The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/2046-9012.htm

EJTD
41,6
Management coaching with
performance templates to
stimulate self-regulated learning
508 Paul Lyons
Department of Management, Frostburg State University, Frostburg,
Received 1 March 2017 Maryland, USA, and
Revised 27 June 2017
Accepted 29 June 2017 Randall P. Bandura
Department of Accounting, Frostburg State University, Frostburg,
Maryland, USA

Abstract
Purpose – Much has been written about self-regulated learning (SRL) (including mind-sets) in psychology
and education, but little research is found in the HRD or training literature regarding the stimulation of this
learning. This paper aims to present a practical training tool, performance templates (P-T), to demonstrate
how a line manager may assist employees improve their problem-solving skills as well as stimulate SRL.
Design/methodology/approach – Presented are literature reviews and assessments of the areas of: line
manager in coaching role, SRL theory and the phases of SRL in action. Following is a detailed explanation and
demonstration of the P-T method. Finally, the efficacy of PT is examined and constraints are noted.
Findings – Demonstrated in the paper is how a line manager may function as the key actor in assisting
employees to become more effective self-regulating learners and problem-solvers. The method presented can
stimulate employee motivation and help employees to internalize self-regulating learning processes. All of this
should help employees become more growth-oriented, self-confident and goal-directed participants in
organizational life.
Originality/value – Rather than simply discuss what SRL is about, this paper provides an effective tool,
P-T, for use in the stimulation and direction of SLR. The use of the tool also helps organization participants to
achieve progress on some current problems.
Keywords Self-efficacy, Self-regulated learning, Coaching, Problem-solving,
Performance templates, Mind-sets
Paper type General review

Introduction
In the past two decades, much research has been conducted on self-regulated learning (SRL)
(Dweck, 2006; Murphy and Dweck, 2016), but not much has found their way to the domains
of training or human resource management. SRL is reflective of employees who tend to
demonstrate a growth mind-set and are likely to value and engage in innovation, change and
performance improvement.
Recent research has proposed that organizations in which SRL behavior tends to be a
cultural norm and/or where it is characteristic of many current employees may have a
competitive advantage as a result (Pousa and Mathieu, 2015). Other research (Grant and
European Journal of Training and
Dweck, 2003; Yeager et al., 2014) has identified several other features of self-regulating
Development learners, such as improved use of feedback information, better ability to cope with failure and
Vol. 41 No. 6, 2017
pp. 508-518 ability to achieve good understandings of cycle time and deadlines. Such capabilities are of
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2046-9012
value to managers, team members and organizations. Overarching all of this is that SRL
DOI 10.1108/EJTD-03-2017-0016 coincides with the characteristic of the growth mind-set, whereby the employee who
embodies SRL is one who seeks to improve her/his performance and motivation, and who has Management
a strong focus on learning, persistence and effort (Plaks et al., 2005). coaching
It is one thing to discuss SRL in abstract terms; it is another matter to explain how a
manager, acting as coach, can create an educational situation in which SRL is not only a
critical focus but also one in which employee engagement and performance are paramount.
In addition, it is possible to improve various skills, enable knowledge acquisition and
positively influence self-confidence. A means to help achieve these outcomes is found in the
training and development tool, performance templates (P-T). The tool has a brief history and 509
has been shown to be efficacious. The following segments of this article examine the areas of
coaching, SRL and the use of P-T as a method and/or delivery system to stimulate employee
learning, and problem-solving skills. Explained below are many positive attributes of the
participation of employees in P-T to include: improvement of manager– employee
communication, skill development, learning and growth and performance improvement.
In sum, the purpose of this article is to explain how a line manager, acting as coach, can
use a training and development tool, P-T, to assist employee engagement and participation,
to help them become more self-regulating learners and to help them improve skills and solve
problems.

