Learning processes as mediators of the impact of workplace coaching interventions on goal attainment

Antoni, Conny H.; Tatar, Alexandra Article — Published Version Learning processes as mediators of the impact of workplace coaching interventions on goal attainment Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology Provided in Cooperation with: John Wiley & Sons Suggested Citation: Antoni, Conny H.; Tatar, Alexandra (2025) : Learning processes as mediators of the impact of workplace coaching interventions on goal attainment, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, ISSN 2044-8325, Wiley Periodicals, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 98, Iss. 1, https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.70004 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/313704 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ J Occup Organ Psychol. 2025;98:e70004. | 1 of 22 https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.70004 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/joop Received: 13 September 2023 | Accepted: 22 December 2024 DOI: 10.1111/joop.70004 RESEARCH ARTICLE Learning processes as mediators of the impact of workplace coaching interventions on goal attainment Conny H. Antoni | Alexandra Tatar Trier University, Trier, Germany Correspondence Conny H. Antoni, Work and Organizational Psychology, Trier University, Trier 54286, Germany. Email: [email protected] Abstract This study contributes to research on how workplace coaching works by examining learning processes as a mediating mechanism of the impact of problemspecific interventions on goal attainment. This has rarely been investigated. Fiftyfive coach–coachee dyads with 51 coaches and 55 coachees participated in the study. Workplace coaching lasted seven to eight coaching sessions in average. Coaches and coachees gave ratings in each session. We analysed this data (NLevel2 = 55, NLevel1 = 335–407) using longitudinal multilevel structural equation modelling accounting for the nested data structure. As expected, coachees' perceived goal attainment increased throughout the coaching process. The results of the study also revealed the mediating role of learning processes in the impact of problemspecific interventions, specifically clarification of meaning and mastery/ coping, and, but to a lesser extent, implementation actuation, on goal attainment in coaching. Data for all hypothesised models showed a good or acceptable model fit. In contrast, the model fit was poor, when we explored differential mediation effects, which supported only singleloop learning as a mediator. These results underscore the importance of stimulating learning processes through specific interventions to improve the effectiveness of workplace coaching. KEYWORDS clarification of meaning, coaching effectiveness, coaching processes, common factors, implementation actuation, mastery/coping This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. © 2025 The Author(s). Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psycholog y published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The British Psychological Society. Conny H. Antoni and Alexandra Tatar share the first authorship. 2 of 22 | ANTONI and TATAR INTRODUCTION Organisations are increasingly relying on coaching as a tool for human resource development (Bozer et al., 2022). Boyatzis et al. (2022) assert that coaching practices have outpaced research. Nevertheless, the number and quality of studies attesting to the efficacy of workplace coaching have increased, as evidenced by recent metaanalyses. Workplace coaching enhances personal and workrelated outcomes, including wellbeing, skill development, selfefficacy, job performance and goal attainment (De Haan & Nilsson, 2023; Nicolau et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2022). Systematic reviews have also identified the key inputs, processes and contextual factors influencing coaching effectiveness (Kotte & Bozer, 2022; Plotkina & Sri Ramalu, 2024). The identified input factors include the characteristics of the coach and coachee (such as the coach's educational background and the coachee's motivations). Contextual factors possibly influencing coaching effectiveness include the presence of a supportive organisational context. Process factors include the coach–coachee working alliance, identified as a key factor (Graßmann et al., 2020), as well as the specific coaching interventions employed. However, specific coaching interventions are particularly underresearched (Kotte & Bozer, 2022, pp. 978–979). Coaching is a dynamic learning process (Erdös & Ramseyer, 2021), whereby the coach facilitates the coachee's learning capacity by fostering a goaloriented selfregulatory process (Grant & O'Connor, 2022). Unfortunately, most studies analysing coaching processes employ betweensubject designs (De Haan & Nilsson, 2023), which are inadequate for analysing the complexity and dynamics of withinperson changes and learning processes. Although learning is critical for positive coaching outcomes (De Haan et al., 2010), particularly goal attainment (Kizilcec et al., 2017), the role of learning processes in coaching remains largely underexplored. A recent longitudinal study (Weinberg & Hausfeld, 2024) proposed that personal learning mediates the level of coaching readiness and trust in the coach and the effectiveness of their work. However, the study's betweenperson design and simultaneous assessment of learning and work effectiveness restrict the ability to confirm mediation processes. The sequential process model of coaching (Zimmermann & Antoni, 2018a) provides a framework for analysing how workplace coaching works. The model suggests that problemspecific coaching interventions, including clarification of meaning, mastery/coping and implementation actuation, facilitate goal attainment by adapting strategies and behaviours. Zimmermann and Antoni (2018b) employed the concept of doubleloop learning (DLL) as proposed by Argyris and Schön (1974) to examine the mechanisms through which coaching facilitates goal attainment. Their findings support an indirect effect of DLL on goal attainment, Practitioner points • Coaches can stimulate different types of selfregulation and learning processes according to coachee's needs through problemspecific interventions that facilitate goal attainment. These include supporting coachees in adapting their action strategies, reflecting on and clarifying their problems and goals and experiencing the associated emotions. • By supporting coachees in modifying their action plans to better achieve their goals, coaches facilitate their singleloop learning, enhancing goal attainment. • If coaches realise that coachees cannot attain their goals by adapting their actions and action plans alone (singleloop learning), they should support doubleloop learning. This means that coaches support coachees in reflecting on the assumptions underlying their goals and work behaviour as well as the emotional experiences connected to these assumptions. Following this reflection, coaches assist their coachees in developing alternative action strategies aligned with their goals. | 3 of 22 LEARNING PROCESSES IN WORKPLACE COACHING whereby the clarification of meaning and mastery/coping via DLL contributes to this outcome. However, singleloop learning (SLL), the second learning construct proposed by Argyris and Schön (1974), has not yet been investigated. Moreover, the researchers did not focus on workplace coaching, and the sample size was relatively limited, comprising both students and employees, which constrains the generalisability of their findings. Further studies, including both SLL and DLL, should verify whether the reported effects are consistent in workplace settings. This study aimed to address these limitations. First, we evaluated the efficacy of goaloriented workplace coaching by analysing how goal attainment progresses throughout the coaching process. Second, we build upon the findings of Zimmermann and Antoni (2018b) by integrating both SLL and DLL into the framework of learning processes. Third, we examined the mediating role of learning processes, encompassing SLL and DLL, on the impact of problemspecific interventions, including clarification