AN INVESTIGATION OF THE ROLE OF REGULATORY FOCUS IN THE COACHING RELATIONSHIP
Master’s Thesis, MSc Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Management and Organization
August 16th, 2012
Marije A. van der Werf Student number: 1676253
Kleine Butjesstraat 56 9712 EX Groningen Tel: + 31 (0) 6 24 24 79 82 E-mail: marijeavanderwerf@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
The present work examines whether the regulatory coaching style influences the effectiveness of coaching. Furthermore, this study examines if the regulatory focus of the coachee moderates the relation between the regulatory coaching style and coaching effectiveness. Coaching effectiveness is split up into coach performance, satisfaction and exit intention. We sought to investigate whether such interpersonal regulatory fit yields higher coaching effectiveness. We investigated whether these effects occur in an (a)symmetrical fashion for promotion- and prevention-focused coachees. The results of our field study revealed that a promotion-focused coaching style leads to high coaching effectiveness, whereas a prevention-focused coaching style leads to high exit intentions.
INTRODUCTION
Coaching is one of the most popular human resource instruments at the moment in the Netherlands (Carp, 2011). This leads to a mushrooming of companies offering coaching. This growth is a remarkable development, since the effectiveness of coaching is often considered controversial (e.g., Vonk, 2011). Despite specific calls for research on examining the factors and mechanisms underlying coaching effectiveness, research has not kept pace with the increasing popularity of coaching (Bennett, 2006; Gyllensten & Palmer, 2007; Nash, 2010; Stober & Parry, 2005). Nevertheless, one thing that becomes clear is that a good coaching relationship is an essential foundation for coaching with successful outcomes (Baron & Morin, 2009; Boyce, Jackson, & Neal, 2010; Gregory & Levy, 2011; Gyllensten & Palmer, 2007; Hall, Otazo, & Hollenbeck, 1999; Hunt & Weintraub, 2002; Kilburg, 2001; Nash, 2010; O’Broin & Palmer, 2006; Smither & Reilly, 2001; Thatch, 2002; Ting & Riddle, 2006; Wasylyshn, 2003).
It is, however, tough to get insight in coaching relationships, since several different components come into play. The complexity of the coaching relationship can be illustrated with an example provided by Gregory and Levy (2011: 68): “A coach who engages in coaching activity with two coachees may find one working relationship to be highly effective, whereas the other fails to produce any positive outcome. Under the supervision of a different coach, he or she may form a trusting and productive coaching relationship with the latter coachee that leads to dramatic improvements in performance and personal development.” Based on this notion, Gregory and Levy (2011) suggest that the individual differences (e.g., personality) that both coach and coachee bring to the coaching relationship have implications for the effectiveness of the relationship. At this moment, the coaching relationship is elusive, many coaches realise that it is important, but they do not know what elements come into play and how to influence it consciously. Not only in practice is little known about the coaching relationship, also research shows a gap on this subject (e.g., Righetti, Finkenauer, & Rusbult, 2011; Smither & Reilly, 2001). In the current research we seek to contribute to the research literature by focusing on examining what we would argue is an important individual difference in coaching, but has been hardly considered in relation to coaching effectiveness. Specifically, we propose that the regulatory coaching style applied by the coach influences the coaching effectiveness as perceived by the coachee.
and involves striving for fulfilling duties and obligations through vigilant and responsible behaviors (Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Lanaj et al., 2012). In other words, a promotion focus regulates nurturance needs and is concerned with the presence and absence of positive outcomes (Higgins, 2000), whereas a prevention focus regulates security needs and is concerned with the presence and absence of negative outcomes (Higgins, 2000; Higgins & Silberman, 1998). We use the regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997) to distinguish between a promotion-focused and prevention-focused coaching style. A promotion-focused coaching style refers to articulating an idealistic, optimistic outlook on the coachee’s future and inspiring the coachee to carry out all the necessary changes in order to approach the coaching goals (e.g., Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Molden, Lee, & Higgins, 2007; Van der Meer, 2011). A prevention-focused coaching style, on the other hand, orients the coachee on addressing security needs and avoiding negative outcomes (Smither & Reilly, 2001). Adopting this style, the coach provides clarity about rules and closely monitors and corrects errors to avoid mismatches with the desired coaching goals (Hamstra, Van Yperen, Wisse, & Sassenberg, 2011; Van der Meer, 2011). We propose and test that a promotion-focused coaching style promotes coaching effectiveness in so far that coachees (a) perceive that their coach facilitates them to attain the coaching goals (coach performance), (b) are satisfied with the coaching relationship (satisfaction), and (c) have lower intentions to exit the coaching relationship (exit intentions). In contrast, we argue that a prevention-focused coaching style is negatively related to those coaching effectiveness criteria. Thus, using the regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997), the first goal of the present research is to examine the relationship between regulatory coaching style and coaching effectiveness in terms of coach performance, satisfaction with the coaching relationship, and exit intentions.
To further advance understanding of the relationship between regulatory coaching style and coaching effectiveness, we use Higgins’ regulatory fit theory (2000) to examine the fit between the coach and coachee. The regulatory fit theory states that when a person pursues a goal (e.g., passing for a master thesis) in a way (e.g., conducting a challenging empirical research study) that sustains (fit) the current regulatory focus (e.g., promotion focus), he or she feels right about the goal pursuit activity, and the engagement in the activity is strengthened (Higgins, 2000; Higgins, Cesario, Hagiwara, Spiegel, & Pittman, 2010). When a goal is pursued in a way (e.g., obsessing with certain research limitations) that disrupts (non-fit) the current regulatory focus a person feels uncomfortable (Higgins, 2000; Higgins et al., 2010).
Regulatory fit can occur at the intrapersonal and the interpersonal level. An
interpersonal fit is a match based on the interaction or intervention with someone else, while
claim that interpersonal benefits should be evident for promotion-focused persons, but not for prevention-focused persons. Applied to the coaching relationship, promotion-focused coachees are likely to seek advice and feedback from their coach because they see such a strategy as a possibility for development instead of a threat (Righetti et al., 2011). In contrast, prevention-focused coachees are less prone to seek interpersonal assistance due to their tendency to insulate themselves from new information (Förster & Higgins, 2005; Righetti et al., 2011; Van der Meer, 2011). We, therefore, assume that a promotion-focused coaching style enhances the coaching effectiveness more for promotion-focused coachees than for prevention-focused coachees. Thus, using the regulatory fit theory, our second goal of the present research is to examine coachees’ regulatory focus as a boundary condition that may moderate the relationship between regulatory coaching style and coaching effectiveness.
