Exploring learning outcomes for managers who coach

Abstract

Purpose

As a part of a larger study, the purpose of this study was to explore the learning outcomes for the “manager as coach” when exemplary managers are engaged in coaching their respective employees.

Design/methodology/approach

A qualitative, multi-case study using an adaptation of the critical incident technique (CIT) and semistructured interviews was employed with 12 managers and their respective direct reports totaling 24 interviews. Content and constant comparative analyses were used to analyze the data.

Findings

A total of five themes and 19 subthemes were identified regarding managers’ learning outcomes from managers’ perspectives. From the perspectives of their employees as coachees regarding their managers’ learning outcomes, one theme with three subthemes emerged.

Originality/value

Limited empirical research has explored the developmental outcomes for managers who serve as coaches for their employees. This study examined the outcomes associated with managerial coaching from both the perspectives of the managers who coach and their direct reports. The findings of this research provide more insight into the benefits managers derive from coaching their employees.

Citation

Adele, B., Ellinger, A.D., McWhorter, R.R. and Egan, T.M. (2023), "Exploring learning outcomes for managers who coach", European Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 47 No. 5/6, pp. 635-652. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-12-2021-0198

Introduction

Several developmental interventions to build management and leadership capacity have been identified over the years, and among these, mentoring and coaching are considered prevalent management development interventions (Banerjee-Batist et al., 2019; Cummings and Worley, 2018; Ellinger and Ellinger, 2020; Ellinger and Kim, 2014; Jones, 2012; Lawrence, 2017; Lin and Kim, 2020; Rock and Garavan, 2011). In particular, the concept of managerial coaching has emerged as a popular approach for developing employees. Managerial coaching is defined as a “supervisor or manager serving as a coach, or facilitator of learning, in which he or she enacts specific behaviors that enable his/her employee (coachee) to learn, develop, and improve his/her performance” (Ellinger et al., 2011, p. 76). Managerial coaching is “an effective managerial practice that improves employee learning, participation, and effectiveness” (Kim and Kuo, 2015, p. 153). It “implies that a manager engages in coaching behavior with an employee. The purpose can be personally corrective or developmental or situational such as problem solving. The coaching behavior is usually spontaneous, daily and without plan or end date” (Gomez and Gunn, 2012, p. 15). The terms, manager-as-coach, managerial coaching and employee coaching are often used to describe managers who adopt or assume coaching roles and provide coaching to their respective employees or direct reports with the intention of enacting specific behaviors that help their employees to grow, develop and enhance their performance capabilities (Ellinger et al., 2018; Gregory and Levy, 2010; Hagen, 2012; Lawrence, 2017; Lyons and Bandura, 2020; Ellinger and Ellinger, 2020). According to Lyons and Bandura (2021) and other scholars, managerial coaching is often considered to be synonymous with the facilitation of learning and refers to “one-to-one coaching by the manager with the employee(s) she/he supervises on a daily basis” (p. 691).

Much of the current managerial coaching research has focused more exclusively on the benefits of managerial coaching for employees who are recipients of coaching as opposed to the beneficial developmental outcomes for managers as a consequence of them coaching their employees (She et al., 2019). In one of the few studies conducted on the beneficial developmental outcomes for managers who coach, Gomez and Gunn (2012) found a positive correlation between leadership development and managerial coaching, suggesting that providing coaching can result in development for managers.

Since then, other scholars have called for more research that explores the developmental outcomes for managerial coaches, recognizing that providing coaching to develop their employees may actually further develop them as managers (Beattie et al., 2014; Echeverri, 2020; Ellinger, 2003; Hagen and Williams, 2019; Jones, 2012; McCarthy and Milner, 2020; She et al., 2019). Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to address some of the shortcomings in the existing literature by exploring the learning outcomes for managers who coach their employees from the perspectives of both the coaching managers and the employees they coach. This study was underpinned by social exchange theory (SET) (Cropanzano and Mitchell, 2005; Cropanzano et al., 2017; Emerson, 1976) and was guided by two research questions: What are the developmental learning outcomes for managers when coaching (facilitating the learning of their employees) from the perspective of managers; and, What are the developmental learning outcomes for managers when coaching (facilitating the learning of their employees) from the perspective of their employees (coachees)?

The research reported here is part of a larger study that was designed and conducted to examine the process of managerial coaching and reverse managerial coaching, inclusive of managers’ and employees’ beliefs about coaching and serving as coaches, their enacted coaching behaviors and perceived outcomes from engaging in coaching, from the perspectives of both members of the managerial coaching dyad comprised of managers and their respective direct reports. The sections that follow examine the literature and theoretical underpinning in support this study and present the design and method followed by the findings, discussion and contributions of this study to research, theory and practice, along with limitations and directions for future research.

