Opening the black box of leadership coaching: an examination of coaching behaviors

Abstract

PurposeLeadership coaching is an increasingly popular development tool for school principals. However, specific coaching behaviors are rarely conceptualized or examined in prior research. This study presents a coaching behavior framework and then analyzes actual coaching conversations between principals and coaches to illustrate how specific coaching behaviors create opportunities for principals to reflect and think critically about their leadership.Design/methodology/approachBuilding on theories of interpersonal learning, the authors develop a framework of coaching behaviors to distinguish coaching inquiries and assertions that facilitate critique and reflection and, therefore, activate opportunities for learning. The authors use this framework to code transcripts of 55 principal coaching sessions. The authors analyze the prevalence of certain coaching behaviors and then examine qualitative patterns in how the use of certain behaviors shapes the nature of coaching conversations.FindingsOnly about one-third of coded coaching behaviors in the analytic sample are categorized as coaching inquiries and assertions that activate opportunities for learning. In the qualitative comparisons of extracts from coaching conversations, the authors find coaches' use of these behaviors produced richer, more meaningful dialogue.Originality/valueUnlike much of the past research on leadership coaching, this analysis examines what happens in conversations between coaches and principals. This framework could be applied to a broad range of coaching programs intended to promote professional learning.

Unfolding executive coaches' identity work through the social constructivist lens: Coach–coachee–organisation

“…Compared to other similar freelance work, such as trainers and workplace counsellors, coaches encounter a more complex multi‐level contracting and negotiation procedures. In contrast to training, conversations and negotiations in the coaching process are often considered “mysterious” as it is taken place in a private one‐on‐one setting (Fleddermann et al, 2023; Patrick et al, 2021). In addition, the sponsoring organisation (i.e., social factors) has a consequential influence on coaching outcomes than workplace counselling given that the ultimate objective of coaching is primarily related to coachees' growth at the workplace.…”

“…For instance, the sponsoring organisation and individuals receiving the training or coaching service have contrasting views on learning objectives and outcome evaluations (Louis & Fatien Diochon, 2014). However, coaches often experience a greater level of anxiety and doubt than other similar helping professionals given that coaching sessions are commonly taken place in a “black box”, that is, a private one‐on‐one conversation (Fleddermann et al, 2023; Patrick et al, 2021). The coach has the main responsibility to ensure an effective three‐way communication and joint alliance among all related parties, such as the coach ‐coachee – sponsoring organisation (de Haan & Nieß, 2015; Lai & Smith, 2021).…”

Opening the “black box” of organizational coaching for implementation

“…Most coaches aim to facilitate critique of and reflection on current practices, as doing so often provides the best opportunities for growth in organizations. However, one study found that only 1/3 of coaching interactions were coded as this type of interaction [ 11 ]. More generally, many studies have found that much of coaching focuses on the relationship between coach and coachee and a significant portion of the work that occurs is around the building of this relationship [ 12 , 13 ].…”

Using Leadership Coaching to Strengthen the Developmental Opportunity of the Clinical Experience for Aspiring Principals: The Importance of Brokering and Third-Party Influence

“…Unlike mentoring, which is provided by the clinical setting principal via a hierarchical relationship (Aguilar, 2013) with the aspirant, a leadership coach typically operates in a non-evaluative manner, focused on aspirant development (Flückiger et al, 2017; Grissom & Harrington, 2010; Patrick et al, 2021; Kappler-Hewitt et al, 2020; Silver et al, 2009; Shoho et al, 2012). Importantly, these coaches tend to be employees of and housed within the preparation program rather than the school district.…”

“…Within these programs, these new coaching roles have been enacted to supplement or replace the role of the university-based clinical/field supervisor. Unlike supervisors, these roles have “frequent touch points” (Herman et al, 2022, p. 39) with aspirants to listen and ask questions, provide advice and feedback, and serve as a thought partner in ways that supplement the developmental interactions provided by mentor principals (Cosner et al, 2018; Fusarelli et al, 2019; Flückiger et al, 2017; Grissom & Harrington, 2010; Herman et al, 2022; Jones, 2015 ; Kappler-Hewitt et al, 2020; Patrick et al, 2021; Shoho et al, 2012; Silver et al, 2009). Notably, these roles demonstrate a “shift from a compliance or monitoring-centered approach to supervising clinical experiences, to one focused on supporting candidates’ individual development” (Herman et al, 2022, p. 38).…”