Myth17 - Manager-as-a-coach by Uitgeverij Lannoo

The manager-as-a-coach helps people to always

(I would like to thank Around Publishing for allowing me to self-plagiarize and use pieces of text for this book from my previous book Around Leadership. Bridging the ScientistPractitioner Gap.)

Since the 1990s, it has become a popular practice to paint managers or leaders as coaches for their employees. Coaching in the Rogerian way is easy: just ask open-ended questions and people will readily find their own solutions. It will only take a few minutes of your time, thus leaving you with plenty of time to enjoy the benefits of your managerial salary.

Key words

Carl Rogers, Rogerian therapy, GROW, unconditional, self-directed, non-directive, solutions-from-within, humanistic ideology.

What is the-manager-as-a-coach about?

Perhaps one of the first authors to write about the concept of the ‘manager as a coach’ was Sir John Whitmore, with his famous book Coaching for Performance (1992). He was followed by a flock of management writers all over the world, including Myles Downey (Effective Coaching, 1999), Robert Hargrove (Masterful Coaching. Extraordinary Results by Impacting People and the Way They Think and Work Together, 1995) and Dutch engineer Willem Verhoeven (Managing Without Hierarchy, 1991; The Manager as a Coach, 1993).

Basically, this flock of believers wants to transform leaders into coaches and wants to make hierarchy superfluous based on the idea that people and teams are self-managing. The manager-coach should incite the collaborator to think and (s)he should learn the facts and find solutions from within. The coach should merely stimulate thinking. This central tenet of the theory is borrowed from the ideas of Carl Rogers (1902–1987), a humanistic theologist and psychologist who observed four important aspects in his non-directive client-centered therapy:

1. Acceptance (total, unconditional, and positive acceptance of the client).

2. Listening (this requires very good listening skills).

3. Empathy.

4. Self-generation of solutions (the belief that the client will always find his or her own solutions. The therapist will never interpret or offer advice).

Rogers firmly believed that the client would experience a form of organismic self-actualization , a fuzzy concept used by many humanistic psychologists like Rogers or Abraham Maslow. The closest I can come to explaining this concept is that he believed that if the therapist expressed belief in the client’s ability to use his own experience and skill to find solutions and choose between possible actions or solutions, then this would give the client a sense of agency and increase his sense of ‘self.’191

191 These concepts are closely related to another fuzzy concept in psychology: self-efficacy.

What has become of this Rogerian approach in psychotherapy? Not much—although many older psychotherapists still use this approach. Several meta-analyses192 have been conducted and have found this non-directive approach to be inferior to other treatments. For many problems, the more active directive 193 cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is found to be superior to other forms of therapies. Especially for problems related to social anxiety, panic disorders, eating disorders, post-traumatic stress, anorexia nervosa, etc., CBT offers strong evidence for its superior effectiveness as compared to other talktherapies.

The Rogerian approach has inspired many people in the counseling and coaching field to develop a non-directive approach towards coaching. The central idea is still that the collaborator must find his/her own solutions. Since proponents of this approach don’t think the method (e.g. CBT) is so important—the collaborator must find his/her own solutions to their problems (functional problems, career issues…)—people like Whitmore have come up with the now infamous yet simple GROW structure for a coaching conversation:

● Goals: let the employee decide on what goal(s) they want to pursue.

● Reality: ask the employee a series of open-ended questions, trying to avoid superficial issues. They must try to reach a ‘deeper level of consciousness.’ The coach should also tap into emotions (here it becomes clear how this approach shares similarities with therapy) and demand an answer to the questions posed. The employee is thus forced to reflect.

● Options: what options does the employee have? The manager should push the employee to come up with at least one extra idea. The manager should also prevent the employee from self-censuring ideas.

● Wrap-up: the employee must make a choice. The role of the manager is to make sure it is as specific as possible: When are you going to do it, is it related to your goal, what obstacles will you encounter, who should know this, what help do you need? The manager is advised to create a detailed and written description of the action plan (Whitmore – Coaching for Performance).

192 For example: Chambless & Ollendick, 2001; Inserm, 2004; Hofmann et al., 2014; Hunsley & Di Giulio, 2002; Mitte, 2005; Shadish et al., 1991; Shadish et al., 2000; Smit et al., 2010; Tolin, 2010, Weisz et al., 1995, and many more.

