Zooming in: Identifying fine‐grained verbal dynamics that influence coachees' self‐regulation statements during copreneur coaching sessions

Fingas, S ella M.; Busch, Ch is ine; D eye , Romana; Lehmann‐Willenb ock, Nale
A icle — Published Ve sion
Zooming in: Iden i ying ine‐g ained e bal dynamics ha
in luence coachees' sel ‐ egula ion s a emen s du ing
cop eneu coaching sessions
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: Fingas, S ella M.; Busch, Ch is ine; D eye , Romana; Lehmann‐Willenb ock,
Nale (2025) : Zooming in: Iden i ying ine‐g ained e bal dynamics ha in luence coachees'
sel ‐ egula ion s a emen s du ing cop eneu coaching sessions, Jou nal o Occupa ional and
O ganiza ional Psychology, ISSN 2044-8325, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 98, Iss. 2,
h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/joop.70021
This Ve sion is a ailable a :
h ps://hdl.handle.ne /10419/323876
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/4.0/
J Occup O gan Psychol. 2025;98:e70021.
|
1 o 33
h ps://doi.o g/10.1111/joop.70021
wileyonlinelib a y.com/jou nal/joop
Recei ed: 16 Augus 2023
|
Accep ed: 22 Ma ch 2025
DOI: 10.1111/joop.70021
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Zooming in: Iden i ying ine- g ained e bal
dynamics ha in luence coachees' sel - egula ion
s a emen s du ing cop eneu coaching sessions
S ella M. Fingas | Ch is ine Busch | Romana D eye |
Nale Lehmann- Willenb ock
This is an open access a icle unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion License, which pe mi s use, dis ibu ion and ep oduc ion
in any medium, p o ided he o iginal wo k is p ope ly ci ed.
© 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.
Depa men o Indus ial- and O ganiza ional
Psychology, Uni e si y o Hambu g, Hambu g,
Ge many
Co espondence
S ella M. Fingas, Depa men o Indus ial-
and O ganiza ional Psychology, Uni e si y o
Hambu g, Von- Melle- Pa k 5, 20146 Hambu g,
Ge many.
Email: s ella.me cedes. ingas@uni-hambu g.de
Funding in o ma ion
Ge man Minis e y o Educa ion and Resea ch
Abs ac
Wo kplace coaching can enhance he pe o mance and
well- being o coachees. To iden i y key psychological mech-
anisms ha con ibu e o he e ec i eness and mos p oxi-
mal ou comes o coaching, we adop a beha iou al p ocess
pe spec i e. This s udy in es iga es e bal dynamics in
wo kplace coaching sessions wi h small business owne s
and hei pa ne s, so- called cop eneu s. Using pe sonali y
sys ems in e ac ion heo y, we examine which e bal s a e-
men s and wo king alliance- indica i e s a emen s and pa -
e ns elici goal- o ien ed sel - egula ion s a emen s om
coachees—an in- session indica o o ac i e engagemen
wi h goal achie emen . We included 20 he e osexual co-
p eneu ial couples, wi h one o h ee sessions analysed pe
couple, yielding a o al o 29 ideo aped coaching sessions.
Using lag sequen ial analysis (N = 28,603 beha iou s), we
showed ha wo king alliance e baliza ions did no elici
coachees' sel - egula ion s a emen s. Ins ead, coaches' p o-
ision o suppo and open ques ions elici ed emale coa-
chees' sel - egula ion bu no male coachees' sel - egula ion.
Fu he mo e, we suppo he ac i e coachee no ion by
emphasizing he acili a i e e ec o coachees' e bal en-
gagemen , such as sel - disclosu e and p oblem- ocused
o in o ma i e s a emen s, on sel - egula ion s a emen s.
These indings con ibu e o ou heo e ical unde s anding
o he e bal mechanisms ha de e mine he e ec i eness
o coaching and key ac o s o p ac ice, including gende
di e ences and he impo ance o an ac i e coachee.
2 o 33
|
FINGAS e al.
INTRODUCTION
The inc easing popula i y o wo kplace coaching is based on i s e enue and e icacy in p omo ing
posi i e coachee ou comes (Boze & Jones, 2018; Jones e al., 2016; Sonesh e al., 2015; Theeboom
e al., 2014). Wo kplace coaching is a coach- guided, e lec i e and collabo a i e in e en ion aimed
a eaching sel - cong uen , p o essional goals (Boze & Jones, 2018; Engel & Kuhl, 2022; Ko e
e al., 2021). Howe e , heo y- d i en esea ch on he key psychological mechanisms o ac ual in- session
e bal dynamics ha con ibu e o he e ec i eness o he coaching p ocess emains limi ed (K uge &
Te blanche, 2022; Pandol i, 2020).
We aim o add ess p e ious c i icisms ega ding he lack o es ablished psychological amewo ks
in coaching by using Kuhl's (2000) pe sonali y sys ems in e ac ion (PSI) heo y, ollowing he be-
ha iou al p ocess app oach (e.g., Boya zis e al., 2022; Boze & Jones, 2021; Ko e & Boze , 2022).
Building on PSI heo y and he ex an empi ical li e a u e (e.g., E dös & Ramseye , 2021; Theeboom
e al., 2014; Wang e al., 2021), we posi ion coachees' goal- o ien ed sel - egula ion (SR)1 du ing he
coaching p ocess as a i al, mos p oximal coaching ou come. Applying PSI heo y may con ibu e
o cla i ying he ela ionship be ween in e pe sonal communica ion dynamics and coachees' SR
du ing coaching. The e o e, we ake he i s logical s ep o shed ligh on he black box o sequen ial
e bal dynamics be o e going beyond ha scope (e.g., examining dis al ou comes). Ve bal indica o s
o coachees' SR e e o s a emen s ha signal goal- o ien ed moni o ing, planning o ac ions and
commi ing o change (e.g., making a decision; Cella e al., 2011; Engel & Kuhl, 2022; Gessni ze
e al., 2016). An in es iga ion o SR s a emen s and associa ed e bal dynamics du ing coaching
1Aiming owa ds eadabili y, sel - egula ion always e e s o goal- o ien ed sel - egula ion, sho ened SR, h oughou he manusc ip .
KEYWORDS
cop eneu s, in e ac ion p ocess, sel - egula ion, wo king alliance,
wo kplace coaching
P ac i ione poin s
• Ou s udy emphasizes goal- o ien ed sel - egula ion, as a heo e ically g ounded and mos
p oximal coaching ou come. Coaches should be mo e sensi i e o goal- o ien ed s a emen s
by coachees: exp essions o sel - access (e.g., ‘I am esponsible o his’), in e es in change
(e.g., ‘I am exci ed o do his’), goal- ela ed decision making (e.g., ‘I will ocus on X’) and
implemen a ion in en ions (e.g., ‘I will do Y o achie e Z’).
• Iden i ying and os e ing coachees' goal- o ien ed sel - egula ion s a emen s can help coaches
s eng hen he coachees' implemen a ion in en ions, enhance goal commi men and ack
key u ning poin s o e alua e and adjus he ongoing coaching p og ess.
• Coaching cop eneu s in a couple se ing is challenging; hus, coaches need o pay close a -
en ion o he di e en con e sa ional dynamics wi h each coachee. Suppo om coaches
in he o m o ag eemen and open ques ions elici s sel - egula ion in emale bu no male
coachees. Gi ing male coachees space o alk and jus lis ening o hem was shown o be
e ec i e.
• Coaches should be awa e ha cop eneu ial coachees, ega dless o gende , bene i om e -
balizing hei hough s o acili a e sel - egula ion. Coaches should encou age coachees o
engage in con e sa ion and hink aloud du ing coaching.
|
3 o 33
FINE- GRAINED VERBAL DYNAMICS DURING COPRENEUR
COACHING SESSIONS
seems o be a p omising app oach, as SR is one o he p e equisi es o e ec i e coaching con e sa-
ions (E dös & Ramseye , 2021; Wang e al., 2021) and is essen ial o coachees o ob ain he desi ed
change (G an , 2003; Jones e al., 2016; Theeboom e al., 2014). Hence, we use coachees' SR s a e-
men s as a e bal indica o o in- session coaching success, expanding he li e a u e om a dynamic,
p ocess- o ien ed pe spec i e.
To da e, he coaching esea ch has p edominan ly adop ed a s a ic pe spec i e on he coaching
p ocess by elying on sel - epo su eys o gain insigh s in o he e ospec i e subjec i e pe cep ions
o coachees ega ding success ac o s and coaching ou comes (e.g., G aßmann & Sche muly, 2020).
The ew pionee ing s udies ha ha e examined he ac ual e bal dynamics leading o he mos
p oximal coaching ou comes ha e done so exclusi ely in one- o- one ca ee coaching se ings o
s uden s and young p o essionals (Gessni ze e al., 2016; Gessni ze & Kau eld, 2015; Jo dan &
Kau eld, 2020; Will e al., 2016, 2019). Fu he mo e, we expand his li e a u e by examining iadic
coaching con e sa ions in a wo king sample o cop eneu s, which add esses he sho comings o
s uden samples bu also adi ional one- o- one coaching se ings. Cop eneu s a e business owne s
and hei cowo king oman ic pa ne s, who ep esen he smalles uni o amily businesses; hus,
hey a e impo an con ibu o s o indus y (Ba ne & Ba ne , 1988; an P aag & Ve sloo , 2007).
On he basis o PSI heo y, we de i e heo e ical p edic ions ega ding he links be ween coaches,
coachees and hei espec i e cop eneu ial pa ne s ha may con ibu e o coachees' SR s a emen s
du ing he coaching con e sa ion.
As such, ou s udy makes se e al con ibu ions o his special issue (Ko e e al., 2023) and o ou
unde s anding o he unde lying mechanisms and p ocesses o coaching. Fi s , by le e aging PSI heo y,
we can add ess calls o a heo e ically ounded unde s anding o he coaching p ocess. We heo e ically
deduce p eceding s a emen s and s a emen pa e ns (e.g., wo king alliance) ha in luence subsequen
coachees' SR and explain why hey ela e o each o he . Second, ou beha iou al p ocess app oach,
wi h co esponding analyses o ideo aped coaching sessions, pinpoin s he genuine e bal dynamics
and p ocess mechanisms ha elici coachees' SR. Hence, we go beyond insigh s om s a ic app oaches
and ad ance he li e a u e on wo kplace coaching by ‘zooming in’ on he ac - o- ac e bal dynamics
ha cons i u e he ac ual coaching p ocess wi h a wo king sample. Thi d, by s udying cop eneu ial
coaching, we a e able o ob ain no el insigh s in o coaching p ocesses and highligh gende di e ences
beyond he ypical one- o- one se ing. Finally, ou p ac ical con ibu ion e e s o heo y- and e idence-
based ac ionable s a egies o p ac i ione s who wan o inc ease posi i e coachee ou comes du ing
coaching con e sa ions.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Coaching is a empo al con e sa ional phenomenon, and empi ical esea ch has s a ed examining he
social dynamics du ing coaching sessions ha con ibu e o coaching success ( o an o e iew, see
Calasso e al., 2024; Fleischhacke & G a , 2024; Lehmann- Willenb ock, 2025). Howe e , ou heo e i-
cal unde s anding o he e bal dynamics be ween coaches and hei coachees s ill equi es conside -
able imp o emen (e.g., Fleischhacke & G a , 2023, 2024; Iani o- Dahm & Kau eld, 2022; Klonek
e al., 2024). The e o e, we adop PSI heo y (Kuhl, 2000), which employs a unc ional- analy ic ap-
p oach o examine how a ious cogni i e sys ems in e ac o ul il speci ic psychological unc ions.
