EXECUTIVE COACHING OUTCOME RESEARCH: THE CONTRIBUTION OF COMMON FACTORS SUCH AS RELATIONSHIP, PERSONALITY MATCH, AND SELF-EFFICACY

By E. D. Haan, A. Duckworth, D. Birch, Claire Jones. 2013

229 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Clinical Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/a1daa22b0da1886d2cffb9bab8488301a704dc22

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

1. Simone Kauffeld
2. Adam M. Grant
3. Rebecca J. Jones
4. Gil Bozer
5. Sina Gessnitzer
6. Yvonne D. Burger
7. Per-Olof Eriksson
8. Andromachi Athanasopoulou

In Clinical Psychology

1. Simone Kauffeld
2. Sina Gessnitzer
3. Rebecca J. Jones
4. Adam M. Grant
5. Yvonne D. Burger
6. E. D. Haan
7. Gil Bozer
8. Eduardo Salas

In Social Psychology

1. Rebecca J. Jones
2. Adam M. Grant
3. Simone Kauffeld
4. Gil Bozer
5. Sina Gessnitzer
6. Yvonne D. Burger
7. Per-Olof Eriksson
8. E. D. Haan

Citations in the corpus

• A large-scale study of executive and workplace coaching: The relative contributions of relationship, personality match, and self-efficacy. (2016, background): “This is consistent with previous research by Baron and Morin (2009), Boyce et al. (2010), and de Haan et al. (2013).”
• A systematic review of executive coaching outcomes: Is it the journey or the destination that matters the most? (2018, background): “We found a limited but growing number of studies that look into such factors (e.g. Sammut, 2014; De Haan et al., 2013; Smith & Brummel, 2013; De Haan and Nieß, 2012; De Haan et al., 2010).”
• The power of coaching: a meta-analytic investigation (2015, background): “De Haan et al. (2013) investigated 156 coach– coachee pairs and found the coaching relationship to be a significant mediator between inputs (i.e. self-efficacy) and desired outcomes.”
• The Working Alliance in Coaching (2015, methodology): “To achieve comparable results across different populations, and to develop a common definition of the relationship, researchers have adapted an existing model to coaching: the working alliance (Baron & Morin, 2009; Baron et al., 2010; de Haan et al., 2013).”
• Understanding the factors that determine workplace coaching effectiveness: a systematic literature review (2018, background): “It is commonly believed that a high level of interpersonal attraction, otherwise described as a good coach-coachee match or coach-coachee compatibility, is essential for an effective coaching relationship, which is fundamental for successful coaching outcomes (e.g., de Haan et al., 2013).”
• Autonomy support, relationship satisfaction and goal focus in the coach–coachee relationship: which best predicts coaching success? (2014, background): “Unfortunately, the measures of coaching outcomes employed by de Haan et al. (2013) were somewhat vague.”