1Coaching focus linked to positive psychology dimensions. http://www.sajip.co.za/index.php/sajip/article/downloadSuppFile/933/622
The researcher designed the positive psychology coaching programme as an unstructured experiential learning event using encounter group methodology (Rogers, 1982). Its primary task was to allow participants to explore their leadership roles by focusing on the positive psychology dimensions in Table 1. The coach was to be a facilitator according to the person-centred, Rogerian style based on the core dimensions of respect, realness and empathy (Rogers, 1982). The facilitator started each session by stating that ‘this is an opportunity for you to explore how you took up your leadership role in the last two weeks’. The coach would then join the participants’ discussions by offering reflections on how the positive psychology dimensions manifest (Cilliers, 2000; 2004a). The coach invited leaders with the potential to advance to a 30-minute group meeting where the coach explained the rationale and logistics of the coaching programme. The participants had one week to accept the coaching invitation. The participants then received ten hours of individual leadership coaching, in one-hour sessions over ten weeks, in the offices of the participants during office hours. Halfway into the programme (about session five) the coach attended a weekly or monthly meeting that each participant chaired. The coach processed each participant’s interpersonal behaviour during the meeting in the session that followed. Entrée and establishing the researcher’s roles The company’s organisational development (OD) division authorised the researcher, as an external consultant, to design, plan and present the coaching programme. Based on the desired leadership behaviours, the organisation’s strategy and leadership ethos, he suggested that he base the programme on a positive psychology perspective and person-centred facilitation. The author is a registered psychologist (with the Health Professions Council of South Africa). He has practical and research experience in positive psychology and training in leadership coaching, specifically in person-centred, Rogerian facilitation (www.centerfortheperson.org). Sampling Of the 26 leaders in Gauteng, who the organisational development division identified as having potential for advancement, 11 accepted the invitation to attend the leadership coaching. The sample consisted of seven males and four females, five Black and six White people, between 24 and 41 years of age. They had financial roles and at least three-year tertiary education qualifications. When reflecting on this convenient sample (Henning et al., 2004), the researcher considered: his interest in, and curiosity about, how this group of diverse leaders would engage with the coaching task how he chose the sample as the only leaders in this organisation available for coaching at that time how managers authorised this group of leaders to understand the effects of coaching. The researcher’s prolonged coaching engagement with the leaders (three months), his persistent observations (10 hours per participant), as well as the richness (Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2005) and volume of the data compensated for the relative small sample. The sample met the criteria that the participants would help to develop substantive leadership coaching theory further (Terre Blanche et al., 2006). One should also note that the data offered saturation (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005) and internal generalisability (Maxwell, 1992). In addition, seeing that there is already a significant body of theoretical knowledge in the field of positive psychology coaching, the sample was sufficiently large to study the demarcated behavioural constructs and answer the research question (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2010). Data collection methods The researcher used field notes (Mulhall, 2003) and participant essays (Camic et al., 2003). Therefore, the data contained the participants’ reflections of their experiences and the coach’s experiences of their behaviour. The advantage of using the two methods in combination was to integrate the coaching here-and-now contexts, processes and interactions (with colleagues) with the subjects’ lived experiences (Mulhall, 2003). The field notes contain the perceptions of the author mostly and are comprehensible only to him. The researcher’s attention to detail whilst recording the raw data compensated for this (Denzin, 1989). Recording the data During and after each coaching session, the coach made field notes of the positive psychology dimensions, in the leadership context, as they manifested. After the last session, the coach asked each participant to write an essay (Van Manen, 1990; Wolcott, 2001) of about five A4 pages on: ‘how did you take up your leadership role at the start of, during and towards the end of the coaching programme?’ Therefore, the data was an individual and collective integration of the field notes and essays. Data analyses The researcher used discourse analysis (Breverton & Millward, 2004; Camic, Rhodes & Yardley, 2003; De Vos, Strydom, Fouché & Delport, 2002; Henning, Van Rensburg & Smit, 2004; LeCompte, Millroy & Preissle, 1992). Its purpose was to analyse participants’ discussions about their experiences of the coaching. The process of interpretation followed the guidelines of Alvesson and Sköldberg (2010), Camic, Rhodes and Yardley (2003) and Terre Blanche et al. (2006): immersion and crystallisation. More specifically, this entailed the sequence of familiarisation, inducing themes, categorising into meaning, generating and elaborating themes and patterns, interpretation and writing. The desired leadership behaviours formed the discourse themes. The coach interpreted each theme according to the positive psychology dimensions that manifested. The author then drew on his theoretical knowledge and subjective capacity to make sense of how the constructs manifested and changed during the 10 weeks of coaching. Sorting the data led to different working hypotheses. These are ‘sorting (the data) in a variety of ways, resulting in