership is a psychological groupprocess in which it is followers who effectivelymake someone a leader. Indeed, Thesis 2states this clearly, in observing that there canbe no leadership if no one follows. Like otherprevious analyses, however, our focus onfollowership also highlights the key linchpinto all of leadership: social influence. It is forthis reason that we devoted a considerableamount of time reviewing research whichshows that social influence is, itself, a psycho-logical in-group process. We then recognisedthat the broader literature on leadership hasidentified a number of qualities and attrib-utes correlated with leadership, such as trust-worthiness, charisma, and fairness. But in theend, we were able to demonstrate that thesestereotypical leader attributes, too, areoutcomes of shared psychological groupmembership. We ended our conceptual andempirical analysis by recognising that leader-ship is not simply about being, it is aboutdoing as well and, in particular, it is about‘doing it for us’ and about defining andcreating psychological in-groups. Finally, thedevelopment of the Identity Leadership



Inventory informs us that our analysis doesnot simply comprise a series of abstractconcepts, but evidence-based understandingsof leadership as a social and psychologicalprocess. This has the important consequencethat we can reliably measure our concepts inon-going group contexts to examine theirrelative validity and applied value – therebylending applied as well as theoretical robust-ness to the psychological science of identityleadership.

The AuthorsMichael J. PlatowThe Australian National University.S. Alexander HaslamThe University of Queensland.Stephen D. ReicherSt. Andrews University.Niklas K. SteffensThe University of Queensland.

CorrespondenceMichael J. PlatowEmail: [email protected]



ReferencesAbrams, D., Wetherell, M., Cochrane, S., Hogg, M.A.

& Turner, J. C. (1990). Knowing what to think byknowing who you are: Self-categorisation and thenature of norm formation, conformity and grouppolarisation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29,97–119.

Asch, S.E. (1956). Studies of independence andconformity: A minority of one against aunanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70,1–70.

Augoustinos, M. & De Garis, S. (2012). Too black ornot black enough: Social identity complexity inthe political rhetoric of Barack Obama. EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology, 42, 564–577.

Augoustinos, M., Walker, I. & Donaghue, N. (2006).Social cognition: An integrated introduction (2nd ed.).London: Sage.

Avolio, B.J. & Gibbons, T.C. (1988). Developingtransformational leaders: A lifespan approach. In J.A. Conger & R.N. Kanungo (Eds.), Charismaticleadership: The elusive factor in organisationaleffectiveness (pp.276–308). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Avolio, B.J. & Yammarino, F.J. (Eds.) (2013).Transformational and charismatic leadership: The roadahead (2nd ed.). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.

Bartone, P.T., Eid, J., Johnsen, B.H., Laberg, J.C. &Snook, S.A. (2009). Big Five personality factors,hardiness, and social judgement as predictors ofleader performance. Leadership & OrganizationDevelopment Journal, 30, 498–521.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyondexpectation. New York: Free Press.

Bass, B.M. (1999). Two decades of research anddevelopment in transformational leadership.European Journal of Work and OrganizationalPsychology, 8, 9–32.

Bass, B.M. & Riggio, R.E. (2006). Transformationalleadership (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates Publishers.

Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J. & Goodheim, L. (1987).Biography and assessment of transformationalleadership at the world-class level. Journal ofManagement, 13, 7–19.

Blau, P.M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Bond, R. & Smith, P.B. (1996). Culture andconformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s(1952b & 1956) line judgement task. PsychologicalBulletin, 119, 111–137.

Bourgeois, P. & Hess, U. (2008). The impact of socialcontext on mimicry. Biological Psychology, 77,343–352.

Burn, S.M. (2004). Groups: Theory and practice.Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Cartwright, D. (1951). Achieving change in people:Some applications of group dynamics theory.Human Relations, 4, 381–392.

Cartwright, D. & Zander, A. (Eds.) (1960). Groupdynamics: Research and theory (2nd ed.). New York:Harper & Row.

Conger, J.A. & Kanungo, R.A. (1987). Toward abehavioural theory of charismatic leadership inorganisational settings. The Academy of ManagementReview, 12, 637–647.

Cruwys, T., Platow, M.J., Angullia, S.A., Chang, J.M.,Diler, S.E., Kirchner, J.L., Lentfer, C.E., Lim, Y.J.,Quarisa, A., Tor, V.W.L. & Wadley, A.L. (2012).Modelling of food intake is moderated by salientpsychological group membership. Appetite, 58,754–757.

David, B. & Turner, J.C. (1996). Studies in self-categorisation and minority conversion: Is being amember of the outgroup an advantage? BritishJournal of Social Psychology, 35, 179–199.

Dawes, R.M., van de Kragt, A.J.C. & Orbell, J.M.(1988). Not me or thee but we: The importance ofgroup identity in eliciting co-operation indilemma situations: Experimental manipulations.Acta Psychologica, 68, 83–97.

DeGroot, T., Kiker, D.S. & Cross, T.C. (2000). A meta-analysis to review: Organisational outcomesrelated to charismatic leadership. CanadianJournal of Administrative Sciences, 14, 356–372.

Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of co-operation andcompetition. Human Relations, 2, 129–152.

Dirks, K.T. & Ferrin, D.L. (2002). Trust in leadership:Meta-analytic findings and implications forresearch and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology,87, 611–628.

Ensari, N., Riggio, R.E., Christian, J. & Carslaw, G.(2011). Who emerges as a leader? Meta-analysesof individual differences as predictors ofleadership emergence. Personality and IndividualDifferences, 51, 532–536.

Ergi, C. & Herman, S. (2000). Leadership in theNorth American environmental sector: Values,leadership, styles and context of environmentalleaders and their organisations. The Academy ofManagement Journal, 43, 571–604.

Fiske, S.T. & Taylor, S.E. (1984). Social cognition.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Foddy, M., Platow, M.J. & Yamagishi, T. (2009). Group-based trust in strangers: The role of stereotypesand expectations. Psychological Science, 20,419–422.

Forsyth, D.R. (1999). Group dynamics. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.

French, J.R.P. & Raven, B. (1960). The bases of socialpower. In D. Cartwright & A.F. Zander (Eds.),Group dynamics (2nd ed., pp.607–623). Evanston,IL: Row Peterson.

Frese, M., Beimel, S. & Schoenborn, S. (2003). Actiontraining for charismatic leadership: Twoevaluations of studies of a commercial trainingmodule on inspirational communication of avision. Personnel Psychology, 56, 671–698.

Friend, R., Rafferty, Y. & Bramel, D. (1990). A puzzlingmisinterpretation of the Asch ‘conformity’ study.European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 29–44.

Gaertner, S.L., Dovidio, J.F., Anastasio, P.A., Bachman,B.A. & Rust, M.C. (1993). The common in-groupidentity model: Re-categorisation and thereduction of intergroup bias. European Review ofSocial Psychology, 4, 1–26.

Gibb, C.A. (1947). The principles and traits ofleadership. Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, 42, 267–284.

Gibb, C.A. (1969). Leadership. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp.205–282). Reading, MA:Addison Wesley.

Grace, D.M. & Platow, M.J. (2015). Showingleadership by not showing your face: Ananonymous leadership effect. SageOpen, 5, 1–10.

Grace, D.M., David, B. & Ryan, M.K. (2008).Investigating preschoolers’ categorical thinkingabout gender through imitation, attention andthe use of self-categories. Child Development, 79,1928–1941.

Haslam, S.A. & Platow, M.J. (2001). The link betweenleadership and followership: How affirming asocial identity translates vision into action.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,1469–1479.

Haslam, S.A., Jetten, J., O’Brien, A. & Jacobs, E.(2004). Social identity, social influence, andreactions to potentially stressful tasks: Support forthe self-categorisation model of stress. Stress andHealth, 20, 3–9.

Haslam, S.A., Reicher, S.D. & Platow, M.J. (2011).The new psychology of leadership: Identity, influence andpower. New York: Psychology Press.

Hogg, M.A. (2001). A social identity theory ofleadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review,5, 184–200.

Hollander, E.P. & Julian, J.W. (1969). Contemporarytrends in the analysis of leadership processes.Psychological Bulletin, 71, 387–397.

House, R.J., Spangler, W.D. & Woycke, J. (1991).Personality and charisma in the US presidency: A psychological theory of leader effectiveness.Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 364–396.

Jetten, J. & Hornsey, M.J. (2012). Conformity:Revisiting Asch’s line judgements studies. In J.R.Smith & S.A. Haslam (Eds.), Social psychology:Revisiting the classic studies (pp.76–90). London:Sage.

Judge, T.A., Piccolo, R.F. & Ilies, R. (2004). Theforgotten ones? The validity of consideration andinitiating structure in leadership research.Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 36–51.

Katz, D. & Kahn, R.L. (1966). The social psychology oforganisations. New York: Wiley.

King, A.J. (2010). Follow me! I’m a leader if you; I’m a failed initiator if you don’t? BehaviouralProcesses, 84, 671–674.

Koivisto, S., Lipponen, J. & Platow, M.J. (2013).Organisational and supervisory justice effects onexperienced threat during change: Themoderating role of leader in-group represen-tativeness. The Leadership Quarterly, 24, 595–607.

Kramer, R.M. & Brewer, M.B. (1984). Effects of groupidentity on resource use in a simulated commonsdilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,46, 1044–1057.

Levine, M., Cassidy, C., Brazier, G. & Reicher, S.(2002). Self-categorisation and bystander inter-vention: Two experimental studies. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 7, 1452–1463.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selectedtheoretical papers. D. Cartwright (Ed.). New York:Harper & Row.



Lord, R.G., Brown, D.J. & Freiberg, R.J. (1999).Understanding the dynamics of leadership: Therole of follower self-concepts in the leader-follower relationship. Organizational Behaviour andHuman Decision Processes, 78, 167–203.

Lord, R.G., Foti, R.J. & De Vader, C.L. (1984). A test ofleadership categorisation theory: Internalstructure, information processing, and leadershipperceptions. Organizational Behaviour and HumanPerformance, 34, 343–378.

Mackie, D.M., Worth, L.T. & Asuncion, A.G. (1990).Processing of persuasive ingroup messages.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,812–822.

Markus, H. & Zajonc, R.B. (1985). The cognitiveperspective in social psychology. In G. Lindzey &E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology(3rd ed., Vol. 1, pp.137–230). New York: RandomHouse.

Marques, J., Abrams, D. & Serôdio, R.G. (2001). Beingbetter by being right: Subjective group dynamicsand derogation of in-group deviants when genericnorms are undermined. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 81, 436–447.

Martin, M.M. (1998). Trust leadership. The Journal ofLeadership Studies, 5, 41–49.

McGarty, C. (1999). Categorisation in social psychology.London: Sage.

McGarty, C., Haslam, S.A., Hutchinson, K.J. & Turner,J.C. (1994). The effects of salient group member-ships on persuasion. Small Group Research, 25,267–293.

McGarty, C., Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., David, B. &Wetherell, M.S. (1992). Group polarisation asconformity to the prototypical group member.British Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 1–20.

Musgrove, L. & McGarty, C. (2008). Opinion-basedgroup membership as a predictor of collectiveemotional responses and support for pro- andanti-war action. Social Psychology, 39, 37–47.

Oldenquist, A. (1982). Loyalties. The Journal ofPhilosophy, 79, 173–193.

Oldmeadow, J.A., Platow, M.J. & Foddy, M. (2005).Task-groups as self-categories: A social identityperspective on status generalisation. CurrentResearch in Social Psychology, 10, 265–282.

Oldmeadow, J.A., Platow, M.J., Foddy, M. & Anderson,D. (2003). Self-categorisation, status, and socialinfluence. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 138–152.

Peterson, R.S., Smith, D.B., Martorana, P.V. & Owens,P.D. (2003). The impact of chief executive officerpersonality on top management team dynamics:One mechanism by which leadership affectsorganisational performance. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 88, 795–808.

Pittinsky, T. (Ed.) (2009). Crossing the divide: Intergroupleadership in a world of difference. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press.

Platow, M.J., Durante, M., Williams, N., Garrett, M.,Walshe, J., Cincotta, S., Lianos, G. & Barutchu, A.(1999). The contribution of sport fan socialidentity to the production of prosocial behaviour.Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3,161–169.

Platow, M.J., Foddy, M., Yamagishi, T., Lim, L. & Chow,A. (2012). Two experimental tests of trust in in-group strangers. The moderating role ofcommon knowledge of group membership.European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 30–35.

Platow, M.J., Grace, D.M. & Smithson, M.J. (2012).Examining the preconditions for psychologicalgroup membership: Perceived social inter-dependence as the outcome of self-categorisation.Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 5–13.

Platow, M.J., Grace, D.M., Wilson, N., Burton, D. &Wilson, A. (2008). Psychological groupmemberships as outcomes of resourcedistributions. European Journal of Social Psychology,38, 836–851.

Platow, M.J., Harley, K., Hunter, J.A., Hanning, P.,Shave, R. & O’Connell, A. (1997). Interpreting in-group-favouring allocations in the minimalgroup paradigm. British Journal of Social Psychology,36, 107–117.

Platow, M.J., Haslam, S.A., Both, A., Chew, I., Cuddon,M., Goharpey, N., Maurer, J., Rosini, S., Tsekouras,A. & Grace, D.M. (2005). ‘It’s not funny whenthey’re laughing’: A self-categorisation social-influence analysis of canned laughter. The Journalof Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 542–550.

Platow, M.J., Haslam, S.A., Foddy, M. & Grace, D.M.(2003). Leadership as the outcome of self-categorisation processes. In D. van Knippenberg& M.A. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power. Identityprocesses in groups and organisations (pp.34–47).London: Sage.

Platow, M.J., McClintock, C.G. & Liebrand, W.B.G.(1990). Predicting intergroup fairness and in-group bias in the minimal group paradigm.European Journal of Social Psychology, 20, 221–239.

Platow, M.J., O’Connell, A., Shave, R. & Hanning, P.(1995). Social evaluations of fair and unfairallocators in interpersonal and intergroupsituations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 34,363–381.

Platow, M.J., van Knippenberg, D., Haslam, S.A., vanKnippenberg, B. & Spears, R. (2006). A specialgift we bestow on you for being representative ofus: Considering leader charisma from a self-categorisation perspective. British Journal of SocialPsychology, 45, 303–320.



Platow, M.J., Voudouris, N.J., Gilbert, N., Jamieson, R.,Najdovski, L., Papaleo, N., Pollard, C. & Terry, L.(2007). In-group reassurance in a pain settingproduces lower levels of physiological arousal:Direct support for a self-categorisation analysis ofsocial influence. European Journal of SocialPsychology, 37, 649–660.

Postmes, T., Haslam, S.A. & Jans, L. (2013). A single-item measure of social identification: Reliability,validity and utility. British Journal of SocialPsychology, 52, 597–617.

Puhl, R.M., Schwartz, M.B. & Bronwell, K.D. (2005).Impact of perceived consensus on stereotypesabout obese people: A new approach for reducingbias. Health Psychology, 24, 517–525.

Reicher, S.D., Haslam, S.A. & Hopkins, N. (2005).Social identity and the dynamics of leadership:Leaders and followers as collaborative agents inthe transformation of social reality. LeadershipQuarterly, 16, 547–568.

Reicher, S.D., Spears, R. & Postmes, T. (1995). A socialidentity model of deindividuation phenomena.European Review of Social Psychology, 6, 161–198.

Reicher, S. & Hopkins, N. (1996). Self-categoryconstructions in political rhetoric; an analysis ofThatcher’s and Kinnock’s speeches concerningthe British miners’ strike (1984–1985). EuropeanJournal of Social Psychology, 26, 353–371.

Reicher, S., Hopkins, N. & Condor, S. (1997).Stereotype construction as a strategy of influence.In R. Spears, P. Oakes, S.A. Haslam & N. Ellemers(Eds.), Stereotyping and social identity (pp.94–118).Oxford: Blackwell.

Reid, S.A. & Ng, S.H. (2000). Conversation as aresource for influence: Evidence for prototypicalarguments and social identification processes.European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 83–100.

Reynolds, K.J. & Platow, M.J. (2003). Why power inorganisations really should be shared:Understanding power through the perils ofpowerlessness. In S.A. Haslam, D. vanKnippenberg, M.J. Platow & N. Ellemers (Eds.),Social identity at work: Developing theory fororganisational practice (pp.173–188). Philadelphia,PA: Psychology Press.

Russell, C.J. (1990). Selecting top corporate leaders:An example of biographical information. Journalof Management, 16, 73–86.

Sechrist, G.B. & Young, A.F. (2011). The influence ofsocial consensus information on intergroupattitudes: The moderating effects of in-groupidentification. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151,674–695.

Shamir, B., House, R.J. & Arthur, M.B. (1993). Themotivational effects of charismatic leadership: A self-concept based theory. Organization Science,4, 577–594.

Sherif, M. & Sherif, C.W. (1969). Social psychology. New York: Harper & Row.

Spears, R., Lea, M. & Lee, S. (1990). De-individuationand group polarisation in computer-mediatedcommunication. British Journal of Social Psychology,29, 121–134.

Steffens, N.K., Haslam, S.A., Reicher, S.D., Platow,M.J., Fransen, K., Yang, J., Ryan, M.K., Jetten, J.,Peters, K.O. & Boen, F. (2014). Leadership associal identity management: Introducing theidentity leadership inventory (ILI) to assess andvalidate a four-dimensional model. The LeadershipQuarterly, 25, 1001–1024.

Stogdill, R.M. (1950). Leadership, membership, andorganisation. Psychological Bulletin, 47, 1–14.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identitytheory of intergroup behaviour. In S. Worchel &L.W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations(pp.7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Tajfel, H., Billig, M.G., Bundy, R.P. & Flament, C.(1971). Social categorisation and intergroupbehaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1,149–177.

Thibaut, J.W. & Kelley, H.H. (1959). The socialpsychology of groups. Oxford: John Wiley.

Turner, J.C. (1984). Social identification andpsychological group formation. In H. Tajfel (Ed.),The social dimension: European developments in socialpsychology (Vol. 2, pp.518–538). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Turner, J.C. (1985). Social categorisation and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of groupbehaviour. In E.J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in groupprocesses: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp.77–122).Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Turner, J.C. (1991). Social influence. Milton Keynes:Open University Press.

Turner, J.C. (2005). Examining the nature of power: A three-process theory. European Journal of SocialPsychology, 35, 1–22.

Turner, J.C. & Bourhis, R.Y. (1996). Social identity,interdependence, and the social group: A reply toRabbie et al. In W.P. Robinson (Ed.), Social groupsand identities: Developing the legacy of Henri Tajfel(pp.25–64). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Turner, J.C. & Haslam, S.A. (2001). Social identity,organisations, and leadership. In M.E. Turner(Ed.), Groups at work: Theory and research. Appliedsocial research (pp.25–65). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Turner, J.C. & Oakes, P.J. (1989). Self-categorisationtheory and social influence. In P.B. Paulus (Ed.),The psychology of group influence (Vol. 2,pp.233–275). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Turner, J.C., Hogg, M.A., Oakes, P.J., Reicher, S.D. &Wetherell, M.S. (1987). Rediscovering the socialgroup: A self-categorisation theory. Oxford: Blackwell.

Turner, J.C., Wetherell, M.S. & Hogg, M.A. (1989).Referent informational influence and grouppolarisation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 28,135–147.



Tyler, T.R. & Degoey, P. (1995). Collective restraint insocial dilemmas: Procedural justice and socialidentification effects on support for authorities.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69,482–497.

Tyler, T.R., Rasinski, K.A. & McGraw, K.M. (1985). The influence of perceived injustice on theendorsement of political leaders. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, 15, 700–725.

van Knippenberg, B. & van Knippenberg, D. (2005).Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness:The moderating role of leader prototypicality.Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 25–37.

van Knippenberg, B., van Knippenberg, D., deCremer, D. & Hogg, M.A. (2005). Research inleadership, self, and identity: A sample of thepresent and a glimpse of the future. The LeadershipQuarterly, 16, 495–499.

van Knippenberg, D., Lossie, N. & Wilke, H. (1994).In-group prototypicality and persuasion: Deter-minants of heuristic and systematic messageprocessing. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33,289–300.

Vanderslice, V.J. (1988). Separating leadership fromleaders: An assessment of the effect of leader andfollower roles in organisations. Human Relations,41, 677–696.

Yabar, Y., Johnston, L., Miles, L. & Peace, V. (2006).Implicit behavioural mimicry: Investigating theimpact of group membership. Journal of NonverbalBehaviour, 30, 97–113.

Yorges, S.L., Weiss, H.M. & Strickland, O.J. (1999).The effect of leader outcomes on influence,attributions, and perceptions of charisma. Journalof Applied Psychology, 84, 428–436.



LTHOUGH THE TERM executivecoaching refers to a diverse range ofinterventions relying on different

paradigms and methodologies, mostresearchers and practitioners would prob-ably agree that clients of coaching enter theprocess with learning and developmentgoals, to increase their performance withintheir organisation, or to reflect upon theirown behaviour (De Haan & Burger, 2005;Downey, 1999; Parsloe & Wray, 2000; Zeus &Skiffington, 2002). Most professionals wouldalso agree that coaching is an organisationalintervention, designed to benefit an organi-sation through working with a single indi-

vidual (Smither et al., 2003). When clientsare asked to evaluate coaching outcomes,they have been found to report higher goalattainment (Grant, 2003), greater self-effi-cacy (e.g. Baron & Morin, 2010; Evers,Brouwers & Tomic, 2006), improved socialskills (Spence & Grant, 2005; Wasylyshyn,2003), and better team performance (Sue-Chan & Latham, 2004) in response tocoaching interventions. Although some ofthe coaching outcome studies have usedfeedback data from peers and managers(Peterson, 1993; Smither et al., 2003; Thach,2002), what remains largely unexplored isthe question of whether and how those


Paper

Differences between critical moments forclients, coaches, and sponsors of coachingErik de Haan & Christiane Nieß

Objectives: Previous studies on the effectiveness of coaching have focused on positive outcomes that clients,coaches and organisational colleagues attribute to engaging in coaching overall. In this study descriptionsof critical moments of coaching as experienced by executive coaching clients, their coaches and theirsponsors are analysed and compared, to find out more about how coaching conversations are experienced.In this sense the objective of this research was to understand more about ‘sub-outcomes’ of coaching: mini-outcomes as they arise within the process and as a result of the coaching process. Design: We extend previous studies in two ways. First, we take a process-oriented, qualitative approach byinvestigating which events are regarded as critical by clients and coaches within their coaching contracts todate. Second, we consider the perspective of sponsors of coaching who refer to the same coaching assignmentsas clients and coaches have done. Methods: One-hundred-and-seventy-seven critical-moment descriptions were collected (49 from clients, 49from coaches and 79 from sponsors of coaching), of which 147 could be matched between coach, client andsponsor working on the same assignment. They are coded with an existing and a new coding scheme andanalysed with reference to a larger dataset comprising 555 critical moment descriptions from executivecoaching assignments. Results: Our results suggest that clients and coaches are considerably more aligned in what they regard ascritical in their coaching assignments when compared to their alignment with sponsors’ views. Whilst clientsand coaches mainly refer to moments of new insight and attitudinal change as critical, sponsors underlinechanges in the clients’ behaviour, such as their communication or interpersonal skills.Conclusions: Alongside earlier studies we have found further indications that clients and coaches conductingnormal coaching conversations seem to identify critical moments to a large extent with new learning, perspectivesand insight, and they pick the same moments well above chance rates. At the same time, organisational sponsorsof coaching seem to prioritise more new actions and changes initiated by coaching clients.Keywords: executive coaching; critical moments; sponsors of coaching; effectiveness; change; qualitative data.

A

positive outcomes are also visible to others inthe organisation. With organisations spend-ing billions of dollars on coaching interven-tions globally (Sherman & Freas, 2004), weneed research that establishes whether thoseinvestments not just pay off for the client ofcoaching, but particularly for others whomthe client interacts with at work. The presentstudy, therefore, aims to extend previousresearch by examining the coaching processnot only from the perspective of clients andcoaches, but also from that of their sponsorsin the organisation, who were the clients’direct line managers, partners or HR directors.

Making use of a qualitative methodology,we first aim to replicate existing findings onthe critical moments of change that clientsand their coaches attribute to their coachingassignments (De Haan, 2008a, 2008b; Day etal., 2008). Secondly, we build on thoseprevious studies by including criticalmoments that organisational sponsors noticein response to those same coaching assign-ments. For this purpose we are imaginingthat in executive coaching there are twoprocesses running concurrently: the coach-ing process with all its twists and turns, andindeed with critical moments as observed bythe two partners; and the organisationalprocesses where coachees collaborate withand work towards requirements of theircolleagues, clients, and sponsors. In thisresearch we are comparing the criticalmoments in this second process to thecritical moments from within the coachingprocess. Our coding of such qualitative datawill allow us to identify and quantify similari-ties and differences in clients’, coaches’, andsponsors’ perceptions of critical momentsboth within and as a consequence of execu-tive coaching conversations.

Clients’ and coaches’ critical momentsin coachingDespite the popularity of coaching interven-tions in organisations (Sherman & Freas,2004), rigorous empirical studies on the

outcomes of coaching are rather scarce. The research that has been conducted hasgenerally focused on the clients’ and partlyon the coaches’ perspectives concerning thebeneficial outcomes that coaching entails(De Haan & Duckworth, 2013). Although werecognise the value of such quantitativeoutcome studies, we start with more qualita-tive data in this study. By analysing the quali-tative data rigorously we aim to shed morelight on the question of what happens withinthe coaching process, in other words wefocus more on sub-outcomes than on overalloutcomes. Rice and Greenberg (1984)define sub-outcomes as outcomes achievedwithin the process, from moment tomoment, as distinct from outcomes whichare generally the result of the process, that is,which can be measured after completing thefull coaching assignment.

Several previous research projects havealready investigated critical moments incoaching assignments for clients andcoaches. More specifically, they have askedclients and coaches the following question:‘Describe briefly one critical moment (an exciting,tense, or significant moment) with your coach/client. Think about what was critical in thecoaching journey, or a moment when you did notquite know what to do.’ Study participants wereinexperienced coaches (De Haan, 2008a),experienced coaches (De Haan, 2008b; Day et al., 2008), coaching clients (De Haan et al., 2010a), dyads of coachesand clients that were interviewed directlyafter their sessions together (De Haan et al.,2010b), and, in a case study, a single dyad ofclient and coach (De Haan & Nieß, 2012).Collecting such descriptions of what hadbeen found significant, tense, anxiety-provoking, exciting or pivotal in some way,confirmed that such descriptions of ‘criticalmoments’ tend to refer to mayor events inthe coaching relationship and can thereforebe defined as ‘sub-outcomes’ of that rela-tionship: important outcomes or events on amoment-by-moment or session-by-sessionbasis (Rice & Greenberg, 1984).


Critical moments of coaching


Erik de Haan & Christiane Nieß

Table 1: Critical moments coding scheme as found in De Haan et al. (2010b)and used for this dataset as well as all earlier datasets of descriptions of

critical moments in coaching.

Code Short description of the codenumber

1 A moment of learning: new insight.A moment in which new insight was created for coach and – particularly – client.

2 A moment of learning: new connections or perspectives.A moment of working through, reflecting, changing perspective and/or making sense of existing material.

3 A change in the relationship in the moment (positive).

4 A change in the relationship in the moment (negative).

5 Significance in doing in the moment (coach-led).Applying oneself to a unique scripted process such as drawing, visualisation, role-play, GROW, …

6 Significance in doing in the moment (client-led).Doing something relevant: organising future sessions, negotiating the session, taking away action points, making notes…

7 Significant emotional experience in the moment: joy (client).Heightened positive emotion.

8 Significant emotional experience in the moment: joy (coach).Heightened positive emotion.

9 Significant emotional experience in the moment: anxiety (client).Heightened negative emotion.

10 Significant emotional experience in the moment: anxiety (coach).Heightened negative emotion.

11 Significance in being in the moment: doubt (client).Fundamental not-knowing, often a starting point for reflection.

12 Significance in being in the moment: doubt (coach).Fundamental not-knowing, often a starting point for reflection.

The critical moment descriptionscollected in those studies were coded byindependent coders using the codingscheme displayed in Table 1, which isdescribed in more detail in De Haan et al.(2010b). Broadly, the coding scheme refersto four categories: 1. Moments of learning (code 1 ‘New

insight’ and code 2 ‘New connection/perspective’);

2. Moments of relational change in thecoaching relationship (code 3 ‘Positivechange in the relationship’ and code 4‘Negative change in the relationship’);

3. Moments of significant action (code 5‘Significance in doing in the moment,coach-led’ and code 6 ‘Significance indoing in the moment, client-led’); and

4. Moments of significant emotionalexperience (code 7 ‘Joy, client’, code 8‘Joy, coach’, code 9 ‘Anxiety, client’, code10 ‘Anxiety, coach’, code 11 ‘Doubt,client’, and code 12 ‘Doubt, coach’).

