multiple faces of coaching: manager-as-coach, executive coaching… · 2018-12-04 · ment (e.g.,...

19Volume 30 � Number 1 � Spring 2012

Abstract

For the purpose of management and employeedevelopment, the use of coaching has beenincreasing over the last decade. This article inves-tigates the theoretical background of manager-as-coach, executive coaching, and formal mentoring.Based on the extant literature, it also examinesthe definitions, purposes, practices and researchof those three interpersonal relationships. Then,the similarities and differences among theseissues are compared. Finally, implications andrecommendations for future research are dis-cussed. Overall, whereas manager-as-coach andexecutive coaching are different practices in termsof their purpose and process, executive coachingand formal mentoring are more similar. It ishoped that the conceptual distinction amongthese interchangeably used practices shouldenhance the understanding and appropriateapplication of such developmental practices.

Practices for employee and managerial develop-ment (e.g., coaching, mentoring, and 360-degreefeedback) have been increasing for the last decade(Joo, 2005; Noe, 2001). Traditionally, developmenthas focused on management level employees,while line employees received training designedto improve a specific set of skills needed for theircurrent job. However, with the greater use ofwork teams and employees’ increased involve-ment in all aspects of business, development isbecoming more important for all employees.Whereas training is focused on helping improveemployees’ performance in their current jobs,development helps prepare them for other posi-tions in the organization and increases their abili-

Multiple Faces of Coaching:Manager-as-coach, ExecutiveCoaching, and Formal Mentoring

Baek-Kyoo (Brian) JooJerilynn S. Sushko

Gary N. McLean

Baek-Kyoo (Brian) Joo([email protected]) is an assistant pro-fessor of human resources managementat Winona State University, Minnesota.He received his Ph.D. in human resourcedevelopment at the University ofMinnesota, and a M.A. in humanresources and industrial relations fromthe Carlson School of Management at

the University of Minnesota. His current research interestsinclude organizational learning /creativity,leadership/employee development, and internationalHR/OD. He has nearly 14 years of experience in HR/OD withan oil company and an international management consult-ing firm.

Contact InformationBaek-Kyoo (Brian) JooCollege of BusinessWinona State UniversitySomsen Hall 302Winona, MN 55987-5838(507) [email protected]

BAUERJ

Highlight

ty to move into jobs that may not yet exist (Noe,2001).

Employee development has become a necessarycomponent of an organization’s efforts to improvequality, to retain key employees, to meet the chal-lenges of global competition and social change,and to incorporate technological advances andchanges in work design (Noe, Hollenbeck,Gerhart, & Wright, 2007). Approaches for employ-ee development include formal education, assess-ment, job experience, and interpersonal relation-ships (Noe, 2001). McCauley and Douglas (2004)categorized formal developmental relationshipsinto five types: one-on-one mentoring, peer men-toring, formal coaching, mentoring in groups, andaction learning teams (Gilson, 2005). Among oth-ers, interpersonal relationship practices, such ascoaching, mentoring, and counseling have beenincreasing over the last decade.

While some coaching services are provided byexternal consultants or coaches, many largeorganizations also provide coaching practices byinternal HRD professionals, supervisors and man-agers, by internal mentors and coaches as well asby external HRD and management developmentconsultants (Hamline, Ellinger, & Beattie, 2008).Describing four variant of coaching (i.e., coaching,executive coaching, business coaching, and lifecoaching), Hamline et al. (2008) concluded thateach variant of coaching embraced features withother variants. In this study, we focus on contrast-ing three practices: manager-as-coach (also knownas managerial coaching), executive coaching, and for-mal mentoring.

20 Organization Development Journal

Jerilynn S. Sushko ([email protected]) holds a MBAand a M.A. in education from theUniversity of St. Thomas, St. Paul, MN.She is president of a corporate trainingand management consulting firm inMinneapolis, Minnesota. She has over 20years of business consulting and trainingexperience in HRM, HRD, and OD. Her

research interests include leadership/employee develop-ment, training methodologies, organization developmentand change, and performance management.

Contact InformationJerilynn S. SushkoUniversity of Minnesota601 Carlson Parkway, Suite 1050Minnetonka, MN 55305(952) [email protected]

Gary N. McLean([email protected]) is senior pro-fessor and executive director of interna-tional HRD in the department ofEducational Administration and HumanResources at Texas A&M University. Hehas a primary focus in international HRDand OD. He is past editor of several refer-eed journals and served as president of

the Academy of Human Resource Development and theInternational Management Development Association. He isan OD practitioner with McLean Global Consulting, Inc.

Contact InformationGary N. McLeanTexas A&M UniversityCollege Station, TX [email protected]


Problem Statement

According to the International Coach Federation(ICF), its global membership has soared fromabout 1,500 in 1999 to almost 7,000 by the end of2003 (Joo, 2005). According to their website, themembership is now well over 11,000 in 82 coun-tries. Research into the efficacy of coaching haslagged behind and it has only started to developseriously over the last five years (Jarvis, Lane, &Fillery-Travis, 2006). The membership of theEuropean Mentoring and Coaching Council(EMCC), the leading coaching associations in EU,is approximately 2,700 and rising rapidly (Hamlinet al., 2008). As identified by Grant (2003), the lit-erature is at a point of expansion in response topractice development.

Coaching has rapidly become a significant part ofmany organizations’ learning and developmentstrategy. Lack of transfer in learning and lack ofsustained behavioral change pointed toward theneed for more individualized, more engaged,more context-specific learning (Bacon & Spear,2003). Learning, development, behavioral change,performance, leadership, career success, andorganizational commitment are all concepts relat-ed to coaching. While practice on coaching isincreasing, more attention needs to be paid tocoaching by researchers. In their recent article,Hamline et al. (2008) urge that HRD researchersshould pay more attention on coaching, as thereis an increasing entry into coaching of individualsfrom various professional fields, including psy-chology, psychiatry, adult education, manage-ment, and organizational development.

One of the key issues for research and practice ofthese interpersonal relationships is the appropri-ateness of the use of the term coaching. In

reviewing books and articles, we found manylabels for coaching and related practices, includ-ing manager-as-coach, managerial coaching, exec-utive coaching, business coaching, life coaching,career counseling, (formal) mentoring, and so on.Diversity in terminology can be a source of prac-tical and conceptual confusion that makes it diffi-cult for practitioners to identify research relevantto their particular concerns. As the distinctionamong these practices is not clear, sometimesthey are used interchangeably in practice. In spiteof the popularity of coaching, therefore, it maynot be practiced as effectively as it might bebecause of the lack of understanding of its pur-pose and benefits among managers and organiza-tions (Evered & Selman, 1989; Orth, Wilkinson, &Benfari, 1987).

