Coaching Psychologist Article

7/28/2019 Coaching Psychologist Article

1/88

Volume 7, No. 1, June 2011

The CoachingPsychologist

Special Group in Coaching Psychology

ISSN: 1748-1104


2/88

The Coaching Psychologist

Editor: Siobhain ORiordan Coaching Psychology Unit, City University, andCentre for Coaching, UK.

Consulting Editors: Anthony Grant Coaching Psychology Unit, University of Sydney, Australia.Kristina Gyllensten Coaching Psychology Unit, City University, UK.

Ho Law Empsy Ltd and University of East London, UK.Alanna OBroin Coaching Psychology Unit, City University, UK.Stephen Palmer Centre for Coaching and Coaching Psychology Unit,

City University, UK.Manfusa Shams IB, Geneva.Kasia Szymanska Centre for Coaching, and Flower Associates, UK.Alison Whybrow The Vedere Partnership and Manchester University, UK.

European Editorial: Mark Borg Malta Union of Professional Psychologists.Advisory Board Angela Clow University of Westminster, UK.

Leena Matikka Finnish Psychological Association.Runne Rnning Norwegian Psychological Association.Joan Tiernan Coaching Psychology Group (CPG), Division of Work and

Organisational Psychology (DWOP), Ireland.SubscriptionsThe Coaching Psychologistis distributed free of charge to members. It is available to non-members for5 per issue from the British Psychological Society, St Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester LE1 7DR.Non-members can also purchase a PDF version ofThe Coaching Psychologistvia the British PsychologicalSocietys shop: www.bpsshop/org.uk/

Abstracting and IndexingThe Coaching Psychologistis abstracted in psycINFO, Journal Seek, and ASSIA: Applied Social Sciences Index andAbstracts. The Coaching Psychologistis included in the ninth edition ofCabells Directory of PublishingOpportunities in Educational Psychology and Administration and Cabells Directory of Publishing Opportunitiesin Educational Curriculum and Methods.

AdvertisingAdvertising space is subject to availability and restricted to chartered full members only, subject to the discretionof the Editor.The cost is: Special Group members OthersFull page 50 100Half Page 30 60

High quality camera-ready artwork and remittance must be sent together to the Editor,[email protected].

Cheques should be made payable to: The British Psychological Society.

DisclaimerViews expressed in The Coaching Psychologistare those of individual contributors and not necessarily of theSpecial Group in Coaching Psychology or the British Psychological Society. Publication of conferences, events,courses, organisations and advertisements does not necessarily imply approval or endorsement by the SpecialGroup in Coaching Psychology. Any subsequent promotional piece or advertisement must not indicate that anadvertisement has previously appeared in The Coaching Psychologist.Situations vacant cannot be accepted. It is the Societys policy that job vacancies are published in the SocietysPsychologist Appointmentssection in The Psychologist. For details, contact the Societys Leicester office.

CopyrightCopyright for published material rests with the Special Group in Coaching Psychology and the British Psychological

Society unless otherwise stated. With agreement, an author will be allowed to republish an article elsewhere as longas a note is included stating: first published in The Coaching Psychologist, issue no. and date. Coachingpsychologists and teachers of psychology may use material contained in this publication in any way that may helptheir teaching of coaching psychology. Permission should be obtained from the Society for any other use.

www.sgcp.org.uk/


3/88

AM VERY PLEASED to have been electedas Chair of the SGCP for 2011. In takingup the role, I am conscious of the work

and effort that has been invested in theSGCP since it was originally founded by Prof.Stephen Palmer and the team. Stephenattended the 2011 strategic annual meetingof the SGCP to provide a brief history of theroots and development of the Group. This

was supported by contributions from theBritish Psychological Society congress, eventsand policy teams who presented to thecommittee on the services available to themthrough the Society. The SGCP has played akey role in the Society over the year ininforming and influencing policy andpractice in psychology, and does thisthrough the Professional Practice Board andthe Representative Council.

In the short period since its foundation,the SGCP has grown to in excess of 2270members. In December 2010, the SGCPsuccessfully hosted the 1st InternationalCongress of Coaching Psychology, held atCity University, London. The SGCP waspleased through this to continue to workcollaboratively with the Australian Psycho-logical Society Interest Group in CoachingPsychology (IGCP) as a key strategic partner.The congress was well received and attractednearly 300 delegates from around the world.It will continue on an international basis in2011 and 2012. The Congresss success in theUK was achieved through the efforts of theCongress Chair, Vicky Ellam-Dyson and theCongress Committee and was developed as aconsequence of collaborations betweenglobal coaching psychology bodies in theUK, Australia, Denmark, Ireland, Israel,New Zealand, South Africa, Spain, Swedenand Switzerland.

The Congress included a broad range ofsubjects in coaching psychology, including

working with complexity and change;wisdom; adult development; leadership;health, well-being, happiness and motiva-tion; diversity and sustainability; coachingpsychology models and psychometrics;supervision and corporate case studies.Keynote speakers included: Julie Allan, Prof.Michael Cavanagh, Dr David Drake, Prof.David Lane, Dr Ho Law, Prof. Alex Linley,

Dr Siobhain ORiordan, Prof. StephenPalmer, Dr Jonathan Passmore, Dr AlisonWhybrow and Peter Zarris.

An award for Distinguished Contributionto Coaching Psychology was presented toDr Siobhain ORiordan, with specialcommendations to Dr Tatiana Bachkirovaand Dr Jonathan Passmore.

Further planned events are: 2011: SouthAfrica/Southern Hemisphere event May;

Ireland June; Sweden September; Spain October; 2012 Netherlands January 2012;Australia & New Zealand February 2012;Italy May 2012. Israel, Switzerland and alsothe Nordic countries are planning events

with dates to be confirmed.Prof. Stephen Palmer and Prof. Michael

Cavanagh, the UK and Australian Co-ordi-nating Editors of the International CoachingPsychology Review (ICPR), highlighted theneed for more research and case studies inthe field to be submitted to the ICPRwhichis published by the Society with an Interna-tional Editorial Advisory Board.

The SGCPs two peer-reviewed publica-tions, ICPR and The Coaching Psychologistcontinue to grow both in terms of contribu-tions and readership. Both are abstracted inleading databases and remain the main sitesfor publishing coaching psychology papers.Together with the editorial teams, this islargely due to the efforts and expertise ofProf. Stephen Palmer, Dr SiobhainORiordan and the SGCP Publications and

The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 7, No. 1, June 2011 1 The British Psychological Society ISSN: 17481104

Letter from the ChairAngela Hetherington

I


4/88

2 The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 7, No. 1, June 2011

Communications team led by JenniferListon-Smith and Bryan McCrae.

The committee has been active inlaunching the new SGCP newsletter, incor-porating advertisements and regular news

items, together with a new revised intranetwhich offers an informative communicationmedium, supported by Facebook, Linkedinand Twitter. It serves to market the SGCPthrough a range of core activities including: An online list of SGCP members of

Chartered Psychologist status, linked tothe Directory of Chartered Psychologists.

Access to CPD, training courses andconferences.

Workshop webinars. A Coaching Psychology Forum. A network of regional peer practice

groups.The SGCP continues to provide ContinuingProfessional Development (CPD) for itsmembers and was pleased to begin 2011 withthe first SGCP event: Developing coachingskills for international business, arranged bySusan Watsham and the Events Committee.

It comprised a two-hour webinar on8 March.The Peer Practice Groups are an addi-

tional and valuable means of CPD offered bythe SGCP. They continue to be popularamongst members, facilitating networkingand professional development. Derek Rosshas plans to continue to develop thesenationally into 2011 and remains a first pointof contact.

The SGCP is maintaining its negotiationswith the Society and the Health ProfessionsCouncil to gain accreditation for coachingpsychologists. It is in the process of formu-lating a Register for Coaching Psychologists

with the Society. This was originally initiatedby Dr Alison Whybrow whilst Chair of theSGCP and continues through the efforts ofthe Accreditation Working Party. Accredita-tion will continue to be a core objective of2011.

Dr Ho Law, as part of the executive team,has worked with the SGCP committee todevelop a comprehensive business strategy

which reflects the broader goals of theSociety and the current economic and polit-ical climate. In particular, this year continuesto see increased emphasis placed on themarket for coaching. Lorna Holness

presented to the first meeting of the SGCP in2011 on the subject of marketing andbranding the SGCP. This will be a key themecontinuing over the year, with increasedactivity aimed at engaging the consumer andcreating a more commercially sensitiveorientation within the SGCP.

I am conscious, as I write, of the SocietysMember Networks who have experienceddifficulties in recruiting executive

committee members. This is perhaps to beexpected in the present economic climate.I am also aware of the time and effortinvested in the SGCP by the founders of theGroup and those who have followed in theirlike. The SGCP has been successful insustaining commitment and performancethrough the past years and achievingsubstantial gains. In part this may be due tothe nature of the profession and the ability

of the committees to model the coachingskills they promote. A key goal of the SGCPExecutive team is to continue to poolexpertise, manage change and toleratedifference in the pursuit of shared goals.Ultimately, the success of the SGCP remainsdependent on the efforts, performance andproductivity of the executive committee, themain committee, sub-committees and theSocietys team and especially its members.The contributions of the committeemembers who each year give up their time

without remuneration is, as always, verymuch appreciated.

