Executive+Coaching+It_s+Not+Just+About+the+Executive

http://jab.sagepub.com

The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science

DOI: 10.1177/0021886302038003006 2002; 38; 355 Journal of Applied Behavioral Science

Ruth L. Orenstein Executive Coaching: It’s Not Just about the Executive

http://jab.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/38/3/355 The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

NTL Institute

can be found at:The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science Additional services and information for

http://jab.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://jab.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jab.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/38/3/355 Citations

at SWETS WISE ONLINE CONTENT on September 1, 2009 http://jab.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://www.ntl.org

http://jab.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jab.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jab.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/38/3/355


THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCESeptember 2002Orenstein / EXECUTIVE COACHING

Executive CoachingIt’s Not Just About the Executive

Ruth L. OrensteinPrinceton Consulting ResourcesRutgers–The State University of New Jersey

This article challenges the prevailing understanding of executive coaching as an exclu-sively individual intervention. It discusses executive coaching as a complex and demand-ing process that encompasses multidimensional interrelationships among the individual,the organization, and the consultant. It presents four premises that guide the process,including the role of the unconscious in individual and group behavior, the interactionbetween the individual and the organization, multilevel organizational forces, and theconsultant’s use of self as tool. It describes and analyzes three illustrative excerpts fromactual executive coaching cases conducted by the author in the manner proposed by thearticle.

The young and talented project director of a growing advertising agency takes no steps to defendhimself or his staff from the consistently abusive behavior of one of his peers. During a meeting withhis executive coach, the director discovers why.

The administrative vice president of a major research institution avoids addressing a substance abuseproblem with an employee. At the conclusion of a meeting with her coach, she is prepared to handleit in a completely new way.

355

The author would like to express her gratitude to Clayton Alderfer, David Berg, and Kenwyn Smith, withoutwhom this article, and the work on which it is based, would not have been possible.

Ruth Orenstein is president of Princeton Consulting Resources, Inc. and a member of the visiting faculty atthe Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology at Rutgers–The State University of NewJersey.

THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE, Vol. 38 No. 3, September 2002 355-374© 2002 NTL Institute



The president of a large nonprofit organization is bewildered by the continuous disputes between theexecutive vice president and the latter’s subordinate, the director of operations. During a meetingwith his executive coach, the president discovers his role in perpetuating the problem.

Over the course of the last 10 years, executive coaching—a one-on-one interven-tion with a senior manager for the purpose of improving or enhancing managementskills—has become widely adopted by the corporate community and is quicklyexpanding into nonprofit and governmental sectors. Executive coaches come from avariety of disciplines with a broad range of credentials and use a diverse array of tech-niques in service of improving the performance of the managers with whom they work(Judge & Cowell, 1997; Kilburg, 1996).

In view of the apparent plethora of coaches, the literature regarding this aspect ofexecutive development remains remarkably scarce. What does exist falls into two gen-eral categories: (a) description of specific executive coaching methodologies by prac-titioners in the field and (b) definition and designation of the practice.

In the first category, the majority of the methodologies are based on behavioralapproaches to help the individual to adapt to the organization. For Saporito (1996),organizational exigencies are preeminent. He presents a process that begins with anunderstanding of organizational imperatives, role success factors, and behavioralrequirements for the specific position. Adapting the individual’s behavior is accom-plished through individual assessment, feedback, developmental planning, and imple-mentation of the plan. Diedrich’s (1996) methodology is based on the premise thatbehavior is a function of both role and personality. His process consists of definingcompetencies for the position, identifying the style and social motives of the individ-ual, and providing ongoing feedback and coaching for individual performance.Brotman and Liberi (1998) move the primary focus back to the individual, arguing fora psychologically based process leading to sustained behavioral change. They definethe latter as a change in behavior that is consistent even when under stress and thatresults from psychological insight subsequently translated into observable behaviors.

Other practitioners take the position that the purpose of executive coaching is tochange character. Kilburg (1997) asserts that executive coaching deals with issues ofcharacter and, concomitantly, of unconscious psychological conflict in individualsand in the groups and organizations that they impact. He sees improving the self-awareness of the client as the goal of executive coaching, and he proposes three majortechniques with which to accomplish it: (a) articulating problems for exploration, (b)making the unsaid said, and (c) making the unconscious conscious. He also suggeststhat creating a safe environment and approaching the rational side of the client are crit-ical for coaching. Kaplan (1991) views a shift in character as the desired outcome ofexecutive coaching. Basing his work on the belief that leadership involves the wholeperson—the inner as well as the outer—and that the pressures of executive-level posi-tions discourage self-reflection, Kaplan approaches coaching through three majorvehicles: examination of how leadership reflects character, the impact of childhoodexperiences, and similarities in the individual’s behavior in both work and personalrealms. An extensive interview and feedback process, followed by a defined plan forfollow-through, are at the heart of the methodology. Kiel, Rimmer, Williams, and

356 THE JOURNAL OF APPLIED BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE September 2002



Doyle (1996), sharing with Kaplan the perspective of the executive as a whole person,use as the conceptual basis for their methodology the view that individuals are shapedby their past, their personal lives, and their work environments. Their process consistsof extensive data collection about both the individual and the needs of the organization,a comprehensive feedback session, and implementation and development that encom-passes ongoing coaching, support, and feedback.

Sperry (1993) is among those who contribute to the second category of the litera-ture. He distinguishes among three roles for those involved in interventions with indi-vidual executives: executive consulting, an advisory function; executive counselingand psychotherapy to address characterological issues; and executive coaching, one-on-one skill training that does not involve deep disclosure on the part of the executiveand consequently does not require a close bond or stringent mechanisms to safeguardconfidentiality.

A number of practitioners disagree with Sperry, including Witherspoon and White(1996). They see coaching for skills as only one in a continuum of roles within theexecutive coach’s purview. They add coaching for performance, in which the client ishelped to become more effective in the current job; coaching for development, inwhich the client prepares for advancement through addressing long-term developmen-tal needs; and coaching for the executive’s agenda, in which there is comprehensivelearning in areas of organizational leadership or personal well-being, or both.

Levinson (1996) appears to agree with Witherspoon and White, arguing that coach-ing can range from modifying negative behavior to defining role to career planningand, when appropriate, therapeutic referral. Levinson does, however, caution that theword “coach” be taken seriously and agrees with a distinction between psychotherapyand coaching, advising that “executive coaching does not allow time for developing atherapeutic alliance, dealing with the transference problem and dealing with theambivalence engendered when the client becomes dependent on the coach” (p. 115).

