EXECUTIVE COACHING IS, if anything, an intensely personal dyadic relationship between the executive and the coach. Unlike coaching a team of individuals, executive coaching has as its singular focus aiding the executive to perform better. This appreciation directs our attention to the interpersonal nature of this transaction and, like all relationships, it is the subjective, out-of-awareness, unconscious, and very often hard-to-discuss aspects of the relationship that count. Understanding these dimensions of the interpersonal world requires a theory such as psychoanalytic theory that provides in-depth insight into human nature. This insight yields a form of executive coaching that encourages understanding the executive’s inherently complex sense of self and that of the coach as well. Sensing the executive by using oneself as an instrument of knowing requires the development of reflective insight that permits locating and interpreting self-experience generated within the coaching context as well as within daily life.

CEOs, senior executives, and their colleagues in middle management continually shape and reshape their organization. What the organization is and how it operates are an extension of this shaping that is influenced by unconscious, hard-to-discuss interpersonal and group dynamics. Executive coaching is inextricably linked to understanding the organization in order to understand the executive.

Understanding an executive independent of the workplace is not really possible. The executive’s effects upon the organization and its members offer insights that may be used in coaching. Just as important is the effect of those with whom the executive works (superiors, subordinates, and employees) upon the executive. No executive is an island. He or she is always impacted by others, organizational history, and events. Understanding these bidirectional influences is aided by a thorough organizational diagnosis.

In their article, “Interpreting Organizational Texts,” Kets de Vries and Miller (1987) propose a number of “rules of interpretation” that are consistent with Levinson’s (1972) diagnostic attention to “patterning” and “integration.” Following the collection of varied data, the organizational narrative is constructed by shaping “the different observations into an interconnected, cohesive unit” through the rule of thematic unity (p. 245). The method of thematic unity becomes crucial to making sense out of the dense nature and sheer volume of narrative and observational data.

Individual and group psychological defenses abound in the workplace. They may take as many forms as the diversity of human nature has to offer. Some are, however, more prevalent and/or have a greater impact in the workplace. Before I discuss these defenses, the context in which they arise must be described.

Psychological regression represents an unwitting endeavor of organization participants to manage their anxieties. Regression is defined here as the metaphoric return to earlier modes of object relations where stage appropriate conflicts reemerge in the present. To put it simply, adults come to rely on familiar, yet unconscious childhood defenses to combat anxieties at work in the present. Regression is most often accompanied by the interplay of various types of psychological defenses aimed at allaying the distressing experience of anxiety.

Arrogance on the part of executives produces some of the most extreme organizational outcomes as evidenced by WorldCom and Enron. Arrogance may take many forms such as the normal rules of fair play and civility not applying to the individual. Willful behavior that includes a reckless disregard for accurate reality testing and shared decision making may abound. Those who cross this individual do so at their peril. Injuries to this individual’s arrogant pride must be vindicated by punishing the victimizer and discrediting his or her point of view.

A closely related and frequently encountered psychologically defensive response to early life experience is the pursuit of admiration, love, and respect where none was offered in childhood. The executive may be observed to avoid making tough decisions where someone’s ox gets gored. Doing so risks losing admiration, love, and respect. Organizational resources and promotions may be wielded in such a manner as to create these outcomes often resulting in an intensely loyal, unquestioning, and supportive group of individuals who have as their tacit job “pumping up the executive’s ego.”

A third, not uncommon, coaching challenge is the executive who, when confronted with a challenging leadership opportunity, consistently looks to others to handle it or who may neither handle it nor look to others to deal with it. Not responding to a crisis may be an option. Many organization stories and their subtext may point to a willingness to follow if led, a lack of clear direction and leadership, and the blocking of those who could lead from doing so. Employees and midlevel managers may be bitterly frustrated and hope for change is largely absent save for the replacement of the executive and perhaps his or her (non)leadership team.

Some scholars have argued Sigmund Freud was preoccupied with exploring intrapsychic processes to the exclusion of the interpersonal world. Others have argued that Freud implicitly or explicitly addressed the interpersonal world. Those that followed Freud did intensely examine the interpersonal world to create a new field of theorizing—that of object relations. It is not possible here to review all the theoretical perspectives associated with this school of thought. I narrow the discussion to the examination of three informative concepts: denial and splitting, projection, and projective identification. These concepts illuminate the richness of this arena of theorizing and some of the true complexity of understanding interpersonal relations.

Objects (others in one’s mind) are invariably experienced as neither all good nor all bad. Relationships with others may, at times, be loving (rewarding) or filled with hate (not rewarding). We, in fact, often try to ignore or deny one or the other of these experiences. A leader may be idealized by all as near perfection in achieving high return on investment. Some leaders may also be almost universally despised and hated. In each of these cases the leaders possess weaknesses or strengths that, while present, are essentially unknown to others. These unacceptable attributes have been denied to exist and split off from the individual, leaving a purified remainder (all good or all bad). An executive may be spoken of throughout the organization as outstanding and “walking on water” or, conversely, thought of as incompetent, mean, threatening, arrogant, and detracting from organizational performance.

Denial and splitting lead to projection. An executive who wishes to be seen as all-powerful, knowing, and worthy of admiration and loyalty locates within himself or herself personal qualities, thoughts, and feelings inconsistent with these self-images. Upon recognition they are denied to exist. This permits them to be split off, leaving a powerful and admirable self-residue. However, the dynamic does not end there. The executive projects these disposed-of parts of self onto others as mental objects, thereby providing some measure of control of these objects in fantasy. This outcome inevitably leaks into the interpersonal world. Staff and employees are then, with near absolute certainty, known by the executive to be weak, helpless, uninformed, lacking leadership skills, and unworthy of being admired because they are worthless. This results in an executive who has exceptional self-confidence and a staff and employees who are thought of as helpless and requiring the leadership, and most often micromanagement, of the faultless executive. In sum, the interpersonal world is split into the all-good executive and largely all-bad group of organization members.

The projection of dispossessed parts of the executive and of the employees as a group leads to the possibility of coming to know oneself as the object of the projections in a manner consistent with the projections. Others may treat executives as “godlike” or “satanic” consistent with the projected content. This constant interpersonal press encourages unconscious introjective identification of the projected content by the executive. “I must be this way since everyone thinks so” (Tansey & Burke, 1989, p. 45). The executive is at least in part self-transformed into “all good” or “all bad” with the accompanying self-experience. The executive comes to feel superior or perhaps inferior—a people person or a hard-hearted number cruncher.

Thus far not examined is how these aspects of object relations theory inform coaching and, just as important, the coach. You, the coach, are subject to your own processes of denial, splitting, projection, and projective identification. This is not merely a problematic outcome. It must be embraced as a certainty. An idealized senior executive encourages the coach to join in this shared group fantasy (e.g., identification with and introjection of an inferior status). What would a lowly, marginally competent coach have to contribute to this great person’s ability to lead and manage? Certainly, consistent with the psychologically defensive process already discussed, confronting this bigger-than-life figure with his or her feet of clay may not feel like a survivable encounter or even an encounter that can be contemplated without considerable anxiety.

Transference and countertransference are key conceptual tools for the psychoanalytic study of organizations (Baum, 1994; Czander, 1993; Diamond, 1993, 1998; Kets de Vries & Miller, 1984; Levinson, 1972; Schwartz, 1991; Stapley, 1996; Stein, 1994). According to Hunt (1989), psychoanalytic approaches to fieldwork take three assumptions into account in their examination of researcher-subject relations. First, they assume unconscious processes exist in which “much thought and activity takes place outside of conscious awareness” (p. 25). Second, “the unconscious meanings which mediate everyday life are linked to complex webs of significance which can ultimately be traced to childhood experiences” (ibid.). That is, “the psychoanalytic perspective assumes that transferences , defined as the imposition of archaic (childhood) images onto present day objects, are a routine feature of most relationships,” one that has clear bearing on the executive coaching endeavor (ibid.). Hunt goes on to argue that transference, whether positive or negative, “structures social relationships in particular ways” (ibid.). And, thirdly, she assumes that “psychoanalysis is a theory of intrapsychic conflict” (ibid.).

Psychoanalytic terms are often used in idiosyncratic ways that may be thought of as placing a new spin on a term or that may be borrowed from a previous idiosyncratic application. There are also instances where the terms are simply described differently. These considerations make it important to provide a definition of these two psychoanalytic concepts.

According to Moore and Fine (1990), transference is “the displacement of patterns of feelings, thoughts, and behavior, originally experienced in relation to significant figures during childhood, onto a person involved in a current interpersonal relationship” (p. 196). This process is largely unconscious and therefore outside the awareness of the subject. Transference occurs as a result of the nature of the here-and-now object relations (self and other) that trigger familiar assumptions and archaic feelings rooted in previous attachments. It is the case within organizations that structural hierarchy and roles of power and authority frequently provide a context for transference and countertransference reminiscent of childhood and family experience. It is typically the case in organizational consultation that, despite our psychoanalytic orientation, we know little of the childhood experiences of those with whom we consult. Nonetheless, we can assume that organizational members bring to the workplace their history of internalized object relations and that this affects working relationships via transference and counter-transference dynamics. Numerous opportunities in the consultation process will therefore occur to observe and experience repetitive patterns of object relationships that provide our clients insights into organizational culture and their performance. Thus, the displacement of patterns of thinking, feeling, and action from the past onto the present in the workplace does occur and can be expected to be prevalent where issues of power and authority are present.

Countertransference is narrowly defined as a specific reaction to the client’s transference. Countertransference works much the same as transference. It arises out of a context where the coach’s feelings and attitudes toward a client are influenced by the client’s transference onto the consultant. In addition to these feelings and attitudes, elements of the coach’s life are also displaced onto the client, which then influences the coach’s analytic understanding. Countertransference, therefore, reflects the consultant’s own unconscious response to the client, though some aspects may become conscious. Acknowledgment of countertransference dynamics in the consultation process is problematic, making working in teams crucial to the processing and constructive utilization of countertransference data. I now turn to the theoretical implications of using transference and countertransference to understand the psychological reality of the workplace.

To begin, although each aspect of the concepts is separately discussed, it is important to appreciate that these potentialities coexist, thereby creating hard-to-understand and chaotic experiences on the part of the coach. It is this appreciation that leads to a deep respect for the complexities that any endeavor to know the psychological reality of the workplace will encounter. The executive coach is faced with an exceptional challenge, that of locating the overarching organizational text from this stew of experience and unconscious organizational dynamics.

Klein’s (1959, 1975) conception of the paranoid-schizoid and depressive positions further informs our inquiry. The pre-Oedipal paranoid-schizoid position is driven by persecutory anxieties and fears characterized by psychological splitting of self and others into good or bad, caring or rejecting, nurturing or withholding, black or white objects. This position is primarily one of experiencing the other as an object held in one’s mind as split and fragmented into polarized part-objects. Psychological splitting is then combined with projective identification as an unconscious effort to manipulate and coerce the object by projecting undesirable self-experience into the other. Also to be noted is that, in contrast to an internal and external world of fragmented relationships, the Kleinian depressive position is characterized by the self-experience of objects as whole and thereby comprised of good and bad dimensions—the so-called gray area of psychological reality is mournfully acknowledged.

Thus far suggested is that organizational life is filled with unconscious processes that are hard to locate and understand but which, nonetheless, influence organizational dynamics and executive performance. Transference and countertransference dynamics between coaches and organizational participants (those coached) represent a psychoanalytically unique stance and frame of reference. It is within the context of these relationships that we can observe and experience underlying organizational dynamics peculiar to a particular organizational culture and its group of members. Transference and countertransference transport members’ anxieties and their concomitant defensive and regressive actions (such as splitting and projection) into workplace roles and relationships that shape the intersubjective structure and meaning of organizational experience. It is, therefore, essential in this context that the coach is able to retain a self-reflective (observing ego) stance in which subjective (and intersubjective) experience is accessible for examination and reflection. Therefore, the capacity by psychoanalytically informed coaches to contain anxiety-filled workplace experience enables organizational clients to engage in reflective learning for change and minimize regression. However, at the same time, the likelihood of a regressive pull toward introjecting positive (idealizing) transference onto the coach or consultant is increased and may indeed be unavoidable.

Bob appears to possess many of the narcissistic, arrogant, and vindictive character traits described earlier. These traits encourage the individual to seek the admiration and love of others. Bob possesses charismatic qualities that, when combined with intelligence, experience, and considerable personal drive, make him a good candidate for admiration on the part of others. His loving wife, who takes care of informing him of his children, is loyal and devoted, traits he no doubts expects from others around him. This observation is reinforced by his vindictive triumph over a colleague who “did not get it” and was transferred out and by his volatility when confronted with problems. He presents those around him a paradox. He is willing to elicit emotion-filled conversations that are not subsequently revisited. Although he portrays himself as a caring people person, his primary focus is win-lose achievement and the utilitarian use of others. As he approaches the end of his career he has been presented a difficulty in the form of a merger that threatens to derail his fantasy of getting the business to run perfectly before he leaves.

The following description of work contains content which is not in the original case. This is essential since psychoanalytically informed coaching must address the self-experience of the coach not present in the cases. The following is therefore a fiction created to illustrate psychoanalytically informed coaching.

Bob’s developing ability to learn from self-reflection combined with new insights provided by the coach as to how to better understand interpersonal, group, and organizational dynamics will require ongoing nurturing. In particular, at key points high stress may evoke regression to the old ways of coping. The need for longitudinal follow-up is clear in order to establish reflectivity as a way of doing business.

Bonita is an upwardly mobile mother of two who is also African-American. She wants to achieve good performance but also has a self-identified weakness that leads her to avoid conflict and confrontation. When presented with a difficult situation, doing nothing is often an option. At other times, she compensates by trying to avoid confrontation through building consensus with others. She does not appear to be preoccupied with wanting to be liked or admired so much as to simply avoid feeling anxious. She wants to try to deal with her avoidance and dependency on others when dealing with stressful and conflicted situations, which means dealing with the origins of her distressing experience of anxiety (transference). Also to be noted is that there are present feelings of guilt related to abandoning the care of her children to her mother. In some ways she is not good enough at work and not good enough at being a mother.

The coaching process began with Bonita agreeing to meet weekly for two hours for two months. Coaching commitments with a number of other executives at the same company also encouraged the coach to further explore the nature of this high-tech organization. In particular, those in senior leadership positions who contributed to creating a culture that valued innovation but also combativeness and interpersonal competition needed to be better understood (e.g., an organizational diagnosis).

Bonita’s willingness to try new, more decisive behavior that she could forthrightly justify to others had to be encouraged. It was only a matter of time until Ken strongly confronted her, which would be a test of her ability to deal with an authority figure without shrinking away. Telephone consultation was made available as needed for a three-month period to provide her support as she continued to explore her newfound self-authorization.

The case examples provide much of the content of the recommended organizational diagnosis. The organization’s history, culture, and the overarching context for the coaching endeavor are known. The character traits described also contribute to the understanding of the executives to be coached. The dysfunctional nature of the traits is nicely illustrated. To be noted is that these traits are a familiar and heavily relied upon coping response to psychological regression evoked by the distressing experience of anxiety. They contain many elements that first arose in childhood. The cases also provide an opportunity to explore object relations phenomena. Denial, splitting, projection, and projective identification can be located in the cases. In particular, each has elements of black and white polarized thinking.

This chapter emphasizes that psychoanalytically informed coaching begins with a carefully developed organizational diagnosis that creates insight into organizational history, narrative, and culture. In particular, the diagnosis informs executive coaches of the problems and issues faced by executives as well as the problematic aspects of their leadership styles and interpersonal world. The case examples illustrate the role psychological defenses, splitting and projection, and transference and countertransference play in facilitating executive learning and change. They also illustrate the significance of the coach as a vessel for projections as well as the receiver of much of the same behavior others have received as illustrated by the diagnostic data. As such, the ability to understand and interpret countertransference is a significant contributor to executive coaching.

Allcorn, S., & Diamond, M. A. (1991). Managing stress and anxiety in clinical laboratories. Clinical Laboratory Management Review, 5(3), 154-165.

Allcorn, S., & Diamond, M. A. (1997). Managing people during stressful times: The psychologically defensive workplace. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Baum, H. S. (1994). Transference in organizational research. Administration & Society, 26(2), 135-157.

Bion, W. R. (1959). Experiences in groups. New York: Basic Books.

Czander, W. (1993). The psychodynamics of work and organizations. New York: Guilford Press.

Diamond, M. A. (1993). The unconscious life of organizations. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.

Diamond, M. A. (1998). The symbiotic lure: Organizations as defective containers. Administrative Theory and Praxis, 20(3), 315-325.

Diamond, M. A., Stein, H. F., & Allcorn, S. (2002). Organizational silos: Horizontal fragmentation in organizations. Journal for the Psychoanalysis of Culture and Society, 7(2), 280-296.

Freud, S. (1921). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego. New York: W. W. Norton.

Horney, K. (1950). Neurosis and human growth. New York: W. W. Norton.

Hunt, J. C. (1989). Psychoanalytic aspects of fieldwork. London: Sage.

Kernberg, O. (1998). Ideology, conflict, and leadership in groups and organizations. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Miller, D. (1984). The neurotic organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kets de Vries, M. F. R., & Miller, D. (1987). Interpreting organizational texts. Journal of Management Studies, 24(3), 233-247.

Klein, M. (1959). Our adult world and its roots in infancy. Human Relations, 12, 291-301.

Klein, M. (1975). Envy and gratitude and other works, 1946-1963. New York: Delacorte.

Levinson, H. (1972). Organizational diagnosis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Levinson, H. (2002). Organizational assessment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association Press.

Moore, B. E., & Fine, B. D. (1990). Psychoanalytic terms & concepts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press and American Psychoanalytic Association.

Person, E. (1995). By force of fantasy. New York: Basic Books.

Ricoeur, P. (1970). Freud and philosophy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Schafer, R. (1983). The analytic attitude. New York: Basic Books.

Schwartz, H. S. (1991). Narcissistic process and corporate decay. New York: New York University Press.

Spence, D. P. (1982). Narrative truth and historical truth. New York: W. W. Norton.

Stapley, L. F. (1996). The personality of the organization. London: Free Association Books.

Stein, H. F. (1994). Listening deeply. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Tansey, M., & Burke, W. (1989). Understanding countertransference. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press.