Academic Paper

James Gavin ✉ (Department of Applied Human Sciences Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec H4B 1R6, Canada)
Nicolò Francesco Bernardi (Department of Applied Human Sciences Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec H4B 1R6, Canada)

PDF

Introduction

An increasing number of organizations look to the field of professional coaching as a resource for addressing such organizational concerns as the development of leadership skills, succession planning, managing career transitions, fostering innovation, and performance enhancement (Abid et al., 2020; Athanasopoulou & Dopson, 2018; de Haan et al., 2016; De Meuse et al., 2009; Grant, 2017; Jones et al., 2016; Roša & Lace, 2018; Zuniga-Collazos et al., 2020). Accordingly, the modern landscape of professional coaching offers a variety of types or approaches to meet the differing needs of individuals and organizations (Cox et al., 2018; Gavin, 2022; Grant, 2017; Ives, 2008; Myers & Bachkirova, 2018; Palmer & Whybrow, 2018; Stelter, 2018).

We might assume that the choice of a certain type of coaching should be guided by the type of goal that the organization or individual presents at a given time. For example, an organization wherein a human resources survey reveals a pervasive lack of sensed purpose in work roles might intervene by initiating a coaching program to enhance employee engagement. In this case, the coaching mandate would have predefined objectives, and the design of coaching itself would likely be shaped to meet that particular purpose. However, in instances where coaching is more openly available to employees to address personal and professional agendas, the fit between a particular coaching approach and the culture of the sponsoring organization may be a highly relevant consideration.

The question of fit has been raised directly and indirectly over the history of modern coaching (Aguilar, 2019; Kilburg, 1996; Nieminen et al., 2018; Orenstein, 2002; Rosinski, 2003). It is at the very least implicit in empirical studies attempting to identify the multidimensionality of coaching types (Jackson, 2005; Myers & Bachkirova, 2018), where the rationale for such differences is raised. Writing on leadership, culture, and coaching, Nieminen and colleagues (2013) address the question of fit by critiquing the “subjective and highly idiosyncratic” (p. 178) ways that coaches tailor their approaches to different organizational contexts. Cox and colleagues (2014) also offer important commentary through their theoretical model for appreciating the range of variables that might be relevant to aligning coaching approach according to contextual variables. While these discussions are crucial, empirical investigations related to the fit between coaching type and organizational culture seems noticeably scant.

Before going further, it is important for us to distinguish the term, organizational culture, from current conceptualizations of coaching culture (Clutterbuck, Megginson & Bajer, 2016; Gormley & van Nieuwerburgh, 2014; Hawkins, 2012; Milner,Milner & McCarthy, 2020. Borrowing from Schein (2010), organizational culture is thought to represent a layered pattern of visible artefacts and behaviours, espoused values, and deeply embedded assumptions that contribute to the unique social and psychological environment of an organization (Schein, 2010). Categorizations of organizational culture rely upon different criteria and dimensions (Chatman & O’Reilly, 2016; Scharmer, 2016, 2018), with the Competing Values Framework being one of the most widely applied systems (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). This framework describes organizations as varying along two continua, one concerning flexibility versus control and the other related to internal focus and integration versus external focus and differentiation (Quinn & Rohrbaugh, 1981). Simplification of these two continua allows the identification of four types of organizational culture. When the focus is internal and the emphasis is on flexibility, the culture is identified as a “clan”. In this type of organization, high importance is given to collaboration, commitment to the community, shared values, and communication. Leaders strive to create trusting relationships and customers are seen as partners.

