Chapter 1
Setting the scene for an integrative relational approach to coaching in challenging times
Uncertainty, paradox and complexity
We live in complex times. The technological advances of the internet have resulted in unprecedented levels of human connection across time and distance. At the same time, technology, with its corresponding speed and volume of data traffic, is also giving rise to human disconnection. It can become a substitute for more direct human contact and the more subtle qualities of human relating, where, instead of talking and thinking together, colleagues sitting opposite one another resort to transacting primarily via email.
For some time seismic shifts have been occurring in global institutions and belief systems. Whatever different individuals may feel and think to this day, the last 150 years have seen a series of significant developments in relation to the social construction of ethnicity, power, sex and sexuality. It is only a hundred years ago that women did not have equal voting rights to men in the United Kingdom. It is relatively recently that apartheid has given way to the beginnings of a more inclusive democracy in South Africa, and more recently still that America saw its first black president in Barack Obama. While questions have been asked in some quarters for some time about the often idealistic, reductionist and taken for granted assumptions underpinning capitalism as an ideology (Eisenstein, 2011), the global financial crisis of recent years has resulted in dialogue about both the benefits and shadows of market forces to be aired on an unprecedented scale in the global arena. This dialogue continues at the time of writing this book (Heffernan, 2014; Picketty, 2014). There is not the scope here to discuss the many potential ramifications of these shifts for our species and planet. We believe these will be revealed and worked out over time, and are an inevitable part of the evolution of human thought and the emerging meanings, priorities and behaviours this gives rise to. We want, however, to point to the ways in which constructs and meanings, which may have hitherto provided a sense (albeit illusory) of security and predictability, also inevitably undergo re-working in light of new experiences, perspectives and discourse. This is also true of coaching itself as a profession and practice.
As the world reveals itself to be characterised by ever increasing uncertainty, individuals and groups are drawing on the vast potential for humans, as fundamentally social beings, to make meaning together and strategise for collective survival and well-being, as in the case of the sustainability movement. For some, uncertainty provides freedom from the constraining elements of past beliefs and constructs that are revealing themselves to be, at best, unreliable in conferring predictability and stability, and at worst, overly limiting or even harmful. Uncertainty, and the disequilibrium this gives rise to, can support a re-evaluation of working assumptions, an antidote to short termism (Nowotny, 2016) and the creation of new meanings and practices that might lean more towards community, inclusion and the exploration of differences in service of understanding, co-operation and the generation of new knowledge. For others, uncertainty gives rise to deep anxieties in the face of the questioning of sincere and long held beliefs. This can result in a rigidifying of existing positions and a retreat into individual isolation, or tightly policed homogenised groups, where membership is predicated on unquestioning compliance with group think, community and organisational norms.
A little closer to the context of coaching, organisation theory has evolved from the mechanistic assumptions of the early 1900s (Gilbreth, 1911; Taylor, 1911). Here organisations were conceptualised as machines and human capital as units to be manipulated in the service of organisational goals. For many years these models persisted and appeared fit for purpose due to the influence of, and compliance with, socially constructed and enforced assumptions about productivity, power and hierarchy. While these assumptions are still very influential, since the turn of the last century, organisations have also begun to be seen as complex fields of human interaction and social processes (Eoyang, 2013; Oshry, 2007; Shaw, 2002; Stacey, 2001). From this perspective, meaning and resulting behaviour is being constantly constructed through the participation and conversations of organisation members. It is in these conversations also that different meanings about the purpose and nature of work are emerging. Younger generations of employees hold different assumptions about the place of work in their lives and the psychological contract they look for with their employers (Hobart and Sendek, 2014). A number of organisations are also asking questions about the nature of the bottom line and how to measure an organisationâs value not simply in terms of profit and shareholder dividends. For some, contribution to the wider societies in which they operate, the well-being of employees and environmental sustainability are increasingly coming to be seen as values based currency (Willard, 2012; Laszlo and Zhexembayeva, 2011). These latter concerns are also consistent with the emergence of a more complex and inclusive consciousness as has been described by researchers of adult development such as Wilber (2000), Torbert (2004), Graves (2005) and Cook-Greuter (2004). Laloux (2014) has examined the ways in which this emerging consciousness, characterised by lifelong learning, less individual ego motivated behaviour, greater appreciation of complexity and interconnectedness, is manifesting in individuals and the organisations they create. He points to the ways in which these characteristics are vital in being able to respond creatively to more complex problems that cannot be resolved, as Einstein is purported to have stated, at the same level of consciousness that created them.
The VUCA world
In the 1990s the acronym VUCA began to appear first in military and later organisational writing to describe environments where leaders and those who participate in organisational life are facing unprecedented volatility, uncertainty, complexity and ambiguity (Stiehm and Townsend, 2002). Past models and processes are no longer adequate to contain and navigate these challenges, and leaders are often faced with the dilemma of not knowing how best to proceed, having only ever partial information, but needing, nonetheless, to act. Adjusting to and navigating these challenges calls on individuals to know themselves better, manage their own feelings of anxiety, bear uncertainty, take up fluid roles, experience shifts in personal identity, and continue to be able to think, reflect, make sense and act under pressure (Hirschhorn, 1998; Kegan, 1994). Reliance on rigid processes, protocols and control mechanisms is no longer sufficient in many organisational contexts given the challenges they face, and in some, these mechanisms actually cause and perpetuate structural difficulties and less than productive behaviours (Laloux, 2014; Schwartz, 1990).
There is now a greater need for individuals to come together, relate differently and effectively in order to create new ways of thinking, being, working and organising. This requires the harnessing of difference, fostering greater aware ness of, and critical reflection on, the assumptions that underpin current thinking and action. It calls for paying close attention to the quality of connection and conversation between individuals, groups and entire organisations in order to develop the effectiveness, agility and responsiveness todayâs business, societal and global challenges call for (Lines and Scholes-Rhodes, 2013).
The unfolding of coaching â Identity crisis or integrative opportunity?
Coaching too is undergoing rapid theoretical expansion which is inevitably informing how coaching is embodied and delivered by practitioners. From the GROW model of the early 1990s and similar protocol and technique based approaches, the field of coaching now includes, among many perspectives, increased openness to psychological understanding (Palmer and Whybrow, 2011), systems thinking (OâNeill, 2007; Whittington, 2012), complexity perspectives (Cavanagh, 2006), somatic (Strozzi-Heckler, 2014), ontological (Olalla, 2010; Sieler, 2010), constructivist-developmental (Bachkirova, 2010) and transpersonal perspectives (Rowan, 2010). The focus for many years on hard individual behavioural goals is being deconstructed and revealing itself to be more subtle, complex and both potentially useful in bringing focus, while also problematic in narrowing perspectives on a complex set of presenting issues and contexts (Boyatzis and Howard, 2013; Cavanagh, 2013; De Haan, 2014; Grant, 2013).
In the time we have been working as coaches there have been a number of shifts in the construction and conceptualisation of the profession. From early attempts to define coaching as very distinct and different from other talking developmental relationships, and a suspicion of anything psychological, to an appreciation and increased acknowledgement of the debt early coaching approaches owe not just to adult learning theory and pragmatism (Cox, 2013), but also the science and art of psychology, counselling and psychotherapy (Cox, Bachkirova and Clutterbuck, 2011; Palmer and Whybrow, 2007). Increasingly clients and sponsors are being exposed to the potential benefits of psychological mindedness in the context of coaching, and some accrediting bodies such as the Association of Professional Executive Coaching and Supervision (APECS) in the United Kingdom consider a degree of psychological understanding to be a necessary component in executive coaching. Popovic and Jinks (2013) have coined the expression âpersonal consultancyâ and set out the beginnings of a model which attempts to consciously integrate the coaching and counselling paradigms and professions. While many of the challenges and paradoxes inherent in an integrative project of this kind are still to be worked out, and may never be fully resolved, it is encouraging to us that so many new possibilities, challenges and questions are being asked.
Current and existing definitions of coaching tend to be very general and high level. Within them there is a vast range of freedom and scope for coaches âin practiceâ to develop a unique approach to coaching based on their own personalities, training, histories and life experience, all interacting with these corresponding aspects and unique requirements in their different clients and their contexts.
An integrative-relational orientation is one particular perspective which we believe has much to offer and is in keeping with post modernity, the challenges of our times and the VUCA world. We certainly do not wish to suggest that this is the only way, nor do we believe to have resolved all of the tensions and challenges inherent in an approach of this kind. Yet we do believe in the potential of integration and a relational turn for bringing much to coaching and the world of human development through the medium of human interaction.
As coaching as a profession matures, and the focus moves from defining to refining, there seems to be a movement towards locating coaching in a wider body of theory, research and systems of thought than were first acknowledged as influential (Western, 2017, 2012). Professionalism can no longer be assumed simply on the basis of the acquisition and practicing of skills, which has been the primary vehicle for coach training, development and accreditation in some quarters. Instead it needs also to be predicated on broader experience, self-awareness and the personal maturity and reflexivity required to navigate the complexities of client issues and their contexts. Skills and techniques are important, but if we limit the notion of professionalism primarily to the demonstrable acquisition of skills, rigid adherence to the preferred protocols of specific accrediting bodies, and hours clocked up in the driving seat, we risk missing the subtlety, nuances and creativity that can be made use of when we consciously acknowledge and widen the theoretical and practice foundation upon which professionalism in action is based.
The construction of coaching, coach and coachee
The early differentiation between coaching and psychological therapies is understandable in terms of coaching and coach training being oriented towards working with clients seeking to develop personally and professionally, but where there are no apparent symptoms of mental illness. This demarcation also supported the establishment of coaching as a distinct profession with the attendant risk that vested interests, commercial opportunities, schoolism, professionalism and professionalisation become ends in themselves, codifying, rigidifying and ultimately losing the vibrancy and transformative potential of ongoing theoretical and practice evolution.
The emergence of coaching early on in the context of sport and organisational life has meant that it implicitly comes to reflect many of the central concerns of these fields of endeavour such as winning, being the best, translating coaching practices into quick results, clear and value-adding material terms. While these objectives undoubtedly have their place, and can be suited to certain types of coaching such as skills acquisition, performance or development, over-privileging these linear and deterministic biases can lead to a narrowing of what can be considered appropriate or workable in a coaching conversation. The metaphor of the individual leader as a corporate athlete may have much to offer in terms of developing resilience, focus, drive and commitment. However, it can also discount the need for leaders to be orienting to the wider complex social processes, psychological and systemic factors that have a direct bearing on individual and collective capacity, organisational functioning and success. Coaches and coachees, under great social and cultural pressure to be able to instantly apply learning and demonstrate their respective worth, can find it difficult to allow the time and space necessary for new meanings and strategies to emerge in complex environments.
Fortunately coaching boundaries are expanding to include greater appreciation of the need for meaning making, well-being, complexity and systemic perspectives. These are particularly suited to executive coaching where coachees are often faced with existential questions, the need for transformational learning and systems understanding if they are to be successful (Hawkins and Smith, 2010). While a relational orientation to coaching can inform all approaches to coaching, it is here that we believe it has a particular contribution to make.
A consequence of earlier constructions of coaching is also the way in which coachees have been constructed. In some texts, the âidealâ client is seen to be highly motivated to learn, uncomplicatedly aligned with corporate agendas, values and culture, driven to achieve and succeed in particular ways defined by dominant corporate and societal ideologies of the time and place. It is often assumed that he has little or no underlying anxieties or vulnerabilities and can quickly make use of âestablishedâ coaching methods to achieve desired and âextraordinaryâ results, thereby fulfilling a contemporary ideal of success, while also reinforcing images of coach competence and the potency of the approach.
Over the years, these constructs have begun to reveal themselves in practice to be less clear (Spinelli, 2008). Western (2017, 2012) describes how psychotherapy has often been associated with a âwounded selfâ and working to heal from the past, while coaching has been more concerned with the âcelebrated selfâ and working to develop human potential in individuals with little or no underlying causes of distress or vulnerability. These aspects of human experience have often been polarised in coaching discourse. In some respects this distinction has had its uses such as making for apparently simple discrimination between professions and ensuring that those lacking the training to work at psychological depth are not working beyond the limits of their capability.
Once we shift our viewing angle from abstract theoretical discussion to looking closely at what happens in the moment by moment relational interactions of coach and coachee, many of the distinctions which might appear to hold at the level of theory, professional orthodoxies and schoolism, reveal themselves to be problematic in practice situations. Complexity and human subjectivity mean that clients do encounter uncertainty and vulnerability in the face of complex challenges. These in turn can evoke resistance and patterns of reactivity rooted in early developmental experiences and upbringing. Over-privileging the celebrated self can result in coaches missing opportunities to work with this dimension and can also lead to coaching being used as a sophisticated form of narcissitic supply, shoring up grandiose self images as a defence against vulnerability. Similarly, over-privileging the wounded self, as can be the case in psychotherapy, risks keeping clients focused on deficit and not on their potential. In practice what is often revealed is th...
