Research Topic blockchain -accountants

Improving the relationship between managers and subordinates builds a bond of trust between

the two. As the bond of trust becomes more powerful, the possibility increases of the

employee becoming more engaged and productive in his/her work. When employees become

more engaged in work, their goals will be in greater congruence with the goals of the

corporation (De Clercq, Bouckenooghe, Raja, & Matsyborska, 2014).

However, many managers spend too large a proportion of their time mulling over documents

and too small a proportion cultivating good individual relations with their subordinates (Urwick,

1956). The resulting lack of confidence between people forces them into an elaborate

machinery of committees which further restricts their time for personal contacts (Urwick,

1956). The lack of relationship cultivation decreases both employee motivation and

engagement and serves to increase turnover within the organization. If this cycle continues

over a long period of time, organizations can earn the reputation of having the proverbial

“revolving door”.

So, what can supervisors and managers do to stop talent from exiting their doors? This paper

proposes that with the intervention of a positive coaching artifact, organizations will

understand the effects of positive coaching on both employee engagement and the relationship

between employees and management.

Problem Domain

The modern workplace is so focused on solving problems that when management “coaches”

employees, the focus is almost always on what the employee is doing wrong and what steps

need to be made to fix the problem. Often, multiple things that are going right are overlooked

for the one thing that needs the improvement. Doing one’s job the right way is the

expectation, therefore, recognition of doing things correctly is rarely given.

One of the greatest shortcomings of traditional performance management systems is a

lack of ongoing feedback and coaching. In many organizations, managers view annual

reviews as the “official opportunity” to discuss employees’ performance. And in some

cases, they use annual reviews as not only the official opportunity, but also as the only

opportunity to discuss performance, and once they complete it, they treat it like any

other item on their to-do list — something they can simply check off and ignore until the

next time it is required. Unfortunately, this approach to performance management is

better described as an infrequent, task-based activity rather than one that provides

support and value to employees (Gallup, 2017).

The results of this type of coaching are continuous Performance Improvement Plans giving

employees x amount of time to turn things around or else a harsher punishment will be put into

place in the near future. Employees feel that no matter what they do to improve, it is never

enough. This type of atmosphere has contributed to 69% of American employees stating that

they are not very satisfied with their overall corporate culture (Lee et al., 2017).

When employees are not properly coached, they become disengaged with where they work,

and ultimately the entire workplace suffers. Lengthy episodes of distraction, rapid task

saturation, a slow tempo of activity, poor decision making, too many days away from work, and

lack of interest in work are symptoms displayed by individuals who do not engage in the

organizational context (Pech & Slade, 2006). They have become disengaged - if they were ever

engaged at all (Pech & Slade, 2006). In these examples, the employee's productive output is

minimal (Pech & Slade, 2006). These low engagement levels may be due to poor levels of trust

between employees and employers, with only 39% of employees trusting what their business

leaders were telling them (Beech & Anderson, 2003).

The problem of employee disengagement is not a new one. In the early 20th century, scientific

management was created to win the war against employee disengagement (Pech & Slade,

2006). A few years later, Elton Mayo’s consulting work on the Hawthorne Studies would lead to

a new emphasis on the human behavior factor in the management of organizations (Robbins &

Coulter, 2012). However, despite a century of organizational behavior studies, corporations are

still running into the same problems – negatively coached employees who become disengaged

from the workplace. Disengagement is also detracting greatly from corporate bottom lines.

Gallup estimates that actively disengaged employees cost the U.S. $483 billion to $605 billion

each year in lost productivity (Gallup, 2017). Additionally, disengaged employees are costing

corporations additional money with increased recruitment and retention expenses, as actively

disengaged employees are almost twice as likely as engaged employees to seek new jobs

(Gallup, 2017).