Tobias (1996) contends that the distinction between executive coaching and execu-tive consulting or counseling is largely semantic and, if at all extant, is purely one offocus—either on the entire organization or on the individual. He also points out thatcoaching may go on within or outside of an ongoing consultation, noting that, in thelatter case, there are consequences to the inability to understand and to intervene insystemic issues.

In my experience, most diagnoses made by executives about a “problem person” are, at best, onlypartially correct. Seldom do they sufficiently account for the setting events that trigger the behav-ior . . . Usually, the organization needs to give a little, too, by breaking down bureaucratic barriers,providing emotional support, tolerating failures, providing sponsors and the like . . . It is essential forthe coach to keep in mind that relevant others may not only be potentially part of the solution, butthey are usually directly or indirectly part of the problem . . . In fact, perhaps the greatest danger indoing coaching with individuals from organizations in which there is no ongoing consulting rela-tionship is the possibility that the psychologist may inadvertently participate in the scapegoating ofan individual by an organization or by a boss who is unable to or does not want to look deeply enoughat the ways that the environment may be supporting the conditions underlying the individual’s seem-ingly maladaptive response. (Tobias, 1996, pp. 88-89)

Orenstein / EXECUTIVE COACHING 357



Tobias (1996) thus introduces into the executive coaching literature the overlapbetween consulting to the individual and consulting to the organization. In doing so, hecreates an opening for a body of knowledge that, although virtually absent from thecurrent literature, can rightfully be called a direct antecedent. It encompasses theoryand practice that come not from psychotherapy, the apparent conceptual precursor inthe literature, but from the social systems thinking inherent in organizational psychol-ogy. Within this discipline, three classic research projects exemplify its legacy to con-temporary coaching methodology.

The Tremont Hotel Project (Whyte & Hamilton, 1964) was a system-wide inter-vention within the hotel industry that transpired from 1946 to 1947. The researchersbegan the project at the behest of the hotel’s general manager, who was interested inunderstanding the role of human relations and the personnel function. Making exten-sive use of interviewing and observation techniques, the researchers analyzed theproblems of the organization from multiple levels—group, intergroup, and individual.Subsequent interventions into every department in the hotel focused on groups as thecentral unit. At the conclusion of the first year, the team had accomplished six objec-tives: (a) a new role for the personnel function that included enhanced human relations;(b) improvement in the quality of interpersonal relations; (c) reduced labor turnoverand increased safety; (d) development of managers and supervisors, particularly inrelation to leadership in group meetings; (e) perception of improved efficiency andproductivity; and (f) transfer of the initiative to the personnel function. The fact that thecontract was not renewed was attributed to the team’s failure to address one of the mostcritical aspects of the organizational problems—the individual leadership behavior ofthe senior manager. Whyte retrospectively realized that he had not addressed the issuedirectly because of his own timidity and his ego involvement in continuing the project.Once the project was discontinued, however, Whyte reacted differently, and he wasstartled by the result.

Having nothing to gain through holding anything back, I decided to build a main part of the report onour analysis of Smith’s leadership style . . . I presented him with the 10 points used in analyzing hisbehavior . . . Smith was so eager to get it that he locked himself in his office immediately and read itstraight through. When he called me in, it was to express enthusiasm, particularly for my analysis ofhis own executive behavior. Later, he called his management group together . . . [and told them] I hadpointed out that he was the main personnel problem of the hotel and that he intended to profit fromthe criticisms I had made. This response left me in a somewhat dazed condition . . . I should havetaken the initiative much earlier and confronted him in discussion with our view of his leadershipbehavior and of its impact upon the organization. (pp. 177-178)

The study therefore had two ultimate conclusions, both of which have great rele-vance to executive coaching as we know it today: (a) the explicit conclusion that thereis a direct correlation between changes in the organization and changes in key individ-uals and (b) the implicit conclusion that the feelings and emotions of the consultanthave a powerful influence on outcomes.

The study at Claypool Furniture and Appliances (Levinson, Molinari, & Spohn,1972) took place in 1970 at the request of its president, Robert Claypool III, who wasinterested in the application of motivational concepts to strengthen the organization




for expansion and to reverse recent profit declines. Extensive data revealed a numberof problems within the company: lack of self-respect in employees, a thwarted desireto participate in decision making, lack of feedback, lack of recognition, salary issues,lack of training, intergroup conflict, and lack of formal lines of communication. It alsorevealed a problem within its leader: Claypool was ambivalent about his role as apaternalistic father figure in the tradition of his grandfather, the founder of Claypool,and his desire to be a competent executive concerned with the performance of the busi-ness. The researchers made a number of recommendations regarding improved prac-tices but reached a single conclusion: “The prognosis for the organization hinges onthe resolution of Robert Claypool’s ambivalence” (p. 489). Their recommended pro-cess for helping him do so entailed individual consultations to Claypool and his execu-tive vice president, in which the former could increase his skills in delegation, learn toallow others to make decisions, and encourage group problem solving, while the latter,through a “therapeutic alliance” with the consultant, could learn to ease demands onhimself, provide guidance and support to his subordinates, and improve his listeningskills. These researchers, two decades before executive coaching became popular, haddiscovered its concurrent individual and systemic value and the criticality of the con-sultant-client relationship, and they had begun to perform the function.

The Gaight School study (Alderfer & Brown, 1975) resulted from a 4-year researchand consultation project with an exclusive preparatory school for boys. It began in1969, at the request of the school’s headmaster, as a consequence of the turbulence thatthe school had experienced the previous academic year. Using a diagnostic processthat consisted of the design and implementation of a questionnaire and extensive inter-views with groups and individuals, the researchers discovered a number of factors thatwere affecting the quality of life at Gaight—student harassment, sarcasm as a norm,intergroup conflict, and the ineffectiveness of a group (the prefects) critical to the well-being of the school. There were three recommendations: the development of a team ofinternal consultants to assist with the change process, training for the prefects and anexamination of their role, and consultation on decision making. All recommendationswere implemented, including an individual consultation to the headmaster. Reflectingon the latter, the researcher wrote,

The process of the consultation was nondirective. I neither proposed the problems to be discussednor offered solutions. I did not attempt to increase the options that were considered and tried to iden-tify factors (often emotional) that the decision makers might have been overlooking. Our workingarrangement left the decision about who to include in the sessions to the headmaster, although wesometimes jointly discussed the possibilities. (p. 144)

One of the internal consultants reported on the consultation from the headmaster’sperspective, as follows:

The headmaster is particularly enthusiastic about these sessions. He feels that the airing of tensionsand conflicts in the presence of a third party made his job easier in that the energy used to suppressirritations and conflict was now released for other purposes. He firmly believes he could not have ledin the initiation of co-education and term-contained courses at Gaight without these sessions and thehelp of Professor Alderfer. (p. 222)




At the conclusion of the project, the researchers developed a new theory of consul-tation based on six propositions: (a) that it involves a joint process of inquiry by the cli-ent and the consultant; (b) that valid data from the inquiry are contingent on the mutu-ality of relationship and the degree to which boundaries, both physical andpsychological, are made permeable not only between but also within both the clientand consultant; (c) that understanding of the consequences of behavior necessitatesboth feelings and intellect; (d) that sustained change can occur only when the clientchooses to alter behavior, there is a psychological acceptance of the change by all rele-vant groups and individuals, and the new behavior pattern becomes routine; (e) thattwo types of interventions are required—“releasing interventions” that facilitate theexpressions of suppressed emotion and “developmental interventions” that plan forchange; and (f) that consultation consists of four iterative phases: entry and contractagreements, data collection and diagnosis, implementation, and evaluation.

