Alfred Adler and the Future of Coaching: Ethics, Equality, and Eternity

Recent world events have revealed a conflict between the belief that everyone is equally worthy and the belief that only some are worthy and the rest are dispensable. We support the right of everyone to live free of oppression and deprivation. What we want for ourselves, we want for all. (https://www.adler.ca/)

However, challenging inequality requires action, not just declarations, as required by a broader interpretation of the superordinate principle of social interest. Ansbacher (1991/1968) suggests that, in addition to the subjective side of social interest, or feeling empathy for the concerns of others, there is also a pragmatic element: “Thus more important than a mere interest in the interests of others would be corresponding actions – the processes of cooperation with and contribution to others.” (p. 39) This is also echoed in coaching’s emphasis on action and accountability (see ICF competency 11, https://coachfederation.org/app/uploads/2017/12/CoreCompetencies.pdf). Adler’s emphasis on trusting concrete action was phrased by Adlerian Dan Eckstein (1947-2013) as, “Believe the tongue in the shoe, not the tongue in the mouth” (personal communication, 2010).

Co-author Page coached a CEO who had hired a curriculum expert to design and lead diversity training for the organization’s staff. The expert, whom we will call Peter, had an outstanding research background on topics of diversity and inclusion and came with glowing reviews from academic supervisors. The CEO was impressed with the program Peter proposed. However, it became apparent during implementation that Peter did not put into practice the principles that he espoused in theory. Although he was respectful to the CEO and senior management, he was rude and dismissive toward anyone with less authority or in an “inferior” position, unless they were willing to serve him. The resulting atmosphere among staff and faculty became anything but collaborative. Adler’s focus on action, or “movement,” helped the CEO clarify how the disjuncture between Peter’s espoused and his enacted principles contributed to the poisonous atmosphere in the organization. Despite being offered opportunities for coaching, Peter was unwilling to make the necessary changes and was fired.