Despite the staggering numbers in lost productivity and well-developed (over a century of

study) disengagement problem, employers, managers and supervisors can turn the tides. In

their article titled Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy, Luthans and Peterson

found that managers must help to create an environment in which their employees become

both emotionally engaged (i.e. form strong ties to work, co-workers, and their managers) and

cognitively engaged (i.e. express feelings of mission or purpose, and are provided with

information and feedback) (Luthans & Peterson, 2002). When emotional engagement happens,

employees feel that their opinions count, and believe their managers have an interest in their

development (i.e. emotional engagement), therefore they are more likely to positively respond

to their managers and produce favorable outcomes that help the managers to be more

effective (Luthans & Peterson, 2002).

More engaged employees develop a deeper degree of trust in their supervisors and the overall

management of the corporation. This is the most critical aspect to employee engagement. As

trust builds between an employee and his/her supervisor and management, the employee feels

more a part of something greater. They become more productive and more willing to share in

the achievement of corporate goals. As trust is a two-way relationship, management places it’s

trust in the engaged employees in ways such as giving them more empowerment to make their

own decisions, providing them with more meaningful projects and developing mentor/mentee

relationships.

In his article, The Neuroscience of Trust, Paul Zak found building a culture of trust is what

makes a meaningful difference. Employees in high-trust organizations are more

productive, have more energy at work, collaborate better with their colleagues, and stay

with their employers longer than people working at low-trust companies. They also

suffer less chronic stress and are happier with their lives, and these factors fuel stronger

performance (Zak, 2017).

Hough, Green and Plumlee concluded that trust or mistrust is positively and significantly related

to whether employees and managers are engaged or disengaged with the organization for

which they work (Hough, Green, & Plumlee, 2015). Also, the greater the trust and loyal

relationship that is built between the individual and the organization, the greater the

employee’s engagement and commitment will be towards the employer (Biswas & Bhatnagar,

2013). Management needs to recognize the importance of building this trust, and more often

than not, they do. In its 2016 global CEO survey, PwC reported that 55% of CEOs think that a

lack of trust is a threat to their organization’s growth; however most have done little to

increase trust, mainly because they aren’t sure where to start (Zak, 2017).

So, where do we start? How do we bridge the gap from a greatly disengaged workforce to

engaged and trustworthy employees willing to go the extra mile and exceed expectations in for

the accomplishment of corporate goals? One place to start is with the concept of positive

coaching.

Coaching Defined

“The goal of coaching is the goal of good management: to make the most of an organization’s

valuable resources (Waldroop and Butler 1996).”

We are all familiar with the concept of coaching – whether it was a parent leading their child on

the athletic field, a high school math teacher preparing students for Academic Bowl or a college

law professor preparing undergraduates for debate team – we all have been coached at some

point in our lives. What about the workplace – can coaching make a difference? If businesses

unlocked the coaching potential of their managers and supervisors, what would be the impact

on employee performance at both the coach and coachee levels? The search for answers to

these questions is an ongoing process into the relatively recent business practitioner

phenomenon of coaching.

In the literature review titled Coaching models for leadership development: An integrative

review, Wendy Carey, Donald Philippon and Greta Cummings retrieved literature from 1996 to

2010, and through a strict inclusion/exclusion process, selected 10 peer-reviewed papers for

their coaching study (Carey, Philippon, & Cummings, 2011). The accepted papers revealed one

of the primary difficulties of studying coaching – defining what coaching is – as its definitions

vary based on perspective, intended recipients, objectives, and setting (Carey et al., 2011).

Although the meaning of coaching changed from paper to paper, the authors were able to

identify five common elements within the coaching models: relationship building, problem-

defining, goal setting, problem-solving processes, action and transformation, and the

mechanisms by which the model proposed that outcomes are achieved (Carey et al., 2011).

Positive Coaching

Empathy, motivation and support combine with compassion to provide the foundation of

positive coaching. According to Jack, Boyatzis, Khawaja, Passarelli and Leckie, coaching and

mentoring to the Positive Emotional Attractor (PEA) (positive coaching), emphasizes

compassion for the individual’s hopes and dreams and has been shown to enhance a behavioral

change (Jack, Boyatzis, Khawaja, Passarelli, & Leckie, 2013). In contrast, coaching to the

Negative Emotional Attractor (NEA) (negative coaching), by focusing on externally defined

criteria for success and the individual’s weaknesses in relation to them, does not show

sustained change (Jack et al., 2013). Facilitative (positive) coaching is characterized by

managers who provide guidance by aligning team member aspirations with organizational goals

and facilitate the achievement of both individual and team objectives (Weer, DiRenzo, &

Shipper, 2016).

Literature Review

The landscape of research into coaching and performance is a landscape ripe with opportunity;

for example, Pedro Núñez-Cacho Utrilla, Félix Angel Grande and Daniel Lorenzo note that the

body of research into coaching is immature and needs more of an empirical focus to show that

coaching can improve firm performance, so human resource managers would be able to justify

using the practice (Núñez-Cacho Utrilla, Angel Grande, & Lorenzo, 2015). Similarly, Jason

Dahling, Samantha Taylor, Samantha Chau and Stephen Dwight state that we have minimal

consensus about what coaching involves, the concrete outcomes it predicts, and the

psychological mechanisms that explain those outcomes (Dahling, Taylor, Chau, & Dwight, 2016).

Their study is one of the first to address both the skill (quality of coaching) of managers and the

frequency (quantity of coaching) at which managers should coach their employees. In How

Supervisors Influence Performance: A Multilevel Study of Coaching and Group Management in

Technology-Mediated Services, the study takes coaching one step further by looking at how

supervisors can combine coaching with other strategies to create a work environment that

enhances group processes of communication, motivates cooperation and learning (as cited in

Argote & McGrath, 1993), and reinforces their one-on-one coaching interactions with

employees (Liu & Batt, 2010). A Holistic View of Employee Coaching introduces the difference

between positive and negative coaching techniques and presents the idea that poor or

negatively framed coaching may have counterproductive results (Weer, DiRenzo et al. 2016).

The continuous groundbreaking impact of coaching studies like these demonstrate the

opportunities for continued research within the workplace.

The findings of these studies have important implications for the broader, dynamic domain of

international business, as coaching is becoming the initiative of choice in organizations

undergoing change, even though there is little evidence of its necessity (Carey et al., 2011) and

coaching has emerged as a particularly relevant activity in organizations and the performance

and success of both the manager and employee are heavily influenced by the quality of the

coaching relationship (Weer et al., 2016). Businesses in many different industries are realizing

the importance of leveraging supervisor and employee coaching relationships towards the

ultimate goal of a sustained competitive advantage.

The studies contained within this review are shedding new light on coaching relationships at

multiple levels within different corporations, and the results are showing that coaching can

have positive results on employee performance. In a study conducted on supervisors and

employees in a large call center, coaching had a strong and significant impact on improving

individual performance over time (Liu & Batt, 2010), and sales representatives who worked for

managers with strong coaching skills exhibited better performance with meaningful financial

value (Dahling et al., 2016). Coachees in a study of 498 Spanish firms demonstrated improved

individual performance (Núñez-Cacho Utrilla et al., 2015). Coaching from mid-level managers

was able to foster greater commitment among team members, which then translated into

increasing team effectiveness over a 4 ½ year period of time (Weer et al., 2016).

In addition to providing empirical results regarding employee performance, other impacts are

being noted. Managerial coaching skill was found to have a significant, direct effect on sales

goal attainment (Dahling et al., 2016), and coaching processes were found to be a useful tool

for developing professionals within an organization (Núñez-Cacho Utrilla et al., 2015).

Individual performance was also shown to improve when managers used team activities and

group incentives as part of their coaching strategy (Liu & Batt, 2010). Weer, Direnzo et al.

demonstrated the differences of two different coaching styles – facilitative coaching, used by

managers who provide guidance to achieve team and corporate objectives and pressure-based

coaching, used by managers who become visibly upset, complain when things go wrong and

publicly criticize/reprimand employees (Weer et al., 2016). Carey, Philippon et al. research

points to certain factors that impact positive coaching outcomes: the coach’s role and

attributes, the selection of coaching candidates and their attributes, specific obstacles and

facilitators to the coaching process, the benefits and drawbacks of external versus internal

coaches, and organizational support and involvement (Carey et al., 2011).

Findings show that facilitative (positive) coaching fostered greater commitment amongst team

members, translating into greater team effectiveness over time, while pressure-based

(negative) coaching had direct negative effects on team effectiveness over time (Weer et al.,

2016). Managers concerned with producing sustained team-level functioning should favor

eliciting promotion focused employees through the use of positively framed and nurturance-

based coaching techniques aimed toward the pursuit of personal goals and aspirations as

opposed to the avoidance of retribution and failure (Weer et al., 2016).

In their seminal work, Coaching With Compassion: Inspiring Health, Well- Being, and

Development in Organizations, Boyatzis, Smith and Beveridge compare compassionate versus

deficiency-based coaching:

Coaching with compassion (positive coaching) involves noticing another’s need, empathizing, and acting to enhance their well-being. This style of coaching invokes a mental state that enables a person to be open to new possibilities and learning. In contrast, (negative) coaching for compliance and deficiency-based coaching invoke the opposite state—resulting in a person being defensive, reducing cognitive functioning. (Boyatzis, Smith, & Beveridge, 2013)

Jack, Boyatzis, Khawaja, Passarelli and Leckie measured the physical effects of positive and negative coaching on the human brain in Visioning in the brain: An fMRI study of inspirational coaching and mentoring. Their findings findings suggest that positive approaches to helping others to learn or change may be more effective than other more typical but somewhat negative approaches because they activate neural regions and circuits that cause the person to be more cognitively and perceptually open and engage positive motivational processes (Jack et al., 2013). Coaching remains a hot topic to study in business today. All of the authors above noted that the field of coaching lacks empirical data, especially in the area of its effects on employee performance. This study will generate knowledge by taking the Design Science Research (DSR) approach of diagnosing positive coaching opportunities and designing a positive coaching model for future corporate implementation. DSR Model – Step 1 – The Diagnosis It is no mystery that America has a coaching problem. Statistic after statistic throughout this article has shown that only focusing on negative and reactive coaching styles discourages employees, increases disengagement and negatively affects production, which drives down the bottom line – a proverbial death spiral. The CEO of Gallup, Jim Clifton, believes that his recent poll figures point to an American leadership philosophy that simply doesn't work anymore and wonders if the country's declining productivity numbers point to a need for major workplace disruption (Gallup, 2017). There is a light at the end of the proverbial tunnel, however. Mr. Clifton believes the solution lies in positive coaching and suggests that workplace culture can be radically transformed if the following are implemented:

• Transform the workplace from old command-and-control to one of high development and ongoing coaching conversations

• Dive in -- don't put your toe in. You can afford a lot of mistakes and even failures because the system you currently use doesn't work anyway

• Switch from a culture of "employee satisfaction" -- which only measures things like how much workers like their perks and benefits -- to a "coaching culture"

• Transform all managers at every level

• Recognize each individual by their God-given strengths. Institute a leadership philosophy of developing strengths versus fixing weaknesses

(Gallup, 2017) DSR Model – Step 2 – Design of the Artifact The positive coaching model differs from traditional coaching models in that it turns the focus towards what the employee feels is going right and away from what the company feels the employee can improve upon. This positive model will address and improve critical aspects of the employee/management relationship at both levels:

• Trust levels – As management shows genuine interest in employees, trust levels will increase. Employees will be more willing to do what management wants them to do, and management will be more open to empowering employees and increasing accomplishment

• Engagement – When positive communication through coaching increases, both management and employees will become more engaged in their positions. The increase in engagement could lead to a change in corporate culture, as manager and employee goals become more congruent

• Productivity – As the Hawthorne Studies clearly showed, when employees believe management cares about their well-being, they will work harder and be more committed towards corporate goal achievement. Positive coaching demonstrates a level of caring that should lead to increases in productivity

The positive coaching artifact is composed of three elements – 1) Genuine employee recognition in the moment, 2) a review of the “recognition collection” 3) employee-driven comprehensive meetings. Employee recognition is as much an organizational management issue as it is one related to the basic needs of individuals (Brun & Dugas, 2008). However, all too often in today’s workplace, recognition rings hollow. Gone are the days of the hand-written thank you note or even the visit to the employee to look them in the eye, shake their hand and show them some gratitude. Today, managers send an empty e-mail with a subject heading that reads “Thanks”. As a result, we see there is an urgent need for workplace recognition, as it is a contributing factor to the areas of human resource management, workplace quality of life and worker engagement (Brun & Dugas, 2008). In all of these areas, businesses are finding growing organizational challenges that were highlighted in our problem domain. Genuine employee recognition involves making an immediate connection with their employees with sincere gratitude. This connection can be made for any positive event – i.e. a project

completion, achievement of a job goal or an increase in productivity. When employees feel recognized for their expertise, skills, ingenuity and professional qualifications in the way they perform their duties and solve problems, they usually come away with a heightened sense of esteem and personal competency (Brun & Dugas, 2008). Providing in-the-moment recognition requires an increased commitment from management to the well-being of their employees. Managers must increase their attention paid to employee achievement and provide positive feedback in a timely manner, as after-the-fact recognition often comes across as disingenuous and uncaring.

The concept of genuine employee recognition stems from work psychodynamics theory, which is concerned with people’s subjective experience in the workplace, as well as the individual and group defense strategies they employ to maintain their psychological balance in disconcerting working conditions. Recognition is symbolic in nature and involves two central components: acknowledgement of contribution to the organization and gratitude that highlights the worker’s contribution to the performance of work (Brun & Dugas, 2008).

Reviewing the “recognition collection” builds off of step 1 – genuine employee recognition in the moment – by establishing a set time every week for each employee to meet with a manager for a review of the week’s positive accomplishments. Often, employees are so consumed with their future tasks at hand that much of what happened in previously is forgotten – this includes recognition. Additionally, negative experiences can quickly erase the mental impact and memory of positive events. These meetings do not have to be of a length that would negatively affect the production of either the employee or the manager – maybe 10-15 minutes per each employee supervised. These review meetings will serve as a positive memory recall for the employees that will have the goal of reinforcing employee value to the company. Managers will help the employees recall their positive accomplishments see how the accomplishments contributed to the betterment of the employee, team and company as a whole. Recognition thus becomes a method for positively reinforcing observable on-the-job actions and behaviors considered desirable by the company (Nelson 2001) (Brun & Dugas, 2008). In this way, the recognition of results takes on increased importance in behaviorist management practices (Brun & Dugas, 2008), which is controlled by its consequences within an effort-reward model (Siegrist, Peter, Junge, Cremer, & Seidel, 1990). Employee-driven, comprehensive meetings (sessions) would take place at least on a bi-monthly (monthly would be better) basis. The meeting, between the employee and his/her immediate supervisor, is controlled by the employee and is 100% focused on the positive accomplishments of the employee, unless the employee asks for direction with a problem. This meeting would be more comprehensive than the weekly “recognition collection” meetings in part 2, because it would cover a greater timeframe. Figure 1 demonstrates the difference between a traditional negative coaching session and this positive coaching session.

Figure 1 – A Comparison of a Negative Coaching Session to a Positive Coaching Session

Negative Coaching Session Positive Coaching Session

Employee is presented with

his/her most recent performance

results

Employee is advised on what

needs to be improved

Employee is told they will be

monitored for improvement progress

Employee may be placed on

Performance Improvement Plan

Manager answers questions from

the employee about how to improve

Employee is given advice on how

to improve

Employee opens the meeting

discussing the positive aspects of

his/her position

Manager listens and sites positive

accomplishments of employee

Manager ends the meeting

reinforcing commitment to recognize

employee positive contributions

Manager listens to employee

concerns and provides support

If employee chooses to do so,

questions are asked regarding any

position difficulties

The immediate take-away from figure 1 is the fact that employees tend to leave a negative coaching session distressed, disheartened and unmotivated – all factors that can lead to employee disengagement. Whereas, employees leave the positive coaching session with a feeling of self-worth and that the company truly cares about their successes. This increases job satisfaction and employee engagement and can form the building blocks towards a corporate culture filled with Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) is defined as discretionary behavior that is not part of an employee’s formal job requirements, but which promotes the effective functioning of the organization (Robbins & Coulter, 2012). In her study of the relationship between employee engagement and OCB, Ariani found that employee engagement is positively related to organizational citizenship behavior because employees who feel attached and engaged in their work should not only meet the requirements according to their formal role, but will try to exert extra effort to do other activities that go beyond the requirements in accordance with the formal role them (Ariani, 2014). Employees were tied in his work will be excited and more committed to the organization (Ariani, 2014). Positive coaching is an important first step towards building a workplace filled with Organizational Citizens with aligned goals and sights set on improving productivity. DSR Model – Step 3 – Future Implementation

While this paper is focused on problem diagnosis and model design, it would not be complete without suggestions for how the positive coaching artifact can be implemented. It is understood that negative coaching sessions – focused on improving performance deficiencies in order to reach goals – cannot be eliminated from the workplace. It is important for any company to be successful that its employees work towards becoming as efficient and effective as possible so both personal and corporate goals can be achieved. After all, if an employee does not know what is going wrong and is not coached on how to fix it, nobody can reasonably expect that employee to improve his/her performance. The suggested use for the positive coaching artifact is implementation in conjunction with the traditional negative coaching sessions. If this system is used, the corporation will gain a better understanding of its employees, because the process shed light on both the productive side and the emotional side of positions within the company. Additionally, employees will gain a sense of caring from the corporation that they have not felt before. They will feel that their careers are cared about, and employee engagement will increase. As discussed previously, this increase in engagement will lead to an increase in OCB and better productivity.

DSR Model – Step 4 – Measuring Results The success of the positive coaching artifact can be measured in two ways:

1. Comparing employee productivity pre and post-implementation, which would work best in companies that use scorecards or have production dashboards

2. Conducting a Likert Scale survey prior to implementation of the artifact with regards to employee engagement and then conducting the same survey after the artifact has been implemented for a reasonable timeframe, say 6 months to 1 year

Conclusion

The American workplace is experiencing a crisis. Workers are not engaged, management is not making an effort to increase engagement, and 49% of employees in the United States are to some extent dissatisfied with their current job roles (Lee et al., 2017). This leaves a lot of room for organizations to improve employee engagement, as decreased engagement leads to less dedication by employees, higher turnover and lowered productivity (Lee et al., 2017). According to Gallup, current workplace surveys indicate an American leadership philosophy that simply doesn't work anymore, and one also wonders if the country's declining productivity numbers point to a need for major workplace disruption (Gallup, 2017). Introducing the artifact of positive coaching is an important and necessary first step towards stemming the tide of employee disengagement and productivity declines. Positive coaching helps to increase employee well-being and development, which leads to desired results for the organization and increases organizational adaptability through the creation of norms and relationships of caring and development (Boyatzis et al., 2013). After implementing a positive coaching model, organizations will inspire and encourage their employees to greater engagement and production and build a trusting relationship between all levels of the organizations. Thus, positive coaching could be the foundation for a future American workforce chock-full of engaged and effective workers. All individuals - leaders, managers and front-line employees - are responsible for upholding their organization's culture and raising its overall level of engagement and performance (Gallup, 2017).