The main findings of those previous studiesinto critical moments of coaching suggestvery broadly that while inexperiencedcoaches express mainly their own doubts ascritical moments (De Haan, 2008a), more



experienced coaches tend to refer to criticalmoments as sources of anxiety (De Haan etal., 2008b). It is important to note, however,that those coaches were asked for a criticalmoment with one of their clients, which theycould well have interpreted as the mostsignificant moment of their whole portfolioof work. It is, therefore, not surprising thatthese two groups of participants are biasedtowards reporting particularly dramatic andemotional moments. When on the otherhand clients of coaching were asked for theircritical moments of coaching (with the helpof the same question above), they insteadreported moments of new realisations andinsights as particularly critical. Similar resultsare obtained when dyads of coaches andclients were interviewed independently aftera joint coaching session: both parties had atendency to report new realisations andinsights as most critical to the session, andthey were in substantial agreement in termsof which moments they selected as beingcritical in the session they had justcompleted.

These are important findings and worthtesting with a new and wider dataset. Thefinding that clients are frequently referringto new realisations and insight in theircritical-moment descriptions in combinationwith the fact that they are mostly selectingpositive experiences of coaching (De Haanet al., 2010a), may indicate that coachingclients are particularly helped by acquiringnew insight and learning. In other words it ispossible that on a within-session, moment-by-moment level clients prefer to be served byinsight-focused interventions and less by theother three main contributions in executivecoaching: problem-focused, person-focusedand solution-focused approaches (De Haan& Burger, 2005). It is important, however, tohold such an interpretation of the earlierfindings lightly, because growing clientinsight will be common to all successfulapproaches and may, therefore, be one ofmany ‘common factors’ in professionalcoaching approaches. Nevertheless, ourgrowing understanding of how clients

describe their most critical moments in thecoaching relationship may inform extensivedebates in the coaching literature aroundwhich method or approach to offer toclients. Since the present study looks intocritical-moment descriptions each from asingle coaching assignment (rather thantaken from a whole portfolio of client work),we would expect to replicate this; morespecifically, we suggest:

Hypothesis 1: Clients and coaches mostlyrefer to moments of insight and learning(Codes 1 and 2 in Table 1) in their critical-moment descriptions of coaching.

Sponsors’ critical moments in coachingWhilst rigorous studies concerning theoutcomes of coaching interventions fromthe perspective of clients and coaches arelimited to less than 20 (De Haan & Duck-worth, 2013), even fewer studies have investi-gated whether sponsors notice any positiveoutcomes that they attribute to the effective-ness of coaching. Nevertheless, preliminaryevidence suggests that the beneficial effectsof executive coaching are also visible toothers in the organisation. Studies whichestimate the changes caused by executivecoaching in terms of 360° feedback showthat managers who worked with an executivecoach receive better evaluations on thesecond 360° feedback instrument comparedto those who did not work with an executivecoach (Smither et al., 2003). Similarly,Thach (2002) found that leaders who werecoached for an average of six monthsreceived more favourable evaluationsthrough 360° feedback. Managers and HRpartners of coaching clients have beenfound to report more effective leadershipbehaviours and better interpersonal skillsamong participants of a commissionedcoaching programme (Wasylyshyn, Gronsky& Haas, 2006). Olivero, Bane and Kopelman(1997) found that managers who partici-pated in a management development pro-gramme with additional coaching receivedhigher ratings of productivity (an 88 percent increase) compared to managers who

participated in the management develop-ment programme alone (only a 22 per centincrease in productivity).

In sum, there are a few empirical studieswhich suggest that coaching interventionsprovide some benefits that are also visible toothers in the organisation. The second aimof the present study is to extend this line ofresearch by inquiring more deeply into theexperience of line managers and sponsors ofcoaching clients. More specifically, we aim toidentify critical moments for sponsors ofcoaching and to compare triads of clients,coaches, and sponsors in terms of whatcritical moments they notice in sharedcoaching assignments. To the best of ourknowledge, only two published studies so farhave also included clients’, coaches’, andsponsors’ perceptions of coaching outcomesseparately, albeit that in the second studythey did not necessarily stem from the sameassignments. Peterson (1993) studied N=370leaders from various organisations at threepoints in time (pre-coaching, post-coaching,and follow-up) with outcome defined bytheir own coaching objectives and five stan-dard ‘control’ items, rated by at least them-selves, their manager and their coach(multi-source ratings). The coaching pro-gramme was intensive and long-term, withtypically 50+ hours of individual coachingwith a professional coach over at least a year.Peterson found that clients, on average,achieved significant improvement on allmeasures of outcome related to coachingobjectives (effect sizes d>1.5). Schlosser et al.(2006) invited triads of clients, coaches, andthe clients’ managers to report outcomesthey attributed to coaching engagements.These participants were asked to select froma list of 25 outcomes the ones that theybelieved had improved as a result of thecoaching engagement. While only N=14managers responded to the authors’ request,results indicated that all three groups(clients, coaches, and managers) regardedemployee ‘engagement’ and ‘promotability’as the main outcomes of coaching.Managers, however, rated the effectiveness

of coaching significantly lower than clientsand coaches did.

The present study extends these quanti-tative approaches by looking at the ‘sub-outcome’ level (Rice & Greenberg, 1984) forthe first time, on the basis of critical-momentdescriptions of triads of clients, coaches, andsponsors working together on the samecoaching assignment. While we hypothesisedthat clients and coaches would refer prima-rily to moments of new insight and learning(codes 1 and 2; see Hypothesis 1), we wouldargue that such moments of new insight orrealisation will be less relevant for the spon-sors of those assignments who are only indi-rectly involved (or only involved directly atthe contracting and review stages). For thisreason we suggest that sponsors mainlyreport critical moments which refer to morereadily observable moments of change (codes3 and 4) and to new actions taken by clients(code 6). If this is confirmed we would havesome preliminary evidence for sponsorsoperating more from a ‘problem-focused’understanding of executive coaching (DeHaan & Burger, 2005).

Hypothesis 2: Sponsors mostly refer tomoments of change in the relationshipand significant action taken by the client(codes 3, 4, and 6) as critical ones.

The coding scheme which Hypotheses 1 and2 refer to (see Table 1) was originally devel-oped inductively for classifying manyhundreds of clients’ and coaches’ criticalmoments of executive coaching. Severalcodes, therefore, refer to critical momentsthat are likely to arise within coachingsessions which may be less observable forsponsors of coaching, such as the codesreferring to emotional states of coaches andclients (codes 7 through 12). Although weexpect these codes of the earlier scheme tobe less relevant here, we have chosen toretain the scheme as a whole as a first codingsystem, to allow a direct comparison with theearlier studies.

However, we also felt the need for asecond more tailor-made coding schemewhich could test this particular hypothesis.





Figure 1: Second critical moments coding scheme based onSchein’s (1985) ‘onion’ model.

Behaviour

Relational Skills

Knowledge

Attitudes

Values,Ethics,

Convictions

1 Communication Skills– Listening Skills– Body Language

11 Overall change, not specified

2 Interpersonal Skills– Supporting team members– Motivating team members– Appreciating team members– Involving team members

3 Openness about the self

4 Managerial Skills– Delegation of tasks– Setting goals or priorities

5 Handling conflict, uncertainty, or difficult situations

6 Self-knowledge on own perspective– Perspective taking– Perspective altering

7 General self-awareness– Self-reflection– Self-awareness

8 Attitude and cognitive change– Change in attitude– Problem-solving– Decision-making

9 Confidence/Authenticity– Increase in self-confidence– Increase in authenticity

10 Development of resourcefulness– Resilience– Energy

For this reason we adopted a groundedtheory approach (Glaser, 1992; Strauss &Corbin, 1990) to develop a second codingscheme. The grounded-theory approachmade use of 41 sponsors’ critical-momentdescriptions collected at an earlier date (DeHaan & Nieß, 2011). In this inductive way wearrived at another scheme for classifyingcritical moments of change particularly fromthe sponsor perspective but usable for allthree parties (clients, coaches, and spon-sors). We noticed that our scheme turnedout similar to Schein’s (1985) conceptualisa-tion of the ‘onion’ of organisational culture.This coding scheme, which is depicted inFigure 1, suggests that while ‘outer layers’such as changes in behaviour and communi-cation of coaching are visible to outsiders,‘inner layers’ refer to invisible learning orpersonal change in, for example, attitudesand knowledge. Whilst clients and coachesdirectly involved in the coaching assignmentmay thus notice more of the inner levels ofthe ‘onion’ model, those inner layers may beless visible to sponsors of coaching. If codingwould confirm that sponsors are more occu-pied with the ‘outer layers’ of the model, thiswould give support to the idea that sponsorsdescribe their critical moments more from a‘problem-focused’ perspective and less froman ‘insight-focused’ perspective (see DeHaan & Burger, 2005), which we know hasbeen more the perspective of clients andcoaches in regular coaching sessions (DeHaan et al., 2010b). We therefore propose:

Hypothesis 3: Sponsors refer significantlymore than others to moments ofcommunication or change that are visibleon the outer layers of the ‘onion’ model(codes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5), as critical ones.

Congruence between clients, coaches,and sponsorsHypotheses 1, 2, and 3 are concerned withthe nature of the moments that clients,coaches, and sponsors refer to as critical withregard to the shared endeavour of the exec-utive coaching work. What, however, remainsunexplored so far is the extent to which

those three parties actually refer to the samemoments as being critical to them. Moreparticularly, we were interested in findingout how often triplets of clients, coaches,and sponsors refer to the same moment ofchange that they notice during or as a resultof coaching. This would be important asanother way to understand the level of agree-ment between various participants in thecoaching assignment, and also as a way tostudy the ‘Rashomon conjecture’ proposedand much debated by psychotherapists(Mintz et al., 1973; Weiss, Rabinowitz &Spiro, 1996).

Previous research has consistently shownthat clients and coaches refer to the samemoments as critical significantly abovechance level, and thus that there is not muchof a ‘Rashomon effect’ in executivecoaching, which would be the case whenparticipants in a coaching conversation leavethe session with different, incommensurableaccounts of their experience together (basedon Kurosawa’s movie Rashomon where asingle event is recounted very differentlyfrom four different perspectives). De Haanet al. (2010b) showed that in a client-coachdirect comparison study, clients and coachesreferred to the same moment in 53 per centof the descriptions, whilst in a longitudinalinvestigation where client and coach wrotedown their critical moments after eachcoaching session they referred to the samemoment in 47 per cent of the descriptions(De Haan & Nieß, 2012). Not only didclients and coaches refer to the same inci-dents at a frequency much higher thanchance but they also tended to agree in theirdescriptions of their critical moments (DeHaan et al., 2010b), thereby disconfirmingthe Rashomon conjecture.

In those two studies, clients and coacheswere asked for their critical momentsstraight after shared coaching sessions, whileparticipants in the present study referred toone coaching assignment consisting of manysessions and they did not normally answerstraight after mutual sessions. For this reasonwe expect numbers of congruence between



clients and coaches to be smaller than inthose two previous studies, yet we suggestthat they are still above chance. Since spon-sors are not directly involved in the coachingassignments, we expect congruence betweenclients/coaches and sponsors to be smallerthan between clients and coaches.

Hypothesis 4a: The incidence of sharedcritical moments between clients andcoaches, that is, the percentage of cases inwhich they both refer to the same sharedincident, will again be well above chancelevel (chance level is below one per cent)but also significantly below the level foundin earlier studies into a single coachingsession (47 to 53 per cent).Hypothesis 4b: The number of times thatsponsors and clients (and also sponsorsand coaches) refer to the same momentsas being critical is significantly smallerthan the number of times that coachesand clients refer to the same criticalmoments.

MethodSampleParticipants of the present study (N=177)were recruited through two differentsources. First, potential sponsors of coachingwere approached at a Business School inGreat Britain and as part of another study(De Haan & Wels, 2011), resulting in aninitial sample from sponsors of N=30.Second, we made use of a large-scale onlinesurvey where clients, coaches, and sponsorsof coaching who were involved in the samecoaching assignment were recruited (De Haan& Page, 2013), adding N=49 clients, N=49coaches, and N=49 sponsors of coachingfrom matching assignments. Sponsors werenominated by the clients as those workcolleagues who sponsored their assignment,so they were mainly their line managers,though in some cases they were HR directorsor more senior partners in professionalservices firms. One-hundred-and-thirty spon-sors completed the overall research ques-tionnaire (a response rate of around 20 percent) and 49 of their answers to the open

question could be matched with answers bycoaches and clients (38 per cent). Partici-pants were drawn from 22 different coun-tries with the help of a wide network of 366executive coaches who participated in thisworldwide large coaching outcome study.Clients and sponsors had an almost equalgender split whilst coaches had an averageexperience of 13.31 years (SD=7.19), 67 percent were female and 86 per cent wereexternal coaches (with the remainderinternal mainly in large public organisa-tions), mostly conducting stand-alone execu-tive coaching assignments.

MaterialsData for this study were obtained by askingparticipants whether they have ‘experiencedsomething that felt like a ‘critical’ moment(an exciting, tense, or significant moment)where they noticed a difference and todescribe briefly one (or more) such criticalmoments’; in the case of clients we added‘during coaching’; in the case of coaches weadded ‘in your work with this client’ and inthe case of sponsors of coaching we added:‘with your colleague, where you were directlyaware of the impact of executive coaching.’We highlighted direct awareness of executivecoaching because we are looking for experi-ences which they somehow relate to thecoaching work. We chose the word ‘impact’here because it was the most general term wecould think of: it could be interpreted as thesponsor wished without limiting the range oftheir answers. Clients, coaches, and sponsorswere thus asked essentially the same questionwith small modifications, which was also thesame as that in all earlier researchprogrammes.

ProcedureAfter the 49 clients’, 49 coaches’, and 79sponsors’ critical moment descriptions hadbeen collected, they were coded three timesblindly and independently by four inde-pendent coders out of a group of eightcoders one of whom being the first author(in the first two of these coding procedures



critical-moment descriptions were drawnrandomly and blindly from all three sources:clients, coaches and sponsors; in the third ofthe coding the source of the critical-momentdescription had to be revealed to the coder,by definition):1. The coding was based on the original

coding scheme that has already been usedin previous studies (see Table 1). For thisfirst coding, a forced-choice design wasemployed, forcing the coders to onlyattach one code to each critical-momentdescription. We knew from the earlierstudies that coders had never asked formore categories. This was replicated inthis study, so forced choice with these 12codes was straightforward.

2. The second way of coding was developedinductively from moments collected fromsponsors of coaching, by using agrounded theory approach which onsecond iteration could be linked withSchein’s (1985) ‘onion’ model (see Figure1). According to this model, organisa-tional culture can be regarded as ametaphorical onion, where visibleorganisational behaviours are located onthe outer layers of the onion, whileorganisational knowledge refers to lessvisible, middle layers, and underlyingassumptions of the organisation are foundin the inner layers. More specifically, 11codes (see Figure 1) evolved from thesponsors’ critical-moment descriptionscollected prior to the present study, whichnaturally fitted into an ‘onion’ modelsimilar to the one proposed by Schein(1985). The first code, namely changes incommunication, such as listening skills orbody language, refers to changes inbehaviour (first layer of the ‘onion’model). Codes 2 through 5 refer tochanges in relational skills (second layerof the ‘onion’ model). They includeinterpersonal skills (code 2), such assupporting, motivating, appreciating, andinvolving members of the team, opennessabout self (code 3), managerial skills(code 4) such as delegating tasks and

setting goals and priorities, and handlingconflict, uncertainty, or difficult situations(code 5). Codes 6 (self-knowledge, suchas perspective-taking and perspective-altering) and 7 (general self-awareness,and self-reflection) represent the middlelayer of the ‘onion’ model, namelyknowledge. Changes in attitude (fourthlayer of the ‘onion’ model) are describedby codes 8 through 10. Code 8 implieschanges in attitude and cognitive change,such as problem-solving and decision-making, while code nine describeschanges in self-confidence and authen-ticity. Code 10 refers to a development ofresourcefulness, such as energy orresilience. Code 11 (overall change, notspecified) was developed to fit thedescriptions that did not mention aspecific change. No code was developedto refer to the core of the ‘onion’ model(basic assumptions, ethics, and convic-tions), as none of the critical-momentdescriptions referred to changes on thatlevel. For the coding based on this secondcoding scheme, we again employed aforced-choice design in which coders wereasked to only administer one code percritical-moment description – however, in this case the final code is a ‘remainder’category (see Figure 1).

3. For the third way of coding, we asked thecoders to indicate whether the critical-moment descriptions from the sameassignment (i.e. triplets of client, coach,and sponsor; N=49) were congruent inthat they were referring to the samemoment or incident as being critical.More specifically, we asked them toindicate whether they thought there wasa correspondence with regards to contentbetween the client and the coach,between the client and the sponsor,between the coach and the sponsor, andbetween all three critical momentdescriptions that came from the samecoaching assignment.

To estimate the degree of agreementbetween coders, Cohen’s Kappa was calcu-



lated for each of the three ways of coding.For the first coding scheme, which includes12 codes, we found a Cohen’s kappa ofκ=.240. For the second coding scheme, using11 codes, Cohen’s kappa was slightly higherat κ=.318. Finally, the third way of coding(congruence), which has 5 codes, Cohen’skappa was κ=.282. All codings thus indicatefair agreement between coders (Landis &Koch, 1977). We averaged the codings byadding up the times each code was assignedto the critical moment descriptions by eachcoder and dividing through the number ofcoders and critical moments. This procedureensured that none of the coders’ assessmentswere lost.

Vignettes of raw dataIn order to help the reader gain a basicunderstanding of the critical-momentdescriptions collected from clients, coaches,and sponsors of coaching, we have chosen anumber of short but representativevignettes, which can be found in Table 2.Those data show the range of criticalmoments that were mentioned by the partic-ipants of this study as well as the range ofcongruence (which is increasing towards thebottom of Table 2) between the threedifferent parties.

ResultsClients’ and coaches’ critical moments incoachingHypothesis 1 suggests that clients andcoaches mostly refer to moments of insightor learning (codes 1 and 2) as critical ones.It was tested based on the first codingscheme that was also used in previousstudies. Figure 2 displays the proportion ofcodes assigned to clients’, coaches’, andsponsors’ critical-moment descriptionsbased on this coding scheme. This graphicalrepresentation of the data shows that codes 1 and 2 were indeed used most frequentlyfor coding both clients’ and coaches’ critical-moment descriptions. Paired samples t-testswere conducted to investigate whether thisdifference was statistically significant (see

Appendix A). Results indicated that codes 1and 2 were indeed used significantly moreoften than all the other codes at p<.001,except for code 5 where the difference wasnot significant. The results were thus mainlysupportive of Hypothesis 1.

Results for sponsors’ critical moments in coachingHypothesis 2 states that with respect to thesame, original coding scheme, sponsorsrefer to moments of change and client-ledaction (codes 3, 4, and 6) as critical ones.Again, Figure 2 includes the graphical repre-sentation of the data based on this codingscheme. It shows that sponsors of coachingdiffer substantially from clients and coacheswith respect to their critical-moment descrip-tions: Clients and coaches seem to be morealigned in their critical-moment descriptionswhen compared to sponsors (a similar align-ment between clients and coaches straightafter shared coaching conversations was alsofound in De Haan et al., 2010b, and DeHaan & Nieß, 2012).

In order to statistically test Hypothesis 2,we again made use of paired sample t-tests,comparing the frequencies of codes 3, 4, and6 to the frequencies of the other codes.Results indicated that codes 3 and 6 wereindeed used significantly more often at ap<.01 level than any of the other codes(except for code 2, where the difference tocode 3 was not significant; see Appendix B).Code 4 was, however, not used at all forcoding of sponsors’ critical moments,possibly because sponsors only reportedpositive changes as a result of coaching. Theresults offer strong but partial support forHypothesis 2: while code 3 (positive changein the relationship) and code 6 (significancein doing in the moment, client-led) wereindeed used significantly more to describesponsors’ critical moments, this was not thecase for code 4 (negative change in the rela-tionship).

Based on the second coding schemegrounded in the ‘onion’ model of organisa-tional change, Hypothesis 3 states that spon-sors mainly refer to moments of change that





Table 2: Vignettes of the critical moment descriptions with in each row data from thesame coaching assignment. Towards the bottom of this table one can observe the

degree of ‘congruence’ between the three parties increasing.

1

2

3

4

5

Clients’ critical moments

Significant moment when I realised, through inputfrom my coach, how ahelping conviction canimprove your confidenceand behaviour.

The moment I recognised,through my coaching, that I was the one of all mybrothers and sisters whoorganised […]

Realising that my anxiety ingroups was created by memost of the time bynegative thought patternsand hence I also had thecapacity to change thatthinking (and hence thefeelings).

There was a session whenthe coach let me talk tomyself in a role playinggame.

In one of the sessions Irealised that I had theknow-how in dealing with aconfrontational situation, Ijust had to remain calm anddeal with it in a calmmanner […]

Coaches’ critical moments

Challenging was the factthat I didn't know if I wasthe right coach for her. Ididn't feel comfortable […]

I experienced a significantmoment when this clientrealised that his behaviouras adult was still influencedby limiting believes from hisyouth […]

When she tackled a long-standing area of concernwith her partner and had apositive outcome […]

My client told me about aclash between her and acollegue of hers about hersub-assertive behaviour. She got emotional aboutbeing unable to gather thecourage to stand up to her[…]

At the end of the secondsession I felt a marked shiftin her attitude andconfidence in movingforward effectively. She suddenly appeared incontrol and not justreacting emotionally.

Sponsors’ critical moments

In general duringinteraction with other teammembers and the client,where my counselee wasmuch more open andengaged in the discussions.

[…] Before the coaching mycolleague usually had a bigproblem in dealing withdifficult situations and putall his energy in defendingthe approach of his people.It was remarkable that hetook his time to listen, ask,and analyse […]

Increased confidence inconversing at multiprofessional meetings wherethere are strong dominatingpersonalities.

She has made advantagesespecially in situations witha colleague that can bequite snappy. Beforecoaching, she was swipedoff her feet or intimidated,after coaching she standsby her opinion […]

My colleague appears to bemore patient with those shemanages and appears to bemore approachable. Thereappears to be less conflictsituations in the office […]



Figure 2: Proportions of codes assigned to clients’, coaches’, and sponsors’critical moment descriptions within original first coding scheme.

are visible as they are on the outer layers ofthe client-as-onion model (codes 1, 2, 3, 4,and 5) as critical ones. Figure 3 displays theproportions of codes from the secondcoding scheme assigned by coders to thecritical-moment descriptions for clients,coaches, and sponsors of coaching. Thegraphical representation of the resultssuggests that codes 1 (communication skills)and 2 (interpersonal skills) were used veryfrequently for coding sponsors’ critical-moment descriptions, especially whencompared to the ratings for clients’ and

coaches’ critical-moment descriptions.Codes 8 (attitude and cognitive change) and9 (confidence/authenticity) were, however,also used frequently for coding sponsors’critical-moment descriptions. Paired samplet-tests were again conducted to test whetherthe differences in the frequencies of codes 1,2, 3, 4, and 5 in comparison to the othercodes were statistically significant. Results(see Appendix C) indicated that code 1 wasonly used significantly more frequently forcoding sponsors’ critical moments than code6, but not more frequently than any of the

other codes. Code 2 was used morefrequently than codes 6, 10, and 11, butthere was no difference to the other codes.Codes 3 and 4 were not used significantlymore frequently than any of the other codes.Code 5 was used significantly more oftenthan code 6 only. In sum, the results suggestthat codes 1 (communication skills) and 2(interpersonal skills) were indeed used morefrequently than some of the other codes,offering only limited support for Hypothesis3. However, some of the codes on the innerlayers of the ‘onion’ model, such as codes 7(general self-awareness), 8 (attitude orcognitive change), and 9 (confidence/authenticity) were not used significantly lessfrequently for coding sponsors’ critical-moment descriptions.

The results of both coding schemes thussuggest that clients and coaches are morealigned in what they regard as criticalmoments in their coaching assignments thansponsors are. With respect to the first,original coding scheme, we tested thatfinding with paired sample t-tests and ourresults indicate that sponsors of coachingreported fewer moments of new insights(code 1) and coach-led significance in doingin the moment (code 5) than clients andcoaches did. Instead they reported morecritical moments that were coded as client-led significance in doing in the moment(code 6) when compared to both clients andcoaches. With respect to the second, newly-developed coding scheme, we found thatsponsors of coaching referred to signifi-cantly more critical moments of communica-tion skills (code 1) than clients, but thedifference to coaches was only marginallysignificant. Sponsors furthermore referredsignificantly more often to critical momentsthat were coded as interpersonal skills (code2) than clients and coaches. Sponsors,however, referred to significantly fewercritical moments that were coded as self-knowledge on own perspective (code 6) orgeneral self-awareness (code 7). Sponsorsthus refer to more changes in the outerlayers of the ‘onion’ model (codes 1 and 2),

while clients and coaches refer morefrequently to changes on the inner layers ofthe onion (codes 6 and 7).

Results for congruence between clients, coaches,and sponsorsWe were also interested in the degree ofcongruence between triplets of clients’,coaches’, and sponsors’ critical-momentdescriptions, as they were referring to thesame coaching assignments. More specifically,we suggest that the degree to which bothclients and coaches refer to the samemoments as critical is above chance (Hypoth-esis 4a) and that the degree to which bothsponsors and clients refer to the samemoments as critical is smaller than the degreeto which both coaches and clients refer to thesame moments as critical (Hypothesis 4b). A graphical representation of the resultspertaining to those two hypotheses can befound in Figure 4. It shows that in almost 40per cent of the cases there is no congruencebetween any of the three parties in whatmoments they refer to as critical ones. Putdifferently, in almost 40 per cent of the critical-moment descriptions, none of the codersrecognised a congruence. In almost half of thecases (46 per cent), clients and coaches,however, refer to the same critical moments oftheir coaching assignments. Given that thesecoaching assignments had lasted for anaverage of near eight sessions (a median ofseven sessions), which would be more than 10hours of coaching on average, this amounts toa correspondence which was well abovechance and offers strong support for Hypoth-esis 4a. Figure 4 also shows that correspon-dence between clients and sponsors (26 percent) as well as between coaches and sponsors(24 per cent) was considerably smaller, thusoffering support for Hypothesis 4b.

However, as this is narrative research weneed to be careful with our interpretations:here, we seem to have found congruencebetween all three parties, and particularlybetween coaches and clients, a degree ofcongruence which is clearly above chance.On the other hand, any congruence we





Figure 3. Proportions of codes assigned to clients’, coaches’, and sponsors’ critical-moment descriptions within second coding scheme based on

Schein’s (1985) ‘onion’ model.

found is not – and can never be – full congru-ence, because the critical-moment descrip-tions are by design independent andtherefore different. They have only beenrecognised by coders as belonging to similarinstances of the coaching work. Moreover,there is a sample of almost 40 per cent of allcritical-moment descriptions remainingwhere the coders report no congruenceacross client, coach or sponsor perspectives.We do not know if in those descriptions

completely incommensurable narrativeswere told, or rather narratives which otherparties would easily recognise as well, simplybecause we have no means to test this retro-spectively. So despite the surprisingly highagreement in both selection and nature ofdescription of critical moments (compareFigure 2) between clients and coaches, wecannot rule out significant remaining‘Rashomon’ phenomena where both partiestell very different stories indeed.

