Behavioural indicators of ineffective managerial coaching

Abstract

Purpose -The concept of managers assuming developmental roles such as coaches and learning facilitators has received considerable attention in recent years. Yet, despite the growing body of expert opinion that suggests that coaching is an essential core activity of everyday management and leadership, the literature base remains largely atheoretical and devoid of empirical research. While there is some consensus about what effective coaching looks like, little if any empirical research has examined ineffective coaching behaviours. The purpose of this paper is to compare the empirical findings from three separately conducted studies to derive a comprehensive understanding of the ineffective behaviours associated with managerial coaching. Design/methodology/approach -The current study adopted a cross-national "etic" methodology based on the empirical findings generated by three previously conducted and purposefully selected "emic" studies. Drawing on Berry's and Lyons and Chryssochoous' "emic-etic" approach and cross-cultural comparisons, the researchers employed Guba and Lincoln's file card approach to analyze and compare the three behavioral datasets of the previously conducted studies. Findings -The findings from this cross-national comparative "etic" study revealed that the vast majority of ineffective coaching behaviours previously identified in the emic studies were held in common with each other. The predominant ineffective behaviours included using an autocratic, directive, controlling or dictatorial style, ineffective communication and dissemination of information, and inappropriate behaviours and approaches to working with employees. Of the 17 ineffective behaviours that were compared only three were not held in common. Research limitations/implications -Limitations associated with this cross-national study included minor variations in the use of data collection approaches and samples of managers in the previously conducted emic studies. Practical implications -The ineffective managerial coaching behaviours derived from the cross-national comparisons can be integrated as diagnostic tools into coaching training programmes and management and leadership development programmes to improve the practice of managerial coaching. They can also be used to increase managers' awareness of the behaviours that impede their coaching interventions with their respective employees. Originality/value -The literature base on coaching in general and managerial coaching in particular has been criticized for not being research-informed and evidence-based, but rather predominantly practice-driven and guru-led. The findings from the current cross-national etic study not only add to a sparse base of empirical research on managerial coaching, but also illuminate an underdeveloped area, namely that of ineffective managerial coaching practice. Furthermore, the findings provide a foundation on which to compare and contrast future empirical research that may be conducted on managerial coaching behaviours.

Managerial coaching: a concept analysis

“…The most common reasons reported by employees as to why managerial coaching was not sought out included a belief that they would not benefit (Evered & Selman 1989), that their manager was not interested in being a coach (Peterson & Hicks 1996, Heslin et al. 2006) and that their manager did not display appropriate managerial coaching behaviours (Ellinger et al. 2008).…”

A Trojan Horse? The implications of managerial coaching for leadership theory

“…Specialist coaching practitioners advocate a variety of methods that combine goal-focused and performance-driven approaches requiring different skills and behaviours (see, for example, de Haan and Burger 2005; Griffiths and Campbell 252 V. Anderson 2008;Segers et al 2011). Behaviours and skills frequently cited as fundamental to coaching effectiveness are productive and honest feedback, relational skills and analytical skills, and observation and rapport (Baron and Morin 2009;De Jong et al 1999;Ellinger et al 2008). In addition, goal setting and performance orientation (Grant 2010;Griffiths and Campbell 2008) as well as a development orientation and an ability to enable 'coachees' to solve problems or take on new challenges have been advocated Ladyshewsky 2010;Liu and Batt 2010;Mavor et al 2010).…”

Managerial Coaching Behaviours and Their Relations to Job Satisfaction, Life Satisfaction and Orientations to Happiness

“…In recent years, scholars have begun to conduct empirical studies to examine managerial coaching behaviours. Empirical researches on managerial coaching have examined effective and ineffective managerial coaching behaviours and skills (Ellinger & Bostrom, 1999;Beattie, 2002;Andrea, 2008;Clinton, 2010) [7] [13] [14] and the application of managerial coaching in specific context or organization (Andrea et al, 1999;Alexander et al, 2005) [14] [15]. Andrea (2008) [14] conducted a cross-national study on behavioural indicators of ineffective managerial coaching.…”