References Ariani, D. W. (2014). Relationship Leadership, Employee Engagement, and Organizational Citizenship

Behavior. International Journal of Business and Social Research , Vol 4, Iss 8, Pp 74-90 (2014)(8), 74. doi:10.18533/ijbsr.v4i8.589

Beech, R., & Anderson, B. (2003). Corporate America: the role of HR in re-engaging restless employees. Benefits and compensation international, 33(5), 14-17.

Biswas, S., & Bhatnagar, J. (2013). Mediator Analysis of Employee Engagement: Role of Perceived Organizational Support, P-O Fit, Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction, 27.

Boyatzis, R. E., Smith, M. L., & Beveridge, A. J. (2013). Coaching with compassion: inspiring health, well- being, and development in organizations. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science(2), 153.

Brun, J.-P., & Dugas, N. (2008). An analysis of employee recognition: Perspectives on human resources practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(4), 716-730. doi:10.1080/09585190801953723

Carey, W., Philippon, D. J., & Cummings, G. G. (2011). Coaching models for leadership development: An integrative review. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(1), 51-69. doi:10.1002/jls.20204

Dahling, J. J., Taylor, S. R., Chau, S. L., & Dwight, S. A. (2016). Does Coaching Matter? A Multilevel Model Linking Managerial Coaching Skill and Frequency to Sales Goal Attainment. Personnel Psychology, 69(4), 863-894. doi:10.1111/peps.12123

De Clercq, D., Bouckenooghe, D., Raja, U., & Matsyborska, G. (2014). Unpacking the Goal Congruence - 2014;Organizational Deviance Relationship: The Roles of Work Engagement and Emotional Intelligence. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(4), 695-711.

Gallup. (2017). State of the American Workplace. Hough, C., Green, K., & Plumlee, G. (2015). Impact of ethics environment and organizational trust on

employee engagement. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues(3), 45. Jack, A. I., Boyatzis, R. E., Khawaja, M. S., Passarelli, A. M., & Leckie, R. L. (2013). Visioning in the brain:

An fMRI study of inspirational coaching and mentoring, 369. Lee, C., Esen, E., & DiNicola, S. (2017). Employee Job Satisfaction and Engagement: The Doors of

Opportunity Are Open. Retrieved from www.shrm.org Liu, X., & Batt, R. (2010). How Supervisors Influence Performance: A Multilevel Study Of Coaching And

Group Management In Technology-mediated Services. Personnel Psychology, 63(2), 265-298. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01170.x

Luthans, F., & Peterson, S. J. (2002). Employee engagement and manager self-efficacy: implications for managerial effectiveness and development, 376.

Núñez-Cacho Utrilla, P., Angel Grande, F., & Lorenzo, D. (2015). The effects of coaching in employees and organizational performance: The Spanish Case. Intangible Capital, 11(2), 166.

Pech, R., & Slade, B. (2006). Employee disengagement: is there evidence of a growing problem? Handbook of Business Strategy, 7(1), 21-25.

Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2012). Management (11th ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Siegrist, J., Peter, R., Junge, A., Cremer, P., & Seidel, D. (1990). Low status control, high effort at work

and ischemic heart disease: Prospective evidence from blue-collar men. Social Science & Medicine, 31(10), 1127-1134. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(90)90234-J

Urwick, L. F. (1956). The Manager's Span of Control. Harvard Business Review, 34(3), 39-47. Weer, C. H., DiRenzo, M. S., & Shipper, F. M. (2016). A holistic view of employee coaching: Longitudinal

investigation of the impact of facilitative and pressure-based coaching on team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 52(2), 187-214. doi:10.1177/0021886315594007

Zak, P. J. (2017). THE NEUROSCIENCE OF TRUST. Harvard Business Review, 95(1), 84-90.