Manager in the coaching role

Each of the topics of coaching and mentoring has a relatively broad literature and each of
them has their own journals to house opinions and research. The two topics are different yet
share several characteristics. In this work, the term coach is used in the instance of a line
manager who works occasionally in an instructive and guiding capacity with her/his
employees. A line manager as coach is different from other coach designations to include:
external, peer and executive coach. A line manager is not a peer of the employees, is not
external to the group or organization and is not guiding or advising upper-level executives.
In some research and in some opinion articles, coaching with employees is regarded as a
one-to-one relationship (supervisor– employee). In this article, we are using the term “coach”
as someone (supervisor, manager) who is interacting with more than one individual in a
guiding and educational capacity. Coaching is a practice that is given much attention in both
human resource development and human resource management.
The line manager as coach is: in a position to understand the work/environment context
in which the employee functions, usually very familiar with the quality of work performed,
familiar with sharing information with employees related to performance, attitudes and
relationships with the manager and/or other employees (Sue-Chan and Latham, 2004; Bright
and Crockett, 2012). At the same time, the manager as a coach is involved, often frequently,
with the evaluation of employee performance, and with decisions that may affect employee
work hours, pay, promotion opportunities and the like, and these attributes are clearly
different from the other types of coaching relationships mentioned above. The manager as a
coach is referred to as a power relationship by Jones et al. (2016), and they believe that power
is absent in the helping relationship an employee would have with an independent coach.
Exploring the potential advantages and drawbacks of the power relationship is beyond the
scope of this article.
Segers et al. (2011) propose that the practice of line managers performing as coaches is
broadly used, especially in Western economies. This form of coaching is often defined as a
systematic, typically intensive, facilitation of individual employees and/or small groups by
using any of a wide-ranging assortment of behavioral techniques and methods intended to
assist persons in attaining important goals. These goals may include skill development,
improvement of performance, change or self-development. In a later segment of this work,
EJTD the types of coaching implemented by the manager in an example presented include all three
41,6 main forms of coaching: performance, skills and development of the employee as an
individual.
Coaching is widespread; it has become part of leadership development in organizations,
worldwide. In the UK, surveys have reported that nearly half of the organizations surveyed
offer coaching of one form or another to all employees (Day et al., 2008).
510 Research has revealed that most of the variance in performance is within the individual.
By assisting employees to become more self-regulated learners through coaching, they
develop more positive self-perceptions of competence. This may enhance effort and
persistence, stimulate better choices of strategy and influence more innovative behavior. In
SRL, the advances in learning and performance are achieved at the individual level, and P-T,
the method we have proposed in this paper, aims to assist individual learning while the
participants are engaged in a group-based effort.
A study by Theeboom et al. (2014) reviewed the effects of coaching with employees.
Several outcome categories were found, whereby coaching demonstrated significant positive
effects, to include enhanced: work attitudes, coping behavior, work skills and goal-directed
self-regulation. It is not surprising that Pousa and Mathieu (2015) propose that coaching may
function as a competitive advantage for an organization in its environment. With reference to
personal outcomes of employees resulting from coaching, there are studies that report how
various employee characteristics, for example, self-efficacy beliefs, are enhanced through
coaching (Moen and Allgood, 2009).

