Educating Coaches to Power Dynamics: Managing Multiple Agendas Within the Triangular Relationship

Abstract

Through a study of 20 semistructured interviews using the critical incident method, this article explores the nature of the multiple agendas within the triangular relationship that connects the coach, coachee, and an organization and the challenges associated with their management. The article suggests prerequisites to coaching program applications as well as learning approaches to help coaches embrace the power dynamics associated with their intervention.

Drawing the Triangle: How Coaches Manage Ambiguities Inherited in Executive Coaching

“…Included in the term organization may be the coachee's manager, Human Resources professionals involved in the process, and the coachee's subordinates and clients (de Haan, 2008a;Louis & Fatien-Diochon, 2014;Milaré & Yoshida, 2007;Skinner, 2012). Each of the three main stakeholders (organization, coachee, and coach) is linked to the other two in dyadic relationships: between the coach and the organization; between the coach and the coachee; and between the organization and the coachee (Louis & Fatien-Diochon, 2014).…”

“…For example, a coachee may be interested in relating better to his/her manager, while the manager hopes the coachee will relate better to his/her peers. There also may be different agendas in executive coaching processes (Louis & Fatien-Diochon, 2014): organizations may hire a coach as a last resource before firing an executive, but the decision of dismissal has already been made. The main stakeholders in executive coaching (coachee, coach, and organization) form a triangular relationship (Louis & Fatien-Diochon, 2014).…”

“…There also may be different agendas in executive coaching processes (Louis & Fatien-Diochon, 2014): organizations may hire a coach as a last resource before firing an executive, but the decision of dismissal has already been made. The main stakeholders in executive coaching (coachee, coach, and organization) form a triangular relationship (Louis & Fatien-Diochon, 2014). Between the stakeholders there might be different objectives, agendas, and conflicts of interests, and when objectives are not congruent, decisions must be made about what is right or wrong, and issues of ethics and morality may emerge.…”

“…The coach, who is responsible for conducting the coaching process (Stern, 2004), may give an impression of being neutral, as argued by some authors like Rocha-Pinto and Snaiderman (2011); other authors, though, reinforce the idea that executive coaches are not impartial, exempt (Critchley, 2010), or detached from issues in executive coaching processes (Louis & Fatien-Diochon, 2014;Skinner, 2012). Instead, coaches engage with coachees in a relational process, where meanings are created (Reissner & Toit, 2011).…”

“…Since coaches are responsible for conducting executive coaching processes (Stern, 2004), and in such processes there are triangular relationships prone to ethical dilemmas (Fatien-Diochon, 2012;Fatien-Diochon & Nizet, 2015;Louis & Fatien-Diochon, 2014); and the first step to a reflective perspective path to ethical maturity requires coaches to be aware of the existence of ethical dilemmas (Carroll & Shaw, 2013;Duffy & Passmore, 2010), a research gap exists: there is a need to further understand how coaches perceive triangular relationships in executive coaching and if and how they reflect on possible conflicts of interest in executive coaching. This study draws on the principles of social constructionism to address this problem.…”