Editorial summary. This is our text summary of an article published by PLOS ONE. Charts, figures, and the author’s full voice are at the original — read it there .
Editorial verdict
Methodologically careful but underpowered. The multi-source longitudinal design and latent change score approach are genuine strengths; the N=70 sample at the minimum threshold for PLS-SEM, absence of a control group, and inability to claim causation substantially limit the conclusions — findings are suggestive, not definitive.
Executive summary
This study addresses the mechanisms through which leadership coaching enhances leader effectiveness, a gap in an empirical literature that lags behind practitioner application. The authors — Halliwell, Mitchell, and Boyle (2023) — argue that coaching improves leader effectiveness primarily by increasing authentic leadership behaviour and leadership self-efficacy, which in turn elevate change-oriented leadership behaviour. To test this model, a quantitative pretest-posttest design was employed with multi-source data collected from 70 organizational leaders, their coaches, subordinates, and supervisors across two time points. Structural equation modelling using partial least squares (PLS-SEM) with latent change scores was applied. Key findings indicate that coaching-related increases in authentic leadership behaviour had the largest total effect on leadership effectiveness (β = 0.271), while increases in leadership self-efficacy positively predicted change-oriented leadership behaviour (β = 0.242) but not leadership effectiveness directly. Change-oriented leadership behaviour independently predicted leadership effectiveness (β = 0.382). The study concludes that authentic leadership behaviour functions as a primary mechanism through which coaching builds effectiveness, with self-efficacy operating as an indirect pathway via change-oriented leadership.
Key insights
- 1Coaching-related increases in authentic leadership behaviour demonstrated the largest total effect on leadership effectiveness after controlling for baseline scores, suggesting authenticity is a primary mechanism of coaching impact.
- 2Leadership self-efficacy, while showing large effect sizes in mean change, did not directly predict leadership effectiveness — its influence operated indirectly through change-oriented leadership behaviour, implying a delayed or mediated pathway.
- 3Change-oriented leadership behaviour served as a significant independent predictor of leadership effectiveness (β = 0.382), indicating that coaching interventions oriented toward vision articulation, innovation encouragement, and environmental monitoring may produce measurable effectiveness gains.
Practical takeaways
- Organizations deploying leadership coaching for change management purposes may observe that targeting authentic leadership dimensions — such as transparency, balanced processing, and self-awareness — produces downstream gains in both change-oriented behaviour and overall effectiveness.
- The absence of a direct path from self-efficacy to effectiveness, combined with evidence of a delayed translation of internal cognitive change into observable behaviour, suggests that assessment timelines for coaching outcomes may need to extend beyond the typical post-intervention measurement window.
Frameworks mentioned
360-Degree Review
Multi-source feedback approach referenced in the context of leader development interventions and cited as a tool used in executive coaching effectiveness research.
References
- Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology (2016).The effectiveness of workplace coaching: A meta-analysis of learning and performance outcomes from coaching.
- Academy of Management Learning & Education (2023).What can we know about the effectiveness of coaching? A meta-analysis based only on randomized controlled trials.
- The Journal of Positive Psychology (2014).Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context.
- Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice (2022).Leadership coaching's efficacy and effect mechanisms – A mixed-methods study.
- Leadership & Organization Development Journal (2021).Interrelations between enhanced emotional intelligence, leadership self-efficacy and task-oriented leadership behaviour – a leadership coaching study.
- The Leadership Quarterly (2005).Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership.
- The Leadership Quarterly (2010).Evaluating leadership coaching: A review and integrated framework.
- PLOS ONE (2016).Coaching as a developmental intervention in organisations: A systematic review of its effectiveness and the mechanisms underlying it.
- Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice (2019).Exploring the delayed effects of leadership coaching: a pilot study.
- The Leadership Quarterly (2014).Leadership coaching, leader role-efficacy, and trust in subordinates. A mixed methods study assessing leadership coaching as a leadership development tool.
- International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring (2004).The coaching scorecard: A holistic approach to evaluating the benefits of business coaching.
- Journal of Vocational Behavior (2015).Change-oriented behavior: A meta-analysis of individual and job design predictors.
- Psychological Review (1977).Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Source & Provenance
PLOS ONE
Halliwell, Mitchell & Boyle
Not specified
Research Study
Asia-Pacific
Original source metadata is preserved. AI analysis is generated separately.
Like this? Get the Monday Decision Brief — free, every week.
No spam, unsubscribe anytime.
Rate this article
Want the full article? Read it at the original source — free, no paywall.
Read original article