The aim of this study is to gain new insights in the role that regulatory focus and regulatory fit can play in the effectiveness of coaching relationships. These new insights can further advance and integrate regulatory focus and regulatory fit theory in two ways. First, the present study examines the interpersonal effectiveness of regulatory coaching style, whereas previous research has predominantly focused on the effectiveness of regulatory focus for self-regulation at the individual level. Second, instead of focusing on intrapersonal regulatory fit within one person, we examine specific interpersonal fit conditions under which regulatory coaching style may promote the effectiveness of a dyadic coaching relationship.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
Regulatory focus theory. The regulatory focus theory makes a distinction between two kinds of self-regulatory foci: a promotion and a prevention focus (Higgins, 1997). Both foci are associated with different kinds of goals and strategies (Righetti et al., 2011). The
promotion focus is concerned with obtaining nurturance and underlies an individual’s higher
ideal self-attributes, these are attributes that a person ideally would like to possess (Righetti et al., 2011).
Next to the promotion focus is the prevention focus (Higgins, 1997). The prevention focus is concerned with obtaining security and underlies individuals’ higher level needs for protection, safety and responsibility (Righetti et al., 2011). In other words, the prevention focus is concerned with the presence versus absence of negative outcomes (Higgins, 1997; Higgins et al., 2010). As such, prevention-focused persons approach goals as duties and obligations, adopt vigilant, cautious strategies for engaging in tasks (Cesario & Higgins, 2008), prefer to maintain the current situation and dislike changes (Fuglestad, Rothman, & Jeffrey, 2008; Van der Meer, 2011), and they pursuit attributes that a person ought to possess (Righetti et al., 2011). Moreover, prevention-focused persons are vigilant to assure non-losses, and to attain “correct rejections” to avoid “false alarms” (Righetti et al., 2011). Since the prevention focus is concerned with security, prevention-focused persons may signal that their environment is prospectively threatening, leading to a risk-averse, vigilant processing style (Righetti et al., 2011).
Regulatory styles of coaching. All the differences in coaching caused a hampering in the understanding of the coaching concept and made it ambiguous (Palmer & Whybrow, 2009). There are many completely different coaching definitions, but not a single definition holds all elements that we think coaching encloses. According to Velleman and Aris (2010: 216) “coaching aims to facilitate the best in people, enabling them to reach for their potential.” Coaching is focused on growth, development and most of all, coaching is about the coachee as individual, instead of the coachees’ problems (Berg & Szabó, 2007; Van der Pol, 2012). The coachee is self fully responsible for reaching the changes (Van der Pol, 2012) and is stimulated during the coaching to mobilise the potential for optimal performance (Whitmore, 2009).
Several empirical studies have shown that a specific style of coaching (e.g., gestalt coaching) might have a huge impact on the coachee (Bass, 1990; Joo, 2005; Kampa-Kokesh & Anderson, 2001). Therefore, we have chosen the style of coaching as independent variable in this study. Coaching styles encourage specific strategies to reach a coaching goal (Van der Meer, 2011). Many different styles of coaching have been established, some well-known styles are: solution focused and cognitive behavioral coaching (Palmer & Whybrow, 2009). In the present study we examine two less familiar styles of coaching: the regulatory promotion- and prevention-focused coaching style, both of which are derived from Higgins’ regulatory focus and regulatory fit theory (Higgins, 1997; 2000).
Both in practice and in research the regulatory styles of coaching are relatively unknown, while these styles can easily measure fit between the applied coaching style and the regulatory foci of the coachee. To the best of our knowledge, Van der Meer (2011) was the first and only one who investigated the regulatory coaching styles and regulatory fit in the field of coaching. Where Van der Meer (2011) focused on the readiness for change, we examine the influence of the coaching style on the effectiveness of coaching. We expect that Higgins’ regulatory focus theory sheds new light on the coaching relationship and the effectiveness of coaching.
The regulatory styles of coaching are derived from the regulatory foci. The promotion- and prevention-focused coaching styles together can be viewed as an overarching umbrella for coaching in general. No matter what other kind of style a coach consciously chooses (e.g., gestalt and solution-focused coaching), a coach also applies simultaneously a regulatory style (promotion or prevention), which is not very common for the well-known coaching styles. For example, a solution focused coaching style can be applied in combination with a promotion-focused coaching style. For instance, a coach can discuss solutions in a way that encourages the coachee to search for personal changes.
the coach, while this can easily be adjusted, which is not the case for the chronic regulatory focus. The interaction between coach and coachee might lead to a different situational regulatory focus. Moreover, we want to investigate the coaching situation instead of the personality of the coach. So, whereas we view the regulatory focus of the coachee as a chronic variable (personality), we view the coaching style as a situational variable.
An important element of coaching is that the coach provides the coachee with feedback (Velleman & Aris, 2010). According to Higgins (1997), feedback can communicate gain-non gain information (promotion related outcomes) or non loss-loss information (prevention related outcomes). So, these regulatory styles are always present, whether a coach applies them consciously or not. Up to now, most coaches are unconscious of the regulatory style they apply. If a coach knows what regulatory coaching style works best for promotion- and prevention-focused coachees the coach can adjust the regulatory coaching style to the right style in the situation. For example, a coach can make a promotion focus more accessible by the way feedback is provided and by helping to shape the behavior of the coachee in a subtle way (Roney, Higgins, & Shah, 1995; Smither & Reilly, 2001). According to Smither and Reilly (2001) coaches can also encourage coachees to frame goals as learning goals (learn how to perform a task or develop a skill) rather than performance goals (discovering how capable the coachee is). Framing goals and feedback in terms of attaining success may help focus coachees on self-direction and stimulation. So, if coaches know which style works best for coachees based on the coachee’s regulatory focus, they can adjust the coaching style to the appropriate one.
Promotion-focused coaching style. A promotion-focused coaching style orients the coachee toward maximizing the presence of positive outcomes and addressing nurturance (Smither & Reilly, 2001). The promotion-focused coaching style motivates and stimulates the coachee to reach ideological goals. If a coach applies this style, the coachee will be stimulated and inspired into the direction of an ideal (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Molden et al., 2007; Van der Meer, 2011). The promotion-focused coaching style stimulates an idealistic, optimistic outlook on the future, communicates high expectations, focuses on long-term visions, and facilitates changes and new work methods (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1995; Hamstra et al., 2011b; House, 1977; Yukl, 1998). Coachees are also stimulated to do more than only what is expected from them (Den Hartog, Van Muijen, & Koopman; 1997).
expectations and clear goals, in such a way that the coachee can reach these goals (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Molden et al., 2008; Van der Meer, 2011). It becomes crystal clear to the coachee what the expectations are. Moreover, if a coach applies this style coachees will be motivated to behave in the way that is expected (Bass, 1985; Van der Meer, 2011).
