University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Managerial coaching to increase diversity, build capacity, and improve nonprofit performance

(USC Thesis Other)

Managerial coaching to increase diversity, build capacity, and improve nonprofit performance

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 1

Managerial Coaching to Increase Diversity, Build Capacity, and Improve Nonprofit Performance

by

Anna E. Montgomery

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2019

Copyright 2019 Anna E. Montgomery

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 2

Acknowledgements
Thank you to my doctoral chair and committee, none of this would be possible without
your belief and expertise: Dr. Seli for her patience, intellect, dousing of commas, and excellent
guidance as my chair. Dr. Maddox for his coruscant mind and the creativity he brought to the
committee and my educational experience. Dr. Pearson for bringing his sharp, analytic brain,
much needed encouragement, amazing classroom experiences, and helpful curiosity to my
committee. Gratitude to other faculty include: Dr. Mattson for his patience and writing tips. Dr.
Yates for his rigor, clarity, and mastery approach. All the incredible OCL professors for their
generosity of spirit and willingness to shepherd us through a difficult process while still
managing to teach us content and be engaging. Dr. Hirabayashi for opening the door and
silencing our fears of imposter syndrome.
My classmate acknowledgements are: My cohort for supplying an endlessly useful
stream of feedback, ideas, and insights both in and out of the classroom. Dr. McDowell, a
classmate, and Dr. Heine, my colleague, are owed a special debt for helping me identify and
approach interview participants. For moral and coaching support, I appreciate the ever kind and
wonderful Jasmine Nichols. Finally, thank you to my friends and family. My deepest
appreciation is reserved for my soulmate, Dave, who made it possible to work and pursue my
dream of a doctorate.

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 3

Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to the nonprofit leaders that agreed to participate in the
study and to the nearly 12 million people working in US nonprofits. Their dedication, care,
kindness, resilience, and professionalism in the face of nearly insurmountable social and
environmental problems is an inspiration. This research is a gift; may it be of some use to them
and create positive impact in the world.

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ 2
Chapter One: Introduction ........................................................................................................... 11
Context of Field of Practice .................................................................................................... 11
Related Literature .................................................................................................................... 13
Importance of Innovation Implementation in the Field .......................................................... 15
Global Performance Goal for the Sector ................................................................................. 16
Stakeholder Group for the Study ............................................................................................ 18
Purpose of the Project and Questions ..................................................................................... 18
Methodological Framework .................................................................................................... 19
Definitions ............................................................................................................................... 20
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature........................................................................................ 21
Leadership Transition and Development ................................................................................ 21
Managerial Coaching ......................................................................................................... 22
Influence of funding and time........................................................................................ 23
Shared leadership........................................................................................................... 26
Diversity, equity, and inclusion..................................................................................... 26
Key Role of Executive Directors ............................................................................................. 27
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Framework ........................................................................................ 28
Executive Directors’ Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences ........................ 29
Knowledge Influences ....................................................................................................... 30
Knowledge of coaching’s impact on performance........................................................ 30
Knowledge of coaching practices.................................................................................. 30
Knowledge of how to conduct coaching........................................................................ 31
Metacognitive knowledge of coaching skill effectiveness............................................ 31
Motivation Influences ........................................................................................................ 33
Self-efficacy................................................................................................................... 33
Collective efficacy......................................................................................................... 34
Expectancy-value theory................................................................................................ 35
Organizational Culture and Setting Influences ................................................................... 37
Organizational change.................................................................................................... 37
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 5
Organizational culture.................................................................................................... 39
Organizational climate and settings............................................................................... 40
Organizational identity................................................................................................... 40
Conceptual Framework ...................................................................................................... 41
Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 44
Chapter Three: Methods………………………........................................................................... 46
Participating Stakeholders ...................................................................................................... 47
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale ........................................................................ 47
Criterion 1...................................................................................................................... 47
Criterion 2..................................................................................................................... 47
Criterion 3...................................................................................................................... 47
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale ...................................................................... 48
Qualitative Data Analysis ....................................................................................................... 50
Credibility and Trustworthiness .............................................................................................. 51
Ethics ....................................................................................................................................... 53
Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................. 54
Chapter Four: Results and Findings.............................................................................................. 56
Participating Stakeholders ...................................................................................................... 56
Findings .................................................................................................................................. 57
Knowledge Influences Findings ........................................................................................ 59
Leaders acknowledged several key ingredients for managerial coaching success that
align with evidence-based practices but still need to refine their own process............. 59
Executive directors lacked knowledge of importance of metacognition in coaching... 61
Staff knowledge acquisition and distribution were not acknowledged.......................... 62
Empowerment and trust were recognized as paramount for skilled coaching................ 63
Empathy was required to build trust. ............................................................................. 64
Feedback, advice, modeling, development, and learning were considered key to the
coaching process but were not always well articulated or implemented........................ 65
Coaching was learned and applied mostly informally.................................................... 66
Less structured policies, processes, implementation, and evaluation of managerial
coaching were the norm for executive directors............................................................. 69
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 6
Leadership style............................................................................................................. 69
Motivation Influence Findings ........................................................................................... 70
Self-efficacy was hindered by the informal coaching processes employed and lack of
feedback from board members on leaders’ performance as coaches............................. 71
Collective efficacy was dampened by a lack of coaching evaluation and belief in the
ability of employees to improve.................................................................................... 72
Leaders encouraged a growth mindset to improve self and collective efficacy............ 73
Coaching’s value came from improved performance, engagement, accountability, and
the ability to take on new challenges............................................................................. 73
Executive directors expected positive organizational outcomes from coaching........... 74
Organizational Influences Findings ................................................................................... 75
Creating a coaching culture begins with the leader’s commitment............................... 75
While a coaching culture required a climate that supports implementation by providing
incentives and shared meaning, none of the executive directors received incentives
from their boards............................................................................................................ 77
Despite not receiving incentives for performance themselves, leaders provided mostly
non-monetary incentives as a way to reward employees that showed initiative and
growth............................................................................................................................ 78
The cultural climate was defined by supporting employees through their learning...... 79
Resource constraint was the largest organizational barrier to managerial coaching in
nonprofits....................................................................................................................... 81
Sector-wide support was focused on providing executive coaching to current leaders,
not training them to be coaches, themselves, nor to provide leadership development to
other members of the organization................................................................................ 85
Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 86
Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluation......................................................................... 87
Recommendations for Practice to Address Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational
Influences................................................................................................................................. 89
Knowledge Recommendations........................................................................................... 90
Provide job aid and logic model to improve knowledge of coaching evidence-based
practices and connect coaching to positive organizational outcomes.......................... 94
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 7

A mock coaching guide is recommended to give needed practice and self-assessment of
skills............................................................................................................................... 97
Executive directors should reflect on their role as coach and set coaching goals that
align with organizational goals to improve performance.............................................. 97
Motivation Recommendations............................................................................................ 96
Coaches can gain confidence through assessment of strengths and personal goals...... 98
Leaders should regularly express belief in the efficacy of their teams to increase
performance and reinforce their own belief................................................................... 99
Workbook rationales for coaching can increase how much leaders value coaching by
strengthening the connection between managerial coaching and organizational
improvement................................................................................................................ 100
Organization Recommendations....................................................................................... 101
Cultural models............................................................................................................ 103
Boards can provide executive directors with incentives to increase coaching....... 103
Boards can identify key drivers of professional development to improve culture of
coaching.................................................................................................................. 104
The sector can create communities of practice around coaching as an effective
leadership development, diversity, and succession intervention............................ 105
The cultural climate of organizations can be enhanced after a culture audit identifies
areas of strength and development.............................................................................. 105
Cultural settings.......................................................................................................... 106
Boards should allocate resources for managerial coaching................................... 106
Foundations should consider increasing funds available for capacity building.... 107
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan............................................................... 107
Implementation and Evaluation Framework..................................................................... 108
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations............................................................. 108
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators........................................................................... 109
Level 3: Behavior.............................................................................................................. 110
Critical behaviors........................................................................................................ 111
Required drivers.......................................................................................................... 113
Organizational support................................................................................................ 114
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 8
Level 2: Learning.............................................................................................................. 114
Learning goals.............................................................................................................. 115
Program........................................................................................................................ 116
Integrating technology to improve the program.......................................................... 117
Evaluation of the components of learning................................................................... 118
Level 1: Reaction.............................................................................................................. 120
Evaluation Tools............................................................................................................... 121
Immediately following the program implementation.................................................. 121
Delayed for a period after the program implementation.............................................. 121
Data Analysis and Reporting............................................................................................ 122
Summary........................................................................................................................... 122
Future Research..................................................................................................................... 123
Study Organizations with Smaller Budgets and at Different Stages in Their Lifecycle.. 123
Develop and Assess Effectiveness of Managerial Coach Training.................................. 124
Evaluate Effectiveness of Coaching to Increase Diversity and Equity............................. 124
Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 125
References .................................................................................................................................. 127
Appendix A: Revised Semi-Structured Managerial Coaching Interview Protocol ................... 153
Appendix B: Semi-Structured Managerial Coaching Interview Analysis Table ....................... 156
Appendix C: Managerial Coaching Workbook ......................................................................... 15 9
Appendix D: Immediate Evaluation Instrument ........................................................................ 190
Appendix E: Blended Evaluation Instrument ............................................................................ 192
Appendix F: Data Analysis Chart for Reporting Level 1-2 Assessments to the Board.............. 194
Appendix G: Data Analysis Chart to Report Internal Outcomes to the Board........................... 195
Appendix H: Data Analysis Chart for Reporting Level 3-4 Outcomes Externally.................... 196
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 9

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

Table 1: Mission and Global Performance Goal…………..……………………………………..17
Table 2: Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis……... 32
Table 3:Motivational Influences and Assessments for Motivation Gap Analysis……………….35
Table 4: Cultural Model and Setting Influences, Types, and Assessments for Organizational Gap
Analysis…………………………………………………………………………………………..41
Table 5: Demographics of Interview Participants….……………………………………………57
Table 6: Evidence-Based Practices Alignment and Frequency……..…………………………...60
Table 7: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations…………..……………….91
Table 8: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations……………….…………..97
Table 9: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations………….………….... 102
Table 10: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes………….….109
Table 11: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation.…………………111
Table 12: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors……………………………………..113
Table 13: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program...……………………...119
Table 14: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program………………………………….120
Table 15: Interview Alignment: Relationship Between KMOs and Semi-Structured Interview
Questions………………………………………………………………………………………..156

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 10

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Figure 1: Conceptual Map of Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Context for Executive
Directors Influencing Organizational Performance……………………………………………...43
Figure 2: Managerial Coaching Training Outcomes…………………………………………...194
Figure 3: Internal Report for Managerial Coaching Outcomes………………………………...195
Figure 4: External Report for Managerial Coaching Outcomes………………………………..196

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 11

Chapter One: Introduction
Leadership succession in the nonprofit sector can create instability through a loss of
knowledge and skills (Landles-Cobb, Kramer, & Milway 2015), financial resources (Boland,
Jensen, & Meyers, 2005; Tierney, 2006; Tune, 2016), and organizational performance (Renz,
2010). Nonprofit organizations in the United States struggle to develop leaders in response to
widespread leadership turnover. Across the sector, 43% of organizations had to replace a senior
leader in the past two years (Landles-Cobb et al., 2015). Another survey found that 67% of
executives were planning to leave their position within the next five years (Cornelius, Moyers, &
Bell, 2011). Executive directors rarely fill the role more than once in their careers, meaning most
do not have experience in identical positions (Allison, 2002). Furthermore, 65% of executive
directors hired come from outside the sector (Light, 2011). Hiring external leaders is riskier for
the organization, as prior nonprofit sector experience is more strongly correlated with financial
health (Tierney, 2006; Tune, 2016). External leaders are also costlier to recruit and often require
additional training (Boland et al., 2005; Tierney, 2006).
Context of Field of Practice
Nonprofits face a variety of challenges as they work to provide charitable goods and
services. Challenges include resource, capacity, and leadership constraints, as well as, increased
demands for accountability and services (Renz, 2010; Tschirhart & Bielefeld, 2012). Leadership
succession planning has been offered as a solution to the nonprofit leadership turnover problem,
but it is only a partial solution (Landles-Cobb et al., 2015). A plan only deals with the reality of
turnover and actions to ensure a timely transition. To successfully navigate leadership changes,
nonprofit organizations’ interventions need to occur earlier, through the professional
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 12

development of internal candidates. However, there are internal and external factors that keep
nonprofit organizations from investing in professional development (Renz, 2010).
Internal barriers to professional development may include a lack of resources to provide
it or a culture that does not support learning (Renz, 2010; Tschirhart & Bielefeld, 2012). External
barriers come from the political, social, and historical forces that have shaped the culture of the
nonprofit sector as a whole, which, in turn, influence individual organizational behavior (Bryson,
2018; Coloma, Gibson, & Packard, 2012; Renz, 2010; Tschirhart & Bielefeld, 2012).
Competition for resources and the local environmental context greatly influence the effectiveness
of nonprofit organizations (Berrone, Gelabert, Massa-Saluzzo, & Rousseau, 2016). Government
programs and policies, unemployment rates, median income, demographics, and political
ideology all exert external pressure on nonprofits. Nonprofit sector culture is unique and exerts
fundamental influence on the problem of practice. Leadership development and capacity building
have been treated as largely superfluous by foundations and donors (Renz, 2010). An exemplar
of this influence and its potential for organizational destruction is eloquently expressed by Light
(2004), “The nonprofit sector survives because it has a self-exploiting workforce: Wind it up and
it will do more with less until it just runs out. But at some point, the spring must break” (p. 7).
This quote speaks to the core issue at the bottom of the leadership succession problem of
practice, a lack of capacity building.
Capacity building can represent a cyclical challenge to nonprofits that have limited
resources because of the need for initial and ongoing investments into professional development.
Researchers have recognized that illuminating which investments are worthwhile can help
practitioners avoid mistakes. Minzner, Klerman, Markovitz, and Fink (2014) studied one of the
largest capacity building initiatives in nonprofits, measuring the effectiveness of capacity
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 13

building in five major areas: community outreach, engagement, leadership, program, and
revenue development. The results of their empirical study demonstrated that investment in
capacity building pays off with the highest correlation between capacity building outcomes and
program development (47% of 43 indicators were statistically significant), leadership
development (41% of 17 indicators), and revenue development (40% of 52 indicators).
Nonprofits that make capacity building investments in leadership development will improve
organizational performance. Leadership development may include skill training, coaching,
mentoring, certification, or formal education. While there are many effective leadership
development activities, coaching has been identified as the best way to help nonprofits nurture
internal leadership talent (Rekalde, Landeta, Albizu, & Fernandez-Ferrin, 2017).
Related Literature
Fewer than 20% of nonprofits have leadership succession plans or provide leadership
development to their employees (Cornelius et al., 2011; Johnson, 2009). When nonprofits fail to
develop leaders internally, the consequences are higher costs for recruiting, training, and
turnover (Balser & Carmin, 2009; Cornelius et al., 2011; Haveman & Khaire, 2004), fewer
diverse leaders (Outon, 2015; Weisinger, 2017), and decreased organizational performance
(Collins & Collins, 2007; Groves, 2007; Skipper & Bell, 2008). These three consequences are
interrelated and build upon one another. Leadership turnover can threaten financial health and
even organizational survival (Adams, 2004; Haveman & Khaire, 2004; Giambatista, Rowe, &
Riaz, 2005). A lack of diverse leaders means a reduced impact on the community (Kunreuther &
Corvington, 2007), organizational performance (Fredette, Bradshaw, & Krause, 2016; Harris,
2014; Weisinger, Borges-Méndez, & Milofsky, 2016), and organizational sustainability
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 14

(Weisinger, 2017). Additionally, replacing leaders with internal candidates is correlated with
better long-term performance (Schepker, Kim, Patel, Thatcher, & Campion, 2017).
To build the capacity of the sector and improve outcomes for the constituents these
charities serve, organizations across the field can adopt leadership development practices.
Leadership succession planning emphasizes the importance of leadership development to lessen
negative impacts and enhance positive organizational outcomes (Collins & Collins, 2007;
Groves, 2007; Skipper & Bell, 2008). Coaching, despite its recognized effectiveness as a
leadership development intervention, is not prevalent in nonprofits (Dixey, 2015; Ellinger et al.,
2016; Gilley et al., 2010; Longenecker & Neubert, 2005; Misiukonis, 2011; Turner & McCarthy,
2015).
Coaching employees is positively correlated with improved performance, increased
organizational citizenship behavior, and better-quality service (Ellinger, Ellinger, Bachrach,
Wang, & Elmadağ Baş, 2011; Gao, Janssen, & Shi, 2011). Leadership succession can be
mitigated by managerial coaching that improves organizational performance (Ellinger et al.,
2011) and can lead to increased diversity, equity, and inclusion in the sector (Landles-Cobb et
al., 2015). Leadership development has been identified as an opportunity to increase social
justice through the development of diverse leaders that value equity, diversity, and inclusion
(Kunreuther & Corvington, 2007).
Coaching is an intervention to address cognitive, emotional, and behavioral habits to
improve performance (Day, Zaccaro, & Halpin, 2004; Kim, Egan, Kim, & Kim, 2013). Coaching
can be one-on-one or applied to groups. Managerial coaching, when a leader coaches
subordinates, can help members uncover their purpose, create an identity, clarify what they are
trying to accomplish, and access untapped creativity (Hawkins, 2017). It enhances individual and
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 15

collective resilience, increases understanding of critical processes, improves progress, and can
even aid in unlearning unwanted or ineffective behaviors (Lee, 2017; Segers & Inceoglu, 2012).
Coaching is correlated with employee retention, increased productivity, and better organizational
performance (Clutterbuck & Megginson, 2005; Ellinger, Ellinger, Hamlin, & Beattie, 2010;
Hagen, 2012; Higgins & Thomas, 2001). Studies that evaluated coaching effectiveness versus
traditional management training methods showed coaching created sustained positive behavioral
changes where traditional methods did not (Coloma et al., 2012; Rekalde et al., 2017). CIPD
(2015), in a survey of more than 600 organizations, found coaching was the most effective form
of learning and development in organizations.
Despite evidence of the importance of leadership development, executive directors may
be unaware of the benefits of managerial coaching, may not receive support in their roles as
coaches by boards or funders, or may be unable to prioritize developing staff due to time
constraints (Renz, 2010). Low capacity to implement coaching may also result from a lack of
funding, as less than 1% of foundation grants are awarded to support leadership and professional
development (Callanan, Gardner, Mendonca, & Scott 2013; Stahl, 2013). Even if executive
directors look for other sources of support, businesses outspend nonprofits on leadership
development by four to one (Foundation Center, 2011). Whatever the factors in low
implementation rates, it is important that nonprofits address their leadership succession
problems.
Importance of Innovation Implementation in the Field
In 2006, Tierney alerted the sector to the importance of succession planning to address
the impending leadership gap. Multi-month executive intervention programs were created across
the sector to stem the tide of the leadership crisis (Deaton, Wilkes, & Douglas, 2013). To impact
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 16

ongoing leadership succession problems, it is important for the nonprofit sector to adopt talent
development innovations and increase activities in leadership development for a variety of
reasons. Coaching has been recently introduced and integrated into the nonprofit sector to
improve organizational performance and address multiple capacity problems (Clutterbuck &
Megginson, 2005; Ellinger et al., 2010; Hagen, 2012; Higgins & Thomas, 2001). It has been
used to plan and implement smooth leadership succession; increase diversity, equity, and
inclusion; and increase organizational sustainability through leadership development (Kunreuther
& Corvington, 2007; Zhang & Rajagopalan, 2004).
Succession planning is imperative since leadership succession impacts organizational
outcomes. Costly mistakes during this period can result in financial hardship, researchers
estimate it costs nine times the executive director salary to transition a leader, or even lead to
organizational mortality (Balser & Carmin, 2009; Cornelius et al., 2011; Haveman & Khaire,
2004). Organizational sustainability is the primary concern of executive directors (Di Zhang &
Swanson, 2013) and financial instability is the leading factor in leader turnover (Cornelius et al.,
2011). Strategy is also often derailed by leadership transition, especially if the new leader is
brought in from the outside (Balser & Carmen, 2009; Haveman & Khaire 2004; Hutzschenreuter,
Kleindienst, & Greger, 2012). In response to the myriad problems that face nonprofits during
leadership succession events, a sector-wide goal has been advocated.
Global Performance Goal for the Sector
Twenty years of academic interest and advocacy in the sector addressing leadership
succession have not led to greater implementation (Carman, Leland, & Wilson, 2010; Froelich,
McKee, & Rathge, 2011; Santora & Sarros, 2001). The researcher has spent two decades as an
executive director and consultant and found that the research literature indicating a sector-wide
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 17

lack of capacity building and leadership development are problematic to organizational success
in practice. To address the leadership succession, performance, and diversity problems within the
sector, researchers have focused on the importance of providing leadership development
(Landles-Cobb et al., 2015). Setting a sector-wide goal that by 2020, nonprofits will increase
managerial coaching activities by 10% above the baseline amount will improve organizational
performance across the field. Implementation of managerial coaching can be measured sector-
wide through multiple metrics and by various stakeholders (Matsuo, 2018). To track progress
toward the global goal, individual organizations can measure the number of coaching sessions
and track performance changes through established evaluation methods. Boards can measure
funding allocations and donor support for coaching. Funders can measure support provided,
outcomes from leadership development support, as well as, outputs of activities for the sector.
Coaching was chosen as the leadership development intervention of focus because of its
coverage in the research literature, coaching’s clearly defined, evidence-based practices, the
ability to implement managerial coaching in resource-constrained environments, and the
established metrics for its evaluation.
Table 1
Mission and Global Performance Goal
Global Mission

Improve the health, professionalism, and development opportunities of the nonprofit sector to
gain capacity, increase accountability, promote diverse leaders, and accelerate collective impact.
Global Performance Goal

By 2020, executive directors will increase managerial coaching activities by 10% to improve
organizational performance.

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 18

Stakeholder Group for the Study
Executive directors are the key stakeholder group for this study. Executive directors
contribute to the global goal through their paradoxical leadership role. Their role requires they
lead staff and develop the board in its governance of the organization (Middleton, 1987).
Executive directors have a unique ability to enhance organizational performance. This ability and
their position as managerial coaches is why executive directors were selected as the primary
stakeholder group for this study. Day, Zaccaro, and Halpin (2004) go as far as stating that the
primary role of an organizational leader is to develop others into leaders, at all levels of the
organization.
The increase in the amount of managerial coaching provided can be measured to establish
progress toward the stakeholder goal. As an innovation in nonprofit organizations, managerial
coaching has historically low implementation rates (Milner, McCarthy, & Milner, 2018). The
goal is to increase implementation of managerial coaching by 10% in the next two years.
Executive directors provide supply (as a conduit of resource allocation) and demand (from staff)
for managerial coaching. The risks if executive directors do not achieve their goal in the next few
years run from the high cost of leadership turnover to organizational collapse.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to explore the knowledge and skill, motivation, and
organizational resources necessary to reach executive directors’ goal of increasing managerial
coaching by 10% in 2020. This framework was based on the work of Clark and Estes (2008) who
proposed that problems with knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources can cause
organizations to fall short of their stated goals. This study began by generating a list of possible
knowledge, motivational, and organizational needs that support successful goal attainment. The
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 19

focus of the study then moved to examine these issues systematically to focus on identified
needs, providing recommendations, and discussing evaluation.
The following questions guided the study:
1. What is the executive directors’ knowledge of, and motivation related to increasing
managerial coaching of staff members?
2. How do executive directors’ knowledge and motivation interact with nonprofit
organizations’ internal and external context to shape their ability to promote a culture
that supports managerial coaching?
3. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions to
achieving organizational performance through managerial coaching?
Methodological Framework
Utilizing the gap analysis framework of Clark and Estes (2008), a qualitative method was
employed. Interview data was gathered and analyzed throughout the study, informed by a
literature review. A qualitative study design allows the researcher to go back and forth from
collected data and the research literature, comparing information to confirm and develop theory
and determine when saturation occurred (Kolb, 2012; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Data explaining
what executive directors know and believe about coaching, what support they receive from their
boards and funders, how they coach, and barriers to internal leadership development were
garnered from semi-structured interviews. Using qualitative data provided deeper insights into
leadership succession and coaching trends identified through the quantitative research completed
by other researchers in the field (Creswell, 2014; Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007).
Qualitative strategies and analysis are further discussed in the methodology and findings
sections.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 20

Definitions
Managerial Coaching: Managerial coaching is a learning intervention performed by a
leader with their subordinates to improve performance (Clutterbuck, 2013; Hamlin, Ellinger, &
Beattie, 2008).
Coaching Principles: Coaching principles are “assisted reflection, analysis, and
motivation for change” (Clutterbuck, 2013, p. 19). Principled coaching is an act of leadership
that provides a model for improved individual, team, and organizational performance (Hackman
& Wageman, 2005).
Leader Development: Leader development increases individual human capital through
knowledge, self-awareness, self-regulation, and self-motivation (Day, 2000).
Leadership Development: Organizations use leadership development to increase social
capital through improved interpersonal awareness and skills such as empathy, team orientation,
and conflict resolution (Day, 2000).

