Open Journal of Social Sciences, 2019, 7, 223-237

https://www.scirp.org/journal/jss
ISSN Online: 2327-5960
ISSN Print: 2327-5952

The Impact of Coaching Leadership on In-Role

Performance of Employees
—Based on the Perspective of Social Information Processing Theory

Sishi Huang

Jinan University, Guangzhou, China

How to cite this paper: Huang, S.S. (2019) Abstract

The Impact of Coaching Leadership on
In-Role Performance of Employees—Based As a new way of leadership, coaching leadership behavior is receiving more
on the Perspective of Social Information and more attention from experts and scholars. Although studies have shown
Processing Theory. Open Journal of Social
that coaching leadership behavior significantly improves employee perfor-
Sciences, 7, 223-237.
https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2019.712017
mance, there are few studies on how coaching leadership behavior affects and
under what circumstances it can affect the in-role performance of employees.
Received: December 3, 2019 Based on the social information-processing theory, this paper discusses the
Accepted: December 10, 2019
impact of coaching leadership behavior on the in-role performance of em-
Published: December 13, 2019
ployees and its internal mechanism—the mediating role of role ambiguity
Copyright © 2019 by author(s) and and the social alertness. Through the investigation and analysis of 224 em-
Scientific Research Publishing Inc. ployees, the coaching leadership behavior has a significant positive impact on
This work is licensed under the Creative
the in-role performance of employees; the employee role ambiguity has played
Commons Attribution International
License (CC BY 4.0).
a partial intermediary role in this process; In addition, the social astuteness of
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ employees is positively moderating the relationship between coaching lea-
Open Access dership behavior and employee role ambiguity, the higher employee’s social
astuteness, the stronger the weakening effect of coaching leadership behavior
on employee role ambiguity, and the mediating effect of role ambiguity on
role performance is enhanced.

Keywords
Coaching Leadership, In-Role Performance, Role Ambiguity,
Social Astuteness

1. Introduction
Napoleon, a famous French military strategist, has a famous saying: the lion le-
gion of the sheep commander can never defeat the sheep corps of the lion com-
mander. This shows the important role of team leaders in the whole team. A

DOI: 10.4236/jss.2019.712017 Dec. 13, 2019 223 Open Journal of Social Sciences
S. S. Huang

good leader can set an example for team members, enhance confidence, lead the
team to achieve goals, and achieve success. The lack of leadership may waste
team members’ ability and influence. The completion of the work task is difficult
to achieve success. In the context of the current rapid social progress and increa-
singly fierce market competition, organizations have put forward higher re-
quirements for leaders. Traditional leadership behavior has gradually failed to
adapt to the increasingly fierce market competition and increasingly distinctive
employees, so more and more scholars began to study new leadership behavior.
In 2001, Goleman first proposed the concept of “coaching leadership” in his ar-
ticle published in the Harvard Business Review, and believed that coaching lea-
dership would be one of the must-have behaviors of business managers in the
21st century. Hamlin et al. (2006) also point out that coaching leadership is at
the heart of effective management practices [1]. Coach-led leadership behavior
refers to the use of induction and inspiration to help employees discover their
deep-seated needs and establish appropriate work goals. Provide resources and
support in the process of achieving goals, improve employee mental models and
stimulate employee potential. The effect is ultimately to achieve a win-win situa-
tion for employees and organizations [2].
In recent years, coaching leadership has attracted more and more scholars’ at-
tention, mainly focusing on the positive impact of coaching leadership behavior
on employees, such as improving employee job satisfaction [3]; increasing orga-
nizational citizenship behavior [4]; Increasing organizational commitment and
reducing turnover [5]; Promoting employee learning [5]; Improving role per-
formance [6]; Achieving work goals [7] and enhance work morale [8] and so on.
Although foreign scholars have conducted a comprehensive study on coaching
leadership behavior, coaching leadership is still a relatively new concept in Chi-
na. At present, domestic scholars mainly study its role in employee innovation
behavior, and fewer scholars have paid attention to the role and mechanism of
coaching leadership in employee in-role performance. Therefore, the primary
focus of this study is the impact of coaching leadership behavior on employees’
in-role performance.
Although foreign scholars have proved that coaching leadership behavior can
help employees improve their performance, it still needs to understand the in-
ternal mechanism of coaching leadership behavior to improve the performance
of employees. The Social Information-Processing Theory (SIP) proposed by Sa-
lancik and Pfefer (1978) argues that employees use the information obtained in
the workplace to understand and interpret events, thereby gaining work-related
cognition and attitudes. And decide on the behavior afterward [9]. In other
words, the behavior of employees at work is affected by the job-related informa-
tion they receive. Role Ambiguity is the individual’s perception of one’s own
role. It means that the individual lacks a clear understanding and cognition of
the desired behavior at work, or lacks sufficient information about the individu-
al’s role-related expectations. The lack of information about the job role affects
the employee’s work behavior, which in turn affects Gong’s overall outcome,

