Abstract
Understanding what makes coaching relationships effective remains underexplored in coaching psychology. This study applies Personal Construct Psychology and the Repertory Grid Technique to examine how coaches and clients construe effective (health) coaching relationships. Forty-two participants generated 424 constructs analysed through principal component and content analyses, yielding 27 thematic categories. Relational constructs—especially relationship depth, trust, openness, and self-determination—proved central. Findings show effectiveness is individually and contextually constructed. The study demonstrates the method's applicability as an idiographic, constructivist approach and offers foundations for theory development and practical insights for cultivating trust-based coaching relationships aligned with clients’ constructions of effectiveness.
Introduction
Over the past two decades, research in coaching psychology has moved beyond the question of whether coaching works toward understanding how and why it works (O’Broin & Palmer, 2019; Whybrow & Palmer, 2019). Evidence consistently shows that coaching is effective in enhancing well-being, performance, and goal attainment across personal, professional, and health-related domains (de Haan et al., 2016; Kruger & Terblanche, 2024). Yet despite this growing evidence base, the coaching relationship itself—arguably the most powerful active ingredient—remains insufficiently theorised and empirically examined (de Haan et al., 2013; Henderson & Palmer, 2021).
The relational quality between coach and client has long been considered central to coaching success. Studies repeatedly indicate that the strength of the coaching relationship outweighs the effects of specific techniques or models (Gyllensten & Palmer, 2007; McGovern et al., 2001). However, the processes and components that make such relationships effective are not yet clearly delineated. de Haan et al. (2020) recently questioned whether the coaching relationship is consistently linked to outcomes, suggesting that its contribution is complex, dynamic, and possibly context-dependent. This ongoing debate underscores the need for approaches that can capture the individualised, experiential, and meaning-based nature of coaching relationships.
There is a debate around the concepts ‘coaching’ and ‘coaching psychology’, which should not be confused. Coaching can be defined ‘as a human development process that involves structured, focused interaction and the use of appropriate strategies, tools and techniques to promote desirable and sustainable change for the benefit of the coachee and potentially for other stakeholders’. (Bachkirova et al., 2010, p. 1). Coaching Psychology is ‘[..] the scientific study of behaviour, cognition, and emotion with the aim of enhancing well-being and performance in people's personal lives and work. Coaching practice within Coaching Psychology is grounded in coaching models based on established psychological approaches’. (Grajfoner, 2020, p. 20). ‘Health coaching is the practice of health education and health promotion within a coaching context, to enhance the wellbeing of individuals and to facilitate the achievement of their health-related goals.’ (Palmer et al., 2003, p. 92).
However, recent evidence from de Haan et al. (2020) found no significant association between the quality of the coaching relationship and coaching outcomes, challenging earlier assumptions about its pivotal role. Such discrepancies underscore the multifaceted and context-dependent nature of the coaching relationship and reinforce the need for continued, nuanced investigation into how relational processes contribute to coaching effectiveness.
Exploring the Coaching Relationship Using Personal Construct Psychology and Repertory Grid Technique
Our understanding of the coaching relationship remains limited in depth and differentiation. Few studies have examined how both the coach and the client construct the relationship from a phenomenological, constructivist perspective that captures the complexity of human meaning-making.
Specifically concerning the construction of human relationships, Personal Construct Psychology (PCP) and the Repertory Grid Technique (RGT) offer a valuable methodology for exploring perceptions of effective coaching relationships.
People interpret their world through individual subjective constructs. These constructs comprise cognitive schemata or categories that people use to understand and predict events and experiences (Kelly, 1991a, 1991b). Particularly relevant PCP concepts for the study of the coaching relationship are sociality, which is essential for understanding relationships (Kelly, 1991a), commonality, which represents the extent to which people's construction processes are similar (Jankowicz, 2004), and relationality, which concerns the construction of relationships (Procter, 2014, 2016). The repertory grid technique allows for deep self-reflection to elicit implicit knowledge (Burr et al., 2014; Catania & Kissaun, 2016; Kelly, 1991a, 1991b) and its structure (Malmström et al., 2015). Consequently, PCP and RGT can be considered a robust methodology for coaching relationship research (Duignan, 2019; Pavlović, 2021; Pavlović & Stojnov, 2016; Stojnov & Pavlović, 2010).
