How clear is the coachee regarding goals?
Insight from Ego Identity Status
This write-up aims to throw light on some of the challenges some coachees
encounter when coaches ask them to clarify what future roles and
responsibilities they see themselves fulfilling (or some variation of this question).
The purpose is to enable coaches to work through the issue in a manner that is
likely to produce an effective coaching outcome, for coachees with different
levels and kinds of clarity on goals.
A coaching relationship can be called effective only when the coachee sets a goal
that they had not already set, or makes a level of effort they would not otherwise
have put in, to achieve a set goal. One way or the other, the person must function
more effectively in the future, as adjudged by them and by those who have a
stake in their performance. Coaching, therefore, fundamentally, is a forward
looking activity.
Mostly, coaching is based on recent data, either obtained from the coachee –
his/her biographical details and psychometric profiles obtained through various
instruments – or from those who have known him/her in recent years – multirater feedback reports. Both those sources of data, to a lesser or greater extent,
are related to the coachee’s past. This poses a unique challenge to the coaching
process – the crafting of a way forward based on little documented information
about the future.
There are two kinds of future-related information that are valuable to coaching:
firstly, information about the coachee’s aspirations – desires about their role and
identity in the future, and secondly, what the world of the future (mainly, their
department, organisation, or industry) is going to be for the coachee. While some
amount of data on the latter is arguably feasible for the coach to obtain prior to
the first coaching session, this is normally not done. If more information on the
world of the future is needed, that usually is taken to be a need that the coachee
must also see as important, and it is they who must then work towards obtaining
© Greentree Learning
1
that information, post the coaching session. There are many good reasons for this
stance: unknown to the coach, the coachee may already have a fund of relevant
information; the coachee may be better placed to gather the requisite
information; information gathered by the coachee would likely carry greater
credibility in their eyes; this as an important act towards greater responsibility
taking by the coachee for their future, making them more adept at learning to
learn; more pragmatically, what is worth knowing about the world of the future is
contingent upon the coachee’s aspirations.
For the coaching process, therefore, the coachee’s aspirations form an important
area of exploration and clarification. All developmental actions must dovetail with
these aspirations (assuming they are consistent with the organisational goals).
Clarification and crystallisation of aspirations, to have a sufficiently long term
influence on the individual’s choice-making, must appeal to their logic as well as
their emotions. Yet, actual conversation with managers at different stages of their
career readily reveals that while some are clear on their aspirations, many of them
are far away from any such gestalt on what they want to be or do at any point of
time in the future.
Given the time and space constraints of formal coaching, it is reasonable to
believe that drawing out such conviction-infused aspirations is a difficult
attainment on most occasions where absence of clear goals is encountered. This
frustrates the drawing out of developmental goals and action plans that are based
on any deep conviction. Action plans, bereft of an organising principle, become
more focused on evening out the coachee’s reported profile, especially in areas
where the coachee agrees there are real and substantive impediments to current
efficacy. For the coach, the experience is of a ‘routine’ coaching session.
This write-up aims to throw light on some of the challenges some coachees
encounter when coaches ask them to clarify what future roles and responsibilities
they see themselves fulfilling (or some variation of this question). The purpose is
to enable coaches to work through the issue in a manner that is likely to produce
an effective coaching outcome, for coachees with different levels and kinds of
clarity on goals.
Erik Erikson’s concept of Ego Identity, as elaborated and structured by Canadian
developmental psychologist James Marcia into four Ego Identity Statuses,
provides a useful starting point to understand the issue of clarity regarding goals.
Concept of Ego Identity
Erikson explains the term thus: “The term “identity” expresses ... a mutual relation
in that it connotes both a persistent sameness within oneself (self-sameness) and
a persistent sharing of some kind of essential character with others... At one time,
then, it will appear to refer to a conscious sense of individual identity; at another
to an unconscious striving for a continuity of personal character; at a third, as a
criterion for the silent doings of ego synthesis; and, finally, as a maintenance of an
inner solidarity with a group’s ideals and identity.” (Erikson, Identity and the Life
Cycle (1980), pg. 109)
Marcia suggests that Identity is an ego structure – an internal, self-constructed,
dynamic organisation of aspirations, skills, beliefs, and individual history. With
these four elements as its constituents, Ego Identity insight can be powerful for
understanding the individual’s goals. However, as it turns out, not many
individuals achieve and retain a clear sense of ego identity through their adult life.