When taken to extremes, this form of organization can become permissive to the detriment of performance. When the focus is internal and the emphasis in on stability, the culture can be described as a “hierarchy”. In this type of organization, high importance is given to control, planning, efficient systems, and enforcing compliance. Leaders strive to optimize processes, cut costs, and establish policies. When taken to extremes, this form of organization can become stagnant and burdened by bureaucracy. When the focus is external and the emphasis is on flexibility, the culture can be described as an “adhocracy”. In this type of organization, high importance is given to experimentation, flexibility, innovation, and growth. Leaders are driven by a compelling vision and strive to promote new ideas and technologies. When taken to extremes, this form of organization can become chaotic and fail to generate predictable outcomes and structures. When the focus is external and the emphasis is on stability, the culture is identified as “market”. In this type of organization, high importance is given to aggressive competition, fast achievements, and profitability. Leaders seek to improve productivity, clarify objectives, and deliver results as quickly as possible. When taken to extremes, this form of organization can give rise to self-interested behaviours to the detriment of both employees and the society at large. While widely adopted in the organizational psychology literature, the Competing Values Framework has also been the subject of such criticisms as: (a) the tendency to provide more of a description of how organizations achieve effectiveness than a characterization of culture in its full scope and (b) the observation that the four core values in the reality of organizations are often seen as complementary rather than “competing” (see Chatman & O’Reilly, 2016 for a full account of the model’s limitations). The present study aims to determine whether various forms of coaching are considered more or less beneficial within these four different organizational cultures.

Literature

Regarding a typology of coaching, the literature offers different perspectives without coalescing around a preferred framework (Braunstein & Grant, 2016; Brockbank, 2008; Courville, 2013; Cox et al., 2018; Grant, 2017; Ives, 2008; Jackson, 2005; Myers & Bachkirova, 2018; Palmer & Whybrow, 2018). Though research on coaching effectiveness in organizations has been progressing (Abid et al., 2020; Albizu et al., 2019; Athanasopoulou & Dopson, 2018; Bozer & Jones, 2018; Greif, 2007; Myers & Bachkirova, 2018; Theeboom et al., 2014), research comparing the effectiveness of different forms of coaching does not appear to be well developed. The choice of types of coaching for our study reflects a consideration of common coaching forms described in the literature, our own experiences of coaching in organizations and, of course, research practicalities leading us to limit the number of coaching types under study. One important criterion was the need for coaching types to be readily recognizable by our research participants. Thus, the following four types were included: leadership coaching, performance coaching, life/personal coaching, and third generation coaching. Some support for our choices can be found in the International Coaching Federation’s (2020) most recent study, which indicates the prevalence of leadership coaching (ranked first in a list of main areas of coaching) and life or vision enhancement coaching (ranked fourth). Sir John Whitmore (2017), a pioneer in the coaching field, strongly underscored the relevance of coaching for performance in his writings, adding credence to its relevance to our work. Finally, third-generation coaching (Grant, 2017; Stelter, 2014, 2018), which might not be as readily recognizable, has been increasingly referenced as an important model for coaching leaders in organizations.

From the research literature, we found some congruence between our choices and the four-fold model derived by Myers and Bachkirova (2018). Performance management coaching is described in their model, as is dialogic coaching, which would correspond to a third generation approach. Moreover, client-led coaching would seem to correspond well to the style of life/personal coaching (Jarosz, 2016). Our choice of leadership coaching does not seem to be clearly articulated in this model, other than having some overlap with performance management coaching. While believing that our four-fold typology seemed reasonable, we also acknowledged that there was a degree of arbitrariness in our selections.

The notion of coaching-context fit has been considered in previous research. For instance, Roša and Lace (2018) described an organizational life-cycle model for which the authors identified such coaching types as life, career, leadership, entrepreneurial, innovation, and group as potentially more valuable in one cycle than another; data from practitioners helped to support their hypotheses. As noted above, Myers and Bachkirova (2018) also argued for a typology of coaching relevant to different coaching agendas in the workplace. In general, we would agree with Athanasopoulou and Dopson’s (2018) conclusion from their extensive review of executive coaching research that, “There is a dearth of studies that compare coaching methods to test which are more effective” (p. 81).

When considering the question of who would be best positioned to consider the relative benefits of different forms of coaching occurring in organizations that vary in cultural attributes, it was our sense that for this initial exploration professional coaches with organizational experience might have useful perspectives. Not only might they appreciate subtle differences between coaching types, but they would be likely to have experiences coaching in settings with differing organizational cultures. Thus, our study asks professional coaches to estimate various benefits that different types of coaching might have when offered within different organizational cultures.