Methods
Participants
The five health care coaches (HCCs) were recruited via the researcher's professional contacts, using a purposive non-probability sampling strategy. Such purposive selection is common in qualitative research as it provides in-depth insights from individuals with relevant expertise (Palinkas et al., 2015). The HCCs served both as participants and as ‘gatekeepers’ (Aaltonen & Kivijärvi, 2018) to their clients (approx. 60 each), 15 of whom participated, and to the jobcenters’ 75 placement officers (POs). Of the 20 POs approached, 7 participated, as well as 15 of their clients. The study aimed for an approximate gender balance.
In total, 42 participants were included. This number is consistent with recommendations for reaching saturation in content-analytical categories (Olsson, 2015; Tan & Hunter, 2002) and with sample size guidelines for eliciting cognitive constructions (Guest et al., 2006; Kwong et al., 2012; Malmström et al., 2015).
Coaches ranged in age from 26 to 60 years (M = 47.91) and had between 0.5 and 24 years of coaching experience (M = 7.72). Clients ranged in age from 26 to 60 (M = 45.01) and reported between 1 and 25 years of coaching experience (M = 8.35). Among coaches, 66.7% were female, whereas the gender distribution was reversed among clients.
Procedure
All participants gave written consent prior to the interview and were reminded again before it began. After clarifying any remaining questions, the interview was audio-recorded, and the open question and the grid were processed. The interviews were conducted in person, via conference software, or by telephone. The duration of the interviews varied between 60 and 90 min.
Generating ‘Free Speech’ Using Open-Ended Questions
Before completing the grid, participants responded to the open question: ‘Can you please describe what you think contributes to effective (health) coaching relationships?’ They provided narrative accounts reflecting their explicitly expressible perceptions of effective coaching relationships. These statements supplemented the RGT data by adding an explicit knowledge component and also served as a gentle introduction to the topic, lowering the entry barrier into the interview. In total, 218 codes were generated. Coaches contributed more codes (M = 6.25; range 4–9) than clients (M = 4.76; range 2–7).
Eliciting Constructs Using RGT
At the beginning of the repertory grid process, the participants were explained the purpose of the grid using the phrase:
The purpose of this grid is to find out what you understand by an effective coaching relationship and what it involves. Your ideas and perceptions in this regard are shaped by the different experiences you have had in coaching situations in your life. Please take a few moments to reflect on these situations.
The participants were then told the placeholders for the 10 elements of the grid. They were asked to define their exact meaning to ensure common understanding and to write it down. It is emphasized that the elements for coaches and clients differed in wording but addressed the same coaching component.
The first pair of elements, ‘effective/current client’ for clients and ‘effective/current HCC/PO’ for coaches, was designed to reflect the participants’ individual experiences with coaching relationships in the respective contexts of health coaching and jobcenter coaching. These constructs generated critical information on how both clients and coaches construed effective coaching relationships in health and employment service contexts. The second pair of elements for both clients and coaches focused on the, teaching component’ of the coaching relationship. A functional similarity was assumed between teaching and coaching, as coaching involved building knowledge and guiding clients through this process. The third pair of elements addressed the ‘health component’ of the coaching relationship. Given that both client groups had health restrictions, a parallel was drawn between the medical and coaching relationships, assuming a functional similarity between helping with health issues and coaching. The fourth pair of elements focused on familial relationships in the sense of assisting an individual's personal development. Both elements relate to the support of personal development, whereby a functional similarity between family relationships and coaching is assumed. The final pair of elements for both clients and coaches explored the personal and professional components of the coaching relationship. Both sets of elements illuminated key aspects of the interpersonal dynamics present in health coaching and employment service coaching.
