exec coaching a comprehensive review of the literature

Copyright 2001 by the Educational Publishing Foundation and the Society of Consulting Psychology, 1061-4087/01/$5.00DOI 10.1037//1061-4087.53.4.205Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 53, No. 4, 205–228

205

Hutcheson, 1996; Kiser, 1999; Koonce,1994; Larry, 1997a, 1997b; Ludeman, 1995;Lukaszewski, 1988; O’Brien, 1997; Olesen,1996; Thach & Heinselman, 1999; Wither-spoon & White, 1996b, 1997); and manage-ment (e.g., Banning, 1997; Bertagnoli, 2000;Brotherton, 1998, Darling, 1994; Dutton,1997; Grover, 2000; Hardingham, 1998;Huggler, 1997; Hyatt, 1997; Judge & Cowell,1997; Machan, 1998; Masciarelli, 1999;McCafferty, 1996; Morris, 2000; Nakache,1997; Olivero, Bane, & Kopelman, 1997;Peterson & Hicks, 1999; Smith, 1993;Snyder, 1995; Tristram, 1996). Additionalarticles on executives or managers as coachescan also be found (e.g., Allenbaugh, 1983;

Executive CoachingA Comprehensive Review of the Literature

Sheila Kampa-Kokesch RHR International

Executive coaching as a distinct interven-tion has received increased attention in the lit-erature within the past few years (Garman,Whiston, & Zlatoper, 2000). Consulting Psy-chology Journal: Practice and Research(Kilburg, 1996a) devoted an entire issue to thetopic of executive coaching. All but one ar-ticle in this special issue were practice-basedarticles (Diedrich, 1996; Katz & Miller, 1996;Kiel, Rimmer, Williams, & Doyle, 1996;Levinson, 1996; Peterson, 1996; Saporito,1996; Tobias, 1996; Witherspoon & White,1996a), with the last article being a concep-tual piece providing a framework and defini-tion of executive coaching (Kilburg, 1996c).

Additional writings on executive coach-ing cluster in three bodies of literature: thepsychological (e.g., Brotman, Liberi, &Wasylyshyn, 1998; Diedrich, 1996; Foster &Lendl, 1996; Garman et al., 2000; Harris,1999; Laske, 1999a; Richard, 1999; Sperry,1993; Waclawski & Church, 1999), trainingand development (e.g., Filipczak, 1998;

Executive coaching as a consultation interven-tion has received increased attention in the lit-erature within the past decade. Executive coach-ing has been proposed as an intervention aimedtoward helping executives improve their perfor-mance and consequently the performance of theoverall organization (R. R. Kilburg, 1996c).Whether or not it does what it proposes, however,remains largely unknown because of the lack ofempirical studies. Some also question whether ex-ecutive coaching is just another fad in the longlist of fads that have occurred in consultation andbusiness. To explore these issues and the place ofexecutive coaching in consulting practice, thisarticle critically examines the literature on execu-tive coaching.

Sheila Kampa-Kokesch is a consultant withRHR International in their New York City office.She recently completed her education in counsel-ing psychology with an emphasis in consultationand industrial organizational psychology at West-ern Michigan University and a dissertation onexecutive coaching and leadership. She is a mem-ber of the American Psychological Association(APA), Divisions 13, 14, and 17.

Mary Z. Anderson is an assistant professor inthe Department of Counselor Education andCounseling Psychology at Western MichiganUniversity. She is a member of the APA, Division17, and the Society for Vocational Psychology,and she regularly conducts vocational psychol-ogy research.

We would like to extend a special thank you toRandy White for his edits on an earlier version ofthis article and to Otto Laske for his edits on anearlier summary of his thesis.

Correspondence concerning this article shouldbe addressed to Sheila Kampa-Kokesch, RHR In-ternational, 780 Third Avenue, Suite 1902, NewYork, New York 10017-7057.

Mary Z. Anderson Western Michigan University

206 Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and ResearchFall 2001

Aurelio & Kennedy, 1991; Bell, 1987;Deblieux, 1998; Good, 1993; Graham,Wedman, & Garver-Kester, 1993; Orth,Wilkinson, & Benfari, 1987; Shore & Bloom,1986; Waldroop & Butler, 1996).

Three book chapters (Hayes, 1997;Strickland, 1997; Sperry, 1996) and fourbooks have also been devoted to the topic ofexecutive coaching (Douglas & Morley,2000; Kilburg, 2000; O’Neill, 2000; Wither-spoon & White, 1997). Other books that ad-dress coaching executives or managers (e.g.,Deeprose, 1995; Ericsson, 1996; Gilley &Boughton, 1996; Hargrove, 1995; Martin,1996; Maxwell, 1995; Miller & Brown,1993; Minor, 1995; Robinson, 1996; Shula& Blanchard, 1995; Voss, 1997; Whitmore,1994) from a general business coaching para-digm rather than a consultative one (Kilburg,2000) can also be found.

Although there has been increased atten-tion in the literature, there is surprisingly littleempirical research on the efficacy of execu-tive coaching. Only seven empirical studieshave been reported: one investigating theoutcomes of executive coaching in a publicsector agency (Olivero et al., 1997); the sec-ond surveying current executive coachingpractices (Judge & Cowell, 1997); the thirdinvestigating the effectiveness of executivecoaching through quantitative and qualita-tive methods (Gegner, 1997); the fourth inter-viewing both executives and coaches regard-ing executive coaching practice, effectiveness,and future directions (Hall, Otazo, & Hol-lenbeck, 1999); the fifth investigating the ef-fects of eye movement desensitization repro-cessing (EMDR) as a technique used inexecutive coaching; the sixth exploring thetransformative effects of executive coachingon an executive’s professional agenda (Laske,1999b); and the seventh examining publicperceptions of executive coaching (Garmanet al., 2000).

The recent increase of attention in the lit-erature on executive coaching may be ex-plained in part by the increased demand forexecutive coaching in the field (Filipczak,

1998; Koonce, 1994; Waclawski & Church,1999). With this increased demand, however,has come increased concern regarding thedefinition and standardization of executivecoaching as well as who is most qualified todeliver such services (Brotman et al., 1998;Filipczak, 1998; Harris, 1999; Kilburg1996b, 1996c, 1997; Saporito, 1996; Tobias,1996). Some remark about the current sus-picion as to whether executive coaching is aviable intervention (see Filipczak, 1998) orsimply a passing fad (see Kilburg, 1996c;Tobias, 1996). There is also some concernand debate as to whether executive coachingpractices resemble too closely the practicesof psychotherapy (Filipczak, 1998; Tobias,1996).

As a way of addressing the above-men-tioned concerns and organizing what hasbeen written about executive coaching, thisarticle provides a comprehensive and criti-cal review of the existing executive coach-ing literature. Although Kilburg (1996c,2000) has provided two reviews of the lit-erature relevant to executive coaching, hisreviews provide a brief review and summaryof the development of business coaching asit leads up to executive coaching. Douglasand Morley (2000) provided an annotatedbibliography of the executive coaching lit-erature and a brief interpretation of the keyissues coming from the literature. Althougha comprehensive resource, the present reviewserves as a critique, has a different focus, andadds additional elements to the literature.

The main purpose of this article is to criti-cally examine the existing literature in psy-chology, training and development, and man-agement in order to determine the viabilityof executive coaching as a distinct interven-tion. References were gathered using threedatabases: PsycLit, ERIC, and Wilson Busi-ness Abstracts. We also consulted the refer-ences of reviewed articles and books. Refer-ences were excluded if they addressed moregeneral business coaching versus executivecoaching specifically (the focus of this work).This article is organized into four parts. The

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 207Fall 2001

first provides a brief summary about theknown history of executive coaching. Thesecond summarizes the main themes dis-cussed in the practice-based literature andprovides a brief overview of three recentbooks on executive coaching and one gen-eral coaching book that has influenced thefield of executive coaching. The third partreviews the existing empirical research. Thefinal part addresses the questions of whetherexecutive coaching increases individual andorganizational performance and whether itis a fad. This final section also further dis-cusses the implications executive coachinghas for consultation practice.

��

The history of executive coaching is dif-ficult to track because it has only recentlyreceived attention in the literature. In review-ing the literature, it is unclear when exactlyexecutive coaching first began. Only briefstatements or speculations regarding the pos-sible origins of executive coaching have beenprovided (see Harris, 1999; Judge & Cowell,1997; Kilburg, 1996b, 1996c; Tobias, 1996).

Tobias (1996) stated that the term execu-tive coaching came into the business worldin the late 1980s and was used becausecoaching sounded less threatening than othertypes of interventions. He argued that coach-ing by psychologists is a mere repackagingof practices once done under the umbrellaof consultation and counseling. The “devel-opmental counseling” conducted by RHRInternational since the 1940s would seem tosupport this observation (Flory, 1965).Kilburg (1996b, 1996c, 2000) contended thatfor the past decade, consultation geared to-ward managers and senior leaders in busi-ness organizations has increasingly been re-ferred to as executive coaching. He statedthat consultants began practicing executivecoaching when they gained access to theleaders of organizations. This gaining accessto leaders of organizations by psychologistshas been perceived by some as an attempt

by psychologists to replenish their incomeafter the damaging effects of managed careby bringing “therapy” into the workplace (seeFilipczak, 1998; Tobias, 1996).

Judge and Cowell (1997) stated that thewidespread adoption of executive coachingby consulting firms began around 1990,though they acknowledged that there was asprinkling of offerings prior to 1990. As anintervention, they believe executive coach-ing is currently moving from the introduc-tory to the growth phase. One industrial–or-ganizational psychologist practicing in thefield of executive coaching and interviewedby Harris (1999) briefly mentioned threephases in the history of executive coaching.According to this psychologist, the firstphase occurred between the years of 1950and 1979, when a few professionals used ablend of organizational development andpsychological techniques in working withexecutives. During the middle period (1980–1994), an increase in professionalism oc-curred as well as the beginning of standard-ized services (though a full standardizationhas not yet occurred). In the current period(1995–present), there has been an increasein publications and the establishment of aprofessional organization for coaching: theProfessional and Personal Coaches Associa-tion, more recently known as the Interna-tional Coach Federation (ICF). It is also inthe current period that the demand for ex-ecutive coaching has reached an all-timehigh.