Regulatory style of coaching and effectiveness. Despite the amount of money invested in coaching, there has been little empirical research on the effectiveness of coaching and the coaching relationship (e.g., Alvey & Barclay, 2007; Boyce et al., 2010; Feldman & Lankau, 2005; Ghods, 2010; Hall et al., 1999; Kampa-Kokesh & Anderson, 2001; Kilburg, 1996; 2000; Kombarakaran, Yang, Baker, & Fernandes, 2008; Latham, 2007; Linley, 2006; Peterson & Kraiger, 2003). When we take a closer look at coaching studies concerning the effectiveness, most of them come to the same conclusion: “everyone likes to be coached and perceives a positive impact upon their effectiveness” (Tooth, Melser, & Armstrong, 2007). However, it does not become clear what coaching effectiveness exactly is (e.g., Blackman, 2006; Fillery-Travis & Lane, 2006). To answer this question we will take a closer look on the coaching effectiveness, using notions from the leadership theory.
Many decades scientists have been intrigued by the component of leadership that motivates people to higher levels of performance. Therefore, leader traits, behavioral styles and situational contingencies were studied to look for cues that may explain why some leaders are more effective than others (Van Knippenberg & Van Knippenberg, 2005). Leader effectiveness is defined as “the extent to which a follower demonstrates the ability and willingness to accomplish a specific task” (Chen & Silverthorne, 2005: 3). The definition of coaching effectiveness can be derived from this leader effectiveness definition: coaching effectiveness is the extent to which a coachee demonstrates the ability and willingness to reach the coaching goals. So, coaching effectiveness is the output of a coaching relationship (Kilburg, 2001) and is therefore the dependent variable in this study.
For a better understanding of coaching effectiveness we will first have a closer look at the coach performance. According to Stratton and Hayes (1999: 202) is the general definition of performance as follows: “Performance is the level at which a person performs on a specific task.” Moreover Wolman (1973: 274) defined performance as: “Behavior in which a person engages in response to a task or activity which leads to a result which modifies the environment in some way.” Applying these definitions to the field of coaching, we generated the following definition of coach performance: “Behavior in which a coach engages in response to the coach agreement which leads to results, especially to a result which modifies the coachee behavior in some way”. According to Shamir, Zakay, Breinin, and Popper (1998) coach performance is critically contingent on, and can be defined in terms of the coaches’ ability to motivate coachees towards goals (Kark & van Dijk, 2007). If a coachee reaches the intended coaching goals, the coaching is successful and effective. Moreover, when a coachee perceives the coach as qualified, the coach gains more trust from the coachee (Bass & Avolio, 1993; Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993; Lowe, Kroeck, & Sivasubramaniam, 1996; Van Knippenberg & Van Knippenberg, 2005; Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993). Trust is a very important element of the coaching relationship, because without trust it is difficult to discuss obstacles for reaching the coaching goals (Palmer & Whybrow, 2009). These lines of reasoning are in line with research in the ledership domain suggesting that a promotion-focused coaching style is associated with high levels of individual performance (Dvir, Eden, Avolio, & Shamir, 2002; Lowe et al., 1996). Moreover, recent work has identified that a promotion-focused coaching style increases the perceived coach performance (Gregory & Levy, 2011).
The second element of the coaching effectiveness is coachee satisfaction. In general, satisfaction can be defined as: “the feeling state in a person who has gratified a motive” (Wolman, 1973: 333). Leedham (2005: 33) has specified coachee satisfaction as follows: “Satisfaction of the coachees with the relationship: Does the coachee like, get-on well with, and have a good rapport with the coach?”. Coachee satisfaction is important while it reduces change resistance (e.g., Goldwasser, 2001; Hargrove, 1995; Kilburg, 2000; Kirkpatrick, 1996; Leedham, 2005; O’Neill, 2000). With reduced change resistance it becomes more likely that the coachee carries out necessary changes. As mentioned previously the promotion-focused coaching style influences the coaching relationship in such a way that perceived effectiveness increases. More specific, the promotion-focused coaching style increases the coachee satisfaction.
differences can moderate the effect of the situation on the exit intention (e.g., Agarwal, Ferrat, & De, 2007; Feng & Angeline, 2010). The current study is the first in the field of coaching that examines the linkage between exit intention and regulatory fit (Cohen, 2003; Meyer & Allen, 1997; Meyer, Becker, & Vandeberghe, 2004; Neubert, Kacmar, Carlason, Chonko, & Roberts, 2008). We expect that the promotion-focused coaching style influences the coaching relationship, leading to increased effectiveness. More specific, the promotion-focused coaching style decreases the exit intention of the coachee.
The promotion-focused coaching style is about developing the coachee (Gregory & Levy, 2011). According to Gregory and Levy (2011) a promotion-focused coaching style has a direct and positive effect on coachees’ perceptions of the coaching relationship. So, if a coach applies a promotion-focused coaching style it influences the perceived effectiveness while it influences the relationship in a positive way. Coach performance and satisfaction are for example positively related to the promotion-focused coaching style (e.g., Gregory & Levy, 2011; Podsakov, MacKenzie, Moorman, & Fetter, 1990). To summarize, the promotion-focused coaching style orients coachees towards maximizing positive outcomes. It stimulates coachees to reach ideological goals and is future oriented, with high expectations which facilitates changes, necessary condition for effective coaching. Therefore, we assume that the promotion-focused coaching style is very effective, with a high coach performance, a high satisfaction and low exit intentions. Based on the information mentioned above, we hypothesized the following main effect:
Hypothesis 1: A promotion-focused coaching style is positively related to coaching
effectiveness (higher coach performance, higher satisfaction, lower exit intentions).
Prevention-focused persons are less prone to provide support to others, since they are too preoccupied with their own pressing goals; they have the feeling that they do not have time and resources to invest in helping others (Righetti & Kumashiro, 2012). We assume that coaches who are unaware of the regulatory coaching styles will apply the style that fits their own regulatory focus. So, it is likely that a prevention-focused coach applies the prevention-focused coaching style as well.
Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Higgins & Silberman, 1998; Lanaj et al., 2012). The coach provides the coachee with clarity about rules and standards to protect the status quo and is concerned with short-term successes (Bass, 1985; Bass & Avolio, 1995; Hamstra et al., 2011b; House, 1977; Yukl, 1998). Moreover, this style hampers the coachee to change, create personal growth, and make progress (Smither & Reilly, 2001), which makes that the ultimate goal of coaching will not be reached.
As mentioned previously, with the prevention-focused coaching style much attention will be paid to the negative sides of the coachee, which feels uncomfortable for the coachee. The coachee will experience a negative coaching relationship with negative effectiveness as a consequence. Moreover, we expect that, if a coach applies the prevention-focused coaching style, perceived coach performance and coachee satisfaction will decrease, whereas exit intentions will increase.
Hypothesis 2: A prevention-focused coaching style is negatively related to coaching
effectiveness (lower coach performance, lower satisfaction, higher exit intentions).