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 21

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The nonprofit sector is facing an intertwined leadership, capacity, and diversity crisis that
could be addressed with the implementation of managerial coaching. Many interdependent
factors influence low implementation rates for this intervention. In this chapter, contextual
influences on the implementation of managerial coaching are identified as leadership transition
(Landles-Cobb et al., 2015); funding and time (Chong, Yuen, Tan, Zarim, & Hamid, 2016;
Dixey, 2015; Ladyshewsky, 2010; Wilson & Gislason, 2009); capacity (Rooney & Frederick,
2007); lifecycle (Bryan, 2017; Stevens, 2002); leadership styles (Hill, 2015); and diversity
(Ibarra, 1995). Barriers to implementation may also include the skills and knowledge of
executive directors, their motivation, and the culture of individual organizations (Weisinger et
al., 2016). Executive directors may not value coaching, understand how to implement it, or find
themselves in an environment that does not support or value coaching. A literature review of the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational theories that inform the study are explicated before
further discussion of the complex role of the executive director. An explanation of the way that
these theories interact is presented in the conceptual framework.
Leadership Transition and Development
Research on leadership development and transition in the nonprofit sector is not robust
(Adams, 2005: Balser & Carmin, 2009; Dym, Egmont, & Watkins 2011; Stewart, 2016). The
sector has been criticized for a lack of leadership development despite little empirical data
available on the actual practices and processes in nonprofits (Landles-Cobb et al., 2015). This
research study provides some insights into leadership development, through managerial
coaching, from executive directors by asking about current practices.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 22

Coaching can build organizational capacity for internal promotion. Recent surveys have
shed light on the amount of internal promotion occurring across the sector. Only 30% of
nonprofit leadership roles, almost half the rate of for-profits, were filled by promoting internal
candidates (Landles-Cobb et al., 2015). Due to high rates of internal promotion in for-profit
firms, there is a rich research pool investigating leadership development and coaching in these
companies. Managerial coaching is associated with improved individual, team, and
organizational performance (Dixey, 2015; Ellinger et al., 2016; Gilley et al., 2010; Longenecker
& Neubert, 2005; Misiukonis, 2011; Turner & McCarthy, 2015). An examination of leadership
development and managerial coaching through the academic literature reveals a multitude of
specific benefits.
Managerial Coaching
Proponents argue that effective coaching facilitates learning by creating an environment
conducive to growth. This environment includes caring and supportive leaders (Kroth & Keeler,
2009) that provide feedback, open communication, and resources to employees (Beattie et al.,
2014). In a large study on teams, confirmed that managerial coaching improves individual and
team learning (Matsuo, 2018). A meta-analysis of empirical research found that increased staff
confidence, improved communication and teamwork, and reduced stress are correlated with
managerial coaching (Hagen, 2012).
While many researchers tout the benefits of managerial coaching (Beattie et al., 2014;
Dixey, 2015; Ellinger et al., 2016; Gilley et al., 2010; Hagen & Aguilar, 2012; Matsuo, 2018;
Misiukonis, 2011; Turner & McCarthy, 2015), it is important to note that there is still
disagreement surrounding its definition and evaluation (Lawrence, 2017; McCarthy & Milner,
2013). What skills are required to perform it well and what metrics to use to evaluate it are not
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 23

universally accepted (Lawrence, 2017). Opponents argue there is no consensus on the precise
definition of managerial coaching that makes it difficult to determine the type of value that it
adds (Lawrence, 2017; McCarthy & Milner, 2013). While the lack of research conducted within
a nonprofit context may lead to less knowledge of the benefits of coaching and low
implementation rates in the sector, funding and time may be more likely culprits.
Influence of funding and time. Donors want charities to have a large impact on system
problems through professional, efficient, and efficacious programs (Renz, 2010). However,
programs are only one part of the equation. Sustainable and impactful nonprofits require
substantial investments into talent, systems, infrastructure, and fundraising (Renz, 2010). Trust in
institutions has been steadily eroding and nonprofits have not been exempt from this trend
(Cohen & Hyde, 2014; Edelman Intelligence, 2018; Light, 2011; Perry, 2015). Leadership
development is more important, but harder to advocate for, as nonprofits are expected to deliver
more services and accountability after the economic downturn (Hopkins, Meyer, Shera, & Peters,
2014). Donation rates to charities have only recently reached pre-2008 levels, allowing
nonprofits to increase hiring (Giving USA, 2017; Nonprofit HR, 2016). As demands on
nonprofits grow, executive directors face increasing obstacles. Increased demands on executive
directors include restoring trust in the sector, managing the expectations of diverse stakeholders,
transforming the organization while running it, and operating despite a scarcity of funding
(Amagoh, 2015; Cohen & Hyde, 2014; Hawkins, 2017). Managers facing limited resources and
support from senior leaders indicated they do not have time to coach (Chong, et al., 2016; Dixey,
2015; Wilson & Gislason, 2009). Financial support (2.3%) and time support (2.3%) for coaching
is limited (Milner et al., 2018).
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 24

Organizational capacity, which can be increased through leadership development and
managerial coaching, is often neglected, creating infrastructure problems. Organizational
capacity is defined as the knowledge, skills, processes, and systems required to successfully
deliver public benefits (Bryan, 2017; Minzner et al., 2014). While nonprofit entrepreneurs are
better educated, older, have access to greater resources, and are more likely to have experienced
teams than for-profit entrepreneurs (Lecy, Van Slyke, & Yoon, 2016), they still lack primary
operational skills and structures (Andersson, 2016). Operational skills are the weakest point for
most nonprofit entrepreneurs due to a lack of skills related to accounting, law, and human
resources (Andersson, 2016). Strong operational systems (such as accounting, donor
management, program delivery, board development, professional development for staff, and
human resource systems) mitigate the instability of new organizations, help them grow, and
increase external stakeholders’ perceptions of organizational legitimacy (Andersson, 2016).
Legitimacy is a contributing factor for untested organizations to receive funding and garner
public trust (Sine, Mitsuhashi, & Kirsch, 2006; Stevens, 2002).
Several models for organizational life cycle stages have been created and refined
(Greiner, 1998; Miller & Friesen, 1984) but Stevens (2002) synthesized previous research to
create a nonprofit-specific model. This model has seven stages that are described by Kimberlin,
Schwartz, and Austin (2013) as:
1. Idea: Occurs prior to the formation of the organization as a founder or group of
people recognize a community need and begin to imagine ways to address it.
2. Startup: The organization exists as an entity, formally or informally, that has some
activities, but the focus is largely on mission and vision with little concern for
financial sustainability, professionalization, evaluation, or other operational systems.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 25

3. Growth: Organizations are somewhat stabilized at this phase but demand for services
outpaces the entity’s ability to provide them.
4. Maturity: The organization is financially sustainable, has a solid reputation, delivers
valuable public goods and services, has functioning operating systems, and is
demonstrating accountability to internal and external stakeholders.
5. Decline: This phase may occur if environmental or internal factors lead to financial
instability, problems in decision-making, declining demand for services, or any
combination of these factors.
6. Turnaround: If the organizational leadership and stakeholders are able to correctly
identify the cause of decline and take appropriate action the organization may
survive and reenter the earlier growth phase. 7) Terminal: The final phase of the
organizational lifecycle where assets are redistributed to another nonprofit of like
purpose per the articles of incorporation and bylaws of the dissolving entity.
Nonprofit organizations are most likely to fail at the beginning of their lifecycle when
resource, capacity, and leadership constraints are greatest (Andersson, 2016; Bryan, 2017;
Stevens, 2002). The organization life-cycle model provides a useful framework to examine the
operations of organization and chose appropriate strategies to address relevant problems.
However, the phases may be iterative, may not occur in order, or may bleed into one another in
practice. Small nonprofits, those under $500,000 budgets, as well as, those that struggle to obtain
unrestricted funding for overhead have poor infrastructure that is directly correlated with poor
organizational performance (Rooney & Frederick, 2007). Organizations of all sizes with more
diverse funding and a greater amount of unrestricted funds were still chronically understaffed,
pointing to ongoing capacity problems (Cohen & Hyde, 2014; Rooney & Frederick, 2007;
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 26

Tierney, 2006). Nonprofits facing time and financial resource constraints are stuck in a cycle of
paucity and reduced capacity that leadership development is designed to liberate them from.
Shared leadership. Shared leadership is one way to break the cycle of nonprofit capacity
problems by empowering and developing all staff members. It is defined by the diffusion of
leadership behaviors among all members of the team to improve performance instead of coming
from one leader role (Hill, 2015). Myriad benefits associated with shared leadership make it well
suited for nonprofits that want to use managerial coaching to improve organizational
performance through talent development. Leaders that exhibit this shared leadership experience
increase productivity, efficiency, and decision-making accuracy; improve problem solving;
provide higher caliber products and services; and enhance creativity and innovation (Hoch &
Kozlowski, 2014; Muethel, Gehrlein, & Hoegl, 2012; Northouse, 2015; Routhieaux, 2015;
Wang, Waldman, & Zang, 2014). These gains are attributed to fewer conflicts, improved trust,
and cohesion among actors in the group (Bergman, Rentsch, Small, Davenport, & Bergman,
2012; Gao et al., 2011).
Organizations with budgets greater than $500,000 are more likely to have an executive
team, reflecting a form of shared leadership (Stewart, 2016). Executive directors may need to
understand how to share leadership, to provide managerial coaching, and improve performance.
The knowledge and motivation to provide managerial coaching may be tied to the experience
level of directors and will be investigated in this study. In environments with severe resource
constraints, shared leadership creates greater capacity than budget size would indicate (Allison,
Misra, & Perry, 2015).
Diversity, equity, and inclusion. The pattern of external hiring by boards of directors
has resulted in lost opportunities to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion. Diversity is a
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 27

problem across the nonprofit sector as 92% of executive directors, 86% of board members, and
88% of staff are White (Weisinger, 2017). Nonprofit leaders are not representative of the ethnic,
racial, and gender diversity of the workforce. People of color comprise only 10% of CEOs, 10%
of Board Chairs, and 16% of Board members, compared to 40% of the working population
(BoardSource. 2017). While nearly 75% of the nonprofit workforce are women, only 45% of
organizational leaders are women (Outon, 2015).
This lack of diversity is reinforced when nonprofit board members look to their own
networks to replace an executive director. This is problematic because their networks are not
diverse (Konrad, Seidel, Lo, Bhardwaj, & Qureshi, 2017). In a seminal study of the diversity of
networks, Ibarra (1995) found that organizational context impacts whether women and ethnically
diverse individuals have access to informal networks that aid their promotion and career
development. Organizations that support a culture of inclusion are more successful at
diversifying the networks of employees (Ibarra, 1995). nonprofits that succeed in integrating
diversity, equity, and inclusion throughout their organizations and activities are more likely to
provide opportunities for advancement (Weisinger et al., 2016). Nonprofits with greater diversity
have a broader and bigger impact, are more sustainable, and perform at a higher level (Fredette,
et al., 2016; Harris, 2014; Hawkins, 2017; Weisinger et al., 2016).
Key Role of Executive Directors
Executive directors play a central role in nonprofit organizational performance (Renz,
2010; Tschirhart & Bielefeld, 2012). They are typically responsible for fundraising, being a
liaison to the board of directors, public relations, management of staff and operations, financial
leadership, strategic planning, and program development. Information asymmetry exists between
the board of directors and executive director due to differences in professional experience,
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 28

commitment to the organization, and exposure to day-to-day operations (Herman, 2010; Suárez,
2010). The entanglement of board and executive director roles complicates board hierarchy and
leadership succession. During leadership transition, the board must step further into its duties of
care, obedience, and loyalty without the support of the outgoing executive director. Too much
prior reliance on the executive director can lead to poor transitions and diminished organizational
performance in the interim (Cornelius et al., 2011; Iecovich and Bar-Mor 2007). To further
entangle goal achievement, poor board performance is a leading factor in executive director
turnover (Herman, 2010).
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Framework
The foundation for framing the research questions, methodology, and analysis of data in
this study was the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis of stakeholder’s knowledge and
motivation issues, and the organizational context/cultural barriers to successful goal
achievement. Knowledge and motivation gap identification and mitigation are the keys to
improving organizational performance. Stakeholders need to know how to succeed and why to
address gaps that prevent performance. Additionally, to attain desired organizational outcomes
organizational barriers to performance, such as poorly designed policies and procedures, culture
that is not conducive to achieving the goal, resource scarcity, and other systemic issues, need to
be acknowledged and improved (Clark & Estes, 2008). Every aspect from the organizational
structure to the norms of culture can help or hinder the stakeholder’s goals.
Employees need to know what information is required to close the gap as well as the
skills to act on that knowledge (Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011) so executive directors need to
know how to coach direct reports in order to address leadership succession. Assumed influences
on improving executive directors’ talent development activities include knowledge of how
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 29

coaching contributes to organizational performance, evidence-based practices for coaching, and
an understanding of how to implement coaching. Executive directors also need to assess and
reflect on their performance as coaches, ultimately adapting their behavior to succeed (Black,
Soto, & Spurlin, 2016). Motivational influences encompass belief in executive director’s
individual and collective abilities to reach their goal, as well as, the value in and expectation of
reaching the goal (Bandura, 2000a; Bresnen, & Marshall, 2000; Mayer, 2011). Next, the role that
organizational and sector culture and resource allocation play in goal attainment are illuminated.
The chapter ends with a conceptual model of how knowledge and motivation influences interact
with the organizational constraints to impact outcomes.
Executive Directors’ Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
The gap analysis framework of Clark and Estes (2008) examines knowledge and skills,
motivational issues, and organizational context of the organizational actors. Learning and
motivation theories informed the methodology, assessment, analysis, and recommendations of
this study. These theories included Krathwohl’s (2002) update of Bloom’s Taxonomy of
Knowledge, self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and expectancy-value theory (EVT). Specifically,
executive directors need to understand how to conduct managerial coaching, believe they are
capable of doing it, that coaching will improve employees’ performance, and value the impact of
coaching on overall organizational performance. Organizational influences include the presence
of a learning culture, resources for talent development, and external support for capacity
building. The literature review defines, synthesizes, and applies (in the knowledge, motivation,
and organizational influencer tables) these theories to the problem of leadership development
facing nonprofit organizations.

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 30

Knowledge Influences
Krathwohl (2002) updated Bloom’s Taxonomy by adding a knowledge dimension to the
cognitive process dimension and revising the cognitive construct within Bloom’s educational
framework. The updated framework defines types of knowledge including declarative,
procedural, and meta-cognitive and a foundation for curriculum or training based on cognitive
processes such as remembering, understanding, applying, analyzing, evaluating, and creating.
Knowledge gaps were confirmed through interviews. Recommendations based on gaps were
developed to address the problem of practice.
Knowledge of coaching’s impact on performance. Executive directors need to
understand what to do (declarative), how to do it (procedural), and reflect on their practice
(metacognition) to achieve their goal. Declarative knowledge can be factual or conceptual.
Factual knowledge is made up of discrete pieces of information that define a field or practice,
whereas conceptual knowledge incorporates how these facts are categorized and relate to one
another to create meaning and strategies for action within the field (Krathwohl, 2002). For
executive directors, they need to understand the theory behind managerial coaching, how it
influences individual and organizational performance, and how to apply it in their own
organizational and human resources context. Coaching improves staff confidence and teamwork
(Hagen, 2012); individual and group learning (Matsuo, 2018); and organizational performance
(Hawkins, 2017) if done well.
Knowledge of coaching practices. Evidence-based practices that outline effective and
ineffective managerial and executive coaching have been established. These practices are defined
by a coach that 1) encourages self-reflection 2) helps employees seek and share knowledge 3)
values individual empowerment through delegation and trust 4) provides productive feedback
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 31

and recognition of improvement 5) gives guidance when appropriate 6) displays professionalism
including as a role model and standard setter 7) demonstrates caring and empathy 8) develops
employees 9) and, finally, challenges employees to grow (Beattie et al., 2014; Ellinger, Hamlin,
& Beattie, 2008; Grant & Cavanagh, 2004; Hamlin et al., 2006; Hawkins, 2017; Powell &
Doran, 2003; Shaw & Knight, 2005).
Knowledge of how to conduct coaching. If executive directors do not have knowledge
of evidence-based practices they may engage in counterproductive activities despite espousing
honest and direct communication, valuing input, and encouraging learning (Argyris, 2008;
Ellinger et al., 2008). For executive directors to increase coaching activities and organizational
performance, they need skills in managerial coaching that align with these evidence-based
practices. This study will determine whether executive directors possess skills and can apply
procedural knowledge about evidence-based practices for managerial coaching within their
organizational context.
Metacognitive knowledge of coaching skill effectiveness. In addition to declarative and
procedural knowledge, executive directors need metacognitive knowledge of how their coaching
skills are, or are not, efficacious. Metacognition is defined as thinking about thinking
(Krathwohl, 2002). It describes a learner’s ability to assess their own competence, determine
strategies to improve it, and adapt (Black et al., 2016). Metacognition is a particularly important
skill for leaders as their actions have large consequences on organizations and employees.
Leaders face additional cognitive demands due to high levels of ambiguity, social complexity,
novel problem solving, and situational challenges. Regular reflection on strengths and
weaknesses can improve learning and performance (Krathwohl, 2002; Mayer, 2011; Rueda,
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 32

2011; Solansky, 2010). Executive directors need to develop strong metacognitive skills to
improve the impact of their coaching knowledge and behavior on organizational performance.
Table 2 illustrates the assumed knowledge influences, knowledge types, and assessments
required to identify gaps in attainment of stated goals.
Table 2

Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis

Assumed Knowledge Influences Knowledge Type Knowledge Influence
Assessment

Executive directors need
knowledge of how leadership
coaching of staff contributes to
organizational performance.
Declarative
(Conceptual)
Executive directors were asked
in interviews to demonstrate
knowledge of leadership
development and how it
impacts the organization’s
bottom line.
Executive directors need
knowledge of evidence-based and
best practices for leadership
development.
Declarative
(Conceptual)
Executive directors were asked
to discuss the theory, research,
and practice of talent
development in the interviews.
Executive directors need to know
how to conduct and/or improve
leadership development through
coaching.
Procedural Executive directors provided
information about the process
of designing, improving, and
incorporating leadership
development into performance
management in interviews.
Executive directors need to reflect
on their own professional
development, their ability to
provide development to others,
and their skills in creating a
culture of development.
Metacognitive During interviews, executive
directors were asked to judge
their own performance in
designing, funding, and
implementing talent
development through coaching.
Leaders were asked to reveal
how they advocate for
coaching and their personal
experiences being developed as
a leader.

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 33

Motivation Influences
Learning and motivation are deeply entwined, and successful performance improvements
involve addressing both. Motivation is often a critical component in individual and
organizational performance (Clark & Estes, 2008). Self-efficacy, collective efficacy, and
expectancy-value theory are motivation theories that inform the nonprofit sector’s leadership
succession problem and the sector-wide goal to increase managerial coaching to address it.
Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the belief that a person can complete a specific task
competently (Usher & Pajares, 2006). Leader self-efficacy is defined by the belief that one can
influence followers, engage them in goal setting, and work with them to create change (Machida
& Schaubroeck, 2011). A leader’s self-efficacy is important because it is correlated with
organizational performance and outcomes. Higher self-efficacy enables leaders to persist when
encountering obstacles and to put forth the mental effort to succeed (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008;
Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011). Beliefs about self-efficacy can be influenced by one’s own and
others’ beliefs based on previous experience, cultural background, and feedback (Mayer, 2011).
In a large study, predictors of self-efficacy included mastery, modeling, persuasion, and
physiological and psychological states (Chen & Bliese, 2002). Leaders need to believe that they
are capable of coaching and creating a culture that supports leadership development. In the
context of this study, each executive director has an individual sense of self-efficacy around their
ability to coach staff to enhance talent development and organizational performance that
influences how much they participate in the activity.
The mental models of leaders can impact their sense of self-efficacy (Mayer, 2011). For
example, when leaders have a positive, growth mindset, they have more resources to devote to
work, they are more deeply engaged, and have a greater sense of self-efficacy (Bakker &
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 34

Demerouti, 2008). A growth mindset, in contrast to a fixed mindset that identifies characteristics
as unchanging, orients people toward learning, encouraging them to see setbacks as
opportunities, and improves their resilience (Dweck, 2008). Heslin and VandeWalle (2008)
found that a growth mindset contributes to employee engagement and performance and can be
developed through coaching. Together, executive directors and staff members need collective
efficacy to positively impact organizational performance. Collective efficacy and self-efficacy
are interrelated, and one cannot be reasonably addressed without the other.
Collective efficacy. Collective efficacy is the belief that a group can achieve a specific
goal (Bandura, 2000b; Mayer, 2011). Group efficacy can be influenced by one’s own and others’
beliefs based on previous experience, cultural background, and feedback (Bandura, 2000b). Mid-
level managers collective efficacy perceptions of immediate supervisors were found to be a
greater factor than perception of higher-level leaders, but both led to increased collective efficacy
belief (Borgogni, Dello Russo, & Latham, 2011). Tying in the important reciprocal influence of
self- and collective efficacy, the authors noted that self-efficacious employees are more willing
to contribute to group efforts and organizational goals. Within nonprofits, executive directors are
often direct supervisors of staff, having a large impact on collective efficacy beliefs and goal
attainment. Executive directors need to believe that staff members are capable of being coached,
being developed into leaders, and can improve organizational performance.
Collective efficacy is closely correlated with organizational performance. Utilizing
survey data from a large sample of teachers and their principals, Leithwood and Jantzi (2008)
concluded that collective efficacy improved school performance and student outcomes.
Collective efficacy can be influenced by multiple factors. Mastery encourages individuals to
focus on deep learning versus performance (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2004). Learning is also
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 35

improved by having others model behavior to be learned (Bandura, 2000b). Additional factors
that allow leaders to influence collective efficacy are the ability to persuade employees and the
employee’s affective states or emotional receptivity (Bandura, 2000b). Most of the variability in
collective efficacy and organizational performance is explained by mastery (Goddard et al.,
2004; Mayer, 2011).
A growth mindset, which supports a mastery orientation, is at the foundation of
managerial coaching and creating a culture of learning (Beattie et al., 2014). Goal orientation
theory juxtaposes mastery goals and mastery-orientation versus performance goals and
performance-orientation (Meece, Anderman, & Anderman, 2006). Mastery goals are intrinsic
whereas performance goals are extrinsic (Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011). Mastery is associated with
cooperation and self-comparison, whereas performance orientation encourages competition and
self-other comparison (Meece et al., 2006). Mastery orientation theorists assert that mastery
builds resilience and facilitates interest and deeper learning. Belief in the ability of employees to
improve performance through behavior change undergirds managerial coaching. Leadership
influences collective efficacy at all levels of the organization (Chen & Bliese, 2002). Leaders
with a high level of personal and collective efficacy enable increased organizational
performance, so both are investigated.
Expectancy-value theory. People work toward both what they believe they can achieve
(expectancy) and what they want to achieve (value) (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Expectancy-
value theory, a cognitive process theory, posits motivation is multiplicative, involving three
functions: valence, expectancy, and instrumentality (Bresnen & Marshall, 2000; Vroom, 1964).
These motivational factors are the subjective value of the reward, called valence, the probability
the intervention will improve performance, referred to as expectancy, and the likelihood of
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 36

reward, defined as instrumentality. If any of these factors are low, motivation will also be low
(Bresnen & Marshall, 2000). Expectancy is an umbrella for more specific theories about self-
and collective efficacy. It is vital for executive directors to be motivated to improve individual,
collective, and organizational performance through coaching because they understand the
benefits. The benefits of coaching include improvement in job performance, motivation,
morality, and empowerment according to a multidisciplinary meta-analysis of academic
literature (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). Managerial coaching positively influences role clarity and
job satisfaction, in addition to performance, in public organizations according to a comparative
study of US and South Korean participants (Kim, Egan, & Moon, 2014). In this qualitative study,
the researcher explored the degree to which executive directors value coaching and expect that
leadership development positively influences organizational performance. Questions about how
leaders evaluate the outcome of coaching in their organizations were investigated. Table 3
outlines the assumed motivation influences/theories and appropriate assessments of the executive
directors’ stakeholder goal.
Table 3

Motivational Influences and Assessments for Motivation Gap Analysis

Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Self-Efficacy – Executive directors need to
believe they can create a culture of professional
development and implement effective leadership
coaching.
Interviews provided rich information
about what supports or undermines this
belief.
Collective Efficacy – Executive directors need to
believe that together with the staff, they can
improve organizational performance through
leadership coaching.
Interview questions determined the
quality of employee engagement.
Value – Executive directors need to see the value
in managerial coaching.
Interviews revealed reasons why
executive directors do or do not value
leadership development.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 37

Expectancy – Executive directors need to believe
that an investment in leadership development will
positively influence organizational performance.
Interviewees were asked to comment
on experiences, evidence, and/or
evaluation that led them to expect
certain outcomes (whether positive,
neutral, or negative).

Organizational Culture and Setting Influences
Organizational culture, climate, and settings are key components to successful
stakeholder goal achievement (Clark & Estes, 2008). Culture influences organizational change
and performance (Balogun & Johnson, 2004; Kezar, 2001; Schein, 2004). This is particularly
true in the case of nonprofit organizations, which tend to be driven by culture because they are
mission based and operate in an environment of resource scarcity (Renz, 2010; Tschirhart &
Bielefeld, 2012). A brief overview of organizational change, culture, and climate literature are
explored, followed by specific cultural models relevant to the study. Managerial coaching, by
design, supports a culture of learning within the organization and creates resilience for change
(Grant, 2014). Cultural models influencing executive directors’ goal include resource allocation
for and a strong culture of support for leadership development through coaching staff members.
If leaders are willing to coach but boards or external stakeholders do not understand its
connection to organizational performance and leadership succession, they may not provide
resources for it. Since this is a field study, culture at the sector level is also a factor in support
allocated to coaching. Foundations vary in the amount of professional development or technical
assistance they are willing to provide to nonprofit organizations (Renz, 2010; Tschirhart &
Bielefeld, 2012).
Organizational change. Since approximately 70% of organizational change initiatives fail
(Kotter & Cohen, 2012), researchers seek to illuminate the process of change to improve change
strategies and increase the likelihood of success (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2015). Researchers in
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 38

the field of organizational change have focused on everything from organizational culture to
leaders’ influence to provide practitioners with insights into underlying processes and to improve
change initiatives’ problematic track record (Kezar, 2001; Hendry, 1996). Kezar (2001)
categorized change theories as belonging to one of six categories: evolutionary, teleological, life
cycle, dialectical, social cognition, and cultural, advocating that an approach that utilizes several
theories may be more successful. While many of these are outside the scope of this dissertation,
organizational life cycle considerations were taken into consideration. A lack of professional
development can have an outsized impact on younger organizations, de-stabilizing them at a time
when additional learning and development is most useful (Renz, 2010).
Schneider, Brief, and Guzzo (1996) posited that creating organizational change requires
shifting both experience (climate) and belief (culture), while Hendry (1996) urged a return to
framing the organization through the lens of learning to create successful change. Executive
directors, as leaders, have a lot of influence over the day to day processes of the organization and
set the tone for culture. This study asked questions about how executive directors create a
supportive environment but also whether other stakeholders reinforce or work against the goals
of managerial coaching. A coaching culture is one that embraces growth, reinforces a growth
mindset in employees, and is defined by learning (Clutterbuck & Megginson, 2005). Senge
(2006) defined learning organizations as those that are self-reflective, where members question
their mental models, employ cooperative learning, create a collaborative vision, and leaders
encourage and foster system thinking. Executive directors’ ability to foster change within the
organization through managerial coaching contributes to the culture of learning and cooperation
that Senge (2006) advocates by encouraging employees to have a growth mindset, part of their
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 39

self-efficacy. The theory of learning organizations is explored further in the conceptual map at
the end of this chapter.
Organizational culture. Organizational culture influences organizational change and
performance in complex ways. Its precise influence, definition, boundaries, and magnitude of
power are an ongoing debate in the research literature of diverse fields from industrial and
organizational psychology to management science. Culture is described in academic fields as the
“shared basic assumptions, values, and beliefs . . . communicated by the myths and stories people
tell about how the organization came to be the way it is as it solved problems associated with
external adaptation and internal integration” (Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2013, p. 362). In the
symbolic frame, one of four frames leaders use as a lens to gain insight into and provide
leadership for organizations, the leader considers the symbols, rituals, and culture that influence
organizational performance (Bolman & Deal, 2017). Schein (2010) conceptualizes culture as
cooperative learning over time that is initiated with the organization’s leader. Culture is
fundamentally a pattern of behavior that becomes a stable part of organizational life (Schein,
2010). Establishing support for a coaching culture within the organization has been identified as
key to leadership development.
A coaching culture is one where coaching informs relationships between managers and
employees, defines teamwork, and demonstrates an organization’s commitment to group and
individual growth (Clutterbuck & Megginson, 2005). Coaching culture should be based in the
organization’s strategy in order to effectively influence organizational performance (Evans,
2011; Hawkins, 2017; Jones & Gorell, 2014). Within nonprofits, culture is created by executive
directors and their board of directors as they collaborate to provide services to the community. If
nonprofits do not value or know how to create a culture of learning, it can impede organizational
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 40

growth and performance (Renz, 2010).
Organizational climate and settings. To differentiate organizational climate from
culture, climate it is defined broadly as the “shared perceptions of and the meaning attached to
the policies, practices, and procedures employees experience and the behaviors they observe
getting rewarded and that are supported and expected" (Schneider et al., 2013, p. 361). Shared
meaning and support are explored in the study by asking executive directors what types of
internal and external support they receive, such as reinforcement of meaning or resources, and
how they convey the value of a learning organization. Cultural settings are the places and
contexts where these policies, practices, procedures, and behaviors are enacted (Scott &
Palinscar, 2006). Climate and settings offer opportunities to enhance performance through goal
setting and communication, and reinforcement of cultural models. Executive directors have a lot
of influence over organizational climate and settings (Schein, 2010), so their mental models and
behavior are connected together in the analysis of the data. Overall culture, climate, and settings
contribute to organizational identity and the meaning employees attach to work.
Organizational identity. Organizational identity influences the behavior of members and
shapes the dialogue about how external audiences should view the organization (Haslam,
Postmes, and Ellemers, 2003; Ravasi and Schultz, 2006). Organizational identity impacts
employees’ attachment and commitment to the organization affecting retention (Hatch &
Schultz, 2000). Executive turnover and external hiring can negatively impact staff perceptions of
organizational identity when the new leader implements changes that challenge perceived norms
(Hannan, Baron, Hsu, & Kocak, 2006). This disruption can further destabilize the organization
(Balser & Carmin, 2009: Kreiner, Hollensbe, Sheep, Smith, & Kataria, 2015). The creation and
expression of shared values and meaning often influence goal attainment and organizational
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 41

performance. Table 4 illustrates the potential organizational model and setting influences on
executive directors’ goal to produce a 10% increase in the leadership development activities by
2020.
Table 4
Cultural Model and Setting Influences, Types, and Assessments for Organizational Gap Analysis

Assumed Organizational Influences

Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1: Organizations
need to foster a culture of development that
feeds the leadership pipeline, improves
organizational efficiency and programmatic
efficacy, and increases employee
performance.
Interviews assessed executive directors’
internal cultural context, their role in creating
culture, and the meaning they ascribe to this
context.
Cultural Model Influence 2: Organizations
need to avail resources to executive directors
to implement, improve, and increase talent
development.
In interviews, executive directors were asked
about board support for continued
investment in leadership development.
Organizational Climate Influence 1:
Executive directors need to be aware of the
shared meaning ascribed to coaching and
offer incentives.
The interview protocol addressed whether
incentives are offered and revealed what
meaning executive directors attach to and
communicate about coaching.
Sector Cultural Model Influence 1: External
funders need to avail resources to executive
directors to implement, improve, and
increase talent development.
Executive directors indicated whether there
is external investment in leadership
development through the interviews.
Sector Cultural Model Influence 2: The
sector needs to foster a culture of
development that feeds the leadership
pipeline, improves organizational efficiency
and programmatic efficacy, increases
diversity, and increases employee
performance.
Interviews assessed executive directors’
current external cultural context and the
meaning they ascribed to this context.