In the absence of relevant prior research, we initiated our inquiry with a null hypothesis suggesting that neither culture nor coaching type would significantly impact perceptions of coaching benefits. We proposed four kinds of benefits, ranging from a person-centric focus on the employee’s personal growth and evolution to more organization-centric ones of return on investment, internal alignment, and organizational adaptation and innovation. An emphasis on return on investment (ROI) has long been a criterion of effectiveness applied to coaching in organizations (Lawrence & Paul, 2014).

Equally, discussions of coaching’s value have been framed around matters of organizational alignment and adaptability (Milner et al., 2020). An early work by Ives (2008) highlights differences in coaching outcomes according to emphasis on personal development or therapeutic gain vis-à-vis solution or performance orientation. In their analysis of coaching definitions, Rosha and Lace (2016) conclude that along with expected benefits for organizational alignment, improved performance, and behaviour change, key benefits of coaching are thought to be those of personal growth and the attainment of personally desired outcomes. It is also relevant that the benefits chosen seem consistent with the cultural definitions captured in the Competing Values Framework (Cameron & Quinn, 2011), whereby focus on collaboration, innovation, growth, achievement, and profitability feature in culture characteristics. Admittedly, there are other benefits that could have been included, but these four seemed useful to an exploratory investigation and to the understanding that research participants might have of coaching’s benefits in organizational contexts.

Methods

Participants

While 483 coaches initiated our online survey only 115 completed all questions (ratio approximately 1:4); for the most part those who did not complete the survey may have only read the instructions without entering responses. This can be seen as a self-selection process whereby coaches withdrew from participation based on an assessment of their qualifications to answer questions. As reflected in Table 1, our sample was predominantly female and in the 36 to 65 age range. Most participants had more than a decade of experience working in organizations. As well, the majority coached around career-related topics, and worked with clients who were sponsored by their organizations. Almost all participants (95%) had active practices on a weekly basis. More than half of the sample indicated that most of their clients were sponsored by their organizations. Nearly two-thirds of our participants held an ICF coaching certification of PCC or higher.

Table 1: Study participants

Participants were recruited through announcements posted in newsletters and social media pages of several coaching organizations and coaching schools, through flyers distributed at coaching events, and by word-of-mouth. No form of compensation was offered for participating.
The study was carried out in accordance with ethical guidelines stipulated by the Human Research Ethics Committee at Concordia University in Montreal. All participants gave informed consent prior to beginning the study by clicking an icon in the online survey indicating that they had read, understood, and agreed with conditions for participation.

Types of organizational culture and coaching

The four types of organizational culture were derived from the Competing Values framework (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Quinn & McGrath, 1985). As indicated in Table 2, cultures (clan, adhocracy, hierarchy, market) were described in the online survey according to their overall orientation, leadership style, distinct set of values, and default approach to getting results.

Table 2: Types of organizational culture

As previously noted, the four coaching types we chose were: leadership coaching, performance coaching, life/personal coaching, and third generation coaching. Brief descriptions of each were provided in the online survey, including indications of the coaching type’s focus, goal area, and typical tools or methods (see Table 3).

Table 3: Types of coaching

Types of benefit from coaching

Extensive literature has shown that effective coaching in organizations results in a number of benefits beyond the simple return on the organization’s financial investments in coaching (Athanasopoulou & Dopson, 2018; Bozer & Jones, 2018; Greif, 2007; Theeboom et al., 2014)(Athanasopoulou & Dopson, 2018; Greif, 2007; Theeboom, Beersma, & van Vianen, 2014; Zuniga-Collazos et al., 2020). We selected four dimensions of potential impact with the aim of capturing some of the richness in coaching outcomes: (1) return on investment (ROI), (2) employees' personal growth and evolution (PGE), (3) alignment with the expectations of the organization (AEO), (4) capacity of the organization to adapt and innovate (CAI). Information further identifying each type of benefit was provided in the online survey (see Table 4).

