Link to the article un the ILJ:
http://www.tesc.edu/documents/ILJ_Fall_2015.pdf
The Rise of “Neo-Individualism” in the
Workplace:
A Critical Approach on Coaching for
Workplace Leadership*
A Critical Approach on Coaching for
Workplace Leadership*
Jessica F. Tabarovsky
Ben-Gurion
University of the Negev
The aim of this article was to
examine the instrumental role that coaching methods may play in serving the
status quo of the neoliberalism ideology and the subsequent implications on
workplace leadership. An ethnographic exploration in a financially self-sustaining Israeli nonprofit organization served as a case study, which
was focused on the manager-as-coach practice. Participant
observation, face-to-face semi-structured interviews, and unstructured interviews were used to collect data. Data analyses show that neoliberal logic plays
an inherent role in the manager-as-coach
practice and influences employee behavior, which may result in reduced organizational
effectiveness.
The article also presents new
insights on the practice of coaching that may contain the potential for enhanced
coaching interventions, as well as recommendations for future study.
Key words: coaching, individualism, manager-as-coach
practice, neoliberalism
* To cite this article: Tabarovsky, J. F. (2015). The rise of “neo-individualism” in the workplace: A critical approach on coaching for workplace leadership. International Leadership Journal, 7(3), 59–82.
Neoliberalism is
the basic idea of expressing the way in which the relationship between the
state, on the one side, and individuals, corporations, companies, and markets,
on the other side, should be structured. According to the neoliberal order, state
intervention in individual affairs is perceived as detrimental to the natural
market balance. The only legitimate purpose of the state is to safeguard
individual liberty, especially the commercial liberty to act as an agent in a
free market economy. The neoliberal assumption also includes individual moral
virtue. The virtuous person must be able to access the market and function as a
competent actor in it (Thorsen, 2011). The contemporary
neoliberal ideology is accompanied by a profound belief in individual
responsibility, beyond any socioeconomic structural influence. Harvey (2005)
argues:
While personal and
individual freedom in the marketplace is guaranteed, each individual is held
responsible and accountable for his or her own actions and well-being. This
principle extends into the realms of welfare, education, health care, and even
pensions (social security has been privatized in Chile and Slovakia, and
proposals exist to do the same in the [United States]). Individual success or
failure are interpreted in terms of entrepreneurial virtues or personal
failings (such as not investing significantly enough in one’s own human capital
through education) rather than being attributed to any systemic property (such
as the class exclusions usually attributed to capitalism). (65–66)
For example,
there are certain development programs that address poverty in South America,
where individuals are expected to take responsibility for their situation; specifically,
a person is expected to become a self-improvement financial actor, a
self-regulated unit, and able to resolve socioeconomic problems at an individual
level of action. A shift in responsibilities from the state to the individual is
taking place. “Reliance” on state assistance is construed as a marker of
irresponsibility (Meltzer, 2013). While people are supposedly
free to choose, they are not expected to build strong collective institutions
(Harvey, 2005). Consequently, socioeconomic issues are associated with
individual action and behavior rather than structural circumstances.
Given
this context, there seems to be a trend toward individualization of social problems.
Neoliberal discourse encourages people to be independent, favoring individual
action for achieving success, individual happiness, and overall (personal)
improvement. Individuals are seen as being solely responsible for the consequences
of their decisions (Thorsen, 2011). However,
individuals who adhere to the development objectives of the state, while
serving their own objectives, help maximize the potential of the population
(Lupton, 1999).
The concept of responsibilization was identified as a
concept that links the scheme of governance with actual practices, where “the
language of responsibility has become a pervasive element of our culture
flowing in many directions and addressing a variety of subjects” (Shamir, 2008,
379). Neoliberal concepts concerning the individual are also being adopted in
the workplace, constructing an autonomous entrepreneur employee totally
responsible for perfection of and investment in his or her own human capital
(Boltanski & Chiapello, 2005).
Since the 1980s, profound changes have been taking place in
state-economic relations in most of the Western world, including Israel. Among those
changes is the adoption of neoliberal policies. These changes, at the macro
level, are shown in deregulation, including the liberalization of financial
markets, as well as in the reduction of restrictions on the movement of capital
and products and the accelerated privatization of public assets (Maman &
Rosenhek, 2012). A process of privatization and delegation of social welfare to
nonprofits, NGOs, local governments, and religious organizations has also been taking place and, as a result, nonprofit organizations are
now forced to compete with one another for resources, show efficiency, minimize
government accountability, and become economically viable (Weiss, 2011). NGOs
must now assume an enterprise model to accommodate the market criteria of
competitiveness imposed on them and demonstrate efficiency to external forces
(Taylor, 1999).
Within
this context, the discipline of coaching has been flourishing in multiple
areas, including the organizational arena, where coaching has rapidly become a
significant part of organizational strategy (Bennett & Bush, 2009; Joo,
2005). Therefore, the aim of this article is to examine the instrumental role
that coaching methods play in serving the status quo of the neoliberal ideology
and the implications of this on the coaching discipline and workplace
leadership. For this purpose, I focus on the manager-as-coach practice, a
leadership approach that focuses on empowerment—helping employees learn and
improve abilities and capacities—and where coaching practices occur in everyday
on-the-job activities (Joo, Sushko, & McLean, 2012).
The main
research question of this exploration is as follows:
Research Question 1: In what
ways has coaching been adopted by individuals to support neoliberal thinking?