of meaning, mastery/coping and implementation actuation, on goal attainment (cf. Figure 1). Fourth, we investigated the distinct roles of the SLL and DLL as mediators. Fifth, we addressed the lack of longitudinal methods in coaching research, as identified by Hinn et al. (2022), by employing different measures over time and accounting for nested data structures using longitudinal structural equation modelling. HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT Workplace coaching as a goaloriented learning process Bozer and Jones (2018) define coaching as a learning process that places the coachee at the centre of a learning experience. This pivotal role of learning is also reflected in the definition of workplace coaching as ‘a oneonone learning and development intervention that uses a collaborative, reflective, and goalfocused relationship to achieve professional outcomes valued by the coachee’ (Jones et al., 2016, p. 250). Both definitions emphasise that workplace coaching aims to assist coachees in achieving their goals through learning. Consequently, coaching research has focused on goals and goalrelated activities (Müller & Kotte, 2020) and has measured success by goal achievement (Theeboom et al., 2014). Although these definitions imply that learning mediates the effects of coaching interventions on goal attainment, little empirical research has been conducted on coaches' learning processes. Before analysing these in detail, we focused on the role of goals in coaching. Goals are internal representations of desired outcomes (Austin & Vancouver, 1996). This is a fundamental aspect of all theories of selfregulation (Sitzmann & Ely, 2011). Challenging goals with frequent feedback on goal progress has been demonstrated to enhance motivation (Clark et al., 2020) and facilitate selfregulated actions (Carver & Scheier, 1998; Hacker, 2003; Wong et al., 2021). Goal setting theory differentiates between performance and learning goals. It proposes that to attain performance goals, one must use existing skills, whereas for learning goals, one must devise novel strategies for success (Latham & Locke, 2007; Locke & Latham, 2002). This approach fosters enhanced selfregulated learning (Sitzmann & Ely, 2011) and performance (McLucas et al., 2024). Research supports that a goalfocused coach–coachee relationship is a stronger predictor of coaching success than satisfaction with a coach–coachee relationship or autonomy support and proximity to an ‘ideal’ FIGURE 1 Conceptual model of our study. 4 of 22 | ANTONI and TATAR relationship (Grant, 2014). Metaanalytical findings have confirmed that goaloriented workplace coaching enhances coachees' goaldirected selfregulation (Theeboom et al., 2014) and goal attainment (Sonesh et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2022). In addition, stronger effects are found for goal attainment than for other outcomes, such as job skills and wellbeing, and the overall weighted effect (De Haan & Nilsson, 2023). Withinsubject designs show stronger effects than betweensubject designs (Theeboom et al., 2014), suggesting that goaloriented workplace coaching supports changes within coachees over time, facilitating goal attainment. Hypothesis 1. Goaloriented workplace coaching supports changes in coachees over time, facilitating goal attainment. Learning processes in coaching Over the past few decades, numerous learning theories have been discussed in coaching literature to explain how coaching works, such as transformative learning theories (Cox, 2015), Bandura's (1991) social cognitive learning theory (Connolly, 2017) or behavioural, cognitive and social constructivism (Hurlow, 2022). Furthermore, the concepts of DLL and SLL (Argyris & Schön, 1974) have been used to develop the concept of doubleloop leadership coaching (Witherspoon, 2014) and to examine sequential coaching processes (Zimmermann & Antoni, 2018b). Singleloop and doubleloop learning Argyris and Schön (1974, 1978) proposed that individuals engage in selfmonitoring to ascertain the efficacy of their actions and modify their strategies and behaviours per this assessment. Upon realising that their actions have failed to yield the intended results, individuals modify their behaviour to attain their goals. Should this behavioural adjustment proves efficacious in resolving the issue and achieving the desired outcome, Argyris and Schön (1974) designated it as SLL, signifying that the individual has acquired the capacity to adapt their behaviour to successfully address the problem. Hummelbrunner and Reynolds (2013) describe SLL as ‘learning to adapt’ (p. 1), with the fundamental question being ‘Are we doing things right?’ (p. 1). Furthermore, they characterised SLL as a method of addressing symptoms but not the underlying causes. Argyris and Schön (1974) contended that individuals are primarily inclined towards SLL when addressing matters involving others and contentious issues. In cases where multiple behavioural adjustments fail to achieve the desired outcome, DLL is required. DLL involves individuals reflecting on their goals, situational conditions and underlying assumptions of their unsuccessful problemsolving attempts to gain insight into the fundamental causes of the problem and identify a novel and efficacious approach to problemsolving (Argyris & Schön, 1978). DLL prompts the question, ‘Are we doing the right things?’ It is described as ‘learning to change’ (Hummelbrunner & Reynolds, 2013, p. 1) or transformative learning to change meaning perspectives (Terblanche, 2020). Therefore, DLL is primarily a cognitive learning process in which the underlying assumptions of behavioural patterns are questioned and reflected upon (Terblanche, 2020). By contrast, SLL is primarily a behavioural learning process that leads to changes in plans and behaviours based on given assumptions (Hayes & Allinson, 1998). In this respect, DLL can be described as having a higher level of selfreflection than SLL (Greif, 2008). Coaching as a cyclical process of selfregulation Similar to SLL and DLL, selfmonitoring and selfreflection on one's actions are at the core of the generic model of goaldirected selfregulation in coaching. Grant and O'Connor (2022) described | 5 of 22 LEARNING PROCESSES IN WORKPLACE COACHING coaching as a cyclical process of selfregulation in six stages: (1) identifying the issue; (2) setting a goal; (3) developing an action plan; (4) acting; (5) monitoring, evaluating, changing what is working and doing more of what works and (6) success. If the result of Stage 5 is that the coachees' actions are ineffective in achieving their goals, they must change what is not working. This may prompt coachees to modify their actions, revert to Stage 3 and develop an alternative action plan, revert to Stage 2 and modify their goals or revert to Stage 1 and analyse the underlying causes of their problems before progression in this dynamic process, which involves some overlap in practice (Grant & O'Connor, 2022). Changing one's actions or action plans without analysing the underlying causes of the problem or changing one's goals is consistent with SLL. Similarly, analysing the underlying causes of a problem or changing one's goals is consistent with DLL, which involves questioning one's underlying assumptions. Therefore, both SLL and DLL can be integrated into a cyclical model of goaldirected selfregulation in coaching, as both describe dynamic selfregulation processes with feedback loops. In the following, we argue why problemspecific coaching interventions stimulate learning processes, including SLL and DLL. Problemspecific interventions in coaching The concept of common success factors (Grawe, 2007), which is empirically well established in psychotherapy research (GómezPenedo et al., 2023), is also one of the most influential concepts applied to coaching research (Behrendt & Greif, 2022). There are five common factors, which are divided into two categories (Grawe, 2007). The first category focuses on activating resources and the therapist–client working alliance to foster positive emotions and support. The second category comprises clarification of meaning, mastery/coping, and implementation actuation as problemspecific interventions. Psychotherapy research has shown