Der regulatorische Fokus als Führungsinstrument für eine bedürfnisorientierte und effektive Mitarbeiterkommunikation

Coaching as a growth- or security-oriented process-How regulatory fit increases coaching success

Regulatory focus theory suggests that promoters are more concerned with growth and preventers are more concerned with security. Since coaching is a growth-oriented process, it seems to be more suitable for clients high on promotion than for clients high on prevention. Applying regulatory fit theory, the present research investigates how preventers can also benefit from coaching. First, a study looking at real coaching processes (N1 = 103) found that a higher promotion than prevention focus was indeed related to more coaching success, i.e., satisfaction and approach motivation. Next, testing the hypothesis that fit effects should also be present in coaching, a study using a vignette approach (N2 = 99) shows that participants experiencing a fit between their focus and a promotion versus a prevention coaching indicate a better coaching evaluation than participants experiencing no fit. In three studies (N3a = 120, N3b = 85, N3c = 189), we used an experimental approach and manipulated the regulatory focus of coaching interventions. We found promotion as well as prevention fit effects showing that participants experiencing a fit indicate more coaching success than participants experiencing no fit. Two studies (N4a = 41, N4b = 87) further tested interpersonal fit, i.e., the fit between the coach's and client's regulatory focus. We found promotion as well as prevention fit effects on participants' satisfaction with and trust in a coach (Study 4a) and promotion fit effects on participants' goal attainment and coaching progress (4b). The findings suggest that by adapting coaching to the client's focus, coaching success can be increased not only for promoters but also for preventers. Thus, we found that regulatory fit effects, albeit small to medium, are also present in coaching. Multiple studies assessing multiple variables relevant to coaching showed that the findings differ regarding the interventions used and the variables that we looked at. The practical implications of these findings are discussed.