Table 4: Types of benefit

Procedure

Participants were asked to fill in an anonymous online questionnaire hosted on the Lime Survey platform (https://www.limesurvey.org) after reading the purpose of the survey and various definitions provided. Their task was to assess the benefits of each coaching type for each organizational culture.

Participants were presented with four separate matrices similar to what is displayed in Figure 1, with each matrix headed by the definition of one of the four benefits. They were asked to provide a rating on a 5-point scale ranging from -1 to +3 (-1 = negative value or benefit; 3 = high value or benefit) for each of 16 combinations of culture and coaching type. This scale represented a 5-point Likert scale shifted 2 digits lower than the more common 1-5 range. This scheme was chosen under the assumption that participants would more intuitively associate the "-1" score to the statement "negative value for the organization", compared to the "1" score more commonly utilized as the lowest score in a 5-point Likert scale. We also reasoned that this form of scaling might help serve to moderate any positive bias coaches might have about the value of coaching. Each page of the survey included reminders of definitions of culture and coaching types.

Figure 1. Scoring matrix from the online survey

Statistical analysis

Data were analyzed using the SPSS software package (version 20). To correct for skewed distributions, raw data were log-transformed (logn) before statistical analyses were performed. Data were submitted to a multivariate two-way analysis of variance (MANOVA), with two independent variables (4 coaching types - 4 culture types) and four dependent variables (ROI, PGE, CAI, AEO).

Our presentation of findings illustrates MANOVA results by first describing the statistical main effects of culture and coaching type (Table 1), followed by the presentation of the statistical coaching-by-culture interactions (Table 2). Separate one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) compared the four types of benefits, independently of coaching or culture type; these findings are presented last. Comparisons of benefit ratings for the four coaching types in each culture type were examined by means of post-hoc tests, with a Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons as implemented in SPSS.

Results

Overall

Findings indicate that the extent to which organizations benefit from coaching is related to the culture of the organization (Table 5). Respondents also suggested that not all forms of coaching seem equally beneficial (Table 5). Findings further reveal that estimated benefits of coaching vary according to the relationship between types of coaching and the organizational cultures wherein coaching occurs (Figures 2-5). This finding is evidenced in the statistically significant interactions between coaching and culture types for the four benefits (Table 6; a detailed breakdown of the statistically significant post-hoc tests is provided in the main text, separately for each of the four types of benefits, see below).

Table 5: Main effects of coaching and culture types for four benefits

Table 6: Interaction effects between coaching and culture types for four benefits

Return on investment (ROI)

Results for ROI scores are shown in Figure 2. When looking at the rated benefits of coaching overall, regardless of specific coaching types (Table 1), respondents assessed that coaching provided similarly high ROI in clan and adhocracy cultures, intermediate benefits in a market culture (lower ROI than clan or adhocracy, both p < .001; higher ROI than hierarchy, p < .001), and the least benefits in a hierarchical culture (lower ROI then clan, adhocracy and market, all p < .001).

When comparing the effectiveness of different types of coaching, regardless of the organizational culture in which coaching is implemented (Table 1), respondents assessed that leadership coaching generates the highest ROI (all p < .05 or better). Performance coaching was believed to generate intermediate ROI (lower than leadership, p = .03; higher than both third generation and life coaching, both p < .001). Third generation and life coaching were rated as similarly effective (p > .05), and less effective then both leadership and performance coaching (all p < .001).

Considering the interaction between coaching and culture types, data revealed that in a market culture, leadership and performance coaching were considered to yield greater ROI than both third generation and life coaching (post-hoc tests on the interaction term: all p < .001, corrected for multiple comparisons). A trend was noted such that performance coaching evidenced more effectiveness than leadership coaching, but this was not statistically significant following correction for multiple comparisons (p = 0.06). The pattern of findings for hierarchical culture was virtually identical to that for market culture. In a clan culture, leadership, third generation and life coaching were rated as similarly beneficial (all p > .05), and all three forms of coaching were rated as more beneficial than performance coaching (all p < .05). The pattern of findings for adhocracy culture was virtually identical to the clan culture.