Self-regulated learning: an advantageous condition

Self-regulated learning, or SRL, is a relatively recent notion, although self-regulation as a
concept has been investigated for many years. SRL is an individually focused, active and
deliberative process whose core includes motivation, goal-direction and the systematic
control of effort. An alternative definition states it thus: a multidimensional process whereby
persons plan, control and adapt their cognition, affect, and behavior to enhance goal
attainment (Cleary et al., 2015). Goal attainment is a dominant feature, and SRL makes use of
monitoring behavior, making judgments about results attained, then adjusting actions to
succeed and reach goals. Less experienced and/or younger employees may have a limited
understanding of SRL, while experienced employees may have developed successful
patterns of behavior for self-regulation.
Individuals with strong SRL skills typically display strategic thoughts and actions
during learning and they deliberately expend the needed effort to plan, implement and
self-evaluate their use of different strategies (Weinstein and Acee, 2013). These efforts speak
to the control individuals seek over their own development which is aimed largely at
competence. Self-efficacy beliefs may be enhanced with improvements in competence and
self-confidence (Bembenutty, 2016).
Proposed in this article is that employee internalization of SRL processes and actions can
be developed through coaching aimed at improving problem-solving skills. The coaching
can be done with small groups of employees who are focused on achieving progress in a
specific domain (problem, issue, etc.). Coaching effort is directed mostly at employee
engagement with the P-T method. During the goal-directed activity of the employee, the
manager-as-coach can provide much guidance and offer clarity with reference to tasks, skills
and requisite knowledge involved in performance. In addition, the manager has knowledge
of the employees’ experience with similar tasks and some knowledge of individual interest
and comfort level with different tasks. A manager, armed with a practical, proven
skill-building approach can invite employees to be actively engaged in a form of skilled
problem-solving in which employees may internalize the self-regulating processes imposed Management
on the problem-solving activities. coaching
Self-regulated learning: in phases
The parts or phases of SRL are below and although they appear in an ordered, chronological
manner, an employee may loop back to an earlier phase to create adjustments based on their
new learning (Bandura and Lyons, 2017). The phases are not directly presented to or made
obvious to employees, rather they are unseen and are superimposed over the P-T approach
511
the manager uses with employees. Figure 1 attempts to capture the important aspects of SRL
and P-T activities.
The following phases represent the dynamics of SRL that we anticipate employees will
internalize:
• Planning phase: In the P-T process presented later in the text, the manager and the
employees select the goal or target. The goal may represent a response to some
particular area of under-performance or some other need that is readily identified. An
example might be: “assisting customers to define needs”. That is, how can we help our
customers to clearly define their needs? Initially, the manager along with employees
might take stock of what is already known about the issue, estimate the difficulty of
the task and perhaps attempt to gauge interest in applying effort to this task.
• Monitoring (occurring over time as actual work is underway): This can include
employee interest level, perception of knowledge applied to the task, assessment of
effort expended and understanding of context (knowledge of customers).
• Control: Depending on the assessment of progress, we may decide to adjust strategy.
A change in strategy brings attention to information that is needed, effort and
persistence or motivation.
• Reflection and reaction: As the goal-directed activity is underway, employees, with
manager assistance, make judgments about what has become known or learned about
the task effort and an attempt is made to evaluate performance to date. Following
evaluation, the employee may loop back to the planning phase (above).

The above phases give meaning and shape to the dynamics of SRL. Through effort and
persistence, the employee begins to internalize what is learned and, concomitantly, is further
stimulated to shape new strategies for task accomplishment. Other self-regulatory actions

Figure 1.
Relationship of
self-regulated learning
with performance
templates
EJTD are put into practice in the seeking of feedback from the manager and others. In the
41,6 paragraphs that follow, we express the functions and activities of P-Ts and explore ways
these templates may facilitate the self-regulating learning process.

Performance templates
P-T is useful for both manager and employee learning. It contains a set of ordered phases or
512 steps completed by a relatively small group (up to 15) of employees, guided by their manager,
in the service of some current problem or issue in their work environment. The phases
stimulate learning, improved communication, understanding of work processes and
attention to continuous improvement in performance. Completing the P-T processes has
been shown to assist in employee and manager learning and development.
P-T is grounded primarily in action theory (Frese, 2007) and in social cognitive theory
(Bandura, 1988). Empirical research exists that supports the efficacy of the approach.
Processes involved with P-T are such that many different competencies and skills may
be improved or developed. The P-T-specific activities and its processes fit very well with
the attributes normally associated with SRL. Practice with the tool should greatly
enhance the likelihood that learners will internalize thinking and attitudes that enable
them to become more effective self-regulated learners.
The use of P-Ts has been shown to improve employee effectiveness and performance and
may stimulate management learning for several competencies or skills including coaching,
communication, team building, stimulating employee motivation and change management
(Bandura and Lyons, 2015). The approach includes the aforementioned competencies as
training activities. These features help create a somewhat novel tool, different from many
single-feature approaches to employee or manager learning. Our assumptions and
expression of the P-T approach suggest that managers, having studied the requirements in
detail, apply the tool with an employee group. Such a focus tends to immerse the manager in
various learning and instructional opportunities. The details of implementation are
explained in segments following a theoretical grounding for P-T.

Performance templates: theoretical foundations and literature review

Motivation
Fundamentally, the P-T process invites employees with manager guidance to create their
own learning activities and then follow through with action, thus stimulating motivation
(Quinones, 1995). Other researchers report that it matters a great deal if the organization
helps employees know that the organization is highly supportive of their learning, as well as
encouraging the application of the new knowledge on the job. Maurer and Tarulli (1994)
found that learners who perceived their work climate to be supportive were more likely to
attend programs and be motivated to learn. In concert with both the P-T approach and SRL
activities, learners hold more favorable attitudes toward educational activities when they
have input into their design (Baldwin et al., 1991). Motivation is stimulated when learning
activities require that participants provide creative input as to what is to be done and how it
is to be done.

