Business school
CREATING A COACHING CULTURE:
Evaluation and development of leadership training programs
Master`s Thesis, Innovation Management Ville Summanen (229409)
May 14, 2018
UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN FINLAND
Faculty
Faculty of Social Sciences and Business Studies
Department Business School Author
Summanen Ville
Supervisor
Lehtimäki Hanna Title
Creating a coaching culture: evaluation and development of leadership training programs
Main subject
Innovation Management Level
Master degree Date
14.5.2018 Number of pages 95
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore the effectiveness of leadership training in the light of effective coaching conversations and transformational leadership. Organization culture can be seen as having a major role in a radically changing world. To be competitive, a company’s culture has to be adaptive. Transformational leadership focuses on innovation, transformation and change when coaching is helping people through change by developing skills and knowledge to improve organizational performance. When people grow, the organization grows and its culture changes.
On the basis of the theoretical framework and empirical discussion, the purpose of this study is to achieve a deeper understanding of the connection between the fundaments of transformational leadership, key concepts of effective coaching conversations and the effectiveness of leadership training. This study concentrates on finding elements that foster both transformational leadership and effective coaching conversations. The connection between effective coaching conversations, transformational leadership and the effectiveness of leadership training constitutes the theoretical framework.
The qualitative case study was applied in the empirical research. The case study included one case company but three different internal interviews. The contrast between these interviews was to gather organizational-, leader- and employee-level information about the current state of the leadership in the case company. The data for this study was collected by semi-structured inter- views and analyzed using inductive content analysis.
The study results show that trust, shared vision and listening are important in achieving effective coaching conversations and transformational leadership. The results of the study also show that there is a connection between the fundaments of transformational leadership, effective coaching conversations and the effectiveness of leadership training. In conclusion, the effectiveness of leadership training programs in this study was high when it was measured through effective coaching conversations and the fundaments of transformational leadership. However, there were also challenges. These results can help companies to understand more about the current and fu- ture situation of leadership training as well as also organizational culture.
Key words
Coaching, Transformational leadership, organization culture, evaluation and effectiveness of learning
ITÄ-SUOMEN YLIOPISTO Tiedekunta
Yhteiskuntatieteiden ja kauppatieteiden tiedekunta
Yksikkö
Kauppatieteiden laitos Tekijä
Summanen Ville Ohjaaja
Lehtimäki Hanna Työn nimi (suomeksi ja englanniksi)
Coaching kulttuurin luominen: esimiesten valmennusohjelman arviointi ja kehittäminen
Pääaine
Innovaatiojohtaminen
Työn laji
Kauppatieteiden maisteri
Aika 14.5.2018
Sivuja 95
Tiivistelmä
Tutkimuksen tarkoituksena on tutkia valmennuksen vaikuttavuutta tehokkaiden coaching kes- kustelujen ja transformationaalisen johtamisen kautta. Organisaatio kulttuurin luomisen merki- tys on kasvanut muuttuvassa maailmassa. Ollakseen kilpailukykyinen, yrityskulttuurin täytyy olla muutoskykyinen. Transformationaalinen johtaminen keskittyy innovointiin, transformaati- oon ja jatkuvaan muutokseen. Coaching tukee tätä ajatusta taas auttamalla ihmisiä muutoksen läpi kehittämällä taitoja ja tietoja parempaan suoriutumiseen. Kun ihmiset kasvavat, organisaa- tio kasvaa ja kulttuuri muuttuu.
Teoreettisen viitekehyksen ja empiirisen tutkimuksen pohjalta tutkimuksen tarkoituksena on saada lisää ymmärrystä transformationaalisen johtamisen perustan yhteydestä tehokkaan coaching keskustelun avain käsitteisiin. Tämä tutkimus keskittyy löytämään transformationaa- lisen johtamisen ja tehokkaan coaching keskustelun väliset elementit. Näin ollen tutkimuksen teoreettisen viitekehyksenä toimii transformationaalisen johtamisen, tehokkaan coaching kes- kustelun ja valmennuksen vaikuttavuuden välinen yhteys.
Empiirisen tutkimuksen taustalle valittiin kvalitatiivinen tapaustutkimus. Tutkimus sisälsi yh- den tapausyrityksen mutta kolme erillistä haastattelua. Haastattelut erosivat toisistaan siten, että tarkoituksena oli tutkia ja kerätä tietoa niin organisaatio, esimies kuin työntekijä tasoilta.
Tämä sen vuoksi että saadaan muodostettua riittävä käsitys johtamisen nykytilasta organisaa- tiossa. Tieto kerättiin teemahaastatteluilla ja analysoitiin käyttämällä induktiivista sisältö ana- lyysiä.
Tutkimuksen tulokset näyttivät, että luottamus, jaettu visio ja kuunteleminen ovat tärkeimpiä yhdistäviä tekijöitä transformationaalisen johtamisen ja tehokkaan coaching keskustelun vä- lillä. Myös laajemmat tulokset osoittivat sen, että transformationaalisen johtamisen ja tehok- kaan coaching keskustelun välillä on yhteys. Yhteenvetona voidaan sanoa, että valmennuksen vaikuttavuus tässä tutkimuksessa oli korkea, kun sitä mitattiin transformationaalisen johtami- sen ja tehokkaan coaching keskustelun valossa. Myös kehitettävää löytyi. Nämä tulokset autta- vat yritystä ymmärtämään johtamisen nykytilaa ja tulevaisuutta mutta myös yrityksen organi- saatiokulttuuria.
