↓ Skip to main content

Coaching to vision versus coaching to improvement needs: a preliminary investigation on the differential impacts of fostering positive and negative emotion during real time executive coaching sessions

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
12 X users
facebook
4 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
29 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
131 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Coaching to vision versus coaching to improvement needs: a preliminary investigation on the differential impacts of fostering positive and negative emotion during real time executive coaching sessions
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, April 2015
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00455
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anita R. Howard

Abstract

Drawing on intentional change theory (ICT; Boyatzis, 2006), this study examined the differential impact of inducing coaching recipients' vision/positive emotion versus improvement needs/negative emotion during real time executive coaching sessions. A core aim of the study was to empirically test two central ICT propositions on the effects of using the coached person's Positive Emotional Attractor (vision/PEA) versus Negative Emotional Attractor (improvement needs/NEA) as the anchoring framework of a onetime, one-on-one coaching session on appraisal of 360° feedback and discussion of possible change goals. Eighteen coaching recipients were randomly assigned to two coaching conditions, the coaching to vision/PEA condition and the coaching to improvement needs/NEA condition. Two main hypotheses were tested. Hypothesis1 predicted that participants in the vision/PEA condition would show higher levels of expressed positive emotion during appraisal of 360° feedback results and discussion of change goals than recipients in the improvement needs/NEA condition. Hypothesis2 predicted that vision/PEA participants would show lower levels of stress immediately after the coaching session than improvement needs/NEA participants. Findings showed that coaching to vision/the PEA fostered significantly lower levels of expressed negative emotion and anger during appraisal of 360° feedback results as compared to coaching to improvements needs/the NEA. Vision-focused coaching also fostered significantly greater exploration of personal passions and future desires, and more positive engagement during 360° feedback appraisal. No significant differences between the two conditions were found in emotional processing during discussion of change goals or levels of stress immediately after the coaching session. Current findings suggest that vision/PEA arousal versus improvement needs/NEA arousal impact the coaching process in quite different ways; that the coach's initial framing of the session predominantly in the PEA (or, alternatively, predominantly in the NEA) fosters emotional processing that is driven by this initial framing; and that both the PEA (and associated positive emotions) and NEA (and associated negative emotions) play an important and recurrent role in shaping the change process. Further study on these outcomes will enable researchers to shed more light on the differential impact of the PEA versus NEA on intentional change, and how to leverage the benefits of both emotional attractors. Findings also suggest that coaches can benefit from better understanding the importance of tapping intrinsic motivation and personal passions through coaching to vision/the PEA. Coaches additionally may benefit from better understanding how to leverage the long-term advantages, and restorative benefits, of positive emotions during coaching engagements. The findings also highlight coaches' need to appreciate the impact of timing effects on coaching intentional change, and how coaches can play a critical role in calibrating the pace and focus of work on intentional change. Early arousal of the coachee's PEA, accompanied by recurrent PEA-NEA induction, may help coachees be/become more creative, optimistic, and resilient during a given change process. Overall, primary focus on vision/PEA and secondary focus on improvement needs/NEA may better equip coaches and coaching recipients to work together on building robust learning, development, and change. Keywords-133pt executive coaching, vision, improvement needs, positive emotion, negative emotion, emotional appraisal, intentional change, positive psychology.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 131 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
United States 1 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
Unknown 127 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 31 24%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 12%
Other 13 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 10%
Student > Bachelor 10 8%
Other 23 18%
Unknown 25 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 30 23%
Business, Management and Accounting 18 14%
Social Sciences 16 12%
Medicine and Dentistry 10 8%
Neuroscience 5 4%
Other 19 15%
Unknown 33 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 January 2018.
All research outputs
#3,487,604
of 25,914,360 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#6,682
of 34,869 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#42,587
of 280,933 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#119
of 486 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,914,360 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,869 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,933 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 486 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.