Subsequently, a sequential triadic method was used to elicit the constructs, in which the elements were presented in the order 123, 234, 345, 456, 567, 678, 789, 8910 using the qualifying phrase ‘Please think which two of these three people are similar to each other in terms of the relationship you have with them and based on which important characteristic. Afterwards, please name the opposite term of this characteristic’. If participants expressed constructs that were overly simplistic or unclear, the ‘laddering down’ technique was employed, as recommended in the Repertory Grid Technique. This method involves the researcher asking clarifying questions, such as ‘How do you mean?’ or ‘In what way?’ to further refine and specify the construct (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 34). After the meanings of the emergent and implicit poles of the construct were explored, the participant was asked to rate this across all 10 elements on a five-point scale. Those closest to the emerging pole were given a number close to 1, while those closest to the implicit pole were given a rating number close to 5. This sequential, three-step elicitation process (Fransella et al., 2003), along with the subsequent rating process, was repeated until the participant ceased to generate any new constructs. After the elicitation process, respondents were asked to rank the elicited constructs in terms of their importance for effective (health) coaching relationships to identify the most and least significant constructs. The participants generated a total of 424 constructs (HCC: 58, HCC clients: 144, PO: 84, PO clients 138). The number of constructs per participant ranged from 7 to 16. On average, coaches produced significantly more constructs per interview than clients (coaches: 12.83; clients: 10.4; χ2 = 19.462, p = 0.006).
Results
Assessing Structural Complexity of Constructs
Principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted to examine the complexity of participants’ construct systems related to effective (health) coaching relationships. PCA is a dimension-reduction technique that explains the variance in construct scores within a grid by identifying a set of underlying factors, or ‘principal components’, each representing a distinct dimension. As such, PCA was an appropriate method for measuring cognitive complexity and provided insights into the relative complexity or simplicity of how different groups of participants construed effective (health) coaching relationships.
Varimax rotation (Kaiser, 1958), the standard rotation method (Shariat et al., 2017), was employed. It simplifies the factor structure, making interpretation both easier and more reliable (Abdi, 2003). Factor extraction was based on the Guttman–Kaiser criterion (Guttman, 1954; Kaiser, 1960). The GridSuite Basic software program (Fromm, 2014) was used to perform the PCA.
PCA extracted one factor in 70% of client interviews and two in 30%, with no three-factor solutions. In contrast, only 16.67% of coach interviews yielded a single factor, while two and three factors were extracted in 41.67% each. This indicates that coaches’ construct systems of effective health coaching relationships were slightly more complex than those of clients. Cognitive complexity refers to ‘the capacity to construe social behaviour in a multidimensional way. A more cognitively complex person has available a more differentiated system of dimensions for perceiving others’ behaviour than does a less cognitively complex individual’ (Bieri et al., 1966, p. 185). Social perception arises from the use of interpersonal constructs, meaning that individuals with more complex construct systems are likely to have developed social perceptual skills (Kline et al., 1991), which can contribute to effective (health) coaching relationships.
The total variance explained by PCA was slightly higher for clients, with the top 1–2 components accounting for proportions comparable to the top 1–3 components for coaches (89.93%–95.47%). Thus, coaches’ greater complexity might be due to their more extensive experience with the topic, faster understanding of the elicitation process and ability to generate more constructs within the interview timeframe, rather than fundamentally more complex systems. PCP analyses further showed that, for most participants, only a small number of factors
The PCP analyses further revealed that the factors influencing effective coaching relationships varied across individuals and participant groups. Notably, for most participants, a relatively small number of factors held significant personal importance in effective (health) coaching relationships.
Classifying the Meaning of Constructs Within and Across Participants
The systematic literature review (Oeben & Grajfoner, 2026) identified four main areas shaping the coaching relationship: the skills and competences of the parties involved, their behaviours and characteristics, and the interpersonal and relational dimensions. These areas provided the main categories for the subsequent inductive analysis of the interview data.
The participants’ responses to the open question were analyzed using the ‘bootstrapping’ method (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 148), while the repertory grid data were examined through Honey's (1979) content analysis. Codes and constructs were independently categorised by the researcher and her collaborator. Intercoder reliability was assessed using the Cohen (1968) and Perreault and Leigh (1989) tests. The resulting test statistics exceeded the 0.90 threshold, indicating a respectable level of agreement (Jankowicz, 2004; Lombard et al., 2002).