Avainsanat
Coaching, transformationaalinen johtaminen, organisaatiokulttuuri, valmennuksen arviointi ja vaikuttavuus
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1INTRODUCTION ... 6
1.1Topic of the research ... 6
1.2The purpose of the study ... 8
1.3Key concepts of the study ... 9
1.4The structure of the thesis ... 10
2THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK ... 12
2.1Organizational culture ... 12
2.1.1Leadership ... 12
2.1.2Creating a coaching culture ... 13
2.2Coaching ... 18
2.2.1Role of the coach ... 20
2.2.2Coaching skills ... 22
2.3Coaching and Leadership ... 25
2.3.1Effective Coaching Conversation ... 27
2.4Effectiveness of Leadership Training Programs ... 31
2.4.1Differences between the evaluation and effectiveness of training ... 33
2.4.2Effectiveness of coaching ... 33
2.5Conclusions and conceptual framework ... 39
3RESEARCH METHODS ... 43
3.1Research philosophy ... 43
3.2Research strategy ... 44
3.3Data collection ... 47
3.4Data analysis ... 49
4CREATING A COACHING CULTURE ... 51
4.1Case company: a Leadership training program for new leaders ... 51
4.1.1Training content and design ... 51
4.2Learning unit interview ... 52
4.2.1Qualities of a leader ... 52
4.2.2New leaders ... 55
4.2.3Successes and challenges in leadership training programs ... 56
4.3Leaders focus group interviews ... 59
4.3.1Qualities of leaders ... 59
4.3.2Personal development for the future ... 61
4.3.3Successes and challenges in training programs ... 65
4.4Employees focus group interviews ... 70
4.4.1Qualities of leaders ... 70
4.4.2New leaders ... 73
4.4.3Successes and challenges in coaching conversations ... 74
4.4.4Leader support for personal development ... 78
4.5Future leaders ... 80
4.6Suggestions for the future ... 83
4.7Summary of the research results ... 85
5DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ... 91
5.1Key results ... 91
5.2The key contributions of this study ... 93
5.3Research limitations ... 94
REFERENCES ... 96
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Topic of the research
In the modern world, the working environment is constantly changing and evolving. It is im- portant for companies to stay highly competitive. To stay competitive, companies must change continuously and rapidly to correspond to the changing needs of the environment. If a company is not focused on innovation, flexibility and adaptability, it is hard to survive. To be innovative is crucial. Without innovations, there are no new products, services and procedures. (Viitala 2009) According to Bluedorn & Lundgren (1993), organizational culture has to be constructed in a way that corresponds with these themes, since the change and strategies are coming from the base of the organization’s culture. Kotter and Heskett (1992) discovered that companies that have an adaptive culture can reach much higher performance levels in the long term. Even twenty years later organizational culture can be seen as a key aspect of competitiveness because we live in a radically changing world. (Alvesson & Sveningsson 2015, 4.)
To create a new adaptive culture, it need a strategic approach from the whole company and upper management. To create adaptive culture, a company needs transformational coaching (Kirkpatrik, 2006, 124). Transformational culture focuses on innovation, transformation and change. It is common to see transformational culture in highly innovative organizations.
Coaching as a leading method has grown rapidly over the years because many businesses have become more complex and fast-paced. Change is present every day and that leads coaching to be more personalized and individual. Coaching is developed to help people in change situations.
(Bluckert 2004, 53; Garvey et al 2017, 18.) Coaching gives understanding to managers how to translate individual assets into increased effectiveness and finally how the whole organization can benefit from it. (Wales 2002) This is also confirmed by Joo (2005, 468) who wrote that behavioral change, self-awareness and learning through coaching can lead to better organiza- tional performance and personal career success. It can be said that transformational culture is connected to coaching and that way we can use concept coaching culture. At the individual level, this means that when a company is developing its coaching culture, everyone has a similar possibility to develop and improve the performance of others as a part of their own develop- ment. This behavior motivates, increases job satisfaction and strengthens bonds between team
members. (Hart 2005, 7.) A transformational leader puts effort into understanding the changing needs, values, self-concepts and goals of employees. The leader is trying to provoke feelings and cognitive consequences among employees. This means that the leader is trying to emotion- ally attach to employees and simultaneously build trust, raise motivation and enhance self-effi- cacy. (Huang et al. 2005, 36)
When companies develop their employees, the main interest for the company is that people gain more knowledge, therefore benefiting the company. If a company wants to be successful, learning effectiveness should be evaluated more. Developing people in organizations as a part of change is important. However, the challenge is that it is quite complex to demonstrate the effectiveness of learning. (Santos & Stuart, 2003) Evaluation of learning, knowledge transfer and organizational impact includes many complex factors. These can include organizational and individual factors. People see things in different ways and individuals experience learning in different ways. Especially in the effectiveness of leadership training programs, it is hard to say which part of the change is coming from training and which part is caused by something else (Santos & Stuart 2003; Altarawneh 2009). Antonacopulou (1999) discovered that individ- ual perspective on how they have experienced a training program is not very often studied. That may be one reason why it is unclear how companies view the meaning, value and effectiveness of training. Was the knowledge transferred and how?
In this study, the focus is on how leaders have experienced a training program and how they have managed to transfer the knowledge learned into practice. The purpose of this study is to focus on understanding how coaching conversations are experienced among the employees but also how leaders have already used different practices and key components to connect transfor- mational leadership and effective coaching conversations. In this way I can evaluate how ef- fective the training program has been for leaders but also give ideas to organizations for the future development of training programs. It is also important not just only focus on the current situation but also bring up the future challenges of leadership a company might face.
I wanted the topic to deal with coaching because I discovered that it is a modern way to lead in modern organizations. I have a background in sports and that was also one reason why I wanted to know more about business coaching. Since I am interested in working in a managerial posi- tion in the future, I want to have an understanding of how companies develop their leaders.
1.2 The purpose of the study
The framework of this study is not just focusing on the effectiveness of leadership training programs. The purpose is also to find the connection between coaching and transformational leadership and how they fit in organizational culture. After understanding this, I can evaluate was there a connection between transformational leadership, coaching and the effectiveness of training programs. It is also important to bring up how the change in learning can be seen in practice. The perspective is to collect individual information. I choose this approach because individuals create organizational culture together. It is also important to understand how com- panies can develop their leadership training programs to respond to future leadership chal- lenges.
The purpose is to answer the following research questions:
1. How are the fundaments for transformational leadership supporting effective coaching con- versations?
2. How have leaders managed to transfer knowledge from training programs into practice?
3. How should companies notice the leadership challenges in the future?
The case company uses leadership training programs to develop new leaders and is a compul- sory part of one’s leadership career. These leadership programs are built strongly around coach- ing and bringing this up is one of the purposes of this study. To understand and clarify what coaching means and is, this study is done for the Learning Unit of the company. I have been working at the same company for six years but not in this particular unit. The first idea was to study how coaching effects an individual’s job performance, but when I started discussing with the company, the need was more to examine the whole leadership training program. Coaching as a method is still in major part of this study.
To conduct this study, I interviewed one learning unit consultant to get a full understanding of the current situation of leadership training programs, two leaders who have participated in the leadership training program for new leaders and four of their team members. To answer these research questions, I conducted qualitative research and the research method was focus group interviews. I conducted these interviews during the year 2017. I analyzed the interviews by
dividing the material into themes using inductive data analysis. Themes were coaching, quali- ties of a leader, organizational culture and leadership theories. These themes created the theo- retical framework for the study.
1.3 Key concepts of the study
The key concepts of this study are coaching, transformational leadership and coaching culture.
A brief explanation of these key concepts is presented below:
Coaching
Coaching is a one-to-one, on-going learning process which helps people to achieve better job performance by developing skills and knowledge leading to better organizational performance.