Conceptual Framework
A conceptual framework clarifies the relationships between interrelated theories
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). It also makes explicit emergent, or overarching, theoretical assertions
resulting from the research conducted (Maxwell, 2012). Executive directors’ knowledge and
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 42

motivation, and the organizational context and support from the field, are entwined factors that
impact increased implementation of managerial coaching.
Learning is the fundamental process working within all the theories of the conceptual
map for this study. The individual learning of leaders influences group performance through
managerial coaching. Individual, group, and organizational learning must occur for change to be
successful. Accretion of all this learning becomes organizational culture. It is codified into the
context that undergirds the interrelationships between knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences. Individual learning and reflection start the process of change (Black et al., 2016;
Mayer, 2011). Executive directors gain conceptual and procedural knowledge of coaching,
enriched by their reflections upon practice. Individual learning and reflection among executive
directors improve performance and resilience within groups (Gokhale, 1995).
Executive directors’ belief in their own efficacy grows when they have the knowledge
required for managerial coaching (Bandura, 2000a; Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011). Motivation,
driven further by the expectation of performance improvement and an understanding of the value
of development, can move executive directors to implement change. However, organizational
culture itself can be a primary barrier to change (Bolman & Deal, 2017; Balogun & Johnson,
2004; Kezar, 2001; Schein, 2004). Culture’s importance and magnitude in influencing
nonprofit’s organizational performance and change management in individual organizations is
well documented (Yankey & Willen, 2010).
Fundamentally, change is a cooperative learning process, one that is socially negotiated
within organizations (Balogun & Johnson, 2004). It is especially true in nonprofit organizations
because they often operate under an organizational model that is more complex than the
hierarchical and rational “managed systems” model proposed by Elmore (1978). Herman (2010)
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 43

and Renz (2004; 2008) posit a “social constructionist model” for nonprofits that delineates the
nuanced difference between espoused goals, structures, and procedures and the reality of their
ongoing negotiation in process, reflective of the individual needs, perceptions, and interests of
the board and staff. The knowledge and motivation of executive directors forms double-loop
learning frameworks to support individual and cooperative learning within the supports of
organizational culture and resources. Double loop learning occurs when performance and goals
are informed by feedback from stakeholders, processes, and experience (Argyris, 1976). Figure 1
visually represents the complexity and interdependencies of all these concepts.

Figure 1. Conceptual map of knowledge, motivation, and organizational context for executive
directors influencing organizational performance.

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 44

The key knowledge and motivational influences of the executive directors that impact
increased implementation and improvement of coaching are embedded within the five
organizational context and culture influences. With the exception of the bottom arrow that
addresses years of experience and budget size, the arrows represent knowledge and motivation
influences on goal attainment. Arrows are divided between knowledge and motivation
influencers by a dotted line, demonstrating the permeability and fundamental interrelatedness of
these two areas. Each has a role to play in the increased implementation of managerial coaching.
Culture and resource availability, both within the organization and outside it in the sector,
in turn, influences the attainment of the executive directors’ goal. However, positive outcomes
are heavily dependent upon the knowledge and motivational factors of executive directors, who
have the power to influence culture and resource allocation internally and externally. The
conceptual map illustrates that the knowledge, motivation, and culture influences form an
ongoing feedback loop of organizational learning. When the executive directors’ goal to coach
staff is achieved, supported by the culture and resources of the organization, the capacity and
performance of the sector is improved.
Conclusion
Chapter two’s literature review captures the influences on the rate of managerial coaching
in nonprofits. Though the leadership gap has been identified (Tierney, 2006) leadership
succession and development did not follow (Landles-Cobb et al., 2015).). Talent development in
nonprofits requires leaders that are skilled in managerial coaching evidence-based practices
(Beattie et al., 2014). Leaders with these skills understand the importance of shared leadership to
address succession, increase diversity, and empower staff through development (Allison et al.,
2014; Hill, 2015). A growth mindset helps leaders reinforce a culture of coaching (Heslin &
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 45

VandeWalle (2008). Directors that value coaching, with support from boards and external
stakeholders, can improve nonprofits’ organizational performance (Ellinger et al., 2016).

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 46

Chapter Three: Methods
The research questions were answered through an a priori code-driven qualitative method
design. The a priori code came from the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences
identified at the beginning of the study through the Clark and Estes (2008) gap framework.
Through the process of interview analysis, some inductive themes emerged, expanding the
original deductive codes. Qualitative analysis was employed to interact with the data, going back
and forth between the data and analysis to shape and compare categories (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016) as outlined in the conceptual framework (Figure 1). This process led the researcher to
themes and both the confirmation and development of theory (Maxwell, 2012). A qualitative
methodology is appropriate for this study because it is used to refine and expand findings
(Hunter, Hari, Egbu, & Kelly, 2005), demonstrating where existing literature gaps offer
opportunities for additional exploration (Strauss & Corbin, 1998).
A qualitative approach has been widely used within the research literature on coaching.
The research methodology has been used to posit a learning-centered theory of coaching
(Griffiths, & Campbell, 2009); to define coaching and demonstrate its distinctness from
mentoring (Wilkins, 1983); to determine desirable behaviors and characteristics of coaches
(Passmore, 2010); to form evidence-based practices for Authentic Leadership Development
(ALD) (Fusco, O’Riordan, & Palmer, 2015); and to develop future lines of inquiry (Passmore &
Fillery-Travis, 2011), among other research purposes. While it is clear from quantitative studies
in the field that executive directors have not widely adopted and evaluated coaching, a holistic
picture of influences, barriers, and supports for implementing managerial coaching in nonprofits
has been missing.

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 47

Participating Stakeholders
Executive directors are the stakeholder group of focus for this study. The literature
review conducted in chapter two explicates the influence leadership has on organizational
performance and provides additional rationale for selecting leaders as the focus of this research
study. Leaders were chosen because of their ability to influence the board of directors, provide
leadership development to the staff, and impact performance outcomes. The participants were
purposively selected from the professional networks of other nonprofit professionals, known to
the researcher. Participants were selected for the diversity of their organization’s budget size,
their years of experience as an executive director, and their exposure to formal coaching. They
were also selected to be somewhat representative of demographic variation in the field. The
researcher did not know any of the participants prior to interviews.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Executive director experience was a selection criterion for interviews to
ensure a representative sample. Varying years of experience provided insight into managerial
coaching processes and evaluation. It also demonstrated differences in approaches to
organizational culture and influences.
Criterion 2. Executive directors from organizations with a wide range of budget sizes
were selected for interviews. As with years of experience, variation in budget size provided
information about organizational resource barriers to managerial coaching and influenced the
sophistication of evaluation. Interviews provided additional insights into why budget size
influences organizational capacity to implement coaching.
Criterion 3. Executive directors that had varying levels of experience and training to
conduct managerial coaching were selected for interviews. The interview protocol, as the
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 48

primary qualitative instrument, is designed to understand why knowledge, motivation, and
organization gaps exist so a representative sample based on expertise was sought. Differences in
the practice of managerial coaching revealed greater or lesser knowledge and motivation gaps.
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale
Interview participants were recruited through purposive, critical case sampling with
criteria based on the insight that each participant could provide on the studied phenomenon.
Methodologists recommend this strategy to ensure that insights will arise from the qualitative
inquiry (Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2007). Directors were selected to provide a representative
sample for each criterion. Purposive sampling should be done to collect qualitative data in a
qualitative study (Kolb, 2012). There were eight executive directors interviewed, representing a
saturation point, when no additional insights were gained from new data. Semi-structured
interview methods were used because they balanced structure and fluidity by using standard
questions across interviews but allowed for further probing to uncover new or unexpected
information (Creswell, 2014).
Interviews took approximately one hour. The researcher followed the semi-structured
interview protocol but allowed time and flexibility for probing questions and unexpected insights
or influences to emerge. Interviews were by phone due to the wide geographic distribution of the
nonprofit field. Initially, the intent was to ask interviewees to participate via videoconference so
that visual cues and other nonverbal and contextual data would not limit rapport and data
collection (Irvine, Drew, & Sainsbury, 2013). However, after concern was expressed by potential
participants about conducting a recorded video interview, the researcher switched to recorded
phone interviews.

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 49

Qualitative Data Collection and Instrumentation
The research questions were answered through a qualitative design that utilized analysis
based on a literature review and interviews. Qualitative methods allowed the researcher to garner
more comprehensive data about why executive directors are not meeting their goals to
implement managerial coaching than the quantitative studies demonstrating the low rates of
adoption. This provided additional evidence and insights into why nonprofit executive directors
rarely plan for leadership succession and the knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers
to developing internal candidates through coaching. Qualitative research can answer questions
that focus on why something occurs, how it happens in practice, or the meaning people assign to
events (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007). This makes it an excellent source of rich, descriptive,
textual data (Kolb, 2012). For this research study, quantitative studies informed the literature
review while qualitative data was collected, analyzed, and presented, to gain deeper insights into
the opportunities and barriers to managerial coaching in nonprofit organizations. The researcher
employed interviews to gather relevant qualitative data.
Interviews
Interview questions were tied to the research questions by examining the types of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational opportunities and barriers executive directors face
when engaged in managerial coaching. Questions were designed to gain an understanding of the
executive directors’ knowledge of coaching, ability to reflect on that knowledge, their motivation
and how they motivate others to complete managerial coaching, whether resources and
leadership support are available, and if the organizational culture is conducive to coaching. The
conceptual framework, Figure 1, demonstrates how the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational context and culture potential influences are interdependent. Questions in the
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 50

interview protocol were open-ended to give participants the freedom to share experiences and
elaborate as needed. Open-ended questions are a requirement of strong qualitative research
design (Charmaz & Belgrave, 2012; Laforest, 2009; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview
instrument in Appendix C makes explicit each interview questions’ relationship to the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational context influencer tables. The value of managerial
coaching, the most widely studied form of coaching (Beattie et al., 2014), was determined
through literature review. Benefits of managerial coaching include increased performance,
motivation, team cohesion, conflict reduction, and employee retention (Beattie et al., 2014;
Hamlin et al., 2006; Hawkins, 2017; Powell & Doran, 2003; Shaw & Knight, 2005) and are built
into the interview based on motivational theory on value.
Qualitative Data Analysis
An analysis plan linking the research questions, KMO influences, and interview
questions was created to increase credibility and trustworthiness (Appendix B). Qualitative
analysis was used to code qualitative data by themes, a method recommended for qualitative
research methodology (Hewitt-Taylor, 2001). The method was applied to both data collection
methods, literature, and interviews. The method can appropriately inform themes and indicate
where more data should be collected (Onwuegbuzie, Leech, & Collins, 2012). Qualitative
analytic memos were integrated into quantitative reporting to create a comprehensive
understanding of the applied theory that informed the study and emerged from it. The data
obtained through interviews were examined for patterns and coded. Analytic memos can assist
the researcher in supporting pattern recognition, reporting results, and connecting theory to the
experiences of participants (Harding, 2013) and were employed in this study. During data
analysis, it is important that categorization of qualitative data is exhaustive, mutually exclusive,
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 51

specific, and conceptually congruent (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). To ensure compliance with
these requirements the researcher rechecked the literature and influences and compared it to the
codes. The researcher also refined coding by creating enough categories to encapsulate all
qualitative data. Additionally, the categories did not overlap. Finally, conceptual congruence was
achieved when the same level of abstraction was applied to all the categories so that results and
any emerging theories were reasonable and understandable. Methodologists recommend this as a
way to enhance replicability in qualitative studies (Merriam & Tisdell, 2017).
Credibility and Trustworthiness
To increase the credibility and trustworthiness of the qualitative research data collection,
analysis, and reporting, researchers must employ strategies to reduce bias, improve quality, and
enhance replicability. Trustworthiness refers to the accurate collection, analysis, and reporting of
data, whereas, credibility addresses appropriate sample size, methodology, analysis, and
conclusions (Elo et al., 2014). It is important that another researcher be able to replicate or
transfer the study and would be likely to agree with the analysis, coming to similar conclusions.
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggested several relevant strategies for ensuring credible and
trustworthy research methods: 1) engaging in peer review, 2) checking for built-in biases, 3)
performing data triangulation, 4) participating in critical self-reflection to address positionality,
5) creating rich, thick descriptions, and 6) maximizing variation. Each strategy was addressed
individually to justify their use in the qualitative aspect of this research study.
The sampling, research, and analytic methodologies and findings were reviewed by the
dissertation committee. Further review of qualitative data protocols was performed by professors
with expertise in research methodology. The interview questions were created after the literature
review and informed by other researchers in the field, as was the revised protocol. The initial and
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 52

revised protocols were tested in the field with professionals known to the researcher, who are not
part of the study’s participant pool, to improve it prior to formal data collection. Nonprofit
directors gave feedback to the researcher as to the clarity and applicability of the questions to
their practice and the research questions. A journal, to address critical self-reflection, of all
researcher notes was kept to reduce researcher bias, and improve replicability, transferability,
and credibility. The positionality of the researcher in this study is appropriate as she is currently
(and has been previously) employed as an executive director. The researcher, as a female
executive director with 20 years of experience in the field and a graduate degree, is aligned with
the majority demographics of the field.
Triangulation was used through literature review because multiple sources reduce
inaccuracies and biases in qualitative research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2017). Semi-structured
interviews were recorded to ensure the fidelity of data collection, coding, and thematic elements
to enhance trustworthiness and credibility. Rich, thick descriptions were captured to counteract
transferability problems. In addition, reporting of results included data that supports research
literature and the researcher’s assertions but also data that highlights exceptions or unexpected
findings. Finally, maximum variation in interview sampling was built into the sampling method.
Maximum variation allows the researcher to examine, through purposive sampling of
interviewees, a wide range of responses to the research questions based on the unique context of
the workplace (Palinkas et al., 2015) as nonprofits vary greatly across the field. The researcher
chose interviewees based on their representativeness of the population of interest but also their
ability to illuminate differences in contexts and applications of managerial coaching. This
variation provided insight into barriers and supports for managerial coaching and explained
differences in knowledge, motivation, and organizational context influences.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 53

Ethics
Compliance with ethical guidelines for human research subjects requires institutional
review for this study and consideration of the potential to harm participants. An Institutional
Review Board (IRB) protects participants and ensures the researcher upholds the research
standards of the institution (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The quality and integrity of the research are
dependent on a thorough exploration of the ethical issues of the study design and implementation
(Maxwell, 2012). Ultimately, the study benefits, both to the participant and society, must
outweigh any potential harm to meet ethical standards (Glesne, 2011).
The researcher conducted confidential, semi-structured interviews, with participants that
agreed to be a part of the study. Results of semi-structured interviews are presented in a way that
does not reveal the identity of participants. All study participants and their organizations were
assigned pseudonyms in the findings section. The researcher used extended professional
networks for recruiting interviewees. The recruitment method ensured the researcher had no
prior or ongoing relationships with survey participants because it was not a convenience sample
from the researcher’s own network of current and former organizations. Additionally, the
researcher was not in a position to influence participants’ employment, so no ethical conflicts
arose through the sampling method. Information about the advantages of participation was given
at the beginning of the interview but no monetary or in-kind incentives were provided. The
researcher provided gratitude and valued participant’s contributions to build reciprocity between
the researcher and participants, outside of incentives (Maxwell, 2012). Reciprocity with
interviewees was an organic outcome of the researcher listening, valuing what the participants
brought to the study, and holding space for their self-reflection (Glesne, 2011).
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 54

Semi-structured interview data were stored on a password protected laptop and a private
online drive. Interview questions were focused on the leadership development experience of
participants, especially managerial coaching, they received in the past or perform for staff
members. Specifically, questions probed the participant’s knowledge of, motivation to engage in,
and organizational culture and context support for managerial coaching. Investigating the
professional practices and experiences of participants meant they were not asked highly sensitive
questions that could cause distress. Through a consent information sheet and preservation of
anonymity and confidentiality, participants were protected. The consent information sheet that
preceded semi-structured interview participation is in Appendix A. Permission was obtained for
audio recording of the semi-structured interviews. Recordings were destroyed after being
transcribed by an online service.
Limitations and Delimitations
The generalizability of the study is constrained by the limitations inherent in qualitative
methodology. These limitations include small sample sizes, the inability to apply statistical tests,
the variability in the specific contexts of the phenomenon studied, and the limitations of the data
collection methods chosen, among others (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2012; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Due to these limitations, some researchers have stated that no causal connections can be
drawn in qualitative research (Creswell, 2014). However, this claim has been disputed, with
opponents citing that qualitative research provides more credible connections between specific
events and outcomes, while acknowledging the importance of quantitative research results
revealing correlation between variables (Maxwell, 2012). Generalizability was also constrained
by using Clark and Estes (2008) knowledge, motivation, and organizational framework. Once
participants were recruited, the study was further limited by the budget size of their organizations
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 55

as all participants were from the 30% of organizations with budgets over $500,000 (Urban
Institute, 2015).
While limitations are largely outside the researcher’s control, the delimitations represent
choices made to circumscribe the study and deal with the realities of resources and time. The
delimitations of this study included the short period allotted for data collection due to time
constraints. Additionally, the researcher chose to only study organizations of a certain size and
designation under the tax code because much larger organizations function with far fewer
monetary and professional constraints. The population of interest includes all nonprofit leaders,
but it is cost prohibitive and time-consuming to try to reach this entire population. Therefore, the
researcher decided to contact leaders within the professional networks of other nonprofit
executives and consultants after failing to secure responses to a survey sent out to 400,000
executive director members of LinkedIn professional groups. The tradeoffs of delimitations were
built into the research design to maximize credibility and trustworthiness, and insights into the
phenomenon studied.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 56

Chapter Four: Results and Findings
The purpose of this project was to explore the knowledge and skill, motivation, and
organizational resources to reach the sector goal of increasing managerial coaching by 10% in
2020. Clark and Estes (2008) proposed a framework of knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that interact to influence organizational goal achievement. The
researcher created a list of possible knowledge, motivational, and organizational needs that
support successful goal attainment and then examined these issues systematically, focusing
recommendations on identified needs.
The following questions guided the study:
1. What is the executive directors’ knowledge of, and motivation related to increasing
managerial coaching of staff members?
2. How do executive directors’ knowledge and motivation interact with nonprofit
organizations’ internal and external context to shape their ability to promote a culture that
supports managerial coaching?
3. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organizational solutions to
achieving organizational performance through managerial coaching?
Participating Stakeholders
Eight executive directors were approached to participate in the study and agreed to be
interviewed. They are representative of the sector in terms of years of experience, budget size,
and highest educational attainment but more diverse in gender and racial diversity (Urban
Institute, 2015). Six women (75%) and two men (25%) agreed to participate, which somewhat
matches the gender distribution of the nonprofit sector. Women make up 75% of the sector but
only 45% of executive directors (Outon, 2015). Participants were 75% White, 12.5% African
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 57

American, and 12.5% Latino, representing more diversity than current demographic data that
indicate 92% of nonprofit executive directors are White (Weisinger, 2017). Table 5 contains
their pseudonyms, years of experience as an executive director, organizational budget size, and
highest educational degree attained. None of the directors were founders of their organization.
Pseudonyms reflect educational degree by the first letter of the name, B for Bachelors, M for
Masters, and D for Doctoral and have the budget size in millions added to the end.
Table 5

Demographics of Interview Participants

Pseudonym Years of
Experience as
Executive
Director
Organizational
Budget
Highest Degree Attained,
Field of Study
Number of
Employees
Maxine1.75 1.5 $1.75 Mil MS, Youth Development
Leadership
18
Mateo1.3 2 ($1.3 Mil
Branch)
$200Mil
MPA, Nonprofit Leadership 9-20
Melissa5.9 4 $5.9 Mil MPA, Nonprofit Leadership 75
Maya1.8 5.5 $1.8 Mil MA, Arts Administration 13
Beth3.5 6 $3.5 Mil BS, Molecular Biology 16
Dorothy2 13 ($2Mil Division)
$500 Mil
PhD, Organic Chemistry (9) 1,980
Bianca1.1 20 $1.1 Mil BA, Communications 11
Mark3.5 24 $3.5 Mil MSW, Counseling 24

Findings
The study provided some evidence that coaching is occurring in nonprofits of diverse
sizes and sub-sectors by highly educated executive directors with a broad spectrum of years of
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 58

experience. However, their training was informal and indirect, and implementation of coaching
practices was mostly ad hoc. Informal coaching is viewed by some researchers as a valid form of
managerial coaching (Dixey, 2015; Grant et al., 2010; Hunt & Weintraub, 2002) but can lead to
role confusion and neglect evidence-based practices. It also makes managerial coaching harder to
evaluate. While executive directors are familiar with coaching principles and benefits they are
less comfortable with theory and academic literature; employing evidence-based practices;
designing and evaluating their coaching initiatives; and, are not receiving opportunities for
practice or robust feedback on their performance as managerial coaches. This reinforces lower
confidence in their ability to conduct managerial coaching well. Less confidence in their ability
to perform coaching is also exacerbated by the lack of evaluation and any cost-benefit analysis.
Organizational outcomes are not being tied to leadership development in a meaningful
way. While directors recognize that coaching improves employee engagement, program services,
and retention rates, they do not have evaluation outputs and outcomes to share with potential
supporters. Leaders recognize their role in creating a culture of coaching and the importance of
incentives for staff but admit that severe resource restraints inhibit capacity building. Boards are
also not offering incentives to directors to coach staff. The largest internal barrier to increasing
the rate of coaching is time while increasing the quality of coaching is limited by training. The
biggest organizational barrier to managerial coaching is funding for leadership development.
These influences are explored, and findings are supported, throughout this chapter’s discussion
of where executive directors’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational context diverge and
converge.

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 59

Knowledge Influences Findings
Leaders demonstrated knowledge of approximately half of the evidence-based practices
of managerial coaching. Particular strengths involved talking with employees about goals and a
willingness to give advice, which is consistent with research literature that shows leaders see
coaching and performance management as synonymous with goal-setting (D’Abate, Eddy, &
Tannenbaum, 2003). Directors were not as familiar with how to perform managerial coaching
and the ways these activities varied from their role as leaders. Formal training as coaches is the
most requested development intervention of leaders that are expected to engage in coaching
(Milner et al., 2018). A lack of training, practice, feedback, and support meant most leaders did
not spend much time reflecting on their knowledge or learning. A lack of evaluation also made it
difficult to connect coaching directly to organizational outcomes or increased performance.
Leaders acknowledged several key ingredients for managerial coaching success that
align with evidence-based practices but still need to refine their own process. Most of the
directors, when asked to describe the step by step process of managerial coaching, mentioned
teaching staff, advising, and being a role model for employees. The leaders recognized the value
of coaching and noted several key factors in its successful application including trust, empathy,
empowerment, listening, and encouraging self-reflection. Dorothy2 summarized her process,
saying she does not “apply a step by step process.” This was true of the remaining directors.
While the directors did not use the language of evidence-based practices, Maxine1.75 admitted,
“I know that there is a format, or approach, that you should be taking.”
Table 6 shows the evidence-based practices according to the literature alongside the
reported practice from the study and the number of interviewees that reported it as part of their
practice. Descriptions of practice and analysis from interviews are explored in depth following
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 60

Table 6. Approaches to coaching vary widely and the inclusion of evidence-based practices is to
provide structure to the study and findings, not endorse a particular technique or imply that other
practices are ineffectual. The findings about evidence-based practices are to highlight knowledge
gaps not necessarily assess the participants’ ability to coach their staff. The table also illuminates
learning opportunities where knowledge can be enhanced or applied. The learning opportunities
inform the recommendations presented in Chapter 5.
Table 6

Evidence-Based Practices Alignment and Frequency

Evidence-
Based Practice
Reported
Practice
Number
Reporting
Practice
Learning Opportunities
Encourage
self-reflection
None 0 Many leaders saw coaching less as a process
of developing an employee’s self-awareness
and more as a way to make employees aware
of issues seen by the director.
Help staff
seek and share
knowledge
Inquiry 1 While leaders mentioned assisting staff and
providing resources, none mentioned an
understanding that coaching can be
integrated into communications and
knowledge management strategies.
Empower staff
through trust
and delegation
Empowerment
and trust
5 A majority of executive directors mentioned
trust and empowerment as key elements in
coaching though did not always know how
much authority to give staff in decision-
making.
Demonstrate
empathy and
caring
Empathy 4 Only half the leaders mentioned the need to
demonstrate caring or practice empathy
when coaching staff. This is likely a
reflection of their experiences being
coached or not; their leadership style; or
their leadership characteristics, as one
leader had identified empathy as her top
strength.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 61

Provide
feedback and
recognize
achievement
Feedback 8 Both positive and negative feedback was
seen by all leaders as vital to coaching. The
purpose of feedback was to help staff
members “advance professionally” and
“address any behaviors” of concern that may
be limiting progress or performance.
Whether the feedback was acted upon by
staff could be answered through evaluation
of coaching.
Give guidance Advice 8 All of the leaders were quite comfortable
advising staff members. The nuanced
balance in coaching of giving advice and
allowing employees the space to figure out
solutions on their own, however, was a
struggle for most leaders.
Model
behavior and
set standards
Set goals,
teach, and
model behavior
8 All leaders were aware of the need to model
leadership for staff, help them set goals, and
teach them new skills indicating little need
for reinforcement of this evidence-based
practice.
Develop
employees
Development 8 Leaders developed staff through questions,
training, encouragement, job shadowing,
changes in job description, and giving them
more responsibilities. This evidence-based
practice was a strength for all the leaders
interviewed so is not addressed in the
recommendations.
Challenge
staff to grow
Learn 6 Most leaders commented on the need to
encourage staff to grow as part of the
coaching relationship. Executives were not,
however, articulate about how this learning
occurs, techniques for increasing staff
growth, or in evaluating its outcomes.
(Beattie et al., 2014; Ellinger et al., 2008; Grant & Cavanagh, 2004; Hamlin et al., 2006; Hawkins, 2017; Powell &
Doran, 2003; Shaw & Knight, 2005)

Executive directors lacked knowledge of the importance of metacognition in coaching.
Directors did not discuss increasing staff member’s self-reflective skills as part of the process of
coaching. Instead, they used language such as “I made him aware” (Dorothy2), “I lead the
employee to aha moments”(Maya1.8), and “I try to equip people with the tools they
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 62

need”(Beth3.5). There is evidence to suggest that less experienced coaches, and those with less
training, are more likely to engage in directive behavior (de Haan & Nilsson, 2017). This may
explain why the leaders did not understand the importance of the metacognition of employees in
the process since none have been formally trained as managerial coaches. No interviewee
mentioned self-awareness, metacognition, or other synonyms for this concept in reference to
their own experience coaching or being coached. Executive directors need to incorporate
metacognitive opportunities into coaching sessions as it has been shown to significantly improve
the performance and information retention of learners (Bandura, 1986; Batha & Carroll, 2007;
Boyce, Zaccaro, & Wisecarver, 2010).
Staff knowledge acquisition and distribution were not acknowledged. Coaching to
improve knowledge acquisition, management, and sharing by staff is supported in the evidence-
based coaching and is a primary process required to increase organizational learning and
performance (Beattie et al., 2014; Ellinger et al., 2008; Hawkins, 2017). Coaching has been
defined as “the facilitation of individual learning within an organization” (Hagen, 2010, p. 791)
and reinforces the conceptualization of leader as coach (Milner et al, 2018). While leaders clearly
understood their role as coach, teacher, and facilitator of knowledge acquisition, directors did not
directly connect coaching to staff information gathering, communication, and knowledge
management skills. Mateo1.3 discussed connecting with staff and “even learn(ing) from them”
but emphasized the difficulty of getting staff together regularly to share knowledge. An
exception to this finding was Beth3.5, who recounted at least one staff knowledge sharing
incident where she encouraged one of her directors to interview advisory board members and
report back what she learned to address ongoing problems.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 63

