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

Fingas, Stella M.; Busch, Christine; Dreyer, Romana; Lehmann‐Willenbrock, Nale Article — Published Version Zooming in: Identifying fine‐grained verbal dynamics that influence coachees' self‐regulation statements during copreneur coaching sessions Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology Provided in Cooperation with: John Wiley & Sons Suggested Citation: Fingas, Stella M.; Busch, Christine; Dreyer, Romana; Lehmann‐Willenbrock, Nale (2025) : Zooming in: Identifying fine‐grained verbal dynamics that influence coachees' self‐regulation statements during copreneur coaching sessions, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, ISSN 2044-8325, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 98, Iss. 2, https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.70021 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/323876 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/4.0/ J Occup Organ Psychol. 2025;98:e70021. | 1 of 33 https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.70021 wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/joop Received: 16 August 2023 | Accepted: 22 March 2025 DOI: 10.1111/joop.70021 RESEARCH ARTICLE Zooming in: Identifying finegrained verbal dynamics that influence coachees' selfregulation statements during copreneur coaching sessions Stella M. Fingas | Christine Busch | Romana Dreyer | Nale LehmannWillenbrock This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2025 The Author(s). Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psycholog y published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of The British Psychological Society. Department of Industrialand Organizational Psychology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany Correspondence Stella M. Fingas, Department of Industrialand Organizational Psychology, University of Hamburg, VonMellePark 5, 20146 Hamburg, Germany. Email: [email protected] Funding information German Ministery of Education and Research Abstract Workplace coaching can enhance the performance and wellbeing of coachees. To identify key psychological mechanisms that contribute to the effectiveness and most proximal outcomes of coaching, we adopt a behavioural process perspective. This study investigates verbal dynamics in workplace coaching sessions with small business owners and their partners, socalled copreneurs. Using personality systems interaction theory, we examine which verbal statements and working allianceindicative statements and patterns elicit goaloriented selfregulation statements from coachees—an insession indicator of active engagement with goal achievement. We included 20 heterosexual copreneurial couples, with one to three sessions analysed per couple, yielding a total of 29 videotaped coaching sessions. Using lag sequential analysis (N = 28,603 behaviours), we showed that working alliance verbalizations did not elicit coachees' selfregulation statements. Instead, coaches' provision of support and open questions elicited female coachees' selfregulation but not male coachees' selfregulation. Furthermore, we support the active coachee notion by emphasizing the facilitative effect of coachees' verbal engagement, such as selfdisclosure and problemfocused or informative statements, on selfregulation statements. These findings contribute to our theoretical understanding of the verbal mechanisms that determine the effectiveness of coaching and key factors for practice, including gender differences and the importance of an active coachee. 2 of 33 | FINGAS et al. INTRODUCTION The increasing popularity of workplace coaching is based on its revenue and efficacy in promoting positive coachee outcomes (Bozer & Jones, 2018; Jones et al., 2016; Sonesh et al., 2015; Theeboom et al., 2014). Workplace coaching is a coachguided, reflective and collaborative intervention aimed at reaching selfcongruent, professional goals (Bozer & Jones, 2018; Engel & Kuhl, 2022; Kotte et al., 2021). However, theorydriven research on the key psychological mechanisms of actual insession verbal dynamics that contribute to the effectiveness of the coaching process remains limited (Kruger & Terblanche, 2022; Pandolfi, 2020). We aim to address previous criticisms regarding the lack of established psychological frameworks in coaching by using Kuhl's (2000) personality systems interaction (PSI) theory, following the behavioural process approach (e.g., Boyatzis et al., 2022; Bozer & Jones, 2021; Kotte & Bozer, 2022). Building on PSI theory and the extant empirical literature (e.g., Erdös & Ramseyer, 2021; Theeboom et al., 2014; Wang et al., 2021), we position coachees' goaloriented selfregulation (SR)1 during the coaching process as a vital, most proximal coaching outcome. Applying PSI theory may contribute to clarifying the relationship between interpersonal communication dynamics and coachees' SR during coaching. Therefore, we take the first logical step to shed light on the black box of sequential verbal dynamics before going beyond that scope (e.g., examining distal outcomes). Verbal indicators for coachees' SR refer to statements that signal goaloriented monitoring, planning of actions and committing to change (e.g., making a decision; Cellar et al., 2011; Engel & Kuhl, 2022; Gessnitzer et al., 2016). An investigation of SR statements and associated verbal dynamics during coaching 1Aiming towards readability, selfregulation always refers to goaloriented selfregulation, shortened SR, throughout the manuscript. KEYWORDS copreneurs, interaction process, selfregulation, working alliance, workplace coaching Practitioner points • Our study emphasizes goaloriented selfregulation, as a theoretically grounded and most proximal coaching outcome. Coaches should be more sensitive to goaloriented statements by coachees: expressions of selfaccess (e.g., ‘I am responsible for this’), interest in change (e.g., ‘I am excited to do this’), goalrelated decision making (e.g., ‘I will focus on X’) and implementation intentions (e.g., ‘I will do Y to achieve Z’). • Identifying and fostering coachees' goaloriented selfregulation statements can help coaches strengthen the coachees' implementation intentions, enhance goal commitment and track key turning points to evaluate and adjust the ongoing coaching progress. • Coaching copreneurs in a couple setting is challenging; thus, coaches need to pay close attention to the different conversational dynamics with each coachee. Support from coaches in the form of agreement and open questions elicits selfregulation in female but not male coachees. Giving male coachees space to talk and just listening to them was shown to be effective. • Coaches should be aware that copreneurial coachees, regardless of gender, benefit from verbalizing their thoughts to facilitate selfregulation. Coaches should encourage coachees to engage in conversation and think aloud during coaching. | 3 of 33 FINEGRAINED VERBAL DYNAMICS DURING COPRENEUR COACHING SESSIONS seems to be a promising approach, as SR is one of the prerequisites for effective coaching conversations (Erdös & Ramseyer, 2021; Wang et al., 2021) and is essential for coachees to obtain the desired change (Grant, 2003; Jones et al., 2016; Theeboom et al., 2014). Hence, we use coachees' SR statements as a verbal indicator of insession coaching success, expanding the literature from a dynamic, processoriented perspective. To date, the coaching research has predominantly adopted a static perspective on the coaching process by relying on selfreport surveys to gain insights into the retrospective subjective perceptions of coachees regarding success factors and coaching outcomes (e.g., Graßmann & Schermuly, 2020). The few pioneering studies that have examined the actual verbal dynamics leading to the most proximal coaching outcomes have done so exclusively in onetoone career coaching settings for students and young professionals (Gessnitzer et al., 2016; Gessnitzer & Kauffeld, 2015; Jordan & Kauffeld, 2020; Will et al., 2016, 2019). Furthermore, we expand this literature by examining triadic coaching conversations in a working sample of copreneurs, which addresses the shortcomings of student samples but also traditional onetoone coaching settings. Copreneurs are business owners and their coworking romantic partners, who represent the smallest unit of family businesses; thus, they are important contributors to industry (Barnett & Barnett, 1988; van Praag & Versloot, 2007). On the basis of PSI theory, we derive theoretical predictions regarding the links between coaches, coachees and their respective copreneurial partners that may contribute to coachees' SR statements during the coaching conversation. As such, our study makes several contributions to this special issue (Kotte et al., 2023) and to our understanding of the underlying mechanisms and processes of coaching. First, by leveraging PSI theory, we can address calls for a theoretically founded understanding of the coaching process. We theoretically deduce preceding statements and statement patterns (e.g., working alliance) that influence subsequent coachees' SR and explain why they relate to each other. Second, our behavioural process approach, with corresponding analyses of videotaped coaching sessions, pinpoints the genuine verbal dynamics and process mechanisms that elicit coachees' SR. Hence, we go beyond insights from static approaches and advance the literature on workplace coaching by ‘zooming in’ on the acttoact verbal dynamics that constitute the actual coaching process with a working sample. Third, by studying copreneurial coaching, we are able to obtain novel insights into coaching processes and highlight gender differences beyond the typical onetoone setting. Finally, our practical contribution refers to theoryand evidencebased actionable strategies for practitioners who want to increase positive coachee outcomes during coaching conversations. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Coaching is a temporal conversational phenomenon, and empirical research has started examining the social dynamics during coaching sessions that contribute to coaching success (for an overview, see Calasso et al., 2024; Fleischhacker & Graf, 2024; LehmannWillenbrock, 2025). However, our theoretical understanding of the verbal dynamics between coaches and their coachees still requires considerable improvement (e.g., Fleischhacker & Graf, 2023, 2024; IaniroDahm & Kauffeld, 2022; Klonek et al., 2024). Therefore, we adopt PSI theory (Kuhl, 2000), which employs a functionalanalytic approach to examine how various cognitive systems interact to fulfil specific psychological functions. Using this conceptual framework, we derive specific hypotheses regarding the verbal dynamics between coaches and their coachees during coaching conversations that contribute to coachees' SR. PSI theory and coachees' SR in coaching conversations PSI theory explains how coachees may achieve change and reach their overarching coaching goal through coaching (Engel & Kuhl, 2022; Greif et al., 2022; Mühlberger et al., 2024). The central psychological 4 of 33 | FINGAS et al. function in PSI theory is SR, which is accomplished through two intraindividual processes: selfgrowth and action control. The first intraindividual SR process, selfgrowth, involves reflecting on and integrating challenging experiences into the self (e.g., confronting failure). This process requires an interaction between the object recognition and the extension memory system. While the object recognition system involves problem identification, extension memory refers to a network of autobiographically relevant experiences, including the self, with personal values, internalized roles, responsibilities and emotions. In line with the core tenets of PSI theory, coachees can improve their selfaccess through selfrelaxation, allowing them to confront challenging experiences and integrate these experiences into their self (e.g., learning from mistakes). The second intraindividual SR process, action control, involves planning according to selfset goals, building implementation intentions and maintaining motivation to change. This process requires an interaction between the intention memory and the intuitive behaviour control system. The intention memory system involves developing and maintaining explicit intentions and planning behaviours necessary to attain a desired goal, whereas intuitive behaviour control refers to habitual, automatic and unconscious behaviours. Coachees who frequently procrastinate or fall back into intuitive habits that misalign with their coaching goals can improve their ability to build implementation intentions. This could be achieved by fostering selfmotivation and developing frustration tolerance when faced with obstacles or relapses. Building on PSI theory, we suggest that the following types of statements indicate coachees' SR during coaching conversations: (1) statements that indicate access to the self, such as expressing one's values, roles and responsibilities (e.g., ‘I am responsible for workforce planning, so I have to be…’; Erdös & Ramseyer, 2021); (2) statements that show interest in change, both for selfgrowth and action control (e.g., ‘I am excited to see how I will do next week’; Will et al., 2019); (3) decisionmaking statements related to the coaching goal (e.g., after weighing different options; ‘I think most important for my goal approach is X’; Bagozzi, 1992; Cellar et al., 2011); and (4) statements that demonstrate implementation intentions (e.g., ‘I will do X so that I take the stairs, instead of the elevator’; Oettingen & Reininger, 2016; Smith & Brummel, 2013). PSI theory suggests that external stimuli, such as verbal statements by the coach, can elicit or hinder system interplay within coachees, with downstream consequences for their selfgrowth and action control processes, and hence observable SR statements (Engel & Kuhl, 2022). Considering the different speakers throughout the coaching session, we theoretically derive links between specific statements and subsequent coachees' SR statements as follows. See Figure 1 for an overview of the PSI theorydriven conceptual model, which illustrates the observable verbal dynamics and underlying processes indicative of coachees' SR. Coach statements that elicit coachees' SR Following PSI theory, statements by coaches that create pleasant, supportive and reflective conversations should facilitate coachees' SR (Baumann et al., 2010). When a coach agrees with a coachee (e.g., ‘Yes, for sure.’), they provide approval and support, which helps the coachee relax and, in turn, access the self, which is essential for learning from challenging experiences. Support through agreement by coaches may reinforce the coachee's selfmotivation to generate selfcongruent implementation intentions and reflect on their blind spots related to unwanted habits (action control; Engel & Kuhl, 2022). Moreover, open questions (e.g., ‘How do you…?’) asked by coaches may encourage coachees to explore their situation, reflect on their problems and integrate them into the self. Hence, coachees should be equipped to engage in selfgrowth and strong, selfcongruent intention building and thus action control. In contrast, the asking of closed questions (e.g., ‘Is this correct?’) by coaches limits reflection and participation by coachees, as they focus instead on brief, specific information that the coach is interested in rather than what the coachee wants to proactively share. Consequently, closed questions may inhibit SR processes by promoting neither selfrelaxation to access the self nor selfmotivation to enact intentions (Kuhl, 2018). | 5 of 33 FINEGRAINED VERBAL DYNAMICS DURING COPRENEUR COACHING SESSIONS Empirical research on dyadic studenttostudent career coaching conversations has identified open questions (e.g., Gessnitzer et al., 2016), open solutionfocused questions (e.g., Jordan & Kauffeld, 2020) and the provision of support by coaches as potential triggers for SR statements (e.g., Gessnitzer & Kauffeld, 2012). Moreover, motivational interviewing (e.g., Klonek et al., 2016; Magill et al., 2018) and mentoring literature (e.g., StJean & Audet, 2013) suggest that nondirective techniques, such as open questions, elicit positive outcomes (e.g., learning), as opposed to directive closed questions. Thus, we hypothesize the following regarding coachinitiated statements and coachees' subsequent SR statements: H1a. Coaches' support in the form of agreement elicits each coachee's SR. H1b. Coaches' open questions elicit each coachee's SR. H1c. Coaches' closed questions inhibit each coachee's SR. Coachee statements that elicit coachees' SR Coachees' SR may also be elicited by their own preceding statements using the PSI theoretical framework. When coachees express statements of agreement (e.g., ‘For sure, yes.’), they show approval, which should enable selfrelaxation, facilitating access to the self. The coachees' agreement as part of decisionmaking may also indicate their selfmotivation to implement challenging intentions (action control). Furthermore, coachees' selfdisclosure statements (e.g., ‘Honestly, I feel overwhelmed.’) may elicit SR. Selfdisclosure statements show that coachees feel comfortable enough to share personal, possibly FIGURE 1 Conceptual Model for Studying Verbal Dynamics During Coaching Conversations. This figure illustrates selfgrowth and action control processes through observed interpersonal verbal statements made during coaching sessions. Each circle in the figure represents a distinct statement. Empty circles represent any statement type of the act4 consulting coding scheme used. The abbreviations of the example statement types used are defined as follows: B refers to bonding statements, G/T refers to goalrelated or taskrelated statements, A refers to agreement statements and SR refers to selfregulation statements. A continuous rectangle that frames two circles represents a pattern of two sequentially statements. A dashed rectangle that frames three circles represents the working alliancespecific subpattern of agreement about goals and tasks with a following selfregulation statement. 6 of 33 | FINGAS et al. vulnerable insights about their self, such as their own emotions, attitudes and personal experiences of success and failure, thus signalling their access to the self. Finally, coachees' knowledge-management statements that include informative statements (e.g., ‘X is defined as…’) and problemor solutionfocused statements (e.g., ‘What hinders me is…’, ‘The good thing is…’) may also elicit SR. These statements reflect the ability of coachees to analyse situations, recognize potential goal discrepancies and identify strategies for selfmotivation to achieve their goals (action control; Engel & Kuhl, 2022). Empirical studies emphasize the utility of coachee engagement during onetoone coaching conversations (e.g., Gessnitzer et al., 2016). Selfdisclosure of inner feelings, beliefs or attitudes by coachees (Vogel & Wester, 2003) is successpredictive according to the therapy (e.g., Kaplan, 2006), counselling (e.g., Obibuba, 2021; Vogel & Wester, 2003) and coaching research (e.g., Gessnitzer & Kauffeld, 2012). Furthermore, coachees' selfinsight and selfreflection are key to learning and selfgrowth (e.g., Ives, 2008; Jones et al., 2016), highlighting the importance of knowledgemanagement statements for coaching success. On the basis of PSI theory, we hypothesize the following regarding coacheeinitiated statements and the subsequent SR statements by coachees: H2a. Coachees' support in the form of agreement elicits their own SR. H2b. Coachees' selfdisclosure statements elicit their own SR. H2c. Coachees' knowledgemanagement statements, including informative statements, problemdescribing and solutionstatements, elicit their own SR. Mutual influence among coachees for eliciting SR statements This study builds on a previously evaluated coaching program tailored to small business copreneurs that focused on work–life management (Busch et al., 2021, 2022; Dreyer & Busch, 2022). For details on the triadic coaching rationale and copreneurial characteristics, see Appendix A. Following the triadic coaching conceptualization, both copreneurial partners work on their individual goals, which refer to their work–life intersection, while continuously receiving encouragement from the coach to actively collaborate and support each other (e.g., providing ideas to one another). Thus, partners may actively shape the coaching conversation as cocoaches by offering ideas or critically enhancing their partners' solution strategies. Integrating the partner as an equal coachee not only aligns with the copreneurial context but also increases conversational complexity due to the greater interconnectedness of speakers. An additional coachee introduces more communication paths, adds personal interests and goals to the conversation and increases social complexity (e.g., precoaching history with partners, compared with no history with the coach). Research suggests that one partner's (verbal) behaviours, such as perceived responsiveness (e.g., Itzchakov et al., 2022) or perceived support (e.g., Righetti et al., 2010), can influence the other partner's proximal reactions. In the evaluation of the present copreneur coaching program, perceived spousal social support throughout the coaching predicted coaching satisfaction and goal attainment 4 months later (Busch et al., 2021). For our hypotheses, the functionalanalytic PSI approach provided the basis for deriving arguments about evolving conversational dynamics regarding SR within each coaching session. However, the copreneurial coachees in our study share a prior history, likely having developed partnerspecific interaction dynamics over the years, which the functionalanalytical PSI theory approach does not account for. In addition to the specific copreneurial coaching setting, this study is, to our knowledge, the first to empirically examine coacheetocoachee verbal dynamics during coaching sessions, in contrast to a coupleor family therapy context. Given these considerations, we pose an exploratory research question to explore mutual conversational influence among coachees and how this might evoke SR: | 7 of 33 FINEGRAINED VERBAL DYNAMICS DURING COPRENEUR COACHING SESSIONS RQ1. Which verbal communication statements by one coachee elicit subsequent SR by the other coachee?. After examining each speaker's perspective on SR elicitation, we focus on the proximal effect of a more complex, interpersonally evolving phenomenon: the working alliance. The verbal imprint of the working alliance and coachees' SR The working alliance between a coachee and an interventionist, such as a coach or therapist, is one of the most researched interpersonal phenomena (e.g., Bordin, 1979; Graßmann, 2022). Current conceptualizations of the working alliance differentiate between (1) the creation of a trusting and appreciative bond (bonding) and (2) mutual agreement about goals, tasks and the immediate next steps during the session's procedure (agreement about goals and tasks; Andrusyna et al., 2001; Gessnitzer & Kauffeld, 2015). Behaviourally, bonding may be indicated by specific statements that establish trust and show appreciation (e.g., a compliment; Gessnitzer & Kauffeld, 2015). In contrast, the subfacet of agreement about goals and tasks may refer to sequential statements by two speakers—a socalled pattern. A pattern is indicated by a preceding statement, such as one speaker making a procedural suggestion for the coaching session (e.g., ‘I suggest we continue with X.’), which is followed by a statement of agreement by another speaker (Gessnitzer & Kauffeld, 2015; Schermuly et al., 2021). In line with PSI theory, statements that establish trustful and appreciative communication (e.g., bonding) should promote coachees' selfrelaxation, enabling better selfaccess and strengthening of their selfmotivation to implement strong intentions. As indicators of a collaborative and productive session, the agreement about goals and task patterns should enhance interest in change, decisionmaking and the development of implementation intentions. Furthermore, these patterns of agreement about goals and tasks align with the further structure of the coaching procedure and collaboration, which may both allow selfrelaxation and increase informational and emotional resources, which are important for SR (selfmotivation; Baumeister & Vohs, 2007). Research suggests a positive link between a perceived strong coach–coachee relationship and coachee outcomes (e.g., Baron & Morin, 2009; Graßmann et al., 2020; Sonesh et al., 2015). In the evaluation of the copreneurial coaching programme, coachees' perception of a working alliance played the expected role in coaching satisfaction but not in goal attainment (Busch et al., 2021). These findings align with results from dyadic coaching settings (de Haan et al., 2020; Grant, 2014; Solms et al., 2024). Using behavioural working alliance assessment, Gessnitzer and Kauffeld (2015) reported that while the frequency of those verbalizations did not correlate with the global assessment of perceived working alliance, the coachees' working alliance statements correlated with their perceived goal attainment. Researchers agree, however, that the working alliance continuously evolves in small steps through an ongoing verbal (re)negotiation of the collaboration and reassurance of trust and acceptance (e.g., O'Broin & Palmer, 2006). Hence, studying the working alliance and its proximal effects at an accordingly finegrained behavioural level should expand our understanding from a process perspective. However, working alliances in the organizational coaching context have been researched primarily in onetoone settings. Thus, we first focus on the phenomenon of the working alliance itself and its effects on SR statements without differentiating between all three interactants as speakers (i.e., coach, coachee, and partner). On the basis of PSI theory and findings from dyadic contexts, we hypothesize that working alliance verbalizations, regardless of the speaker, elicit subsequent coachees' SR statements: H3a. Bonding statements, regardless of the speaker, elicit both coachees' subsequent SR. H3b. Agreement about goals and tasks patterns, regardless of the interactants, elicit both coachees' subsequent SR. 8 of 33 | FINGAS et al. The novel triadic coaching setting investigated in this study uniquely offers to focus on the verbal dynamics among coachees, thereby exploring whether mutual working alliance patterns may also occur among them. In this setting, the two copreneurial coachees are expected to actively collaborate (e.g., provide ideas and inspiration to one another), which may give rise to patterns of coacheetocoachee working alliances. Unlike verbal manifestations of coach–coachee working alliances, such manifestations between coachees need to be viewed in light of their shared precoaching history, including prior bonding, established trust, shared goals and mutual understanding. Given this shared history and associated verbal interaction dynamics (e.g., Jolin et al., 2024), we are particularly interested in working alliance patterns among the coachees that provide insights into their collaboration (rather than individual statements, such as expressions of bonding). Empirical examinations of couple conversations indicate that, beyond the potentially established conversational dynamics, spontaneous partner statements can indeed influence the other party's responses (e.g., Itzchakov et al., 2022; Sasaki et al., 2023). This suggests that patterns of agreement about goals and tasks could emerge among partners. However, no literature currently addresses couple interactions in the coaching context. The closest analogous setting seems to be couple therapy, where the therapists aim to first establish a therapeutic working alliance among the partners that has the primarily aim of improving the quality of the couple's relationship, which in turn allows them to collaborate on tasks and (shared) therapy goals (coacheetocoachee alliance; e.g., Anderson & Johnson, 2010; Friedlander et al., 2011). Additionally, the dual therapist–coachee working alliance with each partner aims to reduce perceived personal distress, which may point towards different foci of working alliances between speakers (coach–individual coachee; coachee–coachee). However, significant differences between couple therapy and the copreneurial coaching limit the transferability of arguments and empirical results. First, while the goal of couple therapy is to strengthen the couple system, the copreneurial coaching at hand focuses on achieving individual goals to improve work–life balance, which is coordinated with and supported by the spouse. Second, the coaches in the copreneurial coaching programme encourage the coachees to support each other as cocoaches, which contrasts with the couple therapy setting centred on the therapist. Therefore, we explore working alliance patterns among partners and ask the following: RQ2. Do verbal working alliance patterns of agreement about goals and tasks emerge among coachees?. Research context: Small business copreneur coaching The present coaching concept adopts Kotte et al. (2021) core characteristic of workplace coaching, which is processoriented and focused on the interface between individuals and their work. However, the classic differentiation between workplace, life and executive coaching is less applicable to the unique context of small business copreneurs, as their work–life interface is highly intertwined. To maximize coaching success, it seems essential to consider the coachees' contexts and characteristics (e.g., Bozer et al., 2022; Kotte et al., 2019; Oyserman et al., 2017). Copreneurs often adhere to traditional gender roles, especially in the German craft industry, where coaching was implemented (Busch et al., 2022; Dreyer & Busch, 2022; Marschack, 1994). In most businesses, the man is the official owner, and even when the woman is a coowner or sole owner, leadership roles are more frequently attributed to men (Jurik et al., 2019). Despite potential progress towards gender equality in copreneurship (Jennings et al., 2013), traditional gender roles persist. These roles continue to divide work across life domains (Heilman, 2012; Kirk, 2019; Marshack, 1994), where women are more likely to manage household and childcare duties (Fitzgerald & Muske, 2002; Jurik et al., 2019). Given the pronounced gendered division of tasks and roles among copreneurs in Germany, it is likely that men and women communicate differently in triadic coaching sessions and may require tailored input from the coach (e.g., Erdös et al., 2021; Ridgeway, 2011). In terms of the functionalanalytical PSI approach, gender differences in communication can be attributed to unconscious genderspecific preferences in the predominant use of cognitive systems and their integration for SR. Compared with male coachees, female | 15 of 33 FINEGRAINED VERBAL DYNAMICS DURING COPRENEUR COACHING SESSIONS RQ1: Exploration of partners' statements and the subsequent SR by the other coachee Knowledgemanagement statements made by female coachees significantly inhibited the subsequent other coachees' SR (z = −4 .0 9, p < .05). With respect to the effect of male coachees' knowledgemanagement statements on the SR statements of their partners, the OR diverged from the z value, indicating that the z value for this specific analysis was inflated (see Table 5) and that male coachees' statements did not relate to their partners' SR. Furthermore, neither of the partners' procedural statements related significantly to the respective subsequent SR of the other coachee. Additionally, regarding the social