icpr_5_1_web[1]

Special Group in Coaching Psychology

Interest Group in Coaching Psychology

ISSN: 1750-2764

International Coaching Psychology Review

Volume 5 No. 1 March 2010

International Coaching Psychology ReviewEditorial Board

Co-ordinating EditorsUnited Kingdom: Stephen Palmer, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit, Department of Psychology, City University, London, UK.Australia: Michael Cavanagh, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit, School of Psychology, Sydney University, Australia.

Co-EditorsSandy Gordon, PhD, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.Anthony M. Grant, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit, School of Psychology, Sydney University, Australia.Travis Kemp, PhD, International Graduate School of Business, University of South Australia, Australia.David Lane, PhD, Middlesex University, London, UK.Alex Linley, PhD, School of Psychology, University of Leicester, UK.Alison Whybrow, PhD, Manchester University, UK.

International Editorial BoardHilary Armstrong, PhD, Institute of Executive Coaching, Roy Moodley, PhD, University of Toronto, Canada.Sydney, Australia. Richard Nelson-Jones, PhD, Cognitive Humanistic Institute,Paul Atkins, PhD, Australian National University, Thailand.Canberra, Australia. Lindsay Oades, PhD, University of Wollongong, Australia.Tatiana Bachkirova, PhD, Oxford Brookes University, UK. James Pawelski, PhD, Positive Psychology Center,Michael Carroll, PhD, University of Bristol, UK. University of Pennsylvania, USA.Ian Cockerill, PhD, University of Birmingham, UK. Ernesto Spinelli, PhD, Regents College, UK.Cary Cooper, PhD, Lancaster University, UK. Reinhard Stelter, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit,Susan David, PhD, Melbourne University, Australia. University of Copenhagen, Denmark.Stephen Joseph, PhD, University of Warwick, UK. Dianne Stober, PhD, Fielding University, USA.Carol Kauffman, PhD, Harvard Medical School, USA. Mary Watts, PhD, City University, London, UK.

SubscriptionsInternational Coaching Psychology Review (ICPR) is published in March and September. It is distributed free of charge to members ofthe British Psychological Society Special Group in Coaching Psychology and the Australian Psychological Society Interest Group inCoaching Psychology members. It is available to non-members (Individuals 50 per volume; Institutions 60 per volume; single copies25) from: The British Psychological Society, SGCP, St. Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester LE1 7DR. UK.

Abstracting and indexing: The ICPR is abstracted in psycINFO and Google Scholar. In 2009 the ICPR will be included in the ninthedition of Cabell's Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Educational Psychology and Administration and Cabell's Directory ofPublishing Opportunities in Educational Curriculum and Methods.

Notes for ContributorsThe ICPR is an international publication with a focus on the theory, practice and research in the field of coaching psychology.Submission of academic articles, systematic reviews and other research reports which support evidence-based practice are welcomed.The ICPR may also publish conference reports and papers given at the British Psychological Society Special Group in CoachingPsychology (BPS SGCP) and Australian Psychological Society Interest Group in Coaching Psychology (APS IGCP) conferences, noticesand items of news relevant to the International Coaching Psychology Community.

Case studies and book reviews will be considered.

The ICPR is published by the BPS SGCP in association with the APS IGCP.

1. CirculationThe circulation of the ICPR is worldwide. It is available in hardcopy and PDF format. Papers are invited and encouraged from authorsthroughout the world. It is available free in paper and PDF format to members of the BPS SGCP, and free in PDF format to APS IGCPmembers as a part of their annual membership.

2. LengthPapers should normally be no more than 6000 words, although the Co-Editors retain discretion to publish papers beyond this lengthin cases where the clear and concise expression of the scientific content requires greater length.

3. ReviewingThe publication operates a policy of anonymous peer review. Papers will normally be scrutinised and commented on by at least twoindependent expert referees (in addition to the relevant Co-Editor) although the Co-Editor may process a paper at his or herdiscretion. The referees will not be aware of the identity of the author. All information about authorship including personalacknowledgements and institutional affiliations should be confined to the title page (and the text should be free of such clues asidentifiable self-citations, e.g. In our earlier work).

Continued on inside back cover.

The British Psychological SocietySpecial Group in Coaching Psychology

The Australian Psychological Society LtdInterest Group in Coaching Psychology

InternationalCoaching Psychology Review

Volume 5 No. 1 March 2010

1st

International Congress of

Coaching Psychology 2010 2011

The UK event will be hosted by the

BPS Special Group in Coaching Psychology

14th

and 15th

December 2010, City University London, UK

This will be the first in a series of events, forming part of an international congress held around the world. The SGCP co-sponsored stage will debate and discuss coaching psychology, evidence the contribution this area of psychological enquiry and practice makes at an individual, group, organisational and societal level, and enhance the global integration of this rapidly developing discipline and profession. The events will bring together the coaching psychology community both at the individual and professional body levels.

Other stages of the congress will be held during 2011, hosted in a number of countries including Australia, sponsored by their regional coaching psychology groups. Pre-congress events may also be held.

Details of the UK event can be found at www.sgcp.org.uk

Details of all the events can be found at: www.coachingpsychologycongress.org

Drawing from a distinguished pool of national and international speakers, participants will be delighted with the breadth and depth of keynote presentations, masterclasses, symposia, mini skills workshops, research papers and poster presentations.

Delegates will have the opportunity to participate in debates and discussions, and continue to develop and consolidate relationships with peers across the community.

We invite you to consider presenting your work at this UK event. Participants in previous years events describe their experience as one of warmth, openness and

energy. For further information and submission details see the SGCP website: www.sgcp.org.uk or e-mail [email protected]

Call for Papers for SGCP hosted event: Deadline 28th

May 2010

For members of the BPS, the 2010 membership fee to join SGCP is 8.50 (The cost to join the BPS as an affiliate member is 24)

SGCP membership benefits include membership rates at our events and conferences and free

copies of the International Coaching Psychology Review and The Coaching Psychologist.

Contents

4 EditorialMichael Cavanagh & Stephen Palmer

Academic articles

6 Using signature strengths in pursuit of goals: Effects on goal progress, need satisfaction, and well-being, and implications for coaching psychologistsP. Alex Linley, Karina M. Nielsen, Alex M. Wood, Raphael Gillett & Robert Biswar-Diener

16 Applying psychological theories of self-esteem in coaching practice Alison Maxwell & Tatiana Bachkirova

27 Evaluating the impact of a peer coaching intervention on well-being amongstpsychology undergraduate studentsEmma Short, Gail Kinman & Sarah Baker

36 Developmental coaching: Business benefit fact or fad?An evaluative study to explore the impact of coaching in the workplaceElouise Leonard-Cross

48 A grounded theory study of the coachee experience:The implications for training and practice in coaching psychologyJonathan Passmore

63 Exceptional executive coaches: Practices and attributesGavin R. Dagley

Reports

81 Executive coaching can enhance transformational leadershipTom Cerni, Guy J. Curtis & Susan H. Colmar

86 SGCP & IGCP News Update

International Coaching Psychology Review Vol. 5 No. 1 March 2010 3 The British Psychological Society ISSN: 1750-2764

EditorialMichael Cavanagh & Stephen Palmer

4 International Coaching Psychology Review Vol. 5 No. 1 March 2010 The British Psychological Society ISSN: 1750-2764

ELCOME, readers, to the first edition of the ICPR for 2010. As webegin the second decade of this

century the world of coaching psychologyand coaching is moving forward apace. LastDecembers Second European Coaching Psychology Conference sponsored by theSGCP was a great success. Some of thekeynotes and papers presented will be pub-lished in this volume of ICPR.

Coaching psychology continues to makean important contribution to coaching glob-ally. As this issue goes to press, work in Aus-tralia is about two-thirds of the way towardcompletion on a national standards frame-work for workplace and executive coachingunder the auspices of Standards Australia.While several excellent competency andtraining standards already exist around theworld, (such as the British ENTO NationalOccupational Standards for Coaching andMentoring), the Australian project is a littledifferent in that it will be the first producedby a national standards authority alignedwith the International Standards Organisa-tion. While many bodies produce standardsin countries around the world, national stan-dards authorities (such as the Standards Aus-tralia, the British Standards Institute and theAmerican National Standards Institute)often contribute to the creation of interna-tional standards via the International Stan-dards Organisation (ISO). The StandardsAustralia project is also noteworthy in that itcovers a particularly wide range of areas. Itincludes standards and guidelines con-cerning provision of coaching services,coaches knowledge, competence, trainingand ongoing development, as well as coachselection and the management of coachingprocesses by organisations - making it one ofthe most comprehensive yet produced.

Coaching psychology is well representedin this process. Peter Zarris (National Con-venor of the APS IGCP, and Henry McNichol(National IGCP committee member), repre-sent the IGCP on the working committeeformed to help create and edit the standards.This working committee is made up of repre-sentatives of all stakeholder groups includingcoaches, coaching psychologists, trainingorganisations, universities, coaching/coaching psychology professional bodies andpurchasers of coaching. The document itselfis being drafted by the ICPRs MichaelCavanagh. The project commenced at thebeginning of 2009. It is due to be publishedas a guideline later this year, and is expectedto become an official standard soon there-after. The process is being followed with keeninterest by coaching/coaching psychologybodies around the world, as is a similarnational standards process underway inMexico.