Empowerment and trust were recognized as paramount for skilled coaching.
Maxine1.75’s first management experience was becoming an executive director in her current
agency with eighteen employees where she realized she ”needed to learn more skills and to
empower others . . . to come up with a solution.” Managing was initially directive for
Maxine1.75 as she told staff members, “you need to do this, this, and this.” However, she
quickly understood the pitfalls of that approach, being stuck in an endless cycle of “them coming
back again.” Solving staff problems on an ongoing basis was time-consuming, so she realized
that setting aside time for coaching was more effective and efficient, with clear benefits for the
organization and staff members.
Coaching helped Maxine1.75’s employees figure out most problems on their own and
freed her up to tackle other organizational challenges. Directors also made sure employees were
treated as individuals so that coaching does not devolve into formulaic interaction. Beth3.5
illuminated the issue with an example of the diversity of her staff’s motivators, “some really like
numbers and charts and goals” while others, “are much more open-ended.”
Trust within his leadership team was a key recurring theme for Mark3.5, “we are
mutually supportive of one another, and although we may disagree on what needs to be done or
not done in any given set of circumstances, we're not gonna turn on each other or attack each
other . . .” Maya1.8 emphasized that it is imperative that the employee wants to be coached and
be willing to enter into a mutual exchange. Maya1.8 experienced a situation with an employee
where trust could not be built. The employee was unwilling to engage in coaching and eventually
was fired. Without trust, leaders found it difficult to enter into meaningful conversations with
staff about organizational goals, individual performance, and opportunities for growth.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 64

Empathy was required to build trust. For half the leaders, the first and foremost
consideration in coaching was empathy. These leaders wanted to understand their employees’
perspectives, the context of the issue, and the inherent constraints within the organization or
environment. Beth3.5 acknowledged that coaching requires “empathy and respect” as well as the
need to “recognize where my reports are coming from and trying to help them get to that next
level.” Leaders also recognized the power of coaching employees through emotional or life
issues. Maya1.8 quipped that coaching is “not always about the job,” recognizing that improved
performance may require more than training or advice about the technical aspects of the job.
Feedback, advice, modeling, development, and learning were considered key to the
coaching process but were not always well articulated or implemented. Whether providing
feedback, offering advice on a path forward, or modeling desirable behavior, leaders helped their
staff learn by teaching. Leaders were largely focused on the staff member receiving knowledge
but did not often recognize the importance of the staff member as a creator and source of
knowledge. Executive directors agreed that having a formal conversation about performance
once a year should not “stop a leader from having regular interactions” or “addressing problems
immediately” as Bianca1.1 pointed out. Coaching has been synonymous with improving poor
performance for a long time (Fournies, 1987) and leaders in this study repeatedly emphasized the
role of coaching in curbing negative behaviors and remediating performance. However, coaching
is increasingly being perceived by researchers as a developmental intervention, a process that
enables learning (Ellinger et al., 2011; Mink et al., 1993) and focuses on strengths (Bakker & van
Woerkom, 2017). Strengths’ development also has a positive impact on employee engagement,
adding to its desirability as a focal point of managerial coaching (Bakker & Schaufeli, 2008).
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 65

Dorothy2 indicated that negative feedback always entails “very difficult conversations”
but she also tries to find time to share what staff do well. She categorized this interaction as
reinforcing “those behaviors that are really good and valuable” and “encouraging them to
continue to focus on their strengths.” This was a result of Dorothy2 receiving professional
development that focused on strengths, something she has “done more of over the years” in
response. By focusing on strengths, she has observed reduced tensions with her own staff and
heard the success of other leaders in creating a happier workplace.
Maya1.8 provided advice to staff through coaching by giving “suggestions on how to do
it based on my experiences.” She spent a lot of time teaching staff what to do and how to do it
during coaching sessions. Much of the work Mark3.5 engaged his leadership team in discussion
about how the group will model “leadership behavior” for front line staff. Beth3.5 provided the
exception when she stated explicitly, “I try not to tell them what to do” though she went on to
recount an incident where she had clearly provided guidance while still soliciting input from the
staff member. Confusion about the balance between empowerment and advice was reflected in
all the interviews, with Beth3.5 quipping she sees coaching as “teaching them how to fish and
helping them come up with whatever the strategies are that they need.” Grant and O’Connor
(2010) posited that effective coaching goes beyond managers offering advice to encouraging
staff to develop their own solutions. This method has been shown to improve performance
through enhanced problem solving (Kim, 2014; Pousa & Mathieu, 2014).
All the directors in this study considered translating learning into goals as a necessary
part of coaching. Goal setting and providing feedback on learning are constructs closely tied to
coaching (Dahling, Taylor, Chau, & Dwight, 2016) so it makes sense that all directors saw
leadership development through coaching as defining and evaluating progress toward goals.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 66

Maya1.8 worked with senior staff to set “both personal and organizational” goals while
Bianca1.1 tied feedback directly to annual performance goals. Goal-setting and upholding
standards for performance were the most cited coaching and leadership skills in this study by far.
This area of competence overshadowed the application of other evidence-based practices. It was
an area where the overlap between coaching and performance management were strongest and
most familiar to all participants.
Coaching was learned and applied mostly informally. Five of the eight directors
learned to coach by being coached by others and none were specifically trained or certified in
coaching. Most participated in an in-depth program involving a cohort of leaders in professional
development. For some, this experience provided valuable time to practice coaching with other
leaders. Maya1.8 explained that role-playing practice with other leaders helped her learn how to
coach, “how to ask a question,” and to her, the most important skill, “when to shut up.” She also
engaged in 20 hours of one-on-one coaching, which she stated, “helped me codify coaching,
name it, and understand that there’s a time to coach and a time to manage.”
Dorothy2 agreed that cohorts are “really valuable in terms of reinforcing that you're not
alone.” Dorothy2 entered graduate school in a program without female faculty, a formative
leadership experience for her as she was ten years older than most of her classmates. This
difference gave her the opportunity to coach other students and informed her mentoring
relationships when she became a professor herself. Dorothy2 indicated her training as a coach
came from a “whole series of life experiences” ranging from being one of nine siblings, raising
four children, being a graduate school “den mother,” mentoring while a professor, and becoming
a supervisor. These experiences illuminate why she believes in the cohort model and how she
learned to coach staff and lead.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 67

Maxine1.75 recently worked with an executive coach on her own development. The
coach kept her asking, “What's the message that you're telling yourself?” and, “How do you
move forward?” from potentially limiting self-talk. Without the awareness of being stuck, she
would take a problem and “ruminate over it” which kept her from reflecting and moving
forward. Coaching guided questions have helped her figure out appropriate action and made the
experience impactful. Mark3.5 summed up the amorphous way he learned to develop staff
saying he has “just always done it” expressing that he did not “learn it concretely from
anybody.” This informality, and its resulting uncertainty, paralleled the remaining directors’
experience. Although Mark3.5 had mentors along the way he did not engage in executive
coaching with a certified coach until last year, after more than twenty years leading others. Since
managerial coaching is relatively new to the nonprofit sector and executive directors, Mark3.5
emphasized the importance of receiving quality training from effective providers.
Differentiating coaching from other forms of supervisory intervention was a recurring
theme for all the directors who recognized their multi-faceted role involved switching strategies
frequently. Melissa5.9 reinforced that communicating “the difference between being a supervisor
and being a coach” and “between mentoring and coaching” were key strategies to make sure
coaching sessions did not devolve into “a venting process.” Informality and amorphous structure
are contrary to the definition of coaching as “a human development process that involves
structured, focused interaction and the use of appropriate strategies, tools and techniques to
promote desirable and sustainable change” (Cox, Bachkirova, & Clutterbuck, 2014, p. 1). The
performance of coaching has shifted from its roots in expert instruction, external motivators, and
directive goal setting to coach as expert in the learning process, helping the employee find
intrinsic motivators, and letting the employee set the agenda (Cox et al., 2014). Conflict can arise
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 68

if the goal setting of an organization tends to flow from the board, if executive directors are
engaged in carrot and stick motivational techniques, and if executive directors are working to
teach employees their technical skills instead of an effective learning process. This can happen in
organizations where the board sets a top down agenda with the strategic plan like with Maya1.8’s
organization celebrating its 50
th
anniversary. She indicated that all the activities and drivers were
focused on the goals set by the board to mark the occasion.
Boards expected that the leaders would be coached and then figure out how to coach their
own staff independently. The expectation matches popular leadership development programs in
the sector that are focused on providing executive coaching to the leader, not teaching them how
to coach (Deaton et al., 2013). Funded leadership development is often provided solely to the
executive director, with executive coaching as a key component. This system operates on the
assumption that coaching the leader will have a trickle-down positive impact on capacity
building and organizational performance (Coloma et al., 2012). It is important to note that in
these programs leaders are coached but are not trained or certified in managerial coaching. While
formal training can be expensive, the leap in logic that leaders will be able to transfer knowledge
and to practice coaching without training is unreasonable.
This may explain the confusion experienced by the executive directors in this study.
While five executive directors were coached previously, none were given focused, sustained
learning opportunities and feedback to perform managerial coaching. Leaders’ difficulty in their
role as a managerial coaches match those expressed in the literature. The informal and indirect
way leaders learned to coach and develop staff was reflected in the less formal policies and
techniques they employed.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 69

Less structured policies, processes, implementation, and evaluation of managerial
coaching were the norm for executive directors. Formal versus informal approaches and
applications of coaching and leadership development was a recurring theme throughout the
interviews. Maya1.8 contrasted her experiences in nonprofits versus her experience in a previous
corporate setting by saying that her corporate setting had “a more rigorous, structured,
performance management system.” calling her work in nonprofits “fluid.” This exposure to a
more rigid structure inculcated her in performance management, stating it “was ingrained in me”
but its implementation was different in her current organization. Mateo1.3 agreed that coaching
in his nonprofit was ad-hoc, occurring during staff meetings and chance encounters, when staff
members share about “initiatives that we're working on and how they're going to overlap.” He
went on to elaborate on what he stated could not be called training but “advising” because he
identifies “a potential gap” and works to address it. Mark3.5’s style was also less structured
based on his lack of experience “employing professional coaching strategies.” He confirmed that
he frequently works with “folks informally and internally.” The major exception to this finding
was Dorothy2’s organization, which due to its five hundred million dollars budget was able to
create and implement an organization-wide formal, rigorous, year-long management training
program, complete with external experts, internal champions, and robust evaluation.
Leadership style. Researchers have increasingly called leaders in learning organizations
coaches (Ellinger et al.,1999), acknowledging the central role that they play in creating and
reinforcing a culture conducive to growth. Managerial coaching is a useful approach to
leadership “when organizations are viewed as learning systems”; in this environment “the
manager's role can be viewed as one of providing leadership in the learning process” (Carlsson,
Keane, & Martin, 1979, p. 38). This understanding of leadership in learning organizations was
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 70

directly addressed by Beth3.5 who saw coaching as “one of the main parts of my role.”
However, Bianca1.1 admitted that she does not “have a formal leadership or performance
management style.”
Mark3.5 described his shared leadership style as building, “consensus through
collaboration. I'm not an authoritarian; I don't believe I have all the answers.” Beth3.5 expressed
the same sentiment by highlighting that “a big part of my style is, I never, ever dictate. I try to
make suggestions and I ask a ton of questions.” However, she stated that it was difficult to find a
balance between the responsibilities of leadership and creating an “atmosphere of collaboration,
action, and thought leadership without trying to control it.” The organizations in this study all
had budgets greater than $1,000,000 and had a group of senior leaders that functioned as an
executive team. Executive teams in nonprofits are considered a form of shared leadership
(Stewart, 2016) since decision-making is more collaborative, team members bring specialized
knowledge to input and analysis, and leadership is more distributed (Routhieaux, 2015).
Studies demonstrate that managers most want more formal training to support coaching
in their organization (Milner et al., 2018). Formal training can close knowledge gaps, improve
confidence, and reinforce skills through practice (Brabeck, Jeffrey, & Fry, 2011; Powell &
Serkan, 2010; Salas, Tannenbaum, Kraiger & Smith-Jentsch, 2012; Schraw & McCrudden,
2006). Formal training in managerial coaching may also reduce the role confusion that comes
when collaborating with staff as opposed to supervising them (Beattie et al., 2014; McCarthy and
Milner, 2013).
Motivation Influence Findings
The study aimed to identify if executive directors had confidence in their ability to coach,
believed that staff members were capable of improvement through coaching, and that managerial
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 71

coaching would improve organizational performance. From the interview data, it became clear
that leaders were not very confident in their ability to coach because of a paucity of feedback.
Feedback is an important part of coach training and increasing coaches’ self-efficacy (Grant,
2007). In addition, a lack of evaluation made it more difficult to believe that employees would
engage in performance improvements, or that managerial coaching was making a positive impact
on the organization. Evaluation of managerial coaching is recommended by researchers to
demonstrate its value to leaders and calculate its return on investment in organizations (Beattie et
al., 2014). Despite these gaps in motivation, executive directors had an unexpected belief in a
growth mindset that improved their ability to coach. Coaches with a growth mindset have greater
self-efficacy, are more resilient, and perform at a higher level (Ballout, 2009; Cassidy, 2015;
Chase, 2010). Coupled with evaluation, the growth mindset displayed could bode well for
increasing coaching quality in organizations.
Self-efficacy was hindered by the informal coaching processes employed and lack of
feedback from board members on leaders’ performance as coaches. Executive directors need
to believe they can create a culture of professional development and implement effective
leadership coaching to be motivated to increase coaching. The informality of their approaches
did not produce confidence in leaders because they did not receive feedback on performance. In
addition, none of the boards offered specific feedback on coaching to executive directors,
making it less likely leaders believed in their abilities and were motivated to coach more
frequently. Building on work by Eden and Aviram (1993), Machida and Schaubroeck (2011)
reinforced that feedback from credible sources can increase self-efficacy. A lack of feedback
from the board, or another professional, may explain why most directors in the study viewed
coaching as a remedial activity.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 72

Most directors do not get feedback on coaching from employees either. Beth3.5
responded to the question of employee feedback on coaching by acknowledging it was “nothing
specific” other than an appreciation of support from employees. This was a sentiment mirrored
by most of the directors. Dorothy2 also received little input beyond whether her “advice was
helpful or not.” Maya1.8 had not received feedback but emphasized the importance of managing
expectations on the leader’s and employee’s part and to” make sure the person wants to be
coached.” However, two executive directors did get feedback from employees that helped them
feel appreciated and capable. Maxine1.75 discussed that she received intermittent feedback from
employees who appreciated her direct approach and the time she took to “get to a place that
they're able to see clarity of where I want them to go and what's needed for the project.” Mark3.5
had received a lot of feedback on his performance that boosted his confidence in his leadership
and coaching abilities because measured feedback was “always off the chart high.”
Collective efficacy was dampened by a lack of coaching evaluation and belief in the
ability of employees to improve. Executive directors need to believe that together with the staff,
they can improve organizational performance through leadership coaching. Several leaders told
stories about employees that did not care to improve but few directors formally evaluated
coaching to understand why. Melissa5.9, who hired an external, certified coach for her equity
initiative, was the exception. She evaluated coaching by collecting feedback from participants.
Melissa5.9 had the most experience with being coached. That was reflected in her approach to
evaluation, where she used what she learned to inform her evaluation process and procedures.
Bianca1.1 had the most experience being evaluated because she “insisted on an annual
evaluation by the board.”
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 73

Maxine1.75 is going farther to improve the situation by “trying to create systems” and
knows good methods for evaluation but has to contend with the lack of structure reinforced by
the last leader. She acknowledged has to address the lack of a performance management system
first before she is in a position to evaluate the outcomes of coaching and get feedback on her
skills. Dorothy2 circumscribed the experience of most of the executive directors when asked if
she has received structured feedback on coaching through a formal evaluation process, “it's all
been informal . . . individuals whom I worked with saying whether or not my advice was helpful
or not.” Beth3.5 also bemoaned a lack of feedback from the board, “mostly I don't get any
feedback.” Formative and summative evaluation could lead directors to become aware of how
unstructured their approach to coaching is and lead to improvements in practice. Evaluation
could help leaders realize the more robust benefits of a well-structured managerial coaching
program, such as helping staff engage by clarifying what they are trying to accomplish and
accessing reserves of creativity (Hawkins, 2017; Lee, 2017).
Leaders encouraged a growth mindset to improve self and collective efficacy. One
surprise in the findings was the attitude that leaders brought to performance, one that encouraged
mastery. Several leaders found that a growth mindset, and approaching performance from a
strengths perspective, improved their motivation to coach. Chase (2010) asserts that coaches
should adopt a growth mindset in developing other leaders because it influences their
performance. A growth mindset is correlated with higher self-efficacy and more ambitious goals
(Ballout, 2009), as well as, greater persistence (Cassidy, 2015; Chase, 2010). Leaders, by
cultivating a growth mindset, can improve their own performance as coaches.
Beth3.5 cultivated a growth mindset by experimenting in her approach to performance
management, “I’m not sure I have what I would consider a model, or excellent way, to do
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 74

reviews. I prefer to catch people doing something right and turn that into a coaching session.”
Beth3.5 took it a step further, “I try to let them make their own mistakes but provide them a
safety net . . . they learn much better if there’s a little trial and error. I think failure is fine.”
Dorothy2 encouraged herself and her employees to “focus on your strengths rather than your
weaknesses” with the caveat that attention should always be paid to any potential “fatal flaw.”
Melissa5.9 amplified the growth mindset of individuals as her nonprofit transforms into a
learning organization, reinforcing that “every meeting is a development opportunity.” Mark3.5
also admitted to “not having all the answers” and appreciated collaborative efforts to improve.
Mateo1.3 learned from employees and encouraged them to learn from one another.
Coaching’s value came from improved performance, engagement, accountability,
and the ability to take on new challenges. Maya1.8 described positive outcomes with her staff
as “a willingness, ease, and comfort with having conversations about challenges.” As
Maxine1.75 became more skilled at delegating and coaching, she saw coaching lead to staff
taking “ownership” and demonstrating “accountability.” For Melissa5.9, the value of coaching
lay in its ability to shift employees “out of the day to day” and for employees to focus on “the
bigger issues, rather than getting wrapped around one challenge.” Melissa5.9 went a step further,
connecting the dots between coaching’s ability to increase strategic thinking and how it has
helped her nonprofit become a learning organization.
Executive directors expected positive organizational outcomes from coaching. The
leaders’ expectations of positive outcomes was an asset for their motivation to conduct coaching.
Despite its newness and leaders’ need for assurances of quality, all that engaged in coaching
reported positive outcomes. Organizational outcomes from coaching reported by executive
directors included agility, responsiveness to change, and overall engagement, captured by
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 75

Bianca1.1 as gaining a “more dedicated workforce.” A lack of engagement can have dire
consequences, as Maya1.8 warned, “You see through the attrition rates, we have high retention,
but some organizations don’t.” Beth3.5 also reported “super high levels of motivation,
engagement” which counteracted the problems faced with low pay. She indicated it has also
aided retention, keeping her young staff “engaged and involved.” Bianca1.1 and Maxine1.75
mirrored this understanding, citing retention and greater employee satisfaction as key returns on
investment. Melissa5.9 directly connected coaching to the organization’s impact in the
community, “If our staff aren't well trained, they're not gonna provide the best services, which
means we're not gonna have the top outcome that we're aiming to have with the clients that we're
serving.” This is an articulation of the theory of change and logic model for the justification of
internal leadership development programs in the research literature (Renz, 2010). This finding
demonstrated that executive directors valued coaching and expected their efforts would improve
performance, contrary to the suspected gap.
Organizational Influences Findings
The organizational culture and resources provided had an outsized impact on the
frequency of coaching. Resource constraints, culture and climate issues, and a lack of incentives
conspired to create organizational contexts that are not supportive of managerial coaching. This
finding reinforces the importance of creating policies and procedures and the organizational
infrastructure needed to support the global goal to increase coaching by 10%. Restricted funding,
both internal and from external foundations, dictated whether or not coaching initiatives and
leadership development was possible. By leading the conversation around coaching the directors
worked to create a supportive culture and climate within their respective organizations. However,
resource constraints and a lack of external support made acting on coaching initiatives difficult.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 76

Leaders worked around these barriers as much as possible by offering non-monetary rewards for
performance improvements and by extolling the benefits of coaching to funders where possible.
Creating a coaching culture begins with the leader’s commitment. The cultural model
influence findings related to fostering a culture of development demonstrated that leaders
understand their primary role in creating culture. All the directors agreed with Mark3.5’s
statement that leaders play the primary role in organizational culture, “It has to come from the
top. It has to start with me.” Beth3.5 acknowledge the importance of culture by telling a story
about a motivational speaker committed to doing “whatever he could to get them where they
wanted to go . . . the loyalty that you got from that type of experience was so valuable that it was
worth it, even if these people moved on.” Maxine1.75 saw part of her job as setting the tone for
“how we do business.” Bianca1.1, in reflecting upon the importance of coaching in the
organization, drew conclusions about the role of communication in change initiatives, “Open and
honest communication ... It’s important to be transparent . . . trying to be transparent is the best
way of handling change.”
While executive directors acknowledged their role in setting the tone of culture it was
clear that few boards embraced their cultural climate role. Only two organizations had leadership
succession plans in place. Also, in seven out of the eight organizations, the impetus for coaching
employees came from the executive directors themselves and not as part of the strategic
directives of the board. In fact, more than half the directors had to advocate development for
staff. In the majority of organizations, staff development was limited to professional and
technical training and not provided for increasing leadership capacity. Culture places a central
role in nonprofit innovation as studies indicate that executive directors connect learning
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 77

(coaching) cultures with improved external standing, support, and growth (Langer & LeRoux,
2017).
While a coaching culture required a climate that supports implementation by
providing incentives and shared meaning, none of the executive directors received
incentives from their boards. To develop an organizational climate that supports a coaching
culture, incentives are required to reinforce shared meaning and reward employees that engage in
desirable behaviors. Yet, no directors were offered incentives for coaching by their boards. This
was likely due to low value placed on finding unrestricted funding to improve leadership and
organizational capacity. Boards were not able to allocate funds for general operating support or
capacity building because donors were not forthcoming. Yan and Sloan (2016) found a positive
correlation between financial performance, leader compensation, and individual donations. This
relationship is important because individual donors are often a nonprofit organization’s only
source for unrestricted funding that can be applied to leadership development. Demonstrating
that increased financial performance is tied to incentives and increased leader compensation
could help attract donors, despite unsupported concerns that leader pay makes nonprofits less
efficient.
While intrinsic motivation greatly influences whether or not a person starts, persists, and
exerts effort toward goals, it is more like to improve the quality of performance but not the
quantity of activity (Cerasoli, Nicklin, & Ford, 2014). Incentives increase the quantity of desired
behavior (Faisal Ahammad, Mook Lee, Malul, & Shoham, 2015) and meta-analysis of the
literature indicates they can improve performance (Condly, Clark, & Stolovitch, 2003; Jenkins,
Mitra, Gupta, & Shaw, 1998) but attention must be paid to how incentives are structured for
them to be effective for behavior change (Patel et al., 2016). Since the sector-wide goal involves
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 78

increasing the amount of managerial coaching being conducted, extrinsic rewards are promising,
as long as they are contextually appropriate and well designed.
Despite not receiving incentives for performance themselves, leaders provided mostly
non-monetary incentives as a way to reward employees that showed initiative and growth.
Maya1.8 and Dorothy2 made it clear that bonuses and raises were possible because, as Dorothy2
elaborated, “People are often looking for something tangible, like more money or a better title.”
Dorothy2’s organization was in the best financial position of any in this study, with an overall
budget of $500Mil, and could therefore easily embed incentives into its retention strategy.
Beth3.5 agreed that she provides “bonuses at the end of the year and sometimes travel is a
reward.” Maya1.8 offered cost of living adjustments across the board but reserved small raises
and additional compensatory time off for her top performers. It is important to note that Maya1.8
had significant corporate experience, where financial rewards were expected, prior to joining
nonprofits. However, all leaders recognized that sometimes non-financial awards, such as public
recognition, were preferable. Non-financial rewards were the most common form of reward for
improved performance. Maxine1.75 indicated that employees that respond to coaching will “get
more opportunity” for development and autonomy. She emphasized that she avoids the pitfall of
false rewards exemplified by, “The person who does great work gets more work.”
Instead, she makes sure that the employee gets “an opportunity” for further personal and
professional development. This can take the form of personal days, flexible time, more vacation
and was also employed by Mateo1.3. He was unable to find resources for more direct financial
incentives but could give additional vacation time in lieu of sick days with the rationale that the
additional rest and time with family “not going through this craziness that we have here, the
healthier you're gonna be.” This pattern of flexibility was reinforced by Maya1.8, who notes that
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 79

understanding what employees want is the key to effective incentives. “For one employee the
title was more important than the money. For another time is more important than money. Yet
another says money is most important. You accommodate for staff when possible.” Mark3.5
starts by asking what his people need and assuming “it's reasonable,” such as “health insurance,
retirement, merit increases, promotions, raises.” then he provides them.
The cultural climate was defined by supporting employees through their learning.
Executive directors play an outsized role in developing the climate to support managerial
coaching because they liaise with the Board, informing them of infrastructure needed to support
climate initiatives. Shared meaning and the climate of the organization were strongly influenced
by the leaders. However, board involvement in leadership development varies widely from
organization to organization. Mateo1.3 related that his board is not directly involved in
organizational development because they are “very, very hands-off.” Beth3.5 mirrored this
sentiment in identical language, adding that many board members “don't have a clue” how
nonprofits work, mistakenly believing that “it functions just like a corporation.” For these
reasons they “wanna get their fingers in things that are not their business” and have to be coaxed
to get involved in important planning, fundraising, and governance activities. Bianca1.1
reinforced the board confusion, emphasizing that “staff and board lines, in nonprofits especially,
can become blurred” resulting in the board to take a hands-off approach rather than gain clarity.
The board role ambiguity is acknowledged in the literature, where researchers find boards do not
always see organizational behavior and development as part of their role and provide only
cursory supervision to the executive director (Renz, 2010).
Despite a lack of board involvement, directors expressed a strong desire to be helpful, to
teach, and to support their staff and got a lot out of the process too. Coaching meant learning
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 80

together, building capacity, and being there for employees. When Beth3.5 reflected on an
incident where her support was appreciated by a staff member exclaiming “That was incredible;
I’m so glad we did it” she felt pride in seeing her staff member’s growth. Bianca1.1 also wanted
to be seen as a “champion for my staff,” to keep the lines between board and staff clear, and to
“make sure employees are heard and that what they say has impact.” Because “staff live and
breathe the work of the organization” she was keen for the board to respect them “for what they
know and what they do.” This finding illuminated the cultural climate that demonstrated that
executive directors need to be aware of the shared meaning ascribed to coaching in order to
create systems and behaviors that support it.
Mark3.5 acknowledged the important impact he has as a leader on culture and was
explicit about how he wants to create “a healthy, robust, competently talented group of
professionals” in a safe atmosphere that brings out their best. Mark3.5’s organization supported
the climate infrastructure through its commitment to support groups and consensus building
techniques. Mateo1.3 felt that bringing out a staff member’s potential and best performance
required targeted individual development, team building exercises, and leadership training and
was committed to providing it where he could. However, he noted that grant-makers “want
everything to be very centric to the work that's occurring under that grant,” leaving little room
for robust capacity building. Maya1.8 indicated that all this development may lead some staff
members to other opportunities, but she wanted them “to have the freedom to look at other
opportunities.”
Finally, Maxine1.75 reinforced how much she values “high competency” as a leader and
knows that while sometimes that requires outside assistance she can help them succeed by
“scaffold(ing) them in their role.” She recognized the importance of the organization providing
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 81

systems that support professional development and evaluation and is working to garner further
board support for organizational infrastructure. Her advocacy was likely a result of her own
belief in the outcomes of coaching, the self-driven exploration she had completed to understand
best practices, and the work she had done with an external coach learning a model to create a
conducive organizational climate.
Resource constraint was the largest organizational barrier to managerial coaching
in nonprofits. Despite empirical support for the benefits of leadership development on
organizational performance (Seidle, Fernandez, & Perry, 2016) most funders do not see it as a
worthwhile investment. Mateo1.3 was especially keen to point out the hectic pace of nonprofit
work, characterizing it as “running a hamster wheel” and exclaiming, “It’s nuts.” This sentiment
was mirrored by other leaders as part of a theme surrounding the complex requirements of the
job. Many leaders find it difficult being proactive versus reactive. It is part of the balancing act
of addressing day-to-day concerns in a resource-constrained environment with long-term
strategic, capacity building activities. He further elaborated, “I didn't have time to . . . begin to
strategize how I want training to occur.” Without a budget for growth, training, and strategic
initiatives “it's react, react, react.” This finding supported the organizational influence that
nonprofits need to avail resources to executive directors to implement, improve, and increase
talent development.
Foundations are not making it any easier for executive directors to provide leadership
development as Bianca1.1 highlighted, “Asking a funder for $3,000 for development is difficult.
That’s a hard ask to make.” Bianca1.1’s organization is 109 years old, well into its mature
lifecycle, and demonstrates the disconnect between the needs of the organization to grow and the
expectations of funders to have all resources support programming. Similarly, Mark3.5’s 28 year
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 82

old organization still finds a disconnect between its internal culture and its external funding
environmental. Internally, it is focused on shared leadership, group decision-making,
collaboration, and reflection which does not translate to support for leadership development from
funders focused on program efficacy. Despite its demonstrated programmatic success,
unrestricted funds for development are still hard to raise in Mark3.5’s organization.
Unlike other directors, both Maxine1.75 and Maya1.8 openly discussed coaching with
funders, the board, and their colleagues at other organizations. Despite having almost identical
budgets, Maya 1.8 had board support for coaching, whereas, Maxine1.75 had to advocate with
the board just to pay employees a livable wage because their attitude was that no one gets into
“nonprofits to make a lot of money.” This attitude is expressed by the board in an organization
that has been around for 30 years and is indicative of why external funders continue to expect
nonprofits to do more with less. Maya1.8 elaborated that the organization sets goals around
professional development and “advocate(s) for a coaching program” with external stakeholders
but this did not often translate into direct support. In contrast, Beth3.5’s organization that touts a
17 year track record, has been able to allocate more money for development. It gets most of its
funding from corporations. Corporations spend much more than nonprofits on leadership
development, which likely explains why Beth3.5 has been more successful in implementing
coaching. O’Leonard (2013) estimated that corporations spend 25%, or $12.5Bil, of their $50Bil
training budgets on leadership development.
Donor fatigue and their misconception that overhead means poor nonprofit management
led to Mateo1.3 believing that “donors aren't gonna want to see what you're doing internally,
they're gonna want to know what you're doing externally, within the community.” He says
funders see overhead as part of an organization’s competitive edge in a crowded market.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 83

