This paper aims to show how polarity coaching can foster meaningful change among executive clients through sponsoring a deeper understanding and acceptance of interdependent…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper aims to show how polarity coaching can foster meaningful change among executive clients through sponsoring a deeper understanding and acceptance of interdependent opposites.
Design/methodology/approach
The study explores what is required from the coach and the coaching relationship and how clients can be supported in overcoming polarity traps. A social constructionist and sense‐making approach to coaching is followed and the paper draws on relevant literature from the fields of psychotherapy, coaching, and dialogical change.
Findings
It is shown that before engaging in polarity coaching it is important for coaches to become aware of the polarity tensions that are prevalent in their own work and to explore their personal preferences when facing these tensions. A coach who is able to hold interdependent opposites with ease in the coaching encounter will allow clients to experience transformation on a deeper level.
Originality/value
The core of the paper is the polarity‐coaching model, which describes how coaches can guide their clients through a process of discovering polarized thinking, pole exploration, and boundary softening for becoming more comfortable with interdependent opposites. The paper will be of interest to those in the field of coaching executives.
Details
Keywords
Judith Schneider and Romie F. Littrell
The Ohio State leader behaviour description questionnaire XII (LBDQ XII) was used to assess the leadership preference opinions of business managers in England and Germany…
Abstract
The Ohio State leader behaviour description questionnaire XII (LBDQ XII) was used to assess the leadership preference opinions of business managers in England and Germany. Significant differences were noted between the two national groups. The most dramatic difference was on the factor production emphasis, defined as “measuring to what degree the manager applies pressure for productive output”, with the English sample indicating a preference for a leader to demonstrate a significantly higher level of production emphasis than the German sample. Large, significant differences were also observed for demand reconciliation, persuasiveness, tolerance of uncertainty, initiation of structure, predictive accuracy, and superior orientation. For English leaders, the followers seem to prefer a more interventionist approach. For German leaders, the imposition of Ordnung (order) is critical.