Review of the literature and theoretical underpinning

This section reviews the literature about managerial coaching and outcomes associated with managerial coaching. It then describes SET as the underpinning for this research.

Managerial coaching

The concept of managers serving as coaches is not new and can be traced back in history. However, Orth et al. (1987) and Evered and Selman (1989) brought more focused attention to the concept within management, particularly when Evered and Selman considered coaching as a core managerial activity. Hamlin et al. (2006) described managerial coaching to be at the heart of managerial effectiveness. However, despite various taxonomies suggesting that managers have developmental roles, and some early research examining behaviors of sales managers serving as coaches, the literature on managerial coaching has lacked a depth of understanding about what the precise behaviors are that comprise these various developmental roles. Researchers began to more thoroughly explore the concept of managerial coaching by examining behaviors and managerial coaching skills (Beattie, 2002; Dixey, 2015; Ellinger, 1997; Ellinger and Bostrom, 1999; McLean et al., 2005; Park et al., 2008) and beliefs (Ellinger and Bostrom, 1999; Campbell and Evans, 2016; Hunt and Weintraub, 2016; Misiukonis, 2011). A growing base of research has also focused on examining the benefits of managerial coaching, along with moderating and mediating factors that influence the managerial coaching process. However, research on the efficacy and outcomes of managerial coaching is still considered to be underdeveloped, most especially for managers (Hagen and Williams, 2019; Ellinger et al., 2018). The next sections describe some of the outcomes that have been found with calls for additional research.

Outcomes of managerial coaching for employees

A number of outcomes have been researched that typically reflect employees’ perceptions based upon the provision of coaching they have received from their respective managers. Outcomes associated with managerial coaching or the manager-as-coach include a manager helping subordinates learn (Ellinger, 2003; Matsuo, 2018), improving employee job satisfaction (Ellinger, 2003; Kim, 2010; Kim, 2014; Kim et al., 2013), improving performance (Ellinger et al., 2010; Huang and Hsieh, 2015; Kim, 2010; Kim, 2014; Kim and Kuo, 2015; Kim et al., 2013; McCarthy and Milner, 2020; Pousa and Mathieu, 2014; Pousa et al., 2018) and optimizing his/her subordinate’s potential (Collins, 2002) through facilitating and empowering behaviors (Batson and Yoder, 2012) to “provide stronger, more effective leadership within” the organization (Hagen, 2012, p. 36). Managerial coaching has also been shown to positively influence organizational commitment and citizenship behavior toward others (Ali and Aziz, 2018; Kim, 2010; Kim, 2014; Kim et al., 2013; Kim and Kuo, 2015) and team learning and effectiveness (Buljac-Samardzic and van Woerkom, 2015; Matsuo, 2018). Employees’ career commitment and self-management (Huang and Hsieh, 2015; Kim, 2010; Kim, 2014; Kim et al., 2013), professional development (McCarthy and Milner, 2020) and employees’ perceptions of trustworthiness of the coaching manager (Kim and Kuo, 2015) are also outcomes reported by employees from managerial coaching behaviors. Managerial coaching behaviors have also been found to be significantly correlated with employees’ role clarity (Kim, 2010; Kim, 2014; Kim et al., 2013).

Outcomes of managerial coaching for managers

The aforementioned section described research that has examined the outcomes of managerial coaching for employees as recipients of coaching. The research exploring the outcomes of managerial coaching for managers is limited. In one of the few studies reported, Ellinger (2003) identified outcomes for managers when they perceived that they engaged in coaching behaviors with their subordinates. Through her qualitative study with 12 managers nominated by expert case writers of learning organization cases, Ellinger identified eight “outcomes for managers when they perceived themselves to be coaching their employees” (2003, p. 20). The outcome themes in order of their coded occurrence were: “Learning What Works,” “Facilitating Learning is Gratifying,” “Learning About Others,” “Learning About Me,” “Learning to Delegate,” “Strengthening Relationships,” “Trust My Intuition” and “Learning About the Business” (Ellinger, 2003, p. 17). Ellinger (2003) acknowledged a limitation associated with only obtaining the coaching managers’ perceptions and called for future research that collected both the coaching manager’s and coached employee’s perceptions of outcomes as a form of corroboration and to better understand the benefits derived from coaching for both members in the dyadic relationship. Gomez and Gunn (2012) also recognized the lack of literature addressing the outcomes for managers when they are engaged in management development interventions, specifically providing coaching and built on Ellinger’s prior work. In their MBA thesis, they sought to examine the “relationship between managerial coaching and leader development from the perspective of the coaching manager” (p. 77) through an exploratory, mixed method design. Gomez and Gunn (2012) found a strong, “positive correlation between managerial coaching and leadership development” (p. 62) for the coaching manager. They also developed a taxonomy of managerial coaching to identify the impact of coaching on the coach in the form of leadership development. Gomez and Gunn (2012) recommended that future research investigate “coaching mechanisms” and address “the connection between managerial coaching and leader development” (p. 79).

In a more recent study, McCarthy and Milner (2020 included “outcomes for managers” (p. 15) in their model of organizational productivity achieved through managerial coaching. Their outcomes included “enable employee development,” “own growth” and “satisfaction/joy” (p. 15). In their study exploring how managerial coaching impacts relationships in the workplace, Hagen and Williams (2019) specifically acknowledged that the perspectives of supervisors and managers were needed “to see how their levels of loyalty, motivation, engagement, and other psychosocial characteristics are impacted by the coaching process” (p. 230). These few studies examining outcomes for managers suggest the rich potential of managerial coaching to benefit not only coachees but the managers who coach, thus reaffirming the need for more research on this aspect of managerial coaching.

Theoretical underpinning

SET was the theoretical underpinning selected for this study because it has been used in a number of studies on managerial coaching and is considered an appropriate theoretical lens for doing so (Carrell et al., 2021; DuPlessis et al., 2021; Hagen and Williams, 2019; Kim and Kuo, 2015). Emerson (1976) is considered to be one of the seminal founders of SET. According to Emerson (1976), “Social exchange […] is limited to actions that are contingent on rewarding reactions from others. Implied is a two-sided, mutually contingent, and mutually rewarding process involving ‘transactions’ or simply ‘exchange’” (Emerson, 1976, p. 336). Drawing on Blau (1964), Emerson defined exchange behavior as “voluntary actions of individuals that are motivated by the returns they are expected to bring” (Emerson, 1976, p. 340). In their review of SET literature, Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) simply defined social exchange as a phenomenon that “involves a series of interactions that generate obligations” (p. 874), and as “a series of interdependent transactions [that] can produce some sort of interpersonal attachment” (p. 886). They acknowledged future research opportunities for exploring social exchange relationships in the workplace and managerial coaching reflects one type of workplace relationship that has not been extensively explored.

Cropanzano et al. (2017) have acknowledged that SET is “one of the most enduring and widely used conceptual frameworks” (p. 479). They contend that the social exchange process begins when an organizational actor, generally a supervisor, treats a target individual in a positive or negative fashion (p. 480). They refer to this initial behavior as initiating actions that can include, for example, the provision of supervisor support or in this study, the enactment of specific coaching behaviors. The target individual, the supervisor’s employee, chooses to reciprocate with positive or negative behavior of their own. This theory predicts that “in reaction to positive initiating actions, targets will tend to reply in kind by engaging in more positive reciprocating responses and/or fewer negative reciprocating responses” (p. 480). Further, they indicate that successful reciprocal exchanges often produce into a high-quality social exchange relationship. Given the premise of SET, when managers engage in exchange relationships with their employees by enacting specific coaching behaviors, they are providing a benefit to their respective employees, who then reciprocate in kind by providing benefits to their supervisor in the form of outcomes.

Design of the study and research questions

The design of the larger study, from which the present study is being reported, was a qualitative, multi-case study. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) defined a qualitative case study as “an in-depth description and analysis of a bounded system” (p. 37). The study adopted the epistemological position of interpretivism as the primary researcher and author strived for an “empathic understanding of human action rather than with the forces that are deemed to act on it” (Bryman and Bell, 2011, p. 16), and ontological orientation of constructionism as it embraces people constructing their own meaning of the world from their unique experiences (Privitera and Ahlgrim-Delzell, 2019).

The data were collected using an adaptation of the critical incident technique (CIT) (Butterfield et al., 2005, 2009; Chell, 2004; Ellinger and Watkins, 1998; Gremler, 2004) and semistructured interviews as the primary approaches to data collection. Ellinger and Watkins (1998) adapted Flanagan’s (1954) CIT approach by incorporating components of the Marsick and Watkins (1990) informal and incidental learning model to capture context, reasoning and meaning and to gain deeper insights regarding effective and ineffective behaviors and outcomes. A total of 12 managers and one of each of their corresponding direct reports formed the managerial coaching dyads that comprised the sample for this larger study. Each manager (coach) and employee (coachee) were interviewed separately, but each managerial coaching dyad served as one case, bounded system, reflecting the multi-case study design (McWhorter and Ellinger, 2018; Merriam and Tisdell, 2016; Yin, 2018).

For the findings that are reported here, two research questions were addressed:

RQ1.

What are the developmental learning outcomes for managers when coaching (facilitating the learning of their employees) from the perspective of the managers?

RQ2.

What are the developmental learning outcomes for managers when coaching (facilitating the learning of their employees) from the perspective of their employees (coachees)?

Sample selection

The sample included managers as coaches and their respective, directly-reporting subordinates as coachees. The managers were recruited through nominations solicited from two third-party, external coaches/trainers serving as nominators, who were external professionals in the south-central region of the USA. The nominating professionals engaged in a consulting and networking industry that allowed them to know and identify exemplary managers who facilitate the learning of their employees. They held a clear understanding of the concept of a managerial coach, a manager serving as a learning facilitator or coach, as they used this term in their executive coaching and management training curriculums. The nominators were asked to use specific criteria related to the identification of exemplary managers and their respective subordinates:

• the nominating professional must perceive the manager to be an exemplary facilitator of learning (managerial coach);

• the manager must have had a learning facilitation relationship with their employee(s) for at least one year;

• the manager must identify with serving as a developmental manager/leader of their directly reporting subordinate employee in the workplace and recall developmental interactions with his/her employees;

• the manager must be willing to nominate their employee (coachee) to participate in the study with the understanding that the nominated employee will be receptive to participating in the study; and

• the manager must be available for a face-to-face interview for up to 60 min, and their employee must also be available to participate in a separate face-to-face interview for up to 60 min.

After being contacted by the first author who was the primary researcher, the nominated managers, upon agreement to participate in the study, were asked, in turn, to nominate one of their direct-report employees for a separate interview.

In addition to collecting consent forms from participants, background and demographic information was also collected that included self-reported gender, title, time as a manager, number of employees within the organization, the industry of the organization and the geography of the organization. The managers reported an average of 19 years of managerial experience with a range from 7 to 35 years. Table 1 presents a summary of the pseudonyms used for each participant set and other personal and organizational categories.

Data collection and analysis approaches

The primary researcher conducted face-to-face, semistructured interviews and sought to obtain at least two critical incidents from all of the individual participants of this study, the 12 managers and their respective employees, 24 in total, reflecting approximately 48 or more critical incidents. Separate interviews of approximately 60 min in length were conducted with each of the managers and their respective employees that report directly to them and who have been recipients of their managers’ coaching to obtain the incidents and other insights. All interviews were digitally recorded with participants’ permissions for transcription, and observations and field notes collected during the interviews were also used to assist in the analysis of the transcripts. The creation of broad a priori content categories was guided by the research questions that were focused on managers and employees regarding their beliefs, behaviors and outcomes in the larger study. This deductive approach using a priori content categories served as an initial sorting device. The data collected from the semistructured interviews and critical incidents were sorted into these initial broad categories using definitions drawn from previous literature regarding beliefs, behaviors, and outcomes that informed the definitions used for the larger study and for the findings that are reported here on outcomes. Developmental learning outcomes, as referred to in the two research questions guiding this specific study, were defined as the results or consequences of the coaching (facilitating learning) episodes (Ellinger et al., 1999).

This deductive approach using these a priori content categories in the larger study, and in the study report here, served as an initial sorting method using content analysis. Then, the researchers used inductive constant comparative analysis within these broader content categories to derive themes and subthemes that emerged within the categories. Once the themes and subthemes were developed, the complete interview transcriptions were coded accordingly using computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software, NVivo, published by QSR International Pty Ltd.

To ensure trustworthiness and authenticity within the qualitative tradition, several strategies were used (Merriam and Tisdell, 2016). For example, multiple sources of data were obtained including the semistructured interviews with managers and their respective employees, critical incidents from both members of the dyads, observations and field notes to achieve triangulation. Member checks were conducted first by returning the full verbatim interview transcriptions to the participants providing them with the opportunity to clarify or add to their responses. To support the dependability and confirmability of the study, peer reviews were performed by coauthors who reviewed transcripts and participated in the inductive constant comparative analysis. Respondent validation was conducted by sending the themes and subthemes to the participants and the nominating professionals to review for plausibility. Detailed, thick, rich descriptions of participants’ reporting of critical incidents and the thematic findings were developed, and an audit trail was kept. Accordingly, digital and hard copy storage of notes, transcripts and all written and verbal communications were kept as part of the audit trail to enhance the rigor of the study.

Findings

The following section presents the major findings of this study that address the two aforementioned research questions. Table 2 provides a summary of these themes and subthemes which are subsequently illustrated with quotations.

Regarding managers’ developmental learning outcomes from their perspective as coaches, five themes and 19 subthemes were identified. The learning outcomes found in this study for managers as coaches from the managers’ perspective in order of frequency of references in the data included:

• learns to manage people better;

• learns to develop employees;

• learns personal growth;

• learns management role skill; and

• learns job satisfaction.

An illustrative quotation is presented for each of these five overarching themes and their respective subthemes in the following section. Managers and employees within the same managerial dyad have been provided names that begin with the same letter and conventionally depict their self-reported gender identity as shown in Table 1.

Learns to manage people better (managers’ perspective)

Eleven of the 12 managers spoke of learning to manage people better resulting in 50 references about the learning outcome. Six subthemes were identified: learns to manage individuality, learns managerial style-approach, learns trust-rapport with employee, learns leadership, learns communications and learns to ask questions. The following quotes denote this theme. Noel revealed her learning to manage individuality, stating

What I always find so valuable is even though my intent is to help her get to a certain direction, I’m learning something simultaneously. I never teach and don’t learn in return because I’m learning pace, I’m learning impact or effect or I’m honing in on those techniques or I’m learning where my characteristics overshadow someone that is different from me. And I come at it, I come at that learning perspective how I would do it and I’ve learned how to back off of that and come at it from how their seeing it and that takes a lot of practice and something I still continue to learn and refine.

Darla summarized learning to manage individuality, “I really, really try to tailor my approach to the individual person.” Tom mentioned he had learned managerial style-approach by learning

reinforcement that taking in to account her [employee’s] DISC style especially with a change that big and adjusting my management and my coaching to fit that situation combined with her DISC style was extremely helpful. And again, I haven’t thought about this before right now but it really is affirmation that […] as much as one incident can be […] affirmation that taking that approach worked a lot better than the lack of a specific strategy I had had in the past.

Scott described learning trust-rapport with employee by mentioning,

I just got where I depend on his judgement. You know, that he is going to, that I can trust him with, to behave and to make good decisions based upon what he knows […] before, I wasn’t quite sure that he always did that […] It is probably more of a bonding thing for me with him. I thinking it gets back to […] bonding and rapport.

Illustrating the subtheme of learning leadership, Tom stated, “It did also start my mind thinking okay, what can I do to improve my management […] so it got me thinking, ever since then, I have been on a continual crusade to improve my management and leadership skills.” Darla depicts the subtheme of learning to communicate by acknowledging, “It gave me more confidence to have those crucial conversations with others because it was a really positive outcome.” And Jim stated, “One of the things I’ve learned about managing people or customers, clients, or whatever, is asking questions tends to be the key.”

Learns to develop employees (managers’ perspective)

Six of the 12 managers spoke about learning to develop employees resulting in 17 references about the learning outcome. Two subthemes were identified: the main theme of learns to develop employees and learns to engage employees. Randy admitted,

[Employee] helped me learn to develop my employees and to develop capacities into them that help them add value to the jobs they do or the company and help them grow as people.

Philip said,

[…] some of my most satisfactory management experiences have come when I have had subordinates take over the job I was doing, and I could move on to a different job. It’s satisfying that I know, ‘Hey, I’ve done something here that gives them what they need to take on a new level of leadership.’

Illustrating the subtheme of learns to engage employees, Charles stated, “ […] and that is what you get if you have an engaged employee, and coaching gets you an engaged employee.” Jim admitted,

I could tell by how much information they were giving me and the questions they asked, how engaged they were. It was really something special for me to see, just because it was recent and I will tell you that all three of these guys, six months ago, I didn’t think cared. They weren’t being given the opportunity to show us they cared.

Learns personal growth (managers’ perspective)

Six of the 12 managers spoke of learning personal growth resulting in 17 references about the learning outcome. Four subthemes were identified: learns vulnerability, learns self-awareness, learns self-improvement and learns empathy. In terms of learning about vulnerability, Noel said,

I’ve probably learned to be more open to it [learning] and that’s probably the critical factor. You know there’s probably a learning opportunity in any situation, good or bad, if you are open to what it’s trying to tell you […] She’s not losing anything from crying in front of people or being joyful or any of those things. And so sometimes to our psyche, you have to see it to believe it so eventually I might get it. But there’s still something emotionally in me that is maybe not letting me let that go so I have gained that from her because I see that. What is she losing? People love her all the more because she’s real. You know, she relates to them, um, in ways they can understand. People cannot understand flat line and always together and always on top of things. It doesn’t translate in the same way.

When discussing the outcomes of a time Darla facilitated her employee’s growth, she mentioned, “It kind of gives me confidence to challenge my own assumptions.”

Illustrating the subtheme of learning self-awareness, Brooke stated,

I realized that, especially with all the other personal development stuff that I’m doing, that I was missing a huge component of my development and that was re-engaging in [training] […] making sure that my ego or […] my ego never got in the way of the fact that any area of my life that I’m not staying abreast of knowledge […] that it’s not on the forefront of the brain and you’re not going to be able to use it so it’s worthless […] it becomes knowledge that you just have in a dusty compartment in your brain and it’s not active behavioral […] so I changed my behavior and I now have a sales coach again […] I’m all about being coached.

Tom disclosed about learning self-improvement, “She [employee] also drove me to improve myself mostly through probably being a little more critical than she should have, but that was good for me.” Additionally, Brooke said, “Being engaged in a learning environment, it’s made my creativity increase.”

Philip acknowledged,

I think, in the end all that makes me a better human being because I’m more open to empathy for other people. I’m more open to the concept that […] you know I want to believe the only way to view the world is the way I view the world, right […] I think that’s how we are as people, that we just do that and it’s bad, right, it’s not healthy. I think that’s the root of all kind of ugliness in our society is our entrenchment in our own perspective and so that perspective taking that that entails, right, and so I’m asking questions about something that I don’t know anything about, I’m trying to understand it from her perspective […] I think in the end that makes me a better human being than I might be otherwise. I like myself better as a result; I can tell you that.

Learns management role skill (managers’ perspective)

Six of the 12 managers spoke about learning skills within the management role resulting in 15 references about this learning outcome. Five subthemes were identified: learns delegation, learns hiring, learns accountability, learns to have realistic expectations and learns what did not work.

Regarding learning delegation, Darla recalled,

Oh, I think the only other thing that I noted that was different was learning to delegate and let go […] I learned that delegating can turn out really, really good […] I delegate way more than I used to early on and a lot of times things turn out better, so that was good.

Illustrating learning hiring, Randy said,

So, if I’ve learned anything, it starts with hiring the right people in the first place […] you gotta hire the right people, and you gotta develop enough as a coach to stay out in front of them or they’re not going to stay.

When talking about changing interview style, Darla stated,

Asking for […] I think rather than just some of those standard questions, I dig deeper and see […] see the real passion, or lack of, that people have […] because in those jobs that require that kind of resilience, it’s an incredibly important character trait to have that kind of passion.

Anna admitted, “I learned from [employee] that […] I need to hold myself more accountable in this position to the numbers more than I did when I was in my other role.” She continued stating, “I learned that making commitments on what you want to happen and what is realistic may be two different things.”

Charles spoke of learning what did not work. He mentioned,

So, it would be fair to say a whole lot more times than not, I get a lot out of the conversation. Whether I get more out of it than them, I couldn’t honestly tell you; I don’t know how you score that, but I always learn something. Even if it’s all I learned is I blew that, I didn’t do that right […].

Learns job satisfaction (managers’ perspective)

Five of the 12 managers spoke about learning job satisfaction from developing others resulting in seven references about the learning outcome. Two subthemes were identified: learns management impact on employees, and learns job satisfaction. When discussing learning management impact, Anna declared, “It’s very satisfying and rewarding to see somebody grow and be able to grow in that area as far as the relationship with others […] ” Ken summarized, “The payoff is the satisfaction of seeing people develop and in the end, being more successful.”

When speaking of the overall learning job satisfaction, Charles admitted,

So, it’s self-serving. I do it not only because I care I do it because it is self-serving. I do it because I get something back out of it that many times is far beyond the effort it took to do the coaching […] There is a satisfaction about it, but there is also a development about it and its neat for me to run into people on the street that say I remember when I worked for you when I was 16. Now, they are married and got kids of their own […] .

The perspectives of employees, as recipients of their respective managers’ coaching, were collected relative to their impressions about what they thought their managers learned from coaching them.

Learns management skills (employees’ perspective)

Seven of the 12 employees spoke about their managers’ learning management skills resulting in 16 references about the learning outcome. Three subthemes were identified: learns management style, learns to trust the employee and learns to solicit feedback. Illustrating a manager learning management style, Brenda mentioned, “She [manager] learned to readjust her personality and way of handing information to me or getting information to me at a different level to where I could understand it.” Kyle said of his manager,

He’s changed his approach with those types of things - less personal opinions involved in how people in life’s different roles manage and probably overall has become more accepting of different people.

Simon alluded to his manager learning to trust him, stating “I think he tends to believe me a lot more when I tell him this is what I think will happen […] ” Brenda described that her manager “was willing to throw more things in my direction and let me take more things off of his plate because he realized that I was willing to help and do that for him.”

Tammy said of her manager learning to solicit feedback,

It’s a constant learning experience for him dealing with people who are slow to change […] and so he’s kind of having to slow down a little bit and make sure that he’s not chasing after too many butterflies […] I feel like he makes less impulsive decisions, and I feel like he touches base with us before decisions are made, and gets our feedback on it.

Discussion

Limited literature has focused on the developmental outcomes for managers when serving as coaches (McCarthy and Milner, 2020). In the sparse literature to date, McCarthy and Milner (2020) concluded that managers who coached reported beneficial outcomes such as a satisfaction and joy in their employees’ transformations and an improved sense of trust and positive relationship with their employees. From the perspectives of managers in this study, learning to manage people better and job satisfaction aligns with their conclusions and those of She et al.’s (2019) conclusions that managerial coaching impacted managers as well as employees through the manager’s perceived personal accomplishment leading to job satisfaction.

Within the five overarching themes from the perspectives of the managers are some specific subthemes of learning outcomes that offer support some of the existing literature. These include: learns trust-rapport with employee (Ellinger, 2003), learns to develop employee (McCarthy and Milner, 2020), learns self-awareness (Ellinger, 2003), learns self-improvement (McCarthy and Milner, 2020), learns delegation (Ellinger, 2003), learns what did not work (Ellinger, 2003) and learns job satisfaction (Carvalho et al., 2021; Ellinger, 2003; McCarthy and Milner, 2020; She et al., 2019). Learns leadership supports the contention of Gomez and Gunn (2012), who suggest that leadership development is an outcome when managers coach their employees. The findings from this study offer a more nuanced set of perspectives of how managers learn to manage their employees more effectively, specific skills beyond delegation and insights about their own personal growth. From employees’ perspectives, there was corroboration about managerial style.

In the paucity of literature that examines the learning outcomes managers receive when they coach their employees, the outcomes have typically been self-reported by the managers. This study not only collected managers’ self-reported learning outcomes but also the managers’ learning outcomes based upon the perceptions of more than half of the employees being coached which corroborate many of the managers’ self-reported outcomes.

Contributions to research, theory, and implications for practice

This section articulates the contributions that this study makes to research and theory and its implications for practice.

Contributions to research and theory

Scholars have called for more research examining the developmental outcomes for managers who serve as coaches (Ellinger, 2003; Ellinger and Ellinger, 2020; Gomez and Gunn, 2012; Hagen and Williams, 2019; McCarthy and Milner, 2020). This study addressed these calls by obtaining perspectives from both managers as coaches and employees as coachees. Specifically, examining the views of the managers’ employees as recipients of their managers’ coaching about the potential benefits to their managers of providing coaching adds to and extends the existing literature by integrating the employee perspective in this dyadic relationship.

The themes and subthemes identified in this study regarding managers’ learning outcomes from the managers’ perspective revealed that they learned and developed as managers by coaching their employees, which has not been examined as much in existing literature as employees’ outcomes. This study specifically found that coaching others helps managers to learn to manage people better, particularly learning to manage individuality and learning managerial style-approach and reinforces that providing coaching to others is a valuable management and leadership development strategy. Additionally, from the employees’ perspective, managers who coach learn management style which ultimately also benefits employees and managers alike.

In terms of theoretical contributions, Cropanzano and Mitchell (2005) called for additional investigations of social exchange relationships in the workplace. Given the growing prevalence of managerial coaching in the workplace, this study endeavored to explore the social exchange relationship between managers and their respective employees (coachees). This study focused on the positive hedonic value of the social exchange process. Managers, as organizational actors, enacted specific effective coaching behaviors directed at their targets, their employees. Their employees then provided benefits to the actors, their managers, in the form of learning outcomes expressed by the employees as part of the larger study. However, in the study reported here, additional benefits accrued for the actors as reported by the actors and the targets from the managers’ provision of coaching behavior. The findings from this study suggest that multiple benefits are derived for both actors and targets.

Implications for practice

From a pragmatic perspective, the findings of the research presented here provide more insight into the positive learning outcomes associated with managerial coaching for managers which may inspire and encourage managers to coach their employees. The enactment of managerial coaching behaviors has the potential to influence outcomes for employees and managers, which suggests the importance of promoting effective managerial coaching. This study found that managers develop themselves as a consequence of coaching others, so coaching employees as a form of management and leadership development may further inform the creation of management and leadership development programs that place an emphasis on serving as managerial coaches and train managers on how to coach more effectively. Lastly, the study demonstrates that managerial coaching has many beneficial outcomes for managers who coach and their coachees also observe these outcomes and may well benefit from them in future coaching interactions with their managers. The corroboration of outcomes for managers by exploring employees’ perspectives offers additional support for the beneficial outcomes that have been described in the limited existing literature on this aspect of managerial coaching.

