The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education  Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016

The Link between the Process of Change and Coaching in an
Organization – A Case Study

Josephine Jim

63	
  The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	  Abstract

The aim of this case study was to highlight coaching in the process of change using a real life
information technology and operational change project in an institution. It demonstrates thecritical importance of coaching in change management, for successful change to occur.Any
sustaining change requires ongoing coaching as an integral part of the process. The study heeds
a call for adopting coaching to support organizational learning and change. It also attempts toopen further research interests in the link between the process of change and coaching, and thebenefits of coaching in change management today.
Keywords: organizational learning and change; change management; coaching for change;
empowerment.

	
  

64	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  Introduction
Today’s dynamic world is causing organizations, groups and individuals to reframe their viewof what ‘normal’ is: ‘Change is the new normal’, or ‘the new normal is continuous change’(Jorgensen, Owens, & Neus, 2008). Drivers of change can be positive or negative. They canbe environmental or personal. They can be of external or internal environments. Changes ofexternal environment can be due to factors like markets, legislation, competition and economy
and all these will have consequences for organizations, such as its strategy development.
Changes in strategy can lead to changes in the way the organization is structured, which can
impact relationships, responsibilities and ways of working. The way in which change is
implemented and accepted through the organization will be largely influenced by its leaders,
their attitudes and behaviors as perceived by their subordinates. When there are changes in thework carried out, skills of the employees would have to be assessed. Usually, training is neededin order to cope with new skill requirements and coaching is also necessary to facilitate
mobility (Gallwey, 2000) (Burke & Litwin, 1992). Changes of internal environment can
include immediate working environment, such as a change in job, a new organization, a change
in personnel, or a change in terms of conditions of service, which are likely to invoke a rangeof emotional and political responses from relevant stakeholders. Every organization has its
unique culture, and culture change only evolves over time as a result of many other changes.
In the Executive Overview of the Best Practices in Change Management – 2014 Edition, thereport suggests that two of the greatest contributors to success are: employee engagement andparticipation; engagement with and support from middle management (Creasey & Hiatt, 2014).
The study reported that the main obstacles when implementing change projects were: changing
mindsets and attitudes; lack of motivation of involved employees. The “soft stuff” was thehardest to get right (Jorgensen, et al., 2008). Therefore, the most significant challenges arepeople oriented, motivation is the key to effective change, and to maintain motivation in the
pursuit of change is a real challenge (Burke & Litwin, 1992). Regarding motivation, a coachcan play a pivotal role in facilitating the change process (Downey, 2003).
The premise of this research was that change coaching supports effective change, among othervalid supports (Bennett & Bush, 2014). The study aimed to establish the link between theprocess of change and coaching in an organization.The organizations is one of the leading
institutions in professional and continuing education and where coaching is not a common
practice in the workplace. Using a real-life project example to demonstrate how a coachfacilitated the change process, maintained motivation throughout changing events, the study
examines change process related factors pre- and post-coaching.
Coaching for Change and its Assessment
Coaching is an effective skill for helping individuals and groups change, and coaching forchange can have an impact on the organization or system (Bennett & Bush, 2014). While theefficacy of coaching is still not well understood, the AMA/Institute for Corporate Productivity
Coaching Survey 2008 reported that two of the main reasons behind the termination ofcoaching assignments were: the inability of certain employees to change and the difficulty ofmeasuring return on investment (ROI) (Amercian Management Association, 2008). ‘Coachingengages with people, the essentially human nature of coaching is what makes it work – andalso what makes it nearly impossible to quantify’ (Sherman & Freas, 2004).
One way to track the benefits associated with coaching is through the use of assessments. The
critical lesson for coaches is to administer these assessments in a pre- and post-test format(Amercian Management Association, 2008). Though there are several different ways
	
  

