You are here:
Special Group in Coaching Psychology
> International Coaching Psychology Review
Editorial: Coaching psychology coming of age in the [...]
Coaching psychology during 2010 to 2011 really did take off around the world. In a space of under twelve months different psychology professional bodies held five International Congresses of Coaching Psychology from London, Dublin, Barcelona and Stockholm to Pretoria in South Africa. This year the first congress event will be held in Sydney sponsored by the APS Interest Group Coaching Psychology (see announcement on page 137 for full details). Coaching psychology is certainly coming of age.
This bumper issue of the International Coaching Psychology Review covers a range of topics and debates. In Europe more undergraduate programmes are including a coaching psychology module and this is an area that needs further research. In the first paper Catherine Steele and Jane Arthur’s study explored undergraduates’ perceptions and experiences of coaching psychology during a 12-week optional module. They found that on completion of the module many students indicated that they had an understanding of how to apply psychological theory developed a range of skills and felt better equipped to plan their future career. In the next paper Ann-Marie Jarzebowski, Josephine Palermo and Robert van de Berg note that empirical findings are inconsistent regarding the motivational effect of feedback. Their research starts to address this by looking into the impact of regulatory fit on motivation after positive feedback. They assert that their study is the first to examine the effect of regulatory fit within feedback sign on motivation. They found that feedback framed to fit the regulatory focus of coachees is likely to increase the level of motivation. Therefore in some situations in coaching where it would be challenging to frame feedback, the coach could induce a regulatory promotion focus that could match the feedback to be provided. They suggest this could be achieved by asking the coachee to describe their ideal goal or type of aspirations they have and the strategies to support achievement of these ideal goals (promotion induction). Clearly more research is needed in this area but the implications are fascinating for coaching practice and we look forward to receiving any follow-up study the Deakin University group may undertake.
The third paper by John Franklin and Alicia Franklin reports on a controlled study researching into the long-term benefits of coaching. This paper follows up the participants from an earlier study first published in this journal (see Franklin & Doran, 2009) and reports on their academic performance 12 and 18 months after the completion of the seven-week coaching programme. Those in the Preparation, Action, Adaptive Learning (PAAL) programme condition performed significantly better 12 and 18 months after the completion of the brief coaching programme. In the next paper, Helen Ogilvy and Vicky Ellam-Dyson look at line management involvement in coaching and ask is it a help or hindrance? A cross-sectional design was used to explore coachees’ and line managers’ perceptions of line management involvement, as well as facilitators and barriers to their involvement. The different factors are discussed also the consequences for transfer of learning.
The fifth paper by Johan Bouwer and Jacoba van Egmond focuses on the moderating factors of the Van Egmond Coaching Model (VECM). They found that the most important moderating factors of the VECM appeared to be the coachee’s readiness to change, the client-coach relationship, the manager’s role and the coach’s expertise. The authors recommend conducting follow-up studies. The final paper in the first section of the journal is about the managerial gap and how coaching can help. Christine Porter and W. David Rees consider two models that may help clients identify their organisational roles and their willingness and ability to carry out such roles. The first model considered is that of the Managerial Escalator which seeks to help individual employees identify and cope with their likely accumulation of managerial responsibilities, particularly dealing with any Managerial Gap. The second, and linked, model is that of Role Set Analysis.
After our popular debate issue last year on developing an agenda for teaching coaching psychology (see Grant, 2011; Cavanagh, Palmer et al, 2011) we decided to publish another special debate issue on a topical subject. After a brief introduction by the special issue editors, Michael Cavanagh and David Lane launch the debate on: Coaching Psychology Coming of Age: The challenges we face in the messy world of complexity. Some of us heard this stimulating paper previously as it was based on a keynote delivered at the 1st International Congress of Coaching Psychology, London, in December 2010. Then eight discussants give their feedback. As previously, the lead authors were given an opportunity to provide a brief response to the feedback. The debate issues were intended to produce stimulating and thoughtful contributions on matters of interest and importance in coaching psychology. They certainly seem to be meeting that goal. If you have a position on an important topic in coaching psychology and would like to provide a lead article for another debate issue, please contact one of us (Michael Cavanagh or Stephen Palmer).
We finish this issue with an International Congress report, and the news updates from the SGCP and IGCP provided by Professor Mary Watts and David Heap whose task it is to lead both of our organisations. We welcome new International Editorial Board members, Sarah Corrie, Paula Cruise, Jonathan Passmore, Catherine Steele and Lewis R. Stern who bring their knowledge and experience to the journal. We are very fortunate indeed to add these people to the already strong panel of international editors, and we look forward to their contributions into the future.
Coaching Psychology Unit,
Department of Psychology,
Coaching Psychology Unit,
Department of Psychology,
Franklin, J. & Doran, J. (2009). Does all coaching enhance objective performance independently evaluated by blind assessors? The importance of the coaching model and content. International Coaching Psychology Review, 4, 126-142.
Cavanagh, M., Palmer, S. et al (2011). Educating coaching psychologists: Responses from the field. International Coaching Psychology Review, 6, 1, 100-127.
Grant, A.M. (2011). Developing an agenda for teaching coaching psychology. International Coaching Psychology Review, 6, 1, 84-99.