Skills
In focusing learning on both self-regulation and the P-T approach, we find that several skills
are involved. SRL, as a process, requires planning, monitoring, control and reflection as
outlined above. These skills are not directly or deliberately identified, however. Rather, they
are implicit and/or superimposed on the action steps taken in the P-T creation as each of the
steps contains its own skills-building features. In effect, two chronological streams of action
are taking place in concert – SRL and P-T creation – each with its own demands.
Action theory and performance templates Management
Action theory (Frese, 2007) captures the learning dynamics of SRL and P-T perhaps more coaching
thoroughly than other theories. It has action and regulation components, among others.
Frese and Zapf (1994) and Frese (2007) propose an action theory to explain how individuals
actively regulate their behavior to achieve goals, in either regular or novel situations. Initial
P-T work with the manager and employees is a novel situation in its creation aspects. Then,
in field applications, it evolves into regular and iterative activities (Lyons, 2009a). Action
theory provides a framework for understanding some aspects of the regulation of knowledge 513
in a performance context. It also helps us to advance beyond what Salisbury (2008) refers to
as a piecemeal approach to our knowledge of individual, cognitive processes. As expressed
by Frese (2007), action theory contains three elements: focus, sequence and action structure.
In particular, the concept of action structure offers some fresh ways of conceptualizing SRL,
and to a lesser extent, situated cognition.
Some examples may aid in clarification. In the action structure, there are four levels of
regulation (Frese, 2007). From the lowest to highest, the first is skill level, called psychomotor
by Ackerman (1988), which is somewhat automatic, for example, like using a GPS device to
find a location. The second level is the flexible action pattern where behavior is less
automatic and represents a well-trained pattern subject to adjustment based on the context.
An example would be study and preparation for visiting a customer. The third level is the
conscious level which includes conscious, self-aware, goal-directed behavior. It is an
awareness of how something can and should be done. It can be visualized and/or verbalized,
and it unambiguously is representative of part of the processes of SRL, explained above.
Hacker (1998) has referred to the conscious level as the intellectual level; one that is clearly
not automatic. This level of regulation corresponds well with the implementation or
actuation of a P-T.
The final level of regulation that Frese (2007, p. 163) called metacognitive heuristics, is the
self-reflection and thinking engaged in regarding our methods of problem-solving. For
example, in the use of a P-T with a customer, a sales representative may follow a prescribed
set of behaviors to assess their reflection and recording of the adequacy of template use.
Again, this behavior is highly representative of the reflective phase of SRL. Sitzmann and
Ely (2010) have disclosed that prompting self-regulating activity during training can
increase learners’ focus and improve learning. As expressed above, action theory’s four
levels of regulation provide a useful underpinning of the intent, features and dynamics of the
P-T approach. An examination of the implementation of the approach follows.

Description of the performance template approach

The P-T approach is a group-based set of interdependent activities or steps. It is different
from many training and development tools because it embraces a training component that is
embedded within a managed process for performance improvement created by employees
together with their manager. The entire process may be completed in 1- to 2-hour segments
over days, weeks or months depending on the complexity of the skill or information being
improved and the feedback requirements in use. Feedback activities help performance
improvement to take place over iterations. Research has demonstrated that the use of
iterative training processes frequently correlates positively with valued, successful training
outcomes (Salas et al., 2012).

Summary of steps in the P-T process

• Identify critical performance events (CPE). Manager with employees do this. An
example is: communicating accurate product information.
EJTD • Decide which CPE to include in template creation (and eventual application).
41,6 • Design the training activities to house CPE performance within a template. The
template may take the form of a script, format, specification of information, etc.
• Create a template for application.
• Use the templates on the job.
514 • Individual reflection on template application and reporting.
• Modifying and improving the templates for further use.