Limitations and future research recommendations

As with all research, there are limitations associated with this research that relate to sampling procedure, sample size, and data collection techniques. The sampling procedure relied on the subjective opinions of nominators of whom they deemed as exemplary managerial coaches. Furthermore, the subjective opinions of the managers were also relied upon and trusted when they nominated one of their employees to participate in the study. The nomination process produced 24 participants comprising 12 cases or managerial coaching dyads, which was sufficient for the research method. However, this purposeful sample reflected eight organizations, thus representing a limited number of industries and the study was bound geographically to the south-central USA. The focus of this multi-case study was on the managers and their employees; thus, the intention was to analyze the perceptions of both members of the dyads as the bounded unit with regard to outcomes reported here and other facts of coaching in the larger study. While some insight regarding the contextual influences of the organizations was obtained, additional research could delve more deeply into organizational culture and industry sectors and their influences on managerial coaching dyads. Future research could seek to better understand such social and contextual influences on managerial coaching in a broader array of industry sectors and in organizations that were larger in scope and size. Furthermore, although some recent research has begun to explore aspects of gender and culture, future research could also explore the gender composition of managerial coaching dyads, along with issues associated with race and ethnicity in other cultural contexts to provide a richer understanding of how gender, race, ethnicity, and culture may influence the dyadic coaching relationship.

From a design and method standpoint, interviewing the dyad members together either before or after conducting the separate interviews would also provide an additional layer of rich, in-depth narrative about the managerial coaching dyad relationship which has been underexplored (DeHaan and Gannon, 2017). This approach could account for the reporting of shared versus individualized incidents.

Table 1.

Summary of sample demographics

Participant set	Pseudonym	Self-reported gender	Title	NAICS 2-Number code industry	Firm size
1	Noel	F	CFO/COO	Health Care and Social Assistance	100–249
1	Natalie	F	Human Resources	Health Care and Social Assistance	100–249
2	Tom	M	CEO/Owner	Professional, Scientific and Technical Services	<20
2	Tammy	F	Designer/Project Manager	Professional, Scientific and Technical Services	<20
3	Jim	M	CEO	Heating and Air-Conditioning	20–49
3	John	M	Electrical Manager	Heating and Air-Conditioning	20–49
4	Matt	M	Owner/Manager	Manufacturing	20–49
4	Max	M	Production Manager	Manufacturing	20–49
5	Scott	M	Engineering Manager	Manufacturing	20–49
5	Simon	M	Manufacturing Engineer	Manufacturing	20–49
6	Brooke	F	Vice President of Sales and Marketing	Construction	<20
6	Brenda	F	Sales Assistant	Construction	<20
7	Ken	M	Director of Sales and Marketing	Finance and Insurance	100–249
7	Kyle	M	Sales Manager	Finance and Insurance	100–249
8	Darla	F	Senior District Manager	Retail Trade	>1,000
8	Daisy	F	Executive Sales Rep	Retail Trade	>1,000
9	Philip	M	Fellow	Professional, Scientific and Technical Services	100–249
9	Penny	F	Software Developer	Professional, Scientific and Technical Services	100–249
10	Anna	F	President/CEO	Health Care and Social Assistance	100–249
10	Allison	F	Executive Director	Health Care and Social Assistance	100–249
11	Charles	M	CEO/Co-Owner	Construction	<20
11	Carla	F	Vice President of Sales and Marketing	Construction	<20
12	Randy	M	President	Manufacturing	20–49
12	Roger	M	Marketing Manager	Manufacturing	20–49

Table 2.

Managers’ learning outcomes themes when managers are serving as coaches (facilitators of their employees’ learning)

Managers’ learning outcomes

Managers’ perspectives of their learning outcomes when serving as coaches • Learns to manage people better – 11/50  • Learns to manage individuality – 7/18  • Learns managerial style-approach – 7/15  • Learns trust-rapport with employee – 4/6  • Learns leadership – 3/3  • Learns communication 2/4  • Learns to ask questions – 1/4 • Learns to develop employees – 6/17  • Learns to develop employee – 4/8  • Learns to engage employee – 3/3 • Learns personal growth – 6/17  • Learns vulnerability – 3/10  • Learns self-awareness – 2/3  • Learns self-improvement – 2/3  • Learns empathy – 1/1 • Learns management role skill – 6/15  • Learns delegation – 4/8  • Learns hiring – 2/3  • Learns accountability – 1/2  • Learns to have realistic expectations – 1/1  • Learns what did not work – 1/1 • Learns job satisfaction – 5/7  • Learns management impact on employee – 4/5  • Learns job satisfaction – 2/2

Employees’ perspectives as coachees of managers’ learning outcomes when serving as coaches • Learns management skills – 7/16  • Learns management style – 6/11  • Learns to trust the employee – 2/4  • Learns to solicit feedback – 1/1

Note:

Numbers provided in format x/x (out of 12) – x/x represent the number of participants and the number of references, respectively