International Coaching Psychology Review, 4.2, September 2009

John Franklin & Justin Doran
(2004), Green, Oades and Grant (2005),
Spence and Grant (2005) and Finn, Mason
and Griffin (2006) incorporated non-treatment
control conditions. One design limitation
of all of these studies is that they depend
very heavily on self-report measures, which
by their very nature lack the objectivity of
assessments conducted by independent
observers. For coaching to be really valuable
it needs to make a significant difference to
some aspect of observable performance
which is clearly apparent to independent
observers. The only study utilising such an
external assessment was that of Sue-Chan
and Latham (2004), which although lacking
a no treatment condition involved assessment
of the participants’ academic performance
by a member of staff who ‘was blind to
the coaching condition to which the managers
had been randomly assigned’ (p.272).
This study revealed that participants who
were either coached externally or selfcoached
achieved higher marks in the subject
in which the coaching was nested than
those who were coached by a peer. Valuable
as this is, it is important to determine if the
effects of coaching generalise to other areas
of performance outside the specific area on
which coaching was focused. The present
study is the first to incorporate not only
random assignment but also independent
assessment of other areas of performance
assessed by people completely blind to participation
in any coaching programme.
Understanding the process by which
coaching works is as important as determining
if the effects generalise to external
areas of observable behavioural change.
Most coaching programmes focus on goal
setting, problem solving and the development
of self-regulation skills. Franklin
(2009) has recently proposed a unified
model of change motivation and self-development
which has implications for the
coaching process. This Preparation, Action
and Adaptive Learning (PAAL) Model proposes
that a person must first be motivated to
engage in self-directed actions from which
they may learn to develop adaptive ways of
meeting their needs. The motivation for
such action is held to arise from the person
answering the questions why, what and how
they need to change in order to better meet
their objectives and needs in an adaptive
manner. The PAAL model of self-directed
personal growth proposes that a number of
underlying processes may facilitate this motivation
to develop adaptive responses to the
changing demands of life. This study focuses
on six processes which are identified by the
model to facilitate the effectiveness of
coaching: self-efficacy, decisional balance,
hope, implicit theories of change, self-compassion
and resilience.
Generalised self-efficacy is one of the most
researched topics in psychology and strong
evidence links it to work place performance
(Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998) and a wide
variety of positive life outcomes (Bandura,
1997; Bandura & Locke, 2003; Schunck &
Pajares, 2001; Schwarzer & Scholz, 2000).
Together with self-worth, self-efficacy is generally
seen as one of the two core components
of self esteem (Locke, McClear &
Knight, 1996), and this latter concept has
repeatedly been associated with many positive
personal and social outcomes (Mruk,
2006). In a recent meta-analysis of 109
studies of the predictors of academic performance,
academic self efficacy was found
to be the strongest predictor, followed by
academic skills and achievement goals (Robbins
et al., 2004).
The Transtheoretical Model of Change
was proposed by Prochaska and DiClemente
in an attempt to explain the pattern of
change, lapse, relapse and recovery often
observed in attempting to overcome addictive
behaviours (Prochaska, Johnson & Lee,
1998). Its appeal has seen it extended to a
wide variety of behaviour change and has
been promoted by Grant as a core concept
in coaching (Grant, 2006). Central to the
model is the assertion that in order for
clients to progress from the precontemplation,
contemplation or preparation stage to
the action stage, they must resolve their
ambivalence regarding the costs and benefits
130 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 4 No. 2 September 2009