Coaching can also be the process of helping, and it develops group and individual thinking and new learning (Berg & Karlsen 2012; Harris 1999; Jarvis 2004, 19). Coaching is a relationship between two individuals. A manager’s task is to take an individual’s potential and put it into use through coaching (Antonio 2000, 29). It is a powerful way to improve performance, achieve results and increase personal effectiveness (Cox et al. 2010, 1). A coach’s job is to get a team to perform better by motivating and giving them opportunities to innovate new ways to do things. That is why it is a more familiar context in sports. (Eggers & Clark, 2000, 67)
Transformational leadership
Transformational leadership occurs when one or more persons raise up to higher levels of mo- tivation and morality. They feel the need for belonging, self-esteem and self-actualization. The needs between individuals have started to separate, but, during the process, transforming shows up as a mutual support for a common purpose. (Beairsto 2003, 12; Burns 1978, 382.)
A transformational leader puts effort on understanding the changing needs, values, self-con- cepts and goals of employees. The leader is trying to provoke feelings and cognitive conse- quences among employees. This means that the leader is trying to emotionally attach to em- ployees and simultaneously build trust, raise motivation and enhance self-efficacy. (Huang et al. 2005, 36)
Coaching culture
The culture in an organization is good where the human capabilities, teamwork and communi- cation are the most important themes in the organization. The organization is working together to help people develop themselves at the same time as the company itself develops. The com- pany has a set goal and everyone is committed to work towards the goal together. Everyone in company is developing and improving his/her own performance at the same time with others.
This culture motivates, increases job satisfaction and binds team members together. (Hart 2005, 7; Clutterbuck & Meggison 2005; Beer & Nohria 2000)
1.4 The structure of the thesis
The Chapter 1 is the introductions of this thesis. The introduction presents the topic of the re- search, purpose of the study and the structure of the thesis.
The Chapter 2 includes the theoretical framework. In chapter 2.1 I go through organization culture and connection to leadership more deeply. After that, I continue with the connection between coaching and an organization’s culture and how to create a coaching culture. Then, I focus more on coaching, a coach’s role in an organization and coaching skills. In chapter 2.6, the focus is on finding the connection between leadership and coaching. At the end of the chap- ter, I go through how to measure the effectiveness of training programs using a model by Al- varez et al. (2007, 393) and also present the theoretical framework for this study.
In Chapter 3, I describe the meaning of the focus group interviews and how it was used in this study. I also go through how I chose people to interview, how interviews were conducted and how the data was collected and analyzed.
The Chapters 4 and 5 include the empirical part of study. At the beginning of chapter 4 I briefly go through the case organization and what is the current situation of its leadership training program. What kind of framework is the company using to develop its new leaders? After that I divide the answers into different themes and compare those to earlier empirical studies.
In Chapter 5, which is the discussion and conclusions chapter, I put together all key findings and present key results. I also present the outlook on the effectiveness of the training programs from the perspective of the research questions. Finally, I summarize the whole study, give pro- posals for future studies and also evaluate the reliability and validation of this study.
2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.1 Organizational culture
2.1.1 Leadership
According to Bass & Aviolio (1993) and Ogbonna & Harris (2000) there is constant interplay between culture and leadership. Culture affects leadership and the other way around. Culture can be divided in two: Transactional and Transformational. These are also both leadership styles. Transactional leadership focus more on rules and structures and limited levels of com- mitment and motivation. Transformational focuses more on innovation, transformation and change. It is more common to see transformational culture in highly innovative and satisfying organizations. The argument is that companies need to become more transformational but also remain some forms of the transactional culture because there is also need for certain rules and guidelines. Transformational organizations are flexible, adaptive, dynamic and informal. (Bass
& Aviolio, 1993) There is a certain freedom to develop an organization using bottom-up man- agement.
In successful organizations, the need for leaders is to focus on individuals and give them value.
As a high performing leader, you have to understand business objectives and how to create more value for shareholders. Leaders must also understand the basic needs of the people work- ing in an organization and that way provide support and develop them to reach their full poten- tial. To stay balanced, leaders must find the path between these two dimensions.
According to Beer & Nohria (2000) and Viitala (2009) there is human (Theory O) and economic (Theory E) approaches for leaders. Theory O is a softer approach where the focus is on devel- oping organizational culture and human capabilities, building trust through teamwork and com- munication. Theory E is descripted as a hard approach and it is more about economics and profitability. Sometimes this means e.g. shutting down a factory to reduce costs and that way increase profitability. These changes may benefit shareholders. However, modern leadership is more focused on individuals and that way give more room for innovation. The main idea is to reduce punishments and control. (Kouszes & Pozner 2003, 23). This argumentation can be con- firmed by Kotter (1995) who wrote that usually companies focus more on leading issues rather
than people which can lead to failure in organizational change. Kotter also mentions that to achieve effective change in organizations, the focus should be 70-80 percent on individuals and 20-30 percent on issues. As a conclusion, it can be said that when the environment is changing fast, the need for leading individuals becomes more important, becoming agile. It can be said that leading people towards a common goal and vision through individual leadership can lead organizations to also be more competitive and malleable for future challenges. This creates connection between leadership and organizational culture.
2.1.2 Creating a coaching culture
“When you create a culture of coaching, the result may not be directly measurable in dollars.
But we have yet to find a company that can’t benefit from more candor, less denial, richer communication, conscious development of talent, and disciplined leaders, who show compas- sion for people.” (Stratford & Freas 2004, 90.)
This description of a coaching culture can be attached to an approach presented by Beer &
Nohria (2000) where the human capabilities, teamwork and communication are lifted up to be supporting themes. Another approach for a coaching culture is provided by Clutterbuck & Meg- ginson (2005) as they describe coaching in organizations as a style of managing and working together to help people grow when the organization grows and changes. There is a common goal and mutual commitment between a company and individuals. At an individual level, this means that when a company is creating a coaching culture, everyone is developing and improv- ing the performance of others, as a part of his/her own job. This behavior motivates, increases job satisfaction and strengthens bonds between team members. (Hart 2005, 7.) When the coach- ing behavior is spreading through an organization, a change to the organization’s cultural is happening. In a simple way this means that every individual is practicing coaching by support- ing and influencing one another.
Because the interest towards coaching has risen up over the last years, companies have created their own internal leadership development programs around coaching. A study by McDermott et al (2007, 30-31) shows that companies which use internal learning programs report better results. Use of internal coaching can increase motivation and morale, and improve culture from upper management to individual workers. However, the criticism about coaching is that it might not fit everyone. The lack of systematic goal settings and follow-up can lead to failure. It is
more about creating behavioral culture where every leader is committed to change and behave as coaches. This might create an issue. Another way to implement coaching as a part of the culture is use external coaches or managers as coaches. These are called internal coaches. Ac- cording to Rock & Dunde (2008) using internal coaches can create a more scalable, sustainable and robust approach to create a coaching culture than using external coaches. It can be said that the use of external coaches is mostly directed to executive management. The idea for executives is to drive and execute new strategy and leadership behaviors and after that use internal coach- ing and managers as coaches to implement strategy in practice. Managers as coaches creates a coaching culture where they challenge individuals to learn and change weaknesses into strengths. To create an effective coaching culture, you need to combine each of these forms of coaching.