Creation and use of performance templates

First, it is assumed that the manager and key operatives know their business operations very
well. Further, we assume that most employees possess all, or most of, the same knowledge.
These assumptions matter because, in the P-T cycle of activities, managers must first
identify key processes and critical performance indicators associated with those processes.
Hence, important functions and needs must be identified clearly at the outset:
• As key functional processes are carefully defined, managers must identify the CPE
attendant to each process. In many instances, managers and employees participate in
identification. Ultimately, these events must link to the required employee learning
because the information and skills involved in each CPE are vitally important to
successful performance. Managers lead the entire P-T process. In the steps described
here, it is assumed that the training is conducted with intact teams, preferably small
groups to encourage maximum individual participation in the template-building
process. The manager needs to be extremely encouraging and supportive. Maurer and
Tarulli (1994) found that employees who perceive high support from their manager are
likely to be more motivated to perform.
• An example of CPEs in a sales organization (high-end racing bicycles) is: sales
representatives possess knowledge of each product and its critical components so as to
be able to clearly articulate to a customer the significant, technical features of the
product and how the products are differentiated from competitors’ products.
• Managers who oversee key processes isolate the essential elements of the CPE for
which information, knowledge and skills are to be created and/or enhanced. It is most
desirable that managers and employees agree on these elements.
• The manager works together with the employee group to create the template for use in
practice. Usually, the nascent template takes the form of a script or guide for action.
The effort takes on a training-like nature with training activities shaped in many
possible ways. For example: listing useful practice elements, identifying specific
features of actions, discussing how best to practice and learn action steps and so on.
What must result from the training per a given CPE is the initial P-T.
• The initial template is thus created from discussion, evaluation and agreement: In this
case, a script for employees to use as a guide with customers in displaying product
knowledge of racing bicycles. Usually, a completed, perhaps temporary, template is in
the form of a written guide or script, reflecting those activities and behaviors required
in the successful implementation of the CPE. This part of the work is similar to
Flanagan’s (1954) critical incident technique.
• Employees try out the template on the job – with customers. Templates as scripts may
be made available for use in different formats such as print, or as material for use on
mobile devices.
 • Reflection on template application. After the employee uses a template with a Management
customer, he/she is expected to reflect upon the adequacy, quality, utility, etc., of the coaching
template. This reflection, a critical aspect of SRL, should result in some notes about
what was learned from template use, for example: missing information, customer
reactions and/or one’s comfort in the use of the template. The information must be fed
back to a contact person (training staff, manager-in-question, other). The information
capture activity should be facilitated with instructions, forms and/or some Web-based 515
reporting means. Kleingeld et al. (2004) concluded that direct involvement of
employees in capturing performance details, as informed participants, ultimately
results in improved performance and the more immediate the feedback the greater its
value for guiding future behavior. Chiabura and Marinova (2005) found that informal
and formal reinforcement is important for employees’ transference of what was
learned toward application on the job, that is, the internalization of SRL processes.
• Adjusting and improving the template. To capitalize on the P-T process having
influence on SRL, some basis must be used for the frequency and timing of re-visiting
each template that has been used in the field. For maximum effect, templates should be
adjusted based on learning and feedback (see Step 6, above). Locke and Latham (1990)
and Ford et al. (1992) established that goals and performance feedback at the
individual level are among the most effective interventions available to improve
learning and performance.

The descriptions listed above include the important characteristics of the P-T approach. We
offer information from two empirical studies that examine applications.

Efficacy of the P-T approach

There are a small number of studies that report on P-T application. In two of the studies,
managers led the P-T processes. In the first study, sales firm employees were randomly
selected into two groups, template (T) and conventional (C), for training, targeting four CPEs
in sales visits with customers (Lyons, 2007). The T group was trained using the steps (see
above) of the P-T process to create templates for CPEs. The C group was conventionally
trained, using study of best practices, role-play and other methods. The objective was to
determine if performance differences would result from the training.
Six months following training, the two groups were compared based on gross sales
attained, manager’s performance rating and customer satisfaction with helpfulness and
knowledge, among other factors. In this study, the host company did not allow sales data
publication. The average performance of the T group was higher on all measures.
Differences in performance were statistically significant in the direction of the P-T-trained
employees on three of the measures: customer satisfaction with sales representative’s
product knowledge, customer satisfaction with the salespersons’ overall performance and
manager performance rating of the salesperson. The study does provide promising results
for the P-T approach, although cause-and-effect linkages could not be asserted.
In a second study of outside salespersons in a different organization, the same basic study
design was used (Lyons, 2009b). In this instance, the training was aimed primarily at small
groups for template (T) and conventional (C) training. Template-trained teams performed
significantly better per overall manager’s performance ratings and product knowledge. This
study was limited by relatively small sample sizes, but the results support the findings of
other studies. Thus, some strong, positive results are attributed to P-T training.
EJTD Concluding remarks
41,6 Limitations
The approach offered in this work is not without some limitations. First, there is limited
empirical research on the efficacy of the P-T approach; much more research needs to be done.
Part of the problem with the limited amount of research is that the employee groups under
study tend to be relatively small, usually less than 25 in number. This small size does not
516 easily lend itself to most statistical tests of significance. Second, the time and effort
requirements of the P-T approach are relatively demanding on the part of the manager. Not
all managers would be willing to take on the task of using the approach. In some
organizations, it might be desirable for training staff to lead the effort. The training staff is
not likely going to have the same level of familiarity with the employees or the specific tasks
of the group as the line manager. Third, if the P-T process that is put into effect is lengthy, say
several months in duration, the influence of the process on SRL of some individuals may be
diminished. Closure on goal-directed activities is important for learning effects.