Publications like the ICPR, the confer-ences, symposia and congresses of SCGP andIGCP, and our contributions to conferencesand research worldwide mean that we ascoaching psychologists make a real contribu-tion to setting the standard in evidencebased practice. So keep those articlescoming in and submit papers to our confer-ences too!

This edition has another diverse range ofarticles for your edification and readingpleasure. Alex Linley and colleagues beginthis issue with a fine article exploringanother contribution of positive psychologyto coaching practice. They look at the use ofsignature strengths in the pursuit of goalsamong college students and find that the useof strengths is associated with improved goalprogress, psychological need fulfilment andenhanced well-being. They discuss someinteresting implications for coaching

W

Editorial

International Coaching Psychology Review Vol. 5 No. 1 March 2010 5

practice. Following the positive psychologytheme, Alison Maxwell and TatianaBachkirova review the concept of self-esteemin the literature to date and present a modelof self-esteem illustrated by four case studies.Again, the implications for coaching practiceare discussed. Emma Short, Gail Kinmanand Sarah Baker report on an intriguingempirical study in which undergraduate psy-chology students were provided some basictraining in coaching skills and conducted apeer coaching programme. They outline thepositive impact of this intervention and con-sider how it might be extended further.Elouise Leonard-Cross reports on a mixedmethods study that uses both quasi experi-mental methods and qualitative analysis toexplore the potential business benefits ofcoaching in the workplace. We will leave thereader to discover what she found! JonathanPassmore contributes another qualitativestudy on the coachee experience. Usinggrounded theory approach Jonathanexplores the behaviours and attitudescoachees look for in coaches, and discussesthe implications of this for coach trainingand practice. Our final article also uses aqualitative approach looking at the practicesand attributes of a group of coaches identi-fied by HR professionals as producing excep-tion results. This is the first of a series ofstudies conducted by Gavin Dagleyexploring the practice and impact of theseexceptional coaches from the perspectives ofthe coachee, coach and organisation. Theypromise to be a very useful contribution tothe literature. In addition to our full articles,we also have brief report by Tom Cerni thatlooks at the preliminary findings on a schoolbased programme that uses Epsteins Cogni-tive Experiential Self Theory in coaching.This report is as tantalising as it is brief.

It is well worth reading the reports fromthe new SGCP Chair, Ho Law, and the IGCPConvenor, Peter Zarris. They both mentionthe exciting news that coaching psychologyis going to hold its own International Con-gress during 2010 and 2011 in different loca-tions around the world. The SGCP and IGCPare hoping that this on-going event will helpto bring the global coaching psychologycommunity even closer together, enhancethe profession and break new ground in thetheory, research and practice of coachingpsychology. We will be inviting other profes-sional coaching psychology bodies tobecome involved too. Watch this space.

We once again commend the articles inthis issue for your consideration. Happyreading.

CorrespondenceMichael CavanaghCoaching Psychology Unit,Department of Psychology,Sydney University,Sydney, Australia.E-mail: [email protected]

Stephen PalmerCoaching Psychology Unit,Department of Psychology,City University London,Northampton Square,London, UK.E-mail: [email protected]

Using signature strengths in pursuit ofgoals: Effects on goal progress, needsatisfaction, and well-being, andimplications for coaching psychologistsP. Alex Linley, Karina M. Nielsen, Raphael Gillett &Robert Biswas-Diener


Objective: In recent years there has been a growing interest in research related to the use of strengths.Although results from past research have consistently suggested that the use of strengths is associated withhigher performance and greater well-being there is, as yet, no clear theory describing how using strengthsmight contribute to greater well-being or goal progress. The objective of the current research was to test amodel of how strengths use may support performance and well-being through an extension of the self-concordance model of healthy goal attainment.Design: We test a repeated measures cross-sectional model in which using signature strengths is associatedwith goal progress, which is in turn associated with the fulfilment of psychological needs, and in turn well-being.Method: Participants were 240 college students who completed measures of psychological strengths, needsatisfaction, well-being, goal progress and goal attainment at three time points over a three-month period.Results: Our results demonstrate that strengths use is associated with better goal progress, which is in turnassociated with psychological need fulfilment and enhanced well-being.Conclusions: Strengths use provides a key support in the attainment of goals, and leads to greater needsatisfaction and well-being, providing an extension of the self-concordance model of healthy goalattainment. Implications for practice and future research are discussed.

Keywords: strengths use, goal attainment, well-being.

THE SCIENCE OF positive psychology isthe study of psychological strengths andpositive emotions (Snyder & Lopez,2007). This new discipline represents a para-digm shift in professional attention fromwhat is wrong with people, psychologicallyspeaking, to what is right with people. Pre-vious work has demonstrated many of thelinks between coaching psychology and posi-tive psychology (Biswas-Diener & Dean, 2007;Linley & Harrington, 2005; Linley &Kauffman, 2008). A major focus of positivepsychology research is on strengths; patternsof thought, feeling and behaviour that areenergising and which lead to maximal effec-tiveness (Linley, 2008a). Within the coachingpsychology literature, strengths use has been

shown to be associated with both subjectiveand psychological well-being, even when con-trolling for the effects of self-efficacy and self-esteem (Govindji & Linley, 2007), andstrengths coaching has been suggested as oneapplied link between strengths and coachingpsychology (Linley & Harrington, 2006).

Recent studies on strengths have exam-ined a number of issues ranging from theemotional consequences of using strengths(Seligman et al., 2005) to regional differencesin strengths (Park, Peterson & Seligman,2006), including specific analysis of the VIAstrengths in the UK population (Linley et al.,2007). Positive psychology is also an appliedscience, and increasing numbers of therapists,coaches and consultants are using strengths

based interventions with their clients (seeBiswas-Diener, 2009; Seligman, Rashid &Parks, 2006). As a result, there is a specialresponsibility for researchers to examinestrengths-related outcomes and betterdevelop theoretical models by whichstrengths interventions work, especially giventhe growing appetite from coaching psychol-ogists to understand both the pragmaticapplications of strengths psychology and alsoits scientific underpinnings (Linley, 2008b).

Positive psychology and strengthsIn the introduction to the landmark positivepsychology issue of the American PsychologistSeligman and Csikszentmihalyi (2000) writePsychologists need now to call for massiveresearch on human strengths and virtues.Practitioners need to recognise that much ofthe best work they already do in the con-sulting room is to amplify strengths ratherthan to repair the weaknesses of their clients(p.8). Two years later Seligman (2002) hadidentified six culturally ubiquitous virtuesthat included wisdom, courage, love, justice,temperance and spirituality and underthese broad categories he proposed 24 dis-tinct strengths ranging from creativity toleadership to humour (see also Biswas-Diener, 2006). Peterson and Seligman(2003) used this list, now known as the VIA(Values in Action), as the foundation of ataxonomy of strengths that they intended tobe an intellectual counterpoint to the widelyused Diagnostic and Statistical Manual ofMental Disorders (DSM; APA, 1994). Withintheir classification system Peterson andSeligman identified 10 criteria by whichstrengths are included. Ultimately, Park andPeterson (2006) created an online measureof strengths using the VIA taxonomy.Although other measures of strengths exist,such as the Clifton StrengthsFinder 2.0(Rath, 2008) and the Realise2 (Linley,Willars & Biswas-Diener, 2010) the VIASurvey is the most widely used strengthsassessment specifically associated with thepositive psychology movement to date.

The VIA Survey has been used exten-

sively in research on the correlates ofstrengths and preliminary evidence suggeststhat it can also be used effectively as an inter-vention to promote happiness and protectagainst depression (Seligman et al., 2005).In addition, studies have revealed an associa-tion between the VIA strengths and recoveryfrom illness (Peterson, Park & Seligman,2006), an association between societal eventsand the VIA Strengths (Peterson &Seligman, 2003), and a link between the VIAstrengths and occupation (Matthews et al.,2006; Peterson et al., 2009).

Asking How strengths work ratherthan Do strengths workTraditionally, strengths researchers havebeen primarily concerned with establishingevidence that strengths use is a valuableendeavour, leading to such desirable out-comes as happiness (Govindji & Linley, 2007;Seligman et al., 2005) and better perform-ance at work (Clifton & Harter, 2003). Thisexploratory approach makes sense for a nas-cent science that must be established as legit-imate and worthwhile. Further, thisoutcome-based approach is of interest tocoaching psychologists, coaches, therapists,organisational consultants, and other practi-tioners who are interested in the positiveresults associated with strengths use (Lyons& Linley, 2008). Missing from this approach,however, is a crucial understanding of how,specifically, using strengths leads to well-being or other desirable outcomes.

Among the most important questions inpositive psychology, and related to strengthsspecifically, is whether or not using our sig-nature strengths helps us to achieve ourgoals and whether this, in turn, helps satisfyour psychological needs and leads to greaterwell-being. Little is known about the mecha-nisms by which strengths use might lead topsychological benefits such as enhancedwell-being and goal progress. The primarygoal of the current research is to examinepossible ways in which strengths use pro-duces higher well-being and how this mayenhance goal progress.