Even though executive coaching has beendated by some as far back as the 1940s, manyagree that it has only more recently come tofruition (Kilburg 1996b, 1996c; Olesen,1996). Even though earlier periods existed,little is known about what was then practiced.It has only been during the most recent pe-riod that the practice of executive coachinghas begun to be addressed in the literature.Within the most recent period, there has alsobeen a push for a more complete standard-ization of services and research on the effec-tiveness of executive coaching.


��

��

In reviewing the executive coaching prac-tice-based literature, six themes emerged: (a)definition and standards, (b) purpose, (c)techniques and methodologies used, (d) com-parison with counseling and therapy, (e) cre-dentials of coaches and the best way of find-ing them, and (f) recipients of services. Thissection summarizes these themes and pro-vides an overview of three recent practice-based books on executive coaching and onegeneral coaching book. Within each theme,the psychological, training and development,and business and management literatureshave been integrated. A single body of theliterature is mentioned separately only if itmakes a unique contribution within a par-ticular theme.

Definition and standards. A number ofauthors have stated that executive coaching asa distinct intervention remains poorly definedand regulated (Brotman et al., 1998; Kilburg,1996b, 1996c, 2000; Tobias, 1996), with littletraining and research being conducted(Kilburg, 1996b, 2000; Sperry, 1996). On thebasis of his reviews of the existing literature,Kilburg (1996c, 2000) proposed the follow-ing definition of executive coaching:

1996; Peterson, 1996; Richard, 1999;Saporito, 1996; Sperry, 1993, 1996; Tobias,1996; Witherspoon & White, 1996a, 1996c,1997). Additional components mentioned byvarious authors include executive coachingas a highly confidential personal learningprocess that focuses not only on interpersonalissues, but also on intrapersonal ones(O’Brien, 1997; Witherspoon & White,1996a). It has been defined as an ongoingrelationship, usually lasting anywhere froma few months to a year or more (Diedrich,1996; Levinson, 1996), in which the coachdoes not have any direct authority over theexecutive (Witherspoon & White, 1996a). Asan intervention, it can be used for both de-velopmental and remedial purposes, and itseems to occur in six stages: relationshipbuilding, assessment, feedback, planning,implementation, and evaluation and follow-up (Diedrich, 1996; Harris, 1999; Judge &Cowell, 1997; Kiel et al., 1996; Kilburg,1996b, 1996c; Koonce, 1994; Levinson,1996; Lukaszewski, 1988; O’Brien, 1997;Olesen, 1996; Peterson, 1996; Richard, 1999;Saporito, 1996; Sperry, 1993, 1996; Tobias,1996; Witherspoon & White, 1996a, 1996b,1997). These stages are consistent with otherconsultation models (see Caplan, 1970).

Guidelines for successful coaching havebeen proposed by various individuals (e.g.,Kiel et al., 1996), but to date, no standards orguidelines have been widely adopted. The ICFrecently held a summit to better define execu-tive coaching and develop more complete stan-dards and practice guidelines. Although theseresults have not been formally published, theycan be found on the federation’s Web site(www.coachfederation.org/exec-coaching-summit.htm). The ICF’s definition of execu-tive coaching is as follows:

a helping relationship formed between a cli-ent who has managerial authority and respon-sibility in an organization and a consultant whouses a wide variety of behavioral techniquesand methods to help the client achieve a mu-tually identified set of goals to improve his orher professional performance and personal sat-isfaction and, consequently, to improve theeffectiveness of the client’s organization withina formally def ined coaching agreement.(Kilburg, 2000, p. 67)

On the basis of our current review of theliterature, this definition appears to representa fairly comprehensive view of what has beendiscussed and how executive coaching hasbeen defined (see Judge & Cowell, 1997;Kiel et al., 1996; Levinson, 1996; Olesen,

Executive coaching is a facilitative one-to-one,mutually designed relationship between a pro-fessional coach and a key contributor who hasa powerful position in the organization. Thisrelationship occurs in areas of business, gov-ernment, not-for-profit, and educational orga-nizations where there are multiple stakehold-


however, that not all executives can advancebecause the higher one is in an organization,the fewer positions there are to which onecan advance. Regardless, the so-called fail-ure rate is noteworthy and may be at leastone more reason why organizations and ex-ecutives are turning to outside sources forexecutive coaching.

By turning outward to an executivecoach, executives may receive somethingvaluable that they are missing. Lukaszewski(1988) identified the inability to gain accessto people who ask questions, provide advice,and give counsel as the greatest difficultyfacing senior executives. He noted that mostpeople close to executives are afraid, or donot know how, to confront them regardingtheir behavior. The purpose of executivecoaching is to provide these functions. Anexecutive coach’s role is to provide feedbackto the executive about his or her behaviorand the impact it has on others both withinand outside the organization (O’Neill, 2000;Witherspoon & White, 1996b). Given thistype of feedback, executives gain increasedself-awareness, self-esteem, and better com-munication with peers and subordinates(Kilburg, 1996c), which in turn may lead toincreased morale, productivity, and profits(Smith, 1993).

Techniques and methodologies. Unlikethe previously discussed themes, in whicheach body of literature contributed to thesummaries, the psychological literaturemakes a unique contribution to the tech-niques and methodologies theme. The spe-cial issue of the Consulting Psychology Jour-nal: Practice and Research (Kilburg, 1996a)reviewed a number of executive coachingmodels, often including case studies to il-lustrate key points. For example, Diedrich(1996) described a “comprehensive planningprocess that assesses critical competenciesand guides the development of the executive”(p. 61). Katz and Miller (1996) explained anapproach based on diversity and inclusion.Kiel et al. (1996) and Tobias (1996) both tooka systems-oriented approach, whereas

ers and organizational sponsorship for thecoach or coaching group. The coaching is con-tracted for the benefit of a client who is ac-countable for highly complex decisions with[a] wide scope of impact on the organizationand industry as a whole. The focus of thecoaching is usually focused on organizationalperformance or development, but may alsohave a personal component as well. The re-sults produced from this relationship are ob-servable and measurable. (International Coach-ing Federation Conference, 2000)

Regarding guidelines, the ICF is devel-oping them; however, Brotman et al. (1998)made the argument that the American Psy-chological Association (APA) should setstandards because psychologists possessmany of the skills necessary to provide ex-ecutive coaching services. What psycholo-gists do not necessarily possess, however, isbusiness knowledge (see Harris, 1999;Saporito, 1996).

Purpose. There are a number of reasonsprovided in the practice literature for the in-creased use of executive coaching, includ-ing the fact that other high-performance in-dividuals—athletes, performers, and publicspeakers—have used coaching as a meansof improving their performance (Wither-spoon & White, 1996a, 1997). Other reasonsfor the increased use of coaching include therapidly changing global economy necessitat-ing continued development (Sperry, 1993),the lack of opportunities provided executivesfor growth (Kiel et al., 1996; Saporito, 1996),the realization by business that poor execu-tive leadership can lead to financial ruin(Kilburg, 1996c), and the recognition that in-terpersonal skills are key in effectively man-aging oneself and those in a company(Levinson, 1996).

In an article on leadership, Hogan,Curphy, and Hogan (1994), stated that up to50% of executives will fail to advance in theircareers. This is a high percentage accordingto Kilburg (1997), who suggests that organi-zations today do not have the tools to helptheir executives succeed. It should be noted,


Levinson (1996) based his approach on psy-chological skills and insight. Peterson (1996)adopted an approach based on five coachingstrategies supported by research and experi-ence at Personnel Decisions International, thefirst management consulting firm to offer acoaching program that was both structuredand individually based (Hellervik, Hazucha,& Schneider, 1992). Saporito (1996) de-scribed a business-linked executive develop-ment approach, and Witherspoon and White(1996a, 1997) proposed a model based onfour different coaching roles: coaching forskills, performance, development, and theexecutive’s agenda. Considering existingexecutive coaching models, Kilburg (1996c,1997, 2000) proposed a 17-dimension modelbased on systems and psychodynamic theory.Additional models have since been offered,including the unpublished model of Wa-clawski and Church (1999) focusing on feed-back utilization by means of the executivecoaching process, Richard’s (1999) mul-timodal model, and Laske’s (1999a) develop-mental approach, which integrates “agentic”and “ontic” development.

Although a myriad of approaches to ex-ecutive coaching have been proposed, thereis considerable overlap among them. For ex-ample, there appears to be agreement regard-ing the stages of executive coaching: rela-tionship building, assessment, intervention,follow-up, and evaluation. These stages aretypically consistent with most consultationinterventions. There is also agreement re-garding the desirable assessment techniquesand instrumentation, including 360-degreefeedback questionnaires, qualitative inter-views, and psychological instruments, suchas personality and leadership style invento-ries (Brotman et al., 1998; Diedrich, 1996;Harris, 1999; Kiel et al., 1996; Kilburg, 1996c;Peterson, 1996; Richard, 1999; Saporito, 1996;Tobias, 1996; Witherspoon & White, 1996a).The purpose of these instruments is to gatherdata to present to the client.

There is further agreement that present-ing data, or feedback, is a critical compo-

nent of executive coaching (Diedrich, 1996;Waclawski & Church, 1999; Witherspoon &White, 1996a). Kiel et al. (1996) stated thatexecutives trust data and therefore come totrust the executive coaching process whendata are provided. Waclawski and Church(1999) regard feedback as so critical to theexecutive coaching process that they devel-oped a four-stage model for feedback utili-zation by means of the executive coachingprocess. They argued that it is through properfeedback that executives can come to under-stand patterns in the data gathered, workthrough their resistance to hearing the data,and identify and generate a developmentalplan for behavioral change.

Though overlap exists between models,specific models are worth reading for theirunique contributions to the coaching pro-cess—particularly Laske’s (1999a) develop-mental model and Kilburg’s (1996c) 17-di-mensional model, which both provide greatercontexts for understanding executive coach-ing and executive development. Witherspoonand White’s (1996a) model, which is basedon four different approaches to executivecoaching, is also helpful for understandingthe various foci that coaching can have.