DiscussionThe aim of the present study was to investi-gate critical moments of coaching for clients,coaches, and sponsors referring to the samecoaching assignments. Our results suggestthat overall clients and coaches are consider-ably more aligned in what they regard ascritical moments than sponsors are, evenwhen all three parties are referring to thesame coaching assignment. More particu-larly, we find that clients and coaches mostlyrefer to moments of new realisations andinsights as well as coach-led significance indoing in the moment as critical. They alsofrequently noticed changes on the innerlayers of a metaphorical onion (i.e. under-standing and self-awareness) and refer to thesame moments as critical ones in almost halfof their descriptions. Sponsors, on the otherhand, mainly notice positive changes in therelationship with the client as well as client-led significance in doing in the moment ascritical moments. Overall sponsors havebeen very positive in their descriptions whichexplains why there are no codes in ‘negativechanges in the relationship’ (code 4; see

Figure 2). This could be due to self-selectionbecause a significant proportion of sponsorsin the large-scale research project chose notto answer this question. Also, the changes interms of the ‘onion’ model are noticed morefrequently on the outer layers, such as inclients’ communication and interpersonalskills. Finally, coaches and clients seem to bemuch more congruent (a correspondence of46 per cent) in terms of which moments theyselected as being critical, than either spon-sors and clients or sponsors and coaches(correspondences of 26 per cent and 24 percent, respectively).

These findings become more convincingif they are compared directly with theoriginal datasets of earlier studies, as we havedone in Figure 5. We can then appreciatethat blind coding of all seven datasets ofcritical-moment descriptions (a total of 555critical-moment descriptions each coded byat least three coders of which one, AC, codedevery dataset) collected from inexperiencedcoaches, experienced coaches (twodatasets), clients of coaching, clients and



Figure 4: Congruence between clients, coaches, and sponsors referring to the same coaching assignments.

No congruence

Client-Coach congruence

Client-Sponsor congruence

Coach-Sponsor congruence

All three congruence

coaches together after a shared session (twodatasets), and sponsors of coaching assign-ments, are actually very distinct:1. Critical moments from inexperienced

coaches over their whole coachingexperience are classified as ‘doubts of thecoach’ (code 12) in more than half ofcases. The coach’s anxieties (code 10) arealso prominent.

2. Critical moments from experiencedcoaches over their whole coachingexperience peak at both ‘doubts’ and‘anxieties’ of the coach (codes 10 and 12in equal measure).

3. Critical moments from coaches andclients straight after sessions containmainly new insights (code 1) and newperspectives (code 2).

4. Critical moments from sponsors ofcoaching (this research) are coded as‘significant action led by the client’ (code6) in almost a third of cases.

Compared with those earlier findings thedata from the coaches as collected this time(which are visible in Figure 2 and not inFigure 5), are a mixture of the earlierpatterns as one would expect. This datasetcontains mostly experienced coaches but wehave not excluded inexperienced coaches,and is based on assignments that have juststarted as well as assignments that have goneon for many hours (in fact we could reliablyestimate that on average client and coachhad already spent more than seven sessionstogether). In Figure 2 we can see that thecoach data in fact contain a significantamount of anxiety and doubt, features wewould only expect if either coaches were veryinexperienced or if they are reporting themost significant moments of their careers(which was the case in De Haan, 2008a,2008b; and Day et al., 2008). This may alsocontribute to the fact that the overlapbetween client moments and coachmoments (46 per cent in this study) ismarginally smaller than in the earlier studies(De Haan et al., 2010b, and De Haan &Nieß, 2012, where this degree of overlap was53 per cent and 47 per cent, respectively).

We would still consider that the fact thatalmost half of critical-moment selectionsoverlap between client and coach is remark-able particularly as we know that they had anaverage of some eight sessions togetherbefore answering the questionnaire. Takentogether, these findings mean that all earlierconclusions from critical moments incoaching studies that we could test aresupported in this study.

The present study extends previousresearch by also including sponsors’ critical-moment descriptions. Figure 5 embeds thesponsors’ critical-moment descriptionsobtained in the present study into previousresearch conducted with clients, coachesand coach-client dyads. The figure showsthat more than a quarter of the critical-moment descriptions from sponsors havebeen categorised as containing changes inclients’ behaviours (code 6), which is somefirst evidence that organisational sponsorsand managers do attribute behaviouralchanges in their employees to coachingassignments undertaken.

Together with the earlier qualitativeresearch into critical moments in real,contracted, executive-coaching assignmentsthis study offers support for the presence oftangible change within and as a result ofcoaching conversations (e.g. we couldconfirm Hypothesis 3). We believe that wenow have ample evidence that clients andcoaches by and large agree on the kind ofmomentary changes through coaching,except in or near the presence of significantruptures in the relationship where coachesreport significantly more emotions in theform of anxiety and doubt (De Haan et al.,2010b). Finally, we have found furtherevidence that also sponsors can recognisesignificant change coming out of coachingconversations (Hypotheses 2 and 3).However, sponsors draw attention to adifferent aspect of these changes, namely theactions that the clients initiate as a result ofcoaching conversations. At this stage ofresearch we are beginning to see evidence ofthe organisational experience of coaching



conversations, and we are beginning to seeconsequences of those conversationsthrough analysing critical moments experi-enced by third parties. This kind of scrutinyof critical moments in coaching conversa-tions is giving us some idea of the differencesin mind-sets engendered by the three rolestaken in and around coaching sessions,those of client, coach and sponsor. Thesedifferences in mindsets are well described bythe ‘window on coaching’ model putforward by Clutterbuck (1985) and De Haanand Burger (2005): 1. Clients and coaches conducting normal

coaching conversations seem to have an‘insight-focused’ ideology where signifi-cant moments are those of new learning:new perspectives and new insights relatedto self and coaching objectives andthemes;

2. Coaches when in the presence of rareruptures or dramatic events in coachingconversations seem to have a ‘person-focused’ ideology where the orientation ismuch more towards highly personalanxieties, emotions and doubts;

3. Organisational sponsors of coaching seemto have more of a ‘problem-focused’ or‘solution-focused’ mindset which is moreaction-, behaviour- and future-oriented.

It is interesting that within these overalldifferences sponsors do mention deeperlayers of personality, such as self-awareness,attitude, confidence and authenticity (seeFigure 3), even as much as the coaches andclients are doing. The sponsors may be moreinterested in changes in their relationshipwith their colleagues (Figure 2), they stilldefine those relationships as multi-layeredand not just superficially in terms of commu-nication and behaviour (Figure 3).

Knowing more about the ideology of thevarious partners that come to build thecoaching relationship can be extremelyhelpful. Coaches can adapt their contractingto what the other parties find most critical inthis helping relationship – and they can alsoadapt their style in the presence of misunder-standings and ruptures. All in all communica-tion between the various parties workingtogether in this essentially triangularendeavour can be improved by a deeper



Figure 5: Comparison of sponsors’ critical moments with earlier research findings.

knowledge of likely default ideologies, such astheir orientations towards emotions, prob-lems, solutions, and insights. Finally, we maybe discovering how change from executivecoaching is being retranslated and refinedthrough the various stakeholders involved:coaches may be focusing a lot on their ownanxieties and doubts, yet at the same timetranslating this sensitivity into new insight forclients (by, for example, free association andmaking use of countertransference, as ininsight-focused approaches – De Haan &Burger, 2005). Clients may then be able totranslate new insight into new behaviour and achanged outlook within their organisations,translating their new learning into observablerelational change with their sponsors andother counterparts (adapting to work environ-ments which may be more action- andproblem-oriented than coaching conversa-tions), as well as, conversely, retranslating neworganisational experiences into requests fornew insight from coaching, etc. The substan-tive and measurable emerging changes fromexecutive coaching conversations that arebeginning to come to light in coachingoutcome studies (De Haan & Duckworth,2013) are well captured by the following wordsfrom Mahatma Gandhi: ‘Carefully watch yourthoughts, for they become your words.Manage and watch your words, for they willbecome your actions. Consider and judge youractions, for they have become your habits.Acknowledge and watch your habits, for theyshall become your values. Understand andembrace your values, for they become yourdestiny.’ It is as if a coaching conversationcreates a ‘ripple’ in the mind which propa-gates, first between client and coach, and thenin the form of new action into and within theorganisational context of the coaching client.

LimitationsLimitations of the present study were l Firstly, that the sponsor dataset is still

quite limited (only 79 sponsor critical-moment descriptions of which 49 couldbe matched to both clients’ and coaches’descriptions), despite our having access to

a very large-scale research programmewhich has yielded more than 4000questionnaires. We think that because oftheir more detached and supervisory roleit is harder to collect usable data fromorganisational sponsors (compare DeHaan & Nieß, 2011). A larger datasetwould allow us to dig more deeply into theperceptions that organisational colleaguestend to develop towards coaching clients,in their roles of sponsors of executivecoaching.

l Secondly, that the degrees of agreementbetween coders are still relatively small(Cohen’s Kappa around κ=.3). Kappas aresimilar to those in previous studies andthey are probably small because codersare collapsing whole narratives into singlecode descriptors. In our view both largerdatasets and finer coding systems willneed to be developed if we really want tounderstand what makes a difference incoaching conversations, and for eachparty to those conversations.

l Thirdly, and following from the previouspoint, coding in narrative research andthe social sciences is bound to suffer fromconsiderable overlap between codingcategories and from differences ininterpretation of the meaning of both thenarratives (the critical-moment descrip-tions) and the coding categories. Suchfuzziness around meaning is hard to avoidwithout losing the richness of the originalexperiences, but will further degradeagreement between coders.

Further researchCritical-moment descriptions have convinc-ingly been shown to be a promising area ofcoaching process research, and we can onlyhope that more studies will appear in thefuture so that our understanding of ‘criticalincidents’, ‘sub-outcomes’ or ‘momentarychanges’ in coaching assignments deepensand expands further. In particular, it seemsimportant to explore more deeply the areaof (non-)congruence of critical-momentsdescriptions, by not just collecting descrip-



Baron, L. & Morin, L. (2010). The impact of executivecoaching on self-efficacy related to managementsoft-skills. Leadership & Organization DevelopmentJournal, 31(1), 18–38.

Day, A., De Haan, E., Sills, C., Bertie, C. & Blass, E.(2008). Coaches’ experience of critical momentsin the coaching relationship. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 3(3), 207–218.

De Haan, E. (2008a). I doubt therefore I coach:Critical moments in coaching practice. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(1),91–105.

De Haan, E. (2008b). I struggle and emerge: Criticalmoments of experienced coaches. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(1),106–131.

De Haan, E. & Burger, Y. (2005). Coaching withcolleagues. An action guide for one-to-one learning.Hampshire, Great Britain; New York: PalgraveMacmillan.

De Haan, E. & Duckworth, A. (2013). Signalling a newtrend in coaching outcome research. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 8(1), 6–20.

De Haan, E. & Nieß, C. (2011). Change throughexecutive coaching. Training Journal, 7, 66–70.

De Haan, E. & Nieß, C. (2012). Critical moments in acoaching case study: Illustration of a processresearch model. Consulting Psychology Journal:Practice and Research, 64(3), 198–224.

De Haan, E. & Page, N. (2013). Outcome report:Conversations are key to results. Coaching at Work,8(4), 10–14.

De Haan, E. & Wels, I. (2011). De link tussen top,topteams en high performance [Development atthe top: An inquiry into personal development atexecutive-board level]. Management & Consulting,4, 44–46.

De Haan, E., Bertie, C., Day, A. & Sills, C. (2010a).Critical moments of clients of coaching: Towardsa ‘client model’ of executive coaching. Academy ofManagement Learning and Education, 5(2),109–128.

De Haan, E., Bertie, C., Day, A. & Sills, C. (2010b).Critical moments of clients and coaches: A direct-comparison study. International Coaching PsychologyReview, 5(2), 109–128.

Downey, M. (1999). Effective coaching. London: Orion.Evers, W.J., Brouwers, A. & Tomic, W. (2006). A quasi-

experimental study on management coachingeffectiveness. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practiceand Research, 58(3), 174–182.

Glaser, B.G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis.Mill Valley, CA: Sociological Press.

Grant, A. (2003). The impact of life coaching on goalattainment, metacognition and mental health.Social Behaviour and Personality, 31(3), 253–264.

Landis, J.R. & Koch, G.G. (1977). The measurementof observer agreement for categorical data.Biometrics, 1, 159–174.

Mintz, J., Auerbach, A.H., Luborsky, L. & Johnson, M.(1973). Patient’s, therapist’s and observers’ viewsof psychotherapy: A ‘Rashomon’ experience or areasonable consensus? British Journal of MedicalPsychology, 46(1), 83–89.

tions of critical moments of coaching butalso asking clients, coaches and perhaps evensponsors, to which degree they can recognisethe narratives of the other parties in thecommon endeavour. Such research shouldbe able to shine more light on theRashomon conjecture, the question whetherparticipants in shared sessions developsimilar or essentially different narratives oftheir time spent together.

AcknowledgmentsWe would like to thank our Ashridgecolleagues Andy Copeland, Stefan Cousquer,Myrna Jelman, Tsheli Lujabe, Niraj Saraf,Charlotte Sills and Dorothee Stoffels fortheir careful coding of the critical-momentsdescriptions.

The AuthorsDr Erik de Haan is Director of AshridgeCentre for Coaching, Trainee Psychody-namic Psychotherapist and Professor ofOrganisation Development and Coaching atthe VU University of Amsterdam.

Christiane Nieß is based in the CologneGraduate School in Management,Economics, and Social Sciences, CologneUniversity, Germany.

CorrespondenceErik de HaanEmail: [email protected]



References



Olivero, G., Bane, K.D. & Kopelman, R.E. (1997).Executive coaching as a transfer of training tool:Effects on productivity in a public agency. Public Personnel Management, 26, 461–469.

Parsloe, E. & Wray, M. (2000). Coaching and mentoring.London: Kogan Page.

Peterson, D.B. (1993). Skill learning and behaviorchange in an individually tailored managementcoaching and training programme (DoctoralDissertation, University of Minnesota). DissertationAbstracts International, 54(3), 1707–1708.

Rice, L.N. & Greenberg, L.S. (Eds.) (1984). Patterns ofchange: Intensive analysis of psychotherapeutic process.New York: Guilford Press.

Schein, E.H. (1985). Organisational culture andleadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Schlosser, B., Steinbrenner, D., Kumata, E. & Hunt, J.(2006). The coaching impact study: Measuringthe value of executive coaching. The InternationalJournal of Coaching in Organizations, 4(3), 8–26.

Sherman, S. & Freas, A. (2004). The wild west ofexecutive coaching. Boston, MA: Harvard BusinessReview.

Smither, J.W., London, M., Flaw, R., Vargas, Y. &Kucine, I. (2003). Can working with an executivecoach improve multisource feedback ratings overtime? A quasi-experimental field study. PersonnelPsychology, 56, 23–44.

Spence, G.B. & Grant, A.M. (2005). Individual andgroup life-coaching: Initial findings from arandomised, controlled trial. In M. Cavanagh,A.M. Grant & T. Kemp, Evidence-based coaching Vol.1: Theory, research and practice from the behaviouralsciences (pp.143–158). Bowen Hills, Queensland:Australian Academic Press.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitativeresearch: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Sue-Chan, S. & Latham, G.P. (2004). The relativeeffectiveness of external, peer, and self-coaches.Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(2),260–278.

Thach, E.C. (2002). The impact of executive coachingand 360° feedback on leadership effectiveness.Leadership & Organization Development Journal,23(4), 205–214.

Wasylyshyn, K.M. (2003). Executive coaching: An outcome study. Consulting Psychology Journal:Practice and Research, 55, 94–106.

Wasylyshyn, K.M., Gronsky, B. & Haas, J.W. (2006).Tigers, stripes, and behavior change: Surveyresults of a commissioned coaching program.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,2(58), 65–81.

Weiss, I., Rabinowitz, J. & Spiro, S. (1996). Agreementbetween therapists and clients in evaluatingtherapy and its outcomes: Literature review.Administration and Policy in Mental Health andMental Health Services Research, 23(6), 493–511.

Zeus, P. & Skiffington, S. (2002). The complete guide tocoaching at work. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Appendix A



Paired sample t-tests comparing code 1to other codes in coding scheme 1;

Hypothesis 1.

Pair mean t df p

Code 1 .402.52 97 .014

Code 3 .21

Code 1 .404.79 97 .000

Code 4 .09

Code 1 .401.13 97 .260

Code 5 .32

Code 1 .402.02 97 .046

Code 6 .24

Code 1 .405.06 97 .000

Code 7 .09

Code 1 .406.31 97 .000

Code 8 .04

Code 1 .405.01 97 .000

Code 9 .09

Code 1 .405.20 97 .000

Code 10 .08

Code 1 .404.78 97 .000

Code 11 .10

Code 1 .406.92 97 .000

Code 12 .03


Hypothesis 1.

Pair mean t df p

Code 2 .412.69 97 .008

Code 3 .21

Code 2 .415.06 97 .000

Code 4 .09

Code 2 .411.24 97 .218

Code 5 .32

Code 2 .412.36 97 .020

Code 6 .24

Code 2 .415.20 97 .000

Code 7 .09

Code 2 .416.46 97 .000

Code 8 .04

Code 2 .415.20 97 .000

Code 9 .09

Code 2 .415.20 97 .000

Code 10 .08

Code 2 .415.01 97 .000

Code 11 .10

Code 2 .416.83 97 .000

Code 12 .03



Appendix B


Hypothesis 2.

Pair mean t df p

Code 3 .443.13 78 .002

Code 1 .20

Code 3 .44.74 78 .460

Code 2 .38

Code 3 .444.30 78 .000

Code 7 .14

Code 3 .447.12 78 .000

Code 8 .03

Code 3 .447.67 78 .000

Code 9 .01

Code 3 .447.88 78 .000

Code 10 .00

Code 3 .447.88 78 .000

Code 11 .00

Code 3 .447.88 78 .000

Code 12 .00


Hypothesis 2.

Pair mean t df p

Code 6 .757.37 79 .000

Code 1 .20

Code 6 .754.54 79 .000

Code 2 .38

Code 6 .758.59 79 .000

Code 7 .14

Code 6 .7514.22 79 .000

Code 8 .03

Code 6 .7513.81 79 .000

Code 9 .01

Code 6 .7515.17 79 .000

Code 10 .00

Code 6 .7515.17 79 .000

Code 11 .00

Code 6 .7515.17 79 .000

Code 12 .00



Appendix C


Hypothesis 3.

Pair mean t df p

Code 1 .182.43 78 .017

Code 6 .05

Code 1 .18.39 78 .698

Code 7 .15

Code 1 .18–.75 78 .453

Code 8 .23

Code 1 .18–1.79 78 .077

Code 9 .30

Code 1 .181.04 78 .300

Code 10 .11

Code 1 .181.04 78 .300

Code 11 .11


Hypothesis 3.

Pair mean t df p

Code 2 .243.32 78 .001

Code 6 .05

Code 2 .241.35 78 .180

Code 7 .15

Code 2 .24.17 78 .863

Code 8 .23

Code 2 .24–.84 78 .401

Code 9 .30

Code 2 .242.00 78 .049

Code 10 .11

Code 2 .242.00 78 .049

Code 11 .11


Hypothesis 3.

Pair mean t df p

Code 3 .06.38 78 .71

Code 6 .05

Code 3 .06–1.83 78 .070

Code 7 .15

Code 3 .06–2.97 78 .004

Code 8 .23

Code 3 .06–3.99 78 .000

Code 9 .30

Code 3 .06–1.07 78 .288

Code 10 .11

Code 3 .06–1.16 78 .251

Code 11 .11


Hypothesis 3.

Pair mean t df p

Code 4 .141.98 78 .052

Code 6 .05

Code 4 .14–.24 78 .810

Code 7 .15

Code 4 .14–1.54 78 .127

Code 8 .23

Code 4 .14–2.40 78 .019

Code 9 .30

Code 4 .14.50 78 .620

Code 10 .11

Code 4 .14.45 78 .658

Code 11 .11




Hypothesis 3.

Pair mean t df p

Code 5 .152.19 78 .032

Code 6 .05

Code 5 .15.00 78 1.00

Code 7 .15

Code 5 .15–1.28 78 .203

Code 8 .23

Code 5 .15–2.24 78 .028

Code 9 .30

Code 5 .15.65 78 .516

Code 10 .11

Code 5 .15.69 78 .495

Code 11 .11

THE WORLD OF WORK has changed.While in the past it was sufficient forindividuals to merely focus on

completing their core tasks as assigned bythe organisation, in an uncertain and fast-changing environment this compliance-oriented approach is no longer enough.Employees are increasingly required to dealwith complex and unexpected issues that areoften not prescribed in job descriptions. A positive type of work behaviour – pro-activity – is important given this change.Proactivity involves actively taking control ofoneself and one’s environment to ‘makethings happen’. It involves aspiring andstriving to bring about positive change toachieve a different and more desirablefuture.

Much evidence shows that proactivitymatters for individuals, organisations, andeven societies. For instance, Deluga (1998)conducted research on 39 past US presidentsfrom Washington to Reagan. By analysing

their proactivity profile as rated by subjectmatter experts, and examining their pro-activity against a large number of historians’rating of presidential performance, Delugafound that presidents who were more pro-active were perceived as greater leaders forthe country; they were also more likely tomake great decisions and to avoid war. Theseresults were held after controlling for presi-dents’ cognitive ability and various person-ality attributes. Proactivity also has importantimplications for individuals’ work perform-ance and career success (for a meta-analysissee Fuller & Marler, 2009; for a review seeBindl & Parker, 2010). A study of real estateagents suggested that proactive agents soldmore properties, generated more listings,and obtained higher commission income.This effect was potent even after controlledfor a number of other individual characteris-tics including personality (Crant, 1995).Proactivity contributes not only to individ-uals’ work performance but also to their


Paper

Helping people to ‘make things happen’: A framework for proactivity at work Sharon K. Parker & Ying Wang

Proactivity, which involves self-initiated change in oneself or change in the environment to bring about abetter future, is an increasingly important behaviour at workplace. This paper summarises a model ofproactivity at work. We first discuss the importance of proactivity, presenting empirical evidence about itsbenefits for individual and organisational performance. We then discuss current perspectives on proactivity,explaining it as a goal-directed process that involves, first, the setting of a proactive goal (proactive goalgeneration), and second, striving to achieve that proactive goal (proactive goal striving). We then presentthree motivational pathways of proactivity and the related ‘can do,’ ‘reason to,’ and ‘energised to’motivational states that prompt proactive goal generation and goal striving. Next we present distalantecedents of proactivity that influence the proactive motivational states and thereby lead to proactivebehaviours, including contextual variations in work design, leadership, and group climate, as well asindividual characteristics such as personality and learning styles. We consider the potential dark side ofproactivity and propose the expanded concept of wise proactivity to articulate the type of proactivity that islikely to be truly desirable within the workplace. We conclude the paper by discussing the applications ofproactivity in the coaching context. Keywords: proactive; goal-directed; motivation; wise proactivity; work behaviour.

career outcomes. In a longitudinal study,proactive people were found to take moreinitiative with their careers, have more ideas,and develop better knowledge about organi-sational politics, all of which accordinglylead to better salary progression and morepromotions within a two-year time period.These proactive employees also enjoyedgreater career satisfaction (Seibert, Kraimer& Crant, 2001). When placed in a job-searching context, proactive individuals tendto obtain employment more successfullythan those less proactive (Kanfer, Wanberg& Kantrowitz, 2001).

Proactive also matters for change-relatedoutcomes such as innovation, entrepreneur-ship, and intrapreneurship (the type ofentrepreneurship that is within firms). First,leaders’ proactivity is important. Forinstance, small business owners’ proactivitypredicted developing new and improvedproducts for the market, using new methodsto improve organisational systems, and inte-grating new finance and IT methods intoorganisations (Kickul & Gundry, 2002).Small company presidents who had higherproactivity were also found to be more entre-preneurial, starting more businesses, takingmore ownership of the businesses and beingmore heavily involved in day-to-day businessdecisions (Bercherer & Maurer, 1999). But itis not just leaders’ proactivity that matters.Employees who are more proactive at worktend to demonstrate more innovationbehaviours such as generating creative ideasand promoting ideas to others (Parker &Collins, 2010) as well as engaging inintrapreneurship (Boon & Van der Klink(2013). Such proactivity from individualemployees has the potential to engenderbroader organisational and societal impact.In the words of Helen Keller: ‘The world ismoved along, not only by the mighty shoved of itsheroes but also by the aggregate of the tiny pushesof each honest worker.’

Given evidence that proactivity matters, itis important to understand in more depthwhat this behaviour is, and how it might befostered in the workplace. In this paper, we

first discuss the importance of proactivityand how it has been conceptualised theo-retically. We then present a model articu-lating how proactivity can be enabled bydifferent types of motivation. After that, wediscuss how proactivity can be shaped bywork context as well as individual character-istics. Towards the end, we consider the ques-tion ‘whether proactivity is always good’ anddiscuss what type of proactivity is truly desir-able. We conclude the paper with implica-tions of applying proactivity principles incoaching practices.

What is proactivity?Historically, within the fields of organisa-tional behaviour and work psychology,employees tended to be considered aspassive, reactive respondents to their workcontext. Much scholarly attention was givento how employees achieve the goals allocatedto them as desired by their organisations.However, it was increasingly noted that,rather than simply accepting goals fromorganisations, employees can actively shapetheir jobs and their work environment. Forinstance, they can negotiate and redefineassigned goals, and they can come up withmore challenging goals for themselves.Recognition of these ‘active’ workbehaviours saw the emergence of variousproactive concepts, such as personal initiative,taking charge behaviour, and change-oriented citizenship. At the same time, proactive person-ality, a trait that captures individuals’ stabletendencies to enact changes in the environ-ment (Bateman & Crant, 1993) was intro-duced and became popular.

Proactivity as a way of behavingOur approach has been to move away from apersonality-based approach and to considerproactivity as a way of behaving which canvary according to the situation. An implica-tion of conceptualising proactivity in this wayis that it recognises that, rather than being afixed individual attribute, organisations,leaders and coaches are able to facilitate andshape individuals’ proactivity within a partic-


Helping people to ‘make things happen’: A framework for proactivity at work

ular situation. Specifically, we define pro-activity as self-directed and future-focusedbehaviour in which an individual aims tobring about change, including change to thesituation and/or change within oneself(Bindl & Parker, 2010; Parker, Bindl &Strauss, 2010). This definition highlightsthree defining elements of proactivity: it isself-starting, change-oriented and future-focused. Self-starting means that the action isself-initiated as opposed to required,coerced or enforced by management. Pro-activity is also aimed at enacting and drivingchange rather than adapting to a situation.Finally proactivity is future-focused: itinvolves anticipating and thinking ahead,rather than merely reacting.

Proactivity as a goal-driven processA further refinement to the idea that pro-activity is a way of behaving is to recognisethat it is a goal-directed way of behaving or aprocess (Bindl et al., 2012; Parker et al.,2010). From this perspective, proactivityinvolves two broad elements: proactive goalgeneration and proactive goal striving. Theproactive goal generation stage involvessetting, under one’s own direction, a changegoal. Researchers have suggested that thereare at least two processes underpinning theproactive goal generation stage: envisioningand planning (Bindl et al., 2012). Envisioningis about perceiving and identifying a currentor future problem or opportunity, andpicturing a different future that can beachieved if the problem is resolved or theopportunity capitalised. Then, the nextprocess, planning, is about working outactions plans in order to achieve this desiredfuture state. The action plans for change canbe targeted either at oneself, such as devel-oping one’s skills and building socialnetworks; or targeted at the situation, such asinfluencing one’s boss to negotiate roles andresponsibilities. Either way, the changesneed to be self-initiated such that individualsenvision and plan the changes out of theirown will rather than being directed bysomeone else. However, it should be pointed

out that the degree of self-initiation will vary.Some proactive goals can be completely self-driven (e.g. coming up with a new goal forone’s work) while in some other contexts,the goal may not be entirely self-driven yetthe way it is enacted may contain proactivity(e.g. introducing a new product as requestedby the boss but envisioning and planning itin a way that is proactive).

