Coaching models for leadership development: An integrative review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this article was to describe and compare coaching models and to address their relevance to the advancement of leadership. Coaching has become a popular strategy for leadership development and change in complex environments. Despite increasing popularity, little evidence describes the necessity and impact of coaching. An integrative literature review from 1996 to 2010, retrieved through seven databases, reference tracking, and consultation with academic networks, led to inclusion of peer‐reviewed articles on coaching models. Themes and critical elements in the selected coaching models were analyzed. The search yielded 1,414 titles. Four hundred twenty‐seven abstracts were screened using inclusion/exclusion criteria, and 56 papers were retrieved for full‐text screening. Ten papers were included: two coaching models from health care settings, seven from business settings, and one from a medical education institution. Critical components of coaching models are: coach–coachee relationship, problem identification and goal setting, problem solving, transformational process, and mechanisms by which the model achieves outcomes. Factors that impact positive coaching outcomes are: coach's role and attributes, selection of coaching candidates and coach attributes, obstacles and facilitators to the coaching process, benefits and drawbacks of external versus internal coaches, and organizational support. The elements of coaching models identified in this review may be used to guide future research on the effectiveness of coaching as a leadership strategy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it