A growing number of studies emphasize the working alliance between the client and the coach to be a key factor in coaching. Synthesizing 27 samples ( N = 3563 coaching processes), this meta-analysis sheds light on the relationship between working alliance and a broad range of coaching outcomes for clients. The meta-analytic results indicate a moderate and consistent overall relationship between a high-quality working alliance and coaching outcomes for clients ( r = .41, 95% CI [.34, .48], p < .001). Working alliance was positively related to all desirable coaching outcomes (range: r = .32 to .64), with the strongest relationship to affective and cognitive coaching outcomes. Moreover, working alliance was negatively related to unintended negative effects of coaching ( r = –.29). Results revealed no differences regarding the type of clients, coaches’ expertise, number of coaching sessions, and clients’ or coaches’ perspectives. Similar to other helping relationships like psychotherapy or mentoring, the results support the importance of a high-quality working alliance in coaching.

Abstract. Sound research demonstrates the substantial positive effects of business coaching, but little is known about potential side effects. This study sheds light on the characteristics of side effects of coaching from the coachees’ perspective and investigates three possible predictors: relationship quality between coach and coachee, the coach’s expertise, and the coachees’ motivation to change. Data was collected in a time-lagged design from 111 coachees who received business coaching in Germany. Coachees reported that side effects were frequent but with low to moderate intensity. The number of side effects was negatively associated with relationship quality at both measurement times and with coach’s expertise at Time 1. Results expand knowledge about side effects of coaching and reveal opportunities for how they can be reduced.

Psychological empowerment has become a popular construct in organizational research and practice. Leadership ranks high among the best predictors of employees’ psychological empowerment, yet little is known about which leadership styles prove more effective than others. This meta-analysis investigates the effects of four leadership styles on psychological empowerment. More specifically, we test whether empowering leadership evokes more psychological empowerment than transformational leadership, servant leadership, or transactional leadership. We found that empowering, transformational and servant leadership contribute almost equally to psychological empowerment. No relationship was found with transactional leadership. In an explorative manner, we tested the effects on the different dimensions of psychological empowerment. We found that the leadership styles had a weaker influence on the competence dimension of psychological empowerment. We also investigated the effects of several moderators on the relationships with psychological empowerment: country culture (power balanced freedom (PBF)), study design (cross-sectional vs. multi-wave studies) and publication status (published vs. unpublished). We found no moderating effects of culture, which indicates the universally empowering effects of the leadership styles. The relationships between leadership and empowerment were somewhat weaker when data were collected at different measurement points, and publication bias does not seem to be an issue in this research field.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has brought rapid innovations in recent years, transforming both business and society. This paper offers a new perspective on whether, and how, AI can be employed in coaching as a key HRD tool. We provide a definition of the concept of AI coaching and differentiate it from related concepts. We also challenge the assumption that AI coaching is feasible by challenging its capability to lead through a systematic coaching process and to establish a working alliance to clients. Based on these evaluations, AI coaching seems to encounter the greatest difficulties in the clients’ problem identification and in delivering individual feedback, which may limit its effectiveness. However, AI generally appears capable of guiding clients through many steps in the coaching process and establishing working alliances. We offer specific recommendations for HRD professionals and organizations, coaches, and developers of AI coaching programs on how AI coaching can contribute to enhance coaching practice. Combined with its lower costs and wider target group, AI coaching will likely transform the coaching profession and provide a future HRD tool.

No abstract