193 Active directive means the therapist offers methodologies, explanations, etc. to the client or patient.

■ Executive Summary Theory

The idea that managers should abandon leadership and hierarchy and replace this with agreements and equality relationships, or that they should only ask questions to prompt collaborators to find the solutions within themselves, doesn’t withstand scrutiny. It is not only unnatural and goes against what employees expect from their ‘bosses’ (to learn and be guided, at least in the beginning of their careers or when assuming new roles), it’s also unlikely that employees will discover the necessary solutions if they don’t have the knowledge. The theory is therefore highly implausible. There is also the issue of trust, which is difficult in a role conflict model of this kind: on the one hand, the manager should be an unprejudiced and unconditionally accepting coach, while on the other hand, they must correct, evaluate, and prompt wherever needed. This role conflict within the managerial position is highly problematic, and not in the least from an employee’s point of view.

Empirical data

No empirical data are available, and the methods are inappropriate and insufficient. There are no grounds for such strong claims, for example that the manager as a coach is effective.

Theoretical/empirical grid

Conclusion

As in many instances, a very old (1960s), humanistic ideology has found its way into organizational life and has flourished (in some but not all organizations). It is a meme that has lodged itself within the minds of Platonic Idealists, who believe that everyone is inherently smart and good. Hallelujah! However, as it lacks a sound theory or any evidence of its effectiveness, and there is no research into potential harmful effects, I strongly recommend against ascribing to this concept. Role clarity is important, and it is clear that in most organizations, leaders or managers have real hierarchical power. They can formally evaluate, promote, and even fire employees. You would be mistaken to think that the majority of leaders would abandon their hierarchical positions.

Moral assessment

There exists a serious risk to cause harm to employees: most managers don’t have the formal education, hard training, and necessary skills to conduct therapy-like conversations (explicit mention is made to the manager-coach addressing emotion). The fact that an employee might feel forced into accepting coaching from his or her manager due to the formal power dynamics attributed to the manager’s role could be unethical or abusive in certain situations.

Discussion

■ Theoretical soundness

The problem is that this Rogerian approach is rooted in humanistic values and ideology, and not so much in science. The truth is that there is an abundance of evidence about how people learn from other people (see for example John Hattie’s book Visible Learning, based on more than 800 meta-analyses).

The curious case of… a self-directed patient

Imagine the following situation: I have a doctor who believes in the Rogerian approach. Last year, I suffered from intense pain in one of my knees. I went to the doctor and the conversation went like this:

D: What do you want?

I: Eh, I want to get healed of course…

D: Right, and what is it you think caused the problem?

I: I have no idea, I stood up this morning and I felt severe pain. The past two days I haven’t practiced sports. During the tennis game two days ago, I felt no pain.

D: OK, think again…

I: Maybe I hit my knee against my bed during while sleeping?

D: Mmm…

I: But what should I do about it? Won’t you examine my knee?

D: No, that doesn’t help much, it is your knee after all, isn’t it?

I: Uh?...

D: How do you feel about it? How are you feeling... ?

I: I feel pretty uneasy. I worry about my athletic activity and my work. This doesn’t really feel good.

D: Let’s focus on solutions. Dwelling on the past or becoming too emotional and complaining won’t help us. What would you suggest you do about it?

I: I don’t know, you’re the doctor, that’s why I came to see you.

D: Now that’s too easy, you should really make an effort and be self-directed. This is better

for your self-actualization, your feelings of autonomy and agency, and your sense of selfefficacy.

I: I might take a rest and stop physical activity for a while?

D: What other options do you have?

I: I might take a painkiller or go to the hospital for a scan?

D: What else?

I: ??

D: OK, we are running out of time, what alternatives do you want to test?

I: Taking a rest?

D: That sounds like a very good idea. And what if that doesn’t work?

I: Frankly speaking, I think I’ll ask for a second opinion from another doctor!

This conversation never took place, of course, but the doctor in my story meticulously followed each step of the GROW structure and principles. This example clearly demonstrates how silly the idea is. If you tried applying this to an anger problem, could you imagine the following conversation?

