By Kas Ramus (MSc 2019/20)

Fear and negativity hold so many people back from progressing in life and reaching their full potential. They get stuck in a rut, they allow negative self-talk and thoughts to get in the way of their goals (Hickey, 2014).  A professional coach can help to overcome these obstacles and open up the gates to a more meaningful and purposeful life (Blonna, 2010).

Coaching is a rapidly growing industry. The International Coaching Federation (ICF) did a study in 2016 and found that there were approximately 53,000 coaching professionals worldwide, bringing in a global revenue in excess of US$2 billion a year. Sceptics have argued that there is a lack of empirical research on the outcomes of coaching with regards to its effectiveness (Bozer & Sarros, 2012) which should be available to justify the high cost of coaching (Theeboom, Beersma, & van Vianen, 2014). A study by Bono, Purvanova, Towler and Peterson (2009) on 428 coaches found that $237 was an average hourly fee. Harvard Business Review assessed that a coach could even charge up to $3500 an hour (Coutu, D. & Kauffman, 2009).

With the growing profile of coaching, an increased necessity for scientific rigour has become essential (Hill and Oliver, 2019), Fillery-Travis and Lane (2006),] concluded that it was no longer enough to ask “does it work?” and the time had come to shift towards “how does it work?”. This challenge generated a need for a robust theoretical framework to help identify and understand the underlying processes and mechanisms of coaching (Grant, 2010; Sonesh et al., 2015; Spence & Oades, 2011)

ACT (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy; Hayes, Strosahl, & Wilson, 1999) is the answer. It is a psychotherapeutic approach to coaching that aims to enhance psychological flexibility. It is evidence-based – 200 Randomised Control Trials have shown ACT works. It is theory-based –  ACT is based on evidence: Relational Frame Theory (RFT; Hayes,Barnes-Holmes & Roche, 2001), that explains how thinking and language influence human behaviour. It aligns with coaching –  like coaching, ACT assumes the client is not broken and in need of fixing but simply struggling with troubling thoughts and emotions (Blonna, 2010). It also encapsulates mindfulness, a technique of great interest in coaching as it focuses on accepting experiences as they unfold and decreasing instant emotional reactions.

Because of its theoretical underpinning, coaches who use ACT in their practice, are not only able to answer the questions – does it work? They can also explain how and why it works. Knowing how the mechanisms work gives their coaching greater accuracy, efficiency and effectiveness.

ACT’s objective is not to eliminate or challenge uncomfortable thoughts and feelings but rather to accept they are there and move towards something meaningful regardless. It focuses on increasing one’s psychological flexibility, the ability to choose one’s behaviour even when experiencing difficult thoughts and emotions. Research has proved ACT is indeed an effective approach to coaching. Skews (2018) carried out a Randomised Control Trial specifically on ACT-based one-to-one coaching, showing significant increases in psychological flexibility and well-being.

A recent qualitative study by Ramus (2020), takes the research further by interviewing ACT-based coaches to find evidence on how and why the various components of ACT worked in practice. This study explored the mindfulness, defusion, acceptance and values components of ACT. It found that mindfulness practices (for example a breath focusing exercise) helped slow things down for clients, bringing them back to the present so that they better understand what is going on for them. Defusion exercises helped give them a different perspective on intrusive thoughts so that they were not governed by them. Acceptance allowed clients to understand that unhelpful thoughts can remain without hindering progress. Values-based exercises helped people clarify what really mattered to them infusing their lives with greater meaning and purpose and helping them understand that discomfort (e.g. anxiety) is acceptable if ultimately their action leads them to something they valued. All these outcomes together attributed to the clients starting to live a better quality of life very quickly. Equally interesting is the study’s finding that the coaches themselves had undergone transformative experiences with ACT. What’s more, it also found that the ACT approach was preferred over others such as CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy), which clients found difficult as it encouraged them to challenge and change their thoughts. Clients had felt they had failed at CBT because they had not been able to control their negative thoughts, but surely, it was that CBT had failed them.

Challenging or trying to push away persistent unwanted thoughts just does not work. Like a beach-ball, it keeps popping up in front of us no matter how hard we try to hold it underwater.

