An oni, Conny H.; Ta a , Alexand a
A icle — Published Ve sion
Lea ning p ocesses as media o s o he impac o
wo kplace coaching in e en ions on goal a ainmen
Jou nal o Occupa ional and O ganiza ional Psychology
P o ided in Coope a ion wi h:
John Wiley & Sons
Sugges ed Ci a ion: An oni, Conny H.; Ta a , Alexand a (2025) : Lea ning p ocesses as media o s o
he impac o wo kplace coaching in e en ions on goal a ainmen , Jou nal o Occupa ional and
O ganiza ional Psychology, ISSN 2044-8325, Wiley Pe iodicals, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 98, Iss. 1,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/joop.70004
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/313704
S anda d-Nu zungsbedingungen:
Die Dokumen e au EconS o dü en zu eigenen wissenscha lichen
Zwecken und zum P i a geb auch gespeiche und kopie we den.
Sie dü en die Dokumen e nich ü ö en liche ode komme zielle
Zwecke e iel äl igen, ö en lich auss ellen, ö en lich zugänglich
machen, e eiben ode ande wei ig nu zen.
So e n die Ve asse die Dokumen e un e Open-Con en -Lizenzen
(insbesonde e CC-Lizenzen) zu Ve ügung ges ell haben soll en,
gel en abweichend on diesen Nu zungsbedingungen die in de do
genann en Lizenz gewäh en Nu zungs ech e.
Te ms o use:
Documen s in EconS o may be sa ed and copied o you pe sonal
and schola ly pu poses.
You a e no o copy documen s o public o comme cial pu poses, o
exhibi he documen s publicly, o make hem publicly a ailable on he
in e ne , o o dis ibu e o o he wise use he documen s in public.
I he documen s ha e been made a ailable unde an Open Con en
Licence (especially C ea i e Commons Licences), you may exe cise
u he usage igh s as speci ied in he indica ed licence.
h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
J Occup O gan Psychol. 2025;98:e70004.
|
1 o 22
h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/joop.70004
wileyonlinelib a y.com/jou nal/joop
Recei ed: 13 Sep embe 2023
|
Accep ed: 22 Decembe 2024
DOI: 10.1111/joop.70004
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Lea ning p ocesses as media o s o he
impac o wo kplace coaching in e en ions on
goal a ainmen
Conny H. An oni | Alexand a Ta a
T ie Uni e si y, T ie , Ge many
Co espondence
Conny H. An oni, Wo k and O ganiza ional
Psychology, T ie Uni e si y, T ie 54286,
Ge many.
Email: an oni@uni- ie .de
Abs ac
This s udy con ibu es o esea ch on how wo kplace coach-
ing wo ks by examining lea ning p ocesses as a media ing
mechanism o he impac o p oblem- speci ic in e en ions
on goal a ainmen . This has a ely been in es iga ed. Fi y-
i e coach–coachee dyads wi h 51 coaches and 55 coachees
pa icipa ed in he s udy. Wo kplace coaching las ed se en
o eigh coaching sessions in a e age. Coaches and coa-
chees ga e a ings in each session. We analysed his da a
(NLe el2 = 55, NLe el1 = 335–407) using longi udinal
mul ile el s uc u al equa ion modelling accoun ing o
he nes ed da a s uc u e. As expec ed, coachees' pe cei ed
goal a ainmen inc eased h oughou he coaching p ocess.
The esul s o he s udy also e ealed he media ing ole o
lea ning p ocesses in he impac o p oblem- speci ic in e -
en ions, speci ically cla i ica ion o meaning and mas e y/
coping, and, bu o a lesse ex en , implemen a ion ac ua ion,
on goal a ainmen in coaching. Da a o all hypo hesised
models showed a good o accep able model i . In con as ,
he model i was poo , when we explo ed di e en ial media-
ion e ec s, which suppo ed only single- loop lea ning as a
media o . These esul s unde sco e he impo ance o s imu-
la ing lea ning p ocesses h ough speci ic in e en ions o
imp o e he e ec i eness o wo kplace coaching.
KEYWORDS
cla i ica ion o meaning, coaching e ec i eness, coaching p ocesses,
common ac o s, implemen a ion ac ua ion, mas e y/coping
This is an open access a icle unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion-NonComme cial-NoDe i s License, which pe mi s use
and dis ibu ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal wo k is p ope ly ci ed, he use is non-comme cial and no modi ica ions o adap a ions
a e made.
© 2025 The Au ho (s). Jou nal o Occupa ional and O ganiza ional Psycholog y published by John Wiley & Sons L d on behal o The B i ish
Psychological Socie y.
Conny H. An oni and Alexand a Ta a sha e he i s au ho ship.
2 o 22
|
ANTONI and TATAR
INTRODUCTION
O ganisa ions a e inc easingly elying on coaching as a ool o human esou ce de elopmen (Boze
e al., 2022). Boya zis e al. (2022) asse ha coaching p ac ices ha e ou paced esea ch. Ne e heless,
he numbe and quali y o s udies a es ing o he e icacy o wo kplace coaching ha e inc eased, as
e idenced by ecen me a- analyses. Wo kplace coaching enhances pe sonal and wo k- ela ed ou comes,
including well- being, skill de elopmen , sel - e icacy, job pe o mance and goal a ainmen (De Haan &
Nilsson, 2023; Nicolau e al., 2023; Wang e al., 2022).
Sys ema ic e iews ha e also iden i ied he key inpu s, p ocesses and con ex ual ac o s in luencing
coaching e ec i eness (Ko e & Boze , 2022; Plo kina & S i Ramalu, 2024). The iden i ied inpu ac o s
include he cha ac e is ics o he coach and coachee (such as he coach's educa ional backg ound and
he coachee's mo i a ions). Con ex ual ac o s possibly in luencing coaching e ec i eness include he
p esence o a suppo i e o ganisa ional con ex . P ocess ac o s include he coach–coachee wo king
alliance, iden i ied as a key ac o (G aßmann e al., 2020), as well as he speci ic coaching in e en-
ions employed. Howe e , speci ic coaching in e en ions a e pa icula ly unde - esea ched (Ko e &
Boze , 2022, pp. 978–979).
Coaching is a dynamic lea ning p ocess (E dös & Ramseye , 2021), whe eby he coach acili-
a es he coachee's lea ning capaci y by os e ing a goal- o ien ed sel - egula o y p ocess (G an &
O'Conno , 2022). Un o una ely, mos s udies analysing coaching p ocesses employ be ween- subjec
designs (De Haan & Nilsson, 2023), which a e inadequa e o analysing he complexi y and dynamics o
wi hin- pe son changes and lea ning p ocesses.
Al hough lea ning is c i ical o posi i e coaching ou comes (De Haan e al., 2010), pa icula ly goal
a ainmen (Kizilcec e al., 2017), he ole o lea ning p ocesses in coaching emains la gely unde explo ed.
A ecen longi udinal s udy (Weinbe g & Haus eld, 2024) p oposed ha pe sonal lea ning media es he
le el o coaching eadiness and us in he coach and he e ec i eness o hei wo k. Howe e , he
s udy's be ween- pe son design and simul aneous assessmen o lea ning and wo k e ec i eness es ic
he abili y o con i m media ion p ocesses.
The sequen ial p ocess model o coaching (Zimme mann & An oni, 2018a) p o ides a amewo k o
analysing how wo kplace coaching wo ks. The model sugges s ha p oblem- speci ic coaching in e en-
ions, including cla i ica ion o meaning, mas e y/coping and implemen a ion ac ua ion, acili a e goal a ainmen
by adap ing s a egies and beha iou s. Zimme mann and An oni (2018b) employed he concep o double-
loop lea ning (DLL) as p oposed by A gy is and Schön (1974) o examine he mechanisms h ough which
coaching acili a es goal a ainmen . Thei indings suppo an indi ec e ec o DLL on goal a ainmen ,
P ac i ione poin s
• Coaches can s imula e di e en ypes o sel - egula ion and lea ning p ocesses acco ding
o coachee's needs h ough p oblem- speci ic in e en ions ha acili a e goal a ainmen .
These include suppo ing coachees in adap ing hei ac ion s a egies, e lec ing on and
cla i ying hei p oblems and goals and expe iencing he associa ed emo ions.
• By suppo ing coachees in modi ying hei ac ion plans o be e achie e hei goals, coaches
acili a e hei single- loop lea ning, enhancing goal a ainmen .
• I coaches ealise ha coachees canno a ain hei goals by adap ing hei ac ions and ac ion
plans alone (single- loop lea ning), hey should suppo double- loop lea ning. This means ha
coaches suppo coachees in e lec ing on he assump ions unde lying hei goals and wo k
beha iou as well as he emo ional expe iences connec ed o hese assump ions. Following
his e lec ion, coaches assis hei coachees in de eloping al e na i e ac ion s a egies
aligned wi h hei goals.
|
3 o 22
LEARNING PROCESSES IN WORKPLACE COACHING
whe eby he cla i ica ion o meaning and mas e y/coping ia DLL con ibu es o his ou come. Howe e ,
single- loop lea ning (SLL), he second lea ning cons uc p oposed by A gy is and Schön (1974), has no ye
been in es iga ed. Mo eo e , he esea che s did no ocus on wo kplace coaching, and he sample size
was ela i ely limi ed, comp ising bo h s uden s and employees, which cons ains he gene alisabili y o
hei indings. Fu he s udies, including bo h SLL and DLL, should e i y whe he he epo ed e ec s
a e consis en in wo kplace se ings. This s udy aimed o add ess hese limi a ions.