Using his concep ual amewo k, we de i e speci ic hypo heses ega ding he e bal dynamics be ween
coaches and hei coachees du ing coaching con e sa ions ha con ibu e o coachees' SR.
PSI heo y and coachees' SR in coaching con e sa ions
PSI heo y explains how coachees may achie e change and each hei o e a ching coaching goal h ough
coaching (Engel & Kuhl, 2022; G ei e al., 2022; Mühlbe ge e al., 2024). The cen al psychological
4 o 33
|
FINGAS e al.
unc ion in PSI heo y is SR, which is accomplished h ough wo in aindi idual p ocesses: sel - g ow h
and ac ion con ol. The i s in aindi idual SR p ocess, sel - g ow h, in ol es e lec ing on and in e-
g a ing challenging expe iences in o he sel (e.g., con on ing ailu e). This p ocess equi es an in e ac-
ion be ween he objec ecogni ion and he ex ension memo y sys em. While he objec ecogni ion
sys em in ol es p oblem iden i ica ion, ex ension memo y e e s o a ne wo k o au obiog aphically
ele an expe iences, including he sel , wi h pe sonal alues, in e nalized oles, esponsibili ies and
emo ions. In line wi h he co e ene s o PSI heo y, coachees can imp o e hei sel - access h ough
sel - elaxa ion, allowing hem o con on challenging expe iences and in eg a e hese expe iences in o
hei sel (e.g., lea ning om mis akes). The second in aindi idual SR p ocess, ac ion con ol, in ol es
planning acco ding o sel - se goals, building implemen a ion in en ions and main aining mo i a ion o
change. This p ocess equi es an in e ac ion be ween he in en ion memo y and he in ui i e beha iou
con ol sys em. The in en ion memo y sys em in ol es de eloping and main aining explici in en ions
and planning beha iou s necessa y o a ain a desi ed goal, whe eas in ui i e beha iou con ol e e s
o habi ual, au oma ic and unconscious beha iou s. Coachees who equen ly p oc as ina e o all back
in o in ui i e habi s ha misalign wi h hei coaching goals can imp o e hei abili y o build imple-
men a ion in en ions. This could be achie ed by os e ing sel - mo i a ion and de eloping us a ion
ole ance when aced wi h obs acles o elapses.
Building on PSI heo y, we sugges ha he ollowing ypes o s a emen s indica e coachees' SR
du ing coaching con e sa ions: (1) s a emen s ha indica e access o he sel , such as exp essing one's
alues, oles and esponsibili ies (e.g., ‘I am esponsible o wo k o ce planning, so I ha e o be…’;
E dös & Ramseye , 2021); (2) s a emen s ha show in e es in change, bo h o sel - g ow h and ac-
ion con ol (e.g., ‘I am exci ed o see how I will do nex week’; Will e al., 2019); (3) decision- making
s a emen s ela ed o he coaching goal (e.g., a e weighing di e en op ions; ‘I hink mos impo an
o my goal app oach is X’; Bagozzi, 1992; Cella e al., 2011); and (4) s a emen s ha demons a e im-
plemen a ion in en ions (e.g., ‘I will do X so ha I ake he s ai s, ins ead o he ele a o ’; Oe ingen &
Reininge , 2016; Smi h & B ummel, 2013).
PSI heo y sugges s ha ex e nal s imuli, such as e bal s a emen s by he coach, can elici o hin-
de sys em in e play wi hin coachees, wi h downs eam consequences o hei sel - g ow h and ac ion
con ol p ocesses, and hence obse able SR s a emen s (Engel & Kuhl, 2022). Conside ing he di e en
speake s h oughou he coaching session, we heo e ically de i e links be ween speci ic s a emen s and
subsequen coachees' SR s a emen s as ollows. See Figu e 1 o an o e iew o he PSI heo y- d i en
concep ual model, which illus a es he obse able e bal dynamics and unde lying p ocesses indica i e
o coachees' SR.
Coach s a emen s ha elici coachees' SR
Following PSI heo y, s a emen s by coaches ha c ea e pleasan , suppo i e and e lec i e con e sa-
ions should acili a e coachees' SR (Baumann e al., 2010). When a coach ag ees wi h a coachee (e.g.,
‘Yes, o su e.’), hey p o ide app o al and suppo , which helps he coachee elax and, in u n, access
he sel , which is essen ial o lea ning om challenging expe iences. Suppo h ough ag eemen by
coaches may ein o ce he coachee's sel - mo i a ion o gene a e sel - cong uen implemen a ion in en-
ions and e lec on hei blind spo s ela ed o unwan ed habi s (ac ion con ol; Engel & Kuhl, 2022).
Mo eo e , open ques ions (e.g., ‘How do you…?’) asked by coaches may encou age coachees o explo e
hei si ua ion, e lec on hei p oblems and in eg a e hem in o he sel . Hence, coachees should be
equipped o engage in sel - g ow h and s ong, sel - cong uen in en ion building and hus ac ion con-
ol. In con as , he asking o closed ques ions (e.g., ‘Is his co ec ?’) by coaches limi s e lec ion and
pa icipa ion by coachees, as hey ocus ins ead on b ie , speci ic in o ma ion ha he coach is in e es ed
in a he han wha he coachee wan s o p oac i ely sha e. Consequen ly, closed ques ions may inhibi
SR p ocesses by p omo ing nei he sel - elaxa ion o access he sel no sel - mo i a ion o enac in en-
ions (Kuhl, 2018).

|
5 o 33
FINE- GRAINED VERBAL DYNAMICS DURING COPRENEUR
COACHING SESSIONS
Empi ical esea ch on dyadic s uden - o- s uden ca ee coaching con e sa ions has iden i ied open
ques ions (e.g., Gessni ze e al., 2016), open solu ion- ocused ques ions (e.g., Jo dan & Kau eld, 2020)
and he p o ision o suppo by coaches as po en ial igge s o SR s a emen s (e.g., Gessni ze &
Kau eld, 2012). Mo eo e , mo i a ional in e iewing (e.g., Klonek e al., 2016; Magill e al., 2018) and
men o ing li e a u e (e.g., S - Jean & Aude , 2013) sugges ha nondi ec i e echniques, such as open
ques ions, elici posi i e ou comes (e.g., lea ning), as opposed o di ec i e closed ques ions. Thus, we hy-
po hesize he ollowing ega ding coach- ini ia ed s a emen s and coachees' subsequen SR s a emen s:
H1a. Coaches' suppo in he o m o ag eemen elici s each coachee's SR.
H1b. Coaches' open ques ions elici each coachee's SR.
H1c. Coaches' closed ques ions inhibi each coachee's SR.
Coachee s a emen s ha elici coachees' SR
Coachees' SR may also be elici ed by hei own p eceding s a emen s using he PSI heo e ical ame-
wo k. When coachees exp ess s a emen s o ag eemen (e.g., ‘Fo su e, yes.’), hey show app o al, which
should enable sel - elaxa ion, acili a ing access o he sel . The coachees' ag eemen as pa o decision-
making may also indica e hei sel - mo i a ion o implemen challenging in en ions (ac ion con ol).
Fu he mo e, coachees' sel - disclosu e s a emen s (e.g., ‘Hones ly, I eel o e whelmed.’) may elici SR.
Sel - disclosu e s a emen s show ha coachees eel com o able enough o sha e pe sonal, possibly
FIGURE 1 Concep ual Model o S udying Ve bal Dynamics Du ing Coaching Con e sa ions. This igu e illus a es
sel - g ow h and ac ion con ol p ocesses h ough obse ed in e pe sonal e bal s a emen s made du ing coaching sessions.
Each ci cle in he igu e ep esen s a dis inc s a emen . Emp y ci cles ep esen any s a emen ype o he ac 4 consul ing
coding scheme used. The abb e ia ions o he example s a emen ypes used a e de ined as ollows: B e e s o bonding
s a emen s, G/T e e s o goal- ela ed o ask- ela ed s a emen s, A e e s o ag eemen s a emen s and SR e e s o sel -
egula ion s a emen s. A con inuous ec angle ha ames wo ci cles ep esen s a pa e n o wo sequen ially s a emen s. A
dashed ec angle ha ames h ee ci cles ep esen s he wo king alliance- speci ic subpa e n o ag eemen abou goals and
asks wi h a ollowing sel - egula ion s a emen .
6 o 33
|
FINGAS e al.
ulne able insigh s abou hei sel , such as hei own emo ions, a i udes and pe sonal expe iences o
success and ailu e, hus signalling hei access o he sel . Finally, coachees' knowledge-managemen
s a emen s ha include in o ma i e s a emen s (e.g., ‘X is de ined as…’) and p oblem- o solu ion-
ocused s a emen s (e.g., ‘Wha hinde s me is…’, ‘The good hing is…’) may also elici SR. These s a e-
men s e lec he abili y o coachees o analyse si ua ions, ecognize po en ial goal disc epancies and
iden i y s a egies o sel - mo i a ion o achie e hei goals (ac ion con ol; Engel & Kuhl, 2022).
Empi ical s udies emphasize he u ili y o coachee engagemen du ing one- o- one coaching con e -
sa ions (e.g., Gessni ze e al., 2016). Sel - disclosu e o inne eelings, belie s o a i udes by coachees
(Vogel & Wes e , 2003) is success- p edic i e acco ding o he he apy (e.g., Kaplan, 2006), counselling
(e.g., Obibuba, 2021; Vogel & Wes e , 2003) and coaching esea ch (e.g., Gessni ze & Kau eld, 2012).
Fu he mo e, coachees' sel - insigh and sel - e lec ion a e key o lea ning and sel - g ow h (e.g.,
I es, 2008; Jones e al., 2016), highligh ing he impo ance o knowledge- managemen s a emen s o
coaching success. On he basis o PSI heo y, we hypo hesize he ollowing ega ding coachee- ini ia ed
s a emen s and he subsequen SR s a emen s by coachees:
H2a. Coachees' suppo in he o m o ag eemen elici s hei own SR.
H2b. Coachees' sel - disclosu e s a emen s elici hei own SR.
H2c. Coachees' knowledge- managemen s a emen s, including in o ma i e s a emen s, p oblem- desc ibing
and solu ion- s a emen s, elici hei own SR.
Mu ual in luence among coachees o elici ing SR s a emen s
This s udy builds on a p e iously e alua ed coaching p og am ailo ed o small business cop eneu s
ha ocused on wo k–li e managemen (Busch e al., 2021, 2022; D eye & Busch, 2022). Fo de ails on
he iadic coaching a ionale and cop eneu ial cha ac e is ics, see Appendix A. Following he iadic
coaching concep ualiza ion, bo h cop eneu ial pa ne s wo k on hei indi idual goals, which e e o
hei wo k–li e in e sec ion, while con inuously ecei ing encou agemen om he coach o ac i ely
collabo a e and suppo each o he (e.g., p o iding ideas o one ano he ). Thus, pa ne s may ac i ely
shape he coaching con e sa ion as cocoaches by o e ing ideas o c i ically enhancing hei pa ne s'
solu ion s a egies. In eg a ing he pa ne as an equal coachee no only aligns wi h he cop eneu ial
con ex bu also inc eases con e sa ional complexi y due o he g ea e in e connec edness o speake s.
An addi ional coachee in oduces mo e communica ion pa hs, adds pe sonal in e es s and goals o he
con e sa ion and inc eases social complexi y (e.g., p ecoaching his o y wi h pa ne s, compa ed wi h no
his o y wi h he coach). Resea ch sugges s ha one pa ne 's ( e bal) beha iou s, such as pe cei ed e-
sponsi eness (e.g., I zchako e al., 2022) o pe cei ed suppo (e.g., Righe i e al., 2010), can in luence
he o he pa ne 's p oximal eac ions. In he e alua ion o he p esen cop eneu coaching p og am,
pe cei ed spousal social suppo h oughou he coaching p edic ed coaching sa is ac ion and goal a -
ainmen 4 mon hs la e (Busch e al., 2021).
Fo ou hypo heses, he unc ional- analy ic PSI app oach p o ided he basis o de i ing a -
gumen s abou e ol ing con e sa ional dynamics ega ding SR wi hin each coaching session.
Howe e , he cop eneu ial coachees in ou s udy sha e a p io his o y, likely ha ing de eloped
pa ne - speci ic in e ac ion dynamics o e he yea s, which he unc ional- analy ical PSI heo y
app oach does no accoun o . In addi ion o he speci ic cop eneu ial coaching se ing, his s udy
is, o ou knowledge, he i s o empi ically examine coachee- o- coachee e bal dynamics du ing
coaching sessions, in con as o a couple- o amily he apy con ex . Gi en hese conside a ions, we
pose an explo a o y esea ch ques ion o explo e mu ual con e sa ional in luence among coachees
and how his migh e oke SR:
|
7 o 33
FINE- GRAINED VERBAL DYNAMICS DURING COPRENEUR
COACHING SESSIONS
RQ1. Which e bal communica ion s a emen s by one coachee elici subsequen SR by he o he coachee?.
A e examining each speake 's pe spec i e on SR elici a ion, we ocus on he p oximal e ec o a
mo e complex, in e pe sonally e ol ing phenomenon: he wo king alliance.
The e bal imp in o he wo king alliance and coachees' SR
The wo king alliance be ween a coachee and an in e en ionis , such as a coach o he apis , is one o
he mos esea ched in e pe sonal phenomena (e.g., Bo din, 1979; G aßmann, 2022). Cu en concep-
ualiza ions o he wo king alliance di e en ia e be ween (1) he c ea ion o a us ing and app ecia i e
bond (bonding) and (2) mu ual ag eemen abou goals, asks and he immedia e nex s eps du ing he
session's p ocedu e (ag eemen abou goals and asks; And usyna e al., 2001; Gessni ze & Kau eld, 2015).
Beha iou ally, bonding may be indica ed by speci ic s a emen s ha es ablish us and show app ecia-
ion (e.g., a complimen ; Gessni ze & Kau eld, 2015). In con as , he sub ace o ag eemen abou
goals and asks may e e o sequen ial s a emen s by wo speake s—a so- called pa e n. A pa e n is in-
dica ed by a p eceding s a emen , such as one speake making a p ocedu al sugges ion o he coaching
session (e.g., ‘I sugges we con inue wi h X.’), which is ollowed by a s a emen o ag eemen by ano he
speake (Gessni ze & Kau eld, 2015; Sche muly e al., 2021).
In line wi h PSI heo y, s a emen s ha es ablish us ul and app ecia i e communica ion (e.g.,
bonding) should p omo e coachees' sel - elaxa ion, enabling be e sel - access and s eng hening o
hei sel - mo i a ion o implemen s ong in en ions. As indica o s o a collabo a i e and p oduc i e
session, he ag eemen abou goals and ask pa e ns should enhance in e es in change, decision- making
and he de elopmen o implemen a ion in en ions. Fu he mo e, hese pa e ns o ag eemen abou
goals and asks align wi h he u he s uc u e o he coaching p ocedu e and collabo a ion, which may
bo h allow sel - elaxa ion and inc ease in o ma ional and emo ional esou ces, which a e impo an o
SR (sel - mo i a ion; Baumeis e & Vohs, 2007).
Resea ch sugges s a posi i e link be ween a pe cei ed s ong coach–coachee ela ionship and
coachee ou comes (e.g., Ba on & Mo in, 2009; G aßmann e al., 2020; Sonesh e al., 2015). In he
e alua ion o he cop eneu ial coaching p og amme, coachees' pe cep ion o a wo king alliance
played he expec ed ole in coaching sa is ac ion bu no in goal a ainmen (Busch e al., 2021).
These indings align wi h esul s om dyadic coaching se ings (de Haan e al., 2020; G an , 2014;
Solms e al., 2024). Using beha iou al wo king alliance assessmen , Gessni ze and Kau eld (2015)
epo ed ha while he equency o hose e baliza ions did no co ela e wi h he global assessmen
o pe cei ed wo king alliance, he coachees' wo king alliance s a emen s co ela ed wi h hei pe -
cei ed goal a ainmen . Resea che s ag ee, howe e , ha he wo king alliance con inuously e ol es
in small s eps h ough an ongoing e bal ( e)nego ia ion o he collabo a ion and eassu ance o
us and accep ance (e.g., O'B oin & Palme , 2006). Hence, s udying he wo king alliance and i s
p oximal e ec s a an acco dingly ine- g ained beha iou al le el should expand ou unde s anding
om a p ocess pe spec i e. Howe e , wo king alliances in he o ganiza ional coaching con ex ha e
been esea ched p ima ily in one- o- one se ings. Thus, we i s ocus on he phenomenon o he
wo king alliance i sel and i s e ec s on SR s a emen s wi hou di e en ia ing be ween all h ee
in e ac an s as speake s (i.e., coach, coachee, and pa ne ). On he basis o PSI heo y and indings
om dyadic con ex s, we hypo hesize ha wo king alliance e baliza ions, ega dless o he speake ,
elici subsequen coachees' SR s a emen s:
H3a. Bonding s a emen s, ega dless o he speake , elici bo h coachees' subsequen SR.
H3b. Ag eemen abou goals and asks pa e ns, ega dless o he in e ac an s, elici bo h coachees'
subsequen SR.
8 o 33
|
FINGAS e al.
The no el iadic coaching se ing in es iga ed in his s udy uniquely o e s o ocus on he e bal
dynamics among coachees, he eby explo ing whe he mu ual wo king alliance pa e ns may also occu
among hem. In his se ing, he wo cop eneu ial coachees a e expec ed o ac i ely collabo a e (e.g.,
p o ide ideas and inspi a ion o one ano he ), which may gi e ise o pa e ns o coachee- o- coachee
wo king alliances. Unlike e bal mani es a ions o coach–coachee wo king alliances, such mani es a-
ions be ween coachees need o be iewed in ligh o hei sha ed p ecoaching his o y, including p io
bonding, es ablished us , sha ed goals and mu ual unde s anding. Gi en his sha ed his o y and asso-
cia ed e bal in e ac ion dynamics (e.g., Jolin e al., 2024), we a e pa icula ly in e es ed in wo king alli-
ance pa e ns among he coachees ha p o ide insigh s in o hei collabo a ion ( a he han indi idual
s a emen s, such as exp essions o bonding).
Empi ical examina ions o couple con e sa ions indica e ha , beyond he po en ially es ablished con-
e sa ional dynamics, spon aneous pa ne s a emen s can indeed in luence he o he pa y's esponses
(e.g., I zchako e al., 2022; Sasaki e al., 2023). This sugges s ha pa e ns o ag eemen abou goals
and asks could eme ge among pa ne s. Howe e , no li e a u e cu en ly add esses couple in e ac ions
in he coaching con ex . The closes analogous se ing seems o be couple he apy, whe e he he apis s
aim o i s es ablish a he apeu ic wo king alliance among he pa ne s ha has he p ima ily aim o
imp o ing he quali y o he couple's ela ionship, which in u n allows hem o collabo a e on asks
and (sha ed) he apy goals (coachee- o- coachee alliance; e.g., Ande son & Johnson, 2010; F iedlande
e al., 2011). Addi ionally, he dual he apis –coachee wo king alliance wi h each pa ne aims o e-
duce pe cei ed pe sonal dis ess, which may poin owa ds di e en oci o wo king alliances be ween
speake s (coach–indi idual coachee; coachee–coachee). Howe e , signi ican di e ences be ween cou-
ple he apy and he cop eneu ial coaching limi he ans e abili y o a gumen s and empi ical esul s.
Fi s , while he goal o couple he apy is o s eng hen he couple sys em, he cop eneu ial coaching a
hand ocuses on achie ing indi idual goals o imp o e wo k–li e balance, which is coo dina ed wi h and
suppo ed by he spouse. Second, he coaches in he cop eneu ial coaching p og amme encou age he
coachees o suppo each o he as cocoaches, which con as s wi h he couple he apy se ing cen ed
on he he apis . The e o e, we explo e wo king alliance pa e ns among pa ne s and ask he ollowing:
RQ2. Do e bal wo king alliance pa e ns o ag eemen abou goals and asks eme ge among coachees?.
Resea ch con ex : Small business cop eneu coaching
The p esen coaching concep adop s Ko e e al. (2021) co e cha ac e is ic o wo kplace coaching,
which is p ocess- o ien ed and ocused on he in e ace be ween indi iduals and hei wo k. Howe e ,
he classic di e en ia ion be ween wo kplace, li e and execu i e coaching is less applicable o he unique
con ex o small business cop eneu s, as hei wo k–li e in e ace is highly in e wined. To maximize
coaching success, i seems essen ial o conside he coachees' con ex s and cha ac e is ics (e.g., Boze
e al., 2022; Ko e e al., 2019; Oyse man e al., 2017). Cop eneu s o en adhe e o adi ional gende
oles, especially in he Ge man c a indus y, whe e coaching was implemen ed (Busch e al., 2022;
D eye & Busch, 2022; Ma schack, 1994). In mos businesses, he man is he o icial owne , and e en
when he woman is a co- owne o sole owne , leade ship oles a e mo e equen ly a ibu ed o men
(Ju ik e al., 2019). Despi e po en ial p og ess owa ds gende equali y in cop eneu ship (Jennings
e al., 2013), adi ional gende oles pe sis . These oles con inue o di ide wo k ac oss li e domains
(Heilman, 2012; Ki k, 2019; Ma shack, 1994), whe e women a e mo e likely o manage household and
childca e du ies (Fi zge ald & Muske, 2002; Ju ik e al., 2019).
Gi en he p onounced gende ed di ision o asks and oles among cop eneu s in Ge many, i is likely
ha men and women communica e di e en ly in iadic coaching sessions and may equi e ailo ed inpu
om he coach (e.g., E dös e al., 2021; Ridgeway, 2011). In e ms o he unc ional- analy ical PSI app oach,
gende di e ences in communica ion can be a ibu ed o unconscious gende - speci ic p e e ences in he
p edominan use o cogni i e sys ems and hei in eg a ion o SR. Compa ed wi h male coachees, emale
|
15 o 33
FINE- GRAINED VERBAL DYNAMICS DURING COPRENEUR
COACHING SESSIONS
RQ1: Explo a ion o pa ne s' s a emen s and he subsequen SR by he o he
coachee
Knowledge- managemen s a emen s made by emale coachees signi ican ly inhibi ed he subse-
quen o he coachees' SR (z = −4 .0 9, p < .05). Wi h espec o he e ec o male coachees' knowledge-
managemen s a emen s on he SR s a emen s o hei pa ne s, he OR di e ged om he z alue,
indica ing ha he z alue o his speci ic analysis was in la ed (see Table 5) and ha male coachees'
s a emen s did no ela e o hei pa ne s' SR. Fu he mo e, nei he o he pa ne s' p ocedu al s a e-
men s ela ed signi ican ly o he espec i e subsequen SR o he o he coachee. Addi ionally, ega d-
ing he social ac 4 consul ing sub ace , bo h pa ne s' suppo in he o m o ag eemen signi ican ly
inhibi ed he espec i e o he coachees' SR. The o he social- ela ed s a emen s made by bo h coachees,
including socio- esponsi e, sel - disclosu e- and socio- emo ional s a emen s, did no ela e o he sub-
sequen SR o he espec i e pa ne . Hence, he esul s o RQ1 indica e ha he pa ne s' s a emen s
we e ei he no ela ed o he SR s a emen s o he o he coachee o had an inhibi o y e ec . The esul s
o male pa ne s on he emale coachee a e displayed in Table 5 and ice e sa in Table 6.
TABLE 5 Resul s o lag sequen ial analysis o SR s a emen s by emale coachees in esponse o s a emen s by male
coachees (RQ1).
Sub ace Male coachees' s a emen s
z alues o subsequen emale
coachees' SR s a emen s OR
Knowledge- managemen
s a emen s
Knowledge- managemen s a emen s −2.03 1.99
P ocedu al s a emen s P ocedu al s a emen s −0.87 N/A
Social s a emen s Suppo in he o m o ag eemen
s a emen s
−2.48 0.99
Socio- esponsi e s a emen s −1.32 N/A
Sel - disclosu e s a emen s −1.57 N/A
Socio- emo ional s a emen s −1.93 N/A
No e: Signi ican sequen ial e ec s o subsequen beha iou a e indica ed by a z alue >1.96 o <−1.96 (p < .05). SR e e s o goal- o ien ed sel -
egula ion. OR e e s o he odds a io. N/A e e s o no a ailable, as ORs we e only p o ided o signi ican z alues.
TABLE 6 Resul s o lag sequen ial analysis o SR s a emen s by male coachees in esponse o s a emen s by emale
coachees (RQ1).
Sub ace Female coachees' s a emen s
z alues o subsequen male
coachees' SR s a emen s OR
knowledge-managemen
s a emen s
Knowledge- managemen s a emen s −4.09 0.68
P ocedu al s a emen s P ocedu al s a emen s −0.47 N/A
Social s a emen s Suppo in he o m o ag eemen
s a emen s
−2.15 0.96
Socio- esponsi e s a emen s −1.20 N/A
Sel - disclosu e s a emen s −0.92 N/A
Socio- emo ional s a emen s −0.57 N/A
No e: Signi ican sequen ial e ec s o subsequen beha iou a e indica ed by a z alue >1.96 o <−1.96 (p < .05). SR e e s o sel - egula ion.
OR e e s o he odds a io. N/A e e s o no a ailable, as ORs we e only p o ided o signi ican z alues.

16 o 33
|
FINGAS e al.
H3a, H3b: Wo king alliance s a emen s and pa e ns and coachees'
subsequen SR
H3a and H3b ocused on he wo king alliance phenomenon and i s p oximal ela ion o coachees' SR,
wi hou speci ying which o he h ee in e ac ing speake s in ol ed in he iadic coaching se ing made
he wo king alliance e baliza ions. H3a hypo hesized ha he wo king alliance's bonding s a emen s,
ega dless o speake , elici ed coachees' SR, whe eas H3b hypo hesized ha his elici ing e ec o pa -
e ns o ag eemen abou goals and asks. The LSA esul s e ealed ha , o bo h hypo heses, none o
he wo king alliance sub ace e baliza ions signi ican ly elici ed coachees' SR. The e o e, ou H3a and
H3b we e no suppo ed. The esul s a e displayed in Table 7.
RQ2: Explo a ion o wo king alliance pa e ns among coachees
RQ2 ocused on he e ol emen o ag eemen abou goals and ask pa e ns exclusi ely among he wo
coachees. The LSA e ealed ha nei he emale no male coachees' goal- o ask- ela ed s a emen s
signi ican ly elici ed he o he coachees' subsequen ag eemen . Hence, cop eneu ial pa ne s did no
engage in mu ual pa e ns o ag eemen abou goals and asks.
Addi ionally, we pe o med ancilla y analyses o comple e he pic u e o pa e n e ol emen o all
h ee speake s. The esul s o ou ancilla y LSA e ealed ha coaches signi ican ly ag eed wi h bo h
TABLE 7 Resul s o lag sequen ial analysis o SR s a emen s by emale and male coachees in esponse o he wo king
alliance's bonding s a emen s and ag eemen abou goals and asks pa e ns ega dless o he speake (H3a, H3b).
Wo king Alliance sub ace
z alues o subsequen coachees' SR s a emen s
Female Male
Bonding s a emen s ega dless o he speake (H3a) −1.05 −0.98
Ag eemen abou goals and ask pa e ns ega dless o he
speake (H3b)
−0.15 0.10
No e: Signi ican sequen ial e ec s o subsequen beha iou a e indica ed by a z alue >1.96 o <−1.96 (p < .05). SR e e s o goal- o ien ed
sel - egula ion. We did no p o ide he odds a io, as none o he z alues we e signi ican . Bonding s a emen s, ega dless o speake , indica e
ha coaches, coachees o hei pa ne s could make a bonding s a emen . Ag eemen abou goals and asks pa e ns, ega dless o he speake ,
indica e ha he goal- o ask- ela ed s a emen could be s a ed by a coach, a coachee, o hei pa ne wi h ag eemen ecei ed om he
espec i e in e ac an .
TABLE 8 Resul s o lag sequen ial analysis o eme gence o wo king alliance pa e ns ini ia ed by di e en speake s
(RQ2, ancilla y analyses).
Ini ia ion o goal- and ask- ela ed
s a emen s
In e ac an s'
ag eemen
z alues o subsequen
ag eemen s a emen OR
Female coachees' ini ia ion Male coachees 0.50 N/A
Male coachees' ini ia ion Female coachees −0.15 N/A
Ancilla y analyses
Female coachees' ini ia ion Coaches 8.64 1.86
Male coachees' ini ia ion Coaches 9.77 2.12
Coaches' ini ia ion Female coachees 4.32 1.10
Male coachees 2.31 0.79
No e: Signi ican sequen ial e ec s o subsequen beha iou a e indica ed by a z alue >1.96 o <−1.96 (p < .05). SR e e s o goal- o ien ed sel -
egula ion. OR e e s o he odds a io. N/A e e s o no a ailable, as ORs we e only p o ided o signi ican z alues. The ocus o RQ2 was
on he e ol emen o he coachee- o- coachee wo king alliance pa e ns, which was complemen ed by ancilla y analyses ha also explo ed he
indi idual coachee- o- coach wo king alliance pa e ns and he indi idual coach- o- coachee wo king alliance pa e ns.
|
17 o 33
FINE- GRAINED VERBAL DYNAMICS DURING COPRENEUR
COACHING SESSIONS
coachees' goal- ela ed and hei ask- ela ed s a emen s. In e es ingly, only emale coachees signi ican ly
ag eed wi h he coaches' goal- ela ed and ask- ela ed s a emen s. The esul s o RQ2 and he ancilla y
analyses a e displayed in Table 8. No e ha he OR o male coachees' ag eemen wi h coaches' goal-
ela ed and ask- ela ed s a emen s di e ged om he z alue, indica ing ha he z alue o his speci ic
analysis was in la ed and ha male coachees did no signi ican ly ag ee wi h hei coaches' p oposals.
RQ3: Explo a ion o gende di e ences in coachees' SR s a emen elici a ion
To e lec he iadic coaching se ing wi h wo coachees, we needed o di e en ia e be ween coachee
A and coachee B (based on hei gende ) h oughou all he analyses. Howe e , in e ms o analyses, he
speci ic cha ac e is ic o he coachee's gende was only meaning ul in ela ion o RQ3, which explo ed
speci ic gende di e ences h oughou he whole coaching con e sa ion, he eby going beyond he me e
di e en ia ion be ween he wo coachees o s a is ical easons. As we al eady sepa a ed he coachees
acco ding o hei gende h oughou all ou analyses o e lec he iadic se ing, we can summa ize
he ollowing o gende di e ences ha a e speci ically a ge ed by RQ3. The LSA e ealed gende -
speci ic e ec s o coach s a emen s, as he hypo hesized s a emen s signi ican ly in luenced only emale
coachees' SR bu no males' SR: closed ques ions (inhibi ing e ec ), open ques ions and suppo in he
o m o ag eemen (elici ing e ec s; see Table 2). The LSA o coachees' in luence on hei espec i e
own SR showed no gende di e ences. Fo bo h coachees, he ollowing s a emen s elici ed hei SR sig-
ni ican ly: in o ma i e- and p oblem- ocused s a emen s, sel - disclosu e s a emen s and p o iding sup-
po in he o m o ag eemen . Own solu ion- ocused s a emen s did no signi ican ly ela e o emale
coachees' SR (H2a; z = 1.58, p > .05) o male coachees' SR (H2a; z = 1.76, p > .05; see Tables 3, 4). The
LSA o pa ne s' in luence on he o he coachees' SR did no e eal any gende di e ences, meaning
ha , o bo h gende s, he pa ne s' s a emen s we e ei he inhibi i e o un ela ed (see Tables 5 and 6).
The LSA o he e ec o p eceding wo king alliance e baliza ions (bo h sub ace s) on emale and male
coachees' SR did no e eal any gende di e ences (see Table 7). Finally, he LSA on he e ol emen o
pa e ns o ag eemen abou goals and asks also e ealed no gende di e ences (see Table 8).
DISCUSSION
To unde s and he e bal mechanisms ha con ibu e o success ul wo kplace coaching, he ‘black
box’ o con e sa ional dynamics inside ac ual coaching sessions needs o be opened. To his end, his
s udy d ew on PSI heo y o explain how and why coachees' SR s a emen s eme ge om con e sa ional
dynamics du ing he p ocess o iadic coaching sessions wi h cop eneu ial couples. In his no el coach-
ing se ing, ou esul s e ealed gende - speci ic e ec s o coaches' s a emen s on coachees' SR, wi h
subs an ial e ec sizes. When coaches p o ided suppo o asked open ques ions, hey elici ed emale
coachees' SR (bu no male coachees' SR), whe eas when coaches asked closed ques ions, emale coa-
chees' SR was inhibi ed (bu no male coachees' SR). Mo eo e , o bo h coachees, mos o hei own
e baliza ions, such as sel - disclosu e o p oblem- ocused s a emen s, elici ed SR, which emphasizes
he ac i e coachee no ion. Howe e , hei pa ne s could no elici he o he coachees' SR du ing he
con e sa ion. Con a y o ou expec a ions, wo king alliance e baliza ions o bonding and ag eemen
abou goals and asks pa e ns did no elici coachees' SR. Ag eemen abou goals and asks pa e ns was
no de ec ed among he coachees.
Theo e ical implica ions
On he basis o ou concep ual amewo k o PSI heo y, we de i e he ollowing implica ions o
coaching esea ch. Fi s , PSI heo y and i s unc ional- analy ical app oach in o m ou indings on he
18 o 33
|
FINGAS e al.
gende - speci ic e ec i eness o s a emen s by coaches o coachees' SR (H1a- H1c, RQ3). Female and
male coachees may ha e di e en unconscious p e e ences ega ding hei use o cogni i e sys ems,
how hese sys ems in e ac and how e ec i ely hey unc ion in a ious si ua ions. Gende - speci ic
unconscious p e e ences may a ise om dis inc gende iden i ies and in e nalized lea ning expe i-
ences shaped by socializa ion (e.g., Eagly & Ka au, 2002; Eagly & Wood, 2016), which a e pa o
he coachees' sel (e.g., Wood & Eagly, 2009). SR p ocesses, in u n, a e in luenced by gende iden i y
(e.g., Badu a e al., 2018). Fo emale coachees, a communal and a ilia i e (e.g., Ca li, 2001; Mu nen
& Smolak, 2010) s ance is ypically in e nalized in he sel . This implies equen use o he objec ec-
ogni ion sys em in PSI heo y, cha ac e ized by in ensi ied hough ulness and a endency o umina e
(e.g., Nolen- Hoeksema & Jackson, 2001). When umina ing and ocusing on po en ial p oblems, emale
coachees may equi e ex e nal e bal egula ion by he coach, such as he p o ision o suppo (e.g.,
Ma in & Slepian, 2021), o allow hem o elax and access hei ex ension memo y o sel - g ow h
(Engel & Kuhl, 2022). Simila ly, coaches' open ques ions may acili a e beha iou al op ions o emale
coachees o engage in p oblem- sol ing and u he engage in change and s ong implemen a ion in en-
ion building o ac ion con ol (Engel & Kuhl, 2022; Gessni ze & Kau eld, 2012; Hall & Fong, 2013).
In con as , male coachees ypically in e nalize a dominan and agen ic s ance in he sel (e.g., Mu nen
& Smolak, 2010). This implies equen use o he in ui i e beha iou con ol sys em, cha ac e ized
by in ensi ied en husiasm, asse i eness and a endency owa ds p ema u e bu sel - d i en ac ion (e.g.,
Hsu e al., 2021). Acco ding o PSI heo y, such a sel - d i en ac ion ocus (e.g., Ma in & Slepian, 2021)
aligns wi h he ac i e coachee no ion and may also explain why ex e nal nudges by coaches' s a e-
men s a e less ele an o male coachees' SR. Al hough bo h coachees bene i om ha ing space o
e lec and assess he sel , hus sel - egula e (e.g., cla i y hei si ua ion, challenges, and ailu es; Engel
& Kuhl, 2022), lis ening wi hou in e up ing seems o be he only acili a i e echnique ha suppo s
male coachees' p oximal SR.
To in e p e he obse ed gende di e ences in coach coachee in e ac ion dynamics, i is necessa y o
conside ou pa icula sample, whe e p o essional oles in he wo kplace (e.g., leade , assis an ) a e s e-
eo ypically gende - ela ed. Men a e mos ly he main owne s, whe eas hei wi es suppo hei sha ed
business. Gende and p o essional oles a e closely in e wined and may be con ounded. Howe e , he
p obabili y and explici ness o ole and gende e ec s a e la gely dependen on con ex (e.g., Oyse man
e al., 2017). In he adi ional and he e ono ma i e Ge man c a indus y (e.g., Heilman, 2012; Ju ik
e al., 2019; Ki k, 2019), gende di e ences a e likely o be mo e salien han p o essional ole di e -
ences a e (e.g., Heilman & Pa ks- S amm, 2007).
Second, ou indings ega ding coachees' con ibu ions o elici ing SR (H2a- H2c) unde line he
ac i e coachee no ion, which emphasizes he signi icance o coachees' own e bal engagemen o goal
achie emen (Gessni ze & Kau eld, 2015). This inding can also be explained by PSI heo y in e ms
o coachees showing hei capaci y o swi ch be ween he ou SR- ele an sys ems, balance hem and
e ec i ely unc ion in di e en si ua ions. Fo example, coachees' sel - disclosu e s a emen s show ha
hey a e elaxed and able o access hei ex ension memo y, which ep esen s he la gely unconscious
ne wo k o pe sonally ele an expe iences. Following he PSI heo y ene s, we sugges ha coachees'
ag eemen s a emen s posi i ely ein o ce sel - elaxa ion o sel - g ow h and sel - mo i a ion o ac-
ion con ol. Mo eo e , p oblem- ocused s a emen s signal awa eness o he disc epancy be ween he
cu en s a e and he desi ed s a e, highligh ing he need o ac ion o a ain a goal. In con as , a
solu ion- ocused s a emen may be p ema u e ega ding he ac ual s a e o he ac ion con ol p ocess
and may cause eg ession in o undesi ed habi s. No ably, ou indings ex end he ac i e coachee no-
ion o mos p oximal ou comes and complex con e sa ional se ings. As such, we ook a i s s ep o
sys ema ically s udy he in en ion–beha iou gap by examining how coachees can alk hemsel es in o
change and build s ong in en ions as pa o hei SR p ocess (see Magill & Hallg en, 2019; Mille &
Rollnick, 2004; Nowack, 2017).
Thi d, ou beha iou al- le el inding (RQ1) ha he pa ne s' e bal s a emen s we e ei he un ela ed
o e en inhibi o y o SR s a emen s by he o he coachee challenges a key in en ion o he cop eneu ial
coaching concep (Busch e al., 2021) ega ding spousal social suppo as one mechanism o change.
|
19 o 33
FINE- GRAINED VERBAL DYNAMICS DURING COPRENEUR
COACHING SESSIONS
A i s glance, his inding appea s o con adic p e ious indings on he help ul ole o pe cei ed
spousal social suppo o indi idual coaching success (Busch e al., 2021); howe e , his p e ious wo k
was based on sel - epo s o o e all spousal suppo . One eason o he lack o e bal in luence among
pa ne s could be he daily a ailable con e sa ional ime wi h pa ne s. In con as , ime wi h coaches
was p ecious and limi ed only o he coaching session du a ion, which may explain hei ela i ely
g ea e e bal in luen ial powe , a leas o emale coachees. Howe e , o suppo he goal app oach
o he o he coachee ou side coaching sessions, pa ne s may be mo e in luen ial han hey a e du ing
he session.
Finally, he lack o ele ance o wo king alliance e baliza ions (H3a, H3b) o SR is unexpec ed, as a
us ul bond and clea (sha ed) goals should acili a e coachees' SR om he pe spec i e o PSI heo y.
Du ing he coaching session p ocess, by de ini ion, he wo king alliance g adually un olds and can be
de ec ed by wo king alliance e baliza ions (e.g., Gessni ze & Kau eld, 2015). Using PSI heo y, SR
p ocesses can be in luenced by ex e nal e bal s a emen s, sugges ing ha a good con e sa ional a mo-
sphe e (e.g., bonding s a emen s) ha could be c ea ed by ei he one o he h ee in e ac ing speake s
du ing he coaching should indeed ha e a p oximal posi i e e ec du ing he con e sa ion. The same
logic applies o a collabo a i e dialogue (e.g., ag eemen abou goals and asks pa e ns) among all h ee
speake s. Howe e , he wo king alliance's p oximal e ec may no mani es in he immedia e nex
eac ion (e.g., lag1) bu in p oximal e ec s o e a longe ime ame (e.g., wi hin he nex minu e o
hou ; Hemsho n de Sanchez, Allen, & Lehmann- Willenb ock, 2022; Hemsho n de Sanchez, Ge po ,
& Lehmann- Willenb ock, 2022; Klonek e al., 2020). Ano he explana ion is ha wo king alliances may
be mo e s ongly ela ed o a ec i e ou comes, such as coaching sa is ac ion, han o esul - o ien ed
ou comes, such as SR. This explana ion is empi ically suppo ed by he esul s o a p e ious cop eneu
coaching e alua ion s udy (Busch e al., 2021) and p e ious su ey- based esea ch in dyadic coaching
se ings ha emphasized pe cei ed wo king alliances as key ac o s o coaching sa is ac ion (Ba on &
Mo in, 2009; G aßmann & Sche muly, 2020; Sche muly e al., 2021).
When zooming in he wo king alliance beha iou s among coachees (RQ2), one needs o conside ha
he coachee- o- coachee ela ionship is unique in e ms o es ablished p io his o y compa ed wi h he
coach- o- coachee ela ionship. Al hough pa ne s sha e a ( oman ic) pas , sugges ing ha al eady es ab-
lished e bal dynamics migh domina e, s udies on couple con e sa ions indica e ha spon aneous e bal
dynamics e ol e in couple se ings, ega dless o he ela ional his o y (e.g., I zchako e al., 2022; Sasaki
e al., 2023). The lack o obse ed coachee- o- coachee wo king alliance pa e ns, hus, depa s om ques-
ionnai e insigh s om couple he apy se ings ha e eal coachee alliances (e.g., F iedlande e al., 2005).
Impo an ly, howe e , he sel - epo ed coachee- o- coachee wo king alliance was concep ualized di e -
en ly, wi h a mo e nuanced ocus on emo ional openness and sha ed pu pose o he in e en ion. This
con as s wi h he concep ualiza ion o wo king alliances in coaching (e.g., F iedlande e al., 2005). The
wo king alliance be ween coaches and ( emale) coachees (and ice e sa) may be well cap u ed by he wo
sub ace s o bonding and ag eemen abou goals and asks; howe e , o he ele an beha iou s may include
au onomy suppo o ela edness s a emen s (Mageau & Valle and, 2003; see also Dille e al., 2022). Wi h
espec o he coachee- o- coachee wo king alliance, pa ne s likely al eady ha e a s ong bond. The e o e,
mo e sub le, non e bal wo king alliance- indica i e beha iou s may be be e sui ed o de ec hei wo k-
ing alliance du ing coaching a he han explici e bal cues (e.g., smiling, ouching; Ga ield, 2004).
Fu he mo e, he ancilla y analyses o pa e n e ol emen wi h espec o all h ee speake s e ealed
ha mu ual wo king alliance pa e ns do eme ge, al hough no o all iadic speake cons ella ions,
which co obo a es ea lie esea ch om dyadic ca ee coaching ha poin s owa ds mu ual coach–
coachee wo king alliances (Gessni ze & Kau eld, 2015; Iani o & Kau eld, 2014). In mo e de ail, only
coach- o- emale coachee pa e ns (and ice e sa) and male coachee- o- coach pa e ns e ol ed wi h
co esponding la ge e ec magni udes, bu no coach- o- male coachee pa e ns o coachee- o- coachee
pa e ns e ol ed. This needs o be conside ed when in e p e ing he missing link be ween wo king al-
liance and SR. Thus, ou indings sugges he need o a igo ous scien i ic examina ion o he wo king
alliance and i s p oximal e ec s in complex in e ac ion se ings (e.g., de Haan e al., 2020; Zimme mann
& An oni, 2020).
20 o 33
|
FINGAS e al.
P ac ical implica ions
Ou indings p o ide se e al ac ionable ecommenda ions o bo h coaches and coachees. Fi s , ou
s udy emphasizes SR as he mos p oximal coaching ou come using PSI heo y. Coaches should be sen-
si i e o coachees' SR s a emen s in coaching: exp essions o sel - access (e.g., ‘I am esponsible o his’),
in e es in change (e.g., ‘I wan o imp o e’), goal- ela ed decision- making (e.g., ‘I will ocus on X’) and
implemen a ion in en ions (e.g., ‘I will do Y o achie e Z’). By doing so, coaches could di ec ly os e
key u ning poin s o adjus he ongoing coaching p og ess.
Second, coaching cop eneu ial couples can be challenging, equi ing coaches o pay close a en-
ion o he di e en con e sa ional dynamics wi h each cop eneu ial coachee. Coaches' suppo in he
o m o ag eemen and hei asking o open ques ions ha e been shown o elici SR in emale, bu no
male, coachees. Wi h espec o male coachees, no coach s a emen ha acili a ed SR could be iden i-
ied, sugges ing he impo ance o gi ing male coachees he chance o alk eely wi hou in e up ion.
While a oiding ein o cing gende s e eo ypes, he obse ed gende di e ences in ou s udy sugges
ha coaches should moni o po en ial di e ences in coachee eac ions and c ea e an open a mosphe e
whe e bo h coachees can e balize hei hough s. T aining and coaching ce i ica ion p og ammes
should begin educa ing coaches abou he powe o hei s a emen s and lis ening skills o maximize
in- session coaching success in he o m o coachees' SR. To acili a e coaches' abili y o iden i y c i ical
momen s du ing coaching and he eby apply and de ec e bal cues, we s ongly ecommend supe i-
sion p ac ices in ol ing audio o ideo eco ding.
Thi d, coaches should be awa e ha cop eneu ial coachees, ega dless o hei gende , bene i om
ha ing space o e lec and o alk aloud o gain cla i y. We emphasize ha coachees' e bal engagemen
is c ucial o hei sel - compe ence de elopmen . Coaches should in o m coachees on he cen ali y o
hei e bal engagemen h oughou he con e sa ion o cocons uc hei coaching success. Du ing he
con e sa ion, less alka i e coachees should be encou aged o hink aloud. Coaches should educe hei
own speaking ime o speci ically in i e coachees o sha e hei hough s. Fou h, al hough ou s udy
esul s show ha coachees do no di ec ly elici SR in hei pa ne du ing he coaching con e sa ion,
we ecommend he couple se ing o coaching cop eneu s o imp o e hei wo k–li e balance owing
o hei in e wined wo k–li e in e ace. This se ing unde lines he impo ance o he coach guiding
h ough he coaching p ocess bu also he use ulness o he p esen pa ne s o help de elop and imple-
men indi idual goals, as well as acili a ing ans e a e he coaching has ended.
Limi a ions and u u e di ec ions
While de ailed insigh s in o e bal dynamics du ing cop eneu coaching we e ob ained, hey should be
in e p e ed in ligh o he ollowing limi a ions ha poin owa ds a enues o u u e esea ch. Fi s , he
numbe o coaching sessions was ela i ely small (de Haan, 2019). Ad hoc powe analyses con i med
su icien s a is ical powe o LSA a lag1 (Bakeman & Go man, 1997), bu no o u he lags, which
would ha e been p omising o iden i ying he mo e dis al e ec o wo king alliances. The e ec sizes
o he iden i ied e bal dynamics anged om small o la ge, indica ing hei impac . Howe e , he
magni ude o his impac may be in luenced by se e al o he ac o s, such as empa hy, he ole played
du ing he con e sa ion, he coach's gende o coach–coachee i (e.g., Solms e al., 2024). Addi ionally,
coachee engagemen was une enly dis ibu ed in ou sample. Despi e s ic ec ui men and quali y c i-
e ia o ideo coding (e.g., high in e en ion deli e y), po en ial biases canno be uled ou . Inc easing
he sample size in u u e s udies would inc ease he gene alizabili y and obus ness o he indings. This
would enable u he nuanced analyses wi h e en mo e ine- g ained code agg ega ions, allowing o
gende - ela ed hypo heses abou coaches' in luence on coachees' ou comes o he ele ance o ini ia ing
wo king alliances o coachee ou comes.
Second, he gende - speci ic indings ega ding coaches' open and closed ques ions wa an u -
he in es iga ion, pa icula ly by di e en ia ing he ques ion con en (e.g., e lec ion- , esou ce- o

|
21 o 33
FINE- GRAINED VERBAL DYNAMICS DURING COPRENEUR
COACHING SESSIONS
a ec - ocused; e.g., G an & O'Conno , 2018). Fu he esea ch should also conside o he coachee
a ibu es, including coachees' p o essional ole iden i ies (e.g., owne , co- owne , suppo i e unc ions).
This would enable inc eased coaching e ec i eness, as coaches could ailo hei echniques acco ding
o he coachee's needs and cha ac e is ics. While we ocused on e bal s a emen s, u u e esea ch may
bene i om mixed- me hod app oaches. These could combine e bal s a emen s (e.g., empa hic com-
munica ion) and non e bal beha iou (e.g., non e bal indica o s o posi i e a ec ) wi h sel - epo ed
da a (e.g., pe cei ed wo king alliances) o depic communica i e phenomena mo e comp ehensi ely. We
encou age schola s o in es iga e he gene alizabili y o ou indings o o he samples, including cop e-
neu s om a ious business sizes and indus ies (Deme ou i & Rispens, 2014; Sche muly e al., 2022;
Wegene e al., 2020).
Thi d, ou s udy es ablished ha di e en coach and coachee s a emen s, such as s ong in en ion
building (e.g., Hall & Fong, 2013), ac ion con ol and sel - g ow h (Engel & Kuhl, 2022), can acili a e
coachees' SR, indica ing in- session coaching success. Al hough we explain ha sel - elaxa ion and sel -
mo i a ion can os e hose iden i ied e bal dynamics on he basis o PSI heo y, u u e esea ch should
empi ically s udy hese mechanisms o change. This could be accomplished by applying a new coding
scheme o ideo aped coaching sessions depic ing e bal o non e bal cues o a ec egula ion (e.g.,
one o igou o oice, acial exp essions such as smiling o u owed b ows, use o e bal a i ma ions,
e c.). Mo eo e , his could be combined wi h adap i e physiological ma ke s (e.g., skin conduc ance, and
hea a e a iabili y) o cap u e SR eme gence. While we es ablished he basis o u he accele a e he
in en ion–beha iou gap deba e by s udying SR s a emen s as indica o s o s ong in en ion building
du ing a con e sa ion (e.g., Hall & Fong, 2013), we did no add ess he beha iou al change ha occu ed
a e he coaching session ended. Fu u e esea ch could link p oximal, in- session ou comes (e.g., SR
s a emen s, solu ion- o ien ed coachee s a emen s, empa hic coach beha iou s) o o he p oximal o
dis al ou comes a e coaching has ceased (e.g., beha iou al goal app oach, coaching sa is ac ion; e.g.,
Nowack, 2017).
While ou indings p o ide ac ionable beha iou al ecommenda ions o coaches, u u e esea ch
should examine he po en ial limi a ions o a p edominan ly nondi ec i e coaching s ance, as ad oca ed
by mos coaching p og ammes. Fo example, Ko e e al. (2021) epo ed ha en ep eneu ial coachees
alue p ac ical, di ec i e echniques o achie ing hei coaching goal, no only nondi ec i e ones (see
also Be man, 2019). Hence, ou indings emphasize he need o con inued c i ical examina ion and
applica ion o coaching echniques o mo e complex se ings, such as iadic coaching, and samples wi h
highe job demands and wo kloads, beyond s uden samples (e.g., Deplazes, 2016; Ko e e al., 2021).
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
S ella M. Fingas: W i ing – o iginal d a ; me hodology; o mal analysis; concep ualiza ion. Ch is ine
Busch: Concep ualiza ion; unding acquisi ion; w i ing – e iew and edi ing. Romana D eye : P ojec
adminis a ion; w i ing – e iew and edi ing; concep ualiza ion. Nale Lehmann- Willenb ock: W i ing
– e iew and edi ing; me hodology; concep ualiza ion.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This esea ch was suppo ed by unding om he Ge man Fede al Minis y o Educa ion and Resea ch
(BMBF, g an numbe 02L14A030; e- egiowe k conso ium p ojec ), which is g a e ully acknowledged.
We a e g a e ul o all coope a ion pa ne s in he e- egiowe k p ojec , in pa icula Ka ja Kelle -
Land og and coaches o IKK classic, Monique Janneck (TH Lübeck), he ep esen a i es o he asso-
cia ions o c a smen and guilds and in pa icula o all o he pa icipa ing cop eneu s. We app ecia e
he suppo and coding assis ance o he ollowing B.Sc. Psychology s uden s du ing hei bachelo he-
ses: Ann Ch is in Johannsen, Dunja End ika , Selima Dadae a and Jaspe Ohlig. Open Access unding
enabled and o ganized by P ojek DEAL.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
We ha e no con lic o in e es o disclose.
22 o 33
|
FINGAS e al.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The anonymized anno a ed beha iou al da a ha suppo he indings o his s udy (bu no he aw
ideo da a) a e a ailable om he co esponding au ho upon easonable eques .
ORCID
S ella M. Fingas h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0001-7834-9729
Ch is ine Busch h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0002-7676-3384
Romana D eye h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0001-8789-6484
Nale Lehmann- Willenb ock h ps://o cid.o g/0000-0003-3346-5894
REFERENCES
Ande son, S. R., & Johnson, L. N. (2010). A dyadic analysis o he be ween- and wi hin- sys em alliances on dis ess. Family
P ocess, 49(2), 220–235. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/j. 1545- 5300. 2010. 01319. x
And usyna, T. P., Tang, T. Z., DeRubeis, R. J., & Lubo sky, L. (2001). The ac o s uc u e o he wo king alliance in en o y in
cogni i e- beha io al he apy. The Jou nal o Psycho he apy P ac ice and Resea ch, 10(3), 173.
Babcock, L., & Lasche e , S. (2021). Women don' ask: Nego ia ion and he gende di ide. In Women Don' ask (STU- S uden
edi ion). P ince on Uni e si y P ess.
Badu a, K. L., G ijal a, E., Newman, D. A., Yan, T. T., & Jeon, G. (2018). Gende and leade ship eme gence: A me a- analysis
and explana o y model. Pe sonnel Psychology, 71(3), 335–367.
Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The sel - egula ion o a i udes, in en ions, and beha io . Social Psycholog y Qua e ly, 55(2), 178–204.
Bakeman, R., & Go man, J. M. (1997). Obse ing in e ac ion: An in oduc ion o sequen ial analysis. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Bakeman, R., & Que a, V. (2011). Sequen ial analysis and obse a ional me hods o he beha io al sciences. Camb idge Uni e si y P ess.
Bales, R. F. (1950). In e ac ion p ocess analysis: A me hod o he s udy o small g oups. Addison- Wesley.
Ba ne , F., & Ba ne , S. (1988). Wo king oge he : En ep eneu ial couples. Ten Speed P ess.
Ba on, L., & Mo in, L. (2009). The coach- coachee ela ionship in execu i e coaching: A ield s udy. Human Resou ce De elopmen
Qua e ly, 20(1), 85–106. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1002/ h dq. 20009
Baumann, N., Kazén, M., & Kuhl, J. (2010). Implici mo i es: A look om pe sonali y sys ems in e ac ion heo y. Implici
Mo i es, 20, 375–403.
Baumeis e , R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Sel - egula ion, ego deple ion, and mo i a ion. Social and Pe sonali y Psycholog y Compass,
1(1), 115–128. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/j. 1751- 9004. 2007. 00001. x
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2008). Ac i e lea ning: E ec s o co e aining design elemen s on sel - egula o y p ocesses,
lea ning, and adap abili y. Jou nal o Applied Psycholog y, 93(2), 296–316. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ 0021- 9010. 93.2. 296
Be man, W. H. (2019). Coaching C- sui e execu i es and business ounde s. Consul ing Psycholog y Jou nal: P ac ice and Resea ch, 71(2),
72–85.
Boles, J. S., Dean, D. H., Ricks, J. M., Sho , J. C., & Wang, G. (2000). The dimensionali y o he Maslach bu nou in en o y
ac oss small business owne s and educa o s. Jou nal o Voca ional Beha io , 56(1), 12–34. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1006/ j be. 1999.
1689
Bo din, E. S. (1979). The gene alizabili y o he psychoanaly ic concep o he wo king alliance. Psycho he apy: Theo y, Resea ch &
P ac ice, 16(3), 252–260. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ h0085885
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. The Jou nal o Applied Beha io al Science, 58(2), 202–222. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 00218
86322 1079937
Boze , G., Delegach, M., & Ko e, S. (2022). The in luence o o ganiza 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 ganiza ional Psycholog y, 27(3), 342–361. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/ 13594 32X.
2018. 1446946
Boze , G., & Jones, R. J. (2021). In oduc ion o he special issue on ad ances in he psychology o wo kplace coaching. Applied
Psycholog y, 70(2), 411–419. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/ apps. 12305
B annon, D. L., Wiklund, J., & Haynie, J. M. (2013). The a ying e ec s o amily ela ionships in en ep eneu ial eams.
En ep eneu ship: Theo y and P ac ice, 37(1), 107–132. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/j. 1540- 6520. 2012. 00533. x
Busch, C., D eye , R., & Janneck, M. (2021). Blended eco e y and bu nou coaching o small- business cop eneu s. Consul ing
Psycholog y Jou nal: P ac ice and Resea ch, 73(1), 65–87. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ cpb00 00198
Busch, C., D eye , R., & Janneck, M. (2022). Blended heal h coaching o wo k- linked couples: Coaches' in e en ion ideli y
and empa hy ma e ! Coaching, Theo ie & P axis, 8(1), 43–58. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1365/ s4089 6- 022- 00065 - 9
Calasso, L. F., Künzli, H., & Bu sche , M. J. (2024). Wha a e execu i e coaches ac ually doing and when a e hey doing i ? A
sys ema ic e iew o coaching beha io . Consul ing Psychology Jou nal, 76(3), 238–258. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ cpb00 00267
|
23 o 33
FINE- GRAINED VERBAL DYNAMICS DURING COPRENEUR
COACHING SESSIONS
Ca li, L. L. (2001). Gende and social in luence. Jou nal o Social Issues, 57(4), 725–741. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/ 0022- 4537. 00238
Cella , D. F., S uhlmache , A. F., Young, S. K., Fishe , D. M., Adai , C. K., Haynes, S., Twichell, E., A nold, K., Roye , K.,
Denning, B., & Ries e , D. (2011). T ai goal o ien a ion, sel - egula ion, and pe o mance: A me a- analysis. Jou nal o
Business and Psychology, 26(4), 467–483. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/ s1086 9- 010- 9201- 6
Cha leswo h, T. E., Yang, V., Mann, T. C., Ku di, B., & Banaji, M. R. (2021). Gende s e eo ypes in na u al language: Wo d
embeddings show obus consis ency ac oss child and adul language co po a o mo e han 65 million wo ds. Psychological
Science, 32(2), 218–240. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 09567 97620 963619
Cohen, J. (1960). A coe icien o ag eemen o nominal scales. Educa ional and Psychological Measu emen , 20(1), 37–46. h ps://
doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 00131 64460 02000104
de Haan, E. (2019). A sys ema ic e iew o quali a i e s udies in wo kplace and execu i e coaching: The eme gence o a body o
esea ch. Consul ing Psycholog y Jou nal: P ac ice and Resea ch, 71(4), 227–248. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ cpb00 00144
de Haan, E., Molyn, J., & Nilsson, V. O. (2020). New indings on he e ec i eness o he coaching ela ionship: Time o hink
di e en ly abou ac i e ing edien s? Consul ing Psycholog y Jou nal: P ac ice and Resea ch, 72(3), 155–167. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10.
1037/ cpb00 00175
Deme ou i, E., & Rispens, S. (2014). Imp o ing he image o s uden - ec ui ed samples: A commen a y. Jou nal o Occupa ional
and O ganiza ional Psycholog y, 87(1), 34–41. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/ joop. 12048
Deplazes, S. (2016). KaSyCo–Ka ego iensys eme zu Analyse on Coachingp ozessen: Ins umen - En wicklung und Anwendungsbeispiele (Vol.
3). Kassel Uni e si y P ess GmbH.
Dille , S. J., B an l, M., & Jonas, E. (2022). Mo e han wo king alliance: Explo ing he ela ionship in en ep eneu ial coaching.
Coaching, Theo ie & P axis, 8(1), 59–75. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1365/ s4089 6- 022- 00066 - 8
D eye , R., & Busch, C. (2022). A he hea o amily businesses: How cop eneu s c a wo k- li e balance. Jou nal o Family
Business Managemen , 12(4), 816–832. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1108/ JFBM- 12- 2020- 0113
Eagly, A. H., & Ka au, S. J. (2002). Role cong ui y heo y o p ejudice owa d emale leade s. Psychological Re iew, 109(3), 573–598.
h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ 0033- 295X. 109.3. 573
Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2016). Social ole heo y o sex di e ences. In The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia o Gende and Sexuali y
S udies (pp. 1–3). Wiley.
Engel, A. M., & Kuhl, J. (2022). A ec i e change o ac ion con ol and sel - g ow h 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 (pp. 27–38). Sp inge .
E dös, T., de Haan, E., & Heusink eld, S. (2021). Coaching: Clien ac o s & con ex ual dynamics in he change p ocess: A
quali a i e me a- syn hesis. Coaching: An In e na ional Jou nal o Theo y, Resea ch and P ac ice, 14(2), 162–183.
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, 351. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 3389/ psyg. 2021. 580351
Fi zge ald, M. A., & Muske, G. (2002). Cop eneu s: An explo a ion and compa ison o o he amily businesses. Family Business
Re iew, 15(1), 1–16. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/j. 1741- 6248. 2002. 00001. x
Fleischhacke , M., & G a , E. M. (2023). New ways o in es iga ing coaching: Linguis ic esea ch on execu i e, business and
wo kplace coaching–a sys ema ic scoping e iew. Coaching: An In e na ional Jou nal o Theo y, Resea ch and P ac ice, 17, 1–29.
h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/ 17521 882. 2023. 2284166
Fleischhacke , M., & G a , E. M. (2024). New ways o in es iga ing coaching: Linguis ic esea ch on execu i e, business and
wo kplace coaching–a sys ema ic scoping e iew. Coaching: An In e na ional Jou nal o Theo y, Resea ch and P ac ice, 17(1),
90–118.
F iedlande , M. L., Escude o, V., Hea he ing on, L., Deihl, L., Field, N., Lehman, P., Mckee, M., & Cu ing, M. (2005). Sys em
o Obse ing Family The apy Alliances (SOFTA- o): T aining Manual.
F iedlande , M. L., Escude o, V., Hea he ing on, L., & Diamond, G. M. (2011). Alliance in couple and amily he apy.
Psycho he apy, 48(1), 25–33.
Ga ield, R. (2004). The he apeu ic alliance in couples he apy: Clinical conside a ions. Family P ocess, 43(4), 457–465.
Gea ing, R. E., El- Bassel, N., Ghesquie e, A., Baldwin, S., Gillies, J., & Ngeow, E. (2011). Majo ing edien s o ideli y: A e iew
and scien i ic guide o imp o ing quali y o in e en ion esea ch implemen a ion. Clinical Psycholog y Re iew, 31(1), 79–88.
h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1016/j. cp . 2010. 09. 007
Gessni ze , S., & Kau eld, S. (2012). Ge ühle und Selbs o enba ungen: E olgs ak o en im Coaching. In P esen ed a he 48.
Kong ess de Deu schen Gesellscha ü Psychologie (pp. 1–29). Biele eld.
Gessni ze , S., & Kau eld, S. (2015). The wo king alliance in coaching: Why beha io is he key o success. The Jou nal o Applied
Beha io al Science, 51(2), 177–197. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 00218 86315 576407
Gessni ze , S., Schul e, E. M., & Kau eld, S. (2016). “I am going o succeed”: The powe o sel - e icien language in coaching
and how coaches can use i . Consul ing Psycholog y Jou nal, 68(4), 294–312. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ cpb00 00064
G an , A. M. (2003). The impac o li e coaching on goal a ainmen , me acogni ion and men al heal h. Social Beha io and
Pe sonali y, 31(3), 253–264. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 2224/ sbp. 2003. 31.3. 253
G an , A. M. (2014). Au onomy suppo , ela ionship sa is ac ion and goal ocus in he coach- coachee ela ionship: Which bes
p edic s coaching success? Coaching, 7(1), 18–38. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1080/ 17521 882. 2013. 850106
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
24 o 33
|
FINGAS e al.
G aßmann, C. (2022). Die A bei sbeziehung im Coaching: Ein Fo schungsübe blick und Handlungsemp ehlungen ü die
P axis. O ganisa ionsbe a ung, Supe ision, Coaching, 29(3), 1–16. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1007/ s1161 3- 022- 00774 - 3
G aßmann, C., & Sche muly, C. C. (2020). Unde s anding wha d i es he coaching wo king Alliance: A sys ema ic li e a u e
e iew. Academy o Managemen P oceedings, 2020(1), 13375. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 5465/ AMBPP. 2020. 259
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 ei , S. (2025). The u u e o coaching based on science. Building b idges be ween science and p ac ice. Sp inge .
G ei , S., Mölle , H., Scholl, W., Passmo e, J., & Mülle , F. (2022). In e na ional handbook o e idence- based coaching. Sp inge .
Hall, P. A., & Fong, G. T. (2013). In P. A. Hall, G. T. Fong, P. A. Hall, & G. T. Fong (Eds.), Social neu oscience and public heal h:
Founda ions o he science o ch onic disease p e en ion (pp. 35–53). Sp inge New Yo k.
Ha che , R. L., & Gillaspy, J. A. (2006). De elopmen and alida ion o a e ised sho e sion o he wo king alliance in en o y.
Psycho he apy Resea ch, 16(1), 12–25.
Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gende s e eo ypes and wo kplace bias. Resea ch in O ganiza ional Beha io , 32, 113–135.
Heilman, M. E., & Pa ks- S amm, E. J. (2007). Gende s e eo ypes in he wo kplace: Obs acles o women's ca ee p og ess. In
Social psycholog y o gende (Vol. 24, pp. 47–77). Eme ald G oup Publishing Limi ed.
Helmle, J. R., Bo e o, I. C., & Seibold, D. R. (2014). Fac o s ha in luence pe cep ions o wo k- li e balance in owne s o cop e-
neu ial i ms. Jou nal o Family Business Managemen , 4(2), 110–132. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1108/ JFBM- 06- 2014- 0013
Hemsho n de Sanchez, C. S., Allen, J. A., & Lehmann- Willenb ock, N. (2022). Gende and humo in mee ings. Psycholog y o
Leade s and Leade ship, 25(3–4), 165–186. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ mg 00 00133
Hemsho n de Sanchez, C. S., Ge po , F. H., & Lehmann- Willenb ock, N. (2022). A e iew and u u e agenda o beha io al
esea ch on leade – ollowe in e ac ions a di e en empo al scopes. Jou nal o O ganiza ional Beha io , 43(2), 342–368.
h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1002/ job. 2583
Hoppe, D. (2013). Was passie in Be a ungsgesp ächen? Eine mik oanaly ische Be ach ung on Be a e - Klien en- In e ak ionen in de
Inhal sbe a ung (Dok o a bei ). Technische Uni e si ä B aunschweig.
Ho a h, A. O., & G eenbe g, L. S. (1989). De elopmen and alida ion o he wo king alliance in en o y. Jou nal o Counseling
Psycholog y, 36(2), 223–233. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ 0022- 0167. 36.2. 223
Howa h, A., Quesada, J., Sil a, J., Judycki, S., & Mills, P. R. (2018). The impac o digi al heal h in e en ions on
heal h- ela ed ou comes in he wo kplace: A sys ema ic e iew. Digi al Heal h, 4, 861. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1177/ 20552 07618
770861
Hsu, N., Badu a, K. L., Newman, D. A., & Speach, M. E. P. (2021). Gende , “masculini y”, and “ eminini y”: A me a- analy ic
e iew o gende di e ences in agency and communion. Psychological Bulle in, 147(10), 987–1011.