that problemspecific interventions, particularly clarification of meaning and mastery/coping, can directly support clients' learning and change by potentially stimulating new neural connections and influencing therapy outcomes beyond the therapist–client working alliance, while the activation of resources is assumed to facilitate, but not directly influence, learning (GómezPenedo et al., 2023; Grawe, 2007). Therefore, this study focused on problemspecific interventions. Coaches use clarification of meaning interventions to explore coachees' concerns and problems to establish mutual understanding and agreement on specific coaching goals. To achieve this, they encourage the coachees to reflect on their current behavioural patterns and goals. The objective is to enable coachees to better understand the motivational factors that underlie their behaviour and to identify the implicit meanings of their interactions. Clarification of meaning primarily focuses on cognitive processes, as it entails reflective questioning of coachees' behavioural patterns and goals to help them clarify their implicit assumptions, motives and goals. To facilitate behavioural change and align action strategies with desired outcomes, coaches use mastery/coping interventions such as providing advice and instruction. Accordingly, mastery/coping interventions primarily focus on coachee behaviour to help them attain their goals. Coaches use implementation actuation interventions (also referred to as problem actualisation) to facilitate coachees' emotional engagement with a given situation, thereby enhancing their ability to transfer alternative behaviours to their work environment. Learning as a mediator between problemspecific interventions and goal attainment As described above, we assume that problemspecific interventions can stimulate coachees' SLL and DLL and improve their selfregulation processes. As SLL and DLL lead to changes and improved 6 of 22 | ANTONI and TATAR goal attainment, we assume that learning processes mediate the effects of problemspecific coaching interventions on goal attainment. Referring to the generic model of goaldirected selfregulation (Grant & O'Connor, 2022), coaches use problemspecific interventions to facilitate the selfregulation processes of their coachees to monitor, evaluate and adjust goaldirected actions (SLL). Further, if needed, reflect on and adapt their issues, goals and respective action strategies (DLL), thus indirectly supporting goal achievement through these learning processes. Definitions of coaching, which conceptualise it as a goaloriented learning process (Bozer & Jones, 2018; Müller & Kotte, 2020), imply a cause–effect mechanism in which coaches' interventions stimulate their coachees' learning processes, which mediate the effects of their interventions on coaching success. Problemspecific interventions to stimulate learning processes and facilitate the selfregulation processes of their coachees to monitor, evaluate and adjust goaldirected actions (SLL) and to reflect on and adapt their issues, goals and respective action strategies (DLL) encompass mastery/coping, clarification of meaning and implementation actuation. Therefore, we propose the following mediation hypothesis: Hypothesis 2. Mastery/coping interventions lead to coachees' goal attainment through coachees' learning processes. Hypothesis 3. Clarification of meaning interventions lead to coachees' goal attainment through their learning processes. Hypothesis 4. Implementation actuation interventions lead to the coachees' goal attainment through their learning processes. Exploratory research questions An interesting question is whether mastery/coping, clarification of meaning and implementation actuation interventions stimulate differential learning processes. Given that coaches utilise clarification of meaning interventions to question coachees' current behavioural patterns and goals to help them identify implicit meanings and motivational factors that underlie their behaviour, it could be argued that they are more closely aligned with DLL than with SLL. This is because DLL describes how gaining insights into the fundamental causes of problems and identifying novel and effective problemsolving approaches. In contrast, coaches use mastery/coping interventions, such as providing advice and guidance, to facilitate the development or adaptation of their coachees' action plans for problemsolving. This suggests mastery/coping interventions may be more closely associated with SLL than with DLL. This is because SLL states that coachees have acquired the capacity to adapt their behaviour to successfully address their problems. Coaches employ implementation actuation interventions to engage with the emotional dimensions associated with their issues in specific situations, identifying the problem itself. It could be posited that this approach may assist coachees in reflecting and understanding the motivational dynamics, thus providing support for DLL. However, given that Grant and O'Connor (2022) argue that the process of selfregulation is cyclical and dynamic, with overlapping stages, SLL and DLL may also be closely linked. For example, when coaches use clarification of meaning interventions and question coachees' goals, they may examine the underlying causes of their problems. Further, when they identify new causes, they may also obtain insights for alternative action plans better suited to solve their problems. Conversely, when coaches suggest alternative action plans, they may also obtain a different problem perspective and become aware of their behavioural patterns. Indeed, Zimmermann and Antoni (2018b) showed that both mastery/coping and the clarification of meaning stimulated DLL. As it seems difficult to substantiate clear predictions, we will explore the extent to which mastery/coping, clarification of meaning and implementation actuation interventions stimulate SLL and DLL differentially and thus influence goal attainment. | 7 of 22 LEARNING PROCESSES IN WORKPLACE COACHING METHODS To test the mediating hypotheses regarding the learning processes in workplace coaching, we focused on withinperson effects using a quantitative longitudinal multilevel design. We analysed coach–coachee dyads in a workplace setting using established and validated scales to measure each model variable, with ratings provided by both the coach and coachee at the beginning and end of each session. Participants Fiftyfive coach–coachee dyads, with 51 coaches and 55 coachees participated in this study. The coachees were between 21 and 62 years old (M = 36.89, SD = 10.17); 58.2% were female. All coachees were employed and came from different professional backgrounds, namely economics (27.27%), health care/social work (12.7%), IT (7.27%), psychology (3.63%), pedagogy (3.63%) and others (40%). The coachees worked between 20 and 60 h a week (M = 40.00, SD = 8.20) and were highly educated, with 59.69% holding a bachelor's degree or higher. The coaches were between 22 and 67 years old (M = 38.49, SD = 10.86); 83.60% of the coaches were female, and 14.50% were male, reflecting the greater interest of women in coach training. One coach did not answer the gender question, and two did not indicate their age. Coaches were native German speakers and mainly employed (83.60%); 9.09% were students, and 5.45% had another status. 