Mateo1.3’s organization is a branch of a much larger, national organization that is successful at
large-scale, high visibility fundraising. However, what is available at the national level is not
distributed to individual branches. In addition, Mateo1.3’s branch is in an area without an
affluent individual donor base, making it more difficult to capitalize on the name recognition of
the parent organization. As highlighted in the research literature the local environmental context
plays an outsized role in the ability of nonprofit organizations to thrive and effectively serve
constituents (Berrone et al., 2016).
Even Melissa5.9, the director that was able to get her coaching initiative funded by an
unexpected, new donor, and operates in an organization with a 110 year history, found most of
the foundations she has approached have explicitly stated, “we're willing to fund the services, but
we won't fund overhead - we won't fund training.” This funder attitude is prevalent in the
research literature (Renz, 2010) and is at odds with the documented connection between
investment in organizational development and positive organizational outcomes (Tschirhart &
Bielefeld, 2012). Bianca1.1 knows the return on investment from leadership development is that
it “provides learning opportunities,” “helps the employee feel valued,” and should be an
expected part of running a nonprofit effectively.
In contrast, Maya1.8 works within a funding environment conducive to capacity building
where foundations provide direct support for “professional development” that allows her to plan
training and coaching each year. The maturity of the organization, 50 years, and its access to
unrestricted funds explain why she has easily incorporated coaching into her role as executive
director. However, it is important to note these are still very small grants that allow limited
professional development opportunities. Dorothy2’s organization is the exception. By virtue of
its size and its 143 year history, with a budget of half a billion dollars, she can allocate enough to
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 84

roll out a sophisticated, year-long internal management training and coaching initiative, complete
with external vendors and evaluation of outcomes. She says the board and stakeholders know
“we're a learning organization and we can learn from coaches and mentors that can help us
improve our performance” and therefore, they allocate funds accordingly. It is important to note
that even an organization as well-established and funded as Dorothy2’s did not start formally
training leaders and managers until three years ago.
Restricted funds were at the heart of resource issues for most of the executive directors.
There is confusion outside the nonprofit sector about restricted funds and the various structural
constraints facing organizations. Many foundations and individual donors have strict limits to
what programs, activities, and types of expenses to which funds may be applied (Renz, 2010). As
Mateo1.3 elaborated, “The rest of it (funding) is rigid, and cyclic . . . and (falls under) whatever
scope of work is associated with those funds” making it very difficult to find money for
leadership development. Referring to this problem and his transition from a for-profit
corporation to his nonprofit organization, “it was very much a culture shock.” He went on to
clarify that, like many nonprofits that support community initiatives, his organization’s “revenue
under management is minimal” and “probably 25% of the overall organizational budget.” While
his organization is in the mature phase of its life cycle, with a 55 year branch history and 132
years for the parent organization, Mateo1.3 still struggles to find unrestricted funds to provide
coaching and professional development to staff.
Nonprofit leaders came to terms with their responsibility and the dilemma of capacity
building to improve organizational performance within severe resource constraints. Mateo1.3
reflected on the problems inherent with the self-exploiting, underfunded, nonprofit workforce
“Because, you can only expect so much, and then you begin to lower the bar for your
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 85

organization, and for performance.” Mateo1.3 recognized he has to come to terms with this
overarching issue as a leader, “because you know you hadn't enabled anybody to do much better
than they are, so it's really shame on you, at the same time.” Maxine1.75 also recognized that she
is not yet able to provide opportunities for all staff, due to budget constraints, and took
responsibility for building a reserve. Organizations that fail to secure unrestricted funds for
capacity building and leadership development are more vulnerable to organizational performance
issues and operational instability (Rooney & Frederick, 2007).
Sector-wide support was focused on providing executive coaching to current
leaders, not training them to be coaches, themselves, nor to provide leadership
development to other members of the organization. When funds are available to leaders they
are still focusing on development of the individual leader, not on leadership development and
increasing the capacity of the organization. The sector needs to foster a culture of development
that feeds the leadership pipeline, improves organizational efficiency and programmatic efficacy,
increases diversity, and increases employee performance. Conversations in nonprofit circles that
Maxine1.75, Melissa5.9, and others from the smaller nonprofits in the study had access to, did
discuss coaching’s potential but widespread value for it was not apparent. Whereas, in the case
of Dorothy2’s organization, it is so large and influential that it could afford to set the agenda for
these conversations in the sector, thereby acting as a leader creating and valuing a coaching
culture. However, despite its large budget and long history, Dorothy2’s organization only
decided to initiate leadership training three years prior to the interview. It was initiated after an
employee satisfaction survey revealed a lack of training had a negative impact on employee
engagement.

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 86

Conclusion
The findings of this study demonstrate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
issues that inhibit the quantity, implementation, and quality of managerial coaching within eight,
very different organizations. All but one of the executive directors represented have graduate
degrees yet none were formally trained in coaching. The lack of formal training impedes their
performance as coaches (Cox et al., 2014). While all the organizations in this study have large
budgets, larger than 77.1% of the sector (Urban Institute, 2015), all but the largest struggled to
implement quality coaching regularly.
These nonprofits are represented by leaders with varying degrees of support, confidence,
training, and knowledge of evidence-based managerial coaching and evaluation. These leaders
have demonstrated that they want the best for their staff and their organization. One surprising
finding was that cultivating and encouraging a growth mindset was prevalent among the
directors. Benefits of a growth mindset are higher self-efficacy that leads directors to set more
ambitious goals (Ballout, 2009) and persist in the face of obstacles (Cassidy, 2015; Chase, 2010).
This finding offers an explanation for why coaching occurred at all despite problems finding
unrestricted funds.
Their difficulties have been mirrored in the research literature and are prevalent
throughout nonprofit organizations. Funding for leadership development and capacity represents
only 1% of foundation funding awarded and unrestricted funds are hard won (Callanan et al.,
2013; Renz, 2010; Stahl, 2013; Tschirhart & Bielefeld, 2012). With the help of some training,
self-reflection, practice, feedback, and support, the barriers to effective and meaningful learning
can be overcome. A training program and evaluation of the program are covered in the following
recommendations for practice.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 87

Chapter Five: Recommendations and Evaluation
The findings indicate that executive directors have gaps in their knowledge of evidence-
based practice that would be improved through learning additional content, practice, and
feedback. These gaps were widest when leaders did not report on the importance of
metacognition for employees or encourage employees to seek and share knowledge. Lesser gaps
occurred when leaders were required to demonstrate empathy and empower staff. Executive
directors were less confident in their ability to coach and develop leaders, a motivational gap that
could be improved with practice and feedback. Organizational gaps included a lack of formal
evaluation and cost benefit analysis of coaching, as well as, resources and processes that support
a coaching culture.
To address these findings, the executive directors’ special role in the organization comes
to the forefront. As the primary liaison to the board, directors need timely feedback on their
performance as managerial coaches. In addition, they need to share their knowledge of
employees and the outcomes of leadership development with the board, the governing body
responsible for leadership succession. Executive directors and boards have a central role to play
in creating, implementing, and enforcing organizational policies, procedures, and culture. The
board and the sector can allocate resources for success. Roles for the executive director and the
board are clearly outlined in the recommendations that follow, undergirded by an evaluation plan
to ensure implementation is effective and outcomes are achieved.
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) is an evaluation
methodology applied to learning interventions. Through four levels: 4) impacts on organizational
goal achievement; 3) behavioral change; 2) learning; and 1) experience of the learner, the model
lays the foundation for designing effective learning opportunities and organizational change
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 88

initiatives (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that prevent the adoption and skilled practice of managerial coaching require
countervailing recommendations to improve movement toward organizational goals. The
recommendations borne out of this study’s findings and literature review are intended to be
broad enough for general adoption across diverse organizations but to be customizable, through
the use of assessments and application, to specific organizational contexts, to improve usefulness
in the field.
Knowledge recommendations include the use of a job aid and logic model as part of a
coaching workbook to help executive directors learn and practice evidence-based managerial
coaching. The workbook also has assessments to move learners toward mastery of the process of
coaching. Leaders can become more effective managerial coaches through opportunities for
practice (Brabeck et al., 2011; Salas et al., 2012) and feedback (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006)
from board members or external experts. Practice can be accomplished through a mock-coaching
guide and workbook provided in Appendix C. Self-reflection is built into the workbook to give
learners the opportunity to improve the process of skill acquisition and self-regulation. By
identifying strengths and areas for development, assessments in the workbook go hand in hand
with goal setting, an important motivational factor for mastery (Baker, 2006). Reflective
exercises can also build executive director’s belief that they will be successful coaches and they
can, in turn, share this confidence that employees and the team are capable of success and growth
(Bandura, 2000b). Finally, the workbook provides space for reflection on practice to aid
executive directors in identifying a theory and process of coaching that fits their needs,
leadership style, and personality.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 89

Through the process of learning, practice, and self-reflection, coaches will come to value
coaching and be able to express this value to key stakeholders. At the organizational level, this
growth has to be supported by creating a coaching culture with the resources and reinforcement
to make it stronger. This support largely falls to the board of directors but is also expected from
external stakeholders, like major donors. Recommendations for culture shifts include providing
incentives for leadership development to reinforce cultural support and conducting a culture
audit.
A learning program that trains executive directors at an annual board and staff retreat,
will offer an opportunity to practice new skills. To gain buy-in to achieving learning goals and
organizational outcomes, a signed commitment to change will be helpful. The workbook guides
the executive director’s effort, encourages self-reflection, assesses learning, and creates a low
stakes environment for practice. To evaluate learning at all four levels, two instruments, one
given immediately after the retreat, and one administered four to six weeks after are required.
Along with annual reporting requirements, the evaluation instruments ensure the organization
stays on track through the learning and change processes.
Recommendations for Practice to Address Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational
Influences
The findings of the study indicated gaps in knowledge of evidence-based practices, how
to conduct coaching, and the self-reflective skill to improve learning and performance of
managerial coaching. They also indicated that motivation was hindered by a lack of self-
confidence to coach and bolstered by a belief that their staff were capable of improvement.
Motivational strengths included a belief in the value of coaching and the expectation it could
improve performance but there was room for improving how leaders expressed value to other
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 90

stakeholders. Organizational barriers were categorized by a lack of funding allocation and
acquisition, as well as, a sector-wide culture that prioritized program outcomes over capacity
building. Recommendations to improve the knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers
to increased coaching are presented so that leaders may improve diversity, leadership capacity,
and organizational performance. These recommendations can be customized for individual
leaders and organizations through the tools provided in the appendices and modification of the
tables and objectives to suit different contexts.
Knowledge Recommendations
Four primary knowledge competencies were identified for nonprofit executive directors
acting as managerial coaches that impact their ability to address leadership succession. Executive
directors need knowledge of evidence-based practices that outline effective managerial coaching,
to connect managerial coaching to improved performance, and how to coach staff in their own
organizations. The findings of this study indicated that executive directors are well-versed in a
little over half of the evidence-based practices for coaching. They are knowledgeable when it
comes to the coach’s role in modeling behavior, providing feedback, giving advice, and
developing employees through opportunities. However, they lacked knowledge, to varying
degrees, in several important practices. These included encouraging self-reflection, helping staff
gain and share knowledge, demonstrating empathy, building trust, and aiding individual growth.
Their own self-reflection, self-management, and self-assessment are part of the metacognitive
process leaders can utilize to monitor their own behaviors and improve their performance as
managerial coaches (Baker, 2006; Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Dembo & Eaton, 2000; Solansky,
2010; Zimmerman, 2002). Executive directors that know all evidence-based practices are more
likely to apply all of them. When they know how coaching leads to improved performance, and
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 91

reflect on their own practice, they can garner the positive outcomes of leadership development
with staff. Table 7 shows the knowledge needs of executive directors, connects knowledge gaps
to the theoretical principles undergirding learning, and outlines recommendations to improve
practice.
Table 7

Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations

Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Principles and Citations Context-Specific
Recommendation

Executive directors need
knowledge of evidence-
based and best practices
for leadership
development. (Declarative)
Job aids are used to provide self-
help information to individuals
who need process information
without guided practice (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
Executive directors will use a
job aid that elaborates the
evidence-based of managerial
coaching for leadership
development and performance
management.
Executive directors need
knowledge of how
leadership coaching of
staff contributes to
organizational
performance. (Declarative)
Conceptual knowledge allows the
individual to use the
interrelationship of their
foundational knowledge
(Krathwohl, 2002).
Executive directors will be
given a logic model that
conceptually connects the
activity of managerial
coaching with improved
organizational outcomes,
demonstrating the impact on
performance.
Executive directors need to
know how to conduct
and/or improve leadership
development through
coaching. (Procedural)
Procedural knowledge provides
individuals with the ability to
decide how to use their skills and
determine the appropriate time to
implement (Krathwohl, 2002).
Training individuals with the
“how to” knowledge and
providing guided practice and
feedback helps individuals
achieve their goal
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Provide
opportunities for people to
practice skills and for transfer
(Brabeck et al., 2011). To
develop mastery, individuals
must acquire component skills,
practice integrating them, and
Executive directors will be
given feedback on coaching
performance by experts,
consultants, or their boards.
Leaders will also use a mock
coaching guide that provides
exemplars and discusses
various situations and how to
handle them. Executive
directors will be given time to
practice managerial coaching
with different people.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 92

know when to apply what they
have learned (Schraw &
McCrudden, 2006).
Executive directors need to
reflect on their own
professional development,
their ability to provide
development to others, and
their skills in creating a
culture of development.
(Metacognitive)
The use of metacognitive
strategies facilitates learning
(Baker, 2006). Provide
opportunities for learners to
engage in guided self-monitoring
and self-assessment (Baker,
2006). As individuals increase
their metacognitive
awareness they become self-
regulated learners and increase
their ability to determine what
strategies work for them and
when it is appropriate to use these
strategies (Mayer, 2011). Regular
reflection on strengths and
weaknesses can improve learning
and performance (Krathwohl,
2002; Mayer, 2011; Rueda, 2011;
Solansky, 2010).
A self-reflection and
assessment workbook will be
provided to executive
directors to help them reflect
on their strengths and
weaknesses as a managerial
coach. The guide will also ask
about ways they contribute to
a culture of development
within the organization.
Executive directors will be
encouraged to set goals
around managerial coaching
and developing a culture of
development that aligns with
organizational performance
goals.

Krathwohl’s (2002) updated framework of Bloom’s Taxonomy defines types of
knowledge to include declarative, procedural, and metacognitive. Table 7 categorizes each
identified knowledge influence through this framework and connects the principles of learning
theory to pragmatic solutions to address these influences. Nonprofit organizations can apply the
following evidence-based solutions to remedy the gap in executive directors’ skills as managerial
coaches.
Provide job aid and logic model to improve knowledge of coaching evidence-based
practices and connect coaching to positive organizational outcomes. Interview data indicate
that executive directors are aware of some, but not all, of the evidence-based practices of
managerial coaching, demonstrating gaps in their knowledge. To increase their understanding,
declarative knowledge of evidence-based practices, the information required to perform tasks, an
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 93

understanding of how discrete facts relate to form a body of knowledge, and how to apply this
understanding in practice is needed (Krathwohl, 2002). Some ways to improve declarative
knowledge are the use of job aids and visual maps of concepts. Job aids assist learners who need
to understand a complex process without the benefit of guided practice (Clark & Estes, 2008).
They provide just in time training to adult learners at the point of engagement to improve
retention and performance (Brandenburg & Ellinger, 2003; Molenda & Pershing, 2004) through
scaffolding (Agola & Stefaniak, 2017). Visual maps can also aid learners by relating discrete
parts of conceptual knowledge to allow them to see the interrelationship of facts into a greater
whole (Krathwohl, 2002). Job aids and conceptual maps work to reduce the cognitive load of
learners, which is limited, as they go through processes vital to job functions (Clark & Mayer,
2016; Kluge, Grauel, & Burkolter, 2013).
Executive directors need to understand the concepts of evidence-based managerial
coaching and its eventual influence on organizational performance. The findings of this study
indicate that executive directors do not apply a structured approach to managerial coaching.
Directors need a step by step process that is aligned with evidence-based practices to decrease
this knowledge gap. To gain this understanding, it is recommended that executive directors use a
job aid that elaborates the evidence-based practices of managerial coaching for leadership
development and performance management. Coaches that employ evidence-based practices see
greater performance improvements (Hawkins, 2017) so increasing this knowledge and its
application is a priority goal for the nonprofit sector.
In a study of 580 managers, Milner et al. (2018) found that leaders need to understand
why managerial coaching is important by clearly connecting it to organizational performance.
Executive directors will be given a logic model that connects the inputs and activities of
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 94

managerial coaching with improved organizational outcomes, demonstrating the impact on
performance and illustrating a cohesive theory of change. Logic models are ubiquitous in
nonprofit organizational strategic and program planning and thereby offer a familiar visual
format to comprehend new conceptual knowledge about managerial coaching (Hamasu & Kelly,
2017; W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2000; Renz, 2010).
A mock coaching guide is recommended to give needed practice and self-assessment
of skills. Executive directors are not given opportunities to practice coaching and did not engage
assess their skills because none were trained as managerial coaches. To increase their facility to
perform coaching, it is recommended leaders use the mock coaching guide to gain valuable
practice. Effective managerial coaches champion a learning environment, encourage self-
reflection, empower staff, provide productive feedback, recognize improvement, give guidance
when appropriate, model professionalism, demonstrate empathy, and challenge employees
(Beattie et al., 2014; Ellinger et al., 2008; Grant & Cavanagh, 2004; Hamlin et al., 2006;
Hawkins, 2017; Powell & Doran, 2003; Shaw & Knight, 2005). Leaders use listening,
questioning, empathy, feedback, and goal setting skills when performing managerial coaching
(Longenecker & Neubert, 2005). Executive directors without these skills and knowledge may
engage in counterproductive activities that discourage communication, decrease input from staff,
and impede their learning (Argyris, 2008; Ellinger et al., 2007).
To improve executive directors’ knowledge of coaching and how to perform it
successfully, nonprofit organizations can assess current knowledge and skills to determine which
require development and provide opportunities for practice (Brabeck et al., 2011). Learners can
master performance through practice in various contexts and by learning which skills to apply
when, (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006). It is important that employees have opportunities to learn
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 95

by doing to gain proficiency, especially to master complex, demanding tasks (Salas et al., 2012).
To improve it is recommended that executive directors be given feedback on coaching
performance by experts, consultants, or their boards. Leaders can also use a mock coaching
guide that provides exemplars and discusses various situations and how to handle them. Milner
et al. (2018) suggested that feedback needs to be given within the context of executive directors’
specific work environments to aid learning transfer and improve skills. Executive directors can
also be given time to practice managerial coaching with different people. Guided feedback and
diverse practice help individuals achieve their goals (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Executive directors should reflect on their role as coach and set coaching goals that
align with organizational goals to improve performance. Executive directors were found to
have few opportunities for reflection on their role as managerial coaches, decreasing their
metacognitive practice. Metacognition is a learner’s ability to think about their learning process,
assess their own competence, determine strategies to improve it, and to adapt (Krathwohl, 2002;
Black et al., 2016). Learning is reinforced through metacognitive strategies as learners reflect on
the process of knowledge acquisition and application, as well as the outcomes of their efforts
(Baker, 2006). Nonprofit boards are made up of part-time volunteers that provide minimal
supervision of executive directors’ work (Renz, 2010) so the ability of leaders to self-regulate
performance is additionally important.
Time to reflect, and tools that aid reflection, can improve metacognition (Baker, 2006;
Batha & Carroll, 2007; Berg & Karlsen, 2012). In an empirical study of 98 university students,
metacognitive guides improved students’ decision-making skills (Batha & Carroll, 2007). Boyce
et al. (2010) collected survey data on 400 junior-military leaders that demonstrated that
metacognition is correlated with a mastery orientation. Metacognitive opportunities and guides
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 96

have been shown to significantly improve the performance of leaders and learners (Bandura,
1986; Batha & Carroll, 2007; Boyce, Zaccaro, & Wisecarver, 2010).
Boards can provide opportunities and encourage metacognition in executive directors to
improve their learning and mastery of leadership development. The self-reflection and
assessment workbook be provided to executive directors to help them reflect on their strengths
and weaknesses as a managerial coach. The guide will help leaders think about ways they
contribute to a coaching culture within the organization and to reflect on their own learning.
Executive directors will be encouraged to set goals around managerial coaching and developing
a coaching culture that aligns with organizational performance goals.
Motivation Recommendations
Executive directors’ motivational influences on managerial coaching were identified
through the literature and findings and are deeply entwined with the knowledge influences. The
motivation influences examined were leader’s self-efficacy, collective efficacy, the value
executive directors placed on coaching, and the outcomes they expect from the investment of
their time, effort, and costs. Executive directors needed to believe they were successful at two
important processes: implementing effective leadership coaching and creating a culture that
encourages and supports professional development. Leader self-efficacy is achieved when they
believe they can be influential, work with the staff to affect change, and set goals to guide the
process (Machida & Schaubroeck, 2011). While self-efficacy is a factor in achieving success, the
collective efficacy of the group is equally important. Bandura (2000b) emphasizes that leaders
play a crucial role in the success of initiatives based on their belief in the ability of the group to
achieve its goals. This belief must be shared because an individual’s motivation to change is
influenced by the support, or lack thereof, of others (Mayer, 2011).
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 97

Finally, executive directors must value coaching and expect that there will be positive
outcomes from coaching in order to be motivated to perform. Like the knowledge influences, the
motivation factors were confirmed through interviews. Table 8 outlines recommendations based
on evidence-based practices and theoretical principles to increase executive directors’ motivation
to conduct managerial coaching. Recommended practices help executive directors see how they
can gain confidence in their ability to coach and lead a culture of continuous improvement, share
their confidence in others, and impact organizational performance.
Table 8

Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations

Assumed Motivation
Influence
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Self-Efficacy –
Executive directors need
to believe they can create
a culture of professional
development and
implement effective
leadership coaching.
Self-regulatory strategies, including
goal setting, enhance learning and
performance (APA, 2015; Dembo &
Eaton, 2000; Denler, Wolters, &
Benzon, 2009). High self-efficacy
can positively influence motivation
(Urdan & Pajares, 2006).
Executive directors will be
encouraged to set personal
goals for coaching and
creating a professional
development culture that
aligns with organizational
performance goals in their
reflection workbook. The
workbook will help leaders
manage their motivation,
time, learning strategies,
control their physical and
social environment, and
monitor their performance.
Executive directors will
share their goals with the
board of directors. The
workbook will have
multiple assessments that
demonstrate progress
toward goals and reinforce
self-efficacy and regulation.
Collective Efficacy –
Executive directors need
to believe that together
with the staff, they can
Collective efficacy is influenced by
one’s own and others’ beliefs based
on previous experience, cultural
background, and feedback (Bandura,
In the workbook, executive
directors will be prompted
to share their beliefs with
staff that the group is
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 98

improve organizational
performance through
leadership coaching.
2000b). Leaders with a high level of
collective efficacy enable increased
organizational performance
(Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008).
capable of learning and
improving performance
together. Boards can
reinforce collective efficacy
beliefs. Executive directors
and boards will be asked to
share this belief with
external stakeholders as
well. Executive directors
can encourage staff to share
their collective efficacy
belief to help reinforce
learning and build
confidence.
Value – Executive
directors need to see the
value in managerial
coaching.
Rationales that include a discussion
of the importance and utility value of
the work or learning can help learners
develop positive values (Wigfield &
Eccles, 2000; Pintrich, 2003).
The workbook will provide
the rationale for managerial
coaching that comes from
the sector and academic
literature. This rationale
will explain the positive
benefits, outcomes, and
changes that executive
directors can expect.
Expectancy – Executive
directors need to believe
that an investment in
leadership development
will positively influence
organizational
performance.
Feedback, as well as, actual success
on challenging tasks, positively
influences people’s perceptions of
competence
(Borgogni et al., 2011).

Boards can provide
feedback and incentives for
progress made toward
managerial coaching goals.