Figure 2: Estimated ROI benefit of coaching types within different cultures

Employees' personal growth and evolution (PGE)

Results for PGE scores appear in Figure 3. When examining the rated benefits of coaching overall, regardless of type of coaching, respondents assessed that coaching provided maximal benefits in clan and adhocracy cultures, without statistically significant difference between the two (p > .05) and the smallest benefits in market and hierarchical cultures (lower PGE for market and hierarchy compared to clan and adhocracy: all p < .001; a non-significant trend was noted evidencing greater benefits from coaching in a market compared to hierarchical culture: p = .06).

When comparing the effectiveness of different types of coaching, regardless of the cultures in which coaching is implemented, respondents assessed that leadership coaching and life coaching are most beneficial in promoting employee’s personal growth and evolution, while performance coaching is least beneficial (higher PGE for leadership vs. performance coaching: p = .01; higher PGE for life vs performance coaching: p = .02). Third-generation coaching received intermediate ratings that did not significantly differ from either of the other coaching types.

Considering the interaction between coaching and culture types, data revealed that in a market culture, leadership coaching was rated as providing the greatest PGE benefits and third generation coaching the least benefits, with the difference between the two being statistically significant (p = .043). Performance coaching and life coaching were given intermediate ratings that were not significantly different from either of the two other types of coaching (all p > .05). The pattern of findings for hierarchical culture was virtually identical to that for market culture. In a clan culture, leadership, third generation and life coaching were rated as similarly beneficial (all p > .05), and all three forms of coaching were rated as more beneficial than performance coaching (all p < .01). The pattern of findings for adhocracy was similar to clan cultures, with the exception that benefits of leadership coaching were slightly lower, and as a result leadership coaching occupied an intermediate position that was not statistically different from either of the three other types of coaching (all p > .05).

Figure 3: Estimated PGE benefit of coaching types within different cultures

Alignment with the expectations of the organization (AEO)

Results for AEO scores are shown in Figure 4. When examining rated benefits of coaching overall, regardless of coaching type, respondents assessed that coaching provided highest benefits in clan and adhocracy cultures, without statistically significant difference between the two (p > .05), and the smallest benefits in market and hierarchical cultures (lower AEO for market and hierarchy compared to clan and adhocracy: all p < .001; a non-significant trend evidencing greater benefits of coaching in a market culture compared to hierarchical culture: p = .07).

When comparing the effectiveness of different types of coaching, regardless of the culture in which coaching is implemented, respondents perceived that leadership coaching generates the highest AEO, scoring statistically higher than both third generation and life coaching (both p < .001). Performance coaching was the second most effective and did not differ statistically from leadership coaching (p = .2). Performance coaching was assessed as more effective than life coaching (higher AEO for performance coaching: p < .01) and there was a strong trend in the same direction for the comparison with third generation coaching (p = .052).

Considering the interaction between coaching and culture types, data revealed that in a market culture, leadership and performance coaching were rated as similarly beneficial (p > .05), and both forms of coaching were rated as more beneficial than either third-generation or life coaching (all p < .001). The pattern of findings for the hierarchical culture was virtually identical to that for market culture. A different pattern of findings emerged for clan and adhocracy cultures, for which all four forms of coaching were rated as similarly beneficial (all p > .05).

Figure 4: Estimated AEO benefit of coaching types within different cultures

Capacity of the organization to adapt and innovate (CAI)

Results for the CAI score appear in Figure 5. When looking at the rated benefits of coaching overall, regardless of coaching type, respondents assessed that coaching provided similarly high CAI benefits in clan and adhocracy cultures, intermediate benefits in a market culture (lower CAI than adhocracy, p < .001; marginally lower CAI than clan, p = .06; higher CAI than hierarchy, p < .001), and the smallest benefits in a hierarchical culture (lower CAI than clan, adhocracy and market, all p < .001).

When comparing the effectiveness of different types of coaching, regardless of the culture in which coaching is implemented, respondents assessed that leadership coaching provides the greatest benefit, scoring higher than all other forms of coaching at a statistically significant level (all p < .001). No other statistically significant comparisons were identified.