64.71% Of the coaches had at least a bachelor's degree, 15.69% did not report their degree. Coaches reported diverse occupations, including leadership/management (17.65%), economics (15.69%), psychology (15.69%), research/science (13.73%), human resources (13.73%), pedagogy (7.84%), health care/social work (5.88%) and others (9.80%). Only four had previously worked as professional coaches. All the coaches participated in a coach training program offered by a German university. The program trainer was an experienced coach and supervisor and was not involved in this study. Conversely, we were not involved in the enrolment or training processes. Coach training program The training lasted 150 h and was taught in German. It was aimed at consultants, human relations professionals and managers and was advertised online by the university. Before enrolment, the participants and the trainer clarified their mutual expectations and fit. Each training session consisted of seven 2day modules with a maximum of 10 participants. The five modules focused on knowledge transfer and practical training interventions for workrelated issues, such as conflict resolution, employee motivation, stress management and selfimprovement, using role plays, peer consultations, feedback and supervised practice. Training aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of how common factors (Grawe, 2007; Greif, 2008) influence coaching success, train coaches to apply problemspecific interventions, activate coaches' resources and build a good working alliance. The last two modules are used for casebased supervision. Each coach was required to conduct at least one full coaching process with a coachee supervised by a program trainer. Coaches were responsible for recruiting their own coaches and determining the terms of coaching, including payment arrangements. The coaches and coachees were not allowed to know each other prior to the coaching session. Research procedure and design Before coaching began, coaches were informed about the study and provided informed consent to complete questionnaires throughout the coaching process, before and after each coaching session, using 8 of 22 | ANTONI and TATAR an online portal. These questionnaires served both as tools for mutual feedback to monitor coaching progress and as a database for this study. The local ethics committee of the university approved this study in compliance with the ethical standards (EK Nr. 80/2018). Coaching typically consisted of seven to eight sessions (M = 7.44; SD = 2.15; Mdn = 7.5, range = 3–11), each lasting approximately 60–90 min, mostly over 6 months. The coaching sessions focused primarily on workrelated challenges and goals such as career reorientation and leadership development. Table 1 illustrates the multilevel longitudinal study design. During the first session, the coachee and coach agreed on the coaching goals and recorded them. Coaches helped their coachees to clarify, describe and set goals as specifically as possible in order to monitor progress together. Coachees were asked to describe situations reflecting different degrees of goal attainment, starting with the current state (0%) and then 50% and 100% goal attainment. In addition, coachees were asked to describe a situation illustrating a 25% deterioration from their current state. These different degrees served as anchor examples for the goal attainment scale, as explained below. Table 2 shows three examples of learning objectives based on coachees' professions and their objectives . TABLE 1 Study design. Before the first session At the beginning of every session (1 + n) At the end of every session (1 + n) Coachee Demographics Goal attainment Singleloop learning Doubleloop learning Coach Demographics Mastery/coping Clarification of meaning Implementation actuation TABLE 2 Goal setting examples. Topics Profession −25% 0% 50% 100% Leadership Management I make the situation so bad that the current purchasing manager leaves the company I am dissatisfied with the distribution of tasks, especially in the purchasing department I have a plan of where I want to go with my leadership and how I want to distribute the tasks I want to find a way to distribute the tasks in such a way that there is a balanced workload for my employees and thus motivation is increased Stress management Team leader In difficult and stressful situations, I take things so much to heart that they weigh heavily on me emotionally for days In difficult and stressful situations, such as conflict situations, I take things very much to heart and take them with me into my private everyday life I react appropriately in difficult and stressful situations. In my private life, these issues take up space only for a short period of time In difficult or stressful situations, I react appropriately (factually and objectively), keep to myself and don't take the issues into my private life Conflict management Management I lose my control and temper with the team or ignore the situation, tensions and conflicts I feel uncomfortable in conflict situations and tensions, I hesitate with my role as a leader and struggle with a lack of selfconfidence and a tendency to remain silent I'm able to recognize that there is a conflict. I'm able to take a step out of my comfort zone and express my views and feelings about this conflict I can recognize and anticipate the signs and act accordingly by trusting myself. I know when to engage and if I do so, I do it in a constructive way with a positive outcome for all involved Note: Goal setting examples were translated into English by the authors. | 15 of 22 LEARNING PROCESSES IN WORKPLACE COACHING works. Goals stimulate selfregulation strategy development, monitoring their implementation and, where necessary, adjustments to ensure goal attainment. The DLL ensures that the premises of goals and actions are reflected and changed when needed (Argyris & Schön, 1974). Coaches can facilitate this process by clarification of meaning interventions such as asking incisive questions that stimulate reflection and alternative perspectives (Terblanche, 2020). Coaches can also support their selfregulation by fostering a working alliance and image of selfperspectivetaking, thus indirectly contributing to coaching success (Mühlberger et al., 2024). Future research should test both coachees' selfregulation competency and learning as predictors of goal attainment in coaching. A body of literature compares solutionand problemfocused coaching (Braunstein & Grant, 2016; Grant, 2012). While problemfocused questions in coaching ‘invite casual analysis’, ‘solutionfocused questions invite goal identification and the development of action pathways’ (Grant & O'Connor, 2018, p. 2). Building on this approach, we assigned learning concepts to two foci. SLL focuses on adapting behaviours to reach goals and is thus primarily a solutionfocused behavioural learning process (Hayes & Allinson, 1998), whereas DLL aims to reflect on the premises of one's problemsolving approaches (Argyris & Schön, 1974; Terblanche, 2020), making it more problemfocused. Problemspecific interventions can be classified into two categories: solutions and problem focus. Clarification of meaning interventions, which explore current behavioural patterns prior to goal setting, and implementation actuation, which aims to evoke feelings that the coachee might otherwise avoid, both align with the focus on reflection and can thus be classified as problemfocused. Conversely, mastery/coping and SLL adopt a solutionfocused approach to modify behaviours to enhance goal attainment. Studies using student samples have suggested that both problemand solutionfocused coaching questions improve goal attainment. However, solutionfocused questions lead to a higher goal approach, the generation of more action steps, higher selfefficacy and an increase in positive affect while decreasing negative affect, compared to the problemfocused approach (Braunstein & Grant, 2016; Grant & O'Connor, 2018). This may explain our observation that SLL and mastery/coping are more strongly associated with goal attainment than the other interventions. With regard to solutionoriented interventions that support implementing solutions in the workplace and thus goal attainment, Greif (2022) suggests that implementation support, such as through shadowing or text messaging, is particularly effective. As he reported on initial empirical support, it may be worthwhile to analyse the differential effect of implementation support, in addition to general mastery/coping factors, in further studies. Mühlberger et al. (2023) compared the efficacy of coaching among individuals with a dominant promotion or dominant prevention focus. These two selfregulatory systems are described in Higgins' (1997) regulatory focus theory. The authors posit that these concepts are comparable to those of solution and problem focus. They argued that solutionfocused coaching, such as promotion focus, focuses on solutions rather than problems, whereas problemfocused coaching involves analysing clients' problems, similar to prevention focus. They found that a higher promotion focus than a prevention