Distinguishing from counseling andpsychotherapy. Because of the concern thatexecutive coaching practices mirror tooclosely the practices of counseling or psy-chotherapy, a number of individuals havediscussed the differences between the twointerventions (Kilburg, 2000; Levinson,1996; Richard, 1999; Saporito, 1996; Sperry,1993, 1996; Tobias, 1996). In reviewing thisliterature, a number of ideas seem to repeat.For example, executive coaching occurs inthe workplace with the intention of improv-ing the executive’s interpersonal skills andultimately his or her workplace performance.It is more issue-focused than therapy is andoccurs in a broader array of contexts—in-cluding face-to-face sessions, meetings withother people, observation sessions, over thetelephone, and by e-mail—and in a varietyof locations away from work (Richard, 1999;


Sperry, 1993, 1996). Coaching sessions canlast anywhere from a few minutes to a fewhours (Sperry, 1996), whereas therapy typi-cally occurs in a 45–50 min interval. Also,unlike counseling or psychotherapy, data arecollected from many sources, including theindividual executive, his or her superiors,peers, subordinates, and family members(Brotman et al., 1998; Diedrich, 1996; Har-ris, 1999; Kiel et al., 1996; Kilburg, 1996c;Peterson, 1996; Richard, 1999; Witherspoon& White, 1996a). Other differences includebeing able to be more directive in executivecoaching (Levinson, 1996; Richard, 1999)and viewing the relationship between the ex-ecutive and coach as more collegial (Levin-son, 1996; Tobias, 1996) because the needfor executive self-disclosure may not be asgreat as it is for counseling clients (Saporito,1996). Kilburg (2000) stated that althoughthe principles of counseling–therapy can en-hance executive coaching, the main differ-ence is the depth to which issues are pur-sued and processed.

Not only are differences in the processesbetween executive coaching and therapy be-ing debated, but differences between thequalifications of executive coaches and psy-chotherapists are also being discussed. Dif-ferences include the need for the executivecoach to understand not only psychologicaldynamics and adult development, but alsobusiness, management, and political issues(see Harris, 1999; Kiel et al., 1996; Laske,1999a, 1999b; O’Neill, 2000, Saporito, 1996;Sperry, 1996; Tobias, 1996). We would ar-gue that possessing knowledge of leadershipis also important. It has also been stated thatexecutive coaching is measured in numeri-cal terms, or in terms of the bottom-line per-formance for the executive and for the busi-ness, whereas counseling–psychotherapy ismeasured mainly by client self-report (Ri-chard, 1999; Saporito, 1996). Data on theseend results, or financial gains for business,however, are largely missing in the existingliterature on executive coaching. What alsoseems to be missing is the more substantive

ways in which executive coaching andtherapy differ. The examples provided aboveseem somewhat logistical in nature. EvenKilburg (2000) stated that “the boundariesare not crisply drawn lines” (p. 227).

Credentials of executive coaches. Thefourth point often discussed in the literatureon executive coaching deals more generallywith qualifications for service delivery (e.g.,Brotman et al., 1998; Harris, 1999; Kilburg,1996b, 1997; Sperry, 1993, 1996). Again, thepsychological literature seems to address thisconcern more fully than the other bodies ofliterature. The main issue discussed involvesthe myriad backgrounds of executivecoaches. Currently, professionals from busi-ness, teaching, law, and sports are claimingto be executive coaches (Brotman et al.,1998; Kilburg, 1996b). In part, this is a re-sult of the increased demand for executivecoaching, and, as such, there is concern overunqualified professionals making claims andthreatening the legitimacy of executivecoaching as a viable intervention (Harris,1999; Kilburg, 2000).

Regarding qualifications, there seem tobe two separate but related attitudes repre-sented in the psychological literature. Thefirst is the belief that psychologists alreadypossess a large number of the skills neededto provide executive coaching and thereforeare the most qualified service providers(Brotman et al., 1998; Kilburg, 1996c;Sperry, 1993, 1996). These skills include theability to respect confidentiality and main-tain highly intense relationships with objec-tivity. Brotman et al. (1998) argued that psy-chologists are the most uniquely qualifiedto define what is required to be an executivecoach when behavior change is the desiredoutcome, which inevitably is the case. Thereasons behind his argument include the abil-ity of the psychologist to do the following:establish safety in relationships, confront theexecutive on the reality of his or her behav-ior, and use the executive’s developmentalhistory and test data to identify themes inthe executive’s life. Furthermore, psycholo-


gists possess an understanding of psychologi-cal tests, cognitive style, managerial style,motivation, aptitude, and so forth. Kilburg(1997) also listed a number of skills psy-chologists possess that make them qualifiedto provide executive coaching services. Theseskills include the ability to listen, empathize,provide feedback, create scenarios, chal-lenge, and explore the executive’s world.Kilburg (2000) stated that although one doesnot necessarily have to be a psychologist toprovide executive coaching services, havingpsychoanalytic knowledge (possessed bysome but not all psychologists) greatly en-hances the possible results from coaching.

The second attitude regarding qualifica-tions is related to the first. Many argue thateven though a psychological backgroundprovides many of the necessary skills to pro-vide executive coaching services, it alone isnot enough. Having an awareness of busi-ness, management, and political issues is alsonecessary to be effective (Harris, 1999; Kielet al., 1996; Levinson, 1996; Saporito, 1996;Sperry, 1996; Tobias, 1996). Again, we wouldargue that knowledge of leadership is alsoessential.

Although the business and managementliterature does not directly address the issueof coach credentials, this body of literaturedoes discuss the process of finding an ex-ecutive coach. According to Banning (1997)and Smith (1993), a company’s human re-sources department, a superior, or a friendare some of the most common ways of find-ing a coach. Banning (1997) listed three im-portant criteria in selecting a coach: trust-worthiness, compatible chemistry, and solidreputation. Smith (1993) called attention tothe focus of the executive coach, noting thatsome adopt a more behavioral focus, whereasothers use a more psychoanalytic focus.However, he stated that most exist some-where in between. The training and develop-ment literature also provide some helpfulhints in selecting a coach. Thach andHeinselman (1999) suggested selectingcoaches who have previous executive coach-

ing and 360-degree assessment experience,knowledge of corporate environments anddevelopmental processes, and the ability tobe confrontational yet supportive while alsomaintaining confidentiality.

Recipients of services. Koonce (1994)stated that the consumers of executive coach-ing are executives who have been solid per-formers but whose current behaviors are in-terfering and putting the company at risk. Arecent survey of leading companies con-ducted by Fortune presents a somewhat dif-ferent view. According to this survey, themain consumers of executive coaching rangefrom middle managers to CEOs or CEO con-tenders (Witherspoon & White, 1996b).Witherspoon and White further stated thatcoaching clients are usually valued by thecompany because of certain skills they pos-sess and because they are highly motivatedindividuals. These clients are typically look-ing for ways to refine and enhance their skillsin order to continue in their current positionsor move up into more advanced positions.Kiel et al. (1996), in the psychological lit-erature, stated that one fourth of the execu-tives who seek executive coaching are mov-ing up within an organization or their career,one half are increasing their leadership re-sponsibilities, and one fourth are having dif-ficulties in their current job. Therefore, threefourths are using executive coaching for de-velopmental purposes and only one fourthfor remedial purposes.

Recent books on executive coach-ing. The rapid expansion of the literatureon executive coaching has included the pub-lication of several books. Two recent execu-tive coaching books (Kilburg, 2000; O’Neill,2000) are summarized here because they pro-vide comprehensive discussions of currentpractice and offer practical advice for per-sons interested in developing an executivecoaching practice. The classic, more generalcoaching text by Hargrove (1995) is alsosummarized as many of his general coach-ing principles apply to executive coaching,and he is often cited in the executive coach-


ing literature (see Kilburg, 2000; O’Neill,2000).

In Executive Coaching With Backboneand Heart, O’Neill (2000) proposed a sys-tems approach to working with leaders andtheir challenges. She stated that the book iswritten for those coaching organizationalleaders and focuses on the presence ofcoaches versus coaching techniques. Shedefined presence as being able to join lead-ers in a partnership, meeting them where theyare in their struggles, and being assertive inone’s position as coach while staying in a re-lationship with leaders. O’Neill identifiedpresence as the most important principle andtool of executive coaching. She further iden-tified the importance of focusing on the sys-tem of interaction between leaders and thosewith whom they work most closely as anadditional principle that guides her approach.Applying these two principles, according toO’Neill, allows for the effective implemen-tation of a coaching method. O’Neill’s coach-ing method involves four phases: contract-ing, action planning, live-action planning,and debriefing. One chapter within the bookis devoted to each phase. Additional chap-ters are devoted to developing a presencewith clients, using a systems perspective, andhow to transition into being an executivecoach. Case illustrations are used through-out the book to illustrate ideas.

Kilburg’s (2000) Executive Coaching:Developing Managerial Wisdom in a Worldof Chaos is probably the most comprehen-sive book on conducting executive coachingfrom a psychological and psychodynamicperspective. It is also the most complex. Theauthor identified the purpose of this book asnarrowing the gap between

[hidden] components. (Kilburg, 2000, pp.18–19)

He fulfilled this purpose by providing aconceptual framework using systems andpsychodynamic principles to understand ex-ecutive character, organizational structure,and executive coaching work. He then usedconsultation cases to illustrate this frame-work and the methods and techniques usedto effectively intervene as a coach or con-sultant. In addition, he addressed how tomanage particular problems that can be elic-ited when working with executives’ thoughts,feelings, defenses, and conflicts.

Hargrove’s (1995) Masterful Coaching:Extraordinary Results by Impacting Peopleand the Way They Think and Work Togetheris a book on transformational coaching.Hargrove defined transformational coachingas a process that “shows people how to trans-form or stretch their visions, values, andabilities” (p. 1). Transformational coachinghelps people tap their inner drive and ambi-tion, stretch their minds and abilities, andmove toward action. The author stated thatthis book synthesizes years of research andthe practices of many coaches with the goalof helping the reader become a “masterfulcoach.” The book is divided into three parts.Part 1 addresses the process and journey of“becoming” and “being” a masterful coach,which he sees as the key to effective coach-ing. Part 2 deals with group coaching andteam learning, and Part 3 details Hargrove’stechniques and methods for providing trans-formational coaching. Throughout all threesections, Hargrove interweaves theory andexamples to illustrate his ideas.

the growing understanding of the importanceof complexity theory, human behavior, andthe psychodynamic aspects of organizationaland managerial life and the lack of practicalguidance for how consultants and coaches canand should work with executives and manag-ers on issues, performance problems, and di-mensions of human behavior that have shadow

��

The above section focused on the prac-tice-based literature. This section reviews theempirical research. The following paragraphsreview the seven existing studies of execu-tive coaching (Foster & Lendl, 1996; Garmanet al., 2000; Gegner 1997; Hall et al., 1999;Judge & Cowell, 1997; Laske, 1999b;


Olivero et al., 1997) and discuss the link be-tween these studies and the practice-basedliterature

The first study, conducted by Foster andLendl (1996), was not a study on executivecoaching per se but was a study investigat-ing the effects of a specific technique lesscommonly used in executive coaching prac-tice. Because it examined the effects of aspecific, albeit less common, technique usedin executive coaching, it is included in thisarticle. However, it provides less informationregarding the overall efficacy of executivecoaching.