Proactive goal striving is the stage wherethe proactive goal is implemented. The goalstriving stage is critical as it enables realchange to be achieved. Researchers havesuggested that this stage is also underpinnedby at least two important processes, enactingand reflecting (Bindl et al., 2012). Enactingconcerns the overt action individuals engagein achieving their proactive goal. Forinstance, an employee wishing to introduce anew work method will likely engage in gath-ering information that demonstrates theinefficiency of the current method and theadvantage of the new method, and alsopersuading and influencing colleagues sothat they are on board with this change. Inthe enacting process, individuals’ self regula-tion is critical as it would allow individuals tostay focused on tasks, manage potentialnegative emotions from self and others, andremain resilient and flexible to accommo-date unexpected setbacks and challenges.Reflecting concerns investing the time andeffort to reflect what has happened so far,identifying the successes, failures, and conse-quences of one’s proactive behaviour. Givenproactivity involves creating something newthat can be uncertain and ambiguous, reflec-tion is an important step in helping individ-uals decide if they should sustain or modifythe proactive goals that have been set, or theapproach that have been adopted inachieving those proactive goals.

Different forms of proactivityPeople at work can be proactive to achievedifferent ends, resulting in different forms ofproactivity. Over the past few decades, muchresearch focused on one or a few specifictypes of proactivity such as taking charge,


Sharon K. Parker & Ying Wang

innovation, job crafting, voicing, amongothers. Parker and Collins (2010) integratedthe different forms of proactive behavioursthat have been investigated in literature andargued that these behaviours can besubsumed under three broad categoriesincluding: proactive person-environment fitbehaviour, proactive work behaviour andproactive strategic behaviour. Proactive person-environment fit behaviour includes thosebehaviours that are aimed at achieving abetter fit between one’s own attributes andthose of one’s work environment. Forinstance, an employee may negotiate andcraft his/her job so that it fits better withhis/her knowledge, skills or interests. Pro-active work behaviour refers to setting pro-active goals and taking actions to improveorganisations’ internal environment. Forinstance, an employee may find ways toimprove the efficiency of his/her work byadopting a new technology. Proactive strategicbehaviour involves taking charge andbringing changes to improve organisations’strategy so that it fits with the external envi-ronment. For example, a manager may

notice an important issue that affects thepositioning of the organisation in the marketand actively sell it to the key decision makers.Empirical evidence supports the distinctionof these three broad categories of proactivebehaviour (Parker & Collins, 2010).

What motivates proactivity?Having discussed the conceptualisation ofproactivity, it is useful to understand whatmakes an individual proactive and taking therisks of implementing something new. Inother words, what is the motivational processthat leads to a proactive behaviour? Wepresent a model of proactivity, developed byParker et al. (2010), to delineate how pro-active behaviours are shaped by proximalmotivational states, which are in turn influ-enced by more distal attributes such as indi-vidual differences, work context and theinteraction of these two (Figure 1). Wediscuss the proximal motivational states inthis section. Parker et al. (2010) proposedthree important motivational pathways thatlead to proactivity and each of these path-ways are supported by a unique type of moti-



Figure 1: Model of Proactive Motivation Process and Antecedents(adapted from Parker et al., 2010).

vational state: ‘can do’ motivation (Can I dothis?), ‘reason to’ motivation (Why should I dothis?) and ‘energised to’ motivation (Am Ienergised by this?). We elaborate each of thesepaths next.

‘Can Do’ motivation A critical part of the ‘can do’ motivationstate is the belief in oneself that one can beproactive, such as represented by self-efficacyperceptions. Being proactive is potentiallyuncertain and risky. For instance, proposingnew organisational structure may be subjectto resistance and scepticism from others;voicing one’s opinions against an existingwork procedure might hurt the feelings ofthose who implemented that procedure; andactively seeking for feedback from othersrisks one’s ego and self-image. Therefore,individuals need to have the self-confidenceto initiate proactive goals and deal withpotential negative consequences induced bysuch proactivity. Indeed, many studies havesupported the importance of self-efficacy forproactivity. Individuals’ self-efficacy wasfound to be positively related to commonlymeasured proactive behaviours such astaking charge (Morrison & Phelps, 1999)and personal initiative (Frese, Garst & Fay,2007). Furthermore, in a meta-analysisconducted by Kanfer et al. (2001), individ-uals’ self-efficacy was found to positivelyrelate to proactive job search behaviours,which subsequently led to better employ-ment outcomes such as getting employmentsooner and receiving more job offers.

One form of self-efficacy, ‘role-breadthself-efficacy’ which addresses one’s perceivedcapability of carrying out a broader andmore proactive role beyond prescribed tech-nical requirements (Parker, 1998), appearsto be particularly important for proactivity.For instance, role-breadth self-efficacy waspositively related to proactive problemsolving and proactive idea implementation(Parker, Williams & Turner, 2006). Ohly andFritz (2007) further found that when generaljob self-efficacy and role-breadth self-efficacywere both considered, it was the latter that

showed a unique effect in predicting proac-tive behaviour.

In addition to self-efficacy perceptions,‘can do’ motivation also includes the beliefthat one can control the situation and will produce desired outcomes (controlappraisals), as well as perceptions about thenegative aspects of engaging in a task, such asfear of failure and worry about lacking therequired resources (perceived cost of action).

‘Reason To’ motivationIf people feel confident about their ability togenerate and implement something new(having ‘can do’ motivation), yet there is nocompelling reason for them to do so(lacking a ‘reason to’ motivation), it isunlikely they will engage in proactivity. Thesecond important motivational state thatinstigates proactive behaviours is the ‘reasonto’ motivation. Unlike prescribed taskswhere a reason is already given as part ofone’s job, proactive activities are self-initi-ated and thus the reason to engage in theseactivities cannot be assumed. Consideringalso the risk and uncertainty associated withproactivity, there needs to be a strongrationale that drives an individual to makenew things happen.

A useful theory to help understand one’sreason to motivation to proactivity is self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000).The self-determination theory posits thatone’s reason to engage in certain behavioursstands on continuum of controlled versusautonomous motivation. On the autono-mous end of the continuum, the individualis driven by intrinsic interest and values thatoriginate from oneself. On the controlledend of the continuum, the individual isdriven by external contingencies outside ofthe person, such as rewards. Proactivebehaviours should most often beautonomous as they originate from the indi-viduals themselves (self-initiated). Drawingon the self-determination theory, Parker etal. (2010) proposed that there are threedifferent forms of autonomous motivationsthat can potentially drive proactivity.



First, individuals can engage in proactiveactivities because they find such tasks inter-esting and enjoyable. For instance, an ITspecialist may voluntarily invest in extra timeand efforts to develop open-source softwarebecause he/she finds it intellectually stimu-lating. This intrinsic motivation is the mostautonomous form of motivation. Second,individuals can engage in proactivity activi-ties as they feel being proactive will helpfulfil their life goals or express values thatare central to them. For instance, individualswho integrate work as part of who they willbe (e.g. their future work self-identity) tendto engage in more proactive careerbehaviours such as networking, career plan-ning and career consultations (Strauss,Griffin & Parker, 2012). This is the integratedform of motivation. Third, individuals canengage in proactive behaviours because theyfeel the proactive goal they set is importantand they assume a personal responsibility forachieving it. For instance, a university facultymight initiate a new course because he/shesees this new course as important inproviding students necessary knowledge andskills. Research has indicated that thoseemployees who feel stronger personal obli-gations to make positive changes are morelikely to engage in proactive voicebehaviours that are aimed at improvingcurrent work practices to benefit the organi-sation (Liang, Farh & Farh, 2012). This is theidentified form of motivation where oneconsciously values a goal, accepting andowning it as one’s own responsibility.

The three forms of autonomous motiva-tion, including intrinsic, integrated, andidentified motivations, provide a strongreason for individuals to be proactive. As towhich motivational form is most powerful,Koestner and Losier (2002) suggested thatwhen tasks are interesting, intrinsic motiva-tion resulted in better performance; whentasks are not so interesting but important,the other two forms of motivations yieldedbetter performance. In fact, it might be thecase that multiple forms of motivations func-tion together to stimulate proactive goals

and sustain an individual’s efforts in seeingthings through.

‘Energised To’ motivationA third motivational state for proactivity isaffect-related. How people feel can providean ‘energising’ fuel that motivates individ-uals to engage in proactive behaviour.Compared to the other two ‘cold’ motiva-tions that are cognitively bound, thisemotion-laden motivation is more of a ‘hot’psychological force for proactivity.

Individuals’ core affects are usuallyconsidered to be represented by an integralblend of two primary dimensions: pleasure –whether an affect is positive/pleasant ornegative/unpleasant in its affective valence,and arousal – whether an affect is highly acti-vated or lowly activated (Russell, 2003) in itsarousal. It has been suggested that positiveaffect is important for proactivity as it acts asa resource to broaden people’s momentarythought-action repertoires (e.g. exploring,learning, creating) while negative affectwould narrow the repertoires by urgingpeople to behave defensively (Fredrickson,2001). Accordingly, under the influence ofpositive affect people are more likely toreach out and set proactive goals, as well asremain open-minded and flexible whenpursuing their proactive goals. This argu-ment has received empirical support. In adiary study, Fritz and Sonnentag (2009)revealed that positive affect promotes takingcharge behaviours on the same day; positiveaffect also produced a positive spill-overeffect on taking charge behaviours on thefollowing day.

Warr et al. (2014; see also Bindl et al.,2012) further discovered that it is the highactivated positive affect (e.g. feeling enthusi-astic, inspired) rather than the low activatedpositive affect (e.g. feeling calm, content)that stimulates proactive behaviour. This isbecause highly activated positive affect hasmore energising potential to facilitateapproach-oriented behaviours such as proac-tivity, while lowly activated positive emotionssuch as feeling content may suggest a lack of



impetus for action, and is thus more induc-tive to reflective behaviours rather thanproactive behaviours.

Thus far, we have articulated the threemotivation states that enable proactivity.Although the three motivations affect pro-active behaviour, to what extent they willdirectly activate proactivity to happen willdepend on organisational context. Forinstance, Parker et al. (2010) have arguedthat an organisational context that providesemployees higher levels of job control andperceived justice is more likely to facilitatethe translation of proactive motivation intoproactive behaviours.

Is proactivity born or made?Now that we have discussed the proximalfactors that motivate people to be proactive,it is useful to understand the distalantecedents of proactivity, for instance,whether proactivity comes from an innate setof characteristic that some people but notothers are born with, or is instead somethingthat can be shaped over time through delib-erate interventions or changing of the situa-tion. We propose that like all other workbehaviours, proactivity is both born andmade, that is, it is both determined by who weare (e.g. our personality, values, knowledge,skills, abilities, among others) and by ourwork context (e.g. job design, leadership,organisational culture, among others). Nextwe discuss several ways that the work contextcan shape proactivity, as these are the areasthat organisations can focus its attention onto shape and enhance employees’ proactivity.We will then unpack the personal attributesof those more proactive individuals.

Proactivity is made: Work context as distal antecedentsSome work contexts are more conducive toproactivity than others. Here we focus onhow organisations can shape employees’proactivity by designing enriched jobs, devel-oping managers’ transformational leader-ship capability, and creating a supportivework environment.

Work designFirst, proactivity can be promoted by effec-tive design of employees’ jobs. The mostimportant aspect of work design that enablesproactivity is job enrichment, which focuses onincreasing the autonomy and complexity ofthe job. Job enrichment can facilitate proac-tivity through all three motivational path-ways, namely, the ‘can do’, ‘reason to’ and‘energised to’ motivations. First, job enrich-ment provides employees the opportunity toacquire new skills and master new responsi-bilities; furthermore, the autonomy aspect ofjob enrichment can increase employees’perception of controllability over their work.Both the enhanced mastery and improvedcontrollability would raise employees’ self-efficacy (‘can do’ motivation), and subse-quently leading to proactive behaviours suchas generating new ideas and proactivelysolving problems (Parker et al., 2006).Second, job enrichment is likely to facilitateemployees’ ‘reason to’ motivation. Withenriched jobs, employees may feel morechallenged and experience more enjoyment,and are thus intrinsically motivated to beproactive. Enriched jobs can also allowemployees to see the broader picture andunderstand the meaningfulness of their job,thereby creating integrated and identifiedmotivations to be proactive. Third, jobenrichment can also create ‘energised to’motivation among employees. It was foundthat having more enriched jobs (e.g. jobcontrol, job variety) can lead to positive,energetic and inspired feelings, which subse-quently generate proactive behaviours(Salanova & Schaufeli, 2008).

Other aspects of work design can alsoaffect employees’ proactivity. Job stressors suchas time pressure and situational constrainscan potentially promote, rather than inhibitproactivity, as such constraints representchallenge stressors that motivate employeesto find new ways to complete work on time.For instance, it has been found that whenemployees are under time pressure, they aremore likely to innovate; this is especially truefor those with high need for cognition, who



may feel stimulated by the challenge (Wu,Parker & de Jong, 2014).

LeadershipThe second area that organisations canshape proactivity is through effective leader-ship. Transformational leadership, the leader-ship style that effects effective changethrough creating vision as well as supporting,stimulating and inspiring subordinates, canlead to subordinates’ proactive behaviourssuch as innovation (Rank et al., 2010) andtaking initiative to help the organisation(Den Hartog & Belschak, 2012). This isbecause transformational leadership canenable both the ‘can do’, ‘reason to’ and‘energised to’ motivations among subordi-nates. First, transformational leaders solicitsubordinates’ ideas, stimulate their innova-tion, and support them to be self-directed.These behaviours can foster subordinates’self-efficacy, such as their role-breadth self-efficacy (‘can do’ motivation), which subse-quently leads to proactive behaviourstowards team effectiveness (Strauss, Griffin& Rafferty, 2009). Second, transformationalleaders link group mission to collectivevalues and enhance subordinates’ identifica-tion with the organisation. Therefore, theycan enable subordinates’ commitment totheir organisation (‘reason to’ motivation),which subsequently leads to more proactivebehaviours towards the improvement of theorganisation (ditto). Third, transformationalleadership has an intense emotional compo-nent and transformational leaders usuallyuse positive emotions to convey their visionand influence subordinates. Such positiveemotions are contagious in the workgroup,leading to positive affect being arousedamong subordinates (‘energised to’ motiva-tion); this could potentially generate positivework behaviours such as proactivity (Bono &Illies, 2006).

A specific aspect of transformationalleadership, leader vision, has been foundespecially important in enhancingemployees’ proactivity over time. A longitu-dinal study suggested that leaders’ vision

predicted the increase of proactivebehaviours among employees in 12 months’time, although this effect was only presentfor employees that have higher role-breadthself efficacy (Griffin, Parker & Mason, 2010).In other words, when shaping and devel-oping employees’ proactivity, both leader-ship styles and individual differences need tobe taken into account. The interactionbetween contextual and individualantecedents will be briefly discussed later.

Group climateThe third area of contextual factors canshape proactivity is group culture andclimate, especially at the local team level.Because proactivity is a risky behaviour, oneneeds to feel psychologically safe in theirimmediate work environment in order toinitiate and implement something new. For this reason, a supportive work environmentis critical for proactive behaviours to emerge,especially through the ‘reason to’ motiva-tional pathway. Parker et al. (2006) foundthat trust in co-workers affects proactivity asthis trust enables employees to feel moreownership of their job (‘flexible role orien-tation’), thus providing enhanced integratedmotivation – a reason for them to be proac-tive. The positive effect of supportive envi-ronment is also confirmed in other studies.For instance, initiating changes to improveteam effectiveness is more likely to happenwhen in supportive teams where the team’swork processes are openly discussed andreviewed (Griffin, Neal & Parker, 2007); andvoice behaviours tend to be present in work-groups that have more positive relationshipsamong the members (LePine & Van Dyne,1998).

Proactivity is born: Individual characteristics as distal antecedentsProactivity is also determined by who we are.Individual characteristics such as personality,values, thinking styles, among others, caninfluence one’s level of proactivity. Due tospace limit here we choose to focus on a fewselected individual attributes; interested



readers are recommended to refer to Parkeret al. (2010) for a more comprehensivereview.

Personality Personality has perhaps been the mostfrequently investigated aspect of individualcharacteristics in relation to proactivity. Inparticular, proactive personality, which depictsan individual’s tendency to take control ofthe situation and to effect change, is mostoften studied due to its conceptual linkagewith proactive behaviours. Numerous studieshave demonstrated that proactive person-ality predicts both proactive person-environ-ment fit behaviours such as buildingnetwork, taking career initiatives, proactivesocialisation, as well as proactive workbehaviours such as taking charge, voicingone’s opinions, preventing problems, amongothers (Fuller & Marler, 2009; Parker &Collins, 2010). Additionally, it has beenconfirmed that proactive personality canexert its effect on proactive behaviours viaproactive motivational states, for instance,via the ‘can do’ motivation (e.g. role-breadthself-efficacy, Parker et al., 2006), as well asthe ‘reason to’ motivation (e.g. motivation tolearn, Major, Turner & Fletcher, 2006).

In addition to proactive personality,other personality traits may also have animportant and unique contribution to proac-tive behaviours. For instance, conscientious-ness, one of the Big Five personalitydimensions, was found to predict proactivefeedback-seeking, one form of proactiveperson-environment fit behaviour, over andabove proactive personality (Parker &Collins, 2010). This may be because consci-entious individuals are more driven toperform their jobs well by obtainingperformance feedback, and to achieve agood fit with their organisation.

Learning and thinking stylesGoal orientation depicts whether an indi-vidual is inclined to have a learning mindsetand is willing to take risks and learn frommistakes, or whether he/she is more

concerned about own performance andcompetence (Dweck, 1986). Given pro-activity is a risky and uncertain behaviour,individuals with a high learning goal orienta-tion are more willing to reach out of theircomfort zones and try something new as away to learn and improve. Indeed, such indi-viduals were found to engage in more proac-tive behaviours, such as taking charge,innovating, and seeking for feedback(Parker & Collins, 2010).

Another aspect of thinking styles that wasfound to be important for proactivity is indi-viduals’ tendency in engaging in future-oriented thinking. By enabling an individual toput a strong focus on the future and toconsider potential consequences, thisattribute is meaningful for the future-focused behaviour of proactivity. Indeed,individuals who are more future-orientedtend to perform better on proactive strategicbehaviours such as scanning environmentand selling strategic issues to decisionmakers; they are also more likely to engagein proactive behaviours that improve the fitbetween themselves and their environment(Parker & Collins, 2010).

Furthermore, individuals’ need for cogni-tion, a tendency to engage in and enjoythinking, is likely to elicit curiosity to seek fornew information and opportunities, andwould produce elaborate and flexiblethoughts and ideas that are important forcreating something new. As a result, it wasfound that need for cognition positivelypredicts individual innovation, a form ofproactive work behaviour, after controllingfor personality differences (Wu et al., 2014).

SummaryIn sum, we have discussed the contextualand individual antecedents for proactivebehaviours at work. Although presentedseparately, these two broad categories ofantecedents do not operate in isolation butinstead dynamically interact with each otherin shaping proactivity. Indeed, there havebeen several studies that take this interac-tionistic perspective. For instance, even if



employees may lack relevant dispositionalcharacteristics to be proactive, this can becompensated by positive work context that isinductive to proactivity. LePine and VanDyan (1998) showed that although individ-uals with low self-esteem were less likely tovoice their opinions, this can be compen-sated by favourable situational characteristicssuch as high levels of group autonomy. Simi-larly, Wu et al. (2014) showed that employeeswho have less strong need for cognition aregenerally less likely to innovate, yet this canbe compensated by increasing their jobautonomy. Such dynamic interplays betweenindividual and contextual characteristicsprovide important implications for organisa-tions to design intervention strategies inshaping employees’ proactivity.

Is proactivity always good?At the beginning of this paper we presentedresearch findings in supportive of the bene-fits of proactivity in that it is likely to bringpositive outcomes for individuals, organisa-tions and societies. Despite this solidresearch evidence, one may naturally askwhether proactivity is always desirable. Couldthere be some types of proactive behavioursthat do more harm than good to the self orto their organisations?

The answer is yes. In fact, scholars haverecognised that proactivity does not alwayslead to positive consequences. For instance,it has been found that when employees lackthe motive to benefit others or the ability toappropriately judge work situations, theirproactivity does not lead to positive perform-ance outcomes (Chan, 2006; Grant, Parker &Collins, 2009). Proactivity may also harmindividuals’ psychological well-being. As pro-activity is a resource-consuming behaviour,proactivity may deplete individuals’ psycho-logical resources, leading to job stress, roleoverload, and work family conflict. Further-more, proactivity may bring tensionsbetween the more proactive employees andthe less proactive employees, as the lattermay feel threatened by proactive employees’acquisition of resources and may perceive

their proactivity as self-serving (for a compre-hensive summary of such potential negativeimpacts of proactivity, see Bolino, Valcea &Harvey, 2010). In sum, there is evidencesuggesting that proactivity is not always desir-able; it is thus important to focus not just onthe quantity of proactivity behaviour but alsoits quality.

Although it has been recognised thatproactivity can vary in its quality and its effec-tiveness, there lacks an integrating theo-retical framework to provide clearerguidance as to what forms of proactivity aretruly desirable. To address this issue, Parker,Liao and Wang (2015) drew on the conceptof wisdom to propose the concept of ‘wiseproactivity’. Wise proactivity is defined asenacting and implementing self-initiatedand future-focused change that is contextu-ally-sound, personally-sound, and other-focused. Like proactivity, wise proactivity ischange-oriented, yet what makes a proactivebehaviour wise depends on three elements.The first element concerns whether a proac-tive behaviour is appropriate for the broadcontext (contextually sound). A manager whoseeks to impress the boss might introduce anew technology that is not appropriate forhis/her organisation, thus this proactivity isnot considered wise. The second elementconcerns whether a proactive behaviour isthe right thing to do for the initiator and willbenefit the initiator’s personal growth(personally sound). A proactive behaviour thatdepletes personal resources and leads toburnout is not considered wise. The thirdelement concerns whether a proactivebehaviour will benefit others and serveothers’ needs (other focused). An employeethat puts oneself forward for leading achange yet resulting in his work being allo-cated to already overburdened colleagues isnot considered wise.

Although still at the early stage of thisresearch, our preliminary analysis hasdemonstrated that wise proactivity is indeeddistinct from proactivity. Wise proactivity wasfound to be underpinned by different indi-vidual antecedents such as social astuteness



and humility, and it predicted individuals’overall work performance over and aboveproactivity (Parker & Wang, 2014). Moreempirical studies are currently underway tofurther unpack the psychological processthat leads to wise proactive behaviours andthe implications of this behaviour on a widerrange of work and career outcomes.

Summary and implications for coaching Thus far, we have articulated that proactivityis important for individuals themselves, theirteams, organisations and beyond, and it canlead to a wide range of positive outcomes.Proactivity should be understood as a self-initiated, future-oriented behavioural processthat is aimed at bringing about futurechange. Furthermore, we discussed whatmakes individuals proactive, presenting boththe proximal motivational enablers of pro-activity, and distal organisational and indi-vidual factors that jointly shape proactivity.We also discussed the potential dark side ofproactivity, and presented a new concept,wise proactivity, which provides a theoreticalframework to conceptualise the nature ofthose truly desired proactive behaviours. Inthis concluding section, we will briefly discusshow the proactivity concept and some of theexisting theories and empirical findings caninform coaching practices. In light of whathas been discussed, we will focus on threeimplications.

First, the positive impact of proactivitysuggests that it is useful to help coacheesdevelop a proactive mindset to take chargeof their life and work. Coaches canencourage coachees to actively reflect onareas where they could have more control,proactively anticipate future problems, andbrainstorm for options to resolve potentialissues. For example, coaches could measurecoachees’ proactive work behaviour, pro-active strategic behaviour, and proactivecareer behaviour (Parker & Collins, 2010)and compare themselves against bench-

marks1. Because proactivity can be targetedboth at oneself and at situations, it is alsouseful to facilitate coachees’ reflection aboutwhen is the best time to change themselvesand when is the best time to change theirsituation. Often, it is the strategic decisionbetween these two options that determineswhether a proactive behaviour is effective.For instance, it has been found that whenthere is not enough personal control at theworkplace, it is more effective to engage inproactive behaviours aimed at changingoneself, such as by seeking for feedback toimprove own work, rather than takingcharge and changing one’s environment(Tangirala et al., 2014).

Second, understanding the motivationalfactors that enable proactivity suggests thatcoaches can delve into coachees’ self-evalua-tions, interests, values, emotions, amongothers, to understand whether they have the‘can do’, ‘reason to’ and ‘energised to’ moti-vations for proactivity to occur. Our frame-work suggests that individuals need to firstfeel confident that they have the ability tomake a change. Thus if a coachee feelslacking of ‘can do’ motivation, we can iden-tify ways to boost their self-confidence, suchas discussing a psychologically safe waywhere their innovative ideas can be heard bya trusted colleague, before presented to theboss. Our framework also suggests that indi-viduals need to have a reason for them to beproactive, for instance, the change needs tobe perceived as either intrinsically inter-esting, or part of their identity, or importantfor their work and their career. Therefore,by facilitating coachees’ reflection on theirvalues and interests, we can help them iden-tify and take control of the areas that arepersonally meaningful to them. This is inline with what we proposed for wise proac-tivity, which specifically emphasises thatchanges need to be meaningful for the indi-viduals and to fulfil their needs of personalgrowth. Furthermore, our model suggests



1 Further information on assessing proactivity can be found at:https://sites.google.com/site/profsharonparker/proactivity-research/measuring-proactive-behaviour

that having positive affect is an importantimpetus for proactivity as it broadens one’scognition. Therefore, if we encouragecoachees to identify areas of changes wherethey find energised and inspired by, they willbe more likely to engage in those proactivebehaviours.

Third, by unpacking the organisationaland individual factors that are inductive toproactivity, our proposed framework lendsinsights to both individual coachees whointend to improve their own effectiveness,and to leaders and managers who seek toenhance their employees’ proactivity. Forindividual employees, it is useful that theyunderstand whether their innate psycholog-ical attributes are likely to lead to proactivity,and if not, if this may be compensated byworking in the right environment. Forinstance, an individual with less confidencein voicing one’s opinions and initiatingsomething new may still be proactive whenbeing placed in an environment where thereis high level of trust and support from teammembers. For managers and leaders whoseek to create and sustain proactivityamongst their workforce, they can beencouraged to consider engaging in variouslevels of organisational interventions. Theycan consider designing and re-designingemployees’ jobs so that people have moreautonomy and control over their work. Theycan select and develop frontline managersand supervisors so that those managers havemore transformational leadership styles instimulating, motivating and inspiringemployees. They can also work on creating

an organisational climate where individuals’voices are valued and encouraged, risk-taking behaviours with the aim to improvework process and outcomes are allowed, andinnovation and positive change is acknowl-edged and rewarded. As coaches, if we canallow executive coachees to understand thevalue of proactivity and use researchevidence to inform their intervention strate-gies, we can potentially help them buildmore effective teams and achieve betterwork outcomes.

Individuals are not passive respondentsto situations. Rather than just waiting to betold what to do or respond only when prob-lems occur, they can take charge, anticipateproblems and opportunities, and activelychange themselves or their situation to bringabout a different, more desirable future. Byunderstanding proactivity and activelypromoting this behaviour, coaches can makea positive difference not only to theircoachees, but also to work places, organisa-tions and societies as a whole.

The AuthorsSharon K. ParkerBusiness School & Accelerated LearningLaboratory,University of Western Australia.Email: [email protected]

Ying WangAccelerated Learning Laboratory & School of Psychology,University of Western Australia.Email: [email protected]



Bateman, T.S. & Crant, J.M. (1993). The proactivecomponent of organisational behavior: A measureand correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior,14, 103–118.

Bercherer, R.C. & Maurer, J.G. (1999). The proactivepersonality disposition and entrepreneurialbehaviour among small company presidents.Journal of Small Business Management, 28–36.

Bindl, U.K., Parker, S.K., Totterdell, P. & Hagger-Johnson, G. (2012). Fuel of the self-starter: How mood relates to proactive goal regulation.Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 134–150.

Bindl, U.K. & Parker, S.K. (2010). Proactive workbehavior: Forward-thinking and change-orientedaction in organisations. In S. Zedeck (Ed.),American Psychological Association handbook ofindustrial and organisational psychology (pp.567–598).Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Bono, J.E. & Illies, R. (2006). Charisma, positiveemotions and mood contagion. The LeadershipQuarterly, 17, 317–334.