Other considerations
There are other considerations and issues to include:
• In applying the P-T approach, we must assume that the manager has the time, interest
and capacity to lead the effort.
• The use of P-T will require some administrative functions (managing meetings,
recording information).
• Perhaps multiple P-T applications are needed to help employees internalize the
behavior required in SRL.
• Perhaps most importantly, the use of the P-T approach relies on high levels of
employee participation and hands-on involvement. The majority of employees in the
group must commit to applying the methods and processes throughout all of the steps.
If commitment and action wanes, the entire effort may not yield useful results and SRL
will be lessened.

Benefits
Benefits of using the P-T approach to improve performance, as well as to enable employees
become more self-regulated learners are the following: managers and employees gain
knowledge about existing/new skills and the transferability of skills from job task to job
task; knowledge is gained about team effort and productivity; performance is improved in
the domains chosen; and internalization of SRL aspects leads to more informed employees
and it enables increasing levels of self-confidence, and, finally, a manager attains skills as a
guide and coach.

References
Ackerman, P.L. (1988), “Determinants of individual differences during skill acquisition: cognitive
abilities and information processing”, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Vol. 117
No. 3, pp. 288-318.
Baldwin, T.T., Magjuka, R.J. and Loher, B.T. (1991), “The perils of participation: effects of choice of
training on trainee motivation and learning”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 51-65.
Bandura, A. (1988), “Organizational applications of social cognitive theory”, Australian Journal of
Management, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 275-302.
Bandura, R.P. and Lyons, P. (2015), “Performance templates: an entrepreneur’s pathway to employee
training and development”, Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 37-54.
Bandura, R.P. and Lyons, P. (2017), “The intersection of mindset and self-regulated learning”, Management
Development and Learning in Organizations.
coaching
Bembenutty, H. (2016), “Motivation and self-regulated learning among preservice and in-service
teachers enrolled in educational psychology courses”, Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in
Psychology, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 231-244.
Bright, D. and Crockett, A. (2012), “Training combined with coaching can make a significant difference
in job performance and satisfaction”, Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research
and Practice, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 4-21. 517
Chiabura, D.S. and Marinova, S.V. (2005), “What predicts skill transfer? An exploratory study of goal
orientation, training, self-efficacy, and organizational supports”, International Journal of
Training and Development, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 110-123.
Cleary, T.J., Dembitzer, L. and Kettler, R.J. (2015), “Internal factor structure and convergent validity
evidence: the self-report version of self-regulation strategy inventory”, Psychology in the Schools,
Vol. 5 No. 9, pp. 829-844.
Day, N., Surtees, J. and Winkler, V. (2008), “Annual Survey Report”, Learning and Development, CIPD,
London.
Dweck, C.S. (2006), Mindset: The New Psychology of Success, Ballantine Books, New York, NY.
Flanagan, J.C. (1954), “The critical incident technique”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 51, pp. 327-358.
Ford, J.K., Quinones, M.A., Sego, D.J. and Sorra, J.S. (1992), “Factors affecting the opportunity to perform
trained tasks on the job”, Personnel Psychology, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 511-527.
Frese, M. (2007), “The psychological actions and entrepreneurial success: an action theory approach”, in
Baum, J.R., Frese, M. and Baron, R.A. (Eds), The Psychology of Entrepreneurship, Lawrence
Earlbaum Association, Mahway, NJ, pp. 151-188.
Frese, M. and Zapf, D. (1994), “Action as the core of work psychology: a German approach”, in
Triandis, H.C., Dunnette, M.D. and Hough, J.M. (Eds), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational
Psychology, Vol. 4, 2nd ed., Consulting Psychology Press, Palo Alto, CA, pp. 271-340.
Grant, H. and Dweck, C.S. (2003), “Clarifying achievement goals and their impact”. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 85 No. 3, pp. 541-553.
