Den eksterne coach
Forfatter
Müller, Marie Isolde
Semester
4. semester
Uddannelse
Udgivelsesår
2013
Afleveret
2013-05-31
Antal sider
112
Abstract
I ekstern coaching kan der opstå interessekonflikter mellem den organisation, der betaler for forløbet (sponsor), og medarbejderen, der modtager coaching (coachee). Efter selv at have oplevet en sådan konflikt undersøgte jeg, hvilke retningslinjer og etiske principper der anbefales, og fandt et markant videnshul. Derfor spurgte jeg: Hvordan håndterer den eksterne coach potentielle interessekonflikter mellem sponsor og medarbejder? Jeg gennemførte et kvalitativt studie med dybdegående interviews af fire eksterne organisationscoaches (to er psykologer). Fordi deres svar var forskellige og til tider modstridende, analyserede jeg interviewene på to måder: en Interpretativ Fænomenologisk Analyse (IPA), der fokuserer på deltagernes oplevelser, og en diskurspsykologisk analyse, der undersøger, hvordan sprog og idéer former praksis. Analyserne blev holdt adskilt, da de bygger på forskellige videnssyn (fænomenologi vs. socialkonstruktivisme). IPA-analysen, struktureret efter coachingforløbets faser, pegede på, at relationer og alliancer mellem coach, sponsor og coachee er helt centrale. Der var ikke én rigtig måde at håndtere situationerne på, men to tilbagevendende scenarier gik igen: (1) Når coachee tog emner op, der ikke relaterede til sponsorens mål (fx private forhold), havde coachene tendens til at styre eller spejle samtalen tilbage mod sponsorens agenda. (2) Når coachee fremsatte direkte kritik af sponsoren, lagde coachene oftere sponsorens agenda til side og gav plads til, at coachee kunne udforske sine bekymringer. Den diskurspsykologiske analyse identificerede tre skiftende diskurser, som prægede coachenes håndtering af organisationscoaching: Neutralitetsdiskursen (med rødder i systemisk terapi) idealiserer, at coachen kan skifte perspektiv og være neutral; set i lyset af Michel Foucaults idéer om magt og objektivitet kan denne stræben dog øge presset på coachee og gøre coachen til en forlængelse af sponsorens interesser. Diskursen om den gode arbejder, inspireret af Richard Sennett, viser en spænding mellem et ældre ideal om den stabile, loyale medarbejder og et nyere ideal om fleksibilitet; dette skaber pres for coachene og kan medvirke til, at faste retningslinjer er svære at etablere. Hjælpediskursen bygger på de klassiske grundsten i hjælperelationen og er inspireret af Carl Rogers’ begreber om empati og ubetinget positiv agtelse; her forstås coaching som omsorg og støtte. Samlet set trækker disse diskurser i forskellige retninger og skaber spændinger, som den eksterne coach må balancere for at respektere både sponsorens mål, coachees behov og egne professionelle hensyn. De to metoder supplerede hinanden: IPA gav dybde i de individuelle erfaringer, mens diskursanalysen satte praksis ind i en bredere social og historisk kontekst. Tilsammen peger de på praktiske pejlemærker og teoretiske forklaringer på, hvorfor klare, universelle retningslinjer er sjældne, og åbner for videre forskning i etiske rammer for organisationscoaching.
In external coaching, conflicts of interest can arise between the sponsoring organization and the employee receiving coaching (the coachee). After witnessing such a conflict, I reviewed the literature and found a notable gap in guidance for these situations. This led to the question: How do external coaches handle potential conflicts of interest between sponsors and employees? I conducted a qualitative study with in-depth interviews of four external organizational coaches (two are psychologists). Because their accounts were varied and sometimes contradictory, I analyzed the interviews in two ways: an Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), which centers on participants’ lived experiences, and a discourse-psychological analysis, which examines how language and ideas shape practice. The analyses were kept separate because they rest on different epistemologies (phenomenology vs. social constructionism). The IPA, organized around stages of the coaching process, highlighted that relationships and alliances among coach, sponsor, and coachee are central. There was no single right approach, but two recurring scenarios emerged: (1) When coachees shifted to topics unrelated to the sponsor’s goals (e.g., private matters), coaches tended to steer or mirror the conversation back to the sponsor’s agenda. (2) When coachees voiced direct complaints about the sponsor, coaches more often set the sponsor’s agenda aside and gave space for the coachee to explore concerns. The discourse-psychological analysis identified three shifting discourses that shaped practice: A neutrality discourse (rooted in systemic therapy) idealizes the coach’s ability to shift positions and remain neutral; viewed through Michel Foucault’s ideas on power and objectivity, this pursuit can increase pressure on the coachee and position the coach as an extension of the sponsor. A good worker discourse, informed by Richard Sennett, highlights tension between an older ideal of the stable, loyal worker and a newer ideal of flexibility; this creates pressure for coaches and helps explain why fixed guidelines are difficult to establish. A helping discourse draws on the classical foundations of helping relationships, including Carl Rogers’ empathy and unconditional positive regard, framing coaching as care and support. Taken together, these discourses pull in different directions and create tensions that external coaches must balance to honor the sponsor’s goals, the coachee’s needs, and their own professional ethics. The two methods complemented each other: IPA provided depth into individual experiences, while the discourse analysis situated practice within broader social and historical contexts. Together they offer practical pointers and theoretical reasons why clear, universal guidelines are scarce, and they open avenues for further research on ethical frameworks in organizational coaching.
[Dette resumé er genereret ved hjælp af AI]
Emneord