The answers to the two following research questions
are also examined:
Research
Question 2: To what extent do coaching practices seem to reproduce the logic of
the neoliberal ideology?
Research Question 3: What
are the possible implications for the discipline of coaching, its effectiveness
on organizational development, and its role in workplace leadership?
Theorizing
Coaching as a Social Tool of Neoliberalism
The discipline of coaching has been
developing dramatically during the last 20 years as a new approach to
achieving individual goals by implementing and maintaining behavior that would
cause a desired change in one’s personal and professional life (Whitworth,
Kimsey-House, Kimsey-House, & Sandahl, 2007). Research (e.g., Bowerman
& Collins, 1999; Bozer, Sarros, & Santora, 2014; Huang & Hsieh,
2015) shows a positive link between coaching and the improvement of employee
behavior and performance. Coaching is believed to facilitate individual
learning and encourage individual growth and career development (Ellinger &
Bostrom, 1999). According to Blattner and Bacigalupo (2007), “coaches can
emphasize both personal empowerment and social consensus, fostering an
essential mindset for personal career and organizational leadership” (209). One
of the basic premises of coaching is to see the individual as a person who is
able to change the course of his or her life by taking responsibility for the
results of his or her achievements (Whitworth et al., 2007). This assumption is
consistent with the re-definition of “good citizenship” under the neoliberal
way of thinking, in which citizenship is not viewed just as a legal status or
bundle of rights, but as a subjective space of action, where changing
understandings of development and progress can take place (Meltzer, 2013).
Therefore,
the basic postulate of coaching that emphasizes individual responsibility can
be understood conceptually not just as a tool for personal and professional
progress or organizational effectiveness, but also as a tool for
self-construction. In other words, this theorizes that coaching is a type of neoliberal
governmentality. French philosopher and social theorist Michel Foucault
(1926–1984) used the term governmentality as a guideline for analysis of
the technologies of power. Government is considered not only as a political
structure, but also as a conduit for
guiding forms of self-control and directing the “soul.” It links technologies
of the self with technologies of domination. Foucault
introduced the concept of governmentality to study the “autonomous” individual’s
capacity for self-control and explore how it was linked to forms of political
rule and economic exploitation. This approach presents the neoliberal
governmentality as a channel for controlling individuals by assigning them the
responsibility for self-managing and self-regulating social risks (Lemke,
2001, 2002).
Given
this framework, one is able to explore forms of power and consider the process
of subjectification (Lemke, 2001). Rather than looking at coaching just as an
organizational practice, the aim of this article is to explore the possibility
that coaching may embed neoliberal imperatives that can shape citizenship and review
the implications for leadership in the workplace.
Coaching and “Neo-individualism”
Coaching in the workplace
includes internal coaching and executive external coaching as popular
practices. Frisch (2001) notes that “managers these days are
expected to foster the development of their staff as well as to be prime movers
of their own growth” (240). In the literature,
coaching has received particular attention by its positive outcome. Executive
coaching is viewed as a means of improving well-being, happiness, and
resilience on the individual level as well as facilitating company and social
success. Coaches significantly contribute to the process of change and growth
in society (In other words, “the presumed
outcomes of executive coaching are changes in managerial behavior with presumed
increases in organizational effectiveness” (Feldman & Lankau, 2005, 834).
Internal coaching, performance coaching, or manager-as-coach practices supply
individuals with the means to succeed and enable people to develop themselves
(Gilley & Gilley, 2007). According
to these points of view, coaching places an emphasis on the individual level in
order to achieve organizational prosperity.
In contrast, a common approach in
organizational behavior focuses on the organizational culture as a key to
organizational success and effectiveness. A strong organizational culture that has a significant
impact on the organization’s members is seen as a primordial actor for
organizational effectiveness and progress. It establishes a cognitive framework
of shared values, attitudes, basic assumptions, behavioral norms, and shapes a
sense of shared responsibility and commitment to the vision of the organization.
When organizational culture is a solid underlying contract, people feel connected
to a larger entity—larger than any one individual interest—that reminds them of
the organization’s purpose (Greenberg & Baron, 2008). A well-established
organizational culture may facilitate a company’s success. However, the current
focus on coaching practices seems to support a shift in the focal point from
the organizational to the individual level. It places an emphasis on one’s individual
responsibility for personal development, personal happiness, and improving one’s
capacity to set and meet personal goals to facilitate company success. Personal
responsibility may now be more heavily weighted when exploring methods for
organizational effectiveness and success than organizational culture and structure.
This
view is associated with neoliberal
ideology. Within this context, coaching may be a type of govermentality, which builds individualism in society by
consolidating neoliberal citizenship and spreading it to the workplace and
displaying a kind of “neo-individualism” by pursuing individual interests and
goals (above all, personal happiness and success). This consideration should
not be interpreted as dismissing the importance of organizational culture, but
as a crucial factor that may shape that culture as one of neoliberal
individualism.
Case Study Organization
The organization in this study is a third-sector
Israeli organization founded in the early 1990s. Its mission is social
empowerment by managing and operating a variety of projects that make an
important social impact to its constituents in the intermediate to long term.
It offers eight projects for
a wide array of populations, institutions, and topics, including leadership and
women and youth empowerment. The
organization employs 42 employees, only four of whom are managerial staff.
The
basic organizational structure consists of individuals placed in key roles and
teams. In most cases, teams act as self-governing units and do not maintain
continual communication with other teams.