Using signature strengths in pursuit of goals

One possible answers lies in under-standing the relationship between strengthsand motivation. Peterson and Seligmans(2004) criteria for strengths to be includedin the VIA taxonomy suggest that strengthsuse is largely intrinsically motivated. Crite-rion One, for instance, defines signaturestrengths as those strengths that an indi-vidual considers to be very much their own.These strengths convey a sense of ownershipand authenticity in their use, an intrinsicyearning to use them and a feeling ofinevitability in doing so. Hence, using onessignature strengths is considered to be con-cordant with ones intrinsic interests andvalues. In addition, using ones signaturestrengths is considered to serve well-beingand basic psychological needs, such as com-petence, autonomy, and relatedness. Thereis, as yet, no firm theory of the processes thatmay explain how signature strengths con-tribute to these outcomes. In fact, we areunaware of any published research specifi-cally testing the mechanisms by which usingstrengths leads to positive changes in well-being.

One way that signature strengths maywork to promote beneficial outcomes isthrough their use in the pursuit of personalgoals. Previous research has linked goal pur-suit and progress with a range of well-beingoutcomes (e.g. Sheldon & Elliot, 1999;Sheldon & Houser-Marko, 2001). In thispaper we specifically examine the linkbetween strengths use and well-being, payingparticular attention to the role of goal pur-suit and attainment.

Previous research suggests that it is notsimply goal progress or attainment that leadsto well-being but, rather, the types of goalspursued and the motivation for pursuit. TheSelf-Concordance Model (Sheldon & Elliot,1999) elaborates the motivational sequenceof goal inception, pursuit, and attainment.In essence, people who pursue self-concor-dant goals (those that are consistent withtheir developing interests and values) putmore sustained effort into achieving thosegoals, and hence are more likely to attain

them. Interestingly, achieving well-being, inthis case, appears to be more than simply afunction of goal progress. Instead, goalattainment effects on well-being are moder-ated by the self-concordance of goals.Sheldon and Kasser (1998), for example,found that attaining self-concordant goalsleads to greater well-being than doesattaining goals that are not self-concordant.Sheldon and Kasser suggest that concordantgoal attainment leads to need satisfactionwhich, in turn, mediates changes in well-being. Sheldon and Elliot (1999) tested thishypothesis, and found that need satisfactionpartially mediated concordant goal attain-ment effects on well-being: part, but not all,of the change in well-being could beaccounted for by need-satisfying experi-ences.

Building on the Sheldon and Elliot(1999) and Sheldon and Kasser (1998)studies, together with work demonstratingthe effect of coaching on self-concordanceof goals (Burke & Linley, 2007), we hypothe-sised that using ones signature strengths(i.e. acting self-concordantly) will contributeto goal progress, leading to need-satisfyingexperiences and greater well-being.

The link between strengths and well-being is especially important because it ispossible that well-being, as a cognitive andaffective legacy of self-concordant motiva-tion and goal pursuit, provides motivationalreinforcement. Therefore, for managers,coaching psychologists, coaches, organisa-tional consultants, educators and othersinterested in facilitating high performance abetter understanding of the mechanisms bywhich strengths use leads to goal attainmentand well-being may offer insight intolearning, growth and motivation.

MethodParticipantsThe participants in the current researchwere 240 second-year college students at amajor university in the Midlands of England.There were 49 males and 191 females with amean age of 19.95 years (SD=2.54 years).

8 International Coaching Psychology Review Vol. 5 No. 1 March 2010

P. Alex Linley, Karina M. Nielsen, Alex M. Wood, Raphael Gillett & Robert Biswas-Diener

Participants were primarily white (78.8 percent) or Indian (8.8 per cent), and predom-inately single/never married (91.7 percent).

MeasuresVIA Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS; Peterson &Seligman, 2004). The VIA-IS measures 24character strengths by means of a 240-itemself-report questionnaire (10 items perstrength). All subscales have been found tohave acceptable internal consistency reliabil-ities (all >.70; Peterson, Park & Seligman,2005). The measure is typically administeredonline, although for the present study weused a paper-and-pencil version. Responseswere scored by the researchers and partici-pants were notified with details of their topfive signature strengths, together with adescription of these strengths. It was thesetop five signature strengths that were laterused to rate strengths use in general and inrelation to participants top three goals.

Positive and Negative Affect Scales (PANAS;Watson, Tellegen & Clark, 1988). ThePANAS is a widely used 20-item measure ofpositive affect (10 items, e.g. interested,attentive) and negative affect (10 items, e.g.irritable, jittery). Participants were askedto respond in relation to the extent you gen-erally feel this way. The PANAS is one of themost widely used measures of positive andnegative affect, and is scored using a 1 (veryslightly or not at all) through 5(extremely) fully anchored Likert scale,thus giving a potential range of 10 through50 for each of positive affect and negativeaffect. Internal consistency reliability was=.82 for the positive affect scale and =.84for the negative affect scale.

Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS; Dieneret al., 1985). The SWLS is a five-itemmeasure of life satisfaction, which is consid-ered to be the cognitive evaluation dimen-sion of happiness. It is the most widely usedmeasure of life satisfaction, and has excel-lent internal consistency, a single factorstructure, and temporal stability (r=.54 overfour years), while still being highly respon-

sive to the effect of psychological therapies(Pavot & Diener, 1993). It is scored using a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree)fully anchored Likert scale, giving a potentialrange of 5 to 35. Internal consistency relia-bility was =.81.

Semester Goals. Participants were asked tothink about, and then write down, the topthree goals they held for the semester (athree-month timeframe). Goals were explic-itly defined as projects that we think about,plan for, carry out, and sometimes (thoughnot always) complete or succeed at. Partici-pants were instructed to think carefullyabout their top three goals, and told thatthey should accurately represent their mainaspirations for the semester. Examples ofpossible goals were given, including Attendmost of my lectures, Make the university footballteam, Have fun and enjoy myself, and Stopdrinking alcohol during the week, although participants were informed clearly that theyshould record the three goals that repre-sented their own aspirations. They wereinstructed to write down the three goals on asheet headed My TOP THREE GOALS,and to retain a copy of the three goals withtheir course materials for future reference. A copy of their goals record was also sub-mitted to the researchers.

Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction Scales(BPNSS; Deci & Ryan, 2000). The BPNSS isa 21-item measure of need satisfaction forthe three basic psychological needs ofautonomy (seven items, three reversescored, e.g. I feel like I am free to decide formyself how to live my life), competence (sixitems, three reverse scored, e.g. Most days Ifeel a sense of accomplishment from what I do),and relatedness (eight items, three reversescored, e.g. People in my life care about me). It is scored using a 1 (not at all true) through7 (very true) Likert scale. Principal compo-nents analysis of the three need satisfactionscales showed them to load between .81 and.86 on a single component, eigenvalue=2.11,that accounted for 70.33 per cent of the vari-ance. Hence, for the present study a com-posite need satisfaction variable was created



by aggregating the three need satisfactionscores. Internal consistency reliability for thecomposite scale was =.86.

General Strengths Use. To assess the extentto which participants were using each oftheir five signature strengths in their life ingeneral, they responded to the questionHow much have you used each of your signaturestrengths in your life in general so far thissemester? Specifically, participants gave fiveresponses, one for how much they wereusing each of their signature strengths intheir life in general. These were scored usinga 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much) five-pointLikert format scale, such that a higher scoreindicates greater use of that signaturestrength in the participants life in general.Principal components analyses of theseitems showed them all to load on a singlefactor (see Table 1). We then calculated com-posite scores for General Strengths Use bysumming the responses for each of the fivesignature strengths, thus giving an overallpotential range of 0 through 20. These com-posite scores are used in the analysesreported below.

Goals-Strengths Use. To assess the extent towhich participants were using each of theirfive signature strengths in the pursuit of each

of the three goals they identified at baseline,they responded to the question How muchhave you used each of your signature strengths inworking towards the first [second/third] goal youidentified for this semester? for each goal. Specif-ically, they gave five responses, one for eachsignature strength, in relation to their first,second, and third goals. These were scoredusing a 0 (not at all) to 4 (very much) five-point Likert format scale, such that a higherscore indicates greater use of that signaturestrength in working towards the specifiedgoal. Principal components analyses of theseitems showed them all to load on a singlefactor (see Table 1). We then calculatedaggregate scores for goals-strengths use foreach of the three goals individually, by sum-ming the responses for each of the five signa-ture strengths for each goal, thus giving anoverall potential range of 0 through 20 foreach goal, that is, the extent to which partici-pants used their five signature strengths inpursuit of their three goals.

Principal components analysis of thesethree goals-strengths use scores showedthem all to load .76 to .84 on a single com-ponent, eigenvalue=1.95, explaining 65.05pe cent of the variance at Time 1, and toload .80 to .86 on a single component, eigen-



Table 1: Principal components analyses of strengths use responses for general use andspecific goal use.

