Team member questionnaire

The 50-item questionnaire contained validated scales that measured the following constructs: learning goal orientation, managerial coaching effectiveness, information sharing, and leader-member exchange. It also contained other scales (such as performance goal orientation and turnover intention), which are not listed below due to the fact that they do not form part of the conceptual model and hypotheses development.

Learning goal orientation: The learning goal orientation dimension was measured using VandeWalle's (1997) 5-item validated scale. Sample items include: ‘I am willing to select a challenging work assignment that I can learn a lot from’ and ‘I often look for opportunities to develop new skills and knowledge’. The responses were measured on a seven point Likert scale ranging from 1 (=strongly disagree) to 7 (= strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha reliability wasα = .84 (UK sample α = .84, Greek sample α = .85).

Managerial coaching: Considering the central role of this construct for the purposes of the present research project, substantial and deliberate evaluation over the available validated instruments ensured the selection of the most appropriate scale. Specifically, the author identified three potential scales developed by Ellinger et al., (2003), Heslin et al. (2006), and Smither, London, Flautt, Vargas & Kucine (2003) respectively. Although they share some common items, most of them are different (v. Appendix 7.1). Specifically, Ellinger et al.’s (2003) 5-item scale focuses on five

different themes (setting expectations, broadening employees’ perspectives, providing feedback, soliciting feedback & being a resource), while Heslin et al.’s (2006) 10-item scale focuses on three themes (guidance, facilitation and inspiration). On the other hand, Smither et al.’s (2003) 6-item scale seems to encompass more appropriately the four stages of the coaching process (section 2.4), of which feedback is a constituent component. Indeed, Ellinger et al.’s (2009) scale encompasses certain items that may

be considered as a broader managerial behaviour, e.g. item=5, ‘Provide employees with resources so they can perform their jobs more effectively’, while Heslin et al.’s (2006) scale includes items that may be regarded as broader leadership behaviour, e.g. item=10, ‘Support you in taking on new challenges’. As it has been argued earlier in section 2.3.3, coaching is a core management process and thus, may share certain aspects with managing and leading; nevertheless, managing and leading are broader concepts and thus, not only encompass coaching but also, other workplace practices. Furthermore, carefully examining the above scales, Ellinger et al.’s (2003) and Heslin et al.’s (2006) scales measure perceived coaching behaviour, while the latter

measures perceived coaching effectiveness. Under this line of reasoning and due to the fact that aim of the present project is to capture perceived coaching effectiveness, Smither et al.’s (2003) scale appears as more appropriate for the purposes of the thesis.

Further, although a constituent part of Smither et al.’s (2003) scale is perceived feedback, the measure successfully captures all the stages of the coaching process and thus, it differentiates from scales that focus only on perceived supervisory feedback. For instance, a scale that is commonly used to measure perceived supervisory feedback is the feedback category of the Job Characteristics Inventory (Sims, Szilagyi, & Keller, 1976; v. Appendix 8). As it may be observed, this scale focuses solely on whether the individual employee receives feedback from their

superior on their progress and performance. It does not assess whether the supervisor involves the employee in the process, helps the employee with self-reflection and awareness and empowers the employee to set goals – behaviours, which are all part of the coaching process. Even a more elaborate scale that was developed by Jaworski & Kohli (1991; v. Appendix 8) and was divided into four categories (positive and

negative output feedback, and positive and negative behavioural feedback) also focuses on whether the manager conveys to the employee their assessment of the latter’s situation and performance without incorporating behaviours from the other stages of the coaching process. Critically reflecting on this, the difference in focus is substantively meaningful, since feedback is but one of the constituent parts of the coaching process.

Hence, taking all the above into consideration, Smither et al.’s (2003) scale was adopted in order to assess the effectiveness of a manager as a coach. Sample items include: ‘Helping you interpret your feedback results by asking questions to uncover reasons for the feedback’ and ‘Offering you useful suggestions, advice, or

point scale ranging from 1 (=very ineffective) to 7 (= very effective). Cronbach’s alpha reliability wasα = .94 (UK sample α = .95, Greek sample α = .92).

Information sharing: This construct was measured using the first dimension of the Internal Social Capital scale developed by Leana & Pil (2006). Information sharing captures the structural dimension of social capital and it is measured using a 6-item instrument. Sample items include: ‘Employees engage in open and honest communication with one another’ and ‘Employees at this organisation keep each other informed at all times’. The responses for all three dimensions were measured on a seven point Likert scale ranging from 1(=strongly disagree) to 7 (=strongly agree). Cronbach’s alpha reliability wasα = .85 (UK sample α = .87, Greek sample α = .80).

The quality of leader-member exchange (LMX): LMX was measured using the 7-item LMX scale validated by Scandura & Graen (1984). Sample items include: ‘How would you characterize your working relationship with your immediate

supervisor?’ and ‘How well do you feel that your immediate manager recognizes your potential’. The scale was measured on a four point scale ranging from 1 to 4, where ‘1’ denotes a low quality of exchange and ‘4’ denotes a high quality of exchange with the supervisor. Cronbach’s alpha reliability wasα = .93 (UK sample α = .96, Greek sample α = .82).