The
organization is financially self-sustaining (it
promotes revenue-producing activities) with an annual
revenue of approximately seven million shekels or $1,810,212 USD (1 shekel =
approximately .26 USD) that supports organizational activities and employee
payroll.
The
organization utilizes a manager-as-coach approach. Respondent A noted that “I
do not make a distinction between coaching and management because coaching is
the way the executive director relates to persons, things, and issues. This is
how coaching is expressed in our organization.”
This
organization was selected for two main reasons: (a) the researcher had access
to the organization and its actors as an employee and manager, and (b) it was an ideal organization to conduct a
case study because coaching practices are a substantial element of the
organization’s practices, especially manager-as-coach. When using the case
study method, the major rationale is to cover a particular phenomenon and the
context within which the phenomenon is taking place. While a single case study
may lack generalization, it may potentially help refocus future investigations
in the field (Yin, 2014).
Method
This
study is qualitative in nature and uses ethnographic methods. Ethnography
usually is linked to anthropology research. Mead (1901–1978) described the
anthropologist in her famous work Coming of Age in Samoa (1928) as “the
student of man in all of his most diverse social settings” (4), including physical presence
in the field of study. During the 20th century, ethnography became
one of the research methods in Western sociology, and the case study was developed
as a method within it. An ethnographer is often involved in the everyday life
of people, watching and listening, studying their daily actions and accounts, asking
questions through informal and formal interviews, and collecting available
data. Analyses of ethnographic data include interpretation of the meanings,
functions, and consequences of human and institutional practices and their
implications in local, and perhaps, larger contexts (Atkinson & Hammersley,
2007).
Procedure
Several
methods were used to collect the data for this study. First, four formal face-to-face
semi-structured interviews and unstructured interviews were conducted with three
top management staff and one leading employee, and eight unstructured
interviews were conducted with eight employees who worked in different
positions within the organization. Second, participant observation was used in
the present research to investigate how organization members interacted and
worked in their natural organization environment of the everyday working place.
Participant observation, a main investigation method for anthropological and
sociological studies, particularly in ethnographic research (Kawulich, 2005),
entails not only observation, but also intimate knowledge of the people being studied.
A major requirement for community or organizational field study (Foote, 1943), participant
observation is “a method in which a researcher takes part in the daily
activities, rituals, interactions, and events of a group of people as one of
the means of learning the explicit and tacit aspects of their life routines and
culture” (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2011, 1).
The researcher
was a member of the administrative team and a participant observer of the organization’s
activities. The role of the researcher as an employee is “total immersion, and
to all intents and purposes the researcher is one with the employees alongside
whom he or she will work” (Vinten, 1994, 31). Caution was take to avoid the risk
of bias by “getting too close,” as interpretations
of given situations and observations may contain partialities, tendencies, or
prejudices caused by the intimacy of the researcher with people being studied
(Agar, 1980). To avoid this possible contamination risk, the researcher was
acutely aware of “getting too close” and possibly negatively influencing data
collection and analysis while gaining access to many types and variety of
information, thus enhancing the quality of data (Johnson & Weatherford,
2006). Moreover, as an employee, the participant observer avoids some of the
difficulties outside ethnographers face when they are collecting field data because
getting the necessary acceptance or the trust of the people in the field may
take a long time (Agar, 1980).
To supplement the data collection, a semi-structured interview
technique was used for the formal interviews. The semi-structured interview is
an effective tool for data collection that permits reciprocity, a space of engagement
between researcher and respondent that facilitates clarification, meaning
generation, and critical reflection. These features contribute to the accuracy
of the analysis (Galletta, 2013). This kind of interview enables approaching
different respondents in different manners while collecting the same data amplitude
due to the level of flexibility that it offers. The semi-structured interview permits
interactional dialogue, a thematic-centered orientation, and a perspective
regarding knowledge, but with a fluid and flexible structure (Edwards &
Holland, 2013). The formal interviews, which lasted approximately 35 to 45 minutes,
were recorded. The unstructured interviews, which lasted approximately 10 minutes,
were not recorded; however, field notes were written. Iterative listening of
recorded interviews and reading of field notes with the research questions in
mind were used for qualitative data analysis. The data were thematically
analyzed, allowing for the identification of emerging themes. The interview
content was categorized based on responses to individual questions, and
subsequently dominant emerging themes were identified. Three basic steps were
used: (1) determining the natural meaning units, (2) stating themes that
dominate the natural units, and (3) exploring data in terms of the purpose of
the study (Giorgi, 1975).
Three kinds of concerns must be considered about respondent’s
privacy in social research: (a) public exposure of their views and actions may
have damaging consequences for them, (b) the participants may be deprived of
control over their self-presentation, and (c) the research may probe into areas
of their private space (Kelman, 1977). Vainio (2012) also notes that “anonymization of participants, organizations or cases analyzed
in qualitative studies serves many functions. In addition to its ethical
importance, it also has an effect upon the ontology, analysis and independence
of the research and the researchers” (694). To protect the respondent’s
identities, their names were replaced by code names. In order to maintain
anonymity, some distinguishing characteristics of the organization, such as
name and exact location, were also removed.
Sample
The top management team was selected for the semi-structured
interviews. The team consisted of four people: the author, and three other team
members, who were interviewed by the author. An additional employee was also
selected for a semi-structured interview. Unstructured interviews took place with
eight non-administrative organization employees. These respondents were chosen because
they worked on different projects, representing the typical activity of the
organization, and represented more than 20% of the non-administrative employees.