Time 1 Factor loadings Eigenvalue Variance explained (%)General .48 .66 1.77 35.38Goal 1 .70 .73 2.54 50.81Goal 2 .70 .77 2.65 52.91Goal 3 .74 .80 2.92 58.43

Time 2 Factor loadings Eigenvalue Variance explained (%)General .65 .76 2.33 46.56Goal 1 .71 .79 2.73 54.67Goal 2 .72 .80 3.00 60.04Goal 3 .75 .84 3.10 61.95

Note: General = Strengths use in ones life in general; Goal 1 [2, 3] = Strengths use in pursuit of goal 1 [2, 3].Time 1 was 6 weeks after baseline; Time 2 was 10 weeks after baseline. All items loaded on a single component.

value=2.08, explaining 69.37 per cent of thevariance at Time 2. Given that the goal con-tents of the first, second, and third goalsvaried across participants, we created a com-posite goals-strengths use variable by aggre-gating the responses for strengths use foreach of the first, second, and third goals.This composite goals-strengths use variabletherefore provides the equivalent of themean strengths use in relation to a genericset of goals, that is, it represents the extent towhich participants used their strengths (anyand all of their five signature strengths) inpursuit of their goals (any and all of their topthree goals). It was this composite goals-strengths use variable (a composite of fivestrengths rated in relation to three goals,giving 15 individual data points) that wasused in the analyses reported below.

General Progress. To assess the progressthat participants were making in their livesin general, they were asked How well are youdoing in your life in general this semester? Thissingle item measure was scored on a 1 (not atall well) to 7 (very well) Likert format scale,and followed the section containing the gen-eral strengths use items.

Goal Progress. To assess the progress thatparticipants were making in their pursuit ofeach of their three goals, they were askedHow well are you doing in achieving the first[second/third] goal you identified? This singleitem measure was scored on a 1 (not at allwell) to 7 (very well) Likert format scale inrelation to each of the three goals, and waspresented at the end of each section con-taining the goals strengths use items for eachof the three goals.

ProcedureParticipants were recruited as part of a com-pulsory practical module that comprised partof their undergraduate course. Alternativeoptions were provided if participants did notwish to participate in the study. In the firstclass, at the beginning of the semester, par-ticipants completed the baseline measures bypaper-and-pencil including the VIA Inven-tory of Strengths, the PANAS, and the Satis-

faction with Life Scale. Additionally, partici-pants recorded their top three goals for thesemester. After six weeks from baseline (Time1), participants again completed the PANASand the Satisfaction with Life Scale. In addi-tion, they completed the Basic PsychologicalNeed Satisfaction Scales, and the measures ofgeneral strengths use and goal-strengths use,together with the items assessing generalprogress and goals progress. These measureswere again completed after 10 weeks frombaseline (Time 2).

Analyses and resultsIn order to simplify the number of variables forthe analyses, we created a composite measureof goals-strengths use as described above, acomposite measure of need satisfaction asdescribed above, and a composite measure ofsubjective well-being. Principal componentsanalysis of the positive affect, negative affect,and life satisfaction scores showed them to loadfrom .72 to .76 on a single component, eigen-value=1.66, which explained 55.33 per cent ofthe variance. As such, we calculated a com-posite subjective well-being (SWB) variable bysumming life satisfaction and positive affect,and subtracting negative affect.

We tested our hypothesised model usingstructural equation modelling (SEM;LISREL 8.7, Jreskog & Srbom, 1999). Inthis model (see Figure 1) we tested the sta-bility of our measures (van Dierendonck etal., 2004) by including paths from strengthsat time 1 to strengths at time 2, fromprogress at time 1 to progress at time 2, fromneed satisfaction at time 1 to need satisfac-tion at time 2, and finally, from well-being attime 1 to well-being at time 2. We included apath from strengths to progress, fromprogress to need satisfaction and from needsatisfaction to well-being to test for ourhypotheses. We included these paths at bothtime 1 and time 2, in order to test these path-ways cross-sectionally at both time points. Wealso tested the hypothesised direct effect ofprogress on well-being found in previousresearch by including direct paths fromprogress at time 1 to well-being at time 1 and



from progress at time 2 to well-being at time2. The acceptable levels of fit used to assessthe adequacy of each model were accordingto the recommendations made by Hu andBentler (1999): the Standardised Root MeanResidual (SRMR) should be below .09 andthe Comparative Fit Index (CFI) above .95.

Our hypothesised pathway was examinedin model 1. The hypothesised model pre-sented an acceptable fit to the data. SRMRwas .077 below the recommended .09 andCFI=.97 was above the recommended .95.Inspection of the parameters estimatesrevealed that all paths were significant. Thefinal model is presented in Figure 2. As canbe seen in Figure 2, a large percentage of thevariance in well-being (63 per cent and 64

per cent) could be explained by strengthsuse, goal progress and need satisfaction.

The model demonstrates that signaturestrengths use is associated with higher goalprogress, which is in turn associated withgreater need satisfaction, which in turn areboth associated with higher levels of well-being and explain a large proportion of thevariance in well-being.

DiscussionAlthough past research has linked goalprogress and attainment, especially that whichis self-concordant, to well-being, there has notbeen empirical research aimed at explainingthe path from strengths use to well-being. Inthe current study we were able to use a



Figure 1: Hypothesised model showing strengths use, goal progress, need satisfactionand well-being.

Figure 2: Final model showing strengths use, goal progress, need satisfactionand well-being.

repeated-measures cross-sectional design tofollow individuals as they used personalstrengths to pursue meaningful personally rel-evant goals. Our analyses revealed thatstrengths use was associated with goal progress,which in turn was associated with both needsatisfaction and well-being at both six weeksand 10 weeks post-baseline. When we mod-elled the data to examine the relative andabsolute fit of the data we found that strengthsuse affects well-being both through goalprogress and through the psychological needfulfilment associated with goal progress. Thatis, to the extent that individuals make progresstoward personally relevant goals and to theextent that this goal progress feels concordantwith self-growth and autonomy, people will pre-dictably feel more positive affect, less negativeaffect, and greater life satisfaction.

Our findings support and extend earlierresearch by Sheldon and Elliot (1999) andSheldon and Kasser (1998) showing thatgoals that are self-concordant those thatare personally valued and associated withgrowth, connectedness and autonomy arespecifically associated with greater well-being. Sheldon and Elliot suggest that fac-tors such as controlledness (locus of control),personal ownership of a goal, perseveranceand personal interest are all factors in bothgoal progress and well-being. Our findingsindicate that strengths use offers an inter-esting and reliable avenue for pursuing self-concordant goals. Given that strengths are,by definition, associated with personal valuesand the expression of an integrated psycho-logical core, they are likely to suggest a self-concordant approach to goals and,therefore, to maximise the chances forgreater well-being and goal attainment.

Importantly, it appears as if the well-being that results from goal progress andpsychological need fulfilment may act as acognitive and affective reinforcer, leading togreater goal progress later on. To the extentthat this is true, it suggests that strengths usemight be an important part of an affectivelearning loop in which progress leads to well-being which, in turn, motivates sustained

effort and leads to further goal progress.This point is especially important forcoaching psychologists, coaches, therapistsand others who work with clients on per-sonal change or optimal performance.Understanding that employing strengths inthe pursuit of goals is more likely to lead toan upward spiral of success and well-beingestablishes strengths as a particularly impor-tant area for intervention and support.

Future research could be improve on thecurrent study in several ways. First, oursample included college students that were,in many ways (e.g. age and marital status)non-diverse. Therefore, caution must betaken in generalising these results to thewider population. This cautionary note isespecially important in terms of generalisingthe current findings across cultures, as goalsare differentially associated with well-beingacross cultural groups (Oishi, 2000). In addi-tion, our use of composite scores forstrengths use means that we cannot be cer-tain that this model holds true for allstrengths equally, or whether it is moreappropriate to a blend of primary strengths.In all likelihood, individuals rotate through anumber of primary strengths and/or useconstellations of strengths in tandem. Unfor-tunately, our current methodology does notallow us to look specifically at how strengthtype affects goal progress or well-being.Finally, our repeated measures cross-sectional design does not allow for the test ofpure longitudinal effects, and this is animportant area for future research.

This study is the first of which we areaware to explore the relation betweenstrengths use, goal progress, and well-being.Although we found direct evidence of linksbetween these variables, both across measuresand repeated across time, further study isneeded to better understand this complexpsychological relationship. We recommendthat future researchers interested in this topicexamine strengths use in specific, non-stu-dent contexts such as organisational (e.g.Linley, Woolston & Biswas-Diener, 2009) ortherapeutic (e.g. Linley, 2008c) settings.



In particular, we recommend that futureresearchers include third-party performanceratings as well as other measures of well-beingsuch as surveys of meaning in life or psycho-logical well-being. It would also be beneficialfor future researchers to examine the relationbetween strengths use and obligatory goals(i.e. non self-concordant goals) as well asstrengths use during times of goal failure.

In the end, it is noteworthy that not allgoal progress is associated with well-being.Self-concordant goals are a special case ofenhanced well-being. The use of personalstrengths appears to be inherently self-con-cordant and, as a result, leads to better goalprogress and greater feelings of well-being,thereby providing a solid empirical base tosupport practitioners across many fields whoare using strengths approaches in their work.

The authorsP. Alex Linley Centre of Applied Positive Psychology, UK.Karina M. NielsenNational Research Centre for the WorkingEnvironment, Denmark.Alex M. WoodUniversity of Manchester, UK.Raphael GillettUniversity of Leicester, UK.Robert Biswas-DienerCentre of Applied Positive Psychology, UK.

CorrespondenceP. Alex Linley, PhDCentre of Applied Positive Psychology,The Venture Centre,Sir William Lyons Road,Coventry, CV4 7EZ,United Kingdom.E-mail: [email protected]: +44-2476-323-363



ReferencesAmerican Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnostic

and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Wash-ington, DC: APA.

Baron, R.M. & Kenny, D.A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psycho-logical research: Conceptual, strategic, and statis-tical considerations. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 51, 11731182.

Biswas-Diener, R. (2006). From the equator to theNorth Pole: A study of character strengths.Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 293310.

Biswas-Diener, R. (2009). Coaching as a positive inter-vention. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 65, 544553.

Biswas-Diener, R. & Dean, B. (2007). Positive psy-chology coaching: Putting the science of happiness towork for your clients. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Burke, D. & Linley, P.A. (2007). Enhancing goal self-concordance through coaching. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 2(1), 6269.

Clifton, D. & Harter, J.K. (2003). Investing instrengths. In K. Cameron, J. Dutton & R. Quinn(Eds.), Positive organisational scholarship: Founda-tions of a new discipline. San Francisco: Barrett-Koehler.

Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The what and whyof goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-deter-mination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11,227268.

Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J. & Griffin, S.(1985). The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journalof Personality Assessment, 49, 7175.

Govindji, R. & Linley, P.A. (2007). Strengths use, self-concordance and well-being: Implications forstrengths coaching and coaching psychologists.International Coaching Psychology Review, 2(2),143153.

Hu, L. & Bentler, P.M. (1999). Cut-off criteria for fitindexes in covariance structure analysis: Conven-tional criteria versus new alternatives. StructuralEquation Modeling, 6, 155.

Jreskog, K.G. & Srbom, D. (1999). LISREL 8.3:Users reference guide. Lincolnwood, IL: ScientificSoftware International.

Linley, P.A. (2008a). Average to A+: Realising strengthsin yourself and others. Coventry, UK: CAPP Press.

Linley, P.A. (2008b). Strengthspotting in coaching.Keynote presentation delivered to the 1st Euro-pean Coaching Psychology Conference, London(December).

Linley, P.A. (2008c). Psychotherapy as strength-spot-ting. The Psychotherapist, 39, 45.

Linley, P.A. & Harrington, S. (2005). Positive psy-chology and coaching psychology: Perspectiveson integration. The Coaching Psychologist, 1(1),1314.

Linley, P.A. & Harrington, S. (2006). Strengthscoaching: A potential-guided approach tocoaching psychology. International Coaching Psy-chology Review, 1(1), 3746.

Linley, P.A. & Kauffman, C. (Eds.) (2007). Positivepsychology and coaching psychology (SpecialIssue). International Coaching Psychology Review,2(1), 58.

Linley, P.A., Maltby, J., Wood, A.M., Harrington, S.,Peterson, C., Park, N. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2007).Character strengths in the United Kingdom: TheVIA Inventory of Strengths. Personality and Indi-vidual Differences, 43, 341351.

Linley, P.A., Willars, J. & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). Thestrengths book. Coventry, UK: CAPP Press.

Linley, P.A., Woolston, L. & Biswas-Diener, R. (2009).Strengths coaching with leaders. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 4(1), 3748.

Little, B.R. (1993). Personal projects and the distrib-uted self: Aspects of a conative psychology. InJ.M. Suls (Ed.), The self in social perspective: Psycho-logical perspectives on the self (Vol. 4, pp.157185).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lyons, L.S. & Linley, P.A. (2008). Situationalstrengths: A strategic approach linking personalcapability to corporate success. Organisations andPeople, 15(2), 411.

Matthews, M.D.J., Kelly, D.R., Bailey, J.K.S. &Peterson, C. (2006). Character strengths andvirtues of developing military leaders: An inter-national comparison. Military Psychology, 18,S57S68.

Oishi, S. (2000). Goals as the cornerstones of subjec-tive well-being: Linking individuals and cultures.In E. Diener & E.M. Suh (Eds.), Culture and sub-jective well-being (pp.87112). Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Park, N. & Peterson, C. (2006). Methodologicalissues in positive psychology and the assessmentof character strengths. In A.D. Ong & M. vanDulmen (Eds.), Handbook of methods in positive psy-chology (pp.292305). New York: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Pavot, W. & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfac-tion with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5,164172.

Peterson, C., Park, N., Hall, N. & Seligman, M.E.P.(2009). Zest and work. Journal of OrganizationalBehaviour, 30, 161172.

Peterson, C., Park., N. & Seligman (2006). Greaterstrengths of character and recovery from illness.Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 1726.

Peterson, C. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2003). Characterstrengths before and after September 11. Psycho-logical Science, 14, 381384.

Peterson, C. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2004). Characterstrengths and virtues: A handbook and classification.New York: Oxford University Press.

Seligman, M.E.P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using thenew positive psychology to realise your potential forlasting fulfillment. New York: Free Press.

Seligman, M.E.P. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Pos-itive psychology: An introduction. American Psy-chologist, 55, 514.

Seligman, M.E.P., Rashid, T. & Parks, A.C. (2006).Positive psychotherapy. American Psychologist, 61,774788.

Seligman, M.E.P., Steen, T., Park, N. & Peterson, C.(2005). Positive psychology progress: Empiricalvalidation of interventions. American Psychologist,60, 410421.

Sheldon, K.M. & Elliot, A.J. (1999). Goal striving,need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being:The Self-Concordance Model. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 76, 482497.

Sheldon, K.M., Elliot, A.J., Kim, Y. & Kasser, T.(2001). What is satisfying about satisfying events?Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 325339.

Sheldon, K.M. & Houser-Marko, L. (2001). Self-con-cordance, goal attainment, and the pursuit ofhappiness: Can there be an upward spiral?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,152165.

Sheldon, K.M. & Kasser, T. (1998). Pursuing personalgoals: Skills enable progress but not all progressis beneficial. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-letin, 24, 546557.

Snyder, C.R. & Lopez, S. (2007). Positive psychology:The scientific and practical explorations of humanstrengths. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

van Dierendonck, D., Haynes, C., Borril, C. & Stride,C. (2004). Leadership behaviour and subordi-nate well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psy-chology, 9, 165175.

Watson, D., Tellegen, A. & Clark, L.A. (1988). Devel-opment and validation of brief measures of posi-tive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,10631070.



Self-esteem is the reputation we acquire withourselves. Nathaniel Branden

T ITS SIMPLEST, self-esteem, as thequote implies, is the evaluation indi-

viduals place upon themselves, oftenrepresenting a comparison between a per-ceived sense of self and a perceived idealstandard (James, 1860; Hamachek, 1987;Burns, 1978). This comparison is necessarilyhighly subjective, but has the power to pro-duce a range of personally significant conse-quences. Studies consistently show(Baumeister, 1993, 1997; Coopersmith, 1967;Lent et al., 1986) that people with high andlow levels of self-esteem adapt to events inmarkedly different ways, with high self-esteem (HSE) associated, for example, withgreater confidence, less conformity, self-effi-cacy, optimism, risk taking and creativity. A coach, therefore, might well be interestedin working with self-esteem issues directly ordeveloping it as a happy by-product.

However, the issue of self-esteem is notprominent in the traditional coaching litera-ture. It is largely assumed that clients are suc-cessful, high achieving and capableindividuals who have every reason to feelconfident and worthy of self-respect. How-ever, according to Bandura (1998), many

talented individuals often feel dissatisfiedwith their achievements. Research recentlyconducted by Hindmarch (2007), as well asanecdotal data from our own coaching andsupervisory practice, suggests that in realitythe theme of confidence and self-esteem incoaching is often present in one form oranother.

Although no agreement is reached in thecurrent psychological literature on thecauses of self-esteem, Hartner (1999) arguesthat self-esteem is a product of the develop-mental path, strongly correlated to thequality of parenting received. Some studiessuggest (Coopersmith, 1967; Lent et al.,1986) that while self-esteem may fluctuateday to day, a base level tends to endure(Pelham & Swann, 1989). It is, therefore, notsurprising that issues of self-esteem are oftenfigural in counselling or psychotherapyprocesses. Deep seated self-esteem issuesmay, therefore, be beyond the scope ofcoaching. However, more transient or lesssevere issues may be more amenable to acoaching approach, assuming coaches aresuitably aware of the issues involved.

The psychological literature offers arange of conceptualisations of self-esteemand it could be said that there are as manyperspectives on self-esteem as there are


Applying psychological theories of self-esteem in coaching practice Alison Maxwell & Tatiana Bachkirova

The study of self-esteem has a long history, and it is not without cause that self-esteem is seen by many ascentral to human functioning and happiness, governing our sense of self-efficacy as well as ability to learn,grow and change. It is, therefore, not surprising that self-esteem issues frequently present themselves withincoaching conversations and it behoves the competent coach to be aware of how self-esteem might mediate thecoaching relationship. In this article we discuss how the concept of self-esteem has been defined andaddressed in the psychological literature and how specific theories might apply in the coaching context. A model of self-esteem is used to illustrate four cases of coaching using 360 feedback within anorganisational setting. We conclude with a summary of implications for coaching practice.

Keywords: self-esteem, coaching, psychological theories, 360 feedback, adult development.

A

branches of psychology and psychotherapy.Some theories emphasise the origins of self-esteem, while others describe manifestationin behaviour, dynamics of change over timeand ways of influencing it. In this article wehave chosen to comment only on thosetheories that present an applied value foradults who wish to make changes in theirworking lives with the help of a coach. Wetherefore offer both a description of relevanttheories as well as potential implications forpractice. As a way of synthesising and makingsense of the diversity of perspectives an adultdevelopmental framework is introduced anddiscussed.

The article continues by examining onemodel of self-esteem in more depth, using itto illuminate four coaching encounters. Thisis offered to practicing coaches as a prag-matic tool to both help make sense of dif-ferent types of self-esteem issues and informpotential avenues for intervention. Thepaper concludes with a summary of implica-tions for coaching practice.

Theories of self-esteemEarly conceptions: James and the Social Con-structionistsJames (1890) is credited with the initialwriting on self-esteem, defining it as contin-gent on the ratio of our successes to our fail-ures, in areas of our life that we deemimportant to us. Self-esteem, therefore, couldbe seen as a motivator in life, constantlydriving individuals towards success and awayfrom potential failure, and to maintain a levelof competence in key domains. In the con-text of coaching, this force can be tapped tofocus clients on desired outcomes and goals.However, it may also be an unhelpful factor ifthe client is overly attached to unrealistic orunattainable goals, or domains that are nolonger relevant to them.

An alternate early view (Cooley,1909;Mead, 1913) emphasises the social nature ofself-esteem, being regarded as the extent towhich we perceive ourselves as matching upto a set of central self-values [that] indi-viduals have learned to be worthy of emu-

lating or attaining through the process ofsocialisation (Mruk, 2006, pp.120121).Self-esteem is, therefore, a comparison withan internalised set of standards or values,introjected from familial, social and culturalinteractions. Seen as such, self-esteem is con-tingent on others, in that individuals makecomparisons with a (real or illusory) stan-dard set by others, motivating them to main-tain their acceptance and approval withothers. This may also be unhelpful to theclient if those standards are unattainable,unreasonable or outdated. The work of thecoach, according to this conceptualisation,may, therefore, involve the re-examination ofsuch standards, either downgrading them, orshifting them to more relevant areas(Bachkirova, 2000, 2004).

Humanistic psychology and person-centredtherapyHumanistic psychologists build on theseearly notions of self-esteem seeing it as abasic need central to human functioning.For example, Maslows (1954) hierarchy ofneeds places self-esteem near the top of hispyramid, making self-actualisation contin-gent on the achievement of self-esteem. Self-esteem is seen to develop if a person receivessufficient unconditional positive regard(Rogers, 1951), and, therefore, becomescontingent when self-regard is conditionalon achieving the standard or approval ofothers. However, self-esteem can bereclaimed by developing congruence withones own organismic needs and desires.

This perspective on self-esteem impactsthe presence and values exhibited by acoach, who must be able to offer uncondi-tional positive regard to the client, irrespec-tive of their actions, achievements or values.It is, therefore, more important to help theclient to explore and reclaim a deeper senseof their self and their own needs, rather thannecessarily deliver on an externally-derived(e.g. organisational) agenda. This perspec-tive, therefore, potentially conflicts with theovert goal achievement orientation domi-nating in the traditional coaching literature.


Applying psychological theories of self-esteem in coaching practice

Recent researchMore recent writers (Epstein, 1973; Brown etaI, 1988; Baumeister, 1993, 1999; Mruk, 2006)concur with the view of self-esteem as a corehuman need, seeing it as driving behaviour todefend or maintain a perceived sense of self.Two motives are identified; the self-consis-tency motive and the self-enhancementmotive. The self-consistency motive drivespeople to seek out information that confirmswhat they already believe about themselves whether good or bad. Once established,therefore, such a self-opinion may be difficultto discard or refine, and a coach may meetconsiderable defences if they attempt to dis-rupt the established self-view.

The self-enhancement motive differs inthat it drives people to acquire informationthat tends to show them in a positive light,discarding information which may cast anunfavourable shade upon themselves.According to Baumeister (1999), the self-enhancement motive dominates; however heargues that people with low self-esteem(LSE) favour the self-consistency motive,preferring to believe a consistent, albeit neg-ative, message about themselves, and willselectively discard positive information. Incomparison, HSE is associated with prefer-ence for the self-enhancement motive, selec-tively discarding negative information.Objective feedback from an external partysuch as a coach will, therefore, be filtered,according to the dominant motivation.

Self-esteem is, therefore, fraught with thepossibility for distortion (Dunning, 2006;Claxton, 1994) and various theoretical tradi-tions and studies (Fingarette, 2000;Goleman, 1997; Hamachek, 1987) docu-ment the many ways we may defend our-selves against threats to our self-evaluations.Some of these studies challenge the tradi-tional view that HSE is only associated withpositive and desirable characteristics,Baumeister et al. (1999), for example,pointing out that HSE may be associatedwith narcissistic and antisocial tendencies.The pursuit of HSE may, therefore, not bethe desirable goal that has been assumed

(Crocker et al., 2002, 2006). Baumeister(1993, 1999) has also challenged the con-ception of LSE in his research with others(Campbell & Lavallee, 1993), suggesting thatabsolute LSE is relatively rare. He postulatesthat LSE is actually a lack of clarity about theself, whilst HSE is associated with greaterdegrees of certainty. Other authors (Kernis,1993, 2003; Jones & Meridith, 1996; Wink &Helson, 1993) suggest that stability of self-esteem is as important as level. A coach,using this frame, may, therefore, need tohelp a client reach an optimal stable level ofesteem, working with the client to clarifytheir own sense of self, through explorationof their values, goals and needs, within a real-istic assessment of their competencies andresources.

It must be noted that some authors chal-lenge the very notion of self-esteem as a corehuman need (Ryan & Warren Brown, 2003),seeing any contingent evaluation as funda-mentally objectifying the self in an unhelpfulway:

Non-contingent self-esteem in contrastcharacterises persons for whom the issue of self-esteem is not salient, largely because theyexperience themselves on a fundamental levelas worthy of esteem and love. Successes andfailures do not implicate their self-worth, evenwhen they lead to a re-evaluation of actionsand efforts (Ryan & Warren Brown, 2003,p.72).

Described thus, authentic self-esteem tran-scends the need for self-evaluation, and isrealistic, secure and enduring. In the light ofthis very different view, the role of the coachwould be to help the client avoid actionsdriven by esteem-related contingencies, andto reach for goals that contribute to some-thing larger than self (Crocker et al., 2006;Bachkirova, 2000, 2004).

Self-esteem within an adultdevelopment framework It may seem that the views of self-esteem dis-cussed above are describing wholly differentphenomena, such is the diversity of descrip-tion and explanation. However, recent


Alison Maxwell & Tatiana Bachkirova

thinking on adult development (Beck &Cowan, 1996; Kegan, 1982, 1994; Loevinger,1976, 1987; Cook-Greuter, 1999, 2004; Tor-bert, 1991, 2002; Wilber, 2006) may bothexplain this diversity and offer a new para-digm for understanding self-esteem. Thesetheories suggest that the concept and expe-rience of self-esteem is itself a product of theindividuals stage of development. Adultdevelopment is seen as progressing througha logical sequence of stages, the relative com-plexity of meaning-making expanding witheach stage. Kegan (1982), for example, sug-gests that self-esteem has different meaningsfor people at different developmental stages.The following is the description of the threemain adult development stages as presentedby Kegan and Lahey (2009), showing howthe meaning of self-esteem changes withstage. We suggest that this may explain thedivergent perspectives of theories describedabove. Socialised Mind. At this stage,

individuals are seen as lacking in self-esteem, driven by the need to beapproved by others and to be liked bythem. They appear indecisive and may beperceived as a push over: I am theprime candidate for the assertivenesstrainer, who may tell me that I need tolearn how to stand up for myself (Kegan,1982, p.96). Kegan suggests that strictlyspeaking self-esteem is not anapplicable term for individuals at thisstage, as esteem does not come fromtheir sense of self, but rather from thereceived and unexamined opinions ofothers. It could be speculated that thisconception resonates with the socialconstructionist view of self-esteem,where the sense of self is contingent onthe views of others.

Self-authoring Mind. During this stage,self-esteem shifts to become a product ofa self-evaluation where a sense of me isearned by sorting out the agendas ofothers that dominated in the SocialisedMind stage. Individuals enjoy thefreedom to form their own judgements

about themselves using their own criteriafor comparing ambitions with reality.However, they can still be caught in trapsof their own making when forming suchjudgement (Berger, 2006; Berger &Fitzgerald, 2002; Bachkirova & Cox,2007), with resultant potential distortionsin self-perception. The view of self-esteem at this stage may correspond tothe views of Baumeister and others(1993, 1999), and his competing self-enhancement and self-consistencymotivations.

Self-Transforming Mind. The meaningof self-esteem at this stage changes again,and may look much like that describedabove by Ryan and Warren Brown. Thereis very little attachment in this stage toany specific self-image, which is seen asfluid in changing situations and inrelation to others. For this reason, self-esteem is not seen as an issue butapproached with curiosity and reflexivity.

According to this conceptualisation of self-esteem a unified coaching approach thatprescribes a particular balance of supportand challenge for each individual clientwould certainly need to be questioned. Wesuggest that understanding developmentaltrajectories may help coaches to be betterequipped to address the diverse needs oftheir clients.

Table 1 (overleaf) presents a summary ofthe theories with their potential implicationsfor coaching together with an attempt tomap these theories onto the adult develop-ment framework.

A pragmatic model for coachingself-esteem issues.In our literature search for theoreticalmodels on self-esteem that may have a prag-matic value for the practicing coach we cameacross Mruks two dimensional model(2006). As the result of our experimentationwith this model in coaching we believe thatthis can offer coaches a practical approachto working with client issues in organisa-tional settings. An adapted version of Mruks





Table 1: Summary of self-esteem theories mapped against three stages ofadult development.

Theories of Conception of Potential Potential Correspondenceself-esteem self-esteem Motivator implications to Adult

for coaching Developmentstages (Kegan &Lahey, 2009)

James (1860) Ratio of successes Goal achievement Clarification of Self-authoringto failures in and competence realistic goals Minddomains deemed enhancement in Clarification ofimportant important domain relevance

domains

Social Extent to which Maintenance of Establishing Socialised Mindconstructionists the individual acceptance of realistic standards(Cooley,1909; matches up to self in the eyes and expectationsMead, 1913) internalised/ of others of self

socialised values Negatingand standards outdated or

unfoundedstandards

Humanists Extent to which Reclaim deeper Clarification of Self-authoring(Maslow, 1954; we are congruent sense of self and sense of self and MindRogers, 1951) with our own own needs, not own needs/values

needs/values/ contingent on Unconditionalstandards others positive regard

from the coach Avoidance ofunexaminedinternalised goals

Baumeister Defence or Self-enhancement Minimise self Self-authoring(1993, 1999) maintenance of a or self-consistency distortions Mind

perceived sense through feedbackof self Creating a

climate tominimisedefensiveness

Ryan & Authentic Goals and causes Transcend Self-transformingWarren Brown self-esteem as greater than self contingent Mind(2003) non-contingent self-esteem

on internalised Contributionsources . to goals larger

than self

model is presented in Figure 1. This modelreflects some of the features of recentresearch, particularly the self-consistencyand self-enhancement motivators, describedby Baumeister (1999).

In this model, self-esteem is seen as theproduct of two factors, worthiness andcompetence; worthiness defined as theneed for approval from self/others, andcompetence as the need for achievementand success. The interaction of these factorsproduces four different forms of self-esteem:1. Competence-based self-esteem (CSE);

based on the need for constantachievement and successes, masking asense of worthlessness. At its worst thiszone represents the chronic over-achiever, perfectionist and workaholic,never satisfied with their accomplish-ments.

2. Worthiness-based self-esteem (WSE);based on the need for constant approvalfrom others and self, as a way of

compensating for perceived or actuallack of competence in important areas.At its worst this zone representsnarcissistic and egotistic behaviours.

Both worthiness and competence-based self-esteem are inherently unstable and fragile,and may be threatened, for example by fail-ures or negative feedback from others. Suchindividuals may be heavily defended againstperceived threats to their self-esteem for fearof the anxiety this would induce. 3. Low stable self-esteem; a consistently

poor and inherently stable self-appraisal.This form may also resist change, aperson choosing to believe a negativeself-concept rather than risk loosing asense of self-consistency.

4. High self-esteem; a consistently goodappraisal of ones competencies and self-worth. This is inherently stable, butcapable of taking on board negativeappraisals or failures and respondingfunctionally.



Figure 1: Self-esteem model (adapted from Mruk, 2006).

High

perceived

competence

Low

perceived

incompetence

High perceived

worthiness

Low perceived

worthiness

Worthiness-based

Self Esteem

(WSE)

Competence-

based Self Esteem

(CSE)

High stable

Self Esteem

(HSE)

Low stable

Self Esteem (LSE)

To use this model an effective coachwould need both diagnostic skills and anawareness of how these forms of self-esteemmight influence the coaching relationship.The remainder of this article suggests strate-gies for working with these potentially verydifferent types of client, using the lens of thismodel. A recent coaching assignment thatinvolved delivering 360 feedback to a rangeof clients is used to illustrate some of theissues involved. Feedback of this sort forcesindividuals to confront the actual percep-tions of others, rather than continue to holdimagined perceptions. This can often be ahighly anxiety provoking experience(Smalley & Stake, 1996; Ashford et al., 2003),especially when the sense of self is insecure,potentially resulting in a range of defensivereactions and responses (Shrauger & Rosen-berg, 1970). Four client cases are used toillustrate different aspects of self-esteemissues.

Coaching the CSE clientThe model predicts that the CSE client willhave a lurking sense of their own worthless-ness which they compensate for by hard-workand striving for achievement. Such a clientmay have work-life balance issues, may fail toprioritise effectively, and take little satisfac-tion for their many achievements, ascribingsuccess to circumstance rather than personalaction and influence. Workaholic tendenciesmay, therefore, be exhibited, with evergreater levels of achievement required tomaintain an adequate sense of self.

Such a description could be ascribed tomany in corporate life, and was a reasonabledescription of client R, who was workinglong hours despite increasing tensions withthe demands of his home life. His responseto 360 feedback was initial wariness,expecting it to confirm a low self-opinion,and he was considerably surprised at thehigh estimation he was universally held in.However, he rapidly justified why these posi-tive opinions were irrelevant and focused dis-proportionately on the few less than positiveitems.

The coachs work with him initially,therefore, was to help him absorb more ofthe positive news rather than minimise ordeflect it. As a newly-appointed Director, hehad been selected over the head of a col-league who he regarded as more competent,and, in his eyes, more suited to the role. Inthe process of further coaching involved himclarifying his areas of expertise (using theStrengthsfinder diagnostic), reconnectingwith his values as a source of worth and cre-ating a personal vision for his new role. How-ever, he still remained attached to hisworkaholic tendencies, albeit now withgreater awareness.

Coaching the WSE clientIn contrast to the CSE client, a WSE clientwould be expected to have a high opinion ofself whilst devaluing others, possibly devel-oping workplace relationship issues. Thisproved to be an accurate description ofclient A, an apparently very confident manbut who continuously disparaged his col-leagues and team, displaying some narcis-sistic tendencies. He was highly defendedagainst feedback, criticising the 360appraisal process in some detail, despitehaving scored well on many dimensions. Thefeedback meeting with this client wasextremely difficult, with him challenging allless than positive perceptions as irrelevant orerroneous, picking out the positive messagesdisproportionately. The coachs work was,therefore, to discuss why others might have aless positive view of him on some dimensionsand the possible value of developing skills inareas of inter-relating and team leadership.Interestingly, he saw no need for self-devel-opment and had no desire to continue acoaching relationship.

As with CSE clients, such clients are notuncommon in corporate life, and can bechallenging to work with for a coach. Themodel predicts that their unstable sense ofself will be heavily and possibly aggressivelydefended. Coaching is unlikely to be wel-comed especially if perceived as remedial,however, may be more acceptable if it is per-



ceived as adding to their status or kudos.Cavanagh (2005) counsels against a directattack upon the potential narcissist, andadvocates an appeal to their personal goals,and how they might need to work throughothers to achieve these. This poses an ethicaldilemma to coaches in that it continues topander to WSE, rather than address the per-ceptions of lack of competence.

Coaching the LSE clientThe LSE client may seem the most in need ofhelp from a coach. However, the model pre-dicts that they may wish to avoid coachingfor fear that it will make aggravate their poorself-opinion (Audia & Locke, 2003). Theyexpect feedback that confirms their poorself-image, but may be more accepting of itas it confirms their self-story. Client T, ini-tially avoidant of the coachs feedbackmeeting, resignedly recognised its negativemessages, and deftly denied more positivethemes. He recited stories of former workdifficulties and how these were an unavoid-able consequence of his life circumstances.He had little or no interest in self-develop-ment, as he viewed himself as fixed andunchangeable, and declined furthercoaching on that basis.

According to Mruk (2006), LSE issuesspring from two sources, so a coachingstrategy might have to tackle both worthinessand competence issues simultaneously.Deeper seated issues might involve exam-ining the introjects that have been assimi-lated over the years, perhaps requiringdeeper and longer levels of interventionthan is typically possible in a coaching.Baumeister (1993, 1999), however, arguesthat true LSE is relatively rare, and that it isissues of lack of clarity that must be tackled,as well as challenging areas where an inaccu-rate view of the self has been formed.

Coaching the HSE clientIt is questionable whether a HSE clientneeds coaching, given that they have a high,stable and accurate sense of their own worthand competence. They are able to accept

failures and negative attributions fromothers with good grace and discrimination,adapting their actions as required.

Client D demonstrated many of thesequalities, accepting 360 feedback withcuriosity and a desire to improve. Shereceived positive and negative messages withalmost equal interest, and was quick to seehow development in some dimensions wouldaid her overall effectiveness. She was able todiscuss openly her feedback with her col-leagues and peers, taking on board their sug-gestions. She was keen to pursue a coachingrelationship, seeing it as a vital source of sup-port to develop in areas where she knew hercompetence was weaker. The coaching workstarted by defining the areas she wished todevelop, how these would contribute to heroverall goals, and then moved into devisingstrategies for developing these competen-cies. Interestingly her goals were not relatedto her own aggrandisement so much as pro-moting and developing the division sheheaded and was passionate to see succeed.Such clients are probably close to the Ryansidea of non-contingent self-esteem, secure intheir sense of self, irrespective of circum-stances or opinions

The model, based on Mruks ideas, helpsto predict how clients may respond tocoaching and the type of intervention poten-tially required. This model is, at least, apotentially useful diagnostic lens and impliesthat coaches require a range of worthiness-based and competence-based strategies attheir command. Further, it suggests that thecoach must be suitably adept at noticing andworking with defensive and protective strate-gies, potentially testing their interpersonalskills. Use of this model depends, however,on the coach being able to understand andinterpret the clients self-assessments, andaccurately pick up associated behaviouralclues as the interaction unfolds.

This model, while a useful starting point,cannot pretend to map the complexity of theentire self-esteem terrain. We would, how-ever, argue that the model allowed the coachto perceive behaviours that would otherwise



be difficult to make sense of and differen-tiate a range of strategies accordingly. Aslong as the model is not seen as the only oneuseful and does not overly simplify a com-plex phenomenon, we can recommend it forcoaches who are searching for useful tools tounderstand the issue of self-esteem in thecoaching context.

Conclusion Clearly the level and type of a coachingclients self-esteem has a bearing on theirfunctioning and performance, and is thus ofinterest to practicing coaches. While it isunlikely that clients present with explicit self-esteem problems, self-esteem as a mediatingfactor is likely to attend in many coachingrelationships. The theories outlined abovepredict that this may be both a positive forcepropelling change and growth in the client,but may also inhibit and limit what is pos-sible in a coaching relationship. At itsextreme, coaching may be rejected, notbecause of its inherent lack of value butbecause the client values themselves toomuch or too little to accept it. Similarly,those who might benefit from coaching themost might also have the greatest difficultiesin using it effectively.

It is less clear from the literature whetherbase self-esteem can be sustainably shiftedas authors appear to differ on this point. Iffixed, the level and type of self-esteem maycap the amount and direction of change thatis possible, and thus the scope of the coachto intervene productively in this direction.However, temporary dips in self-esteem, asthose caused by adverse external circum-stances, may be very amenable to a coachingapproach. Extreme low or high self-esteemmight contra-indicate coaching and requirereferral to therapeutic assistance.

It is clear that self-esteem is a complexarea, with a range of theories attempting to

make sense of it. We argue that adult-devel-opment theories offer a unique perspectiveon this very complexity suggesting that sim-plistic approaches are unlikely to be helpfulfor coaches. One model of self-esteem hasbeen used in this paper to illuminate avariety of coaching encounters with fullrecognition that it cannot reconcile all per-spectives on this phenomenon. We believe,however, that for pragmatic purposes ofcoaching this model can serve as a usefultool.

Finally, it is worth noting the dangers ofthe coach becoming a further source ofunhelpful comparison to the needy client,perpetuating a cycle of continued contingentlow self-esteem. Perhaps, as Ryan et al. (2003)implies, the true role of the coach in workingwith self-esteem issues is to help them escapethe trap of contingent self-worth, anddevelop an authentic and accurate sense ofthemselves, irrespective of successes, failures,opinions and the evaluations of others. Fur-ther, this might also suggest that the mostuseful coaches are those that have developedsuch a healthy sense of self and are able torestrain themselves from inflicting their owncontingent needs on others.

The authorsAlison Maxwell83 Empingham Road,Stamford,Lincs., PE9 2SU,United Kingdom.E-mail: [email protected]

Dr Tatiana BachkirovaOxford Brookes University,Business School, Wheatley,Oxford, OX33 1HX,United Kingdom.E-mail: [email protected]



Ashford, S.J., Blatt, R. & VandeWalle, D. (2003).Reflections through the looking glass: A review ofresearch on feedback-seeking behaviour inorganisations. Journal of Management, 29(6),773799.

Audia, P.G. & Locke, E.A. (2003). Benefiting fromnegative feedback. Human Resource ManagementReview, 13(4), 631646.

Bachkirova, T. (2000). Confidence versus Self-worthin adult learning. Proceedings of the 8th Interna-tional Symposium Improving Students LearningStrategically, September, Oxford Brookes Univer-sity.

Bachkirova, T. (2004). Dealing with issues of self-con-cept and self-improvement strategies in coachingand mentoring. International Journal of EvidenceBased Coaching and Mentoring, 2(2), 2940.

Bachkirova, T. & Cox, E. (2007). A cognitive devel-opmental approach for coach development. In S. Palmer & A. Whybrow (Eds.), Handbook ofcoaching psychology: A guide for practitioners.London: Routledge.

Bandura, A. (1998). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control.New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Baumeister, R.F. (Ed.) (1993). Self-esteem: The puzzle oflow self-regard. New York: Plenum Press.

Baumeister, R.F. (Ed.) (1999). The self in social psy-chology. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

Beck, D. & Cowan, C. (1996). Spiral dynamics. Oxford:Blackwell.

Berger, J. (2006). Adult development theory andexecutive coaching practice. In D. Stober & A. Grant (Eds.), Evidence-based coaching handbook:Putting best practices to work for your clients.Chichester: John Wiley.

Berger, J. & Fitzgerald, C. (2002). Leadership andcomplexity of mind: The role of executivecoaching. In C. Fitzgerald & J. Berger (Eds.),Executive coaching: Practices and perspectives. PaloAlto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.

Brown, J.D., CoIlins, R.L. & Schmidt, G.W. (1988).Self-esteem and direct versus in direct forms ofself-enhancement. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 55(3), 445453.

Burns, R.B. (1978). The self-concept: In theory, measure-ment, development and behaviour. London:Longman.

Campbell, J.D. & Lavallee, L.F. (1993). Who am I?The role of self-concept confusion in under-standing the behaviour of people with low self-esteem. In R.F. Baumeister (Ed.), Self-esteem: Thepuzzle of low self-regard. New York: Plenum Press.

Cavanagh, M. (2005). Mental-Health issues and chal-lenging clients in executive coaching. In M.Cavanagh, A. Grant & T. Kemp (Eds.), Evidence-based coaching (Vol. 1): Contributions from thebehavioural sciences. Queensland: Australian Academic Press.

Claxton, G. (1994). Noises from the darkroom. London:Aquarian.

Cooley, C.H. (1909). Human nature and the social order.New York: Scribner.

Cook-Greuter, S. (1999). Post-autonomous ego develop-ment: Its nature and measurement. Doctoral disser-tation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard GraduateSchool of Education.

Cook-Greuter, S. (2004). Making the case for devel-opmental perspective. Industrial and CommercialTraining, 36(7), 275281.

Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem.San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.

Crocker, J. (2002). The costs of seeking self-esteem.Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 597615.

Crocker, L, Brook, A.T., Niiya, Y. & Villacorta, M.(2006). The pursuit of self-esteem: Contingen-cies of self-worth and self-regulation. Journal ofPersonality, 74(6), 17491771.

Dunning, D., (2006). Strangers to ourselves? The Psychologist, 19(10), 600603.

Epstein, S. (1973). The self-concept revisited: Or atheory of a theory. American Psychologist, 28,404416.

Elsner, R. & Farrands, B. (2006). Lost in transition:How business leaders can successfully take charge innew roles. London: Marshall Cavendish Ltd.

Fingarette, H. (2000). Self-deception. London: Univer-sity of California Press.

Goleman, D. (1997). Vital lies, simple truths: The psy-chology of self-deception. London: Bloomsbury.

Hindmarch, L. (2008). An exploration of the experi-ence of self-doubt in the coaching context andthe strategies adopted by coaches to overcome it.International Journal of Evidence-Based Coaching andMentoring, Special Issue 2, 113.

Hamachek, D.E. (1987). Encounters with the self (3rded.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.

Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York: The Guil-ford Press.

James W. (1950). The principles of psychology. New York:Dover Publications. Inc (originally published1890).

Jones, C. & Meridith, W. (1996). Patterns of person-ality change across the lifespan. Psychology andAging, 11, 57 (3rd ed.). 65.

Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and processin human development. Cambridge. MA: HarvardUniversity Press.


Applying psychological theories of self-esteem in coac

icpr_5_1_web[1]

Documents

sydney university

city university

university of leicester

fielding university

manchester university

university of wollongong

university of toronto

middlesex university