DOI: 10.4236/jss.2019.712017 224 Open Journal of Social Sciences

 S. S. Huang

which is the performance within the role. Therefore, this study suggests that role
ambiguity may play a mediating role in the relationship between coaching lea-
dership and performance within employee roles.
In addition, social information processing theory also emphasizes that indi-
viduals do not passively accept information from the social environment. Indi-
vidual differences cause different individuals to interpret the same information
differently, leading to differences in cognition and behavior [9]. Therefore, this
study will further explore the impact of individual employee differences—Social
Astuteness. Social astuteness is the ability of individuals to accurately under-
stand social interactions, understand themselves and others’ behaviors, and ad-
just behaviors to various social environments in a timely manner [10]. Some
scholars have found that individuals with higher social astuteness are more sen-
sitive to their surroundings and can acutely identify opportunities and available
resources and use them effectively [11]. Individuals with lower social astuteness,
they cannot understand the inspiration and guidance of coaching leaders more
quickly and accurately. That is to say, the influence of coaching leadership beha-
vior on individual perceptions and behaviors with high social astuteness is more
significant. Therefore, this study believes that the higher the individual social
astuteness, the stronger the effect of coaching leadership on the in-role perfor-
mance of the employees through the role ambiguity.
In general, this study is based on the theory of SIP to explore whether em-
ployee role ambiguity plays a mediating role between coaching leadership beha-
vior and employee in-role performance while studying the interaction between
employee social astuteness and coaching leadership behavior. In summary, this
study initially proposes the research framework shown in Figure 1.

2. Theory and Hypotheses

2.1. Coaching Leadership and In-Role Performance
Unlike previous leadership styles that focus on establishing authority and giving
orders to subordinates, coaching leadership is a new type of leadership that at-
tracts scholars’ attention in recent years. Wang et al. (2016) defined coaching
leadership as: using encouragement, guidance, authorization, and other more
equal ways to communicate with employees, helping employees to identify their
deep needs, establish appropriate work goals, and achieve goals in employees. In
the process of supporting and helping employees, providing necessary resources
and support for employees, in addition, paying attention to the improvement of

Figure 1. Theoretical model.

DOI: 10.4236/jss.2019.712017 225 Open Journal of Social Sciences

S. S. Huang

employees’ mental models and the activation of their potentials, and ultimately
achieving leadership behavior that promotes mutual promotion between organ-
izations and employees [2]. Unlike other leadership behaviors, coaching leader-
ship emphasize the promotion of employee learning, enhance employee compe-
tencies, and ultimately achieve employee performance. To achieve this goal,
coaching leadership will perform the following main behaviors: 1) clarifying
work tasks; 2) inspiring and inducing employees; 3) improving mental models;
4) giving support and help; and 5) promoting innovation and performance im-
provement.
Social information processing theory states that employees’ understanding of
the work environment is based on the processing of social information in the
workplace, which in turn affects their behavior and further influences the out-
come of the behavior [9]. Effective social information often comes from people
with high social status. In the workplace, leaders become the main source of in-
formation for employees to obtain social clues [12]. The behavior of the leader
or the information provided by the leader will influence and shape the em-
ployee’s behavior, ultimately leading to different performance results. According
to scholars, coaching leaders have the following characteristics [2]: First, coach-
ing leaders focus on long-term career development of employees, focusing on
helping employees improve their professional skills and abilities instead of fo-
cusing on the immediate tasks [13], so that employees can gain job-related skills
and abilities to achieve better performance. Second, coaching leaders can devel-
op a positive and optimistic attitude [14], which guides employees to identify the
reasons for failure, encourage employees to continue to improve, and achieve
better performance. Third, coaching leaders tend to communicate with employees
on an equal footing, treat employees equally, and help build a high-quality rela-
tionship [15]. High-quality relationships can help employees work positively and
achieve better in-role performance.
In the past, researchers also discussed the relationship between coaching lea-
dership behavior and employee performance. The results all proved that coach-
ing leadership behavior has a significant effect on employee performance [16]
[17]. In summary, this study proposes hypothesis 1:
H1: Coaching leadership has a positive impact on the in-role performance of
employees.