As said by Steve Hayes (creator of ACT), there is no such process as “unlearning”. To extinguish past habit or behaviour one has to learn new responses (Hayes et al., 2012).

ACT is so great and so novel precisely because you don’t have to fight with your thoughts, it’s giving you permission to just let them be there. But this is not an end in itself, you may be thinking – but then so what? Now what?

The now what is the values bit.

Through exploring your values (with ACT), you have somewhere to focus your attention – on action that is serving your ultimate values (so that you are not dragged back into having a conversation with your thoughts and can tolerate them just being there). It’s such a relief to know that if you have a mind that beats you up, it doesn’t have to ruin your life. It’s just stuff echoing from the past. That gives people a real sense of liberation. You can inject your life with meaning and purpose. You don’t have to wait to get rid of your bad thoughts. You can generate meaning and purpose now.

So what does this mean for coaching?

We have evidence supporting an approach for coaching that is:

• Evidence based – scientific rigour is crucial in the growing coaching industry to justify the substantial cost as value-assured expenditure.
• It is a compassionate approach that is easy to grasp that will benefit individuals both personally and in the workplace in their general mental health and performance thus improve the well-being of the company
• ACT coaches are passionate as they have themselves had transformative experiences with ACT

To conclude, ACT-based coaching is a more gentle and  companionate approach compared to other methods in its tolerance of intrusive thoughts and helping people find their authentic selves. It is more aligned with how people naturally think and feel which attributes heavily to its effectiveness. ACT better reflects the reality of what a human being is.

References

Bono, J. E., Purvanova, R. K., Towler, A. J., & Peterson, D. B. (2009). a Survey of Executive Coaching Practices. Personnel Psychology, 62(2), 361–404. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2009.01142.x

Bozer, G., & Sarros, J. C. (2012). Examining the Effectiveness of Executive Coaching on Coachees’ Performance in the Israeli Context. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 10(1).

Coutu, D. & Kauffman, C. (2009). What Can Coaches Do for You?: Business Source. Harvard Business Review, January, 91–97.

Fillery-Travis, A., & Lane, D. (2006). Does coaching work or are we asking the wrong question? International Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1097/00152193-199706000-00006

Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K., & Wilson, K. G. (1999). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: An experiential approach to behavior change. New York: Guilford Press

Hickey, K. (2014, September 25). Research Paper: Using Acceptance and Commitment Therapy to Overcome Roadblocks and Reach Full Potential: Principles and Practices for the Coaches Toolbox. Retrieved from https://coachcampus.com/coach-portfolios/power-tools/kimberly-hickey-using-acceptance-and-commitment-therapy-to-overcome-roadblocks-and-reach-full-potential-principles-and-practices-for-the-coaches-toolbox/.

Ramus, K. K. (2020). The impact of ACT-based coaching. A Qualitative Study exploring why coaches choose to use ACT-based coaching and what impact they felt it had on their coachees. A Thematic Analysis. (Unpublishes Master’s dissertation). City, University of London

Sonesh, S. C., Coultas, C. W., Lacerenza, C. N., Marlow, S. L., Benishek, L. E., & Salas, E. (2015). The power of coaching: a meta-analytic investigation. Coaching, 8(2), 73–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2015.1071418

Spence, G. B., & Oades, L. G. (2011). Coaching with self-determination theory in mind: Using theory to advance evidence-based coaching practice. 9, 37–55. Retrieved from http://www.business.brookes.ac.uk/research/areas/coachingandmentoring/

Theeboom, T., Beersma, B., & van Vianen, A. E. M. (2014). Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context. Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.837499

By Katharine Woodhouse (MSc 2018/19)

Following medical advancements the number of women surviving breast cancer has increased, with 78% of women surviving ten years or more after diagnosis (Cancer Research UK, 2019). Therefore, an increasing number of women have a long, exciting career ahead of them. Nevertheless, we have limited knowledge on how breast cancer can affect women’s careers despite alarming statistics that one in seven British women will be diagnosed in their lifetime (Cancer Research UK, 2019; Raque-Bogden, 2015). This research aims to address the void and listen to women’s remarkable experiences of career change following breast cancer and whether their illness was a catalyst for change.