Bolino, M., Valcea, S. & Harvey, J. (2010). Employee,manage thyself: The potentially negativeimplications of expecting employees to behaveproactively. Journal of Occupational andOrganisational Psychology, 83, 325–345.

Boon, J. & Van der Klink, M. (2013). Fosteringintrapreneurial competencies of employees in theeducation sector. International Journal of Trainingand Development, 17, 210–220.

Chan, D. (2006). Interactive effects of situationaljudgement effectiveness and proactive personalityon work perceptions and work outcomes. Journalof Applied Psychology, 91, 475–481.

Crant, J.M. (1995). The proactive personality scaleand objective job performance among real estateagents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 532–537.

Den Hartog, D.N. & Belschak, F.D. (2012). When doestransformational leadership enhance employeeproactive behavior? The role of autonomy androle breadth self-efficacy. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 97, 194–202.

Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry,11, 227–268.

Deluga, R.J. (1998). American presidential proactivity,charismatic leadership, and rated performance.The Leadership Quarterly, 9, 265–291.

Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affectinglearning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.

Frese, M., Garst, H. & Fay, D. (2007). Making thingshappen: Reciprocal relationships between workcharacteristics and personal initiative in a four-wave longitudinal structural equation model.Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1084–1102.

Fritz, C. & Sonnentag, S. (2009). Antecedents of day-level proactive behavior: A look at job stressorsand positive affect during the workday. Journal ofManagement, 35, 94–111.

Fredrickson, B.L. (2001). The role of positiveemotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. AmericanPsychologist, 56, 218–226.

Fuller, B., Jr. & Marler, L.E. (2009). Change driven bynature: A meta-analytic review of the proactivepersonality literature. Journal of Vocational Behavior,75, 329–345.

Grant, A.M., Parker, S.K. & Collins, C.G. (2009).Getting credit for proactive behavior: Supervisorreactions depend on what you value and how youfeel. Personnel Psychology, 62, 31–55.

Griffin, M.A., Neal, A. & Parker, S.K. (2007). A newmodel of work role performance: Positivebehavior in uncertain and interdependentcontexts. Academy of Management Journal, 50,327–347.

Griffin, M.A., Parker, S.K. & Mason, C.M. (2010).Leader vision and the development of adaptiveand proactive performance: A longitudinal study.Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 174–182.

Kanfer, R., Wanberg, C.R. & Kantrowitz, T.M. (2001).Job search and employment: A personality-motivational analysis and meta-analytic review.Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 837–855.

Kickul, J. & Gundry, L.K. (2002). Prospecting forstrategic advantage: The proactive entre-preneurial personality and small firm innovation.Journal of Small Business Management, 40, 85–97.

Koestner, R. & Losier, G.F. (2002). Distinguishingthree ways of being highly motivated: A closerlook at introjection, identification, and intrinsicmotivation. In E.L. Deci & R.M. Ryan (Eds.),Handbook of self-determination research (pp.101–121).Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Liang, J., Farh, C.I.C. & Farh, J.-L. (2012).Psychological antecedents of promotive and pro-hibitive voice: A two-wave examination. Academy ofManagement Journal, 55, 71–92.

LePine, J.A. & Van Dyne, L. (1998). Predicting voicebehavior in work groups. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 83, 853–868.

Major, D.A., Turner, J.E. & Fletcher, T.D. (2006).Linking proactive personality and the Big Five tomotivation to learn and development activity.Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 927–935.

Morrison, E.W. & Phelps, C.C. (1999). Taking chargeat work: Extrarole efforts to initiate workplacechange. Academy of Management Journal, 42,403–419.



References

Ohly, S. & Fritz, C. (2007). Challenging the status quo:What motivates proactive behavior? Journal ofOccupational and Organizational Psychology, 80,623–629.

Parker, S.K. (1998). Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and otherorganisational interventions. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 83, 835–852.

Parker, S.K., Bindl, U.K. & Strauss, K. (2010). Makingthings happen: A model of proactive motivationJournal of Management, 36, 827–856.

Parker, S.K. & Collins, C.G. (2010). Taking stock:Integrating and differentiating multiple proactivebehaviors. Journal of Management, 36, 633–622.

Parker, S.K., Liao, J. & Wang, Y. (2015). Wise proactivity:Initiating the right change and pursuing it in the rightway.Manuscript in preparation.

Parker, S.K. & Wang, Y. (2014). When proactivity meetswisdom: Wise proactivity, initial outcomes andantecedents. In Y. Wang & B. Searle (Chairs),Proactive behavior revisited: Antecedents,outcomes and new perspectives, symposiumconducted at the Society for Industrial andOrganizational Psychologists Annual Conference,Honolulu.

Parker, S.K., Williams, H.M. & Turner, N. (2006).Modelling the antecedents of proactive behaviorat work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 636–652.

Rank, J., Nelson, N.E., Allen, T.D. & Xu, X. (2010).Leadership predictors of innovation and taskperformance: Subordinates’ self-esteem and self-presentation as moderators. Journal of Occupationaland Organizational Psychology, 82, 465–489.

Russell, J.A. (2003). Core affect and the psychologicalconstruction of emotion. Psychological Review, 110,145–172.

Salanova, M. & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). A cross-national study of work engagement as a mediatorbetween job resources and proactive behaviour.International Journal of Human Resource Manage-ment, 19, 116–131.

Seibert, S.E., Kraimer, M.L. & Crant, J.M. (2001).What do proactive people do? A longitudinalmodel linking proactive personality and careersuccess. Personnel Psychology, 54, 845–874.

Strauss, K., Griffin, M.A. & Parker, S.K. (2012). Futurework selves: How salient hoped-for identitiesmotivate proactive career behaviors. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 97, 580–598.

Strauss, K., Griffin, M.A. & Rafferty, A.E. (2009).Proactivity directed toward the team andorganisation: The role of leadership, commit-ment, and confidence. British Journal ofManagement, 20, 279–291.

Tangirala, S., Ekkirala, S. & Firth, B. (2014). Changethe world or the self? Proactivity effects on performance.In Y. Wang & B. Searle (Chairs), Proactivebehavior revisited: Antecedents, outcomes andnew perspectives, symposium conducted at theSociety for Industrial and OrganizationalPsychologists Annual Conference, Honolulu.

Warr, P., Bindl, U.K., Parker, S.K. & Inceoglu, I. (2014)Four-quadrant investigation of job-related affectsand behaviours. European Journal of Work andOrganizational Psychology, 23, 342–363.

Wu, C.-H., Parker, S.K. & de Jong, J.P.J. (2014). Needfor cognition as an antecedent of individualinnovation behavior. Journal of Management, 40,1511–1534.



ONE OF THE biggest challenges forschools is knowing how best to assiststudents in developing/maintaining

strong performance in order to benefit thestudents, but also help the school to hold acompetitive edge. Schools are rankedaccording to student performance and it isin their interest to provide means forimproving results (Department for Educa-tion, 2013). Extracurricular support-strate-gies and one to one time with support staffcan help in identifying factors that may beinterfering with student performance, andin developing specific strategies for improve-ment (Extended Services: End of Year 1 Report,Department for Education, 2012). However,increasing pressures on teaching staff (e.g.

increased administrative tasks outside of theteaching role) have resulted in everdecreasing opportunities for spending timewith students outside of the classroom on aone-to-one basis. Student performance canoften be influenced by psychological factors(e.g. unhelpful thinking patterns, perfec-tionism; see Flett et al., 2012; Solomon &Rothblum, 1984), which cannot easily beaddressed in the classroom environment and ideally require a more personalisedapproach, such as one-to-one interaction(Schruder, Curwen & Sharpe, 2014). As wellas having limited time to spend with studentsindividually, teachers are not typicallyequipped to know how to work with psycho-logical challenges such as perfectionist


Paper

The experience of cognitive behaviouralgroup coaching with college students: An IPA study exploring its effectivenessPepita Torbrand & Vicky Ellam-Dyson

Objectives: This pilot study aimed to investigate whether Cognitive Behavioural Coaching (CBC) can be usedwith A-level students in order to reduce procrastination and avoidance behaviours. Group coaching wasused to promote more adaptive thinking patterns, leading to enhanced performance and well-being.Design: A qualitative approach was taken, using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) in orderto explore the meaning making and personal experiences of CBC. A quantitative measure in the form of a12-item procrastination questionnaire assessed pre- and post-coaching was also used.Methods: The study took place at a Further Education college in London with one Sixth-Form Psychologyclass consisting of seven students. Based upon levels of procrastination, students were selected for four one-hour long coaching sessions. Students receiving coaching were compared to students with similar levels ofprocrastination, not receiving coaching.Results: The study found four main themes emerging as based upon the experience of coaching. These wereFeeling Supported, Raising Awareness, Increased Motivation, and Improved Performance. Quantitativemeasures showed a reduction in procrastination levels for students receiving CBC. This did not occur forprocrastinators not receiving coaching.Conclusion: This study suggests that coaching can be a time and cost-effective tool to use with low performingA-level students, to increase performance and well-being. This is an important finding, as there is a strongdemand to reduce procrastination in a situation where resources are limited. Consideration is given to futureresearch, including larger samples, and to training teachers in how to deliver group-coaching with students.Keywords: group coaching in high school; student perfectionism; coaching in education; reducing studentprocrastination; CBC in education.

thinking (Schruder et al., 2014). This paperdiscusses psychological and behaviouralaspects that can interfere with studentperformance, with particular attention givento performance anxiety, perfectionism andprocrastination. It describes a pilot studythat involved using cognitive behaviouralgroup coaching with students to assist themin adapting performance hindering thinkingand behaviours. Based on the findings, it issuggested that teachers can be trained to usethe principles of Cognitive BehaviouralCoaching (CBC) to work with students usinggroup-coaching to identify and work oncognitive barriers in order to improve andsustain performance.

In previous research, student perform-ance has shown to be affected by levels ofself-efficacy, perceived academic-compe-tence, self-regulation, resilience andintrinsic motivation (Doron et al., 2010; Feli-cidad, Villavivecencio & Bernado, 2013;Helle et al., 2013; Putwain & Symes, 2012).With specific focus on self-efficacy, Doron etal. (2010) demonstrated how incrementalbeliefs about self-ability strongly influencedstudents’ coping strategies, effective plan-ning and ability to seek social support asmethods to cope with examination stress. A study by Prat-Sala and Redford (2010)highlighted how intrinsic motivation andperceived levels of self-efficacy affectlearning as well as undergraduate studentsapproaches to studying. Students with highlevels of self-efficacy were more likely tocontinuously use deep learning approaches,such as engaging with materials, buildinglinks to previous knowledge and challengearguments and conclusions presented.Students with low levels of self-efficacy, onthe other hand, were more likely to adoptsurface approaches, such as simply recallingand reproducing materials presentedwithout engaging with the text at a deeperlevel (Marton & Saljo, 1976). Notably,students’ surface learning approach hasbeen linked to a fear of failure, whereasstudents’ deeper learning approach is linkedto a need for achievement and success

(Entwistle, 1988a, 1988b; Entwistle et al.,2000; Tait et al., 1998).

In addition to issues with self-efficacy,perfectionism and fear of failure have alsobeen highlighted as specific factors affectingstudent performance (see Schruder, Curwen& Sharpe, 2014, for a review). Indeed, lowself-efficacy, perfectionism and fear of failurehave all shown to result in performancehindering behaviours such as self-handicap-ping and increased procrastination (Martin,Marsh Williamson & Debus, 2003). Procrasti-nation is a form of avoidance that isdescribed as ‘the tendency to put off orcompletely avoid an activity under one’scontrol’ (Tuckman, 1991, p.474). Steel(2007, p.66) refers to it as ‘…a postponing,delaying, or putting off of a task or decision’.Others refer to it as the delay in beginning orcompleting an intended course of action(Beswick & Mann, 1994; Lay & Silverman,1996). Procrastination is said to be linkedwith anxiety and fear, particularly wherethere is a real or imagined possibility of rejec-tion or harsh appraisal (Aitken, 1982; Beck etal., 2000; Ellis, 1973). Ellis and Knaus (1977)suggested that 95 per cent of students engagein procrastination behaviours, whilst Semb,Glick and Spencer (1979) provided evidencethat procrastination was detrimental toacademic performance, often resulting inpoor grades as well as drop out from courses.

A recent Canadian study conducted byFlett et al. (2012) examined the role ofprocrastination-related automatic thoughtson procrastination levels in higher-educa-tion students. Automatic Negative Thoughts(ANTs) related to procrastination tend toinclude ‘should’ statements (e.g. I shouldhave started earlier, I should be moreresponsible). A strong association was foundbetween ANTs, maladaptive perfectionist-beliefs and procrastination, as assessed bythe Procrastinatory Cognitions Inventory(PCI; Stainton, Lay & Flett, 2000), resultingin avoidance behaviours and high negativestress levels. High levels of procrastinatorycognitions were also linked to trepidationand fear about essay writing, low self-actuali-


The experience of cognitive behavioural group coaching with college students

sation and feelings of being a fraud. As aresult of the findings, Flett et al. (2012) high-lighted the need to implement approachessuch as cognitive behavioural interventionsto challenge ANTs, avoidance behavioursand to reduce procrastination.

Solomon and Rothblum (1984)suggested that student procrastination isoften used to delay a perceived fear of failureand that student avoidance behaviours areoften implemented to avoid self-set excessiveand maladaptive perfectionist performancestandards (Frost et al., 1990). Indeed, severalstudies have looked specifically at the effectsof perfectionism on student performance(e.g. Bieling et al., 2003; Flett, Blankenstein& Hewitt, 2009; Nugent, 2000; Shih, 2011).Maladaptive perfectionism involves settinghigh personal standards, and anxiety whenthose standards are not met (Flett et al.,1991; Frost et al., 1990); a combination thathas been linked to poor academic perform-ance. Students experiencing maladaptiveperfectionism often suffer with low self-esteem, low mood, and stress (Grzegorek etal., 2004; Shih, 2011). To avoid situationswhere they may be at risk of failure and nega-tive affect students may use self-handicap-ping strategies (such as procrastination)(Jones & Berglas, 1978; Shih, 2011). Jonesand Berglas (1978) use the term ‘self-handi-capping’ to describe how individuals createbarriers to achieving their goals or reachingtheir full potential as a result of an under-lying fear of failure. These self-handicappingbehaviours can understandably lead toacademic underachievement (Zuckerman,Kieffer & Knee, 1998).

Thus far, clear links have been madebetween cognitive difficulties, such as lowself-efficacy, perfectionism, and fear offailure, with behaviours such as procrastina-tion and self-handicapping, and withoutcomes such as anxiety and poor academicperformance (e.g. Flett et al., 2012; Jones &Berglas, 1978; Solomon & Rothblum, 1984).It is important, therefore, to consider howcognitive approaches could help withreducing unhelpful thinking and behaviours.

Kearns, Forbes and Gardiner (2007)conducted a study with doctorate researchstudents and measured the effects of cogni-tive behavioural coaching to reduce perfec-tionism and self-handicapping behaviourssuch as procrastination. The intervention wasa rigorously structured, intense course whichinvolved a series of coaching based work-shops held over six weeks. This is one of fewempirical studies investigating the treatmentof maladaptive perfectionist beliefs in a non-clinical student population using the princi-ples of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT)in coaching. Results showed that levels ofperfectionism and self-handicappingbehaviours were significantly reduced forthose taking part in the workshops. Interest-ingly, in another study, a web-based CBTintervention was designed to reduce perfec-tionism in students and also showed prom-ising results (Radhu et al., 2012). However, afurther study found that students using aworkbook-based self-help approach toperfectionism experienced increases indepression in a three-month follow-up com-pared to a group receiving weekly guidedself-help using CBT (Pleva & Wade, 2007).This presents an argument for interventionsthat involve direct support from other profes-sionals (e.g. teachers, lecturers, counsellors,coaches). Based on a systematic review ofstudies of student perfectionism, Schruderand colleagues (2014) provide a list ofsuggestions of ways in which teachers canassist students in developing coping strategiesfor perfectionist tendencies. These include;having a direct dialogue with students toidentify triggers, helping students to developand implement strategies, have students keepand maintain a reflexive journal, encouragestudent to explore self-help groups, and helpstudents identify and put in to practice moodstabilising activities (e.g. music, deepbreathing, physical fitness). Although theirpaper is useful in raising the awareness withteachers of how perfectionism can manifest,and how they may be able to assist students,their suggestions rely on working withstudents on a one-to-one basis; as discussed at


Pepita Torbrand & Vicky Ellam-Dyson

the beginning of this article, this is becomingincreasingly difficult due to time constraints.Their suggestions are also largely based onstudents using methods of self-help withoutdirect support for cognitive restructuring,which has shown have to adverse effects. Asdiscussed above, supported cognitive restruc-turing in coaching may be a better approachto help with reducing perfectionism andprocrastination and improve performance(Kearns, Forbes & Gardiner, 2007); thecurrent researchers suggest this approach asa preferred method with students tominimise risks of adverse effects.

The research question of the currentqualitative study was whether cognitivebehavioural group coaching with collegestudents is effective in reducing perfec-tionism and procrastination? The effective-ness of group-coaching to help challengestudents’ thinking-errors, and encourage amore flexible and rational thinking wasresearched. Key focus was also placed onimplementing CBC to reduce performancebarriers; increasing students’ perceived self-efficacy, well-being and performance.

MethodDesignThis was largely a qualitative study, usingtranscendental phenomenology to gain an‘insider perspective’ (Conrad, 1978) of thestudents personal experiences of brief CBC(Smith, Flower & Larkin, 2009; Willig, 2001).Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis(IPA) was chosen as the qualitative methodas it is well suited for new, novel and ongoingresearch studies aiming to investigate theunique experiences of a small number ofindividuals. Focus was placed on retrospec-tive descriptions of how students perceivedtheir specific experience of group-coaching,using semi structured interviews (Giorgi &Giorgi, 2003; Smith, Harré & Van Langen-hove, 1999).

As phenomenology is concerned withindividuals’ idiosyncratic, unique engage-ment with their life-world, the epistemolog-ical position taken is that of a naïve realist(Willig, 2001). Students’ were assumed ableto reflect upon experiences and to give acoherent account of them (Parker, 2001;Smith et al., 2009; Willig, 2001).

Thus, the key aim of the present researchwas to get as close as possible to the students’experiences, focusing upon communicating,exploring and analysing their meaningmaking (Larkin, Watts & Clifton, 2006).

In addition to the qualitative data, therewas a small quantitative element. All studentswere asked to complete a 12-item procrasti-nation questionnaire before and aftercoaching. Differences between ratings wereobserved, and comparisons were madebetween the students displaying scores ofprocrastination receiving coaching and thestudents with similar (although not iden-tical) scores not receiving coaching.However, they were not statistically analyseddue to small numbers.

ParticipantsOne upper sixth form psychology classconsisting of seven students (N=2 males, N=5females) with an age range of 18 to 27 years(M=20.43) took part in this study.

All students came from London andattended a large Further Education college.One student had joined the college in thesecond year. One student was a retake studentwho had decided to redo the course. Threestudents (two male and one female) hadcompleted their first year at the college andhad received average or slightly below averagegrades. Two female students both achievedhigh grades for their lower sixth form (firstyear) course, although the pressure of theupper sixth form (second year) course hadreduced their performance and increased theprocrastination levels noticeably.



MaterialsAll students were asked to fill in a 12-itemprocrastination questionnaire assessing sixunderlying cognitive constructs linked tostudent performance (anxiety, self-efficacy,avoidance, automatic negative thoughts, self-doubt, perfectionism) with each underlyingconstruct assessed twice for consistency. Thisquestionnaire was based upon the Ran-OneOnline People Procrastination Question-naire (Walker Dunnett, 2013) but wasamended in order to assess the specificunderlying cognitive constructs linked tostudent performance. Students were askedto assign a rating to each item on a scalefrom 1 to 3, where 1 indicated rarely, 2 indi-cated sometimes and 3 indicated typically.The scale was designed so that a response of24 to 36 indicated procrastination, a sore of13 to 23 indicated occasional procrastina-tion, and a score of 12 indicated very little orno procrastination; although a continuumwas used to allow for nuances of the specificunderlying constructs which affected eachstudent most as a trigger for procrastination.Hence, a student may score high on specificconstructs but not on others affecting theoverall procrastination score. As a result ofthis, the scores were used as a guide only.

Based upon the indicated scores from the12-item procrastination questionnaire, and in

addition to the teacher’s in-depth knowledgeof each student’s level of procrastination,students were divided into Procrastinators orOccasional Procrastinators, with approxi-mately one-third being Occasional Procrasti-nators (two students, with a procrastinationscore of 19 and 21) and five students beingProcrastinators, (with a procrastination scoreof 27, 27, 29, 33 and 23). The Procrastinatorswere then randomly assigned to two groups,coaching and no coaching. Hence, threeProcrastinators were receiving group-coaching and two acted as a control group.None of the Occasional Procrastinatorsreceived coaching.

For the qualitative data analysis, a semi-structured interview schedule was used. Thiswas chosen at it allows for some structureand objectivity whilst still promoting aconversational flow and possibilities ofprompting new and potentially interestingareas (Smith, Flowers & Larkin, 2009; Smith& Osborn, 2003; Willig, 2001).

The interview questions were aimed atinviting a rich, personal and detailedaccount from the students’ coaching experi-ences, giving students the space to reflectupon their experiences and to speak freelyabout anything coming to mind during theinterview, involving feelings, thoughts andexperiences (Smith et al., 2009).



Table 1: Example questions from the 12-item questionnaire.

Automatic Negative Thoughts ‘I sometimes tell myself that I am a loser for not being able to (ANTs) get the assignments ready on time.’

Anxiety ‘I experience anxiety when I come up to a deadline which prevents me from working effectively on my assignment.’

Perfectionism ‘If my assignment is not perfect, I do not feel like submitting it.’

Self-efficacy ‘I sometimes feel as if I cannot persist with writing up an assignment and, therefore, don’t get round doing it.’

Avoidance ‘I usually avoid assignment demands and time pressure for deadlines by doing something else.’

Self-doubt ‘Although I want to achieve good grades, I usually have trouble getting started as I tend to doubt my skills in writing up assignments.’

As the idea of IPA is to gather informa-tion for the research question by approach-ing it ‘sideways’ (Smith et al., 2009, p.58)interview questions should be broad, facili-tating a dialogue, in which the researchquestion can be answered through subse-quent reading and analysis. Due to this, theset interview questions were descriptive andopen ended (Smith et al, 2009).

An interview schedule was developedfocusing upon three overall areas: Thecoaching process; positive/negative aspectsof coaching and learning outcomes. Theinterview was based upon 10 core questions,involving probes and prompts to facilitate adeeper understanding. All interviews wereconducted by a researcher not involved inthe coaching sessions to reduce bias anddemand characteristics. A section ofexample questions are shown below.1. How would you describe your specific

coaching experience? What did yourcoaching involve?

2. How do you think the coaching processhas impacted on your levels ofprocrastination identified?

3. Could you please tell me whether youperceived any negative effects of receivingcoaching? How/In what way? Can youelaborate a little?

4. Can you please tell me what you perceivedthe most positive or satisfying experienceof receiving coaching? Why/In what way?Can you elaborate on that a little?

5. Can you please tell me whether there wereany specific areas of the coachingexperience that you found more usefulthan others and what those areas were?Why?

6. Do you think there have been any changesas to how you study and revise as a resultof the coaching? Can you elaborate?

ProcedureAll students (N=7) completed the 12-itemprocrastination questionnaire before coach-ing and approximately two weeks after thecoaching had ended. This was done to toassess whether the subjective procrastination

levels had changed amongst Procrastinatorsreceiving coaching, and whether it hadremained the same in the Procrastinatorsand Occasional Procrastinators not receivingcoaching. Focus was also placed uponexploring whether the identified cognitiveconstructs, (anxiety, self-efficacy, avoidance,automatic negative thoughts, self-doubt, andperfectionism) linked to student perform-ance, had changed as a result of group-coaching.

Prior to filling in the questionnaire,students gave their informed written consentto take part in the study and should they beselected to participate in coaching, they wereinformed about their right to withdraw atany time, and the right to have theircollected data withdrawn at any point upontheir request.

A brief CBC intervention was designedand implemented as four (one-hour long)sessions, to investigate whether brief CBC isuseful in this context. Each coachingsessions followed RE-GROW, an updatedstructure of a CBT/CBC session (Grant,2011), starting with Reviewing and Evalu-ating new learning and actions completedsince the last session as based on the weeklyreflections/homework given. This was thenfollowed by setting Goals, reflecting uponReality and discussing desired Options. Eachsession was Wrapped-up, setting new weeklyreflections (or sub-goals). Those werechosen by the students to promote intrinsicmotivation and self-regulation.

Implementation: Session 1–4 The first session focused on ‘Increasingawareness and challenging disruptivethinking’. Students rated their currentprocrastination level on a scale from 1 to 10and stated where they perceived themselvesto be now, and where they wanted to be atthe end of coaching.

Ellis’ (1962) and Burns’ (1980) thinkingerrors were introduced and studentsexplored which they tended to engage in.Examples identified were ‘all or nothingthinking’ (I’ve got to do it perfect, or I might



just not do it at all), catastrophising (I madeso many errors in the essay, it will be a ‘fail’,I might just as well give up!) and mentalfilters (focusing overly on the negativeaspects of teacher feedback and disquali-fying the positive).

Students were also introduced and fedback information about their own specificunderlying cognitive constructs as assessed bythe questionnaires filled in prior tocoaching. Based upon reflective groupdiscussion, the most essential constructs forthe group appeared to be avoidance, self-doubt, anxiety and perfectionism. Hence, inagreement with the students, key focus in thesession was placed upon these.

Thinking about unique and specificlearning-barriers, in pairs, students wereinvited to engage in a Socratic dialoguefocusing on challenging the usefulness, logicand evidence (Beck et al., 1979; Curwen,Palmer & Ruddell, 2000) for their perceivedlearning-barrier and their underlyingthinking patterns that they tended to usewhen experiencing work related negativestress (distress). Students reflected upontheir ‘thinking-errors’ introduced earlier inthe session and helped each other to chal-lenge those reoccurring irrational beliefs,using Socratic questions such as: Is it logical?Where is the evidence for your belief? Whereis this belief/thought getting you? Is thisbelief helping you to attain your goals? Areyou agonising about how you think things areinstead of dealing with them effectively? Areyou thinking in all-or-nothing terms? (takenfrom Curven, Palmer & Ruddell, 2000, p.21).

The use of the Socratic challengesproved exceptionally effective with thisgroup of learners and all learners wanted totake one printed copy home with them toput at their workspace in order to help chal-lenge their irrational thoughts and increasetheir motivation.

Students were then set weekly home-work/reflections. The first session’s task wasto reflect upon ‘how are we disturbingourselves’ and take brief notes/entries onhow, where and why it happens and the form

of avoidance behaviour displayed, such as,social media. This was subsequently focusedupon in the second session, in accordancewith the RE-GROW model (see Table 3).

The second session focused upon‘changing our irrational thoughts throughthe use of peer-coaching using the SPACEmodel (see Edgerton & Palmer, 2005) as illus-trated in Table 2.

The third session focused on Whitmore’s(2007) ‘GROW-model to set specific, achiev-able and positively stated sub-goals’ whichwere implemented and reflected upon in thefourth session.

In the final session, students reflectedupon their goals and perfectionist-beliefs, keyfocus was placed upon ‘changing maladaptiveperfectionist beliefs into success enhancingperformance using Performance InterferingThoughts (PITs) and Performance Enhan-cing Thoughts (PETs) (see Neenan & Palmer,2001; Palmer & Szymanska, 2007).

Analysis/ResultsAll interviews were transcribed verbatim;lines in the transcript were numbered forease of referencing. The transcripts werethen analysed in three stages using IPA. Theresearcher firstly conducted an initial codingby reading and re-reading the interview lineby line, noting down anything interestingoccurring in the data (Larkin, Watts &Clifton, 2006). As some parts of the tran-scripts were richer in data; more notes andinitial coding were needed at those units oftexts (Smith et al., 2009). Students’ reflec-tions were then re-read in-depth; notes weremade of any repetitions and ‘echoes’ ofanything continuously re-appearing thatseemed particularly important, exploringconnections across themes. This was thenrepeated with the next interview, andconnections between the three interviewswere given key focus.

In some instances, only one studentdiscussed a particular area of their coachingexperience, which was unique to them. Asthe focus in IPA is both the ideographic aswell as identifying emergent themes for the





Table 2: SPACE model with A-level students.

SPACE model – Freeze time

Social Context: Essay writing

Cognitions: I can’t do it perfect enough, I can’t make it perfect straight away. Others can do it better than I can…

Emotions: Anxiety, Fear, Guilt, Self-blame, Embarrassment, Potential loss of motivation

Physiology Stress, Arousal, Tension, Breathing (shallow)

Actions: I won’t do it now (but soon…) leads to anxiety reduction (temporarily). But as we have to do the work later (but in a much shorter time frame!) this leads to significantly increased anxiety (vicious circle) as a rushed piece of work confirms our negative thinking…

SPACE model – Challenging ANTs

Social Context: Essay writing

Cognitions: I can’t do it perfectly straight away, no one can! I can try to write something to the very best of my ability and ask my teacher to have a look at it…

Emotions: Determination, Motivation, Locus of Control

Physiology Eustress, Being on a ‘flow’

Actions: No point delaying. Better just get on with it. Just do it! Not trying to do itperfectly all at once, but planning work to decrease negative stress.

Table 3: Session outline.

Session 1 Increasing awareness and challenging disruptive thinkingHomework diary/ How, where and why are we disturbing ourselves?Weekly reflection

Session 2 SPACE Model – changing our irrational thoughts through the use of Homework diary/ peer-coachingWeekly reflection Identify and change our PITs to PETs, using the SPACE model and practicing

engaging in coping self-talk.

Session 3 GROW model to set specific, achievable & positively stated sub-goalsHomework diary/ Implementation of one positively stated sub-goals set in group session Weekly reflection

Session 4 Changing maladaptive perfectionist beliefs into success enhancing Homework diary/ performance using PITs and PETsWeekly reflection Promote maintenance strategies to prevent relapse

group as a whole, individual themes consid-ered to be of key value were included in theanalysis despite them not recurring in othercases (Smith et al, 2009). However, it isimportant to note that identifying the finalthemes to be included required some levelof prioritising of the data. Themes wereselected upon factors such as their frequencyin the interviews, capacity to elucidateimportant facets of the interviews and therichness of text (Smith & Osborne, 2003).

A total of four themes emerged, believedto capture the key aspects of the students’experiences. Themes were then named in amore condensed form.

A shortened summary table of themes isshown below (see Table 4). Main cluster/themes are placed to the left, extracts in themiddle, and examples from the transcript inline numbers to the right.

The concept of experiencing feelingsupported and the increased self-awarenessresulting from the coaching process was a verystrong and reoccurring experience which allthree students mentioned repeatedly.

Moreover, the positive experiences ofcoaching, seeing it as an individualised anduseful method to increase motivation, releasepotential, and challenging negative thinkingand unhelpful behaviours, appeared agradual and continuous learning process.

In addition, all students repeatedlypointed out how coaching had challengedtheir unhelpful thinking patterns and howthis raised awareness has made them morepositive and confident which was awelcomed change, as they had not been ableto identify this prior to coaching. As onelearner puts it:

‘After the first couple of sessions where yourealise okay, this is not right, you need tochange, it does motivate you to do better becauseyou realise you can do better, and it’s just abouthow much work and effort you put in.’Student 2

Furthermore, all three students receivingcoaching had slight variations in their nega-tive underlying cognitive constructs. Onestudent had an extreme fear of failure and

rejection, which had continuously decreasedher performance since taking her GSCEs asa result of her engaging in self-handicappingbehaviours, but which she started to work onwith resilience and determination:

‘…so, for example, before, mine was rejection,that was my biggest thing. I wasn’t putting somuch effort into something, because I neveractually sat down and put my full effort intoanything. Even GCSEs or anything, like fulleffort. Because the fear was like, if I do halfhalf, I can always improve, but if I give my fulleffort and I get a really rubbish grade, thatdamages my self-esteem a lot.’ Student 3

For another learner, the most prevalentthinking error was constant negativecomparison and maladaptive perfectionismwhich she focussed on in the four sessions:

‘…and it (the coaching) has definitely had amore positive outlook on my work. More like, I can do this, not so much, I’m not as good asher, my answers aren’t as good as her answers,and just deal with it! There is room forimprovement, you don’t always have to get itright first time.’ Student 2

For the third student maladaptive perfec-tionism and high levels of anxiety were a bigissue leading to high levels of procrastinatoryand self-handicapping behaviours, againsomething which she challenged throughcoaching:

‘…and if you are going to do something, do itperfectly. Like, I am a perfectionist, I know, butmy teacher knows that, and that’s, we justneeded to make it productive rather than, youknow, make it less negative in a way, that’s it.’Student 1

An interesting point is that in addition to thevery positive effects of coaching, all threestudents pointed out that the raised aware-ness coming from the first coaching sessionhad initially led them to feel a littledepressed or weary about coming to termswith the fact that they were ‘victims’ of theirown negative and irrational thinking:

‘…so first session it was a bit… sort ofdepressing, you know because you tend to knowabout, yes, what your shortcomings are, likewhere you’re wrong and all…’ Student 1





Table 4: Table of themes showing summary of qualitative analysis.

Main cluster 1

Not feelingalone

A chanceto talk

Main cluster 2

Becoming self-aware

Takingresponsibility

Changingnegativethinking

Main cluster 3

Increasedconfidence

Feeling Supported

‘…listening to the other two girls talk about their experiences,because it feels like you’re not alone… and you’re not abnormal[…] am I the only one that revision doesn’t work for?’

‘I’ve never like sat down just like with just like, say three people, oreven, you know just a teacher. And then, when you talk aboutthings […] Because I think when you talk about problems you tendto dissect it, and then of course you go to the root of it’

‘…people (teachers) don’t tend to ask you these kind of questions.Do you believe in yourself? Do you feel that your work is goodenough? They just give you grades and then expect you to betterthem…’

‘It was like talking to a therapist because we all knew what waswrong with us but we didn’t know how to talk about it, we didn’thave no one to talk about it with.’

Raising Awareness

‘…because we did talk about, you know when she was talking withus, it was just that sort of realisation that strikes you’ […] ‘Oh Yes this is what I should be doing!’

‘It definitely made me more aware of my thought patters and howmine work.’

‘I think it was really effective because in a way for me personally, Iwasn’t really aware of downfalls, in a sense of what was stoppingme from, let’s say revision […] but it also made us aware oftackling it as well.’

‘…when somebody tells you to think, start form there […] so youthink, Yes, well why not? I think I have to start takingresponsibility a bit more.’

‘I think maybe becoming a bit more responsible for my ownactions.’

‘…it really makes you aware that how you are thinking affectswhat you do […] and it has definitely had a more positive outlookon my work,’

‘getting rid of the obstacles and blocks in our mind which arestopping us from getting where we want to be in life.’

Increased Motivation

‘Before I would be like: No I can’t do it because I wasn’t taughtthis, or I can’t do it because my teacher didn’t teach me this. But now it’s like: No, you can’t do it because you haven’t readabout it, so you need to start reading and just get on with it!’

Student 2,205–208

Student 1,27–33

Student 2,26–29

Student 3,85–86

Student 1,165–172

Student 2,3–4

Student 3,15–19

Student 1,159–161

Student 2,190

Student 2,8–10

Student 3,6–7

Student 2,192–195

Continued



Releasingpotential

Main cluster 4

Changingunhelpfulbehaviour

Setting andachievinggoals

‘So that fear of rejection, or not getting that grade, it was mybiggest aspect. But then it was like (after coaching) some peoplewho do badly just take it as criticism and something to buildupon’.

‘…it definitely does motivate you to do better because you realiseyou can do better, and it’s just about how much work and effortyou put in.’

‘…at the end of the day, we all have a very similar averageintelligence, and it’s just about how we are able to conquer ourminds’

Improving Performance

‘I’ve stuck that piece of paper (Socratic challenges) above my desk,so every time I do start to think like that, I just go back to thatand just think ‘is this thought logical?’ ‘Is it helping me in anyway?’ […] you’re just like, No, carry on!’

‘I could sit at a desk for five hours and have this right in front ofme and I still wouldn’t do it, something was so stronger thanme…It sounds crazy. But now I’m just doing it fine.’

‘I think the fact that I can use these skills in the future […] say, forexample, if I come across something that I can’t do, I probably willcontinue to try and try again until I can feel like I can do it.’

‘All or nothing’ (irrational-thinking) was changed to like the PETswas changed to at least get started on it. You know so that’s whatI’ve done, that is what has proper changed.’

Student 3,105–107

Student 2,237–239

Student 3,10–11

Student 2,36–39

Student 3,112–115

Student 2,170–172

Student 1,182–183

Table 4: Table of themes showing summary of qualitative analysis (continued).

‘…I was so sure what I was doing was right,but talking to my teacher it made me aware No!What you are thinking is actually really wrong,and it’s really quite negative. I rememberleaving the first session really quite depressedbecause, yes, it really makes you aware that how you are thinking affects what you do.’Student 2‘I mean it depends what kind of person you are,if you’re very sensitive and you start cryingbecause you’ve found that you’re thinking is notvery rational, then perhaps… But for me, it’sjust more awareness, just awareness of puttingthis thinking into places where you can actuallydo something about it.’ Student 3

However, it is important to highlight thatdespite experiencing this sense of increasedawareness, realising that grades often are aresult of one’s own input and that the

students themselves were in control of chal-lenging unhelpful behaviours, this alsohelped them to understand their own poten-tials, which was perceived as very motivatingand exciting.

An additional important finding was thatthe students highlighted how they hadimplemented their new, more rational andadaptive thinking in a variety of contextranging from planning for university,keeping food-diaries to taking control overjunk-food and improve revision tables. Thisresonates with the strengths of CBC, as onceskills are learnt they can be used in a rangeof situations facilitating independentproblem solving and self-coaching (Neenan& Palmer, 2012; Palmer & Szymanska, 2007),something that again might prove very bene-ficial for high school students.

Quantitative analysisQuantitative scores from the 12-itemprocrastination questionnaires pre- and post-coaching and self-ratings provided at thefirst and the fourth coaching session, wereobserved. However, this was done forexploratory reasons only, to look at trends inthe data collected.

Calculated means of students’ quantita-tive procrastination self-ratings, as basedupon the 12-item questionnaire pre- andpost-coaching are shown in Figure 1.Procrastination-levels in Procrastinatorsreduced markedly after receiving CBC (fromM=29 to M=19.6) compared to the Procrasti-nators not receiving coaching for whichprocrastination increased very slightly (forone student) in the last month before exam(from M=26 to M=27). This might have beenexpected, given that the Procrastinators notreceiving coaching were lacking effectivemethods to decrease their distress, anxiety,self-handicapping behaviours and perceivedlow levels of self-efficacy, thus resulting inpotential avoidance behaviours.

Moreover, an interesting finding was thatOccasional Procrastinators’ levels of procras-tination reduced in the last month beforeexamination without any additional teachersupport (from M=20 to M=14.5), suggestingthat students with lower levels of procrasti-nation have sufficient capability to changeunhelpful behaviours when the situationdemands.

In terms of the specific underlying cogni-tive constructs linked to student perform-ance, a common feature amongst thestudents receiving coaching was that they didinitially score high on avoidance, self-doubt,anxiety and perfectionism. After coaching,most students scored lower on theseconstructs, moving from initially scoring a 3(typically), to scoring a 2 (sometimes) andeven a 1 (rarely) after coaching had ended.However, one student’s score for perfec-tionism did not change (she scored 2 beforecoaching for both test items on the ques-tionnaire and 2 after coaching on bothitems). Similarly, a second student’s score for

anxiety did not change (she scored 2 beforecoaching for both items on the question-naire and 2 after coaching on both testitems).

Furthermore, for the three studentsreceiving coaching, their self-ratings of theirperceived procrastination levels as assessedin the first and last session was also calcu-lated and is shown in Figure 2.

These self-assessed procrastination scoreshighlight how the group-coaching helpedthe students, as learner 1 moved from a highprocrastination score of 9 to 4, learner 2moved from a procrastination score of 7.5 to5 and learner 3 moved from a procrastina-tion score of 7 to 3.

As the sample of this study was very small,and as one Procrastinator not selected forcoaching dropped off the A-level coursemaking exact comparisons difficult, no infer-ential statistical analyses were conducted.Subsequent studies with larger samplesallowing for statistical tests are required toassess whether any significant differencesbetween the groups’ procrastination levels,have been achieved.

Discussion – moving forward with CBCThis study aimed to explore whether cogni-tive behavioural coaching can be an effectivetool to reduce high levels of procrastination,negative stress and avoidance behaviours inA-level college students. The decision tofocus on negative thinking and irrationalbeliefs was based upon recent research (Flettet al., 2012) showing that degree levelstudents procrastinate as a result of under-lying cognitive constructs, where maladap-tive perfectionist beliefs and automaticnegative thoughts (ANTs) increased avoid-ance behaviours. The present study was alsoinspired by the research of Kearns et al.(2007) who reported links between cognitiveconstructs and performance hinderingbehaviours in doctorate students. They useda cognitive behavioural workshop interven-tion as a means of adapting beliefs andbehaviours with positive shifts in cognitionsand performance related behaviours.





Figure 1: Bar chart showing the mean score of procrastination levels as assessed by the12-item questionnaire where ≥24–36 indicates procrastination and a score of

13 to 23 indicates occasional procrastination.

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0Procrastinatorsreceiving CBC

Procrastinatorsnot receiving CBC

Occasional Procrastinatorsnot receiving CBC

Before CBC

After CBC

Figure 2: Estimated levels of procrastination before and after CBC on a continuum where 10 indicates high level of procrastination and 1 indicates low level of

procrastination.

10

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

0Learner 1 Learner 2 Learner 3

Before CBC

After CBC

At the beginning of the present study anumber of A-level students reported experi-encing unhelpful patterns of thinking thatled them to experience anxiety and toprocrastinate as a consequence. This is inline with the findings of Flett et al. (2012)and Kearns et al. (2007). Kearns et al. foundthat procrastinating students engaged inautomatic perfectionist thoughts, and self-handicapping behaviours, which were signif-icantly reduced as a result the CognitiveBehavioural Coaching intervention.

Results from the qualitative data analysis(post-coaching) in the present study showedvery promising results for using cognitivebehavioural coaching with A-level collegestudents. Students experienced the coachingprocess to have been a very positive, andmore importantly, very effective method toincrease awareness, challenge unhelpfulthinking, and reduce self-handicappingavoidance behaviours and procrastination.The dialogue offered by students during theinterviews adds an interesting and usefulqualitative aspect to what we know fromprevious studies (e.g. Flett et al., 20012;Kearns et al., 2007).

Four main themes emerged from thequalitative data-analysis highlighting theimportance of how group coaching madestudents feel supported, in a way that they hadnot experienced in the classroom throughdifferentiation or questioning strategies.Students also experienced that the cognitivebehavioural coaching had raised their aware-ness both in terms of becoming conscious oftheir recurring negative thinking, but alsohow it had increased their awareness abouttheir own potential. This is in line with thedifferent stages outlined by Dryden (2000)where the importance of becoming aware ofprocrastination is the first key step in orderto improve performance, setting andfollowing through with goals and stayingcommitted in this process.

Students also explained how coachinghad increased their motivation for enhancedperformance as they now had found a struc-tured tool or a method that worked effec-

tively to challenge their negative andunhelpful thinking even when the teacher/coach was not present. This is in line with thework of Palmer and Szymanska (2007)outlining ways to support the coachee tobecome their own self-coach, and shows howthe group coaching increased students’ability to self-reflect and implement themethods practiced in sessions, leading toincreased motivation.

The use of Socratic Challenges (Padesky& Greenberger, 1995) was adopted by allstudents. One of the students reported thatshe found it especially helpful to put theSocratic questions in front of her work deskto effectively challenge negative thoughtsleading to avoidance and self-handicappingbehaviours whilst revising. The effectivenessof the Socratic questions to challenge ANTspractised within the sessions (and betweensessions), shows its importance as a tool toreduce self-handicapping behaviours, oftenleading to procrastination, anxiety andreduced academic performance (Flett et al.,2012; Frost et al., 1990; Zuckerman et al.,1998).

The results from the qualitative data-analysis were supported by the quantitativeanalysis, which was included for exploratoryreasons only, to highlight trends in the data.The quantitative data showed a decrease inprocrastination for students receiving group-coaching. This decrease was not observed inthe students with a similar high level ofprocrastination not receiving coaching.

An interesting finding was that low levelprocrastinators had the capacity to reducetheir own procrastination in the run up tothe examination (as observed in the ques-tionnaire data), indicating that thesestudents’ self-regulation and higher levels ofself-efficacy may make them more equippedto take control over their time managementand revision skills. This lends support forfuture interventions of cognitive behaviouralgroup coaching to reduce procrastination inhigh school students that have been identi-fied by their teachers to engage in self-handicapping behaviours, procrastination,



maladaptive perfectionist beliefs, and fear offailure, and to effectively assist these studentsin developing a strong performance andhelp schools to hold a competitive edge.

Based upon the results from this initialstudy, brief group CBC could be suggested tobe a cost-effective and learner-focusedmethod seen as an alternative to one-to-onecoaching for increasing student perform-ance and well-being which teachers can betrained to use. The effectiveness of group-coaching as a method used in schools isplanned to be further researched and devel-oped in a future, larger scale study.

One point of reflection is whether groupcoaching is effective enough to be imple-mented nationally with low performing, self-handicapping students. Further, large-scalecomparison studies are needed in order toanswer this. However, the procrastinationratings before and after coaching (andcompared to procrastinators not receivingcoaching) provide a good starting point,with positive results echoed in the in-depthinterviews conducted with each student.

A weakness with the current study is thatthe student ratings were collected usingsubjective self-report tools in the form of the12-item questionnaire and self-ratings ofperceived level of procrastination. To addressthis, further research is planned, usingteacher feedback (in addition to studentfocus groups) to assess time managementskills, quality of written work, procrastinationand classroom performance before and aftercoaching. This study is also planned to be ablind study, in that the teachers providing theratings at the different time points are notinformed as to whether the students havereceived coaching or not.

Future quantitative research is alsoneeded, comparing exam results for end ofyear examinations before and after coaching,to see whether the coaching has made adifference in actual performance amongstthe students receiving group-coaching.

An important question is whether allstudents are equally suitable to receivecoaching? Again, as the current study wasbased upon one class of seven upper sixthform students, where only three studentsreceived coaching, further research withbigger sample sizes is needed in order toanswer this. This is planned for the largerscale study where a larger sample of studentswill take part.

Moreover, as the current study wascarried out with upper sixth form studentsonly, it would be interesting to see whethercoaching can be an effective tool withyounger students preparing for their GCSEs.This is planned for the larger scale study,where a sample of Year 9 (aged 14) studentswill receive cognitive behavioural groupcoaching, in addition to the sixth formstudents (aged 17) receiving coaching insmall groups.

Finally, as the present study assessedlevels of procrastination and negative under-lying constructs before and approximatelytwo weeks after coaching, it would be inter-esting to assess the sustainability of the groupcoaching over a longer time frame. Again,this is currently being planned for the followup study where teacher’s ratings will takeplace at three time points, pre coaching,post coaching and two months aftercoaching, to allow for sustainability to beassessed.

The AuthorsPepita Torbrand (MSc)Head of Psychology,Oxford High School.

Vicky Ellam-DysonCoaching Psychology Unit,Department of Psychology,City University.

CorrespondencePepita TorbrandEmail: [email protected]




Title

Aitken, M.E. (1982). A personality profile of the collegestudent procrastinator. Unpublished doctoraldissertation. University of Pittsburgh.

Aitken, M.E. (1982). A personality profile of thecollege student procrastinator. Doctoraldissertation, University of Pittsburgh. DissertationAbstracts International, 43, 722.

Beck, A.T. Rush, A.J. Shaw, B.F. & Emery, G. (1979).Cognitive therapy of depression. New York: TheGuilford Press.

Beck, B.L., Koons, S.R. & Milgrim, D.L. (2000).Correlates and consequences of behavioralprocrastination: The effects of academicprocrastination, self-consciousness, self-esteemand self-handicapping [Special issue]. Journal ofSocial Behavior & Personality, 15(5), 3–13.

Beswick, G. & Mann, L. (1994). State orientation andprocrastination. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.),Volition and personality: Action versus state orientation(pp.391–396). Gottingen, Germany: Hogrefe &Huber Publishers.

Bieling, P.J., Israeli, A.L., Smith, J. & Antony, M.M.(2003). Making the grade: The behavioralconsequences of perfectionism in the classroom.Personality and Individual Differences, 35, 163–178

Burns, D.D. (1980). Feeling good: The new mood therapy.New York: Signet.

Conrad, P. (1987). The experience of illness: Recentand new directions. Research in the Sociology ofHealth Care, 6, 1–31. In M. Larkin, S. Watts & E. Clifton (2006), Giving voice and making sensein interpretative phenomenological analysis.Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 102–120.

Curwen, B., Palmer, S. & Ruddell, P. (2000). Briefcognitive behavioural therapy. London: Sage.

Department for Education (2012). Extended servicesevaluation: End of year 1 report. Research ReportDFE–RR016.

Department for Education (2013). Summary of changesto the 2013 school and college performance tables.Available at: http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/performance/

Doron, J., Stephan, Y., Boiche, J. & Le Scanff, C.(2010). Coping with examinations: Exploringrelationships between students’ coping strategies,implicit theories of ability, and perceived control.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(3),515–528.

Dryden, W. (200a). Overcoming procrastination. London:Sheldon Press.

Edgerton, N. & Palmer S. (2005). SPACE: A psychological model for use within cognitivebehavioural coaching, therapy and stressmanagement. The Coaching Psychologist, 1(2),25–31.

Ellis, A. (1962). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy.New York: Lyle Stuart.

Ellis, A. (1973). Humanistic psychotherapy. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Ellis, A. & Knaus, W.J. (1977). Overcoming procrasti-nation. New York: Signet Books.

Entwistle, N. (1988a). Motivation and learningstrategies. Educational and Child Psychology, 5, 5–20.

Entwistle, N. (1988b). Motivational factors in studentsapproaches to learning. In R.R. Schmeck (Ed.),Learning strategies and learning styles (pp.21–51).London: Plenum Press.

Entwistle, N., Tait, H. & McCune, V. (2000). Patternsof response to an approach to study inventoryacross contrasting groups and context. EuropeanJournal of Psychology of Education, 15, 33–48.

Flett, G.L., Ilewitt, P.L., Blankstein, K.R. & Mosher,S.W. (1991). Perfectionism, self-actualisation andpersonality adjustment. Journal of Social Behaviour& Personality, 6(5), 147–160.

Flett, G.L., Blankstein, K.R. & Hewitt, P.L (2009).Classroom test perfectionism, performance, andstate positive and negative. Canadian Journal ofSchool Psychology, 24, 4–8.

Flett, G.L., Stainton, M., Hewitt, P.L., Sherry, S.B &Lay, C. (2012). Procrastination automaticthoughts as a personality construct: An analysis ofthe Procrastination Cognitions Inventory. Journalof Rational Emotive Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.

Frost, R.O., Marten, P., Lahart, C. & Rosenblate, R.(1990). The dimensions of perfectionism.Cognitive Therapy and Research, 14, 449–468.

Gehlbach, H., Brinkworth, M.E. & Harris, A.D (2012).Changes in teacher-student relationships. BritishJournal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 690–704.

Giorgi, A. & Giorgi, B. (2003). Phenomenology. In J.A. Smith (2006), Qualitative psychology. A practical guide to research methods (Ch.3). London:Sage.

Grant, A.M. (2011). Is it time to REGROW the GROWmodel? Issues related to teaching coachingsessions structures. The Coaching Psychologist, 7(2),118–126.

Grzegorek, J.L., Slaney, R.B., Franze, S. & Rice, K.G.(2004). Self-criticism, dependency, self-esteem,and grade point average satisfaction amongclusters of perfectionists and non-perfectionists.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 192–200.

Helle, L., Laakkonen, E., Tuijila, T. & Vermunt, J.D.(2013). The developmental trajectory ofperceived self-regulation, personal interest andachievement throughout high school: A longi-tudinal study. British Journal of EducationalPsychology, 83(2), 252–266.

Jones, E.E. & Berglas, S. (1978). Control ofattributions about the self through self-handicapping strategies: The appeal of alcoholand the role of underachievement. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 4, 200–206.


References


Author name

Kearns, H., Forbes. A. & Gardiner, M. (2007). A cognitive behavioural coaching intervention forthe treatment of perfectionism and self-handicapping in a non-clinical population.Behaviour Change, 24(3), 157–172.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as thesource of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Larkin, M., Watts, S. & Clifton, E. (2006). Giving voiceand making sense in interpretative phenomeno-logical analysis. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3,102–120.

Lay, C.H. & Silverman, S. (1996). Trait procrastina-tion, anxiety, and dilatory behavior. Personality &Individual Differences, 21, 61–67.

Martin, A.J., Marsh, H.W., Williamson, A. & Debus,R.L. (2003). Self-handicapping, defensivepessimism, and goal orientation: A qualitativestudy of university students. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 95, 617–628.

Marton, F. & Saljo, R. (1976). On qualitativedifferences in learning – outcome and process.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 46, 4–11.

Meichembaum D. (1977). Cognitive behaviouralmodification: An integrative approach. New York:Plenum Press.

Neenan, M. & Palmer, S. (2001). Cognitivebehavioural coaching. Stress News, 13(3), 15–18.

Neenan, M. & Palmer, S. (Eds.) (2012). Cognitivebehavioural coaching in practice: An evidence-basedapproach. London: Routledge.

Nugent, S. (2000). Perfectionism: Its manifestationsand classroom-based interventions. Journal ofSecondary Gifted Education, 11(4), 215.

Padesky, C.A. & Greenberger, D. (1995). Clinician’sguide to mind over mood. New York: Guilford Press.

Palmer, S. & Szymanska, K. (2007). Cognitivebehavioural coaching: An integrative approach.In S. Palmer & A. Whybrow (Eds.), Handbook ofcoaching psychology: A guide for practitioners. Hove, UK: Routledge.

Parker, I. (2001). Qualitative research. In P. Bannister,E. Burman, I. Parker, M. Taylor & C. Tindall(Eds.), Qualitative methods in psychology: A researchguide (Ch.1). Buckingham: Open University Press.

Pleva, J. & Wade, T.D. (2007). Guided self-help versuspure self-help for perfectionism: A randomisedcontrolled trial. Behavioural Research Therapy,45(5), 849–861.

Prat-Sala, M. & Redford, P. (2010). The interplaybetween motivation, self-efficacy, and approachesto studying. British Journal of Education Psychology,80(2), 283–305.

Putwain, D.W & Symes, W. (2012). Achievement goalsas mediators of the relationship betweencompetence beliefs and test anxiety. British Journalof Educational Psychology, 82(2), 207–227.

Radhu, N., Daskalakis, Z.J., Arpin-Cribbie, C.A., IrvineJ. & Ritvo, P. (2012). Evaluating a web-basedcognitive behavioural therapy for maladaptiveperfectionism in university students. Journal ofAmerican College Health, 60(5), 357–366.

Semb, G., Glick, M.D. & Spencer, R.E. (1979). Studentwithdrawals and delayed work patterns in self-paced psychology courses. Teaching of Psychology, 6,23–25.

Shih, S. (2011). Perfectionism, implicit theories ofintelligence, and Taiwanese eighth-gradestudents’ academic engagement. Journal ofEducational Research, 104, 131–142.

Schruder, C.R. Curwen, T. & Sharpe, G.W (2014).Perfectionistic students: Contributing factors,impact, and teacher strategies. British Journal ofEducation, Society & Behavioural Science, 4(2),139–155.

Smith, J.A., Harré, R. & Van Langenhove, L. (1999).Rethinking methods in psychology (3d ed.). London:Sage.

Smith, J.A. & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretativephenomenological analysis. In J.A. Smith (Ed.)(2006), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide toresearch methods (Ch.3). London: Sage.

Smith, J.A., Flowers, P. & Larkin, M. (2009).Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Theory,method, research. London: Sage.

Solomon, L.J. & Rothblum, E.D (1984). Academicprocrastination: Frequency and cognitive-behavioural correlates. Journal of CounsellingPsychology, 31, 503–509.

