Types and scope of coaching

Both practitioners’ and academics’ interest is growing with regard to coaching, which has evolved into a highly profitable industry (Segers et al., 2011). In this regard, a plethora of different coaching interventions has been proposed and practised in the organisations, while academia exerts efforts categorising the various types into meaningful and distinctive groups. In line with Segers et al.’s (2011) structuring of the coaching industry, this part elaborates on coaching classifications in terms of the status of the coach or coachee, the scope of the intervention and the school of coaching.

With regard to the status of the coach or coachee, Fillery-Travis & Lane (2006) categorised coaching into executive, managerial and internal coaching. The former is delivered mainly by external coaches and is targeted mostly, but not always, to senior level employees. The second type refers to coaching delivered by the line manager, while the latter is pertinent to coaching offered by another employee within the organisation but not the line manager. Similarly, Segers et al. (2011) identified four types of coaching: external, coaching delivered by the line manager, internal and self- coaching. The first three types are analogous to the respective coaching types offered by Fillery-Travis & Lane (2006), yet, self-coaching refers to coaching performed by the individual for the individual. Critically reflecting on the above categorisations, one may notice that the designation for internal coaching is to a certain extent arbitrary. In particular, the adjective ‘internal’ signifies “of or situated on the inside” (Oxford Dictionaries, 2013) and thus, managerial coaching may also be regarded as internal coaching. Hence, the denomination of the type of coaching may also play an important role in the abovementioned discrepancy that exists with regard to the concept of coaching.

Regarding the scope of coaching, Segers et al. (2011) identified three

categories: skills coaching, performance coaching, and development or life coaching. The aim of skills coaching is the development of mastery and capability in order to

hand, performance coaching expands over a longer period of time and focuses on a wider performance area than skills coaching. In contrast, development or life coaching deals with personal matters or significant career choices. Likewise, as per the scope of coaching, Grant & Zackon (2004), identified the following types: corporate/executive coaching, personal/life coaching, small business coaching, non-profit organisational coaching and internal coaching. While most of the above terms are self-explanatory, corporate/executive and internal coaching acquire a different meaning from those offered by Fillery-Travis & Lane (2006) and Segers et al. (2011). Specifically, both types involve non-employee coaches, who deal with change management, leadership and team development (corporate/executive) or who work with companies occupying up to 25 employees (internal). Following the reasoning provided in the previous paragraph, the use of term ‘internal’ in this categorisation is rather subjective, while, linguistically, it does not correspond to the semantic meaning of the word.

Finally, Segers et al. (2011) building on L’Abate, Frey, & Wagner's (1982) ERAAwC model, i.e. Emotionality, Rationality, Activity, Awareness, and Context, categorised coaching, also, in terms of the coaching approach adopted by the coach. In particular, they constructed five categories respectively to the five ERAAwC

components: person centred, cognitive, action, transpersonal, and system.

Undoubtedly, the numerous types of coaching create additional tension and confusion in its theoretical underpinning. Moreover, taking into consideration that coaching has received a lot of criticism of being a temporary management trend (Agarwal et al., 2009; Grant & Cavanagh, 2007; Lapp & Carr, 2008; Segers et al., 2011), the lack of common understanding further diminishes its contribution of to management theory and practice. While the achievement of complete consensus with regard to the core meaning of coaching is unattainable and perhaps, detrimental to the critical character of scientific endeavour, a robust and methodical engagement with the concept may ensure minimisation of faddism and promotion of the epistemic character of coaching. In this regard, it is essential for each scientific endeavour to explicitly refer to the element that determines the denomination for the type of coaching under investigation.

Correspondingly, the thesis focuses on coaching, as it is determined by the status of the coach. Specifically, the type of coaching under investigation is

managerial coaching, that is coaching delivered by one’s line manager. Further, it is argued that managerial coaching is distinguished from other internal types of

coaching, in that it employs different psychosocial processes, including dissimilar power dynamics. Indeed, according to Boonstra & Bennebroek Gravenhorst (1998), the exertion of power is used to influence others and may result in resistance, or compliance and commitment (Falbe & Yukl, 1992). Under this line of reasoning, it is less likely for an employee to interact with a peer in the same way they interact with their manager when being coached.

Having contextualised coaching in general as a workplace practice and identified managerial coaching in the spectrum of development interactions, the following part examines the concept of managerial coaching as a leadership practice. It is envisaged that the identification of managerial coaching as both a workplace developmental interaction and a leadership practice will enable the multifaceted examination of the concept and thus, the development of a comprehensive conceptual framework.