Hyde, J. S. (2014). Gende simila i ies and di e ences. Annual Re iew o Psycholog y, 65(1), 373–398.
Iani o, P. M., & Kau eld, S. (2014). Take ca e wha you b ing wi h you: How coaches' mood and in e pe sonal beha io a ec
coaching success. Consul ing Psycholog y Jou nal, 66(3), 231–257. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ cpb00 00012
Iani o- Dahm, P. M., & Kau eld, S. (2022). App oaches o he coaching p ocess: An in e ac ion- analy ical iew. In In e na ional
handbook o e idence- based coaching: Theo y, esea ch and p ac ice (pp. 39–53). Sp inge In e na ional Publishing.
I zchako , G., Reis, H. T., & Weins ein, N. (2022). How o os e pe cei ed pa ne esponsi eness: High- quali y lis ening is key.
Social and Pe sonali y Psycholog y Compass, 16(1), e12648.
I es, Y. (2008). Wha is ‘coaching’? An explo a ion o con lic ing pa adigms. In e na ional Jou nal o E idence Based Coaching &
Men o ing, 6(2), 2589.
Jennings, J. E., B ei k euz, R. S., & James, A. E. (2013). When amily membe s a e also business owne s: Is en ep eneu ship
good o amilies? Family Rela ions, 62(3), 472–489. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1111/ FARE. 12013
Jolin, S., La on aine, M.- F., B assa d, A., & Lussie , Y. (2024). Which comes i s ? Associa ions be ween communica ion pa -
e ns and ela ionship sa is ac ion in couples o e a 1- yea pe iod. Canadian Jou nal o Beha iou al Science/Re ue Canadienne Des
Sciences du Compo emen , 56(1), 70–80. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/ cbs00 00342
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 ganiza ional Psycholog y, 89(2), 249–277. h p s:// d oi .
o g/ 10. 1111/ joop. 12119
Jo dan, S., & Kau eld, S. (2020). A mixed me hods s udy o e ec s and an eceden s o solu ion- ocused ques ions in coaching.
In e na ional Jou nal o E idence Based Coaching & Men o ing, 18(1), 80. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 24384/ w8ne- x80
Ju ik, N. C., Křížko á, A., Pospíšilo á, M., & Ca ende , G. (2019). Blending, c edi , con ex : Doing business, amily and gende
in Czech and US cop eneu ships. In e na ional Small Business Jou nal: Resea ching En ep eneu ship, 37(4), 317–342. h ps:// doi .
o g/ 10. 1177/ 02662 42618 825260
Kaplan, B. M. (2006). Asse i eness aining and pa ien sel - disclosu e. Doc o al disse a ion. Walden Uni e si y.
Ki k, J. F. (2019). Gende dynamics in he wo kplace: A nuanced look a gende bias and how o mi iga e i . Uni e si y o Colo ado a Boulde .
Klonek, F., Twemlow, M., Tims, M., & Pa ke , S. (2024). I 's abou ime! Unde s anding he dynamic eam p ocess- pe o mance ela ionship
using mic o- and mac oscale ime lenses. G oup & O ganiza ion Managemen .
Klonek, F. E., Que a, V., Bu ba, M., & Kau eld, S. (2016). G oup in e ac ions and ime: Using sequen ial analysis o s udy
g oup dynamics in p ojec mee ings. G oup Dynamics: Theo y, Resea ch, and P ac ice, 20(3), 209–222. h ps:// doi. o g/ 10. 1037/
gdn00 00052
|
31 o 33
FINE- GRAINED VERBAL DYNAMICS DURING COPRENEUR
COACHING SESSIONS
Cons uc
Ve bal
ope a ionaliza ion using
ac 4 consul ing Desc ip ion Sample s a emen
Coach's
e bal
in luence
Knowledge- managemen
s a emen s
Asking open ques ions Explo ing he (unde lying) issues o he
in e ac ion pa ne
‘How could you cope wi h his
si ua ion?’
Asking closed ques ions Speci ying, edi ec ing and s uc u ing o he
p ocess o said con en
‘Bu we alked abou many
o he op ions ha you had o
being a ole model, didn' we?’
P o iding suppo s a emen
P o iding suppo by
ag eeing
Showing ag eemen wi h he a o esaid con en ‘Yes, I hink so, oo.’
Coachees
own e bal
in luence
Knowledge- managemen
s a emen s
Desc ibing a p oblem Signalling engagemen wi h a p oblem ha
hinde s eaching he coachee's goals
‘This issue oubles me,
because…’
S a ing a solu ion Signalling engagemen wi h esul - o ien ed
de elopmen o solu ions
‘One way o sol e i , could
be…’
Sha ing in o ma i e
s a emen s
Sha ing (neu al) in o ma ion ‘Employee A does ask Z.’
P o iding suppo s a emen s
P o iding suppo by
ag eeing
Showing ag eemen wi h he a o esaid con en ‘Yes, I hink so, oo.’
Sel - disclosu e s a emen s
Emphasizing one's own
opinion
Emphasizing one's own pe sonal a i udes,
needs, and alues
‘Fo me, pe sonally, i is
impo an ha …’
Talking abou eelings Sha ing pe sonal emo ions, bo h posi i e and
nega i e
‘This makes me ang y…’
No e: The pa ne pe spec i e is no included in his able; o he sake o explo a o y analyses, he en i e ac 4 consul ing coding scheme was
used. aNo e ha SMART- plans e e o speci ic, measu able, ac ionable, ealis ic and ime- bound planning o goal achie emen . bNo e ha
he wo sub ace s o he wo king alliance acco ding o hei concep ual de ini ions occu a di e en le els o beha iou al complexi y: bonding
occu s as single s a emen s by one speake , whe eas pa e ns o ag eemen abou goals and asks by de ini ion equi e a leas wo sequen ial e bal
s a emen s by wo speake s.
APPENDIX C (Con inued)

32 o 33
|
FINGAS e al.
APPENDIX D
ADAPTED ACT4 CONSULTING CODING SCHEME FOR PARTNERS' VERBAL
BEHAVIOURS DURING COPRENEUR COACHING SESSIONS
Knowledge-
managemen s a emen s P ocedu al s a emen s Social s a emen s Sel - egula ion s a emen s
Knowledge-
managemen s a emen s
P ocedu al s a emen s Socio- emo ional
s a emen s
Goal- o ien ed sel -
egula ion s a emen s
Fo example, sha ing
in o ma i e s a emen s,
asking open ques ions,
asking closed ques ions,
s a ing a solu ion,
desc ibing a p oblem,
a guing con a he
solu ion, a guing in a ou
o he solu ion
Fo example, p o iding
pu pose, making p ocedu al
sugges ions o he coaching
session, summa izing, poin ing
owa ds ime managemen and
p io i iza ion, subs an ia ing
Fo example,
pa aph asing, o e ing
help, exp essing
app ecia ion, es ablishing
us
Fo example, planning own
ac ion, showing in e es in
change, making a decision,
de ining one's own ole and
aking esponsibili y
‘Wha would be a sui able
op ion o you?’, ‘Do you
in end o do his?’, ‘I doub
ha op ion A is sui able, as…’
‘The goal o oday is…’, ‘As we only
ha e a li le ime le …’, ‘I will w i e
his down, hen I will do X’, ‘To
summa ize, we…’
‘I I unde s ood you co ec ly,
you mean…’; ‘I could ake o e
ask X’, ‘Wow, nicely done’
‘I am uly exci ed o y his ou a
wo k’, ‘I am esponsible o changing
my ac ions…’, ‘Tomo ow, I will
implemen his idea by doing…’
Sel - disclosu e
s a emen s
Fo example, emphasizing
one's own opinion, alking
abou eelings
‘Fo me pe sonally, I ha e
o emphasize ha I…’,
‘Hones ly, I eel o e whelmed
and bad a wo k’, ‘I eel
elie ed, when…’
Socio- esponsi e
s a emen s
Fo example, ac i e
lis ening, ejec ing
some hing neu ally,
di ec ly con ac ing
‘Mh’, ‘No’, ‘M . Knu , …’
P o iding suppo
s a emen s
Fo example, p o iding
suppo by ag eeing
‘Yes’, ‘Indeed, I hink so, oo’,
‘Yes, we a e on he same page’
No e: Addi ional ille codes included: Pauses (>5 s), I ele an (no iadic in e ac ion possible) and O he (i ele an o he esea ch ocus).
As he coaches' SR s a emen s we e no ele an o he p esen pape , hey we e included in O he . Fo wo king alliance- ela ed analyses, he
speci ic wo king alliance beha iou s needed o be agg ega ed in o sepa a e subca ego ies and we e he same o each analysis, i espec i e o
he ini ia ion. They we e no ele an o he analyses o he pa ne s' p eceding s a emen s; howe e , o comple eness o he ac 4 consul ing
code agg ega ion, we e ained he sel - egula ion s a emen s in his o e iew. Fo analyses o he e ec s o e bal s a emen s by coaches (e.g.,
open and closed ques ions) and coachees (e.g., sel - disclosu e s a emen s) on coachees' sel - egula ion s a emen s, we u ilized he co esponding
indica i e beha iou al codes om he ac 4 consul ing coding scheme (e.g., asking open ques ions, alking abou eelings, e c.).
|
33 o 33
FINE- GRAINED VERBAL DYNAMICS DURING COPRENEUR
COACHING SESSIONS
APPENDIX E
STATISTICAL BACKGROUND OF LAG SEQUENTIAL ANALYSES
Compa ed wi h sum sco es, LSA can p o ide unique in o ma ion abou he empo al e ol emen and
sequen ial ac - o- ac dependencies o e bal s a emen s. Th ee p e equisi es mus be me o ob ain s a-
is ically meaning ul pa ame e s when LSA is used. Fi s , he en i e s eam o in e pe sonal in e ac ion
du ing coaching needs o be anno a ed as mu ually exclusi e and empo ally exhaus i e (Bakeman
& Que a, 2011). Second, unlike powe analysis, LSA equi es a minimum numbe o beha iou al se-
quences depending on he numbe o empo al lags unde in es iga ion and he o al numbe o obse -
a ion ca ego ies in he coding scheme (Bakeman & Go man, 1997; see also Lehmann- Willenb ock
& Allen, 2025). To mee his equi emen , we adop ed he ac 4 consul ing coding scheme o be e i
he coaching con ex and pu pose o he s udy ( o a simila app oach, see Klonek e al., 2020; Tschan
e al., 2010).
The ex en o code agg ega ion is de e mined by bo h he logic and s uc u e o he coding scheme
and he absolu e numbe o shown codes in he da ase . Appendix D p o ides a de ailed o e iew o
he coding scheme and he obse a ion ca ego ies ( o a simila app oach, see Gessni ze e al., 2016;
Klonek e al., 2016; Meinecke e al., 2017). Thi d, each beha iou al obse a ion ca ego y should be
obse ed a leas 30 imes, and he in e ac ion sequence ma ix o join sequen ially adjacen beha iou
equencies should display a minimum o h ee equencies (Bakeman & Que a, 2011). Fo ou analyses,
he coded da a om all 29 coaching sessions we e combined, o a o al o N = 28,603 beha iou s, o
enable meaning ul in e p e a ion o he LSA.