a variety of interpretations’ (Terre Blanche et al., 2006, p. 342) and integrating them into a statement that is true for the time being and possibly reassessing them continuously in the light of further evidence (Schafer, 2003). The researcher integrated the working hypotheses into a research hypothesis. Strategies used to ensure quality data The researcher ensured trustworthiness in the paragraphs that follow (by following the guidelines of Brewerton & Millward 2004; Camic et al., 2003; De Vos, Strydom, Fouché & Delport, 2002; Denzin, 1989; Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Terre Blanche et al., 2006). The researcher’s competence, and because he asked two independent psychologists (to whom the theoretical model was well known) to peer-review the data and findings, ensured credibility. They declared the research dependable and confirmed saturation. Reliability and replicating the research is difficult to report on. Therefore, the researcher ensured dependability by presenting detailed findings to ensure that its richness emerged. The study showed strong and believable validity in its psychological description. It revealed the complexities of the positive psychology constructs and the interaction between them. The researcher ensured confirmability by reflecting on how the findings lead to the themes and research hypothesis. The researcher ensured transferability by reflecting on the findings of similar studies that Biswas-Diener and Dean (2007), Kilburg and Diedrich (2007) and Stout Rostron (2009) reported. The organisation gave permission to the coach to conduct the research and to use his coaching programme. This assured ethicality (Terre Blanche et al., 2006). In addition, all the participants completed consent forms that covered the boundaries of time, venue, voluntary participation, conduct and confidentiality. Reporting The researcher reported the research findings by referring to the coaching context and the participants’ experiences by theme. In the discussion, the researcher linked the findings to the positive psychology dimensions. They resulted in a working hypothesis for each dimension. A discussion on the effect of the coaching followed the different working hypotheses and research hypothesis. Finally, the researcher formulated conclusions and recommendations. Findings Six themes emerged. These were the coaching context, engagement in role, understanding role complexity, emotional self-awareness and demands, self-authorisation and inability to facilitate the growth of others. The coaching context The participants made many noteworthy comments about their experiences of the leadership coaching. This made it necessary to report it as the first theme. The participants described the initial sessions as ‘difficult’, ‘a weird and ‘strange experience’, ‘like a continuous delving into myself’, ‘I could not understand where it was going’ and ‘we sort of talked all around the same stuff’. Participants needed to ‘go around in circles’ before they could ‘start working deeper’ to discover that ‘coaching is an experience in self-discovery’. After some time it made more sense ‘when you start to understand what it is about’. They described the later sessions in sentences like ‘I realise that my struggles with my colleagues were actually about myself’ and ‘how my interactions with them always came back to me and my leadership communication style’. The participants described the coaching experience as, ‘an intense way of learning about yourself’, ‘very rewarding’, ‘absolutely worthwhile’, ‘filled with learning that no one can teach you in a class room’ and ‘the greatest learning experience I have ever had’. For some it was the first time in their lives that they had the ‘luxury of talking about myself only’ to someone ‘who is only focusing on me and my issues’ and that it was ‘something I have never experienced at work’. They saw the coaching sessions as cognitively and emotionally challenging. They described them as, ‘intensely thought provoking’, ‘allowing me to make connections between issues that gave me many aha-moments’ and ‘an emotional challenge out of my comfort zone’. A few participants even recommended that the coaching ‘be made available to all the leaders in our organisation’. These descriptions showed the effect the coaching had. The participants had to overcome their resistance and develop curiosity about their own behaviour (Kashdan, 2009). They became more open, less rigid (as an aspect of SAV) about, and more involved in (as part of dedication –WENG) what their leadership behaviour could reflect about themselves. Their ability to self-regulate (as part of LR) and their vigour (as part of WENG) increased. The data showed that coaching fulfilled their personal developmental needs (Biswas-Diener & Dean, 2007; Lopez & Lyubomirsky, 2008; Nohria & Khurana, 2010). Some participants reported that the coaching reduced their loneliness in the organisation (Cilliers, 2004b). Working hypothesis 1 The positive psychology coaching approach allowed leaders to move from initial apprehension, to an engagement with their own particular emotional behaviour, to using their own experiences to self-regulate and to tap into their vigour in order to engage with challenging cognitive and emotional leadership behaviours in more flexible ways than before. Engagement in role The coaching sessions started with the participants describing their leadership roles clearly in terms of the task outcomes (their financial projects). They made few references to interpersonal aspects. One participant reported that ‘we tend to treat people as numbers on financial statements’. Participants described this tendency as, ‘we like to do what we can and reject what we can’t’ and ‘I know I am not good with people and it is therefore easier to just pretend that they are numbers’. This often led to participants realising that their overindulgence in the technicalities of their work are manifestations of their fear of engaging with people. One participant stated this as, ‘I realised when I was promoted into a leadership position I should take care of people more – but I resist that so strongly – I am an introvert and do not want