Using the ‘bootstrapping’ method, the responses from all participants were categorised according to their meaning. Responses were systematically analyzed and assigned to categories that emerged inductively during the categorisation process (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 148). The selection criterion required that each item reflect the core meaning of its respective category. A word was defined as the content unit, representing the smallest text segment for coding, while a sentence was defined as the context unit, representing the largest segment for coding. 27 categories resulted from the bootstrapping technique, which were assigned to the four main areas influencing the coaching relationship. These categories are presented in Table 1.
Categories of Answers to the Open Question for the Total Sample.
Categories of Constructs Elicited Using RGT for the Total Sample.
A larger proportion of codes (27.06%) was assigned to the four most prominent categories—‘effective client attributes (change readiness)’, ‘eye-level’, ‘individual consideration’, and ‘trust/transparency’—compared to the four least represented categories—‘appreciation’, ‘cooperation’, ‘value-free’, and ‘effective client behaviours’, which collectively comprised only 5.52% of all codes.
Honey's (1979) technique was employed for the analysis of the repertory grid data (Jankowicz, 2004). His approach applies the H-I-L technique to identify constructs particularly salient to individuals. By incorporating participants’ similarity metrics, categories derived from the bootstrapped content analysis can be weighted according to their relevance for effective (health) coaching relationships, thereby accounting for individual differences in personal similarity metrics. The aim of this analysis was content structuring, which involves filtering and summarising specific content dimensions from the material by categorising the various meanings present in the participants’ grids, while also considering the similarities and differences within each category (Jankowicz, 2004).
The first step was conducted at the conclusion of the Repertory Grid procedure, when participants rated the supplied ‘overall’ construct, which reflected their general attitude toward the research topic. In the second step, the sum of differences was calculated between the element scores on the ‘overall’ construct and those on the respective constructs, with absolute values used. Because a construct may also be meaningfully expressed in its opposite form, the sum of differences was additionally calculated for the reversed construct. A comparison of the reversed and non-reversed values was then undertaken, and the lower value was retained. To ensure comparability across grids, the third step involved calculating percentage similarity scores between the ‘overall’ construct and each individual construct, using the sums of differences from the previous step. The calculation was based on the following equation:
Equation for Calculating % Similarity Scores (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 283/284).
'SD is the lowest sum of differences from Stage 1, LR is the largest possible difference between scores for an individual element, and E is the number of elements in the grid’ (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 283/284). These similarity scores reflect the extent to which the ‘ratings of the individual constructs are identical to the ratings of the overall construct’ (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 171), thereby indicating how effectively each construct represents the overall construct. Percentage similarity scores are relative personal metrics shaped by individual differences. To address this, Step 4 categorised constructs as high (H), intermediate (I), or low (L) in salience relative to the overall construct, with groups divided into three equal parts where possible. These scores informed the evaluation of category salience in later content analysis (Steps 6 and 7). In Step 5, each construct received a unique identification label to ensure traceability to the participant, group, and interview point (e.g., ‘HCC_CL_04_008’ = eighth construct from participant four, HCC client group). For each construct, both the H-I-L value and percentage similarity score were recorded. Steps 6 and 7 then categorised all constructs from the 42 interviews through content analysis. Within the context of the Repertory Grid Technique (RGT), each construct serves as both the content unit and the context unit of analysis, representing a single unit of meaning and the fundamental unit of analysis simultaneously (Jankowicz, 2004, p. 149). he constructs were compared and semantically organised through inductive categorisation. The distribution of constructs across categories within each participant group provided insights into how effective (health) coaching relationships were construed. In Step 8, the results were presented in tabular form. The analysis yielded 27 categories, which were grouped into four overarching areas influencing the coaching relationship and are displayed in Table 2.