The purpose of Foster and Lendl’s (1996)study was to determine whether EMDR usedwithin an executive coaching process withfour individuals could enhance workplaceperformance. Participants were a pilot,former CEO, office manager, and tenuredprofessor. Three of the four participants hadexperienced perceived performance setbacks,and one was seeking a career change andwanted assistance reducing her anxiety re-garding interviewing. Adhering to the EMDRprotocol, participants were asked to (a) de-scribe their setbacks or concerns, (b) specifythe upsetting emotions tied to these incidents,(c) describe the current negative beliefs theyheld about themselves as a result of the set-backs or concerns, (d) identify the preferredbelief about themselves in regard to the set-back or concern, (e) follow the coach’s fin-gers for a series of rapid eye movements, (f)consider again the distressing experience,and (g) repeat the eye movements until theincidents were no longer distressing and thepositive belief replaced the negative belief.Results were measured by assessing physi-cal symptoms and negative emotions pre- andpost-EMDR and behavior outcomes pre- andpost-EMDR. Complete pre and post scoreson EMDR and behavior outcomes for eachparticipant, however, were not given.

Results from Foster and Lendl’s (1996)study suggest that EMDR can be an effec-tive method for desensitizing distressingworkplace experiences and helping partici-

pants develop more positive beliefs aboutthemselves regarding upsetting workplaceincidents to replace negative beliefs. Thisstudy also suggests that EMDR may helpimprove workplace performance within anexecutive coaching process.

The second study was conducted byOlivero et al. (1997). They implemented anaction research study investigating the effectsof a behavioral approach (vs. a psychody-namic approach) to executive coaching in apublic sector municipal agency. The interven-tion was conducted in two phases and em-phasized (a) goal setting, (b) collaborativeproblem solving, (c) practice, (d) feedback,(e) supervisory involvement, (f) evaluationof end results, and (g) presentation. Phase 1consisted of classroom training emphasizingmanagerial competencies. Thirty-one train-ees participated in Phase 1. Phase 2 consistedof an executive coaching process with thepurpose of providing managers the opportu-nity to practice and obtain constructive feed-back regarding the managerial competenciesthey learned in Phase 1. Of the 31 partici-pants in Phase 1, 8 coaching–participantsreceived training on how to provide execu-tive coaching services to the other 23 trainee–participants in Phase 2. Part of the coachingexperience required the 23 trainee–partici-pants to develop a project plan to be used incoaching.

Results within each phase were measuredalong four dimensions: reactions, knowledge,behaviors, and outcomes. In Phase 1, partici-pants reacted favorably to the training, giv-ing it a mean rating of 4.87 on a 5-point Likertscale across five dimensions: usefulness ofmaterials, instructor’s knowledge, instructor’sfacilitation, overall instructor rating, andoverall workshop rating. Knowledge ofmanagerial competencies scores had a sta-tistically significant increase from 71% atpretest to 88% at posttest (p < .001). Partici-pants also reported that the training they re-ceived would improve their skills, but be-cause these reports were future oriented theywere not analyzed. As far as outcomes, the


training phase alone increased overall pro-ductivity 22.4% as measured by the numberof completed patient evaluation forms (sta-tistical significance and p value not reportedby Olivero et al. 1997).

Phase 2 included analyses of both quali-tative and quantitative data. Qualitative dataindicated that both coaches and coachees hadfavorable reactions to the coaching process.Two themes emerged from these data: coach-ing was beneficial to them personally andwas beneficial to the overall agency. It is un-clear, however, whether these themesemerged from both the coach and coacheeresponses or if they emerged from just thecoachee responses. Reactions were notquantitatively measured. Quantitative dataindicated a 20% increase in knowledge asmeasured by a small sample (n = 4) ofcoaches on pre- and posttest scores. Thesample was too small to permit any statisti-cal inferences, and it is unclear whose knowl-edge was being measured, the coaches or thecoachees. Quantitative data also demon-strated a 65.6% increase (p <.05) in produc-tivity during the implementation phase(Phase 2) as compared with the trainingphase (Phase 1) alone. These results sug-gest that executive coaching does increaseproductivity.

Regarding the limitations of this study,Olivero et al. (1997) offered several, includ-ing the fact that it was a field experimentand random assignment of participants wasnot permitted. They also recommended thata training-only condition and a coaching-onlycondition be compared with one another todistinguish more clearly between these twoforms of learning.

The third study of executive coaching wasa survey conducted by Judge and Cowell(1997) to better understand the practice ofexecutive coaching. They surveyed 60coaches regarding their qualifications andbackgrounds; characteristics of the coachingindustry, including fees and contractualagreements; and the process and assessmentsused in coaching. They also looked at the

typical recipients of executive coaching, theissues most often presented by executives,and what one should look for and expect inan executive coach. Although this study pro-vided valuable data, there was a lack of in-formation regarding the methodology, whichlimits the applicability and generalizabilityof the findings. Therefore findings shouldbe viewed as tentative.

Judge and Cowell (1997) reported thatexecutive coaches come from a wide rangeof educational backgrounds, with under-graduate degrees ranging from drama to psy-chology. Of their participants, roughly 90%had master’s degrees concentrated in busi-ness and the social sciences, and approxi-mately 45% had doctoral degrees. Many be-longed to professional associations, such asthe American Society for Training and De-velopment, and some were licensed to prac-tice psychology in the state where they con-ducted business. Sixty percent of the coachessurveyed were male, 80% were between theages of 35 and 55, and they averaged 24 yearsof work experience. Some worked for largecompanies employing more than 10 coaches,whereas most worked for smaller companiesor worked independently. Most charged bythe hour for their services, with fees rangingfrom $75 to $400 per contact hour, and mostworked on a contractual basis. Approachesto coaching ranged from more behavioral tomore psychoanalytic in nature, but regard-less of orientation, the majority of coachesconducted 360-degree assessments by inter-viewing people close to the executive (su-pervisors, peers, subordinates, and, at times,family).

Recipients of executive coaching servicesin Judge and Cowell’s (1997) study were typi-cally mid-level to senior managers; half wereCEOs or reported to CEOs. Recipientssought coaching voluntarily approximatelyone half of the time and were required to seekit the other one half. All recipients tended tofall within one of the following three catego-ries: (a) individuals who were valuable butdemonstrating difficulty in one or more area,


(b) individuals who desired improved lead-ership skills, or (c) professionals other thanexecutives, including lawyers, doctors, archi-tects, and so forth. This last category wasunexpected by the researchers. Regardless ofwhich category recipients were in, the mostcommon requests were to help them (a)modify their interaction style, (b) deal moreeffectively with change, and (c) build trust-ing relationships.

The fourth study was a master’s thesisconducted by Gegner (1997). It was a cross-sectional field study investigating the effec-tiveness of executive coaching through quan-titative and qualitative methods. It representsthe first field study of executive coachingoutcomes. Coaches (n = 47) acted as distribu-tors of survey materials to executive partici-pants (n = 48), who anonymously completedsurveys. Gegner then conducted follow-upinterviews with 25 of the 48 executives togain additional information regarding (a)how executives became involved in coach-ing, (b) how a performance baseline was es-tablished prior to coaching and the resultantgains from coaching, (c) greatest obstaclesto coaching, (d) most valuable learning ex-perience, (e) whether coaching affected otherlife areas, and (f) any additional informationexecutives wanted to share.

For the study, Gegner (1997) designed theCoaching Experience Survey, a 52-item mea-sure using Likert scales. It consisted of twoparts. The first asked executives to rate theeffectiveness of the coaching process acrosseight components that were determinedthrough the literature to be inherent in theexecutive coaching process: (a) goals, (b)feedback, (c) self-efficacy, (d) rewards, (e)communication style, (f) interpersonal style,(g) responsibility, and (h) awareness. Thesecond portion of the survey gathered demo-graphic information on the executive andcoach as well as duration, frequency, andmodality information regarding the coach-ing process.

The premise of Gegner’s (1997) study wasthat as a result of executive coaching, execu-

tives would shift to a coaching style of man-agement because they become more awareand take more responsibility for the actionsin their organizations. The research questionswere as follows: (a) Do the components(goals, feedback, self-efficacy, rewards, com-munication style, interpersonal style, respon-sibility, and awareness) of executive coach-ing work collectively to enhance executiveperformance, or are isolated componentsmost effective?; (b) does executive coachingcontribute to sustained behavioral change?;(c) do age, gender, and ethnicity affect thecoaching process?: (d) do time, frequency,and modality affect the executive coachingprocess?; and (e) does a gender differencebetween the executive and coach affect thecoaching process?

A total of 146 executives received surveys,and 48 (33%) returned them. Of the 48 whoreturned surveys, 25 were interviewed. De-mographically, 14 executives (29%) werewomen and 34 (71%) were men. Ages rangedfrom 21 to 66 years (M = 44.5). Forty-fourexecutives (95%) were Caucasian, one(2.2%) was African American, one (2.2%)was Asian, and two (4.2%) did not reporttheir ethnic background.

To determine whether the components ofexecutive coaching work collectively to en-hance executive performance or whether iso-lated components are most effective, Gegner(1997) used the components of awarenessand responsibility as the dependent variablesmeasuring effectiveness. The results showedthat awareness had the strongest correlationswith self-efficacy (r = .55) and communica-tion style (r = .45); had low correlations withinterpersonal style (r =.24), rewards (r = .35),and feedback (r = .31); and had no correla-tion with goals (–.02). Responsibility hadmoderate to strong correlations with self-ef-ficacy (r = .74), rewards (r = .64), feedback(r = .52), and communication style (r = .51)and low correlations with interpersonal style(r = .43) and goals (r = .32). Self-efficacyhad the strongest correlations with both de-pendent variables: awareness (r = .55) and


responsibility (r = .74). Responsibility hadstronger associations than awareness withmore components. Communication style hadmoderate associations with both awarenessand responsibility, and feedback had moder-ate correlations with responsibility.