Ego Identity Status
Marcia refined and extended Erikson’s model, primarily focusing on adolescent
development. Addressing Erikson’s notion of identity crisis, Marcia posited that
the adolescent stage consisted of varying degrees of exploration and commitment
to an identity in a variety of life domains – vocation, religion, relational choices,
gender roles, and so on. Marcia’s theory of identity achievement argued that two
distinct parts form an adolescent’s identity: crisis (i. e. a time when one’s values
and choices are being re-evaluated) and commitment. He defined a crisis as a time
of upheaval where old values or choices are being re-examined. The end outcome
of a crisis leads to a commitment made to a certain role or value.
Depending on how much they allow the exploration of identity choices during the
crisis phase, and depending on how much they commit to the choice made at the
end of the crisis, every individual can be thought to be in one of four Ego Identity
Statuses at any point of time during their life. An oft-used 2x2 matrix to represent
them visually is as follows:
Exploration of identity choices
High
Commitment to current identity
Low
Low
High
Diffusion:
Moratorium:
The person does not have a
sense of having choices; has
not yet made (nor is
attempting/willing to make) a
commitment.
The status in which the person
is currently in a crisis,
exploring various choices, and
is
ready
to
make
a
commitment, but has not
made it yet.
Foreclosure:
Achievement:
The person seems willing to
commit to an identity; has not
experienced an identity crisis –
has not explored options.
Tends to conform to the
expectations of others (e. g.
allowing a parent to determine
a career direction).
The status in which the person
has gone through an identity
crisis and has made a
commitment to a certain
identity (i.e. certain role or
value) that he or she has
chosen.
It is worth noting that, in Marcia’s paradigm, identity formation is domain-specific.
That is, a person may have distinct identity status for the various domains of life.
Thus, for instance, one may well have an achieved gender-based identity (e.g.,
wife), but may be in a state of diffusion vis-a-vis one’s occupational identity.
Broadly speaking, qualities such as openness to experience, capacity to deal with
cognitive complexity, and self-confidence, are thought to be more commonly
found among those in statuses of Moratorium and Achievement in most domains
of their life.
Below are some patterns of behaviour, feelings and relationships associated with
each of the four identity statuses, especially among (though not only) late
adolescents:
Diffusion:
•
Deal with existential anxiety with involvement in immediate, right now
sensation
•
More feelings of inferiority, alienation, and ambivalence; poorer
self-concept; less clear sex-role identification.
•
In general, less mature in cognitive complexity, emotional development,
and general social development
•
Less cooperative, more manipulative and deceptive.
•
Associate with other uncommitted individuals.
•
Least likely to have intimate, long-term relationships.
•
Perceives parents as rejecting; youth and mother both describe the other
as unaffectionate
Foreclosure:
•
More use of denial and repression.
•
Quiet, orderly, and industrious lifestyle. Endorse authoritarian values
(obedience, strong leadership and respect for authority).
•
Often come from warm and affectionate homes, with continued
dependence upon parents.
•
Constricted personalities, rigid in their commitments.
Moratorium:
•
The most anxious, and exploratory. Lack well-defined goals and values;
self-conscious.
•
Appear to be comfortable with others, and are generally socially adept
and effective.
•
Feelings of guilt and difficulty in maintaining dignity are common -- seem
torn.
•
High perceived companionship, physical affection, and support of parents.
•
Parents perceive child as independent.
Achievement:
•
A harmonious balance between individuation and social needs for
relatedness
•
Self-confidence, security, social adeptness, emotional maturity, advanced
ego development.
•
More intimate and long-term relationships.
•
High perceived companionship, physical affection, and support of parents.
•
Parental perceptions of high levels of independence.
Moratorium-Achievement cycles through the lifespan
While the crisis of Identity vs. Identity diffusion is believed to heighten among late
adolescents, it is worth noting that both, Erikson and Marcia, posit that identity
formation and evolution is a life-long process. Incorporating the later Eriksonian
stages, Marcia postulates that individuals go through identity crises at least 3
more times subsequently in their lives, taking many of them back to the status of
Moratorium each time, confronting them each time with the task of achieving a
new identity all over again.
The later Eriksonian Life Stages (in reverse chronological order):
Stage
Ages
Basic Conflict Important Event Summary
Mature Age Ego Integrity Reflection
on The culmination is a sense of
65 to death vs. Despair
and acceptance oneself as one is, and of feeling
of one's life
fulfilled.
Adulthood Generativity Parenting
40 to 65 yrs vs. Stagnation
Each adult must find some way to
satisfy and support the next
generation – in occupational,
familial and social contexts.
Young Adult Intimacy
19 to 40 yrs Isolation
vs. Love
relationships
The young adult must develop
intimate relationships or suffer
feelings
of
isolation.
Occupationally,
he/she
must
commit to a vocation or an
organisation.
Adolescence Identity
vs. Peer
12 to 18 yrs Role
relationships
Confusion
The teenager must achieve a sense
of identity in occupation, sex roles,
politics, and religion.
As depicted in the picture below, each of these new crises is a next higher whirl –
wider (involving more factors impacting life) and deeper (integrating more across
the lifespan) than the ones in the past, flowering yet un-blossomed parts of self,
and adding new external elements.
In many individuals’ lives, additional ‘disequilibrating circumstances’ lead to the
need to re-fashion one’s identity all over again. Disequilibrating circumstances are
upheavals in one’s life, such as falling in love, divorce, job loss, job promotion,
positive and negative reversals of fortune, retirement, spiritual crises, and the loss
of loved ones. Some of these are predictable and expected events in a normal life.
They become disequilibrating when they occur out of turn and they leave a strong
impact on the individual. Hence, the mere presence of these events in a life-story
should not automatically be counted as disequilibrating circumstances – what
matters is how the individual has taken them and dealt with them.
Each time crisis arrives (whether precipitated by the natural course of life stages
or by disequilibrating circumstances), the lure to stay arrested in statuses of
Diffusion or Foreclosure presents itself, as a viable alternative to struggling
through Moratorium, into a new Achievement.
While identity change (i.e., moratorium) can take anything from 6 months to 10
years, it is generally found to take longer in later years.
Note: In this section, we have gone outside the construct of four Ego Identity
Statuses that we started with. It is important to distinguish these two different
constructs, to be able to see their applications in wider contexts. In particular, the
reader familiar with the works of Jung (regarding types), Jaques, Kegan, Loevinger
and Torbert, and Kohlberg will readily see that age need not be the only basis of
segregating a typical life into stages. Each of these frameworks supposes recurring
‘crises’ (as the term is used here) as normal in the lives of people, although each
focuses on a different type of crisis. These crises can then be seen as leading to
changes in Ego Identity Status.
Coaching Implications
This lens of identity status provides coaches insight on what life stage the coachee
is in, and whether the coachee has dealt successfully with the basic crisis of the
stage: Are they in a position to state their goals with clarity and conviction
(Achievement)? Are they groping for goals to commit themselves to
(Moratorium)? Are they rigidified in their earlier decisions about who they are and
what they will do (Foreclosure)? Are they unconcerned about what course their
life journey takes (Diffusion)?
Of specific value to coaches is the guidance it can provide on ways to deal
appropriately with those in different statuses. The following paragraphs suggest
some ways in which the coach can deal effectively with those they find in statuses
other than Achievement (assuming that normal instruction on coaching takes care
of effective steps to deal with those in Achievement status):
Moratorium: Those in this status might experience a sense of embarrassment that
they are unclear (for so long!) on what they want to do. The coach needs to affirm
to the coachee that it is natural to be in this state – sometimes for long periods of
time. At the same time, the coachee can be encouraged to carry out the process
of exploration of new identities (within the possibilities afforded by the
organisation) with less diffidence, so as to bring forward achievement of the new
identity.
Foreclosure: Those in this status may come up with a pat answer to questions on
career goals (typically, this shows up as loyalty to a profession – finance, legal, HR,
etc.). From the perspective of the typical psychological contract underlying the
service of leadership coaching in business organisations, it is perhaps appropriate
to not confront the individual on their unexamined commitment. This is because
opening an individual in this status to examining the process by which they have
made their career goal choice may take up much more time than is allotted to the
coaching process. Moreover, this kind of re-examination may often lead to the
employee leaving the organisation, which is a setback to the overall coaching
intervention. If, however, the pat answer to the question on career goals leads to
the automatic conclusion, “Therefore, I must leave this organisation in the near
future”, then there is reason to go into at least a preliminary exploration of how
that reasoning was arrived at, perhaps using the device of leaving the individual
with a few key questions to explore in the space of time between coaching
sessions. The object is to help the individual ascertain for themselves that they
indeed do intend to take up something that calls for their leaving the current
organisation (if this conclusion seems imminent, then the coaching services
provider should, obviously, also keep the organisation informed appropriately).
Diffusion: With those who seem to be in this occupational identity status, perhaps
the most effective coach action is to stick to the agenda of bolstering the
coachee’s efficacy in current and near-term roles. A strong focus on how the
coachee resonates with the key messages emanating from the psychometric
profiles and the multi-rater feedback reports is perhaps appropriate, as the
starting point of building a developmental action plan.
Ego Identity Statuses: Can you spot them? Cases 1 and 2
1.
Mihir is a 21-year-old, newly-minted engineer who says that he hails
from a small town, where his father works as a Shift Supervisor in a factory.
Unaware of the gamut of career options, he had entered the field of
engineering on the recommendation of parents and neighbours, on the
strength of his academic performance. He now feels that his elders had
been perceptive in egging him into this profession. He likes the nature of
problems that engineers grapple with, and he feels empowered by the
knowledge and skills he has learnt in the past four years. He is looking
forward to succeeding as an engineer in the company. It gives him immense
pride and joy that his family looks up to him – his first pay check was larger
than his father’s pay for the same month. He may later on consider going
for a Ph D, but that is assuming he takes a liking to research in the interim.
2.
25-year-old Amit was ecstatic 3 years ago, when he had been offered
the position of an elite Management Trainee by an FMCG company. He was
also satisfied when, after an initial year spent in different short
assignments, he was posted to the function he most wanted, sales.
However, he now feels that sales, especially as managed in his company, is
a thankless function. He has too little powers to change the way the
channel is organised and managed, his recommendations on needed
changes have all fallen on deaf ears, and he reckons it will take him many
years before he gets to a stage where he will be able to influence the
necessary changes. He is already struggling to perform in his role, and is
questioning whether sales is the right place for him to be. On the other
hand, he knows that doing a long and successful field stint is important for
succeeding in the company in the long term. And if he leaves the company,
he will not get to join any elite management cadre of any other company.
Ego Identity Statuses: Can you spot them? Cases 3 and 4
3.
Ayesha is 46 years old and, when asked what she wanted to do,
said that she was the first woman in even her extended family to have
gone out and worked in the corporate world (and done so well). While
she was keen to progress her career further, she was aware that the
positions she could aspire to in her company all entailed moving to
headquarters which was 2000 miles away. With her husband’s
established medical practice in her current city, and a son who was a
special child and needed constant attention, she was clear that
progressing her career in a linear way was not feasible. She also felt guilty
to be blocking the careers of those below her, as she had stayed in her
current role for over 5 years, for these reasons. She wondered whether
she should work out a part-time, advisory role with her company, so as to
manage all the responsibilities reasonably.
4.
Bill started as a software engineer in an IT company. Having done a
series of projects for telecom sector clients, he had developed deep
understanding of and networks in the telecom industry. 4 years ago,
confident of his knowledge of the relevant technologies and economics,
he had teamed with 3 other professionals and had started a business
around re-selling international telecom bandwidth to businesses. Facing
a severe business downturn, his partners were in the mood to close
down the business and look for jobs in the industry. Bill, however, now
felt that what he liked best was the fact that he was using his built up
knowledge, skills and networks in the industry to work out cost-effective
solutions for businesses – he was working out telecom solutions that had
not been tried before. He chose to stay on with the business, and now
works freelance in this space.
Bibliography
Erikson, Erik (1980). Identity and the Life Cycle. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company
Kakkar, Dr. Sudhir (1981). The Inner World. New Delhi: Oxford University Press
Kroger, Jane. Identity Processes and Contents through the Years of Late Adulthood.
Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 2002
Marcia, James E. (1980). Ego identity development. In J. Adelson (Ed.), Handbook
of adolescent psychology. New York: Wiley.
Slater, Jim R. and Wong, Amy L. Y., Executive Development in China – is there any
in a Western sense?, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
March 2002
Copyright (c) 2008. Greentree Learning Pvt. Ltd.
For further details write to: [email protected]