Table results showed that participants primarily associated effective (health) coaching relationships with personal characteristics such as a helpful coach, a client's willingness to change, and support, while fewer constructs referred to appreciation, humour, or selflessness. In the next step, differences between all constructs and high-salience constructs were examined. The overall distribution was largely consistent, with only minor variations (+3.8% to −2.7%), yet high-salience constructs highlighted relational aspects as even more central than individual competencies, behaviours, or attributes. Within the ‘skills and competencies’ category, both analyses confirmed the relevance of communication skills and empathy, while cognitive skills contributed little. For ‘behaviours’, kindness (all groups) and support (clients) were consistently salient, though few additional behaviours were shared. In ‘attributes’, readiness for change (clients) and caring qualities of the coach were especially important, with openness common across groups. Finally, in the ‘relational’ category, self-determination, trust/transparency, and sympathy/affection (clients only) were critical, with high-salience constructs emphasizing relationship depth and client cooperation as essential to effective coaching.
Identifying Specifics, Commonalities and Differences Across Participants
In both the bootstrapping and Honey's analyses, a differential analysis followed the total sample examination to assess category distribution and salience across subgroups, thereby highlighting group distinctions.
Health Coaches’ Perspective
HCCs distinguished themselves from other groups by emphasising client honesty, a critical factor in health coaching where candid disclosure of limitations and behaviours is essential. Table 3 summarises the key themes identified by HCCs as central to effective coaching relationships.
Categories of Constructs Elicited Using RGT for HCCs.
* indicate categories with high salience.
Health Coaching Clients’ Perspective
Among all groups, HCC clients placed the greatest importance on feeling comfortable and secure in the (health) coaching relationship. This likely reflects the personal nature of health coaching, which often involves sensitive discussions of health behaviours, creating a heightened need for safety compared to PO clients. Table 4 presents the topics HCC clients associated with effective coaching relationships.
Categories of Constructs Elicited Using RGT for HCC Clients.
* indicate categories with high salience.
Placement Officers’ Perspective
POs stood out by linking client cognitive skills—such as reflexivity and problem awareness—to effective coaching relationships. Unlike other groups, they showed no clear pattern regarding valued behaviours, but considered client health status relevant, a view less common among HCCs. Table 5 summarises the topics POs identified as contributing most to effective coaching relationships.
Categories of Constructs Elicited Using RGT for POs.
* indicate categories with high salience.
Placement Office Coaching Clients’ Perspective
For PO clients, the depth of the relationship was especially important, likely reflecting their experiences with frequent coach changes that undermined relationship quality. Table 6 summarises the topics PO clients considered most important for effective coaching relationships.
Categories of Constructs Elicited Using RGT for PO Clients.
* indicate categories with high salience.
Identifying Core Dimensions of Effective Coaching Relationships
A structural analysis using multidimensional scaling (MDS) provided a visual representation of the distances between the categories and the ‘overall more effective relationship’ category, thereby assessing their proximity. Distances reflected the degree of correlation between element ratings within categories and the overall category, with smaller distances indicating greater similarity. The analysis also sought to uncover underlying dimensions among the 27 themes identified through Honey's (1979) content analysis. To ensure consistency, the undesired construct pole was coded as 1 and the preferred pole as 5. Mean values of the 27 categories and elements were then used to calculate MDS with the ALSCAL function in SPSS 27 (IBM Corp., 2022), employing Euclidean distances as the metric for distance measurement. MDS was performed in two, three, four, five, and six dimensions for both the total sample and the subsamples. Figure 1 exemplarily shows the MDS stimulus configuration for the total sample.
MDS stimulus configuration for the total sample.
The figure shows that distances between most individual categories (black dots) were minimal, indicating close alignment with the ‘overall more effective relationship’ category (highlighted in red). The category ‘appreciation’ (12) deviated most, suggesting it contributed less to the overall construct of an effective coaching relationship. To further interpret the MDS solution, multiple linear regression was conducted to identify the primary characteristics of the dimensions, condensing the 27 themes identified by Honey's (1979) content analysis into 2–6 key characteristics essential for effective (health) coaching relationships. In this analysis, MDS dimensions served as predictors and the mean scores of the subcategory ratings as the dependent variable. Table 7 presents the regression results for the total sample.