Interpersonal regulatory fit. When people pursue goals in a manner that fits their regulatory focus, they experience regulatory fit (Cesario & Higgins, 2008; Higgins, 2000; Higgins et al., 2010). For example, promotion-focused persons experience fit when they pursue goals in an eager manner, whereas prevention-focused persons experience fit when they pursue goals in a careful and vigilant manner (Righetti et al., 2011). According to the regulatory fit theory (Higgins, 2000), in a fit situation people feel right about their goal pursuit activity, and their engagement in the activity is strengthened. People who experience fit can sustain their current regulatory focus. Furthermore, they experience a pleasant feeling (Higgins et al., 2010), and feel right about what they do (e.g., Cesario & Higgins, 2008; Cesario, Higgins, & Scholer, 2008; Higgins, 2005; 2006; Lee & Aaker, 2004).
The regulatory fit can be expressed in two different ways; intrapersonal and
interpersonal fit. Intrapersonal fit means that the fit is experienced without the intervention of
someone else; it is a personal and internal process (Righetti et al., 2011). On the other hand, the interpersonal fit is experienced with the intervention of someone else. Rigetthi and colleagues (2011) suggest that individuals experience interpersonal fit when they perceive an interaction partner to approach goal pursuit activities with a regulatory focus that matches the individual’s own regulatory focus. Interpersonal fit is the possibility that people may experience motivational benefits from interpersonal regulatory processes (Righetti et al., 2011).
interpersonal regulatory fit, instead of intrapersonal fit. Most previous studies concerned with
the interpersonal regulatory fit, focused on the fit between partners (e.g., Molden, Lee, & Higgins, 2008; Molden, Lucas, Finkel, Kumashuro, & Rusbult, 2009), leaders and subordinates, or randomly selected interaction partners (Righetti et al., 2011). Based on the many parallels between leadership and coaching (e.g., Gregory & Levy, 2011; Kark & Van Dijk, 2007; Van der Meer, 2011) we assume that the interpersonal fit effects found in leadership studies will be found for coaching as well.
There is a lack of research on the interpersonal perspective of the regulatory fit in processes (Righetti et al., 2011). To the best of our knowledge, only Righetti and colleagues (2011) examined the interpersonal regulatory fit in goal pursuit. Righetti and colleagues (2011) point out that people do not only pursue goals in isolation, but they might feel different about their goals based on the interaction with others. Righetti and colleagues (2011) suggest that people interact with each other during goal pursuit activities; the individual’s focus also interacts in such a way that the combination of the two persons’ foci shapes the individual’s approach to goals.
Hamstra and colleagues (2011b) proposed that regulatory fit between leadership styles and followers’ self-regulatory preferences may influence followers’ exit intentions. Several studies have already shown that exit intentions will decrease by a good coaching relationship (Graen, Liden, & Hoel, 1982; Liden et al., 1993). Knowing this, we would like to consider whether there is an influence of the fit between the focus of the coach, i.e. the applied coaching style, and the coachee on the effectiveness of coaching.
Promotion-focused coachees are eager to attain coaching goals (e.g., Crowe & Higgins, 1997; Förster, Higgins, & Idson, 1998). This eagerness promotes the willingness to change, which makes it possible for promotion-focused coachees to profit optimally from the coaching, with high coaching effectiveness as a consequence. While promotion-focused coachees experience the coaching as opportunity for growth it is likely that they perceive the coaching as an effective way to reach their goals, moreover, they perceive the situation as an opportunity for advancement instead of a threat. The global processing style makes that promotion-focused coachees can overlook the whole situation (Förster & Higgins, 2005). While promotion-focused individuals are especially prone to detect similarities when judging a social object, enabling the possibility of experiencing interpersonal fit (Righetti et al., 2011). This openness to interpersonal support enables promotion-focused coachees to detect similarities between their goal approach and the advice from a promotion-focused coach (Förster, 2009; Förster et al., 2008; Righetti et al., 2011). Following the regulatory fit theory (Hamstra et al., 2011b; Higgins, 2000) coachees who experience fit attach more value and importance to the coaching process, and accordingly, are less likely to leave the process. Specifically, when a promotion-focused coaching style is applied, a coach makes use of goals in a positive way, which makes it more likely that the coachee makes behavioral changes to reach this goal (Herzenstein, Posavac, & Barkus, 2007; Van der Meer, 2011; Vaughn, Baumann, & Klemann, 2008). More specific, promotion-focused coachees detect the similarities between their own goal approach and the suggestions of a promotion-focused coach more easily (Righetti et al., 2011).
So, promotion-focused coachees profit maximally from the promotion-focused coaching style. Thus, a promotion fit situation should lead to a high effectiveness situation with increased coach performance, since they judge the performance of their coach positive. They are satisfied with the coaching in general, leading to increased and decreased exit intentions. Therefore, we have developed the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3a: A promotion focus of the coachee moderates the positive relationship
between a promotion-focused coaching style and coaching effectiveness, such that this positive relationship is more pronounced when the coachee’s promotion focus is high rather than low.
Higgins, 2005; Shah, Friedman, & Kruglanski, 2002), leading to insulation from new information (e.g. Förster, 2009; Förster et al., 2008; Förster & Higgins, 2005; Righetti et al., 2011; Van der Meer, 2011). This style makes that prevention-focused coachees have a lack of overview of the situation and it stimulates the perception of dissimilarities between coach and coachee (Förster, 2009; Förster, Liberman, & Kuschel, 2008). Righetti and colleagues (2011: 3) detected that “Prevention-focused coachees may be so exclusively focused on their own goals that they fail to recognize the potential benefits of an external source, such as interpersonal advice. So, in comparison with promotion-focused coachees, prevention-focused coachees are less prone to seek interpersonal assistance and are less receptive to such assistance once it is obtained. This absence of interest in interpersonal support, in turn, limits and interferes with the recognition of similarities between their own approach to goals and the suggestions provided by a coach who applies the prevention-focused coaching style.”
Although we expect a negative main effect of the prevention-focused coaching style on coaching effectiveness, we expect that the prevention focus of a coachee does not moderate this (negative) relationship. Prevention-focused coachees miss the opportunity to experience interpersonal fit (e.g., Förster, 2009; Förster et al., 2008; Righetti et al., 2011), therefore, we assume that this leads to a neutral judgement of coaching effectiveness in general. Moreover, we assume that prevention-focused coachees will be neutral towards the performance of their coach, they are neutrally satisfied with the coaching and, they do not have specific intentions to leave the coaching. This leads to the following hypothesis.
Hypothesis 3b: Prevention-focused coachees may be less apt to profit from interpersonal fit,
so a coachee’s prevention focus will not moderate the negative relationship between a prevention-focused coaching style and coaching effectiveness.