to work with people’. Another stated that she was prepared to resign from her leadership position because of the stress and fatigue caused by ‘the people issues and difficulties. I decided to give this coaching thing a chance – if this was not going to help, I will surely get back to pure financial work’. Some participants spoke about their disappointment when they realised that leadership ‘does not have a clear how-to-do-it file’. Their stated ‘incompetence to address people issues’ resulted in their avoiding difficult meetings and disciplinary situations. One participant verbalised this as, ‘I get so tired of the difficulties of dealing with people that I lock myself in the office and just do admin – which I don’t even like doing’. For some participants a shift came about halfway through the coaching when they realised that they had internalised fear. One participant remarked that ‘I know I am my own worst enemy – I am actually fearful of the stuff in myself and now I make this their problem’. For others a form of objectification helped them to understand their fear. One participant verbalised it as, ‘I know I can be effective if I can only take each situation as it comes and not make it about me and my incompetence’. Others deliberately started to use their energy ‘to turn problems into possibilities’ to connect by reaching out and showing interest in people. The possibilities and the successes they reported in consecutive sessions intrigued them. They would start these sessions by reporting voluntarily on how ‘I think I was successful’ in interpersonal situations ‘by staying cool’. Two participants reported that they were still ‘struggling with how to get myself more enthusiastic about what other people think and do’. The researcher interpreted these comments as initial low levels of engagement with their leadership roles (Sternberg, 2007). Participants have split leadership into what comes naturally and what is difficult. As the coaching progressed, their behaviour showed significantly higher levels of mental resilience and effort (vigour, as part of WENG), involvement and enthusiasm (dedication, as part of WENG) and concentration on, and immersion in (absorption as part of WENG), their ‘difficult people task’ (Simpson, 2009). For most participants, it took at least four sessions to engage with their people leadership roles. Thereafter, their excitement became visible and audible. Working hypothesis 2 Leaders split their leadership tasks into technical tasks, which they prefer and are competent in, and into matters that involve interpersonal connection, which exhausted them and led to feelings of incompetence. Coaching was a vehicle to process their feelings of fear and incompetence, which many realised they had internalised. Participants seemed to need time to access their vigour and to turn their energy to addressing issues they thought were beyond them. Understanding role complexity When they spoke about their job content, participants cited their key performance areas, what their performance contracts measure objectively and how they needed to manage themselves to reach their financial targets. Their evidence shows that they were performing their jobs successfully (based on the outcomes they achieve) and intelligence (based on their abstract reasoning and differentiation skills). Upon deeper investigation, the participants realised that their comments referred to management and excluded the complexity of the interpersonal aspect of leadership (Zaleznik, 1992). Some participants even forgot that they were working together as a team to reach their goals. One participant remarked ‘realising now how I make the work only about me, makes me feel quite guilty’. Participants found comfort in their individual and cognitive framing of their tasks and, because they performed their tasks excellently, they excluded the complexity of the relationship part of leadership. When they explored this boundary, the participants discovered areas of leadership like ‘maybe leadership is far more demanding than I thought’ and ‘leadership seems to be doing things through other people’. The here-and-now (as part of SAV) was a key concept the researcher used successfully to merge the task and people orientations for most participants. The next theme explores it. The researcher interpreted these findings as evidence of their increased levels of comprehension and sense making, their experience of work as being structured, predictable and explicable (as part of SOC), their concentration and immersion (as part of WENG) as well as their self-control and self-regulation (as part of LR). Working hypothesis 3 Highly intelligent and successful managers, who focus on the individual and task targets they must reach, are not automatically effective leaders of people. When they moved from management to leadership, the leaders realised that they were ineffective when dealing with the relatively more challenging complexities encapsulated in interpersonal connection, especially as it manifests in the here-and-now. They had not yet fully realised how complex these challenges are. They may need practical experience followed by more coaching later. Emotional self-awareness and demands The coach’s initial field notes revealed the participants’ reluctance to explore their needs and feelings. This manifested in their strong urge to rationalise and intellectualise. It was as if feelings were taboo and therefore not accessible to them. Some participants explained their discomfort about sharing their feelings because of a fear of ‘what these feelings could do to me’ and ‘how my feelings could hurt other people’. Others simply declared that ‘feelings are not important to me’ and ‘this airy-fairy stuff does not belong in this organisation’. Over time participants started to show more willingness to look at feelings in the there-and-then. A willingness to discuss previous meetings with colleagues and clients is an example. Half way through the coaching there was evidence of ‘something loosening up’. This manifested in ‘an outpouring of feelings’ for three participants. They started to explore real and increasingly deeper feelings in the here-and-now of the