Results of Multiple Linear Regression for the Total Sample.
* indicates p = <.05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
The table shows that most categories were strongly associated with the first dimension, while only a few significant associations emerged with the second and third. However, further analysis indicated that interpreting these dimensions was not meaningful, as the categories did not condense into a small set of underlying factors. Instead, all 27 categories appeared as potentially important themes for effective (health) coaching relationships. Findings from MDS and multiple regression across all participant groups mirrored those of the total sample, suggesting that effectiveness arises not from universal dimensions but from highly individual constellations of these factors. The identification of a diverse ‘pool’ of potentially important themes—rather than a limited set of underlying factors—demonstrates the suitability of constructive alternativism and personal construct psychology (PCP) as both a philosophical stance and a theoretical framework for studying coaching relationships. This aligns with the core assumptions of PCP, and the methodology applied here may be valuable for further research. Notably, 23 of the 27 themes identified were also present in earlier studies, reinforcing the validity of these findings, while several new themes, particularly relational ones, were introduced. Relationship type, knowing each other well, and especially relationship depth emerged as salient contributors to effective health coaching relationships. For participants, relationship depth was strongly connected to trust and transparency, echoing earlier research that highlighted these as essential for successful coaching.
Identifying Implicit and Explicit Components Reflecting Effective (Health) Coaching Relationships
Analyses of both the open-ended responses and the Repertory Grid data yielded 27 categories, which were then compared for content overlap. Sixteen matching themes were identified, representing 62.96% of the total. These themes are central to building effective (health) coaching relationships, as they capture both the explicit and implicit cognitions of participants. Table 8 presents these themes, with asterisks marking those of particularly high salience as identified through the Repertory Grid analysis.
Categories Present in Both the Open-Ended Question and the RGT Analysis.
* indicate categories with high salience.
Accessing the Congruence of the Constructions of Effective Coaching Relationships across Participants
To examine the consistency with which participants applied standards in evaluating factors of effective (health) coaching relationships, Kendall's concordance coefficient (W) was calculated for the total sample and subgroups. Results showed significant agreement across the sample, except for the ‘miscellaneous’ subcategory. Strong concordance was also observed within and between coach and client groups, with even higher consistency for health coaching compared to employment service coaching. Further analysis of subcategories confirmed significant agreement in all but ‘miscellaneous’. To assess whether personally important constructs were rated more consistently, Kendall's W was additionally calculated for the ‘top’ and ‘tail’ constructs. Table 9 presents the distribution of importance.
Kendall's W for ‘Top and Tail’ Constructs.
*** indicates p < .001
Significant agreement was observed in both cases, though participants rated constructs of high personal importance more consistently than those of lower importance. Concordance was strong for ‘top’ constructs but only moderate for ‘tail’ constructs, confirming that participants aligned more closely on factors they deemed crucial for effective health coaching relationships.
Discussion
The findings highlight that perceptions of effective coaching relationships are highly individualised and differ markedly between coaches and clients, while consistently underscoring the central importance of relational constructs.
Personal Constructions of Effective (Health) Coaching Relationships
This study identified 27 themes contributing to effective health coaching relationships. For the total sample, relationship depth, trust and transparency, and openness were the strongest contributors, alongside empathy, kindness, and communication skills. Self-determination also emerged as an important factor, particularly relevant in the context of coaching clients receiving state support. The factors combined relational constructs with personal skills, behaviours, and qualities of both coach and client. Notably, relationship depth, trust, and transparency reflect interpersonal aspects of the coaching relationship, underscoring their centrality and highlighting the relevance of the relationality principle (Procter, 2014, 2016) for coaching relationship research.
The identification of a diverse ‘pool’ of potentially important themes—rather than a limited set of underlying factors—demonstrates the suitability of constructive alternativism and personal construct psychology (PCP) as both a philosophical stance and theoretical framework for studying coaching relationships. Although the multidimensional scaling and regression analyses did not yield a small number of clearly interpretable higher-order dimensions, this result is theoretically consistent with the constructivist foundation of the study. From a PCP perspective, the absence of a parsimonious factor structure reflects the differentiated and individually organised nature of participants’ construct systems. Rather than reducing the findings to a limited set of universal dimensions, the 27 categories represent a structured yet open pool of meaning-making resources.