As a conclusion, different forms of coaching can be divided into 3 categories (Rock & Dunde 2008; Eggers & Clark 2000):
1) External coaching 2) Internal coaching
3) Coaching as a working tool for managers
The use of external coaches has proved that there is positive effect on developing leadership skills and effectiveness. However, the cost of using an external coach can be more than a com- pany’s three-year training budget spent on training mid-level management. That is why external coaches are used only for a limited number of executive people in organizations. (Rock &
Dunde 2008, 11) When an external coach is used for individuals in an executive level position, the positive effect has been that every high-performing leader can and should improve their leadership skills. This also sends a message thought the organization that every company needs out-of-box thinking to improve organizational culture. (McDermott et al 2007, 34) According to study by Wasylyshyn (2003, 99) an external coach can provide trust and confidentiality throughout an organization. It was found that the attitude to use an external coach was mainly positive. Also, when the coach was spending a lot of time with the executives, it helped both parties to form a common understanding of what is the current situation and what kind of or- ganizational culture the company wanted to have in the future. However, the problem might be that if the coach is not maximally effective, the expected value does not meet with the company ideology.
Companies can also use internal coaches. This means that the coach is working in the company but they are not direct superiors to employees. They focus on coaching people within the or- ganization. The study shows that internal coaches can improve teamwork and strategy execu- tion in different levels of management. Internal coaching also helps mid-management to create a coaching culture. (McDermott et al 2007, 35) This means that companies who are using lead- ership training programs use internal coaches to create a clear vision about the culture the com- pany wants to achieve; how a company wants to train their leaders and why. Wasyhylysyn’s (2003, 99) study shows that internal coaches have better knowledge about the company, they can help skill-building more and the adaptation of company leadership training for new leaders.
Even when the results show that attitude concerning internal coaches is mainly positive, the negative side was experienced in themes like trust, ability to maintain confidentiality and the coaches' own skill levels.
Internal coaches affect managers positively. It has helped managers to change habits such as how they run meetings, organize their time and how they interact in daily conversations. Work- ing is more efficient and job performance is higher. Coaching as a working tool encourages managers to learn and apply coaching as a part of daily routines. Managers help individuals to think by not giving direct answers to questions. This helps individuals to solve problems using their own thoughts and consequently develop their own learning. (Rock & Donde 2008, 12-13) Viitala (2014) divides human resource management approaches into two: constructive and be- havioristic. Behavioristic means a mostly mechanic approach where the ideology is, for exam- ple, rewarding when job is well done or as an opportunity to change job tasks. Constructive is a more supporting coaching scheme because the focus is on questioning how to develop an individual’s own critical thinking through experiences. Experiences are important and invalua- ble basis for learning. To learn from experiences, one effective way is to use reflection. Reflec- tion means how individual can learn from experiences and as a result develop their own think- ing. The task to be a coaching manager is demanding especially when a team or individuals require strong self-management and versatility. This happens often when leader is leading other leader or leader is leading group of specialists.
The coach cannot be just a passive controller, but has to be more like a mentor who can inter- nalize the need of individual development and actively participate in the on-going learning pro- cess. This is why a manager as a coach role requires versatile interaction skills, vision creation and pedagogical skills. (ESR, 2015)
Usually the approach to creating a coaching culture is to train managers in coaching skills. This is usually executed by putting managers through training where they learn these coaching skills.
This can be helpful when the idea is to learn about the basics of coaching. However, this only gives ideas of coaching to managers but it does not yet change the culture. To create a culture, it need a strategic approach from the whole company and upper management. It needs trans- formational coaching (Kirkpatrik, 2006, 124). Kirkpatrik (2006) also has created guidelines to remember when companies face challenges in creating a coaching culture:
1) Set a clear strategic intent for the move to a coaching culture. Creating a coaching culture takes time, patience and commitment. Companies have to create a story around the change describing the reason why this benefits everybody.
2) Provide a foundation for coaching as an essential developmental process. Companies have to make sure that coaching is included in leadership competency models. Support coaching capabilities of leaders.
3) Select highest-potential leaders to develop coaching capabilities. When creating a new cul- ture, it is important to select leaders with the best potential who are interested in coaching and willing to develop their own knowledge and at the same time as the company culture.
4) Adopt a tiered approach to learning. Leaders are from different backgrounds and that is why the training should focus on the individual level. Some leader may require more training than others. Training is not deep-end diving and it may take time.
5) Integrate personal development into the coach training curricula. To adopt transformational change, it needs more than scraping the surface. It needs heart and commitment from coaches and coachees (people being coached). Leaders have to be willing to develop their own insights.
6) Measure results. Companies have to monitor what is the current situation and the impact of the coaching development. Make sure that the organizations understand the benefits of cul- ture in a wider perspective, not only by different coaching exercises for the participants.
This framework holds similarities which are provided by Clutterbuck & Meggison (2005). At its best, coaching is informal and formal all throughout the organization. They approach pro- gress towards a coaching culture trough four stages: nascent, tactical, strategic and embedded.
1) Nascent. There is a lack of commitment to create a coaching culture and the amount and quality of coaching can fluctuate. Upper management is not providing support for coaching and time is used to complete other tasks. Coaching is not coordinated correctly and it is typically used to control serious behavioral issues.
2) Tactical. The company knows the definition of a coaching culture but it is unclear what it means in practice and what it includes. Upper management sees coaching as a part of Hu- man Resources. There is an understanding about the benefits but there is also a lack of commitment and who is actually responsible to make the change. According to Hart (2005), many organizations use coaching behavior, but only intermittently.
3) Strategic. There is significant investment made to train leaders and employees. Upper man- agement understand their position and appear as a role model. Upper management is trying to get the whole organization to understand the benefits of coaching and how it supports business.
4) Embedded. Coaching can be seen or even felt in every level of the company. It can be formal or informal. Coaching is a part of leadership training and development. This creates a situation where coaching is used automatically in everyday work.
Creating a coaching culture is not happening fast. It can take years to accomplish. (Kirkpatrik, 2006, 127) It needs commitment from the whole company as well as positive thinking, feeling and talking about coaching behavior. This kind of behavior is friendly and an efficient way for individuals to support and learn each other. (Hart 2005, 10) A coaching culture spreads through an organization when it is part of its strategy and it is communicated proficiently to and by
leaders. Coaching is a part of leadership training and, therefore, a part of leaders’ potential growth for the future.
