How are coaches meant to present themselves and behave?
Rob Kemp explores the theme of emotional labour in coaching
Despite many years of research into ‘emotional labour’ in many sectors and roles, no studies had yet addressed what this is for coaches. It was for this reason, and because of the potentially negative outcomes seen in other fields, that I wanted to explore emotional labour in the coaching context.
Coaching is sometimes portrayed as a universally positive experience but emergent research tells us there can be undesirable outcomes for the coach (Schermuly, 2014).
Emotional labour is a term originally used by Arlie Russell Hochschild (1983) and describes the effort we expend in attempting to adhere to or demonstrate the expected outward display required by our work. It was central to my inquiry to understand what these display rules are for coaching – how are coaches supposed to present themselves and behave? Unless we have a sense or understanding of how we should present we cannot begin to understand how we position ourselves in relation to those expectations. This research asks where our rules come from, how we respond to them, and how this affects us, through the specific lens of emotional labour.
I employed a methodology called Conceptual Encounter in this research (de Rivera & Kreilkamp, 1981). In keeping with the founders of the methodology and subsequent others, I created a visual model from the relevant literature in other fields to spark discussion – and asked questions to generate conversation around the areas of interest. I worked with both individuals and groups, and on each occasion adapted the model based on those conversations in an iterative process. The use of both the visual model, along with the questions asked, generated very rich data, fully analysed and discussed in my doctoral thesis
(Kemp, 2022).
The following is a summary of findings, particularly focusing on the ‘so what?’ for coaches – the practical implications and recommendations.
Coach as an actor
Coaches can experience emotional labour in the coaching relationship when they modify their behaviour to meet with perceived behavioural norms – when what’s happening on the inside is modified to meet an acceptable external display. The interesting thing is that our perception of what’s acceptable varies wildly, based mainly on what we see as ‘good coaching’ from our own experience.
This acting has an impact on how coaches feel about their work, for example, around authenticity. Sometimes coaches are almost mandated to act. An example of this might be around client confidentiality in the organisational context where a manager or stakeholder might inquire around ‘how the coaching is going’. There were many other instances of acting surfaced in this research – when a coach didn’t like a client, for example, or felt frustrated by them, or pitied them – all the while maintaining the demeanour of a ‘professional’ coach.
Coaches not acting
Some coaches didn’t experience emotional labour in the coaching relationship – those coaches who identified as Gestalt, or who had high ‘use of self’ in their coaching approach felt their relationship was ‘porous’ and everything was out there in the service of the coaching. This seems both obvious and logical now we see it in the rear-view mirror.
Seeking out contexts for our coaching work that align more closely with our own values and ways of being – or using coaching approaches which encourage the externalisation of the coach’s thoughts and feelings, will reduce emotional labour for the coach. In my research the coach who constantly felt as though they were wasting their time with half-hearted clients (though not saying so) would be wise to seek out a context in which they felt they could add value. Of course, that coach could always speak out some of things they felt – which would be sure to generate a different dynamic.
Commercial emotional labour
Another area in which coaches described experiencing emotional labour was in the organisational space when seeking to work with companies – dealing with commissioners of coaching, or other corporate individuals (such as HR, L&D, senior managers). I named this dynamic Commercial Emotional Labour, and the additional dynamic at play is the one of financial reward.
In some sense coaches are literally playing a role other than coach – that of business owner perhaps. It wasn’t unusual in my conversations to find coaches who disliked this scenario – and felt that it was sometimes a challenge to their authenticity. Coaches complied with this scenario, though, in order to go and do ‘the real work of coaching’ (as they saw it).
My recommendation here is concerned with authentically presenting your coaching position and stance with contracting organisations. The very real risk here is that by doing so a coach might may not be selected or might lose potential work. But the other equally present risk is that we offer ourselves in an inauthentic way – for example by being complicit in a remedial agenda, or by engaging in a ‘rescue fantasy’ (Wasylyshyn, 2003).
How it affects us
Whether in the context of commercial emotional labour, or within the coaching relationship, there are some undesirable effects of experiencing emotional labour: tiredness, detachment, loss of authenticity and, in extreme, cases opt out or burn out.
The defence mechanism or antidote to emotional labour lies in authenticity – being true to the voice within and externalising those thoughts and feelings in an acceptable way, in service of our clients, both individual and organisational.
Counteracting
At an individual level we can start by recognising emotional labour, seeing where it has presence in our work and resolving to be firmly rooted in authentic behaviour. This is very different from espousing authenticity – it’s about living it behaviourally. If our coaching contexts aren’t a good fit for us, seek to change them. If the organisations we contract with aren’t a good fit for us, seek not to work with them. If our clients bring up feelings in us, use them, and surface them in service of that relationship (always with kindness, compassion, and skill).
At levels beyond the practising individual coach – supervisors, professional associations, trainers – all need to know and represent the ideas of emotional labour. Now we know what place emotional labour has in coaching – it’s incumbent upon us all to seek to mitigate the unwanted effects for us individually, and for the reputational impacts for coaching itself.
About the author
- Dr Rob Kemp is head of accredited coach training at Barefoot Coaching. After a corporate career, Kemp dedicated his professional life and learning to coaching – first through a postgraduate certificate (2005), then an MSc (2013), and then as a doctor of coaching and mentoring (2021). Having practised as a coach for almost two decades, Kemp is now developing other coaches through training and supervision.
- rob@barefootcoaching.co.uk
References
- J De Rivera and T Kreilkamp, Conceptual Encounter, University Press of America, 1981
- A R Hochschild, The Managed Heart: Commercialization of human feeling, University of California Press, 1983
- R Kemp, ‘The Emotional labour of the coach – in and out of the coaching “room” ’, in International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring,
S16: 185-195, 2022 - C C Schermuly, ‘Negative effects of coaching for coaches: An explorative study’, in International Coaching Psychology Review, 9(2), pp. 167–182, 2014
- K M Wasylyshyn, ‘Executive coaching: An outcome study’, in Consulting psychology journal: practice and research, 55(2), 94, 2003