coaching session – albeit about previous events like meetings with colleagues. The researcher saw this as evidence that participants started the coaching with low emotional resourcefulness, unaware of their own needs and feelings and reluctant to explore them in any way. It was almost as if some participants showed evidence of ‘alexithymia’ – a condition where people have no access to their feelings (Goleman, 1995). Increased feeling reactivity and spontaneity (as part of SAV) characterised their movement towards sensitivity and awareness. A few participants even started (jokingly) to remind the coach regularly to ‘please, ask me how that makes me feel’. This exploration was almost taking risks – one participant remembered this as, ‘it felt as if I was standing on a tightrope and did not know whether to go forward or backward’. Over time all the participants (even those who resisted their feelings strongly at the start) expressed the toughness of the emotional challenge and, at the same time, how worthy their investment in its exploration had become (as part of meaningfulness in SOC). The more the participants explored their needs and feelings in the here-and-now, which the researcher interpreted as increased time competence (as part of SAV), the more they reported that they experienced themselves differently. They started to speak more clearly and strongly about who they really are and who they want to be as leaders. This was evidence of their self-regard and self-acceptance (both parts of SAV). In their essays, many participants stated that they experienced feelings that surprised them. Examples are apprehension and fear about leadership, frustration and anger at those who ‘pushed me into a position that I was not ready for’, disappointment about ‘not taking up the many and varied opportunities in the organisation’ and hurt about being too strict on the self, colleagues and even family members. Some reflected on the necessity to process these feelings in order to understand the self and to move towards feelings that were more positive (Fredrickson, 2001). On the other hand, they experienced new insights into their happiness in life in general, pride about their accomplishments in their leadership positions and enthusiasm about their futures in the organisation (Lyubomirsky, 2001). The researcher interpreted these experiences as manifestations of dedication (as part of WENG). A few participants could make connections between their levels of inspiration and transformational leadership (Nohria & Khurana, 2010). Working hypothesis 4 Hard work helped the leaders to move from a lack of emotional awareness to a level of emotional resourcefulness that a different sense of self, awareness of self and self-acceptance in the here-and-now characterised. Self-authorisation The participants described coaching as a journey from being focused outwards on tasks to becoming aware of themselves as, ‘the principle decision maker and feeler’ in their lives. They started by ‘constantly blaming the organisation, management and my colleagues – even the client’ for what was wrong. One participant remarked that ‘I was always caught up in arguments about who is right or wrong’, as if ‘someone needs to be prosecuted’ and ‘it felt like constantly being involved in a court case’. During and after the coaching they reported starting to realise that they can ‘work from within’ and ‘empower myself to help others’. Participants said that the organisation had authorised them by appointing them as leaders and by selecting them for the coaching programme. On the other hand, their self-authorisation was problematic. Their strong focus on rationality and task made it difficult to access their emotional energy and awareness about interpersonal connections and authorising others: ‘It took hard work to look within and see the potential inside to make my own decisions’ and to ‘use my inner energy to help my colleagues’. The interpretation the researcher gave these findings was that the participants functioned with an external locus of control, disconnected, de-authorised and non-authentic (Linley & Joseph, 2004). They learned to remind themselves constantly about the locus of their beings and to use inner directedness and support (as part of SAV) to achieve motivational independence. They also realised how many internal resources they had as forms of resilience (Masten, 2001) and how to manage this energy constantly (as part of SOC). Working hypothesis 5 By constantly reminding themselves about their internal locus of control, the leaders moved from being disconnected from their inner needs and feelings to self-authorisation, which tapping into their own motivation, internalising principles and developing the ability to transcend and integrate the extremes of being self-directed and other-directed characterised. Inability to facilitate the growth of others The participants managed their meetings in a content-driven and instructional manner. Initially, they were proud of ‘the transactional way’ in which they ‘worked the agenda’ and ‘forced everyone to agree’. They even felt good and were happy in the team. They were ‘good content decision makers’ and ‘enforcers of decisions’. One participant said ‘I get along well with everyone – I don’t ask them about their personal issues and feelings, and they are not interested in mine’. There was a sense of self-protection and they had an underlying fear that an emotional connection would lead to pressure to divulge very personal information that might lead to embarrassment and shame. When the participants reflected on their interactions with colleagues, they started to see their ‘autocratic’ and ‘telling’ leadership styles that left little space for emotional connection or awareness of the processes of growth. The participants also reflected on the ‘many missed cues’ and ‘lost opportunities’ to make ‘emotional contact’ on ‘issues that we constantly differ on’. Others reflected that ‘maybe if I attended to how angry he was, he would not have stormed out of the room’ and ‘I think I could have made the climate in the room much more positive’ if ‘I only saw what was happening on the process level’. As the coaching progressed, some participants reported on how they learned to differentiate between making an affective connection with a colleague in the here-and-now ‘with no strings attached’, improving the quality of the relationship and ‘sharing deep personal feelings as one would experience in therapy’. It was as if participants needed to start trusting themselves with their own feelings to a point of acceptance before they could reach out to a colleague about some emotional issue (Cilliers, 1996). Participants gave examples of how they later approached their colleagues with expressions like ‘what are your feelings towards the new remuneration system’ and ‘how do you feel towards our top management’. One participant even started asking about ‘your experience of me as a leader in this project’. He was very anxious and did not know what to do with the feedback he received. The researcher interpreted these findings as evidence of increased intrapersonal awareness, of feelings in meetings and the effect of attending to these (as part of SAV). The participants reported that they were becoming sensitised to the feelings of others and the emotional effect this had on them afterwards. After the coaching, participants were able to express their interpersonal feelings – even difficult feelings like anger and hurt (as part of SAV). The researcher interpreted this as a movement towards realness (a Rogerian core dimension); see Cilliers (2004a). On the other hand, their interpersonal awareness and facilitating skills did not develop in the same way. They were not able to express their real feelings in the here-and-now, nor could they reflect on other people’s experiences (as a micro skill); see Carkhuff (2000). Therefore, the participants showed little realness and empathy in their interpersonal relationships as Rogerian core dimensions (1982). The researcher interpreted this fear (almost of a therapeutic outpouring) as an indication of how they had suppressed their own feelings over time and of how these may have to be processed before they would be able to attend to the feelings of others. Working hypothesis 6 The coaching allowed the leaders to become aware of the roles that feelings play in their official interactions with colleagues and how they themselves respond emotionally. The programme did not facilitate the leaders’ awareness of process or their ability to verbalise their emotional experiences in an interaction. They also could not reflect on colleagues using Rogerian core dimensions. DiscussionThe purpose of this study was to describe the positive psychology leadership coaching experiences of leaders in a large financial organisation. The importance of the study relates to a qualitative understanding of how leaders experience their roles differently when exposed to positive psychology feedback during coaching. The researcher integrated the six working hypotheses into the research hypothesis that follows. Positive psychology leadership coaching, as theoretically framed and experientially developed in this study, facilitates leaders’ intrapersonal development. Its characteristics are: engagement with their roles increased cognitive understanding of the complexity of their roles increased emotional sensitivity towards the self, own feelings and needs a greater sense of self-authorisation a better awareness of how feelings and emotional experiences affect leadership activities. The leaders did not show a noticeable improvement in their interpersonal ability to engage in discussions with colleagues to facilitate growth. The researcher discussed the findings about the second layer of positive psychology constructs, namely, (1) wellness, (2) autonomy, (3) optimism, (4) hardiness, (5) resilience, (6) psychological and character strengths, (7) emotional intelligence, (8) positive emotions, (9) curiosity, (10) coping with difficult emotions, (11) spiral dynamic leadership values and (12) leadership style. With regard to wellness, which Ryan and Deci (2000) conceptualised, the leaders were able to include autonomous behaviours and as optimism (Peterson, 2000) in their roles as leaders. This implied that their self-determination, intrinsic motivation and social development increased. The findings suggested that shifts in the leader’s hardiness and resilience occurred. With regard to denying the importance of feelings in leadership and avoiding one’s own and others’ emotional experiences, the leaders started to develop the resilience one needs to stay with difficult experiences and feelings for longer periods. According to Maddi and Khoshaba (2005), this resilience is based on hardiness. Hardiness refers to patterns of attitudes to cope with stressful situations and to turn distress into ‘eustress’ (growth-stimulating stress), followed by the courage and motivation to use the hardi-skills (resilience) of coping, social support and self-care as opposed to denial and avoidance. The researcher found that the leaders could change their attitudes to higher levels of commitment, control and challenge and that their ability to cope moved towards higher levels of mental perceptiveness and understanding of decisive leadership. Unfortunately, this was not true of their ‘hardi-support’ because the findings did not show evidence of emotional assistance to, and encouragement of, colleagues. Snook (2008) suggested that there is a relationship between individual hardiness (commitment, control and challenge), effectiveness of the organisation (cooperation, credibility and creativity) and transformational leadership. Therefore, one can interpret the leaders’ organisational hardiness behaviour as a movement towards cooperation and credibility, but not towards creativity and the inspirational aspects of transformational leadership. With regard to psychological and character strengths (Snyder & Lopez, 2009), the findings suggested that the leaders became more willing to learn about and investigate their own emotional experiences. This illustrated their mindfulness and curiosity (Kashdan, 2009). Their intrapersonal strengths (Biswas-Diener & Dean, 2007) improved in terms of time orientation as they began to focus on the here-and-now (Shostrom, 1976) and became optimistic. On the other hand, their compassion (as part of empathy) did not develop during the coaching programme. The coaching programme stimulated their social strengths (Biswas-Diener & Dean, 2007). Their courage, in becoming aware of others and, to some extent, in building relationships improved. Some leaders referred to their strengths of humanity (love and kindness). However, these strengths may have been part of their repertoires before the coaching began. The leaders did not reveal community-building strengths. The researcher learned this from their emotional inhibitions during meetings. With regard to the many positive psychology constructs that focus on emotions, like emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995), emotional differentiation and positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2001), emotional risk and coping with difficult emotions (Kashdan, 2009), the findings suggested the following. The leaders learned to experience and describe so-called positive emotions like excitement, joy and happiness (mostly intrapersonal experiences). However, they struggled to acknowledge difficult feelings like guilt, shame and envy, let alone experience or understand their effects on leadership (mostly interpersonal experiences). Jonker (2009) reported on the success of an emotional intelligence development programme for accountants that concentrated on intra and interpersonal growth, which the emotional intelligence instruments (Bar-On-EQi and qualitative diary analysis) measure. The present research on leaders in the financial industry confirmed the intrapersonal but not the interpersonal growth. Contrary to the popular view that positive psychology should not concern itself with difficult and negative feelings (Cilliers & May, 2010), the findings suggested that, whilst leaders could move towards some acknowledgement of these feelings, they experienced relief, insight and connection with themselves and the coach (Cilliers & Terblanche, 2010). With regard to the spiral dynamics leadership values (Beck & Cowan, 2006; Cowan & Todorovic, 2010), the findings confirmed a strong focus on the task and governance (blue) values amongst the leaders at the start of the coaching. They preferred rules, structures, procedure, routines, order and traditional governance. They saw leadership as rewarding duty and punishing failure – as if all in the system were fulfilling their roles without choice. They managed by using positional power in an authoritarian and moralistic manner, communicated along the chain of command and believed in absolute truth and conduct. The researcher interpreted this as an orientation towards power, an avoidance of the feeling components of leadership and an inclination to manage people as financial tasks. It was as if they transferred their ‘shop floor metaphor’ (of balancing books and driving projects) onto their leadership and used simplification as a defence against the complexity of managing people. They rejected the (red) values that represent the use of power and fighting leadership. This showed that they were not accessing their potential for power. This may explain their need ‘to be empowered’ and ‘to empower my team’. The coaching improved their awareness of values outside of their ‘comfort zones’. This was evident when participants started to refer spontaneously to what their colleagues were thinking and feeling (the green value system) and when some of them started to integrate opposites in themselves (the yellow value system); see Beck and Cowan (2006). Towards the end of the coaching programme, many leaders mentioned their thinking or feeling conflict, which they started to see as a leadership paradox, and began to realise that integrating it is a life-long journey. With regard to leadership style, the findings suggested the following. According to the conceptualisation that Rooke and Torbert (2005) offer, the leaders initially functioned using the expert style: managing through logic, expertise and rational efficiency. As a group, the leaders moved towards the achiever style. Its characteristics are that one learns that one achieves goals through teams and that one can manage the expectations and behaviours of followers. Some leaders did show characteristics of the strategist style as they became aware of how personal needs and the needs of the organisation meet in mutual inquiry, vigilance and vulnerability. The researcher found no evidence of the alchemist leadership style. According to the conceptualisation of Goleman, Boyatzis and Mckee (2008), the leaders initially functioned in the coercive (dominant), authoritative (directive and goal-driven) and pacesetting (high standards of performance, number-driven, micromanagement and non-empathetic) styles. As a group, the leaders moved towards the affiliative (increased awareness of people, bonding, alliances and creating harmony) and the democratic (influencing, appreciation of others’ contributions and commitment) styles. The researcher found little evidence of active listening skills, encouragement and linkages between individual needs and the needs of the organisation that the coaching leadership style expects. When the researcher linked these behaviours to emotional intelligence (Goleman et al., 2008), he found that the leaders moved from being commanding (denying feelings through excessive directing) towards being more intra-personally authentic. Conclusions The researcher concluded that the leadership coaching programme: improved the leaders’ intrapersonal awareness made the leaders more aware of their own needs and feelings improved the leaders’ ability to express their needs and feelings more openly than before offered the leaders space to think about and process their own emotional experiences and those of their colleagues improved the leaders’ awareness of their feelings about others, the organisation and leadership as a concept improved the leaders’ awareness of their leadership role in terms of its intellectual, emotional and motivational complexity improved the leaders’ awareness of their own experiences did not equip the leaders sufficiently to enter relationships with colleagues in order to