Coaches can gain confidence through assessment of strengths and personal goals.
Findings from the study indicate that executive directors lack self-efficacy, a belief in their
ability to provide managerial coaching. Executive directors need high self-efficacy to be
successful in creating a culture that encourages development and to engage in effective coaching
that leads to growth. However, a lack of structure, goals, incentives, and formal training led
executive directors to be less confident in their ability to coach staff. Self-efficacy is a self-
regulatory strategy that includes a belief of competence and goal setting to enhance performance
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 99

(APA, 2015: Dembo & Eaton, 2000; Denler, et al., 2009). Leaders with high self-efficacy have
greater motivation to employ their skills (Pajares, 2006). Bandura (1977) found that self-efficacy
has the greatest influence on motivation because it determines whether or not someone starts an
activity, persists in the face of obstacles, and exerts an appropriate amount of mental effort to
complete it.
Executive directors can increase their self-efficacy by setting personal goals in their self-
reflection workbook. Demonstrating progress toward these goals and assessing their skills
through the workbook can increase leaders confidence for coaching and thereby, their motivation
to conduct and support leadership development. Leaders develop intrinsic motivation to
complete tasks when they value the activity and can set goals for themselves (Seo, Patall,
Henderson, & Steingut, 2018). Highly efficacious leaders not only perform better but are more
engaged, resulting in greater effort and retention (Cerasoli et al., 2014).
Leaders should regularly express belief in the efficacy of their teams to increase
performance and reinforce their own belief. While it is clear that leaders need to believe in
their own competence to perform specific coaching behaviors, it is also true that they need to
believe in the ability of their staff members, that together they can affect positive organizational
change. Bandura (2000b) came to the conclusion that collective efficacy is influenced by one’s
own experience, previous experience with others, one’s cultural background, and feedback on
performance. Leaders that believe in their own and their employees’ ability to affect change,
demonstrating a high level of collective efficacy, enable increased organizational performance by
positively influencing the beliefs of staff members in their own competence (Leithwood &
Jantzi, 2008). Executive directors are prompted to share their beliefs with staff that the group is
capable of learning and improving performance together through the workbook.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 100

Collective self-efficacy can be enhanced in nonprofit settings by closely tying the
achievements of the group to the mission and values of the organization (McMurray, Pirola-
Merlo, Sarros, & Islam, 2010). This connection is logical since collective efficacy circumscribes
the affective states, belief, and values of the group. Nonprofit leaders use shared values as
intrinsic motivators for performance (Renz, 2010). In this way, leaders that share their collective
efficacy beliefs increase perceptions of group potency and contribute to organizational goal
achievement (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003).
Workbook rationales for coaching can increase how much leaders value coaching by
strengthening the connection between managerial coaching and organizational
improvement. Executive directors demonstrated value for coaching, but a lack of evaluation
and communication of outcomes left most of them unable to advocate for coaching externally.
Self and collective efficacy are key influences, but leaders also need to value managerial
coaching. They will not be motivated to coach if they do not see how coaching contributes to
individual, group, and organizational goals. To instill value for coaching executive directors need
a rationale, to understand the benefits of change. Rationales that explicate the importance and
utility value of the work can help learners develop positive values toward the activity (Wigfield
& Eccles, 2000; Pintrich, 2003). The workbook will provide the rationale for managerial
coaching that comes from the sector and academic literature. While coaching was valued by the
leaders in this study, low adoption rates of coaching in the sector (Milner et al., 2018) and the
difficulty the leaders experienced receiving funding and allocations from the board indicates a
greater grasp on the value of managerial coaching is needed.
The goal is to increase interest and value with rationales, spurring leaders to engage in
positive change. Durik, Shechter, Noh, Rozek, & Harackiewicz (2015) noted that perceptions of
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 101

competence (self-efficacy) and value can reinforce one another. In a meta-analysis of 23
rationale experiments, researchers found that providing a rationale increases task value,
engagement, and performance with small to moderate statistical significance (Steingut, Patall, &
Trimble, 2017). However, the authors posited that the most effective rationales are prosocial and
reinforce communal behavior. This suggests that tying the rationale for managerial coaching
influence on performance to the outcomes for employees and, by extension, constituents, may be
an effective motivator for executive directors.
Organization Recommendations
While executive directors’ knowledge and motivational barriers illuminate individual-
level factors, organizational level factors are the cultural, policy, procedural, and financial
constraints or assets that impact managerial coaching. Directors enact and influence behavior
within a broader environment that may be more or less supportive of leadership development.
Support comes from the board of directors but also from external stakeholders such as funders,
collaborators, sector leaders, and public opinion influencers that set the tone of nonprofit culture
as a whole. At the organizational level, the climate needs to be conducive to learning and
development and appropriate resources provided. Sector-wide, external stakeholders need to
espouse values and provide resources that demonstrate a commitment to coaching culture that
reinforces that of individual organizations.
A coaching culture is established by valuing learning, experimentation, and cooperation
at the individual, team, and organizational levels (Clutterbuck & Megginson, 2005). To ensure
positive change and a return on development investment, coaching culture should be based on
the organization’s strategy (Evans, 2011; Hawkins, 2017; Jones & Gorell, 2014). Resource
allocation for development is as important as fostering a culture of inquiry. Organizational
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 102

culture and climate factors, as well as, sector-wide influences were identified in the study
findings and literature review. Table 9 outlines recommendations based on evidence-based
learning practices and theoretical principles to increase organizational and sector-wide support
for managerial coaching. Recommended practices create fertile environments for learning that
lead to performance and productivity gains.
Table 9

Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations

Assumed Organization
Influence

Principle and Citation

Context-Specific
Recommendation
Cultural Model
Influence: Organizations
need to foster a culture of
development that feeds
the leadership pipeline,
improves organizational
efficiency and
programmatic efficacy,
and increases employee
performance.
Effective change efforts use
evidence-based solutions and
adapt them, where necessary, to
the organization’s culture (Clark
and Estes, 2008). Engaged
employees participate in
cooperative learning which
creates positive organizational
change (Berbary & Malinchak,
2011).
The board of directors, with
guidance from the executive
director, will identify key
priorities and elements required
to foster professional
development and contextualize
evidence-based practices.
Increasing coaching will, itself,
improve engagement, initiating a
reciprocating reinforcement of
cooperative learning and
enhanced performance.
Cultural Setting
Influence: Organizations
need to avail resources to
executive directors to
implement, improve, and
increase talent
development.
Effective change efforts ensure
that everyone has the resources
(equipment, personnel, time,
etc.) needed to do their job, and
that if there are resource
shortages, then resources are
aligned with organizational
priorities (Clark and Estes,
2008).
Boards will prioritize leadership
development and reallocate
resources accordingly.
Organizational Climate
Influence: Executive
directors need to be
aware of the shared
meaning ascribed to
coaching.
Effective organizations ensure
that organizational messages,
rewards, policies and procedures
that govern the work of the
organization are aligned with or
are supportive of organizational
goals and values (Clark and
Estes, 2008).
Executive directors can use a
toolkit to conduct a culture audit
that interrogates assumptions,
examines artifacts and symbols
of culture, and find opportunities
for participatory inquiry and
double-loop learning.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 103

Sector Cultural Setting
Influence: External
funders need to avail
resources to executive
directors to implement,
improve, and increase
talent development.
Effective change efforts ensure
that everyone has the resources
(equipment, personnel, time,
etc.) needed to do their job, and
that if there are resource
shortages, then resources are
aligned with organizational
priorities (Clark and Estes,
2008).
Foundations will increase
financial support for leadership
development through
reallocation of funds and
leverage existing technical
assistance to build in leadership
development aspects.
Sector Cultural Model
Influence: The sector
needs to foster a culture
of development that
feeds the leadership
pipeline, improves
organizational efficiency
and programmatic
efficacy, increases
diversity, and increases
employee performance.
Change catalysts understand
external factors, provide clarity
of purpose, engage in
transparent communication,
leverage assets, and work to
sustain change (Burke, 2017).

Rich learning experiences will
be initiated by creating
communities of practice (CoP).
CoPs involve information
sharing and social networking
that provide formal and informal
learning opportunities across the
field.

Cultural models. Organizations need to foster a culture conducive to increasing the rate
of managerial coaching in nonprofits. This culture may be nurtured by leaders in individual
organizations but also needs to be reinforced within the sector as a whole for the resources
necessary for coaching to provide necessary resources. One reason nonprofits struggle to support
leadership development is due to the belief that resources are best allocated to program activities
over internal capacity building (Light, 2011). Cultural support for leadership development lays
the groundwork for increased financial support for the change initiative. Culture must also be
considered and refined when employing evidence-based solutions in organizations as successful
change initiatives require stakeholder engagement (Clark & Estes, 2008). Engaged employees
are more likely to participate in cooperative learning, the precursor to positive organizational
change (Berbary & Malinchak, 2011).
Boards can provide executive directors with incentives to increase coaching. Closely
related to value is expectancy. Executive directors that value coaching will come to expect that
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 104

an investment in leadership development will positively influence organizational performance
and that they can contribute to these outcomes. Feedback, as well as actual success on
challenging tasks, positively influences people’s perceptions of competence and motivates them
to perform these behaviors (Borgogni et al., 2011). Boards can provide feedback and incentives
for progress made toward managerial coaching goals. Incentives and feedback are forms of
extrinsic motivators (Pinder, 2014) that can encourage executive directors to coach their staff.
However, these funds could be provided directly by the boards through their own financial
support of the organization and role as supervisors to the executive director. However, it is
important for boards with ongoing restricted fund issues to remember that incentives do not
necessarily need to be financial. Nonprofits, which are often resource constrained, have
successfully used recognition as incentives (Luthans, 2000).
Boards can identify key drivers of professional development to improve culture of
coaching. To achieve a coaching culture, it is recommended that boards of directors, with
guidance from executive directors, identify key priorities and the elements required to foster
professional development. As leaders, boards of directors have the ability to influence culture
(Schein, 2010) so they need to support a coaching culture through symbols and activities
(Bolman & Deal, 2017) that reinforce shared values and beliefs about cooperative learning. A
supportive culture can improve engagement as it reinforces the coaching gains of cooperative
learning, adaptability, and enhanced performance. Grant (2014), in a within-subjects study of
coaching, found that coaching helped leaders reach their goals, remain focused on solutions,
handle change with more facility, improve attitude, increase self-efficacy, and enhance resilience
during times of organizational upheaval and uncertainty.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 105

The sector can create communities of practice around coaching as an effective
leadership development, diversity, and succession intervention. Leaders championing change
understand external factors, provide clarity of purpose, engage in transparent communication,
leverage assets, and work to sustain change (Burke, 2017). To create a sector-wide culture that
enhances individual organization’s efforts to provide leadership development, influential
members and funders can invest in creating communities of practice (CoP). CoPs involve
practitioners engaged in information sharing and social networking that provide formal and
informal learning opportunities across the field. Communities of practice increase the adoption
of effective practices, learning, and collaboration among professionals (Foord & Haar, 2008;
Hall & Hord, 2015; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006). Enhanced learning and implementation make
CoPs an effective strategy to address the sector-wide need to nurture a culture of inquiry and
professional development.
The cultural climate of organizations can be enhanced after a culture audit
identifies areas of strength and development. Beyond creating or nurturing a culture of
inquiry, executive directors need to be aware of the shared meaning ascribed to coaching.
Effective organizations ensure that organizational messages, rewards, policies, and procedures
are supportive of organizational goals and values (Clark & Estes, 2008). To reinforce effective
communication, incentives, policies, and procedures executive directors can use a toolkit to
conduct a culture audit.
The audit’s purpose is to make explicit the unspoken meaning ascribed through cultural
practices, artifacts, and symbols; review policies and procedures; identify opportunities for
participatory inquiry; and create double-loop learning that will reinforce organizational goals and
performance (Rice & Matthews, 2015; Wilkins, 1983). It can reveal what is supporting and,
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 106

alternately, hindering change in an organization’s culture (Selzer, & Foley, 2018). Stakeholder
engagement through an examination of culture can lead to transformational change (Bartunek,
1988) and has been recommended as an approach to creating practical solutions to systemic
organizational problems (Selzer & Foley, 2018). Without understanding the current culture
through an audit, it is unlikely that the change in values required to guide new normative
behaviors will occur (Hogan & Coote, 2014).
Cultural settings. The espoused values of support for a coaching culture are vital to
increasing the rate of coaching and are intended to guide financial resource allocation.
Organizations need to avail resources to executive directors to implement, improve, and increase
talent development or no amount of cultural alignment will improve the situation. However, the
resource allocation must happen internally and externally. External funders, as key stakeholders,
need to provide resources to organizations to implement, improve, and increase leadership
development. Effective change efforts ensure that organizations have the resources to create
impact, and that if there are resource shortages, then resources are aligned with goals (Clark and
Estes, 2008).
Boards should allocate resources for managerial coaching. Nonprofit organizations are
chronically understaffed with ongoing capacity problems (Cohen & Hyde, 2014; Rooney &
Frederick, 2007; Tierney, 2006). Directors face limited resources and support from senior
leaders, indicating they do not have time to coach (Chong, et al., 2016; Dixey, 2015;
Ladyshewsky, 2010). Financial support from organizations is largely unavailable for coaching
activities (Milner et al., 2018). Therefore, it is recommended that boards of directors prioritize
leadership development and reallocate financial and time resources accordingly. Luthans (2000)
has demonstrated the effectiveness of incentives in nonprofit organizations. Incentives can make
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 107

culture and climate support for coaching visible, demonstrating value and can increase the
frequency of coaching in nonprofit organizations.
Foundations should consider increasing funds available for capacity building.
Nonprofit organizations’ capacity problems are the result of a paucity of foundation and other
funder support available for leadership development (Callanan et al., 2013; Stahl, 2013). This
sector-wide issue was also part of this study’s findings. To counteract this trend, foundations will
have to increase financial support for capacity building. This can be accomplished through
reallocation of funds and by leveraging existing technical assistance to build in leadership
development aspects. Minzner et al. (2014), in a large empirical study of nonprofit capacity
building, showed that leadership development is the second most significant investment a funder
can make to improve organizational capacity, after program development. Currently, programs
receive 99% of foundation funding (Callanan et al., 2013; Stahl, 2013). Without an investment in
leadership capacity, investments in programs have diminishing returns (Light, 2004).
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
While identifying and rectifying knowledge, motivation, and organizational issues are
paramount to increasing the likelihood of achieving the global goal of increasing managerial
coaching in nonprofits, evaluation of these efforts is required. Evaluation of the outcomes of the
interventions to improve the practice of coaching ensures change initiatives are having the
desired effects. This is especially important since nonprofits, running on lean budgets, cannot
afford to implement recommendations without knowing if they are working. Nonprofit leaders
understand the importance of evaluation of programs through their funding relationships. It is
time to apply evaluation to all organizational activities, not just those associated with programs.

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 108

Implementation and Evaluation Framework
Organizational change requires a strong evaluation plan that measures the outcomes of
the endeavor. Evaluation allows leaders to measure change and ensure organizational goals are
achieved through the intervention (Clark & Estes, 2008). The New World Kirkpatrick Model
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) is a four-level evaluation framework that is integral to
determining if program interventions are leading to desired organizational outcomes. At the
fourth level, which is the highest level of accountability, the framework examines the impact of
change initiatives on organizational goals. The third level measures behavior change resulting
from learning new information and processes while the second level allows leaders to evaluate
what was learned and how well. Finally, the first level tells evaluators about the experience of
the learners, their engagement, and whether they perceived the training as useful and applicable
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
This study examined the ways that nonprofits can address the widespread problem of
leadership succession, a lack of diversity, and organizational capacity. A 2015 study revealed
that almost half of nonprofit organizations had to replace their leader over the previous two years
(Landles-Cobb et al., 2015). Most new leaders (65%) were and will continue to be hired from
outside the sector (Light, 2011) despite the fact that external leaders are costlier to the
organization (Boland et al., 2005) and achieve poorer performance than leaders with sector
experience (Schepker et al., 2017; Tune, 2016). How can the sector better provide leadership
development, increase accountability, promote diverse leaders, and accelerate collective impact?
To answer these questions and improve organizational performance, executive directors will
increase managerial coaching activities by 10% in the coming years. The expected outcomes of
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 109

this increased activity are improvements in the health, professionalism, diversity, strategic
continuity, and professional development opportunities of the sector.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
To determine if change is occurring at the sector level, various agencies can include
financial ratios, diversity demographics, and other measures of health in their annual state of the
sector reports. In addition, communities of practice can track the number of leadership
development activities sector-wide. At the organizational level, boards can include progress
toward leadership development and diversity objectives in the organization’s annual report
alongside outputs and outcomes of programs and financial data. Internally, boards can track
progress through a capacity audit to identify assets and gaps. Organizations can also look at
financial indicators, program impact, and performance management data to track results. Table
10 shows how the sector and individual organizations can measure and report important
outcomes from recommended learning interventions.

Table 10

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
The health and capacity
of the charitable sector
will improve.
Amount of funding
provided for leadership
development and monitor
increases in programs,
services, and activities.
Yearly state of the sector reports
conducted by large nonprofit
advocacy or professional
organizations, think tanks,
academic researchers,
consultancies, and government
agencies, etc. that include financial
ratios.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 110

There will be an increase
in professionalism in the
sector.
Number of activities
related to leadership
succession and
development and monitor
improvement.
Prominent community of practice
group made up of foundations,
practitioners, consultants, advocacy
groups, and professional
associations will measure through
annual surveys and interviews.
The charitable sector
becomes more diverse,
representative, and
inclusive through
leadership development
of women and
racial/ethnic groups.
Demographics of the
sector and monitor the
state of inclusive culture.
Deploy sector-wide surveys and
interviews leading to reports by
large nonprofit advocacy groups,
watchdog organizations,
professional societies, think tanks,
academic researchers,
consultancies, and government
agencies.
Organizational impact is
enhanced.
Social, intellectual,
financial, and political
capital.
Boards of directors, with input
from the executive directors, will
create (or refine) an annual report
from organization that details
capital changes and reports outputs
and outcomes of the organization
for external stakeholders.
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
Internal Outcomes
Improved leadership
capacity and
organizational stability.
Progress on strategic,
succession, and
fundraising plans.
Executive director, with input from
the board and key stakeholders,
will perform an annual capacity
audit and report results.
Improved individual,
team, and organizational
performance.
Programmatic impact and
financial growth are key
measures of
organizational
performance.
Collect outcomes feedback from
program participants, input from
key stakeholders, and compare
annual revenues. Review
performance management data for
trends.

Level 3: Behavior
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) posit that to go beyond evaluation to achieve
performance enhancement requires determining and documenting critical behaviors. A behavior
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 111

is defined as “the degree to which participants apply what they learned during training when they
are back on the job” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 49). Critical behaviors are those
closely tied to performance goals that ultimately lead to the internal and external outcomes.
Critical behaviors. Executive directors will demonstrate many critical behaviors on the
road to achieving their managerial coaching goals. These include providing evidence-based
coaching to develop staff member leadership capacity, as well as, for performance improvement.
By using the self-reflection and assessment workbook they will set their coaching goals and
continue to learn how to be effective. In addition, directors will nurture, reinforce, and refine a
coaching culture to enhance and accelerate the process of change. Developing coaching goals
and culture, monitoring staff performance improvements, and doing cost-benefit analysis will aid
directors in communicating the value of coaching to both internal and external stakeholders
because they will be able to demonstrate outcomes and return on investment. Not only will this
communicate value, but directors can use it as the foundation of a case statement with funders to
gain support for leadership development and capacity building. Table 11 identifies each critical
behavior, the metric that indicates progress, the method to measure metrics, and the frequency of
reporting required to determine if the change initiative will lead to the desired outcomes.
Table 11

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation

Critical Behavior

Metric(s)

Method(s) Timing

1. Executive directors
provide evidence-
based managerial
coaching at least once
a month to each staff
member to develop
their leadership
Number of coaching
sessions provided
each year, along with
qualitative feedback
about efficacy.
Number of times
employees take
Executive directors
track sessions and
conduct employee
survey and assessment
to determine outcomes.

Monthly, quarterly,
or annually
depending on
frequency of board
meetings and
performance
review periods.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 112

capacity and improve
performance.
ownership of
significant projects.
2. Executive directors
communicate the
value of coaching to
internal and external
stakeholders through
a financial report that
is also used to seek
funding.
Number of financial
reports.
Executive directors
provide cost-benefit
analysis or cost-
effectiveness analysis of
coaching provided to
boards of directors and
external stakeholders,
where appropriate.
Annually.
3. Executive directors
reinforce culture of
learning, growth, and
performance
improvement.
Number of times
employees
collaborate, frequency
of reflection or
debrief meetings on
lessons learned, and
positive feedback and
incentives given on
growth.
Executive directors note
number of
collaborations, debrief
meetings, and rewards
and report to boards of
directors.
Quarterly.

Required drivers. The critical behaviors of the executive directors do not exist in a
vacuum. The behaviors exist within the ecosystem of the organization and sector that encourage
their adoption and reinforce the driver’s habitualization. This ecosystem is populated by diverse
stakeholders that play a role in change and the success of the initiative. As Kirkpatrick and
Kirkpatrick (2016) emphasize, for the critical behaviors to occur and persist, required drivers
must reinforce, encourage, reward, and monitor them. From job aids at the micro level to the
community of practice at the macro level, various ongoing and intermittent drivers reinforce
executive director behaviors. Encouragement takes the form of mentoring while incentives and
funding provide the rewards. Monitoring encompasses processes that ensure accountability,
timely feedback, and return on investment. Table 12 connects the required drivers to the critical
behaviors they support and suggests the frequency of application.

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 113

Table 12

Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors

Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Job aid: Executive directors complete the self-
reflection and assessment workbook.
Ongoing 1,2,3
Job aid: Executive directors refer to and review
the logic model for managerial coaching
As needed 2
Job aid: Executive directors use evidence-based
managerial coaching guide.
As needed 1
On the job training: Executive directors use
mock coaching guide and practice managerial
coaching
Ongoing 1&3
Planning: Executive directors and boards
identify key priorities and practices that create
and sustain a coaching culture
Annual 2&3
Planning: Boards of directors allocate funds for
coaching
Annual 2
Community of practice: Leaders across the
sector reinforce a coaching culture across the
sector, share, and support evidence-based
practices and innovation.
Quarterly and
annually
2&3
Encouraging
Mentoring: Board chairs, experts, or consultants
guide and give feedback to executive directors
on managerial coaching for leadership
development
Quarterly 1
Rewarding
Incentives: Boards of directors provide
performance pay or recognition to executive
directors that conduct managerial coaching well
Annually 3
Reward: Boards give encouragement to
executive directors during meetings to reinforce
coaching culture and support.
Monthly or
quarterly
2&3
Funding: Foundations provide capacity
building, technical assistance, and leadership
development funds to nonprofits.
Annually 2
Monitoring
Meetings: Executive directors provide coaching
sessions with staff.
Monthly 1
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 114

Self-monitoring: Executive directors use
reflection and assessment workbook to monitor
progress.
Ongoing 3
Feedback: Boards of directors provide
executive directors with evaluation of coaching
quality and performance measures.
Quarterly and
annually
1,2,3
Accountability: Boards of directors and
executive directors create an annual report of all
financial, programmatic, and capacity building
outcomes from coaching.
Annually 2&3
Return on Investment: Executive directors
perform cost-benefit analysis or cost-benefit
effectiveness evaluation of coaching.
Annually 2
Accountability: Executive directors conduct a
culture audit
Annually 3

Organizational support. The critical behaviors must be supported by organizational and
sector resources. At the organizational level, these include allocating time and funds for
managerial coaching and possibly incentives for performance. Incentives can increase the
frequency of desired behavior and performance (Condly et al., 2003). Boards also need to be
vocal about their support of coaching with staff and external stakeholders. The unified message
is that without strong leadership development through managerial coaching that organizational
performance, and by extension, constituent outcomes, suffer. Within the sector, support is
required to avoid the problematic cycle of the self-exploiting workforce that will do more with
less until it implodes (Light, 2004). Financial support is only one part of the equation as sector
leaders also need to drive innovation, evidence-based practices, and applied research through
communities of practice that create and disseminate information to the sector.
Level 2: Learning
“The degree to which the participants acquire the intended knowledge, skills, attitude,
confidence, and commitment based on their participation in the training,” is the precise definition
of learning that Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) use to discuss the evaluation of training at
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 115

level 2. This learning connects the knowledge and motivation influences to desired behavioral
outcomes. The authors assert that to successfully perform evaluation at level 2 it is important that
practitioners clearly articulate learning goals. From those goals, they can create a robust program
for delivering training, decide what to measure, and determine the frequency of feedback to
ensure learning goals are being achieved.
When planning and evaluating level 2 results organizations will need to custom tailor
these recommendations to fit their unique needs. The following evaluation is not intended to be a
one size fits all program for the sector but a foundation that can be retrofit to meet the needs of
each individual organization. This may mean changing timelines, lines of accountability,
additional training or capacity building, different resource allocation, contracting outside experts,
or other modifications that enhance the likelihood of success at an individual organization.
Learning goals. In order to achieve the critical behaviors of managerial coaching,
creating a coaching culture, and reporting the return on investment of these efforts, executive
directors will meet the following learning objectives:
1. Describe the connection between managerial coaching and individual, team, and
organizational performance. (Declarative - Conceptual)
2. Assemble coaching theories that inform their own evidence-based practice. (Declarative-
Conceptual)
3. Design and carry out an effective program of managerial coaching at their organization.
(Procedural)
4. Reflect on progress toward performance enhancement through coaching to improve
performance. (Metacognitive)
5. Be confident in their own ability to successfully coach staff. (Self-Efficacy)
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 116

6. Communicate confidence in the staff’s ability to improve through coaching. (Collective
Efficacy)
7. Create a case statement for managerial coaching to address leadership succession,
diversity, and capacity building. (Value)
8. Evaluate the return on investment from coaching. (Expectancy)
Program. To achieve these learning objectives a program that provides job aids and
feedback; requires practice and reflection; and helps executive directors set goals and evaluate
and report progress towards the goals is recommended. The learning, self-reflection, assessment,
and evaluation workbook for managerial coaching in Appendix C serves multiple functions. The
coaching workbook can be introduced during an annual combined staff and board retreat to
reinforce the role the other stakeholders have in the success and support of the intervention. The
goals of the retreat include integrating the strategic plan with coaching and performance
improvement goals, understanding and committing to roles in the change process, and integrating
learning and evaluation milestones into the annual calendar. Executive directors can also be
given the opportunity to practice what they have learned about coaching with feedback from
staff, the board, and an external consultant (if engaged for training) at the retreat.
The workbook enhances understanding of evidence-based of managerial coaching for
leadership development and performance management. It defines a coaching culture and outlines
strategies for implementation. The workbook also helps directors connect the activity of
managerial coaching with improved organizational outcomes while demonstrating its impact on
performance. The assessments and self-reflective exercises embedded within the workbook help
directors recognize where they need to concentrate their efforts and identify their strengths and
weaknesses as coaches. The workbook walks the executive director through a year of reflection,
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 117

assessments, and evaluation. An integrated mock coaching guide gives them practice and
encourages them to evaluate coaching sessions with staff. The workbook can be used to set
coaching and culture goals and share them with board members.
Additional coaching training may be provided to executive directors at any point during
the year, as needed. Progress towards goals will reinforce leader’s confidence and be tied to a
performance review with the board. Executive directors can create ongoing coaching sessions
with staff and collect feedback on costs, benefits, and effectiveness, using the logic model, over a
year-long period. This feedback will be shared with the board and external stakeholders
annually.
Integrating technology to improve the program. To personalize and reinforce learning
and metacognition as executive directors learn how to be effective managerial coaches, it is
recommended that the retreat be the first step in an ongoing journey. The next step is
personalized learning through use of a customized, moderated intelligent tutoring system.
Intelligent or adaptive systems change according to the preferences, knowledge, and goals of the
learner, determining the optimal teaching operation at every point in the learner’s journey
(Brusilovsky & Vassileva, 2003). Personalized learning aids learners by providing customized,
interactive, and responsive content, based on the learners’ knowledge, behavior, and input (Chen,
2008).
A blended learning approach, integrated into a learning management system (LMS),
would engage executive directors in ongoing learning, assessment, practice, metacognitive self-
reflection, evaluation, and feedback opportunities. The workbook presented here could be the
backbone of a managerial coaching LMS program. The personalized LMS curriculum would
assess executive directors’ knowledge of evidence-based practices and provide appropriate
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 118

learning materials based on these assessments. Assessments would also determine and integrate
previous knowledge into customized learning modules. Leaders would be able to enter coaching
goals and be prompted upon return to the system to self-reflect about the degree to which they
have succeeded in implementing them. When goals are input the system could offer
implementation strategies. In addition, the system could be used to track evaluation of executive
directors’ performance, both self-reported indicators, and the feedback of employees and the
board.
Benefits of the application are that it can track progress, is mobile, is available when
executive directors have time to learn and practice, can be administered in brief learning
modules, and provides interactive knowledge and skills’ retrieval and implementation practice
for managerial coaching. An intelligent system can encourage executive directors, helping with
motivation, and provide guidance on the job, functioning as a sophisticated job aid. The
intelligent system can even act as a virtual coach, enhancing the metacognitive experience of the
executive director as they learn to coach. While the creation of this system would require an
initial input of capital and time, the benefits to the sector could be transformative. The LMS can
also support the sector-wide community of practice by providing a platform for executive
directors to interact and share implementation challenges and successes, learning from their
peers. An in-person seminar could codify learning and provide an opportunity for executive
directors to refine the program itself through evaluative feedback. The embedded evaluation
metrics can be used to make a case within the sector for support of managerial coach training.
Evaluation of the components of learning. The program has to be evaluated to ensure
learning has occurred. The evaluation is built into the workbook but also requires active
participation by staff and the board. Since internal accountability in nonprofits is often reciprocal
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 119

due to the flat structure of most organizations (Renz, 2010) the workbook provides a contract for
all parties (staff, board, and executive director) to agree to hold each other accountable for the
outcomes of the learning objectives. Table 13 describes the methods or activities of the
evaluation and their frequency. This enables the level 2 learning objectives to lead to level 3
critical behaviors and, ultimately, level 4 impacts.
Table 13
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program

Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Assessment of evidence-based practices for
managerial coaching in workbook.
During the retreat and every month
throughout the year.
Evidence-based practices guidance through
workbook with self-assessments.
During the retreat and ongoing as needed.
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Set coaching goals through guided goal-setting
exercises.
Each quarter, reviewed annually.
Mock coaching guide and practice sessions. During the retreat and ongoing, as needed.
Observe executive director during coaching
session.
During the retreat and at least one other
time each year.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Value matrix tied to logic model, cost-benefit
analysis, and evaluation plan that allows
directors to customize a case statement for
coaching.
Review at retreat and conduct every quarter
with annual summary.
Plan communication of value and use case
statement template.
Every quarter with annual summary.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Self-reflection in workbook on progress. At retreat and ongoing, as needed.
Feedback from board, staff, and potentially an
outside expert.
At retreat and once every six months to one
year.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Accountability contract embedded in
workbook and signed by all internal
stakeholders during a board-staff retreat and
planning session.
Once a year at retreat.
Meetings with board. Once a quarter.

