Coaching employees: is it quality or quantity that counts?

Purpose Workplace coaching practice (i.e. expertise and frequency) has been identified as a leadership tool for enhancing work-related outcomes. Drawing on social exchange theory (SET) and leader-member exchange (LMX), this study explores whether the expertise of the coaching supervisor or the frequency of formal coaching sessions is more important when predicting outcomes (i.e. job satisfaction, in-role behaviours (IRB) and turnover intentions). We also explore whether the relationship between coaching practices towards such outcomes is mediated by the quality of the coaching relationship (as perceived by the employee). Finally, we assess whether individual feedback orientation (IFO) has a moderating effect. Design/methodology/approach We selected a cross-sectional design, collecting data from a sample of formally coached New Zealand employees (n = 395). To assess model fit and test hypotheses, we took a structural equation modelling approach. Findings Findings revealed that (1) coaching expertise dominated over frequency. (2) the employee’s perceived quality of the coaching relationship (PQECR) fully mediated the effect of coaching expertise towards job satisfaction and turnover intentions and (3) these relationships were moderated by IFO. Originality/value Whilst there has been debate over the relative importance of coaching expertise versus coaching frequency, the dominance of one over the other has yet to be settled.