To determine whether coaching contrib-utes to sustained behavior change, Gegner(1997) combined the percentages of “highlyeffective” and “somewhat effective” state-ments for awareness and responsibility (de-pendent variables) as these statements wereconsidered coaching outcomes. Percentagesranged from 70.9% to 93.8% and thereforesuggested that coaching contributes to sus-tained behavior change as defined by Gegner.Gegner’s definition, however, may not be thebest measure of sustained behavior change,particularly because it is a self-rated mea-sure and not considered over time. Whetherexecutive gender, age, and ethnicity affectthe coaching process was analyzed usingPearson’s r coeff icients to measure thestrength of the associations between the de-mographic characteristics and the coachingcomponents. Neither age nor gender hadstrong correlations (rs ranging from .023 to.225 for age and .001 to .139 for gender).Ethnicity could not be analyzed because95.8% of the executives and 100% of thecoaches were Caucasian. Whether duration,time, frequency, or modality influence thecoaching process was also analyzed usingPearson’s r coefficients to determine thestrength of the association between thesevariables and the coaching components.Duration had a negative relationship withawareness (r = –.362), weak associationswith interpersonal style and rewards (rs =.204 and .270, respectively), and relativelyno association with responsibility, commu-nication, feedback, goals, and self-efficacy(rs = .036, .080, .113, .158, and .069, respec-tively). The negative correlation with aware-ness may suggest that after a certain point inthe coaching process, awareness decreasesor ceases to increase. Correlations rangedfrom .068 to .285 for length of coaching and

from .007 to .219 for modality. To determinewhether gender affects the coaching process,the coach’s gender was cross-tabulatedagainst the executive’s gender. The genderof the executive could not be predicted bythe gender of the coach and vice versa (mea-sured by a phi coefficient .008).

Gegner (1997) also conducted interviewswith 25 of the original 48 executives. Seven(28%) reported seeking executive coachingservices because of transitioning to new ca-reers and wanting to excel in their busi-nesses, whereas 18 (72%) became involvedin executive coaching through corporate pro-grams. Twenty-one executives (84%) re-ported positive feelings about their involve-ment in coaching. Ten executives (40%)stated that no baseline was established priorto coaching, and seven (28%) said that 360-degree feedback data, interviews, or upwardfeedback data were used to establish abaseline. Eight executives (32%) reported apercentage of performance improvementranging from 10% to 100%. Eleven execu-tives (44%) identified time as the greatestobstacle to coaching. All 25 executives(100%) reported learning more about them-selves or gaining new skills as the most valu-able outcome. All 25 executives (100%) alsosaid that coaching had positively affectedtheir personal lives by affecting their inter-actions with people, helping them establishbalance in their lives, and helping them pri-oritize and make decisions about how theyuse their time. Regarding any additional in-formation clients wanted to provide, 17 ex-ecutives (68%) mentioned something aboutthe coaching process itself, 10 (40%) iden-tified personality traits or skills possessedby the coach, and six (24%) made commentsabout the growth they attained—being moreopen to change and possessing more self-confidence.

Gegner (1997) identified several limita-tions of her study. Additional limitations notmentioned by Gegner include not knowinghow many coaches were contacted to par-ticipate and distribute survey materials to


executives—therefore potentially limitingthe generalizability of her findings—and thefact that multivariate analyses were not con-ducted to determine whether a combinationof variables was more effective for enhanc-ing executive performance.

The fifth study, conducted by Hall etal. (1999), consisted of interviews with 75executives in six different Fortune 100companies, 15 executive coaches referredby human resource (HR) personnel asleaders in the executive coaching field, andan unspecified number of HR personnel.The HR personnel were not mentioned asbeing interviewed in the method summary.However, they were mentioned in one partof the text.

Hall et al. (1999) were interested in theapplication of executive coaching, its effec-tiveness, and the lessons to be learned fromproviding services. The authors stated thatunderstanding of interview data was also in-formed by the practical experience of theauthors as executive coaches. No further in-formation concerning the methodology oranalysis was provided in the article. Detailsconcerning the nature of the sample were alsoquite limited. Thus, the results of this studyshould be regarded as tentative.

The results of Hall et al. (1999) were pre-sented in three areas: practice, effectiveness,and future directions. It was not always clearwhether the information provided withineach section was based on the results of thestudy or on the authors’ theory–concep-tualizations of executive coaching. Regard-ing practice, the authors reported that coachescould be either internal or external to theorganizations and that the number of execu-tive coaches was estimated to be in the tenthousands. Most of the seasoned coaches,however, came from psychology and the be-havioral sciences and were either internal orexternal to the organization. External coacheswere described as the most appropriate un-der conditions requiring extreme confiden-tiality, when the varied business experienceof the coach is beneficial, or when “speak-

[ing] the unspeakable” is necessary (Hall etal., 1999, p. 40). Internal coaches were dis-cussed as the most appropriate when possess-ing inside knowledge of company proceduresand politics is helpful or necessary. Whetherexternal or internal, however, coaches weredescribed as providing feedback to execu-tives that they had not received before. Feed-back was tied to anything ranging from writ-ing to interpersonal skills.

Regarding effectiveness, executivestended to stress that “good coaching is re-sults oriented” (Hall et al., 1999, p. 43). Ex-ecutives mentioned honesty, challengingfeedback, and helpful suggestions as ex-amples of good coaching. What they in-cluded as unhelpful were coaches whopushed their own agenda, tried to sell moreconsulting time, and provided only negativefeedback or feedback based largely on otherpeople’s feelings rather than on data and re-sults. Executives rated the overall effective-ness of executive coaching as “very satisfying,”or a 4 on a 5-point Likert scale. Coaches agreedwith the executives on what constituted goodcoaching but tended to focus more on the rela-tionship and the coaching process. Coaches usu-ally viewed the process of addressing coachingobjectives as being just as important as actuallymeeting them (Hall et al., 1999).

The study also examined potential differ-ences attributable to gender and race. Theauthors reported that gender interacted withage such that some female coaches reportedexperiencing difficulty coaching older high-level men, especially when providing nega-tive feedback. They also identified multiplecultural issues that affected coaching, suchas differences in eye contact, assertive com-munication, problem solving, and energylevel. It was further reported that workingwith international executives sometimes re-quired multicultural skill development. Lackof consideration of diversity issues such asage and race was identified as a limitationof current executive coaching practices.

Concerns about the future of executivecoaching were categorized into three areas:


managing the growth and demand for execu-tive coaching, addressing ethical issues aris-ing from the practice of executive coaching,and defining the scope and controlling costs.Hall et al. (1999) reported that most execu-tive coaches have more requests for coach-ing than they can fulfill, and many are ques-tioning whether this will continue or whetherbusinesses will become more selective re-garding who is offered coaching, particularlyas businesses become more concerned withthe cost, especially as markets tighten. Onestrategy the authors suggested for control-ling the demand was the use of internalcoaches. This practice, however, raises a po-tential ethical problem because it creates dualrelationships. The authors further reportedthat some executive coaches (though whichones specifically was unclear) were con-cerned about the loss of control, confidenti-ality, and cost that may occur as a result ofthe increased demand by businesses. To helpreduce these potential losses, they recom-mended that businesses establish clear guide-lines for the use of executive coaching so thatexecutive coaching is integrated into the over-all development process of the organization.Doing so, they argued, would help providefor a steady demand.

The sixth study was a dissertation com-pleted by Laske (1999b). It used qualitativemethods with the purpose of examining thedevelopmental effects of executive coachingon an executive’s professional agenda, withthe specific focus of separating behaviorallearning and ontic development.

Laske (1999b) interviewed six executivesidentified by their coaches as experiencingdevelopmental change because of coaching.The range of coaching was 6 months to 3years. Each executive was interviewed twice.The first interview focused on the executives’current organizational position and function-ing. The second interview, occurring 2 weekslater, focused on how executives view theirworld in terms of self–other object relations.Executive participation was confidential, andexecutive participants had final say regard-

ing the presentation of their findings. Coachparticipation was also confidential. Coachesprovided information regarding their execu-tive participants’ life history, themes, corpo-rate culture, and how the corporate cultureinformed the coaching agenda.

The first interview, called the professionalagenda interview, was based on Basseches’sdialectical schemata framework (as cited inLaske, 1999b) and focused on the way ex-ecutives envision their work and approachtheir tasks. The professional agenda inter-view also informed the second interview byproviding Laske insight into the executive’sdevelopmental stage, which was under inves-tigation in the second interview. The first in-terview consisted of two global questions andnumerous follow-up questions. The firstquestion asked executives what had signifi-cantly changed in the way they perform theirorganizational functions as a result of coach-ing. Follow-up questions then dealt with spe-cific changes in performance. The secondquestion asked executives what aspects oftheir professional self-image had most nota-bly been transformed as a result of coachingand how. Follow-up questions centeredaround specific changes in self-image.

The second interview was a subject–ob-ject interview, recognized by Lahey et al. andKegan as an appropriate method for assess-ing stage-level of adults (as cited in Laske,1999b). This interview focused on how ex-ecutives make sense of their work experi-ences in relationship to their ontic-develop-mental stage-level on the basis of Kegan’stheory of adult development (as cited inLaske, 1999b). The question guiding Laskein this interview was as follows: How areexecutives’ constructing their reality (per-sonal and organizational) based on subject–object relations? The protocol for the sub-ject–object interview included handing theexecutive 10 index cards with one of the fol-lowing topics written on it: (a) angry, (b)anxious/nervous (c) success/accomplish-ment, (d) strong stand/conviction, (e) sad, (f)torn, (g) moved/touched, (h) control, (i)


change, and (j) important to me. The inter-viewer, in this case Laske, provided a briefexplanation of the meaning of each of the 10topics, gave the executive 5 min to thinkabout the topics, and then asked the execu-tive to write down memories of work experi-ences based on the topics of each card. Af-terward, the executive and Laske conversedextensively about the cards most salient tothe executive. Three to five cards were dis-cussed. Laske stated that not all cards neededto be discussed because there is an underly-ing assumption that engaging in this processthoroughly for three to five cards will revealthe developmental stage of the executive.