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 120

Level 1: Reaction
Level 1 queries participants to determine if the training received was relevant to their
work, they view the intervention positively, and they found it engaging (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016). The authors argue that effort to evaluate at this level should be proportional
to its necessity since it is less important than level 3 and 4 results. Therefore, a quick survey or
another simple tool at the time of training is enough to ensure useful feedback is gathered. Table
14 helps reviewers consider appropriate methods to measure engagement, relevance, and
customer satisfaction and indicates the best timing for these tools.
Table 14

Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing

Engagement

Pulse checks that determine interest at key
points in the training.
During milestone breaks at the combined
board and staff retreat.
Survey to give to all stakeholders (executive
directors, board members, and staff) with two
engagement specific questions is in
Appendices D and E.
Conducted a few weeks after the end of the
combined board and staff retreat when
participants have had a chance to use
knowledge and reflect on their learning.

Relevance
Observation of relevance at key points in the
training as stakeholders apply knowledge.
During key practice points in the combined
board and staff retreat.
Survey to give to all stakeholders (executive
directors, board members, and staff) with two
relevance specific questions is in Appendices
D and E.
Conducted a few weeks after the end of the
combined board and staff retreat when
participants have had a chance to apply
skills on the job and reflect on their
learning.

Customer Satisfaction
Pulse checks that determine perception of
quality at key points in the training.
During points of reflection during the
combined board and staff retreat.
Survey to give to all stakeholders (executive
directors, board members, and staff) with two
customer satisfaction specific questions is in
Appendices D and E.
Conducted a few weeks after the end of the
combined board and staff retreat.

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 121

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. To capture feedback from
participants at the retreat the level 1 and 2 survey and assessment in Appendix D should be given
immediately afterward. Questions that demonstrate learning, such as identifying evidence-based
practices for coaching will give boards a glimpse into the effectiveness of training. Asking
participants content questions instead of if they learned something helps evaluators avoid getting
responses based on overconfidence (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). In the immediate
evaluation, a scenario with an open-ended answer also gives insight into what the participants
believe is valuable about coaching and how they would communicate this with a funder. This
evaluation instrument also helps evaluators understand if the participant found the training
relevant to their job through questions about whether the executive director sees a connection
between their roles as a coach and as a leader. This leads to options for relevant actions the
participant commits to take to implement a coaching culture in the coming quarter. This will aid
evaluators in determining how engaged and motivated the executive director is to implement
their learning. Finally, the instrument uncovers information about the participant’s confidence to
apply knowledge on the job while asking the participant what can be done to support their
efforts. Appendix E contains the 9-question evaluation instrument that provides the foundation
for follow up in the delayed implementation instrument with the level of evaluation of each
question clearly labeled.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. The delayed evaluation in
Appendix E provides a more robust measure of the participant’s application of learning to their
job, its performance enhancements, and influence on important strategic organizational
outcomes. Ideally, it is given four to eight weeks after the retreat, once the executive director has
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 122

conducted at least three (or mock if the organization is very small) coaching sessions. It is a
blended instrument that briefly revisits knowledge assessment through two real-world coaching
scenarios. It also measures participants’ confidence and the number of times they have coached
staff since the retreat. After a self-reflection on learning, the instrument asked for outcomes
information for programs, strategy, and performance. Highlights of cost-benefit analysis progress
are recorded to preview some of what the board can expect in the quarterly meeting.
Data Analysis and Reporting
For data analysis of 1 and 2 responses, Appendix F has a visual template to report
training information to the board. Appendix G has an internal report mockup that covers
evaluation during board meetings. Appendix H has a dashboard example that reports level 3
critical evaluation behavior and level 4 internal and external outcomes to stakeholders. This
high-level dashboard can be integrated into the nonprofit’s annual report that often includes
activities, outputs, outcomes, donor appreciation, and audited financial statements.
Summary
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) evaluation model, with its emphasis on designing a
training program with outcomes in mind, will be familiar to many nonprofit professionals who
report program outcomes to key external stakeholders. Program development follows a similar
path by starting with impacts and identifying desired outputs and outcomes as part of the theory
of change (Renz, 2010). Once the logic model is constructed it is a matter of implementing
measurement to communicate the value of transformative interventions to important funders,
donors, regulators, and other interested parties. By starting with clear learning goals, putting the
effort into measuring critical behaviors and outcomes, instead of spending the bulk of its effort
evaluating cursory satisfaction metrics, nonprofits can create an efficacious learning experience
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 123

that improves performance today and well into the future. Managerial coaching has the power to
fuel individual and organizational growth but without evaluation, the organization will not create
the double-loop learning that can reinforce pathways where well-defined outcomes justify the
effort. More importantly, without outcomes to report, nonprofits cannot demonstrate the
exponential value of investing in leadership development to supporters.
Future Research
The recommendations and evaluation of training that were indicated based on the
findings of this study only address the identified knowledge, motivation, and organizational
issues that impacted the adoption of managerial coaching in nonprofits. To build on this study
and to gain insights into the impacts of managerial coaching, further research is indicated. A
limitation in the implementation of the study meant neglecting organizations with smaller
budgets. Whereas, limitations in the scope kept the researcher from answering questions about
both the efficacy of coach training and of managerial coaching to improve the diversity of the
sector and equity within organizations.
Study Organizations with Smaller Budgets and at Different Stages in Their Lifecycle
The researcher was unable to attract executive directors from small organizations to the
study through extended professional networks. Further research to determine the threshold where
coaching is possible with a reasonable return on investment is required to understand nonprofits
with annual budgets less than $1,000,000. Since 77.1% of nonprofits have an annual budget of
$1,000,000 or less (Urban Institute, 2015), understanding the context, challenges, and adoption
rates of coaching in these small organizations could add important insights to the existing
research literature.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 124

Additionally, all the organizations in this study could be characterized as in the mature
phase of their lifecycle. Finding organizations in the start-up and growth phases could provide a
window into coaching within early developmental stages. Whereas, studying organizations in
decline could examine whether or not managerial coaching can play a role in organizational
turnaround, preventing institutional demise.
Develop and Assess Effectiveness of Managerial Coach Training
This study confirmed Lindbom’s (2007) conclusions that leaders are being expected to
provide managerial coaching without formal training or strong support. It also demonstrates as
recent research has made apparent, the need for training and support to improve organizational
outcomes from managerial coaching (Milner et al., 2018). Executive directors also need and
want feedback, which has been recognized as a key attribute required to become successful
(Steelman & Wolfeld, 2016). Future research in this area could test various training modalities
and determine the number of contact hours, curriculum, practicum, feedback needed, and other
specific techniques and content constituting effective managerial coaching training. While the
researcher has provided a managerial coaching workbook for nonprofit leaders in Appendix C,
an evaluation study is required to determine its value as part of a training program and areas for
improvement.
Evaluate Effectiveness of Coaching to Increase Diversity and Equity
Melissa5.9, through an innovative program with direct services and professional
development for staff of color, has created a targeted leadership development initiative. It is
designed to prepare diverse staff to assume leadership positions after the organization
acknowledged that employees from racial/ethnic groups were not well represented in
management and leadership positions and overrepresented among front line employees. This
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 125

program is aligned with recommendations from a recent report on how to increase organizational
diversity, equity, and inclusiveness.
Thomas-Breitfeld and Kunreuther (2017) recommended that leadership development
programs directly address racial equity. Melissa5.9’s program utilizes the cohort structure, and
an external professional coach, so staff can feel psychological safety through the confidentiality
of what they share. Experts have recommended that programs that address racial equity should
provide ways for participants to “openly express the ways they experience racialized barriers and
find support and advice from their peers including access to networks that can help them
advance” (Thomas-Breitfeld & Kunreuther, 2017, p.19). Further research on the effectiveness of
these program strategies and coaching’s impact on creating more inclusive, equitable, and
diverse nonprofit organizations is needed.
Conclusion
Coaching is a concatenation of interdisciplinary theories and practices culled from
learning and education; behavioral science; adult development; psychology and other social
sciences; leadership and management sciences; and communications (Cox et al., 2014). This
makes it a complex, sophisticated role for leaders to play and a difficult culture to create within a
learning organization. Teaching executive directors to act as managerial coaches is worthwhile
because they develop tomorrow’s leaders through a process of learning and growth
(Longenecker & Neubert, 2005). Managerial coaching creates promising outcomes for increasing
diversity and equity within the nonprofit sector (Landles-Cobb et al., 2015); improving
individual, team, and organizational performance (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009); and can be used as
the cornerstone of a leadership succession strategy (Bozer, Kuna, & Santora, 2015). It is the
unique combination of managerial coaching’s complexity and necessity, within the resource-
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 126

constrained environment of nonprofits, that warrant its further study, training in promising and
evidence-based practices, and investment in its impacts.

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 127

References
Adams, J. D. (Ed.). (2005). Transforming leadership. Cosimo, Inc.
Adams, T. (2004). Capturing the power of leadership change: Using executive transition
management to strengthen organizational capacity. Annie E. Casey Foundation:
Baltimore, MD.
Agola, E. A., & Stefaniak, J. E. (2017). An investigation into the effect of job‐aid design on
customer troubleshooting performance. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 30(2), 93-
120.
Aguinis, H., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Benefits of training and development for individuals and
teams, organizations, and society. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 451-474.
Allison, M. (2002). Into the fire: Boards and executive transitions. Nonprofit Management &
Leadership 12(4): 341 – 52.
Allison, M., Misra, S., & Perry, E. (2014). Doing more with more: Putting shared leadership into
practice. Nonprofit Quarterly. Retrieved on February 15, 2018 from
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/management/24051-doing-more-with-more-putting-shared-
leadership-into-practice.html.
Alvesson, M., & Sveningsson, S. (2015). Changing organizational culture: Cultural change
work in progress. Routledge.
Amagoh, F. (2015). Improving the credibility and effectiveness of non-governmental
organizations. Progress in Development Studies, 15(3), 221-239.
American Psychological Association (APA), Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education.
(2015). Top 20 Principles from Psychology for PreK–12 Teaching and Learning.
Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/schools/cpse/top-twenty-principles.pdf
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 128

Andersson, F. O. (2016). Nascent nonprofit entrepreneurship: Exploring the formative stage of
emerging nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(4), 806-
824.
Argyris, C. (2008). Learning in organizations. In Cummings, T.G. Handbook of organization
development (pp. 53-68).
Argyris, C. (1976). Theories of action that inhibit individual learning. American Psychologist,
31(9), 638.
Baker, L. (2006). Developmental differences in metacognition: Implications for metacognitively
oriented reading instruction. In Metacognition in literacy learning (pp. 83-102).
Routledge.
Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career
Development International, 13(3), 209-223.
Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2008). Positive organizational behavior: Engaged employees
in flourishing organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29(2), 147-154.
Bakker, A. B., & van Woerkom, M. (2018). Strengths use in organizations: A positive approach
of occupational health. Canadian Psychology 59(1), 38.
Ballout, H. I. (2009). Career commitment and career success: moderating role of self-efficacy.
Career Development International, 14(7), 655-670.
Balogun, J., & Johnson, G. (2004). Organizational restructuring and middle manager sense-
making. Academy of Management Journal, 47(4), 523-549.
Balser, D. B., & Carmin, J. (2009). Leadership succession and the emergence of an
organizational identity threat. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 20(2), 185-201.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 129

Bandura, A. (2000a). Cultivate self-efficacy for personal and organizational effectiveness.
Handbook of principles of organization behavior (pp. 11-21).
Bandura, A. (2000b). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78.
Bandura, A. (1986). Fearful expectations and avoidant actions as coeffects of perceived self-
inefficacy. American Psychologist, 12(4), 1389-1391.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84(2), 191.
Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by
assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88(2), 207.
Batha, K., & Carroll, M. (2007). Metacognitive training aids decision making. Australian
Journal of Psychology, 59(2), 64-69.
Beattie, R. S., Kim, S., Hagen, M. S., Egan, T. M., Ellinger, A. D., & Hamlin, R. G. (2014).
Managerial coaching: A review of the empirical literature and development of a model to
guide future practice. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 16(2), 184-201.
Berbary, D. F., & Malinchak, A. A. (2011). Connected and engaged: The value of government
learning. Public Manager, 40(3), 55.
Berrone, P., Gelabert, L., Massa-Saluzzo, F., & Rousseau, H. E. (2016). Understanding
community dynamics in the study of grand challenges: How nonprofits, institutional
actors, and the community fabric interact to influence income inequality. Academy of
Management Journal, 59(6), 1940-1964.
https://journals.aom.org/doi/10.5465/amj.2015.0746
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 130

Berg, M. E., & Karlsen, J. T. (2012). An evaluation of management training and coaching.
Journal of Workplace Learning, 24(3), 177-199.
Bergman, J. Z., Rentsch, J. R., Small, E. E., Davenport, S. W., & Bergman, S. M. (2012). The
shared leadership process in decision-making teams. The Journal of Social Psychology,
152(1), 17-42.
Black, H., Soto, L., & Spurlin, S. (2016). Thinking about thinking about leadership:
Metacognitive ability and leader developmental readiness. New Directions for Student
Leadership, 149, 85-95.
BoardSource. (2017). Leading with intent: A national index of nonprofit board practices.
Retrieved on August 18, 2018 from https://leadingwithintent.org.
Boland, P. T., Jensen, C., & Meyers, B. (2005). Addressing the leadership challenge. Nonprofit
executive directors’ views on tenure and transition in Alberta. Calgary, Canada: Calgary
Center for Nonprofit Management and Peter T. Boland & Associates Inc.
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2017). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership.
John Wiley & Sons.
Borgogni, L., Dello Russo, S., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The relationship of employee perceptions
of the immediate supervisor and top management with collective efficacy. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(1), 5-13.
Boyce, L. A., Zaccaro, S. J., & Wisecarver, M. Z. (2010). Propensity for self-development of
leadership attributes: Understanding, predicting, and supporting performance of leader
self-development. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(1), 159-178.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 131

Bozer, G., Kuna, S., & Santora, J. C. (2015). The role of leadership development in enhancing
succession planning in the Israeli nonprofit sector. Human Service Organizations:
Management, Leadership & Governance, 39(5), 492-508.
Brabeck, M., Jeffrey, J., & Fry, S. (2011). Practice for knowledge acquisition (not drill and kill).
American Psychological Association.
Brandenburg, D. C., & Ellinger, A. D. (2003). The future: Just-in-time learning expectations and
potential implications for human resource development. Advances in Developing Human
Resources, 5(3), 308-320.
Bresnen, M., & Marshall, N. (2000). Motivation, commitment and the use of incentives in
partnerships and alliances. Construction Management & Economics, 18(5), 587-598.
Brusilovsky, P., & Vassileva, J. (2003). Course sequencing techniques for large-scale web-based
education. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Lifelong
Learning, 13(1–2), 75–94.
Bryan, T. K. (2017). Multilevel learning in nonprofit organizations: Exploring the individual,
group, and organizational effects of a capacity building program. The Journal of
Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 7(2).
Bryson, J. M. (2018). Strategic planning for public and nonprofit organizations: A guide to
strengthening and sustaining organizational achievement. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons.
Burke, W. W. (2017). Organization change: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.
Callanan, L., Gardner, N., Mendonca, L., & Scott, D. (2014). What social-sector leaders need to
succeed. McKinsey Quarterly, 8.
Carlsson, B., Keane, P. and Martin, J.B. (1979), “R & D organizations as learning systems” pp.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 132

36-46 in Kolb, D., Rubin, I. and McIntyre, J. (Eds). Organizational psychology: A book
of readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Carman, J. G., Leland, S. M., & Wilson, A. J. (2010). Crisis in leadership or failure to plan?
Insights from Charlotte, North Carolina. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 21(1),
93–111.
Cassidy, S. (2015). Resilience building in students: the role of academic self-efficacy. Frontiers
in Psychology, 6, 1781.
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic
incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,
140(4), 980.
Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD). (2015). Coaching and mentoring fact
sheet. Retrieved on August 18, 2018 from
https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/fundamentals/people/development/coaching
mentoring-factsheet.
Charmaz, K. & Belgrave, L. L. (2012). Qualitative interviewing and Grounded Theory analysis.
In J. Gubrium, J. Holstein, A. Marvasti, & K. McKinney (Eds.) The SAGE Handbook of
Interview Research (pp. 347-366).
Chen, G., & Bliese, P. D. (2002). The role of different levels of leadership in predicting self-and
collective efficacy: Evidence for discontinuity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3),
549.
Chen, C. M. (2008). Intelligent web-based learning system with personalized learning path
guidance. Computers & Education, 51(2), 787-814.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 133

Chong, C. W., Yuen, Y. Y., Tan, B. C., Zarim, Z. A., & Hamid, N. A. (2016). Managerial
coaches, are they ready? The case of Malaysian telecommunications industry. The
Learning Organization, 23(2/3), 121-140.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven
guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. John Wiley & Sons.
Clutterbuck, D. (2013). Time to focus coaching on the team. Industrial and Commercial
Training, 45(1), 18-22.
Clutterbuck, D., & Megginson, D. (2005). Making coaching work: Creating a coaching culture.
CIPD Publishing.
Cohen, M. B., & Hyde, C. A, (2014). Empowering workers & clients for organizational change.
Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books, Inc.
Collins, S. K., & Collins, K. S. (2007). Succession planning and leadership development: critical
business strategies for healthcare organizations. Radiology Management, 29(1), 16-21.
Coloma, J., Gibson, C., & Packard, T. (2012). Participant outcomes of a leadership development
initiative in eight human service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 36(1), 4–
22.
Condly, S. J., Clark, R. E., & Stolovitch, H. D. (2003). The effects of incentives on workplace
performance: A meta‐analytic review of research studies. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 16(3), 46-63.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 134

Cornelius, M., Moyers, R., & Bell, J. (2011). Daring to lead 2011: A national study of nonprofit
executive leadership. San Francisco, CA: CompassPoint Nonprofit Services and the
Meyer Foundation.
Cox, E., Bachkirova, T., & Clutterbuck, D. A. (Eds.). (2014). The complete handbook of
coaching. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
D’Abate, C. P., Eddy, E. R., & Tannenbaum, S. I. (2003). What’s in a name? A literature-based
approach to understanding mentoring, coaching, and other constructs that describe
developmental interactions. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4), 360-384.
Dahling, J. J., Taylor, S. R., Chau, S. L., & Dwight, S. A. (2016). Does coaching matter? A
multilevel model linking managerial coaching skill and frequency to sales goal
attainment. Personnel Psychology, 69(4), 863-894. https://doi-
org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1111/peps.12123.
Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. The Leadership Quarterly,
11(4), 581-613. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(00)00061-8
Durik, A. M., Shechter, O. G., Noh, M., Rozek, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2015). What if I
can’t? Success expectancies moderate the effects of utility value information on
situational interest and performance. Motivation and Emotion, 39(1), 104-118.
Day, D. V., Zaccaro, S. J., & Halpin, S. M. (2004). Leader development for transforming
organizations: Growing leaders for tomorrow. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Deaton, A. V., Wilkes, S. B., & Douglas, R. S. (2013). Strengthening the next generation: A
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 135

multi-faceted program to develop leadership capacity in emerging nonprofit leaders.
Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 3(1), 34–46.
Dembo, M. H., & Eaton, M. J. (2000). Self-regulation of academic learning in middle-level
schools. The Elementary School Journal, 100(5), 473-490.
de Haan, E., & Nilsson, V. O. (2017). Evaluating coaching behavior in managers, consultants,
and coaches: A model, questionnaire, and initial findings. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, 69(4), 315-333.
http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1037/cpb0000099.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2014). Social cognitive theory. Retrieved from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/.
Di Zhang, D., & Swanson, L. A. (2013). Social entrepreneurship in nonprofit organizations: An
empirical investigation of the synergy between social and business objectives. Journal of
Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 25(1), 105-125.
Dixey, A. (2015). Managerial coaching: A formal process or a daily conversation? International
Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, (9), 77.
Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House Digital, Inc.
Dym, B., Egmont, S., & Watkins, L. (2011). Managing leadership transition for nonprofits:
Passing the torch to sustain organizational excellence. FT Press.
Edelman Intelligence. (2018). 2018 Edelman trust barometer. Retrieved on February 19, 2018
from https://www.edelman.com/trust-barometer.
Eden, D., & Aviram, A. (1993). Self-efficacy training to speed reemployment: Helping people to
help themselves. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(3), 352.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 136

Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., Bachrach, D. G., Wang, Y. L., & Elmadağ Baş, A. B. (2011).
Organizational investments in social capital, managerial coaching, and employee work-
related performance. Management Learning, 42(1), 67-85.
Ellinger, A. D., Ellinger, A. E., Hamlin, R. G., & Beattie, R. S. (2010). Achieving improved
performance through managerial coaching. In R. Watkins & D. Leigh (Eds.), Handbook
of improving performance in the workplace, Volume 2: Selecting and implementing
performance interventions (pp. 275-298). San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer/International
Society for Performance Improvement.
Ellinger, A. D., Hamlin, R. G., & Beattie, R. S. (2008). Behavioural indicators of ineffective
managerial coaching: A cross-national study. Journal of European Industrial Training,
32(4), 240-257.
Elo, S., Kääriäinen, M., Kanste, O., Pölkki, T., Utriainen, K., & Kyngäs, H. (2014). Qualitative
content analysis: A focus on trustworthiness. Sage Open Journal, 4(1),
2158244014522633.
Evans, G. (2011). Second order observations on a coaching programme: the changes in
organisational culture. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and
Mentoring, (5), 70-87.
Faisal Ahammad, M., Mook Lee, S., Malul, M., & Shoham, A. (2015). Behavioral
ambidexterity: The impact of incentive schemes on productivity, motivation, and
performance of employees in commercial banks. Human Resource Management, 54(S1),
s45-s62.
Foord, K. A., & Haar, J. M. (2008). Professional learning communities: An implementation
guide and toolkit. Eye On Education.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 137

Foundation Center. (2011). Nonprofit spending on leadership development 1992-2011. Retrieved
on March 25, 2018 from http://foundationcenter.org/gain-knowledge/foundation-data.
Froelich, K., McKee, G., & Rathge, R. (2011). Succession planning in nonprofit organizations.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 22(1), 3–20.
Fusco, T., O’Riordan, S., & Palmer, S. (2015). Authentic leaders are... conscious, competent,
confident, and congruent: A grounded theory of group coaching and authentic leadership
development. International Coaching Psychology Review, 10(2), 131-148.
Gao, L., Janssen, O., & Shi, K. (2011). Leader trust and employee voice: The moderating role of
empowering leader behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(4), 787-798.
Giambatista, R. C., Rowe, W. G., & Riaz, S. (2005). Nothing succeeds like succession: A critical
review of leader succession literature since 1994. Leadership Quarterly, 16(6), 963–991.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson.
Giving USA. (2017, June 12). Giving USA charitable giving report 2017. Retrieved on February
12, 2018 from https://givingusa.org/giving-usa-2017-total-charitable-donations-rise-to-
new-high-of-390-05-billion/.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical
developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3),
3-13.
Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of Technology
Education (7)1.
Grant, A. M. (2007). Enhancing coaching skills and emotional intelligence through training.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 39(5), 257-266.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 138

Grant, A. M. (2014). The efficacy of executive coaching in times of organizational change.
Journal of Change Management, 14(2), 258-280.
Grant, T. & Cavanagh, M. (2004). Toward a profession of coaching: sixty-five years of progress
and challenges for the future. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and
Mentoring, (2)1, 7-21.
Grant, A.M. and O’Connor, S.A. (2010). The differential effects of solution-focused and
problem-focused coaching questions: a pilot study with implications for practice.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 42(2), pp. 102-111.
Greiner, L. E. (1998). Evolution and revolution as organizations grow. Harvard Business
Review, 76(3), 55–68.
Groves, K. S. (2007). Integrating leadership development and succession planning best practices.
Journal of Management Development, 26(3), 239–260.
Hackman, J. R., & Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching. Academy of Management
Review, 30(2), 269-287.
Hagen, M. (2010). The wisdom of the coach: A review of managerial coaching in the Six Sigma
context. Total Quality Management, 21(8), 791-798.
Hagen, M. (2012). Managerial coaching: A review of the literature. Performance Improvement
Quarterly, 24(4), 17-39.
Hagen, M., & Aguilar, M. G. (2012). The impact of managerial coaching on learning outcomes
within the team context: An analysis. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 23, 363-
388.
Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2015). Implementing change. Patterns, principles, and potholes.
Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Pearson.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 139

Hamasu, C., & Kelly, E. (2017). The logic model: more than a planning tool. Performance
Measurement and Metrics, 18(2), 158-164.
Hamlin, R. G., Ellinger, A. D., & Beattie, R. S. (2008). The emergent ‘coaching industry’: a
wake-up call for HRD professionals. Human Resource Development International, 11(3),
287-305.
Hamlin, R.G., Ellinger, A.D. and Beattie, R.S. (2006), Coaching at the heart of managerial
effectiveness: a cross-cultural study of managerial behaviors. Human Resource
Development International, 9(3), pp. 305-31
Harding, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis from start to finish. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Harris, E. E. (2014). The impact of board diversity and expertise on nonprofit performance.
Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 25(2), 113-130.
Haveman, H. A., & Khaire, M. V. (2004). Survival beyond succession? The contingent impact of
founder succession on organizational failure. Journal of Business Venturing, 19(3), 437-
463.
Hawkins, P. (2017). Leadership team coaching: Developing collective transformational
leadership. Kogan Page Publishers.
Hendry, C. (1996). Understanding and creating whole organizational change through learning
theory. Human Relations, 49(5), 621–641.
Herman, R. D. (2010). Executive leadership. In D. O. Renz (Ed.), The Jossey-Bass handbook of
nonprofit leadership and management (3rd ed., pp. 157–177). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Heslin, P. A., & VandeWalle, D. (2008). Managers' implicit assumptions about personnel.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(3), 219-223.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 140