Research Purpose and Questions

The purpose of this study is to explore the theo-retical background of, and to compare manager-as-coach, executive coaching, and formal mentor-ing among others. The significance of this articlelies in the distinction of the three developmentalinterpersonal relationships, based on the extantliterature on coaching and mentoring. The con-ceptual distinction among similar practices that isinterchangeably used would enhance the under-standing and appropriate application of suchdevelopmental practices.

Thus, the research questions are three-fold: (1)what are the theoretical backgrounds of the emer-gence of multiple faces of coaching? (2) what isthe rationale for the use (i.e., definitions and pur-poses) of manager-as-coach, executive coaching,and formal mentoring? and (3) what are the simi-larities and differences among these practices?

Methods

This article focuses on published research oninterpersonal relationship in the workplace.Articles for this review were identified throughsearches of Business Source Premier, Science Direct,and Interscience databases (through December,2010), using key words, coaching, executive coach-ing, managerial coaching, manager-as-coach, and for-mal mentoring. We reviewed the reference list ofeach article to identify additional citations thatwere not revealed by other search means. Themajority of the research on manager-as-coach andexecutive coaching in the workplace has beenpublished within the last 10 years. Research onformal mentoring has longer history. Since thefocus of this paper is on coaching, however, theliterature review on formal mentoring relied onthe major papers such as Wanberg, Welsh, andHezlett (2003). It should be noted that most arti-cles are from practice journals such as HarvardBusiness Review and Consulting Psychology Journal:Practice & Research. Books and book chapters onthe general topic of coaching in the workplaceand on executive coaching have been reviewed aswell (Bacon & Spear, 2003; Fitzgerald & Berger,2002; Kilburg, 2000).

This paper is divided into six parts: the back-ground of the emergence of coaching; the practiceand research of manager-as-coach; the practiceand research of executive coaching; the practiceand research of formal mentoring; a comparisonof the three developmental interpersonal relation-ships; discussion including implications, recom-mendations for future research, and conclusions.

Background

In a knowledge-based economy, attraction, moti-vation, and retention of talented employees havebeen critical concerns in many organizations.Fierce global competition and rapid technologicaladvancement have made jobs more complex andchallenging (Joo, 2007). In addition, as teams havebecome a basic form of organizational structure,the role of leader has transformed from a tradi-tional director to a supportive coach. In order tosupport its employees, organizations should notonly introduce new development practices, butalso build organizational learning culture andpositive social relationships between managersand employees. Thus, coaching and mentoringhave emerged as important approaches foremployee development.

Use of Teams in Organizations

As the organizational structure has been trans-formed into teams, several problems typicallyhave been encountered in moving toward the useof self-managed teams (Kulisch & Banner, 1993).The first problem is what to do with first-linesupervisors who are no longer needed as supervi-sors. One option is to have them assume newresponsibilities as coordinators or coaches(Kulisch & Banner, 1993). Another problem is thatmanagers who are one level above the teams willlikely oversee the activities of several teams, andtheir roles will change to emphasizing planning,expediting, and coordinating (Kulisch & Banner,1993). These managers need considerable trainingto acquire skills in group leadership and the abili-ty to delegate (McLean, 2006). Therefore, moresupportive leadership has become the preferredstyle of leadership and coaching is being empha-sized in a number of organizations.


Complex and Challenging Jobs

As Drucker (1988) concluded, organizations areshifting to an information-based organization, orself-governing units of knowledge specialists.Knowledge work is characterized by “unpre-dictable, multidisciplinary, and non-repetitivetasks with evolving, long term goals which, dueto their inherent ambiguity and complexity,require collaborative effort in order to take advan-tage of multiple viewpoints” (Janz, Colquitt, &Noe, 1997, pp. 882-883). When jobs are complexand demanding (i.e., high on challenge, autono-my, and complexity), individuals are more likelyto focus all of their attention and efforts on theirjobs, making them more persistent and more like-ly to consider alternatives that should result increative outcomes (Oldham & Cummings, 1996;Shalley & Gilson, 2004). However, one of the char-acteristics of complex and challenging jobs is thatit is difficult to monitor them (Joo, 2007). In addi-tion, employees who feel micromanaged easilylose interest in their jobs (Csikszentmihalyi, 2003).For many reasons, the role of leader has changedfrom traditional hierarchical director to being asupportive and non-controlling leader. As the pre-ferred style of leadership has changed from direc-tive to supportive, therefore, manager-as-coachhas become a new role of every supervisor andmanager, especially in knowledge-intensiveindustries. Finally, employees’ commitment andretention are directly related to how they aretreated by their managers.

Talent Management

According to the resource-based view of the firm,the firm is a bundle of resources—including tangi-ble and intangible assets (Evans, Pucik, &Barsoux, 2002). Competencies, capabilities, and

knowledge, including technological expertise andinvisible assets, are the source of competitiveadvantage. In order to effectively attract, moti-vate, and retain talented people, therefore, manyfirms try to become an employer of choice, whichrefers to a firm that is always the first choice ofworld-class candidates due to its status and repu-tation in terms of corporate culture and HR prac-tices (Sutherland, Torricelli, & Karg, 2002). Thus,to be employers of choice, organizations try tooutperform their competition in attracting, devel-oping, and retaining people with business-required talent. They achieve this reputationthrough innovative and compelling HR practicesthat benefit both employees and their organiza-tions alike (Joo & McLean, 2006). According tobest employer studies (e.g., Fortune magazine’sannual list of “100 Best Companies to Work for inAmerica”), the best companies on the list provid-ed employees with more learning and develop-ment opportunities, which eventually lead to tal-ent attraction and retention (Joo & McLean, 2006).Thus, the best employers invest more time andmoney in developing their leaders and high-potential employees such as coaching and men-toring (Bennett & Bell, 2003).

In summary, the use of team organization, com-plex and challenging jobs, and talent managementstrategy provide the rationale for coaching. Thedefinitions, purposes, practices and research ofthree interpersonal relationships are described indetail in the following sections.

Manager-as-Coach

The increasing popularity of manager-as-coachhas been evidenced by numerous books on thetopic (Ellinger, Ellinger, & Keller, 2003) and anumber of programs teaching the coaching con-


cept and techniques offered by many consultingfirms (McLean, Yang, Kuo, Tolbert, & Larkin,2005). Manager-as-coach has been identified as away of motivating, developing, and retainingemployees in organizations (Evered & Selman,1989; Orth et al., 1987).