The traumatic challenges associated with cancer are never to be under-estimated, with frequent reference to career barriers or even derailment due to ongoing symptoms including physical pain and cognitive impairment (Beatty, 2012; Raque-Bogden, 2015). However, there is also a growing field of work indicating a potential ‘silver-lining’ to this agonising illness (Rowland, 2008). Cancer survivors have shown enhanced personal strength and appreciation for life equivocal to post-traumatic growth, whereby individuals experience positive change following a demanding life event.

This study was inspired by a breast cancer survivor who transitioned from a highly stressful role as a police Detective Chief Inspector to become an acupuncturist. Four women were interviewed in depth, the other three having transitioned from education related roles into the fields of ceramics, dog-walking and gardening. Subsequent narrative was analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (‘IPA’ – Smith et al, 2007) to provide a rich understanding of how the women make sense of their experiences.

Analysis of these interviews revealed four remarkably prominent themes throughout all four women’s narratives, namely (a) a pre-diagnosis unhappiness at work, a sense of (b) stepping off the life and work treadmill, (c) a sharp focus upon their ‘self’ and subsequently (d) a flourishing ‘work-life’ (as seen in the below illustration).

Figure 1. Illustration of women’s career experiences following breast cancer

(A) A pre-diagnosis unhappiness at work – high, consuming levels of stress were prominent throughout the women’s narratives alongside a strong sense of being out of control, due to increasing work demands, exacerbated by management. Two weeks before Zoe found her lump she told her manager she, “could not sustain this kind of pressure any longer…and I was thinking crikey I can’t work any harder or faster”. The majority of women held their work stress partially responsible for their illness, “having this stressful work, I think that probably just like…finished me off”.

(B) Stepping off the life and work treadmill – there was an overwhelming acknowledgement by all women that their cancer diagnosis was a crucial catalyst for change, moving across the boundary, stepping off the treadmill. Defined as an “eureka” moment there appeared to be a sense of relief, ultimately empowering them to take back control from their self, work, cancer and others. The women shared feelings of the “universe banging on my door for a long time” to change paths, being “lost” and “wishing for another life,” but now there is a strong sense of being back in control, “no, that’s it, I’m stopping everything that doesn’t give me pleasure, that doesn’t make me feel at peace”.

(C) A sharp focus on ‘self’ – when faced with “life or death” the women “review and reflect,” changing their perceptions of themselves, reflecting on how they had “evolved” or been “reborn”. Tessa expresses her determination not to, “go back to that person in that job… I promised myself actually…that I would never put myself under so much stress again”. Zoe proudly expresses her new identity, “I’m Zoe, the gardener, the cancer survivor.”

(D) A kickstart to a flourishing ‘work-life’ – There is an explicit challenge towards one’s interpretation of a career, as expressed by Charlie, “I don’t necessarily see the point of a career, I see the point of being fulfilled…a career is like a game, like the game of life…like let’s play careers”. Instead, the boundaries between work and life soften and the women are wholeheartedly in pursuit of their lifelong ambitions, exploring avenues that they had always “dreamed of”. With a strong thread of positivity and alignment with their true values these pursuits include a desire to help others. Strikingly, their new pursuits such as dog walking and Reiki to Megan also provide the women with a source of psychological and spiritual support on their road to recovery. The positivity amongst the women is inspirational, a stark reminder for, “being grateful for what you have” and Megan’s powerful reflection, “I wouldn’t have my old life back so, if you said, okay, you can go back three years, go back to your job…but not have cancer, I’d go no thank you”.

These findings were considered through well-established career theories, namely Savickas’s (2002) Career Construction Theory, and the metaphorically inspired Protean and Boundaryless career models (Hall, 1996; Arthur & Rosseau, 1996). As the name suggests, the career construction theory highlights the individual as the ‘protagonist,’ constructing their own trajectories through life’s unpredictable twists and turns. Your ultimate success will depend upon how much your identity is aligned with work. This key message is shared by the Protean model – if you proactively seek work that fulfils your true values in life you will be more fulfilled. The boundaryless model evokes the vivid modern day pursuit of a career without the traditional hierarchies but also acknowledges psychological boundaries, such as those imposed via social norms and expectations.