Hewitt-Taylor, J. (2001). Use of constant comparative analysis in qualitative research. Nursing
Standard, 15(42), 39-42.
Higgins, M. C., & Thomas, D. A. (2001). Constellations and careers: Toward understanding the
effects of multiple developmental relationships. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
22(3), 223-247.
Hill, S. K. (2015). Team leadership. In Leadership: Theory and practice, 203-34. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hoch, J. E., & Kozlowski, S. W. (2014). Leading virtual teams: Hierarchical leadership,
structural supports, and shared team leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(3),
390.
Hogan, S. J., & Coote, L. V. (2014). Organizational culture, innovation, and performance: A test
of Schein's model. Journal of Business Research, 67(8), 1609-1621.
Hopkins, K., Meyer, M., Shera, W., & Peters, S. C. (2014). Leadership challenges facing
nonprofit human service organizations in a post-recession era. Human Service
Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 38(5), 419-422.
Hunt, J.M. & Weintraub, R.R. (2002). The coaching manager: Developing top talent in business.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hutzschenreuter, T., Kleindienst, I., & Greger, C. (2012). How new leaders affect strategic
change following a succession event: A critical review of the literature. Leadership
Quarterly, 23(5), 729–755.
Ibarra, H. (1995). Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks.
Academy of Management Journal, 38(3), 673-703.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 141

Iecovich, E., & Bar-Mor, H. (2007). Relationships between chairpersons and CEOs in nonprofit
organizations. Administration in Social Work, 31(4), 21-40.
Jenkins Jr, G. D., Mitra, A., Gupta, N., & Shaw, J. D. (1998). Are financial incentives related to
performance? A meta-analytic review of empirical research. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83(5), 777.
Johnson, J. L. (2009). The nonprofit leadership deficit: A case for more optimism. Nonprofit
Management and Leadership, 19(3), 285-304.
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed
methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
Jones, G., & Gorell, R. (2014). How to create a coaching culture (Vol. 3). Kogan Page
Publishers.
Kezar, A. (2001). Understanding and facilitating organizational change in the 21st century.
ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 28(4), 147.
Kim, S. (2014). Assessing the influence of managerial coaching on employee outcomes. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 25(1), pp. 59-85.
Kim, S., Egan, T., Kim, W., & Kim, J. (2013). The impact of managerial coaching behavior on
employee work-related reactions. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28, 315-330.
Kim, S., Egan, T. M., & Moon, M. J. (2014). Managerial coaching efficacy, work-related
attitudes, and performance in public organizations: A comparative international study.
Review of Public Personnel Administration, 34(3), 237-262.
Kimberlin, S. E., Schwartz, S. L., & Austin, M. J. (2013). Growth and resilience of pioneering
nonprofit human service organizations: A cross-case analysis of organizational histories.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 142

In Organizational histories of nonprofit human service organizations (pp. 13-37).
London, United Kingdom: Routledge.
Kluge, A., Grauel, B., & Burkolter, D. (2013). Combining principles of cognitive load theory
and diagnostic error analysis for designing job aids: Effects on motivation and diagnostic
performance in a process control task. Applied Ergonomics, 44(2), 285-296.
Kolb, S. M. (2012). Grounded theory and the constant comparative method: Valid research
strategies for educators. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy
Studies, 3(1), 83.
Konrad, A. M., Seidel, M. D. L., Lo, E., Bhardwaj, A., & Qureshi, I. (2017). Variety,
Dissimilarity, and Status Centrality in MBA Networks: Is the Minority or the Majority
More Likely to Network Across Diversity? Academy of Management Learning &
Education, 16(3), 349-372.
Kotter, J. P., & Cohen, D. S. (2012). The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people change
their organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212-218.
Kreiner, G. E., Hollensbe, E., Sheep, M. L., Smith, B. R., & Kataria, N. (2015). Elasticity and
the dialectic tensions of organizational identity: How can we hold together while we are
pulling apart? Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 981-1011.
Kroth, M., & Keeler, C. (2009). Caring as a managerial strategy. Human Resource Development
Review, 8, 506-531.
Kunreuther, F., & Corvington, P. A. (2007). Next shift: Beyond the nonprofit leadership crisis.
Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 143

Ladyshewsky, R. K. (2010). The manager as coach as a driver of organizational development.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(4), 292-306.
Landles-Cobb, L., Kramer, K., & Milway, K. S. (2015). The nonprofit leadership development
deficit. Sanford Social Innovation Review.
Langer, J., & LeRoux, K. (2017). Developmental culture and effectiveness in nonprofit
organizations. Public Performance & Management Review, 40(3), 457-479. DOI:
10.1080/15309576.2016.1273124.
Lawrence, P. (2017). Managerial coaching-a literature review. International Journal of Evidence
Based Coaching and Mentoring, 15(2), 43.
Lecy, J. D., Van Slyke, D. M., & Yoon, N. (2016). What do we know about nonprofit
entrepreneurs?: Results from a large-scale survey. SSRN Electronic Journal. Retrieved on
May 24, 2018 from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2890231.
Lee, G. (2017). Leadership coaching: From personal insight to organizational performance.
Kogan Page Publishers.
Leech, N. L., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for
data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(4), 557.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking leadership to student learning: The contributions of
leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496-528.
Light, P. (2004). Sustaining nonprofit performance: The case for capacity building and the
evidence to support it. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Light, P. C. (2011). Making nonprofits work: A report on the tides of nonprofit management
reform. Brookings Institution Press.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 144

Lindbom, D. (2007). A culture of coaching: the challenge of managing performance for long-
term results. Organization Development Journal, 25(2), pp. 101-106.
Longenecker, C. O., & Neubert, M. J. (2005). The practices of effective managerial coaches.
Business Horizons, 48(6), 493-500.
Luthans, K. (2000). Recognition: A powerful, but often overlooked, leadership tool to improve
employee performance. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7(1), 31-39.
Machida, M., & Schaubroeck, J. (2011). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in leader development.
Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(4), 459-468.
Matsuo, M. (2018). How does managerial coaching affect individual learning? The mediating
roles of team and individual reflexivity. Personnel Review, 47(1), 118-132.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.
McCarthy, G., & Milner, J. (2013). Managerial coaching: challenges, opportunities and training.
Journal of Management Development, 32(7), 768-779.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning
communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement (Vol. 45). Teachers
College Press.
McMurray, A. J., Pirola-Merlo, A., Sarros, J. C., & Islam, M. M. (2010). Leadership, climate,
psychological capital, commitment, and wellbeing in a nonprofit organization.
Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 31(5), 436-457.
Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student
motivation, and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487-503.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 145

Megginson, D., & Clutterbuck, D. (2006). Creating a coaching culture. Industrial and
Commercial Training, 38(5), 232-237.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E., J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Middleton, M. (1987). Nonprofit boards of directors: Beyond the governance function. The
nonprofit sector: A research handbook, 141-153.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1984). A longitudinal study of the corporate life cycle. Management
Science, 30(10), 1161–1183.
Milner, J., McCarthy, G., & Milner, T. (2018). Training for the coaching leader: how
organizations can support managers. Journal of Management Development, 37(2), 188-
200.
Minzner, A., Klerman, J. A., Markovitz, C. E., & Fink, B. (2014). The impact of capacity-
building programs on nonprofits: A random assignment evaluation. nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(3), 547-569.
Molenda, M., & Pershing, J. A. (2004). The strategic impact model: An integrative approach to
performance improvement and instructional systems design. TechTrends, 48(2), 26-33.
Muethel, M., Gehrlein, S., & Hoegl, M. (2012). Socio‐demographic factors and shared
leadership behaviors in dispersed teams: Implications for human resource management.
Human Resource Management, 51(4), 525-548.
Nonprofit H. R. (2016). Nonprofit employment practices survey results. Retrieved on January 29,
2018 from https://www.nonprofithr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2016NEPSurvey-
final.pdf.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 146

Northouse, P. G. (2015). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
O’Leonard, K. (2013). The corporate learning factbook 2012. Bersin & Associates (January
2011).
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Johnson, R. B., & Collins, K. M. (2011). Assessing legitimation in mixed
research: a new Framework. Quality & Quantity, 45(6), 1253-1271.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., & Collins, K. M. T. (2012). Qualitative techniques for the
review of literature. The Qualitative Report, 17, 1-28.
Outon, P. (2015). 74% project. Retrieved on March 23, 2018 from
http://bcnm.rmu.edu/ProgramsServices/74percenthttp://bcnm.rmu.edu/ProgramsServices/
74percent.
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015).
Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method
implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health
Services Research, 42(5), 533-544.
Passmore, J. (2010). A grounded theory study of the coachee experience: The implications for
training and practice in coaching psychology. International Coaching Psychology
Review, 5(1), 48-62.
Passmore, J., & Fillery-Travis, A. (2011). A critical review of executive coaching research: a
decade of progress and what's to come. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory,
Research and Practice, 4(2), 70-88.
Patel, M. S., Asch, D. A., Rosin, R., Small, D. S., Bellamy, S. L., Heuer, J., ... & Wesby, L.
(2016). Framing financial incentives to increase physical activity among overweight and
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 147

obese adults: a randomized, controlled trial. Annals of Internal Medicine, 164(6), 385-
394.
Perry, S. (2015, October 5). 1 in 3 Americans lacks faith in charities, Chronicle poll finds.
Retrieved on February 12, 2018 from https://www.philanthropy.com/article/1-in-3-
Americans-Lacks-Faith/233613.
Pinder, C. C. (2014). Work motivation in organizational behavior. Psychology Press. United
Kingdom: Taylor & Francis Group.
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 667.
Powell, T. & Doran, M. (2003). Managers’ perceptions of their role in facilitating employee
learning. Proceedings of 2003 International Academy of Human Resource Development
Conference.
Powell, K.S. & Serkan, Y. (2010). Managerial training effectiveness: a meta‐analysis 1952‐2002.
Personnel Review, 39(2), pp. 227-241.
Pousa, C. & Mathieu, A. (2014). Boosting customer orientation through coaching: a Canadian
study. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 32(1), pp. 60-81.
Rekalde, I., Landeta, J., Albizu, E., & Fernandez-Ferrin, P. (2017). Is executive coaching more
effective than other management training and development methods? Management
Decision, 55(10), 2149-2162.
Renz, D.O. (Ed.) (2010). The Jossey-Bass handbook of nonprofit leadership and management.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 148

Rice, M. F., & Mathews, A. L. (2015). A new kind of public service professional possessing
cultural competency awareness, knowledge, and skills. Classics of Organization Theory,
2005, 429.
Rooney, P., & Frederick, H. (2007). Paying for overhead: A study of the impact of foundations’
overhead payment policies on educational and human service organizations. Center on
Philanthropy at Indiana University.
Routhieaux, R. L. (2015). Shared leadership and its implications for nonprofit leadership. The
Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, 5(3) 139-152.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. ERIC.
Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S.I., Kraiger, K. and Smith-Jentsch, K.A. (2012). The science of training
and development in organizations. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(2),
pp. 74-101.
Santora, J. C., & Sarros, J. C. (2001). CEO succession in nonprofit community-based
organizations: Is there room for insiders at the top? Career Development International,
6(2), 107–111.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schepker, D. J., Kim, Y., Patel, P. C., Thatcher, S. M., & Campion, M. C. (2017). CEO
succession, strategic change, and post-succession performance: A meta-analysis. The
Leadership Quarterly, 28(6), 701-720.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 149

Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a culture and climate for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture.
Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 361-388.
Scott, S., & Palinscar, A. (2006). Sociocultural theory. Retrieved on October 10, 2017 from
http://www.education.com/reference/article/sociocultural-theory/.
Segers, J., & Inceoglu, I. (2012). Exploring supportive and developmental career management
through business strategies and coaching. Human Resource Management, 51(1), 99-120.
Seidle, B., Fernandez, S., & Perry, J. L. (2016). Do leadership training and development make a
difference in the public sector? A panel study. Public Administration Review, 76(4), 603-
613.)
Selzer, R., & Foley, T. (2018). Implementing grassroots inclusive change through a cultural
audit. Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International
Journal, 13(3), 284-302.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
Broadway Business.
Seo, E., Patall, E. A., Henderson, M. D., & Steingut, R. R. (2018). The effects of goal origin and
implementation intentions on goal commitment, effort, and performance. The Journal of
Experimental Education, 86(3), 386-401.
Shaw, S. and Knights, J. (2005). Coaching in an SME: an investigation into the Impact of a
managerial coaching style on employees within a small firm. Proceedings of the 6
th

International Conference on HRD Research and Practice across Europe.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 150

Sine, W. D., Mitsuhashi, H., & Kirsch, D. A. (2006). Revisiting Burns and Stalker: Formal
structure and new venture performance in emerging economic sectors. Academy of
Management Journal, 49(1), 121-132.
Skipper, C. O., & Bell, L. C. (2008). Leadership development and succession planning.
Leadership and Management in Engineering, 8(2), 77-84.
Solansky, S. T. (2010). The evaluation of two key leadership development program components:
Leadership skills assessment and leadership mentoring. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(4),
675-681.
Stahl, R. M. (2013). Talent philanthropy: Investing in nonprofit people to advance nonprofit
performance. The Foundation Review, 5(3), 35.
Steelman, L.A. & Wolfeld, L. (2016). The manager as coach: the role of feedback orientation.
Journal of Business and Psychology, 33(1), pp. 1-13.
Steingut, R. R., Patall, E. A., & Trimble, S. S. (2017). The effect of rationale provision on
motivation and performance outcomes: A meta-analysis. Motivation Science, 3(1), 19.
Stevens, S. K. (2002). Nonprofit lifecycles: Stage-based wisdom for nonprofit capacity.
Stagewise Enterprises.
Stewart, A. J. (2016). Exploring nonprofit executive turnover. Nonprofit Management and
Leadership, 27(1), 43-58.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage publications.
Suárez, D. F. (2010). Collaboration and professionalization: The contours of public sector
funding for nonprofit organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 21(2), 307-326.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 151

Thomas-Breitfeld, S., & Kunreuther, F. (2017). Race to lead: Confronting the nonprofit racial
leadership gap. Building Movement Project.
Tierney, T. J. (2006). The nonprofit sector’s leadership deficit. The Bridgespan Group.
Tschirhart, M., & Bielefeld, W. (2012). Managing nonprofit organizations. John Wiley & Sons.
Tune, D. R. (2016). Who leads nonprofit organizations and what does it matter? A mixed
methods study of the impact of different sector experience on nonprofit leadership.
Dissertation. University of San Diego.
Urban Institute. (2015). The nonprofit sector in brief. Retrieved on January 30, 2018 from
https://www.urban.org/research/publication/nonprofit-sector-brief-2015-public-charities-
giving-and-volunteering/view/references.
Urdan, T., & Pajares, F. (Eds.). (2006). Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. IAP.
Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2006). Inviting confidence in school: Invitations as a critical source
of the academic self-efficacy beliefs of entering middle school students. Journal of
Invitational Theory and Practice, 12, 7-16.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. R.E. Krieger Publishing Company.
Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team
effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 198.
Weisinger, J. Y. (2017). Diversity and diversity management in nonprofit organizations. In The
nonprofit human resource management handbook: From theory to practice, 323-337.
Word, J. K. A. & Sowa, J. E. (Eds). New York, NY: Routledge.
Weisinger, J. Y., Borges-Méndez, R., & Milofsky, C. (2016). Diversity in the nonprofit and
voluntary sector. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(1_suppl), 3S-27S.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 152

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–value theory of achievement motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68-81.
Wilkins, A. L. (1983). The culture audit: A tool for understanding organizations. Organizational
Dynamics, 12(2), 24-38.
Wilson, J., & Gislason, M. (2009). Coaching skills for nonprofit managers and leaders:
developing people to achieve your mission. John Wiley & Sons.
Yan, W., & Sloan, M. F. (2016). The impact of employee compensation and financial
performance on nonprofit organization donations. The American Review of Public
Administration, 46(2), 243-258. DOI: 10.1177/0275074014554000.
Yankey, J., & Willen, C. (2010). Collaboration and strategic alliances. The Jossey-Bass
handbook of nonprofit leadership and management, 375-400. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Zhang, Y., & Rajagopalan, N. (2004). When the known devil is better than an unknown god: An
empirical study of the antecedents and consequences of relay CEO successions. Academy
of Management Journal, 47(4), 483-500.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(2), 64-70.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 153

Appendix A: Revised Semi-Structured Managerial Coaching Interview Protocol
Interviewer: Hello, _______, my name is Anna Montgomery. I want to thank you, _________,
for taking time out of your schedule to meet with me and for agreeing to participate in my study
by answering some questions. This interview will take about an hour, although we have allocated
an hour and half in case we need extra time. I’m a doctoral student at University of Southern
California’s Rossier School of Education pursuing a degree in organizational change and
leadership. I’m speaking with you today to learn more about how executive directors use
coaching to develop their staff. In this interview, you will be asked about your experiences being
coached, coaching others, the value of coaching, and how coaching is viewed by stakeholders in
your organization and externally. If you have not been coached or currently coach then we will
discuss your current performance management and leadership development activities. Remember
that your responses will be kept confidential and only inform my research on managerial
coaching in non-profits. You may refuse to answer any of the questions or leave the study at any
time. Do I have your permission to record (audio and/or video) this interview?
1. How many years have you been an executive director?
2. What is your organization’s budget size?
3. What is your level of educational attainment?
4. Do you currently coach staff? If yes, skip to 9, if no go to 5
5. If not, please describe the reason(s) you do not currently coach your staff.
6. What performance management tools or frameworks, if any, does your nonprofit use?
7. What professional development tools or frameworks, if any, does your nonprofit use? If
none and no to 8, then skip to 25.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 154

8. Have you coached staff in the past? If yes, follow up question: What was different in the
environment, leadership, or context of when you previously coached staff that is not
present in your current organization now?
9. How did you learn to coach (insert other performance management/leadership
development technique if not coaching) others?
10. Describe your past experiences with being coached (developed). How did that experience
impact the way you coach your own staff?
11. Thinking about your experience being coached and/or coaching (performance
management/leadership development technique), what stands out to you as important?
12. What feedback have you received about your coaching (development technique) skills?
13. Thinking about a recent time you’ve coached (developed) a member of your staff, what
was the step by step process you employed?
14. What are your goals when you coach (provide development opportunities to) staff
members?
15. What changes, if any, have you seen in staff that have been coached (developed)?
16. How do you, if at all, reward staff who improve their performance?
17. How do you evaluate the outcomes of coaching (development)?
18. Have you found evidence to support these outcomes from other sources?
19. How does your organization determine the return on investment of coaching
(development)?
20. What positive organizational outcomes, if any, have you seen from coaching staff?
21. What negative organizational outcomes, if any, have you seen from coaching staff?
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 155

22. To what degree does leadership development measurably impact your organization’s
performance? Please describe how coaching impacts your organization’s leadership
development.
23. How do you communicate the value of coaching to stakeholders (internal and external)?
24. In what ways do you influence the perception of coaching (development) in your
organization?
25. What messaging (spoken and unspoken) have you received from your board of directors
about coaching (development)?
26. In what ways do you think the culture of the non-profit sector supports leadership
coaching (development)?
27. In what ways do you think the culture of the non-profit sector fails to support leadership
coaching (development)?

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 156

Appendix B: Semi-Structured Managerial Coaching Interview Analysis Table

Table 15

Interview Alignment: Relationship Between KMOs and Semi-Structured Interview Questions
Assumed Knowledge, Motivation, and
Organizational Influences
Semi-Structured Interview Questions
Knowledge (Procedural) - Executive directors
need to know how to conduct and improve
leadership development through coaching.
● Thinking about a recent time you’ve
coached a member of your staff, what was
the step by step process you employed?
● What are your goals when you coach staff
members?
● How do you evaluate the outcomes of
coaching?
Knowledge (Metacognitive) - Executive
directors need to reflect on their own
professional development, their ability to
provide development to others, and their skills in
creating a culture of development.
● Describe your past experiences with being
coached. How did that experience impact
the way you coach your own staff?
● How did you learn to coach others?
Motivation (Self-Efficacy) – Executive
directors need to believe they can create a
culture of professional development and
implement effective leadership coaching.
● In what ways do you influence the
perception of coaching in your
organization?
● What feedback have you received about
your coaching skills?
Motivation (Collective Efficacy) – Executive
directors need to believe that together with the
● What changes have you seen in staff that
have been coached?
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 157

staff they can improve organizational
performance through leadership coaching.
Motivation (Value) – Executive directors need
to see the value in leadership development
through coaching.
● How do you communicate the value of
coaching to stakeholders (internal and
external) about coaching?
Motivation (Expectancy) – Executive directors
need to believe that an investment in leadership
development will positively influence
organizational performance.
● What positive organizational outcomes
have you seen from coaching staff?
● What negative organizational outcomes
have you seen from coaching staff?
● Have you found evidence to support these
outcomes from other sources?
Organizational (Cultural Model Influence 1):
Organizations need to foster a culture of
development that feeds the leadership pipeline,
improves organizational efficiency and
programmatic efficacy, and increases employee
performance.
● What messaging (spoken and unspoken)
have you received from your board of
directors about coaching?
● How does your organization determine the
return on investment of coaching?
● How does leadership development
measurably impact your organization’s
performance?
Organizational (Climate Influence 1):
Executive directors need to be aware of the
shared meaning and rewards ascribed to
coaching and leadership development.
● How do you reward staff who improve
their performance?
● Thinking about your experience being
coached and/or coaching, what stands out
to you as important?
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 158

Sector (Cultural Model Influence 2): The
sector needs to foster a culture of development
that feeds the leadership pipeline, improves
organizational efficiency and programmatic
efficacy, increases diversity, and increases
employee performance.
● In what ways do you think the culture of
the nonprofit sector supports leadership
coaching?
● In what ways do you think the culture of
the nonprofit sector fails to support
leadership coaching?
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 159

Appendix C: Managerial Coaching Workbook

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 160

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 161

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 162

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 163

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 164

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 165

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 166

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 167

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 168

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 169

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 170

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 171

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 172

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 173

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 174

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 175

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 176

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 177

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 178

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 179

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 180

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 181

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 182

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 183

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 184

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 185

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 186

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 187

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 188

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 189

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 190

Appendix D: Immediate Evaluation Instrument
1. The content was easy for me to learn. (L1)

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

2. Evidence-based practices for coaching include (circle all that apply) (L2):

a. Help employees seek and share knowledge
b. Give employees unsolicited advice based on your experience
c. Demonstrate empathy and caring
d. Commiserate with employees over challenges
e. Encourage self-reflection and growth
f. Point out employee’s weaknesses

3. I understand how coaching fits into my role as a leader. (L1)

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

4. I commit to the following actions in the upcoming quarter to create, encourage, and
reinforce a coaching culture (circle all that apply) (L2):

a. Share the value of coaching with staff members at key meetings
b. Model a growth mindset by advocating a mastery approach to learning
c. Provide positive feedback when I see performance improvements
d. Give incentives to employees that demonstrate a growth mindset
e. Be authentic by sharing my own growth journey with others

5. What I learned will help me develop my staff. (L1)

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

6. I was encouraged to practice during the retreat. (L1)

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 191

7. The feedback I received will help me improve my coaching. (L1)

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

8. A program officer from a major funder calls you to further discuss your request for a
leadership development, via coaching, grant. It is clear that the program officer thinks
that the additional administrative overhead is unnecessary, how would you express the
value of coaching during this conversation? (L2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

9. What can we, the Board of Directors, do to support you as a coach? (L1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 192

Appendix E: Blended Evaluation Instrument
1. The things I learned at the retreat have helped me do a better job. (L1)

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

2. Please state the number of coaching sessions you have completed since the retreat. (L3)
_______________________________________________________________________

3. Now that I have had multiple opportunities to practice coaching I am more confident in
my skills. (L2)

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

4. Manon has been struggling to meet deadlines over the past month. This is your second
coaching session. In the first session you spoke with Manon about goal setting and
discussed the importance of project management to the team. You gave her homework
between sessions to think about her strengths and how she can apply them to specific
work challenges. What conversation will you have with Manon during this session? (L2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

5. I have clear coaching goals set for the year. (L3)

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

6. Reflecting on a recent coaching session what do you see as a strength of your approach?
(L2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 193

7. I have received feedback that will help me improve my coaching. (L3)

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

8. During a coaching session with Tyrone he expresses frustration that he does not know
what you want him to do. He is a top performer and sees coaching as a remedial activity.
He is unsure what the point of monthly coaching sessions are and expresses concerns
about being micromanaged. How would you allay Tyrone’s concerns? (L2)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
____________________________

9. What program outcomes have been reached due to coaching? (L4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

10. What strategic outcomes have been reached due to coaching? (L4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

11. What improvements have staff members made through coaching? (L3)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

12. Please report any progress or highlights from the ongoing cost-benefit (or effectiveness)
analysis. (L3 & L4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 194

Appendix F: Data Analysis Chart for Reporting Level 1-2 Assessments to the Board

Figure 2. Managerial coaching training outcomes.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 195

Appendix G: Data Analysis Chart to Report Internal Outcomes to the Board

Figure 3. Internal report for managerial coaching outcomes.
MANAGERIAL COACHING TO IMPROVE NONPROFIT PERFORMANCE 196

Appendix H: Data Analysis Chart for Reporting Level 3-4 Outcomes Externally

Figure 4. External report for managerial coaching outcomes.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Leadership succession in the nonprofit sector can create organizational instability through a loss of knowledge and skills (Landles-Cobb, Kramer, & Milway 2015), financial resources (Boland, Jensen, & Meyers, 2005

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

An assessment of a nonprofit organization’s effort to increase its staff diversity

PDF

Applying best practices to optimize racial and ethnic diversity on nonprofit boards: an improvement study

PDF

Leadership readiness: evaluating the effectiveness for developing managers as coaches

PDF

The board fundraising challenge after nonprofit mergers: an evaluation study

PDF

Anti-bias training in community colleges: an exploratory study

PDF

Understanding workplace burnout in the nonprofit sector

PDF

Nonprofit donor retention: a case study of Church of the West

PDF

Increasing strategic investments of philanthropic funding in nonprofit organizations

PDF

Managers’ roles in supporting employee engagement in Jewish nonprofit organizations

PDF

Teacher diversity training: a qualitative study to examine novice teacher influences

PDF

Partnerships and nonprofit leadership: the influence of nonprofit managers on community partnerships

PDF

Performance measurement in nonprofits: an evaluation study

PDF

Increasing collaborative practices in the military: an improvement study

PDF

Labor versus management perspectives on remote, in-person, and hybrid work: an examination of incongruences, challenges, and strategies for optimal workplace collaboration, motivation, and performance

PDF

Leadership capacity building within a Hawaiian-based nonprofit organization

PDF

A strategy to thrive during a crisis for nonprofit organizations

PDF

The facilitators and impediments to nonprofit boards of directors’ understanding their roles and responsibilities

PDF

Where are all the ""leadhers""? Female leaders' experiences in finance

PDF

Racial and gender gaps in executive management: a retrospective examination of the problem cause and strategies to address disparities

PDF

Fundraising in small health and human service nonprofit organizations: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Montgomery, Anna E. (author)

Core Title Managerial coaching to increase diversity, build capacity, and improve nonprofit performance

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 07/28/2019

Defense Date 05/29/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag capacity building,Coaching,communities of practice,diversity,equity,evaluation,evidence-based practices in coaching,executive director,inclusion,inclusiveness,leadership,leadership development,leadership succession,learning theory,managerial coaching,motivational theory,nonprofit,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational behavior,organizational change,organizational culture,organizational theory,performance improvement,shared leadership,Training

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Seli, Helena (committee chair), Maddox, Anthony (committee member), Pearson, Mark (committee member)

Creator Email amontgomery@northwestgreenchemistry.org,annamont@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-197348

Unique identifier UC11663428

Identifier etd-Montgomery-7650.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-197348 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-Montgomery-7650.pdf

Dmrecord 197348

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Montgomery, Anna E.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA