Are You A Chronic Kicker?

2010 September 24 By

In a previous post (“Busy Work and Fake Work“), I talked about a man named Dilbert, a real person with a fictional name. Dilbert never worked, but instead was always doing “busywork” and complaining to everyone around him about how busy he was.

In this follow-up post, I’ll talk about the chronic complainer or a “chronic kicker.”

A “chronic kicker” is a person who’s constantly complaining about his or her job (Spector, 2008). This person may look like a “Dilbert” (i.e. complains and is engaged in only busywork) or it can be someone who actually does “real” work but is constantly complaining while working.

The opposite of a “chronic kicker” is an individual who is “hardy.” In their classic I-O psychology text, Landy and Conte (2010) talk about individuals with a “hardy personality” as having THREE characteristics:

  1. They feel they are in control of their lives.
  2. They feel a sense of commitment to their family and their work goals and values.
  3. They see unexpected change as a challenge rather than as an obstacle (Landy & Conte, 2010, p. 470).

What’s more, people who are always whining and complaining about their work and life tend to be those who are more likely to be sick, have more physiological reactions to stress, and have lower general well-being compared to those who are more “hardy.” And the opposite is true – those who are “hardy” are less prone to being ill, have fewer physiological reactions to stress, and have higher levels of general well-being (Kobasa, Maddi, & Kahn, 1982).

“[H]ardiness is an important characteristic associated with stress resistance and successful performance in demanding occupations” (Landy & Conte, 2010, p. 470).

References

Kobasa, S.C., Maddi, S.R., Kahn, S. (1982). Hardiness and health: A prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42(1), 168-177.

Landy, F. J. & Conte, J. M. (2010). Work in the 21st century: An introduction to industrial and organizational psychology (3rd Ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Spector, P.E. (2008). Industrial and organizational psychology: Research and practice (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

About these ads
Filed Under: Attitudes & Emotions, Happy & Unhappy, Health & Wellness, Meaningful Work, Occupational Health Psychology, Organizational Psychology, Stress, Training & Development Tagged With: , , , , ,

Busy Work and Fake Work

2010 September 18 By

In “Fake Work” Peterson & Nielson (2009) contend that “much of the hard work people do for their organization does little to link people to the strategies that are intended to help the organization achieve its goals” (p. xx).

The authors discovered that roughly 50% of the work employees do “fails to advance the organizations’ strategies.” They decided to give this “ineffective work” a name – “fake work.”

“Fake work…include[s] everyone from the inattentive CEO who changes strategy too frequently, to the social-climbing manager who creates busywork to make herself look important, to the shirking line worker who just doesn’t want to do anything today” (p. 50).

I love this sentence:

“Lots of people squander their effort with long to-do lists that are chock full of busywork” (p.89).

Years ago I worked in a place where a man (I’ll call him Dilbert) was the living, walking, breathing example of “busywork.” Each morning, Dilbert would complain that he has so much to do. And, at first glance, it did appear that he had a lot because there were always piles of papers stacked up on and around his desk. Dilbert made it a point to mention how busy he was to anyone who asked him how he was doing. “I’ve got so much to do today,” he would lament.

The funny thing was that although he had a large mountain of paperwork on his desk, he actually never really “worked” on them because he was too busy telling people how busy he was. Because he wanted to make it evident of the amount of work he had on a daily basis, he would frequently sigh loudly and say to himself, “I can’t get anything done because I’ve got so much to do!”

One of the things I always like to do is to find a better, faster, and/or more efficient way to do a task or job. I’m sure there’s a fancy-sounding name to it, but I am a firm believer in the idea that things are not complicated, but that people tend to make things complicated.

In Dilbert’s case, analyzing his work habits revealed two things.

  1. He couldn’t tell the difference between nonessential tasks and critical tasks.
  2. He didn’t know how to prioritize his tasks (even when his boss told him which ones were the “priority” ones).

Peterson & Nielson (2009) describe situations like this as when “busyness overwhelms emphasis” (p. 31).

The irony was that Dilbert’s “job” was actually not hard. But if you asked him, it sounded like he was about to perform brain surgery every morning and by midday he was mentally and emotionally exhausted. What’s more, it doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out that perhaps the easiest answer to Dilbert’s “busy work” and “fake work” problem was that he never really “worked.”

I still think about Dilbert every once in a while. I bet he still has a mountain of paperwork piled high on his desk that he’s never gotten around to actually working on. Yes, I know, it’s because he has so much to do.

For people like Dilbert, who struggle with not doing much but always being swamped with “fake work,” Peterson & Nielson (2009) recommend doing it now to avoid fake work, or as the famous Nike commercial slogan declares, “Just Do It!”

Reference

Peterson, B.D., & Nielson, G.W. (2009). Fake work: Why people are working harder than ever but accomplishing less, and how to fix the problem. New York: Simon Spotlight.

Filed Under: Meaningful Work, Organizational Psychology, Stress, Training & Development Tagged With: , , ,

Book Review-Handbook of Coaching Psychology

2010 September 11 By

For the past several months, I have been using Palmer and Whybrow’s “Handbook of Coaching Psychology.” It has becoming one of my “must-have, go-to books” when researching or referencing coaching or coaching psychology topics.

Coaching draws so much from psychology, and in fact, psychology serves as the foundation to many coaching practices (Fillery-Travis & Lane, 2007). However, there are coaches who practice without being informed by psychological research, and they end up using “frameworks of dubious validity” and are often engaged “on a psychological enterprise without a background understanding of the psychology used” (p. 59).

Palmer & Whybrow (2007) explained that, “[t]he key difference between definitions of coaching and coaching psychology is that the latter include application of psychological theory” (p. 3). A coaching approach rooted in psychology can provide a unified voice for a coaching based on and informed by psychology (Palmer & Whybrow, 2005).

It is for these reasons that the “Handbook of Coaching Psychology” carries such great importance. This book is the first of its kind, in both its depth and breath, in the field of coaching psychology. Offering insights on coaching psychology practices, the “Handbook of Coaching Psychology” covers topics including the evolution of professional coaching & coaching psychology, cognitive-behavioral coaching, solution-focused coaching, psychodynamic coaching, positive psychology & coaching psychology, person-centered coaching, the role of coaching psychology (between counseling & coaching), coaching psychology supervision, psychometrics in coaching, and much more. There are even sections in the back of the book on coaching and coaching psychology-related professional associations and journals.

One chapter I really enjoyed is Bachkirova’s (2007) “Role of Coaching Psychology in Defining Boundaries between Counselling and Coaching.” In it, she explained how coaching suffers from a definitional consensus while trying to reconcile the tenuous position it’s currently in – between coaching and counseling. Bachkirova (2007) said that “coaching psychology” serves a dual role. First, it is an attempt to clarify the role and boundaries of psychology in coaching. Secondly, it also serves as a bridge connecting coaching and counseling/psychology.

Summary: The “Handbook of Coaching Psychology” belongs on every coach or coach-in-training’s library. It is the quintessential coaching psychology bible. If you are a coach or want to become one, you owe it to yourself to utilize sound psychological theories to inform and guide your coaching practice. The “Handbook of Coaching Psychology” will help provide the strong psychological foundation you need to be an effective coach and ensure that your coaching skills are evidence-based and grounded in science.

References

Bachkirova, T. (2007). Role of coaching psychology in defining boundaries between counselling and coaching. In S. Palmer & A. Whybrow (Eds.), Handbook of coaching psychology: A guide for practitioners (pp. 351-366). New York: Routledge.

Fillery-Travis, A., & Lane, D. (2007). Research: Does coaching work? In S. Palmer & A. Whybrow (Eds.), Handbook of coaching psychology: A guide for practitioners (pp. 57-70). New York: Routledge.

Palmer, S., & Whybrow, A. (Eds.). (2007). Handbook of coaching psychology: A guide for practitioners. New York: Routledge.

Palmer, S., & Whybrow, A. (2005). The Proposal to Establish a Special Group in Coaching Psychology. The coaching psychologist, 1, 5-12.

Filed Under: Coaching, Coaching Psychology, Executive Coaching Tagged With: , ,

Coaching and Mental Illness

2010 September 4 By

“Coaching is normally seen as an activity to enhance performance and achievement of goals” (Buckley, 2010, p. 394).

When coaches talk about clients in terms of mental health needs, these clients are better served by related fields like counseling or clinical psychology, not coaching or its cousin, coaching psychology.

There are many psychologists and other mental health professionals who have found coaching to be an appealing alternative to therapeutic practice. However, Anthony Grant cautions that these therapists-turned-coaches should not merely “act as a coach.” Instead, they should “develop coaching skills and psychological frameworks that go beyond existing clinical or counselling frameworks and applications” (Grant, 2006, p. 16).

Grant argues that in order for the field and profession of coaching to exist as a viable, independent discipline, it needs to differentiate itself from counseling and the mental illness, psychopathology model.

For coaches not from a mental health background (and even those who are) what follows should be required consideration in working with clients.

Peltier (2010, p. 304) asserts, “[C]oaches are not psychotherapists or doctors…[T]herapy is not their job.” However, coaches must still realize that in coaching sessions, they may be confronted with psychopathology. For this reason, it is important for coaches to be proficient in identifying clients who may need mental health counseling. On a related note, it is equally important for coaches to recognize their own need to be trained to spot mental health issues or signs of potential mental illness.

Peltier (2010) states that three mental disorders are most disabling and thus should quickly be referred to the appropriate mental health professionals. They are:

  1. Schizophrenia
  2. Bipolar disorder
  3. Dementia

* The three listed above (schizophrenia, bipolar, and dementia) usually require the intervention of a psychiatrist and a combination of medication and psychotherapy.
** For more details about these and other mental disorders, please consult the DSM-IV.
*** See Chapter 14 “Psychopathology and Coaching” of Peltier’s book “The Psychology of Executive Coaching” for a more in-depth coverage of this topic.

Peña & Cooper (2010) recommend referring coaching clients when the following mental health issues are present (this is not an exhaustive list, there are many more):

  1. High level of distress
  2. Persistent low mood
  3. Sense of hopelessness

Buckley (2010) states that when coaches are faced with mental health issues they should ask three questions:

  1. Can my coaching help? (Remember the purpose of coaching)
  2. What are my limitations?
  3. Should my coaching continue?

Buckley proposes a four-stage process to help guide a coach in making a decision:

  1. Recognize that some people may have mental health problems that make coaching inappropriate
  2. Understand the signs & symptoms of mental illness and be able to question the client further when necessary
  3. Understand the ethical, legal, and professional standards and practices
  4. Ask “What next?” Continue coaching, stop coaching or refer for medical help?

On the subject of coaching and mental illness, this statement sums it up best:

“Any diagnosis, treatment, ways to help or exploration of underlying issues is the province of mental health specialists and is best avoided” (Buckley, 2010, p. 395).

References

Buckley, A. (2010). Coaching and Mental Health. In E. Cox, T. Bachkirova, & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The complete handbook of coaching (pp.394-404). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Grant, A.M. (2006). A personal perspective on professional coaching and the development of coaching psychology. International Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1), 12-22.

Peltier, B. (2010). The psychology of executive coaching: Theory and application (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Peña, M.A., & Cooper, C.L. (2010). Coaching and stress. In J. Passmore (Ed.), Excellence in coaching: The industry guide (2nd ed.) (pp. 189-203). London: Kogan Page.

Filed Under: Coaching, Coaching Psychology, Executive Coaching, Organizational Psychology Tagged With: , , ,

Understanding Psychometrics in Coaching

2010 September 1 By

Psychometrics: The “science concerned with evaluating the attributes of psychological tests” (Furr & Bacharach, 2008, p. 8). The three most important attributes are: (1) type of data generated by the psychological tests (normally its scores); (2) the reliability of this data; and (3) the validity of the data.

In “Psychometrics in Coaching,” Jonathan Passmore (2008) said that while there is a growing number of instruments for use in coaching, a “surprising number of coaches do not know about the reliability or validity of the questionnaires they are using, or do not know about the theory or research evidence which underpins it” (p. 2).

When evaluating coaching assessments or instruments, Peltier (2010) suggests:

(1) Check the construct – “the basic concept that the instrument supposedly tests…Tests do not always test what they sound like they are testing” (p. 17).

(2) Validity – “Is this test measuring what it says it measures? Is it accurate? … Was this instrument developed for people similar to your client?” (p. 18).

(3) Reliability – Is the instrument stable? “Can you use it and get the same results that the designers get?” (p. 18). Are the results consistent when using with different types of clients.

(4) Standardization – Also known as norming. “To whom or to what is your client compared?” (p. 19) For example, a test that was created using a White, wealthy, highly educated as a norm group may not be as applicable to others.

References

Furr, R.M., & Bacharach, V.R. (2008). Psychometrics: An introduction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Passmore, J. (Ed.). (2008). Psychometrics in coaching: Using psychological and psychometric tools for development. London: Kogan Page.

Peltier, B. (2010). The psychology of executive coaching: Theory and application (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Filed Under: Coaching, Coaching Psychology, Executive Coaching Tagged With: , ,