Simultaneously, a company provides training for its employees. When we think about strategy, it is important that many leaders become part of the development process. That way the coach- ing culture became self-sufficient and the need for extra recourses is minimal. Creating a coach- ing culture is an investment which cannot be built in one day. Companies have to understand how this benefits business in the long run. What is the return of it? (Kirkpatrick, 2006, 127) When we discuss about an organization’s coaching culture, it is important to understand the concept of coaching.
2.2 Coaching
International Coaching Federation (ICF 2017) defines coaching as: “Partnering with clients in a thought-provoking and creative process that inspires them to maximize their personal and professional potential, which is particularly important in today’s uncertain and complex envi- ronment.”
Coaching as a term is most familiar in a sport context. However, coaching was first found within business in the 1950`s when Myles Mace describes coaching as a job development tool for employees that managers can use to enhance employees’ productivity and performance. Coach- ing actually became linked with business before sport but it was not widely used. (Eggers &
Clark 2000, 67.) In sports there is always a coach on a team. The objective has been that the coach leads the team to perform better. A coach’s job is to get the team to perform better by motivating and giving them opportunities to innovate new ways to do things.
A team is trained to win together. When a team’s motivation is high, it can lead, in many cases, to better results even if the team is not the best. With high motivation, a team can perform even better they are capable of. However, the approach in sports has been that the coach is the expert and knows all the answers (Eggers & Clark, 2000, 67). This ideology has varied from sports as coaching has widened it presence into the business sector. The separation between sports and business coaching began in the mid 1970 when Tim Gallwey published the book The Inner Game of Tennis. After its publication, coaching has become part of the training mainstream.
(Eggers & Clark 2000, 67.)
Coaching as a leadership method has grown rapidly over the years because many businesses have become more complex and fast-paced. Change is present every day and that leads coach- ing to be more personalized and individual. (Bluckert 2004, 53.) Coaching can be seen as a combination of different approaches. It can include management, education, the social sciences, philosophy and psychology. Every approach offers different assumptions about how humans behave, grow and change and how this process can be facilitated. All of these different ap- proaches offer different traditions. That is why it is hard to find out only one theoretical frame- work to use that explains why coaching is needed or it works. (Cox et al. 2010, 4).
Kilburg (1996, 142) defines coaching as “helping relationships form between a client who has managerial authority and responsibility in an organization and a consultant who uses a wide variety of behavioral techniques and methods to help the client achieve a mutually identified set of goals to improve his or her professional performance and personal satisfaction and, con- sequently, to improve the effectiveness of the client organization within a formally defined coaching agreement.” This definition gives formal perspective on coaching.
Harris (1999) offers a more understandable definition for coaching: coaching is a one-to-one, on-going learning process which helps people to achieve better job performance. Coaching can also be the process of helping, and it develops group and individual thinking and new learning (Berg & Karlsen. 2012). This has a connection with creativity and innovation. Coaching is the relationship between a manager and an individual. A manager’s task is to take an individual’s potential and put it into use through coaching (Antonio 2000, 29). It is a powerful way to im- prove performance, achieve results and increase personal effectiveness (Cox et al. 2010, 1).
Jarvis (2004, 19) describes coaching as: “developing a person’s skills and knowledge so that their job performance improves, hopefully leading to the achievement of organizational objec- tives.”
On the foundation of these coaching descriptions, it can be said that the use of coaching can enhance job performance by developing and influencing individuals (Hart, 2005). From the coach, it requires information and idea sharing skills in a way that it can change individual thinking and behavior to accomplish common goals (Ulrich 2008, 105). To support this ap-
proach, also Wales (2003, 275) concludes that coaching increases the effectiveness of an indi- vidual’s own development, management development and organizational development. It gives understanding to managers of how to translate individual assets for increased effectiveness and finally how the whole organization can benefit from it. (Wales 2002) This is also confirmed by Joo (2005, 468) who wrote that behavioral change, self-awareness and learning through coach- ing can lead to better organizational performance and personal career success. However, Joo (2005, 485) pointed out that it is hard to evaluate effectiveness and outcome of coaching. Is it the coaching which is making organizations perform better or other reasons?
It can be said that long-term coaching is one of the most potential tools for personal change, enhancing odds for success and creating change in organizations. It can also create damage if the development strategy is poorly built. (Eggers, 2000, 67). This personal change and devel- opment is built on the interaction between two individuals (coach and coachee). To make coach- ing work, personal chemistry is an important factor (Joo 2005, 480). It can be said that a suc- cessful coaching relationship includes encouragement, listening, providing positive feedback and a mind-set that supports the future (Mosca et al. 2010, 115).
In coaching, it is important to set up goals and work towards common goals. Coaching is suc- cessful when both parties can benefit from it. Companies can achieve balance between the or- ganization’s goals and the individual’s needs by motivating and improving effectiveness and performance. For coachees, they can get a feeling that they are appreciated and their confidence increases. Giving constructive feedback to a coachee is an important task of the coach and it is necessary for development. A good coach is able to relate to the coachee. They understand the different challenges in the environment and can empathize with the coachee. Coaches can help coachees to discover and increase creativity and problem solving skills which can be buried under other everyday job-tasks. (Sweeney 2007, 170-171.)
2.2.1 Role of the coach
According to Silsbee (2004, 24) there are several important points to consider within the coach/coachee relationship. As mentioned earlier, coaching can teach skills and increase an individual’s potential in a way that both the organization and individual can benefit from it. The goals that the coach and coachee set up should be in line with the organization’s goals. How- ever, this relationship is fragile if the coachee’s personal goals, like career goals. differs from
the organization’s goals. The situation might be that coach cannot see this and it might create conflicts in the relationship. The approach should be coachee-oriented and the coachee must be committed to learn. That is why the organizational hierarchy or leader-employee relationship should be low. The trust between each other is crucial.
A coach’s role is to create an environment where a coachee can improve his/her own perfor- mance and develop as a person. Galileo has said that “You cannot teach humans anything. You can only help them discover it within themselves.” Coaching can be also done without organi- zational boundaries. Companies can try that a senior manager is working as a coach for a junior manager, or someone from another department coaches other department employees. That way the information is also more widely in use. Some managers, however, are missing the chances to act as a coach and develop employees because they are good at delegating tasks. The reason might be that they do not want to do the task and they delegate it because someone is doing it more effectively. The point is that, in fact, they should select an employee who is not good at doing this particular task. With coaching, they can help others to learn the tasks even if the person is not the best choice at the time, but can develop their skills to master the task. Phillips (1994, 19.) and Barry (1994, 24) mentions that delegating projects helps increase satisfaction and broaden skills.