They contributed to the study by bringing a range of organizational perspectives:
different positions, genders, seniority, and experience.
Tables
1 and 2 present the profiles of the respondents based on demographic and
organizational data. Table 1 focuses on the data from the four respondents from
formal semi-structured interviews, including their role, seniority, age, gender,
and educational level.
Table 1: Semi-structured Formal Interviews
Respondent’s Profile
Respondent
N
= 4
|
Role
in the Organization/Title
|
Seniority
(in
years)
|
Age
|
Gender
|
Educational
Level
|
A
|
Leading employee in various organizational projects
|
< 10
|
50s
|
F
|
Bachelor’s degree
|
B
|
Top managerial team member
|
< 7
|
40s
|
F
|
Bachelor’s degree
|
C
|
Top managerial team member
|
< 5
|
30s
|
F
|
Bachelor’s degree
|
D
|
Top managerial team member
|
< 10
|
50s
|
F
|
Bachelor’s degree
|
Table 2 on the following page presents the unstructured interview
respondent’s data, including the number of projects on which each employee
works in the organization, seniority, and demographic data.
Table 2: Unstructured
Interviews Respondent’s Profile
Respondent
N = 8
|
Number of Projects on
Which the Employee Works
|
Seniority
(in years)
|
Age
|
Gender
|
Educational Level
|
1
|
2
|
< 5
|
30s
|
F
|
Master’s degree
|
2
|
2
|
< 10
|
50s
|
F
|
Bachelor’s degree
|
3
|
1
|
> 5
|
30s
|
M
|
Bachelor’s degree
|
4
|
2
|
> 5
|
30s
|
M
|
Bachelor’s degree
|
5
|
1
|
> 5
|
30s
|
M
|
Master’s degree
|
6
|
1
|
> 5
|
30s
|
F
|
Master’s degree student
|
7
|
1
|
> 5
|
30s
|
F
|
Bachelor’s degree
|
8
|
1
|
> 5
|
30s
|
M
|
Master’s degree student
|
Data Analysis and Findings
The findings of this study are presented in two
ways. The first two research questions raised are addressed first: In which
ways has coaching been adopted by individuals to support neoliberal thinking,
and to what extent do coaching practices seem to reproduce the logic of the
neoliberal ideology? The third question was addressed next: What are the
possible implications for the discipline of coaching, and its effectiveness on
organizational development, and its role in workplace leadership?
Neoliberalism
and the Rise of “Neo-individualism” in the Workplace
Along
with the coaching orientation of the organization, it seems that neoliberal
imperatives of autonomy and responsible behavior are also being stressed by the
organizational climate. Emphasis is on individual responsibility and the
neoliberal spirit of not excessively engaging in workers actions was found to
be an emerging dominant theme. As Respondent B stated:
The workers
know to be independent. . . . They are not dependent people
that don’t know to do their own steps and constantly need approval from me; it is
not right to do so; they should feel responsibility. . . . Coaching
is reflected right there, by letting people be independent, to know to run
things alone and be quiet. Even if I do not hear from them [for] a few days, I
know things are right because I have [great] confidence in them. . . . If
there is a problem, first and foremost, they are [expected] to seek a solution
by themselves; if they cannot solve it on their own, they can come to consult. . . . Before
he (the employee) comes to consult, he has to arrange the work, because if not,
it’s not just “[pass] the responsibility” but [it] also is going backward in
your abilities; everyone is able to reach a solution.
The observed assumptions of Respondent B are
embedded in neoliberal imperatives, one of which is having little or no state
intervention in individual actions, as well as the expectation for acting
independently and taking responsibility for individual and organizational
outcomes. Additionally, the personal development of workers and work
performance improvement is one of the required outcomes of manager-as-coach.
This required outcome is viewed by responders not just as an organizational
responsibility, but as part of the individual’s efforts to achieve success. With
regard to coaching and management, Respondent B noted:
I love to see people
develop; not just become independent, but stronger with time . . . [each
person] has his [or her own] skills and he [or she] has to bring them to
fruition, which I think is part of . . . the individual
freedom and of [each person’s] commitment, to do things, to study, to develop, [and]
to take [the] reins by themselves.
The idea of an individual who is expected to
take personal responsibility for his or her outcomes and not be “reliant” on
the organization, and whose personal capabilities and skill development is
considered his or her individual duty is also the nucleus of neoliberal
reasoning.
One
may notice the interpretation that Respondent B gives to “freedom”—an
individual’s duty to advance themselves in all ways possible, a subject
construction that uses market rationalities about efficiency, competition,
entrepreneurialism, and individual autonomy. This interpretation was well
internalized by Respondent B. Thus, in neoliberal assumptions, a virtuous
person is viewed as an individual who must be able to access the market and
function as a competent actor in it. Reliance on the state can be seen almost
as an act of irresponsibility.
As in
neoliberal society, a shift in responsibilities takes place in the workplace
from the organization to the individual. Such a shift may be increasing
individualism—namely, individualization of organizational issues and outcomes—in
the workplace, and that is reinforced by coaching. This is illustrated in a
conversation that took place among the members of the top management team. The
executive director asked the training and content developer and the HR director
if they needed help with their tasks, “Well, not me,” one answered. “Me neither,”
the other said. The executive director (ED) concluded: “We are a bunch of
soloists.” It is important to pay attention to the word soloists here.