Therapist: What do you think might help you gain better control of your anger?

Client: Well, I might start off by recording for a certain period of time when my anger is triggered, what kinds of thoughts are triggered. I could also write down my early feelings and my actions. Next, I guess I should reflect on the negative consequences of my aggressive behavior as a way to motivate myself. I could then learn to practice some techniques that deviate my attention. If that doesn’t help, I might need help with profound cognitive restructuring, given that I might have some very unhelpful beliefs like ‘everyone must listen to me’?

How likely is it that a client could give such an extensive answer and almost flawlessly summarize the carefully designed CBT-protocol for anger treatment by heart? Isn’t that the task of the expert he consulted in the first place? Shouldn’t an employee expect to learn things from his leader too? Who are the leaders we respect most? Those that only torture us by asking endless questions and never take a clear stance or never offer advice? Or do we respect leaders that inspire and coach us by offering challenging assignments and providing timely advice and support? Perhaps we even respect those who dare to confront us or challenge our ideas if they have good reason to do so?

The proponents of the GROW model do not seem to understand humanistic thinking very well. Whitmore took Maslow’s hierarchy of needs very seriously, though it seems he didn’t realize this pyramid of needs was never tested or that Maslow himself lamented about this problem. What’s more, it seems he didn’t realize that the idea of the manager putting the action plan to paper is a very directive, controlling, and even mistrustful act from the perspective of the employee. This in no way resembles the Rogerian approach.

Verhoeven, however, does not stick to the GROW model. Though he doesn’t seem to have realized either how many conflicting views he held: on the one hand, he thought the ‘manager as a coach’ wasn’t a success (2008) because coaching as a management style was characterized by “managing without hierarchy, steering without playing the boss” (p. 9), “equality” (p. 10), “free, responsible individuals,” (p. 11) and a lack of rules (p. 68). This is pretty non-directive. Sticking to concerted goals and behavior could replace the hierarchy levels. Later in his book, however, he gradually abandons the concept of non-directive coaching (p. 30), stating the Rogerian approach is insufficient because it is not results-focused enough (p. 58). He then suggests that a coach can also offer suggestions (p. 107) or can use a top-down process, meaning the manager can also talk about company goals and his/her personal goals to try

to reach a state of symbiosis with the goals of the collaborator (p. 58-59). How this symbiosis and consensus related to the goals can be reached is not clear. But wait, according to Verhoeven, a coach should also give feedback, even evaluative and confrontational feedback (e.g. when someone systematically arrives late, pp. 40-41).

What else is wrong with this stuf?

The ‘manager as coach’ concept is plagued by significant limitations.

Despite the fact that, in the distant past, I personally attempted to train managers in coaching skills and proposed cognitive behavioral therapy techniques to them, I have changed my mind about this type of coaching. I no longer really believe that a manager can successfully coach in the same way as a professional coach. This is because there is no evidence in the academic literature, and I have had negative experiences in experimenting with it. The latter is just a personal experience though and doesn’t prove anything beyond the absence of evidence in the academic literature.

I do agree that a manager can adopt a basic attitude which very much resembles coaching.194 But managers cannot go beyond that: they often don’t have the skills to provide coaching on frequently occurring problems. By frequently occurring problems, I mean matters such as fear-related inhibitions (e.g., a lack of assertiveness, fear of public speaking, etc.) or anger-related problems (e.g., acting authoritarian, being quick-tempered, being impatient— often resulting in inadequate listening, etc.).

Let me explain the main reasons why I (no longer) believe in this type of coaching.

1. The issue of wearing two hats (role conflict)

1A. Leaders, or manager, have a number of hierarchical responsibilities. The leader, as a ‘boss,’ formally (legally and contractually) takes the lead and is given the accompanying power to reward (e.g., appoint, promote, grant pay raises, etc.) or punish (e.g., give a negative appraisal, sanction, dismiss, etc.). This privilege of being the boss is therefore embedded in labor legislation, although it may be counteracted by the action of trade unions. The fact that a leader can use, or in the eyes of the employee, misuse information obtained in the coaching process within the scope of annual appraisal, promotion decisions, etc., is a major handicap. It inhibits employees from being completely open about themselves towards their leader regarding certain weaknesses that may prevent them from working optimally.