2.2. The Mediating Role of Role Ambiguity

Role ambiguity is a cognition that reflects an individual’s uncertainty about the
job information and performance expectations required for a particular role in
the organization [18], including the relationship between role positioning, others
expectations of roles, steps to satisfy such expectations, behavioral goals of roles,
and evaluation of role behaviors [19]. Whether employees can fully grasp the
information about the work is crucial to their ability to work effectively: if em-
ployees can clearly understand the goals and expectations of the role, it means

DOI: 10.4236/jss.2019.712017 226 Open Journal of Social Sciences

 S. S. Huang

that they can grasp the methods and steps to achieve the goal, showing higher
levels of performance [20]; high levels of role ambiguity mean a lack of proper
understanding of work goals and responsibilities, which often leads to poor, un-
satisfactory performance [21]. The results of Deluga & Winiers (1990) show that
there is a significant negative correlation between role ambiguity and job per-
formance. Therefore, role ambiguity may negatively impact the in-role perfor-
mance of the employees [22].
According to the social information processing theory, employees’ social cog-
nition and attitude are based on social cues in the workplace, which affects their
behavior [9]. That is to say, the behavior and information clues of leaders in the
work situation will first affect the formation of employee cognition and attitude,
and thus affect the behavior of employees and obtain different work results. This
study believes that coaching leadership can reduce the role ambiguity of em-
ployees for the following reasons: First, coaching leader guide employees to es-
tablish appropriate work goals based on their specific circumstances, helping
employees clearly understand work objectives and leadership expectations, and
reduce employees’ uncertainty [23]; Second, coach-ling leaders help employees
by providing effective developmental feedback and appropriate resource support
during employee achievement goals. Systematic feedback to develop self-awareness
[24], effective feedback can help employees clearly understand their goals and
responsibilities, and build paths to established goals, reducing role ambiguity
[25]; A great deal of research has been done in the past that coaching leaders
can help employees better understand their roles and effectively alleviate the
ambiguity of their roles [20]. In summary, this study proposes the following hy-
pothesis:
H2a: Coaching leadership behavior significantly reduces employees’ role am-
biguity;
H2b: Role ambiguity significantly reduces employees’ in-role performance;
H2c: Employee role ambiguity mediates between coaching leadership beha-
vior and employee in-role performance.

2.3. The Moderation Role of Social Astuteness

Social astuteness refers to the ability of individuals to understand social interac-
tions well and accurately explain themselves and others. Individuals with high
social astuteness are keen observers, highly self-aware, and able to adapt to dif-
ferent social environments [10]. As the most explanatory dimension of political
skills [10], social alertness has been shown to play a regulatory role in the rela-
tionship between leadership behavior and employee cognitive and behavior [26].
According to the theory of social information processing, employees rely on
past experience to selectively interpret the information and behaviors conveyed
by leaders in the workplace. That is, the differences between individuals not only
affect their information processing but also affect the formation of cognition and
attitude, which in turn affect the behavior shown [9]. Therefore, this study spe-
culates that the differences in individual social astuteness will affect the impact

DOI: 10.4236/jss.2019.712017 227 Open Journal of Social Sciences

S. S. Huang

of coaching leadership behavior on employee role ambiguity. The reasons are as

follows: First, individuals with high social astuteness can understand the beha-
vior of workplace leaders [10]. When coaching leaders guide individuals and in-
spire them to help individuals discover deeper needs and establish work goals,
individuals can accurately understand the meaning of leadership, and work to-
wards the direction of leadership guidance, understand the goals and responsi-
bilities of the role, and reduce the role of confusion. Secondly, individuals with
high social astuteness can adjust their behavior according to the situation and
better adapt to the social situation based on the accurate understanding of social
cues [10]. When individuals realize that leaders use coaching behavior to help
themselves, they can actively adjust their role positioning and behavior, and
communicate effectively with leaders. Effective communication is one of the
keys to understanding roles and reducing role ambiguity [27]. Therefore, em-
ployees with high social astuteness can more acutely discover and understand
coaching leadership, actively communicate with leaders and adjust their roles in
a timely manner, and more actively treat the guidance and help of coaching
leaders, helping to reduce the role of confusion. On the contrary, it is difficult
for individuals with low social astuteness to recognize and understand the inte-
raction in the workplace, and it is difficult to accurately understand the encou-
ragement and guidance intention of the coaching leadership. The role of coach-
ing leadership behavior in reducing role ambiguity is relatively weak. In sum-
mary, this study proposes the hypothesis:
H3a: Individual social astuteness moderates the relationship between coaching
leadership behavior and employees’ role ambiguity. Such that it is stronger when
the level of social astuteness is higher.
Combined with hypotheses 2c and 3a, the relationship between coaching lea-
dership behavior and in-role performance can be further extended to a mod-
erated mediation model. Specifically, the employee role ambiguity plays a me-
diate role in the relationship between coaching leadership behavior and em-
ployee role performance, and the mediation role is moderated by the employee’s
social astuteness. When the employee’s social astuteness level is high, the coach-
ing leadership behavior has a more significant effect on the role ambiguity. The
employee has a clear and accurate understanding of the role, enabling the em-
ployee to work more actively [28] and get better in-role performance. On the
contrary, employees with low levels of social astuteness are not sensitive enough
to the motivation and expectations of coaching leadership behavior, cannot un-
derstand the leadership’s help behavior in time, or cannot correctly understand
the leadership’s inspiration and guidance, thus weakening the positive influence
of coaching leadership on the role ambiguity, the lack of information about job
roles makes individuals more conservative, reluctant to show their full ability in
the work, and ultimately affect the in-role performance. In summary, this study
proposes the following hypothesis:
H3b: Social astuteness moderates the indirect role of coaching leadership be-

DOI: 10.4236/jss.2019.712017 228 Open Journal of Social Sciences

 S. S. Huang

havior on the in-role performance through role ambiguity, that is, the indirect
effect is more positive when the level of social astuteness is higher than it is low.

3. Sample and Measures

3.1. Sample and Data Collection
In this study, data collection was conducted by network questionnaire. The sub-
jects were mainly ordinary employees of the company, and the region was
mainly concentrated in Guangdong Province. The questionnaire was distributed
mainly on the professional questionnaire survey website. A total of 254 ques-
tionnaires were distributed in this study, and 224 valid questionnaires were col-
lected. The effective recovery rate was 88.2%. The specifics of the sample are
shown in Table 1.

3.2. Measurement Scale

All scales were translated and back-translated from English to Chinese. All of the
items were measured by 5-point Likert scales anchored from 1 (strongly disag-
ree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Coaching Leadership: An eight-item scale compiled by Ellinger et al. (2003),
which is filled out by employees and measures the perception of employees’ di-
rect leader coaching leadership behavior [3]. The Cronbach’s alpha is 0.88.
Social astuteness: The “social astuteness” dimension of the Political Skills Scale
compiled by Ferris et al. (2005) is used, which includes five measurement items
[29]. The Cronbach’s alpha is 0.77.
Role ambiguity: The five-item role ambiguity scale of Peterson et al. (1996)
[24]. The Cronbach’s alpha is 0.95.

Table 1. Basic situation of the sample.

Classify Number Proportion

Male 105 46.9%

Sex
Female 119 53.1%

Under 25 years old 55 24.6%

Between 26 - 35 years old 142 63.4%

Age
Between 36 - 45 years old 25 11.2%

Over 46 years old 2 0.9%

Junior college and below 32 14.3%

Education level Undergraduate 175 78.1%

Graduate students and above 17 7.6%

Less than 1 year 24 10.7%

Between 1 - 3 years 65 29.0%

Working tenure
Between 3 - 5 years 50 22.3%

Over 5 years 85 37.9%

DOI: 10.4236/jss.2019.712017 229 Open Journal of Social Sciences

S. S. Huang

In-role performance: Using the in-role performance scale developed by Wil-

liams and Anderson (1991), the scale contains 7 items, of which 2 are reverse-scoring
items [30]. The Cronbach’s alpha is 0.82.
Control variables: In this study, the gender, age, education, and working te-
nure were used as control variables.

4. Analyses and Results

4.1. Discriminant Validity Test and Common Method Biases Test
In order to test the discriminant validity between variables, this study conducted
a confirmatory factor analysis of four variables: coaching leadership behavior,
role ambiguity, social astuteness, and employees’ in-role performance. The re-
sults are shown in Table 2. The results show that compared with several other
models, the four-factor model has the best fit, RMSEA is lower than 0.08, CFI,
NFI, NNFI are higher than 0.09, and the ratio of chi-square to degree of freedom
is smaller than 2. This shows that the four variables of coaching leadership beha-
vior, role ambiguity, social astuteness, and in-role performance have good dis-
criminant validity in this study.
Harman single factor method was used to test the homologous variance [31].
Exploratory factor analysis showed that the variance explained by the first fac-
tor without rotational precipitation was less than the standard (50%). It means
that the deviation of common methods will not cause a serious impact in this
study.

4.2. Descriptive Statistics and Correlation Analysis

We used SPSS 20.0 to process the data. Descriptive statistics and related analysis
are shown in Table 3. Coaching leadership is positively correlated with em-
ployees’ in-role performance (r = 0.43, p < 0.01), and negatively correlated with
employees’ role ambiguity(r = −0.3, p < 0.01). Role ambiguity is negatively cor-
related with s employees’ in-role performance (r = −0.85, p < 0.01).

4.3. Hypothesis Test

Hierarchical regression was used to test the hypothesis in this study and the re-
sults are shown in Table 4. Model 3 showed that coaching leadership significantly
positively predicted an employees’ in-role performance (β = 0.27, p < 0.01),

Table 2. Results of confirmatory factor analysis.

Model χ2 df χ2/df RMSEA CFI NFI NNFI

Four-factor model: CL, RA, SA, IRP 476.23 269 1.77 0.059 0.98 0.95 0.97

Three-factor model: CL, RA, SA + IRP 831.86 273 3.05 0.096 0.95 0.92 0.94

Two-factor model: CL, RA + SA + IRP 1201.10 276 4.35 0.12 0.89 0.86 0.88

One-factor model: CL + RA + SA + IRP 2382.90 278 8.57 0.18 0.83 0.81 0.82

Note: N =224, CL = Coaching Leadership, RA = Role Ambiguity, SA = Social Astuteness, IRP = In-Role
Performance.

DOI: 10.4236/jss.2019.712017 230 Open Journal of Social Sciences

 S. S. Huang

Table 3. Mean, standard deviation and correlation coefficients (N = 224).

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1) Gender 1.53 0.50 -

2) Age 1.88 0.62 −0.10 -

3) Education 1.93 0.46 0.04 −0.12 -

4) Working tenure 2.88 1.04 0.14* 0.70** −0.10 -

5) Coaching Leadership 3.81 0.61 −0.07 0.23** −0.01 0.23** (0.88)

6) Role Ambiguity 2.45 0.99 0.01 −0.15* 0.04 −0.19** −0.39** (0.95)

7) Social Astuteness 3.37 0.50 −0.08 −0.02 0.03 0.06 0.38** −0.30** (0.77)

8) In-Role Performance 4.02 0.42 −0.04 0.19** 0.00 0.27** 0.43** −0.85** 0.39** (0.82)

Note: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. The number in parentheses is Cronbach’s alpha of each scale.

Table 4. Test results of mediating effects and moderating effects (N = 224).

Role Ambiguity In-Role Performance

Variable
M1 M2 M3 M4

Intercept 2.67 2.87 2.76 4.66

Control Variable
Gender −0.06 −0.11 0.01 −0.01

Age 0.04 −0.03 −0.03 −0.01

Education 0.07 0.06 0.02 0.04

Working Tenure −0.11 −0.09 0.09* 0.05*

Independent Variable

Coaching Leadership −0.61*** −0.54*** 0.27** 0.06*

Mediating Variable

Role Ambiguity −0.33***

Moderator Variable
Social Astuteness −0.28*

Interaction Effect

Coaching Leadership × Social Astuteness −0.38**

R 2
0.17 0.22 0.21 0.74

ΔR 2
- 0.05 - 0.53

F 8.69*** 8.67*** 11.86*** 102.61***

Note: The non-standardized regression coefficients in the table are: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001. The
related variables have been centralized.

so hypothesis H1 was supported. Model 1 showed that coaching leadership sig-

nificantly negatively predicted an employees’ role ambiguity (β = −0.61, p <
0.001), so hypothesis H2a was supported. Model 4 showed that role ambiguity
has a significant negative effect on employees’ role ambiguity (β = −0.33, p <
0.001), so hypothesis H2b was supported. And the positive effect of coaching

DOI: 10.4236/jss.2019.712017 231 Open Journal of Social Sciences

S. S. Huang

leadership on employees’ in-role performance is still significant (β = 0.06, p <

0.05). Therefore, role ambiguity partially mediates the relationship between
coaching leadership and employees’ in-role performance (intermediary effect =
0.20, bias correction CI 95% = [0.15, 0.28]), so hypothesis H2c was supported.
In addition, model 2 showed that the interaction between coaching leadership
and social astuteness significantly negatively predicted role ambiguity (β = −0.38, p
< 0.01). Figure 2 shows the interaction between coaching leadership and social
astuteness affecting role ambiguity. It can be seen from the figure that the slope
of the dotted line is larger, that is, employees with high social astuteness expe-
rienced a significant reduction in role ambiguity under coaching leadership.
That is to say, when the coaching leadership behavior is less, employees with
high social astuteness and low social astuteness experience a higher role am-
biguity; when the leadership performance is more, the role ambiguity expe-
rienced by employees with high social astuteness was significantly less than
that of employees with low social astuteness. Simple slope analysis showed that
when the level of social astuteness was high, employees with coaching leader-
ship will perceive less role ambiguity (β = −0.77 p < 0.001); and when the level
of social astuteness was low, the influence of coaching leadership on the role
ambiguity will be weakened (β = −0.31, p < 0.05). Therefore, hypothesis 3a is
supported.
Based on this model, we also examined the conditional indirect effect follow-
ing recommendations by Hayes (2013) [32]. Specifically, for high levels of social
astuteness, the indirect effect of coaching leadership on employees’ in-role per-
formance through role ambiguity was significant (conditional indirect effect =
0.10, Boot 95% CI = [0.03, 0.18]). However, for low level of social astuteness, the
indirect effects were not significant (conditional indirect effect = −0.01, Boot
95% CI = [−0.07, 0.05]). Therefore, the results support hypothesis H3b.

5
low social astuteness
high social astuteness
4

3
role ambiguity

0
low coaching leadership high coaching leadership
Figure 2. Moderating effect of social astuteness on coaching leadership behavior and role
ambiguity.

DOI: 10.4236/jss.2019.712017 232 Open Journal of Social Sciences

 S. S. Huang

5. Conclusions
Based on the theory of social information processing, this study conducted a hie-
rarchical regression analysis of 224 employee data. After controlling gender, edu-
cation, age and working tenures, the following conclusions were obtained:
1) Coaching leadership has a significant positive impact on employees’ in-role
performance;
2) The mediation effect test shows that the employee role ambiguity plays a
mediating role between coaching leadership and in-role performance;
3) Social astuteness has a significant moderate effect on the relationship be-
tween coaching leadership and employee role ambiguity. When the employee’s
social astuteness is strong, the relationship between coaching leadership and role
ambiguity is stronger.

6. Discussion and Significance

6.1. Theoretical Significance
First, this study further enriches the internal mechanism of coaching leadership
behaviors to promote employees’ in-role performance. Most of the existing re-
searches on the relationship between leadership behavior and performance
within the employee’s role use social cognitive theory [17] or social exchange
theory [16]. This study explores the interaction between coaching leadership and
individual differences (individual social astuteness) based on the perspective of
social information processing theory to promote individual in-role performance
by mitigating employee role ambiguity. This not only helps to better understand
the promotion mechanism of employee performance in the Chinese context but
also provides a new theoretical perspective for explaining how coaching leader-
ship behavior affects individual behavior.
Second, this study confirms that role ambiguity mediates between coaching
leadership behavior and employees’ in-role performance. In recent years, the
mechanism of coaching leadership behavior on outcome variables has always
been the focus of scholars’ attention, but so far no research has focused on the
role of role ambiguity in this relationship. According to the theory of social in-
formation processing, coaching leaders provide employees with relevant infor-
mation to help individuals develop, improve their work level and skills. It is im-
portant social information for employees and will form a cognitive and attitude
about roles based on this clue, effectively reduce role ambiguity. When em-
ployees have a clear understanding and understanding of their roles, they can
stimulate effective work behavior and improve in-role performance. This study
confirms the relationship of “leader behavior—employee cognition—employee
work behavior”, and unveils the mechanism between coaching leadership beha-
vior and employees’ in-role performance, providing a new idea and theoretical
basis for its formation process.
Finally, this study demonstrates for the first time that employee social astute-

DOI: 10.4236/jss.2019.712017 233 Open Journal of Social Sciences

S. S. Huang

ness not only positively moderates the relationship between coaching leadership
behavior and employee role ambiguity, but also significantly moderates the in-
direct effect of role ambiguity in it. Studies have used political skills as a mod-
erator to explore the role of moderation in the relationship between leadership
behavior and employee behavior. For example, Shen et al. (2019) found that po-
litical skills are positively moderating leadership behavior and subordinate per-
formance [33]. Few studies have separately studied the four dimensions of polit-
ical skills. Brouer et al. (2016) pointed out that in the Chinese context, only the
social astuteness and interpersonal influence dimensions are significantly related
to employee behavior [34]. Ferris et al. (2007) also pointed out that social as-
tuteness is the most explanatory dimension of political skills [10]. This study
confirms that social alertness as a dimension of political skills can directly mod-
erate the relationship between coaching leadership and employees’ in-role per-
formance, further enriching related research.

6.2. Practical Significance

The results of this study found that coaching leadership behavior can change
employees’ perceptions of roles, goals, and other aspects, and thus improve the
employees’ in-role performance. Therefore, enterprises can train leadership be-
haviors, enable leaders to master effective coaching skills, help employees to ex-
plore their own needs, and work with employees to establish appropriate devel-
opment goals, through inspiration, authorization, guidance and other ways. Pro-
vide employees with opportunities for growth, and provide sufficient resources
to support and help employees’ work skills and career development, and help
employees improve their performance within their roles.
The study also found that role ambiguity plays a part in mediating the rela-
tionship between coaching leadership behavior and in-role performance. There-
fore, leaders can improve their role performance by helping employees to clarify
all aspects of their roles and reduce their role ambiguity. For example, leaders
can use coaching methods such as language guidance and reinforcement to en-
hance employees’ awareness of roles and reduce role ambiguity. In addition,
companies can modify or improve job descriptions, or reorganize organizational
structures to clarify the division of labor to help employees identify their respon-
sibilities and work goals.
In addition, this study also found that employee social astuteness plays a posi-
tive role in moderating coaching leadership behavior and role ambiguity.
Coaching leadership behavior is less helpful to employees with lower social as-
tuteness than those with high social astuteness. Therefore, leaders should con-
tinue to explore appropriate leadership behaviors to help low social astuteness to
reduce role ambiguity and improve performance. In addition, companies can
use relevant tests to measure the social astuteness of candidates as one of the
reference conditions for recruiting and screening employees and provide refer-
ence information for leaders and employees to match. In addition, as a dimen-
sion of political skills, social astuteness can be continuously improved based on

DOI: 10.4236/jss.2019.712017 234 Open Journal of Social Sciences

 S. S. Huang

the development experience of the day after tomorrow. Leaders can carry out
relevant training according to their own development needs and the actual situa-
tion of employees, improve the social astuteness of employees, and enable em-
ployees to better adapt to the coaching leadership style and gain personal growth
and improvement.

6.3. Deficiencies and Prospects

This study has some theoretical and practical contributions to understanding the
relationship between coaching leadership and employees’ in-role performance,
but there are still some shortcomings that need to be explored later. First, this
study only reveals the partial mediating role of role ambiguity between coaching
leadership behavior and employee s’ in-role performance. Later research can
continue to expand the research of related intermediary mechanisms from other
theoretical perspectives. Second, this study takes social astuteness as a moderate
variable and does not explore the moderate role of other dimensions of political
skills, so future research can further explore the moderate role of the other di-
mensions of political skills. Third, all the data in this study are filled out by em-
ployees. The results may be affected by the social appreciating effect. Therefore,
subsequent research can use the method of pairing leaders and employees to
collect data and improve the accuracy of the results. At present, the scholars be-
lieve that the causal relationship contains chronological relations, the first cause,
and then result. Therefore, the study of causality between variables usually uses
time-point methods to collect data. The data of this research questionnaire were
collected at the same time point and the causal relationship between variables
could not be explored. Future research can use the data collection method at
different time points to enhance the effectiveness of the results.

Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this pa-
per.

References
[1] Hamlin, R.G., Ellinger, A.D. and Beattie, R.S. (2006) Coaching at the Heart of Ma-
nagerial Effectiveness: A Cross-Cultural Study of Managerial Behaviors. Human
Resource Development International, 9, 305-331.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13678860600893524
[2] Wang, Y.F., Zhang, J.R., Lin, X.C., Zhou, H.L. and Zhu, Y. (2016) A Literature Re-
view of Coaching Leadership Behavior and Prospects. Foreign Economies and
Management, No. 5, 44-57. (In Chinese)
[3] Ellinger, A.D., Ellinger, A.E. and Keller, S.B. (2003) Supervisory Coaching Behavior,
Employee Satisfaction, and Warehouse Employee Performance: A Dyadic Perspec-
tive in the Distribution Industry. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14,
435-458. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.1078
[4] Kim, S. and Kuo, M. (2014) Examining the Relationships among Coaching, Trust-
worthiness, and Role Behaviors. Academy of Management Annual Meeting Pro-

DOI: 10.4236/jss.2019.712017 235 Open Journal of Social Sciences

S. S. Huang

ceedings, No. 1, 12563-12563. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2014.12563abstract

[5] Park, S., Mclean, G.N. and Yang, B. (2008) Revision and Validation of an Instrument
Measuring Managerial Coaching Skills in Organizations. Online Submission, 8.
[6] Byrne, G. (2007) Guest Editorial: Unlocking Potential-Coaching as a Means to En-
hance Leadership and Role Performance in Nursing. Journal of Clinical Nursing,
16, 1987-1988. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02074.x
[7] Dahling, J.J., Taylor, S.R., Chau, S.L. and Dwight, S.A. (2016) Does Coaching Mat-
ter? A Multilevel Model Linking Managerial Coaching Skill and Frequency to Sales
Goal Attainment. Personnel Psychology, 69, 863-894.
https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12123
[8] Worthy, J.C. (1950) Organizational Structure and Employe Morale. American Soci-
ological Review, 15, 169-179. https://doi.org/10.2307/2086780
[9] Pfeffer, S.J. (1978) A Social Information Processing Approach to Job Attitudes and
Task Design. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23, 224-253.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2392563
[10] Ferris, G.R. (2007) Political Skill in Organizations. Journal of Management, 33,
290-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206307300813
[11] Brouer, R.L., Badaway, R.L., Gallagher, V.C. and Haber, J.A. (2015) Political Skill
Dimensionality and Impression Management Choice and Effective Use. Journal of
Business and Psychology, 30, 217-233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-014-9344-y
[12] Copeland and John, T. (1994) Prophecies of Power: Motivational Implications of
Social Power for Behavioral Confirmation. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 67, 264-277. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.264
[13] Ii, J.E.B. (2007) Advances in Coaching Practices: A Humanistic Approach to Coach
and Client Roles. Journal of Business Research, 60, 91-93.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2006.09.011
[14] Tian, X.Z. and Xie, J.Y. (2010) The Influence of POS on Working Behaviors of Em-
ployees: Empirical Research on Mediating Role of Psychological Capital. Nankai
Business Review, 13, 23-29. (In Chinese)
[15] Hagen, M.S. (2012) Managerial Coaching: A Review of the Literature. Performance
Improvement Quarterly, 24, 17-39. https://doi.org/10.1002/piq.20123
[16] Wei, Y.J. (2015) A Study on the Influence of Management Coach Behavior to Per-
formance—Take the Banking Industry as an Example. Doctoral Dissertation. (In
Chinese)
[17] Yi, M. (2017) Research on the Relationship among Managerial Coaching Behavior,
Employee’s Self-Efficacy and Job Performance. Doctoral Dissertation. (In Chinese)
[18] Rizzo, J.R., House, R.J. and Lirtzman, S.I. (1970) Role Conflict and Ambiguity in
Complex Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2391486
[19] Ma, J.H. and Zhang, T.W. (1999) Role Perception, Personal Control and Job Stress:
A Causal Relation Analysis. Chinese Journal of Ergonomics, No. 4, 15-19. (In Chinese)
[20] Whitaker, B.G., Dahling, J.J. and Levy, P. (2007) The Development of a Feedback
Environment and Role Clarity Model of Job Performance. Journal of Management,
33, 570-591. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206306297581
[21] Tubre, T.C. and Collins, J.M. (2000) Jackson and Schuler (1985) Revisited: A Me-
ta-Analysis of the Relationships between Role Ambiguity, Role Conflict, and Job
Performance. Journal of Management, 26, 155-169.
https://doi.org/10.1177/014920630002600104

DOI: 10.4236/jss.2019.712017 236 Open Journal of Social Sciences

 S. S. Huang

[22] Deluga, R.J. and Winters, J.J. (1990) The Impact of Role Ambiguity and Conflict on
Resident Assistants. Journal of College Student Development, 31, 230-236.
[23] Theeboom, T., Beersma, B. and Vianen, A.E.M.V. (2014) Does Coaching Work? A
Meta-Analysis on the Effects of Coaching on Individual Level Outcomes in an Or-
ganizational Context. Journal of Positive Psychology, 9, 1-18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.837499
[24] Peterson, D. and Hicks, M.D. (1996) Leader as Coach: Strategies for Coaching and
Developing Others. Personnel Decisions International Corporation, Minneapolis.
[25] House, R.J. (1996) Path-Goal Theory of Leadership: Lessons, Legacy, and a Refor-
mulated Theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7, 323-352.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7
[26] Zhang, Z. (2016) The Employee-Supervisor Fit and Employee Job Satisfaction: The
Role of Leader-Member Exchange and Political Skill. Psychological Science, No. 5,
1204-1209. (In Chinese)
[27] Hahn, H.J. (2016) The Effects of Managerial Coaching on Work Performance: The
Mediating Roles of Role Clarity and Psychological Empowerment. Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, University of Minnesota, Saint Paul.
[28] Zheng, S. (2017) The Study of the Effect of Role Stress on Job Engagement of
Grass-Roots Civil Servants with the Job Characteristic as the Moderator. Doctoral
Dissertation. (In Chinese)
[29] Ferris, G.R. and Treadway, D.C. (2005) Development and Validation of the Political
Skill Inventory. Journal of Management: Official Journal of the Southern Manage-
ment Association, 31, 126-152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206304271386
[30] Williams, L.J. and Anderson, S.E. (1991) Job Satisfaction and Organizational Com-
mitment as Predictors of Organizational Citizenship and In-Role Behaviors. Journal
of Management, 17, 601-617. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305
[31] Podsakoff, P.M., Mackenzie, S.B., Lee, J.Y. and Podsakoff, N.P. (2003) Common
Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and
Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
[32] Hayes, A. (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process
Analysis. Journal of Educational Measurement, 51, 335-337.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12050
[33] Shen, H.L., Gao, R.G. and Yuan, J. (2019) How Does a Leader Who Keeps His Word
Benefit the Performance of His Subordinates—Based on the Role of LMX and Po-
litical Skills. Leadership Science, No. 14, 82-85. (In Chinese)
[34] Brouer, R.L., Chiu, C.Y. and Wang, L. (2016) Political Skill Dimensions and Trans-
formational Leadership in China. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31, 1040-1056.
https://doi.org/10.1108/JMP-05-2014-0166

DOI: 10.4236/jss.2019.712017 237 Open Journal of Social Sciences