There is a symbolic difference between “autonomous” and “soloist.” While autonomous
refers to a self-governed person, a soloist is a person who simply
performs solo; a performance of one person. Once again, this indicates a
mindset of individualism, reflecting the tendency to work under a prevailing
sense of individual responsibility for organizational and individual success,
beyond any organizational structure. This tendency to place responsibility on
the individual was also observed when the ED shared on several occasions that
she received repeated feedback from members of the organization expressing her
“reluctance to delegate authority and deliver responsibility” and her “willingness
to do everything by herself.” This tendency or mindset sets the framework for
very little (or sometimes not at all) organizational intervention in personal
actions for achieving stated goals. As Respondent C stated:
What
defines a good worker here is a lot of caring, personal commitment, a lot of
personal responsibility beyond the workplace; after I leave the office, if
there is a problem, my personal commitment is very high, and I’ll find a way to
solve the problem. Success in the job is the satisfaction of those [with] whom
I’m working. . . . I changed work processes to make [the] job
comfortable to me and to update it to the changing market . . . and
the responsibility for things being that way is mine . . . no
one else could do it because it’s entirely my responsibility.
These
two premises, individual responsibility for outcomes and few organizational/state
interventions, are easily recognizable in neoliberal ideology. Thus, the spirit
of coaching dominates the organizational scene, and it seems to reinforce
neoliberal mandates. Similar to neoliberalism ideology, coaching strives to attain
individual responsibility via an accountability based on the construction of
moral agency as a condition for shifting the regulatory capacities of
government to individuals.
Clearly
evident in Respondent C’s statement is the concept of economization of
authority, a term used by Shamir (2008) to describe a type of neoliberal
governance that distribute authority to "an imagined field of competitive
market relations" (377) which facilitates best-practice
solutions that give control to those who are in the field (an alternative to
the top-down model of coercive regulation). This model also entails an element of
moralization, which predisposes actors to assume responsibility for their
actions.
However,
the study’s observations showed some undesirable outcomes related to the trend
of working “solo.” On several occasions, the high expectations of an autonomous
and independent behavior caused a lack of synchronization among people in
different positions within the organization. At times, the organization
experienced reduced effectiveness in information sharing. In some
circumstances, team leaders or middle-level coordinators experienced the
absence of any clear guidance, which slowed and hindered work, or affected
morale. On other occasions, the requirement “to know what to do” caused
confusion and inefficiencies rather than effective entrepreneurial behavior. The
resulting “hyper-responsible” employee character caused, in some cases, the
need to retroactively fix work done incorrectly. Two respondents from the
unstructured interviews expressed a desire for regular evaluation meetings with
their team coordinator ; and Respondent A also said that “not enough meetings
are held” with the manager.
Reproducing
Neoliberal Logics
The neoliberal outline presents the state as
holding only one legitimate purpose: safeguarding individual liberty. Freedom
of action and decision is one of the foundations of neoliberal thinking.
However, with this freedom of choice, there is also an expectation of what the
individual should choose. In this case study, the liberty provided by the organization
emerged as a very dominant theme. Personal liberty and autonomy has a major
impact, in accordance with neoliberal assumptions. Observations and interview
response analysis reveal a high degree of importance given to freedom of
action. Respondent B stated that “one of the strengths (of the organization) is
the allowing conditions.” The internalized concept of freedom in the neoliberal
ideology, as in the organization, seems to lead to the perceived correct and
desired behavior; the embodiment of the entrepreneurial self.
One
of the basic hypotheses of coaching presented in literature, which is also articulated
by Respondents A, B, and C, is the capability of individuals to change his or
her outcomes. For this matter, freedom of action and autonomy, are conditions
sine qua non. In neoliberal social terms, the organization in this case study expects
employees to act autonomously, to understand what should be done, and if
necessary, to take action. All 12 interviewees mentioned the organizational
atmosphere of freedom and trust. Respondent A’s statement illustrates that:
one of the important
behaviors which are being reinforced through the organization is “do not wait
for things to be done, but take the initiative”; there is a lot of room for
initiative. Management is involved, but do not get involved, management style [is]
not [to] ask if it was okay or not okay. [Management] trusts me; if something
is wrong, I will tell or I’ll check with the manager. Management . . . believes
that [the] employee is fully responsible for the entire process. The executive
director[‘s] view is one that trusts people to do for themselves and pushes
[in] that direction; it is very trusting and is not in [the habit] of
intervening. [Management] will be there only if you need it.
On
the one hand, there is an atmosphere of trust reflected in Respondent A’s
words, as expected in a manager-as-coach approach. Also recognizable is freedom
and a sense of nonintervention, sending messages of individual responsibility
for processes and outcomes in accordance with neoliberal imperatives. On the
other hand, it is possible to identify a kind of self-supervision.
Govermentality takes place and acts as a conduit for guiding forms of
self-control; a technology of power. The statement “do not wait for things to be
done, but take the initiative” is not considered by Respondent A as an imperative,
but as freedom of action. As noted by Respondent A, freedom means “being
responsible for the entire process.” These requirements are reinforced
simultaneously in different areas of individual action, including the
workplace. In fact, this logic fits the economic neoliberal process of
privatization and the conversion of responsibility from the state to the
individual.
