Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Executive Coaching (executive + coaching)
Selected AbstractsHidden in Plain Sight: The Active Ingredients of Executive CoachingINDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 3 2009D. DOUGLAS McKENNA We propose that I/O psychologists who coach executives have overlooked psychotherapy outcome research as a source of information and ideas that can be used to improve our executive coaching practices. This research, based on thousands of studies and many meta-analyses, has converged on the conclusion that four "active ingredients" account for most of the variance in psychotherapy outcomes. We describe how this literature has identified four primary "active ingredients" that account for most of the variance in psychotherapy outcomes: 1) Client/extratherapeutic factors (40%), 2) The relationship or alliance (30%), 3) Placebo or hope (15%), and 4) Theory and technique (15%). Working on the assumption that psychotherapy and executive coaching are sufficiently similar to justify generalization from one domain to the other, we describe these four active ingredients at length and explore how they may be at work in the executive coaching process. We also suggest that I/O psychologists have training and experience that allows us to leverage some of these active ingredients in our executive coaching (e.g., understanding of client individual differences related to coaching outcomes). But we also have areas of weakness (e.g., building a strong working relationship with an individual client) that may need to be bolstered with additional training and development experiences. [source] What Is the Active Ingredients Equation for Success in Executive Coaching?INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 3 2009D. DOUGLAS McKENNA In this response, we address commentator concerns about the generalizability of the active ingredients of psychotherapy to the science and practice of executive coaching. We discuss four ingredient that may make a difference: (a) client characteristics, (b) goals or success criteria, (c) role of the organization, and (d) contextual knowledge of the executive coach. We explore how each of these differences is likely to affect the weighting of the four active ingredients in the equation for predicting executive coaching outcomes. From this analysis, we re-affirm our hypotheses that the active ingredients are generalizable to coaching and hold promise for strengthening research and practice. We conclude by highlighting the efforts of several commentators to extend and deepen our hypotheses to other areas of leadership development. [source] Developing global leaders: Executive coaching targets cross-cultural competenciesGLOBAL BUSINESS AND ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE, Issue 1 2006Katherine Handin Leaders working with colleagues from other cultures or heading multicultural teams may find themselves stymied by their own apparent ineffectiveness and bewildered by the reactions of others. A new model of executive coaching can help individuals transform lifelong conditioning and personal assumptions into new beliefs and behaviors needed for cross-cultural collaboration and leadership. The coachee draws on three core ethnorelative values and behaviors,curiosity, cultivation, and collaboration,and uses communication skills and reflection techniques to delve beneath the surface of each situation. Through self-awareness and appreciation for others, the coachee becomes a leader who can deftly navigate cultural differences to build rewarding and productive relationships. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [source] Hidden in Plain Sight: The Active Ingredients of Executive CoachingINDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 3 2009D. DOUGLAS McKENNA We propose that I/O psychologists who coach executives have overlooked psychotherapy outcome research as a source of information and ideas that can be used to improve our executive coaching practices. This research, based on thousands of studies and many meta-analyses, has converged on the conclusion that four "active ingredients" account for most of the variance in psychotherapy outcomes. We describe how this literature has identified four primary "active ingredients" that account for most of the variance in psychotherapy outcomes: 1) Client/extratherapeutic factors (40%), 2) The relationship or alliance (30%), 3) Placebo or hope (15%), and 4) Theory and technique (15%). Working on the assumption that psychotherapy and executive coaching are sufficiently similar to justify generalization from one domain to the other, we describe these four active ingredients at length and explore how they may be at work in the executive coaching process. We also suggest that I/O psychologists have training and experience that allows us to leverage some of these active ingredients in our executive coaching (e.g., understanding of client individual differences related to coaching outcomes). But we also have areas of weakness (e.g., building a strong working relationship with an individual client) that may need to be bolstered with additional training and development experiences. [source] What Is the Active Ingredients Equation for Success in Executive Coaching?INDUSTRIAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 3 2009D. DOUGLAS McKENNA In this response, we address commentator concerns about the generalizability of the active ingredients of psychotherapy to the science and practice of executive coaching. We discuss four ingredient that may make a difference: (a) client characteristics, (b) goals or success criteria, (c) role of the organization, and (d) contextual knowledge of the executive coach. We explore how each of these differences is likely to affect the weighting of the four active ingredients in the equation for predicting executive coaching outcomes. From this analysis, we re-affirm our hypotheses that the active ingredients are generalizable to coaching and hold promise for strengthening research and practice. We conclude by highlighting the efforts of several commentators to extend and deepen our hypotheses to other areas of leadership development. [source] The characteristics of dyadic trust in executive coachingJOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP STUDIES, Issue 1 2007Susan Alvey This qualitative study explores the development of trust in executive coaching relationships. Interviews were conducted with 27 high-level executives who were voluntarily engaged in executive coaching for the purpose of leadership development. The theory that emerged from these findings, as expressed in an integrated model of sequential, interdependent trust development, was that interplay of relational, situational, and behavioral factors influenced the development of trust in executive coaching. Trust was highest when (a) the client was willing to disclose honest feelings and thoughts to the coach and was met with a supportive, nonjudgmental reaction from the coach; (b) the organization was supportive of the positive leadership development that could occur in executive coaching; (c) the coach and client were clear about expectations of confidentiality and outcomes; and (d) the coach supportively confirmed the client's developmental needs, and challenged the client's leadership behaviors. These multiple, interdependent factors manifested throughout the coaching relationship to result in bonds of trust. [source] CAN WORKING WITH AN EXECUTIVE COACH IMPROVE MULTISOURCE FEEDBACK RATINGS OVER TIME?PERSONNEL PSYCHOLOGY, Issue 1 2003A QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL FIELD STUDY This study examined the effects of executive coaching on multisource feedback over time. Participants were 1,361 senior managers who received multisource feedback; 404 of these senior managers worked with an executive coach (EC) to review their feedback and set goals. One year later, 1,202 senior managers (88% of the original sample) received multisource feedback from another survey. Managers who worked with an EC were more likely than other managers to set specific (rather than vague) goals (d= .16) and to solicit ideas for improvement from their supervisors (d= .36). Managers who worked with an EC improved more than other managers in terms of direct report and supervisor ratings, however, the effect size (d= .17) was small. [source] | |||||||||||||