Evaluación de los errores

Background theory. The psychodynamic approach has its roots in the work of Freud and Jung. It is ‘the oldest of psychotherapies’ and suggests that behav-iour is the product of the interplay of conflicting internal forces and, when two forces conflict, a third and different source is produced (Gray, 2006: 480;

see also Peltier, 2001: 25). Therefore, the ‘psychodynamic’ approach focuses on the role that unconscious processes have in human behaviour (Lee, 2010: 23).

This approach regards the regulation of emotions (rather than instincts) as a central aspect of human behaviour:  our previous relationships (particu-larly with parents and caregivers) define the way in which we regulate our emotions (e.g., the defence mechanisms that we develop such as repression, denial, and projection) and build up a sense of self-identity (Lee, 2010: 24).

According to this theory, the ‘human psychic energy’ is expressed through three channels: first, the ‘id’ (the pleasure principle), second, the ‘ego’ which is characterized by reality orientation and pragmatism and is there to control the id but also satisfy needs and finally, the ‘superego’, which is the moral channel that aims at the ‘ideal rather than the real’ and strives for perfection (Gray, 2006: 480). Under the Freudian approach of psychotherapy, the super-ego subdues the impulse of the id, seeking to substitute moralistic goals for realistic ones (Gray, 2006: 480).

The psychodynamic perspective includes two approaches (see Kilburg, 2004a:  250):  The first is conflict theory, which refers to the defensive or self-protective operations that individuals develop when facing internal con-flict and involves keeping material out of conscious awareness. This dysfunc-tionality can be more effectively addressed by making consciously available the unconscious material. The second is the object relations theory, which refers to dysfunctional patterns of caretaking in one’s childhood, which are reflected in one’s relationships with others, remain unconscious, but define one’s quality of life, successes, or failures. The treatment of this dysfunction-ality would need to address at least partially these patterns of relating.

Applying the psychodynamic approach to EC. Rotenberg (2000) described psychodynamic psychotherapy and EC as overlapping paradigms. Fantasy is key to the psychodynamic theory and within the workplace context this means that one may be entangled in fantasies with regard to his/her career aspirations, building an ‘idealized’ notion of who and what they are within the organizational hierarchy (the ‘ego ideal’) (Gray, 2006: 480; see also Peltier, 2001: 25). However, in practice only few realize these hopes and may expe-rience psychic conflict or even hostile and aggressive impulses, as a result (ibid.). Freud showed that in order to protect our ego and sense of self one may use various defence mechanisms to protect oneself in the short term, but these mechanisms end up being self-defeating (Gray, 2006:  480). The psychotherapy perspective allows the coach to adopt an ethical stance, to develop an environment of commitment to confidentiality, provision of feed-back, establishment of strong boundaries between personal and professional relationship, and the support and challenging of coachees (Gray, 2006: 480).

The coach’s role is to expand the coachee’s capacity for emotional regulation, reducing the coachee’s need for defensive strategies (Lee, 2010: 24). The psy-chodynamic perspective allows approaching the executive on a more holistic basis and includes assessment of the client’s effectiveness and study of their internal motivators (i.e., beliefs, emotions, and unconscious assumptions) through the use of psychological testing (Gray, 2006: 480). The psychothera-peutic approach may also entail interviews with the client’s friends and fam-ily to understand their personal history (Gray, 2006: 480) as well as the use of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, which is based upon the Jungian psychody-namic model (Gray, 2006: 480).

Kilburg (2004a) provides a detailed list of nineteen coaching methods to elicit and work with psychodynamic material (ranging from seeking feedback or storytelling to reframing or reconstructions) (p. 259) as well as a list of the stages of a Behavioural or Psychodynamic Interpretation in EC (p. 263).

The psychodynamic approach to EC can be found in the literature in dif-ferent formats. For instance, Berg and Karlsen (2007: 5–6) refer to the psy-chodynamic systems approach to coaching—an approach based on Kilburg’s (2000) seventeen-dimensional model—which consists of two main parts: the

psychodynamic (which includes defence mechanisms, conflicts, conscious-ness, feelings, and emotions) and the systems part (which includes processes, inputs, and outputs).