According to Witherspoon & White (1996, 14) a coach’s role is not as a teacher, but a partner who offers a high-performing employee new challenges, options and behaviors. When the busi- ness environment is rapidly changing, the winning organizations are those which can focus on the question: “What is possible in the future?” not, “What is happened in the past?” One’s own imagination works as a limitation. This type of organization can only be achieved if the com- pany is willing to lower its hierarchy and redefine the role of managers at every level in the organization. A traditional hierarchy was built on purpose where the employees are just an extension of a machine. In the future, the machine works as an extension for the employees.
Human capital becomes the organization`s most valuable resource. The roles that coerce, or- ganize and punish change to be more challenging, empowering, encouraging and reinforcing.
(Burdett, 1998, 143)
Figure 1. Coaches’ roles (Burdett, 1998, 143)
Managers who focus on power rather than development stay in the past. Managers who are willing to adapt the transition from boss, to facilitator, to coach and, in the best situation, to advisors are ahead of their time. They can also answer future challenges and survive in turbulent environments. The focus should stay intact and managers have to also see the long-term bene- fits. (Burdett, 1998, 152)
2.2.2 Coaching skills
According to Phillips (1994, 21), coaches need to understand coachees’ motivations and per- sonal goals during the on-going learning process. From another point-of-view, they also have to be able to select suitable learners for particular tasks. They also have to be prepared for obstacles during the learning process. Another thing to remember is that a leader must have the will to coach if he/she wants to be successful. Leaders have to prepare themselves to share their own successes and failures but also give performance expectations and feedback. Feedback should be given in both directions and leaders should, in fact, ask for feedback. The leader who leads employees effectively must understand common goals and purposes. The leader should
understand the implications of his/her own actions and be clear in decisions. The decision fol- lowers make, whether to follow or not, is based largely on the impressions the leader makes.
(Prentice, 2004, 7) A leader can fake the feeling or impression, but in the long run followers will notice that and it will turn against the leader.
In a coaching role, a leader should be able to generate more than just confident possession of the behavior and skills to be passed on to the team. A leader’s personal values have to also be transparent. If the coach is doing everything by the books or using a checklist, it will easily create an atmosphere of skepticism and lack of enthusiasm to the coachee. Coaches have to be sensitive with their own values and find the balance between their own and the coachees’ or team’s values. (Phillips, 1994, 21) An effective coaches’ language and questioning skills play an important role to success. Edwards (2003) offers seven key principles of a great coach:
1) Focuses their attention on finding out the coachees’ outcomes 2) Negotiates how the coachee wants feedback
3) Uses high impact questions (HIQs). HIQ qualities are: difficult to answer, create moments of silence, in- spire responses, create emotions, solve problems and generate deep, meaningful and interactive discus- sions (BA-Squared 2015).
4) Gets themselves out of the way and release any value judgments 5) Great personal mental/emotional state control and flexible behavior 6) Fully present and listens with full attention
7) Believes that everyone can develop and be succeed by using his/her own inherent abilities Barry (1994, 25-26) supports Edwards (2003) and Phillips (1994) by writing that good coaching includes: clear communication, ensures full understanding by listening, learns to deal with em- ployees’ emotions, gives criticism with a developmental twist, gets to know employees and understands each person’s career goals, interests and concerns. Barry (1994) also mentions that positive feedback should be given before criticism. However, Burdett (1998) mentions that negative feedback or criticism can be also a powerful opportunity for development. It gives the coachee the opportunity to think about his/her own learning. Even if the feedback is negative there should be the permission to argue. Negative feedback is most valuable when it is honest and not directed at personal qualities but more on performance. It should focus on how to do something better in the future and the conversation ends when a common understanding is formed. In addition, Thorne (2007, 68) in the book Essential Creativity in the Classroom: In- spiring children offers key steps in preparing for an effective feedback conversation:
1) Prepare carefully, think about the situation and think about how the learners might respond.
2) Try to ensure that you have time to give meaningful feedback one-to-one rather than in front of their peers.
3) Always ask for their views first. It will give you a starting point.
4) Always start with the positive.
5) Ask questions and listen to the responses.
6) Give specific examples as part of the feedback.
7) Make suggestions to help the coachee improve performance.
8) Check that the coachees understand and agree.
9) Offer help and support.
10) Always end on a positive note.
Coaching must remain coachee-centered and goal-focused. The coach must also believe in in- dividual potential and that when the coachee is receiving coaching it develops the real expertise of themselves and their work. Combining King & Eaton’s (1999) and Edwards; (2003) studies, I can provide a couple of core principles that coaches need to understand and focus on:
• People know more than they think they know. Unfold potential.
• Every person holds resources to enhance his/her own performance.
• Using High Impact Questions are more useful than commands.
• Every person takes responsibility for their own performance,
• Every setback or feedback offer opportunity to learn,
• Experiment precedes learning. Willingness to observe, listen and work closely to help coachees develop their ideas in a purposeful way. (Thorne, 2007)
• Challenging goals bring out the best in people. They should high but achievable.
If we think about all these skills and roles of a coach, we can ask the question: What makes a good coach? In the viewpoint article “Coaching, Culture and Leadership,” Bruce Lloyd inter- views Phillip Rosinski who is the author of Coaching Across Cultures. Rosinski condenses the answer this way:
“A genuine desire to help people tap into their potential. A passion to help people grow and be more successful. An ability to listen without judging. And I would add, a commitment to help people take great self-care as well as serve others.”
To develop these qualities, coaches have to believe in the unfold potential people have. The whole coaching process is about helping people to understand and develop those hidden quali- ties. Many people have those qualities already but they do not really know that. (Lloyd 2005, 138)
2.3 Coaching and Leadership
According to Burns (1978) leadership can be seen and identified in two subcategories: transac- tional leadership and transformational leadership.
In transactional leadership, typical features are the use of authority, primarily through rewards and punishments, making already decided agendas, ensuring compliance, encouraging, per- suading and, at the end, making sure that every required thing is getting done and being done well. Cooperation depends on negotiations not problem-solving. The vision and mission might be hidden from employees, there is a lack of innovation and risk taking is minimal. Power is basically used to achieve one’s own benefits and there is price for everything. (Bass & Avolion 1993, 116.)
Transformational leadership, on the other hand, finds a way behind the transactional leadership to create meaning and purpose. Burns (1978, 382) describes transformational leadership as fol- lows:
“Transformational leadership occurs when one or more persons engage with oth- ers in such a way that leaders and followers raise one another to higher levels of motivation and morality. Their purposes, which might have started out separate but related, in the case of transformational leadership, become fused. Power bases are linked not as counter weights but as mutual support for a common purpose.”
According to Beairsto (2003, 12):
“Transformational leadership addresses higher order needs for belonging, self- esteem and self-actualization, and it becomes moral in that it raises the level of human conduct and ethical aspiration of both the leader and the led, and thus has a transforming effect on both"
A transformational leader puts effort on understanding the changing needs, values, self-con- cepts and goals of the employees. The leader is trying to provoke feelings and cognitive conse- quences among employees. This mean that the leader is trying to emotionally attach to employ- ees and at the same time build trust, raise motivation and enhance self-efficacy. (Huang et al.
