The Role of the Organization in a Coaching Process: A Scoping Study of the Professional and Scientific Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When a coaching process terminates before the end, the organization is mostly at fault (Thompson et al. 2008). Despite this alarming information, the role of the organization in their employees’ coaching process is generally disregarded and minimized. To address this issue, this article presented a scoping study to deepen the understanding of organizational factors influencing coaching effects. In response to calls from researchers who have highlighted the need to include organizational variables in future studies, we identified and analyzed 63 empirical (n = 35), theoretical (n = 6) and practical (n = 22) records. Following analysis, three categories of organizational antecedents of coaching effects were obtained: organizational culture, support, and common goal. Our findings provide an original contribution for organizations and practitioners, as organizations and coaches will be able to better identify the best conditions to promote before, during, and following a coaching process. In turn, this will allow them to facilitate and maintain the positive effects of coaching. Findings, implications, limits, and avenues for future research are discussed.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.062 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.025 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".