Page - 66 - in Coaching im digitalen Wandel

Terblanche66 ing framework. The second phase (application phase) used canonical action research (Davison, Martinsons, & Ou, 2012) to evolve the draft coaching frame- work into its final incarnation (for more information on this methodology, see Terblanche 2019). Foundation phase Grounded theory principles (theoretical sampling, constant analysis and com- parison, initial and focused coding and memo writing) (Charmaz, 2014) were used to extract meaning from 16 interviews with various role players in career transitions. Participants included eight recently promoted senior managers who received coaching, five transition coaches as well as HR managers and oneline managers of a senior transitioning leader. The interviews questioned partici- pants on their experience of career transitions and the role that coaching played. The themes and sub-themes identified were used to create a draft TTC frame- work which included aspects such as the need to contract explicitly for transi- tion coaching, the timing of coaching and the coaching technique that seems to facilitate transition coaching. These aspects became part of the final TTC model. Application phase The draft TTC framework was used to coach six recently promoted senior cor- porate leaders using a canonical action research (CAR) approach (Davison et al., 2012). The draft framework was evolved and refined during each of the action research cycles. The appeal of a CAR approach is that it provides very clear guidelines, consisting of five principles and 44 associated evaluation cri- teria on how to scientifically practice action research. Focal and instrumental theories, as prescribed by CAR were used to ensure rigour. A focal theory is the intellectual guide of the action research process, and for this research, Lane and Corrie’s (2007) formulation framework (per- spective, process, purpose) was used. Instrumental theories complement focal theories (Davison et al., 2012), and to this end, Mezirow’s definition of perspec- tives (Mezirow, 1994) and Hoggan’s evaluation of the level of transformative learning (Hoggan, 2016) were selected. This specific combination of focal and instrumental theories helped the CAR process to follow a coaching approach with a focus on transformative learning. The action research cycle of plan → act → evaluate → reflect was followed using a nested approach consisting of macro and microcycles (Terblanche, 2014). A macrocycle consisted of six individual coaching sessions (microcycles), one per Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0