Vicki V. Vandaveer, Ph.D.
Self as Key Instrument in the Executive
Coaching Process: Assessment and
Improvement
AGENDA
12:30 – 1:00
INTRODUCTIONS and AGENDA OVERVIEW
1:00 - 1:15
SELF AS INSTRUMENT – The Concept
1:15 – 1:45
SELF ASSESSMENT
• A few measures as examples
1:45 – 3:00
CASE STUDY
3:00 – 3:15
BREAK (or when everyone else breaks)
3:15 – 4:00
Self Assessment
4:00 – 5:00
Coaching and Peer Feedback
5:00 – 5:20
Debrief / Discussion
5:20 – 5:30
Wrap up
2
© Vandaveer
DEFINITIONS
SELF
Your entire being. Examples . . .
 Knowledge Skills Values Needs Motives /
motivations Personality Beliefs learning from
Experiences Intentions
“A means of pursuing an aim” (Oxford Dictionary)
INSTRUMENT
“A means whereby something is achieved, performed, or
furthered” (Webster Dictionary)
“A measurement device” (Oxford, Webster Dictionaries)
3
© Vandaveer
“Self as Instrument” in the Coaching Process – The
Concept
Georgetown University – Certificate in Leadership Coaching
Emphasizes skill development on 3 levels:
 Learning about self as a coach and instrument of change
 Creating productive and fulfilling relationships in the coaching role
 Understanding coaching within systems dynamics
Gestalt Institute of Cleveland (GIC) – International Coaching Program
“The Gestalt coach is trained to
A)Use self as instrument
B)Provide a presence that is otherwise lacking in the system
C)Help the client to complete units of work that result in new insights,
behavior or action.”
4
© Vandaveer
EFFECTIVE COACH ATTRIBUTES, ACTIONS and BEHAVIOURS –
from the Literature
ATTRIBUTES
LISTENING
Whitmore (1996)
ACTIONS / BEHAVIOURS
Command Respect
INTUITION
Work Collaboratively
CURIOSITY
Use discursive approach
(vs instructive)
ACTION/LEARNING
Act authentically
SELF MANAGEMENT
EMOTIONAL
INTELLIGENCE
Honest, challenging
feedback
Cox & Bachkirova
(2007)
[Awareness – own and
coachee’s emotions &
Context in which occur]
Clear objectives
Hall, Otazo &
Hollenbeck
(1999)
Good action ideas
No personal agenda
Accessible, available
COMPETENCE,
SOPHISTICATION
Hall, Otazo &
Hollenbeck (1999)
KNOWLEDGE –
DEVELOPMENT
Laske (2007)
SKILL – Eliciting
Frame of Reference
Gonzalez
(2004)
5
© Vandaveer
EFFECTIVE COACH ATTRIBUTES, ACTIONS and BEHAVIOURS –
from the Lierature (Continued)
ATTRIBUTES
Ability – Suspend
Judgment
Stelter, R. (2007)
ACTIONS / BEHAVIOURS
Forms strong connection,
support
Awareness – PersonSituation Interaction
Professional demeanor,
behaviour
Skill – facilitating
coachee’s interpreting
& understanding his
subjective reality
Clear coaching
methodology
Wasylyshyn, K.
(2003)
Skill – facilitating
‘meaning making’ –
social construction of
reality
RELATIONSHIP Transparency
Gyllensten and
Palmer (2007)
Trustworthiness
6
© Vandaveer
Coach ROLE x Your Coaching COMPETENCIES
[Diagram for illustrative purposes only]
KNOWLEDGE
• Psychology
• Org Dynamics
• Business
• Psychometrics
Aspects of your
Strengths /
Attributes that
are not required
or not desired in
Role
SKILLS
• Listening / Communication
• Facilitation
• Assessment
• Emotional Intelligence Mod-Hi
“Stretch”
aspects of
Role (draws on
areas not your
strengths)
ROLE – Coaching
Psychologist
SELF (You)
“Sweet Spot”- aspects of
Role that play to YOUR
current Strengths
© Vandaveer
SELF IN ROLE AS COACH
[Diagram for illustrative purposes only]
OPPORTUNITIES FOR
DEVELOPMENT, GROWTH,
IMPROVEMENT
SELF
CLIENT
ASSESS:
 Outcomes
 Client Feedback
 Colleague Feedback
Re-Assess /
Continual Improvement
ROLE
8
© Vandaveer
CASE STUDY
MVPI - Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory /
Profiles: Coachee, Coaching Psychologist (CP)
RECOGNITION
POWER
HEDONISM
ALTRUISM
AFFILIATION
TRADITION
SECURITY
COMMERCE
AESTHETICS
SCIENCE
Percentile –
Managers
10
COACHEE
20
30
40
50
⏏
60
70
80
90
100
CP
© Vandaveer
MVPI (Motives, Values, Preferences Inventory /
Dimensions and Definitions
Recognitio
n
Responsive to attention, approval and praise
Power
Desire for success, accomplishment, status and control
Hedonism
Orientation for fun, pleasure, and enjoyment
Altruism
Desire to help others and contribute to society
Affiliation
Desire for and enjoyment of social interaction
Tradition
Dedication, strong personal beliefs, and obligation
Security
Need for predictability, structure and order
Commerce
Interest in money, profits, investment and business opportunities
Aesthetics
Need for self expression; concern over look, feel & design of work
products
Science
Quest for knowledge, research, technology and data
© Vandaveer
CASE STUDY
GPPI - Gordon Personal Profile Inventory
ASCENDANCE
RESPONSIBILITY
EMOTIONAL
STABILITY
SOCIABILITY
CAUTIOUSNESS
ORIGINAL THINKING
PERSONAL
RELATIONS
VIGOR
SELF CONFIDENCE
Percentile –
Managers
10
COACHEE
20
30
40
50
⏏
60
70
80
90
100
CP
© Vandaveer
GPPI - Gordon Personal Profile Inventory* - Dimensions
HIGH Scorers
LOW Scorers
• Verbally ascendant
• Take an active role in a group
• Tend – independent decisions
• Self-assured in relationships w/
others
• Take passive role in a group
• Listen much more than talk
• Lack self-confidence
• Let others take the lead
• May be overly dependent on
others
• Able to stick to the job
• Persevering and determined
• Reliable – can be counted on
• Have difficulty sticking to tasks that
do not interest them
• Tend to be irresponsible, “flighty”
Emotional
Stability
• Emotionally stable; relatively free
from worries, anxiety
• Tend to be anxious, hypersensitive
• Have low frustration tolerance
Sociability
• Like to be with and work with
people
• Gregarious, sociable
• Not gregarious; general restriction
in social contacts
• (Very low) Avoidance of social
relationships
• High cautious; carefully consider
before making decisions
• Do not like to take chances, run
risks
• Impulsive; act on spur of moment
• Make hurried or snap decisions
• Enjoy taking chances; seek
excitement
Ascendance
(Social Boldness)
Responsibility
Cautiousness
* GPPI Manual
© Vandaveer
GPPI - Gordon Personal Profile Inventory* - Dimensions
(Continued)
HIGH Scorers
LOW Scorers
Original
Thinking
• Like to work on difficult problems
• Intellectually curious
• Enjoy thought-provoking questions
& discussions
• Like to think about new ideas
• Dislike working on difficult or
complicated problems
• Do not care particularly about
thinking about new ideas
• Not interested in thoughtprovoking questions & discussions
Personal
Relations
• Have faith and trust in people
• Tolerant, patient, understanding
• Lack trust or confidence in people
• Tend to be critical of others –
become annoyed or irritated by
what others do
• Energetic
• Like to work and move rapidly
• Able to accomplish more than the
average person
• Low energy
• Prefer setting a slower pace
• Tend to tire easily
• Tend to be below average in
productivity
Vigor
(Energy)
Self Esteem
* GPPI Manual
Extent to which one feels positive about oneself
© Vandaveer
CASE STUDY
TKI (Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode Inventory) /
Profiles: Coachee and Coaching Psychologist (CP)
COMPETING
Assertive and uncooperative,
a power-oriented mode; ‘win’
COLLABORATING
Both assertive and
cooperative – try meet needs
of both parties
COMPROMISING
Intermediate assertive +
cooperative – try for mutually
acceptable solution –
partially satisfy both
AVOIDING
Unassertive, uncooperative –
conflict not addressed, or
side-stepped
ACCOMMODATING
Unassertive + cooperative –
neglects own concerns to
satisfy the other’s concerns
Percentile –
Managers
10
COACHEE
20
30
40
50
⏏
60
70
80
90
100
CP
© Vandaveer
TKI (Thomas Kilmann Conflict Mode Inventory) /
Dimensions – further descriptions
COMPETING
COLLABORATING
COMPROMISING
AVOIDING
ACCOMMODATING
Assertive and uncooperative, a power-oriented mode. When competing, an individual pursues his or her own
concerns at the other person’s expense, using whatever power seems appropriate to win his or her position.
Competing might mean standing up for your rights, defending a position you believe is correct, or simply
trying to win.
Both assertive and cooperative. When collaborating, an individual attempts to work with the other person to
find a solution that fully satisfies the concerns of both . . . . Involves digging into an issue to identify the
underlying concerns of the two individuals and to find an alternative that meets both sets of concerns.
Collaborating might take the form of exploring a disagreement to learn from each other’s insights, resolving
some condition that would otherwise have them competing for resources, or confronting and trying to find a
creative solution to an interpersonal problem.
Intermediate in both assertiveness and cooperativeness. When compromising, an individual has the objective
of finding an expedient, mutually acceptable solution that partially satisfies both parties. Compromising falls
on a middle ground between competing and accommodating, giving up more than competing but less than
accommodating. Likewise, it addresses an issue more directly than avoiding but doesn’t explore it in as much
depth as collaborating. Compromising might mean splitting the difference, exchanging concessions, or seeking
a quick middle-ground position.
Unassertive and uncooperative. When avoiding, an individual does not immediately pursue his or her own
concerns or those of the other person. He or she does not address the conflict. Avoiding might take the form
of diplomatically sidestepping an issue, postponing an issue until a better time, or simply withdrawing from a
threatening situation.
Unassertive and cooperative—the opposite of competing. When accommodating, an individual neglects his or
her own concerns to satisfy the concerns of the other person; there is an element of self-sacrifice in this
mode. Accommodating might take the form of selfless generosity or charity, obeying another person’s order
when you would prefer not to, or yielding to another’s point of view.
MBTI – Myers Briggs Type Indicator
EXTRAVERSION
INTROVERSION
SENSING
NTUITION
THINKING
FEELING
JUDGING
PERCEIVING
30 25 20 15 10 5
CLIENT
COACH
0
5
10 15 20 25 30
16
© Vandaveer
FIRO-B – (Fundamental Interpersonal Relations
Orientation – Behavior) / PROFILE COMPARISONS
CLIENT
COACH
INCLUSION
CONTROL
AFFECTION
E
2
8
3
13
W
1
1
2
4
3
9
5
17
INCLUSION
CONTROL
AFFECTION
E
5
5
5
15
W
5
5
5
15
10
10
10
30
© Vandaveer
FIRO-B (Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation –
Behavior) / OVERVIEW
•
Interpersonal NEEDS underlie interpersonal behavior
•
Many interpersonal behaviors are “automatic”
•
Interpersonal behaviors affect individual effectiveness and team
dynamics
•
Interpersonal needs measured: Inclusion, Control, Affection
– Inclusion: the need to be around others – involved, included
– Control: the need for influence, decision making, responsibility,
being in charge
– Affection: the need for close interpersonal relationships / warmth /
support with others
Cell Score: 1-3 = Low; 4-6 = Medium; 7-9 = High
© Vandaveer
Behaviors Associated with the Three Needs
INCLUSION (I)
Expressed E
Wanted W
CONTROL (C)
AFFECTION (A)
•Inviting others to join
in your activities
•Assuming positions
of authority
•Involving others in
projects and meetings
•Incorporating
everyone’s ideas and
suggestions
•Managing the
conversation
•Attempting to
influence others’
opinions
•Taking a personal
interest in others
•Establishing policies
and procedures
•Reassuring and
supporting others
•Showing concern
about others’
personal lives
•Sharing your
personal opinions
and feelings
•Being trustworthy
and loyal
•Getting involved in
high-profile activities
and projects
•Asking for help on a
job
•Being flexible and
accommodating
•Raising issues for
others to consider
•Involving others in
decisions
•Listening carefully to
others
•Doing things that get
noticed
•Going along with the
majority opinion
•Wearing distinctive
clothing
•Meeting the wishes,
needs, and requests
of others
Hammer, Allen L., with Schnell, Eugene R. FIRO-B Technical Guide. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists
Press, 2000.
•Trying to please
others
•Making yourself
available to others
19
© Vandaveer
FIRO-B
Score
Range
0-15
16-26
27-38
39-54
- Interpretation of Overall Need Score
Category
Meaning
Low
•
•
•
•
•
Low-
• Involvement with others is sometimes a source of satisfaction,
depending on the people and the context
• Work most effectively alone, but can work with others when
objectives are focused
• Tend to have a small circle of friends
Medium
Med-High
High
Involvement with others is not a primary source of need satisfaction
Other needs (e.g., intellectual stimulation, solitary pursuits) predominate
Tend to need privacy to do their best work
Prefer to keep to themselves; tend to have a small circle of friends
Highly selective about how often and with whom they interact
• Involvement is usually a source of satisfaction
• May enjoy small-group work settings
• Tend to have a larger group of friends and may contact them on a
regular basis
• Involvement with others is enjoyable and satisfying
• Engage in interpersonal interaction with many people and on a
frequent basis
Hammer, Allen L., with Schnell, Eugene R. FIRO-B Technical Guide. Palo Alto: Consulting
Psychologists Press, 2000.
© Vandaveer
CASE STUDY
JOHN
•
Country Manager – Central & Southern Africa / American Global Mfg Co.
 American expatriate – 55 yrs old
 Financially well off
 Married – second time 2 yrs ago; ‘trophy’ wife 36 years old; 1 yr old son
•
SETTING




Company restructured – geographical (60+ countries) to functional
John selected (with reservations) – VP Global Marketing . . . Reporting to President
Moved to Corporate Headquarters – Hong Kong
Six months after reorganization – President engaged coaching psychologist to work with
him. Behavior must change, or he would be fired.
©Vandaveer
CASE STUDY
JOHN: Available Existing Data
PERFORMANCE REVIEW (First step in disciplinary process)
“The following behaviors must improve immediately and improvement sustained – or
employment will be terminated”
- Arrogant, condescending behaviours; showing disrespect to Senior Management
- “Torpedo e-mails”
- Public criticism of direct reports
360 FEEDBACK
STRENGTHS
-- Superior intellect
-- Execution
-- Knowledge base – the industry, marketing,
geo-political . . .
-- Innovative thinking
-- Decisive
-- Articulate
-- Outstanding reputation / credibility with
Gov’ts, Partners, industry, competition
-- Charming (when he wants to be)
-- Wit, humor
-- Integrity
-- Energy
IMPROVEMENT NEEDS
-- Acting arrogant, egotistical
-- Colonial leadership style
-- E-mail assassination of senior execs when
you disagree
-- Cutting down your own team publicly
-- Devaluing people and viewing everyone
else as incompetent
-- Taking a “king of the castle” approach –
last word on contentious issues
-- Shutting people down
-- Being inconsistent – friendly, engaging . . .
to . . . dismissive or belittling
-- Stifling your direct reports; give them room
©Vandaveer
to try, fail, develop . . .
CASE STUDY
JOHN: Initial Meeting – Assessment & ‘Contracting’
 Meeting rescheduled 4 times
- On his terms
- On his turf (Hotel in Kuala Lumpur where he was holding his global
management team meeting)
 Initial meeting
- Behavior / demeanor: Cavalier, disingenuous, ‘charming’
- Appeared very surprised at his 360 feedback – and looked amused
- Coach determined that John lacked motivation for change.
 He was “going through the motions” to satisfy his boss.
<< Case paused here – for workshop participant analysis and discussion >>
©Vandaveer
CASE STUDY
JOHN: Initial Meeting – Assessment & ‘Contracting’
The rest of the story . . .
 Meeting rescheduled 4 times
- On his terms
- On his turf (Hotel in Kuala Lumpur where he was holding his global
management team meeting)
 Initial meeting
- Behavior / demeanor: Cavalier, disingenuous, ‘charming’
- Appeared very surprised at his 360 feedback – and looked amused
- Coach determined that John lacked motivation for change.
 He was “going through the motions” to satisfy his boss.
 After 1 hour of attempting to engage at an authentic level of
dialogue, coach told John: “This coaching will be a waste of your
and my time – as well as the company’s money. I’m disengaging.”
©Vandaveer
CASE STUDY
JOHN: Initial Meeting – Assessment & ‘Contracting’
 Coach then found “hook” – motivation to change
- Seeing that the coach was serious – that she was disengaging
before they even got started – John’s entire demeanor changed.
- “My wife Elizabeth thinks I’m a star – a hugely successful
international executive . . . believes I walk on water.
I cannot get fired!”
©Vandaveer
CASE STUDY
JOHN: The Intervention
Critical Success Factors:
A. Motivation to Change
B. Insight / Awareness
C. Ability to Change
D. Identification – Internal Enablers / Inhibitors for Change
E. Effective Targeting – Highest Leverage Area(s) for focus
F. Coach knowledge, skills – including ability to connect with coachee
(coach = instrument)
G. Courage
H. Commitment
I. Accountability
©Vandaveer
CASE STUDY
JOHN: The Intervention: Cognitive-Behavioral Approach
Coaching Included:
A. Data to inform the process –
1. Perceptual – Company 360 feedback + coach 360 interviews
2. Annual Reviews – Performance; Potential
B. Professional Executive Assessment
Cognitive ability / agility; Personality; Values; Leadership profile; EI
C. Monthly Meetings with Coach
a) Work at cognitive level – Reframing (role, responsibilities, role,
perceptions, intentions, impact – desired / actual, ‘success’
criteria)
b) Surface assumptions; challenge; facilitate thinking; support
D. Development of Strategy and Plan
E. “Homework’ – designed / tailored reflective exercises
F. Coach ongoing assessment / adjustment
G. Accountability
H. Progress Evaluation at 9 months / 18 months
I. Telephone conversations in-between meetings – as helpful
©Vandaveer
CASE STUDY
JOHN: Outcome deemed “very successful”
 Everyone (boss, direct reports, Top Management, coach) gave this
engagement less than 50-50 chance of being even partly successful.
 After 4 months of work, all of them had noticed significant change – and
were asking the coach what the magic formula was.
 After 9 months the 360 feedback process was repeated. Results had
significantly improved, and responses to open-ended questions were
positive . . . a number of people expressing pessimism that he could
actually sustain the change, however.
 At 12 months, John received a big promotion.
 Coaching continued after that on a quarterly basis for two years.
 Performance reviews were all positive – and he was ranked “1” (highest)
• He began show-casing his team – and working with each one to develop
them to their potential. Became a “coach” Leader.
• He still calls the coach from time to time – for “reality check”, to test
thinking, to analyze scenarios together, and to share successes &
disappointments.
• Elizabeth thinks he walks on water.
©Vandaveer
CASE STUDY
JOHN: What Worked
• Motivation to change
• Authentic connection with Coach
– “Tough love” / no-nonsense approach
• Candid feedback
• Cognitive-Behavioral intervention (cognitive reframing)
• Accountability for change (Boss)
• Specific goals and measurable outcomes
• Individual assessment (helped understand the 360 feedback; helped
identify the greatest leverage areas for coaching)
• Coaching Strategy and Process
© Vandaveer
RELEVANT RESEARCH – A few selected references
Cox, E. and Bachkirova, T. (2007). “Coaching with emotion: How coaches deal with difficult emotional situations”. . In
Palmer, S. and Cavanagh, M. (Eds) . International Coaching Psychology Review. British Psychological Society –
Special Group in Coaching Psychology and Australian Psychological Society Ltd – Interest Group in Coaching
Psychology (Vol 2, No 2)
Gyllensten, K. and Palmer, S. (2007). “The coaching relationship: An interpretative phenomenological analysis”. In
Palmer, S. and Cavanagh, M. (Eds) . International Coaching Psychology Review. British Psychological Society –
Special Group in Coaching Psychology and Australian Psychological Society Ltd – Interest Group in Coaching
Psychology (Vol 2, No 2)
Hall, D.T., Otazo, K.L. & Hollenbeck, G.P. (1999). Behind closed doors: What really happens in executive coaching.
Organisational Dynamics, 27, 39–53.
Kilburg, R. (2004). Trudging towards Dodoville: Conceptual approaches and cases studies in executive coaching.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56(4)
Kilburg, R.R. (Ed.), (Winter, 2005). Executive coaching [Special issue]. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 57(1).
Laske, O. (2007). “Contributions of evidence-based developmental coaching to coaching psychology and practice.” . In
Palmer, S. and Cavanagh, M. (Eds) . International Coaching Psychology Review. British Psychological Society –
Special Group in Coaching Psychology and Australian Psychological Society Ltd – Interest Group in Coaching
Psychology (Vol 2, No 2)
Laske, O. (1999) An integrated model of develop- mental coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal 51(3), 139–159.
Palmer, S. and Cavanagh, M. (2007). International Coaching Psychology Review. British Psychological Society – Special
Group in Coaching Psychology and Australian Psychological Society Ltd – Interest Group in Coaching Psychology
(Vol 2, No 2)
30
© Vandaveer
RELEVANT RESEARCH (Continued)
Passmore, J. and Gibbes, C. (2007). “The state of executive coaching research: What does the current literature tell us
and what’s next for coaching research?” In Palmer, S. and Cavanagh, M. (Eds) . International Coaching Psychology
Review. British Psychological Society – Special Group in Coaching Psychology and Australian Psychological
Society Ltd – Interest Group in Coaching Psychology (Vol 2, No 2)
Salovey, P. & Mayer, J. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185–211.
Schmid, P. (2001). Comprehension: The art of not knowing. Dialogical and ethical perspectives on empathy as dialogue in
personal and person- centred relationships. In S. Haugh & T. Merry (Eds.), Empathy. Llongarron, Ross-on-Wye: PCCS
Books.
Stelter, R. (2007). “Coaching: A process of personal and social meaning making.” . In Palmer, S. and Cavanagh, M.
(Eds) . International Coaching Psychology Review. British Psychological Society – Special Group in Coaching
Psychology and Australian Psychological Society Ltd – Interest Group in Coaching Psychology (Vol 2, No 2)
Wasylyshyn, K. (2003). Executive coaching: An outcome study. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,
55, 94–106.
Whitmore (1996). Coaching for performance. London: Nicholas Brealy Publishing.
31
© Vandaveer