Stainton, M., Lay, C.H. & Flett, G.L (2000). Traitprocrastinators and behaviour/trait-specificcognitions. Journal of Social Behaviour andPersonality, 15, 297–312.

Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination.Psychological Bulletin, 133(1), 65–94.

Tait, H., Enwistle, N. & McCune, V. (1998). ASSIST: A reconceptualisation of the approaches to studyinventory. In C. Rust (Ed.), Improving studentlearning: Improving students as learners(pp.262–271). Oxford: Oxford BrookesUniversity. The Oxford Centre for Staff andLearning Development.

Tuckman, B.W. (1991). The development andconcurrent validity of the Procrastination Scale.Educational & Psychological Measurement, 51,473–480.

Villavivecencio, F.T. & Bernado, A.B.I. (2013). Positiveacademic emotions moderate the relationshipbetween self-regulation and academic achieve-ment. British Journal of Educational Psychology,83(2), 329–340.

Walker Dunnett & Co. (2013). Procrastinationquestionnaire. Ran One: Small Business AdvisoryToolkit. Available at:http://www.walkerdunnett.co.uk/pdfs/Helpsheet_Procrastination-Questionnaire.pdf



Title

Whitmore, J (2007). Coaching for performance (3rd ed.).London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Willig, C. (2001). Introducing qualitative research inpsychology: Adventures in theory and method.Maidenhead: McGraw Hill Open University Press.

Zuckerman, M. Kieffer, S.C. & Knee, C.R. (1998).Consequences of self-handicapping: Effects oncoping, academic performance and adjustment.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74,1619–1628.


S A LEAD INTO THIS ARTICLE,it is useful to discuss the key termsintentional, personality and change.

The Dictionary of Psychology (Reber & Reber,2001) defines intention as, ‘any desire, plan,purpose, aim or belief that is orientedtowards some goal, some end state’. Theterm is used by most with the connotationthat such striving is conscious’ (p.362).Hence, intentional personality changeinvolves consciously working towardschanging personality in a goal orientedmanner, with a clear end state in mind, anddeveloping strategies to support suchchange. For change to be intentional, wefirst need to identify what we want to changefrom a personality perspective.

Defining personality is a widely recog-nised challenge, with Reber and Reber

(2001) cautioning that personality, ‘is a termso resistant to definition and so broad inusage that no coherent simple statementabout it can be made’ (p.525). Hence, in thisarticle personality change will be discussedwithin the context of one theory, the Five-Factor/Big Five Mode of Personality, asassessed by one measure, the NEO PI-R(Costa & McCrae, 1992). Hence we will beexploring clients’ perception of intention-ally changing aspects of their personality asassessed by the NEO PI-R (using a structuredcoaching process).

Whereas intentional personality changeexploration is relatively recent, literature hasdeveloped over the last decade around moregeneric intentional change processes, partic-ularly as applied to increasing emotionalintelligence. Boyatzis (2006) proposed that


Paper

Clients’ experiences of intentionalpersonality change coachingLesley S. Martin, Lindsay G. Oades & Peter Caputi

Purpose: The main objective of this study was to explore clients’ experiences of participating in a structuredintentional personality change coaching programme designed to facilitate change on client chosen personalityfacets. Design: A qualitative design, using inductive thematic analysis was employed to explore participants’experiences with as few pre-conceptions as possible.Method: The current study used semi-structured, face-to-face interviews to collect data from 32 participantsat the conclusion of a 10-week structured intentional personality change coaching programme. Transcribedinterview data was then coded and analysed for themes, using steps and processes outlined in Braun andClarke (2006). Results: Thematic analysis revealed four key themes. First, personality coaching promoted reflection, leadingto greater self-awareness. Second, it fostered an authentic self and values consistent way of living, withoutloss of valued aspects of identity. Third, it produced tangible and practical life benefits including enhancedconfidence and competence, and strengthened ability to relate to others. Finally, most clients viewed thestructured personality change coaching programme as enjoyable, positive and beneficial.Conclusion: This study suggests personality change coaching is perceived by clients as providing opportunitiesfor developing greater self-awareness, authenticity, and a values consistent way of living. Whereas personalitychange is the goal of such coaching, this translates into practical benefits, and is perceived by clients as apositive experience. Professional implications of expanding coaching into this relatively new area are identified.Keywords: personality; intentional; change; coaching; Big Five; Five Factor; clients’ experiences.

A


Title

change can be facilitated through a sequenceof personal discoveries, including reflectingon the ideal self and the current self, with aview to developing a plan to move towardsthe ideal self. Strategies of aligning thecurrent self with the ideal self included iden-tifying strengths and weakness and a relatedlearning agenda, and establishing relation-ships that support progression towards theideal self. Boyatzis et al. (2004) proposed thatcoaching can play a key role in this process.

More recently, Martin, Oades and Caputi(2012, 2013, 2014a) proposed that inten-tional change of client1 chosen personalitytraits (domains) appeared possible, providedthe client was motivated and had appro-priate professional support to achieve suchchange. Martin et al. (2014a) subsequentlydeveloped intentional personality changecoaching resources to explore this possi-bility. A step-wise process of intentionalpersonality change coaching was developed,based on these resources (Martin et al.,2014a). The authors then conducted anempirical study, using these resources, andfound that individuals could change selectedfacets of their personality with 10 sessions ofcoaching (Martin, Oades & Caputi, 2014).Pre-coaching analysis of participants’ person-ality profiles further suggested that at thecommencement of coaching they weresignificantly higher on domains opennessand emotionality (Allan, Leeson & Martin,2014), compared to NEO PI-R norms (Costa& McCrae, 1992).

The literature suggests that reflection,leading to greater self-awareness, is animportant element of change processes in acoaching context (Boyatzis et al., 2004; Dayet al., 2008; Hanft, Rush & Shelden, 2004;Kristal, 2010). For example, Hanft, Rush andShelden (2004) propose that coaching is areflective process, and a way of reaching adeeper understanding of ourselves, and thusexpands self-awareness. Reflection on howwe think and behave are key components ofintentional change theory proposed by

Boyatzis (2006), and assumed to be animportant factor in facilitating change in acoaching context by many authors (Gyllen-sten et al., 2010; Kemp, 2005; Kristal, 2010).

The coaching literature further suggeststhat reflection can lead to intense momentsof insight (e.g. ah-huh moments or revela-tions) that may be turning points in thecoaching relationship (Day et al., 2008; De Haan et al., 2010). Day et al. (2008)suggested that combining such criticalintense moments with reflexivity canenhance change outcomes and deepen thecoaching relationship. Specifically, theysuggested that linking what occurs in thecoaching relationship with client experiencescan be used to heighten self awareness.

The coaching literature containsnumerous references to self-awareness beingan important component of understandingone’s unique identity and living (and leadingothers) in an authentic, values consistent way(Fusco, Palmer & O’Riordan, 2011a, 2011b;Gardner et al., 2005). Martin et al. (2014a)extended consideration of values to a person-ality change context, and proposed thatassessment and exploration of values was animportant aspect of personality changeprocesses, as it helped ensure that personalitychange goals were consistent with the client’svalues. The authors further proposed thatclient motivated, values consistent person-ality change was likely to be associated withtangible benefits, as associations betweenpersonality and consequential outcomeswere well established (for a review see Ozer &Benet-Martinez (2006)). Martin et al. (2012)suggested that coaching may provide anappropriate context to further explore thispossibility. Nevertheless they acknowledgedthat the boundaries between coaching andtherapy/counselling were not clear cut, andpersonality change interventions couldarguably fit within either. The mental healthof the client was identified as one factoraffecting whether personality change inter-ventions should sit within a coaching or

Clients’ experiences of intentional personality change coaching

1 The terms participant and client are used interchangeably.


Author name

therapy context. However, the level ofpsychological functioning is not alwaysapparent at the commencement of thecoaching relationship.

Buckley (2010) proposes that a numberof factors should be taken into account whenmental health issues arise in a coachingcontext, (e.g. the client’s understanding ofthe nature of the professional relationship,the training and competence of the profes-sional to work with mental health issues,ethics/good practice guidelines of profes-sional membership organisations, indemnityinsurance and other legal and third partyconsiderations). Consideration of thesefactors will help determine whether thecoaching context is appropriate for workingwith individual clients, or whether referringon to other professionals is required.

A number of studies have found thatcoaching fosters tangible benefits. Tooth,Higgs and Armstrong (2008) explored exec-utives’ perspective of coaching and foundthat a valued benefit was ‘that coachingenabled them to focus on real issues’(p.107). De Haan and Neib (2011) reportedthat third parties noticed observable prac-tical positive changes in executive aftercoaching, including enhanced communica-tion and interpersonal skills, managementabilities, self-confidence and authenticity.Similarly, DeVaux (2010) found thatcoaching fostered a range of benefitsincluding enhanced career decisions, plan-ning and management skills, work lifebalance, and interpersonal skills. Further-more, an International Coach Federationsurvey of 155,000 coachees found the vastmajority reported coaching had facilitatedpositive changes. They were pleased with theoverall coaching experience, and would behappy to engage in coaching again.

In combination, these findings suggestthat client motivated, values consistent inten-tional personality change coaching is likelybe associated with tangible benefits, and beperceived as a positive experience. However,as the concept of personality change

coaching is in its infancy, no studies wereidentified that explored clients’ experiencesof this type of coaching. As the literaturesuggests that researchers and practitionerscan better understand change processes ifthey understand the clients’ perspective ofsuch change (Hodgetts & Wright, 2007; Pass-more, 2010), the current study aims toexplore clients’ experience of engaging in10 sessions of personality change coaching.

MethodParticipantsThirty-two individuals were interviewed,ranging in age from 18 to 65 years (M=42.18,SD=12.44). Twenty-six participants werefemale and six were male. The participantswere recruited for a personality changecoaching programme, via local media inter-views and a university research web page.Subsequently, major psychopathology wasexcluded by asking those participants whohad one or more emotionality facets on theNEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae,1992) (i.e.anxiety, anger, depression, vulnerability,impulsivity or self-conscientiousness) in thevery high range to also complete a MillonMCMI III (Millon, Davis & Millon, 1997).The Millon MCMI III is an inventory whichassesses for DSM-IV diagnoses. Those individ-uals with Axis II disorders, significantcurrent alcohol and drug abuse, activepsychosis or bipolar disorder were excludedfrom the study, and referred to otherservices. This exclusion criteria was used asthe excluded disorders may have requiredmore specialist skills and training thanwould be available through this programme(e.g. psychiatric input).

Of the 54 participants in the personalitychange coaching programme, 32 wererandomly selected and interviewed for thecurrent study until saturation was reached(i.e. additional interviews were no longercontributing novel ideas) . No sub-theme wasbased on data derived from just one client’stranscript.

Lesley S. Martin, Lindsay G. Oades & Peter Caputi

Personality change coaches and adherence toprotocols Nine coaches (eight females and one male)delivered the personality change coachingprogramme. Ages ranged from 23 to 57 years(with six of the nine coaches being in their20s). The majority of the coaches (seven)were provisionally registered Master’s levelclinical psychology students at a regionalAustralian university. One coach was a regis-tered general psychologist and PhD student,and one coach was a registered clinicalpsychologist. As a minimum, clinicalpsychology students were in their fifth yearof full-time training, and had 60 hours ormore of face-to-face client contact. Theprimary orientation of training in thisprogramme was cognitive behavioural tech-niques.

In addition to their training inpsychology, coaches were trained in person-ality change coaching by way of: (a) atten-dance at a one-day workshop; (b) provisionof a personality change coaching manual; (c)completion of a research fidelity checklistafter each coaching session; and (d) weeklyone-hour one-to-one supervision sessions,which included review of videoed coachingsessions. The two supervisors were registeredpsychologists, experienced in using thepersonality change coaching resources with anumber of clients. One supervisor was thelead researcher in developing the step-wiseprocess of intentional personality changeused in the programme, and focused moreon adherence to coaching protocols. Thesecond supervisor was the director of auniversity placement clinic, and a PsychologyBoard of Australia approved supervisor, whoprovided broader supervision skills.

Qualitative researchersThe two coders in the current study were thesupervisors of the clinical students under-taking the coaching. One was the first authorin the current study (a registered psycholo-gist and PhD candidate), experienced inpersonality change coaching. The secondcoder was a clinical psychologist and

academic, also with experience with person-ality change coaching. The academicresearch supervisor for the current study wasalso consulted weekly to resolve any queriesthat arose (e.g. coding issues). Interviewswere conducted by the primary researcherand a second PhD clinical psychologystudent (not associated with the currentstudy). Interview processes were supervisedby the academic research supervisor of thecurrent study.

Data collectionAt the conclusion of the 10 sessions ofcoaching, semi-structured interviews wereconducted with the 32 participants who wereasked the following question: How would youdescribe your experience of personalitycoaching? Further probing of responsesencouraged elaboration. This approach waschosen to allow the participants the flexibilityto identify and share relevant experiences,while maintaining some degree of focus.

Personality change coaching intervention procedurePrior to being interviewed for the currentstudy, participants attended 10 one-to-onecoaching sessions designed to increase ordecrease client selected personality facets.Prior to beginning the coaching sessions,participants completed: (1) a 240-item self-report NEO PI-R questionnaire (Costa &McCrae, 1992), based on the Five FactorModel of Personality (McCrae, 1991); (2) avalues inventory (Wilson, 2002); and (3) areadiness to change assessment. At the firstcoaching session, a detailed personalityprofile was provided to, and discussed withthe participant. The profile indicated inwhat range (and percentile) the participantscored in terms of five broad personalitydomains, and 30 facets, relative to estab-lished NEO PI-R norms. Discussion focusedon whether increasing or decreasing certainfacets would be beneficial (e.g. lead to amore values consistent meaningful lifeand/or modify facets that had been experi-enced by the client as problematic in the


TitleClients’ experiences of intentional personality change coaching

past). Readiness to change concepts,including timeliness of change, internal andexternal motivation to change, importanceof change, and confidence in ability tochange were each assessed (by ranking eachon a scale from 1 to 10) and discussed, rela-tive to each proposed facet change. If at theend of this process (completed in the secondof 10 coaching sessions) the client wished tochange (increase or decrease) one or morefacets, these facet changes became theunifying goal for the 10 personality changecoaching sessions. (If no personality changegoals were identified, the client withdrewfrom the study.)

Personality change was facilitated using astructured step-wise personality changeprocess outlined in Martin et al. (2014a).The related resource material provided amenu of change interventions uniquelytailored to each of the 30 facets. These inter-ventions were developed in an earlier phaseof the research, in consultation with a panelof registered psychologists/coaches, withexperience in coaching and good familiaritywith the Big Five Model of Personality. Theinterventions incorporated a range ofapproaches and theoretical influences,including cognitive behavioural, positivepsychology, solution focused, and accept-ance and commitment. Progress towardpersonality change goals was measured atsessions five and 10, with a follow-upmeasure taken three months after the 10sessions of coaching were completed.

The step-wise process of personalitychange employed in this programme is illus-trated in Figure 1.

Approach to data analysisTranscripts were analysed and themes gener-ated using an inductive thematic analysismethod (Braun & Clarke, 2006), and withanalysis conducted at the semantic level.Semantic analysis focuses on the explicit orsurface meaning in the data. Braun andClarke (2006) suggest that thematic analysis‘is a technique for identifying, analysing andreporting patterns (themes) within data’

(p.79). As a minimum, it organises anddescribes data, but often also includes inter-pretation. Inductive denotes a ‘bottom up’approach, where themes are determined bythe data, rather than being developedaround theoretical interests. As it is not tiedto a particular theory or epistemology, itoffers greater freedom and flexibility tocapture stories with as few pre-conceivedideas as possible.

The analysis followed the steps outlinedin Braun and Clarke (2006), and employed aconsensual decision making approach,involving a three person research team.Initially two coders gained familiarisationwith the data, by reading, re-reading anddiscussing transcripts. They then jointlygenerated descriptive codes relevant to theresearch question, by delineating anddiscussing the chunks of text in the tran-scripts in turn. This was followed by a brain-storming or hashing out of themes, anddefining and naming them. Relationshipsbetween these themes were also identified.At each of these stages, feedback was sought,and queries and differences of opinionresolved, through input from the academicresearch supervisor of the current study. Thefirst author then interpreted and reportedthemes, with feedback and further refine-ment of ideas being sought from the twoother members of the research team. Thisconsensual generation of themes was used asthe research team considered it could facili-tate the development and challenging ofideas in a more interactive evolving mannerthan more structured processes (e.g. codersindependently coding chunks of text,followed by assessment of inter-rater relia-bility). In so doing it incorporated consen-sual theme generation ideas discussed in thequalitative literature (Hill, Thompson &Williams, 1997; Marcus et al., 2011; Olesonet al., 1994).

A key issue in evaluating the rigor of qual-itative research is trustworthiness (Rubin &Babbie, 2008). It is hoped the current studyachieved this through: (a) use of a researchteam, which encouraged tossing around


Author nameLesley S. Martin, Lindsay G. Oades & Peter Caputi



Figure 1: A step-wise process of intentional personality change coaching.

Step 1.Assess personality and client values.

l Complete personality inventory and develop report.l Complete values inventory.

Step 2. Discover the current self.

l Explore what is positive and problematic in the client's life. l Review client values questionnaire findings.l Review personality report.

Step 3. Explore gaps between thecurrent and ideal self.

l Clarify client’s ideal self.l Reflect on how current and ideal personality differ.l Explore what facet changes could help narrow this gap.

Step 4. Choose personality facetchange goals.

l Shortlist facets targeted for change.l Review consistency of proposed changes with values.

Step 5. Assess attitudes towardschange.

l Assess motivation, importance, confidence and timeliness.l Manage ambivalent attitudes and/or review change goals.l Finalise list of facets to target for change.

Step 6. Design and implementcoaching plan.

l Choose change intervention options for targeted facets.l Develop and implement a coaching plan.

Step 7. Re-assess personality andreview progress.

l Re-administer personality inventory (session 5).l Review progress and revise coaching plan (if necessary).

Step 8. Implement remainingcoaching sessions.

l Implement remaining coaching sessions, incorporating coaching plan revisions.

Step 9. Re-assess, review andmaintain.

l Re-administer personality inventory (session 10). l Review progress towards personality change goals.l Develop a maintenance plan for targeted sub-trait change.

Step 10. Follow-up, review andrefinement.

l Re-administer personality inventory (3 months later). l Refine maintenence strategies for targeted facet change.


Author name

ideas and approaches; (b) key team membersjournaling thoughts and reactions, anddiscussing potential researcher bias; (c)regular collaboration with the academicresearch supervisor; and (d) negative caseanalysis to identify and discuss cases that didnot fit the researchers’ initial interpretations.

Results and discussionFour themes emerged from the researchdata: personality change coaching: (1) facili-tates reflection leading to greater self-aware-ness; (2) promotes an authentic self andvalues consistent living; (3) producestangible and practical life benefits; and (4) isan enjoyable, positive and useful experience.These themes are discussed in turn, withrelevant quotes identified by participantnumber (p) and line number (l).

Theme One: Personality change facilitates reflection leading to greater self-awarenessThe first theme revealed that intentionalpersonality change coaching facilitatedreflection, which in turn fostered greaterself-awareness. An important component ofthe step-wise process of the intentionalpersonality change coaching programmewas reflection. This began with participantscompleting a 240-item personality inventorybefore the coaching sessions started. Oneparticipant likened this first stage to soulsearching.

The experience of filling out the questionnaire I can recall was very soul searching. (p.15:l4)2

After the personality report was preparedand shared with the participant, the earlysessions encouraged reflection on ‘who amI?’, and ‘who do I want to be?’ This wasfollowed by the client deciding what person-ality facet change goals they wanted to set.The value of this reflective process is illus-trated by the following quote:

It was useful not only to look at the broadertraits but also going through all the sub-traitsand thinking is that me, and do I want tochange that? (p.8:l11)

The process of reflecting on the current selfand the ideal self mirrors components of thetheory of intentional change developed byBoyatzis (2006). One element of this theoryinvolves moving towards the ideal selfthrough being aware of and experimentingwith new thoughts and behaviours. In asimilar vein, several participants reportedthat the personality coaching helped thembe more aware of how (and why) theythought and behaved in certain ways.

OK, I’ve found the experience positive, yeah.And I found it very educational. A lot of stuffwe’ve gone through is about my critical thinkingprocesses. Some things that never really dawnedon me before, I ended up reflecting on. Likereflecting on why I say and do things, andwhere exactly is it coming from. Yeah, so I learned to reflect on how I’m thinking andbehaving and to then critically analyse it. Andit’s something I have never done before. (p.7:l4)

The cognitive behavioural orientationevident in the reflective processes may haveresulted from most coaches’ training beingpredominantly in cognitive behaviouraltechniques. Although a range of non-cogni-tive behavioural change options wereincluded in the coaching resources, it islikely that practitioners in the early stages oftheir professional life favoured familiarchange methodologies. To date there hasbeen limited exploration of cognitivebehavioural processes in a personalitychange context, as this literature is still in itsinfancy. However, personality changeinevitably involves reflection on our thinkingand behavioural patterns, as our thoughtsand behaviours help mould who we are, andwho we become. Hence, the current studyextends our understanding of cognitivebehavioural processes to a personalitychange coaching context.

Some participants spoke of experiencingah-huh or moments of realisation, and thepractical translation of these realisations intotheir lives. The following quote is from aparticipant who wished to reduce conflictual


2 In the bracketed reference at the end of each quote, p refers to the page and l refers to line in the transcripts.

aspects of her personality (evidenced by alow score on the facet Compliance).

Coaching helped me change some behaviours I have wished to modify for years. Through thesessions there were a couple of ‘ah-huhmoments’. Those realisations in life can comeand pass. Coaching helped me focus on theconsciousness of the ah-huh and then developmethods and steps to take the ah-huh knowledgeinto my own life. Coaching made the ah-huh areality through weekly commitment to goals anddiscussion of challenges… It was veryinsightful and I think it’s really changed me interms of how I have been doing things, and howI will do things in the future, because now I willstop and think about how’s that going to bereceived. (p.17:l61)

Yet another participant spoke of an ah-huhmoment amid the chaos of a challengingweek, leading to the discovery of a deeper self.

It was the week that things had been in kind ofchaos and it was… it was like that was one ofthose ah-huh moments of the universealigning… It was kind of like uncovering apart of me, I guess, that was not unknown, butwas very deep seated, and also one of thosethings I had kept hidden from the world andmyself, yeah. (p.18:l11)

The current study suggests that moments ofrealisation about oneself can occur in thepersonality change coaching process, andfoster deeper self-awareness and change.These findings are consistent with previousfindings that critical moments in coachingcan be pivotal to the growth and develop-ment of the client (De Haan et al., 2010) andprovide opportunities for insight andchange (Day et al., 2008).

Reflection during the 10-week pro-gramme enabled participants to betterunderstand themselves, not only in terms ofwhat they wanted to change, and how theywanted to grow, but also what they chose toaccept, as illustrated below.

It has been a great opportunity to just reallyanalyse the things that I do, and understand thethoughts that I have when I do things, or when I’m feeling stressed… and working onbeing able to tap into those and work out how to

change them, and let go of them if that works best,so I guess overall my experience has been reallypositive. It has been a really good opportunity tounderstand myself and grow. (p.21:l4)It’s helped me look at areas of my personalitythat I’m not entirely happy with, and look attrying to improve those qualities, and acceptsome of them too. (p.12:l6)

These findings extend the existing person-ality change literature by shedding light onhow reflection (leading to self-awareness)informs our understanding of: (a) who weare, and who we want to be; (b) how wecurrently think and behave; (c) the rele-vance of ah-huh moments; and (d) theaspects of self/personality we chose to acceptor to change.

The processes of reflecting on one’scurrent self and the ideal self inevitably facil-itates consideration of both the authenticself, and what one values in life (Gardner etal., 2005). This links with the second themeevident in the current study; that personalitychange coaching (assisted by greater self-awareness) promotes an authentic, valuesconsistent way of living.

Theme Two: Personality change coachingpromotes authentic, values consistent livingAlthough the concept of personality changeis likely to have an appeal to some, othersmay fear that changing their personalitywould be akin to losing their identity, andabandoning their true selves. Hence, it isinteresting to explore the authentic identitytheme (and related values concepts) thatemerged in the current study, and links withprevious literature.

Consistent with previous coaching litera-ture (Fusco et al., 2011a, 2011b; Gardner etal., 2005) transcripts suggested that thepersonality change coaching programme,with a focus on self-awareness, had promotedpersonal authenticity, and values-consistentliving. No transcripts alluded to having lostvalued components of identity, and someparticipants actually refuted this, as illus-trated by the following quote.



I knew I wasn’t going to change unrecognisably,and I’m certainly not going to change overnightunrecognisably, and go, well who is this womanin my house and in my body? It isn’t going tobe like that, so I didn’t have that fear anymore,so it was easy just to make the switch.(p.10.l14)

Participants spoke of achieving a morevalues-consistent way of behaving and living,as illustrated by the following quote:

Yeah, that values exercise is a really goodanchor. Like I made up this stuff, and I’ve putit on my corkboard. Whenever I see a behaviourthat I don’t want, I just relate it back to thevalues, and the coaching, and I’m getting moreand more confident that it’s not going to go backto what it was before, because I have a bit moreexperience. And also noticing when you’redoing something that you want, and whenyou’re not. I think that was the big thing, justthe self knowledge of what you want and whatyou don’t want. (p.9:l14)

Similarly, the following interview extractdescribes how one participant (who targetedemotionality facets) experienced the person-ality change coaching as helping her bemore connected to her values, andexpressing a more authentic self.

It’s been very helpful in that the anxiety anddepression were changing my personality inways that I didn’t like, and in some sense all ofthese other things were part of my personalitybeing suppressed. It’s almost like it (thecoaching) was more bringing me back to who I was 10 years ago, but with more maturity. I think the anxiety took over, so now I’m closerto the values that matter to me, and wereimportant when I was younger and growingup, and have always been important values tome, but got lost in this vicious downwardspiral. But more so, I am more connected withthem now because I understand them, and I understand how my mind works better, so I can actually change it… I’m makingdecisions more based on those values and beliefsrather than how I am feeling moment tomoment. (p.6:l6)

Components of the step-wise process ofintentional personality change likely

contributed to promoting values consistentchange, and in turn protected clients againstlosing valued aspects of their identity. First,completion of a values inventory, and evalu-ating contemplated personality changesagainst these values, ensured that changeswere values consistent. Second, the choice ofa limited number of facets to target forchange, (i.e. an average of three out of atotal of 30) suggested that the aim of thecoaching was to fine tune, rather than radi-cally change personality. Third, the partici-pant driven nature of change goals meantthat interventions were only directed tomaking changes that the client wanted.Furthermore, once a facet was shortlisted forchange, the following factors were assessedand discussed; readiness to change, internaland external motivation to change, impor-tance of change, and confidence in ability tochange. If, at the end of this process, theclient realised he or she did not wish tochange a shortlisted facet, it was not targetedfor change. Hence, the personality changeprocess incorporated a number of ways ofensuring that the client’s identity and valueswere not negatively affected.

Overall, transcripts indicated the person-ality change coaching had helped partici-pants be who they wanted to be. In manycases this involved reducing emotionalityfacets. Of the 164 facets chosen by clients tochange, emotionality facets accounted for79. Hence, in nearly half the cases, ‘beingwho they wanted to be’ focused on being lessemotionally reactive. This point is illustratedin an extract from a client who had struggledwith depression for much of her life.

Yeah, just a feeling of empowerment to be who I want to be rather than who the depression wasmaking me. And that’s all still a work inprogress, but I can see the potential, whereasbefore the future looked very bleak. (p5.l19)

In many cases participants and coaches facil-itated personality change through masteringbetter ways to cope with life’s challenges.The following interview extract (from aclient living with chronic illness) illustratesthis.



Um, my experience of personality coaching isthat it’s been useful to have tools to put into myeveryday life, and particularly to help with myillness, and to help deal with functioning asbest as I can. (p.12:l4)

These coping strategies translated intoreduced emotionality, and enhancedresilience, as illustrated by a quote from aclient who targeted and reduced anxiety,depression and impulsiveness during the 10 sessions of coaching.