Details of events hosted by the SpecialGroup in Coaching Psychology, and detailsof SGCP publications, can be found at:

www.sgcp.org.ukDetails of on-going international events

of the 1st International Coaching PsychologyCongress can be found at: www.coaching-psychologycongress.org

The SGCP committee is seeking expres-sions of interest from members who are

Letter from the Chair


5/88

ELCOME to this summers issue ofThe Coaching Psychologist, whichprovides a wealth of articles

covering topics such as Coaching for leader-ship using Kolbs Experiential LearningTheory, The potential use of the Authen-ticity Scale as an outcome measure in execu-tive coaching, The use of coachingprinciples to foster employment engage-ment, Motivational interviewing a model

for coaching psychology practice and Doesthinking about motivation boost motivationlevels?

We have two contributions to theCoaching Psychology Techniques section.Dr Jonathan Passmore writes about Motiva-tional interviewing techniques reflectivelistening and Prof Stephen Palmer andChristine Dunkley tell us about In-sessionBehaviour Incompatible with Goals (BIGproblems) within coaching.

This issue also includes a Reportssection covering our regularly featuredEthics Column from Julie Allen (SGCPEthics and Social Policy Liaison Officer) andDr Emma Shorts (SGCP Research Officer)update accompanied by two submissions toour Coaching Psychology in Action section.

Jennifer Liston-Smith also provides anoverview of the 1st International Congress ofCoaching Psychology SGCP UK Event and

we have included a report on a World cafdiscussion which formed part of this event.For this issue we have one featured bookreview.

Thank you to all of the contributors whohave enabled us to present such an inter-esting issue. I am always keen to hear your

views and suggestions about The CoachingPsychologist and can be e-mailed at:[email protected].

Siobhain ORiordain

Editor, The Coaching Psychologist.

EditorialSiobhain ORiordan


Letter from the Chair/Editorial

interested in contributing to the maincommittee or a sub-committee. In particular,as part of our continuing contingency plan-ning, we are seeking to identify individuals

with an interest in communications and the

Chair and secretarial roles.

Dr Angela Hetherington

SGCP Chair 2011

Email: [email protected]

W


6/88

Promoting and developing the science andprofession of coaching psychology, aidingthe advancement of theory and practice.

The Honorary President of the Society for Coaching Psychology (SCP) is Prof Stephen Palmer MSCPAccred. Honorary Vice

Presidents of the SCP include other leading experts in psychology based in Australia, Canada, China, Denmark, Korea, New

Zealand, Portugal, United Kingdom, USA and Sweden.

The Society was established to offer routes to

MRXIVREXMSREPEGGVIHMXEXMSRGIVXMGEXMSREWE

GSEGLMRKTW]GLSPSKMWX8LIVWXWXEKI[EW

launched in September 2008 to provide a route

JSVUYEPMIHTW]GLSPSKMWXW7XEKIX[S[EW

introduced in Spring 2009 and offers a portfolio

W]WXIQXS[EVHEGGVIHMXEXMSRGIVXMGEXMSRJSV

graduate members.

The SCP offers a Course and Workshop Recognition

system, which confers SCP recognition for

IHYGEXMSRERHXVEMRMRKMRXLIIPHSJGSEGLMRK

psychology. In 2010 we will be launching our new

Approved Centre system. Course and workshop

TVSZMHIVWGERRHJYVXLIVMRJSVQEXMSRERH

download an application form at:

www.societyforcoachingpsychology.net

Society for Coaching Psychology6IKMWXIVIHSJGIRH*PSSV;EPW[SVXL6SEH,IVXJSVHWLMVI7+74

www.societyforcoachingpsychology.net

;IEVIEPWSTPIEWIHXSFI7XVEXIKMG4EVXRIVWSJXLI1st International Congress of Coaching Psychology 2010-2011

Further details are available at:http://www.coachingpsychologycongress.com

Course and WorkshopRecognition

Membership & InternationalAccreditation for CoachingPsychologists

1IQFIVWLMTFIRIXWEPWSMRGPYHI

becoming part of an on-line community ofinternational coaching psychologists via our

on-line discussion forums

entitlement to make use of classes of SCPmembership logos (dependent upon current

membership status).

The Societys on-line publication Coaching

Psychology International can also be

downloaded from our website.



7/88

T IS WELL ESTABLISHED that the abilityto develop leadership skills is central to thesustainable effectiveness of any organisa-

tion. Over the years, Human Resources(HR) has played significant roles in imple-

menting strategies through leadership devel-opment and coaching programmes formanagers and leaders. What has not been asevident in the literature is the use of DavidKolbs Experiential Learning Theory as aconceptual frame from which humanresources programmes can strategise thedevelopment of its organisations leadershipto create what Raelin (2003) and Wheatley(2006) call a leaderful organisation. In aleaderful organisation everyone shares thecollective and concurrent experience ofserving as a leader either formally or infor-mally. Among those skills needed to developsuch collective leadership is the ability toaccess and choose appropriate modes ofbehavior for achieving specific outcomes.Many (Armstrong & McDaniel, 1986;

Jackson, 2002; Holman, Pavlica & Thorp,1997; Katz, 1990; Kayes, 2002), have arguedthat having access to all four modes andlearning styles can help potential leadersbecome flexible and discerning inresponding to organisational problems.

However, leaders frequently engage in self-limiting behaviours because of their overreliance on their preferred ways of reactingand responding. Kolbs ExperientialLearning Theory provides a particularly

useful framework for coaching managers indeveloping the leadership skills necessary tomost effectively manage complex situationsand the coaching relationship. We arguethat an effective coach can adapt his/herlearning style to mesh with the preferredlearning style of their client to enhance thecoaching process.

Professional coaches may unknowinglyfall into the trap of trying to coach others,relying too heavily on their own preferredlearning styles rather than adapting to thestyle of those whom they are attempting tocoach. The authors combined experienceof over 70 years as coaches has shown us thatDavid Kolbs Experiential Learning Modelprovides professional coaches a compellinglens from which to look at our own preferredlearning styles and those with whom we

work.Kolbs experiential Learning Styles

Inventory (LSI) is one of 70+ instrumentsreviewed by Coffield et al. (2004) forassessing adult learning styles. The most


Know thyself: Coaching for leadershipusing Kolbs Experiential Learning TheoryElizabeth Fisher Turesky & Dennis Gallagher

This article discusses the role of professional coaches who apply Kolbs Experiential Learning Theory as a

means of enhancing their clients leadership capabilities. The authors posit that Kolbs four learning modes

and styles provide a guiding structure for professional coaches to individualise their approach to coaching

leaders to overcome the leaders overreliance on their dominant learning style and appropriately access more

effective behaviours in handling the myriad of responsibilities they face. It is equally important for coaches

to know their own learning styles to be more effective in their coaching role. A coachs ability to access all

four modes and learning styles in themselves can foster more effective coaching practices so that they may

more effectively coach others whose learning styles are different from their own. The authors conclude that

Kolbs Experiential Learning Theory provides a sound theoretical framework to help professional coaches inthe development of the organisations leadership capacity.

Keywords:coaching; Kolbs Experiential Learning Theory; leadership.

I


8/88

Elizabeth Fisher Turesky & Dennis Gallagher


common learning styles assessments typicallyfocus on the evaluation of the individualsmost comfortable method for learning, suchas receiving instruction verbally, visually orkinesthetically.

Some (Freedman & Stumpf, 1980)claimed that the Learning Style Inventory

was flawed as a psychometrically valid instru-ment. Pashler et al. (2008) argued that thedata reviewed for their study did not providesupport for the learning styles hypothesisthat tailoring teaching to the learnersproclivities would make a difference.Reynolds (1997) argues that in addition toKolb, there are other intuitively appealing

theories of styles to consider, such as Pasks(1976) typology or Biggs (1979) taxonomy.Alternatives to these, and Kolbs cognitivelearning styles, are the conditions in whichlearning occurs; such as, the social and insti-tutional environment making the learningcontext dependent (Laurillard, 1979) whichhave been found to support greater qualityof learning in some studies (Trigwell &Prosser, 1991). None the less, we have found

the LSI to be a useful vehicle for coachingclients in complex situations. Indeed, anattractive feature of Kolbs experientiallearning theory is the discussion that isprovoked from the recognition of theuniqueness, complexity, and variability ofspecific learning situations. The focus ofKolbs Learning Styles model lies squarely inthe experiential learning process rather thanon fixed learning traits. In fact, there issubstantial empirical support for the theoryof experiential learning and the theorysconstructs (Carlsson, Keene & Martin, 1976;Clarke, Oshiro Wong & Yeung, 1977; Fry1978; Gish, 1979, 1980; Griggs, 1979; Gypen,1980; Kolb, 1981; Manring, 1979; Plovnick,1975; Sims, 1980; Wolfe & Kolb, 1979) ascited in Kolb (1981). Kolb (1981) himselfcontends that experiential learning stylepreferences are not fixed traits, but will varyfrom time to time and situation to situationgiven that change and adaptation to envi-ronmental circumstances are central to anyconcept of learning (p.290).

Kolbs Experiential Learning Theory(1984) posits that there are four modes thatpeople may engage in any given experience.He refers to them as, concrete experience,reflective observation, abstract conceptuali-

sation and active experimentation. The useof each of these modes leads to a specific wayof approaching, understanding and actingon a problem. Later we will discuss howthese four modes combine to form fourdistinct learning styles.

Since coaches tend to rely on theirpreferred dominant modes for learning,they thereby potentially limit their opportu-nities to either lead or coach in the most

effective manner. Effective coaching usingKolbs experiential learning model can helpthose in leadership positions develop theircapabilities so that they may respond mostappropriately to a given situation. However,it is important that coaches have an aware-ness of their own learning preferences asthey work with others lest they treat all theirclients using their preferred learning styleinstead of that of the clients. Therefore,

effective coaching requires that they heedthe precept inscribed in gold letters over theportico of the temple at Delphi, GnothiSeauton, the ancient Greek aphorism forknow thyself or to have self knowledge.Kolbs experiential learning model providesthe opportunity for gaining self-knowledgeso that, as coaches, we may individualise the

way we effectively coach.

Kolbs Experiential Learning TheoryKolbs Experiential Learning Theory workson two levels, grasping and transformingexperiences establishing the framework forfour distinct learning styles that are based onthe four-mode learning cycle (see Figure 1).Learning therefore, involves two dialecticalmodes for grasping experience concreteexperience and abstract conceptualisation.Then, there are two dialectical modes fortransforming experience reflective obser-

vation and active experimentation (Kolb,1984, p.41).


9/88

Figure 1: The Four Modes of the Learning Cycle.

ACTIVE

EXPERIMENTATION

Doing

(AE)

ABSTRACT

CONCEPTUALISATIONThinking

(AC)

CONCRETE

EXPERIENCE

Feeling(CE)

REFLECTIVE

OBSERVATION

Watching

(RO)

Know thyself: Coaching for leadership using Kilbs Experiential Learning Theory

The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 7, No. 1, June 2011 7

We are stressing the importance of beingconscious and deliberate about learningfrom experiences. In coaching our clients

over the years, we have seen significantdifferences in how they learn from theirexperiences. As a result, we have concludedthat leadership development is a highly indi-

vidualised process. Nevertheless, these indi-vidual differences tend to fall into patternsapproximating Kolbs four modes. Extra-polating from Kolbs experiential learningtheory, we posit leadership development as aholistic process of adaptation to the world.

Truly effective leaders are able to rely onthe four learning modes in whatever combi-nation the situation requires of them. Piaget(1969), Freire (1974), Dewey (1958) andLewin (1951) all stressed that the heart oflearning lies in the way we process experi-ence, in particular, our critical reflections onexperiences and the meanings we draw fromthem. The combination of grasping andtransforming experience as part of contin-uous learning in multiple modes creates asynergy, which can produce dynamic andpowerful leadership. Kolb (1976, 1984)theorised that while every individual utilises

each mode to some extent, he/she has apreferred mode of learning resulting froman individual tendency to learn primarily

through one of the four modes. Movingleadership coaching beyond this preferred,often habitual, over reliance on one or twomodes at the expense of the others can be amajor challenge for the coach.

Leadership Practice using ExperientialLearning TheoryMost readers have been engaged in aperformance appraisal. The following caseexample is provided to explain the use ofKolbs Experiential Learning Theory whencoaching. Consider Mary, a health caremanager, who is trying to enhance her lead-ership skills, and Jane, an HR Manager. Maryis aware that she has to give one of her directreports (John) his performance review andthat John has a history of becoming veryangry and upset in these reviews. He doesnot accept criticism or constructive feedback

well. His behaviour may jeopardise his longterm future in the organisation. Mary wentto Jane for some help with this situation.


10/88

Janes first response was to sit with Maryand help her think through the best way toapproach John, but then she began to thinkabout the other managers in their organisa-tion who had equally difficult situations.

Rather than responding tactically, she beganto think strategically for the organisation.She decided to talk to a former colleague,Stephanie, who was now an independentcoach with a special focus on coachingmanagers for success. After the two of themtalked, Jane asked Stephanie to come intothe organisation and work with Mary. Janetold Stephanie that she wanted to see howthings worked with John and that she might

want Stephanie to work with a number ofother managers in the organisation.Stephanie agreed that this was a goodapproach and began working with Mary.

After Jane introduced the idea ofcoaching to Mary and she agreed,Stephanies initial visit with Mary was togather information about Mary, her historyand her experiences as a manager.Stephanie also wanted to understand what

Mary saw as her strengths, her areas ofgrowth, the things that frightened her abouther job and the areas where she felt mostconfident. Stephanie then explained KolbsExperiential Learning Theory and askedMary to take a self-report instrument calledthe Learning Style Inventory (LSI) (2005).

Stephanie emphasised how important itwas to understand whatyour learning stylewas and hownot to expectthat everyone elselearned the way you did. Stephanie firstdescribed the four modes of Kolbs LearningTheory: Abstract Conceptualisation (AC) Thinkingabout the issues; Active Experimen-tation (AE) Doing something about theissue or situation; Concrete Experience (CE) Feelingthe experience of the activity; and,Reflective Observation (RO) Watchingwhatthe issue or situation is generating. Theprocess is circular and can begin with any ofthe four modes. Talking about Kolbs theorygave Mary some experience using Kolbsabstract conceptualisation dimension andhaving Mary actually take the LSI gave Mary

some information about her own learningstyle.

Leadership Coaching with KolbsExperiential Learning Styles

To give further depth to experientiallearning theory, Kolb (1984) combined hismodes of learning to create four types oflearners: Diverger (reflective observation concrete experience), Assimilator (reflectiveobservation abstract conceptualisation),Converger (active experimentation abstractconceptualisation), and Accommodator(activeexperimentation concrete experience) asdepicted in Figure 2. ADivergingstyle is char-

acterised by the dominant learning abilitiesof concrete experience and reflective obser-vation. An Assimilating style is characterisedby the dominant learning abilities reflectiveobservation and abstract conceptualisation. AConvergingstyle is characterised by the domi-nant learning abilities of abstract conceptual-isation and active experimentation, while anAccommodating style is characterised by thedominant learning abilities of active experi-

mentation and concrete experiences.The strengths of the Divergers learningstyle, lies in their imaginative and creativeabilities, and in their ability to understandand tune into others.Divergershave an imag-inative ability to perform best in situationscalling for the generation of many alterna-tive (often divergent) ideas and implications,as is done in brainstorming (Kolb, 1984).

The strengths of Assimilators are theirability to systematically plan, organise,analyze, the create models and theories, andengage in inductive reasoning. Those withthis learning style are strongest at under-standing a wide range of information andputting it into a concise, logical form(Kolb,1984).

In contrast, those who perceive or gathernew information abstractly and process ortransform it actively possess a Convergingstyle. Their greatest learning strengths lie intheir ability to set goals, solve problems,make decisions, and test out new ideas(Kolb, 1984).




11/88

The greatest strengths of Accommodatorsare their ability to carry out plans and tasks,initiate activities and get involved in newexperiences. They often take on leadershiproles, are at ease in dealing with people, andare likely to be risk takers (Kolb, 1984).

Potential leadership pitfalls of overreliance on dominant learning styles

Just as leaders over reliance on a particulardimension can impair their ability to under-stand and solve problems, over reliance on aparticular learning style in coaching mayhave the same effect. We have observed that

learning styles have a significant impact onhow people look at and frame leadershipexperiences. Styles that are over utilised atthe expense of others can lead to incompletelearning experiences and poor perform-ance. While we each have the ability to utiliseall of the four styles, we tend to be morecomfortable using one of them over others.

And, since effective leadership and coachingfor leadership entails the ability to access anyone of four styles as needed, the inability touse all of these styles may impede success inboth a coaching and leadership experience.Leaders and coaches who understand their



Figure 2: The Four Learning Styles.

ACTIVEEXPERIMENTATION

Doing

(AE)

ABSTRACT

CONCEPTUALISATION

Thinking

(AC)

CONCRETE

EXPERIENCE

Feeling

(CE)

REFLECTIVEOBSERVATION

Watching

(RO)

Accommodator

(Do & Feel)

AE/CE

Converger

(Think & Do)

AC/AE

Diverger

(Feel & Watch)

CE/RO

Assimilator

(Watch & Think)

RO/AC


12/88



preferred experiential learning styles cancapitalise on their strengths, while focusingon undeveloped ones. Kolb (1984) providessome valuable insights into the ways learningstyles play out in leadership roles.

Since Divergers are good at seeing rela-tionships, looking for possibilities and alter-natives, and discovering meaning and valuein different situations, they tend to be moreinterested in interpersonal relationships andfeelings. Both the strength and liability of

Divergerslie in their desire to search unceas-ingly for new possibilities and solutions. Onthe negative side, as the name implies, theymay diverge from the problem or situation at

hand and go off on a tangent, straying signif-icantly from the task.If Ted is a Divergerin charge of a group,

he will continually look for the optimal solu-tion, even when the group is beyond thepoint where it is practical to adjust or changedirections.Divergerscan ponder the possibil-ities of a problem or situation for a long timeand forestall moving forward productively.

As aDiverger, Ted may need to seek assistance

in keeping to a timeline and understandingwhen to move forward on the project.If, on the other hand, Ted is a Converger,

he will develop a solution and decide quicklyon an answer. They are more technicallythan interpersonally oriented. Since theylike to solve specific problems and work ontasks with practical applications, difficultiesmay arise when they ignore information thatthey think is not important or pertinent to aproblem. They also tend to rush to a deci-sion without fully gathering details andexamining different solutions. If Ted is aConvergerin charge of a group, he may let hisown biases affect the decision-making anddiscourage the group from looking atdiffering ideas and opinions. He may needto seek assistance in reminding him to stayopen to others ideas.

Groups made of mostlyConvergerstend toarrive at solutions quickly and marginalise

Divergers as people who are seen as out oftouch with reality or group membersimpeding their decision making progress.

As a group, Convergerscan shut others out intheir haste to decide and choose a course ofaction. Based on our observations, ConvergersandDivergerstend to frustrate one another asthey are diametrically opposed in their

approaches, with one group generatingideas and the other trying to focus on a solu-tion.

Assimilatorslike to gather and to integratedata and information hence the name.They tend to think quietly and are moreconcerned with data than with people; there-fore, they are more comfortable in the realmof the theoretical. They are more concerned

with gathering data than implementing

action steps. In their efforts to gather factsand figures, they can appear indecisiveexhibiting analysis paralysis.

If Ted is an Assimilator, he will ask formore information and delay making a deci-sion until all of the facts and pertinent dataare known. Assimilatorswant all of the neces-sary assumptions addressed with as fewunknowns as possible. As an Assimilator, Tedmay need assistance in understanding when

he has enough information to make andimplement a decision.Accommodators like to initiate and

complete tasks. They quickly respond toneeds, involving others, and can be impa-tient with those who lack the same sense ofurgency. They tend to focus on the wholeproblem, overlooking or delegating chal-lenging details. If Ted is an Accommodatorincharge of a decision-making group, he may

want to avoid problems and details thatthreaten task completion. As an Accom-modator, Ted may need assistance in beingopen to input from others and patient withthe process. Just as Divergers and Convergerscan frustrate each other because their stylesare so different, Accommodatorsand Assimila-torscan also drive each other crazy or at the

very least, make working together difficult.Accommodatorswant to move quickly, takerisks to get the problem solved and move onto the next issue. Assimilatorswant to gathermore and more data, analyse it well, developtheories and only then, move slowly and


13/88



cautiously forward. Clearly, these learningstyles and mind-sets are opposite and those

with these style preferences can be opposi-tional with one another. Leaders, managersand coaches need to understand the pros

and cons of all four of the learning styles ifthey are going to have an impact on those

with whom they work. Leaders without thisunderstanding will rarely develop highperforming teams.

Returning to our earlier case example ofMary and Stephanie, in order to understandthe four learning styles, Stephanie suggestedthat Mary role play a performance review

with Stephanie becoming four different

people with four different learning styles aDiverger (a person who feels and watcheswhats going on), an Assimilator(the personwho is watching and thinking about what isgoing on), a Converger(one who is thinkingabout what is going on and is doing some-thing active in the process) and, finally, anAccommodator(a person who is doing some-thing active and is feelingwhat is happeningto themselves and others in the situation).

This provided Mary with some experiencewith Kolbs active experimentation dimen-sion to add to the theoretical knowledgethey had been talking about earlier.

At the end of the role playing experi-ment, Stephanie asked Mary what she felt

was different about each approach whichshe was most uncomfortable with and why;

what she would have done differently in eachsituation and how effective she thought eachreview was. This was the concrete experien-tial dimension of Kolbs theory.

Stephanie then showed Mary Table 1,(overleaf), and asked Mary to think in Kolbsterms (abstract conceptualisation) about

where her preferences were, where eachmember of her management teams prefer-ences were (reflective observation) and whatapproaches she needed to take with each ofher people (active experimentation). Marythen thought about the four modes, the fourlearning styles and how her learning style

was similar and/or different from themembers of her team. Stephanie and Mary

worked together to identify what theythought were the predominant learningstyles of each member of Marys team andthen planned an approach to each perform-ance evaluation session.

Different coaching approaches fordifferent folksMary had four subordinates working for her.They were all managers and three of the fourof them had styles that were different thenMarys. After working with Stephanie, Marylearned that she had to adapt her approachto these managers learning styles if she

wanted to have a useful and positive

performance appraisal with them. Below isthe thinking that Mary used to prepareherself for each of the performanceappraisals.

Mary learned that her preferred learningstyle was an Accommodator. As seen in Table 1,she liked to move quickly, take charge, getthings done and had a strong sense ofurgency. Her downfall was that shefrequently moved too quickly without having

taken other thoughts, ideas or peoplesconcerns into consideration. Knowingherself, below is how she worked with John.

Johns learning style was clearly that of aDiverger. Mary had always been impatientwith him. He resented her saying that hewas dragging his feet and not moving fastenough on issues. This year she looked at theoutcomes of his decisions rather than howfast the decisions were made. She needed tobalance the creative and inclusive talentsthat John had with the ultimate impact of hisdecisions.

The second member of Marys team wasAlice an Assimilator. Marys Accommodatingstyle featured speed, urgency and risk takingas key elements. Mary had to acknowledgethe quality of thought that went into Alicesdecisions and the models she invented tosupport those decisions. Mary also needed toask Alice about the impact of her decisions their timeliness. To be consistent with AlicesAssimilator style: gather data, analyze it,develop understandings and then respond


14/88

Table 1: Learning Styles Chart.

ACCOMMODATORS

Getting things done

Initiating tasks

Getting personally involved

Willing to take risksStrong sense of urgency

Needs patience

Speed vs. input

DIVERGERS

Creative

Involve others in their process

Try to view concrete solutions from different

perspectivesDo something new just for the sake of it

People oriented

Can miss the point

Difficulty actually making decisions

Focus vs. more ideas

CONVERGERS

Makes decisions from alternatives available

Move towards decisions very fast

Finds practical uses for theoriesMay shut out information that does not fit

the solution they develop

May not involve others with different views

Technical vs. people

ASSIMILATORS

Organising and integrating information

Planners

Creating modelsDeveloping theories

Slow to make decisions

Data vs. people

*Adapted from Kolb: Learning Styles Inventory (2005).



to the information, Mary decided to divide

the performance appraisal session into twoparts. On the first day, Mary shared her posi-tive observations and concerns and then let

Alice have a day or two to think about things.Mary and Alice then met for a second timeand had the conversation about how toimprove her performance.

Luke was a Converger. Both Mary andLuke shared the desire to make decisionsquickly, but while Mary was willing to takerisks and lead others, Luke wanted tooperate alone or with like thinkers. He

wanted to feel safe and logical with his quickdecision making.

Mary needed to acknowledge Lukesability to gather data and make logical deci-sions quickly, but she needed him to slow theprocess down. She needed to acknowledgehis ability to use the information he had andto encourage him to expand his data base

with the thoughts, ideas and the experiencesof people whom Luke thought, initially, didnot seem to support his thinking. Luke wasclearly not a risk taker so she needed to help

him see the benefits of changing his process

to include the input of others.The final member of Marys team wasJeanine. Jeanines learning style was muchlike Marys an Accommodator. They both

wanted to get the job done, lead the task anddo it quickly. Marys approach with Jeanine

was to acknowledge their similarities, but toreinforce the need to look at the downsidesof their learning style. Specifically, that theyboth needed to slow their process down, takemore time to define the problem, gathermore information and, sometimes, actuallylet others take the lead. Mary actually hadthe most difficult time working with Jeaninebecause Jeanines stresses and successes wereso familiar and comfortable to Mary.

The essence of Marys work with her foursubordinates was to understand where she

was in terms of her preferred learning style,then acknowledge the preferred learningstyles of her subordinates. Mary had to besure that she saw the positive elements of thedifferent styles and, at the same time,continue to encourage her direct reports to


15/88



explore the boundaries of their comfortzone. Mary learned that no one learningstyle is perfect, but that there are greatelements in each. Her job was to help themall see where they could press the bound-

aries of their own comfort zones so that theycould integrate some of the positiveelements of the other styles. Marys job wasdefinitelynotto make them all like her.

Stephanies coaching had a profoundeffect on Mary. She approached each teammember differently, but appropriately. Theirresponse was very positive, even with John.

Jane saw that the impact of the coachingStephanie gave Mary was truly significant.

She realised that each of her managersneeded to understand their own learningstyle and needed to learn how to adjust theirpredominant learning style to the learningstyles of each of their direct reports. Herstrategic decision was to have a one-daylearning seminar led by Stephanie andMary for all of her direct reports to frameKolbs Experiential Learning Theory. Theseminar had several elements: a discussion of

Kolbs theory; some realistic role playing; alook at each managers learning style; and,finally, some reflecting time for each of themanagers to look at their direct reports andthink about how to approach each personsperformance review. The seminar includedat least three consulting/coaching follow-upsessions with Stephanie for each manager.Mary would continue to work with Stephanieand eventually become an internal coach forthe rest of the staff.

ConclusionAs the contemporary workplace becomesincreasingly diverse, professional coachesare called upon to recognise and addressthese leadership challenges. Professionalcoaches understand the importance ofensuring that an organisations leaders areknowledgeable and sensitive to the specificneeds of their workforce by providing effec-tive leadership coaching approaches.

It is clear that we must work with peopledifferently because we all have very differentapproaches to leading, learning and life ingeneral. The premise is that if, as leadershipcoaches, we understand our own learning

styles and those of others, we can then adaptour style to be more effective communica-tors, learners, managers, leaders andcoaches. We have suggested that professionalcoaches must communicate effectively withclients to help them develop their leadershipawareness, knowledge and skills. To that end,to be effective leadership coaches and foroptimal learning to occur, we need to befamiliar with our own learning style prefer-

ences, how they are different from ourcoachees and consequently adjust ourcoaching strategy to our clients learningstyle preferences. We are teaching theleaders we coach how to recognise theirlearning styles and, therefore, the learningstyles of the people who work for them. Thatknowledge will allow them to lead moreeffectively and productively.

CorrespondenceElizabeth Fisher Turesky, PhDAssistant Professor,Leadership and Organisational Studies,University of Southern Maine,Lewiston-Auburn College,51 Westminster Street,Lewiston, Maine 04240, US.Email: [email protected]

Dennis Gallagher, PhD

Consultant to Organisations,8466 Rustic Wood Court,East Amherst,New York 14051-2015, US.Email: [email protected]


16/88

Armstrong, P. & McDaniel, E. (1986). Relationshipsbetween learning styles and performance onproblem-solving tasks. Psychological Reports, 59,11351138.

Biggs, J. (1979). Individual differences in studyprocesses and the quality of learning outcomes.Higher Education, 8, 381394.

Coffield, R., Moseley, D., Hall, E. & Ecclestone, K.(2004). Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16learning. A systematic and critical review. London:Learning and Skills Research Centre.

Dewey, J. (1958). Experience and nature. New York:Dover Publications.

Freedman, R.D. & Stumpf, S.A. (1980). Learningstyle theory: Less than meets the eye. The Academyof Management Review, 5(3), 445447.

Friere, Paulo (1974). Pedagogy of the oppressed.

New York: Continuum.Holman, D., Pavlica, K. & Thorpe, R. (1997).

Rethinking Kolbs theory of experiential learningin management education: The contribution ofsocial constructionism and activity theory.Management Learning, 28(2), 135148.

Jackson, C.J. (2002). Predicting team performancefrom a learning process model. Journal of Mana-gerial Psychology, 17(1), 613.

Katz, N. (1990). Problem-solving and time: Functionsof learning styles and teaching methods. Occupa-tional Therapy Journal Research, 10(4), 221236.

Kayes, D.C. (2002). Experiential learning and itscritics: Preserving the role of experience inmanagement education. Academy of ManagementLearning and Education, 1(2), 137149.

Kolb, D.A. (1976). On management and the learningprocess. California Management Review, 18(3),2131.

Kolb, D.A. (1981). Experiential learning theory andthe learning style inventory: A reply to Freedmanand Stumpf. The Academy of Management Review,6(2), 289296.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience asthe source of learning and development. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kolb, D.A. (2005). The Kolb learning styles inventory,Version 3.1. Boston, MA: Hay Resources Direct.

Kolb, D.A. & Fry, R. (1975). Toward an appliedtheory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper(Ed.), Theories of group process. London: JohnWiley.

Laurilard, D. (1979). The process of studentlearning. Higher Education, 8, 395409.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science; selectedtheoretical papers. New York: Harper & Row.

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D. & Bjork, R.(2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence.Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3),105119.

Pask, G. (1976). Styles and strategies of learning.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 45, 1225.

Piaget, J. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York:Basic Books.

Raelin, J. (2003). Creating leaderful organisations:How to bring out leadership in everyone. San Fran-cisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Reynolds, M. (1997). Learning styles: A critique.Management Learning, 28(2), 115133.

Trigwell, K. & Prosser, M. (1991). Improving thequality of student learning: the influence oflearning context and student approaches to

learning on learning outcomes. Higher Education,22, 251266.

Wheatly, M. (2006). Leadership and the new science:Discovering order in a chaotic world. San Francisco:Berrett-Koehler.



References


17/88



18/88

N ORDER to further develop evidence-based approaches to coaching andcoaching psychology we need to extend

and develop a broad range of validated and

freely available outcome measures. In thisway researchers will have more choice in theselection of outcome measures. This has anumber of potentially positive effects. Firstly,there would be less reliance on idiosyncraticoutcome measures in the coaching litera-ture. Whilst idiosyncratic measures that arecustom developed for particular coachinginterventions allow researchers to stipulate

variables of interest to a specific coachingclient or situation and can give importantinsights into a specific coaching intervention(Orenstein, 2006; Peterson & Kraiger, 2004),such measures may have limited validity orrelevance for the broader coachingpsychology research enterprise (Allworth &Passmore, 2008). Secondly, the use of freely-available and psychometrically-validatedmeasures would allow meaningful compar-isons to be made across different researchstudies. This is important because the repli-cation of findings is an essential part ofdeveloping a evidence-base in any disciplinethat holds itself out as subscribing to the

scientific method (Chalmers, 1976). Thirdly,the increased use of validated psychologi-cally-relevant outcome measures will allowresearchers to further develop our under-

standings of the psychological processesunderpinning the purposeful, positivechange encapsulated in coaching.

It is clear that the use of psychometri-cally-validated measures in the publishedcoaching literature is increasing. Earlycoaching research was primarily case study-based, and primarily qualitative in nature(e.g. Craik, 1988; Diedrich, 1996), or usedobservable behavioural measures. Sergio(1987) for example, examined the effect ofcoaching on reducing the percentage ofscrapped materials and, therefore, theoverall production costs in a manufacturingcontext. Whilst such measures are in them-selves valuable and of interest, they arelimited in the generalisable insights they cangive into the psychology of coaching.

The growing trend towards using vali-dated psychologically-relevant and validatedoutcome measures covers a range of psycho-logically-relevant variables including; goal-attainment scaling (for discussion, seeSpence, 2007); validated measures of depres-

16 The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 7, No. 1, June 2011 The British Psychological Society ISSN: 17481104

The potential use of the AuthenticityScale as an outcome measure in executivecoachingI. Susing, L.S. Green & A.M. Grant

Authenticity, or being true to oneself, has been identified as a key construct related to well-being and the

effective performance of leaders. This paper describes the construct of authenticity in the context of existing

positive psychology and coaching psychology research. We discuss the Authenticity Scale and its suggested

use both as a self-report and peer-report instrument in the context of executive coaching. In order to further

develop evidence-based approaches to coaching and coaching psychology we need to extend and develop a

broad range of validated and freely available outcome measures which can allow researchers to further

develop our understandings of the psychological processes underpinning the purposeful, positive changeencapsulated in coaching. The Authenticity Scale may prove to be a useful tool in this endeavour.

Keywords: authenticity; positive psychology; coaching psychology; evidence-based coaching; executive

coaching; well-being.

I


19/88

sion, anxiety and stress (Gyllensten &Palmer, 2005); resilience and workplace well-being (Grant, Curtayne & Burton, 2009);core self-evaluations (Libri & Kemp, 2006);psychological and subjective well-being and

hope (Green, Oades & Grant, 2006); self-efficacy (Evers, Brouwers & Tomic, 2006);self-refection and insight (Grant, 2003);employees sickness due to psychosocialhealth complaints (Duijts et al., 2008) using

well-validated measures including the ShortForm Health Survey (Ware & Sherbourne,1992), the General Health Questionnaire(Koeter & Ormel, 1991), the Dutch Ques-tionnaire on Perception and Judgment of

Work (Veldhoven & Meijmen, 1994), andthe Dutch version of the Maslach BurnoutInventory (Schaufeli & Dierendonck, 2000);character strengths (Govindji & Linley, 2007;Linley et al., 2010; Madden, Green & Grant,in press) and goal self-concordance (Burke& Linley, 2007). (For further details onoutcome measures in coaching research seeGrant et al., 2010.)

However, some measures of psycholog-

ical constructs central to the coaching enter-prise are noticeable by their absence. Giventhat much coaching takes place withinorganisational contexts with the aim ofdeveloping leadership (Goldsmith, 2009), itis perhaps surprising that freely-available,

validated measures related to leadershiphave not been widely used to date incoaching research. Of course, a number ofstudies have reported on the use of commer-cial or proprietary leadership assessments incoaching (Grant, Green & Rynsaardt, 2010;Kampa-Kokesch, 2002; Trathen, 2008), butthe use of such commercial or proprietaryassessments is limited to those who canafford them.

We argue that the coaching psychologyenterprise would benefit from indentifyingfree-available validated assessments relatedto the psychology of leadership, and the useof such assessments has the potential tofurther develop the common evidence-basefor coaching and coaching psychology. Onesuch construct is authenticity.

AuthenticityThe notion of authenticity is increasinglyrecognised as being a vital part of leadership(Avolio & Gardner, 2005; Cameron, 2008;Gardner et al., 2005). The notion of authen-

ticity also has relevance in non-leadershipcoaching engagements, given that muchcoaching is aimed at developing the extentto which coachees are able to identify andthen pursue personally-relevant, self-concor-dant goals (Burke & Linley, 2007). Thus, weargue the identification and subsequent useof a validated measure of authenticity hasthe potential to contribute to the coachingresearch enterprise. To this aim we review

the literature on authenticity, its historicalcontext, its use in coaching and positivepsychology to date and suggest how arecently developed measure of authenticity(Wood et al., 2008) could be used in bothpersonal and organisational coachingsettings.

Historical contextThe conceptual roots of authenticity can be

traced back to ancient Greek philosophy andthe statement To thine own self be true(Harter, 2002). The concept was re-born incurrent post-industrialist, modernist era,following a preoccupation with inauthen-ticity and its associated manifestations suchas deceit and manipulation during the 16thcentury, and a shifting focus on responsi-bility for ones own conduct during the 17thcentury. Modern scientific roots of authen-ticity can be traced to studies in philosophy(Heidegger, 1962; Sartre, 1956) andpsychology (Maslow, 1962; Rogers, 1961;

Winnicott, 1965). While a detailed discus-sion of these philosophical and psycholog-ical treatments of authenticity is beyond thescope of this paper, these have beenexplored extensively in literature reviews byErickson (1995) and Harter (2002), as wellas Guignon (2000, 2002) and Chessick(1996).


Authenticity as a coaching outcome measure


20/88

I. Susing, L.S. Green & A.M. Grant


Authenticity in executive and lifecoaching and positive psychologyIn the executive and life coaching context,authenticity has not been explored as anempirical concept or a potential outcome

for coaching clients despite coaching goalsin both settings frequently relating to self-awareness, personal growth and a desire forgreater authenticity. Existing referenceslargely relate to the authenticity of coachingpractitioners as an essential aspect of thepractitioner-client relationship (e.g. Stober& Grant, 2006), the concept of authenticparticipation in the coaching process (e.g.Palmer & Whybrow, 2007, pp.417418) and

the importance of clients authentic rela-tionships with others (e.g. Peltier, 2001).During the last decade, since Seligman

and Csikszentmihalyis (2000) feature articleon positive psychology, authenticity has beenidentified as an important concept funda-mental to an individuals well being andoptimal performance. Seligmans muchquoted book and associated website AuthenticHappinesswas and continues to be a platform

for those seeking to learn more about positivepsychology and themselves. Seligman went onto prescribe an authentic life as a prerequisiteto a good life in relation to his model of thethree paths to a good life (Linley & Joseph,2004, p.24). Peterson and Park (2004) devel-oped the values-in-action, or VIA classification

which captures and measures the positivetraits associated with a cross-cultural under-standing of good character (p.437). Thisempirical work identified authenticity as adimension of courage, one of six discrete

virtues underpinning well-being and optimalfunctioning.

Construct definitionAlthough there has been definitional confu-sion in the empirical study of the authen-ticity construct (Harter, 2002), there appearsto be a large degree of consensus regardingthe definitional basis underlying theconstruct as it is used in positive psychology.This basis has its origins in humanisticpsychology and, in particular, the work of

Rogers (1961), who conceptualised the self-actualising or fully functioning individual as:(a) open to experience with tolerance forambiguity and accurate perception; (b) ableto live fully in the moment with adaptability

and flexibility; (c) trusting of inner experi-ences to guide own behaviours; (d) experi-encing freedom with choice about how torespond and feel; and (e) creative in his orher approach to living with a strong trust inones inner experiences and a willingness toadapt to ever-changing circumstances. Fromthis concept, various definitions of authen-ticity were developed including one byBarrett-Lennard (1998) who defined

authenticity as involving consistencybetween the three levels of: (a) a personsprimary experience; (b) their symbolisedawareness; and (c) their outward behaviourand communication (p.82). According tothis definition, an individual feels authentic

when there is congruence between behav-iour and emotional expression on one hand,and conscious awareness of physiologicalstates, emotions or cognitions on the other,

and, additionally, these are unconstrainedfrom external influences. A further usefuldefinition was developed by Kernis (2003)

who characterised authenticity as the unob-structed operation of ones true, or core, selfin ones daily enterprise and argued thatauthenticity has four components: aware-ness, unbiased processing, action, and rela-tional orientation (p.1). Although there areother definitions, the above two are note-

worthy as they form the basis for both of therecent approaches developed to measureauthenticity directly and discretely.

Measurement of authenticityHistorically, there have been a number ofapproaches that involved an assessment ofauthenticity, including false-self versus true-self behaviour (Harter et al., 1996), consis-tency of trait profiles versus mean levels ofauthenticity (Sheldon et al., 1997), andauthenticity related to diverse aspects ofhealthy psychological and interpersonalfunctioning (Kernis & Goldman, 2006).


21/88



Although it is not disputed that these areempirically valid, none appear to haveconsidered authenticity as an individualfactor, that is, they examined authenticity inthe context with other variables but not

directly on a discreet basis. This shortcomingwas addressed with the development of theAuthenticity Scale (Wood, et al., 2008) andthe Authentic Leadership Questionnaire(Walumbwa et al., 2008). This article focuseson the Authenticity Scale by Wood et al.(2008).

Development of the Authenticity ScaleIn developing their measure, Wood et al.

(2008) first established the definitional basisfor the construct by identifying three factorsunderlying Barrett-Lennards (1998) defini-tion of authenticity: self-alienation,authentic living, and accepting externalinfluence. The second step involved therandom sampling of 200 undergraduatestudents who completed a 25-item pool as

well as accepted measures for anxiety (usingthe Tension subscale of the Profile of Mood

States; Lorr, McNair & Droppleman, 1992)stress (using the Perceived Stress Scale;Cohen, Kamarck & Mermelstein, 1983), andhappiness (using the Subjective HappinessScale; Wood et al., 2008).

The 25-item pool was developed by theauthors on the basis that each item was iden-tified to be relevant to one of the above threefactors. In a multifactor analysis, authenticliving was positively correlated with happi-ness and negatively with anxiety and stress,

whereas both, accepting external influencesand self-alienation, were positively corre-lated with anxiety and stress and negatively

with happiness. As a third step, Wood et al.(2008) reduced the original 25-item pool to12 on the basis of the highest positive corre-lations with one of the three factors under-lying the definitional construct ofauthenticity, that is, the four highest correla-tions for each of the three factors. Scoringinstructions for the Authenticity Scaleinvolve assessing items on a seven-pointLikert scale, from 1 (does not describe me

at all) to 7 (describes me very well). Itemsrelevant to accepting external influence andself-alienation are reverse-scored because oftheir negative correlation with authenticity.

Although Likert scales can be subject to

response style and potential mid-pointambivalence issues, it is generally regardedas producing valid psychometric output(Avey et al., 2010).

In a subsequent study involving 180ethnically-diverse individuals randomlychosen from the public, Wood et al. (2008)confirmed substantial discriminant validityof the Authenticity Scale across sample,gender, and ethnic group, as well as the Big

Five personality traits; these refer to neuroti-cism, extraversion, openness to experience,agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Gold-berg, 1992). Wood et al. (2008) found nosignificant correlation with social desirabilityand longitudinal test-retest validity withintwo and four weeks. The Authenticity Scalealso showed high correlation with self-esteem, and subjective and psychological

well-being characteristics. On the above

basis, Wood et al.s (2008) work provides thefirst direct test of several theoretical modelsthat view authenticity as integral to well-being. However, the Wood et al. (2008)research did not explicitly test the relation-ship between authenticity and optimal func-tioning. It is to this issue we now turn.

Authenticity and optimal functioningAlthough authenticity, by definition, involvesbeing true to oneself, not others, in thecontext of authentic leadership the focusshifts to the leaders relations with othersbecause all leadership is fundamentally rela-tional (Avolio & Gardner, 2005). On thisbasis, it is reasonable to infer that theoptimal functioning of a leader is verysimilar to the optimal functioning of an indi-

vidual with respect to that individuals rela-tionship with others.

Self-assessment, self-report measuressuch as the Authenticity Scale may well beuseful measures of functioning. However,because self-assessments rely only on the


22/88



respondents view of themselves, suchmeasures are inherently limited. Thus addi-tionally accessing the perceptions of others(such as peers) can provide a useful coun-terpoint to self-assessment, particularly in

reference to constructs such as authenticityin leadership where relations with others areparamount. Indeed, when there is a materialdiscrepancy between the self-rated and thepeer-rated results, it is may be that thepersons self-rating does not accuratelyreflect the degree of optimal functioningand peer ratings will be more reliable(Cheek, 1982; Gibson, 1971), and the explo-ration of such discrepancies can provide

important starting points for coachingconversations. Additionally, peer ratings areshown to be reliable in predicting subse-quent promotion (Downey, Medland &

Yates, 1976).Consequently, for use in coaching inter-

ventions, we propose the adoption of a peer-rated version of the Authenticity Scale as ameans of extending the measurement capac-ities and utility of the Authenticity Scale

which we suggest could be used in conjunc-tion with the existing self-assessment version.Such an amended version of the Authen-ticity Scale, has been discussed with one ofthe authors of the Authenticity Scale,Dr Alex M. Wood, and is termed Peer

Authenticity Scale (Susing, 2010, personalcommunication). Discussion with the authorof this scale suggests that a peer version ofthe scale would retain its psychometric

validity as the items essentially remain thesame, being merely rephrased so as to applyto the subject whist retaining their originalmeaning, although future research will needto explore this issue.

The use of self and other ratings in assess-ments has a long history, but has onlyrecently found its way into positivepsychology. For example, the Values in

Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS;Seligman, Park & Peterson, 2004) hasrecently been adapted to utilise both self andother ratings and the peer-rating versionmaintained a similarly high validity and reli-

ability as the original, self-assessed version ofthe instrument (Ruch et al., 2010).(Sample items of a version of the Peer

Authenticity Scale as it can be provided topeers of coaching clients is included in

Appendix 2.) We believe that such an adap-tation may prove to be useful in using the

Authenticity Scale in the coaching contextparticularly where the coaching is aimed atenhancing leadership authenticity and opti-mising performance.

The link between authenticity andexisting coaching constructsIn supporting the argument that a valid

measure of authenticity can be used to assessthe efficacy of coaching interventions, it maybe useful to review the existing evidence baselinking authenticity with other empiricalconstructs relevant to evidence-basedcoaching. This is useful because, althoughthe various studies involve differentmeasures of authenticity, they neverthelessshare the same definitional basis. Impor-tantly, a number of studies demonstrate a

positive correlation between authenticityand subjective and psychological well-being(Kernis & Goldman, 2005a; Sheldon et al.,1997; Wood et al., 2008), as well as self-esteem and life satisfaction (Kernis &Goldman, 2005b).

In the context of optimal functioning,Walumbwa et al. (2008) found a positivecorrelation between authenticity and jobperformance. Authenticity, as a function ofacting with integrity, has been identified byHodgins, Koestner and Duncan (1996) to

yield social benefits as authentic persons aregenerally well liked thereby creatingstronger relationships which, in turn, willbenefit the individual. Sheldon (2004) alsorefers to an experimental study by Robinson,

Johnson and Shields (1995) which foundthat persons who give balanced self-descrip-tions, that is, include weaknesses as well asstrengths, are more likely to be perceived asauthentic and, as a result, are more highlyregarded as leaders.


23/88



Toor and Ofori (2009), in their study ofthe effects of authenticity in the Singaporeconstruction industry, showed that psycho-logical well-being, relationships, social skillsand personal performance are significantly

correlated to, and predicted by, authenticity.Their research points to the connectednessbetween self-awareness, self-regulation andpsychological well-being and suggests thatindividuals experiencing higher levels ofpsychological well-being are likely to be seenas effective in their workplaces and hencehave higher prospects of being successful.

Self-awareness and self-regulatoryprocesses have also been identified by

Gardner at al. (2005) as a prerequisite toachieving authenticity and authentic rela-tionships. Self-awareness is an importantaspect of evidence-based coaching interven-tions because it is necessary to enable thecoaching client to develop a wider range ofbehaviour and thereby achieve change(Allan & Whybrow, 2007).

Authenticity has been found to benefit apersons self-regulation by promoting more

complex and integrated task performance(Sheldon, 2004). Self-regulation is a funda-mental concept of coaching becausecoaching builds on the basic notion that thecoach facilitates the clients self-directedlearning (Grant, 2006). Self-determinationtheory, developed by Deci and Ryan (1985),is an empirical approach to understandingthe various factors that affect authenticbehaviour. It presupposes a fundamentalhuman need for independence, which issatisfied when people feel free to do what ismost valuable to them. Authentic behaviour,in this context, is experienced as being initi-ated by the person, whereas inauthenticbehaviour is experienced as being initiatedby external factors (Ryan & Deci, 2004). Self-determination theory has been identified asa fundamental concept underlying evidence-based coaching, particularly in the contextof solution-focused coaching (Grant, 2006).

The Self-concordance Model developedby Sheldon and Elliot (1998, 1999), capturesthe extent to which a persons goals are

consistent with that persons core values.Their research showed that more concor-dant goals enabled a person to, firstly, sustaineffort to a greater extent compared to situa-tions where relevant goals are less concor-

dant, and secondly, that more concordantgoals led to higher levels of well-being. Inthis context, self-concordance and authen-ticity are interchangeable because both deal

with a persons genuine and unobscuredvalues and motivations. The positive rela-tionship between coaching interventionsand positive effects on self-concordance hasbeen demonstrated, amongst others byBurke and Linley (2007). Stober and Grant

(2006) also refer to the coachees require-ments to identify the enduring andauthentic from transitory or superficial

whims or desires (p.165).

Summary of practical and researchimplicationsClearly, the above coaching-related conceptsare inextricably entwined with authenticity,and have considerable relevance for

coaching and coaching psychology which isfrequently concerned with optimal func-tioning. The use of a validated authenticityscale (self-report and peer-report) in acoaching context would allow researchers toexplore the potential of coaching inincreasing authenticity and also exploringthe extent to which such changes maybeassociated with enhanced businessoutcomes. The literature to date outlinedabove suggests such relationships, but to thebest of our knowledge such hypotheses havenot as yet been put to the test within acoaching paradigm.

There is emerging empirical evidencethat links authenticity and a number ofconstructs that underpin evidence-basedcoaching, including well-being and optimalfunctioning. The Authenticity Scale devel-oped by Wood et al. (2008) represents adirect and discreet measure of authenticitythat can be used in this context.

Given that the notion of authenticity iscentral to much of the coaching endeavour,


24/88

References

Allan, J. & Whybrow, A. (2007). Gestalt coaching.In S. Palmer & A. Whybrow (Eds.), Handbook ofcoaching psychology: A guide for practitioners

(pp.133159). New York: Routledge/Taylor &Francis Group.

Allworth, E. & Passmore, J. (2008). Using psycho-metrics and psychological tools in coaching.In J. Passmore (Ed.), Psychometrics in coaching(pp.725). London: Kogan Page.

Avey, J.B., Luthans, F., Smith, R.M. & Palmer, N.F.(2010). Impact of positive psychological capitalon employee well-being over time. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, 15(1), 1728.

Avolio, B.J. & Gardner, W.L. (2005). Authentic lead-ership development: Getting to the root of posi-tive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly,16(3), 315338.

Barrett-Lennard, G.T. (1998). Carl Rogers helpingsystem: Journey and substance. London: Sage.

Burke, D. & Linley, P. (2007). Enhancing goal self-concordance through coaching. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 2(1), 6269.

Cameron, R. K. (2008). Governing ourselves beforegoverning others: An investigation of authenticleadership. Dissertation Abstracts InternationalSection A: Humanities and Social Sciences,

Vol. 68(10A), 4372.

Chalmers, A.F. (1976). What is this thing called science?St Lucia, QLD: University of Queensland Press.

Cheek, J.M. (1982). Aggregation, moderator vari-ables, and the validity of personality tests: A peer-rating study. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 43(6), 12541269.

Chessick, R.D. (1996). Heideggers Authenticity inthe psychotherapy of adolescents. AmericanJournal of Psychotherapy, 50(2), 208216.

Cohen, S., Kamarck, T. & Mermelstein, R. (1983).A global measure of perceived stress. Journal ofHealth and Social Behaviour, 24, 386396.

Craik, C. (1988). How to improve your managementskills without going on a course. British Journal ofOccupational Therapy, 51(12), 429432.

Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (1985). The general causalityorientations scale: Self-determination in person-ality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2),109134.

Diedrich, R.C. (1996). An interactive approach toexecutive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal:Practice & Research, 48(2), 6166.

Downey, R., Medland, F. & Yates, L. (1976). Evalua-tion of a peer rating system for predicting subse-quent promotion of senior military officers.Journal of Applied Psychology, 61(2), 206209.

Duijts, S., Kant, I.P., van den Brandt, P. & Swaen, G.(2008). Effectiveness of a preventive coachingintervention for employees at risk for sicknessabsence due to psychosocial health complaints:Results of a randomised controlled trial. Journalof Occupational & Environmental Medicine, 50(7),765776.

Erickson, R.J. (1995). The importance of authenticityfor self and society. Symbolic Interaction, 18(2),121144.

Evers, W.J., Brouwers, A. & Tomic, W. (2006).A quasi-experimental study on managementcoaching effectiveness. Consulting PsychologyJournal: Practice and Research, 58(3), 174182.

Gardner, W.L., Avolio, B.J., Luthans, F., May, D.R. &Walumbwa, F. (2005). Can you see the real me?

A self-based model of authentic leader andfollower development. Leadership Quarterly,16(3), 343372.

Gibson, H. (1971). The validity of the EysenckPersonality Inventory studied by a technique ofpeer-rating item by item, and by sociometriccomparisons. British Journal of Social & ClinicalPsychology, 10(3), 213220.

Goldberg, L.R. (1992). The development of markersfor the Big 5 factor structure. Psychological Assess-ment, 4(1), 2642.

Goldsmith, M. (2009). Executive coaching: A real

world perspective from a real-life coaching prac-titioner. International Coaching Psychology Review,4(1), 2224.



and that the further development of anevidence-base to coaching would benefitfrom the increased use of freely-availableand psychometrically-validated measures, we

would encourage the use of such measures

in coaching-related research. In this way wecan further develop our understandings ofthe psychological processes underpinningthe purposeful, positive change facilitated bycoaching.

CorrespondenceDr Anthony Grant

Email: [email protected]


25/88



Govindji, R. & Linley, A.P. (2007). Strengths use, self-concordance and well-being: Implications forstrengths coaching and coaching psychologists.International Coaching Psychology Review, 2(2),143154.

Grant, A.M. (2003). The impact of life coaching ongoal attainment, metacognition and mental

health. Social Behaviour and Personality: An Inter-national Journal, 31(3), 253264.

Grant, A.M. (2006). An integrative goal-focusedapproach to executive coaching. In D.R. Stober& A.M. Grant (Eds.),Evidence-based coaching hand-book: Putting best practices to work for your clients

(pp.153192). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & SonsInc.

Grant, A.M., Curtayne, L. & Burton, G. (2009). Execu-tive coaching enhances goal attainment, resilienceand workplace well-being: A randomisedcontrolled study.Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(5),

396407.Grant, A.M., Green, L. & Rynsaardt, J. (2010). Devel-

opmental coaching for high school teachers:Executive coaching goes to school. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(3),151168.

Grant, A.M., Passmore, J., Cavanagh, M.J. & Parker,H. (2010). The state of play in coaching today:A comprehensive review of the field. InternationalReview of Industrial and Organisational Psychology,

25, 125168.Green, L.S., Oades, L.G. & Grant, A.M. (2006).

Cognitive-behavioural, solution-focused lifecoaching: Enhancing goal striving, well-beingand hope. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(3),142149.

Guignon, C. (2000). Authenticity and integrity:A heideggerian perspective. In P. Young-Eisendrath & M.E. Miller (Eds.), The psychology ofmature spirituality: Integrity, wisdom, transcendence

(pp.6274). New York: Brunner-Routledge.Guignon, C. (2002). Hermeneutics, authenticity and

the aims of psychology. Journal of Theoretical andPhilosophical Psychology, 22(2), 83102.

Gyllensten, K., & Palmer, S. (2005). Can coachingreduce workplace stress: A quasi-experimentalstudy. International Journal of Evidence-BasedCoaching and Mentoring, 3(2), 7585.

Harter, S. (2002). Authenticity. In C.R. Snyder & S.J.Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology(pp.382394). New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Harter, S., Marold, D.B., Whitesell, N.R. & Cobbs, G.(1996). A model of the effects of perceivedparent and peer support on adolescent false self-behaviour. Child Development, 67(2), 360374.

Heidegger, M. (1962). Sein und zeit being and time(translated by John Macquarrie & EdwardRobinson). London: SCM Press.

Hodgins, H.S., Koestner, R. & Duncan, N. (1996).On the compatibility of autonomy and related-ness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,22(3), 227237.

Kampa-Kokesch, S. (2002). Executive coaching as anindividually tailored consultation intervention:Does it increase leadership? Dissertation AbstractsInternational: Section B: The Sciences & Engineering,62(7B), 3408.

Kernis, M.H. (2003). Toward a conceptualisation ofoptimal self-esteem. Psychological Inquiry, 14(1),126.

Kernis, M.H. & Goldman, B.M. (2005a). Fromthought and experience to behaviour and inter-personal relationships: A multicomponentconceptualisation of authenticity. In A. Tesser, J.V. Wood & D.A. Stapel (Eds.), On building,defending and regulating the self: A psychological

perspective (pp.3152). New York: Psychology

Press.Kernis, M.H. & Goldman, B.M. (2005b). Authen-

ticity, social motivation, and psychological adjust-ment. In J.P. Forgas, K.D. Williams & S.M. Laham(Eds.), Social motivation: Conscious and unconsciousprocesses (pp.210227). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Kernis, M.H. & Goldman, B.M. (2006). A multicom-ponent conceptualisation of authenticity: Theoryand research. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances inexperimental social psychology (Vol. 38,pp.283357). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic

Press.Koeter, M.W.J. & Ormel, J. (1991). General health ques-tionnaire manual, Dutch version. Lisse: Swete &Zeitlinger.

Libri, V. & Kemp, T. (2006). Assessing the efficacy ofa cognitive behavioural executive coachingprogramme. International Coaching PsychologyReview, 1(2), 920.

Linley, P., Nielsen, K.M., Gillett, R. & Biswas-Diener,R. (2010). Using signature strengths in pursuit ofgoals: Effects on goal progress, need satisfaction,and well-being, and implications for coaching

psychologists. International Coaching PsychologyReview, 5(1), 615.Linley, P.A. & Joseph, S. (2004). Positive psychology in

practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Lorr, M., McNair, D.M. & Droppleman, L.F. (1992).

EdITS manual for the profile of mood states (POMS).

San Diego, CA: EdITS.Madden, W., Green, L.S. & Grant, A.M. (2011).

A pilot study evaluating strengths-based coachingfor primary school students: Enhancing engage-ment and hope. International Coaching PsychologyReview, 6(1), 7183.

Maslow, A.H. (1962). Toward a psychology of being.Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.


26/88



Orenstein, R.L. (2006). Measuring executivecoaching efficacy? The answer was right here allthe time. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice andResearch, 58(2), 106116.

Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (2007). Handbook ofcoaching psychology: A guide for practitioners.

New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Peltier, B. (2001). The psychology of executive coaching:Theory and application. New York: Brunner-Routledge.

Peterson, C. & Park, N. (2004). Classification and meas-urement of character strengths: Implications for

practice. Positive psychology in practice. Hoboken,NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Peterson, D.B. & Kraiger, K. (2004). A practical guideto evaluating coaching: Translating state of theart techniques into the real world. In J.E.Edwards, J.C. Scott & N.S. Raju (Eds.), The humanresources programme-evaluation handbook

(pp.262282). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Robinson, M.D., Johnson, J.T. & Shields, S.A. (1995).

On the advantages of modesty: The benefits of abalanced self-presentation. CommunicationResearch, 22(5), 575591.

Rogers, C.R. (1961). On becoming a person. Oxford,England: Houghton Mifflin.

Ruch, W., Proyer, R.T., Harzer, C., Park, N., Peterson,C. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2010). Values in actioninventory of strengths (via-is): Adaptation andvalidation of the german version and the devel-opment of a peer-rating form. Journal of Indi-

vidual Differences, 31(3), 138149.Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2004). Autonomy is no illu-sion: Self-determination theory and the empir-ical study of authenticity, awareness, and will.In J. Greenberg, S.L. Koole & T. Pyszczynski(Eds.), Handbook of experimental existentialpsychology (pp.449479). New York: GuilfordPress.

Sartre, J.-P. (1956).Etre et le nant being and nothing-ness; an essay on phenomenological ontology.

New York: Philosophical Library.Schaufeli, W.B. & Dierendonck, D. (2000). Ubos,

utrechtse bournout schaal, handeiding. Lisse: SwetsTest Publishers.Seligman, M.E.P. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Posi-

tive psychology: An introduction. AmericanPsychologist, 55(1), 514.

Seligman, M.E.P., Park, N. & Peterson, C. (2004).The values in action (VIA) classification of char-acter strengths. Ricerche di Psicologia, 27(1),6378.

Sergio, J.P. (1987). Behavioural coaching as an inter-vention to reduce production costs through adecrease in output. DAIB 47/08, p.3566,February.

Sheldon, K.M. (2004). Integrity [authenticity,honesty]. Character strengths and virtues: A hand-book and classification(pp.249271). Washington,DC; New York: American Psychological Associa-tion; Oxford University Press.

Sheldon, K.M. & Elliot, A.J. (1998). Not all personalgoals are personal: Comparing autonomous and

controlled reasons for goals as predictors ofeffort and attainment. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 24(5), 546557.

Sheldon, K.M. & Elliot, A.J. (1999). Goal striving,need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being:The self-concordance model.Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 76(3), 482497.

Sheldon, K.M., Ryan, R.M., Rawsthorne, L.J. & Ilardi,B. (1997). Trait self and true self: Cross-role vari-ation in the Big 5 personality traits and its rela-tions with psychological authenticity andsubjective well-being. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 73(6), 13801393.Spence, G.B. (2007). Gas-powered coaching: Goal

attainment scaling and its use in coachingresearch and practice. International CoachingPsychology Review, 2(2), 155167.

Stober, D.R. & Grant, A.M. (2006). Evidence-basedcoaching handbook: Putting best practices to work for

your clients. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc.Susing,

Coaching Psychologist Article

Documents

Transcript of Coaching Psychologist Article