Problemas en los paradigmas

Background theory. Adult development in EC draws on the work on human development (see Erikson, 1950; 1958; 1968; Kegan, 1982; 2000; Kohlberg and Armon, 1984; Weick and Bougon, 1986). This theory is based on the notion that, as they develop, adults tend to become ‘open to a mature understand-ing of authority and responsibility, and display greater tolerance of ambigu-ity’ (Ives, 2008: 101). Developmental coaching focuses on various aspects of human nature such as the ‘self’, ‘free will’, and ‘psychological evolution’ (see Bachkirova, 2011). As a practice, it tends to be perceived by different coaches

in different ways (ibid.: 1) and no unifying theory appears to exist behind this approach (ibid.: 13). Even the way the term ‘developmental coaching’ has been used has evolved over time. For example, Bachkirova (2011: 9) observed that in the past the term ‘developmental coaching’ was used in contrast to

‘remedial coaching’ and was perceived as coaching targeted to those indi-viduals who have reached a plateau in terms of their personal growth. In that sense, developmental coaching was seen as primarily focused on building one’s competences in the long-term, rather than helping to achieve specific organizational outcomes. Recently, Bachkirova (2011) proposed a new way of conceiving and practicing developmental coaching. She observed a pattern in the themes brought for coaching, indicating the important role of the ego which ‘could be unformed, formed or reformed’ (ibid.: 6).

Axelrod (2005: 119) traces the origins of adult development theories to the work of Erik Erikson (1950, 1958, 1968) on adult psychological development and particularly on how core psychological issues or tasks define the dif-ferent phases of adulthood. Erikson extended Freud’s work on the stages of childhood to adolescence and adulthood. Within the adult development per-spective, Laske (1999b: 144) refers particularly to Kegan’s (1982, 1994) stage theory of self, according to which throughout their lives human beings are in a continuous process of meaning-making. This leads them ‘from being embedded in their own subjectivity (as is an infant) to an increas-ingly stronger and refined ability to take the world, including themselves, as an object’ (Laske, 1999b: 144). ‘At different ontic-developmental positions (stages), different rules of meaning making “govern”, as it were, an individ-ual’s relationship to self, role, work, and the social world in general’ (ibid.).

Kegan’s theory does not focus so much on each stage but rather on the tran-sition between pivotal stages.

There are three tiers of the adult development trajectory across a lifespan, each including transitional stages (Laske and Maynes, 2002: 704–5): (a) the pre-conventional tier, which is the level that refers typically to children and adolescents whose central focus of sensemaking is survival through others, (b) the conventional tier, which refers to the 80% of adults who have matured to a level of self-sufficiency, and (c) the post-conventional tier, which refers to the level where the individual develops self-awareness to such an extent that is willing to share the ‘why’ of his/her actions and open up for external scrutiny by others so that he/she helps to the transformation of others.

Applying the adult development perspective to EC. Laske (1999b: 139) notes that EC practice lacks a lifespan developmental perspective, which would help the coaching experience to more accurately meet the client ‘where the client is developmentally’. This requires the widening of the timeframe within which coaching takes place in order to locate the coaching experi-ence ‘at some point along the trajectory of the client’s life span development’

(Laske, 1999b: 139). The adult development theory fills in that gap. The key

question for developing coaching strategy and determining the compatibil-ity between coach and coachee is ‘where the client is ontic-developmentally’

(italics in original) (Laske, 1999b: 139). The developmental approach to EC sees coaching ‘as a way of facilitating client growth through stages of devel-opment towards more advanced stages of thinking that can accommodate the increasing complexity of the modern business environment’ (Abbott and Rosinski, 2007: 68).

Axelrod (2005: 119) sees the adult development framework as ‘a good fit with executive coaching in that it furnishes a dynamic perspective on person-ality growth without privileging the childhood past’. Under the adult devel-opment approach to EC, the coach focuses on issues relating to the coachee’s adult past (with childhood life issues and conflicts as a backdrop) and com-bines this with ‘an understanding of how career progress, success and failure, goals and values, leadership style, interpersonal relationships, communica-tion skills, self-management skills, and so forth have affected the develop-ment of the personality in adulthood’ (ibid.). The contribution of the coach under the adult developmental perspective rests on examining the impact that specific decisions and choices have on the core psychological tasks of a particular stage, while also identifying emerging capabilities of the coachee which are critical for his/her job performance and personal growth (Axelrod, 2005: 119–20, for a description of how the adult developmental framework can be applied to EC, see Axelrod 2005).

Laske (1999b) proposes a developmental coaching approach to EC, derived from constructive-developmental psychology, family therapy supervision, and theories of organizational cognition. Berger (2006) also referred to the constructive-developmental theories as more relevant to EC practice. These theories focus on the particular meaning-making of each individual person instead of his/her age or phase of life. The constructive aspect relates to how individuals create the world by living it (instead of seeing it as an objective truth, external to the individual) and the developmental aspect refers to the way this construction changes over time and becomes more complex and multifaceted. The difficulty associated with development is that it is ‘invisible’

(hence difficult to uncover) and also that it changes (Berger, 2006). Therefore, it requires rigorous discussions with the coachee or developmental assess-ments so that the coach can accurately determine the developmental form of understanding of the client.

Constructive-developmental theories focus on authority, responsibil-ity, and ability to tolerate complexity and ambiguity (Berger, 2006). This approach is based on two key ideas (Laske, 1999b: 141): first, ‘not every change represents development’ and secondly, ‘what is learned and experienced by an individual depends on the ontic-developmental position, or stage, of that individual’ (italics in original). In that perspective there is a ‘structure’ which represents the worldview of an individual at a particular point in time during

their life and defines how this individual understands his own ‘self’ and what is the ‘other’ (Laske, 1999b: 141). The ‘effect of coaching depends on the ontic-developmental preconditions that determine where an executive is when entering a coaching relationship’ (Laske, 1999b: 141–2). One of the instruments used in measuring the current development of the client is the Subject–Object Interview, which is based on Kegan’s theory of adult devel-opment and involves a sixty to ninety-minute semi-clinical interview which explores the interviewee’s meaning-making (see Berger, 2006).

More recently, Laske (2007) stressed the need for a more evidence-based approach to developmental coaching and suggested that coaching be based on empirical research on adult development. The focus is as much on the coachee as on the coach. Specifically, there are three key developmental tenets which need to be considered in coaching practice under that framework (Laske, 2007):  (a)  the coaching outcome is ultimately determined by the coach’s Frame of Reference (FoR), which is determined by his or her developmental profile, (b) in order to provide coaching service, the coach must understand the coachee’s FoR, and (c) a coach can support a client provided that he/she is ahead of the client developmentally, and then only within the limits of the client’s developmental potential. The coachee’s FoR depends on the devel-opment of four dimensions:  perception and learning (P&L), capacity (e.g., psychological Need), Cognitive Development (CD), and Social-emotional Development (ED).

Strengths and Weaknesses of the adult development theory. The value of the adult developmental perspective rests in that it allows identifying key trans-formational tasks of adulthood that help shape the executive role function-ing (Axelrod, 2005). Moreover, since short-term change is behavioural and long-term change is developmental (Laske, 2004: 43), the adult developmen-tal framework contributes to more sustainable EC outcomes.