A second form of anticipation relates to feelings. Once again, the theory of mind can be applied. This theory now applies to our client’s psychosocial template:
I anticipate that Kevin would feel this way, because this is how I think most people would act/react. I softened by approach to him because I anticipated that he would feel quite hurt by what I have to say.
Our client’s psychosocial template includes an assumption that people are “hurt” by any critical comment made about them.
The third common type of anticipatory assumption concerns past history. This person acted or reacted in a certain way in the past. They can be expected to act or react in a similar manner now and in the future. This third assumption resides in something I will soon address more fully. This is the theory of attribution. We are inclined to attribute the behavior of other people (but not our own behavior) to some underlying and unchanging personality trait. “They have always behaved in this manner and always will. Their actions are firmly embedded in their fundamental character.” This third assumption may be played out in the following way by a coaching client:
Geraldine is someone who is always angry about something. I anticipate that she will express anger about the proposal I am about to make. I must prepare for her forceful, negative response.
The concept of self-fulfilling prophecy is relevant here. If my client assumes Geraldine will respond in an angry manner and prepare himself for a negative encounter, then he is likely to act in a defensive and guarded manner. This may provoke Geraldine, encouraging her to question what is really going on and what is not being said. Geraldine might indeed express anger, but it is not regarding what has been said; instead, it is about what has not been said. A vicious circle has been created: anticipation of anger leads to defensiveness, which leads to actual expression of anger, which leads to further defensiveness, etc.
Given these three anticipatory dynamics that are revealed by asking the fundamental coaching question (Why?), what might be ways in which a coach can help their client move beyond potential behavioral traps associated with inaccurate and often self-fulfilling anticipations? I offer two strategies. One is based on the action science of Chris Argyris and Don Schön. The other coaching strategy is based on the model of self-efficacy presented by Albert Bandura.
Polystasis and Action Science
The dynamics just described concerning anticipatory dynamics was insightfully described by Chris Argyris and Don Schön (1974) in their collaborative work on the relationship between the theory that we espouse and the theory that we actually engage (theory-in-use). Reframed from the perspective of Polystasis, we can propose that what we anticipate is informed not by some psychosocial template that we can readily articulate; instead, it is informed by (even governed by) a psychosocial template that is often not one we can easily identify—or perhaps not one we are comfortable acknowledging. Our espoused psychosocial template might contain stated beliefs in remaining open-minded about other people whom we don’t quite trust or even like. Our psychosocial template-in-use, on the other hand, might filled with assumptions about how “this kind of person” operates on a different set of principles than we do or that anyone we don’t trust should never have access to our true feelings.
For Argyris and Schön, the key to working effectively with other people resided in the engagement of a process first identified as “action research” by Kurt Lewin. Building on the work done by Don Schön (1983) on reflective practice as well as Kurt Lewin’s work, Chris Argyris (1985) described a process of taking action in the world (experimentation) and reflecting on what is to be learned from this action. Re-labeled “action science, the guiding principle was to learn from one’s involvement in the real world rather than relying on what one has read in a book or been told by other people.
Download Article