Regarding data analysis, Laske (1999b)stated that his purpose was to identify andlink two sets of ontic-developmental scores.The first is a stage score, based on Kegan’sdevelopmental framework (as cited in Laske,1999b). The second is a non-stage score,based on Basseches’ (1984) dialectical–sche-mata framework (as cited in Laske, 1999b).Laske did this by analyzing the two sets ofinterview data, each according to its corre-sponding methodology. Data from the firstinterview were evaluated in terms of execu-tives’ endorsement of Basseches’s four cat-egories: (a) motion, (b) form, (c) relation-ship, and (d) metaformal schemata. Laskegave each of the four categories a weightingbased on the strength of endorsements pro-vided each category by executives.

The subject–object interview material wasanalyzed using Lahey et al.’s method (as citedin Laske, 1999b), which provides an overallstage score based on the number of times aparticular stage (or manner of making mean-ing) is endorsed by the executive. Laske ex-tended this procedure by calculating two ad-ditional scores: a clarity score and a potentialscore index associated with the stage score.The clarity score represents the clarity withwhich the stage score is expressed by theexecutive, and the potential score representsthe potential of the executive for transcend-ing to a higher stage. These two scores couldbe compared to determine the risk of an ex-

ecutive regressing to a lower developmentallevel as a result of being in an unhealthy or-ganization or under duress. The result of theanalysis and interview scoring was a com-bined ontic-developmental score, includinga level of self-awareness (stage score) andcapacity for systems thinking (process score)for each executive participant.

Laske (1999b) presented the results firstby vignette, where he provided a compre-hensive profile of each executive’s presentprofessional performance and functioningand change story, both based on the infor-mation coaches shared and the interviewmaterial. He also provided a combined ontic-developmental score. The findings of all sixexecutives were then presented as a collec-tive whole, and the methodology that pro-duced these findings was discussed. Laskereferred to this methodology as the Devel-opmental Structure/Process Tool, developedas a result of his study. He provided furtherelaboration on the instrument, the ways inwhich it can be used, and the implications ithas for aiding adult and executive develop-ment.

Regarding the results of his study andhow well they answered the research ques-tion of whether changes that occur becauseof executive coaching are ontic-developmen-tal (transformational) in nature or solely be-haviorally adaptive, Laske (1999b) statedthat they do not completely answer the ques-tion. Therefore, he proposed two alternativehypotheses: (a) in order to experience trans-formative (ontic-developmental) effects ofcoaching, one must be developmentallyready to experience them and (b) coachingmay have transformative (ontic-develop-mental) effect, but the developmental levelof the coach must also be such that it allowsthe coach to co-generate these effects in thecoaching relationship.

Laske (1999b) summarized what hethought were the nine critical empirical find-ings of his work (pp. 242–244). In doing so,he focused on: (a) the extent to which stagescores and process scores matched and (b)


the gaps between executives’ cognitive fo-cus in their present professional performanceand functioning (motion) and in their changestory (metaform).

Laske found that the capacity for systemsthinking tended to rise with stage score andits associated clarity–potential index suchthat the higher the stage score, the higherthe executive’s metaformal (transforma-tional) understanding of organizational re-ality. Second, Laske found a discrepancybetween executives’ focus in their presentprofessional performance and functioning(motion) and their change story (metaform).Second, changes reported by executives didin fact seem to be of a metaformal–trans-formational nature versus a merely adaptive(behavioral) one. Third, executive reports ofdevelopmental transformation reflect theirontic-developmental stage more than theimpact of coaching. Therefore, executivecoaching will not be beneficial unless theexecutive is developmentally ready (mea-sured by the clarity–potential index) forchange. Fourth, there is a corresponding re-lationship between stage scores and processscores, making it reasonable to assume “thatthe mental processes categorized in termsof dialectical-schemata analysis constitutethe very processes that make attaining, main-taining, regressing from, and transcending,a particular ontic-developmental level pos-sible (Laske, 1999b, p. 243). Fifth, the pro-cess assessment is the best way to identifyand map the ontic-developmental score of aperson into a particular empirical domainbecause the processes (schemata) individu-als use for making meaning of the empiri-cal world are more straightforward in theirbehavioral implications than ontic-develop-mental stage scores. Sixth, process and struc-ture assessments alone are merely diagnos-tic; however, when combined they becomeprognostic. This is the case because stagescores reflect a current developmental bal-ance ready to transform to a following one.Seventh, “a cognitive disequilibrium be-tween critical (motion, relationship) and con-

structive mental tools (form, metaform), asfound in the sample of executives, is not somuch a deficit, but the very motor of devel-opment toward a higher ontic stage” (O. E.Laske, personal communication, June 18,2001). Conversely, higher stages of devel-opment cannot be forced by coaching be-cause the developmental level of the indi-vidual determines the effect coaching willhave. Eighth, the current study provided ahypothesis about transformative effects ofcoaching; however, a longitudinal study us-ing the same methods is necessary to pro-vide sufficient evidence for the long-termtransformative effects of coaching. Finally,because executives’ change stories depend ontheir ontic-developmental status, the as-sumed truths of the theory and practice ofexecutive development, specifically thoseconceptualized in terms of behavioral opin-ions of executive coaching, are placed indoubt (O. E. Laske, personal communica-tion, June 18, 2000).

The seventh study, conducted by Garmanet al. (2000), was a content analysis of pub-lications concerning executive coaching.The purpose of this study was to describeprofessional opinions concerning the prac-tice of executive coaching and the perceivedrelevance of psychological training for suchpractice. The authors identified 72 articleson executive coaching published in main-stream and trade management publicationsbetween 1991 and 1998. These articles werecoded according to (a) whether they wereconcerned with externally provided coach-ing; (b) whether they were generally favor-able, unfavorable, or mixed in their evalua-tion of executive coaching; (c) whetherpsychologists were specifically mentionedas executive coaching service providers; (d)whether psychologists were regarded as adistinct service provider group; and (e)whether psychologists, if regarded as a dis-tinct group, were distinguished favorably,unfavorably, or neutrally. This codingscheme provides quantitative informationconcerning these dimensions but does not


provide qualitative understanding of the dif-ferences between, for example, favorableand unfavorable articles. In addition, resultsmust be regarded with some caution becauseof relatively moderate interrater reliabilitiesfor some codes, as well as a lack of atten-tion to the role of chance agreement in cal-culating these reliabilities.

Results from Garman et al.’s (2000) studysuggest that, although executive coaching isgenerally viewed favorably, psychologistsare not universally viewed as uniquely valu-able service providers. Eighty-eight percentof the articles reviewed were coded as evalu-ating executive coaching favorably. In con-trast, less than one third of the articles re-viewed mentioned psychological trainingspecifically, and only two thirds of those thatdid address it described psychologists ashaving unique executive coaching skills. Inaddition, only 45% of the articles distin-guishing between psychologists and otherexecutive coaching service providers de-scribed psychological training as an asset.An additional 36% of these articles de-scribed the unique skills of psychologistsas potentially favorable or unfavorable,whereas the remaining 18% of articles di-rectly addressing psychologists describedthem as potentially harmful. Although theydid not directly assess it in their codingscheme, Garman et al. (2000) suggested twopossible sources for unfavorable perceptionsof psychologists as executive coaches: someclinical psychologists are entering the fieldwithout appropriate retraining, and someconsumers perceive that psychologists useextensive assessment in executive coachingsimply to increase billable hours.

��

��

Six of the seven empirical studies (Gar-man et al., 2000; Gegner 1997; Hall et al.,1999; Judge & Cowell, 1997; Laske, 1999b;Olivero et al., 1997) provide some supportfor points discussed in the practice litera-

ture. The last study (Foster & Lendl, 1996)provides support for EMDR as an adjunctto executive coaching. Looking at these sixstudies, the results of Olivero et al. (1997)support the idea that executive coaching ben-efits both the executive and the company.Executives experienced coaching as a posi-tive endeavor, and they gained increased sat-isfaction and productivity in their work. InHall et al.’s study (1999), executives reportedbeing “very satisfied” with their coachingexperiences as did the executives in Gegner’s(1997) study. Garman et al. (2000) furtherreported that professional publications con-cerning executive coaching practice weregenerally positive; however, psychologistswere not universally viewed as unique con-tributors to the executive coaching process.And the executives in Laske (1999b) werechosen because they had been identified asexperiencing meaningful change as a resultof coaching.

A second idea discussed in the practiceliterature and supported by the results ofOlivero et al. (1997) is the increased learn-ing that occurs with executive coaching.Many have identified the individually tai-lored nature of executive coaching as one ofthe main reasons for its success (O’Brien,1997; Harris, 1999; Witherspoon & White,1996a). In Olivero et al., knowledge in-creased at a higher rate after training andcoaching than after training alone. One pointto be considered is the fact that the coachesin this study were not professional coaches.Professional executive coaches tend to havemore experience than that possessed by theparticipants providing coaching in this study.In light of this, it seems likely that the re-sults of executive coaching when practicedby professional and experienced coachesmight be even greater.

A third idea discussed in the practice-based literature and supported by the resultsof Gegner (1997) and Laske (1999b) is thebehavioral changes that occur as a result ofexecutive coaching. All of the executives inboth studies reported behavioral changes,


and Laske (1999b) provided support for thehypothesis that the developmental level ofthe client and coach is necessary for effect-ing developmental change.

The results from Judge and Cowell (1997)and from Hall et al. (1999) support a fourthidea discussed in the practice literature re-garding the educational background ofcoaches. Judge and Cowell found a widerange of educational backgrounds. Coachesinterviewed had undergraduate degreesranging from drama to psychology; however,90% also had master’s degrees in either busi-ness or social science. This, in part, supportsthe concern expressed in the practice litera-ture regarding the variety of professionalsidentifying themselves as coaches. AlthoughGarman et al. (2000) focused specificallyon examining whether or not psychologicaltraining was regarded as an asset in execu-tive coaching, their findings provide furthersupport for the need to standardize qualifi-cations and practice. The fact that Garmanet al. (2000) did not find that psychologistswere universally recognized as uniquelyvaluable challenges the idea proposed byBrotman et al. (1998) and others that psy-chologists are best qualified. At minimum,it challenges psychologists to articulate moreclearly their significant contributions to thepractice of executive coaching.