A variation of this approach. We also identified during the literature review a variation of the psychodynamic perspective, which is being applied in EC.

This is the cognitive-experiential self theory (CEST) (see Cerni et al., 2010), which is based on Epstein’s (1973) ‘self-theory’ and is described as a psycho-dynamic theory (Epstein, 1994: 716). Specifically, CEST is a global theory of personality that ‘integrates the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious by assuming the existence of two parallel, interacting modes of information processing: a rational system and an emotionally driven experiential system’

(Epstein, 1994: 709). The constructs employed in each system are referred to as

‘beliefs’ in the rational and as ‘implicit beliefs’ or ‘schemata’ in the experiential system (Epstein, 1994: 715). CEST is based on the assumption that a theory of reality is developed in order to make life as ‘livable’ as possible (i.e., emo-tionally satisfying) and the experiential system is emoemo-tionally driven (Cerni et al., 2010). Under the CEST logic, the rational and experiential systems can offer assistance to leaders: the rational system ‘assists leaders to make logical inferences and solve abstract problems’ and the experiential system due to its

‘intimate association with affect’ can be both constructive (in that it facili-tates problem-solving) and destructive (in the form of superstition, categorical thinking, esoteric thinking, and naïve optimism) with regard to leadership (Cerni et al. 2010: 82).

Suitability of the psychodynamic approach to EC. Several authors have discussed in theoretical papers whether there is value in using a psycho-dynamic approach in coaching. However, there is still a lack of substantial empirical research that proves the effectiveness of this approach. Kilburg (2004a: 249) suggested that a psychodynamic approach to EC can contrib-ute to situations in which other, more conventional, approaches to behav-ioural change might have proved ineffective. He based this on the observation that events, feelings, thoughts, and patterns of behaviour outside the con-scious awareness of executives can significantly affect their decision-making and action. Kilburg (2004a: 252–3) lists fifteen different situations in which psychodynamic issues and interventions are relevant considerations in EC and argues that such an approach can promote and improve ten different areas relating to the executive: (1) Self-awareness, family, group, and organi-zational awareness and savvy, (2)  Emotional containment and manage-ment, (3) Executive performance, (4) Behavioural flexibility and creativity, (5)  Human resiliency, (6)  Psychosocial development, (7)  Professional, per-sonal, and social relationships, (8) Mental abilities, (9) Capacity for spiritual growth, and (10) Family, marital, and intimate relationships.

According to Peltier (2001: 40), one of the contributions that the psycho-dynamic approach makes to EC is the fact that it comes from the world of

psychotherapy supervision and is based on the notion that ‘dynamics that occur in coaching mirror the dynamics that the executive client experiences in the regular world of work’ and the coach’s experience with the client will reflect others’ experience when they interact with the client on a daily basis.

Berg and Karlsen (2007: 6) note as a strength of the psychodynamic systems approach the fact that once the connection between cause and effect becomes apparent the solution can be reached, but, on the other hand, a weakness is that the approach seems too complex and the individual appears to be just a

‘pawn’ in the system, unable to produce change. Peltier (2001: 38) observes another weakness, too: since the psychodynamic approach is based on the premise that a person’s fantasy about their career aspirations within the workplace context collides with reality, many may feel ambivalent or resent-ful about using a coach and resistance is expected.

Evidence of impact. There appears to be little empirical evidence of the pos-itive impact of the psychodynamic approach to EC. Cerni et al. (2010) offers one of the very few empirical studies on the psychodynamic approach to EC.

Specifically, Cerni et al. (2010) examined the impact of a ten-week coaching intervention programme using Epstein’s CEST theory on transformational leadership among fourteen secondary school principals. They found that after the coaching intervention programme the pre-test and post-test transforma-tional leadership scores were significantly different. Moreover, the school principals in the intervention group became more reflective about their thinking processes and leadership practices, including the use of intentional choice of strategies to develop effective communication.