Holistically, these career theories and above illustration provide a very useful lens, through which to reflect upon the women’s experiences in this study. The women seize the opportunity to incorporate their life-changing event into their revitalised identity and through defeat of previously imposed boundaries they are able to move freely towards their boundaryless existence. The divide between work and life have become intertwined, as they proactively pursue lifelong ambitions and re-kindle their true values. The fragility of “life or death” and associated thoughts, “what if it comes back,” alongside the post treatment physical struggle provide a powerful motivation not to get lost in the triviality of life and drive towards new life goals. This culminates in an inspirational thread of positivity throughout the women’s narrative and it is the strength of this positive mindset that questions how we can empower other women to step off their treadmill, regain control and pursue their lifelong ambitions without having to suffer the trauma of a cancer diagnosis. Further research will enhance our understanding of heightened positive behaviours following a cancer diagnosis to empower women to flourish when they are well.

References:

Arthur, M. B., & Rosseau, D. M. (eds.) (1996). The boundaryless career: a new employment principle for a new organizational era. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Beatty, J. E. (2012). Career barriers experienced by people with chronic illness: A US Study. Employment Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 24, 91-110. Cancer Research UK – Breast cancer incidence (invasive) statistics (2019) Available at: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancertype/breast-cancer (accessed 5 December 2019)

Hall, D. T. (1996) Protean careers of the 21st century. Academy of Management Executive, 10, 8-16.

Savickas, M. L. (2005). The theory and practice of career construction. In S. D. Brown, & R. W. Lent (eds.) Career development and counselling. New Jersey. Wiley, pp. 42-70.

Raque-Bogdan, T. L., Hoffman, M. A., Ginter, A. C., Piontkowski, S., Schexnayder., & White, R. (2015). The work life and career development of young breast cancer survivors. Journal of Counselling Psychology, 62, 655-669.

Rowland, J. H. (2008). What are cancer survivors telling us? Cancer Journal, 14, 361-368. Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, method and research. London. Sage Publications.

By Alana Bentley (MSc 2019/20)

A developing concern for organisations is managing the multi-generational workforce  (Solnet, Kralj, & Kandampully, 2012), due to their wider impacts on companies’ plans and products (Sessa, Kabacoff, Deal, & Brown, 2007).

A generation is defined as a distinguishable group of individuals, who share the same birth years and significant life events at critical stages of their childhood development (Kupperschmidt, 2000). Currently there are four generational cohorts operating in the workplace (Li, 2015; Twenge, 2017).

The social forces perspective explains that each generation develops with a social or historical shift, warranting new patterns and variations in values (Gilleard, 2004; Eyerman & Turner, 1998). Social change occurs by new generations accepting or defying pre-existing norms about appropriate behaviour, based on judgements influenced by formative experiences. Examples of generations and their values are shown below.

By being classified into a generation by their birth years, individuals form an identity with the group they associate with (van Rossem, 2016). Consequently, generational stereotypes form, resulting in in-group and out-group behaviour in the workplace. By making out-group comparisons with neighbouring generations, and showing in-group favouritism, conflict occurs.

The present study builds on previous research by comparing Generation X’s and Generation Z’s approaches to teamwork. Previous literature has concluded generations value teamwork equally, whilst approaching it in different ways (Lyons & Kuron, 2014).

Two research questions were developed to guide the research and interview process:

1. How do Generations X and Z approach teamwork?
2. What are the similarities and differences in their approaches?

Findings

18 semi-structured interviews were conducted and analysed using thematic analysis. Three key themes were identified for both generations.

Generation X:

1. Nurturing Environment – Generation X employees valued approaching teamwork with a nurturing manner, valuing support systems and being non-judgemental. Employees expressed a need for their teammates to cover for them during difficult times and a need for them to be available to shuffle busy workloads. Further, Generation X valued being non-judgemental with their colleagues, because if individuals worked hard, they should be allowed to make mistakes, and learn from these errors to move forward successfully.
2. Face-to-face Communication – Generation X individuals valued using face-to-face communication when approaching teamwork to achieve mutual consensus and mutual respect and maintain regular updates. It was important to participants that each team member feels acknowledged and understood, and everyone is happy with the agreed plans. Further, Generation X described valuing gradual friendships, whereby communication can be used to put differences aside to develop friendships overtime, whilst not being friends with everyone.
3. Group Alignment – Generation X participants described a preference for aligning their work to contribute to team goals, consequently sharing the wins and losses as a team. Participants explained each colleague must make an individual contribution, which is assigned based on their strengths and weaknesses.

Generation Z:

1. Recognition – Generation Z participants valued being recognised for their achievements regardless of the size or importance of their project. Generation Z valued immediate feedback and respect to feel recognised for their hard work, to keep them motivated for future tasks.
2. Face-to-face Communication – Generation Z employees valued face-to-face communication to maintain regular updates, increase networks and develop personal friendships. Generation Z valued getting to know their colleagues on a deep, meaningful level to understand when they were struggling and needed help, and valued doing this with the entire organisation. By networking with the entire company, they could collaborate with more employees and gain further skills and knowledge.
3. Personal Development – Generation Z individuals described approaching teamwork to increase their confidence, and valued others sacrificing their time to aid their learning. Generation Z valued their team members coaching them through tasks because they are new and lack the expertise and experience others have. By practicing with them, colleagues help build their confidence, making them more willing to do difficult tasks.

The most noticeable similarity was face-to-face communication. Both generations valued using this for regular updates to set goals, share knowledge and discuss previous achievements.

Other underlying similarities existed, however they manifested in different ways (Deal, 2007). For example, both generations valued supportive back-up behaviour. Generation X showed this through covering for one another during busy periods, whilst Generation Z expressed a need to sacrifice time to teach one another.

Further, both generations valued respect. Gen-X valued mutual respect when communicating which involved valuing each member’s expertise and opinions, because team members have different experiences and skills. Whilst Gen-Z valued respect through being understood and not degraded as a junior for their lack of experience. This presented similarities to the theme of being non-judgemental in Generation X, where colleagues valued not being dismissed and disregarded for asking questions, needing help or not knowing how to complete a task.

A distinct difference was described in terms of relationships. Gen-X explained communication gradually develops friendships overtime. They do not have to be friends with everyone, because by communicating they can put their differences aside. However, Gen-Z valued personal relationships with everyone.  

Conclusions

This study shows a common ground exists between Generation X and Generation Z. Values such as support, respect and communication arose in both, whilst expressed in different ways. It appears Generation X use these values for a team or organisational outcome, whilst Generation Z use them for an individual benefit to aid their career progression.

Due to several similarities in values being highlighted, organisations should work to promote these similarities, to reduce the formation of in-groups and out-groups in the workplace. The values obtained in this study, differ from previous research concluding how the generations are perceived. Therefore, the formation of generational stereotypes in the workplace may be the root cause of generational conflict.

In the future, organisations should use team-building days and informal gatherings, to encourage multi-generational teams to familiarise themselves with their teammates and increase their understandings of one another.

References

Deal, J. J. (2007). Retiring the generation gap: How employees young and old can find common ground.   San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Eyerman, R., & Turner, B. S. (1998). Outline of a theory of generations. European Journal of Social              Theory, 1, 91–106.

Gilleard, C. (2004). Cohorts and generations in the study of social change. Social Theory & Health, 2,          106–119.

Kupperschmidt, B. R. (2000). Multigeneration employees: strategies for effective managegement.             The Health Care Manager, 19, 65-76.

Li, R. Y. M. (2015). Generation X and Y’s demand for homeownership in Hong Kong. Pacific Rim    Property Research Journal, 21(1), 15-36.

Lyons, S., & Kuron, L. (2014). Generational differences in the workplace: A review of the evidence and      directions for future research. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 25, S139-S157.

Sessa, V. I., Kabacoff, R. I., Deal, J., & Brown, H. (2007). Generational differences in leader values and        leadership behaviors. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 10(1), 47–74.

Solnet, D., Karlj, A., Kandampully, J. (2012). Generation Y Employees: An Examination of Work Attitude    Differences. The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 17(3), 36-54.

Twenge, J. M. (2017). iGen: Why today’s super-connected kids are growing up less rebellious, more             tolerant, less happy- and completely unprepared for adulthood* and what that means for the rest of us. New York, NY: Atria Books.

Van Rossem, A. H. D. (2016). Generations as social categories: An exploratory cognitive study of generational identity and generational stereotypes in a multigenerational workforce. Journal of Organisational Behavior, 40, 434-455.