The facilitative or non-directive approach in coaching, encouraged in coach training and accreditation, is at odds with some authors arguing for more directive approaches, especially in business contexts. The purpose of this research was to explore what executive coaches are doing in practice, with a focus on how and why they might use more directive approaches. An interpretivist qualitative research approach was used in which transcripts from interviews with ten experienced executive coaches were subjected to thematic analysis. A key finding was that coaches frequently and willingly used forms of directive intervention that are generally frowned upon within coaching. Notably, the coaches turned to a directive approach after first trying facilitative options. They tended to implement their more directive interventions by means of non-directive practices. Coaches also used challenging-a directive approach deemed acceptable. Reasons given for using more directive approaches included: the coachee appearing stuck, complying with coachee expectations, coaches drawing from expertise or experience, and the organisational sponsor context. Taken together, the findings point to the need for further research into the validity or otherwise of more directive approaches being used in praxis towards establishing what works in coaching and to achieve greater alignment between theory and practice.
Comparisons between coaches' and clients' perspectives are uncommon, yet they consistently highlight differences in the perceived importance of coaching-success predictors. In this study, 76 coaches and 1,217 clients assessed their own processes with respect to coaching predictors (working alliance, empathy, trust, perspective taking, and need support) and coaching-success variables (goal attainment, satisfaction, and need fulfilment). A comparison of structural equation models for coaches and clients indicates that working alliance and trust, the strongest predictors of the proximal coaching-success variables (goal attainment, satisfaction), were consistent across perspectives. For clients, empathy emerged as a particularly influential predictor of both proximal outcomes, while coaching satisfaction was further influenced by the working alliance bond and, negatively, by imagine-self perspective taking. For the distal outcome (need fulfilment), working alliance tasks and trust proved significant. Empathy and competence were supported from both coaches' and clients' perspectives. For coaches, imagine self added predictive value, whereas for clients, autonomy support and commitment (negatively) played a role. We found systematic differences in the factors according to perspective, particularly the neglect of empathy among the proximal coaching-success factors and of autonomy support among the distal ones, highlighting the importance of considering both perspectives to enhance the understanding of coaching effectiveness.
This intervention field study conceptualises executive coaching as a job resource for stress management, grounded in the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) theory. Drawing on data from 123 coachees across 13 organisations and 36 professional external coaches, we explored the work context (e.g., direct manager support and expected required effort to achieve goals), coachee reflection during coaching as reported by the coach, the coach's support, the coach-coachee interaction, and goals reported by the coachee. Our results underscore the importance of perceived contextual factors and the interplay between coach support and coachee reflection in managing job demands and perceived coaching outcomes. As perceived by the coachee, coach support mediated the impact of direct manager support on coaching outcomes, highlighting the coaching role in maximising coachees' resources. Moreover, the findings indicate that the coachee-perceived trust in the coach and the coach's motivation support buffered low coachee reflection. This suggests that coaching is a job resource that promotes goal performance and well-being by helping coachees regain balance between job demands and available resources.