Notably, 23 of the 27 themes were also identified in earlier studies, reinforcing the validity of the findings, while several new—particularly relational—themes were introduced. Relationship type, knowing each other well, and especially relationship depth emerged as salient contributors to effective health coaching relationships. For participants, relationship depth was closely connected to trust and transparency, echoing previous research that emphasised these elements as essential for successful coaching.
For practitioners, the differentiated categorisation offers a nuanced framework for reflection. It enables the identification of those relational, behavioural, or personal themes that are particularly salient within a specific coaching dyad. In this sense, the value of the 27 categories lies precisely in their capacity to support context-sensitive and individually attuned coaching practice, rather than prescribing a simplified, one-size-fits-all model of effectiveness.
In terms of coach competencies, empathy, communication skills, and professional competence were confirmed, while new client-related skills—communication skills, empathy, and cognitive skills—were identified. Cognitive skills, especially reflectivity, may hold particular relevance in coaching unemployed individuals with health challenges. Patience also emerged as an important new theme for both coaches and clients, especially in contexts where health limitations create barriers to employment. Additional effective coach behaviours included kindness, individual consideration, eye-level communication, support, interest, and appreciation.
Newly highlighted coach attributes included humanity, humour, and reliability, while for clients humour, selflessness, reliability, and honesty were emphasized. Honesty was especially important in health coaching, where disclosure of health behaviours and conditions (e.g., addictions) is critical for success. Finally, openness was reaffirmed as a central trait for both coaches and clients; for clients, it was closely tied to readiness for change, which coaches considered a vital precondition for engagement in the coaching process.
Similar and Different Constructions of Effective (Health) Coaching Relationships
Health coaches (HCCs) predominantly characterised effective relationships as empathetic, kind, and self-determined, emphasizing the importance of client readiness for change. They highlighted clients’ communication skills, honesty, cooperation, and eye-level interactions as essential. HCC clients, in contrast, placed greater emphasis on kindness, sympathy, affection, and the need to feel comfortable and secure, perceiving effective coaches as supportive, caring, and professionally competent.
Placement officers (POs) and PO clients showed less coherence in their constructions. POs associated effective coaching with client cognitive skills (e.g., reflexivity), empathy, kindness, honesty, patience, self-determination, trust, willingness to change, cooperation, and health status. PO clients emphasized empathetic, supportive coaches who treat them fairly and engage at eye level, highlighting self-determination, trust, relationship depth, sympathy, and professional competence.
As expected, broad similarities emerged across health and employment coaching contexts, yet the differences between coaches and clients were particularly pronounced. Among health coaches and their clients, common ground centred primarily on kindness and communication skills: coaches emphasised clients’ readiness for change, whereas clients placed greater value on relational warmth and the sense of feeling comfortable within the relationship. Placement officers and their clients displayed somewhat greater convergence, viewing effective relationships as characterised by empathy, self-determination, and kindness, supported by trust and transparency. Nevertheless, even within this group, placement officers continued to prioritise behavioural change readiness, while clients again highlighted relational ease and emotional safety. These divergences point to an important practical challenge for coaching: when perceptions of what constitutes an effective relationship are misaligned, engagement and outcomes may suffer, potentially contributing to client withdrawal from coaching programmes. Addressing such discrepancies through explicit discussion of expectations and relational needs may enhance mutual understanding and foster greater commitment. The tendency of placement officers to privilege job-placement goals over coaching processes may further account for these differences and warrants closer examination, particularly in relation to self-determination within state-supported coaching contexts.
Despite these differences, substantial commonalities emerged across coach groups, including empathy, self-determination, kindness, honesty, cooperation, willingness to communicate, and readiness for change. Distinctions were found in the greater importance of trust, patience, cognitive skills, and health status for POs and of eye-level interactions for HCCs. Client groups shared kindness, support, sympathy, affection, and appreciation for competent, understanding coaches. Professional and communicative competencies appeared more salient in health coaching, whereas PO clients stressed relational depth.