focus was related to coaching success. They also found that coaches can facilitate coachees' goal attainment using promotionoriented rather than preventionoriented language. It may be promising for future research to analyse whether using a different language by coaches results in different learning approaches (SLL/DLL) and, subsequently, in varying degrees of goal attainment. Workplace coaching typically involves a combination of problemand solutionfocused interventions. To address this issue, Grant and Gerrard (2019) compared the effects of solutionfocused coaching questions with questions that combined both problem and solution focuses in an undergraduate sample. Participants in both conditions were asked to respond to these questions regarding a personal reallife problem. The results showed that solutionfocused questions were more effective at increasing goal attainment, selfefficacy, positive affect and decreasing negative affect than questions that combined problemand solutionfocused approaches. The authors' analysis was limited to a single session, with no consideration of the interaction processes between the coach and the coachee or the review and evaluation of implemented action plans. This necessitates a study on multiplesession coaching, as was conducted in this study. Additionally, it is reasonable to hypothesise that students are unlikely to select complex problems for coaching exercises, as with employees 16 of 22 | ANTONI and TATAR and managers. Thus, whether a problemor solutionfocused approach to workplace coaching is more effective remains an open question for future research. This might depend on the severity and complexity of coaches' problems (Theeboom et al., 2014), as well as on cultural and coaching contexts (Bozer & Delegach, 2019). Cyclical models of coaching (Grant & O'Connor, 2022) emphasise the dynamic interplay of problem identification, goal setting, action planning, action monitoring, evaluation and feedback processes to change ineffective or enhance effective behaviour. This cyclical process implies that coaching entails both problemand solutionfocused intervention. Problemfocused interventions involve clarification of meaning to identify and clarify problems, whereas solutionfocused interventions involve mastery/ coping to set goals and develop suitable action strategies to attain them. Additionally, these strategies allow for learning whether these action strategies are effective or require adaptation (SLL) or if problem causes and goals must be reanalysed and changed (DLL). This ultimately leads to the initiation of a new actionregulation cycle. Hummelbrunner and Reynolds (2013) also indicated that both learning facets are required for deep learning, beginning with SLL and subsequently progressing to DLL. This is in line with the hierarchical and sequential structure of cyclical models of coaching and other models of action regulation (Carver & Scheier, 1998; Hacker, 2003). Once goals have been established and action plans have been defined, the coachee will act in accordance with them before modifying the goal or even reflecting on the underlying assumptions of the issue. We could not test this sequential model assumption because we analysed both learning facets as simultaneous mediators. When we explored the differential mediation processes of SLL and DLL, only SLL mediated the effects of problemspecific interventions on goal attainment. However, our differential mediation models showed a poor model fit, which may be attributed to the common variance between the two learning facets. SLL and DLL were highly correlated, both between and within individuals. A promising avenue for future research would be to investigate both learning aspects with larger samples and greater statistical power to test for even small effects while accounting for sequential effects. Additionally, the stages of selfregulatory cycles have been shown to overlap (Grant & O'Connor, 2022). These dynamic and complex feedback processes in cyclical models may provide an additional rationale for the difficulty of differentiating between SLL and DLL in questionnaires following a coaching session. For instance, when coaches prompt coachees to reflect on the underlying causes of their problems, coachees may rapidly transition from identifying causes to potential solutions. Consequently, feedback cycles may occur over several coaching sessions, or shorter feedback cycles may occur within a single session (e.g. when coachees modify their goals based on their reflection of situational influencing factors). To analyse such shorter withinsession feedback cycles, it is necessary to examine the actual interaction sequences between coaches and coachees (Gessnitzer & Kauffeld, 2015). Furthermore, an analysis of coaches' and coachees' behaviour would facilitate a more comprehensive examination of the interplay and consequences of diverse coaching interventions and the learning processes of coachees. The design of the present study, which includes measurement points at the conclusion and commencement of each session, permits analysis of the coaching processes between sessions only. It would be beneficial for future studies to focus on analysing actual interaction sequences between coaches and coachees to gain a deeper understanding of the dynamics between interventions and SLL and DLL processes. Strengths and limitations The strength of our study lies in its longitudinal multilevel withinperson design, which allowed us to disaggregate withinand betweenperson variance, facilitating the analysis of the mechanisms through which coaching exerts its effects. Furthermore, we analysed coaching sessions from a sample comprising solely employed coachees with 100% workrelated objectives. Additionally, we used multimodal measures that considered both coaches' and coachees' perspectives. We used a multilevel structural equation | 17 of 22 LEARNING PROCESSES IN WORKPLACE COACHING model (MSEM) and focused on withinsubject effects to draw conclusions regarding the coaching process and behavioural modifications of each coach–coachee dyad. Problemspecific interventions were assessed by the coaches who rated their learning and goal attainment. In doing so, we reduce the common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012). The coaches underwent extensive training before participating in the coaching process, also supervised by an experienced coach through case presentations and private sessions. The coachees were of different ages, had varying levels of professional experience and sought support for workrelated issues. Thus, our findings are likely applicable to many workplace coaching scenarios, which enhances external validity. Nevertheless, the coaches lacked experience, which may have influenced their coaching outcomes and our findings. However, metaanalytic research suggests that coaching expertise does not significantly moderate the relationship between coaching and goal attainment (Sonesh et al., 2015). Furthermore, similar research on psychotherapy has shown that therapist experience does not strongly impact psychotherapy outcomes (Newman, n.d.; Stein & Lambert, 1984). Future studies could further explore coaching experience, given the limited number of studies in the metaanalysis by Sonesh et al. (2015). One might also question whether the number of coaching sessions analysed in this study is representative of workplace coaching. However, the median number of coaching sessions in our study was similar to that in previous metaanalyses (De Haan & Nilsson, 2023; Theeboom et al., 2014). Therefore, the results of our study are representative. Furthermore, these metaanalyses show no (Graßmann et al., 2020; Nicolau et al., 2023; Theeboom et al., 2014) or nearly no effect (De Haan & Nilsson, 2023) of the number of coaching sessions on coaching outcomes. Only Sonesh et al. (2015) reported a moderation effect, with the strongest effects for 7–9 sessions, and 1–3 sessions having stronger effects than 4–6 sessions. By choosing MSEM over multilevel modelling, we gained the advantage of having a test statistic for model fit (Christ et al., 2017). The sample size for MSEM should be at least 50 Level 2 units to obtain trustworthy standard errors for Level 2parameter estimates