years. There is extensive anecdotal, case study and other qualitative research on executive coaching
(Kilburg, 2000), however, these studies describe the process of executive coaching, not its effects. A
survey questionnaire was set up in order to measure the effectiveness of coaching. As part of the
questionnaire, questions which dealt with leadership behavior were included.
The questionnaire was answered by 163 managers (response rate of 47%) at different levels in
different organizations. Table A.1 shows the demographic data of the sample used.
Table A.1: Demographic data of sampleIn the sample for this pilot study the sample to variable ratio was 163:11 ~ 15:1, which may be
considered acceptable, as it fits the more stringent rules of thumb (Everitt, 1975; Gorsuch, 1983; Hair
et al., 1998; Pett et al., 2003; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). The assessment was a self-assessment. The
participants were asked to what extent the described leader behaviors reflected their own behavior as a
leader. The items were scored on a Likert-W\SHVFDOHZLWKDQVZHUVUDQJLQJIURP³WRWDOO\DJUHH ́ VFRUH
WR³WRWDOO\GLVDJUHH ́ VFRUH
Measures
Task- and people-oriented leadership behaviors and transformational and transactional leadership
behaviors were measured by means of different measurement instruments. The following sections
provide arguments for the items that have been included in the measurement.
Task-oriented versus People-oriented Leadership
As elaborated in chapter four, leadership behavior has been conceptualized along the opposition
between task and people orientation (Vecchio, 2002). In the more than half century since the
discovery of the parallel terms of task- and people-orientation, much has been learned about these
concepts. At the same time, upon reflecting on this literature, one cannot help but be impressed by the
mysteries that surround task- and people-orientation. Questions have been raised about the generality
of the validities and the nature of the measures themselves; many may feel that these questions were