Misfit between promotion-focused coaching style and prevention-focused coachee. Previously, we noticed that coachees with a strong prevention focus have less ability to learn and develop, since they see changes as threats (Förster & Higgins, 2005; Righetti et al., 2011; Van der Meer, 2011). Coachees with a strong prevention focus get distracted from addressing their security needs by all the changes that come along with the coaching (Smither & Reilly, 2001). This local processing style leads to closeness, rigidity, adherence to concrete and specific task-relevant information, and stability (Friedman & Förster, 2001; Liberman, Idson, Camacho, & Higgins, 1999; Liberman, Molden, Idson, & Higgins, 2001). Moreover, the local processing style makes that prevention-focused coachees have a lack of overview of the situation, they will try to solely focus on themselves. If they do notice their coach, they will perceive dissimilarities between themselves and their coach (Förster, 2009; Förster et al., 2008). Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that coachees with a high versus low prevention focus are less flexible in learning and can be less stimulated by promotion-focused coaching style, thereby experiencing the coaching as less effective. Thus, a stronger prevention focus by the coachee deters the effectiveness of a promotion-focused coaching style.
Hypothesis 4: A prevention focus of the coachee moderates the positive relationship
between a promotion-focused coaching style and coaching effectiveness, such that this positive relationship is less pronounced when the coachees’ prevention focus is high rather than low.
low coach performance, low satisfaction and high exit intentions when the prevention-focused coaching style is being applied.
Hypothesis 5: A promotion focus of the coachee does not moderate the negative relationship
between a prevention-focused coaching style and coaching effectiveness.
--- Figure 1 about here
---
METHODS
Procedure and participants. The data for this study were collected in twenty Dutch coaching companies. Because of the confidentiality of the coaching relationship it was too complicated to approach coachees directly. Therefore, coaches had to ask their coachees to participate. All coaches received 5 paper-and-pencil questionnaires in Dutch. To lower the threshold of participation for the coachees, the questionnaires were delivered in envelopes which were postage paid. The questionnaire consisted of 171 questions. The measures used in this research were embedded throughout the survey so as not to prime participants regarding any of the constructs of interest. All variables measured the perception of the coachee, so not only the independent variables were measured with the coachee perception (perceived coach performance, satisfaction and exit intention), but also their perception of the coaching style and their own regulatory focus was measured.
private live was in 14 per cent of the cases the reason for coaching (8% had other reasons). Only 11 coachees (15%) were obliged to make use of coaching.
Measures. Coaching effectiveness was measured with three separate elements: coach performance, satisfaction and exit intention. All three elements used a seven-point answer scale, ranging from 1 “Totally disagree” to 7 “Totally agree”. Coach performance was measured with five items. This scale was derived from Van Knippenberg and Van Knippenberg (2005) and used by Van der Meer (2011). One of the coach performance items was: “My coach performs his job well.” The scores for these five coach performance items were combined to represent coach performance (a = .91). The second effectiveness element was coachee satisfaction and measured with two items (a = .90). The satisfaction items were based on Liden and colleagues (1993), Van Veldhoven, de Jong, Broersen, Kompier, and Meijman (2002) and Van Veldhoven and Meijman (1994). One of the satisfaction items was: “How satisfied are you with the results of the coaching (this far)?” The third effectiveness element measured the coachees’ exit intention. Exit intention was measured instead of actual turnover, since exit intention occurs just before a person actually leaves (Feng & Angeline, 2010); moreover, it is less difficult to predict (Bluedorn, 1982). Three items measured exit intention. The first exit intention item was: “I intend to look for another coach.” This item was derived from the questionnaire from Feng and Angeline (2010), whom based their questions on the “Michigan Organisational Assessment Questionnaire” (Cumman, Fichman, Jenkins & Klesh, 1979). The second item was a reversed item and derived from Agarwal and colleagues (2007) and adjusted to the following question: “I would like to continue with the coaching for a longer period than I intentionally wanted.” The third exit intention item was also reversed and derived from Feierabend (2010): “I often think about continuing with the coaching.” The scores of these three items were combined (a = .90). Table 1 represents the reliability coefficients and descriptive statistics for all scales.
Coaching style was measured with two subscales, promotion and prevention-focused
style. These subscales consisted together of sixty-four items, 27 promotion items, and 37 prevention items. The items were partially based on different studies (Avolio and Bass, 1995a; 19985; Den Hartog et al., 1997; Hamstra et al., 2011b; Van der Meer, 2011). One of the promotion items was: “This coach is optimistic about the future.” A prevention example is: “This coach worries about me not getting something done.” Responses were coded using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 “(almost) Never” to 5 “Very often”, for both promotion and prevention items was a = .91 (after removing items).
Bolderdijk & Veldstra, 2011; Lockwood, Jordan & Kunda, 2002; Rietzschel, 2011; Van der Meer, 2011; Vogel, 2011). Participants had to answer the following question: “To what extent do the following proverbs apply to all your actions?” on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 “Not at all” to 7 “Very much”. The promotion- and prevention-focused items led to two separate scores. We used 11 promotion focus items (a = .81, m. = 4.92, s.d. = .72), and 11 prevention focus items (a = .80, m. = 4.33, s.d. = .77). An example of a promotion focus item is: “When there’s a will, there’s a way.” One of the prevention items was: “East west home is best.”. As we expected, based on Van Stekelenburg’s (2006) study our internal coherence of the subscales (promotion and prevention focus) appeared to be high.
Analyses. To control for extreme outliers, boxplots were created for coach performance, coachee satisfaction and exit intention. Furthermore, prior to testing the hypotheses two confirmatory common factor analyses (CCFAs) were conducted to check measures’ convergent and discriminant validity (Siero, Huisman, & Kiers, 2009; Stuive, Kiers, Timmerman, & Ten Berge, 2008). Finally, hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to test Hypotheses 1 to 5. To test hypotheses 1 and 2 coach performance, satisfaction and the exit intentions were regressed on coaching styles (prevention- and promotion-focused coaching style as separate variables). Furthermore, to test the moderation effects predicted in hypothesis 3 till 5, regulatory foci (prevention and promotion) were added in a second step to determine the incremental variance attributable to those coachee regulatory foci. In the third step the two-way interaction terms for regulatory coaching style and coachee regulatory foci were entered into the regression equation.
RESULTS
Boxplots. To control for extreme outliers, boxplots were created for coach performance, coachee satisfaction and exit intention. One participant appeared to be an extreme outlier in all these boxplots. This person was extremely dissatisfied with the coaching and his coach. It is noteworthy that additional analyses showed that the outlier inclusion did meaningfully change the results and interpretations, from not significant into significant results for almost all analyses. Therefore we excluded this person from further analyses.
al., 2009; Stuive et al., 2008). We used CCFAs for the promotion and prevention subscales of regulatory foci and coaching style, since these subscales were not validated yet (Stuive et al., 2008). We consider CCFA loadings as deficient if they load lower on the own subscale than their cross loading. Also items loading positive on both scales with almost the same weight were removed. For example, items scoring >.07 on the own subscale with a cross loading of <.09 were considered as deficient and were removed. Based on this criteria, only one of the regulatory foci items (promotion) was removed, which led to 10 promotion items and 11 prevention items. After removing this item the explained variance improved from 37.26% to 38.04%. The CCFA for coaching style showed that several items were not assigned to the right subscale. Based on the loading criteria, 4 promotion-focused coaching style items and 7 prevention-focused coaching style items were removed, remaining respectively 23 and 30 items. After removing these items the explained variance improved from 31.22% to 34.07%.