Fi s , we e alua ed he e icacy o goal- o ien ed wo kplace coaching by analysing how goal a ain-
men p og esses h oughou he coaching p ocess. Second, we build upon he indings o Zimme mann
and An oni (2018b) by in eg a ing bo h SLL and DLL in o he amewo k o lea ning p ocesses. Thi d,
we examined he media ing ole o lea ning p ocesses, encompassing SLL and DLL, on he impac o
p oblem- speci ic in e en ions, including cla i ica ion o meaning, mas e y/coping and implemen a ion ac ua ion,
on goal a ainmen (c . Figu e 1). Fou h, we in es iga ed he dis inc oles o he SLL and DLL as me-
dia o s. Fi h, we add essed he lack o longi udinal me hods in coaching esea ch, as iden i ied by Hinn
e al. (2022), by employing di e en measu es o e ime and accoun ing o nes ed da a s uc u es using
longi udinal s uc u al equa ion modelling.
HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
Wo kplace coaching as a goal- o ien ed lea ning p ocess
Boze and Jones (2018) de ine coaching as a lea ning p ocess ha places he coachee a he cen e o a
lea ning expe ience. This pi o al ole o lea ning is also e lec ed in he de ini ion o wo kplace coach-
ing as ‘a one- on- one lea ning and de elopmen in e en ion ha uses a collabo a i e, e lec i e, and
goal- ocused ela ionship o achie e p o essional ou comes alued by he coachee’ (Jones e al., 2016,
p. 250). Bo h de ini ions emphasise ha wo kplace coaching aims o assis coachees in achie ing hei
goals h ough lea ning. Consequen ly, coaching esea ch has ocused on goals and goal- ela ed ac i i-
ies (Mülle & Ko e, 2020) and has measu ed success by goal achie emen (Theeboom e al., 2014).
Al hough hese de ini ions imply ha lea ning media es he e ec s o coaching in e en ions on goal
a ainmen , li le empi ical esea ch has been conduc ed on coaches' lea ning p ocesses. Be o e analys-
ing hese in de ail, we ocused on he ole o goals in coaching.
Goals a e in e nal ep esen a ions o desi ed ou comes (Aus in & Vancou e , 1996). This is a un-
damen al aspec o all heo ies o sel - egula ion (Si zmann & Ely, 2011). Challenging goals wi h e-
quen eedback on goal p og ess has been demons a ed o enhance mo i a ion (Cla k e al., 2020) and
acili a e sel - egula ed ac ions (Ca e & Scheie , 1998; Hacke , 2003; Wong e al., 2021). Goal se ing
heo y di e en ia es be ween pe o mance and lea ning goals. I p oposes ha o a ain pe o mance
goals, one mus use exis ing skills, whe eas o lea ning goals, one mus de ise no el s a egies o suc-
cess (La ham & Locke, 2007; Locke & La ham, 2002). This app oach os e s enhanced sel - egula ed
lea ning (Si zmann & Ely, 2011) and pe o mance (McLucas e al., 2024).
Resea ch suppo s ha a goal- ocused coach–coachee ela ionship is a s onge p edic o o coaching
success han sa is ac ion wi h a coach–coachee ela ionship o au onomy suppo and p oximi y o an ‘ideal’
FIGURE 1 Concep ual model o ou s udy.
4 o 22
|
ANTONI and TATAR
ela ionship (G an , 2014). Me a- analy ical indings ha e con i med ha goal- o ien ed wo kplace coach-
ing enhances coachees' goal- di ec ed sel - egula ion (Theeboom e al., 2014) and goal a ainmen (Sonesh
e al., 2015; Wang e al., 2022). In addi ion, s onge e ec s a e ound o goal a ainmen han o o he
ou comes, such as job skills and well- being, and he o e all weigh ed e ec (De Haan & Nilsson, 2023).
Wi hin- subjec designs show s onge e ec s han be ween- subjec designs (Theeboom e al., 2014),
sugges ing ha goal- o ien ed wo kplace coaching suppo s changes wi hin coachees o e ime, acili-
a ing goal a ainmen .
Hypo hesis 1. Goal- o ien ed wo kplace coaching suppo s changes in coachees o e
ime, acili a ing goal a ainmen .
Lea ning p ocesses in coaching
O e he pas ew decades, nume ous lea ning heo ies ha e been discussed in coaching li e a u e o
explain how coaching wo ks, such as ans o ma i e lea ning heo ies (Cox, 2015), Bandu a's (1991)
social cogni i e lea ning heo y (Connolly, 2017) o beha iou al, cogni i e and social cons uc i ism
(Hu low, 2022). Fu he mo e, he concep s o DLL and SLL (A gy is & Schön, 1974) ha e been used o
de elop he concep o double- loop leade ship coaching (Wi he spoon, 2014) and o examine sequen ial
coaching p ocesses (Zimme mann & An oni, 2018b).
Single- loop and double- loop lea ning
A gy is and Schön (1974, 1978) p oposed ha indi iduals engage in sel - moni o ing o asce ain he
e icacy o hei ac ions and modi y hei s a egies and beha iou s pe his assessmen . Upon ealising
ha hei ac ions ha e ailed o yield he in ended esul s, indi iduals modi y hei beha iou o a ain
hei goals. Should his beha iou al adjus men p o es e icacious in esol ing he issue and achie ing
he desi ed ou come, A gy is and Schön (1974) designa ed i as SLL, signi ying ha he indi idual has
acqui ed he capaci y o adap hei beha iou o success ully add ess he p oblem. Hummelb unne
and Reynolds (2013) desc ibe SLL as ‘lea ning o adap ’ (p. 1), wi h he undamen al ques ion being
‘A e we doing hings igh ?’ (p. 1). Fu he mo e, hey cha ac e ised SLL as a me hod o add essing
symp oms bu no he unde lying causes. A gy is and Schön (1974) con ended ha indi iduals a e
p ima ily inclined owa ds SLL when add essing ma e s in ol ing o he s and con en ious issues.
In cases whe e mul iple beha iou al adjus men s ail o achie e he desi ed ou come, DLL is e-
qui ed. DLL in ol es indi iduals e lec ing on hei goals, si ua ional condi ions and unde lying as-
sump ions o hei unsuccess ul p oblem- sol ing a emp s o gain insigh in o he undamen al causes o
he p oblem and iden i y a no el and e icacious app oach o p oblem- sol ing (A gy is & Schön, 1978).
DLL p omp s he ques ion, ‘A e we doing he igh hings?’ I is desc ibed as ‘lea ning o change’
(Hummelb unne & Reynolds, 2013, p. 1) o ans o ma i e lea ning o change meaning pe spec i es
(Te blanche, 2020). The e o e, DLL is p ima ily a cogni i e lea ning p ocess in which he unde lying
assump ions o beha iou al pa e ns a e ques ioned and e lec ed upon (Te blanche, 2020). By con as ,
SLL is p ima ily a beha iou al lea ning p ocess ha leads o changes in plans and beha iou s based on
gi en assump ions (Hayes & Allinson, 1998). In his espec , DLL can be desc ibed as ha ing a highe
le el o sel - e lec ion han SLL (G ei , 2008).
Coaching as a cyclical p ocess o sel - egula ion
Simila o SLL and DLL, sel - moni o ing and sel - e lec ion on one's ac ions a e a he co e o he
gene ic model o goal- di ec ed sel - egula ion in coaching. G an and O'Conno (2022) desc ibed
|
5 o 22
LEARNING PROCESSES IN WORKPLACE COACHING
coaching as a cyclical p ocess o sel - egula ion in six s ages: (1) iden i ying he issue; (2) se ing a
goal; (3) de eloping an ac ion plan; (4) ac ing; (5) moni o ing, e alua ing, changing wha is wo king
and doing mo e o wha wo ks and (6) success. I he esul o S age 5 is ha he coachees' ac ions
a e ine ec i e in achie ing hei goals, hey mus change wha is no wo king. This may p omp
coachees o modi y hei ac ions, e e o S age 3 and de elop an al e na i e ac ion plan, e e
o S age 2 and modi y hei goals o e e o S age 1 and analyse he unde lying causes o hei
p oblems be o e p og ession in his dynamic p ocess, which in ol es some o e lap in p ac ice
(G an & O'Conno , 2022).
Changing one's ac ions o ac ion plans wi hou analysing he unde lying causes o he p oblem o
changing one's goals is consis en wi h SLL. Simila ly, analysing he unde lying causes o a p oblem o
changing one's goals is consis en wi h DLL, which in ol es ques ioning one's unde lying assump ions.
The e o e, bo h SLL and DLL can be in eg a ed in o a cyclical model o goal- di ec ed sel - egula ion in
coaching, as bo h desc ibe dynamic sel - egula ion p ocesses wi h eedback loops.