The comparative analysis revealed no distinct themes exclusive to health or employment coaching. This challenges Bordin's (1979 ) claim that the nature and depth of helping relationships are determined by the type of process and role involved. A plausible explanation may lie in overlapping professional trajectories: two of the five HCCs had previously worked as POs, and both clients and coaches shared long-standing ties to the jobcenter. This shared institutional context may have shaped a largely uniform conception of effective coaching relationships, overriding the formal distinctions between health and employment coaching.
Congruent and Incongruent Constructions of Effective (Health) Coaching Relationships
Participants consistently applied similar standards when rating constructs across elements, with agreement levels generally high and only a few categories showing moderate concordance. Agreement was particularly strong both within and between groups, especially in health coaching and employment service contexts. Constructs judged important for effective (health) coaching relationships showed substantially higher agreement than those deemed less important. In line with the Commonality Corollary (Jankowicz, 2004), these findings suggest strong similarity in the psychological processes underlying participants’ constructions of effective relationships. Although different themes emerged across groups, the construction of each theme was strikingly similar—for example, empathy was commonly understood. This provides a more nuanced contribution to the literature on coaching relationships.
An Initial Model of the Coaching Relationship
To understand the data, an initial model of the coaching relationship was derived from the systematic literature review (Oeben & Grajfoner, 2026), incorporating internal and external influencing factors. This model provides a starting point for developing a more comprehensive framework and represents an initial building block toward a theory of coaching relationships. Figure 2 presents the model.
Initial model of the coaching relationship.
This study focused exclusively on internal factors influencing the coaching relationship, namely the skills, competences, behaviours, and attributes of the parties involved, as well as their interpersonal and relational dimensions. Further research is required to explore external factors and their interactions with internal ones in shaping effective coaching relationships.
Personal or Rather Relational Constructions of Effective (Health) Coaching Relationships?
In conclusion, this study reinforces the highly individualised nature of perceptions of effective coaching relationships and the pronounced differences between coaches and clients. The results highlight the pivotal role of relational constructs—particularly relationship depth, trust, and transparency—while illustrating that effective coaching arises from the interplay between personal attributes and relational dynamics. Although consistent with prior research emphasising the relational core of coaching, this study extends existing understanding by introducing new dimensions such as relationship type and relationship depth, thereby revealing the nuanced and evolving character of coaching relationships, especially within health and employment settings.
The findings resonate with George Kelly's Psychology of Personal Constructs (1991), which posits that individuals interpret the world through unique cognitive frameworks shaped by experience. The diverse themes identified here illustrate how coaches and clients construe coaching interactions through their personal constructs. This supports Kelly's constructive alternativism and personal construct psychology (PCP), showing that coaching relationships are not defined by fixed dimensions but by flexible, context-dependent interpretations. Future studies could further investigate how personal constructs influence relational dynamics and how greater awareness of these constructs might strengthen coaching effectiveness.
The importance of relational constructs is further reinforced by the contrasts observed between coaching groups. While commonalities emerged—particularly around empathy, kindness, and self-determination—coaches and clients often prioritised relational elements differently. Such divergences present challenges for practice and highlight the need to establish shared understandings of effective relationships. Addressing these differences may help reduce dropout rates and improve outcomes in both health and employment coaching.
Taken together, this study demonstrates that coaching relationships are shaped by both universal and highly individualised constructs. Relational dynamics warrant continued exploration as a foundation for building stronger, more effective coaching relationships across diverse contexts.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the participants of the jobcentre in the district of Viersen as well as Heriot Watt University and Niederrhein University of Applied Sciences for their cooperation.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
The present article is based on the same study as Oeben & Grajfoner (
). While the earlier publication primarily addressed the study's theoretical and practical contributions, this article focuses on the methodological implementation and offers a detailed account of its methodological contribution. It also reuses and expands upon the original data, providing additional analyses and perspectives to enhance understanding. Together, these articles present a comprehensive and transparent overview of the study, bridging theory, practice, and methodology.