Hacker, W. (1998), General Work Psychology, Huber, Bern.
Jones, R.J., Woods, S.A. and Guillaume, Y.R.F. (2016), “The effectiveness of workplace coaching: a
meta-analysis of learning and performance outcomes from coaching”, Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 89 No. 2, pp. 249-277.
Kleingeld, A., Harrie, van T., & Algera, J.A. (2004), “Participation in the design of a performance
management system: a quasi-experimental field study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior,
Vol. 25 No. 7, pp. 831-851.
Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (1990), A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Lyons, P. (2007), “Creating performance templates for management development and employee
learning”, Training and Management Development Methods, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 359-371.
Lyons, P. (2009a), “Team training for creating performance templates”, Team Performance
Management, Vol. 15 No. 5, pp. 257-275.
Lyons, P. (2009b), “Action theory and the training and performance application: performance
templates”, Industrial and Commercial Training, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 270-279.
Maurer, T.J. and Tarulli, B.A. (1994), “Investigation of perceived environment, perceived outcome, and
person variables in relationship to voluntary development activity by employees”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 79 No. 1, pp. 3-14.
Moen, F. and Allgood, E. (2009), “Coaching and the effect on self-efficacy”, Organizational Development
Journal, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 69-81.
EJTD Murphy, M.C. and Dweck, C.S. (2016), “Mindsets shape consumer behavior”, Journal of Consumer
Psychology, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 127-136.
41,6
Plaks, J.E., Grant, H. and Dweck, C.S. (2005), “Violations of implicit theories and the sense of prediction
and control: implementation for motivated person perception”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 2, pp. 245-262.
Pousa, C. and Mathieu, A. (2015), “Is management coaching a source of competitive advantage?
518 Promoting employee self-regulation through coaching”, Coaching: An International Journal of
Theory, Research and Practice, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 20-35.
Quinones, M.A. (1995), “Pretraining context effects: training assignments as feedback”, Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 226-238.
Salas, E., Tannenbaum, S.I., Kraiger, K. and Smith-Jentsch, K.A. (2012), “The science of training and
development in organizations: what matters in practice”, Psychological Science in the Public
Interest, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 74-101.
Salisbury, M. (2008), “From instructional systems design to managing the life cycle of knowledge in
organizations”, Performance Improvement Quarterly, Vol. 20 Nos 3/4, pp. 131-145.
Segers, J., Vloeberghs, D., Henderickx, E. and Inceoglu, I. (2011), “Structuring and under-standing the
coaching industry: the coaching cube”, Academy of Management Learning and Education,
Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 204-221.
Sitzmann, T. and Ely, K. (2010), “Sometimes you need a reminder: the effects of prompting
self-regulation on regulatory processes, learning, and attrition”, Journal of Applied Psychology,
Vol. 95 No. 1, pp. 132-144.
Sue-Chan, C. and Latham, G. (2004), “The relative effectiveness of external, peer, and self-coaches”,
Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 260-278.
Theeboom, T., Beersma, B. and VanVianen, A.E.M. (2014), “Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on
the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organization context”, Journal of
Positive Psychology, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 1-18.
Weinstein, C.E. and Acee, T.W. (2013), “Helping college students become more strategic and
self-regulated learners”, in Bembenutty, H., Cleary, T.J. and Kitsantas, A. (Eds), Application of
Self-Regulated Learning Across Diverse Disciplines: A Tribute to Barry J. Zimmerman,
Information Age Publishing, Charlotte NC, pp. 197-236.
Yeager, D.S., Johnson, R., Spitzer, B.J., Trzesniewski, K.H., Powers, J. and Dweck, C.S. (2014), “The
far-reaching effects of believing people can change: implicit theories of personality shape stress,
health, and achievement during adolescence”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
Vol. 106 No. 6, pp. 867-884.

Corresponding author
Paul Lyons can be contacted at: PLyons@frostburg.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com