act4 consulting subfacet, both partners' support in the form of agreement significantly inhibited the respective other coachees' SR. The other socialrelated statements made by both coachees, including socioresponsive, selfdisclosureand socioemotional statements, did not relate to the subsequent SR of the respective partner. Hence, the results for RQ1 indicate that the partners' statements were either not related to the SR statements of the other coachee or had an inhibitory effect. The results for male partners on the female coachee are displayed in Table 5 and vice versa in Table 6. TABLE 5 Results of lag sequential analysis for SR statements by female coachees in response to statements by male coachees (RQ1). Subfacet Male coachees' statements z values for subsequent female coachees' SR statements OR Knowledgemanagement statements Knowledgemanagement statements −2.03 1.99 Procedural statements Procedural statements −0.87 N/A Social statements Support in the form of agreement statements −2.48 0.99 Socioresponsive statements −1.32 N/A Selfdisclosure statements −1.57 N/A Socioemotional statements −1.93 N/A Note: Significant sequential effects for subsequent behaviour are indicated by a z value >1.96 or <−1.96 (p < .05). SR refers to goaloriented selfregulation. OR refers to the odds ratio. N/A refers to not available, as ORs were only provided for significant z values. TABLE 6 Results of lag sequential analysis for SR statements by male coachees in response to statements by female coachees (RQ1). Subfacet Female coachees' statements z values for subsequent male coachees' SR statements OR knowledge-management statements Knowledgemanagement statements −4.09 0.68 Procedural statements Procedural statements −0.47 N/A Social statements Support in the form of agreement statements −2.15 0.96 Socioresponsive statements −1.20 N/A Selfdisclosure statements −0.92 N/A Socioemotional statements −0.57 N/A Note: Significant sequential effects for subsequent behaviour are indicated by a z value >1.96 or <−1.96 (p < .05). SR refers to selfregulation. OR refers to the odds ratio. N/A refers to not available, as ORs were only provided for significant z values. 16 of 33 | FINGAS et al. H3a, H3b: Working alliance statements and patterns and coachees' subsequent SR H3a and H3b focused on the working alliance phenomenon and its proximal relation to coachees' SR, without specifying which of the three interacting speakers involved in the triadic coaching setting made the working alliance verbalizations. H3a hypothesized that the working alliance's bonding statements, regardless of speaker, elicited coachees' SR, whereas H3b hypothesized that this eliciting effect for patterns of agreement about goals and tasks. The LSA results revealed that, for both hypotheses, none of the working alliance subfacet verbalizations significantly elicited coachees' SR. Therefore, our H3a and H3b were not supported. The results are displayed in Table 7. RQ2: Exploration of working alliance patterns among coachees RQ2 focused on the evolvement of agreement about goals and task patterns exclusively among the two coachees. The LSA revealed that neither female nor male coachees' goalor taskrelated statements significantly elicited the other coachees' subsequent agreement. Hence, copreneurial partners did not engage in mutual patterns of agreement about goals and tasks. Additionally, we performed ancillary analyses to complete the picture of pattern evolvement for all three speakers. The results of our ancillary LSA revealed that coaches significantly agreed with both TABLE 7 Results of lag sequential analysis for SR statements by female and male coachees in response to the working alliance's bonding statements and agreement about goals and tasks patterns regardless of the speaker (H3a, H3b). Working Alliance subfacet z values for subsequent coachees' SR statements Female Male Bonding statements regardless of the speaker (H3a) −1.05 −0.98 Agreement about goals and task patterns regardless of the speaker (H3b) −0.15 0.10 Note: Significant sequential effects for subsequent behaviour are indicated by a z value >1.96 or <−1.96 (p < .05). SR refers to goaloriented selfregulation. We did not provide the odds ratio, as none of the z values were significant. Bonding statements, regardless of speaker, indicate that coaches, coachees or their partners could make a bonding statement. Agreement about goals and tasks patterns, regardless of the speaker, indicate that the goalor taskrelated statement could be stated by a coach, a coachee, or their partner with agreement received from the respective interactant. TABLE 8 Results of lag sequential analysis for emergence of working alliance patterns initiated by different speakers (RQ2, ancillary analyses). Initiation of goaland taskrelated statements Interactants' agreement z values for subsequent agreement statement OR Female coachees' initiation Male coachees 0.50 N/A Male coachees' initiation Female coachees −0.15 N/A Ancillary analyses Female coachees' initiation Coaches 8.64 1.86 Male coachees' initiation Coaches 9.77 2.12 Coaches' initiation Female coachees 4.32 1.10 Male coachees 2.31 0.79 Note: Significant sequential effects for subsequent behaviour are indicated by a z value >1.96 or <−1.96 (p < .05). SR refers to goaloriented selfregulation. OR refers to the odds ratio. N/A refers to not available, as ORs were only provided for significant z values. The focus of RQ2 was on the evolvement of the coacheetocoachee working alliance patterns, which was complemented by ancillary analyses that also explored the individual coacheetocoach working alliance patterns and the individual coachtocoachee working alliance patterns. | 17 of 33 FINEGRAINED VERBAL DYNAMICS DURING COPRENEUR COACHING SESSIONS coachees' goalrelated and their taskrelated statements. Interestingly, only female coachees significantly agreed with the coaches' goalrelated and taskrelated statements. The results for RQ2 and the ancillary analyses are displayed in Table 8. Note that the OR for male coachees' agreement with coaches' goalrelated and taskrelated statements diverged from the z value, indicating that the z value for this specific analysis was inflated and that male coachees did not significantly agree with their coaches' proposals. RQ3: Exploration of gender differences in coachees' SR statement elicitation To reflect the triadic coaching setting with two coachees, we needed to differentiate between coachee A and coachee B (based on their gender) throughout all the analyses. However, in terms of analyses, the specific characteristic of the coachee's gender was only meaningful in relation to RQ3, which explored specific gender differences throughout the whole coaching conversation, thereby going beyond the mere differentiation between the two coachees for statistical reasons. As we already separated the coachees according to their gender throughout all our analyses to reflect the triadic setting, we can summarize the following for gender differences that are specifically targeted by RQ3. The LSA revealed genderspecific effects of coach statements, as the hypothesized statements significantly influenced only female coachees' SR but not males' SR: closed questions (inhibiting effect), open questions and support in the form of agreement (eliciting effects; see Table 2). The LSA for coachees' influence on their respective own SR showed no gender differences. For both coachees, the following statements elicited their SR significantly: informativeand problemfocused statements, selfdisclosure statements and providing support in the form of agreement. Own solutionfocused statements did not significantly relate to female coachees' SR (H2a; z = 1.58, p > .05) or male coachees' SR (H2a; z = 1.76, p > .05; see Tables 3, 4). The LSA for partners' influence on the other coachees' SR did not reveal any gender differences, meaning that, for both genders, the partners' statements were either inhibitive or unrelated (see Tables 5 and 6). The LSA for the effect of preceding working alliance verbalizations (both subfacets) on female and male coachees' SR did not reveal any gender differences (see Table 7). Finally, the LSA on the evolvement of patterns of agreement about goals and tasks also revealed no gender differences (see Table 8). DISCUSSION To understand the verbal mechanisms that contribute to successful workplace coaching, the ‘black box’ of conversational dynamics inside actual coaching sessions needs to be opened. To this end, this study drew on PSI theory to explain how and why coachees' SR statements emerge from conversational dynamics during the process of triadic coaching sessions with copreneurial couples. In this novel coaching setting, our results revealed genderspecific effects of coaches' statements on coachees' SR, with substantial effect sizes. When coaches provided support or asked open questions, they elicited female coachees' SR (but not male coachees' SR), whereas when coaches asked closed questions, female coachees' SR was inhibited (but not male coachees' SR). Moreover, for both coachees, most of their own verbalizations, such as selfdisclosure or problemfocused statements, elicited SR, which emphasizes the active coachee notion. However, their partners could not elicit the other coachees' SR during the conversation. Contrary to our expectations, working alliance verbalizations of bonding and agreement about goals and tasks patterns did not elicit coachees' SR. Agreement about goals and tasks patterns was not detected among the coachees. Theoretical implications On the basis of our conceptual framework of PSI theory, we derive the following implications for coaching research. First, PSI theory and its functionalanalytical approach inform our findings on the 18 of 33 | FINGAS et al. genderspecific effectiveness of statements by coaches for coachees' SR (H1aH1c, RQ3). Female and male coachees may have different unconscious preferences regarding their use of cognitive systems, how these systems interact and how effectively they function in various situations. Genderspecific unconscious preferences may arise from distinct gender identities and internalized learning experiences shaped by socialization (e.g., Eagly & Karau, 2002; Eagly & Wood, 2016), which are part of the coachees' self (e.g., Wood & Eagly, 2009). SR processes, in turn, are influenced by gender identity (e.g., Badura et al., 2018). For female coachees, a communal and affiliative (e.g., Carli, 2001; Murnen & Smolak, 2010) stance is typically internalized in the self. This implies frequent use of the object recognition system in PSI theory, characterized by intensified thoughtfulness and a tendency to ruminate (e.g., NolenHoeksema & Jackson, 2001). When ruminating and focusing on potential problems, female coachees may require external verbal regulation by the coach, such as the provision of support (e.g., Martin & Slepian, 2021), to allow them to relax and access their extension memory for selfgrowth (Engel & Kuhl, 2022). Similarly, coaches' open questions may facilitate behavioural options for female coachees to engage in problemsolving and further engage in change and strong implementation intention building for action control (Engel & Kuhl, 2022; Gessnitzer & Kauffeld, 2012; Hall & Fong, 2013). In contrast, male coachees typically internalize a dominant and agentic stance in the self (e.g., Murnen & Smolak, 2010). This implies frequent use of the intuitive behaviour control system, characterized by intensified enthusiasm, assertiveness and a tendency towards premature but selfdriven action (e.g., Hsu et al., 2021). According to PSI theory, such a selfdriven action focus (e.g., Martin & Slepian, 2021) aligns with the active coachee notion and may also explain why external nudges by coaches' statements are less relevant for male coachees' SR. Although both coachees benefit from having space to reflect and assess the self, thus selfregulate (e.g., clarify their situation, challenges, and failures; Engel & Kuhl, 2022), listening without interrupting seems to be the only facilitative technique that supports male coachees' proximal SR. To interpret the observed gender differences in coach coachee interaction dynamics, it is necessary to consider our particular sample, where professional roles in the workplace (e.g., leader, assistant) are stereotypically genderrelated. Men are mostly the main owners, whereas their wives support their shared business. Gender and professional roles are closely intertwined and may be confounded. However, the probability and explicitness of role and gender effects are largely dependent on context (e.g., Oyserman et al., 2017). In the traditional and heteronormative German craft industry (e.g., Heilman, 2012; Jurik et al., 2019; Kirk, 2019), gender differences are likely to be more salient than professional role differences are (e.g., Heilman & ParksStamm, 2007). Second, our findings regarding coachees' contributions to eliciting SR (H2aH2c) underline the active coachee notion, which emphasizes the significance of coachees' own verbal engagement for goal achievement (Gessnitzer & Kauffeld, 2015). This finding can also be explained by PSI theory in terms of coachees showing their capacity to switch between the four SRrelevant systems, balance them and effectively function in different situations. For example, coachees' selfdisclosure statements show that they are relaxed and able to access their extension memory, which represents the largely unconscious network of personally relevant experiences. Following the PSI theory tenets, we suggest that coachees' agreement statements positively reinforce selfrelaxation for selfgrowth and selfmotivation for action control. Moreover, problemfocused statements signal awareness of the discrepancy between the current state and the desired state, highlighting the need for action to attain a goal. In contrast, a solutionfocused statement may be premature regarding the actual state of the action control process and may cause regression into undesired habits. Notably, our findings extend the active coachee notion to most proximal outcomes and complex conversational settings. As such, we took a first step to systematically study the intention–behaviour gap by examining how coachees can talk themselves into change and build strong intentions as part of their SR process (see Magill & Hallgren, 2019; Miller & Rollnick, 2004; Nowack, 2017). Third, our behaviourallevel finding (RQ1) that the partners' verbal statements were either unrelated or even inhibitory to SR statements by the other coachee challenges a key intention of the copreneurial coaching concept (Busch et al., 2021) regarding spousal social support as one mechanism of change. | 19 of 33 FINEGRAINED VERBAL DYNAMICS DURING COPRENEUR COACHING SESSIONS At first glance, this finding appears to contradict previous findings on the helpful role of perceived spousal social support for individual coaching success (Busch et al., 2021); however, this previous work was based on selfreports of overall spousal support. One reason for the lack of verbal influence among partners could be the daily available conversational time with partners. In contrast, time with coaches was precious and limited only to the coaching session duration, which may explain their relatively greater verbal influential power, at least for female coachees. However, to support the goal approach of the other coachee outside coaching sessions, partners may be more influential than they are during the session. Finally, the lack of relevance of working alliance verbalizations (H3a, H3b) for SR is unexpected, as a trustful bond and clear (shared) goals should facilitate coachees' SR from the perspective of PSI theory. During the coaching session process, by definition, the working alliance gradually unfolds and can be detected by working alliance verbalizations (e.g., Gessnitzer & Kauffeld, 2015). Using PSI theory, SR processes can be influenced by external verbal statements, suggesting that a good conversational atmosphere (e.g., bonding statements) that could be created by either one of the three interacting speakers during the coaching should indeed have a proximal positive effect during the conversation. The same logic applies to a collaborative dialogue (e.g., agreement about goals and tasks patterns) among all three speakers. However, the working alliance's proximal effect may not manifest in the immediate next reaction (e.g., lag1) but in proximal effects over a longer time frame (e.g., within the next minute or hour; Hemshorn de Sanchez, Allen, & LehmannWillenbrock, 2022; Hemshorn de Sanchez, Gerpott, & LehmannWillenbrock, 2022; Klonek et al., 2020). Another explanation is that working alliances may be more strongly related to affective outcomes, such as coaching satisfaction, than to resultoriented outcomes, such as SR. This explanation is empirically supported by the results of a previous copreneur coaching evaluation study (Busch et al., 2021) and previous surveybased research in dyadic coaching settings that emphasized perceived working alliances as key factors for coaching satisfaction (Baron & Morin, 2009; Graßmann & Schermuly, 2020; Schermuly et al., 2021). When zooming in the working alliance behaviours among coachees (RQ2), one needs to consider that the coacheetocoachee relationship is unique in terms of established prior history compared with the coachtocoachee relationship. Although partners share a (romantic) past, suggesting that already established verbal dynamics might dominate, studies on couple conversations indicate that spontaneous verbal dynamics evolve in couple settings, regardless of the relational history (e.g., Itzchakov et al., 2022; Sasaki et al., 2023). The lack of observed coacheetocoachee working alliance patterns, thus, departs from questionnaire insights from couple therapy settings that reveal coachee alliances (e.g., Friedlander et al., 2005). Importantly, however, the selfreported coacheetocoachee working alliance was conceptualized differently, with a more nuanced focus on emotional openness and shared purpose of the intervention. This contrasts with the conceptualization of working alliances in coaching (e.g., Friedlander et al., 2005). The working alliance between coaches and (female) coachees (and vice versa) may be well captured by the two subfacets of bonding and agreement about goals and tasks; however, other relevant behaviours may include autonomy support or relatedness statements (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003; see also Diller et al., 2022). With respect to the coacheetocoachee working alliance, partners likely already have a strong bond. Therefore, more subtle, nonverbal working allianceindicative behaviours may be better suited to detect their working alliance during coaching rather than explicit verbal cues (e.g., smiling, touching; Garfield, 2004). Furthermore, the ancillary analyses of pattern evolvement with respect to all three speakers revealed that mutual working alliance patterns do emerge, although not for all triadic speaker constellations, which corroborates earlier research from dyadic career coaching that points towards mutual coach– coachee working alliances (Gessnitzer & Kauffeld, 2015; Ianiro & Kauffeld, 2014). In more detail, only coachtofemale coachee patterns (and vice versa) and male coacheetocoach patterns evolved with corresponding large effect magnitudes, but no coachtomale coachee patterns or coacheetocoachee patterns evolved. This needs to be considered when interpreting the missing link between working alliance and SR. Thus, our findings suggest the need for a rigorous scientific examination of the working alliance and its proximal effects in complex interaction settings (e.g., de Haan et al., 2020; Zimmermann & Antoni, 2020). 