65	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  organization can use coaching, the most commonly used method of coaching is to make it an
integral part of a supporting program.
Background of the Case Study
Introduction of a new Student and Course Record System
This case study involved a tertiary education institution in Hong Kong (called the Instituttion
hereunder). The Institution was experiencing rapid growth, therefore to support the academic
development and operation of the Institution, the Academic and Management Board had
decided to partner with Cloud Business Services to implement a new Student and Course
Record System in 2013. The author was a member of the Steering Committee participating inthe strategic planning of the project. Several rounds of discussion were held with the Institution
management to analyze the situation, plan the change process and to advise the management
on anticipated hurdles in the process of change.
Understandings from the discussions were: when introducing an initiative – a new information
technology system, it required staff to change the way they think and do things within theInstitution. These disturbances to their behavior or thinking were likely to be met withresistance in some form (Prochaska, Norcross, & Diclemente, 2006) to bring about changes inbehavior, a pervading change in context was required (Palmer & Whybrow, 2008); and tochange behavior at the individual and organization level, the expectations, individual roles,
behaviors, hierarchies and coalitions that existed within the systems of the organization needed
to be examined and made more flexible (Peltier, 2001). According to Peltier (Peltier, 2001),
below are opportunities or ways that coaches can help:a.   When big things in the organization changeb.   Skill development for individual/group transitionsc.   Specific skill developmentd.   Resolving specific problems

The Institution management, as the change sponsor, recognized the new system would be
important in the Institution, the staff would have to go through stages of learning and skill
development, and finally, they would benefit from an improved work flow with greater ease inadministration, record keeping and retrieving, and enhanced technological skills. This is adirected change project driven from the top of the organization and relies on authority,
persuasion, and compliance (Kerber & Buono, 2010, Spring).
For this project, the Institution management had established a change team infrastructure(Galpin, 1996) – Figure 1, to manage the process of change in order to make the implementationof the new system a success.

	
  

66	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  Figure 1. The Change Team Infrastructure (Galpin, 1996)
The author was in the Steering Committee which was guiding the coalition roles. The changesponsor appointed two Change Managers. A Project Team was also appointed since the project
was for large-scale change. The Project Team coordinated across the Implementation Teams,
identifying and resolving issues. Its members were the leaders of the Implementation Teams.
The Project Team provided a coordination function, offering a regular forum forcommunication and learning among all the teams (Bennett & Bush, 2014).
The Change Managers had conducted a few change agent engagement zessions, followed by aseries of fundamental change briefing sessions and system live demo to the change agents,
whereby the concepts of the new system were explained, and upcoming changes on theoperation processes were highlighted. In this change project, the Change Managers focused on
several critical areas: communication, employee involvement, teamwork and change
management (Palmer & Whybrow, 2008), and managing the transitions (Bridges, 2009).
During change, the Change Managers advised the Institution management to repeat themessage again and again–emphasizing the need to change and the benefits of the new system.
A website was established to introduce the background of the project and the newsystem, thechange sponsor, the change agents and the system partner, the go-live schedule of the systemand the project status. Newsletters were distributed to all stakeholders regularly to update themon the progress of the project, and to announce interim victories and the ultimate success.
Employee participation in the system design workshops and meetings were highly encouraged
during the core system design stages because the Change Managers believed that participation
gave substantive benefits for both individuals and the school. It was believed that when thestaff saw that their input was valued, they would increase their commitment, involvement, andtake greater personal responsibility for the new system outcomes (Palmer & Whybrow, 2008).
During change, people went through a series of stages and emotions (Kubler-Ross, 1973):
Pre-contemplation /Denial
The Project Team at the Institution faced a lot of changes in work load and project priorities
and they did not believe in the urgency of the new Information Technology system. Program

	
  

67	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	  administration teams in the Institution did not want to accept the new system and expose
themselves to the new and long journey ahead.
Emotional arousal – anger, bargaining, upset
After acknowledgment, some project team members asked questions such as “Why now?”“Why me?” “Why not employing somebody else to do the additional work?” When they cameto meetings, they revealed that they did not want to accept the changes in work arrangements
and of wanted to do anything but get involved in the project. This caused frustration for thosemembers who had already been convinced of the benefits of the project – the change sponsor,
which included everyone in the management team and the change agents had the responsibility
to implement the change.
Due to insufficient manpower for redeployment, some program teams started to bargain andrequested to extend the duration of the project. This could have been due to panic, lowconfidence, or desperation. After many rounds of meetings on the project, project implementerswere convinced of the need and were not going to escape from the situation. Nonetheless, they
were still upset by the new arrangement of workload, which meant they would have tocompromise some of their routines and were grieving for the loss that they were about toendure. This upset could take the form of sadness and emotions.
Contemplation /Acceptance
The Change Managers saw many team members move out of their denial, anger, bargaining
and upset to a stage of acceptance. They were prepared to accept the reality of the situation,and the new and long journey ahead, but they were still uncertain about the impact of change
and were in a state of anxiety.
A Discovery Journey of Preparation, Action, Maintenance and Termination
The end of the contemplation stage is signalled by a change in problem behaviors (Prochaska,
et al., 2006). Helping relationships between partners, peers, team-mates, and subordinates
played an important role during the preparation stageThe buisiest period of change was during
the action stage, requiring helping relationships.
In this project, the Change Managers guided the project team to communicate and relate in a
way that engendered commitment, responsibility and accountability.
Resistance was part of the territory of change (Palmer & Whybrow, 2008). It occurred whenpeople experienced the discomfort and ambiguity associated with change. The ChangeManagers listened to all the resistance and addressed them in order to assist the staff to develop
new behaviors and thinking. The strategies and techniques they adopted were repeating thecommunication; acknowledging and legitimizing feelings; raising awareness; supporting
individual learning and development; building confidence and providing feedback; rewarding
and acknowledging progress to provide support that utilized resistance and enabled people tochange (Palmer & Whybrow, 2008). It was understood that resistance exists and and it isimportant to embrace it and use its energy to build support for change. (Maurer, 1996)
The Change Managers were leading the change by applying critical skills such ascommunication, presence, engagement, listening, showing empathy, understanding the change
curve and negotiating resistance. They also consistently used sound change management
strategies and techniques to move people through the change cycle (Palmer & Whybrow,2008). They listened and agreed with the request that the change agents would need some
	
  

68	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  coaching in order to do their job well. They sought approval from the Institution management
to hire an external coach to conduct a workshop – ‘Team Building with Focus on ChangeManagement’ for the change agents. The objective was to equip participants with knowledge
and skills in managing change in the teams through coaching. As the change sponsor, theInstitution management had been pleased with the progress of the changing events, and had
been very supportive in approving the recommendations made by the Change Managers.
Methodology and Findings
This article reflects on a change project in a tertiary education institution in Hong Kong from2013 to present (it was on-going at the time of writing ). The project covered changes in theprocess of a system revamp caused by drivers in the internal environment. Values and benefitsof coaching for change reflected were a collection of feedback from relevant stake holders via
formal surveys in pre- and post-workshop settings and informal sharing sessions. In this survey,
multiple questions used the well-accepted Likert-type scale, with a 1 rating designated as“lowest/least” and a 5 rating designated as “highest/most.” There were 9 questions in all, witha 10th question in the post-workshop survey. The questionnaires (Appendix I) had been
designed to include below factors related to the change process described by Prochaska et al.,(2009).
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  

clarification on the change process
degree of emotion aroused in you
degree of your resistance to the change process
allowance to give feedback
helping relations with your peer in the change teamcommitment to implement the change process
sufficient knowledge and training on implementing the change process
ability to manage the change implementation process
confidence in implementing the change processenhancing the assertiveness in implementing the change process (only in postworkshop survey)

The questionnaires were distributed face-to-face before and after the one-day coaching session,
and were to be completed by all participants in anonymity. The pre-workshop questionnaire
was collected before the session started and the post-workshop questionnaire was collected
immediately after the session finished. The scores for each question were organized in tableand graphic presentation with focus on the differences in the pre- and post-workshop ratings.
There were a total of 40 participants, including 14 who attended the first workshop and theother 26 who attended the second workshop. Participants were of various positions in theorganizations: among them 13% were directors, 17% were managers, 17% were senior
executive officers, 20% were executive officer, 13% were executive secretaries and 20% were
executive assistants (Table 1). 20% were male and 80% were female (Table 2). With 36
questionnaires returned from a base of 40 participants, the response rate was 90% (Table 3).
Differences in the score ratings of each question at pre- and post-workshop settings were
presented in table 4 and graphic formats (Figure 2). And were calculated and expressed aspercentage variance (Table 4).

	
  

69	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education  Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	    Table 1. Background of Participants (Base: 40)
Position in the organization
Director

13%

Manager

17%

Senior Executive Officer

17%

Executive Officer

20%

Executive Secretary

13%

Executive/Assistant

20%

Table 2. Gender of Participants (Base: 40)
Male

20%

Female80%

Table 3. Response Rate (Base: 40)

	  No. of respondents

36

Response rate

90%

70	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education  Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	    Table 4. Survey Results: Difference in Pre- and Post-Workshop Average Score and Percentage
of Difference in Average Score
Factors related to the change process

Average Score*
Preworkshop

Postworkshop

Percentage
increase/decrease

Q1

Clarification on the change process

3.80

4.45

+17.1%

Q2

Degree of emotion aroused in you

3.06

3.21

+4.9%

Q3

Degree of your resistance to the change 2.89
process

2.61

-9.7%

Q4

Allowance to give feedback

3.92

3.76

-4.1%

Q5

Helping relations with your peer in the 3.86
change team

4.09

+6%

Q6

Commitment to implement the change 4.44
process

4.39

-1.1%

Q7

Sufficient knowledge and training on 3.61
implementing the change process

4.18+15.8%

Q8

Ability to manage theimplementation processchange 3.64

4.30

+18.1%

Q9

Confidence inchange process

the 3.67

4.15+13.1%

4.73-

implementing

Q10 Enhancing the assertiveness in implementing the change process (onlyin post-workshop survey)*	
  Likert-type scale, with a 1 rating designated as “lowest/least” and a 5 rating designated as“highest/most”

	
  

71	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  Figure 2. Survey Results: Difference in Pre- and Post-Workshop Average Score (Base: 40)
Remarks:	  Q1 – clarification on the change process

Q6 – commitment to implement the change
process

Q2 – degree of emotions aroused in you

Q7 – sufficient knowledge and training on
implementing the change process

Q3 – degree of resistance to the change
process

Q8 – ability to manage the change
implementation process

Q4 – allowance to give feedback

Q9 – confidence in implementing the change
process

Q5 – helping relationships with peer inthe change team

Q10 – enhancing the assertiveness in
implementing the change process (only inpost-workshop survey)72	
  The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  Upon administering the assessments in the pre- and post-workshop setting, the findings wereas below. After the coaching workshop:
1.   There was a 17.1% increase in the average score on “clarification on the change process”– the 2nd top benefit;
2.   There was a 4.9% increase in the degree of emotion aroused in participants;
3.   There was a 9.7% decrease in the average score on “degree of resistance to the change
process” – the 5th top benefit;
4.   There were only slight differences in the average score on “allowance to give feedback”(4%);
5.   There was a 6% increase in the average score on “helping relationships with peer in thechange team” – the 6th top benefit;
6.   There were only slight differences in the average score on “commitment to implement thechange process” (-1%);
7.   There was a 15.8% increase in the average score on “sufficient knowledge and training on
implementing the change process” – the 3rd top benefit;
8.   There was an 18.1% increase in the average score on “ability to manage the change
implementation process” – the 1st top benefit;
9.   There was a 13.1% increase in the average score on “confidence in implementing thechange process” – the 4th top benefit;
10.  The overall average score on “enhancing the assertiveness in implementing the change
process” after the workshop was high at 4.73, against a scale with a 1 rating designated as“lowest” and a 5 rating designated as “highest”;
Examples of feedback from informal sharing session with randomly selected participants:“I am happy being able to participate in the project from its design stage. As I have been with
the Institution for more than 15 years, I am fully aware of the downsides of the current student
record system and I do not wish to see the new system not meeting my practical needs in future.
I have always been committed in implementing the change process and help my team-mates asmuch as I can. This workshop gave me extra opportunities to share my view with peers in thechange team.” – by A. Chan (See note)“I appreciate the continuous communication and transparency of the change events so that I
could brief new staff on the prospect of the new system, as they are complaining about the timethey have to spend on working with the current system which has been obsolete for a long time!
This workshop gave me an insight into coaching and equipped me with useful tools – listening
and questioning skills, which would help me in dealing with my colleagues during theimplementation process in future.” – by B. Lee“As change agents, we would have to guide and train other programme staff in the Institution
on the new system when it is ready. We do not have any experience in handling changing
project and the resistance to change which we may encounter. We hoped to receive sometraining and this workshop has given me extras strengths. And it has enhanced myunderstanding on a change process in an organization.” – by C Cheung

	
  

73	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  Discussion
Coaching had been applied in the change processes in the above project with very positive
feedback and appreciation from the Change Team. However, it only served as an integral partof the support program in the change process. The Change Managers recommended hiring an
external change coach because they believed an external coach would have an independent
perspective, credibility and experience to support and facilitate effective change. In addition,
an external coach has greater financial motivation to succeed with their clients than does aninternal coach (Bennett & Bush, 2014), and after all, senior leadership have already beenheavily loaded with change work and related activities. However, the combined roles of project
leader and coach, and change manager and coach in project examples of other organizations is
not uncommon, it is common to see executives wearing more than one hat and performing
multiple functions in parallel in this fast-moving working environment.
Since the number of participants of the workshop was 40, they were divided into two groups
to attend the workshop in two separate days. Team coaching was selected due to budget reasons
and also due to its anticipated benefits as described by Clutterbuck (2007), ‘helping the team
improve performance, and the process by which performance is achieved through reflection
and dialogue’ (Clutterbuck, 2007).
According to the survey in Best Practices in Change Management – 2014 Edition, two of the
top five obstacles to success in change management in organizations are: resistance to change
from employees; and middle management resistance (Creasey & Hiatt, 2014). The project
example is a directed change project driven from the top of the organization and relies on
authority at the top, persuasion in the middle, and compliance at the bottom (Kerber & Buono,2010). In the pre-workshop survey, the resistance from staff was moderate at an average scoreof 2.89 against a scale with a 1 rating designated as “lowest” and a 5 rating designated as“highest”; and after the workshop, there was a 9.7% decrease in the average score of this factor,
to 2.61, which exceeded the medium level. It indicates that more work has to be done in regard
to persuasion in the middle. However, other supporting activities such as communication,
employee involvement and managing the transitions may attain synergy benefits as a whole.
In this change project, coaching had been made as an integral part of a supporting programme.
Change Managers listened and agreed with the request that the change agents would need somecoaching in order to do their job well. Despite it was only a one-day workshop for each of theparticipants, the benefits for the group speak for themselves through the differences in the score
rating on the factors related to the change process at pre- and post-workshop setting.
Suggestions for the Future
Further coaching intervention in future may be necessary to the processes of reinforcement andsustainment, as soft and people-related factors typically present great challenges in theseprocesses. The development of the Change Managers to become internal coaches may add
value in this situation, and using more cost-effective internal coaches would be useful for
managers and supervisors. However, when training internal coaches, using externally based
development programs or bringing in external talent as trainers may lead to higher coaching
success (Amercian Management Association, 2008).
Combining coaching and change management could be very powerful in facilitating changes
in an organization. ‘Dealing with organizational change and dilemmas is not for the fainthearted’ (O'Neill, 2007, p.19). Just as sailors learn to read the wind in order to tack and open
their sails, the Change Manager must read a few of the signs: key players, support change
	
  

74	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  agents, timing, go for understanding and keep moving. Only experience and a willingness to
act as a coach of change is needed to be instrumental in change. The Change Manager also
needs to have his or her own ongoing reflective space, in which to reflect on practice (Hawkins& Smith, 2006). And the Change Manager may expand this practice to include a blend of
education and coaching, which would be a very powerful tool in facilitating a change process.
Conclusion
The results of the survey in the case study demonstrated the link between the process of change
and coaching in an organization, and these linkages were as below:
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  

enhance the clarification on the change processincrease in the degree of emotion aroused in participants
decrease in the degree of participants’ resistance to the change processenhance the helping relations with participants’ peer in the change teamincrease in the level of knowledge and training on implementing the change processincrease in the ability to manage the change implementation processenhance the confidence in implementing the change processachieving a high score in enhancing the assertiveness in implementing the change process
after the coaching workshop

However, any sustaining change may require ongoing coaching as an integral part of theprocess.
Change becomes more important as an organization ages, because it keeps the organizationand its management team updated, contemporary and risk sensitive. The business environment
is changing rapidly and it is important for an organization and its people to be ahead of thechanges, or at least excited to move along with them. Coaching is extremely helpful when an
organization is aware of its needs to change, no matter whether the changes are being driven
by an external or internal environment. In situations where people are trying to make changes
at the emotional level, there may be push back, panic, a lack of confidence, avoidance or
insecurity (Hawkins & Smith, 2006). A coach is a professional who has the skills to help others
effect personal change.
Organizations are using a variety of methods to measure the success of their coaching
initiatives. However, some observers believe ‘coaching is not well suited to metrics’ (Amercian
Management Association, 2008). The observations and processes described and the reflections
made in this article were based on a real life project in a sizable organization. Quantitative andqualitative reflections on practical cases can truly demonstrate the link between the process ofchange and coaching in an organization, and it is evident in this study that the link creates
positive energy in the change process, especially in raising ability and confidence.
Limitations and the Need for Further Studies
The limitations of the study were: it was case study base; the sample size was small; thequestionnaires had not been validated and the data collected had not been analyzed statistically.
Nonetheless the premise of this research has been validated – change coaching is an optimal
support to facilitate effective change (Bennett & Bush, 2014). The benefit of coaching insustaining change in the case study is to be ascertained (the project was on-going at the time ofwriting). The article heeds a call on adopting coaching to support organizational learning andchange, especially in education institutions where coaching is not yet a common practice in the

	
  

75	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education    Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016	
  workplace. Further reflections, studies and or empirical research are warranted to foster thevalue of coaching in change management today.
Note
All names in the assignment have been changed to preserve anonymity.
Appreciation
The author thanks The University of Hong Kong, School of Professional and Continuing
Education management for their support in this case study.
	
  

	
  

76	
  

The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education  Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016

References
Amercian Management Association. (2008). Coaching: A Global Study of Successful
Practices. NY: AMA.
Bennett, J. L., & Bush, M. W. (2014). Essential Change Skills. In Coaching for Change (pp.
180-210). NY: Routledge.
Bridges, W. (2009). Managing transitions: making the most of change (3rd ed.). Da Capo
Lifelong Books.
Burke & Litwin. (1992). A Causal Model of Organisation Performance and Change. Journalof Management , 18 (No 3), 523-545. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639201800306
Clutterbuck, D. (2007). Coaching the team at work. London: Nicholas Brealey.
Creasey, T., & Hiatt, J. (2014). Best practices in change management. Loveland, CO: Prosci.
Downey, M. (2003). Effective coaching. London: Texere.
Gallwey, T. (2000). The inner game of work: overcoming mental obstacles for maximum
performance. London: Orion Business.
Galpin, T. (1996). In The human side of change (pp. 21-23). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hawkins, P., & Smith, N. (2006). Coaching, mentoring and organizationsl consultancy:
supervision and development. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Jorgensen, H., Owens, L., & Neus, A. (2008). Making change work. NY: IBM.
Kerber, K. W., & Buono, A. F. (2010, Spring). Creating a sustainable approach to change:
Building organizational change capacity. SAM Advanced Management Journal , 4-21.
Kubler-Ross, E. (1973). On Death and Dying. London: Routledge.
Maurer, R. (1996). Beyond the wall of resistance (Revised ed.). Texas: Bard Books, Inc.
MOE. (2012). Pathways Beyond 2015. Report of the Committee on University Education .
Singapore.
O'Neill, M. B. (2007). Executive Coaching with Backbone and Heart : A Systems Approach
to Engaging Leaders with Their Challenges (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Palmer, S., & Whybrow, A. (2008). Handbook of Coaching Psychology: A Guide for
Practitioners. London: Routledge.
Peltier, B. (2001). The Psychology of Executive Coaching: Theory and Application. Sussex:
Brunner-Routledge.
Prochaska, J., Norcross, J., & Diclemente, N. (2006). Changing for good. New York: William
Morrow.

77	
  The  IAFOR  Journal  of  Education  Volume  4  –  Issue  2  –  Summer  2016

Sherman, S., & Freas, A. (2004). The Wild West of executive coaching. Harvard Business
Review , 82 (11), 82-90.

78