search.noResults

search.searching

note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
COACHING T


he more research carried out in the area of coaching, the more we are discovering about the


effectiveness of these helping conversa- tions. We are also starting to learn more about the nature of their effects, in other words, about their ‘active ingredients’. From 2011 to 2013, Ashridge


worked with VU University Amster- dam and the University of Sydney to organise a large-scale study into the effectiveness of coaching using the largest sample size to date. Te results of the 3,892 questionnaires have now been analysed in detail and it is time to trans- pose the findings back into practice.1


Background to the research


In November 2011 data was collected for this very large coaching study from various coaching networks and profes- sional associations. Te data collection was completed May 2013 with over 4,000 completed questionnaires. In the majority of cases a link match could be made between coach and coachee questionnaires, and in some cases with sponsor questionnaires as well. In total 1,895 coachee questionnaires were paired with 1,895 questionnaires completed independently by their coaches, and 92 questionnaires com- pleted by the ‘sponsor’ of the coaching relationship, usually a manager or


Coaching has often been described as a ‘female profession’, with the ‘midwife’ as its metaphor and the Goddess Athena as its ‘patron saint’





HR director. Te questionnaires came from 34 countries and were com- pleted within the context of existing contracted coaching relationships. Te research focused on finding


active ingredients of coaching; factors within a series of coaching sessions which correlate significantly with its effects. Tis was done by comparing various series of coaching sessions in the sample. Tis enabled us to study the following active ingredients:


20 | july 2016 |  


Female versus male, internal versus external and experienced versus inexperienced coaches.


Types of coach (e.g. leadership/organ- isation/career development coaches)


  


Different MBTI personality profiles for coaches and coachees.


Matching between MBTI personality profiles of coach- coachee combinations.


Te strength of the relationship


(‘working alliance’) between coaches and coachees.





Te relative strength of three aspects of that relationship – agreement on the goals of coaching, agreement on the tasks of coaching, and effective bond or ‘click’ between coach and coachee.


 


Self-efficacy or self- motivation of coaches.


Self-efficacy or self- motivation of coachees.


@TrainingJournal


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40