Considering the interaction between coaching and culture types, data revealed that in a market culture, leadership coaching was rated as the most beneficial, and yielded ratings higher than all three other forms of coaching, at a highly statistically significant level for comparisons with life coaching and third-generation coaching (both p < .001) and marginally significant level when compared with performance coaching (p = .05). In a hierarchical culture, the four types of coaching were rated as similarly effective (for all comparisons, p > .05). In a clan culture, leadership coaching received the highest ratings and performance coaching the lowest, with the difference between the two being statistically significant (p = .004). Third generation and life coaching in a clan culture received intermediate ratings, higher than performance coaching, lower than leadership coaching and not statistically different than either (all p > .05). The pattern of findings for the adhocracy culture was virtually identical to the clan culture.

Figure 5: Estimated CAI benefit of coaching types within different cultures

Comparing the benefits of coaching across culture and coaching types

When averaging across all culture and coaching types, respondents assessed that coaching is maximally effective in promoting personal growth and evolution (PGE: 2.07 ± 0.2, M ± SE), followed by return on investment (ROI: 2.0 ± 0.2), capacity of the organization to adapt and innovate (CAI: 1.95 ± 0.02) and alignment with the expectation of the organization (AEO: 1.94 ± 0.02). PGE scores were statistically higher than both CAI (p = .005) and AEO (p = .001). The other comparisons were not statistically significant.

Discussion and Conclusions

In the context of organizationally sanctioned coaching processes, results support the likelihood that coaching’s value will vary according to the type of coaching offered and the organizational culture in which coaching takes place, and similarly according to the nature of the benefits themselves. Yet, given the modest sample size and the unique nature of method and measurements, we need to be cautious in generalizing findings. The results do, however, open several avenues for further inquiry. For instance, we were intrigued by results showing that irrespective of the nature of benefits, all forms of coaching represented in this study were thought to be more beneficial in clan and adhocracy cultures than in market and hierarchical cultures. Considered in the competing values framework, this suggests that the dimension of flexibility vs. stability of organizational cultures might have more bearing on perceived coaching benefits than might the dimension of internal vs. external focus (Cameron & Quinn, 2011; Quinn & McGrath, 1985). Unfortunately, we were unable to find direct support for this outcome in the literature. However, in considering Milner et al.’s (2020) study of coaching cultures, we might extract some indirect indications of the importance of organizational flexibility in fostering coaching effectiveness. In their survey of managers, cultural values believed conducive to coaching included empowerment, inclusiveness, ownership, collaboration, innovation, and learning. These values seem more aligned with the two types of more flexible cultures, viz., clan and adhocracy, than with market and hierarchical cultures in the Competing Values Framework (Cameron & Quinn, 2011).

We can also surmise from Roša and Lace’s (2018) work on coaching in an organization’s life cycle that various types of coaching become more important in the rapidly changing and fluid stage of organizational revival; this finding seems to imply that coaching might be more beneficial when the culture is in a more flexible state. Moreover, in reflecting on the values and mindsets within coaching cultures, Clutterbuck and colleagues (2016) note that these are typically wholistic, positive, and life-enhancing perspectives. As such, we can speculate that these values and mindsets may be more manifest in flexible clan and adhocracy cultures as contrasted with market and hierarchical ones.

The literature also suggests another connection to our findings. Henriques et al.’s (2017 study highlights the value clients place on experiences of personal relevancy and ‘warmth’ arising in coaching relationships. In this study, the centrality of clients experiencing personal value in their coaching was strongly supported by our finding that participating coaches gave the highest mean rating to the benefit of “personal growth and evolution” across all types of coaching and cultures. Perhaps experiences of warmth and personal relevancy are less evident to coaches when their clients are situated in hierarchical, inflexible, or competitive cultures.