Descriptive statistics. Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, bivariate correlations, and reliability coefficients for the variables promotion and prevention focus, promotion and prevention-focused coaching style, coach performance, satisfaction and exit intention. The correlation analysis shows that promotion focus correlates negatively with prevention focus (r = -.34, p <.01), also the promotion-focused coaching style correlates negatively with the prevention-focused coaching style (r = -.23, p <.05). Furthermore, the promotion focus correlates positively with the promotion-focused coaching style (r = .30, p <.01), while it is unrelated to the prevention-focused coaching style (r = -.15, n.s.). Also the prevention focus is not related to the promotion-focused coaching style (r = -.15, n.s.); on the other hand, the prevention focus positively correlates with the prevention-focused coaching style (r = .38, p <.01). Both the promotion and prevention focus are unrelated to the coach performance, exit intention and satisfaction. Two out of the three effectiveness outcome variables correlated significantly with each other. Correlation analysis revealed a positively and significantly correlation between coach performance and effectiveness (r = .76, p <.01) and a negative significantly relation between coach performance and exit intention (r = -.30, p <.05). There was a negative, non-significant correlation between satisfaction and exit intention (r = -.14, n.s.).
Hypothesis 1. To test the hypotheses, we started with regression analyses for the main effect hypotheses. To test this effect, coaching effectiveness elements were regressed with coaching styles. We expected that a promotion-focused coaching style would be positively related to all three effectiveness elements. We started with coach performance. A promotion-focused coaching style appeared to have a significant, positive association with self-reported coach performance (B = .45, s.e.b = .08, β = .53, t = 5.48, p <.001). The second step was including satisfaction. This analysis showed support for Hypothesis 1b; a promotion-focused coaching style is significantly and positively related to satisfaction (B = .44, s.e.b = .09, β = .51, t = 4.98, p <.001). Based on Hypothesis 1c, we regressed exit intention on the promotion-focused coaching style. As expected, using a promotion-focused coaching style decreases the exit intention, this result was marginally significant (B = -.35, s.e.b = .19, β = -.22, t = -1.83, p <.10).
Hypothesis 2. We hypothesized that the prevention-focused coaching style would be unrelated to the effectiveness of coaching. Contrary to hypothesis 2a, it appeared that there is a significant, negative effect between the prevention-focused coaching style and coach
performance. Noteworthy is that this relationship is, albeit weak, significant (B = -.16, s.e.b = .08, β = -.19, t = -1.95, p <.05). Coachees perceived the coach performance of their coach lower if a higher rather than lower prevention-focused coaching style was applied. Hypothesis 2b was supported by the data, as we expected, a prevention-focused coaching style appeared to be unrelated to satisfaction (B = -.13, s.e.b = .09, β = -.14, t = -1.41, n.s.). Likewise, Hypothesis 2c was supported by the data. A prevention-focused coaching style is unrelated to self-reported exit intention (B = -.01, s.e.b = .19, β = .01, t = 0.06, n.s.).
Hypothesis 3a. A moderation effect for promotion focus on the relation between promotion-focused coaching style and coach performance was hypothesized. In this study we did not find any significant moderation effect for coach performance (Hypothesis 3a) for this relation (B = -.70, s.e.b = .10, β = -.10, t = -0.72, n.s.). Based on Hypothesis 3a, we expected a moderation effect of the promotion focus on the relationship between a promotion-focused coaching style and the satisfaction. Nevertheless, this relation appeared not to be significant (B = -.09, s.e.b = .14, β = -.10, t = -0.63, n.s.). Nor did we find support for Hypothesis 3a; a promotion focus appeared not to moderate the relationship between a promotion-focused coaching style and the exit intention (B = .20, s.e.b = .15, β = -.23, t = 1.35, n.s.).
satisfaction (B = .09, s.e.b = .12, β = .09, t = 0.73, n.s.). A remarkable, unexpected result of this study was concerned with Hypothesis 3b. We detected a significant and positive moderation effect for a prevention focus on the relation between the prevention-focused coaching style and the exit intention (B = .30, s.e.b = .13, β = .33, t = 2.36, p <.05).
Hypothesis 4. A moderation effect for a prevention focus on the relationship between a promotion-focused coaching style and effectiveness was hypothesized. Opposite to our expectations, a prevention focus appeared not to moderate the relationship between a promotion-focused style and coach performance, (Hypothesis 4a: B = -.09, s.e.b = .13, β = -.10, t = -0.68, n.s.). Nor did we find a moderation effect on the relation between the promotion-focused coaching style for prevention-focused coachees for coachee satisfaction (Hypothesis 4b: B = -.06, s.e.b = .17, β = -.06, t = -0.37, n.s.). Neither did we find a moderation effect of a prevention focus on the relation between a promotion-focused coaching style and exit intention (Hypothesis 4c: B = .19, s.e.b = .19, β = .17, t = 1.01, n.s.).
Hypothesis 5. We hypothesized that a promotion focus would not moderate the relationship between a prevention-focused coaching style and coaching effectiveness. In line with this hypothesis a promotion focus appeared not to moderate the relationship between a prevention-focused coaching style and coach performance (B = -.19, s.e.b = .16, β = -.19, t = -1.63, n.s.), coachee satisfaction (B = -.22, s.e.b = .16, β = -.17, t = -1.34, n.s.) and exit intention (B = -.23, s.e.b = .18, β = .18, t = 1.31, n.s.).
Simple slopes. One remarkable result of this study is the significant interaction for the prevention-focused coaching style and the prevention focus on the exit intention of the coachee. To examine the nature of this significant interaction (B = 0.30, t = 2.36, p = .02) a simple slope analysis was performed. Using the procedure outlined by Aiken and West (1991), the high and low levels of the prevention focus were plotted (one standard deviation above and below the mean). This method is common in regulatory focus studies (e.g., Cesario, Grant, & Higgins, 2004).
DISCUSSION
Summary of findings and theoretical implications. The goal of the present study was to examine the influences of the regulatory coaching styles on coaching effectiveness. Coaching effectiveness exists of three elements: coach performance, satisfaction and exit intention. The moderating role of the regulatory foci on this relationship was also examined. Our findings add to the regulatory foci literature by extending the implications of the well-known regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997) and the regulatory fit theory (Higgins, 2000) to the domain of coaching and the coaching relationship (Smither & Reilly, 2001).