Definition of Manager-as-Coach

Manager-as-coach is defined as a managerialpractice that helps employees learn and improveproblem work performance by providing guid-ance, encouragement and support (Ellinger,Ellinger, Hamlin, & Beattie, 2010). More specifical-ly, it is an ongoing process for improving prob-lematic work performance (Fournies, 1987), help-ing employees recognize opportunities toimprove their performance and capabilities (Orthet al., 1987; Popper & Lipshitz, 1992), empoweringemployees to exceed prior levels of performance(Burdett, 1998; Evered & Selman, 1989; Hargrove1995), and giving guidance, encouragement andsupport to the learner (Redshaw, 2000). Manager-as-coach can also be defined as a leadershipapproach based on the condition of constructivefeedback that is designed to bring the most out ofpeople by showing that they are respected andvalued (Goodstone & Diamante, 1998; Hargrove,1995; Hudson, 1999). The majority of manager-as-coach definitions revolve around the idea ofempowering people to make their own decisions,unleashing their potential, enabling learning, andimproving performance (Rogers, 2000).

Purpose of Manager-as-Coach

The benefits of manager-as-coach have beenaddressed by many researchers. Manager-as-coach occurs in the workplace so that on-the-jobactivities and experience become the means for

learning. Manager-as-coach occurs as part of theeveryday relationship between employee andsupervisor/manager and serves as a strong reten-tion tool. Regular, constructive, and significantfeedback from managers and supervisors can addto overall performance success (King & Eaton,1999). Without specific feedback, effective per-formance is not reinforced, ineffective perform-ance is not identified, and employees do notknow if their performance is meeting the expecta-tions of their managers, supervisors, or the com-pany’s customers.

Performance improvement is almost always iden-tified as the primary potential outcome of coach-ing (Evered & Selman, 1989; Fournies, 1987;Hargrove, 2000; Orth et al., 1987). It also has beenlinked to increased job satisfaction, personal capa-bility, motivation, and organizational commit-ment, and to decreased turnover (Evered &Selman, 1989; Orth et al., 1987; Yarnall, 1996).However, there have been few studies that havedescribed how manager-as-coach brings aboutthese outcomes.

Practice of Manager-as-Coach

A broader idea of manager-as-coach programgrew out of the success of external coaching andmentoring practices (McCauley & Hezlett, 2001).This has led to increased attention on developingmanagers who can coach all of their subordinates(Peterson & Hicks, 1996). As supervisors tend tocommunicate more frequently with typical subor-dinates than with their protégés, support fordevelopment can be reinforced more regularlythrough coaching than through mentoring(McCauley & Hezlett, 2001). Moreover, manager-as-coach suggests that development is importantfor all employees, not just those who find or are


assigned a mentor (McCauley & Hezlett, 2001).

Many researchers have focused on essential ele-ments of coaching, effective coaching skills, andcoaching behaviors. There seems to be generalagreement that coaching means creating a climateof communication, support, trust, acceptance, andcommitment for improving performance anddeveloping employees’ capabilities (Darraugh,1990; Evered & Selman, 1989; Orth et al., 1987).Ellinger et al. (2003) identified general agreementabout coaching skills in the existing literature,such as listening skills, analytical skills, inter-viewing skills, effective questioning techniques,observation, giving and receiving performancefeedback, communicating and setting clear expec-tations, and creating a supportive environmentconducive to coaching.

Research on Manager-as-Coach

In spite of its popularity, there has been a lack oftheoretical or empirical research on manager-as-coach (Ellinger et al., 2003; Kilburg, 1996, 2001;McLean & Kuo, 2000). Even though many studieshave suggested potential outcomes of manager-as-coach (Evered & Selman, 1989; Orth,Wilkinson, & Benfari, 1987), not much work hasprovided a framework on the outcomes of man-ager-as-coach (Ellinger et al., 2003). The manager-as-coach studies reviewed in this article (i.e.,Bowles & Picano, 2006; Deviney, 1994; Graham,Wedman, & Garvin-Kester, 1993; McGibben,1995; Wageman, 2001) addressed the effectivenessof coaching skills and behaviors such that train-ing program positively impacted on managers’coaching behaviors (Graham et al., 1993;McGibben, 1995). Bowles and Picano (2006)found that managers who more frequentlyapplied coaching advice reported more work sat-

isfaction and a tendency toward more life satis-faction.

Some research has examined coaching behaviorsto identify “overt managerial practices thatdemonstrate effective coaching characteristics”(McLean et al., 2005). Ellinger et al. (2003) createdcoaching behavior measures based on previousresearch results of behavioral taxonomies(Ellinger, 2003; Ellinger & Bostrom, 1999; Ellinger,Watkins, & Bostrom, 1999). The eight themes theyidentified include: (1) personalizing learning situ-ations, (2) broadening employees’ perspectives--getting them to see things differently, (3) questionframing to encourage employees to think throughissues, (4) stepping into other’s shoes to shift per-spectives, (5) providing feedback to employees,(6) soliciting feedback from employees, (7) settingand communicating expectations, and (8) being aresource. McLean et al. (2005) also developedmeasures for coaching behaviors based on con-tent analysis of the related literature and factoranalysis of empirical data. As a result, they iden-tified four aspects of managerial behavior: (1)open communication, (2) team approach, (3) valu-ing people over task, and (4) ambiguous nature ofthe working environment. In summary, commonbehaviors can be identified as learning throughvarious approaches, providing feedback or ques-tioning, supporting and valuing employees, beinga resource, and communicating openly.

Executive Coaching

The growing popularity of executive coaching isa response to workplace demands. Executivecoaching emerged as an outgrowth of leadershipdevelopment programs in the early 1980s andwas being offered by many traditional HR con-sulting firms by 1990 (Hellervick, Hazucha, &


Schneider, 1992; Judge & Cowell, 1997; McCauley& Hezlett, 2001). Today, executives may expectemotional intelligence and social skills from man-agers and colleagues. According to Sherman andFreas (2004), executives of flatter, leaner, faster-moving organizations are recognizing a subtlerset of competencies: the communication and inter-personal skills necessary for influencing employ-ees, adaptability to rapid change, and respect forpeople of diverse backgrounds. As its label indi-cates, non-management employees rarely receiveexecutive coaching, either within or outside theU.S. (Conference Board, 1999).

Definition of Executive Coaching

Executive coaching is defined as a process of aone-on-one relationship between a professionalcoach and an executive (the person coached) forthe purpose of enhancing behavioral changethrough self-awareness and learning, and thusultimately for the success of the individual andthe organization (Joo, 2005; McCauley & Hezlett,2001). Before going into detail, it is helpful todefine basic terms: coach, coachee, and client.Coach refers to the one who provides one-on-onecoaching. The person coached refers to the onewho receives the professional service; namely, it isthe executive. Finally, in this article, client refersto stakeholders, including more senior executivesand/or HR representatives.

Purpose of Executive Coaching

The use of executive coaching has grown dramati-cally as organizations have discovered the bene-fits of providing high potential executives andmanagers with individual coaching to addressspecific skill deficits, enhance performance, orhelp them grow into expanded leadership roles

(Hodgetts, 2002). Witherspoon and White (1998)identified the four coaching areas in executivecoaching as learning, development, performance,and leadership agenda. Some practitioners mightfocus more on self-awareness (counseling), whileothers concentrate on learning (consulting),depending on the coaching approach taken.However, the destination is the same--behavioralchange of executives in terms of immediate orproximal outcomes (Joo, 2005).

Sherman and Freas (2004) demonstrated theimportance of self-awareness, explaining whyexecutive coaching has received the spotlight inthe business arena for the last 10 years or so.Those who use the counseling approach tend toemphasize self-awareness and self-reflection inexecutive coaching (Kilburg, 1997; Orenstein,2002, 2006), using the metaphor of a window anda mirror (Sherman & Freas, 2004). The purpose ofexecutive coaching then is to provide executiveswith more time to look into the mirror instead oflooking through the window.

Executive coaching does not end with self-aware-ness. It can be a strategic learning tool of organi-zation. Wanberg et al. (2003) suggested three ofthe areas of protégé change (cognitive, skill-base,and affective learning) that were derived fromKraiger, Ford, and Salas’s (1993) classification oflearning outcomes that stem from training inter-vention. Among these, learning in executivecoaching would be focused on cognitive andaffective learning. It is active learning that trans-fers essential leadership and managerial skillssuch as visioning, communication, interpersonalrelationship, and action planning skills (Sherman& Freas, 2004). Executive coaching, especially inconsulting approach, aims to help leaders adaptat new responsibilities, reduce destructive behav-


BAUERJ

Highlight

BAUERJ

Highlight

iors, enhance teamwork, align individuals to col-lective goals, and support organizational changes(Joo, 2005). For those with a consulting approach,therefore, learning could be an immediate out-come of executive coaching.

Practice of Executive Coaching

Executive coaching usually provides systematicapproaches, including a personality inventory,interviews, 360-degree feedback, and action plan-ning. Most executive coaching is intellectuallyindebted to a small number of disciplines, includ-ing consulting, management, organization devel-opment, and psychology (Sherman & Freas, 2004).It seems that counseling and consulting occupyopposite ends of a continuum of approaches tocoaching. Some (Hart, Blattner, & Leipsic, 2001;Hodgetts, 2002; Kets de Vries, 2005) have dividedthe coaching approach into two: therapy andcoaching, and others (Bacon & Spear, 2003) havepreferred the term, the coach as director and thecoach as psych-therapist. Thus, although there areslight differences in nuance, in most articles, theterms, therapy, counseling, and remedial are usedinterchangeably, while the words, coaching, con-sulting, and developmental, have the same conno-tations. In this vein, Joo (2005) used the terms:counseling approach and consulting approach.

The counseling approach and the consultingapproach share certain features. Both aim atbehavioral change, both help individuals enhanceself-awareness and learning, and both are con-ducted by professionals who establish strongalliances of trust with their clients (Hodgetts,2002). Hart et al. (2000) compared consulting withcounseling through the review of the thoughtsand concerns expressed by 30 professionals whopractice consulting (coaching), counseling (thera-

py), or both. However, there is a controversialdebate between counseling and consulting, basedon their academic and professional background.As Wasylyshin (2003) stated, however, talentedexecutive coaches need to be grounded in bothbusiness and psychology. Regarding business,psychologists who have no experience in businessroles must accumulate their business knowledgeover time and through experiences in differentcompanies and industries, and by immersingthemselves in the business literature, as well aspertinent training experiences. With regard topsychology, there are certain general psychologi-cal skills essential for effective coaches, includinginterpersonal effectiveness, listening, empathy forwidely differing groups, patience, adaptability,analytical problem solving, creativity, and humor(Wasylyshin, 2003), as well as recognizing whenreferral to professional therapists is needed.

Research on Executive Coaching

Executive coaching is one of the areas in whichpractice is way ahead of theory (Joo, 2005). Thereare surprisingly few studies (i.e., Collins &Holton, 2004; Douglas & Morley, 2000; Kilburg,2000) that document the effectiveness of executivecoaching as measured by changed leadershipbehavior using accepted empirical methods. Thatis, although executive coaching has been pro-posed as an intervention to help executivesimprove their performance and ultimately theperformance of the overall organization, whetherit does what it proposes remains unknownbecause of the lack of empirical evidence for whathappens, why it happens, and what makes iteffective or ineffective (Bacon & Spear, 2003;Kilburg, 1996).


Joo (2005) reviewed 13 research articles on execu-tive coaching, including qualitative (38%) andquantitative (62%) studies. Most were authoredby practitioners rather than researchers. Withregard to quantitative studies, five of eight studieswere analyzed using only descriptive statisticsbased on only one party, either coachees or coach-es. Except for one study (i.e., Smither, London,Flautt, Vargas, & Kucine, 2003), most of thesehave potential limitation in research quality, dueto the lack of generalizability in sample size, andstatistical methods being used. None of the stu-dents were based on the dyadic analysis.

Formal Mentoring

Mentoring is a key developmental practice forindividuals in organizations (Noe, Greenberger, &Wang, 2002). Generally, mentoring has beendescribed as “the most intense and powerful one-on-one developmental relationship, entailing themost influence, identification, and emotionalinvolvement” (Wanberg et al., 2003, p. 40). Bothindividuals and organizations use mentoring rela-tionships to enhance learning along with profes-sional and personal development in the work-place (Wanberg et al., 2003).

Definition of Formal Mentoring

Mullen (1994) defined mentoring as a one-on-onerelationship between a less experienced (i.e., pro-tégé or mentee) and a more experienced person(i.e., mentor), and is intended to advance the per-sonal and professional growth of the less experi-enced individual. To distinguish formal and infor-mal mentoring, formal mentoring occurs in astructured environment where a third party pairsthe mentor and protégé together. While informalmentoring develops spontaneously and voluntari-

ly, most formal mentoring relationships are struc-tured with certain requirements and time frames.Mentoring can also be defined as a goal-focusedprocess that is aimed toward increased knowl-edge and competency development (Godshalk &Sosik, 2003). Thus, formal mentoring can be astrategic learning tool in the organization.

