5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the findings of the second research phase, the application phase that followed an action research (AR) approach where I coached six recently promoted senior leaders (referred to as TMs) using the draft TTC framework that emerged during the preceding foundation phase.
At the outset of the discussion of the AR findings, it is important to state that the aim of the application phase was to answer the fifth research sub-question, namely to investigate how transformative learning can be applied in the transition coaching process. The first four research sub-questions addressed during the foundation phase and discussed in Chapter 4 covered general aspects of transition coaching, which formed the basis of the draft TTC framework. However, to answer the fifth research sub-question and the overall research objective (of creating a TTC framework), insights were needed on the application and operationalisation of transformative learning during the transition coaching process, and this was accomplished during the application phase.
The AR process followed during the application phase was based on the canonical actions research (CAR) approach as explained in Chapter 3. The main reasons for following a CAR-type approach were the rigour and structure that CAR provides as well as the explicit use of theory. In reporting on the findings of an AR process, it is recommended that a narrative style be used (Greenwood & Levin, 2007). The cyclical and iterative nature of AR, which is at the heart of both the knowledge generation and social change processes, is district from other forms of social science research. It is therefore important to describe the process followed when reporting on the findings of an AR process (Greenwood & Levin, 2007:109). Greenwood and Levin (2007) suggest that the rhetorical convention of the narrative style of reporting is ideal for an AR process where the text must have meaning, in the case of this research, to both the practitioner (the TM) and the researcher (me). They further state, “AR gains much of its power through narratives because narratives are inherently particular, revealing specific histories, processes, commitments, battles, defeats, and triumphs” (Greenwood & Levin, 2007:110), which was certainly the case in this research.
This advice is heeded in this chapter, and the findings will be presented through a narrative account of the five macrocycles with reference to the six microcycles contained within each. The structure followed is based on the CAR process (Davison et al., 2004): plan → act → evaluate → reflect with a section at the end that summarises how each macrocycle contributed to the emergence of the TTC framework. Before describing the AR process, a brief summary of the focal and instrumental theories used during the AR process is provided.
5.2 FOCAL AND INSTRUMENTAL THEORIES GUIDING THE EVOLUTION
OF THE COACHING FRAMEWORK
Following the guidelines of the CAR approach, a set of focal and instrumental theories was used during the AR process to help ensure rigour. A focal theory provides an intellectual basis for action-oriented change in a CAR project (Davison et al., 2012:765) whereas an instrumental theory is used to explain phenomena (Davison et al., 2012:766). Applied to this research, it can be argued that, since the primary aim of this research was to create a coaching framework, theories that inform conceptual coaching processes and approaches should be used as focal theories to form the ‘intellectual basis’ for the CAR process. In coaching literature, Lane and Corrie’s formulation framework (Lane & Corrie, 2007) and Kolb’s experiential learning theory (Kolb, 2014) provide two foundations within which a coaching process can be conceptualised. These theories were discussed in section 2.7.
The aim of this research, however, was not to propose a general coaching approach, but rather a coaching approach that would specifically help to facilitate transformative learning during career transitions. It can therefore be argued that the phenomena (in the words of CAR) at stake here are transformative learning and career transitions. Aspects of Mezirow’s transformative learning theory, which comprises the types of perspectives people hold (Kitchenham, 2008) and the three types of reflection that may help change perspectives (Mezirow, 1994), were used as one of the instrumental theories in this CAR process. Hoggan’s (2016) criteria for evaluating the level of transformative learning and the theory of leadership transitions (Charan et al., 2011) served as the other two instrumental theories. In all three cases, these theories adhere to the requirement of CAR instrumental theories by explaining the phenomena involved in the CAR process, namely transformative learning and career transitions.
The focal and instrumental theories used in this CAR process are summarised below in Table 5.1 and will be referenced throughout the narrative describing the CAR process in this chapter.
Table 5.1: Focal and instrumental theories used in the AR phase of this research
CAR theory type
Theory name Application
Focal theory
Kolb’s experiential learning theory
(Kolb, 2014) Guides the adult experiential learning aspect of the AR process. Lane and Corrie’s formulation
framework: perspective, process, purpose (Lane & Corrie, 2007)
Guides the overall meta structure of a coaching intervention.
