Development of a Coaching Program on Leadership for Selected Personnel in a Healthcare Environment

Development of a Coaching Program on Leadership for Selected Personnel in a Healthcare Environment | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Development of a Coaching Program on Leadership for Selected Personnel in a Healthcare Environment Mark Jeembs Pineda This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7505962/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted 16 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Objectives This study aimed to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of a coaching program for enhancing leadership skills among selected personnel at Tondo Medical Center. Specifically, it sought to: (1) assess the current levels of self-awareness, knowledge, leadership behavior, and leadership skills among the coachees in the Department of Pathology and Laboratory; (2) design a relevant and transformative coaching program on leadership based on the results of the needs assessment; (3) measure the changes in self-awareness, knowledge, leadership behavior, and leadership skills of the coachees after the coaching intervention; and (4) determine the overall effectiveness of the coaching program formulated for the study. The program utilized the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE) model, focusing on improving self-awareness, knowledge, behavior, and leadership skills. Methods A quasi-experimental design was employed, incorporating pre- and post-test assessments to measure changes in leadership skills. The study was conducted in the Department of Pathology, which was purposively selected as the study site. Participants were randomly assigned to either the experimental group (n = 34), which underwent a structured coaching intervention, or the control group (n = 24), which did not receive the intervention. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, normality tests, and the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test to determine the program’s impact on leadership development. Results Post-test evaluations demonstrated significant improvements in leadership skills among participants in the experimental group. Self-awareness scores increased from 2.9 to 4.86 (Z = -4.88, p < 0.05), and leadership skills showed the most significant improvement, increasing from 2.9 to 4.96 (Z = -4.92, p < 0.05). Knowledge and behavior also exhibited notable gains. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test confirmed statistically significant changes (p < 0.05) in the experimental group, whereas the control group showed only minimal improvements, with slight changes in leadership skills (Z = -2.01, p = 0.04) and insignificant differences in other variables. Conclusion The coaching program proved highly effective in enhancing participants' leadership skills, including self-awareness, confidence, and professional growth. Participants rated the program's structure and delivery positively, with an overall mean satisfaction score of 4.91 (SD = 0.27). These findings underscore the potential of structured coaching programs to enhance leadership competencies in healthcare settings. Recommendations include expanding the program to other institutions, incorporating advanced content, and conducting long-term evaluations to assess sustained impacts. Coaching Leadership Healthcare Professionals Quasi-Experimental Design Figures Figure 1 INTRODUCTION In the dynamic landscape of healthcare, effective leadership is crucial for patient satisfaction and institutional success. However, many hospital administrators have raised concerns about the lack of structured leadership development and succession planning in healthcare institutions. ¹ ² Healthcare institutions often express dissatisfaction with their leadership pipelines, emphasizing the need for structured development programs. ³ ⁴ Coaching has emerged as a viable solution, offering a structured approach to skill enhancement and performance improvement. Unlike mentoring, coaching focuses on specific performance areas and immediate concerns. ⁵ Improving staff learning and development through coaching emphasizes short-term goals, such as enhancing employee performance, fostering teamwork, and refining essential skills. ⁵ Evidence from Theebom et al. highlighted that coaching contributes positively to individual performance, workplace well-being, and organizational outcomes, supporting its application in healthcare settings. Similarly, Anderson emphasized that coaching can enhance accountability and goal attainment when integrated into institutional frameworks. These findings strengthen the rationale for exploring coaching as a leadership development tool in hospitals. However, coaching in healthcare also faces challenges, including inconsistencies in credentials, high costs, and difficulties in measuring effectiveness. ⁶ Traditional directive management styles further pose barriers to adopting coaching methodologies, as many healthcare institutions rely on hierarchical structures. ⁷ In the Philippines, the Civil Service Commission’s (CSC) coaching manual allows individuals to act as coaches when requested by a coachee. However, workplace implementation remains unclear regarding coaching strategies for subordinates versus non-subordinates. ⁷ Senior healthcare professionals often hold leadership roles due to their expertise, typically directing rather than coaching their teams. While this managerial style may be effective for administrative tasks, it can hinder the adoption of coaching principles that emphasize empowerment. ⁷ Some hospitals have implemented leadership development programs, such as Tondo Medical Center’s (TMC) GROW model, to prepare future leaders. However, the effectiveness of these programs in the healthcare setting requires further evaluation. The Department of Pathology and Laboratory was purposively selected because it plays a critical role in hospital operations and is composed of a diverse workforce—including pathologists, nurses, medical technologists, aides, and administrative staff—making it an ideal setting to examine the applicability of a coaching program across different professional roles. By assessing the immediate outcome of the structured coaching, this study seeks to enhance TMC’s leadership development framework and improve institutional performance and patient care outcomes.³ ⁵ ⁸ Specifically, the study aims to: (1) assess the current levels of self-awareness, knowledge, leadership behavior, and leadership skills among the coachees in the Department of Pathology and Laboratory at TMC; (2) design a relevant and transformative coaching program on leadership based on the results of the needs assessment; (3) measure the changes in self-awareness, knowledge, leadership behavior, and leadership skills of the coachees after the coaching intervention; and (4) determine the overall effectiveness of the coaching program developed for the study. METHODS Study Framework The framework of this study is presented in Figure 1. First, the preliminary levels of self-awareness, knowledge, behavior, and leadership skills of the participants were appraised to provide a baseline for understanding the coachees. ¹ ² These were then analyzed using the ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) instructional design model , a systematic framework originally developed in the 1970s and widely applied in training and educational settings. ³ ¹⁷ Through the ADDIE model, a structured coaching program was developed. The Analysis phase identified the specific leadership gaps of the participants. The Design and Development phases focused on formulating relevant coaching strategies, determining the quantity and type of training needed, and equipping selected coaches with skills and knowledge to provide effective coaching.⁵ ¹⁰ The Implementation phase involved delivering the coaching program, targeting the gaps in leadership skills, self-awareness, and knowledge identified at the preparatory stages.¹ ¹¹ ¹² Finally, the Evaluation phase assessed the participants’ levels of knowledge, behavior, self-awareness, and leadership skills after the intervention, with feedback loops integrated to refine and continuously improve the coaching process.¹³ ¹⁴ ¹⁵ ¹⁶ Overall, the framework provided a cyclical and iterative approach, ensuring continuous development for both the coaches and the participants. ¹³ ¹⁶ This alignment of needs assessment, structured design, implementation, and evaluation served as the foundation for determining the effectiveness of the coaching program in enhancing leadership skills. Study Design This quasi-experimental pre-test and post-test study developed and evaluated a coaching program for selected Human Resources for Health (HRH) staff in a tertiary hospital's Department of Pathology and Laboratory. Following a needs assessment, the researcher developed and implemented the program. Participants were purposively selected based on experience and leadership roles, and then randomly assigned to either the coaching or control group. Pre- and post-test data were collected from both groups using a modified Leadership Skills Questionnaire (LSQ) and Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ). The coaching intervention incorporated workshops, one-on-one and group coaching, and practical exercises, targeting self-awareness, knowledge, leadership behavior, and leadership skills. The control group continued with standard professional development activities. Comparative analysis of pre-and post-test results assessed the program’s effectiveness in enhancing leadership capabilities. The unit of analysis in this study was the individual participant. Population and Sampling and Study Setting Purposive sampling was conducted, and the TMC Department of Pathology and Laboratory was selected due to its critical role in hospital operations and the need to develop personnel for leadership positions. The department consisted of 57 medical professionals, including doctors, nurses, technicians, and administrative staff. The coaching intervention targeted all 57 staff members who participated as coaches and coachees in the study. The sample size of 57 represented the total population of the department. While no a priori power analysis was performed, a post-hoc power analysis was later conducted to assess the adequacy of the sample size, confirming sufficient power for detecting medium effect sizes. The department head and section heads were selected as coaches for their expertise and leadership experience, guiding junior staff as future leaders of the department. Participants were randomly assigned into two groups: 34 in the experimental group, and 23 in the control group. Coaching sessions were conducted onsite in a private and comfortable room within the hospital, ensuring a conducive environment for open discussions. Development of Coaching Program and Data Collection Procedure Phase 1 - Needs Assessment and Coaching Program Design A questionnaire was developed to assess baseline self-awareness, knowledge, leadership behavior, and leadership skills among coachees. It incorporated adapted and original items from validated leadership tools such as the Leadership Skills Questionnaire (LSQ) and Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), grounded in Goleman’s (1995) 11 emotional intelligence framework and Northouse’s (2020) 12 leadership theories. The questionnaire was researcher-developed, incorporating adapted items from validated leadership tools. The full English version of the final instrument is provided as Supplementary File 1. The questionnaire consisted of 40 items across three sections, rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Part I captured baseline characteristics, Part II measured post-coaching changes, and Part III assessed program effectiveness. Kirkpatrick’s training evaluation model guided the tool’s structure. Validation was conducted by five leadership experts who assessed clarity, relevance, and construct alignment. Multiple revisions refined the tool, ensuring validity. Pilot testing with 10 nurses at Tondo Medical Center confirmed its reliability and usability. The final instrument exhibited strong internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha: 0.83–0.99) across all constructs. Phase 2 – Designing of the Coaching Program The development of the coaching program was guided by the ADDIE model and was developed to address gaps identified in Phase 1. The program was designed to support continuous leadership development, empowering healthcare professionals to navigate complex work environments effectively. The Analysis phase identified leadership challenges such as communication, decision-making, and team management, shaping the program’s objectives. The Design phase was structured around the four key modules: self-awareness, knowledge, leadership behavior, and leadership skills. This phase used case studies, role-playing, and discussions grounded in adult learning principles. The Development phase involved the creation of expert-reviewed materials, including a coaching manual to serve as reference, and training materials and guides such as workbooks and interactive exercises, to enhance critical thinking and teamwork. The Implementation phase developed the structured coaching sessions to be followed by trained coaches, ensuring a personalized yet flexible approach. The Evaluation phase included formative and summative assessments, including real-time feedback and self-assessments, to determine the effect of the implementation on the self-awareness, knowledge, leadership behavior, and leadership skills of participants, and to refine the program. Assessment of the perception of participants regarding the content and structure of the program was also included to determine acceptability of the program. Phase 3 – Training of Coaches The researcher conducted a 120-minute coaching training session at TMC, equipping five preselected section heads—Consultant Pathologists, Medical Technologists, and Blood Bank Nurses—to serve as coaches. Their leadership experience minimized the need for extensive training. The training of coaches was performed with a structured schedule to facilitate their understanding of necessary concepts. The training included the overview of the program’s objectives, explanation of the 4 constructs (self-awareness, knowledge, behavior, and skills), and their alignment with coaching tools, practical guidance on specific coaching and facilitating skills, and other logistical concerns. An open discussion to address any questions or concerns was held between the author and the coaches. The researcher reinforced the ADDIE model and coaching techniques with printed materials and follow-ups, ensuring consistency and smooth role transition for existing leaders. Phase 4 – Coaching Intervention of Department Staff The five trained section heads coached participants through a month-long coaching intervention that systematically developed leadership competencies. The program focused on one leadership construct per week to facilitate deep engagement with each concept. The structured coaching process included weekly 60-minute one-on-one coaching sessions, group coaching, and practical exercises to reinforce learning. This approach ensured that leadership concepts were not only introduced but also reinforced through practical application, promoting long-term competency development among participants. Each week in succession, the concepts of self-awareness, knowledge, leadership behavior, and leadership skills were taught. Discussions and guided assessments were more prominently employed in the first two weeks since these were more knowledge and theory based, while more practical exercises such as role-playing were more employed in the last two weeks since these were more concrete, involving behaviors and skills. Data Processing and Analysis Descriptive statistics, tests of normality, and the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test were employed to analyze changes in self-awareness, knowledge, leadership behavior, and leadership skills. Given the small sample size, a normality test was conducted to test for non-normal distribution. Consequently, for non-normal distributions, the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used to compare pretest and posttest scores. All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). To facilitate a clearer interpretation, Likert scale responses (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) were converted to interval scale using a transmutation table (Table 2). This provided a structured approach to interpreting quantitative data, ensuring consistency in assessing participant responses. Table 2. Verbal Interpretation of the Likert Scale Scale Mean Range Verbal Interpretation 1 1.00-1.8 Very Low 2 1.81-2.60 Low 3 2.61-3.40 Moderate 4 3.41-4.20 High 5 4.21-5.00 Very High RESULTS Analysis (A DDIE ) Ratings across all constructs in both the control and experimental groups were not normally distributed. The Shapiro-Wilk test results (Table 3 ) indicated a significant deviation from normality in both the control and experimental groups (p < 0.001), necessitating the use of non-parametric tests. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was employed to compare paired observations, ensuring robustness despite the non-normal data distribution. Table 3 Composite Table of Shapiro-Wilk Test for Four Constructs of both Control and Experimental Group (Pre-Test) Constructs Group Shapiro-Wilk Mean Rating Statistic degrees of freedom p value Self-awareness Experimental 0.680 34 < 0.001 Control 0.728 23 < 0.001 Knowledge Experimental 0.734 34 < 0.001 Control 0.714 23 < 0.001 Behavior Experimental 0.726 34 < 0.001 Control 0.724 23 < 0.001 Leadership Skills Experimental 0.728 34 < 0.001 Control 0.711 23 < 0.001 Pre-test findings revealed moderate baseline levels across self-awareness, leadership knowledge, behaviors, and skills (See Tables 5 – 8 , Appendix 2–5 for a detailed breakdown), with no significant differences between groups (p > 0.05). This confirms comparability, ensuring that post-intervention changes can be attributed to the coaching program rather than pre-existing disparities. Table 4 presents the pre-test results for self-awareness, knowledge, behavior, and leadership skills, showing no statistically significant differences between the control and experimental groups. The mean scores were nearly identical across variables (e.g., self-awareness: 2.8 vs. 2.9, z = -1.090, p = 0.276), and the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test yielded p-values greater than 0.05, confirming the groups’ equivalence at baseline. This baseline equivalence ensures that any post-test improvements can be attributed to the coaching intervention rather than pre-existing disparities, thus strengthening the internal validity of the study. Table 4 Composite Table on Pre-Test Levels of Self-awareness, Knowledge, Behavior, and Leadership Skills Variable CTRL Mean EXP Mean Mean Difference Wilcoxon Test (CTRL vs. EXP) Interpretation (Wilcoxon) Self-Awareness 2.8 2.9 0.1 z = -1.090 p = 0.276 Not significant Knowledge 2.8 2.9 0.1 z = -0.891 p = 0.373 Not significant Behavior 3.2 3.3 0.1 z = -0.837 p = 0.402 Not significant Leadership Skills 2.8 2.9 0.1 z = -0.837 p = 0.402 Not significant Note: CTRL = Control Group, EXP = Experimental Group For a detailed breakdown of the baseline characteristics, their theoretical importance, and supporting literature, please refer to Appendices 2–5 . Design, Development, and Implementation ( A DDI E ) A leadership coaching program was successfully designed and developed by the author, guided by the ADDIE model and informed by the pre-test findings. The program integrated adult learning principles and evidence-based leadership frameworks, incorporating techniques such as 360-degree feedback, SWOT analysis, and scenario-based activities. A comprehensive coaching manual, training materials, and structured session outlines were produced, aligning with the program's objectives. No significant deviations from the planned design and development process as described in the methodology were encountered. The implementation phase proceeded as stated in the methodology, with full participation from all members of the intervention group throughout the four-week coaching period. Coaches trained by the researcher were able to facilitate the sessions effectively. Participant engagement was consistently high, and the coaching environment remained confidential and supportive, enabling open dialogue and reflective learning. Progress was monitored through documentation of action plans and feedback, with no reported issues of attrition, dissatisfaction, or resistance. Evaluation ( ADDI E) Table 5 presents the results of the Shapiro-Wilk Test for normality on the four key constructs (Self-awareness, Knowledge, Behavior, and Leadership Skills) for both the experimental and control groups during the post-test phase. The Shapiro-Wilk Test results indicated a lack of normal distribution across all post-test variables in both the experimental and control groups (see Table 10). Key aspects, including reflection frequency, leadership theory familiarity, group cohesion, and communication effectiveness, consistently exhibited non-normal distributions. Table 5 Composite Table of Shapiro-Wilk Test for Four Constructs of both Control and Experimental Group (Post-Test) Constructs Group Shapiro-Wilk Mean Rating statistic degrees of freedom p value Self-awareness Experimental 0.339 34 < 0.001 Control 0.464 23 < 0.001 Knowledge Experimental 0.390 34 < 0.001 Control 0.466 23 < 0.001 Behavior Experimental 0.451 34 < 0.001 Control 0.534 23 < 0.001 Leadership Skills Experimental 0.435 34 < 0.001 Control 0.515 23 < 0.001 Given these findings, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to analyze pre-test and post-test scores within groups. Table 6 presents the summary of post-test scores of participants from both control and experimental groups per general constructs using the grand means and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test at p = 0.05. Table 6 Comparison of Post-Test Scores of the Control and Experimental Groups Using the General Constructs Construct Mean (CTRL) SD (CTRL) Mean (EXP) SD (EXP) Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test p-Value Level of Self-Awareness 3.17 0.47 4.86 0.33 < 0.05 Level of Knowledge 3.15 0.47 4.86 0.31 < 0.05 Level of Behaviors 3.4 0.55 4.49 0.49 < 0.05 Level of Leadership Skills 3.0 0.56 4.97 0.14 < 0.05 Note: CTRL = Control Group, EXP = Experimental Group The experimental group demonstrated consistently higher mean scores (grand mean = 4.86, SD = 0.33) compared to the control group (grand mean = 3.17, SD = 0.47), most notably with self-awareness. The statistical significance of these improvements was confirmed, with Z-values ranging from − 4.05 to -4.35 and corresponding p-values of < 0.05 for all statements. Comparison of Pre-Test vs. Post-Test Results in the Control Group Minimal improvements were observed in the control group across measured variables, most of which were not statistically significant (Table 7 ). Leadership Skills displayed the most notable improvement, with a mean difference of 0.4 (Z = -2.01, p = 0.04), indicating marginal significance. Table 7 Descriptive Statistics and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test results (Z,p) for Pre-Test and Post-Test Results of the Control Group Variable Pre-Test Means Post-Test Means Mean Difference Z-Value, p-Value Interpretation Self-Awareness 2.8 3.0 0.2 Z = -0.92, p = 0.36 No Significant Improvement Knowledge 2.8 3.1 0.3 Z = -1.12, p = 0.26 No Significant Improvement Behavior 3.2 3.5 0.3 Z = -1.03, p = 0.30 No Significant Improvement Leadership Skills 2.8 3.2 0.4 Z = -2.01, p = 0.04 Marginal Improvement Comparison of Pre-Test vs. Post-Test Results in the Experimental Group Table 8 shows the results of the pre-test and the post-test of the experimental group, showing significant improvement in all measured variables. Table 8 Descriptive Statistics and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test results (Z,p) for Pre-Test and Post-Test Results of the Experimental Group Variable Pre-Test Means Post-Test Means Mean Difference Z-Value, p-Value Interpretation Self-Awareness 2.9 4.86 1.96 Z = -4.88, p < 0.05 Significant Improvement Knowledge 2.9 4.86 1.96 Z = -4.91, p < 0.05 Significant Improvement Behavior 3.3 4.49 1.19 Z = -4.85, p < 0.05 Significant Improvement Leadership Skills 2.9 4.96 2.06 Z = -4.92, p < 0.05 Significant Improvement Perception of Participants on the Effectiveness of the Coaching Program in Achieving Objectives and Improving Leadership Performance Feedback on the perception of participants regarding the effectiveness of the coaching program is shown in Table 9 . Notably, the results indicate that the program was highly effective in enhancing leadership skills and achieving developmental objectives. The general mean score for the experimental group was 4.88, reinforcing the program's positive impact. Participants reported that the coaching program helped them achieve their leadership goals and enhanced their leadership skills. Moreover, the highest-rated item was the statement, “The coaching program has positively impacted my performance as a leader” (M = 4.97, SD = 0.17, p < 0.05), suggesting strong agreement among participants on its effectiveness. Additionally, participants found the feedback received during coaching sessions constructive and helpful, and the program increased their confidence in leadership. Furthermore, the program contributed to both personal and professional growth. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test results indicate whether the differences between pre-test and post-test scores are statistically significant. A negative Z value reflects the direction of change, while a p-value < 0.05 denotes that the observed improvements are unlikely due to chance Table 9 Effectiveness of the Coaching Program in Achieving Objectives and Improving Leadership Performance Statement Mean SD Z-value p-value Verbal Interpretation 1. The coaching program has helped me achieve my leadership development goals. 4.88 0.32 -4.23 < 0.05 Highly Effective 2. The coaching sessions have been effective in enhancing my leadership skills. 4.94 0.23 -4.10 < 0.05 Highly Effective 3. The coaching program has positively impacted my performance as a leader. 4.97 0.17 -4.30 < 0.05 Highly Effective 4. The coaching program has improved my ability to lead my team effectively. 4.85 0.35 -4.18 < 0.05 Highly Effective 5. The feedback received during coaching was constructive and helpful. 4.94 0.23 -4.12 < 0.05 Highly Effective 6. The coaching program has increased my confidence in my leadership abilities. 4.79 0.40 -3.90 < 0.05 Highly Effective 7. The program has contributed to my personal growth. 4.82 0.38 -4.01 < 0.05 Highly Effective 8. The program has contributed to my professional growth. 4.88 0.32 -4.20 < 0.05 Highly Effective General Mean 4.88 0.30 -4.15 < 0.05 Highly Effective Participants in the experimental group reported that the program objectives were well communicated and met, sessions were well-structured, materials were helpful and relevant, coaching sessions were convenient, facilitators were knowledgeable and effective, and the learning environment supported engagement. The general mean score for the experimental group was 4.91 indicating that participants viewed the program structure as highly effective (p < 0.05) (See Table 10). Discussion Baseline Similarity Between Control and Experimental Groups (Pre-Test Results) As presented in Table 4 , the mean scores across all measured variables were slightly higher in the experimental group than in the control group. Despite these slight differences, the Wilcoxon test indicated no significant difference between the two groups across all variables (all p-values were greater than 0.05). This comparability ensured that participants started from similar baseline levels, thereby minimizing potential biases, as any observed improvements in post-test results can be more confidently attributed to the coaching program. These findings align with Kimsey-House et al. 13 , who emphasized the importance of establishing a baseline before initiating coaching interventions. Additionally, Passmore and Sinclair 3 highlight that coaching is most effective when participants start with comparable competencies, while Quenza 14 underscores the role of baseline assessments in facilitating measurable growth. Immediate Outcome of the Coaching Program The coaching program brought about a marked and statistically significant improvement across all measured domains—self-awareness, knowledge, behavior, and leadership skills—among participants in the experimental group. The experimental group demonstrated significant growth across all measured domains. For example, self-awareness improved from a pre-test mean of 2.9 to 4.86 post-test, while leadership skills rose dramatically from 2.9 to 4.96. These enhancements were validated by Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test values (Z = -4.88 to -4.92, p < 0.05). On the other hand, participants in the control group showed marginal gains in self-awareness, knowledge, behavior, and leadership skills. However, these gains lacked statistical significance (p > 0.05), implying that traditional approaches or passive experiences offered limited developmental benefit. The control group’s minimal progress serves as a reminder that leadership development does not occur by chance or exposure alone. Echoing the insights of Rothwell and Bakhshandeh 15 , and Kets de Vries and Korotov 16 , this study supports the argument that structured coaching—particularly when peer-supported—enables deeper reflection, promotes accountability, and accelerates professional growth. It is not merely the presence of content, but the active engagement and structured delivery that make a significant difference. The comparative data highlight the gap between coached and uncoached participants, underscoring the value of guided and intentional leadership development efforts. As evidenced by the comparison tables, the noted enhancements underscore the efficacy of structured coaching interventions over traditional, passive learning models. These results represent immediate learning outcomes achieved by participants following the coaching program. However, they should not yet be equated with long-term impact, which can only be determined through follow-up evaluations of sustained leadership behaviors and organizational effects. The program’s structure—anchored on well-organized face-to-face coaching sessions and clearly defined objectives—played a vital role in reinforcing the noted improvements. High participant satisfaction scores related to program delivery further validate its relevance and effectiveness. This consistency suggests that the program not only facilitated learning but also fostered personal and professional growth among future healthcare leaders. In light of these findings, coaching can be viewed as a transformative strategy in leadership development. It provides a replicable, evidence-based model that institutions can adopt to empower leaders, promote competency-based growth, and build resilient teams in high-stakes environments like healthcare. The results support expanding similar coaching interventions to foster a culture of excellence and continuous improvement. Linking Theory to Practice Beyond the statistical differences in post-test scores, the significance lies in the tangible improvements in participants’ workplace competencies—such as clarity in communication, effective decision-making, team leadership, and accountability. These are critical skills in high-pressure environments like healthcare settings, where effective leadership directly influences patient care and team dynamics. The structured approach to the coaching program—combining face-to-face workshops with practical interactive sessions—created an environment in which deep learning and reflection could truly take place. Thus, improvements in performance and a deeper understanding of their leadership roles could be appreciated by participants within their healthcare teams. From this, participants realized considerable gains in the application of the contingencies of leadership to real-life situations, exemplified through behaviors related to communication, decision-making, and team management. Indeed, this application of leadership theories, combined with behavior modification techniques, underlines the importance of experiential learning concepts emanating from adult learning theories. Study Limitations The study had several limitations. Its findings may have limited generalizability beyond Tondo Medical Center’s Department of Pathology and Laboratory due to its unique roles and dynamics. The sample, which included Pathologists, Medical Officers, Medical Technologists, Technicians, Laboratory Aides, Blood Bank Nurses, and Administrative Staff, may not reflect the diversity of other healthcare settings. Blinding of participants and coaches was not feasible due to the interactive nature of the intervention, which may have introduced bias. This is acknowledged as a study limitation. Focusing on a single institution reduced external validity, as leadership styles and organizational cultures vary across facilities. The coaching program was tailored to this department’s needs, limiting its applicability elsewhere. Individual differences, such as experience and personality traits, were not extensively examined, which may have influenced responses to coaching. The analysis did not differentiate outcomes based on profession or other such variables. Time and resource constraints also affected the depth and frequency of sessions, potentially impacting effectiveness. Additionally, external factors like leadership changes or healthcare policy shifts may have introduced confounding variables. Despite these limitations, the study provides valuable insights into leadership development at Tondo Medical Center and a foundation for future research in diverse settings. The use of a transmutation table to interpret Likert means may have oversimplified interval data, potentially masking subtle differences. Results should be interpreted with caution. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS The study concludes that the coaching program effectively strengthened self-awareness, leadership knowledge, behavior, and skills among human resource personnel. The structured intervention addressed critical leadership gaps and facilitated substantial growth in key areas. The uniformly positive feedback regarding the structure and content of the coaching program suggests that its design was well-received by participants, reducing resistance to engagement. While this indicates that the program was acceptable to participants at the time of the post-test, its long-term effects remain to be seen. The clear objectives, well-designed materials, and appropriate scheduling provided a strong foundation for an effective program, as reflected in the consistently high ratings from participants. Future leadership development programs may benefit from maintaining these key structural elements and considering coaching approaches similar to the one described in this study. Future studies might examine the longer-term effects that coaching could have on leadership performance and the adaptability of this model to diverse organizational contexts. For example, the coaching program should be expanded to include other departments at Tondo Medical Center to enhance its impact, fostering broader organizational change. Periodic follow-up sessions will help sustain leadership development and reinforce learning outcomes. Additionally, future iterations should incorporate advanced leadership modules, integrate participants' feedback, and align with emerging leadership theories and best practices to ensure continued relevance. Long-term evaluations through longitudinal studies are recommended to assess the sustained effects of the program. The successful findings suggest that similar coaching initiatives could be implemented in other healthcare settings, with the framework and insights shared to improve leadership across institutions. Future research should explore qualitative and mixed-methods approaches to gain deeper insights into participants’ experiences, program impact, and its influence on organizational culture. Declarations A copy of the more detailed protocol containing expanded methodology and details regarding implementation, development and validity results of questionnaires, as well as expanded collection of results can be accessed upon request from the author. Likewise, a full report on the developed program’s design, development, and implementation—including copies of the coaching manual and instructional materials produced during development and implementation—is available upon request from the author. The questionnaire utilized in the study is likewise available upon request for those interested in reviewing its content and structure. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The author acknowledges the invaluable assistance of the Tondo Medical Center Department of Pathology and Laboratory for providing access to its facilities and the support of its entire staff. The author likewise expresses gratitude to the National Graduate Office for the Health Sciences (NGOHS) and the National Teacher Training Center for the Health Professions (NTTCHP) for their financial support. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION Not applicable. This study did not involve a clinical trial but focused on the development and evaluation of a coaching program for healthcare personnel. Ethical Consideration Participation was entirely voluntary, with coachees fully informed of the study’s objectives, procedures, risks, and benefits. Written informed consent was obtained, ensuring that participants could withdraw at any time without consequences. Confidentiality and privacy were strictly maintained. Data collected during pretests, coaching sessions, and posttests were anonymized, and access was limited to the research team. Confidentiality agreements were signed to further protect participant identities. Risks were minimal, primarily involving potential discomfort in discussing personal and professional matters during coaching. However, sessions were conducted in a supportive and confidential environment by experienced coaches. The study posed no conflicts of interest, and recruitment was conducted fairly and transparently. This study complied with the 2017 Philippine Health Research Ethics Board (PHREB) guidelines, upholding respect for persons, beneficence, and justice, with any study modifications submitted for ethical review with approval code REC-2023-00045. The study was also conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Author Contribution The author solely conceived, designed, conducted, and reported the study. All aspects of data collection, analysis, interpretation, and manuscript writing were undertaken by the author. Consent for Publication Not applicable. The manuscript does not contain any individual person’s data in any form (including individual details, images, or videos. References Northouse PG. Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practice. Fifth edition. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2020. Hu S, Chen W, Hu H, Huang W, Chen J, Hu J. Coaching to develop leadership for healthcare managers: a mixed-method systematic review protocol. Syst Rev. 2022;11(1):67. 10.1186/s13643-022-01946-z . PMID: 35418168. PMCID: PMC9008960. Passmore J, Fillery-Travis A. A critical review of executive coaching research: a decade of progress and what’s to come. Coaching: Int J Theor. 2011;4(2):70–88. 10.1080/17521882.2011.596484 . Theeboom T, Beersma B, Van Vianen AEM. Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context. J Posit Psychol. 2014;9(1):1–18. 10.1080/17439760.2013.837499 . Wong CA, Spence Laschinger HK, Cummings GG. Authentic leadership and nurses’ voice behaviour and perceptions of care quality: Authentic leadership. J Nurs Manag. 2010;18(8):889–900. 10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01113.x . PMID: 21073563. International Coach Federation. Core competencies | ICF Professional Coaching Standards [Internet]. https://coachingfederation.org/. [cited 2025 Feb 17]. Available from: https://coachingfederation.org/resource/icf-core-competencies/ International Coach Federation. ICF Code of ethics | International Coaching Federation [Internet]. https://coachingfederation.org/. [cited 2025 Feb 17]. Available from: https://coachingfederation.org/credentialing/coaching-ethics/icf-code-of-ethics/ Neenan M, Dryden W. Life coaching: A cognitive-behavioural approach. 1st ed. Routledge; 2002. Gomide MFS, Pinto IC, Bulgarelli AF, Santos ALPD, Serrano Gallardo MDP. A satisfação do usuário com a atenção primária à saúde: uma análise do acesso e acolhimento. Interface (Botucatu). 2017;22(65):387–98. Skiffington S, Zeus P. Behavioral coaching: How to build sustainable personal and organizational strengths. Sydney: McGraw-Hill; 2003. Goleman D. Emotional intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. 1st ed. New York: Bantam Books; 1995. Northouse PG, Leadership. Theory and practice. 8th ed. Los Angeles London New Delhi Singapore Washington DC Melbourne: SAGE; 2018. Kimsey-House H, Kimsey-House K, Sandahl P, Whitworth L. Co-Active Coaching: Changing Business, Transforming Lives. 4th ed. Nicholas Brealey Publishing; 2018. Quenza. (2024, September 3). Exploring Effective Coaching Assessment Methods [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://quenza.com/blog/coaching-assessment-methods/ Rothwell WJ, Bakhshandeh B. High-Performance Coaching for Managers: A Step-by-Step Approach to Increase Employees' Performance and Productivity. Routledge; 2022. Kets de Vries MFR, Korotov K. Developing leaders and leadership development [Internet]. Fontainebleau: INSEAD; 2007 [cited 2025 May 2]. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228139096_Developing_Leaders_and_Leadership_Development Molenda M. In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Perform Improv. 2003;42(5):34–7. https://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4930420508 . Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files ResearchInstrument.docx Appendices.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Revision Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 07 Nov, 2025 Reviews received at journal 04 Nov, 2025 Reviews received at journal 02 Nov, 2025 Reviews received at journal 01 Nov, 2025 Reviews received at journal 16 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 15 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 11 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 10 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Oct, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Oct, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 08 Oct, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 07 Oct, 2025 Editor invited by journal 15 Sep, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 14 Sep, 2025 First submitted to journal 14 Sep, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7505962","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":531601927,"identity":"115e7ad0-d471-428d-bcc3-b5106d9749eb","order_by":0,"name":"Mark Jeembs Pineda","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Tondo Medical Center","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mark","middleName":"Jeembs","lastName":"Pineda","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-09-01 08:23:16","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7505962/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7505962/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":94047734,"identity":"256e10c3-6a0a-4db8-953c-12b5730480d4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-21 23:17:52","extension":"docx","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":110302,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"DevelopmentofaCoachingProgramonLeadershipforSelectedPersonnelinaHealthcareEnvironmentpointbypointresponse.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7505962/v1/e5c188c6dcaaf60c0abeeb7b.docx"},{"id":94047736,"identity":"a0a920af-8709-472c-877c-5b3c9d114341","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-21 23:17:52","extension":"json","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":5358,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"1c0c6119400f42779d58d7d97d1b8f2c.json","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7505962/v1/bf92ac47188905401fd1bfc9.json"},{"id":94047733,"identity":"af8de412-71e4-470f-96d4-9f5fdbd3cd7a","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-21 23:17:52","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":52511,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ResearchInstrument.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7505962/v1/3e3e85beff50464c1ed86f59.docx"},{"id":94047742,"identity":"120003fa-35ff-4595-8755-cf9152c40dfa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-21 23:17:52","extension":"xml","order_by":3,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":138131,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"1c0c6119400f42779d58d7d97d1b8f2c1enriched.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7505962/v1/ab6a69767c38ac35b35503e9.xml"},{"id":94047740,"identity":"71fee74c-02a2-431d-a5a6-221c8ed62607","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-21 23:17:52","extension":"jpeg","order_by":4,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":786685,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7505962/v1/1bd6f2d2486706fdd23acb19.jpeg"},{"id":94047741,"identity":"6720874e-9ac4-4f65-a944-e8b661ca8019","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-21 23:17:52","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":97719,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Onlinefloatimage1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7505962/v1/0b7aaf199c0b1218c4a554b0.png"},{"id":94048857,"identity":"97d333f2-da1b-409c-b21b-b26322a2febc","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-21 23:25:52","extension":"xml","order_by":6,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":131930,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"1c0c6119400f42779d58d7d97d1b8f2c1structuring.xml","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7505962/v1/d4970017257607bfb35ad518.xml"},{"id":94047739,"identity":"9ce9af0f-345c-460c-99b2-ff247d6cc9b1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-21 23:17:52","extension":"html","order_by":7,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"acdc-reference","size":144588,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"earlyproof.html","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7505962/v1/90cd82e9f174dd874f3d710b.html"},{"id":94047732,"identity":"f716c8c9-dbbc-44f7-9166-e87e532a78e9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-21 23:17:52","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":79500,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eConceptual Framework for Successful Coaching\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7505962/v1/bc7e7bc4ecbae842a2d74e1c.png"},{"id":94048858,"identity":"0c158bcd-247b-4868-bf52-b76b9e4b06c0","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-21 23:25:57","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1097556,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7505962/v1/ff144540-1264-495e-8ef6-b2d4d263421b.pdf"},{"id":94047737,"identity":"c95466c4-a2c1-4531-ae9a-0b0b119622ed","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-21 23:17:52","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":52511,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"ResearchInstrument.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7505962/v1/09b50bcefb2c785e32c8e180.docx"},{"id":94047735,"identity":"a7580403-5ca8-4002-bf97-bda93d679c3c","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-10-21 23:17:52","extension":"docx","order_by":2,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":27500,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"Appendices.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7505962/v1/6c16e430e9b812caf369a250.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Development of a Coaching Program on Leadership for Selected Personnel in a Healthcare Environment","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn the dynamic landscape of healthcare, effective leadership is crucial for patient satisfaction and institutional success. However, many hospital administrators have raised concerns about the lack of structured leadership development and succession planning in healthcare institutions. \u0026sup1; \u0026sup2; Healthcare institutions often express dissatisfaction with their leadership pipelines, emphasizing the need for structured development programs. \u0026sup3; ⁴ Coaching has emerged as a viable solution, offering a structured approach to skill enhancement and performance improvement. Unlike mentoring, coaching focuses on specific performance areas and immediate concerns. ⁵\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eImproving staff learning and development through coaching emphasizes short-term goals, such as enhancing employee performance, fostering teamwork, and refining essential skills. ⁵ Evidence from Theebom et al. highlighted that coaching contributes positively to individual performance, workplace well-being, and organizational outcomes, supporting its application in healthcare settings. Similarly, Anderson emphasized that coaching can enhance accountability and goal attainment when integrated into institutional frameworks. These findings strengthen the rationale for exploring coaching as a leadership development tool in hospitals. However, coaching in healthcare also faces challenges, including inconsistencies in credentials, high costs, and difficulties in measuring effectiveness. ⁶ Traditional directive management styles further pose barriers to adopting coaching methodologies, as many healthcare institutions rely on hierarchical structures. ⁷\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the Philippines, the Civil Service Commission\u0026rsquo;s (CSC) coaching manual allows individuals to act as coaches when requested by a coachee. However, workplace implementation remains unclear regarding coaching strategies for subordinates versus non-subordinates. ⁷ Senior healthcare professionals often hold leadership roles due to their expertise, typically directing rather than coaching their teams. While this managerial style may be effective for administrative tasks, it can hinder the adoption of coaching principles that emphasize empowerment. ⁷\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSome hospitals have implemented leadership development programs, such as Tondo Medical Center\u0026rsquo;s (TMC) GROW model, to prepare future leaders. However, the effectiveness of these programs in the healthcare setting requires further evaluation. The Department of Pathology and Laboratory was purposively selected because it plays a critical role in hospital operations and is composed of a diverse workforce\u0026mdash;including pathologists, nurses, medical technologists, aides, and administrative staff\u0026mdash;making it an ideal setting to examine the applicability of a coaching program across different professional roles.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBy assessing the immediate outcome of the structured coaching, this study seeks to enhance TMC\u0026rsquo;s leadership development framework and improve institutional performance and patient care outcomes.\u0026sup3; ⁵ ⁸ Specifically, the study aims to: (1) assess the current levels of self-awareness, knowledge, leadership behavior, and leadership skills among the coachees in the Department of Pathology and Laboratory at TMC; (2) design a relevant and transformative coaching program on leadership based on the results of the needs assessment; (3) measure the changes in self-awareness, knowledge, leadership behavior, and leadership skills of the coachees after the coaching intervention; and (4) determine the overall effectiveness of the coaching program developed for the study.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"METHODS","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudy Framework\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe framework of this study is presented in Figure 1. First, the preliminary levels of self-awareness, knowledge, behavior, and leadership skills of the participants were appraised to provide a baseline for understanding the coachees. \u0026sup1; \u0026sup2; These were then analyzed using the \u003cstrong\u003eADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) instructional design model\u003c/strong\u003e, a systematic framework originally developed in the 1970s and widely applied in training and educational settings. \u0026sup3; \u0026sup1;⁷\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThrough the ADDIE model, a structured coaching program was developed. The \u003cstrong\u003eAnalysis\u003c/strong\u003e phase identified the specific leadership gaps of the participants. The \u003cstrong\u003eDesign\u003c/strong\u003e and \u003cstrong\u003eDevelopment\u003c/strong\u003e phases focused on formulating relevant coaching strategies, determining the quantity and type of training needed, and equipping selected coaches with skills and knowledge to provide effective coaching.⁵ \u0026sup1;⁰ The \u003cstrong\u003eImplementation\u003c/strong\u003e phase involved delivering the coaching program, targeting the gaps in leadership skills, self-awareness, and knowledge identified at the preparatory stages.\u0026sup1; \u0026sup1;\u0026sup1; \u0026sup1;\u0026sup2; Finally, the \u003cstrong\u003eEvaluation\u003c/strong\u003e phase assessed the participants\u0026rsquo; levels of knowledge, behavior, self-awareness, and leadership skills after the intervention, with feedback loops integrated to refine and continuously improve the coaching process.\u0026sup1;\u0026sup3; \u0026sup1;⁴ \u0026sup1;⁵ \u0026sup1;⁶\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOverall, the framework provided a cyclical and iterative approach, ensuring continuous development for both the coaches and the participants. \u0026sup1;\u0026sup3; \u0026sup1;⁶ This alignment of needs assessment, structured design, implementation, and evaluation served as the foundation for determining the effectiveness of the coaching program in enhancing leadership skills.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStudy Design\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc148879188\"\u003eThis quasi-experimental pre-test and post-test study developed and evaluated a coaching program for selected Human Resources for Health (HRH) staff in a tertiary hospital\u0026apos;s Department of Pathology and Laboratory. Following a needs assessment, the researcher developed and implemented the program. Participants were purposively selected based on experience and leadership roles, and then randomly assigned to either the coaching or control group. Pre- and post-test data were collected from both groups using a modified Leadership Skills Questionnaire (LSQ) and Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe coaching intervention incorporated workshops, one-on-one and group coaching, and practical exercises, targeting self-awareness, knowledge, leadership behavior, and leadership skills. The control group continued with standard professional development activities. Comparative analysis of pre-and post-test results assessed the program\u0026rsquo;s effectiveness in enhancing leadership capabilities.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe unit of analysis in this study was the individual participant.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePopulation and Sampling and Study Setting\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePurposive sampling was conducted, and the TMC Department of Pathology and Laboratory was selected due to its critical role in hospital operations and the need to develop personnel for leadership positions. The department consisted of 57 medical professionals, including doctors, nurses, technicians, and administrative staff. The coaching intervention targeted all 57 staff members who participated as coaches and coachees in the study. The sample size of 57 represented the total population of the department. While no a priori power analysis was performed, a post-hoc power analysis was later conducted to assess the adequacy of the sample size, confirming sufficient power for detecting medium effect sizes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe department head and section heads were selected as coaches for their expertise and leadership experience, guiding junior staff as future leaders of the department. Participants were randomly assigned into two groups: 34 in the experimental group, and 23 in the control group.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp id=\"_Toc148879189\"\u003eCoaching sessions were conducted onsite in a private and comfortable room within the hospital, ensuring a conducive environment for open discussions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDevelopment of Coaching Program and Data Collection Procedure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhase 1 - Needs Assessment and Coaching Program Design\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA questionnaire was developed to assess baseline self-awareness, knowledge, leadership behavior, and leadership skills among coachees. It incorporated adapted and original items from validated leadership tools such as the Leadership Skills Questionnaire (LSQ) and Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ), grounded in Goleman\u0026rsquo;s (1995)\u003csup\u003e11\u003c/sup\u003e emotional intelligence framework and Northouse\u0026rsquo;s (2020)\u003csup\u003e12\u003c/sup\u003e leadership theories.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe questionnaire was researcher-developed, incorporating adapted items from validated leadership tools. The full English version of the final instrument is provided as Supplementary File 1. The questionnaire consisted of 40 items across three sections, rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Part I captured baseline characteristics, Part II measured post-coaching changes, and Part III assessed program effectiveness. Kirkpatrick\u0026rsquo;s training evaluation model guided the tool\u0026rsquo;s structure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eValidation was conducted by five leadership experts who assessed clarity, relevance, and construct alignment. Multiple revisions refined the tool, ensuring validity. Pilot testing with 10 nurses at Tondo Medical Center confirmed its reliability and usability. The final instrument exhibited strong internal consistency (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s alpha: 0.83\u0026ndash;0.99) across all constructs.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhase 2 \u0026ndash; Designing of the Coaching Program\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe development of the coaching program was guided by the ADDIE model and was developed to address gaps identified in Phase 1. The program was designed to support continuous leadership development, empowering healthcare professionals to navigate complex work environments effectively.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Analysis phase identified leadership challenges such as communication, decision-making, and team management, shaping the program\u0026rsquo;s objectives.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Design phase was structured around the four key modules: self-awareness, knowledge, leadership behavior, and leadership skills. This phase used case studies, role-playing, and discussions grounded in adult learning principles.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Development phase involved the creation of expert-reviewed materials, including a coaching manual to serve as reference, and training materials and guides such as workbooks and interactive exercises, to enhance critical thinking and teamwork.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Implementation phase developed the structured coaching sessions to be followed by trained coaches, ensuring a personalized yet flexible approach.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Evaluation phase included formative and summative assessments, including real-time feedback and self-assessments, to determine the effect of the implementation on the self-awareness, knowledge, leadership behavior, and leadership skills of participants, and to refine the program. Assessment of the perception of participants regarding the content and structure of the program was also included to determine acceptability of the program.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhase 3 \u0026ndash; Training of Coaches\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe researcher conducted a 120-minute coaching training session at TMC, equipping five preselected section heads\u0026mdash;Consultant Pathologists, Medical Technologists, and Blood Bank Nurses\u0026mdash;to serve as coaches. Their leadership experience minimized the need for extensive training.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe training of coaches was performed with a structured schedule to facilitate their understanding of necessary concepts. The training included the overview of the program\u0026rsquo;s objectives, explanation of the 4 constructs (self-awareness, knowledge, behavior, and skills), and their alignment with coaching tools, practical guidance on specific coaching and facilitating skills, and other logistical concerns. An open discussion to address any questions or concerns was held between the author and the coaches.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe researcher reinforced the ADDIE model and coaching techniques with printed materials and follow-ups, ensuring consistency and smooth role transition for existing leaders.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhase 4 \u0026ndash; Coaching Intervention of Department Staff\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe five trained section heads coached participants through a month-long coaching intervention that systematically developed leadership competencies. The program focused on one leadership construct per week to facilitate deep engagement with each concept.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe structured coaching process included weekly 60-minute one-on-one coaching sessions, group coaching, and practical exercises to reinforce learning. This approach ensured that leadership concepts were not only introduced but also reinforced through practical application, promoting long-term competency development among participants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEach week in succession, the concepts of self-awareness, knowledge, leadership behavior, and leadership skills were taught. Discussions and guided assessments were more prominently employed in the first two weeks since these were more knowledge and theory based, while more practical exercises such as role-playing were more employed in the last two weeks since these were more concrete, involving behaviors and skills.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cspan id=\"_Toc187076894\"\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eData Processing and Analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDescriptive statistics, tests of normality, and the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test were employed to analyze changes in self-awareness, knowledge, leadership behavior, and leadership skills.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven the small sample size, a normality test was conducted to test for non-normal distribution. Consequently, for non-normal distributions, the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was used to compare pretest and posttest scores.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAll statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo facilitate a clearer interpretation, Likert scale responses (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree) were converted to interval scale using a transmutation table (Table 2). This provided a structured approach to interpreting quantitative data, ensuring consistency in assessing participant responses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv align=\"Left\"\u003e\n \u003ctable border=\"0\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" width=\"387\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd colspan=\"3\" valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 387px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eVerbal Interpretation of the Likert Scale\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eScale\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMean Range\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 188px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVerbal Interpretation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.00-1.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 188px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVery Low\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.81-2.60\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 188px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLow\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.61-3.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 188px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eModerate\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.41-4.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 188px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHigh\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 87px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 112px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.21-5.00\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"bottom\" style=\"width: 188px;\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVery High\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"RESULTS","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAnalysis (A\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDDIE\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRatings across all constructs in both the control and experimental groups were not normally distributed. The Shapiro-Wilk test results (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e) indicated a significant deviation from normality in both the control and experimental groups (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001), necessitating the use of non-parametric tests. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test was employed to compare paired observations, ensuring robustness despite the non-normal data distribution.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComposite Table of Shapiro-Wilk Test for Four Constructs of both Control and Experimental Group (Pre-Test)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eShapiro-Wilk Mean Rating\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStatistic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edegrees of freedom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-awareness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExperimental\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.680\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.728\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKnowledge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExperimental\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.734\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.714\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBehavior\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExperimental\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.726\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.724\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLeadership Skills\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExperimental\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.728\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.711\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePre-test findings revealed moderate baseline levels across self-awareness, leadership knowledge, behaviors, and skills (See Tables \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e\u0026ndash;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e, Appendix 2\u0026ndash;5 for a detailed breakdown), with no significant differences between groups (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). This confirms comparability, ensuring that post-intervention changes can be attributed to the coaching program rather than pre-existing disparities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e presents the pre-test results for self-awareness, knowledge, behavior, and leadership skills, showing no statistically significant differences between the control and experimental groups. The mean scores were nearly identical across variables (e.g., self-awareness: 2.8 vs. 2.9, z = -1.090, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.276), and the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test yielded p-values greater than 0.05, confirming the groups\u0026rsquo; equivalence at baseline. This baseline equivalence ensures that any post-test improvements can be attributed to the coaching intervention rather than pre-existing disparities, thus strengthening the internal validity of the study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComposite Table on Pre-Test Levels of Self-awareness, Knowledge, Behavior, and Leadership Skills\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCTRL Mean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEXP Mean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean Difference\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWilcoxon Test (CTRL vs. EXP)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInterpretation (Wilcoxon)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-Awareness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ez = -1.090\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.276\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNot significant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKnowledge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ez = -0.891\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.373\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNot significant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBehavior\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ez = -0.837\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.402\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNot significant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLeadership Skills\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ez = -0.837\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.402\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNot significant\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNote: CTRL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Control Group, EXP\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Experimental Group\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor a detailed breakdown of the baseline characteristics, their theoretical importance, and supporting literature, please refer to \u003cstrong\u003eAppendices 2\u0026ndash;5\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDesign, Development, and Implementation (\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eA\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDDI\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eE\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA leadership coaching program was successfully designed and developed by the author, guided by the ADDIE model and informed by the pre-test findings. The program integrated adult learning principles and evidence-based leadership frameworks, incorporating techniques such as 360-degree feedback, SWOT analysis, and scenario-based activities. A comprehensive coaching manual, training materials, and structured session outlines were produced, aligning with the program\u0026apos;s objectives. No significant deviations from the planned design and development process as described in the methodology were encountered.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe implementation phase proceeded as stated in the methodology, with full participation from all members of the intervention group throughout the four-week coaching period. Coaches trained by the researcher were able to facilitate the sessions effectively. Participant engagement was consistently high, and the coaching environment remained confidential and supportive, enabling open dialogue and reflective learning. Progress was monitored through documentation of action plans and feedback, with no reported issues of attrition, dissatisfaction, or resistance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEvaluation (\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eADDI\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eE)\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTable \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e presents the results of the Shapiro-Wilk Test for normality on the four key constructs (Self-awareness, Knowledge, Behavior, and Leadership Skills) for both the experimental and control groups during the post-test phase. The Shapiro-Wilk Test results indicated a lack of normal distribution across all post-test variables in both the experimental and control groups (see Table 10). Key aspects, including reflection frequency, leadership theory familiarity, group cohesion, and communication effectiveness, consistently exhibited non-normal distributions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComposite Table of Shapiro-Wilk Test for Four Constructs of both Control and Experimental Group (Post-Test)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstructs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eShapiro-Wilk Mean Rating\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003estatistic\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003edegrees of freedom\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-awareness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExperimental\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.339\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.464\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKnowledge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExperimental\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.390\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.466\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBehavior\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExperimental\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.451\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.534\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLeadership Skills\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eExperimental\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.435\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eControl\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.515\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGiven these findings, the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to analyze pre-test and post-test scores within groups. Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e presents the summary of post-test scores of participants from both control and experimental groups per general constructs using the grand means and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test at p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eComparison of Post-Test Scores of the Control and Experimental Groups Using the General Constructs\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eConstruct\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean (CTRL)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD (CTRL)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(EXP)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e(EXP)\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eWilcoxon Signed-Rank Test p-Value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLevel of Self-Awareness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.33\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLevel of Knowledge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.47\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.31\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLevel of Behaviors\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.55\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLevel of Leadership Skills\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.56\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.14\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"6\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNote: CTRL\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Control Group, EXP\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Experimental Group\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe experimental group demonstrated consistently higher mean scores (grand mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.86, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.33) compared to the control group (grand mean\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3.17, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.47), most notably with self-awareness. The statistical significance of these improvements was confirmed, with Z-values ranging from \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;4.05 to -4.35 and corresponding p-values of \u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 for all statements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eComparison of Pre-Test vs. Post-Test Results in the Control Group\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMinimal improvements were observed in the control group across measured variables, most of which were not statistically significant (Table \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e). Leadership Skills displayed the most notable improvement, with a mean difference of 0.4 (Z = -2.01, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.04), indicating marginal significance.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 7\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDescriptive Statistics and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test results (Z,p) for Pre-Test and Post-Test Results of the Control Group\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePre-Test Means\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePost-Test Means\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean Difference\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZ-Value,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-Value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInterpretation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-Awareness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.0\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZ = -0.92,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.36\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo Significant Improvement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKnowledge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.1\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZ = -1.12,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.26\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo Significant Improvement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBehavior\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.5\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZ = -1.03,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eNo Significant Improvement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLeadership Skills\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.8\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.2\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.4\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZ = -2.01,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.04\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMarginal Improvement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\n \u003ch2\u003eComparison of Pre-Test vs. Post-Test Results in the Experimental Group\u003c/h2\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTable \u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e shows the results of the pre-test and the post-test of the experimental group, showing significant improvement in all measured variables.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab7\" border=\"1\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 8\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eDescriptive Statistics and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test results (Z,p) for Pre-Test and Post-Test Results of the Experimental Group\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariable\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePre-Test Means\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePost-Test Means\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean Difference\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZ-Value,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-Value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eInterpretation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSelf-Awareness\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZ = -4.88,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant Improvement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eKnowledge\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.86\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZ = -4.91,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant Improvement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eBehavior\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.3\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.49\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.19\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZ = -4.85,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant Improvement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eLeadership Skills\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.9\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.96\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.06\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZ = -4.92,\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSignificant Improvement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePerception of Participants on the Effectiveness of the Coaching Program in Achieving Objectives and Improving Leadership Performance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eFeedback on the perception of participants regarding the effectiveness of the coaching program is shown in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e. Notably, the results indicate that the program was highly effective in enhancing leadership skills and achieving developmental objectives. The general mean score for the experimental group was 4.88, reinforcing the program\u0026apos;s positive impact.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParticipants reported that the coaching program helped them achieve their leadership goals and enhanced their leadership skills. Moreover, the highest-rated item was the statement, \u0026ldquo;The coaching program has positively impacted my performance as a leader\u0026rdquo; (M\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4.97, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.17, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), suggesting strong agreement among participants on its effectiveness. Additionally, participants found the feedback received during coaching sessions constructive and helpful, and the program increased their confidence in leadership. Furthermore, the program contributed to both personal and professional growth.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eThe Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test results indicate whether the differences between pre-test and post-test scores are statistically significant. A negative Z value reflects the direction of change, while a p-value\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05 denotes that the observed improvements are unlikely due to chance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\n \u003ctable id=\"Tab8\" border=\"1\" class=\"fr-table-selection-hover\"\u003e\n \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 9\u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEffectiveness of the Coaching Program in Achieving Objectives and Improving Leadership Performance\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003c/caption\u003e\n \u003cthead\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eStatement\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eZ-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003cth align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVerbal Interpretation\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/th\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/thead\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1. The coaching program has helped me achieve my leadership development goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-4.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHighly Effective\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2. The coaching sessions have been effective in enhancing my leadership skills.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-4.10\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHighly Effective\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3. The coaching program has positively impacted my performance as a leader.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.97\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.17\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-4.30\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHighly Effective\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4. The coaching program has improved my ability to lead my team effectively.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.85\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.35\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-4.18\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHighly Effective\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5. The feedback received during coaching was constructive and helpful.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.94\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.23\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-4.12\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHighly Effective\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6. The coaching program has increased my confidence in my leadership abilities.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.79\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.40\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-3.90\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHighly Effective\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7. The program has contributed to my personal growth.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.82\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.38\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-4.01\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHighly Effective\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8. The program has contributed to my professional growth.\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.88\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e0.32\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-4.20\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eHighly Effective\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Mean\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e4.88\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e0.30\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-4.15\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd align=\"left\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHighly Effective\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n \u003c/table\u003e\n \u003c/div\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eParticipants in the experimental group reported that the program objectives were well communicated and met, sessions were well-structured, materials were helpful and relevant, coaching sessions were convenient, facilitators were knowledgeable and effective, and the learning environment supported engagement. The general mean score for the experimental group was 4.91 indicating that participants viewed the program structure as highly effective (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) (See Table\u0026nbsp;10).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eBaseline Similarity Between Control and Experimental Groups (Pre-Test Results)\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, the mean scores across all measured variables were slightly higher in the experimental group than in the control group. Despite these slight differences, the Wilcoxon test indicated no significant difference between the two groups across all variables (all p-values were greater than 0.05). This comparability ensured that participants started from similar baseline levels, thereby minimizing potential biases, as any observed improvements in post-test results can be more confidently attributed to the coaching program.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThese findings align with Kimsey-House et al.\u003csup\u003e13\u003c/sup\u003e, who emphasized the importance of establishing a baseline before initiating coaching interventions. Additionally, Passmore and Sinclair\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e highlight that coaching is most effective when participants start with comparable competencies, while Quenza\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e14\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e underscores the role of baseline assessments in facilitating measurable growth.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eImmediate Outcome of the Coaching Program\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e The coaching program brought about a marked and statistically significant improvement across all measured domains—self-awareness, knowledge, behavior, and leadership skills—among participants in the experimental group. The experimental group demonstrated significant growth across all measured domains. For example, self-awareness improved from a pre-test mean of 2.9 to 4.86 post-test, while leadership skills rose dramatically from 2.9 to 4.96. These enhancements were validated by Wilcoxon Signed Rank Test values (Z = -4.88 to -4.92, p \u0026lt; 0.05). On the other hand, participants in the control group showed marginal gains in self-awareness, knowledge, behavior, and leadership skills. However, these gains lacked statistical significance (p \u0026gt; 0.05), implying that traditional approaches or passive experiences offered limited developmental benefit.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe control group’s minimal progress serves as a reminder that leadership development does not occur by chance or exposure alone. Echoing the insights of Rothwell and Bakhshandeh\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e15\u003c/span\u003e,\u003c/sup\u003e and Kets de Vries and Korotov\u003csup\u003e\u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e16\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/sup\u003e, this study supports the argument that structured coaching—particularly when peer-supported—enables deeper reflection, promotes accountability, and accelerates professional growth. It is not merely the presence of content, but the active engagement and structured delivery that make a significant difference. The comparative data highlight the gap between coached and uncoached participants, underscoring the value of guided and intentional leadership development efforts.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs evidenced by the comparison tables, the noted enhancements underscore the efficacy of structured coaching interventions over traditional, passive learning models. These results represent immediate learning outcomes achieved by participants following the coaching program. However, they should not yet be equated with long-term impact, which can only be determined through follow-up evaluations of sustained leadership behaviors and organizational effects.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe program’s structure—anchored on well-organized face-to-face coaching sessions and clearly defined objectives—played a vital role in reinforcing the noted improvements. High participant satisfaction scores related to program delivery further validate its relevance and effectiveness. This consistency suggests that the program not only facilitated learning but also fostered personal and professional growth among future healthcare leaders.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn light of these findings, coaching can be viewed as a transformative strategy in leadership development. It provides a replicable, evidence-based model that institutions can adopt to empower leaders, promote competency-based growth, and build resilient teams in high-stakes environments like healthcare. The results support expanding similar coaching interventions to foster a culture of excellence and continuous improvement.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eLinking Theory to Practice\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eBeyond the statistical differences in post-test scores, the significance lies in the tangible improvements in participants’ workplace competencies—such as clarity in communication, effective decision-making, team leadership, and accountability. These are critical skills in high-pressure environments like healthcare settings, where effective leadership directly influences patient care and team dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe structured approach to the coaching program—combining face-to-face workshops with practical interactive sessions—created an environment in which deep learning and reflection could truly take place. Thus, improvements in performance and a deeper understanding of their leadership roles could be appreciated by participants within their healthcare teams.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e From this, participants realized considerable gains in the application of the contingencies of leadership to real-life situations, exemplified through behaviors related to communication, decision-making, and team management. Indeed, this application of leadership theories, combined with behavior modification techniques, underlines the importance of experiential learning concepts emanating from adult learning theories.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eStudy Limitations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe study had several limitations. Its findings may have limited generalizability beyond Tondo Medical Center’s Department of Pathology and Laboratory due to its unique roles and dynamics. The sample, which included Pathologists, Medical Officers, Medical Technologists, Technicians, Laboratory Aides, Blood Bank Nurses, and Administrative Staff, may not reflect the diversity of other healthcare settings. Blinding of participants and coaches was not feasible due to the interactive nature of the intervention, which may have introduced bias. This is acknowledged as a study limitation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFocusing on a single institution reduced external validity, as leadership styles and organizational cultures vary across facilities. The coaching program was tailored to this department’s needs, limiting its applicability elsewhere. Individual differences, such as experience and personality traits, were not extensively examined, which may have influenced responses to coaching. The analysis did not differentiate outcomes based on profession or other such variables. Time and resource constraints also affected the depth and frequency of sessions, potentially impacting effectiveness.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, external factors like leadership changes or healthcare policy shifts may have introduced confounding variables. Despite these limitations, the study provides valuable insights into leadership development at Tondo Medical Center and a foundation for future research in diverse settings.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe use of a transmutation table to interpret Likert means may have oversimplified interval data, potentially masking subtle differences. Results should be interpreted with caution.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study concludes that the coaching program effectively strengthened self-awareness, leadership knowledge, behavior, and skills among human resource personnel. The structured intervention addressed critical leadership gaps and facilitated substantial growth in key areas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe uniformly positive feedback regarding the structure and content of the coaching program suggests that its design was well-received by participants, reducing resistance to engagement. While this indicates that the program was acceptable to participants at the time of the post-test, its long-term effects remain to be seen. The clear objectives, well-designed materials, and appropriate scheduling provided a strong foundation for an effective program, as reflected in the consistently high ratings from participants. Future leadership development programs may benefit from maintaining these key structural elements and considering coaching approaches similar to the one described in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFuture studies might examine the longer-term effects that coaching could have on leadership performance and the adaptability of this model to diverse organizational contexts. For example, the coaching program should be expanded to include other departments at Tondo Medical Center to enhance its impact, fostering broader organizational change. Periodic follow-up sessions will help sustain leadership development and reinforce learning outcomes. Additionally, future iterations should incorporate advanced leadership modules, integrate participants\u0026apos; feedback, and align with emerging leadership theories and best practices to ensure continued relevance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLong-term evaluations through longitudinal studies are recommended to assess the sustained effects of the program. The successful findings suggest that similar coaching initiatives could be implemented in other healthcare settings, with the framework and insights shared to improve leadership across institutions. Future research should explore qualitative and mixed-methods approaches to gain deeper insights into participants\u0026rsquo; experiences, program impact, and its influence on organizational culture.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eA copy of the more detailed protocol containing expanded methodology and details regarding implementation, development and validity results of questionnaires, as well as expanded collection of results can be accessed upon request from the author. Likewise, a full report on the developed program’s design, development, and implementation—including copies of the coaching manual and instructional materials produced during development and implementation—is available upon request from the author. The questionnaire utilized in the study is likewise available upon request for those interested in reviewing its content and structure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eACKNOWLEDGEMENT\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author acknowledges the invaluable assistance of the Tondo Medical Center Department of Pathology and Laboratory for providing access to its facilities and the support of its entire staff. The author likewise expresses gratitude to the National Graduate Office for the Health Sciences (NGOHS) and the National Teacher Training Center for the Health Professions (NTTCHP) for their financial support.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable. This study did not involve a clinical trial but focused on the development and evaluation of a coaching program for healthcare personnel.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthical Consideration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParticipation was entirely voluntary, with coachees fully informed of the study’s objectives, procedures, risks, and benefits. Written informed consent was obtained, ensuring that participants could withdraw at any time without consequences.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eConfidentiality and privacy were strictly maintained. Data collected during pretests, coaching sessions, and posttests were anonymized, and access was limited to the research team. Confidentiality agreements were signed to further protect participant identities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRisks were minimal, primarily involving potential discomfort in discussing personal and professional matters during coaching. However, sessions were conducted in a supportive and confidential environment by experienced coaches. The study posed no conflicts of interest, and recruitment was conducted fairly and transparently.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis study complied with the 2017 Philippine Health Research Ethics Board (PHREB) guidelines, upholding respect for persons, beneficence, and justice, with any study modifications submitted for ethical review with approval code REC-2023-00045. The study was also conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe author solely conceived, designed, conducted, and reported the study. All aspects of data collection, analysis, interpretation, and manuscript writing were undertaken by the author.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsent for Publication\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNot applicable. The manuscript does not contain any individual person’s data in any form (including individual details, images, or videos.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNorthouse PG. Introduction to leadership: Concepts and practice. Fifth edition. Los Angeles: SAGE; 2020.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eHu S, Chen W, Hu H, Huang W, Chen J, Hu J. Coaching to develop leadership for healthcare managers: a mixed-method systematic review protocol. Syst Rev. 2022;11(1):67. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1186/s13643-022-01946-z\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. PMID: 35418168. PMCID: PMC9008960.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePassmore J, Fillery-Travis A. A critical review of executive coaching research: a decade of progress and what\u0026rsquo;s to come. Coaching: Int J Theor. 2011;4(2):70\u0026ndash;88. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/17521882.2011.596484\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTheeboom T, Beersma B, Van Vianen AEM. Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context. J Posit Psychol. 2014;9(1):1\u0026ndash;18. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1080/17439760.2013.837499\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eWong CA, Spence Laschinger HK, Cummings GG. Authentic leadership and nurses\u0026rsquo; voice behaviour and perceptions of care quality: Authentic leadership. J Nurs Manag. 2010;18(8):889\u0026ndash;900. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003e10.1111/j.1365-2834.2010.01113.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e. PMID: 21073563.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Coach Federation. Core competencies | ICF Professional Coaching Standards [Internet]. https://coachingfederation.org/. [cited 2025 Feb 17]. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://coachingfederation.org/resource/icf-core-competencies/\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eInternational Coach Federation. ICF Code of ethics | International Coaching Federation [Internet]. https://coachingfederation.org/. [cited 2025 Feb 17]. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://coachingfederation.org/credentialing/coaching-ethics/icf-code-of-ethics/\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNeenan M, Dryden W. Life coaching: A cognitive-behavioural approach. 1st ed. Routledge; 2002.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGomide MFS, Pinto IC, Bulgarelli AF, Santos ALPD, Serrano Gallardo MDP. A satisfa\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o do usu\u0026aacute;rio com a aten\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o prim\u0026aacute;ria \u0026agrave; sa\u0026uacute;de: uma an\u0026aacute;lise do acesso e acolhimento. Interface (Botucatu). 2017;22(65):387\u0026ndash;98.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSkiffington S, Zeus P. Behavioral coaching: How to build sustainable personal and organizational strengths. Sydney: McGraw-Hill; 2003.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGoleman D. Emotional intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. 1st ed. New York: Bantam Books; 1995.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNorthouse PG, Leadership. Theory and practice. 8th ed. Los Angeles London New Delhi Singapore Washington DC Melbourne: SAGE; 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKimsey-House H, Kimsey-House K, Sandahl P, Whitworth L. Co-Active Coaching: Changing Business, Transforming Lives. 4th ed. Nicholas Brealey Publishing; 2018.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eQuenza. (2024, September 3). \u003cem\u003eExploring Effective Coaching Assessment Methods\u003c/em\u003e [Blog post]. Retrieved from \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://quenza.com/blog/coaching-assessment-methods/\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRothwell WJ, Bakhshandeh B. High-Performance Coaching for Managers: A Step-by-Step Approach to Increase Employees\u0026apos; Performance and Productivity. Routledge; 2022.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKets de Vries MFR, Korotov K. Developing leaders and leadership development [Internet]. Fontainebleau: INSEAD; 2007 [cited 2025 May 2]. Available from: \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/228139096_Developing_Leaders_and_Leadership_Development\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMolenda M. In search of the elusive ADDIE model. Perform Improv. 2003;42(5):34\u0026ndash;7. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4930420508\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-medical-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"meed","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Medical Education](http://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/meed/default.aspx","title":"BMC Medical Education","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Coaching, Leadership, Healthcare Professionals, Quasi-Experimental Design","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7505962/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7505962/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eObjectives\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study aimed to develop and evaluate the effectiveness of a coaching program for enhancing leadership skills among selected personnel at Tondo Medical Center. Specifically, it sought to: (1) assess the current levels of self-awareness, knowledge, leadership behavior, and leadership skills among the coachees in the Department of Pathology and Laboratory; (2) design a relevant and transformative coaching program on leadership based on the results of the needs assessment; (3) measure the changes in self-awareness, knowledge, leadership behavior, and leadership skills of the coachees after the coaching intervention; and (4) determine the overall effectiveness of the coaching program formulated for the study. The program utilized the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation (ADDIE) model, focusing on improving self-awareness, knowledge, behavior, and leadership skills.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eMethods\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA quasi-experimental design was employed, incorporating pre- and post-test assessments to measure changes in leadership skills. The study was conducted in the Department of Pathology, which was purposively selected as the study site. Participants were randomly assigned to either the experimental group (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;34), which underwent a structured coaching intervention, or the control group (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;24), which did not receive the intervention. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, normality tests, and the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test to determine the program\u0026rsquo;s impact on leadership development.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003ePost-test evaluations demonstrated significant improvements in leadership skills among participants in the experimental group. Self-awareness scores increased from 2.9 to 4.86 (Z = -4.88, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05), and leadership skills showed the most significant improvement, increasing from 2.9 to 4.96 (Z = -4.92, p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Knowledge and behavior also exhibited notable gains. The Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test confirmed statistically significant changes (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) in the experimental group, whereas the control group showed only minimal improvements, with slight changes in leadership skills (Z = -2.01, p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.04) and insignificant differences in other variables.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e The coaching program proved highly effective in enhancing participants' leadership skills, including self-awareness, confidence, and professional growth. Participants rated the program's structure and delivery positively, with an overall mean satisfaction score of 4.91 (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.27). These findings underscore the potential of structured coaching programs to enhance leadership competencies in healthcare settings. Recommendations include expanding the program to other institutions, incorporating advanced content, and conducting long-term evaluations to assess sustained impacts.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Development of a Coaching Program on Leadership for Selected Personnel in a Healthcare Environment","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-10-21 23:17:47","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7505962/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-11-07T20:31:14+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-11-05T03:55:54+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-11-03T00:15:40+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-11-02T03:30:05+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-10-16T19:20:47+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"176103785984685415021088896380049584922","date":"2025-10-15T06:36:20+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"10515276527113353880366624324646114931","date":"2025-10-11T19:59:07+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"263682030554758778638399057121127001954","date":"2025-10-10T14:11:01+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"137813062022034715482119054366204221982","date":"2025-10-08T15:09:57+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"249498565996370923817921784293481321937","date":"2025-10-08T12:22:50+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"156595739711544277591009943150596742455","date":"2025-10-08T12:11:40+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-10-08T11:48:14+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-10-07T04:05:27+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-09-15T04:34:20+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-09-15T01:31:22+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Medical Education","date":"2025-09-15T01:28:23+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-medical-education","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"meed","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Medical Education](http://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"https://www.editorialmanager.com/meed/default.aspx","title":"BMC Medical Education","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"d1583146-e485-4d88-b9c6-8497dfac3e0d","owner":[],"postedDate":"October 21st, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"in-revision","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-11-07T20:38:23+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-10-21 23:17:47","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7505962","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7505962","identity":"rs-7505962","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}