A fifth idea supported by the empiricalresearch concerns the methods used by thecoaches surveyed. Similar to what was re-ported in the practice articles, coaches inJudge and Cowell (1997) used a variety ofapproaches, ranging from behavioral to psy-chodynamic, yet regardless of approach in-cluded 360-degree assessments in their pro-cess. Finally, executive coaching wasprovided for both developmental and reme-dial purposes as suggested in the practiceliterature. One unexpected result from Judgeand Cowell (1997) was the finding that manyprofessionals other than executives (e.g.,lawyers, doctors, and other professionals)seek executive coaching services. Little isknown about this group of recipients, though

Richard (1999) suggested that they be in-cluded as clientele for executive coachingservices. If this inclusion occurs, however,what would distinguish executive coachingfrom general business or other types ofcoaching? Maybe nothing would, which sug-gests that executive coaching is a new namefor a previously and long-existing consulta-tion intervention.

��

The purpose of this article was to criti-cally review the existing practice-based andempirically based literature on executivecoaching to determine (a) what has beenwritten and therefore what is known aboutexecutive coaching, (b) whether executivecoaching is an effective tool for improvingindividual and organizational performance,and (c) whether executive coaching is justanother business fad.

Regarding what has been written and whatis known about executive coaching, the lit-erature seems to provide some basis for un-derstanding the definition, purpose, process,methodologies, clients, and service provid-ers of executive coaching. The literature alsoprovides some limited evidence that execu-tive coaching is effective for increasing per-formance (Olivero et al., 1997), is viewedfavorably by executives (Gegner, 1997), andhas the potential to facilitate developmentalchange (Laske, 1999b). What needs furtherexplanation are the more substantive waysthat executive coaching differs from psycho-therapy and counseling. Furthermore, the typeof outcomes executive coaching has in the fieldneeds further empirical investigation.

Even though the literature provides somebasis for understanding executive coaching,it also identifies concerns regarding the ab-sence of a clear and widely accepted (a) defi-nition, (b) standard of practice, and (c) agree-ment as to the appropriate service providers(Brotman et al., 1998; Kilburg, 2000). Re-garding the definition of executive coaching,an integration of Kilburg’s (2000) definition


with components of Caplan’s (1970) CCACand Kinlaw’s (1997) general coaching mayprovide a comprehensive understanding ofcurrent practices. It is interesting to note,however, that Kilburg made the statementthat consultants use “behavioral techniques”when much of his conceptualization of ex-ecutive coaching is from a psychodynamicperspective. The difficulty of defining execu-tive coaching may also be a result of the manydifferent individuals and disciplines involvedin providing executive coaching services. Re-gardless, however, some consensus regard-ing a basic definition seems important. Vari-ants on approaches can later be addressed,as is the case in counseling and psycho-therapy. Or, similar to counseling and psy-chotherapy, one definition may be difficultto develop and agree on.

A final note regarding definition has todo with the inclusion or exclusion of law-yers, doctors, and other professionals as re-cipients of executive coaching. Richard(1999) argued that other professionals shouldbe included as recipients, and Judge andCowell (1997) found these individuals toexist as recipients of executive coaching ser-vices. Do these individuals necessarily havemanagerial authority in an organization asKilburg defines? Does making the recipientsmore inclusive change the executive coach-ing process? Is it the clientele that makesexecutive coaching unique, or is it the ex-ecutive coaching process? Is it a combina-tion of the two? If executive coaching is moreinclusive, then how does it differ from gen-eral business coaching? To better addressthese questions and determine the best defi-nition of executive coaching, the process ofexecutive coaching may need to be betterunderstood and researched.

Related to the definition are the standardsof practice and who should be deliveringexecutive coaching services. Although somediscussion and development of standards hastaken place, no set of standards has been fullydeveloped or widely accepted. To date, theICF has begun to develop standards; how-

ever, they do not necessarily represent thefield of psychology. Brotman et al. (1998)argued that the APA should become involvedin regulating executive coaching practicesbecause psychologists possess many of theskills necessary to provide executive coach-ing services. If the APA were to become in-volved, would they do so in conjunction withthe ICF or would they do so alone? Whatimplication would the APA becoming in-volved have on the practice of executivecoaching, particularly because the ICF rep-resents coaches from more than one disci-pline? For psychologists, at minimum, itseems that the APA could provide ethicalguidelines for those who are involved in pro-viding executive coaching services.

Before one can develop guidelines, onehas to address the skills and qualificationsneeded to provide such services. From re-viewing the literature, it seems that provid-ers need to be able to take on a feedback role(Wacklawski & Church, 1999), use the rela-tionship as a tool (Kilburg, 2000; O’Neill,2000), and be knowledgeable about the ex-ecutive coaching context and its impact onthe leader and the coaching process (Died-rich, 1996; Whitherspoon & White, 1997).Knowledge about the context probably in-cludes awareness of business, management,and political principles, which have beenidentified as important (e.g., Saporito, 1996;Sperry, 1996).

A caveat, however, and one that was pre-viously mentioned, deals with the executivecoaching process. In order to know who isbest qualified to deliver executive coachingservices, we need to know more about theexecutive coaching process and how it re-lates to outcomes. For example, do processand outcome look different when coachingis remedial versus developmental? What spe-cifically about the coaching process is re-sponsible for the desired outcomes? The re-lationship has been identif ied by many(Hargrove, 1995; Kilburg, 2000; O’Neill,2000) as one of the most important tools ineffecting change. What about the relation-


ship facilitates change? How does the rela-tionship as well as the coaching process andoutcome vary across diverse recipients andproviders, for example, gender, race, age, andso forth? Gegner (1997) found the executivecoaching components of self-efficacy andcommunication style to be most effective foraffecting executive performance, as mea-sured by self-awareness and responsibility.Laske (1999b) found that the developmentallevel of the client and coach are importantfor facilitating developmental, transforma-tional change. Additional research alongthese lines would be helpful for understand-ing what about executive coaching effectschange.

Equally important is the need to identifythe different kinds of outcomes we expectand want from executive coaching. There isthe bottom line of increased productivity,which has been researched in one study(Olivero et al, 1997). Provided these find-ings can be replicated, the viability of ex-ecutive coaching will be enhanced. There arealso additional outcomes that may increasethe viability of executive coaching if theyare identified and empirically supported. Forexample, the participants of Judge andCowell (1997) identif ied the ability tomodify their interaction styles, deal moreeffectively with change, and build moretrusting relationships as their desired out-comes for executive coaching. Investigatingwhether executive coaching can producethese outcomes may be beneficial. However,these outcome variables may not be highlyvalued by businesses and organizations un-less they can be linked to productivity andperformance.

Not only is additional research needed,but also more rigorous research is necessary.Some of the research reviewed in this articleis quite flawed. For example, Judge andCowell (1997) and Hall et al. (1999) pro-vided limited information regarding theirmethodologies and samples, which limits theapplicability and generalizability of theirstudies. Gegner (1997) also failed to pro-

vide a response rate of coaches, which isnecessary to determine the generalizabilityof her findings. Limitations exist in the otherstudies as well. Olivero et al (1997) had de-sign limitations in that they did not have ran-dom assignment nor did they compare atraining-only and coaching-only condition;therefore, the ability to attribute outcomesto the coaching condition alone is limited.Furthermore, executive coaching was pro-vided by employees with extremely limitedtraining in providing executive coaching ser-vices. Though the study demonstrated im-proved performance, stronger results mayoccur if studied with professional executivecoaches. The findings of Foster and Lendl(1996) are similarly limited by the absence ofpre and post measures on physical symptomsand negative emotions for some participants.

Finally, regarding research, it is interest-ing to note that three of the seven studiesconducted on executive coaching were foundin the business–management literature, andthree were found in the psychological lit-erature (one a dissertation). Most of the prac-tice-based articles, however, were found inthe psychological literature. Two of the threestudies that were published in the psycho-logical literature were not outcome studies.Future research needs to be conducted draw-ing on all of the bodies of literature relevantto executive coaching. Also, because psy-chologists are heavily engaged in the prac-tice of executive coaching and are arguingthat they are best qualified (Brotman et al.,1998), it seems that they hold some respon-sibility in conducting, supporting, and par-ticipating in the research being conductedon the effectiveness of executive coachingas an intervention.

��

Allenbaugh, G. E. (1983). Coaching . . . a man-agement tool for a more effective work per-formance. Management Review, 72, 21–26.

Aurelio, S., & Kennedy, J. K. (1991). Performancecoaching: A key to effectiveness. SupervisoryManagement, 36, 1–2.


Banning, K. L. (1997). Now, coach? Across theBoard, 34, 28–32.

Bell, C. R. (1987). Coaching for high perfor-mance. Sam Advanced Management Journal,52, 26–29.

Bertagnoli, L. (2000). One-on-one counsel forbusiness owners. Craines Chicago Business,23(7), 8–9.

Brotherton, P. R. (1998). Making a connection:It’s time for a career workout. Black Enterprise,28(11), 82.

Brotman, L. E., Liberi, W. P., & Wasylyshyn, K.M. (1998). Executive coaching: The need forstandards of competence. Consulting Psychol-ogy Journal: Practice and Research, 50, 40–46.

Caplan, G. (1970). Theory and practice of mentalhealth consultation. New York: Basic Books.

Darling, M. J. (1994). Coaching people throughdifficult times. HR Magazine, 39, 70–73.

Deblieux, M. (1998). Encouraging great perfor-mance. HR Focus, 75, 13.

Deeprose, D. (1995). The team coach: Vital newskills for supervisors and managers in a teamenvironment. New York: American Manage-ment Association.

Diedrich, R. C. (1996). An iterative approach toexecutive coaching. Counseling PsychologyJournal: Practice and Research, 48, 61–66.

Douglas, C. A., & Morley, W. H. (2000). Ex-ecutive coaching: An annotated bibliogra-phy. Greensboro, NC: Center for CreativeLeadership.

Dutton, G. (1997). Executive coaches call theplays. Management Review, 86(2), 39–43.

Ericsson, K. A. (1996). (Ed.). The road to excel-lence: The acquisition of expert performancein the arts and sciences, sports, and games.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Filipczak, B. (1998). The executive coach: Helperor healer? Training, 35(3), 30–36.

