Building successful leadership coaching relationships: Examining impact of matching criteria in a leadership coaching program

By Lisa A. Boyce, R. J. Jackson, L. J. Neal. 2010

194 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/d7979797886bf58ee81eeb0f9a81bef40913cfeb

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. Adam M. Grant
2. Simone Kauffeld
3. Rebecca J. Jones
4. Gil Bozer
5. J. Passmore
6. Yvonne D. Burger
7. Per-Olof Eriksson
8. Carsten C. Schermuly

In Social Psychology

1. Adam M. Grant
2. Rebecca J. Jones
3. Simone Kauffeld
4. Gil Bozer
5. Carsten C. Schermuly
6. J. Passmore
7. Patrizia M. Ianiro
8. Yvonne D. Burger

Citations in the corpus

• The power of coaching: a meta-analytic investigation (2015, background): “Similarly, Boyce et al. (2010) demonstrated that the coaching relationship variables of trust, rapport, and commitment led to the attainment of targeted coaching outcomes.”
• Why interpersonal dominance and affiliation matter: an interaction analysis of the coach-client relationship (2013, background): “This is also in line with the idea that mutual trust and understanding are easier to achieve, if coach and client have similar personal characteristics or if behavioural differences are reduced (e.g. Boyce et al., 2004; Ramseyer & Tschacher, 2011).”
• Leadership coaching, leader role-efficacy, and trust in subordinates. A mixed methods study assessing leadership coaching as a leadership development tool (2014, unknown): “An extensive search in the PsycINFO database in January 2013 revealed only four studies of this kind: one by Boyce et al. (2010), two by Baron and Morin (2009, 2010), and one by Baron et al. (2011).”
• Understanding the factors that determine workplace coaching effectiveness: a systematic literature review (2018, methodology): “In contrast, Boyce et al. found no significant differences between dyads when matched on commonality in personal characteristics or experiences, compatibility in behavioural preferences, and coach credibility scores compared to randomly assigned dyads in affective and skill-based outcomes as measure”
• EXECUTIVE COACHING OUTCOME RESEARCH: THE CONTRIBUTION OF COMMON FACTORS SUCH AS RELATIONSHIP, PERSONALITY MATCH, AND SELF-EFFICACY (2013, background): “This means our results confirm those by Boyce et al. (2010) and Baron and Morin (2009) regarding the coaching relationship, and those by Stewart et al. (2008) in the area of self-efficacy.”
• 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 critical review of executive coaching research: a decade of progress and what's to come (2011, background): “More recently work by Boyce, Jackson, and Neal (2010) has explored the coach coachee relationship in the context of the US Military.”