The Relationship between Executive Coaching Dimensions and Transformational Leadership Behaviors: A Validation of Key Coaching Dimensions

Abstract

This survey study examined the relationship between six key executive coaching dimensions (emotional support [ES], tactical support [TS], challenge the status quo [CSQ], challenge to stretch [CS], active learning [AL], and learning orientation [LO]) and transformational leadership as measured by the Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). Participants included 64 international executive coaches and 109 direct reports, peers and supervisors (raters). Coaches completed the Coaching Dimensions Scales (measuring the six coaching dimensions) and the MLQ while raters assessed the coach on the MLQ. When controlling for the rater, the six coaching dimensions created a significant regression model that could predict transformational leadership and leadership outcomes. Significant predictor variables for transformational Leadership included ES and AL while ES and LO were significant predictors for leadership outcomes. The LO and AL scales were combined into one variable and the combined AL-LO variable was found to be a significant predictor of both transformational leadership and leadership outcomes. None of the above results were found when raters were assessing the coach on transformational leadership and leadership outcomes. Recommendations for future research include utilizing a larger sample size and a higher response rate, using a single-tiered data collection process, gathering additional demographic information, utilizing a different raters, adding additional coaching dimensions, providing clearer, more concise instructions on the guidelines for raters, comparing the Coaching Dimensions Scales to a different leadership theory, and comparing the Coaching Dimensions Scales to different outcome or performance measures.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 2 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.