and global model tests (Sagan, 2019). We met these standards with 55 dyads (Level 2 units). Furthermore, the required sample size depends on the researcher's specific interests (Meuleman & Billiet, 2009). As we focused on withinperson effects power analyses with the pwrSEM app, our N = 335–407 Level 1data units provide sufficient power (.91–1.0) for our statistical tests (Wang & Rhemtulla, 2021). The lack of a control group is a major weakness in coaching literature (Hinn et al., 2022). Within the conditions of the training program in which the coaches sought out their coachees, we could not implement a control group or waitinglist control group. However, given our interest in withinperson effects, a withinperson design controls for the influences of differences between coachees, thus allowing for testing changes over time that would not be possible when relying solely on a traditional betweenperson design (McCormick et al., 2020). Nevertheless, combining a withinsubject with a betweengroup design, for example, using a waitlist control group and randomised group assignment, would be promising for future research. Practical implications The findings indicate that all three problemspecific interventions facilitate goal attainment among coachees by enhancing their learning processes. Moreover, the results showed that both SLL and DLL facilitate goal attainment. Cyclical models of coaching, such as the model of goaldirected selfregulation (Grant & O'Connor, 2022), illustrate how coaches can use mastery/coping, clarify meaning and implementation actuation interventions to stimulate SLL and DLL, supporting coaches in attaining their goals. Coaches can facilitate their coachees' SLL through mastery/coping interventions, such as offering advice on developing new action plans. Newly developed action plans can be implemented through roleplaying exercises during coaching sessions and shadowing in the workplace. Role playing may also be 18 of 22 | ANTONI and TATAR regarded as an implementation actuation intervention, as it facilitates coachees' emotional engagement with a given situation and their behavioural patterns, enhancing their capacity to transfer alternative behaviours to their work environment in the interval between sessions (Behrendt, 2006). It is essential to review and evaluate the implemented actions to check whether the solutions developed have solved the problem or improved the situation at work, leading to the coachee's goal attainment in the subsequent session. Frequent monitoring of goal progress, such as through an online feedback portal, supports goal achievement (Harkin et al., 2016). If the action does not result in achieving the desired outcome, coaches may assist their coachees in modifying their behaviour by developing alternative solutions and action plans to enhance their SLL in the subsequent cycle. Alternatively, this may indicate that SLL has been ineffective, and that DLL is required to reflect the underlying assumptions of one's behaviour and goals. In particular, when coachees' workplacerelated problems are deeply rooted in an organisational context in which interactions are based on shared values, principles and knowledge structures, DLL may be required to identify these mental models. To facilitate DLL, coaches may employ various clarification of meaning techniques, including reflective questioning, active listening and regular feedback. It is possible that during DLL, coaches alter their coaching goals. It is recommended that coaches permit changes to goals, as adherence to the initial goals, once set, may prove unproductive for coachees in terms of goal attainment. The qualitative study by Terblanche (2020) on the transition coaching of managers shows, in line with the assumptions of DLL (Argyris & Schön, 1974), that questioning and reflecting on current assumptions support transition learning that changes meaning perspectives. This may lead to individual goal attainment and increased selfefficacy (Bozer & Jones, 2018) and also stimulate organisational learning (Ellinger & Ellinger, 2021; Jashapara, 2003). CONCLUSION This study contributes to the existing body of coaching process outcome research by examining the role of learning processes as mediators of problemspecific coaching interventions, which has received limited attention in previous studies. The findings show that clarification of meaning, mastery/coping and implementation actuation interventions impact goal attainment via the SLL and DLL processes. We identified and specified the mechanisms of coaching interventions and empirically validated the knowledge available for practice and research. These insights can help improve coaching practices and refine and validate theoretical knowledge. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Conny H. Antoni: Conceptualization; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing; project administration; resources; supervision; methodology. Alexandra Tatar: Methodology; software; formal analysis; validation; data curation; visualization; writing – review and editing; investigation. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We thank Lisa Zimmermann for her assistance in our project with study design, software development, data collection, preliminary analyses and writing of the abstract for the 2019 small group session on Advancing Theory, Research and Practice of Workplace Coaching. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT The authors declare no conflict of interests. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. | 19 of 22 LEARNING PROCESSES IN WORKPLACE COACHING ORCID Conny H. Antoni https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0635-825X REFERENCES Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action approach. Addison Wesley. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. JosseyBass. Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin, 120(3), 338–375. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00332909. 120.3. 338 Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of selfregulation. Organisational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 07495978(91) 90022 - L Behrendt, P. (2006). Wirkung und Wirkfaktoren von psychodramatischem coaching—Eine experimentelle evaluationsstudie. Zeitschrift für Psychodrama Und Soziometrie, 5(1), 59–87. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1162 000600066 Behrendt, P., & Greif, S. (2022). Success factors in the coaching process. In S. Greif, H. Möller, W. Scholl, J. Passmore, & F. Müller (Eds.), International handbook of evidencebased coaching (pp. 877–888). Springer International Publishing. ht t ps:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978303081938 - 5_ 72 Bliese, P. D., & Ployhart, R. E. (2002). Growth modeling using random coefficient models: Model building, testing, and illustrations. Organisational Research Methods, 5(4), 362–387. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 10944 28022 37116 Boyatzis, R. E., Hullinger, A., Ehasz, S. F., Harvey, J., Tassarotti, S., Gallotti, A., & Penafort, F. (2022). The grand challenge for research on the future of coaching. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 58(2), 202–222. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00218 86322 1079937 Bozer, G., & Delegach, M. (2019). Bringing context to workplace coaching: A theoretical framework based on uncertainty avoidance and regulatory focus. Human Resource Development Review, 18(3), 376–402. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 15344 84319 853098 Bozer, G., Delegach, M., & Kotte, S. (2022). The influence of organisational coaching context on precoaching motivation and the role of regulatory focus: An experimental study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 33(4), 383–403. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ hrdq. 21462 Bozer, G., & Jones, R. J. (2018). Understanding the factors that determine workplace coaching effectiveness: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Work and Organisational Psycholog y, 27(3), 342–361. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13594 32X. 2018. 1446946 Braunstein, K., & Grant, A. M. (2016). Approaching solutions or avoiding problems? The differential effects of approach and avoidance goals with solutionfocused and problemfocused coaching questions. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 9(2), 93–109. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17521 882. 2016. 1186705 Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Sage Publications, Inc. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the selfregulation of behavior. Cambridge University Press. Christ, O., Hewstone, M., Schmid, K., Green, E. G. T., Sarrasin, O., Gollwitzer, M., & Wagner, U. (2017). Advanced multilevel modeling for a science of groups: A short primer on multilevel structural equation modeling. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 21(3), 121–134. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ gdn00 00065 Clark, D., Gill, D., Prowse, V., & Rush, M. (2020). Using goals to motivate college students: Theory and evidence from field experiments. Review of Economics and Statistics, 102(4), 648–663. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1162/ rest_a_ 00864 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. https:// doi. org/ 10. 4324/ 97802 03771587 Connolly, G. J. (2017). Applying social cognitive theory in coaching athletes: The power of positive role models. Strategies, 30(3), 23–29. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 08924 562. 2017. 1297750 Cox, E. (2015). Coaching and adult learning: Theory and practice. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2015(148), 27–38. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ ace. 20149 De Haan, E., Bertie, C., Day, A., & Sills, C. (2010). Client's critical moments of coaching: Toward a “Client Model” of executive coaching. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 9(4), 607–621. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amle.9. 4. zqr607 De Haan, E., & Nilsson, V. O. (2023). What can we know about the effectiveness of coaching? A metaanalysis based only on randomized controlled trials. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 22(4), 641–661. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amle. 2022. 0107 Ellinger, A. D., & Ellinger, A. E. (2021). Providing strategic leadership for learning: Optimizing managerial coaching to build learning organisations. Learning Organisation, 28(4), 337–351. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ TLO0520200070 Erdös, T., & Ramseyer, F. T. (2021). Change process in coaching: Interplay of nonverbal synchrony, working alliance, selfregulation, and goal attainment. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 580351. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2021. 580351 Flückiger, C., Regli, D., Zwahlen, D., Hostettler, S., & Caspar, F. (2010). Der Berner patientenund therapeutenstundenbogen 2000: Ein instrument zur Erfassung von therapieprozessen. Zeitschrift für Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 39(2), 71–79. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1026/ 16163443/ a000015 Gessnitzer, S., & Kauffeld, S. (2015). The working alliance in coaching: Why behaviour is the key to success. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 51(2), 177–197. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00218 86315 576407 GómezPenedo, J. M., Babl, A., Dyresen, A., FernándezÁlvarez, J., Flückiger, C., & Grosse Holtforth, M. (2023). Problem mastery and motivational clarification as mechanisms of change in cognitivebehavioral therapy for depression: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 167, 104343. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. brat. 2023. 104343 20 of 22 | ANTONI and TATAR Grant, A. M. (2012). Making positive change: A randomized study comparing solutionfocused vs. problemfocused coaching questions. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 31(2), 21–35. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1521/ jsyt. 2012. 31.2. 21 Grant, A. M. (2014). The efficacy of executive coaching in times of organisational change. Journal of Change Management, 14(2), 258–280. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 14697 017. 2013. 805159 Grant, A. M., & Gerrard, B. (2019). Comparing problemfocused, solutionfocused and combined problemfocused/Solutionfocused coaching approach: Solutionfocused coaching questions mitigate the negative impact of dysfunctional attitudes. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 13(1), 61–77. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17521 882. 2019. 1599030 Grant, A. M., & O'Connor, S. (2022). Goals in coaching practice. In S. Greif, H. Möller, W. Scholl, J. Passmore, & F. Müller (Eds.), International handbook of evidencebased coaching: Theory, research and practice (pp. 391–406). Springer International Publishing. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978303081938 - 5_ 32 Grant, A. M., & O'Connor, S. A. (2018). Broadening and building solutionfocused coaching: Feeling good is not enough. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 11(2), 165–185. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17521 882. 2018. 1489868 Graßmann, C., Schölmerich, F., & Schermuly, C. C. (2020). The relationship between working alliance and client outcomes in coaching: A metaanalysis. Human Relations, 73(1), 35–58. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00187 26718 819725 Grawe, K. (2007). Neuropsychotherapy: How the neurosciences inform effective psychotherapy. Lawrence Erlbaum. Greif, S. (2008). Coaching und ergebnisorientierte selbstreflexion. Hogrefe. Greif, S. (2022). Motivation, volition, and implementation in coaching. In S. Greif, H. Möller, W. Scholl, J. Passmore, & F. Müller (Eds.), International handbook of evidencebased coaching: Theory, research and practice (pp. 649–664). Springer International Publishing. Hacker, W. (2003). Action regulation theory: A practical tool for the design of modern work processes? European Journal of Work and Organisational Psychology, 12(2), 105–130. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13594 32034 4000075 Harkin, B., Webb, T. L., Chang, B. P. I., Prestwich, A., Conner, M., Kellar, I., Benn, Y., & Sheeran, P. (2016). Does monitoring goal progress promote goal attainment? A metaanalysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 142(2), 198–229. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ bul00 00025 Hayes, J., & Allinson, C. W. (1998). Cognitive style and the theory and practice of individual and collective learning in organisations. Human Relations, 51(7), 847–871. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1023/A: 10169 78926688 Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0003066X. 52. 12. 1280 Hinn, D., Kotte, S., & Möller, H. (2022). Warum Beteiligen sich coaches an coachingForschung – und Warum Eigentlich Nicht? Organisationsberatung, Supervision, Coaching, 29(3), 347–364. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1161 302200772 - 5 Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. University Press of America. https:// doi. org/ 10. 21427/ D7CF7R Hummelbrunner, R., & Reynolds, M. (2013). Systems thinking, learning and values in evaluation. Evaluation Connections: European Evaluation Society Newsletter, 2013, 9–10. Hurlow, S. (2022). Revisiting the relationship between coaching and learning: The problems and possibilities. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 21(1), 121–138. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ amle. 2019. 0345 Jashapara, A. (2003). Cognition, culture and competition: An empirical test of the learning organisation. Learning Organisation, 10(1), 31–50. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ 09696 47031 0457487 Jones, R. J., Woods, S. A., & Guillaume, Y. R. F. (2016). The effectiveness of workplace coaching: A metaanalysis of learning and performance outcomes from coaching. Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, 89(2), 249–277. htt ps:// doi . org/ 10. 1111/ joop. 12119 Kiresuk, T. J., & Lund, S. H. (1979). Goal attainment scaling: Research, evaluation and utilization. Program Evaluation in Health Fields, 2, 214–237. Kizilcec, R. F., PérezSanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2017). Selfregulated learning strategies predict learner behaviour and goal attainment in massive open online courses. Computers & Education, 104, 18–33. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. compe du. 2016. 10. 001 Kotte, S., & Bozer, G. (2022). Workplace coaching research: Charted and uncharted territories. In S. Greif, H. Möller, W. Scholl, J. Passmore, & F. Müller (Eds.), International handbook of evidencebased coaching (pp. 971–982). Springer. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978303081938 - 5_ 80 Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2007). New developments in and directions for goalsetting research. European Psychologist, 12(4), 290–300. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1027/ 10169040. 12.4. 290 Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35year Odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0003066X. 57.9. 705 McCormick, B. W., Reeves, C. J., Downes, P. E., Li, N., & Ilies, R. (2020). Scientific contributions of withinperson research in management: Making the juice worth the squeeze. Journal of Management, 46(2), 321–350. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 01492 06318 788435 McLucas, A., Wine, B., & Espericueta Luna, W. A. (2024). A review of applied goal setting studies in the behaviour analytic literature (1990–2022). Journal of Organizational Behaviour Management, 1–14. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 01608 061. 2024. 2338723 | 21 of 22 LEARNING PROCESSES IN WORKPLACE COACHING Meuleman, B., & Billiet, J. (2009). A Monte Carlo Sample Size Study: How many countries are needed for accurate multilevel SEM? Survey research. Methods, 3, 45–58. https:// doi. org/ 10. 18148/ SRM/ 2009. V3I1. 666 Mühlberger, C., Böhm, A. M., Hansen, J., Behrendt, P., Wastian, M., & Jonas, E. (2023). Coaching as a growthor securityoriented process—How regulatory fit increases coaching success. PLoS One, 18(10), e0286059. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1371/ journ al. pone. 0286059 Mühlberger, C., Zerle, G., Möller, J., Diller, S. J., Greif, S., Kinder, N., & Jonas, E. (2024). Zooming in on the self in workplace coaching: Selfregulation and its connection to coaching success. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psycholog y, 12543. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ joop. 12543 Müller, A. A., & Kotte, S. (2020). Of SMART, GROW and goals gone Wild—A systematic literature review on the relevance of goal activities in workplace coaching. International Coaching Psycholog y Review, 15(2), 69–97. Newman, M. The effects of therapist training and experience on the outcomes of psychological therapy within an NHS setting. [PhD Thesis]. https:// uwerepos itory. workt ribe. com/ output/ 909393 Nicolau, A., Candel, O. S., Constantin, T., & Kleingeld, A. (2023). The effects of executive coaching on behaviours, attitudes, and personal characteristics: A metaanalysis of randomized control trial studies. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1089797. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2023. 1089797 Ohly, S., Sonnentag, S., Niessen, C., & Zapf, D. (2010). Diary studies in organisational research. Journal of Personnel Psycholog y, 9, 79–93. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1027/ 18665888/ a000009 Plotkina, L., & Sri Ramalu, S. (2024). Determinants and trends of executive coaching effectiveness in postpandemic era: A critical systematic literature review analysis. Management Review Quarterly, 2, 1–39. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1130 102400428 - x Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psycholog y, 63(1), 539–569. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1146/ annur evpsych - 12071 0100452 Preacher, K. J., Zhang, Z., & Zyphur, M. J. (2011). Alternative methods for assessing mediation in multilevel data: The advantages of multilevel SEM. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 18(2), 161–182. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 10705 511. 2011. 557329 R Core Team. (2023). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https:// www. Rproje ct. org/ Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Sage Publications. Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), i02. ht t ps:// doi . org/ 10. 18637/ jss. v048. i02 Sagan, A. (2019). Sample size in multilevel structural equation modeling—The Monte Carlo Approach. Econometrics, 23(4), 63–79. Shankar, S., Marshall, S. K., & Zumbo, B. D. (2020). A systematic review of validation practices for the goal attainment scaling measure. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 38(2), 236–255. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 07342 82919 840948 Sitzmann, T., & Ely, K. (2011). A metaanalysis of selfregulated learning in workrelated training and educational attainment: What we know and where we need to go. Psychological Bulletin, 137(3), 421–442. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0022777 Sonesh, S. C., Coultas, C. W., Lacerenza, C. N., Marlow, S. L., Benishek, L. E., & Salas, E. (2015). The power of coaching: A metaanalytic investigation. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 8(2), 73–95. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17521 882. 2015. 1071418 Stein, D., & Lambert, M. J. (1984). On the relationship between therapist experience and psychotherapy outcome. Clinical Psychology Review, 4(2), 127–142. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ 02727358(84) 90025 - 4 Terblanche, N. (2020). Coaching techniques for sustained individual change during career transitions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 32(1), 11–33. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ hrdq. 21405 Theeboom, T., Beersma, B., & Van Vianen, A. E. M. (2014). Does coaching work? A metaanalysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organisational context. Journal of Positive Psycholog y, 9(1), 1–18. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17439 760. 2013. 837499 Wang, Q., Lai, Y. L., Xu, X., & McDowall, A. (2022). The effectiveness of workplace coaching: A metaanalysis of contemporary psychologically informed coaching approaches. Journal of WorkApplied Management, 14(1), 77–101. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JWAM0420210030 Wang, Y. A., & Rhemtulla, M. (2021). Power analysis for parameter estimation in structural equation modeling: A discussion and tutorial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 4(1), 253. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 25152 45920 918253 Weinberg, F. J., & Hausfeld, M. M. (2024). The role of relational mechanisms in the executive coaching process on client outcomes in distance coaching relationships. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 39, 695–715. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JMP0220230073 Witherspoon, R. (2014). Doubleloop coaching for leadership development. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 50(3), 261–283. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00218 86313 510032 Wong, J., Baars, M., He, M., De Koning, B. B., & Paas, F. (2021). Facilitating goal setting and planning to enhance online selfregulation of learning. Computers in Human Behaviour, 124, 106913. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. chb. 2021. 106913 Zimmermann, L., & Antoni, C. H. (2018a). Developing a sequential process model of coaching. Zeitschrift Für ArbeitsUnd Organisationspsychologie A&O, 62(1), 14–24. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1026/ 09324089/ a000257 22 of 22 | ANTONI and TATAR Zimmermann, L. C., & Antoni, C. H. (2018b). Problemspecific coaching interventions influence goal attainment via doubleloop learning. Zeitschrift für ArbeitsUnd Organisationspsychologie A&O, 62(4), 188–201. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1026/ 09324089/ a000281 SUPPORTING INFORMATION Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article. Table S1. Table S2. Table S3. How to cite this article: Antoni, C. H., & Tatar, A. (2025). Learning processes as mediators of the impact of workplace coaching interventions on goal attainment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 98, e70004. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.70004