Many researchers argued that formal and infor-mal mentoring relationships differ in terms of thesurrounding structure (e.g., having guidelines forhow often to meet and topics to discuss), themotivation and skills of the mentors, and the will-ingness of mentors to visibly support their pro-tégés (Ragins & Cotton, 1999). If protégés in bothprograms are satisfied with their mentoring rela-tionships, however, they do not differ in terms ofimportant satisfaction, procedural justice, organi-zational commitment, promotion satisfaction, andintentions to quit (Ragins, Cotton, & Miller, 2000).Therefore, it suggests that formal mentoring rela-tionships have the potential to be as beneficial asinformal relationships in terms of outcomes, butthey may not always deliver (Hezlett & Gibson,2005).

Purpose of Formal Mentoring

Although the purpose of mentoring ranges fromsocialization of newly hired employees to man-agement development, mentoring typicallyinvolves a committed, long-term relationshipbetween a more seasoned higher-level employeeand a less experienced employee. Mentors givetheir protégés career-related assistance (e.g., spon-sorship, coaching, challenging assignments, andhigh visibility) and psychosocial support (e.g.,advice, encouragement) (Kram, 1983; Noe, 1988).Role-modeling may be a third distinct functionmentors provide (Burke, 1984; Johnson &


BAUERJ

Highlight

BAUERJ

Highlight

BAUERJ

Highlight

Scandura, 1994). Receiving support from a mentoris associated with higher performance ratings,more recognition, greater compensation, morecareer opportunities, and more promotions(Burke & McKeen, 1997; Chao, 1997; Dreher &Ash, 1990; Fagenson, 1989; McCauley & Hezlett,2001; Scandura, 1992; Turban & Dougherty, 1994;Whitely, Dougherty, & Dreher, 1991). Accordingto the dynamic process model of formal mentor-ing developed by Wanberg et al. (2003), mentor-ing affects proximal outcomes (e.g., satisfactionwith the mentoring relationship, protégé change,learning outcomes) and distal outcomes for bothmentors (e.g., recognition, job satisfaction) andprotégés (e.g., career satisfaction, promotions, per-formance) (Egan, 2005). Wanberg et al. (2003) alsosuggested three areas of protégé change (cogni-tive, skill base, and affective learning) that werederived from Kraiger, Ford, and Salas’s (1993)classification of learning outcomes that stem froma training intervention. Among these, learning informal mentoring would be focused on cognitiveand affective learning.

Practice of Formal Mentoring

Developing and implementing a formal mentor-ing program involves making decisions aboutprogram objectives, policies, guidelines, andactivities (Hezlett & Gibson, 2005). Formal men-toring relationships are arranged or facilitated bythird parties (i.e., HR department) other than thementor and protégé. It is known that about onethird of large companies in the United States areestimated to have formal mentoring programs(Axel, 1999).

According to McCauley and Hezlett (2001), char-acteristics for successful mentoring programs arecategorized around five themes: (a) organizational

support for the program, (b) clarity of purpose,expectations and roles, (c) participant choice andinvolvement, (d) careful selection and matchingprocedures, and (e) continuous monitoring andevaluation. In formal mentoring, mentors performfive specific career development functions—expo-sure protection, coaching, sponsorship, and chal-lenging assignments (Kram, 1983; Kram &Isabella, 1985). The general goal of this careerfunction of mentoring is to help protégés progressin their careers. The four psychosocial functionsof a mentor are counseling, friendship, role mod-eling, and acceptance/confirmation (Kram, 1983;Kram & Isabella, 1985).

Research on Formal Mentoring

Successful mentor-protégé relationships can leadto increases in career mobility, job and career sat-isfaction, compensation, and performance (Egan,2005; Kram, 1985; Ragins, 1997). While a numberof authors have offered advice or shared theirexperiences about running formal mentoring pro-grams, very little research has evaluated how dif-ferent program characteristics affect programeffectiveness (Hezlett & Gibson, 2005; Wanberg etal., 2003). Although evaluations of formal men-toring programs have demonstrated positiveresults (Gaskill, 1993; Noe, 1988; Portwood &Granrose, 1986), there is some evidence that pro-tégés participating in formal mentoring programsbenefit less than those who have informal mentor-ing relationships (Chao, Walz, & Gardner, 1992).For further information on formal mentoringresearch, consult Wanberg et al.’s (2003) integrat-ed work on the extant research.


BAUERJ

Highlight

BAUERJ

Highlight

Comparison of the InterpersonalRelationship Practices

Coaching has traditionally been viewed as a wayto correct poor performance and to link individ-ual effectiveness with organizational performance(Ellinger et al., 2003). As mentioned earlier, thedistinction among the three interpersonal rela-tionships has not been clear and some organiza-tions even interchangeably use them in practice.More specifically, whereas manager-as-coach andexecutive coaching are similar in name but differ-ent in nature, formal mentoring and executivecoaching are similar in nature but different inname. Table 1 indicates the similarities and differ-ences among the three developmental practices.

Therefore, managers can play a pivotal role eitherin manager-as-coach (as a coach) or in executivecoaching (as a person being coached). Overall,manager-as-coach and executive coaching are dif-ferent practices, whereas formal mentoring andexecutive coaching are more similar in terms oftheir purpose and process.

The manager-as-coach is someone who has anongoing, committed partnership with an employ-ee and who empowers that person or team toexceed prior levels of performance (Evered &Selman, 1989). For the purpose of learning anddevelopment, performance improvement, andretention, the manager plays the role of coach.While mutual communication and partnership are


Manager-as-coach Executive Coaching Formal Mentoring

Purpose

Learning and developmentPerformance improvementRetention

Self-awarenessLearning Behavioral changePerformance improvement

Socialization Management developmentUnderstanding

organizational politics

Coach/Mentor

InternalManager/SupervisorLack of coach experience

External ProfessionalUnregulated, so

credentials not obvious

Internal Senior manager, usually

two layers higherLack of mentor expertise

Coachee/Protégé

Employees Mostly executives and higher level managers

Lower level employees to high potential

ProcessLess structured Systematic and structured Structured

FocusPartnership Communication

Issue/Problem centered People/Process centeredMutual benefits

Duration Ongoing Short-term Long-term

Table 1. A Comparison among Manager-as-coach, Executive Coaching, and Formal Mentoring

emphasized, effectiveness usually relies on coach-ing experience.

Executive coaches are mostly external profession-als. It is believed that external coaches are mostappropriate under conditions requiring extremeconfidentiality, when the varied business experi-ence of the coach is beneficial, or when speakingthe unspeakable is necessary (Hall, Otazo, &Hollenbeck, 1999). The primary purpose of execu-tive coaching is self-awareness and learning toimprove performance of the coaches who aremostly executives and high potential managers.Executive coaching usually provides systematicapproaches, using a personality inventory, inter-views, 360-degree feedback, and action planning.Executive coaching is usually issue-focused,short-term and focused on specific areas or prob-lems.

Some argue that coaching has been proposed asone particular mentoring role, along with spon-sorship, protection, challenging assignments, andexposure to senior management thinking (Day,2001). Formal mentoring takes a longer-term andbroader view of the person. However, as mostmentors are internal senior managers, the pro-gram tends to be less structured. Formal mentor-ing programs have potential problems on lack ofmentor expertise (i.e., lack of interpersonal ortechnical competence) and general dysfunctionali-ty (i.e., mentor has a negative attitude and/or per-sonal problems) (Eby, McManus, Simon, &Russell, 2000). In a sense, the benefits of formalmentoring are similar to those of executive coach-ing. Thus, it is not surprising that not a feworganizations use these terms interchangeably.

Discussion

The rationale for the interpersonal relationshipswas reviewed. Then, the practice and research ofmanager-as-coach and executive coaching wereexamined in more detail. Implications for researchand practice, recommendations for futureresearch, and conclusions follow.

Implications for HRD Practices

With regard to the implications for HRD prac-tices, one of the goals of this article was to make adistinction among these interpersonal relation-ships. Formal mentoring came from informalmentoring relationship for the purpose of provid-ing career and psychological support to protégé.It is believed that executive coaching emergedfrom the outgrowth of leadership developmentprograms. Manager-as-coach grew out of the suc-cess of mentoring and executive coaching. Asthese practices share the theoretical foundationand basic approaches, these are interchangeablyused by many practitioners. It is hoped that thisstudy would help practitioners and researchers tounderstand the distinction among these practicesand to get rid of practical and conceptual confu-sion.

As Joo and McLean (2006) found in their researchfor best employer studies, the key differentiatorsto be employers of choice for knowledge workerswere reduced to three: (1) training and develop-ment opportunities, (2) career growth opportuni-ties, and (3) culture and work environment(Bennett & Bell, 2004; Herman & Gioia, 2000;Joyce, 2003; Sutherland et al., 2002). All of thesefactors are in the scope of HRD, which includesnot only training (i.e., individual learning), but


also individual (employee/leadership) develop-ment, career development, organizational learn-ing and development (McLagan, 1989; Swanson,1995). Coaching practice has to do with careerdevelopment and organization development por-tion as well as traditional training. In a similarvein, Joo and McLean (2006) argued as follows:

HRD provides learning and development in two different dimensions: individual and organization. Traditionally, HRD has mainly focused on individual training. However, HRD needs to enlarge its territory to individual development and organizational learning and development. In addition to training for basic skills of individuals, HRD practitioners need to pay more attention to employee development programs, such as on-the-job experience, coaching, mentoring, management development, and career development. (p. 253)

HRD professionals can support managers by pro-viding relevant practices and services. EffectiveHRD managers need to support their organiza-tions to be an employer of choice, providing rele-vant developmental practices such as coachingand mentoring. This can be a key retention strate-gy for the high potential employees and ultimate-ly the source of competitive advantage of theirorganization.

Managers play a pivotal role in manager-as-coach.As McLean (2006) noted, however, managers mayfear the loss of their ability to influence or controlemployees and thus, hesitate to make the shiftfrom traditional order-and-control managers tomanager-as-coach. Therefore, leadership develop-ment is essential in preparing leaders to becomecoaches. HRD should play a key role in leader-

ship development in the workplace to support thenew roles of managers.

At the organizational level, organizational learn-ing culture is one of the key contextual compo-nents to encourage coaching and mentoring inorganization. The most effective way for HRDprofessionals to assist an organization that strivesto become a learning organization is “to coachmanagers to become learning facilitators in thebroadest sense” (McLean, 2006, p. 256).

Finally, sometimes HRD professionals need toplay a role as an executive coach. The two majorapproaches on executive coaching are counselingand consulting approaches (Joo, 2005). AsWasylyshin (2003) states, talented executivecoaches must be grounded in both business andpsychology. We recommend that HRD profession-al take more consultant approach than counselingapproach. While HRD professionals have experi-ence in business roles, however, they need todevelop certain general psychological skills essen-tial for effective coaches, including interpersonaleffectiveness, listening, empathy for widely differ-ing groups, patience, adaptability, analytical prob-lem solving, creativity, and humor (Wasylyshin,2003). Thus, it is critically important to knowwhat the purpose of the coaching relationship isin the first place. Then, when hiring an externalcoach, it is important to examine their academicand professional backgrounds to see if one is fitfor the purpose of the coaching relationship.

Recommendations for Future Research

While research on mentoring is increasing, morerigorous research on coaching relationships andcoaching outcomes is needed. Here are some sug-gestions for future research on coaching.


First, future research on coaching needs to beclear about the types, purposes and approaches ofcoaching, accordingly to the distinctions thisstudy has provided. Second, the question abouthow to evaluate the effectiveness and outcome ofcoaching should be addressed in future research.That is, coaching effectiveness, or the outcomes ofcoaching, needs to be defined. To do so, morestudies for developing valid and reliable instru-ments are needed. The measures developed byMcLean et al. (2005) and Ellinger et al. (2003) alsoneed to be validated in different cultural settings.Third, coach-coachee dyad analysis should beexamined in future research. Most research hascollected data from only one member of thecoach-coachee dyad. Analysis of dyads wouldallow researchers to delve into a deeper under-standing of coach-coachee relationships andwould help to decrease mono-method bias con-cerns (Wanberg et al., 2003). Lastly, futureresearch should examine the impact of coachingrelationships through longitudinal studies, ascoaching is a cause rather than a consequence. Inother words, the time lag between Time 1 (whenthe coaching happens) and Time 2 (when the out-comes are produced) exists. Thus, longitudinalstudies with at least 6 months’ interval wouldhelp to evaluate the distal outcomes of coaching.

Conclusions

Coaching has become increasingly populardespite limited empirical evidence about itsimpact. The use of team organization and com-plex challenging jobs were the rationale for thedevelopment and growth of development prac-tices (i.e., manager-as-coach, executive coaching,and formal mentoring). Today, many organiza-tions use these interpersonal relationships as a

way of talent management strategies. The pur-pose of this paper was to explore the theoreticalbackground of coaching and mentoring for man-agement and employee development and to com-pare manager-as-coach, executive coaching, andformal mentoring, examining the practice andresearch of each practice based on the extant liter-ature. The significance of this article lies in itsintegration of the extant literature on mentoringand coaching and the distinction of the threedevelopmental interpersonal relationships. Theconceptual distinction among similar practicesthat is interchangeably used should enhance theunderstanding and appropriate application ofsuch developmental practices.

References

Axel, H. (1999). Developing leaders. HR Executive Review, 7, 1-19.

Bacon, T. R., & Spear, K. I. (2003). Adaptive coaching: The art and practice of a client-centered approach to performance improvement. Palo Alto, CA: Davis-Black Publishing.

Bennett, M., & Bell, A. (2004). Leadership and talent in Asia: How the best employers deliver extraordinary performance. Singapore: John Wiley & Sons (Asia).

Bowles, S. V., & Picano, J. J. (2006). Coaching relatedto productivity and quality of life. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. 58(4), 232-239.

Burdett, J. O. (1998). Forty things every manager should know about coaching. Journal of Management Development, 17(2), 142-152.

Burke, R. J., & McKeen, C. A. (1997). Benefits of mentoring relationships among managerial and professional women: A cautionary tale. Journal of Vocational


Behavior, 51, 43-57. Burke, R. J. (1984). Mentors in organizations.

Group & Organization Studies, 9, 353-372. Chao, G. T. (1997). Mentoring phases and

outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 15-28.

Chao, G. T., Walz, P. M., & Gardner, P. D. (1992). Formal and informal mentoriships: A comparison on mentoring functions and contrast with nonmentored counterparts. Personnel Psychology, 45, 619-636.

Collins, D. B., & Holton, E. F. (2004). The effectiveness of managerial leadership development programs: A meta-analysis ofstudies from 1982 to 2001. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15(2), 217-248.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2003). Good business: Leadership, flow, and the making of meaning. New York, NY: Penguin Books.

Darraugh, B. (1990). Infoline: Coaching and feedback.Alexandria, VA: ASTD.

Day, D. V. (2001). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581-613.

Deviney, D. E. (1994). The effect of coaching usingmultiple rater feedback to change supervisor behavior. DAI, 55(01), 114.

Douglas, C. A., & Morley, W. H. (2000). Executive coaching: An annotated bibliography. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.

Dreher, G. F., & Ash, R. A. (1990). A comparative study of mentoring among men and women in managerial, professional, and technical positions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 539-546.

Drucker, P. (1988). The coming of the new organizations. Harvard Business Review, January-February, 45-53.

Eby, L. T., McManus, S. E., Simon, S. A., & Russell,J. E. A. (2000). The protégé’s perspective regarding negative mentoring experiences:The development of a taxonomy. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57(1), 1-21.

Egan, T. M. (2005). The impact of learning goal orientation similarity on formal mentoringrelationship outcomes. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(4), 489-504.

Ellinger, A. D. (2003). Antecedents and consequences of coaching behavior. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 16(1), 5-28.

Ellinger, A. D., & Bostrom, R. P. (1999). Manager-as-coach behaviors in learning organizations. Journal of Management Development, 18(9), 752-771.

Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., Hamlin, R. G., & Beattie, R. S. (2010). Achieving improved performance through managerial coaching. In R. Watkins & D. Leigh (Eds.), Handbook for the selection and implementationof human performance interventions (pp. 275-298). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., & Keller, S. B. (2003). Supervisory coaching behavior, employee satisfaction, and warehouse employee performance: A dyadic perspective in the distribution industry. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(4), 435-458.

Ellinger, A. D., Watkins, K. E., & Bostrom, R. P. (1999). Managers as facilitators in learning organizations. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10(2), 105-125.

Evans, P., Pucik, V., & Barsoux, J. (2002). The globalchallenge: Frameworks for international human resources management. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.


Evered, R. D., & Selman, J. C. (1989). Coaching and the art of management. Organizational Dynamics, 18, 16-32.

Fagenson, E. A. (1989). The mentor advantage: Perceived career/job experiences of protégés versus non-protégés. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 309-320.

Fournies, F. F. (1987). Coaching for improved work performance. Kansas City, MO: Liberty Hall Press.

Gaskill, L. R. (1993). A conceptual framework for the development, implementation, and evaluation of formal mentoring programs.Journal of Career Development, 20, 147-160.

Gibson, S. K. (2005). Whose best interests are served? The distinction between mentoring and support. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 7(4), 470-488.

Godshalk, V. M., & Sosik, J. J. (2003). Aiming for career success: The role of learning goal orientation in mentoring relationships. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 417-437.

Goodstone, M. S., & Diamante, T. (1998). Organizational use of therapeutic change: Strengthening multi-score feedback systems through interdisciplinary coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 50(3), 152-63.

Graham, S., Wedman, J. F., & Garvin-Kester, B. (1993). Manager coaching skills: Development and application. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6(1), 2-13.

Grant, A. M. (2003). Keeping up with the cheese again! Research as a foundation for professional coaching of the future. International Coach Federation Conference Symposium on Research and Coaching, 1-26.

Hall, D. T., Otazo, K. L., & Hollenbeck, G. P. (1999). Behind closed doors: What really happens in executive coaching. Organizational Dynamics, 27(3), 39-43.

Hamlin, R. G., Ellinger, A. D., & Beattie, R. S. (2008). The emergent ‘coaching industry’: A wake-up call for HRD professionals. Human Resource Development International,11(3), 287-305.

Hargrove, R. (1995). Masterful coaching. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.

Hart, V., Blattner, J., & Leipsic, S. (2001). Coachingversus therapy: A perspective. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research,53(4), 229-237.

Hellervick, L. W., Hazucha, J. F., Schneider, R. J. (1992). Behavior change: Models, methods,and a review of the evidence. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of Industrial and organizational psychology, Vol. 3 (2nd ed., pp. 821-895). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Hezlett, S. A. & Gibson, S. K. (2005). Mentoring and human resource development: Where we are and where we need to go. Advancesin Developing Human Resources, 7(4), 446-469.

Hodgetts, W. H. (2002). Using executive coaching in organizations: What can go wrong (and how to prevent it). In C. Fitzgerald & J.G. Berger(Eds.), Executive coaching: Practices and perspectives (pp. 203-223). PaloAlto, CA: Davis-Black Publishing.

Hudson, F. M.(1999). The handbook of coaching: A comprehensive resource guide for managers, consultants, and human resource professionals.San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.


