高管培训的有效性:随机分配和切换重复设计两种方法的实证研究

IF 0.9 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED
Janette S. Williams, R. Lowman
{"title":"高管培训的有效性:随机分配和切换重复设计两种方法的实证研究","authors":"Janette S. Williams, R. Lowman","doi":"10.1037/cpb0000115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Using random assignment and a switching-replications design in a corporate setting, this study compared the effectiveness of two approaches to executive coaching: goal-focused and process-oriented. Goal-focused coaching is based on goal-setting theory, which concentrates on identifying a task to be accomplished, whereas process-oriented coaching emphasizes interpersonal processes more than specific content or goals. Sixty-four senior executives and their supervisors (dyads) from a multibillion-dollar company were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 conditions: (a) goal-focused coaching, (b) process-oriented coaching, (c) goal-focused control group, and (d) process-oriented control group. Participants and their supervisors each chose 1 of 8 leadership competencies from the organization’s performance-management system as the coaching objective. The coaching consisted of 4 face-to-face, 1-hr coaching sessions over a 4- to 6-week period. The 16 executive coaches in the study received precoaching training to ensure consistent delivery of the two approaches. The results showed an increase in leadership competencies and behaviors for the coaching groups but not for the control groups, as rated by the coachees only. Contrary to prediction, however, there was no significant difference between the approaches of goal-focused and process-oriented coaching on leadership competencies or behaviors. Furthermore, there were no differences between the two approaches in the postcoaching follow-up. Implications of the results for executive-coaching theory, research, and practice are discussed.","PeriodicalId":53219,"journal":{"name":"Consulting Psychology Journal-Practice and Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"11","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Efficacy of Executive Coaching: An Empirical Investigation of Two Approaches Using Random Assignment and a Switching-Replications Design\",\"authors\":\"Janette S. Williams, R. Lowman\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/cpb0000115\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Using random assignment and a switching-replications design in a corporate setting, this study compared the effectiveness of two approaches to executive coaching: goal-focused and process-oriented. Goal-focused coaching is based on goal-setting theory, which concentrates on identifying a task to be accomplished, whereas process-oriented coaching emphasizes interpersonal processes more than specific content or goals. Sixty-four senior executives and their supervisors (dyads) from a multibillion-dollar company were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 conditions: (a) goal-focused coaching, (b) process-oriented coaching, (c) goal-focused control group, and (d) process-oriented control group. Participants and their supervisors each chose 1 of 8 leadership competencies from the organization’s performance-management system as the coaching objective. The coaching consisted of 4 face-to-face, 1-hr coaching sessions over a 4- to 6-week period. The 16 executive coaches in the study received precoaching training to ensure consistent delivery of the two approaches. The results showed an increase in leadership competencies and behaviors for the coaching groups but not for the control groups, as rated by the coachees only. Contrary to prediction, however, there was no significant difference between the approaches of goal-focused and process-oriented coaching on leadership competencies or behaviors. Furthermore, there were no differences between the two approaches in the postcoaching follow-up. Implications of the results for executive-coaching theory, research, and practice are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53219,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Consulting Psychology Journal-Practice and Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"11\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Consulting Psychology Journal-Practice and Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000115\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Consulting Psychology Journal-Practice and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000115","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: 11

摘要

本研究在公司环境中采用随机分配和切换重复设计,比较了两种高管培训方法的有效性:以目标为中心和以流程为导向。目标导向教练基于目标设定理论,侧重于确定要完成的任务,而过程导向教练则强调人际过程,而不是具体的内容或目标。来自一家价值数十亿美元的公司的64名高级管理人员和他们的主管(二人组)被随机分配到四个条件中的一个:(a)以目标为中心的指导,(b)以过程为导向的指导,(c)以目标为中心的对照组,(d)以过程为导向的对照组。参与者和他们的主管从组织的绩效管理系统中选择8种领导能力中的1种作为指导目标。指导包括4到6周的4次面对面、1小时的指导课程。研究中的16名高管教练接受了教练前培训,以确保两种方法的一致实施。结果显示,教练组的领导能力和行为有所提高,而对照组则没有,仅由教练打分。然而,与预测相反,目标导向和过程导向的指导方法在领导能力和行为方面没有显著差异。此外,两种方法在训练后随访方面没有差异。讨论了研究结果对高管教练理论、研究和实践的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Efficacy of Executive Coaching: An Empirical Investigation of Two Approaches Using Random Assignment and a Switching-Replications Design
Using random assignment and a switching-replications design in a corporate setting, this study compared the effectiveness of two approaches to executive coaching: goal-focused and process-oriented. Goal-focused coaching is based on goal-setting theory, which concentrates on identifying a task to be accomplished, whereas process-oriented coaching emphasizes interpersonal processes more than specific content or goals. Sixty-four senior executives and their supervisors (dyads) from a multibillion-dollar company were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 conditions: (a) goal-focused coaching, (b) process-oriented coaching, (c) goal-focused control group, and (d) process-oriented control group. Participants and their supervisors each chose 1 of 8 leadership competencies from the organization’s performance-management system as the coaching objective. The coaching consisted of 4 face-to-face, 1-hr coaching sessions over a 4- to 6-week period. The 16 executive coaches in the study received precoaching training to ensure consistent delivery of the two approaches. The results showed an increase in leadership competencies and behaviors for the coaching groups but not for the control groups, as rated by the coachees only. Contrary to prediction, however, there was no significant difference between the approaches of goal-focused and process-oriented coaching on leadership competencies or behaviors. Furthermore, there were no differences between the two approaches in the postcoaching follow-up. Implications of the results for executive-coaching theory, research, and practice are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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