Research support for Higgins’ regulatory fit theory is mixed (e.g., Van der Meer, 2011), which makes it not surprising that our results are not congruent with most previous findings. The current study shows several remarkable findings. First of all, a promotion-focused coaching style is positively related to all coaching effectiveness elements (Hypothesis 1). So, the promotion-focused coaching style increases coach performance and satisfaction, while it decreases exit intention. This result is in line with the findings of previous studies (e.g., Gregory & Levy, 2011; Herzenstein et al., 2007; Vaughn et al., 2008). A promotion-focused coaching style is concerned with innovation and a change focus (e.g., Conger & Kanungo, 1998; Howell & Avolio, 1993; Howell & Higgins, 1990; Palmer, Dunford, & Akin, 2008), both necessary to reach the coaching goals, and lead at the same time to positive perceptions of the coaching relationship with high effectiveness scores as a consequence (Gregory & Levy, 2011).
Based on hypothesis 2 we expected that the prevention-focused coaching style would be negatively related to all coaching effectiveness elements. While the work by Righetti and colleagues (2010; 2011) suggests that a prevention-focused style would be unrelated to the effectiveness elements, one of our results show a meaningful difference. Coach performance appeared to be negatively related to the prevention-focused coaching style. If a coach applied a prevention-focused coaching style, the perceived coach performance decreased, this is probably due to the fact that the prevention-focused coaching style focuses too much on negative elements, while coaching should be about positive elements. By focusing on negative elements it hampers the personal growth and development of the coachee. Furthermore, a prevention-focused coaching style appeared to be unrelated to satisfaction and exit intention, which is in line with literature provided by Righetti and colleagues (2011).
settings in comparison with leadership situations. Likewise, we also found unexpected results for the fit situations. It does not become clear whether these divergent results are due to the fact that we have studied the fit in coaching settings instead of in leadership situations, or that some unforeseen factors influence our results.
We first focused on the promotion-focused fit, where, we expected a moderation effect for a promotion focus on the relation between a promotion-focused coaching style and effectiveness (Hypothesis 3a). Surprisingly, we did not find this effect for any of the effectiveness elements. This result is remarkable, since it is not in line with most existing literature (e.g., Freitas & Higgins, 2002; Higgins, 2000; Higgins et al., 2003; Vaughn et al., 2006). We do not know how this result can be explained, possibly this result will not be found if the study is replicated with a bigger sample.
Although the large literature examining intrapersonal regulatory fit, relatively little attention has been paid to how interpersonal regulatory fit works (Righetti et al., 2011). We provide information about the interpersonal regulatory fit in the field of coaching. Moreover, we hypothesized the asymmetrical fit situation. As we expected, the prevention focus in combination with the prevention-focused coaching style was unrelated to coach performance and satisfaction. These results are in line with recent findings (e.g., Higgins, 2011; Righetti et al., 2011; Righetti & Kumashiro, 2012). Furthermore, contrary to most existing literature we revealed a negative relation between a focused coaching style and a prevention-focused coachee on the exit intention (Hypothesis 3b). The results indicate that the exit intention increases if there is a fit between a prevention-focused coaching style and a prevention focus. This result is not in line with Higgins’ regulatory fit theory (2000) and several studies on this subject (e.g., Hamstra et al., 2011b; Stam, Van Knippenberg, & Wisse, 2010; Van der Meer, 2011). Based on the increased exit intention we assume that this prevention fit situation is not desirable in coaching. Before we draw to the conclusion that coaches should not apply the prevention-focused coaching style in any circumstance it would be wise to replicate the current study. A possible explanation for this increased exit intention might be that the coachee experiences the coaching as unpleasant when the coach focuses too much on duties, obligations and preventing consequences of specific actions. Prevention-focused persons are by nature sensitive for fears (Cesario & Higgins, 2008; Higgins, 1997; Higgins et al., 2010), by applying the prevention-focused coaching style the fear of potential risks might become too strong for the coachee while the coach emphasizes too much on threatening elements.
more willing to change when the style of coaching is more promotion oriented then prevention oriented. Also a few other studies have shown that a misfit between the regulatory focus and the regulatory style can lead to positive outcomes (e.g., Hamstra et al., 2011a). Our result might be due to the fact that prevention-focused coachees are less prone to seek interpersonal assistance, which limits them to profit optimally from the coaching (Righetti et al., 2011). The second misfit situation is the prevention-focused coaching style applied for promotion-focused coachees. As we hypothesized, there was no moderation effect of promotion-focused coachees on the relationship between a prevention-focused coaching style and the coaching effectiveness. We think that this is due to the fact that promotion-focused coachees have a global processing style. They will detect that there are not many similarities between the coaches’ approach and their own approach. The coaching does not harm the coachee in this situation, but it will not lead to great outcomes either.
Future research should also pay attention to the time element. We emphasized that the coaches should approach only coachees whom had several sessions already. Nevertheless, several coachees had only one session with their coach. In such an early stage of the coaching process the relation between coach and coachee has not been fully established. Furthermore, coaches were told that coachees whose coaching had ended could only participate if the coaching finished recently. It appeared that some coachees had finished the coaching a long time ago. This might have influenced their perception, while memories get disturbed when time passes by (Draaisma, 2010). Moreover, answers from these participants may suffer from hindsight bias, that is, the respondents’ memories may have influenced the entered data. As a result of the hindsight bias, the actual facts and situations from the past may not be accurately reported (Evers, Brouwers, & Tomic, 2006).
Another limitation of this research and other studies concerned with coaching is the lack of evidence that coaching actually results in improved coachee performance (Gregory & Levy, 2011). We used self-report questionnaires, which are known for response bias, but are common in the field of coaching (Evers et al., 2006). On the other hand, it was impossible for us to conduct a 360-feedback method because we did not examine the environmental influences, which is necessary in order to obtain unquestionable results. For example, performance based measures are less likely to be distorted (e.g., Brackett, Rivers, Shiffman, Lerner, & Salovey, 2006; Hogg, Hains, & Mason, 1998) than self-ratings used in this study. As other researchers in this area also mention (Gregory & Levy, 2011), it is too costly and too time-consuming to conduct performance based measures. Performance based measures were simply not feasible in this study.
There are still plenty of open doors in the coaching literature as Smither and Reilly (2001) have shown; therefore extensive research is necessary to get a grip on the ambiguous phenomenon of coaching.
Practical implications and conclusion. The concept of coaching has received considerable attention in the literature. Despite the growing interest in coaching and the apparent benefits associated with coaching, it remains an area on which little has been written from an empirical perspective (e.g., Evers et al., 2006). Due to a lack of coordination it remains unclear what has been studied in relation to the effectiveness of coaching. So, we believe that in order to take coaching research to the next level, future research must contain a meta-analysis on the effectiveness of coaching and on the coaching relationship.
can consciously choose to apply the promotion-focused coaching style (Smither & Reilly, 2001). To do so, it is important that coaches become aware of this possibility. Coaches can consciously apply a promotion-focused coaching style by framing goals and feedback in terms of attaining success. Coaches can also emphasize that coaching is a possibility for new development which suits the promotion-focused coaching style (Righetti et al., 2011), and they should avoid overemphasizing attention to negative events (Smither & Reilly, 2001). Furthermore, coaches can help to make goals specific and challenging (Locke & Latham, 1990), and proximal instead of distal (Bandura & Schunk, 1981) and make learning goals instead of performance goals (Dweck, 1996). These are all elements of the promotion-focused coaching style and help to attain self-direction and stimulation.
