Leadership Development through Executive Coaching: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis to Understand How Leaders Make Sense of Their Development
A working paper by Duminda Rajasinghe
York St John University, Lord Mayor’s Walk, York, YO30 7AS
Email:
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explore how leaders who experience executive coaching make sense of their development to understand how executive coaching develops business leaders. This PhD research aims to develop a heuristic device to demonstrate how executive coaching develops business leaders.
Design/methodology/approach – Business leaders’ individual experience on executive coaching is explored using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA)
Findings – This is a working paper that attempts to communicate an undergoing PhD research idea and its possible implications. So there are no findings at this juncture.
Research limitations/implications – The research does not attempt to prove or test anything so does not cater to the needs of the people/professionals or the organisations that are keen on objective realities. Subjective and humanist nature of the research also does not encourage any generalisations.
Practical Implications – The research aims to develop a heuristic device to demonstrate how executive coaching delivers leadership development which intends to lay a sound foundation for an evidence base practice in the field of executive coaching.
Social Implications – Research addresses a demand in the current business environment for an effective intervention for developing leaders.
Originality/ value – This research explores coachees’ perspective on executive coaching’s results delivery in an era where coach perspective dominate the scholarly research. The case study organisation in the UK financial sector also brings a unique perspective into this research and the methodology employed.
Keywords - Executive coaching, leadership development, IPA
Introduction
The research was initiated to understand how executive coaching delivers leadership development in business organisations. The literature review and evaluations were of high importance to lay a sound foundation for the research and also to understand research gaps in executive coaching.
Driven by personal interest and then understanding the literature voids in executive coaching’s results delivery, leadership development in particular, the interest was further strengthen. Industry demand and scarcity of scholarly research (De Hann, et al., 2013) were also informed this research.
Critical evaluation of literature enhanced the idea further and highlighted the importance of understanding contextual and subjective nature of the subject areas under study. Despites the demand for positivist studies (Passmore, 2011), the scholars (Passmore and Filley-Travis (2011) agree that there is a pivotal role for qualitative research in the field to play. In addition, most of the coaching researches are also based on coach perspective (Garvey et al., 2014) where positives have been communicated.
Therefore, this PhD research focuses on coachees’ perspective to understand how executive coaching delivers leadership development employing a qualitative research approach, interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). The paper set the context of the research through a critical evaluation of the literature and then justifies its philosophical underpinnings. Then the way the analysis is carried out is explained and discusses the importance of the research to wider community.
Literature Review
Leadership Development
New organisations and work modes have been demanding new ways of managing and leading (Owens and Hekman, 2012; DeRue and Asford, 2010). This in turn, required modern leaders to continue their development in businesses (Hernez-Broome & Hughes, 2004). Organisational success has also been attributed to leadership (Kouzes and Posner, 2012), so innovative and inspirational leadership is a valuable commodity in modern organisations. Consequently, organisations have placed a high emphasis on developing leaders to the above demands (CIPD, 2012) and leadership development now is a multibillion global industry (Riggio, 2008).
However, despite the level of investment on leadership development, the recent CIPD (2012) annual report shows that the leadership skills required for modern businesses remain unimproved. Another CIPD report (CIPD, 2011a) indicates that only 50% of organisations who took part in the survey rate their talent management activities as effective. The same report emphasises that most organisations (77%) rate developing high-potential leaders is among the top priority in their talent management initiatives. Identifying a deficit in leadership skills required for future challenges (CIPD, 2012), modern organisations are keen to develop their leaders to ensure sustainability (CEB, 2013). With the changes in the environment, the skills required to be an effective leader have also been changed dramatically (Petrie, 2011).
The remedy is to cope with such demands from the environment, is to develop leaders (Day at el., 2014). There is evidence that ancient writers such as Confucius, Aristotle, Socrates and Plato considered leadership as a prime shaper of societies (Kakabadse and Kakabadse, 1999) and it is a perennial that has its roots in old testament, ancient china and 16th century Italy (Safferstone, 2005). However, leadership and leadership development have taken greater importance than ever before in recent times (Day at el., 2014).
