New findings on the effectiveness of the coaching relationship: Time to think differently about active ingredients?

IF 0.9 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
E. de Haan, Joanna Molyn, Viktoria Nilsson
{"title":"New findings on the effectiveness of the coaching relationship: Time to think differently about active ingredients?","authors":"E. de Haan, Joanna Molyn, Viktoria Nilsson","doi":"10.1037/CPB0000175","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article critically reviews two recent, large-scale, randomized controlled trials in executive coaching, in order to drive further exploration into the topic of the coaching relationship as a predictor of coaching outcome. One of the trials was designed at senior levels in an industrial setting and the other was an experiment with coaching in a business-school context. Each trial demonstrated considerable and significant coaching effectiveness with the coaching relationship (‘working alliance’) as an important ingredient of effectiveness. The more recent randomized-controlled-trial sample, which was longitudinal, seems to show that we may have to radically change our understanding of the impact of the coaching relationship on coaching effectiveness. Contrary to previous consensus, it seems the working alliance between client and coach is not strongly related to coaching effectiveness. The strength of the working alliance only correlates with a higher effectiveness score from the beginning of the coaching relationship, but it does not significantly correlate with increasing outcomes through further coaching conversations. Some possible explanations for this unexpected and seemingly contradictory finding in the area of ‘working alliance’ are put forward and critically reviewed. Abstract This article critically reviews two recent, large-scale, randomized controlled trials in executive coaching, in order to drive further exploration into the topic of the coaching relationship as a predictor of coaching outcome. One of the trials was designed at senior levels in an industrial setting and the other was an experiment with coaching in a business-school context. Each trial demonstrated considerable and significant coaching effectiveness with the coaching relationship (‘working alliance’) as an important ingredient of effectiveness. The more recent randomized-controlled-trial sample, which was longitudinal, seems to show that we may have to radically change our understanding of the impact of the coaching relationship on coaching effectiveness. Contrary to previous consensus, it seems the working alliance between client and coach is not strongly related to coaching effectiveness. The strength of the working alliance only correlates with a higher effectiveness score from the beginning of the coaching relationship, but it does not significantly correlate with increasing outcomes through further coaching conversations. Some possible explanations for this unexpected and seemingly contradictory finding in the area of ‘working alliance’ are put forward and critically reviewed.","PeriodicalId":53219,"journal":{"name":"Consulting Psychology Journal-Practice and Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Consulting Psychology Journal-Practice and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/CPB0000175","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

Abstract

This article critically reviews two recent, large-scale, randomized controlled trials in executive coaching, in order to drive further exploration into the topic of the coaching relationship as a predictor of coaching outcome. One of the trials was designed at senior levels in an industrial setting and the other was an experiment with coaching in a business-school context. Each trial demonstrated considerable and significant coaching effectiveness with the coaching relationship (‘working alliance’) as an important ingredient of effectiveness. The more recent randomized-controlled-trial sample, which was longitudinal, seems to show that we may have to radically change our understanding of the impact of the coaching relationship on coaching effectiveness. Contrary to previous consensus, it seems the working alliance between client and coach is not strongly related to coaching effectiveness. The strength of the working alliance only correlates with a higher effectiveness score from the beginning of the coaching relationship, but it does not significantly correlate with increasing outcomes through further coaching conversations. Some possible explanations for this unexpected and seemingly contradictory finding in the area of ‘working alliance’ are put forward and critically reviewed. Abstract This article critically reviews two recent, large-scale, randomized controlled trials in executive coaching, in order to drive further exploration into the topic of the coaching relationship as a predictor of coaching outcome. One of the trials was designed at senior levels in an industrial setting and the other was an experiment with coaching in a business-school context. Each trial demonstrated considerable and significant coaching effectiveness with the coaching relationship (‘working alliance’) as an important ingredient of effectiveness. The more recent randomized-controlled-trial sample, which was longitudinal, seems to show that we may have to radically change our understanding of the impact of the coaching relationship on coaching effectiveness. Contrary to previous consensus, it seems the working alliance between client and coach is not strongly related to coaching effectiveness. The strength of the working alliance only correlates with a higher effectiveness score from the beginning of the coaching relationship, but it does not significantly correlate with increasing outcomes through further coaching conversations. Some possible explanations for this unexpected and seemingly contradictory finding in the area of ‘working alliance’ are put forward and critically reviewed.
关于教练关系有效性的新发现:是时候换个角度思考有效成分了?
这篇文章批判性地回顾了最近的两项大规模的、随机对照的高管培训试验,以推动对教练关系作为指导结果预测因子这一主题的进一步探索。其中一项试验是针对工业环境中的高层设计的,另一项是在商学院环境中进行的培训实验。每次试验都显示出相当大的、显著的教练有效性,教练关系(“工作联盟”)是有效性的重要组成部分。最近的纵向随机对照试验样本似乎表明,我们可能不得不从根本上改变我们对教练关系对教练有效性影响的理解。与以往的共识相反,客户和教练之间的工作联盟似乎与教练的有效性没有很强的关系。工作联盟的强度仅与教练关系开始时的更高效能得分相关,但与进一步教练对话增加的结果不显着相关。对于这一意想不到的、看似矛盾的“工作联盟”领域的发现,提出了一些可能的解释,并进行了批判性的审查。摘要本文回顾了最近两项关于高管培训的大规模随机对照试验,以推动对教练关系作为教练结果预测因子这一主题的进一步探索。其中一项试验是针对工业环境中的高层设计的,另一项是在商学院环境中进行的培训实验。每次试验都显示出相当大的、显著的教练有效性,教练关系(“工作联盟”)是有效性的重要组成部分。最近的纵向随机对照试验样本似乎表明,我们可能不得不从根本上改变我们对教练关系对教练有效性影响的理解。与以往的共识相反,客户和教练之间的工作联盟似乎与教练的有效性没有很强的关系。工作联盟的强度仅与教练关系开始时的更高效能得分相关,但与进一步教练对话增加的结果不显着相关。对于这一意想不到的、看似矛盾的“工作联盟”领域的发现,提出了一些可能的解释,并进行了批判性的审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
9.10%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research serves as a forum for anyone working in the area of consultation. The journal publishes theoretical and conceptual articles, original research, and in-depth reviews with respect to consultation and its practice. The journal also publishes case studies demonstrating the application of innovative consultation methods and strategies on critical or often overlooked issues with unusual features that would be of general interest to other consultants. Special issues have focused on such current topics as organizational change, executive coaching, and the consultant as an expert witness.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信