In he ollowing, we a gue why p oblem- speci ic coaching in e en ions s imula e lea ning p o-
cesses, including SLL and DLL.
P oblem- speci ic in e en ions in coaching
The concep o common success ac o s (G awe, 2007), which is empi ically well es ablished in
psycho he apy esea ch (Gómez- Penedo e al., 2023), is also one o he mos in luen ial concep s
applied o coaching esea ch (Beh end & G ei , 2022). The e a e i e common ac o s, which a e
di ided in o wo ca ego ies (G awe, 2007). The i s ca ego y ocuses on ac i a ing esou ces and
he he apis –clien wo king alliance o os e posi i e emo ions and suppo . The second ca ego y
comp ises cla i ica ion o meaning, mas e y/coping, and implemen a ion ac ua ion as p oblem-
speci ic in e en ions. Psycho he apy esea ch has shown ha p oblem- speci ic in e en ions,
pa icula ly cla i ica ion o meaning and mas e y/coping, can di ec ly suppo clien s' lea ning and
change by po en ially s imula ing new neu al connec ions and in luencing he apy ou comes beyond
he he apis –clien wo king alliance, while he ac i a ion o esou ces is assumed o acili a e, bu
no di ec ly in luence, lea ning (Gómez- Penedo e al., 2023; G awe, 2007). The e o e, his s udy
ocused on p oblem- speci ic in e en ions.
Coaches use cla i ica ion o meaning in e en ions o explo e coachees' conce ns and p oblems o
es ablish mu ual unde s anding and ag eemen on speci ic coaching goals. To achie e his, hey encou -
age he coachees o e lec on hei cu en beha iou al pa e ns and goals. The objec i e is o enable
coachees o be e unde s and he mo i a ional ac o s ha unde lie hei beha iou and o iden i y
he implici meanings o hei in e ac ions. Cla i ica ion o meaning p ima ily ocuses on cogni i e
p ocesses, as i en ails e lec i e ques ioning o coachees' beha iou al pa e ns and goals o help hem
cla i y hei implici assump ions, mo i es and goals.
To acili a e beha iou al change and align ac ion s a egies wi h desi ed ou comes, coaches use mas-
e y/coping in e en ions such as p o iding ad ice and ins uc ion. Acco dingly, mas e y/coping in e -
en ions p ima ily ocus on coachee beha iou o help hem a ain hei goals.
Coaches use implemen a ion ac ua ion in e en ions (also e e ed o as p oblem ac ualisa ion) o
acili a e coachees' emo ional engagemen wi h a gi en si ua ion, he eby enhancing hei abili y o
ans e al e na i e beha iou s o hei wo k en i onmen .
Lea ning as a media o be ween p oblem- speci ic in e en ions and goal
a ainmen
As desc ibed abo e, we assume ha p oblem- speci ic in e en ions can s imula e coachees' SLL and
DLL and imp o e hei sel - egula ion p ocesses. As SLL and DLL lead o changes and imp o ed
6 o 22
|
ANTONI and TATAR
goal a ainmen , we assume ha lea ning p ocesses media e he e ec s o p oblem- speci ic coaching
in e en ions on goal a ainmen . Re e ing o he gene ic model o goal- di ec ed sel - egula ion (G an
& O'Conno , 2022), coaches use p oblem- speci ic in e en ions o acili a e he sel - egula ion p ocesses
o hei coachees o moni o , e alua e and adjus goal- di ec ed ac ions (SLL). Fu he , i needed, e lec
on and adap hei issues, goals and espec i e ac ion s a egies (DLL), hus indi ec ly suppo ing goal
achie emen h ough hese lea ning p ocesses. De ini ions o coaching, which concep ualise i as a goal-
o ien ed lea ning p ocess (Boze & Jones, 2018; Mülle & Ko e, 2020), imply a cause–e ec mechanism
in which coaches' in e en ions s imula e hei coachees' lea ning p ocesses, which media e he e ec s
o hei in e en ions on coaching success.
P oblem- speci ic in e en ions o s imula e lea ning p ocesses and acili a e he sel - egula ion
p ocesses o hei coachees o moni o , e alua e and adjus goal- di ec ed ac ions (SLL) and o e lec
on and adap hei issues, goals and espec i e ac ion s a egies (DLL) encompass mas e y/coping,
cla i ica ion o meaning and implemen a ion ac ua ion. The e o e, we p opose he ollowing medi-
a ion hypo hesis:
Hypo hesis 2. Mas e y/coping in e en ions lead o coachees' goal a ainmen h ough
coachees' lea ning p ocesses.
Hypo hesis 3. Cla i ica ion o meaning in e en ions lead o coachees' goal a ainmen
h ough hei lea ning p ocesses.
Hypo hesis 4. Implemen a ion ac ua ion in e en ions lead o he coachees' goal
a ainmen h ough hei lea ning p ocesses.
Explo a o y esea ch ques ions
An in e es ing ques ion is whe he mas e y/coping, cla i ica ion o meaning and implemen a ion
ac ua ion in e en ions s imula e di e en ial lea ning p ocesses. Gi en ha coaches u ilise cla i ica ion
o meaning in e en ions o ques ion coachees' cu en beha iou al pa e ns and goals o help hem
iden i y implici meanings and mo i a ional ac o s ha unde lie hei beha iou , i could be a gued
ha hey a e mo e closely aligned wi h DLL han wi h SLL. This is because DLL desc ibes how
gaining insigh s in o he undamen al causes o p oblems and iden i ying no el and e ec i e p oblem-
sol ing app oaches. In con as , coaches use mas e y/coping in e en ions, such as p o iding ad ice
and guidance, o acili a e he de elopmen o adap a ion o hei coachees' ac ion plans o p oblem-
sol ing. This sugges s mas e y/coping in e en ions may be mo e closely associa ed wi h SLL han wi h
DLL. This is because SLL s a es ha coachees ha e acqui ed he capaci y o adap hei beha iou o
success ully add ess hei p oblems. Coaches employ implemen a ion ac ua ion in e en ions o engage
wi h he emo ional dimensions associa ed wi h hei issues in speci ic si ua ions, iden i ying he p oblem
i sel . I could be posi ed ha his app oach may assis coachees in e lec ing and unde s anding he
mo i a ional dynamics, hus p o iding suppo o DLL.
Howe e , gi en ha G an and O'Conno (2022) a gue ha he p ocess o sel - egula ion is cyclical
and dynamic, wi h o e lapping s ages, SLL and DLL may also be closely linked. Fo example, when
coaches use cla i ica ion o meaning in e en ions and ques ion coachees' goals, hey may examine
he unde lying causes o hei p oblems. Fu he , when hey iden i y new causes, hey may also ob ain
insigh s o al e na i e ac ion plans be e sui ed o sol e hei p oblems. Con e sely, when coaches sug-
ges al e na i e ac ion plans, hey may also ob ain a di e en p oblem pe spec i e and become awa e o
hei beha iou al pa e ns. Indeed, Zimme mann and An oni (2018b) showed ha bo h mas e y/coping
and he cla i ica ion o meaning s imula ed DLL. As i seems di icul o subs an ia e clea p edic ions,
we will explo e he ex en o which mas e y/coping, cla i ica ion o meaning and implemen a ion ac u-
a ion in e en ions s imula e SLL and DLL di e en ially and hus in luence goal a ainmen .
|
7 o 22
LEARNING PROCESSES IN WORKPLACE COACHING
METHODS
To es he media ing hypo heses ega ding he lea ning p ocesses in wo kplace coaching, we ocused on
wi hin- pe son e ec s using a quan i a i e longi udinal mul ile el design. We analysed coach–coachee
dyads in a wo kplace se ing using es ablished and alida ed scales o measu e each model a iable, wi h
a ings p o ided by bo h he coach and coachee a he beginning and end o each session.
Pa icipan s
Fi y- i e coach–coachee dyads, wi h 51 coaches and 55 coachees pa icipa ed in his s udy. The
coachees we e be ween 21 and 62 yea s old (M = 36.89, SD = 10.17); 58.2% we e emale. All coachees
we e employed and came om di e en p o essional backg ounds, namely economics (27.27%), heal h
ca e/social wo k (12.7%), IT (7.27%), psychology (3.63%), pedagogy (3.63%) and o he s (40%). The
coachees wo ked be ween 20 and 60 h a week (M = 40.00, SD = 8.20) and we e highly educa ed, wi h
59.69% holding a bachelo 's deg ee o highe .
The coaches we e be ween 22 and 67 yea s old (M = 38.49, SD = 10.86); 83.60% o he coaches we e
emale, and 14.50% we e male, e lec ing he g ea e in e es o women in coach aining. One coach did
no answe he gende ques ion, and wo did no indica e hei age. Coaches we e na i e Ge man speak-
e s and mainly employed (83.60%); 9.09% we e s uden s, and 5.45% had ano he s a us. 64.71% O he
coaches had a leas a bachelo 's deg ee, 15.69% did no epo hei deg ee. Coaches epo ed di e se
occupa ions, including leade ship/managemen (17.65%), economics (15.69%), psychology (15.69%), e-
sea ch/science (13.73%), human esou ces (13.73%), pedagogy (7.84%), heal h ca e/social wo k (5.88%)
and o he s (9.80%). Only ou had p e iously wo ked as p o essional coaches.
