Page - 84 - in Coaching im digitalen Wandel

Deniers84 Two recent relevant literature reviews were found: Ghods and Boyce (2013) examine the existing literature on virtual coaching against the backdrop of research into online therapy and eMentoring, while Kanatouri and Geißler (2017) provide an outline of existing purpose-built technologies to support the coaching process as well as a compilation and review of empirical research on technology-assisted coaching. As Web 2.0 technology has only been available since 2003, the year which also saw the introduction of Skype, most studies investigating the use of technology in coaching have so far primarily focused on the use of the telephone (Charbonneau, 2002; Berry, 2005; Frazee, 2008; Ghods, 2009; McLaughlin, 2012; Geißler, Hasenbein, Kanatouri, & Wegener, 2014). Kanatouri and Geißler come to the conclusion that »overall, the coaching literature has mainly provided positive findings with regard to the efficacy of telephone and online tools for coaching delivery« (2017, p. 725). Further research will have to show whether the continuous spread of video-conferencing tech- nology in coaching will go along with an ever more favourable response to this form of delivery. The working alliance in technology-assisted coaching The quality of the coach-client relationship is generally recognised as the single most important factor determining the effectiveness of coaching (Berry, Ashby, Gnilka, & Matheny, 2011; McLeod, 2013; Ianiro & Kauffeld; 2014). Bordin’s (1979) definition of the working alliance in therapy as comprising of a mutual agreement on tasks and goals as well as the establishment of a bond formed by trust, acceptance and confidence »is generally considered to be transtheoreti- cal« (Berry et al., 2011, p. 244). Across all coaching fields, »the central role of the coaching working alliance for coaching success« (op. cit., p. 232) is recognised, widely accepting McKenna and Davis’ (2009) claim that 30 % of the success of therapy – and by inference coaching – is accounted for by the working alliance. »So, it is important to think about how to build and sustain the alliance with a remote client. How much of the work can be done remotely without eroding this active ingredient of rela- tionship?« (op. cit., p. 258). With the growing use of technology-supported coaching, the definition of what constitutes »face-to-face« interaction has broadened. Thus, Drake II (2015) subsumes physical and video-mediated encounters under »face-to-face coach- ing« opposing it to »technology-based mediated communication« where »coach and client are engaged using email, instant messaging (IM), mobile/smartphone telephone, tablet, or texting« (op. cit., p. 26). Similarly, Simeonsdotter Svensson, Open-Access-Publikation im Sinne der CC-Lizenz BY-NC-ND 4.0