Moreover, recent thoughts on leadership and leadership development highlight the contextual nature of it (Hanks, 2012; Klenke, 2008). Northouse (2013) reiterates and confirm this saying that 21st century scholars agree that there is no common definition for it. Osborn et al (2002) emphasise that “leadership is subjectively identifiable patterns of influence attempts” (p.805) and leadership development to them is iterative, multi-relational and contextual. Turesky and Gallagher (2011) introduce leadership development as a highly individualised process. In addition, Kark (2011) highlights social nature of leadership and the idea that effective “leadership development (…) best occurs in interpersonal context” (p.509). Day (2001) calls this modern perspective in leadership development as social capital based leadership development and he goes on to define it as:
“an integration strategy by helping people understand out to relate to others, coordinate their efforts, build commitments and develop extended social networks by applying self-understanding to social and organisational imperatives” (p:586) .
Executive Coaching context
Executive coaching is highly regarded as a collaborative relationship between client/cochee and the coach (Jowett, et al., 2012; Kilburg, 2004; Thach and Heinselman 1999). Coach in this relationship facilitates clients to be effective in their leadership roles (Ely,et al., 2010; Kilburg,1996). Some other authors (Thach,2002; Abbott, et al.,2006) put goal attainment in the heart of executive coaching and raise the importance of formally defined goals to reach clients’ potentials. Elaborating on goals further, Kilburg (1997) and Sperry (2008) emphasize that it facilitates reaching goals through improved personal satisfaction, professional performance.
In addition, executive effectiveness, behavioural change and enhancing self-awareness have also been discussed (De Villiers, 2012) as outcomes of executive coaching. Moreover, Kombarakaran et al (2008) consider these outcomes as sources of performance improvement, and goal achievement. Apart from these uses of executive coaching, it has also been used to address performance issues in organisations (Hall, et al., 2000). Derailment, failing to perform in higher levels in organisations (Inyang, 2013) has also been addressed through executive coaching (Kempster and Isazatt-White, 2012). Therefore, it is argued that there are multiple uses of executive coaching depending on the context and the purpose it is used for.
Levenson (2009) claims these multiple perspectives as the cause of executive coaching not having enough clarity on what it delivers, how effective it is and in what context. However, some interpret lack of clarity and industry’s struggle with definitions is due to its immature evolving nature (Ives, 2008). Having subjective and humanist position to the subject, it can also be argued that scholars and practitioners perhaps not discussing the same phenomena or they are interpreting it different depending on the context. Garvey (2011) supports this view saying, that “definitions in social activities such as coaching and mentoring, if informed by a consensus view (…) becomes a diversity issue” (P.23). Emphasising, executive coaching’s contextual nature here, Garvey neutralises the notion that its immaturity as the reason for not having a universal definition. Having agreed on contextual and subjective nature of executive coaching, the paper also argues that there cannot be universal definitions for it. This was further supported by Garvey’s (2014) notion that coaching derives from person-centred humanist philosophy. Therefore, this research recognises the contextual, subjective and humanist nature of the executive coaching. The research also recognises executive coaching as a leadership development intervention and discusses executive coaching in leadership development perspective below.
Executive coaching as a leadership Development intervention
Joo, et al (2012) relating early motives of executive coaching emphasise that it emerged as a product of leadership development programs. These authors interpret it as an intervention to increasses opportunities to develop leadership skills (Gray 2006), knowledge (Perkins 2009) and improve overall performance (Kilburg 1997). Executive coaching literature (De Haan, et al., 2013; Nelson at el, 2011; Levenson, 2009; Passmore and Gibbs, 2007) highlights the developmental perspectives and sees it as an individualised experiential leadership development practice. These authors further argue that executive coaching is a distinct form of learning and development where feedback is constructively used to enhance performance. Literature (De Villiers 2012; Segers, et al., 2011;Benett and Bush,2011; Perkins 2009; Kombarakaran, et al., 2008; Day 2001) also emphasised that leadership development as the mostly cited reason for executive coaching’s popularity and it is considered as the main purpose of it. Further, executive coaching is a qualitatively different approach to leadership development (Ely et al, 2010) and the definitions of coaching vary according to the underline philosophy of approach, contextual focus and also the purpose of coaching (Walker – Fraser (2011a). Therefore, the researcher recognised the importance of defining executive coaching in its context considering the research question and the objectives.