facilitate growth. Recommendations The researcher recommended that: all levels of leaders in the organisation should discuss the findings to assess the future possibilities for coaching the organisation should use the findings as a qualitative diagnosis of the skill levels of leaders the organisation should amend the leadership coaching programme to allow for more interpersonal exploration and skill building. The researcher suggested facilitated discussions and role-plays on attending and responding skills (Carkhuff, 2000; Egan, 1975) as feedback on psychometric methodology. Positive psychology practitioners should realise that just improving leaders’ functioning on the various positive psychology constructs may not be enough to ensure effective leadership. Leaders who are unable to establish meaningful connections with colleagues that facilitate growth are ineffective. Limitations of the research The design and method limited this research. The researcher could have checked the choice of the constructs he included with colleagues and researchers in the field to ensure greater representivity. The coaching contract may have been too short to realise the desired levels of interpersonal learning and skills. It is possible that talk coaching is not enough to build appropriate interpersonal skills. One person was in charge of the coaching and the researching. His subjectivity and bias could have influenced the data and the findings negatively. The researcher suggested that future positive psychology leadership coaching research should focus on conceptualising and operationalising constructs that are specific to leadership. It should explore and explicate the link between the positive psychology constructs and the interpersonal complexities of leadership especially. Maybe when coaches observe leaders in their natural environments for long periods, they could study more of their in vivo behaviour (as this researcher tried to do in the meetings in this study); see Hinshelwood and Skogstad (2005). 1.AlvessonMSköldbergK2010Reflexive methodology2.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(93)90033-Z 3.AntonovskyA1987Unraveling the mystery of health: How people manage stress and stay well4.AntonovskyA1979Health, stress and coping5.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.25172096776.AzarB2011Positive psychology advances, with growing pains42432367.BabbieEMoutonJ2001The practice of social research8.Bar-OnR2010 Emotional intelligence: An integral part of positive psychology40154629.BasseyM1999Case study research in educational settings10.BassonM.JRothmannS2002Sense of coherence, coping and burnout of pharmacists51356211.BeckD.ECowanC.C2006Spiral Dynamics: Mastering Values, Leadership and Change12.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.21720967413.Biswas-DienerR2010Practicing positive psychology coaching: Assessment and strategies for success14.Biswas-DienerRDeanB2007Positive psychology coaching15.BlakeR.RMcCanseA.A1995Leadership dilemmas – grid solutions16.BreedMCilliersFVisserD2006The factor structure of six salutogenic constructs321738517.BrevertonPMillwardL2004Organisational research methods18.BrunningH2006Executive coaching19.BrymanABurgessR.G1999Qualitative research120.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.151139285821.CamicP.MRhodesJ.EYardleyL2003Qualitative research in Psychology22.CampbellDGroenbaekM2006Taking positions in the organisation23.CarkhuffR.R2000The art of helping24.ChapmanLCilliersF2008The integrated experiential executive coaching model: A qualitative exploration321638025.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2010.01231.x26.CilliersF1996Facilitator training in South AfricaR. Hutterer, G. Pawlowsky, P.F. Schmid, & R. Stipsits27.CilliersF2004aA Person-Centered view of diversity in South Africa111–2334728.CilliersF2004bCoaching. A systems Psychodynamic approachSeptember414229.CilliersF2000Facilitation skills for trainers263212630.CilliersFCoetzeeM2010Psychological profile of the young organisational leader: An explorative study31.CilliersFCoetzeeS.C2003The theoretical-empirical fit between three psychological wellness constructs: Sense of coherence, learned resourcefulness and self-actualisation27142432.http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v36i2.91733.http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hsag.v15i1.45734.CilliersFWissingM.P1993Sensitive relationship forming as managerial dimension: The evaluation of a developmental programme19151035.ClarkeSHoggettP2009Research beneath the surface. Psycho-Socail research methods in practice36.CoutuDKaufmanC2009 What can coaches do for you?January919737.CowanCTodorovicN2010The never ending quest: Clare W Graves explores human natureRetrieved November 07, 201038.CreswellJ.W2003Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods39.De HaanEBurgerY2004Coaching with colleagues – An action guide to one-to-one learning40.De VosA.SStrydomHFouchéC.BDelportC.S.L.2002Research at grass roots41.DenzinN.K1989Interpretive biography42.DenzinN.KLincolnY.S2005The Sage handbook of qualitative research43.Du ToitA.SGroblerH.DSchenckC.J1998Person-Centered communication44.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a00189572035002045.EganG1975The skilled helper46.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1065-9293.58.3.17447.FinnFMasonCGriffinM2006Investigating change over time – the effects of executive coaching on leaders’ psychological states and behaviour16–21 July 200148.FredricksonB.L2001The role of positive emotions in positive psychology56321849.GoldsmithMLyonsLFreasA2000Coaching for leadership: How the world’s greatest coaches help leaders learn50.GolemanD1995Emotional intelligence51.GolemanDBoyatzisRMcKeeA2008The new leaders52.GoldsteinK1963The organism a holistic approach to biology derived from pathological data in man53.GrantA.M2007A languishing-flouring model of goal striving and mental health for coaching populations2325026454.ttp://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2003.31.3.25355.GreifS2007Advances in research on coaching outcomes2322224956.2004Coaching and mentoring. How to develop top talent and achieve stronger performance57.HenningEVan RensburgWSmitB2004Finding your way in qualitative research58.HinshelwoodR.DSkogstadW2005Observing organisations59.HollwayWJeffersonT2010Doing qualitative research differently60.HumanL2005Diversity management for business success61.JacksonL.T.B2004Burnout and engagement of teachers in the North West Province62.10.4102/sajhrm.v7i1.18363.