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.

Coaching hat sich in der Personalentwicklung etabliert. Der wissenschaftliche Blick auf die Wirksamkeit und Wirkfaktoren von Coaching ist aber bisher eingeschränkt. Während in verschiedenen anderen Bereichen (z. B. in der Psychotherapie- oder Mentoringforschung) auch negative Effekte untersucht werden, findet dies in der Coachingforschung kaum statt. In der vorliegenden Studie wurden negative Effekte von Coaching erstmals systematisch untersucht. In einer qualitativen Vorstudie wurden potentielle negative Effekte von Coaching ermittelt und anschließend die Häufigkeit, Intensität und Dauer explorativ erforscht. Dazu wurden per Onlinefragebogen 123 Coachings aus der Perspektive der Coaches evaluiert. Die Ergebnisse zeigen, dass pro Coaching durchschnittlich zwei negative Effekte auftreten, die jedoch eine niedrige Intensität besitzen. Weiterhin wurden Faktoren erfasst, welche die Coaches als ursächlich für die negativen Effekte wahrnehmen. Dies sind insbesondere Klientenvariablen, aber auch der Umgang des Coaches mit psychischer Erkrankung des Klienten sowie Zeitknappheit. Darüber hinaus besteht ein positiver Zusammenhang zwischen der Anzahl behandelter Themen und der Häufigkeit negativer Effekte.

Self‐ratings of personality predict academic success above general intelligence. The present study replicated these findings and investigated the increment of other‐ratings or intentionally distorted self‐ratings. Participants (N = 145) had to compile a personality questionnaire twice. First they were given neutral instructions. The second time they were asked to imagine a specific applicant setting. Furthermore, two peers rated each participant. Additionally, verbal, numerical and figural reasoning scores were obtained. Grades on a statistics exam obtained 2 months later served as the criterion. Results replicated prior findings and showed incremental validity for self‐ and other‐rated personality, which was stable after controlling for intelligence. Faking had no impact on the domain‐score level, but results on the facet‐score level were less encouraging. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Teams with strong faultlines often do not achieve their full potential because their functioning is impaired. We argue that strong diversity beliefs held by team leaders mitigate the negative impact of socio-demographic and experience-based faultlines on team functioning. In a heterogeneous multisource field sample of 217 employees nested in 44 teams and their leaders, we tested our assumptions. Results of a path-analytic model showed that socio-demographic faultlines were negatively related to perceived cohesion and positively related to perceived loafing. The impact of socio-demographic faultlines on team functioning was less detrimental when leaders held strong diversity beliefs. Against our expectations, we found no support for an impact of experience-based faultlines on perceived cohesion or a moderating role of leaders’ diversity beliefs in this context. Potential explanations for these results and implications for organizations and team leaders are discussed.

No abstract