The research question ‘how do leaders who experience executive coaching, make sense of their development?’ influences the research to take the popular one-to-one view (De Hann et al., 2013; Amstrong, 2012; Kilburg, 1996) of executive coaching. In addition, the notion that executive coahing is a ‘collaborative relationship’ (Sperry, 2008; Grant, 2006; Kilburg, 1996) between a client ( a leader) and a Coach (facilitatator) has also been taken into consideration in generating the definition of executive coaching for the resesach. Further attention has been given to the mostly cited reason for executive coaching’s popularity, ‘leadership development’ and embeded it to the definition considering the research interest.
Uncovering definitions of executive coaching from different sources, collating different thoughts from schollars and the nature of the subjects under investigation, executive coaching was defined for this research as;
“a formal one-to-one collaborative relationship between client and a coach that facilitates client becoming a more effective leader”
So, the research takes this stand on executive coaching as an individualised, targeted developmenal intervention and seeks to explore how it develops business leaders. As was stated above, the paper employs IPA as its research methodology to strategise the process of answering the research questions to facilitate further understanding on how executive coaching delivers leadership development.
Justification of the methodological fit with the resarch question and how the approach taken helps to create deeper understanding of how it works in developing leaders are discussed below. As part of the discussion, the ontological and epistemological possitions of the resesarch and also theoritical underpinings of IPA are evaluated and match with the reseach question and its objectives.
Research Methodology
Philosophical Assumptions for the Research and IPA
The research takes Burrell and Morgain’s (1979) subjectivist approach to human science to set the credibility to the research position further (Farquhar, 2012). This was considered important as there is no unified set of techniques and philosophies to base qualitative research (Manson, 2002) and compelling interest of qualitative research is to explore how things work in a given context. In this case, exploring how executive coaching develops business leadership, employing a homogeneous sample from a case study organisation.
The decision was highly informed by the research context and the subjects under investigation. Further, the subjectivist nature of research question and the interest to explore experience of coaching to deepen the understanding of how it develops leaders have also influenced the decision.
Figure 1: A scheme for analysing assumptions about the nature of social science (Burrel and Morgan, 1979:3)
Basing on these philosophical assumptions by Burrel and Morgan (1979), the researcher sets the subject research on the subjectivist assumptions, where reality is considered a product of human mind (Nominalism) (Burrel and Morgan, 1979; Johnson and Duberley, 2000). The research is further set to assume that the knowledge is value and theory laden and accepts no neutral grounds for knowledge as gathering objective and sense free data is impossible in the social, organisational and subject contexts the research. Thus, the research takes the anti-positivist epistemology (ibid) and also assumes that human actions are culturally derived and not merely determined by the situation (Johnson and Duberly, 2000). The context of the research and the background of the participants are important component of this research as it is part of their sense making process. The researcher’s position as human resource development practitioner and a lecturer also plays a role in making sense of the data in the analysis. Therefore, there is no context and value free objectively driven focus in this research.
The experience of individual leaders is the phenomenon of investigation to uncover the ability of executive coaching to develop leaders. The research question depicts clearly as it carries ideographic commitments exploring individual accounts. To answer the question, research employs IPA as its approach informed by three philosophical underpinnings, hermeneutics, phenomenology and ideography. IPA was considered a perfect match for the research, considering philosophical assumptions of the research and the phenomenon of investigation.
Moreover, the assumption of self-reflection is fundamental with IPA (Chapman and Smith, 2002) where it explores this self-reflection on human beings to form an understanding of how individual human beings understand a particular experience (Wagstaff et al., 2014; Roberts, 2013). Thus IPA aims to understand how people make sense of their particular experience (event, relationship, process etc.) in the context of their actual life world. This is accomplished employing a homogeneous sample and semi-structured interviews in particular where the research facilitates individuals to bring their executive coaching experience forward naturally.