20 of 33 | FINGAS et al. Practical implications Our findings provide several actionable recommendations for both coaches and coachees. First, our study emphasizes SR as the most proximal coaching outcome using PSI theory. Coaches should be sensitive to coachees' SR statements in coaching: expressions of selfaccess (e.g., ‘I am responsible for this’), interest in change (e.g., ‘I want to improve’), goalrelated decisionmaking (e.g., ‘I will focus on X’) and implementation intentions (e.g., ‘I will do Y to achieve Z’). By doing so, coaches could directly foster key turning points to adjust the ongoing coaching progress. Second, coaching copreneurial couples can be challenging, requiring coaches to pay close attention to the different conversational dynamics with each copreneurial coachee. Coaches' support in the form of agreement and their asking of open questions have been shown to elicit SR in female, but not male, coachees. With respect to male coachees, no coach statement that facilitated SR could be identified, suggesting the importance of giving male coachees the chance to talk freely without interruption. While avoiding reinforcing gender stereotypes, the observed gender differences in our study suggest that coaches should monitor potential differences in coachee reactions and create an open atmosphere where both coachees can verbalize their thoughts. Training and coaching certification programmes should begin educating coaches about the power of their statements and listening skills to maximize insession coaching success in the form of coachees' SR. To facilitate coaches' ability to identify critical moments during coaching and thereby apply and detect verbal cues, we strongly recommend supervision practices involving audio or video recording. Third, coaches should be aware that copreneurial coachees, regardless of their gender, benefit from having space to reflect and to talk aloud to gain clarity. We emphasize that coachees' verbal engagement is crucial for their selfcompetence development. Coaches should inform coachees on the centrality of their verbal engagement throughout the conversation to coconstruct their coaching success. During the conversation, less talkative coachees should be encouraged to think aloud. Coaches should reduce their own speaking time or specifically invite coachees to share their thoughts. Fourth, although our study results show that coachees do not directly elicit SR in their partner during the coaching conversation, we recommend the couple setting for coaching copreneurs to improve their work–life balance owing to their intertwined work–life interface. This setting underlines the importance of the coach guiding through the coaching process but also the usefulness of the present partners to help develop and implement individual goals, as well as facilitating transfer after the coaching has ended. Limitations and future directions While detailed insights into verbal dynamics during copreneur coaching were obtained, they should be interpreted in light of the following limitations that point towards avenues for future research. First, the number of coaching sessions was relatively small (de Haan, 2019). Ad hoc power analyses confirmed sufficient statistical power for LSA at lag1 (Bakeman & Gottman, 1997), but not for further lags, which would have been promising for identifying the more distal effect of working alliances. The effect sizes of the identified verbal dynamics ranged from small to large, indicating their impact. However, the magnitude of this impact may be influenced by several other factors, such as empathy, the role played during the conversation, the coach's gender or coach–coachee fit (e.g., Solms et al., 2024). Additionally, coachee engagement was unevenly distributed in our sample. Despite strict recruitment and quality criteria for video coding (e.g., high intervention delivery), potential biases cannot be ruled out. Increasing the sample size in future studies would increase the generalizability and robustness of the findings. This would enable further nuanced analyses with even more finegrained code aggregations, allowing for genderrelated hypotheses about coaches' influence on coachees' outcomes or the relevance of initiating working alliances for coachee outcomes. Second, the genderspecific findings regarding coaches' open and closed questions warrant further investigation, particularly by differentiating the question content (e.g., reflection- , resourceor | 21 of 33 FINEGRAINED VERBAL DYNAMICS DURING COPRENEUR COACHING SESSIONS affectfocused; e.g., Grant & O'Connor, 2018). Further research should also consider other coachee attributes, including coachees' professional role identities (e.g., owner, coowner, supportive functions). This would enable increased coaching effectiveness, as coaches could tailor their techniques according to the coachee's needs and characteristics. While we focused on verbal statements, future research may benefit from mixedmethod approaches. These could combine verbal statements (e.g., empathic communication) and nonverbal behaviour (e.g., nonverbal indicators for positive affect) with selfreported data (e.g., perceived working alliances) to depict communicative phenomena more comprehensively. We encourage scholars to investigate the generalizability of our findings to other samples, including copreneurs from various business sizes and industries (Demerouti & Rispens, 2014; Schermuly et al., 2022; Wegener et al., 2020). Third, our study established that different coach and coachee statements, such as strong intention building (e.g., Hall & Fong, 2013), action control and selfgrowth (Engel & Kuhl, 2022), can facilitate coachees' SR, indicating insession coaching success. Although we explain that selfrelaxation and selfmotivation can foster those identified verbal dynamics on the basis of PSI theory, future research should empirically study these mechanisms of change. This could be accomplished by applying a new coding scheme to videotaped coaching sessions depicting verbal or nonverbal cues of affect regulation (e.g., tone or vigour of voice, facial expressions such as smiling or furrowed brows, use of verbal affirmations, etc.). Moreover, this could be combined with adaptive physiological markers (e.g., skin conductance, and heart rate variability) to capture SR emergence. While we established the basis to further accelerate the intention–behaviour gap debate by studying SR statements as indicators of strong intention building during a conversation (e.g., Hall & Fong, 2013), we did not address the behavioural change that occurred after the coaching session ended. Future research could link proximal, insession outcomes (e.g., SR statements, solutionoriented coachee statements, empathic coach behaviours) to other proximal or distal outcomes after coaching has ceased (e.g., behavioural goal approach, coaching satisfaction; e.g., Nowack, 2017). While our findings provide actionable behavioural recommendations for coaches, future research should examine the potential limitations of a predominantly nondirective coaching stance, as advocated by most coaching programmes. For example, Kotte et al. (2021) reported that entrepreneurial coachees value practical, directive techniques for achieving their coaching goal, not only nondirective ones (see also Berman, 2019). Hence, our findings emphasize the need for continued critical examination and application of coaching techniques to more complex settings, such as triadic coaching, and samples with higher job demands and workloads, beyond student samples (e.g., Deplazes, 2016; Kotte et al., 2021). AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS Stella M. Fingas: Writing – original draft; methodology; formal analysis; conceptualization. Christine Busch: Conceptualization; funding acquisition; writing – review and editing. Romana Dreyer: Project administration; writing – review and editing; conceptualization. Nale LehmannWillenbrock: Writing – review and editing; methodology; conceptualization. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was supported by funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF, grant number 02L14A030; eregiowerk consortium project), which is gratefully acknowledged. We are grateful to all cooperation partners in the eregiowerk project, in particular Katja KellerLandvogt and coaches of IKK classic, Monique Janneck (TH Lübeck), the representatives of the associations of craftsmen and guilds and in particular to all of the participating copreneurs. We appreciate the support and coding assistance of the following B.Sc. Psychology students during their bachelor theses: Ann Christin Johannsen, Dunja Endrikat, Selima Dadaeva and Jasper Ohlig. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT We have no conflict of interest to disclose. 22 of 33 | FINGAS et al. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT The anonymized annotated behavioural data that support the findings of this study (but not the raw video data) are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. ORCID Stella M. Fingas https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7834-9729 Christine Busch https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7676-3384 Romana Dreyer https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8789-6484 Nale LehmannWillenbrock https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3346-5894 REFERENCES Anderson, S. R., & Johnson, L. N. (2010). A dyadic analysis of the betweenand withinsystem alliances on distress. Family Process, 49(2), 220–235. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 15455300. 2010. 01319. x Andrusyna, T. P., Tang, T. Z., DeRubeis, R. J., & Luborsky, L. (2001). The factor structure of the working alliance inventory in cognitivebehavioral therapy. The Journal of Psychotherapy Practice and Research, 10(3), 173. Babcock, L., & Laschever, S. (2021). Women don't ask: Negotiation and the gender divide. In Women Don't ask (STUStudent edition). Princeton University Press. Badura, K. L., Grijalva, E., Newman, D. A., Yan, T. T., & Jeon, G. (2018). Gender and leadership emergence: A metaanalysis and explanatory model. Personnel Psychology, 71(3), 335–367. Bagozzi, R. P. (1992). The selfregulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Social Psycholog y Quarterly, 55(2), 178–204. Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge University Press. Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2011). Sequential analysis and observational methods for the behavioral sciences. Cambridge University Press. Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. AddisonWesley. Barnett, F., & Barnett, S. (1988). Working together: Entrepreneurial couples. Ten Speed Press. Baron, L., & Morin, L. (2009). The coachcoachee relationship in executive coaching: A field study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(1), 85–106. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ hrdq. 20009 Baumann, N., Kazén, M., & Kuhl, J. (2010). Implicit motives: A look from personality systems interaction theory. Implicit Motives, 20, 375–403. Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Selfregulation, ego depletion, and motivation. Social and Personality Psycholog y Compass, 1(1), 115–128. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 17519004. 2007. 00001. x Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2008). Active learning: Effects of core training design elements on selfregulatory processes, learning, and adaptability. Journal of Applied Psycholog y, 93(2), 296–316. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00219010. 93.2. 296 Berman, W. H. (2019). Coaching Csuite executives and business founders. Consulting Psycholog y Journal: Practice and Research, 71(2), 72–85. Boles, J. S., Dean, D. H., Ricks, J. M., Short, J. C., & Wang, G. (2000). The dimensionality of the Maslach burnout inventory across small business owners and educators. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56(1), 12–34. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1006/ jvbe. 1999. 1689 Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 16(3), 252–260. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ h0085885 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. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 58(2), 202–222. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00218 86322 1079937 Bozer, G., Delegach, M., & Kotte, S. (2022). The influence of organizational 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 Organizational Psycholog y, 27(3), 342–361. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 13594 32X. 2018. 1446946 Bozer, G., & Jones, R. J. (2021). Introduction to the special issue on advances in the psychology of workplace coaching. Applied Psycholog y, 70(2), 411–419. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ apps. 12305 Brannon, D. L., Wiklund, J., & Haynie, J. M. (2013). The varying effects of family relationships in entrepreneurial teams. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 37(1), 107–132. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 15406520. 2012. 00533. x Busch, C., Dreyer, R., & Janneck, M. (2021). Blended recovery and burnout coaching for smallbusiness copreneurs. Consulting Psycholog y Journal: Practice and Research, 73(1), 65–87. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ cpb00 00198 Busch, C., Dreyer, R., & Janneck, M. (2022). Blended health coaching for worklinked couples: Coaches' intervention fidelity and empathy matter! Coaching, Theorie & Praxis, 8(1), 43–58. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1365/ s4089 602200065 - 9 Calasso, L. F., Künzli, H., & Burtscher, M. J. (2024). What are executive coaches actually doing and when are they doing it? A systematic review of coaching behavior. Consulting Psychology Journal, 76(3), 238–258. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ cpb00 00267 | 23 of 33 FINEGRAINED VERBAL DYNAMICS DURING COPRENEUR COACHING SESSIONS Carli, L. L. (2001). Gender and social influence. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 725–741. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ 00224537. 00238 Cellar, D. F., Stuhlmacher, A. F., Young, S. K., Fisher, D. M., Adair, C. K., Haynes, S., Twichell, E., Arnold, K., Royer, K., Denning, B., & Riester, D. (2011). Trait goal orientation, selfregulation, and performance: A metaanalysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 26(4), 467–483. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1086 901092016 Charlesworth, T. E., Yang, V., Mann, T. C., Kurdi, B., & Banaji, M. R. (2021). Gender stereotypes in natural language: Word embeddings show robust consistency across child and adult language corpora of more than 65 million words. Psychological Science, 32(2), 218–240. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09567 97620 963619 Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 37–46. ht t ps:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00131 64460 02000104 de Haan, E. (2019). A systematic review of qualitative studies in workplace and executive coaching: The emergence of a body of research. Consulting Psycholog y Journal: Practice and Research, 71(4), 227–248. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ cpb00 00144 de Haan, E., Molyn, J., & Nilsson, V. O. (2020). New findings on the effectiveness of the coaching relationship: Time to think differently about active ingredients? Consulting Psycholog y Journal: Practice and Research, 72(3), 155–167. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ cpb00 00175 Demerouti, E., & Rispens, S. (2014). Improving the image of studentrecruited samples: A commentary. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psycholog y, 87(1), 34–41. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ joop. 12048 Deplazes, S. (2016). KaSyCo–Kategoriensysteme zur Analyse von Coachingprozessen: InstrumentEntwicklung und Anwendungsbeispiele (Vol. 3). Kassel University Press GmbH. Diller, S. J., Brantl, M., & Jonas, E. (2022). More than working alliance: Exploring the relationship in entrepreneurial coaching. Coaching, Theorie & Praxis, 8(1), 59–75. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1365/ s4089 602200066 - 8 Dreyer, R., & Busch, C. (2022). At the heart of family businesses: How copreneurs craft worklife balance. Journal of Family Business Management, 12(4), 816–832. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JFBM1220200113 Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109(3), 573–598. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0033295X. 109.3. 573 Eagly, A. H., & Wood, W. (2016). Social role theory of sex differences. In The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies (pp. 1–3). Wiley. Engel, A. M., & Kuhl, J. (2022). Affective change for action control and selfgrowth in coaching. In S. Greif, H. Möller, W. Scholl, J. Passmore, & F. Müller (Eds.), International handbook of evidencebased coaching (pp. 27–38). Springer. Erdös, T., de Haan, E., & Heusinkveld, S. (2021). Coaching: Client factors & contextual dynamics in the change process: A qualitative metasynthesis. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 14(2), 162–183. Erdös, T., & Ramseyer, F. T. (2021). Change process in coaching: Interplay of nonverbal synchrony, working alliance, selfregulation, and goal attainment. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 351. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fpsyg. 2021. 580351 Fitzgerald, M. A., & Muske, G. (2002). Copreneurs: An exploration and comparison to other family businesses. Family Business Review, 15(1), 1–16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/j. 17416248. 2002. 00001. x Fleischhacker, M., & Graf, E. M. (2023). New ways of investigating coaching: Linguistic research on executive, business and workplace coaching–a systematic scoping review. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 17, 1–29. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17521 882. 2023. 2284166 Fleischhacker, M., & Graf, E. M. (2024). New ways of investigating coaching: Linguistic research on executive, business and workplace coaching–a systematic scoping review. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 17(1), 90–118. Friedlander, M. L., Escudero, V., Heatherington, L., Deihl, L., Field, N., Lehman, P., Mckee, M., & Cutting, M. (2005). System for Observing Family Therapy Alliances (SOFTAo): Training Manual. Friedlander, M. L., Escudero, V., Heatherington, L., & Diamond, G. M. (2011). Alliance in couple and family therapy. Psychotherapy, 48(1), 25–33. Garfield, R. (2004). The therapeutic alliance in couples therapy: Clinical considerations. Family Process, 43(4), 457–465. Gearing, R. E., ElBassel, N., Ghesquiere, A., Baldwin, S., Gillies, J., & Ngeow, E. (2011). Major ingredients of fidelity: A review and scientific guide to improving quality of intervention research implementation. Clinical Psycholog y Review, 31(1), 79–88. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cpr. 2010. 09. 007 Gessnitzer, S., & Kauffeld, S. (2012). Gefühle und Selbstoffenbarungen: Erfolgsfaktoren im Coaching. In Presented at the 48. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie (pp. 1–29). Bielefeld. Gessnitzer, S., & Kauffeld, S. (2015). The working alliance in coaching: Why behavior is the key to success. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51(2), 177–197. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00218 86315 576407 Gessnitzer, S., Schulte, E. M., & Kauffeld, S. (2016). “I am going to succeed”: The power of selfefficient language in coaching and how coaches can use it. Consulting Psycholog y Journal, 68(4), 294–312. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ cpb00 00064 Grant, A. M. (2003). The impact of life coaching on goal attainment, metacognition and mental health. Social Behavior and Personality, 31(3), 253–264. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2224/ sbp. 2003. 31.3. 253 Grant, A. M. (2014). Autonomy support, relationship satisfaction and goal focus in the coachcoachee relationship: Which best predicts coaching success? Coaching, 7(1), 18–38. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1080/ 17521 882. 2013. 850106 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 24 of 33 | FINGAS et al. Graßmann, C. (2022). Die Arbeitsbeziehung im Coaching: Ein Forschungsüberblick und Handlungsempfehlungen für die Praxis. Organisationsberatung, Supervision, Coaching, 29(3), 1–16. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s1161 302200774 - 3 Graßmann, C., & Schermuly, C. C. (2020). Understanding what drives the coaching working Alliance: A systematic literature review. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2020(1), 13375. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5465/ AMBPP. 2020. 259 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 Greif, S. (2025). The future of coaching based on science. Building bridges between science and practice. Springer. Greif, S., Möller, H., Scholl, W., Passmore, J., & Müller, F. (2022). International handbook of evidencebased coaching. Springer. Hall, P. A., & Fong, G. T. (2013). In P. A. Hall, G. T. Fong, P. A. Hall, & G. T. Fong (Eds.), Social neuroscience and public health: Foundations for the science of chronic disease prevention (pp. 35–53). Springer New York. Hatcher, R. L., & Gillaspy, J. A. (2006). Development and validation of a revised short version of the working alliance inventory. Psychotherapy Research, 16(1), 12–25. Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135. Heilman, M. E., & ParksStamm, E. J. (2007). Gender stereotypes in the workplace: Obstacles to women's career progress. In Social psycholog y of gender (Vol. 24, pp. 47–77). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Helmle, J. R., Botero, I. C., & Seibold, D. R. (2014). Factors that influence perceptions of worklife balance in owners of copreneurial firms. Journal of Family Business Management, 4(2), 110–132. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1108/ JFBM0620140013 Hemshorn de Sanchez, C. S., Allen, J. A., & LehmannWillenbrock, N. (2022). Gender and humor in meetings. Psycholog y of Leaders and Leadership, 25(3–4), 165–186. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ mgr00 00133 Hemshorn de Sanchez, C. S., Gerpott, F. H., & LehmannWillenbrock, N. (2022). A review and future agenda for behavioral research on leader–follower interactions at different temporal scopes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 43(2), 342–368. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1002/ job. 2583 Hoppe, D. (2013). Was passiert in Beratungsgesprächen? Eine mikroanalytische Betrachtung von BeraterKlientenInteraktionen in der Inhaltsberatung (Doktorarbeit). Technische Universität Braunschweig. Horvath, A. O., & Greenberg, L. S. (1989). Development and validation of the working alliance inventory. Journal of Counseling Psycholog y, 36(2), 223–233. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 00220167. 36.2. 223 Howarth, A., Quesada, J., Silva, J., Judycki, S., & Mills, P. R. (2018). The impact of digital health interventions on healthrelated outcomes in the workplace: A systematic review. Digital Health, 4, 861. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 20552 07618 770861 Hsu, N., Badura, K. L., Newman, D. A., & Speach, M. E. P. (2021). Gender, “masculinity”, and “femininity”: A metaanalytic review of gender differences in agency and communion. Psychological Bulletin, 147(10), 987–1011. Hyde, J. S. (2014). Gender similarities and differences. Annual Review of Psycholog y, 65(1), 373–398. Ianiro, P. M., & Kauffeld, S. (2014). Take care what you bring with you: How coaches' mood and interpersonal behavior affect coaching success. Consulting Psycholog y Journal, 66(3), 231–257. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ cpb00 00012 IaniroDahm, P. M., & Kauffeld, S. (2022). Approaches to the coaching process: An interactionanalytical view. In International handbook of evidencebased coaching: Theory, research and practice (pp. 39–53). Springer International Publishing. Itzchakov, G., Reis, H. T., & Weinstein, N. (2022). How to foster perceived partner responsiveness: Highquality listening is key. Social and Personality Psycholog y Compass, 16(1), e12648. Ives, Y. (2008). What is ‘coaching’? An exploration of conflicting paradigms. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 6(2), 2589. Jennings, J. E., Breitkreuz, R. S., & James, A. E. (2013). When family members are also business owners: Is entrepreneurship good for families? Family Relations, 62(3), 472–489. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ FARE. 12013 Jolin, S., Lafontaine, M.- F., Brassard, A., & Lussier, Y. (2024). Which comes first? Associations between communication patterns and relationship satisfaction in couples over a 1year period. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue Canadienne Des Sciences du Comportement, 56(1), 70–80. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ cbs00 00342 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 Organizational Psycholog y, 89(2), 249–277. ht t p s:// d oi . org/ 10. 1111/ joop. 12119 Jordan, S., & Kauffeld, S. (2020). A mixed methods study of effects and antecedents of solutionfocused questions in coaching. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 18(1), 80. https:// doi. org/ 10. 24384/ w8nefx80 Jurik, N. C., Křížková, A., Pospíšilová, M., & Cavender, G. (2019). Blending, credit, context: Doing business, family and gender in Czech and US copreneurships. International Small Business Journal: Researching Entrepreneurship, 37(4), 317–342. ht t ps:// doi . org/ 10. 1177/ 02662 42618 825260 Kaplan, B. M. (2006). Assertiveness training and patient selfdisclosure. Doctoral dissertation. Walden University. Kirk, J. F. (2019). Gender dynamics in the workplace: A nuanced look at gender bias and how to mitigate it. University of Colorado at Boulder. Klonek, F., Twemlow, M., Tims, M., & Parker, S. (2024). It's about time! Understanding the dynamic team processperformance relationship using microand macroscale time lenses. Group & Organization Management. Klonek, F. E., Quera, V., Burba, M., & Kauffeld, S. (2016). Group interactions and time: Using sequential analysis to study group dynamics in project meetings. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 20(3), 209–222. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ gdn00 00052 | 31 of 33 FINEGRAINED VERBAL DYNAMICS DURING COPRENEUR COACHING SESSIONS Construct Verbal operationalization using act4 consulting Description Sample statement Coach's verbal influence Knowledgemanagement statements Asking open questions Exploring the (underlying) issues of the interaction partner ‘How could you cope with this situation?’ Asking closed questions Specifying, redirecting and structuring of the process or said content ‘But we talked about many other options that you had for being a role model, didn't we?’ Providing support statement Providing support by agreeing Showing agreement with the aforesaid content ‘Yes, I think so, too.’ Coachees own verbal influence Knowledgemanagement statements Describing a problem Signalling engagement with a problem that hinders reaching the coachee's goals ‘This issue troubles me, because…’ Stating a solution Signalling engagement with resultoriented development of solutions ‘One way to solve it, could be…’ Sharing informative statements Sharing (neutral) information ‘Employee A does task Z.’ Providing support statements Providing support by agreeing Showing agreement with the aforesaid content ‘Yes, I think so, too.’ Selfdisclosure statements Emphasizing one's own opinion Emphasizing one's own personal attitudes, needs, and values ‘For me, personally, it is important that…’ Talking about feelings Sharing personal emotions, both positive and negative ‘This makes me angry…’ Note: The partner perspective is not included in this table; for the sake of exploratory analyses, the entire act4 consulting coding scheme was used. aNote that SMARTplans refer to specific, measurable, actionable, realistic and timebound planning of goal achievement. bNote that the two subfacets of the working alliance according to their conceptual definitions occur at different levels of behavioural complexity: bonding occurs as single statements by one speaker, whereas patterns of agreement about goals and tasks by definition require at least two sequential verbal statements by two speakers. APPENDIX C (Continued) 32 of 33 | FINGAS et al. APPENDIX D ADAPTED ACT4 CONSULTING CODING SCHEME FOR PARTNERS' VERBAL BEHAVIOURS DURING COPRENEUR COACHING SESSIONS Knowledgemanagement statements Procedural statements Social statements Selfregulation statements Knowledgemanagement statements Procedural statements Socioemotional statements Goaloriented selfregulation statements For example, sharing informative statements, asking open questions, asking closed questions, stating a solution, describing a problem, arguing contra the solution, arguing in favour of the solution For example, providing purpose, making procedural suggestions for the coaching session, summarizing, pointing towards time management and prioritization, substantiating For example, paraphrasing, offering help, expressing appreciation, establishing trust For example, planning own action, showing interest in change, making a decision, defining one's own role and taking responsibility ‘What would be a suitable option for you?’, ‘Do you intend to do this?’, ‘I doubt that option A is suitable, as…’ ‘The goal of today is…’, ‘As we only have a little time left…’, ‘I will write this down, then I will do X’, ‘To summarize, we…’ ‘If I understood you correctly, you mean…’; ‘I could take over task X’, ‘Wow, nicely done’ ‘I am truly excited to try this out at work’, ‘I am responsible for changing my actions…’, ‘Tomorrow, I will implement this idea by doing…’ Selfdisclosure statements For example, emphasizing one's own opinion, talking about feelings ‘For me personally, I have to emphasize that I…’, ‘Honestly, I feel overwhelmed and bad at work’, ‘I feel relieved, when…’ Socioresponsive statements For example, active listening, rejecting something neutrally, directly contacting ‘Mh’, ‘No’, ‘Mr. Knuff, …’ Providing support statements For example, providing support by agreeing ‘Yes’, ‘Indeed, I think so, too’, ‘Yes, we are on the same page’ Note: Additional filler codes included: Pauses (>5 s), Irrelevant (no triadic interaction possible) and Other (irrelevant for the research focus). As the coaches' SR statements were not relevant for the present paper, they were included in Other. For working alliancerelated analyses, the specific working alliance behaviours needed to be aggregated into separate subcategories and were the same for each analysis, irrespective of the initiation. They were not relevant for the analyses of the partners' preceding statements; however, for completeness of the act4 consulting code aggregation, we retained the selfregulation statements in this overview. For analyses of the effects of verbal statements by coaches (e.g., open and closed questions) and coachees (e.g., selfdisclosure statements) on coachees' selfregulation statements, we utilized the corresponding indicative behavioural codes from the act4 consulting coding scheme (e.g., asking open questions, talking about feelings, etc.). | 33 of 33 FINEGRAINED VERBAL DYNAMICS DURING COPRENEUR COACHING SESSIONS APPENDIX E STATISTICAL BACKGROUND OF LAG SEQUENTIAL ANALYSES Compared with sum scores, LSA can provide unique information about the temporal evolvement and sequential acttoact dependencies of verbal statements. Three prerequisites must be met to obtain statistically meaningful parameters when LSA is used. First, the entire stream of interpersonal interaction during coaching needs to be annotated as mutually exclusive and temporally exhaustive (Bakeman & Quera, 2011). Second, unlike power analysis, LSA requires a minimum number of behavioural sequences depending on the number of temporal lags under investigation and the total number of observation categories in the coding scheme (Bakeman & Gottman, 1997; see also LehmannWillenbrock & Allen, 2025). To meet this requirement, we adopted the act4 consulting coding scheme to better fit the coaching context and purpose of the study (for a similar approach, see Klonek et al., 2020; Tschan et al., 2010). The extent of code aggregation is determined by both the logic and structure of the coding scheme and the absolute number of shown codes in the dataset. Appendix D provides a detailed overview of the coding scheme and the observation categories (for a similar approach, see Gessnitzer et al., 2016; Klonek et al., 2016; Meinecke et al., 2017). Third, each behavioural observation category should be observed at least 30 times, and the interaction sequence matrix of joint sequentially adjacent behaviour frequencies should display a minimum of three frequencies (Bakeman & Quera, 2011). For our analyses, the coded data from all 29 coaching sessions were combined, for a total of N = 28,603 behaviours, to enable meaningful interpretation of the LSA.