Janz, B. D., Colquitt, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (1997). Knowledge worker team effectiveness: Therole of autonomy, interdependence, team development, and contextual support variables. Personnel Psychology, 50(4), 877-905.

Jarvis, J., Lane, D. A., & Fillery-Travis, A. (2006). The case for coaching: Making evidence-based decisions on coaching. UK: CIPD Publishing.

Johnson, N. B., & Scandura, T. A. (1994). The effect of mentorship and sex-role style on male-female earnings. Industrial Relations, 33, 263-274.

Joo, B. (2005). Executive coaching: A conceptual framework from an integrative review of practice and research. Human Resource Development Review, 4(4), 462-488.

Joo, B., & McLean, G. N. (2006). Best employer studies: A conceptual model from a literature review and a case study. Human Resource Development Review, 5(2), 228-257.

Joo, B. (2007). The impact of contextual and personal characteristics on employee creativity in Korean firms. Dissertation Abstract International (UMI No. 3263468).

Judge, W. Q., & Cowell, J. (1997). The brave new world of executive coaching. Business Horizons, 71-77.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R. (2005). Leadership group coaching in action: The Zen of creating high performance teams. Academy of Management, 19(1), 61-76.

Kilburg, R. R. (1996). Toward a conceptual understanding and definition of executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal, 48(2), 134-144.

Kilburg, R. R. (1997). Coaching and executive character: Core problems and basic approaches. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 49(4), 281-299.

Kilburg, R. R. (2000). Executive coaching: Developing managerial wisdom in a world of chaos. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kilburg, R. R. (2001). Facilitating intervention adherence in executive coaching: A model and methods. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 53(4), 251-267.

King, P., & Eaton, J. (1999). Coaching for results. Industrial and Commercial Training, 31(4), 145 – 151.

Kraiger, K., Ford, J. K., & Salas, E. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(2), 311-328.

Kram, K. E. (1983). Phases of the mentor relationship. Academy of Management Journal, 26(4), 608-625.

Kram, K. E. (1985). Improving the mentoring process. Training and Development Journal, 39(4), 40-43.

Kram, K. E., & Isabella, L. A. (1985). Mentoring alternatives: The role of peer relationships in career development. Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 110-132.

Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2001). Organizational behavior (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kulisch T., & Banner, D. K. (1993). Self-managed work team: An update. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 14(2), 25-29.

McCauley, C.D., & Hezlett, S. A. (2001). Individual development in the workplace. In N. Anderson, D. Ones, H. Sinangil, & C.Viswesvaran (Eds.) Handbook of industrial, work, and organizational psychology. London: Sage.


McCauley, C. D., & Douglas, C. A. (2004). Developmental relationships. In C. D. McCauley & E. Van Velsor (Eds.), The center for creative leadership: Handbook of leadership development (2nd ed., pp. 85-115).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McLagan, P. (1989). Models for HRD practice. Alexandria, VA: ASTD Press.

McLean, G. N. (2006). Organization development: Principles, processes, performance. CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

McLean, G. N., & Kuo, M. (2000) Coaching in organizations: Self-assessment of competence. In K. P. Kuchinke (Ed.), Proceedings of the Academy of Human Resource Development Conference (pp. 638-645). Raleigh-Durham, NC: Academy of Human Resource Development.

McLean, G. N., Yang, B., Kuo, M. C., Tolbert, A. S.,& Larkin, C. (2005). Development andinitial validation of an instrument measuring manager-as-coach skill. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 16(2), 157-178.

Mullen, E. J. (1994). Framing the mentoring relationship as an information exchange. Human Resource Management Review, 4(3), 257-281.

Noe, R. A. (1988). An investigation of the determinants of successful assigned mentoring relationships. Personnel Psychology, 41, 457-479.

Noe, R. A. (2001). Employee training and development. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Noe, R. A., Greenberger, D. B., & Wang, S. (2002). Mentoring: What we know and where we might go. In G. R. Ferris & J. J. Martocchio (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 21, pp. 129-174). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Noe, R. A., Hollenbeck, J., Gerhart, B., & Wright, P.(2007). Human resource management: Gaining a competitive advantage (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.

Oldham, G. R., & Cummings, A. (1996). Employeecreativity: Personal and contextual factors at work. Academy of Management Journal, 39(3), 607-634.

Orenstein, R. L. (2002). Executive coaching: It’s notjust about the executive. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 38(3), 355-374.

Orenstein, R. L. (2006). Measuring executive coaching efficacy? The answer was right here all the time. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 58(2), 106-116.

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

Redshaw, B. (2000). Do we really understand coaching? How can we make it work better? Industrial and Commercial Training, 32(3), 106-108.

Rogers, A. (2000). The ingredients of good coaching. Works Management, 53(6), 14-17.

Shalley, C. E., & Gilson, L. L. (2004). What leaders need to know: A review of social and contextual factors that can foster or hinder creativity. The Leadership Quarterly, 15(1), 33–53.

Sherman, S., & Freas, A. (2004). The Wild West of executive coaching. Harvard Business Review, 82(11), 82-90.


Smither, J. W., London, M., Flautt, R., Vargas, Y., & Kucine, I. (2003). Can working with an executive coach improve multisource feedback ratings over time? A quasi-experimental field study. Personnel Psychology, 56(1), 23-44.

Sutherland, M. M., Torricelli, D. G., & Karg, R. F. (2002). Employer-of-choice branding for knowledge workers. South African Journal of Business Management, 33(4), 13-20.

Swanson, R. A. (1995). Performance is key. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 6(2), 207-213.

Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster self-managing team effectiveness: Design choices versus hands-on coaching. Organization Science, 12(5), 559-577.

Wanberg, C. R., Welsh, L., & Hezlett, S. (2003). Mentoring: A review and directions for future research. In J. Martocchio & J. Ferris(Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management, (pp. 39-124). Oxford: Elsevier Science LTD.

Whitely, W., Dougherty, T. W., & Dreher, G. F. (1991). Relationship of career mentoring and socioeconomic origin to managers’ and professionals’ early career progress.Academy of Management Journal, 34, 331-351.

Witherspoon, R., & White, R. P. (1998). Four essential ways that coaching can help executives. Greensboro, N.C: Center for Creative Leadership.

Yarnall, J. (1998). Line managers as career developers: Rhetoric or reality? Personnel Review, 27(5), 378-395.

Young, D. P., & Dixon, N. M. (1996). Helping leaders take effective action: A program evaluation. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.


Copyright of Organization Development Journal is the property of Organization Development Institute and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

multiple faces of coaching: manager-as-coach, executive coaching… · 2018-12-04 · ment (e.g.,...

Documents