It’s just made me feel much more relaxed whichhas been noticeable. I’ve been able to notice it inhow I think about things and respond to things,especially when things don’t go right. Theholiday that we had recently had some ups anddowns in it, right, and I just sailed through it.(p.3:l19)

These findings suggest that personalitychange coaching can have a positive impacton emotionality and coping skills. Theimpact of personality change coaching onindividuals with high scores on the domainemotionality is also currently being investi-gated qualitatively by researchers (includingthe first author). Consistent with the currentstudy, preliminary findings from this quanti-tative analysis suggest that personalitychange coaching was successful in reducinghigh emotionality, consistent with the goalsof the clients.

These results suggest that personalitychange coaching can be effectively utilisedwith individuals who have high levels ofemotionality in certain circumstances (e.g.when the coach is trained to work with bothpsychopathology and personality coaching,and is receiving regular supervision by aclinical psychologist). The results alsosuggest that the boundaries betweencoaching and therapy/counselling can becomplex, and that personality change couldarguably fit within either a coaching ortherapy/counselling context. For example,if the client wished to reduce anxiety (themost commonly targeted facet), the inter-ventions employed are likely to be more akinto counselling/therapy, whereas if the clientwished to increase self-discipline (the second

most commonly targeted facet), then theapproach taken may be more akin tocoaching. (For a discussion of what facetsclient chose to change, see Allan, Leeson &Martin (2014).) As at the outset of the rela-tionship a decision has not yet been made onwhich facets to target, it would appear appro-priate that professionals undertakingpersonality coaching should have training inboth coaching and therapy.

The current study’s findings tentativelysuggest that personality change coachingmay be effective with clients that arecommonly excluded from coaching (i.e. dueto high levels of emotionality, includinganxiety, depression and anger). Furtherexploration of the implications of expandingthe boundaries of coaching to include suchclients (in terms of implications, risks andbenefits) would usefully inform the litera-ture. If personality change coaching is likelyto engage clients that have high levels ofemotionality (who would commonly beexcluded from coaching), then a range offactors identified in Buckley (2010) needconsideration (e.g. the training, competenceand supervision of the coach).

Theme Three: Personality coaching facilitatestangible and practical life benefitsWhile changing scores on personality invento-ries may be a measurable and therefore rela-tively objective measure of personality change,an important question is; does this translateinto meaningful life changes? The theme thatemerged in this respect was that many partici-pants cited tangible benefits that accrued fromthe coaching, as illustrated below.

You sort of learn this stuff about yourself, andyou think, so what, how is this going to relate toeveryday life. How’s this going to change me?And then you can actually see this sort ofchange. (p.9:l48)There were areas of my life that I felt wereholding me back or not working for me anymore,so for me to not only see positive change on the[NEO PI-R] scores, but also to have it reflectedback to me in real life increases my motivationto keep it up. (p1.l49)



The importance of coaching being relevantto practical and salient issues was discussedin Tooth, Higgs and Armstrong (2008).Hence the current study extends our aware-ness of the desirability and benefit ofensuring that coaching outcomes translateinto practical benefits. The specific nature ofthe practical changes cited in the currentstudy were wide ranging, but often related totwo key concepts, (i.e. enhanced confidenceand competence, and improved relating toothers). For example, some participantsnoticed enhanced abilities and confidence atwork or in study, as illustrated in thefollowing extracts.

My confidence overall has increased which hasallowed me to perform much better at work. I just feel sounder in my judgement. (p.4.l35)The main areas we focused on were like selfdiscipline and those sorts of areas, especially todo with uni work and I really found the advicethat [the coach] gave me helpful. Personally I think I’ve improved a lot in the areas we weretrying to improve, so it was a really greatexperience, you know. (p.2.l6)

The positive impact on enhanced self-aware-ness in turn positively impacted on howparticipants related to others. This includedgaining a better understanding of others’feelings, being more connected with family,friends and work colleagues, and facilitatinga calmer home environment. The followingquotes illustrate these concepts.

I think the assessments scores over time becamequite different. I think 90 per cent of the changewas around change in my self-understanding.And 10 per cent might be actual change inbehaviour. But the change in self-under-standing is a change in personality, in the sensethat it relates to one’s own personality, itchanges the way you think and feel, but alsoself-understanding as it relates to other people.It affected the way I relate to other people, andI could say yes, I now understand people’semotions better than I thought I could.(p.7:l15)I’m more connected with my family and friends,and I’m engaging better with work. (p.6:l16)

It was about me, it wasn’t about everybody else,and it was about, probably about making me abetter mum, a better wife. I set the mood in myhouse so… and life can be very stressful withmy hectic life. I’ve found that the tone in thehouse has come down just by my sitting there,thinking, removing myself from the situation,breathing it out and walking back in and goingjust… right, think about it logically, whereasbefore I have just snapped, yeah. So that’s beenthe most beneficial thing, yep. (p.27:l45)

The findings of the current study reinforceand expand previous findings that coachingcommonly fosters practical benefits in thecareer arena (DeVaux, 2010), self-confi-dence (DeVaux, 2010; De Haan, 2011), andinterpersonal and communication skills (De Haan, 2010). Hence personality changecoaching (as with other forms of coaching)appears to translate into meaningful benefitsfor the majority of clients.

Theme Four: Personality change coaching isenjoyable, positive and beneficialA dominant theme in the interview tran-scripts was that intentional personalitychange coaching had been an enjoyable,positive and useful experience.

I’ve really enjoyed it. It’s been fabulous and I’msad it’s come to an end. It’s been fantastic andit’s been very, very helpful. It’s been great.(p11:l14)I really can’t convey enough how much I’velooked forward to the sessions, yes. (p.24:l15)It was an enjoyable experience… relaxing. Itmade me sit and think about what I wanted todo and how I wanted to do it… you know. I just enjoyed it. I thought it was very worth-while. (p.32:l3)

Some participants expressed their gratitudefor having found the advertisements for thepersonality change coaching.

I’m just so grateful that I got to be involved.Like… thank you Mum for finding this on theinternet! It was really fantastic and I willdefinitely miss having my session every week.(p.2:l11)Well I don’t often read the Mercury (newspaper)but I’m glad I read it that week. Laughs. It was



wonderful. An absolutely terrific opportunity.(p.15:l81)

A small number of participants indicatedthat, while there were benefits, at times theprocess was frustrating or uncomfortable.

Well its gone through kind of waves I think.Like the first couple of weeks it started offexciting, and thinking this is great… And acouple of times I have though why am I doingthis? It’s not happening, we’re going nowhere,this is a waste of time. And then towards theend it became really meaningful and some stuffcome out that I hadn’t expected that was reallyquite eye opening, and has given me some realstructure for the future, yeah… No it didn’t feelcomfortable, but I felt like it was a secure placeto do it – but it certainly didn’t feel comfortable.Yeah, yeah. But it was really, really useful, I would say. (p.18:l1)

Nevertheless, the overall sentiment of theparticipants was that the process had beenenjoyable, positive and beneficial, and insome cases life changing, as illustratedbelow:

I just feel so grateful to have been able to be apart of this. Um, it been very useful, it’s beenlife changing. (p.4:l67

The current study’s theme of personalitychange coaching being enjoyable, positiveand useful is consistent with previous find-ings based on coaching in general. DeVaux(2010) found that the majority of the155,000 coaching clients surveyed reportedthat coaching had facilitated positivechanges, they were pleased with the overallcoaching experience, and they would behappy to engage in coaching again.

Conclusions and implicationsFigure 2 summarises the conclusions of thecurrent study by illustrating themes found,and sequential relationships between themes.

In the results and discussion section ofthe present study, reflection and self-aware-ness are combined under one theme, asparticipant quotes and related literatureoften blend these two concepts, making itdifficult to discuss them separately from aresults point of view. However, they have

been separated out in Figure 2 in order toalso illustrate the sequential nature of theirrelationship (i.e. the sequential flow fromreflection to self-awareness). In essence thecurrent study suggests that personalitychange coaching is a reflective process whichleads to enhanced self-awareness and a moreauthentic, values consistent way of living.This in turn leads to practical benefits.Hence the process is viewed as beneficial bythe client.

The findings of the current study haveimplications for both practice and research.From a coaching practice perspective, itsuggests that clients who wish to changeaspects of their personality may benefit froma structured coaching programme designedto achieve this. This offers the potential toextend coaching into a relatively new arena.From a research point of view, it fills a gap inthe coaching, intentional change andpersonality literature by providing a clients’perspective of the personality changecoaching process.

Limitations and future directionsThe current study has a number of limita-tions. First, the group of participants thatengaged in the personality change pro-gramme were self-selected. Analysis of theirpersonality profiles found they were high ondomain openness (Allan, Leeson & Martin,2014), suggesting they may be more open to,and, therefore, more positive about changeprocesses, compared to the general popula-tion. Some of the interviews were conductedby the first author. It would have been prefer-able for individual/s independent of theresearch project to conduct all interviews, inorder to reduce possible researcher bias.Furthermore, the generation of codes andthemes via negotiated consensually agree-ment could potentially lead to stronger viewsin the research team dominating, and couldbe viewed as less rigorous than some otherapproaches (e.g. those incorporating struc-tured inter-rater reliability processes). Hencethe current study’s findings should be viewedas preliminary.




Author name

The study suggests a number of areasworthy of further investigation. Given thecoaching/counselling/therapy boundaryqueries raised, it would be useful to furtherexplore what professionals, under whatconditions (e.g. professional affiliations,supervision) should conduct personalitychange coaching. It would also be useful tobetter understand clients attitudes towardnaming of the process (e.g. coaching, coun-selling or therapy), and engagement impli-cations. For example, it would be useful toexplore which term best describes the

process from the perspective of clients andcoaches experienced in the personalitychange intervention, and how naming of theprocess would likely influence client engage-ment, (e.g. whether participants who chooseto enrol in the personality change coachingintervention would have enrolled if theintervention had been called counselling ortherapy). Moreover, it would be useful toknow if personality change coaching is moreor less effective with individuals with higherlevels of emotionality (who are commonlyexcluded from coaching).


Figure 2: Process of clients’ experiences of personality change coaching.

Reflection

Soul searching. Is it me, and do I wantto change?

Why do I think and actthis way?

What do I want to let go? Accept?

Self-awareness

Uh-huhmoments.

Self-understanding.

Fostersunderstandingof others.

Authentic, values consistent

Knowing I won’t changeunrecognisably.

Becomingmore

authentic.

Actions morevalues driven.

Tangible benefits

Relating to othersbetter. More connected.

Better coping skills. Enhanced confidenceand competence.

Being who I want to be.

Valuable experience

Enjoyable, positive and beneficial. Better coping skills. Exceptions – rocky road.



The AuthorsLesley S. MartinSydney Business School, University of Wollongong.Lindsay G. OadesAustralian Institute of Business Wellbeing,Sydney Business School, University of Wollongong.Peter CaputiSchool of Psychology, University of Wollongong.

CorrespondenceLesley MartinPO Box 5059,Wollongong, NSW 2500,Australia.Email: [email protected]

ReferencesAllan, J.A., Leeson, P. & Martin, L.S. (2014).

Who wants to change their personality and howdo they want to change it? International CoachingPsychology Review, 9, 8–21.

Boyatzis, R.E. (2006). An overview of intentionalchange from a complexity perspective. Journal ofManagement Development, 25, 607–623.

Boyatzis, R.E., Howard, A., Rapisarda, B. & Taylor, S.N.(2004). Coaching can work, but doesn’t always.People Management, 11 March.

Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysisin psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3,77–101.

Buckley, A. (2010). Coaching and mental health. In E. Cox, T. Bachkirova & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.),The complete handbook of coaching. ThousandIslands: Sage.

Costa, P.T., Jr. & McCrae, R.M. (1992). Revised NEOPersonality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five FactorInventory (NEO-FFI). Lutz, Florida: PsychologicalAssessment Resources, Inc.

Day, A., De Haan, E., Sills, C., Bertie, C. & Blass, E.(2008). Coaches’ experience of critical momentsin the coaching. International Coaching PsychologyReview, 3, 207–218.

De Haan, E., Bertie, C., Day, A. & Sills, C. (2010).Clients’ critical moments of coaching: Toward a‘client model’ of executive coaching. Academy ofManagement Learning & Education, 9, 607–621.

De Haan, E. & NieB, C. (2011). Change throughexecutive coaching. Training Journal, July, 66–70.www.trainingjournal.com

DeVaux, V. (2010). Coaching benefits: From winningthe race to winning in the office. T + D, 64, 20.

Fusco, T., Palmer, S. & O’Riordan, S. (2011a). Can coaching psychology help develop authenticleaders: Part One. Coaching Psychology International,4, 3–5.

Fusco, T., Palmer, S. & O’Riordan, S. (2011b). Can coaching psychology help develop authenticleaders? Part Two. The Coaching Psychologist, 7,127–132.

Gardner, W.L., Avolio, B.J., Luthans, F., May, D.R. &Walumbwa, F.O. (2005). Can you see the real me?A self-based model of authentic leader andfollower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16,343–372.

Gyllensten, K., Palmer, S., Nilsson, E.K., Regnér, A.M.& Frodi, A. (2010). Experiences of cognitivecoaching: A qualitative study. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 5, 98–108.

Hanft, B.E., Rush, D.D. & Shelden, M.L. (2004).Coaching families and colleagues in early childhood.Baltimore: Brookes.

Hill, C.E., Thompson, B.J. & Williams, E.N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitativeresearch. The Counseling Psychologist, 25, 517–572.

Hodgetts, J. & Wright, J. (2007). Researching clients’experiences: A review of the literature. ClinicalPsychology and Psychotherapy, 14, 157–163.

Kemp, T.J. (2005). The proactive behaviourframework: A reflective process for exploringthinking, behaving and personal insight. In M. Cavanagh, A.M. Grant & T. Kemp (Eds.),Evidence based coaching. Bowen Hills: AustralianAcademic Press.

Kristal, Z. (2010). Critical reflection in the coaching process.Paper presented at the 8th InternationalTransformative Learning Conference: ReframingSocial Sustainability in a Multicultural World,Bermuda.

Marcus, M., Westra, H., Angus, L. & Kertes, A. (2011).Client experiences of motivational interviewingfor generalised anxiety disorder: A qualitativeanalysis. Psychotherapy Research, 21, 447–461.

Martin, L.S., Oades, L. & Caputi, P. (2014).Intentional personality change coaching: A randomised controlled trial of client chosenpersonality facet change using the Five-FactorModel of Personality. International CoachingPsychology Review, 9(2), 196–209.


Author name

Martin, L.S., Oades, L. & Caputi, P. (2014a). A step-wise process of intentional personality changecoaching. International Coaching Psychology Review,9(2), 181–195.

Martin, L.S., Oades, L. & Caputi, P. (2013). Rejoinder:What is personality change coaching and why is itimportant? A response to Martin, Oades & Caputi.International Coaching Psychology Review, 8, 74–76.

Martin, L.S., Oades, L.G. & Caputi, P. (2012). What ispersonality change coaching and why is itimportant? International Coaching Psychology Review,7, 185–193.

McCrae, R.R. (1991). The Five Factor model and itsassessment in clinical settings. Journal of PersonalityAssessment, 57(3), 399–414.

Millon, T., Davis, R. & Millon, C. (1997). MCMI-IIIManual (2nd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: NationalComputer Systems, Inc.

Oleson, V., Droes, N., Hatton, D., Chico, N. &Schatzman, L. (Eds.). (1994). Analysing together:Recollections of a team approach. London: Routledge.

Ozer, D.J. & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personalityand the prediction of consequential outcomes.Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421.

Passmore, J. (2010). A grounded theory study of thecoachee experience: The implications for trainingand practice in coaching psychology. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 5, 48–62.

Rubin, A. & Babbie, E. (2008). Research methods forsocial work. Belmont, CA.: Brooks Cole/ThomsonLearning.

Tooth, J., Higgs, J. & Armstrong, H. (2008). Theexecutive’s perspective on coaching. Training andDevelopment in Australia, 35, 15–18.

Wilson, K.G. (2002). Valued Living Questionnaire. In J. Ciarrochi & L. Bilich (Eds.), Acceptance andcommitment therapy measures package. Wollongong:School of Psychology, University of Wollongong.


S I AM TAKING ON the role of Chairof the Special Group in CoachingPsychology I would like to say hello

and a warm welcome from the Committeeand myself.

To begin with I must mention our 4th International Congress in December.What a superb and a diverse event! A bigthank you to everyone who helped shape itand to all participants who attended andmade it possible.

The number of streams and the variety ofspeakers were just fantastic. We had presen-ters and attendees from 25 different coun-tries and a range of backgrounds. TheCongress really celebrated diversity andinclusivity of our profession and people whowork in it.

The event was also a good indicator ofhow we aim to take the SGCP forward. The Special Group of Coaching Psychologyis – now more than ever – open, inclusive,collaborative and welcoming.

As we are looking forward – inclusivity isat the centre of my message.l First of all – inclusivity within the SGCP.

We are a Special Group for a reason. Weare incredibly lucky to have such a diversemembership. The wealth of knowledgeand experience is immense and we mustmake the most of it. I would like to takethis opportunity to invite our members tocome forward and to contribute to thework of the Committee. Please let us knowhow you would like your Special Group tobe shaped and what you expect from it.We will soon send out a short surveyasking you about different aspects of theSGCP – please take time to tell us how youfeel and what you think.

l Secondly – inclusivity within the BritishPsychological Society. The Society ismaking a major move towardscollaboration between the membernetworks. And we are at the forefront ofit. The International Congress was a goodexample of demonstrating our linksbetween coaching and mental health,occupational, sports, clinical andneuropsychology. Our group is still young,but one of our aims is to explore and settraining routes that respect diversity ofbackgrounds and welcome people whohave achieved their accreditations viaother divisions or other professionalbodies.

l Last but not least – inclusivity outside theSociety and outside psychology. TheCongress was celebrating collaborationswith groups and professions outsidepsychology – sport, law and politics toname a few. I strongly believe that whatmatters is how we can be useful in real lifesituations. I also believe that our identity

International Coaching Psychology Review l Vol. 10 No. 1 March 2015 109© The British Psychological Society – ISSN: 1750-2764

Report

Special Group in Coaching Psychology NewsDasha Grajfoner

A


Author name

will strengthen by being open andinclusive rather than closed and exclusive.The second aim is, therefore, to establishlinks and collaborations with otherprofessional bodies that are relevant forcoaching but do not necessarily fall underpsychology.

In the spirit of collaborations, I am verypleased to say that we organised an inauguralmeeting of the International CoachingPsychology Research Network, which tookplace at the Congress. This will shortly befollowed up with a research network work-shop and collaborative research projects,hopefully resulting in good quality coachingpsychology data and evidence. If you areinterested in research collaborations, pleaseget in touch.

While what lies ahead of us is ambitious,we must not forget that coaching psychologyis about realising one’s true potential –including our potential and the potential ofthe SGCP.

Finally, I would like to invite you to our SGCP Annual Conference on the 10–11December 2015 in London. Please watch thisspace for more information and lookingforward to seeing you all then.

Dr Dasha GrajfonerEmail: [email protected]

Dasha Grajfoner

International Coaching Psychology Review l Vol. 10 No. 1 March 2015 111© The British Psychological Society – ISSN: 1750-2764

Report

Interest Group in Coaching Psychology NewsNic Eddy

THIS REPORT offers a timely opportu-nity to review the success of the 4th International Congress on

Coaching Psychology (ICCP) in Melbourne,13–15 November: an event that was at theforefront of the work of the NationalCommittee throughout 2014.

And by ‘review’, I mean a step beyondpost-event immediate reactions and feed-back such as, l did all the presenters turn up? l did the vast majority of attendees’ verbal

and written feedback report satisfaction(or stronger) with the relevance of andstandard of presentations offered?, and

l did we achieve the positive collegiateatmosphere we sought throughout thethree days? (I’m happy to report yes.)

Rather, I wish to explore a little how the 4th ICCP contributed towards more strategicgoals that emerged from our NationalCommittee’s re-consideration of ourapproach to the positioning of coachingpsychology in the marketplace as well as ourcontinuing efforts to influence the standardsof coaching practice generally (see myMarch 2014 report, ICPR, 9(1), 109–110).

This re-consideration led us to concludethe necessity for a strategic marketing shiftin emphasis, l away from continuing what has often

been a difficult task of directly promotingcoaching psychologists or coachingpsychology per se. This has frequentlyresulted in a conversation that hasrelatively little meaning, relevance orinterest for the majority of ourmarketplace as well as having beenconstrued by many in the coachingindustry as elitist. The result? Lostopportunities to influence.

l to a focus on the promotion of theessential contribution of psychology tobest practice coaching – with theemphasis on the practice of psychologyrather than psychologists.

Therefore, we are endeavouring to developan increasingly inclusive approach to workwith and influence, l all coaches who aspire to best practice

coaching on behalf of their clients, andwho understand the importance of highquality, continuing professional develop-ment in creating this, as well as

l HR professionals and executivesresponsible for purchasing and evaluatingcoaching programmes in both the privateand public sectors: those seeking toidentify factors that drive coachingprogramme effectiveness and hence howthey assess coaching providers.

Not surprisingly, this thinking is reflected inour measures of success in terms of how the4th ICCP contributed to more strategic goalssuch as:l contributing to coaching best practice –

through offering insight into and access


Author name

to best practice coaching psychologyresearch and practice through theprovision of high quality, professionaldevelopment;

l promoting a better insight into thecompounding benefits of psychologyacross the coaching process (see Marchreport, op. cit.);

l realising a wider engagement with thebroader coaching community (ratherthan just psychologists who coach); and

l broadening the programme content toconsider the potential contribution ofcoaching in different and increasinglycomplex organisational contexts.

Under the Congress theme, ‘Coaching excel-lence in practice’, we added two personalmeasures of success for attendees:l usefulness – the extent to which attendees

report finishing with ‘takeaway’ practicaltechniques and knowledge that haveready application in the workplace; and

l networking – the opportunity to mix withlike-minded colleagues.

The Congress programme of keynotes, work-shops and panels assisted us in exploring thecontribution of coaching psychology in theareas of: Leadership; Performance; Well-being; What constitutes coaching excellencein practice?; and Determining client needsand evaluating outcome – from the client’sperspective.

The result?By all measures above, we met and exceededour expectations leaving the CoachingPsychology Interest Group with a soundlybased momentum to engage with 2015.

For the 4th ICCP congress programmeinformation, go to:www.coachingcongress.org.au

Congress presentations can be accessed at:https://groups.psychology.org.au/GroupContent.aspx?ID=6270

ThanksThe success of the Congress capped off abusy 2014 for the Coaching PsychologyInterest Group. I would like to take thisopportunity to thank all those on theNational and State Committees for theircontribution throughout the year.

I would also like to record my personalthanks in particular to the National Treas-urer and then Victorian State Convener,Vicki Crabb, as well as David Heap: theirefforts in organising the Congress werecrucial to its success.

Cheers.

Nic EddyNational ConvenerInterest Group on Coaching PsychologyAustralian Psychological SocietyEmail: [email protected]

Nic Eddy

4. Online submission process(1) All manuscripts must be submitted to a Co-ordinating Editor by email to:

Stephen Palmer (UK): [email protected] Gordon (Australia): [email protected]

(2) The submission must include the following as separate files:l Title page consisting of manuscript title, authors’ full names and affiliations, name and address for corresponding author.l Abstract.l Full manuscript omitting authors’ names and affiliations. Figures and tables can be attached separately if necessary.

5. Manuscript requirementsl Contributions must be typed in double spacing with wide margins. All sheets must be numbered.l Tables should be typed in double spacing, each on a separate page with a self-explanatory title. Tables should be comprehensible

without reference to the text. They should be placed at the end of the manuscript with their approximate locations indicated inthe text.

l Figures can be included at the end of the document or attached as separate files, carefully labelled in initial capital/lower caselettering with symbols in a form consistent with text use. Unnecessary background patterns, lines and shading should be avoided.Captions should be listed on a separate page. The resolution of digital images must be at least 300 dpi.

l For articles containing original scientific research, a structured abstract of up to 250 words should be included with theheadings: Objectives, Design, Methods, Results, Conclusions. Review articles should use these headings: Purpose, Methods, Results,Conclusions.

l Overall, the presentation of papers should conform to the British Psychological Society’s Style Guide (available at www.bps.org.uk/publications/publications_home.cfm in PDF format). Non-discriminatory language should be used throughout. Spelling should beAnglicised when appropriate. Text should be concise and written for an international readership of applied psychologists.Sensationalist and unsubstantiated views are discouraged. Abbreviations, acronyms and unfamiliar specialist terms should beexplained in the text on first use.

l Particular care should be taken to ensure that references are accurate and complete. Give all journal titles in full. Referencingshould follow BPS formats. For example:Billington, T. (2000). Separating, losing and excluding children: Narratives of difference. London: Routledge/Falmer.Elliott, J.G. (2000). Dynamic assessment in educational contexts: Purpose and promise. In C. Lidz & J.G. Elliott (Eds.),

Dynamic assessment: Prevailing models and applications (pp.713–740). New York: J.A.I. Press.Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (2006). The coaching psychology movement and its development within the British Psychological

Society. International Coaching Psychology Review 1(1), 5–11.l SI units must be used for all measurements, rounded off to practical values if appropriate, with the Imperial equivalent in

parentheses.l In normal circumstances, effect size should be incorporated.l Authors are requested to avoid the use of sexist language.l Authors are responsible for acquiring written permission to publish lengthy quotations, illustrations, etc. for which they do not

own copyright.

6. Brief reportsThese should be limited to 1000 words and may include research studies and theoretical, critical or review comments whose essentialcontribution can be made briefly. A summary of not more than 50 words should be provided.7. Publication ethicsBPS Code of Conduct – Code of Conduct, Ethical Principles and Guidelines.Principles of Publishing – Principle of Publishing.

8. Supplementary dataSupplementary data too extensive for publication may be deposited with the British Library Document Supply Centre. Such materialincludes numerical data, computer programs, fuller details of case studies and experimental techniques. The material should besubmitted to the Editor together with the article, for simultaneous refereeing.

9. Post acceptancePDF page proofs are sent to authors via email for correction of typesetting but not for rewriting or the introduction of new material.Corrections at this stage in production due to errors made by an author may incur a fee payable by the author or their institution.

10. CopyrightTo protect authors and publications against unauthorised reproduction of articles, The British Psychological Society requires copyrightto be assigned to itself as publisher, on the express condition that authors may use their own material at any time withoutpermission. On acceptance of a paper, authors will be requested to sign an appropriate assignment of copyright form.

11. Checklist of requirementsl Abstract (100–200 words).l Title page (include title, authors’ names, affiliations, full contact details).l Full article text (double-spaced with numbered pages and anonymised).l References (see above). Authors are responsible for bibliographic accuracy and must check every reference in the manuscript and

proofread again in the page proofs.l Tables, figures, captions placed at the end of the article or attached as separate files.

St Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester LE1 7DR, UKTel 0116 254 9568 Fax 0116 227 1314 E-mail [email protected] www.bps.org.uk

© The British Psychological Society 2015Incorporated by Royal Charter Registered Charity No 229642

Contents4 Editorial: Celebrating our 10th volume of the

International Coaching Psychology ReviewStephen Palmer & Sandy Gordon

Papers

6 How coaching helps leadership resilience: The leadership perspectiveCarmelina Lawton Smith

20 There is no leadership if no-one follows: Why leadership is necessarily a group processMichael J. Platow, S. Alexander Haslam, Stephen D. Reicher & Niklas K. Steffens

38 Differences between critical moments for clients, coaches, and sponsors of coachingErik de Haan & Christiane Nieß

62 Helping people to ‘make things happen’: A framework for proactivity at work Sharon K. Parker & Ying Wang

76 The experience of cognitive behavioural group coaching with college students: An IPA study exploring its effectivenessPepita Torbrand & Vicky Ellam-Dyson

94 Clients’ experiences of Intentional Personality Change CoachingLesley S. Martin, Lindsay G. Oades & Peter Caputi

Reports

109 Special Group in Coaching Psychology NewsDasha Grajfoner

111 Interest Group in Coaching Psychology News Nic Eddy

international coaching psychology revieworganisationalpsychology.nz/wp-content/uploads/... ·...

Documents