Supporting students with coaching or training depending on their basic psychological needs

Abstract

PurposeThis study aims to investigate how university students' basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence and relatedness) determine whether coaching or training is more supportive for them.Design/methodology/approachReal-life coaching (N1 = 110) and training (N2 = 176) processes with students as clients were examined, measuring the students' needs before the coaching/training, their need fulfilment after the coaching/training and their satisfaction and goal attainment/intrinsic motivation after the coaching/training.FindingsThe results show that university students with a higher autonomy need had this need fulfilled to a greater extent through coaching, while university students with a higher competence need had this need fulfilled to a greater extent through training.Research limitations/implicationsThe research focused on university students and was conducted at German-speaking universities, so it is unclear to what extent the findings are transferable to other contexts. In addition, future research is needed to further compare other personal development tools, such as mentoring or consulting.Practical implicationsThe results depict the relevance of the most appropriate personal development tool (coaching or training) depending on students' needs. Furthermore, coaches should be autonomy-supportive, while trainers should be competence-supportive.Originality/valueSupporting students with the most appropriate personal development tool is essential for the effectiveness of this tool. Thus, the personal development tool used should reflect students' needs: students with a high autonomy need should receive coaching, while students with a high competence need should receive training.

Effect of Transformational Leadership on Employees’ Innovativeness and Job Satisfaction in Pakistani Private Sector

“…Empowerment is viewed as a motivator in this context, which is explicitly supported by McClelland's theory of needs, in which the acquisition of power serves as a motivator to be more influential among peers (Braumandl, Diller, Muehlberger & Jonas, 2020). Maslow's hierarchy of needs and Herzberg's two factor theory both support the need for responsibility and belonging (Braumandl et al, 2020). As a result, the current study hypothesises that H1: Idealised Influence has a significant positive effect on employee innovativeness and job satisfaction.…”

“…According to one study, idealised influence creates an energising environment that reinforces empowerment, ownership, and responsibility among followers (Asad & Nawab, 2020). Empowerment is viewed as a motivator in this context, which is explicitly supported by McClelland's theory of needs, in which the acquisition of power serves as a motivator to be more influential among peers (Braumandl, Diller, Muehlberger & Jonas, 2020). Maslow's hierarchy of needs and Herzberg's two factor theory both support the need for responsibility and belonging (Braumandl et al, 2020).…”

How to show empathy as a coach: The effects of coaches’ imagine-self versus imagine-other empathy on the client’s self-change and coaching outcome

“…As we concentrated on self-change, we did not include these two need measures. These were just measured to leave the scale as a whole (see also Diller et al, 2020).…”

“…The better it fits, the more self-congruency and self-determination is experienced, which helps self-change occur in a congruent way. Thus, coaching is more about fulfilling the need for autonomy, i.e., the need for self-congruency and valuecongruency, than the needs for competence or relatedness (Diller et al, 2020;Schiemann et al, 2018). Consider a coaching client who has been offered a management position and has begun a coaching process to face the new task.…”

“…The fulfillment of the need for competence (five items; α pre = .81; α post = .80; e.g., "I want to show my abilities" / "The coaching helped me show my abilities") and relatedness (five items; α pre = .85; α post = .91; e.g., "I want to get along with others" / "The coaching helped me get along with others") were also measured before and after but are not included in the current analysis based on the relevance of autonomy / sefl-congruency in coaching and the paper's focus on self-change in this regard (see alsoDiller et al, 2020). The results of these variables can be found in Appendix 3.3 We also measured self-control, the opposite of self-regulation, with the Self-Regulation Inventory (12 items; α pre = .55; α post = .71; e.g., "Before I start working on my goal, I think about the single steps"/"Now, before I start working on my goal, I think about the single steps") but did not include it in the analysis (see also coaching with compassion versus coaching for compliace(Boyatzis et al, 2013) and self-regulation versus self-control in coaching(Barato & Rodríguez Moneo, 2021;Baumann & Kuhl, 2013).…”