Research (e.g., Dvir et al., 2002; Graen, Novak, & Sommerkamp, 1982) showed that leaders can easily be trained to adjust the leader-member exchange, which has many similarities with the coaching exchange relation. Therefore, we assume that coaches can be trained to apply a promotion-focused coaching style. Helping coaches to develop a more promotion-focused coaching style can help them to increase coach performance, satisfaction and decrease exit intentions.
Applying a promotion-focused coaching style is important, while it increases the coaching effectiveness. However, the role of coaches in coaching relationships has not received sufficient research attention. This study extends previous research by showing what regulatory coaching style works best. The interaction between prevention-focused coaching style and prevention-focused coachees to exit intention provides an interesting area to explore further to enhance our understanding of when and how coaches affect their coachees.
While not all hypotheses were supported, the current study has contributed to the coaching literature by identifying specific variables that are critical for the development of an effective coaching relationship. Overall, this study demonstrates the importance of applying a promotion-focused coaching style instead of a prevention-focused coaching style, regardless of the regulatory focus of the coachee. The style of coaching is a predictor for an effective relationship, and is also within control of the coach. One of the things to remember based on the results is that a coach can learn to coach with a promotion-focused coaching style to increase the effectiveness of the offered coaching.
REFERENCES
Agarwal, R., Ferratt, T.W. & De, P. 2007. An Experimental Investigation of Turnover Intentions Among New Entrants in IT. The Database for Advances in Information Systems, 38(1). Doi: 10.1145/1216218.1216222.
Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Alvey, S., & Barclay, K. 2007. The characteristics of dyadic trust in executive coaching. Journal of Leadership Studies, 1(1). Doi: 10.1002/jls.20004.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. 1995a. Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (Form 5X). Redwood City, CA: Mindgarden.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. 1995b. Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 6:199-218. Doi: 10.1016/1048-9843(95)90035-7. Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D.H. 1981. Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3), 586-598. Doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.586.
Baron, L., & Morin, L. 2009. The coach-coachee relationship in executive coaching: A field study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(1): 85-106.
Doi: 10.1002/hrdq.20009.
Bass, B.M. 1985. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
Bass, B.M. 1990. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 19-31.
Bass, B.M., & Avolio, B.J. 1995. MLQ multifactor leadership questionnaire for research. Redwood City, CA: Mind Garden.
Beckenbridge, M.B. 2000. An exploration of the factors that influence leadership effectiveness in a corporate environment, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA.
Bennett, J.L. 2006. An agenda for coaching-related research: A challenge for researchers. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58: 240-249.
Doi: 10.1037/1065-9293.58.4.240.
Berg, I.K., & Szabó, P. 2007. Oplossingsgericht coachen. Thema, Amsterdam.
Bluedorn, A.C. 1982. A unified model of turnover from organizations. Human Relations, 35: 135-153. Doi: 10.1177/001872678203500204.
Bowlby, J. 1969. Attachment (Attachment and loss, Vol. 1). New York: Basic Books. Bowlby, J. 1973. Separations: Anxiety and anger (Attachment and loss, Vol. 2). New
York: Basic Books.
Boyce, L.A., Jackson, R.J., & Neal, L.J. 2010. Building successful leadership coaching relationships: Examining the impact of matching criteria in a leadership coaching program. Journal of Management Development, 29(10): 914-931.
Doi: 10.1108/02621711011084231.
Brackett, M.A., Rivers, S.E., Shiffman, S., Lerner, N., & Salovey, P. 2006. Relating emotional abilities to social functioning: A comparison of self-report and performance measures of emotional intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91: 780-795. Doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.780.
Brockner, J., & Higgins, E.T. 2001. Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 35-66. Doi: 10.1006/obhd.2001.2972.
Cairns, T.D. 1996. Hersey and Blanchard’s situational leadership theory: A study of the leadership styles of senior executives in service and manufacturing business of a large Fortune 100 company, unpublished doctoral dissertations, Nova Southeastern University, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
CARP: www.carp.nl, Nieuws: Werknemer wil liever coach dan opleiding. 19 august 2011 publicated, visited at 24 august 2011. http://tinyurl.com/6u7xu92
Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E.T. 2004. Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from “feeling right”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(3), 388–404. Doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.388.
Cesario, J., & Higgins, E.T. 2008. Research report. Making message recipients “feel right”. How nonverbal cues can increase persuasion. Psychological Science, 19(5): 415-420.
Cesario, J., Higgins, E.T., & Scholer, A.A. 2008. Regulatory fit and persuasion: Basic
principles and remaining questions. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2: 444-463. Doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00055.x.
Chen, J.C., & Silverthorne, C. 2005. Leadership effectiveness, leadership style and employee readiness. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(4), 280-288. Doi: 10.1108/01437730510600652.
Cialdini, R.B. 2001. Influence: Science and practice, 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Cialdini, R.B. & Goldstein, N.J. 2004. Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual
Cohen, A. 2003. Multiple commitments in the workplace: An integrative approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. 1998. Charismatic leadership in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cooley, C.H. 1964. Human nature and the social order. New York: Schocken Books. (Original work published 1902)
Crowe, E., & Higgins, E.T. 1997. Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 69 (2), 117-132. Doi: 10.1006/obhd.1996.2675.
Den Hartog, D.N., Van Muijen, J.J., & Koopman, P.L. 1997. Transactional versus
transformational leadership: An analysis of the MLQ. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70: 19-34.
Draaisma, D. 2010. Vergeetboek. Groningen: Historische Uitgeverij.
Dvir, T., Eden, D., Avolio, B.J., & Shamir, B. 2002. Impact of transformational leadership on follower development and performance: A field experiment. Academy of
Management Journal, 45, 735-744.
Dweck, C. S. 1996. Implicit theories as organizers of goals and behavior. In. P.M. Golwitzer & J.A. Bargh (Eds.). The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to action. 69-90. New York: Guilford.
Evers, W.J.G., Brouwers, A. & Tomic, W. 2006. A quasi-experimental study on management coaching effectiveness. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56(3): 174-182. Doi: 10.1037/1065-9293.58.3.174.
Feierabend, A. 2010. Spillover effect of family supportive work environment. Universität Zürich, Chair of Human Resource Management, work in progress.
Feldman, D.C., & Lankau, M.J. 2005. Executive coaching: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 31: 829. Doi: 10.1177/0149206305279599. Feng, W.C. and Angeline, T. 2010. Turnover intention and job hopping behaviour of music
teachers in Malaysia. African Journal of Business Management, 4(4): 425-434. ISSN: 1993.8233.
Festinger, L. 1954. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson. Fillery-Travis, A., & Lane, D. 2006. Does coaching work or are we asking the wrong
question? International Coaching Psychology Review. 1(1) 23-36.