It is important to note that coaching
processes seem to achieve certain positive results for the organization, and
that coaching as a discipline has not been tested in this article, but it is,
rather, a possible side product. Coaching may be acting as a form of
govermentality or a channel through which it could be made easier for the
dominant neoliberal status quo “to win.” The tenets of coaching may be embedded
in neoliberal imperatives that help shape citizenship inside and outside the
workplace, thus serving the neoliberal ideology. This is not happening in a
vacuum, as shaping appropriate citizenship has been accompanying neoliberalism
in various fields (see Charles, 2013; Meltzer, 2013). The increasing use of
coaching techniques and the establishment of coaching assumptions may
contribute to enhance a neoliberal state of mind, one suitable for the dominant
contemporary socioeconomic structure. As Respondent D notes:
[This] is the kind of
management [that] is optimal for this stage of the organization, [at] a time [when]
so many nonprofit organizations in Israel [have] collapsed [because of] the
impossible economic situation. . . . Management realized
that you cannot rely on [foreign donors] and then started to do all the work
for an increasingly independent income; it’s a big change. It is . . . a
business model that in the past [would] not [have had] a chance to be accepted
by the founders; it would get all the objections [as] they were very idealistic
and with [a] very socialist orientation. . . . But the team
got it; the team looked right and left and saw a lot of organizations falling;
[they] understand that it does not make us evil, that [it] gives [us] a lot of
work, and [that it] does not mean that we [are selling] our souls to the devil.
This
comment clearly describes the individual concession and resignation to what
needs to be done—the attitudes the organization must adopt or change to survive
the developments brought on by the process of neoliberalization in the third
sector. Evidently, an alignment to the status quo emerged, demonstrated by the
way in which Respondent A justified the new organizational policy.
Discussion
The organization’s coaching ambience suggests
that the individual is considered to be an autonomous actor who is expected to
take individual responsibility for personal development and for organizational
and personal outcomes. Consistent with neoliberal logic, little to no
intervention in individual affairs is viewed as the right balance for
individual and organizational effectiveness. “Reliance” on state assistance is
construed as a marker of irresponsibility (Meltzer, 2013). The organization in
this case study is experiencing a process of adjustment to the neoliberal
market model in which it was submerged, and it seems to be making the required
reinforcements to the individual way of thinking via its prevalent coaching
climate.
Research
has shown a positive impact of coaching in the workplace, starting with the
development of effective leadership and the improvement of employee performance
(Blattner & BacigalupoBowerman
& Collins, 1999; Bozer et al., 2014; Feldman & Lankau, 2005;
Huang & Hsieh, 2015. Although coaching
practices in this case study may be yielding some positive outcomes for the
individual and the organization, such as an increased sense of responsibility,
trust, and empowerment, the analyses showed some less successful results, contrary
to what one might expect. Neoliberal logic is integral to many of the coaching
practices in the manager-as-coach approach, and thus, may be leading to the
development of an autonomous unit of increasingly responsible individuals in
the workplace, which is similar to the neoliberal-developed individualism. While
individual responsibility for solving problems without involving the manager is
considered one of the principles of coaching (Team FME, 2013), the members of
this organization display a trend of hyper-responsibility, willing to succeed
by “doing everything” themselves. On certain occasions, this tendency reduced
the free flow of information and the capacity to work as a team, thereby reducing
the ability of the organization to be an effective learning organization.
In
internal coaching interventions, a relationship of trust is of utmost
importance (Frisch, 2001). The act of providing confidence in one’s personal
abilities helps create the necessary trusting environment (Augustijnen,
Schnitzer, & Van Esbroeck, 2011; Carey, Philippon, & Cummings, 2011). Trust
and confidence in an employee’s capabilities was also one of the dominant issues
addressed by all the respondents in the formal and informal interviews. But, in
line with the hyper-responsibility, leadership submerged in neoliberal
hegemony, reinforced by a coaching climate, may be unwilling to delegate
authority and responsibility. This unwillingness to delegate may counter the
climate of confidence in an employee’s abilities and capabilities, creating
confusion. On one hand, management presents a message of trust in employees’
capabilities and individual responsibility for outcomes, while on the other
hand, they send a message of not enough trust by not delegating
responsibilities to employees. As a result, organizational effectiveness may be
reduced.
The
findings of this case extend our understanding of coaching for workplace
leadership and offer insights on a possible coaching side effect, namely the
possibility that it might reinforce the neoliberal ideology and reduce
effectiveness for organizational development and change. The
significance of these findings is directly connected to the coaching practice
in the organizational field.
Implications
Implications for the discipline of coaching. The
findings in this study raise new questions about the institutionalization of
the profession of coaching. On one hand, should coaching enhance or weaken the
dominant socioeconomic status quo? Should coaching have any interaction with
the dominant discourse? On the other hand, is it possible for coaching to be completely
independent of the time?
It
may be virtually impossible for coaching to be indifferent to the issue of time
and the environment. Coaching is about people and people live in a context. For
that reason, it is important to focus on possible coaching outcomes and refine
coaching interventions to fit as appropriate.
Implications
for workplace leadership. Coaching is a relatively new discipline
that deals with rapid changes and developments. Leadership, in general, and workplace
leadership, in particular, both face the same challenge of unexpected changes.
In order to meet these challenges, leadership must be creative, escape
standards, and break established thought patterns. Coaching is considered a
significant strategy for organizational leadership and change (Bennett &
Bush, 2009), but if coaching is functioning as a tool to reinforce the
neoliberal status quo, acting as a technology of power and reproducing the
existing neoliberal logic; then it is contributing to conformist behavior
instead of encouraging creative thinking that is capable of breaking existing
patterns. It is imperative that we consider the many challenges that rapid
change places on the coaching profession. We must be ready to test and
transform our mental patterns and practices to embrace change.