It seems unsurprising that leadership coaching was generally thought to have the highest perceived benefits when contrasted with the other three types of coaching represented in our study. This finding coincides with evidence of the centrality of executive coaching across all stages of an organization’s lifecycle (Roša & Lace, 2018). Yet, a deeper appreciation of the benefits of different types of coaching can be gleaned from examinations of interaction effects. Here we note that while leadership coaching is generally highest regardless of culture, life coaching and third generation coaching are often similarly evaluated in clan and adhocracy cultures, but less so in market and hierarchical cultures. For instance, when considering the benefit of organizational alignment, clan and adhocracy cultures are thought to derive relatively equal benefit from all four types of coaching, while in market and hierarchical cultures, leadership and performance coaching are clearly distinguished by their higher value when contrasted with clan and adhocracy cultures.

Differences identified in this study may reflect biases of the participating coaches. Assuming that robust experiences in coaching are made available to employees, what would cause them to be seen as so much less beneficial in one context than in another? Does this reflect partiality arising when coaches are engaged in mandates from distinctive organizational cultures? Or, if the data reflect the actual experiences of clients, how might we explain a lessening of benefits for ostensibly the same kinds of coaching occurring in different organizational cultures? These considerations spark at least two ideas for offshoot studies, one that focuses on client evaluations of similar experiences in different cultural settings and a second that explores with coaches their thinking about why these differences might be occurring.

Moving back from a detailed discussion of results to a more global view, what we are seeing in these results is the possibility that coaching may be more valuable in some organizational cultures than others and, moreover, that such value differences become more pronounced according to the type of coaching offered and the form of benefit considered. As we review implications in light of the literature of coaching, some questions are worth considering.

In a recent compendium of coaching genres and the theoretical backgrounds that inform coaching, Cox and colleagues (Cox et al., 2018) identified 13 different theoretical frameworks and a dozen genres or contexts that help shape how coaching might be delivered. The variation that may occur when coaches ostensibly intend to deliver one or another coaching type, as suggested in this research, might be considerable. This supports Brock’s (2008) earlier contention that the way coaching is delivered varies not only by virtue of the theoretical orientation of the practitioner but quite significantly by each practitioner’s unique style of delivery. This means that under such rubrics as leadership coaching, performance coaching, life coaching, or third generation coaching, variation may be as great within type as between. Certainly Jarosz (2016) pointed to this in her detailed review of the literature on life coaching. In extensive reviews of executive coaching, we also find a broad umbrella subsuming an indeterminate range of unique styles of working with clients (Athanasopoulou & Dopson, 2018; Bozer & Jones, 2018; Roša & Lace, 2018; Schalk & Landeta, 2017). Regarding such newer forms of coaching as third generation coaching, different authors seem to describe the offering in distinctively different ways (Grant, 2017; Stelter, 2014, 2018). All this not only summates in a foggy awareness of what typology might imply but also in a disconcerting possibility that organizational culture may have significant bearing on how coaches deliver their services, irrespective of whether they are labelled as third-generation, performance, life or leadership.

As we conclude these reflections, we need to underscore such limitations of our study as our ad hoc methodology wherein only certain types of coaching were explored, the use of a singular taxonomy of organizational cultures, and the choice of a limited set of potential coaching benefits. Moreover, we recognize various analysis constraints arising from our limited sample size. Further, we know that as an initial study of this topic, there isn’t much against which we can contrast our findings. We do, however, perceive some supportive reflections in the work of Roša and Lace (2018) who suggest that different forms of coaching may be more applicable in different phases of an organization’s life cycle, as well as in models referencing the salience of context (Cox et al., 2014; Nieminen et al., 18).

A need for more research on this topic seems evident. In this regard, we point to issues we had in creating a manageable methodology for a complex topic with an entirely volunteer sample of participants. Anecdotally, it seems relevant here to refer to the difference between the number of individuals who logged into our research portal with good intentions and the number who actually completed the survey – a ratio of 4:1. While we interpreted this as perhaps reflecting knowledgeable self-elimination of those unqualified to participate, it also points to the challenge of research on complex matters concerning coaching practice.

References

About the authors

Professor James Gavin is Director of the Centre for Human Relations and Community Studies, as well as director of an ICF-ACTP coach certification program at the university.

Dr. Nicholo Bernardi is a professional coach specializing in developing emotional resilience in highly stressful environments ranging from business start-ups to families of children with suicidal thoughts.