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.2.961828427864.KashdanT2009Curious? Discover the missing ingredient to a fulfilling life65.KauffmanC2006Positive psychology. The science at the heart of coaching D. Stober & A.M. Grant66.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11570-00067.LeCompteM.DMillroyW.LPreissleJ1992The handbook of qualitative research in education68.LinleyP.AJosephS2004Positive psychology in practice69.Linley P.AWoolstonL Biswas-DienerR2009Strengths coaching with leaders4170.LinleyP.AHarringtonS2006Strengths coaching: A potential-guided approach to aching psychology11374671.LopezS.JLyubomirskyF.S2008Positive psychology72.LowmanR.L2002The handbook of organisational consulting PsychologySan Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass73.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.2391131525074.MaddiS.RKhoshabaD.M2005Resilience at work. How to succeed no matter what life throws at you75.MaslowA.H1971The farther reaches of human nature76.MaslowA.H1954Motivation and personality77.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.2271131524978.MaxwellJ.A1992Understanding and validity in qualitative research6227929979.McCallM.W2010Recasting leadership development331980.McGovernJLindemannMVergaraMMurphySBarkerLWarrenfeltzR2001Maximizing the impact of executive coaching. Behavioural change, organisational outcomes and return on investment6111081.http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9434.2009.01143.x82.MeyerT.N.ABoninelliI2007Conversations in leadership83.http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02514.x1258111884.http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/24942285.NaudéJ.L.P.RothmannS2006Work-related well-being of emergency workers in South Africa361638186.NelsonEHoganR2009Coaching on the dark side4171787.NohriaNKhuranaR2010Handbook of leadership theory and practice88.OliveroGBaneK.DKopelmanR.E1997Executive coaching as a transfer of training tool: Effects on productivity in a public agency2646146989.OnwuegbuzieA.J.LeechN.L2005The role of sampling in qualitative research1790.OrensteinR.L2007Multidimensional executive coaching91.PeltierB2001The psychology of executive coaching92.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.48.2.7893.PetersonCSeligmanM.E.P2004Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification94.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1061-4087.48.2.7895.http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/0143773031045730296.PlasJ.M1996Person-Centered leadership97.PretoriusL2007Resilience, self-efficacy and burnout of employees in a chemical organisation98.RobsonD2011Measuring value in the coaching relationship10199.RogersC.R1982Freedom to learn for the 80s100.RogersC.R1973Client-centered therapy101.RookeDTorbertW.R2005even transformations of leadershipApril, 1–11102.RosenbaumM1990Learned resourcefulness: On coping skills, self-control and adaptive behaviour103.RothmannS2002Burnout and engagement: a fortigenic perspective104.RothmannSVan RensburgP2002Psychological strengths, coping and suicide ideation in the South African Police Services in the North West province2833949105.RotterJ1966Generalized expectations for internal versus external control of reinforcements801128106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.6811392867107.SchaferR2003Insight and interpretation108.http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.248109. SchepersJ.M1995Die lokus van beheer vraelys: Konstruksie en evaluering van ‘n meetinstrument [The locus of control questionnaire: Construction and evaluation of a measuring instrument]110.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5 11392865111.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.60.5.41016045394112.http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195373585.001.0001113.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.21611315247114.ShostromE.L1976Actualizing Therapy115.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2008.05.00318701104116.SnookS.A2008Love and fear and the modern boss861117.SnyderC.RLopezS.J2009Oxford handbook of positive psychology118.SperryL2004Executive coaching. The essential guide for mental health professionals119.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.3417209678120.StormK.2002Burnout and work engagement of teachers in the South African Police Services121.Stout RostronS2009Business coaching. Wisdom and practice. Unlocking the secrets of business coaching122.StrümpferD.J.W2007Lest we forget that Industrial and organisational psychology is psychology33117123.StrümpferD.J.W2005Standing on the shoulders of giants: Notes on early positive psychology (Psychofortology)3512145124.StrümpferD.J.W1995The origins of health and strength: From ‘salutogenesis’ to ‘fortigenesis’2528189125.StrümpferD.J.W1990Salutogenesis: A new paradigm204265276126.StrümpferD.J.WEiselenR.JMeiringDPhalatseJ.S2010Validating measures of psychological well-being by contrasting samples employees in hazardous and less hazardous work2012332127.Terre BlancheMDurrheimKPainterD2006Research in practice. Applied methods for the social sciences128.Van Der ColffJ.JRothmannS2009Occupational stress, sense of coherence, coping, burnout and work engagement of registered nurses in South Africa35142310129.Van ManenM1990 Researching lived experience130.http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v36i1.890 131WallB2007Coaching for emotional intelligence132.WillBCodringtonG2004Coaching: Perspectives on leadership2075153133.WissingM.P.Van EedenE2002Empirical clarification of the nature of psychological well-being3213244134.WissingM.P Van EedenC1997Psychological well-being: A fortigenic conceptualization and empirical clarification135.WolcottB.L2001Writing up qualitative research136.ZaleznikA1995Managers and leaders. Are they different?702111