Instrumental theory
Mezirow’s eight transformative learning perspectives and three types of reflection (Mezirow, 1994)
Used to identify problematic perspectives and reflect on how to change these perspectives. Hoggan’s transformative learning
evaluation criteria (Hoggan, 2016) Used to gauge the level of transformative learning. Leadership pipeline (Charan et al.,
2011) Used to create strict boundaries and set the context for the AR process.
Source: Author’s own compilation
The focal and instrumental theories were added to the TTC framework v0.1 from the foundation phase before the application phase commenced and resulted in the TTC framework v0.2 as shown in Figure 5.1. Lane and Corrie’s (2007) formulation framework was specifically added to the TTC framework to provide an intellectual basis (Davison et al., 2012) for the coaching that was going to take place during the AR process, and transformative learning theory and career transition theory were included as instrumental theories to help explain the phenomena of transformative learning and leadership transitions. Lane and Corrie’s (2007) formulation framework (perspective, process and purpose) underpinned the emerging TTC Framework:
The ‘perspective’ consists of the transition challenges identified in the foundation phase, and the two instrumental theories;
The ‘process’ at this stage consisted of the results from the foundation phase on how to initiate the coaching, follow a rudimentary coaching process, and use ttc tools and techniques; and
The ‘purpose’ at this stage contained the benefits from transition coaching as derived from the foundation phase analysis.
Figure 5.1: TTC Framework V0.2 before AR phase
Source: Author’s own compilation
5.3 MACROCYCLE 1
The TTC framework v0.2 that emerged from the foundation phase and which includes the focal and instrumental theories as described above, was used as basis for the subsequent application phase and used as a starting point for the first macrocycle.
5.3.1 Plan
The start of the first macrocycle also signalled the start of the coaching process. Following the lead from the two focal theories, it was important to establish and communicate the perspectives (first aspect of Lane and Corrie’s formulation framework) that informed the coaching (Lane & Corrie, 2007) clearly as well as to establish the current reality (first step in Kolb’s learning cycle) (Kolb, 2014) of the TMs. This basis, together with standard coaching best practices of rapport building and contracting and the results from the foundation phase, which provided guidelines on how to initiate a transition coaching process (section 4.3) seemed like a logical place to start the coaching process. Guided by these theoretical constructs, the plan for the first macrocycle was therefore to agree on the context for coaching, negotiate the contract and set the coaching goals.
5.3.2 Act
The six coaching sessions all followed a similar process, consisting of mutual introductions, explanation of the dual coaching and AR research process, and then going into more detail about transition and transformative learning theory. The results from the foundation phase suggested that applying theory and frameworks is useful during transition coaching. Relevant instrumental theories, such as the leadership pipeline (Charan et al., 2011) and Mezirow’s transformative learning theory (Mezirow, 1994), were shared on a high level with the TMs. This helped to create the context for the session and the intervention. It was made explicit in the contracting that the coaching context is predefined: how to become more effective in your new role. This set a hard boundary, which delineated the coaching as ‘transition’ coaching. It was also made clear to the TMs that one of the aims of the coaching was to help them transform on a deep level in order to be more successful in their new roles.
Instead of coaching goals, current challenges were identified that TMs perceived to be hindering their ability to be successful in the new role. It was hoped that the identification of their main challenges could help TMs understand what they could change (transform) to overcome these challenges as the process progressed. The challenges per TM and their predominant categorisations into one of cognitive, behavioural, interpersonal, psychological and systemic challenges (Avolio & Hannah, 2008; Freedman, 2011; Goleman, 1996) are illustrated in Table 5.2 below.
Table 5.2: Challenges faced by TMs
Transitioning manager
Current challenges (category)
TM1 Create a new brand strategy (cognitive)
Get people to buy into this new strategy (interpersonal) How to influence people (interpersonal)
Time management (behavioural)
TM2 How do I shift away from operating at my previous level? (behavioural) How can I be more assertive? (behavioural)
How do I balance business needs with the need to optimise the technical environment? (cognitive)
TM3 Effective time management (behavioural)
Have I stepped up to the plate in my new role in terms of performance? (behavioural)
Am I operating at a strategic level? (cognitive)