Flory, C. D. (1965). Managers for tomorrow. NewYork: New American Library.

Foster, S., & Lendl, J. (1996). Eye movement de-sensitization and reprocessing: Four case stud-ies of a new tool for executive coaching andrestoring employee performance after set-backs. Consulting Psychology Journal: Prac-tice and Research, 48,155–161.

Garman, A. N., Whiston, D. L., & Zlatoper, K. W.(2000). Media perceptions of executive coach-ing and the formal preparation of coaches.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice andResearch, 52, 201–205.

Gegner, C. (1997). Coaching: Theory and prac-tice. Unpublished master’s thesis, Universityof San Francisco, California.

Gilley, J. W., & Boughton, N. W. (1996). Stop

managing, starting coaching! How perfor-mance coaching can enhance commitment andimprove productivity. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Good, D. J. (1993). Coaching practices in the busi-ness-to-business environment. Journal of Busi-ness & Industrial Marketing, 8(2), 53–60.

Graham, S., Wedman, J. F., & Garver-Kester, B.(1993). Manager coaching skills: Develop-ment and application. Performance Improve-ment Quarterly, 6(1), 2–13.

Grover, M. B. (2000). Preshrunk. Forbes, 165(6),82.

Hall, D. T., Otazo, K. L., & Hollenbeck, G. P.(1999). Behind closed doors: What really hap-pens in executive coaching. OrganizationalDynamics, 27(3), 39–52.

Hardingham, A. (1998). Moments of clarity.People Management, 4(8), 31.

Hargrove, R. (1995). Masterful coaching: Ex-traordinary results by impacting people andthe way they think and work together. San Fran-cisco: Pfeiffer/Jossey-Bass.

Harris, M. (1999). Look, it’s an I-O psychologist . . .no, it’s a trainer . . . no, it’s an executive coach.TIP, 36(3), 1–5.

Hayes, G. E. (1997). Executive coaching: A strat-egy for management and organizational de-velopment. In A. J. Pickman (Ed.), Specialchallenges in career management: Counselorperspectives (pp. 213–222). Mahwah, NJ:Erlbaum.

Hellervik, L. W., Hazucha, J. F., & Schneider, R.J. (1992). Behavior change: Models, methods,and a review of the evidence. In M. D. Dunnette& L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of indus-trial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.,pp. 823–895). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psy-chologists Press.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G. J., & Hogan, J. (1994).What we know about leadership: Effectivenessand personality. American Psychologist, 49,493–503.

Huggler, L. (1997). Companies on the couch: Useof psychoanalysis in conflict management. HRMagazine, 42, 80–84.

Hutcheson, P. G. (1996). Ten tips for coaches.Training and Development Journal, 50, 15–16.

Hyatt, J. (1997). CEO: The zero defect. Inc., 19,46–57.

International Coaching Federation Conference.(2000). International Executive Coaching Sum-mit: A collaborative effort to distinguish the pro-fession: 2000. Retrieved July 17, 2000, fromhttp://www.coachfederation.org/ecsummit-1999.htm#b.

Judge, W. Q., & Cowell, J. (1997). The brave newworld of executive coaching. Business Hori-


zons, 40(4), 71–77.Katz, J. H., & Miller, F. A. (1996). Coaching lead-

ers through culture change. Consulting Psy-chology Journal: Practice and Research, 48,104–114.

Kiel, F., Rimmer, E., Williams, K., & Doyle, M.(1996). Coaching at the top. Consulting Psy-chology Journal: Practice and Research, 48,67–77.

Kilburg, R. R. (Ed.). (1996a). Executive coach-ing [special issue]. Consulting PsychologyJournal: Practice and Research, 48(2).

Kilburg, R. R. (1996b). Executive coaching as anemerging competency in the practice of con-sultation. Consulting Psychology Journal:Practice and Research, 48, 59–60.

Kilburg, R. R. (1996c). Toward a conceptual un-derstanding and definition of executive coach-ing. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practiceand Research, 48, 134–144.

Kilburg, R. R. (1997). Coaching and executivecharacter: Core problems and basic ap-proaches. Consulting Psychology Journal:Practice and Research, 49, 281–299.

Kilburg, R. R. (2000). Executive coaching: De-veloping managerial wisdom in a world ofchaos. Washington, DC: American Psycho-logical Association.

Kinlaw, D. C. (1997). Coaching: Winning strate-gies for individuals and teams. Brookfield, VT:Gower.

Kiser, K. (1999). Executive coach. Training, 36(8),34–35.

Koonce, R. (1994). One on one. Training andDevelopment Journal, 48(2), 34–40.

Larry, B. K. (1997a). Executive counsel. HumanResource Executive, 11(1), 46–49.

Larry, B. K. (1997b). Now, coach? Across theBoard, 34, 28–32.

Laske, O. E. (1999a). An integrated model of de-velopment coaching. Consulting PsychologyJournal: Practice and Research, 51, 139–159.

Laske, O. E. (1999b). Transformative effects ofcoaching on executive’s professional agenda,1. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Levinson, H. (1996). Executive coaching. Con-sulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Re-search, 48, 115–123.

Ludeman, K. (1995). To fill the feedback void.Training and Development Journal, 49(8), 38–41.

Lukaszewski, J. E. (1988). Behind the throne:How to coach and counsel executives. Train-ing and Development Journal, 42(10), 33–35.

Machan, D. (1998). Sigmund Freud meets HenryFord. Forbes, 14(13), 120–122.

Martin, I. (1996). From couch to corporation:Becoming a successful corporate therapist.

New York: Wiley.Masciarelli, J. P. (1999). Less lonely at the top.

Management Review, 88(4), 58–61.Maxwell, J. C. (1995). Developing the leaders

around you. Nashville, TN: Nelson.McCafferty, J. (1996). Your personal Vince

Lombardi. CFO: The Magazine for Senior Fi-nancial Executives, 12(11), 93–95.

Miller, J. B., & Brown, P. B. (1993). The corpo-rate coach. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Minor, M. (1995). Coaching for development:Skills for managers and team leaders. MenloPark, CA: Crisp.

Morris, B. (2000). So you’re a player. Do you needa coach? Fortune, 141(4) 144–146, 148, 150,152, 154.

Nakache, P. (1997). Can you handle the truth aboutyour career? Fortune Magazine, 136(1), 208.

O’Brien, M. (1997). Executive coaching. Super-vision, 58(4), 6–8.

Olesen, M. (1996). Coaching today’s executives.Training and Development Journal, 50(3), 22–27.

Olivero, G., Bane, K. D., & Kopelman, R. E.(1997). Executive coaching as a transfer oftraining tool: Effects on productivity in a pub-lic agency. Public Personnel Management,26(4) 461–469.

O’Neill, M. B. (2000). Executive coaching withbackbone and heart: A systems approach toengaging leaders with their challenges. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Orth, C. D., Wilkinson, H. E., & Benfari, R. C.(1987). The manager’s role as coach and men-tor. Organizational Dynamics, 15(4), 66–74.

Peterson, D. B. (1996). Executive coaching atwork: The art of one-on-one change. Consult-ing Psychology Journal: Practice and Re-search, 48, 78–86.

Peterson, D. B., & Hicks, M. D. (1996). Leaderas coach: Strategies for coaching and devel-oping others. Minneapolis, MN: PersonnelDecisions International.

Peterson, D. B., & Hicks, M. D. (1999). Strategiccoaching: Five ways to get the most value. Hu-man Resource Focus, 76(2), 7–8.

Richard, J. T. (1999). Multimodal therapy: A use-ful model for the executive coach. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research,51, 24–30.

Robinson, J. (1996). Coach to coach: Businesslessons from the locker room. Johannesburg,South Africa: Pfeiffer.

Saporito, T. J. (1996). Business-linked executivedevelopment: Coaching senior executives.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice andResearch, 48, 96–103.

Shore, L. M., & Bloom, A. J. (1986). Developing


employees through coaching and career man-agement. Personnel, 63, 34–38+.

Shula, D., & Blanchard, K. H. (1995). Everyone’sa coach: You can inspire anyone to be a win-ner. New York: Harper Business.

Smith, L. (1993). The executive’s new coach. For-tune, 128(16), 126–134.

Snyder, A. (1995). Executive coaching: The newsolution. Management Review, 84(3), 29–32.

Sperry, L. (1993). Working with executives: Con-sulting, counseling, and coaching. IndividualPsychology, 49(2), 257–266.

Sperry, L. (1996). Corporate therapy and consul-tation. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Strickland, K. (1997). Executive coaching: Help-ing valued executives fulfill their potential. InA. J. Pickman (Ed.), Special challenges in ca-reer management: Counselor perspectives (pp.203–212). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Thach, L., & Heinselman, T. (1999). Executivecoaching defined. Training & Development,53(3), 35–39.

Tobias, L. L. (1996). Coaching executives. Con-sulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Re-

search, 48, 87–95.Tristram, C. (1996). Wanna be a player: Get a

coach. Fast Company, 145–150.Voss, T. (1997). Sharpen your team’s skills in

coaching. New York: McGraw-Hill.Waclawski, J., & Church, A. H. (1999). The 4-3-

2-1 coaching model. Paper presented at themeeting of the Academy of Management Con-ference, Chicago, IL.

Waldroop, J., & Butler, T. (1996). The executive ascoach. Harvard Business Review, 74, 111–117.

Whitmore, J. (1994). Coaching for performance.San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer.

Witherspoon, R., & White, R. P. (1996a). Execu-tive coaching: A continuum of roles. Consult-ing Psychology Journal: Practice and Re-search, 48, 124–133.

Witherspoon, R., & White, R. P. (1996b). Execu-tive coaching: What’s in it for you? Trainingand Development Journal, 50, 14–15.

Witherspoon, R., & White, R. P. (1997). Fouressential ways that coaching can help execu-tives. Greensboro, NC: Center for CreativeLeadership.

Best Practices in Consulting Psychology

Question: Are you coming to the 10th Annual Mid-Winter Conference (February8-10, 2002, San Antonio, TX)?

Answer: Yes!

If you still need to register or need information, contact

Lorraine RieffPhone: (312) 655-1150E-mail: [email protected]

exec coaching a comprehensive review of the literature

Business

theconsulting

consulting

sulting psychology

sustained

executives

ing psychology

transformative

received increased