All he coaches pa icipa ed in a coach aining p og am o e ed by a Ge man uni e si y. The p o-
g am aine was an expe ienced coach and supe iso and was no in ol ed in his s udy. Con e sely,
we we e no in ol ed in he en olmen o aining p ocesses.
Coach aining p og am
The aining las ed 150 h and was augh in Ge man. I was aimed a consul an s, human ela ions
p o essionals and manage s and was ad e ised online by he uni e si y. Be o e en olmen , he
pa icipan s and he aine cla i ied hei mu ual expec a ions and i .
Each aining session consis ed o se en 2- day modules wi h a maximum o 10 pa icipan s. The i e
modules ocused on knowledge ans e and p ac ical aining in e en ions o wo k- ela ed issues,
such as con lic esolu ion, employee mo i a ion, s ess managemen and sel - imp o emen , using ole
plays, pee consul a ions, eedback and supe ised p ac ice. T aining aimed o p o ide a comp ehensi e
unde s anding o how common ac o s (G awe, 2007; G ei , 2008) in luence coaching success, ain
coaches o apply p oblem- speci ic in e en ions, ac i a e coaches' esou ces and build a good wo king
alliance. The las wo modules a e used o case- based supe ision. Each coach was equi ed o con-
duc a leas one ull coaching p ocess wi h a coachee supe ised by a p og am aine . Coaches we e
esponsible o ec ui ing hei own coaches and de e mining he e ms o coaching, including paymen
a angemen s. The coaches and coachees we e no allowed o know each o he p io o he coaching
session.
Resea ch p ocedu e and design
Be o e coaching began, coaches we e in o med abou he s udy and p o ided in o med consen o
comple e ques ionnai es h oughou he coaching p ocess, be o e and a e each coaching session, using
8 o 22
|
ANTONI and TATAR
an online po al. These ques ionnai es se ed bo h as ools o mu ual eedback o moni o coaching
p og ess and as a da abase o his s udy. The local e hics commi ee o he uni e si y app o ed his
s udy in compliance wi h he e hical s anda ds (EK N . 80/2018).
Coaching ypically consis ed o se en o eigh sessions (M = 7.44; SD = 2.15; Mdn = 7.5, ange = 3–11),
each las ing app oxima ely 60–90 min, mos ly o e 6 mon hs. The coaching sessions ocused p ima ily
on wo k- ela ed challenges and goals such as ca ee eo ien a ion and leade ship de elopmen . Table 1
illus a es he mul ile el longi udinal s udy design.
Du ing he i s session, he coachee and coach ag eed on he coaching goals and eco ded hem.
Coaches helped hei coachees o cla i y, desc ibe and se goals as speci ically as possible in o de o
moni o p og ess oge he . Coachees we e asked o desc ibe si ua ions e lec ing di e en deg ees
o goal a ainmen , s a ing wi h he cu en s a e (0%) and hen 50% and 100% goal a ainmen .
In addi ion, coachees we e asked o desc ibe a si ua ion illus a ing a 25% de e io a ion om hei
cu en s a e. These di e en deg ees se ed as ancho examples o he goal a ainmen scale, as
explained below. Table 2 shows h ee examples o lea ning objec i es based on coachees' p o essions
and hei objec i es .
TABLE 1 S udy design.
Be o e he i s session
A he beginning o e e y
session (1 + n) A he end o e e y session (1 + n)
Coachee Demog aphics Goal a ainmen Single- loop lea ning
Double- loop lea ning
Coach Demog aphics Mas e y/coping
Cla i ica ion o meaning
Implemen a ion ac ua ion
TABLE 2 Goal se ing examples.
Topics P o ession −25% 0% 50% 100%
Leade ship Managemen I make he
si ua ion so bad
ha he cu en
pu chasing
manage lea es he
company
I am dissa is ied
wi h he dis ibu ion
o asks, especially
in he pu chasing
depa men
I ha e a plan o
whe e I wan o go
wi h my leade ship
and how I wan o
dis ibu e he asks
I wan o ind a way o
dis ibu e he asks in
such a way ha he e
is a balanced wo kload
o my employees and
hus mo i a ion is
inc eased
S ess
managemen
Team leade In di icul and
s ess ul si ua ions,
I ake hings so
much o hea ha
hey weigh hea ily
on me emo ionally
o days
In di icul and
s ess ul si ua ions,
such as con lic
si ua ions, I ake
hings e y much o
hea and ake hem
wi h me in o my
p i a e e e yday li e
I eac app op ia ely
in di icul and
s ess ul si ua ions.
In my p i a e li e,
hese issues ake
up space only o a
sho pe iod o ime
In di icul o s ess ul
si ua ions, I eac
app op ia ely ( ac ually
and objec i ely), keep
o mysel and don'
ake he issues in o my
p i a e li e
Con lic
managemen
Managemen I lose my con ol
and empe wi h
he eam o igno e
he si ua ion,
ensions and
con lic s
I eel uncom o able
in con lic si ua ions
and ensions, I
hesi a e wi h my
ole as a leade and
s uggle wi h a lack
o sel - con idence
and a endency o
emain silen
I'm able o ecognize
ha he e is a
con lic . I'm able o
ake a s ep ou o my
com o zone and
exp ess my iews
and eelings abou
his con lic
I can ecognize and
an icipa e he signs
and ac acco dingly by
us ing mysel . I know
when o engage and
i I do so, I do i in a
cons uc i e way wi h
a posi i e ou come o
all in ol ed
No e: Goal se ing examples we e ansla ed in o English by he au ho s.
|
15 o 22
LEARNING PROCESSES IN WORKPLACE COACHING
wo ks. Goals s imula e sel - egula ion s a egy de elopmen , moni o ing hei implemen a ion and,
whe e necessa y, adjus men s o ensu e goal a ainmen . The DLL ensu es ha he p emises o goals
and ac ions a e e lec ed and changed when needed (A gy is & Schön, 1974). Coaches can acili a e
his p ocess by cla i ica ion o meaning in e en ions such as asking incisi e ques ions ha s imula e
e lec ion and al e na i e pe spec i es (Te blanche, 2020). Coaches can also suppo hei sel - egula ion
by os e ing a wo king alliance and image o sel - pe spec i e- aking, hus indi ec ly con ibu ing o
coaching success (Mühlbe ge e al., 2024). Fu u e esea ch should es bo h coachees' sel - egula ion
compe ency and lea ning as p edic o s o goal a ainmen in coaching.
A body o li e a u e compa es solu ion- and p oblem- ocused coaching (B auns ein & G an , 2016;
G an , 2012). While p oblem- ocused ques ions in coaching ‘in i e casual analysis’, ‘solu ion- ocused
ques ions in i e goal iden i ica ion and he de elopmen o ac ion pa hways’ (G an & O'Conno , 2018,
p. 2). Building on his app oach, we assigned lea ning concep s o wo oci. SLL ocuses on adap ing
beha iou s o each goals and is hus p ima ily a solu ion- ocused beha iou al lea ning p ocess (Hayes
& Allinson, 1998), whe eas DLL aims o e lec on he p emises o one's p oblem- sol ing app oaches
(A gy is & Schön, 1974; Te blanche, 2020), making i mo e p oblem- ocused. P oblem- speci ic in e -
en ions can be classi ied in o wo ca ego ies: solu ions and p oblem ocus. Cla i ica ion o meaning
in e en ions, which explo e cu en beha iou al pa e ns p io o goal se ing, and implemen a ion ac-
ua ion, which aims o e oke eelings ha he coachee migh o he wise a oid, bo h align wi h he ocus
on e lec ion and can hus be classi ied as p oblem- ocused. Con e sely, mas e y/coping and SLL adop
a solu ion- ocused app oach o modi y beha iou s o enhance goal a ainmen .
S udies using s uden samples ha e sugges ed ha bo h p oblem- and solu ion- ocused coaching
ques ions imp o e goal a ainmen . Howe e , solu ion- ocused ques ions lead o a highe goal app oach,
he gene a ion o mo e ac ion s eps, highe sel - e icacy and an inc ease in posi i e a ec while dec eas-
ing nega i e a ec , compa ed o he p oblem- ocused app oach (B auns ein & G an , 2016; G an &
O'Conno , 2018). This may explain ou obse a ion ha SLL and mas e y/coping a e mo e s ongly
associa ed wi h goal a ainmen han he o he in e en ions. Wi h ega d o solu ion- o ien ed in e -
en ions ha suppo implemen ing solu ions in he wo kplace and hus goal a ainmen , G ei (2022)
sugges s ha implemen a ion suppo , such as h ough shadowing o ex messaging, is pa icula ly
e ec i e. As he epo ed on ini ial empi ical suppo , i may be wo hwhile o analyse he di e en ial
e ec o implemen a ion suppo , in addi ion o gene al mas e y/coping ac o s, in u he s udies.
Mühlbe ge e al. (2023) compa ed he e icacy o coaching among indi iduals wi h a dominan
p omo ion o dominan p e en ion ocus. These wo sel - egula o y sys ems a e desc ibed in Higgins'
(1997) egula o y ocus heo y. The au ho s posi ha hese concep s a e compa able o hose o solu-
ion and p oblem ocus. They a gued ha solu ion- ocused coaching, such as p omo ion ocus, ocuses
on solu ions a he han p oblems, whe eas p oblem- ocused coaching in ol es analysing clien s' p ob-
lems, simila o p e en ion ocus. They ound ha a highe p omo ion ocus han a p e en ion ocus
was ela ed o coaching success. They also ound ha coaches can acili a e coachees' goal a ainmen
using p omo ion- o ien ed a he han p e en ion- o ien ed language. I may be p omising o u u e e-
sea ch o analyse whe he using a di e en language by coaches esul s in di e en lea ning app oaches
(SLL/DLL) and, subsequen ly, in a ying deg ees o goal a ainmen .
Wo kplace coaching ypically in ol es a combina ion o p oblem- and solu ion- ocused in e -
en ions. To add ess his issue, G an and Ge a d (2019) compa ed he e ec s o solu ion- ocused
coaching ques ions wi h ques ions ha combined bo h p oblem and solu ion ocuses in an unde -
g adua e sample. Pa icipan s in bo h condi ions we e asked o espond o hese ques ions ega ding
a pe sonal eal- li e p oblem. The esul s showed ha solu ion- ocused ques ions we e mo e e ec i e
a inc easing goal a ainmen , sel - e icacy, posi i e a ec and dec easing nega i e a ec han ques-
ions ha combined p oblem- and solu ion- ocused app oaches. The au ho s' analysis was limi ed
o a single session, wi h no conside a ion o he in e ac ion p ocesses be ween he coach and he
coachee o he e iew and e alua ion o implemen ed ac ion plans. This necessi a es a s udy on
mul iple- session coaching, as was conduc ed in his s udy. Addi ionally, i is easonable o hypo he-
sise ha s uden s a e unlikely o selec complex p oblems o coaching exe cises, as wi h employees
16 o 22
|
ANTONI and TATAR
and manage s. Thus, whe he a p oblem- o solu ion- ocused app oach o wo kplace coaching is
mo e e ec i e emains an open ques ion o u u e esea ch. This migh depend on he se e i y
and complexi y o coaches' p oblems (Theeboom e al., 2014), as well as on cul u al and coaching
con ex s (Boze & Delegach, 2019).
Cyclical models o coaching (G an & O'Conno , 2022) emphasise he dynamic in e play o p oblem
iden i ica ion, goal se ing, ac ion planning, ac ion moni o ing, e alua ion and eedback p ocesses o
change ine ec i e o enhance e ec i e beha iou . This cyclical p ocess implies ha coaching en ails
bo h p oblem- and solu ion- ocused in e en ion. P oblem- ocused in e en ions in ol e cla i ica ion
o meaning o iden i y and cla i y p oblems, whe eas solu ion- ocused in e en ions in ol e mas e y/
coping o se goals and de elop sui able ac ion s a egies o a ain hem. Addi ionally, hese s a egies
allow o lea ning whe he hese ac ion s a egies a e e ec i e o equi e adap a ion (SLL) o i p oblem
causes and goals mus be eanalysed and changed (DLL). This ul ima ely leads o he ini ia ion o a new
ac ion- egula ion cycle.
Hummelb unne and Reynolds (2013) also indica ed ha bo h lea ning ace s a e equi ed o deep
lea ning, beginning wi h SLL and subsequen ly p og essing o DLL. This is in line wi h he hie a chical
and sequen ial s uc u e o cyclical models o coaching and o he models o ac ion egula ion (Ca e &
Scheie , 1998; Hacke , 2003). Once goals ha e been es ablished and ac ion plans ha e been de ined, he
coachee will ac in acco dance wi h hem be o e modi ying he goal o e en e lec ing on he unde ly-
ing assump ions o he issue. We could no es his sequen ial model assump ion because we analysed
bo h lea ning ace s as simul aneous media o s. When we explo ed he di e en ial media ion p ocesses
o SLL and DLL, only SLL media ed he e ec s o p oblem- speci ic in e en ions on goal a ainmen .
Howe e , ou di e en ial media ion models showed a poo model i , which may be a ibu ed o he
common a iance be ween he wo lea ning ace s. SLL and DLL we e highly co ela ed, bo h be ween
and wi hin indi iduals. A p omising a enue o u u e esea ch would be o in es iga e bo h lea ning
aspec s wi h la ge samples and g ea e s a is ical powe o es o e en small e ec s while accoun ing
o sequen ial e ec s.
Addi ionally, he s ages o sel - egula o y cycles ha e been shown o o e lap (G an & O'Conno , 2022).
These dynamic and complex eedback p ocesses in cyclical models may p o ide an addi ional a ionale
o he di icul y o di e en ia ing be ween SLL and DLL in ques ionnai es ollowing a coaching ses-
sion. Fo ins ance, when coaches p omp coachees o e lec on he unde lying causes o hei p oblems,
coachees may apidly ansi ion om iden i ying causes o po en ial solu ions. Consequen ly, eedback
cycles may occu o e se e al coaching sessions, o sho e eedback cycles may occu wi hin a single
session (e.g. when coachees modi y hei goals based on hei e lec ion o si ua ional in luencing ac-
o s). To analyse such sho e wi hin- session eedback cycles, i is necessa y o examine he ac ual in e -
ac ion sequences be ween coaches and coachees (Gessni ze & Kau eld, 2015).
Fu he mo e, an analysis o coaches' and coachees' beha iou would acili a e a mo e comp ehen-
si e examina ion o he in e play and consequences o di e se coaching in e en ions and he lea ning
p ocesses o coachees. The design o he p esen s udy, which includes measu emen poin s a he
conclusion and commencemen o each session, pe mi s analysis o he coaching p ocesses be ween
sessions only. I would be bene icial o u u e s udies o ocus on analysing ac ual in e ac ion sequences
be ween coaches and coachees o gain a deepe unde s anding o he dynamics be ween in e en ions
and SLL and DLL p ocesses.
S eng hs and limi a ions
The s eng h o ou s udy lies in i s longi udinal mul i- le el wi hin- pe son design, which allowed us o
disagg ega e wi hin- and be ween- pe son a iance, acili a ing he analysis o he mechanisms h ough
which coaching exe s i s e ec s. Fu he mo e, we analysed coaching sessions om a sample comp ising
solely employed coachees wi h 100% wo k- ela ed objec i es. Addi ionally, we used mul imodal measu es
ha conside ed bo h coaches' and coachees' pe spec i es. We used a mul i- le el s uc u al equa ion
|
17 o 22
LEARNING PROCESSES IN WORKPLACE COACHING
model (MSEM) and ocused on wi hin- subjec e ec s o d aw conclusions ega ding he coaching
p ocess and beha iou al modi ica ions o each coach–coachee dyad. P oblem- speci ic in e en ions
we e assessed by he coaches who a ed hei lea ning and goal a ainmen . In doing so, we educe he
common me hod bias (Podsako e al., 2012).
The coaches unde wen ex ensi e aining be o e pa icipa ing in he coaching p ocess, also supe -
ised by an expe ienced coach h ough case p esen a ions and p i a e sessions. The coachees we e o
di e en ages, had a ying le els o p o essional expe ience and sough suppo o wo k- ela ed issues.
Thus, ou indings a e likely applicable o many wo kplace coaching scena ios, which enhances ex e nal
alidi y.
Ne e heless, he coaches lacked expe ience, which may ha e in luenced hei coaching ou comes and
ou indings. Howe e , me a- analy ic esea ch sugges s ha coaching expe ise does no signi ican ly
mode a e he ela ionship be ween coaching and goal a ainmen (Sonesh e al., 2015). Fu he mo e,
simila esea ch on psycho he apy has shown ha he apis expe ience does no s ongly impac psy-
cho he apy ou comes (Newman, n.d.; S ein & Lambe , 1984). Fu u e s udies could u he explo e
coaching expe ience, gi en he limi ed numbe o s udies in he me a- analysis by Sonesh e al. (2015).
One migh also ques ion whe he he numbe o coaching sessions analysed in his s udy is ep-
esen a i e o wo kplace coaching. Howe e , he median numbe o coaching sessions in ou s udy
was simila o ha in p e ious me a- analyses (De Haan & Nilsson, 2023; Theeboom e al., 2014).
The e o e, he esul s o ou s udy a e ep esen a i e. Fu he mo e, hese me a- analyses show no
(G aßmann e al., 2020; Nicolau e al., 2023; Theeboom e al., 2014) o nea ly no e ec (De Haan &
Nilsson, 2023) o he numbe o coaching sessions on coaching ou comes. Only Sonesh e al. (2015)
epo ed a mode a ion e ec , wi h he s onges e ec s o 7–9 sessions, and 1–3 sessions ha ing
s onge e ec s han 4–6 sessions.
By choosing MSEM o e mul i- le el modelling, we gained he ad an age o ha ing a es s a is ic o
model i (Ch is e al., 2017). The sample size o MSEM should be a leas 50 Le el 2 uni s o ob ain
us wo hy s anda d e o s o Le el 2- pa ame e es ima es and global model es s (Sagan, 2019). We
me hese s anda ds wi h 55 dyads (Le el 2 uni s). Fu he mo e, he equi ed sample size depends on
he esea che 's speci ic in e es s (Meuleman & Billie , 2009). As we ocused on wi hin- pe son e ec s
powe analyses wi h he pw SEM app, ou N = 335–407 Le el 1- da a uni s p o ide su icien powe
(.91–1.0) o ou s a is ical es s (Wang & Rhem ulla, 2021).
The lack o a con ol g oup is a majo weakness in coaching li e a u e (Hinn e al., 2022). Wi hin he
condi ions o he aining p og am in which he coaches sough ou hei coachees, we could no imple-
men a con ol g oup o wai ing- lis con ol g oup. Howe e , gi en ou in e es in wi hin- pe son e ec s,
a wi hin- pe son design con ols o he in luences o di e ences be ween coachees, hus allowing o
es ing changes o e ime ha would no be possible when elying solely on a adi ional be ween-
pe son design (McCo mick e al., 2020). Ne e heless, combining a wi hin- subjec wi h a be ween-
g oup design, o example, using a wai lis con ol g oup and andomised g oup assignmen , would be
p omising o u u e esea ch.
P ac ical implica ions
The indings indica e ha all h ee p oblem- speci ic in e en ions acili a e goal a ainmen among
coachees by enhancing hei lea ning p ocesses. Mo eo e , he esul s showed ha bo h SLL and
DLL acili a e goal a ainmen . Cyclical models o coaching, such as he model o goal- di ec ed sel -
egula ion (G an & O'Conno , 2022), illus a e how coaches can use mas e y/coping, cla i y meaning
and implemen a ion ac ua ion in e en ions o s imula e SLL and DLL, suppo ing coaches in a aining
hei goals.
Coaches can acili a e hei coachees' SLL h ough mas e y/coping in e en ions, such as o e ing
ad ice on de eloping new ac ion plans. Newly de eloped ac ion plans can be implemen ed h ough ole-
playing exe cises du ing coaching sessions and shadowing in he wo kplace. Role playing may also be
18 o 22
|
ANTONI and TATAR
ega ded as an implemen a ion ac ua ion in e en ion, as i acili a es coachees' emo ional engagemen
wi h a gi en si ua ion and hei beha iou al pa e ns, enhancing hei capaci y o ans e al e na i e be-
ha iou s o hei wo k en i onmen in he in e al be ween sessions (Beh end , 2006). I is essen ial o
e iew and e alua e he implemen ed ac ions o check whe he he solu ions de eloped ha e sol ed he
p oblem o imp o ed he si ua ion a wo k, leading o he coachee's goal a ainmen in he subsequen
session. F equen moni o ing o goal p og ess, such as h ough an online eedback po al, suppo s goal
achie emen (Ha kin e al., 2016).
I he ac ion does no esul in achie ing he desi ed ou come, coaches may assis hei coachees in
modi ying hei beha iou by de eloping al e na i e solu ions and ac ion plans o enhance hei SLL in
he subsequen cycle. Al e na i ely, his may indica e ha SLL has been ine ec i e, and ha DLL is e-
qui ed o e lec he unde lying assump ions o one's beha iou and goals. In pa icula , when coachees'
wo kplace- ela ed p oblems a e deeply oo ed in an o ganisa ional con ex in which in e ac ions a e
based on sha ed alues, p inciples and knowledge s uc u es, DLL may be equi ed o iden i y hese
men al models.
To acili a e DLL, coaches may employ a ious cla i ica ion o meaning echniques, including e-
lec i e ques ioning, ac i e lis ening and egula eedback. I is possible ha du ing DLL, coaches al e
hei coaching goals. I is ecommended ha coaches pe mi changes o goals, as adhe ence o he ini ial
goals, once se , may p o e unp oduc i e o coachees in e ms o goal a ainmen .
The quali a i e s udy by Te blanche (2020) on he ansi ion coaching o manage s shows, in line
wi h he assump ions o DLL (A gy is & Schön, 1974), ha ques ioning and e lec ing on cu en as-
sump ions suppo ansi ion lea ning ha changes meaning pe spec i es. This may lead o indi idual
goal a ainmen and inc eased sel - e icacy (Boze & Jones, 2018) and also s imula e o ganisa ional
lea ning (Ellinge & Ellinge , 2021; Jashapa a, 2003).
CONCLUSION
This s udy con ibu es o he exis ing body o coaching p ocess ou come esea ch by examining he
ole o lea ning p ocesses as media o s o p oblem- speci ic coaching in e en ions, which has ecei ed
limi ed a en ion in p e ious s udies. The indings show ha cla i ica ion o meaning, mas e y/coping
and implemen a ion ac ua ion in e en ions impac goal a ainmen ia he SLL and DLL p ocesses.
We iden i ied and speci ied he mechanisms o coaching in e en ions and empi ically alida ed he
knowledge a ailable o p ac ice and esea ch. These insigh s can help imp o e coaching p ac ices and
e ine and alida e heo e ical knowledge.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Conny H. An oni: Concep ualiza ion; w i ing – o iginal d a ; w i ing – e iew and edi ing; p ojec
adminis a ion; esou ces; supe ision; me hodology. Alexand a Ta a : Me hodology; so wa e; o mal
analysis; alida ion; da a cu a ion; isualiza ion; w i ing – e iew and edi ing; in es iga ion.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We hank Lisa Zimme mann o he assis ance in ou p ojec wi h s udy design, so wa e de elopmen ,
da a collec ion, p elimina y analyses and w i ing o he abs ac o he 2019 small g oup session on
Ad ancing Theo y, Resea ch and P ac ice o Wo kplace Coaching.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The au ho s decla e no con lic o in e es s.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The da a ha suppo he indings o his s udy a e a ailable om he co esponding au ho upon ea-
sonable eques .
|
19 o 22
LEARNING PROCESSES IN WORKPLACE COACHING
ORCID
Conny H. An oni h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0003-0635-825X
REFERENCES
A gy is, C., & Schön, D. (1978). O ganiza ional lea ning: A heo y o ac ion app oach. Addison Wesley.
A gy is, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theo y in p ac ice: Inc easing p o essional e ec i eness. Jossey- Bass.
Aus in, J. T., & Vancou e , J. B. (1996). Goal cons uc s in psychology: S uc u e, p ocess, and con en . Psychological Bulle in,
120(3), 338–375. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ 0033- 2909. 120.3. 338
Bandu a, A. (1991). Social cogni i e heo y o sel - egula ion. O ganisa ional Beha iou and Human Decision P ocesses, 50(2), 248–287.
h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/ 0749- 5978(91) 90022 - L
Beh end , P. (2006). Wi kung und Wi k ak o en on psychod ama ischem coaching—Eine expe imen elle e alua ionss udie.
Zei sch i ü Psychod ama Und Soziome ie, 5(1), 59–87. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/ s1162 0- 006- 0006- 6
Beh end , P., & G ei , S. (2022). Success ac o s in he coaching p ocess. In S. G ei , H. Mölle , W. Scholl, J. Passmo e, & F.
Mülle (Eds.), In e na ional handbook o e idence- based coaching (pp. 877–888). Sp inge In e na ional Publishing. h ps:// doi.
o g/ 10. 1007/ 978- 3- 030- 81938 - 5_ 72
Bliese, P. D., & Ployha , R. E. (2002). G ow h modeling using andom coe icien models: Model building, es ing, and illus-
a ions. O ganisa ional Resea ch Me hods, 5(4), 362–387. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 10944 28022 37116
Boya zis, R. E., Hullinge , A., Ehasz, S. F., Ha ey, J., Tassa o i, S., Gallo i, A., & Pena o , F. (2022). The g and challenge
o esea ch on he u u e o coaching. Jou nal o Applied Beha iou al Science, 58(2), 202–222. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 00218
86322 1079937
Boze , G., & Delegach, M. (2019). B inging con ex o wo kplace coaching: A heo e ical amewo k based on unce ain y
a oidance and egula o y ocus. Human Resou ce De elopmen Re iew, 18(3), 376–402. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 15344 84319
853098
Boze , G., Delegach, M., & Ko e, S. (2022). The in luence o o ganisa ional coaching con ex on p e- coaching mo i a ion and
he ole o egula o y ocus: An expe imen al s udy. Human Resou ce De elopmen Qua e ly, 33(4), 383–403. h ps:// doi. o g/
10. 1002/ h dq. 21462
Boze , G., & Jones, R. J. (2018). Unde s anding he ac o s ha de e mine wo kplace coaching e ec i eness: A sys ema ic
li e a u e e iew. Eu opean Jou nal o Wo k and O ganisa ional Psycholog y, 27(3), 342–361. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/ 13594 32X.
2018. 1446946
B auns ein, K., & G an , A. M. (2016). App oaching solu ions o a oiding p oblems? The di e en ial e ec s o app oach and
a oidance goals wi h solu ion- ocused and p oblem- ocused coaching ques ions. Coaching: An In e na ional Jou nal o Theo y,
Resea ch and P ac ice, 9(2), 93–109. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/ 17521 882. 2016. 1186705
B yk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hie a chical linea models: Applica ions and da a analysis me hods. Sage Publica ions, Inc.
Ca e , C. S., & Scheie , M. F. (1998). On he sel - egula ion o beha io . Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Ch is , O., Hews one, M., Schmid, K., G een, E. G. T., Sa asin, O., Gollwi ze , M., & Wagne , U. (2017). Ad anced mul ile el
modeling o a science o g oups: A sho p ime on mul ile el s uc u al equa ion modeling. G oup Dynamics: Theo y,
Resea ch, and P ac ice, 21(3), 121–134. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ gdn00 00065
Cla k, D., Gill, D., P owse, V., & Rush, M. (2020). Using goals o mo i a e college s uden s: Theo y and e idence om ield
expe imen s. Re iew o Economics and S a is ics, 102(4), 648–663. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1162/ es _a_ 00864
Cohen, J. (1988). S a is ical powe analysis o he beha iou al sciences (2nd ed.). Rou ledge. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 4324/ 97802 03771587
Connolly, G. J. (2017). Applying social cogni i e heo y in coaching a hle es: The powe o posi i e ole models. S a egies, 30(3),
23–29. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/ 08924 562. 2017. 1297750
Cox, E. (2015). Coaching and adul lea ning: Theo y and p ac ice. New Di ec ions o Adul and Con inuing Educa ion, 2015(148),
27–38. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1002/ ace. 20149
De Haan, E., Be ie, C., Day, A., & Sills, C. (2010). Clien 's c i ical momen s o coaching: Towa d a “Clien Model” o execu i e
coaching. Academy o Managemen Lea ning & Educa ion, 9(4), 607–621. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 5465/ amle.9. 4. zq 607
De Haan, E., & Nilsson, V. O. (2023). Wha can we know abou he e ec i eness o coaching? A me a- analysis based only on an-
domized con olled ials. Academy o Managemen Lea ning & Educa ion, 22(4), 641–661. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 5465/ amle. 2022. 0107
Ellinge , A. D., & Ellinge , A. E. (2021). P o iding s a egic leade ship o lea ning: Op imizing manage ial coaching o build
lea ning o ganisa ions. Lea ning O ganisa ion, 28(4), 337–351. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1108/ TLO- 05- 2020- 0070
E dös, T., & Ramseye , F. T. (2021). Change p ocess in coaching: In e play o non e bal synch ony, wo king alliance, sel -
egula ion, and goal a ainmen . F on ie s in Psychology, 12, 580351. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 3389/ psyg. 2021. 580351
Flückige , C., Regli, D., Zwahlen, D., Hos e le , S., & Caspa , F. (2010). De Be ne pa ien en- und he apeu ens undenbogen
2000: Ein ins umen zu E assung on he apiep ozessen. Zei sch i ü Klinische Psychologie und Psycho he apie, 39(2), 71–79.
h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1026/ 1616- 3443/ a000015
Gessni ze , S., & Kau eld, S. (2015). The wo king alliance in coaching: Why beha iou is he key o success. Jou nal o Applied
Beha iou al Science, 51(2), 177–197. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 00218 86315 576407
Gómez- Penedo, J. M., Babl, A., Dy esen, A., Fe nández- Ál a ez, J., Flückige , C., & G osse Hol o h, M. (2023). P oblem mas e y
and mo i a ional cla i ica ion as mechanisms o change in cogni i e- beha io al he apy o dep ession: Seconda y analysis o a
andomized con olled ial. Beha iou Resea ch and The apy, 167, 104343. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/j. b a . 2023. 104343
20 o 22
|
ANTONI and TATAR
G an , A. M. (2012). Making posi i e change: A andomized s udy compa ing solu ion- ocused s. p oblem- ocused coaching
ques ions. Jou nal o Sys emic The apies, 31(2), 21–35. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1521/ jsy . 2012. 31.2. 21
G an , A. M. (2014). The e icacy o execu i e coaching in imes o o ganisa ional change. Jou nal o Change Managemen , 14(2),
258–280. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/ 14697 017. 2013. 805159
G an , A. M., & Ge a d, B. (2019). Compa ing p oblem- ocused, solu ion- ocused and combined p oblem- ocused/Solu ion-
ocused coaching app oach: Solu ion- ocused coaching ques ions mi iga e he nega i e impac o dys unc ional a i-
udes. Coaching: An In e na ional Jou nal o Theo y, Resea ch and P ac ice, 13(1), 61–77. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/ 17521 882.
2019. 1599030
G an , A. M., & O'Conno , S. (2022). Goals in coaching p ac ice. In S. G ei , H. Mölle , W. Scholl, J. Passmo e, & F. Mülle
(Eds.), In e na ional handbook o e idence- based coaching: Theo y, esea ch and p ac ice (pp. 391–406). Sp inge In e na ional
Publishing. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/ 978- 3- 030- 81938 - 5_ 32
G an , A. M., & O'Conno , S. A. (2018). B oadening and building solu ion- ocused coaching: Feeling good is no enough. Coaching:
An In e na ional Jou nal o Theo y, Resea ch and P ac ice, 11(2), 165–185. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/ 17521 882. 2018. 1489868
G aßmann, C., Schölme ich, F., & Sche muly, C. C. (2020). The ela ionship be ween wo king alliance and clien ou comes in
coaching: A me a- analysis. Human Rela ions, 73(1), 35–58. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 00187 26718 819725
G awe, K. (2007). Neu opsycho he apy: How he neu osciences in o m e ec i e psycho he apy. Law ence E lbaum.
G ei , S. (2008). Coaching und e gebniso ien ie e selbs e lexion. Hog e e.
G ei , S. (2022). Mo i a ion, oli ion, and implemen a ion in coaching. In S. G ei , H. Mölle , W. Scholl, J. Passmo e, & F.
Mülle (Eds.), In e na ional handbook o e idence- based coaching: Theo y, esea ch and p ac ice (pp. 649–664). Sp inge In e na ional
Publishing.
Hacke , W. (2003). Ac ion egula ion heo y: A p ac ical ool o he design o mode n wo k p ocesses? Eu opean Jou nal o Wo k
and O ganisa ional Psychology, 12(2), 105–130. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/ 13594 32034 4000075
Ha kin, B., Webb, T. L., Chang, B. P. I., P es wich, A., Conne , M., Kella , I., Benn, Y., & Shee an, P. (2016). Does moni o -
ing goal p og ess p omo e goal a ainmen ? A me a- analysis o he expe imen al e idence. Psychological Bulle in, 142(2),
198–229. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ bul00 00025
Hayes, J., & Allinson, C. W. (1998). Cogni i e s yle and he heo y and p ac ice o indi idual and collec i e lea ning in o gani-
sa ions. Human Rela ions, 51(7), 847–871. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1023/A: 10169 78926688
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasu e and pain. Ame ican Psychologis , 52(12), 1280–1300. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ 0003- 066X.
52. 12. 1280
Hinn, D., Ko e, S., & Mölle , H. (2022). Wa um Be eiligen sich coaches an coaching- Fo schung – und Wa um Eigen lich
Nich ? O ganisa ionsbe a ung, Supe ision, Coaching, 29(3), 347–364. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/ s1161 3- 022- 00772 - 5
Hoope , D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). S uc u al equa ion modelling: Guidelines o de e mining model i . Uni e si y P ess o
Ame ica. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 21427/ D7CF7R
Hummelb unne , R., & Reynolds, M. (2013). Sys ems hinking, lea ning and alues in e alua ion. E alua ion Connec ions: Eu opean
E alua ion Socie y Newsle e , 2013, 9–10.
Hu low, S. (2022). Re isi ing he ela ionship be ween coaching and lea ning: The p oblems and possibili ies. Academy o
Managemen Lea ning & Educa ion, 21(1), 121–138. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 5465/ amle. 2019. 0345
Jashapa a, A. (2003). Cogni ion, cul u e and compe i ion: An empi ical es o he lea ning o ganisa ion. Lea ning O ganisa ion,
10(1), 31–50. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1108/ 09696 47031 0457487
Jones, R. J., Woods, S. A., & Guillaume, Y. R. F. (2016). The e ec i eness o wo kplace coaching: A me a- analysis o lea ning
and pe o mance ou comes om coaching. Jou nal o Occupa ional and O ganisa ional Psychology, 89(2), 249–277. h ps:// doi .
o g/ 10. 1111/ joop. 12119
Ki esuk, T. J., & Lund, S. H. (1979). Goal a ainmen scaling: Resea ch, e alua ion and u iliza ion. P og am E alua ion in Heal h
Fields, 2, 214–237.
Kizilcec, R. F., Pé ez- Sanagus ín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2017). Sel - egula ed lea ning s a egies p edic lea ne beha iou and
goal a ainmen in massi e open online cou ses. Compu e s & Educa ion, 104, 18–33. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/j. compe du.
2016. 10. 001
Ko e, S., & Boze , G. (2022). Wo kplace coaching esea ch: Cha ed and uncha ed e i o ies. In S. G ei , H. Mölle , W. Scholl,
J. Passmo e, & F. Mülle (Eds.), In e na ional handbook o e idence- based coaching (pp. 971–982). Sp inge . h ps:// doi. o g/ 10.
1007/ 978- 3- 030- 81938 - 5_ 80
La ham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2007). New de elopmen s in and di ec ions o goal- se ing esea ch. Eu opean Psychologis , 12(4),
290–300. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1027/ 1016- 9040. 12.4. 290
Locke, E. A., & La ham, G. P. (2002). Building a p ac ically use ul heo y o goal se ing and ask mo i a ion: A 35- yea
Odyssey. Ame ican Psychologis , 57(9), 705–717. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ 0003- 066X. 57.9. 705
McCo mick, B. W., Ree es, C. J., Downes, P. E., Li, N., & Ilies, R. (2020). Scien i ic con ibu ions o wi hin- pe son esea ch
in managemen : Making he juice wo h he squeeze. Jou nal o Managemen , 46(2), 321–350. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 01492
06318 788435
McLucas, A., Wine, B., & Espe icue a Luna, W. A. (2024). A e iew o applied goal se ing s udies in he beha iou analy ic
li e a u e (1990–2022). Jou nal o O ganiza ional Beha iou Managemen , 1–14. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/ 01608 061. 2024.
2338723
|
21 o 22
LEARNING PROCESSES IN WORKPLACE COACHING
Meuleman, B., & Billie , J. (2009). A Mon e Ca lo Sample Size S udy: How many coun ies a e needed o accu a e mul ile el
SEM? Su ey esea ch. Me hods, 3, 45–58. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 18148/ SRM/ 2009. V3I1. 666
Mühlbe ge , C., Böhm, A. M., Hansen, J., Beh end , P., Was ian, M., & Jonas, E. (2023). Coaching as a g ow h- o secu i y-
o ien ed p ocess—How egula o y i inc eases coaching success. PLoS One, 18(10), e0286059. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1371/
jou n al. pone. 0286059
Mühlbe ge , C., Ze le, G., Mölle , J., Dille , S. J., G ei , S., Kinde , N., & Jonas, E. (2024). Zooming in on he sel in wo kplace
coaching: Sel - egula ion and i s connec ion o coaching success. Jou nal o Occupa ional and O ganiza ional Psycholog y, 12543.
h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/ joop. 12543
Mülle , A. A., & Ko e, S. (2020). O SMART, GROW and goals gone Wild—A sys ema ic li e a u e e iew on he ele ance o
goal ac i i ies in wo kplace coaching. In e na ional Coaching Psycholog y Re iew, 15(2), 69–97.
Newman, M. The e ec s o he apis aining and expe ience on he ou comes o psychological he apy wi hin an NHS se ing.
[PhD Thesis]. h ps:// uwe- epos i o y. wo k ibe. com/ ou pu / 909393
Nicolau, A., Candel, O. S., Cons an in, T., & Kleingeld, A. (2023). The e ec s o execu i e coaching on beha iou s, a i-
udes, and pe sonal cha ac e is ics: A me a- analysis o andomized con ol ial s udies. F on ie s in Psychology, 14, 1089797.
h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 3389/ psyg. 2023. 1089797
Ohly, S., Sonnen ag, S., Niessen, C., & Zap , D. (2010). Dia y s udies in o ganisa ional esea ch. Jou nal o Pe sonnel Psycholog y, 9,
79–93. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1027/ 1866- 5888/ a000009
Plo kina, L., & S i Ramalu, S. (2024). De e minan s and ends o execu i e coaching e ec i eness in pos - pandemic e a:
A c i ical sys ema ic li e a u e e iew analysis. Managemen Re iew Qua e ly, 2, 1–39. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/ s1130
1- 024- 00428 - x
Podsako , P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsako , N. P. (2012). Sou ces o me hod bias in social science esea ch and ecom-
menda ions on how o con ol i . Annual Re iew o Psycholog y, 63(1), 539–569. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1146/ annu e - psych - 12071
0- 100452
P eache , K. J., Zhang, Z., & Zyphu , M. J. (2011). Al e na i e me hods o assessing media ion in mul ile el da a: The ad an-
ages o mul ile el SEM. S uc u al Equa ion Modeling: A Mul idisciplina y Jou nal, 18(2), 161–182. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/
10705 511. 2011. 557329
R Co e Team. (2023). R: A language and en i onmen o s a is ical compu ing. h ps:// www. R- p oje c . o g/
Raudenbush, S. W., & B yk, A. S. (2002). Hie a chical linea models: Applica ions and da a analysis me hods (2nd ed.). Sage
Publica ions.
Rosseel, Y. (2012). La aan: An R package o s uc u al equa ion modeling. Jou nal o S a is ical So wa e, 48(2), i02. h ps:// doi .
o g/ 10. 18637/ jss. 048. i02
Sagan, A. (2019). Sample size in mul ile el s uc u al equa ion modeling—The Mon e Ca lo App oach. Econome ics, 23(4), 63–79.
Shanka , S., Ma shall, S. K., & Zumbo, B. D. (2020). A sys ema ic e iew o alida ion p ac ices o he goal a ainmen scaling
measu e. Jou nal o Psychoeduca ional Assessmen , 38(2), 236–255. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 07342 82919 840948
Si zmann, T., & Ely, K. (2011). A me a- analysis o sel - egula ed lea ning in wo k- ela ed aining and educa ional a ainmen :
Wha we know and whe e we need o go. Psychological Bulle in, 137(3), 421–442. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ a0022777
Sonesh, S. C., Coul as, C. W., Lace enza, C. N., Ma low, S. L., Benishek, L. E., & Salas, E. (2015). The powe o coaching: A
me a- analy ic in es iga ion. Coaching: An In e na ional Jou nal o Theo y, Resea ch and P ac ice, 8(2), 73–95. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10.
1080/ 17521 882. 2015. 1071418
S ein, D., & Lambe , M. J. (1984). On he ela ionship be ween he apis expe ience and psycho he apy ou come. Clinical
Psychology Re iew, 4(2), 127–142. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/ 0272- 7358(84) 90025 - 4
Te blanche, N. (2020). Coaching echniques o sus ained indi idual change du ing ca ee ansi ions. Human Resou ce De elopmen
Qua e ly, 32(1), 11–33. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1002/ h dq. 21405
Theeboom, T., Bee sma, B., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2014). Does coaching wo k? A me a- analysis on he e ec s o coaching
on indi idual le el ou comes in an o ganisa ional con ex . Jou nal o Posi i e Psycholog y, 9(1), 1–18. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/
17439 760. 2013. 837499
Wang, Q., Lai, Y. L., Xu, X., & McDowall, A. (2022). The e ec i eness o wo kplace coaching: A me a- analysis o con empo a y
psychologically in o med coaching app oaches. Jou nal o Wo k- Applied Managemen , 14(1), 77–101. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1108/
JWAM- 04- 2021- 0030
Wang, Y. A., & Rhem ulla, M. (2021). Powe analysis o pa ame e es ima ion in s uc u al equa ion modeling: A discussion
and u o ial. Ad ances in Me hods and P ac ices in Psychological Science, 4(1), 253. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 25152 45920 918253
Weinbe g, F. J., & Haus eld, M. M. (2024). The ole o ela ional mechanisms in he execu i e coaching p ocess on clien
ou comes in dis ance coaching ela ionships. Jou nal o Manage ial Psychology, 39, 695–715. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1108/
JMP- 02- 2023- 0073
Wi he spoon, R. (2014). Double- loop coaching o leade ship de elopmen . Jou nal o Applied Beha iou al Science, 50(3), 261–283.
h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 00218 86313 510032
Wong, J., Baa s, M., He, M., De Koning, B. B., & Paas, F. (2021). Facili a ing goal se ing and planning o enhance online sel -
egula ion o lea ning. Compu e s in Human Beha iou , 124, 106913. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2021. 106913
Zimme mann, L., & An oni, C. H. (2018a). De eloping a sequen ial p ocess model o coaching. Zei sch i Fü A bei s- Und
O ganisa ionspsychologie A&O, 62(1), 14–24. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1026/ 0932- 4089/ a000257
22 o 22
|
ANTONI and TATAR
Zimme mann, L. C., & An oni, C. H. (2018b). P oblem- speci ic coaching in e en ions in luence goal a ainmen ia double-
loop lea ning. Zei sch i ü A bei s- Und O ganisa ionspsychologie A&O, 62(4), 188–201. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1026/ 0932- 4089/
a000281
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Addi ional suppo ing in o ma ion can be ound online in he Suppo ing In o ma ion sec ion a he
end o his a icle.
Table S1.
Table S2.
Table S3.
How o ci e his a icle: An oni, C. H., & Ta a , A. (2025). Lea ning p ocesses as media o s o
he impac o wo kplace coaching in e en ions on goal a ainmen . Jou nal o Occupa ional and
O ganiza ional Psychology, 98, e70004. h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/joop.70004
