The secretary was often the social-performance manager for her boss, reminding him of birthdays, anniversaries and other commemorations, as well as advising him on how to work ‘WJ.th specific members of the organization; she was also a key ”node” in the gossip network of the organization, finding out what was really happening elsewhere in the corporation. Most importantly, the secretary served as the “heart” to complement the rational and non-emotional attitude (“head”) of her boss–much as the traditional wife served as heart and social anchor for the family. Osherson (1986) suggests that under these conditions the husband becomes a disengaged and “wounded” member of the family.
To what extent has the professional coach taken over the role of secretary and even surrogate wife/spouse, providing guidance for a client as he or she navigates the treacherous waters of corporate life? How many coaching clients (especially male clients) look to their coach (especially female coaches) for the “heart” (emotional intelligence) that they lack or that they have never developed given the dominant “technical-rational” (Schon, 1983) climate of contemporary organizations? Has coaching emerged as a viable form of human service to replace the role once played by the secretary? Robert Bellah and his colleagues (Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, Swidler, & Tipton, 1985) have suggested that the psychotherapist has taken over the role of priest and the confessional booth in contemporary America. Has the coach similarly replaced the socially-sensitive secretary–or perhaps has become a combination of socially-sensitive secretary and confessional priest? What role should Natalie play? As a woman, should she be particularly sensitive to the expectation that John may hold regarding the problems he is experiencing in working with his subordinates? Does he want her to become his heart – and how might Marnie feel if John begins to rely on Natalie for advice about how to work with other people (perhaps including his wife and friends)?
The dialogue between Natalie and John might go something like this if Natalie doesn’t intend to fall into the male/female role trap (another form of “role suction”):
John: What do you think I should do about Stanley? He is constantly coming to me with his problems . . . always about not being able to get along with the “dynamic duo” (Beverly and Ted).
Natalie: Rather than offering you some advice . . . let me ask you about how you have successfully dealt with this issue in the past. Didn’t you tell me last month that you were able to redirect Stanley back to the “dynamic duo” and suggested ways in which he could manage their outbursts during meetings? Couldn’t this same strategy be used in this instance?
In this instance, Natalie made use of an appreciative approach in her coaching, encouraging John to identify strategies that he had already employed in his interpersonal relationships. Rather than becoming John’s “heart,” Natalie helped him identify his own “heart.” as John’s coach, Natalie effectively integrated head and heart when she encouraged John to “appreciate” his own emotional intelligence that had been acquired during many years of management and leadership.
Download Article 1K Club