This theory of consultation to organizations, emphasizing considerable emotional,intellectual, and behavioral involvement by the client and the consultant, as well asparticipation by those individuals and groups most impacted by the potential change,also was clearly applicable to consulting done with individuals when viewed withinthe full complexity of the organizational context. The relevance to contemporarythought concerning executive coaching is unmistakable.

THE INDIVIDUAL, THE ORGANIZATION,AND THE CONSULTANT: FOUNDATIONAL PREMISES

If there is a singularly compelling message that can be extracted from the anteced-ent literature, it is the inextricable link among the individual, the organization, and theconsultant. It therefore is imperative that the latter, when engaged in executive coach-ing, be in a position to understand the multidimensionality of the interrelatednessamong all three. Four foundational premises guide the ability to do so effectively, asfollows:

1. The unconscious plays a major role in individual and group behavior.2. Executive coaching is an intervention with a specific individual within a specific organization for the

purpose of improving job-related performance; it therefore must consider the individual, the organi-zation, and their interaction.

3. Organizations are composed of groups and groups are composed of individuals; therefore, individ-ual behavior in organizations (a) is embedded in organizational, group, intergroup, and interpersonalbehavior and (b) influences and is influenced by intrapsychic, interpersonal, group, intergroup, andorganizational forces.

4. The consultant’s most crucial tool in the executive coaching process is the use of self.

Premise 1: The Unconscious

In 1900, Sigmund Freud presented his topographical model of the mind, describingits components as the unconscious, preconscious, and conscious and forever changedthe manner in which the causes of human behavior could be perceived. While classicalpsychoanalytic theory and practice has fallen into relative disfavor during the last sev-




eral decades, those who rejected the supremacy of the libido and the Oedipus complexnevertheless retained the centrality of unconscious processes, conflicts, defenses, andthe transference (Westen, 1990).

This was certainly true of Carl Jung, the first to depart from Freud’s psycho-analytical school. Convinced that there was a very different central organizing force inthe psyche than sex and aggression, Jung introduced the concept of individuation—theintegration of both unconscious and conscious into a wholeness that represents theuniqueness of the individual. Jung’s conceptualization encompassed an unconsciousconstituted by two realms: the personal unconscious and the collective unconscious.Whereas the personal unconscious is formed by the experiences of life, houses thosememories that are forgotten or repressed, and contains those complexes relating to theparticular individual (of which he viewed the Oedipal complex as just one of many),the collective unconscious is inborn and contains the archetypes, including the per-sona, the shadow, the anima, the animus, and the Self (Jung, 1921/1971; Singer, 1994;Whitmont, 1964). The goal of the therapeutic process, therefore, is to enhance individ-uation by helping the individual identify and bring to consciousness the unconsciouspersonal and archetypal material in the psyche. Unlike Freud’s “blank screen,” inwhich the countertransference was seen as a barrier, Jung saw analysis as a dyadic pro-cess, with the therapist as a vital instrument, in which exploration of the unconscious(particularly as expressed through archetypal symbolism), transference, andcountertransference were central.

This view of the dyadic relationship was echoed by Henry Stack Sullivan and theinterpersonal tradition that he inspired. Sullivan (1970) viewed therapy as aninteractional field, consisting of patient and therapist, in which the latter acts as a “par-ticipant observer” to help the client gain an awareness of self-defeating patterns ininterpersonal relationships. Essential to his process were in-depth interviewing tech-niques to understand the experience of the patient from the patient’s perspective(Sullivan, 1970) and the active use of the countertransference to interpret the patient’scharacteristic, and inevitably emergent, interactional patterns (Mitchell & Black,1995).

The object relations tradition also stresses the importance of the environment and ofinterpersonal relationships. From Fairbairn’s (1952) object-seeking libido toWinnicott’s (1965) “holding” by the “good enough” mother to Kohut’s (1971) “ideal-ized parent imago,” it is the parenting relationship—both actual and internalized—thatdetermines the health of the psyche. As a result, the goal of the therapeutic process is toheal the wounds of inadequate parenting and to revise the internalized objects. This isaccomplished by broadening the therapeutic relationship to include the reenactment ofthe original relationship and the substitution of appropriate parental responses (i.e.,empathy, mirroring, setting of boundaries, etc.) for the inadequate ones that are thesource of the patient’s difficulties (McWilliams, 1994; Mitchell & Black, 1995).

The transition from depth psychology to the interpersonal and object relationsschools represented a change from a one-person to a two-person psychology (Ghent,1989) and thus expanded the focus from the intrapsychic to include the interpersonal.This focus was further expanded to include the collective when Wilfred R. Bion (1961)introduced group-as-whole theory. Bion saw group dynamics as the interplay between




individual needs and group mentality and culture. The interplay, he felt, creates a fun-damental unconscious conflict between the group mentality and the desires of the indi-vidual. The conflict produces intrapsychic anxieties that manifest themselves inshared unconscious fantasies (“basic assumptions”) on a group level regarding the rea-son that the group has formed. Individuals in the group, through “valency,” demon-strate the extent to which they are willing to combine with the regressed group by“holding” a particular aspect of the basic assumption behavior and unconsciously tak-ing specific roles on behalf of the group. The work group and the individualscomposing it who come together to accomplish a specific task thus are powerfully,albeit unconsciously, influenced by primitive regression inherent in basic assumptionbehavior in the group as a whole.

Premise 2: Individual and Organization

Four decades ago, Daniel Levinson (1959) revolutionized the view of organiza-tional role. Rejecting the notion of the omnipotent, mechanistic organization withindividuals as mere cogs, Levinson substituted a perspective that not only viewed theindividual as an equal contributor to role but also introduced the influence of uncon-scious forces in the individual and the organization.

Levinson’s argument (1959) is based on a differentiation between role demands(the requirements of the organization externally imposed on the individual) and per-sonal role definition (the individual’s way of adapting to the organization). The latter,which Levinson saw as the “linking concept between personality and social structure”(p. 482), consists of two levels: (a) role conception, formed by the present context andalso a range of previous psychological experiences, and (b) role performance, thedegree to which organizational role norms are met by the observable behavior of theindividual. Levinson thus proposed that intrapsychic forces have a direct impact onperformance and saw role performance as an external ego function influenced by theinternal dynamics of the unconscious.

Role definition is, in this sense, an “ego achievement”—a reflection of the person’s capacity toresolve conflicting demands, to utilize existing opportunities and create new ones, to find some bal-ance between stability and change, conformity and autonomy, the ideal and the feasible, in a com-plex environment . . . [It] is influenced by the ways in which the ego carries out its “internal func-tions” of coping with, and attempting to synthesize, the demands of id, superego, and ego . . . [and]“to varying degrees,” related to and embedded within other aspects of personality . . . [One’s] ways ofdealing with the stressful aspects of organizational life are influenced by the impulses, anxieties, andmodes of defense that these stresses activate in him. (pp. 480-481)

But Levinson notes (1959) that the organization, in formulating its demands for theindividual, also has a psychological side.

An organization has “latent” as well as “manifest” structure: It has a many-faceted emotional climate;it tends to “demand” varied forms of interpersonal allegiance, friendship, deference, intimidation,ingratiation, rivalry, and the like. If characteristics such as these are considered intrinsic properties ofsocial structure, then they must be included in the characterization of role performance. (p. 479)




Consequently, role performance can be viewed as the result of conscious andunconscious forces in the individual in continuous interaction with conscious andunconscious forces in the organization.

Premise 3: Multilevel Forces

Organizations, however, are not monolithic. Like all living entities, they mustdefine themselves, both physically and psychologically, through interaction with theirenvironment. In addition, they are not simply composed of, and concomitantly influ-enced by, individuals but also groups. Two theories by Clayton P. Alderfer provide fur-ther explication.

In his first, the theory of underbounded and overbounded organizations, Alderfer(1980) provides a vehicle with which to determine the relative boundary permeabilityof an organization and, therefore, the prognosis regarding the organization’s ability tosurvive. He describes 11 indicators of boundary permeability—goals, authority rela-tions, economic conditions, role definitions, communication patterns, human energy,affect distribution, intergroup dynamics, unconscious basic assumptions, time span,and cognitive work. By observing these, which often are easier to recognize than theactual boundaries, it is possible to determine whether the organization is overboundedand in danger of losing the ability to continue to interact with its environment orunderbounded and subject to being submerged into the outer environment. He con-cludes that, because of the interdependence of an organization’s related subsystems,the indicators also can serve as a vehicle with which to formulate hypotheses regardingthe state of the organization’s psychological boundaries.

Embedded intergroup relations theory (Alderfer, 1986) not only recognizes theimpact of groups within an organization but also views them as fundamental to anunderstanding of organizational dynamics at all levels.

Alderfer describes five characteristics of intergroup relations—group boundaries,power differences, affective patterns, cognitive formations, and leadership—anddivides organizational groups into two categories—identity groups, those sharing acommon worldview (i.e., race, ethnicity, generation, family), and organizationalgroups, those sharing a common organizational view (i.e., task, hierarchical position).He postulates that any interaction between two individuals must be viewed as anunconscious interaction between the salient identity and/or the organizational groupmemberships of each within the context of a particular social system. Because of thisembeddedness, furthermore, the relationship among individuals or groups (the sub-systems) is shaped by relationships in the larger context (the suprasystem). To this phe-nomenon Alderfer assigns the term “parallel process” and demonstrates how observ-ing individuals and groups can give crucial data about dynamics at a broader level. Healso demonstrates that embedded intergroup relations and the enactment of parallelprocesses apply equally to the researcher in interaction with the individual, group, orentire system under study.

Hence, by superimposing on Levinson’s conception of role formulation the viewsof analytical psychology, the interpersonal and object relations schools, group-as-a-whole theory, embedded intergroup relations theory, and boundary theory, individual




performance in organizations can be seen as a function of the interaction between thesalient conscious and unconscious responses that are triggered in the individual by,respectively and collectively: (a) internal, intrapsychic forces; (b) interactions withother individuals; (c) requirements as a subsystem of a group, acting on behalf of grouplife needs; (d) membership in an organizational and/or identity group in interactionwith representatives of the same or other organizational and/or identity groups; and (e)requirements as an organizational member—all of which have both conscious andunconscious elements.

Premise 4: Self as Tool

Based on the previous discussion, it becomes clear that the consultant, in enteringthe organization to work with the individual, stands at the intersection of their interac-tion and, concomitantly, at the intersection of multilevel conscious and unconsciousforces, including those that the consultant himself/herself brings as part of his/herbeing. Thus, for the time he/she is present, the consultant becomes part of the multidi-mensional system, both influencing it and being influenced by it. To do the work ofexecutive coaching, then, the consultant must be able to tolerate, and ultimately makeuse of, being in a place that is neither individual nor organization alone but both indi-vidual and organization together, that contains the exigencies of working life and theimpulses of the psyche, and that engages and is engaged by his/her own intrapsychicmaterial. In addition, if the work is done effectively, it requires that the consultant beboth involved enough in the dynamics so as to perceive their impact and removedenough so as to analyze what is transpiring (Smith, 1995). These demands makeimperative the ability to use oneself as a tool.

The concept of the use of self is pervasive in the foundational theoretical materialthat has been discussed thus far. The countertransference—what is being evoked in thepsychologist when working with the client—is viewed as the lynchpin of the therapeu-tic process in analytical psychology, in interpersonal psychology, and in the objectrelations school. Parallel processes—unconscious reenactment within the subsystemof suprasystem dynamics—are a key component in embedded intergroup relationstheory. Whether in the language of psychodynamic theory or organizational theory,however, the message is the same: The consultant must engage in a continuous processof self-scrutiny to identify what is being evoked in himself/herself so as to appropri-ately inform his/her choices in the ongoing process.

David N. Berg and Kenwyn K. Smith (1985) are among the researchers who viewself-scrutiny as indispensable to effective work. They point out that it is only throughcontinuous commitment to engage in self-reflection that the researcher can uncoverthe internal intellectual and emotional forces that impact his/her research. In addition,it is self-examination that makes possible the garnering of information about thedynamics of an individual or a social system through analysis of the countertransfer-ence or parallel processes. They also speak to the necessity for self-scrutiny to addressthe complexities arising from the simultaneous influences on one another of theresearcher and those being researched. Cammann (1985) places these concepts withina consulting context and discusses the need for self-knowledge so as to counteract the




inevitable distortions caused by the consultant’s individual preferences and biases inorganizational diagnosis, to differentiate between personal and systemic causes of per-sonal reactions in gathering data by direct experience, to recognize the consequencesof one’s actions in designing interventions, and to recognize projections when encoun-tering resistance.

The same principles apply to executive coaching. In this context, the use of self isthe tool with which the consultant gains, through direct experience, an empatheticunderstanding of

• the inner life of the individual being coached and the specific intrapsychic forces that are being trig-gered by other individuals, groups, intergroup relations in the organization, and organizational roledemands;

• the characteristic interpersonal patterns of the individual being coached and of other individuals withwhom the individual is in contact;

• the impact of and reaction to the consultant’s salient group memberships and, consequently, thenature of the intergroup relations embedded within the organization;

• the relative boundary permeability of the organization and its subsystems, attendant psychologicalboundaries, and the nature of work life within the organization; and

• the impact of the consultant’s ongoing interventions on both the individual and the organization.

EXECUTIVE COACHING IN ACTION:A MULTIDIMENSIONAL VIEW

The excerpts that began this article are vivid illustrations of the complexity and themultidimensionality discussed in the previous section. The dramatic moments ofinsight, while appearing to be isolated, spontaneous events, are products of a coachingprocess designed to continuously reveal, at every stage from initial entry throughassessment, feedback, and intervention, the multilevel conscious and unconsciousforces that impacted each of the executives. The examples, drawn from actual caseswith changes made only to ensure confidentiality, are discussed more fully below.

Tom: The Defenseless Director

The young and talented project director of a growing advertising agency takes no steps to defendhimself or his staff from the consistently abusive behavior of one of his peers. During a meeting withhis executive coach, the director discovers why.

Tom had not been forthcoming during my first attempt to learn about his family oforigin. He had answered the questions but had not gone beyond a superficial response.We therefore spent the first four sessions on recent work-related issues and behaviors.At the end of the fourth session, we had discussed Tom’s belief that challenging thosewho were aggressive to him would mean that he was abusive. We discussed this per-ception in terms of personal boundaries, to which Tom was readily able to relate, andhe immediately saw how he was allowing boundary intrusion.




When I arrived for the fifth session, Tom asked me about my career decisions—specifically, why I had chosen a midcareer shift and whether I was happy with mychoice. I chose to answer his questions in some detail. He said he was very interestedbecause he wondered whether he would stay in his current career for the rest of his life.I summarized Levinson’s (1978) life cycle concepts and told him I would give himsome excerpts.

He then began to tell me about his father—a miner who had spent his entire life inone place in one job working 16 hours a day to support his wife and their five children.Tom, the oldest, had been the first on his father’s side of the family to earn a collegedegree. Working his way through college, he was considered the “trailblazer” in thesmall farming community in which he had grown up. When he joined the military, itwas the first time he had left the area. He had met his wife during college and, as thedaughter of a military career officer, she was with Tom during his tours of duty. Tomtalked about the importance of exposing his two daughters to “experiences” versus“giving them things” because of what he had learned growing up: “We didn’t have alot, but we didn’t know the difference.”

Tom continued by telling me that all of his siblings had followed his lead and hadbegun college. He then talked about the middle child, Nat, who seemed to have “nodirection.” Nat had dropped out of school and was unsure what he wanted to do. Hewas resentful of Tom, however, and continuously referred to Tom’s success as “luck.”When I asked Tom whether he had ever countered Nat’s conclusion—pointing out thathe had worked very hard to achieve the success he had had—he indicated that he hadnot. When I asked why, he said that he did not communicate difficult situations verywell. When I asked him if he had any sense of why that was so, he talked about his par-ents’ unbending faith and their attitude that “everything will work out.” I asked him ifhe, too, believed that. He said, while he respected his parents’commitment to religion,he did not agree.

Tom was silent for a moment. He then looked up and said, “This is just like the diffi-culty I am having here at work, isn’t it?”

Analysis—The Defenseless Director

In this example, the executive’s pivotal insight regarding the reenactment of hisfamily of origin dynamics was possible only as a result of a convergence of multiplefactors: a new understanding of boundaries; clarification of organizational role expec-tations; illumination of unconscious group-as-a-whole demands; awareness of uncon-scious, embedded intergroup relations; the salient group memberships of the consul-tant; and the consultant’s use of self as tool.

The first step toward Tom’s full understanding of the forces impacting him wastaken when he began to examine the nature of boundaries. He engaged so readily notonly because it was a concept to which he could personally relate but also because of itsrelevance to his prescribed role in the organization—the agency’s primary client liai-son, bridging the gap between the creative team and the production team to present aseamless whole to the customer. He realized that successful performance had eludedhim because, although it required that he and his staff continuously cross departmental




boundaries, they could not do so because of the state of the other two departments.These units were embroiled in bitter disputes and finger-pointing and maintainedboundaries that were highly impermeable. He concurrently was able to see how andwhy the organization was reinforcing his inability to function well: By unconsciouslyendorsing the antagonistic pairing that existed between Tom and his colleague, atten-tion could be deflected from the departmental disputes, and departmental boundariescould remain intact. Furthermore, as long as the pairing continued, organizationalmembers could unconsciously share the fantasy that the ultimate resolution of Tomand his peer’s differences would miraculously create harmony and efficiency through-out. He came to understand that by allowing personal boundary intrusion, he had beenunconsciously colluding with the organization and that, paradoxically, the only waythat he could begin to successfully cross other boundaries was by strengthening hisown.

It was not until Tom became aware of why he was allowing the intrusion, however,that he was able to take definitive steps to reverse it. His understanding was fueled inthe subsequent session when the consultant followed her instincts to make her ownboundaries more permeable by openly responding to Tom’s questions. This created anenvironment of intimacy and trust in which it was safe to share personal information. Italso facilitated a positive transference to an authority figure whose life path made hervastly different from Tom’s father, his first authority figure, and whose gender madeher vastly different from Tom’s subsequent authority figures in the military and in thealmost exclusively male advertising firm. The explicit discussion about the consul-tant’s professional background and experiences provided the transition Tom needed toshare his own history—which inexorably led him to disclose, as much to himself as tothe consultant, the hurtful relationship with his brother. His understanding of its paral-lel in his work environment was instantaneous—a colleague who openly challengedTom’s trustworthiness and competence and attributed Tom’s success to “good looksand charm,” rather than to talent and hard work, and a senior manager old enough to beTom’s father who, although obviously fond and supportive of Tom, was decidedly con-flict averse and would not intervene into the difficulties between his two direct reports.Tom simultaneously became aware of the parental ideals and behaviors that he hadunconsciously internalized and now was prepared to reexamine them to determinewhich ones he wanted to maintain and which caused him to behave in unproductiveways. After this session, Tom was able to reject the unconscious role he had acceptedon behalf of the group and make conscious choices about his actions. He experimentedwith new behaviors that allowed him to more skillfully challenge his peers, confrontsubstandard performance with his direct reports, and develop his own vision and goalsfor his department.

Christine: The Avoidant Administrator

The administrative vice president of a major research institution avoids addressing a substance abuseproblem with an employee. By the conclusion of a meeting with her coach, she is prepared to handleit in a completely new way.




Christine had asked that we devote a major portion of our scheduled meeting to theemployee substance abuse issue that she needed to confront. She began by sharingwhat she had learned from her own human resources department: “The usual. Docu-ment, document, document.” That dissatisfied her because her goal was not to termi-nate her employee. I then told her the advice I had received from a trusted humanresources professional—to conduct a series of conversations, each becoming sequen-tially more confrontational about the issue, but with the intent of urging the employeeto address the problem and receive help. Christine liked that approach, and we deter-mined that it would be wise to seek the human resources department’s approval.

I suggested we role-play the first conversation—a gentle confrontation in whichChristine would tell her employee, “Rick,” that she was concerned with some behav-iors impacting performance and then invite discussion. Christine froze. I asked herwhy it was so difficult. She explained that she, on behalf of her family, recently hadconfronted her father with his alcohol problem. When I asked the outcome, sheexplained that it had turned out successfully—her father had sought help and hadstayed in recovery—but that the process had been excruciating for her: In addition tohaving to hurt her father, Christine’s mother (after urging Christine to take the appro-priate action) had accused her of being “too hard” on her father. The pain and guilt hadbeen overwhelming. I asked her what parallels existed in the work situation. She sawthem immediately—taking the full burden of responsibility, inflicting pain on some-one for whom she cared, being in a position in which she could be unsupported. I askedher if she could reframe what she was about to do—to look at it as an act of love thatwould have a happy ending like her father’s. She said she would try to remember that,and we began the role-play.

She immediately became very formal, dispassionately enumerating observationsshe had made about Rick’s performance. I asked her how she thought he would react tothat. She said that Rick would sit quietly and say nothing. We did what she described. Iasked Christine what she wanted to say next. Christine asked Rick for his reaction. Iasked Christine what Rick would say to that. Christine said he would probably remainquiet and simply say, “Okay.” We enacted that, and Christine became frustrated.“Christine, what do you really want to say?” I finally asked. “Don’t think about it, justsay it.” Christine, with great emotion, blurted out, “What I want to say is, Rick, you aremy friend and I care about you and I am really worried about you.” There was silence inthe room for a moment, and then I asked Christine why she thought she could not sayexactly that, in exactly that way, to Rick. “Because I’m his supervisor!” she quicklyreplied. “What makes you think that being his supervisor precludes your demonstrat-ing how much you care about him?” That remark seemed to stun Christine for amoment and then her expression changed. “Do you really think that’s all right?” “I’mconvinced of it,” I replied. In the final version of the role-play, Christine was fluid andcaring. We agreed that she would hold the meeting with Rick that week.

Analysis—The Avoidant Administrator

In this example, the profound inner change in the executive was the outcome of aseries of compelling insights that conjoined with the strength of the alliance with the




consultant. The insights centered on embedded power and authority dynamics, uncon-scious role enactment on behalf of a regressed work group, and the triggering offamily-of-origin defense mechanisms; the alliance was forged through the power ofthe consultant’s salient group memberships and the willingness of the consultant toengage transferential and countertransferential material.

In previous sessions, Christine had discovered how the formal structure in her orga-nization, with power and authority residing with predominantly male, doctoral-levelscientists and researchers, had both formulated the prevailing ideology of the organi-zation—rationality, linearity, and dispassionate inquiry—and had relegated all othergroups, including hers, to lesser status. She had become aware of how this reinforcedher self-imposed obligation to support and protect her boss, the president of the organi-zation, at all costs. It manifested not only in her obedient completion of numerous spe-cial presidential assignments (despite the formidable responsibilities of her formallydefined role) but also in her resigned acceptance of others’ perception of her as the“hatchet woman.” She had seen how these actions had catapulted her into her role asthe president’s unofficial (and therefore unauthorized) confidante and advisor, therebyplacing her in an exceedingly precarious position with the rest of the organization,arousing fear among staff, jealousy among peers, and distrust among professionalstaff—further reinforcing the negative projections. She also, gradually and somewhatreluctantly, had become conscious of subtle ways in which the president, althoughvociferous about his desire to reinforce the coaching process, was undermining herefforts to change so that he could continue to project his disowned shadow ontoanother.

Christine was ready to understand the ways in which she was unconsciously collab-orating with the forces around her to keep her imprisoned in her self-defeating pat-terns. It came as a result of two factors. First, although Christine had been forthrightfrom the very first meeting about her father’s alcoholism and the manner in which itwas affecting her ability to confront the substance abuse issue at work, it was not untilshe participated in the role play that she understood the full extent to which her currentsituation resembled the familial one that had been so painful to her. She was able to seehow she unconsciously, and at her own expense, had continued to use the tactics thatshe had learned as a child caught up in the dynamic of her father’s alcoholism—enabling, caregiving, denial, and the facade of normalcy. Second, because of thestrength of the relationship with the consultant, Christine was able to experienceunconditional love and acceptance from an authority figure in the workplace. This wasa first for her. The fact that the authority figure was female, moreover, encouraged herto challenge, at the deepest of levels, the male-based standards of management behav-ior and career success that she had encountered in all of her previous professionalexperiences. A seismic shift occurred in Christine’s psyche. She was finally able toreplace, and thereby internalize, an archetypal “good mother” for those other mothers,both biological and professional, who had consistently disappointed her in the past.She was additionally ready to alter a persona, constructed to adapt to numerousanimus-driven work environments, that no longer represented the self she wasdiscovering. The work that Christine and the consultant were doing was, in fact, a par-allel process to the work that was to be done with her direct report. Christine experi-




enced firsthand the effects of working with compassion. She also became conscious ofthe forces, both internal and external, that had conspired to prevent her from being whoshe truly wanted to be. As a direct result, she was prepared to experiment with newbehavior, equipped to recognize and more productively counter the resisting forces,and able to integrate and manifest desirable behavior from that point on.

Joe: The Perplexed President

The president of a large nonprofit organization is bewildered by the continuous disputes between theexecutive vice president and the latter’s subordinate, the director of operations. During a meetingwith his executive coach, the president discovers his role in perpetuating the problem.

I entered Joe’s office for our scheduled meeting. As I sat down, he did not greet mein his customary cordial manner. Instead, he said, “I have something to discuss beforewe begin. Alan has given Edward his yearly performance review, and Edward has chal-lenged it. As Alan’s boss, I must meet with both of them. I had a meeting scheduled todiscuss it. I asked Edward to make it earlier, and he said you wanted it scheduled forthat day. Now I think you’re going too far. Why should a psychologist be involved inmatters relating to performance appraisal discussions?” Joe had become increasinglyangry as he spoke. I responded by telling Joe that I had agreed to work with Edward tohelp him prepare for the meeting that was already scheduled. Subsequently, Edwardhad informed me that Joe had requested that the meeting be moved up but, on learningthat a preparatory meeting with me was arranged, Joe had said to leave it as it was. Ithen said, “There are two things I would like to add. The first is that although I amapplying organizational psychology in this setting, I believe the reason I do it well isbecause I am an experienced executive who has been intimately acquainted with theperformance appraisal process—and, if I remember correctly, it was my experience asa manager that made you comfortable in hiring me.” Joe nodded. “The second is that Ithink it is imperative that you ask Edward to come into the room so that the three of uscan discuss this and sort it out.” Joe agreed and asked his secretary to call Edward.When she reported that Edward was in a meeting that would conclude in 15 minutes,Joe asked her to tell him to join us then. As soon as she closed the door again, Joerelaxed in his chair and said, “I guess I’m just really nervous about this meeting. It isnot something that I like to do.” When I asked him if he had any idea why, he thoughtfor a moment and said, “The only time I ever saw my father cry was when I was a youngboy. He and my mother had had an argument. They never argued again.” He paused andthen continued, “Maybe that’s the reason that my marriage ended after so many years. Iguess there were just too many hurts that remained unresolved.” After another pause,he quietly added, “Too bad,” and sat silently for a few moments.

Edward rushed into the room, breathless and with a calculator in his hand. “I wasn’tsure what you needed, so I brought this—just in case.” Joe explained that there seemedto be some miscommunication that needed to be clarified. He asked Edward to repeatthe story. His report was identical to what I had described. Joe looked at me and said,“It is exactly what you said. I guess I didn’t hear it very well for some reason.” Edwardthen asked for 5 minutes to brief Joe on the meeting that had just taken place; he did soand left. We both thanked him.




Joe and I spent the remainder of the session talking about what had just happened. Iexplained the concept of triangulation (Smith, 1989) to him and how that applied tothis situation and others I had witnessed in which he took part. We discussed whatcould have happened had I not suggested that we all be in the room—the lack of trustand animosity that could have developed between Edward and me, between Joe andEdward if this caused him to question Edward, or between Joe and me if it caused himto question me. We applied it to other instances, including the manner in whichEdward had, just moments ago, excluded Alan. Joe agreed that he needed to becomeaware of creating or being ensnared in destructive triangles, and we concluded thesession.

Analysis—The Perplexed President

In this case, a “here and now” intervention (Alderfer & Lodahl, 1971) opened thedoor to the executive’s self-awareness. Its effectiveness, however, was a consequenceof much more than excellent timing; rather, it emanated from the confluence of a num-ber of factors: recognition of characteristic interactional patterns, identification ofrepeated defense mechanisms, acknowledgment of the saliency of group member-ships, understanding of parallel processes, and the consultant’s use of self as tool,including interpretation of archetypal symbols and awareness of messages from herown unconscious.

When Joe greeted the consultant for his coaching session, it was in a manner quiteuntypical of their past interactions. In all previous instances, he had been courteousand polite, never showing any sign of anger or irritation (although reports of both hadfigured prominently in interviews with Joe’s staff). In addition, a frequent pattern hademerged in their discussions. Whenever the consultant introduced a difficult subjectidentified in the feedback—such as the high percentage of retired military officers insenior management (including Joe) and what seemed to be a concomitant absence ofwomen in professional positions, the ways in which he was reportedlymicromanaging, and thereby disempowering his staff, or the possibility that he wasunknowingly contributing to the numerous interpersonal conflicts among staff—hehad patiently listened, rationalized, and dismissed the matter.

There had been a single exception: Joe had been willing to acknowledge that therewas little, if any, positive reinforcement for people in his organization. After some urg-ing by the consultant, he had agreed to initiate a recognition plan for staff. It had been,to Joe’s surprise, extremely valuable. In an attempt to express his gratitude, he hadgiven the consultant a small gift—a Jiminy Cricket puppet. “You are my conscience,”he had told her. She, however, had remembered that Jiminy Cricket was more thanPinocchio’s superego; he had helped the puppet become a real human being.

That was the first thought that arose from the consultant’s unconscious when Joebegan the meeting. Rather than being offended or intimidated, therefore, the consul-tant was relieved—Joe, for the first time, was expressing negative emotion in her pres-ence. The meaning of this was augmented by the fact that the anger centered on theconsultant’s right to cross a task boundary that Joe had implicitly deemed inappropri-ate for her. The consultant saw this as a direct parallel to the manner in which he had




maintained the impermeability of his psychological boundaries. She chose to chal-lenge him.

When she did so, something crucial shifted in Joe. It began with the saliency of theconsultant’s group memberships. Now, rather than being a woman entering a bastionof male power and authority or a psychologist relegated to focus attention on the “soft”issues, what became most prominent was that the consultant was a former businessexecutive. This gave her the right, in Joe’s mind, to involve herself in expanded areas.This, in turn, became the outward manifestation of a far more important inward shift:Joe was finally giving the consultant permission to cross the psychological boundarythat he had been protecting since the beginning of their work together. He was nowwilling to look at himself in a much deeper way, and he disclosed the distressful experi-ence that led to his inability to skillfully confront difficult situations. The alliance thatwas forged in that moment facilitated his ability to courageously reexamine his recentbehavior, to acknowledge how his attempt to engage the consultant in triangulationwas representative of an ongoing interpersonal pattern, and to admit to the highlydestructive organizational consequences of his actions. It was at this point that Joebecame ready to embrace the process of change.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

As the preceding cases illustrate, executive coaching must be viewed as a processthat focuses on more than the individual and more than what is conscious. It regards theorganization and its components as active participants rather than as contextual back-drop and therefore treats every individual intervention as a simultaneous organiza-tional intervention. It explores every observable action for underlying meaning andthus examines behavior in light of a multitude of forces—not only intrapsychic andorganizational but also interpersonal, group, and intergroup—and maintains that thoseforces have unconscious elements that are at least as powerful as those that are con-scious, if not more powerful. It affirms that the consultant, on entering the organiza-tion, is subject to the same forces and therefore insists that the consultant engage inself-reflection and self-scrutiny to use himself/herself as a finely calibrated instrumentwith which to formulate and test hypotheses, to select and implement appropriateinterventions, and to monitor individual and organizational change.

There, of course, are significant implications to working in this way. One of themost obvious is an issue that has recently become pervasive in the field—the educationand training of competent executive coaches (Kilburg, 1996, 2000). The methodologydescribed in this article clearly cannot be used by those unfamiliar with a broad rangeof psychological concepts and technologies—clinical and organizational, individualand group. It necessitates training that emphasizes self-awareness and self-reflection.It compels an understanding of management concepts and techniques. And it requiresan ability to maneuver through the peculiar labyrinths of diverse organizations—corporate, nonprofit, government, and educational. Learning to do the work in thisway does not happen quickly, and it is not an immediately transferable skill from otherspecialties.




Closely related is the gray area that exists between therapy and coaching. Althoughthe differences between coaching and therapy must be clearly delineated, the use oftransference and countertransference, the exploration of family-of-origin dynamics,and the development of the working alliance have the potential to obfuscate the bound-aries. Thus, the consultant must remain ever vigilant to maintaining the appropriaterole while still having the ability to employ creative interventions. Having specific cri-teria with which to judge when the line between therapy and coaching is becomingconfused as well as when a referral to a qualified therapist is appropriate is thereforecritical.

Finally, it is impossible to work in this way without intense personal investment.Those who would prefer not to involve themselves in the murky areas of the uncon-scious, of painful emotion, and of relentless self-scrutiny are best advised to seek outother venues. For those prepared and willing to fully engage, the psychic rewards arelimitless.

REFERENCES

Alderfer, C. P. (1980). Consulting to underbounded systems. In C. P. Alderfer & C. L. Cooper (Eds.),Advances in experiential social processes (Vol. 2, pp. 267-295). New York: John Wiley.

Alderfer, C. P. (1986). An intergroup perspective on group dynamics. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of orga-nizational behavior (pp. 190-222). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Alderfer, C. P., & Brown, L. D. (1975). Learning from changing: Organizational diagnosis and develop-ment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Alderfer, C. P., & Lodahl, T. M. (1971). A quasi experiment on the use of experiential methods in the class-room. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 7(1), 43-70.

Berg, D. N., & Smith, K. K. (1985). The clinical demands of research methods. In D. Berg & K. Smith(Eds.), Exploring clinical methods for social research (pp. 21-34). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Bion, W. R. (1961). Experiences in groups. New York: Basic Books.Brotman, L. E., & Liberi, W. P. (1998). Executive coaching: The need for standards of competence. Con-

sulting Psychology Journal, 50(1), 40-46.Cammann, C. (1985). Action usable knowledge. In D. Berg & K. Smith (Eds.), Exploring clinical methods

for social research (pp. 109-122). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Diedrich, R. C. (1996). An iterative approach to executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal, 48(2),

61-66.Fairbairn, W.R.D. (1952). Psychoanalytic studies of the personality. London: Routledge Kegan Paul.Ghent, E. (1989). Credo: The dialectics of one-person and two-person psychologies. Contemporary Psy-

choanalysis, 25(2), 169-211.Judge, W. Q., & Cowell, J. (1997, July-August). The brave new world of executive coaching. Business Hori-

zons, pp. 71-77.Jung, C. G. (1971). The collected works of C. G. Jung: Vol. 6. Psychological types (R.F.C. Hull, Trans.).

Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1921)Kaplan, R. E. (with Drath, W. H., & Kofodimos, J. R.). (1991). Beyond ambition: How driven managers can

lead better and live better. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Kiel, F., Rimmer, E., Williams, K., & Doyle, M. (1996). Coaching at the top. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2),

67-77.Kilburg, R. R. (1996). Toward a conceptual understanding and definition of executive coaching. Consulting

Psychology Journal, 48(2), 134-144.Kilburg, R. R. (1997). Coaching and executive character: Core problems and basic approaches. Consulting

Psychology Journal, 49(4), 281-299.




Kilburg, R. R. (2000). Executive coaching: Developing managerial wisdom in a world of chaos. Washing-ton, DC: American Psychological Association.

Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of self: A systematic psychoanalytic approach to the treatment of narcissisticpersonality disorders. New York: International Universities Press.

Levinson, D. J. (1959). Role, personality, and social structure in the organizational setting. Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 170-180.

Levinson, D. J. (1978). The seasons of a man’s life. New York: Knopf.Levinson, H. (1996). Executive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal, 48(2), 115-123.Levinson, H., Molinari, J., & Spohn, A. G. (1972). Organizational diagnosis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.McWilliams, N. (1994). Psychoanalytic diagnosis. New York: Guilford.Mitchell, S. A., & Black, M. J. (1995). Freud and beyond. New York: Basic Books.Saporito, T. J. (1996). Business-linked executive development: Coaching senior executives. Consulting

Psychology Journal, 48(2), 96-103.Singer, J. (1994). Boundaries of the soul: The practice of Jung’s psychology. New York: Doubleday.Smith, K. K. (1989). The movement of conflict in organizations: The joint dynamics of splitting and triangu-

lation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, 1-20.Smith, K. K. (1995). On using the self as instrument: Lessons from a facilitator’s experience. In J. Gillette &

M. McCollom (Eds.), Groups in context (pp. 49-85). Lanham, MD: University Press.Sperry, L. (1993). Working with executives: Consulting, counseling, and coaching. Individual Psychology,

49(2), 257-266.Sullivan, H. S. (1970). The psychiatric interview. New York: Norton.Tobias, L. L. (1996). Coaching executives. Consulting Psychology Journal, 48(2), 87-95.Westen, D. (1990). Psychoanalytic approaches to personality. In L. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality

theory and research (pp. 21-63). New York: Guilford.Whitmont, E. (1964). Group therapy and analytical psychology. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 9(1), 1-

22.Whyte, W. F., & Hamilton, E. L. (with Wiley, M. C.). (1964). Action research for management: A case report

on research and action in industry. Homewood, IL: Irwin.Winnicott, D. W. (1965). The maturational process and the facilitating environment. New York: Interna-

tional Universities Press.Witherspoon, R., & White, R. P. (1996). Executive coaching: A continuum of roles. Consulting Psychology

Journal, 48(2), 124-133.




Executive+Coaching+It_s+Not+Just+About+the+Executive

Documents

Transcript of Executive+Coaching+It_s+Not+Just+About+the+Executive