Limitations
The present study has some limitations. Even
though the results suggest an involvement of coaching practices with the rise
of a kind of “neo-individualism” in the workplace and in reproducing neoliberal
logic, the study was limited to one case study. It focused on the manager-as-coach
leadership approach as the main practice of observation. One of the concerns
about a single case study is generalization. Case study research is only
generalizable to theoretical proposition, not to populations or universes. Therefore,
the case study is not a “sample”; it represents an “analytic generalization” contrasting
with the “statistical generalization” (Yin, 2014). The findings of this study
serve as a snapshot of a single organization. Consequently, the generalizability
of the conclusions must be contemplated within the borders of this context.
We
must consider other possible aspects that may influence the findings of this
study, especially the process of attraction, recruitment, and selection. It is
possible that the organization profiled in this case attracts and selects
homogeneous populations who share the same neoliberal values that have been
reinforced by the coaching practices, creating a two-way feedback system of
reinforcement.
Conclusion and Recommendations for Further Research
Neoliberal ideology is accompanied by
imperatives such as increased individualism, which places almost all of the
responsibility for personal and social outcomes on the individual, giving
economic and social structure minor importance, thus creating an
individualization of social issues and outcomes. This neoliberal framework
shapes citizenship and constructs a perception of the world. Coaching practices
in the workplace may serve the neoliberal status quo by influencing organizational
leadership and employees’ points of view, favoring conformity with the dominant
ideology. The embedded neoliberal ideology in the practice of coaching may
result in reduced organizational effectiveness.
Finally,
additional research is needed to extend our understanding of this issue and
overcome the limitations in this study. It is important to take into
consideration the availability of broader quantitative research that could
include a representative statistical sample to complement the qualitative
research. Future research could include a multiple-case approach as well as
other dimensions related to the topic, such as the influence of a neoliberal
mindset on perceived well-being in the workplace.
Acknowledgment: I
am very grateful to Andrew Tabarovsky for his time and attention and for his significant
contribution to the improvement of this article by offering helpful suggestions
and advice.
References
Agar, M. H. (1980). The professional stranger:
An informal introduction to ethnography. New York, NY: Academic Press. Retrieved
from http://www.interactiondesign.se/wiki/_media/courses:agar.pdf
Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (2007). Ethnography:
Principles in practice (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Augustijnen, M.-T., Schnitzer, G., & Van
Esbroeck, R. (2011). A model of executive coaching: A qualitative study. International
Coaching Psychology Review, 6(2), 150–164. Retrieved from http://in.bgu.ac.il/aranne/Pages/default.aspx
Bennett, J., & Bush, M. W. (2009).
Coaching in organizations. Current trends and future opportunities. OD Practitioner,
41(1), 2–7. Retrieved from http://ravenconsultinggroup.com/Raven_Consulting_Group/Coaching_Resources_files/Coaching_in_Organizations.pdf
Blattner, J., & Bacigalupo, A. (2007).
Using emotional intelligence to develop executive leadership and team and organizational
development. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 59(3),
209–219. doi:10.1037/1065-9293.59.3.209
Boltanski, L., & Chiapello,
E. (2005). The new spirit of capitalism. International Journal of Politics,
Culture and Society, 18(3–4), 161–188. doi:10.1007/s10767-006-9006-9
Bowerman, J., & Collins, G. (1999). The
coaching network: A program for individual and organizational development. Journal
of Workplace Learning, (11)8, 291–297. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13665629910300414
Bozer, G., Sarros, J. C.
& Santora, J. C. (2014). Executive coaching: Guidelines that work. Development
and Learning in Organizations, 28(4), 9–14. doi:10.1108/DLO-05-2013-0020
Carey, W., Philippon, D. J., &
Cummings, G. G. (2011). Coaching models for leadership development: An integrative
review. Journal of Leadership Studies, 5(1), 51–69. doi:10.1002/jls.20204
Charles, N. (2013). Mobilizing the
self-governance of pre-damaged bodies: Neoliberal biological citizenship and
HPV vaccination promotion in Canada. Citizenship Studies, 17(6–7), 770–784.
DeWalt, K. M., & DeWalt, B. R. (2011).
Participant observation:
A guide for fieldworkers (2nd
ed.). Plymouth, United Kingdom: AltaMira Press.
Edwards, R., & Holland, J. (2013). What
is qualitative interviewing? London, United Kingdom: Bloomsbury Academic. Retrieved from http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/3276/1/complete_proofs.pdf
Ellinger, A. D., & Bostrom, R. P.
(1999). Managerial coaching behaviors in learning organizations. Journal of Management
Development, 18(9), 752–771. http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02621719910300810
Feldman, D. C., & Lankau, M. J.
(2005). Executive coaching: A review and agenda for future research. Journal
of Management, 31(6), 829–848. doi:10.1177/0149206305279599
, S., & Sustainable coaching: A primer for executives and coaches. Prahran, Australia: Tilde
University Press.
W. (1943). Street corner society.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Frisch, M. H. (2001). The emerging role of
the internal coach. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 53(4),
240–250. doi:10.1037//1061-4087.53.4.240
Galletta, A. (2013). Mastering the semi-structured interview and beyond: From research design to analysis and
publication. New York: New York University. Retrieved from http://in.bgu.ac.il/aranne/Pages/default.aspx
Gilley, J. W., &
Gilley, A. (2007). The
manager as coach.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Giorgi, A. (1975). An application of phenomenological
method in psychology. In A. Giorgi, C. Fischer, & E. Murray
(Eds.), Duquesne studies in
phenomenological psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 82–103). Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne
University Press. doi:10.5840/dspp197529
Greenberg, J., & Baron, R. A.