2005, 36)
Maslow’s need-gravitation theory suggests that self-actualization is the ultimate goal of self- development. Individuals have their basic physical and psychological needs. These needs can be need for food or well-being or feeling of safety and belongings. From a leadership point-of- view, however, the basic need of a person can be self-actualization, self-fulfillment and self- development. Individuals need to develop themselves in many ways using their own resources and potential to achieve the feeling of growth and suitability. (Maslow, 1948) This theory also confirms how Burns (1978), Beairsto (2003) and Huang et al (2005) describe a transformational leader.
It can be said that transformational leadership can include different variables. There are several theories available and each of these offers different approachs even though the fundamental practices are basically the same. Schruijer & Vansina (1999) refers to Bass & Aviolo’s model where the fundaments are: charisma-inspiration, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. In this study, transformational leadership is defined using five fundamental prac- tices by Kouzes & Posner (1987) to form the theoretical frame around the subject. These fun- daments are: Challenge the Process, Shared Vision, Enable Others, Model the Way, Encourage the Heart.
According to Kouzes & Posner, leaders always succeeded the best way when they challenge the process and try new things. (Kouzes & Posner 1987, 8.) Challenging the process means that the leader is ready to take risks and step into unknown or uncertain territory. Transformational leaders are willing to do things differently and they test new ways to do things. They are trying to find new and innovative ways to develop the organization and how things can be done more effectively. They recognize new ideas and support them, and also at the same time questions old operating models and habits. They accept failures from themselves but also from others.
(Kouzes & Posner 1987, 8-9)
The second fundament is Shared Vision. Vision is the state where the company wants to be in the future. It can be said that vision is a meaning, ambition or dream. It is a path which leads to a common goal through changes. However, a vision that only upper-management or leaders
can understand is not a solid base for creating new and significant change in organizations.
Leaders have to makes sure that employees clearly understand the vision and objectives. This way people can be inspired and stretch beyond expectations (Greenberg et al, 2003). Leaders are not leaders without followers, and employees become followers when they internalize the vision (Kouzes & Posner 1987, 10). Transformational leaders have a vision for the future clearly in mind. That way the leader holds the ability to bring the vision to life, not by forcing but inspiring. (Kouzes & Posner 1987, 10-11).
The third fundament is Enable Others. It is important for transformational leaders to be able to make other peoples to work in the best possible way. Enabling others means that leaders sup- port, instruct and encourage employees. Whenever the decisions or planning is done, employees are included in it. This will increase commitment and motivate employees. Transformational leaders encourage co-operation and build teams, but same time give responsibility and power to do and experiment things. (Kouzes & Posner 1987, 10)
The fourth fundament is Model the Way. It is not enough to build a clear vision. Leaders must have specific plans to achieve it. Transformational leaders lead teams and individuals all the time. Leaders set up long-term and short-term goals and plans. Leaders are responsible for measuring performance and fixing mistakes. Every setback is an opportunity to learn. (King &
Eaton 1999; Edwards 2003.) It is also important to understand the vision and show the way to others. The core of Modelling the Way is that the leaders are acting and standing behind their words and keeping their promises. (Kouzes & Posner 1987, 11-12.)
The fifth fundament is Encouraging the Heart. It takes time, work and commitment to achieve visions and goals. It is not easy and in many cases giving up seems to be the easiest choice.
Giving up is tempting when employees are frustrated and tired. Transformational leaders are focused on encouraging employees to continue. Encouraging can be rewarding and it can con- cern individuals or the whole team. It can be in forms like public praise, rewarding with prizes or celebrating together when goals are achieved. (Kouzes & Posner 1987, 12-13.)
2.3.1 Effective Coaching Conversation
As a transformational leader, one must challenge the process and step out of one’s comfort zone. This also means that when the leader is modelling the way there is need for committed followers who believe and trust their leader. People usually live in their comfort zone and life
is comfort-centered when the environment is stable. Like Kouzes & Posner (1987) proposed transformational leader must create a clear vision. This vision that may attract people to break of their comfort-zone and into the uncertain. (Quinn 2004, 21) If people want to be adaptable to changing environment, they must learn how to get out of their comfort zone. (Quinn 2004, 152) For the leaders, it is important to recognize the potential that lies in everyone and treating them that way. It is also important that individuals understand their own hidden potential and have the courage to do things differently. Every person knows that they can do something better but do they know the own capability? (Whitmore 2001, 17)
According to Lyneham-Brown (1997, 38) the culture of continuous constructive change is more effective than the culture of large one-time made change. In continuous cultural change, every- one in the organization is willing to improve their own skills, knowledge and expertise. Effec- tive coaching helps and inspires people towards this continuously changing culture by
“Defining their goals, awaking their enthusiasm, expand their horizon of possibil- ities and commit to action.” (Bowerman & Collins 1999, 294).
Bowerman & Collins (1999) presents seven key components for effective coaching conversa- tion and the same types of component are also published by Withworth et al. (1998) and With- more (2001). These components help to ensure that everyone is involved, committed to change and are part of ongoing learning. These components are:
1) Recognizing blind spots 2) Building trust
3) The coaching relationship 4) Observing performance 5) Listening on three levels 6) Cycles of actions
7) Experiencing breakdowns and breakthroughs
With well-constructed questions, coaches can offer the coachees the opportunity to see and recognize their own blind spots. Those are behaviors or working models which are not self- evident but others can see them. When these spots are recognized, it can open many new op- portunities for personal growth. These spots are created out of defensive habits like, for exam- ple, bad memory. These might be uncomfortable issues which can concern both the coach and
the coachee. The need for more awareness is important. (Bowerman & Collins 1999; Withworth 1998; Whitmore 2001, 48.)
Trust is the heart of coaching. Trust is the base of the relationship and requires attention all the time. Commitment is an important part of trust. If there is no commitment, there is no trust and, consequently, no relationship between the leader and employee. (Bowerman & Collins 1999, 295.) The failure of trust might lead the leader into a micromanager position. The need for trust can be seen as the foundation of success for transformational leaders. This way leaders can make sure that there is commitment to the vision and action plan (Kouzes & Posner 1987, 8- 13). When leaders give possibilities for an employee to grow, give ownership and responsibil- ity, trust is important. Coaching is working when the relationship between the coaches and coachees is based on trust, safety and minimal pressure. (Whitmore 2001, 20)
The base for the relationship between coaches and coachees should be equal. There should be permission to coach so that both can benefit from the conversation. If the other is not willing to be coached, it is hard to form a relationship. (Boweman & Collins 1999, 295) However, a coaching relationship can be formed even if the situation is challenging at the beginning. Ac- cording to Hill (1998), who is referring Secada (1989), inequality can lead to equality when the diversity of the people is noticed. There are differences between people and everyone should be handled in a way that there is room for personality differences. That way the working culture can be developed when the different talents and abilities are included. Edwards (2003) supports this approach by saying that leaders should focus their attention on finding out the coachees outcomes and have personal mental/emotional state control and flexible behavior to form solid relationships.
It requires skills from the coaches to be able to observe coachees’ actions and, by listening, determine possible interpretations the coachees may be applying to a specific situation. With effective coaching, coaches can clarify and challenge in a way that it can open new paths or perspectives to the coachees. An “I can’t” attitude closes the door to a new world of possibili- ties. (Bowerman & Collins 1999, 295.) This can be counterbalanced by listening, through intu- ition, being curious and having the ability to deepen the conversation. From the other perspec- tive, the performance of coachees will reflect the beliefs of their coaches. (Withworth 1998;
Whitmore 2001, 15.) For example, there is trust that an employee does task A very well, but the leader is not giving task B to the employee because he or she thinks that task is not within
the employee’s capabilities. This does not offer a new path for the employee to develop his/her own performance.
Coaches need to listen to coachees on many levels at the same time. This means that by listening coaches can find out if coachees are somehow out of balance but also where the coachees want to be in the future. Listening is a skill that needs practice. We are in many cases taught or commanded to listen, for example, when we are at elementary school. However, no one ever teaches us how we can learn to listen (Whitmore 2001; Withworth 1998, 49). According to Bowerman & Collins (1999, 295) listening show up on three levels: the head, the heart and the hands. On the head level, we listen to thoughts, the heart listens to emotions and feelings, voice tones, facial expressions and body language. On the hands level, we listen to the coachees’ will - how committed or energized the coachee is to perform the best way.
Coaching is a long-term process which includes many different single actions. In literature this is called the cycles of action. Because of the cyclic nature of coaching, it gives opportunities for coaches to walk the path of learning, growth and change together with the coachees. (Bow- erman & Collins 1999, 296) Coaches can see the opportunities in individuals to develop in the future. Through the whole coaching process, coachees are the ones who need to be in center. It is important that coaches put their own preoccupations and needs aside when they are required to respond to coachees’ needs. (Clutterbuck & Meggisson 2005, 15; Whitmore 2001, 70) When coaching is widely used in an organization as an informal method of leadership, a coaching culture can be formed. (Clutterbuck & Meggisson 2005, 25)
Breakthroughs happens when everything is working. This means that there is trust and both are listening to each other. Personal development is happening in common understanding and new ways to do things can be founded. Usually a breakdown is happening when the coach does not know a coachee as a person or understand how to help. This might be the situation where both are facing new or unfamiliar kinds of action. When the situation is resolved with common un- derstanding, both can experience a breakthrough. (Bowerman & Collins 1999, 296)
As a conclusion, it can be said that coaching is a way to transform individuals but also for organizations to perform better. Coaching is one of the key ingredients in the discussion of transformational leadership. With coaching, organizations can manage change, learning and innovation. Using coaching can form relationships which are based on mutual understanding between individuals, but, at the same time, respect on an organizational level. At best, it can
form full equability between an organization’s members. It creates an atmosphere of possibili- ties, empowerment and self-efficacy which can be seen as increased engagement and commit- ment to the organization.
2.4 Effectiveness of Leadership Training Programs
As it has become clear, training in organizations as a part of change is important. However, the challenge is trying to demonstrate effectiveness of training seems quite complex (Santos &
Stuart, 2003). Evaluation of learning, knowledge transfer and organizational impact includes many complex factors. These different factors include various dimensions like an organiza- tion’s goals and training goals. From an individual level, these factors can be the evaluation of the coach/coachees and their common learning, transfer of training or return on investment.
The whole coaching process itself requires multiple people in different parts of an organization.
In that way the learning also occurs at multiple levels (Eseryel 2002; Altarawneh 2009). The effectiveness evaluation is a commonly neglected process. The reason for this might be a limi- tation of time, missing support of management or the whole evaluation design as a process is missing or unclear. Also there might be other organizational factors which can affect the out- come. These factors can be the way of leadership, different workplace arrangements and organ- izational structure. (Altarawneh 2009)
In many cases most of the research on training effectiveness has focused on the context of the training program, design and content. From an evaluation perspective, the focus has been on measuring reaction and learning. Reaction is measured as the trainee’s attitudes toward the content, methods and trainers. Measuring learning on the other hand means that how an indi- vidual has managed to turn learned things into abilities like knowledge, skills and attitudes (Tracey et al. 1995). Learning and reaction are two important factors to measure when the pur- pose is to collect information concerning training programs. However, they are not enough for the final and most important desired outcome of training programs – the transference of learning into practice. (Kreiger, Ford & Salas 1993)
The purpose of training programs is to increase performance of the whole organization. This, however, does not happen if the trainees are not willing to apply the skills or knowledge during the training program. In these cases, the implementation of the training has failed. It is important
for coaches to make sure that new skills are transferred into practice. To identify the effective- ness of training, it is crucial for coaches to measure learning performance, but it is much more important to measure the performance transfer into practice. (Lim et al. 2007)
To fully understand the effectiveness of training, it can be said that individuals experience train- ing in different ways so that learning and the outcome of the training may vary. There are only a few studies made about the subject. However, individual satisfaction with the training pro- gram is founded to have an important influence on learning. Different training evaluation stud- ies have provided that there is a joint connection with satisfaction, learning and change in be- havior. To understand this connection, it is necessary to determine the different individual char- acteristics that influence the effectiveness of training. This will increase changes of understand- ing how the participation in training program will lead to behavioral change and increased per- formance in practice. (Noe 1986) According to Antonacopoulou (1999) learning through train- ing is guided by the beliefs of individuals. This means that individuals are trying to form opin- ions on what they are expected to learn from the perspective of a company. Personal benefits and social interactions made the training experience more ideal and robust. It can be said that learning through training is more effective when the training goals focus more on individuals.
This can give more self-confidence and opportunities for personal growth.
Supporting Antonacopulou’s (1999) study, Noe (1986) also argues that individual attitudes, interests, values and expectations concerning the training programs may enhance or demote the effectiveness of training. From a more detailed perspective, it is hard to achieve a connection between learning through training if the content of the training program is not providing any extra value to the learner. It is not providing any personal benefits; it feels unnecessary or un- practical. The content of the training programs should be planned to answer the current needs of individuals. If it is not, learning is harder to achieve. That is why the training should always at some point support and develop individual skills. (Antonacopoulou 1999)