1B. As a coach, the manager is supposed to put on a helper’s hat. On the one hand, some companies expect their managers as coaches to adopt the principles of the Rogerian approach such as empathy and listening without prejudice and with unconditional acceptance. But, on the other hand, they simultaneously expect the managers as coaches to carry out ‘boss’ duties such as putting the agreed actions on paper, conducting annual performance appraisals (often by giving people a performance score), or doling out rewards and punishments.

The result is an unsolvable role conflict for those leaders who try to act as ‘manager as coach.’ Employees can only accept someone as a coach if they trust that person, and only then will employees be able to open up about their weaknesses that prevent them from functioning optimally. Coaches can only help if employees share this information. This is,

194 For an in-depth explanation, see my previous book Around Leadership. Bridging the Scientist-Practitioner Gap Around Publishing Pty., Australia.

therefore, the Achilles heel of the concept of the manager as coach. Employees will only trust the boss if they are absolutely certain that the sole purpose of the coaching is to help, and that the information they provide will never be used by the boss in his or her hierarchical role. Therefore—and especially—this information must not be (mis)used, either directly or indirectly, in the employee’s annual performance appraisal. It seems that, in practice, people find it difficult to trust their leader in this way. In my own experience, this type of coaching is generally not accepted by employees due to the (internal) fear that it will negatively influence appraisal outcomes or that the boss will disapprove of them.

The importance of trust in relationships is described in the ethical code of psychologists and professional coaches. Can you imagine going to a psychologist, taking him or her into your confidence, and having that person provide your partner, manager, etc. with information behind your back?

“Surely you make people schizophrenic195 if you call on them to take responsibility the one moment and treat them as incapable the next.” (Willem Verhoeven, 2008, p. 54)

But this is what happens if the boss both uses confidential information collected during the coaching conversation (which should reflect an attitude of ‘equals’) and at the same time displays mistrust in the capacity and goodwill of his employees. Indeed, if the boss writes up a formal action plan with deadlines and the like, he is cornering his employees by creating written evidence. Why is that so hard for some people to understand?

The inherent uncertainty of this coaching arrangement makes it difficult for a coach who wears two hats to instill sufficient trust. Managers-as-coaches will, in theory, be able to achieve a level of trust that can be compared to that of coaches who are formally outside the hierarchical line, by proving over a long period of time that they really can be trusted. In most cases, this evaluation by the coaches will take about one year, because employees will wait to see if their annual performance appraisals were impacted.

Furthermore, if a given leader has behaved in an authoritarian or unreliable manner in the past, then gaining the trust of their employees in the short term will become an impossible mission. Suppose that a dispositionally authoritarian leader succeeds in adjusting his or her style and adopting a coaching attitude; this will definitely have taken some time. After all, not only must the leader work long and hard to make this behavioral change, but the employees’ perception of the leader must also change. Due to the human tendency of categorization, it will be difficult for the leader to get out of the ‘authoritarian leader’ category where the employees initially put him/her.

The problem becomes even more acute when the (awfully inefficient and risky) annual appraisal period is on the horizon. Suppose a manager takes on the position of an unprejudiced helper, or coach, regarding an employee’s issue and then suddenly has to put on the managerial hat of an assessor. The employee experiences this as a hard reality check: ‘My coach/manager knows a lot more about me now; he or she can use this information and continues to hold my (professional) fate in his or her hands’

195 This is not the medical definition of schizophrenia. It is a typical mistake lay people make. Rather, Verhoeven is describing what is known as multiple personality disorder (renamed Dissociative Personality Disorder in the DSM V—the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders from the American Psychiatric Association).

I think it would be best to abolish the annual employee appraisal talk—or at least abandon the score as recommended since 1996.196 However, in practice, many companies have not yet dispensed with this system, although it is clearly at odds with the manager as coach or leaders who create an environment of psychological safety in order for innovation and collaboration to flourish. Some people say that both the coach and the employee should be able to rise above the inherent conflict of the two hats situation, but this is naïve because that is not how the human psyche works. People do not have a switch they can merely turn ‘on and off.’ People can try to rationalize, but they cannot detach from their emotions.

2. The manager is not adequately equipped. Managers can either use a coaching style that is extremely superficial and produces unsustainable results, or managers can use techniques from evidence-based practice, which has a much greater chance of (sustainable) success.

However, psychological education and training in these techniques, in correctly applying proven protocols,197 and in conversation techniques, is required. A manager who wants to succeed in his or her job should specialize in applying certain protocols. Such protocols involve elements such as conducting a ‘functional analysis,’ generating a hierarchy of feared situations, applying graded exposure in vivo, etc. Furthermore, the manager must also master reverse role-playing and cognitive restructuring techniques. It is understandable that some readers will not understand much of this and it just proves my point: the leader as coach is clearly out of his or her depth concerning this type of issue. He or she will need to call on a professional coach, preferably one who has been trained in cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) techniques.

This form of therapy offers a number of techniques (such as motivation techniques, gradual exposure to the feared situation, response prevention, etc.) that can be used perfectly well in coaching anxiety-related problems. CBT has proven to be superior for solving certain frequently occurring problems in the business world, such as anxiety-related problems.198 People who have aggression problems (e.g., acting authoritarian or dictatorial, becoming angry very quickly, displaying asocial behavior, etc.) also seem to benefit from this type of intervention.

It is obvious that relatively few managers are the exception to the rule and have undergone this type of intensive training. Yet, through the dissemination of popular books, people want managers and leaders to believe that ‘anyone can be a coach.’ My main criticism of the many schools of coaching and other pseudoscientific approaches is that they assume that anyone can be a coach. It may be the case that anyone can learn to address a few basic behaviors, which reflects a coaching attitude, but at a certain point in time (sooner rather than later), the limits of what can be achieved with an ordinary, cognitive, and rational approach will be reached.

196 In 1996, a meta-analysis by Kluger and DeNisi was published, revealing that giving a score had zero effect on performance.

197 These are well documented chronological steps that have been put on paper (treatment protocol). It has been proven that they work better than when a coach or therapist works’eclectically,’ choosing the method that seems to suit him or her (see Chambless & Ollendick, 2001, among others).

198 Speaking in public, fear of criticism, fear of making mistakes, fear of spoiling the team atmosphere, fear of demotivating a worker, fear in sales situations. Authoritarian behavior is also sometimes rooted in a fear of losing control, etc.

In practice, managers often delegate certain employee development actions to a professional trainer or coach. Examples include training courses on topics such as presentation or meeting skills, finance for non-financial managers, planning techniques, computer programs, etc. Managers rely on trainers with appropriate subject matter expertise and solid teaching skills. This assumption is completely correct in most cases.

It is therefore bizarre to assume that managers themselves could have the necessary skills for something even more difficult, that is, coaching people. This is particularly true for instances in which fear and (mild) anger could play a part—which is the case in most behavioral issues. The level of knowledge and skills required by a coach to function successfully in such cases is much higher than for a traditional skills trainer.

3. The manager does not have the time. Coaching is a time-consuming process. This applies to teaching tasks requiring knowledge and skills (e.g., interviewing techniques for recruiters), and teaching complex skills such as prospecting for customers, giving corrective feedback, and facilitating group decision processes. Coaching employees who display inappropriate or emotionally charged behavior is even more time consuming.

4. Companies don’t always want to recognize the organizational consequences of coaching.

What some companies don’t seem to realize is that they cannot implement a Rogerian coaching dogma or even a manager-as-coach strategy, according to the ideas of Willem Verhoeven, if they aren’t prepared to discontinue any current contradictory practices and systems. For example, Willem Verhoeven (2009) states it is imperative to recognize and accept the following in order to implement coaching:

● “…Giving direction without acting like a boss” (p. 43). (Bold emphasis my own)

– “Agreements replace orders as central management model” (p. 38)

– “Coaching is interfering with one another’s work respectfully and in an egalitarian manner” (p. 42)

– “There are many leaders (who call themselves coaches) in the sports world whose management principles should rather not be taken as an example. Both in sports and business, ‘command, control and coerce’ is often taken as the leading principle for coaching” (p. 44)

– “As regards the two hats: surely you make people schizophrenic if you call on them to take responsibility the one moment and treat them as incapable the next” (p. 54)

– “Many managers just simply want to be the boss…/… these are mechanisms we humans share with animals. However, our power of reason enables us to suppress our animal instincts” (p. 143).

● Counseling using the Rogerian method is “’Inadequate’ due to the limited focus on generating results” (p. 58)

● “Coaching as a concept is nothing but a partnership to improve performance” and “ Only 11 % see their own manager as a partner at the workplace with whom you collaborate to improve performance” (p. 144). (Bold emphasis my own)

Furthermore, Verhoeven advocates abolishing the annual individual performance appraisal, a practice that exists in a considerable number of companies. He indicates that organizations have to make a choice: between either leading and managing, or coaching. Companies need to get rid of systems that conflict with the requirements for the ‘manager as coach’ concept to be successful—that is, if they really want to give coaching a chance. But will they be able to let go of controlling their employees’ behavior? I doubt it.

What does my Champions League of experts say?

People like Scott O. Lilienfeld acknowledge that not all psychotherapies are equal. The Rogerian approach is less effective than CBT. Because coaching draws heavily on psychotherapy for its techniques and conversational skills, the same applies. A (not so well-conducted) meta-analysis on coaching has revealed that only CBT-informed coaching seems to have positive effects. More on that in Part V, where I discuss Cognitive Behavioral Coaching

What does the majority of the feld of experts think?

It’s hard to say if there really is a field of experts. That presupposes that coaching is a well-researched topic when it isn’t. Rob Briner, a British organizational psychologist, reviewed the evidence199 and wrote that even the “generally uncritical and management fad-

hungry Harvard Business Review published an article titled ‘The Wild West of Executive Coaching’” (2012, p. 5) in which coaching was described as chaotic and largely unexplored.

The theoretical score: +1. Although the theory is a bit odd in some regards (e.g. ‘anyone can find the solution within himself’ and the two hats issue), I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt and say that it has some reasoning and logic behind it.

■ Empirical findings

What is the level of evidence?

A recent meta-analysis (Theeboom et al., 2014) did not report on any Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) of ‘the-manager-as-a-coach’ concept, while Rob Briner (2012) found no evidence in his literature review either. An RCT would the way to truly prove whether (a type of) coaching really makes a difference. It’s not so hard to set up an RCT: you only need two (large) groups of people. You then randomly select one group of people (out of the total group), coach them, and compare them to a group that receives something other than coaching (e.g. leadership training). You could use established psychological measures or established multi-rater instruments to measure any progress. This really isn’t hard to do and is not very costly, it only requires commitment and the courage to face the brutal truth if the data ultimately reveals that the coaching did not deliver on its promises. The only caveat is that in order to obtain reliable results, you need a large sample size.

The problem is that not only is there little to no evidence for the effects of coaching from a professional, third-party coach, but I found no published peer-reviewed research on ‘themanager-as-a-coach’ concept. What is highly problematic is that only a few people seem to care about the potential harm it could cause to the recipients if said coaching were imparted by a non-trained psychologist or a coach without little notion of psychology. Of course it could cause harm! As Briner says: “Any intervention which has active ingredients has the potential to have both positive and desired effects and harmful and unwanted side effects for some people in some ways in some circumstances.”

How likely is it this theory will ever prove to be valid?

The idea that non-qualified coaches—most have no formal training in psychology, occupational psychology, or CBT techniques—will obtain better results than professional coaches, or that the ‘manager-as-a-coach’ can replace traditional leadership styles such as inspirational, coaching, participative, directive, etc., is highly implausible. We can’t change human

199 Does coaching work and does anyone really care? Rob B. Briner in OP Matters, November 16, 2012.

nature, which has evolved over more than 2 million years, overnight, and not even in a couple hundred years. People really need (good) leadership.

The empirical score: -1. Because the current practice lacks empirical research. It is inappropriate to assert that coaching actually improves well-being, productivity, or career choices. The claims made about effectiveness are unsubstantiated.

■ Original sources consulted

I do not mention methodologically flawed meta-analyses, such as the Leichsenring & Rabung meta-analysis.

Andersson, G., Hesser, H., Hummerdal, D., Bergman-Nordgren, L., & Carlbring, P. (2013). A 3.5-year follow-up of Internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy for major depression. Journal of Mental Health, 22(2), 155–164.

Bhar, S. S., Thombs, B. D., Pignotti, M., Bassel, M., Jewett, L., Coyne, J. C., & Beck, A. T. (2010). Is longer-term psychodynamic psychotherapy more effective than shorter-term therapies? Review and critique of the evidence. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 79(4), 208–216.

Briner, R.B. (2012). Does coaching work and does anyone really care? OP Matters 16 November 2012. Chambless, D. L., & Ollendick, T. H. (2001). Empirically supported psychological interventions: Controversies and evidence. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 685–716.

Gould, R.A., Otto, M. W., Pollack, M.H., Yap, L. (1997). Cognitive-behavioral and pharmacological treatment of generalized anxiety disorder: A preliminary meta-analysis. Behavior Therapy, 28, 285–305.

Gould, R.A., Buckminster, S., Pollack, M.H., Otto, M. W., Yap, L. (1997). Cognitive-Behavioral and Pharmacological Treatment for Social Phobia: A Meta-Analysis Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 4(4), 291–306.

Howard, K. I., Krause, M. S., Saunders, S. M., & Kopta, S. M. (1997). Trials and tribulations in the meta-analysis of treatment differences: Comment on Wampold et al. (1997). Psychological Bulletin, 122, 221–225.

Hofmann, S. G., Wu, J. Q., & Boettcher, H. (2014). Effect of cognitive-behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders on quality of life: A meta-analysis. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 82(3), 375–391. Hunsley, J., & Di Giulio, D. (2002). Dodo Bird, Phoenix, or Urban Legend? The Question of Psychotherapy Equivalence. The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 1 Luborsky, L., Singer, B., & Luborsky, E. (1975). Comparative studies of psychotherapies: Is it true that “Everybody has won and all must have prizes”? Archives of General Psychiatry, 32, 995–1008. Mitte, K. (2005). Meta-analysis of cognitive-behavioral treatments for generalized anxiety disorder: a comparison with pharmacotherapy. Psychological Bulletin, 131(5), 785–795.

Niemeyer, H., Musch, J., & Pietrowsky, R. (2013). Publication bias in meta-analyses of the efficacy of psychotherapeutic interventions for depression. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 81(1), 58–74.

Shadish, W. R., Matt, G. E., Navarro, A. M., & Phillips, G. (2000). The effects of psychological therapies under clinically representative conditions: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 512–529.

Shadish, W. R., & Sweeney, R. B. (1991). Mediators and moderators in metaanalysis: There’s a reason why we don’t let Dodo birds tell us which psychotherapies should have prizes. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 883–893.

Smit, Y., Huibers, M., Ioannidis, J., van Dyck R., van Tilburg, W., & Arntz, A. (2010). The effectiveness of psychoanalysis - a systematic review of the literature. (studie uitgevoerd voor het College van Zorgverzekeraars).

Stinckens, N., Elliott, R., & Leijssen, M. (2009). Bridging the Gap between Therapy Research and Practice in a Person-Centered/Experiential Therapy Training Program: The Leuven Systematic Case Study Research Protocol. Person-Centered & Experiential Psychotherapies, 8(2), 143–162.

Theeboom, T., Beersma, B., & van Vianen, A. E. (2014). Does coaching work? A meta–analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 1–18.

Tolin, D.F. (2010). Is cognitive–behavioral therapy more effective than other therapies?: A meta–analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(6), 710–720.

Wampold, B. E., Mondin, G. W., Moody, M., Stich, F., Benson, K., & Ahn, H. (1997). A meta–analysis of outcome studies comparing bona fide psychotherapies: Empirically, “All must have prizes.” Psychological Bulletin, 122, 203–215.

Weisz, J. R., Weiss, B., Han, S. S., Granger, D. A., & Morton, T. (1995). Effects of psychotherapy with children and adolescents revisited: A metaanalysis of treatment outcome studies. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 450–468.

■ Other References (abstracts, summaries, excerpts, or reviews)

Cottreaux, J. (2000). Which Psychotherapies in the Year 2000? (Annual Series of European Research in Behaviour Therapy). Swets & Zeitlinger.