(2008). Behavior in organizations (9th ed.). Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey: Pearson.
Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/sociology/research/centres/socialtheorycentre/archive/events2010-11/readinggroup/harvey_a_brief_history_of_neoliberalism.pdf
Huang, J. T., & Hsieh, H. H. (2015).
Supervisors as good coaches: Influences of coaching on employees’ in-role
behaviors and proactive career behaviors. The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 26(1), 42–58. doi:10.1080/09585192.2014.940993
Johnson,
J. C., & Weatherford, J. (2006). The active participant-observer:
Applying social role analysis to participant observation. Field Methods, 18(2),
111–134. doi:10.1177/1525822X05285928
Joo, B. (2005). Executive coaching: A conceptual
framework from an integrative review of practice and research. Human
Resource Development Review, 4(4). 462–488. doi:10.1177/1534484305280866
Joo, B., Sushko, J. S., & McLean, G. N.
(2012). Multiple faces of coaching: Manager-as-coach, executive coaching, and formal
mentoring. Organization Development Journal, 30(1), 19–38. Retrieved
from http://www.isodc.org/page-1730212
Kawulich, B. B. (2005). Participant observation
as a data collection method. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 6(2). Retrieved
from http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/
Kelman, H.C. (1977). Privacy and research with
human beings. Journal of Social Issues, 33(3), 169–194. Retrieved from http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hckelman/files/Privacy_and_research.pdf
Lemke, T.
(2001). “The birth of bio-politics”: Michel Foucault’s lecture at the Collège
de France on neo-liberal governmentality. Economy and Society, 30(2),
190–207. doi:10.1080/03085140120042271
Lemke, T. (2002) Foucault, governmentality,
and critique. Rethinking Marxism: A Journal of Economics, Culture &
Society, 14(3), 49–64, doi:10.1080/089356902101242288
Lupton, D. (1999). Developing the “whole me”: Citizenship, neo-liberalism and the contemporary health and physical
education curriculum. Critical Public Health, 9(4), 287–300. Retrieved
from http://in.bgu.ac.il/en/aranne/Pages/default.aspx
Maman, D., & Rosenhek, Z. (2012). The institutional
dynamics of a developmental state: Change and community in state-economy relations
in Israel. Studies in Comparative International Development, 47(3), 342–363.
doi:10.1007/s12116-012-9098-3
Mead, M. (1928). Coming
of Age in Samoa: A psychological study of primitive youth for Western
civilisation. New
York, NY: William Morrow. Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/comingofageinsam00mead
Meltzer, J. (2013). “Good citizenship” and
the promotion of personal savings accounts in Peru. Citizenship Studies, 17(5),
641–652. doi:10.1080/13621025.2013.818382
Shamir, R. (2008). Corporate social responsibility:
Towards a new market-embedded morality? Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 9(2), 371–394. doi:10.2202/1565-3404.1190
Taylor, L. (1999). Globalization and civil society:
Continuities, ambiguities, and realities in Latin America. Indiana Journal
of Global Legal Studies, 7(1), 269–295. Available at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ijgls/vol7/iss1/10
Team FME. (2013). Principles of coaching: Coaching
skills. Retrieved from http://www.free-management-ebooks.com/dldebk-pdf/fme-coaching-principles.pdf
Thorsen, D. E. (2011). The politics of freedom:
A study of the political thought of Isaiah Berlin and Karl Popper, and of the challenge
of neoliberalism (Doctoral dissertation). University of Oslo, Norway. Retrieved
from https://www.duo.uio.no/handle/10852/13298
Vainio, A. (2012).
Beyond research ethics: Anonymity as “ontology,” “analysis” and “independence.”
Qualitative Research, 13(6), 685–698. doi:10.1177/1468794112459669
Vinten, G. (1994).
Participant observation: A model for organizational investigation? Journal
of Managerial Psychology, 9(2), 30–38. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02683949410059299
Weiss, H. (2011). Gift and value in
Jerusalem’s third sector. American Anthropologist, 113(4), 594–605. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1433.2011.01372.x
Whitworth, L., Kimsey-House,
K., Kimsey-House, H., & Sandahl, P. (2007). Co-active coaching: New skills
for coaching people toward success in work and, life (2nd ed.). Mountain
View, CA: Davies-Black.
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study
research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jessica F. Tabarovsky
is an MA student in sociology–critical social studies in the Department of
Sociology and Anthropology at the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel.
She holds an honors BA in Human
Resource Management from Sapir Academic College, and a Coach Expert Diploma in Personal
and Group Coaching from the External Studies
Department at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, jointly
with Kishurim Institute. She serves as
a group facilitator, content producer,
training developer, and workshop leader. Her work focuses on leadership, public
speaking skills, interpersonal communication skills, women’s empowerment,
creativity, employability development, and personal development. Ms. Tabarovsky spent many years writing
programs, conducting workshops, and working in content and training
development. She can be reached at jessicat@post.bgu.ac.il.
[*]
* To cite this article: Tabarovsky, J. F. (2015). The rise of
“neo-individualism” in the workplace: A critical approach on coaching for
workplace leadership. International Leadership Journal, 7(3), 59–82.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario