Search results
1 – 1 of 1Evan Offstein, Ryan Kentrus, Ron Dufresne and Stacy Wassell
The purpose of this paper is to better understand the “black box” of how coaching is enacted and how it unfolds in practice. Indeed, some of the mixed results concerning the…
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to better understand the “black box” of how coaching is enacted and how it unfolds in practice. Indeed, some of the mixed results concerning the efficacy of executive coaching appear anchored to the confusion and surrounding ambiguity of the episodic and processual nature of coaching. In this conceptual paper, the authors turn to the power of metaphor to explore how executive coaches, either consciously or subconsciously, approach and enact their role.
Design/methodology/approach
This paper is a conceptual or theory paper with a heavy practitioner focus. The authors did augment and enhance their assertions with semi-structured interviews of coaches, a therapist, a pastor and physical trainers. Institutional review board approval was granted.
Findings
The authors identify two core metaphors that enjoy some dominance in how executive coaches make sense of their role and duties: coach-as-pastor and coach-as-therapist. Considering some of the limitations of the existing metaphors, the authors offer an alternative metaphor, coach-as-physical trainer, that may offer a more compelling, comprehensive and accurate portrayal of the executive coach.
Practical implications
The metaphors that coaches embrace, inarguably, impact how they perceive and enact their role. For these reasons, the authors suggest that expanding the domain of possible metaphors serves both the study and practice of executive coaching. The authors offer a new, alternative, metaphor that may change how coaches think about and execute their role.
Originality/value
The authors challenge two widely accepted metaphors that are often used in how coaches approach and enact their roles. They provocatively dissect these metaphors to expose limitations and inaccuracies. Given these limitations, the authors offer a new metaphor in which to view the study and practice of coaching.
Details