Coaching the ‘Ideal Self’ for Sustained Positive Change: A Realistic Approach Backed By Research

To get where you want to be from where you are...

​If you also aspire to continue expanding your perspectives, enriching your coaching practice with eclectic theories and methodologies, perhaps you too will be inspired by recent research into organizational behavior by Anthony Jack, Angela Passarelli and Richard Boyatzis (2023).

Jack, Passarelli, and Boyatzis (2023) put forward a coaching process of intentional change that could be summarized as such: to get where you want to be from where you are, rather than to get from where you are to where you want to be…

Here is a presentation of their perspective on coaching for sustained change and its potential implications for coaching within organizations.

Coaching the “ideal self” for intentional change

As professional coaches, we are committed to supporting the development of valued corporate executives and our role in such interventions is to encourage self-directed learning and perseverance in professional development efforts, resulting in sustained positive change.

To further strengthen the impact of our practice, Jack, Passarelli and Boyatzis (2023) offer structured and practical suggestions backed by research and field-experience. They expand specifically our understanding of the influence of various possible selves that inhabit our “inner theater” on sustained change and development.

Jack, Passarelli and Boyatzis (2023) remind us that enhanced self-knowledge has shown to be critical to intentional change, but also that self-knowledge is challenging because there is inherent internal conflict between different aspects of the self. To foster impactful coaching, they suggest deliberate sequencing of the coachee’s exploration of various aspects of their self.

Four distinct aspects of self are considered, which may be briefly defined as follows:

· Real self: the individual as they are presently showing up, including both strengths and weaknesses.

· Ideal self: the individual as they most desire to be, with their strengths fully realized and their weakness minimized.

· Accepted self: aspects of the self that the individual embraces and accepts.

· Ought self: aspects of the self, often externally imposed, that the individual judges and rejects.

Early in the coaching engagement, Jack, Passarelli, and Boyatzis (2023) recommend to focus the client’s attention on fostering the acceptance of an aspirational “ideal self”, rather than focusing on their current “real self” (their immediate goals or problems). Since the inherent conflict between “real” and “ought” aspects of the self can inhibit the exploration of new perspectives, an initial focus on the “ideal self” seems to have more impact in stimulating the emergence of new solutions for behavior change.

To foster change, the “ideal self” is later contrasted to a more current “real self”, approached as being in service of the “ideal self”. Sustained development occurs as individuals begin to adopt new behaviors to approach their “ideal self” or reduce the discrepancy between an “ideal self” and “real self”.

Why coaching to the “ideal self” can be effective to foster change and development?

According to Jack, Passarelli, and Boyatzis’ research (2023), focusing a coachee’s attention on their immediate goals or problems early in the coaching engagement may inhibit consideration of their “bigger picture” — the personal vision, dream and sense of purpose associated with their “ideal self”. It seems therefore more effective to coach first to the “ideal self” to help an individual engage in new meaningful goals.

A second reason why it seems more effective to address first the “ideal self”, rather than the “real self”, has to do with positive versus negative emotion.

Because of a natural proclivity toward negative or threating information over positive information, exploration of the “real self” tends to lead coachees to focus on their deficits, stories of short-comings, and the need to comply with social expectations, pressures, and controls (their “ought self”). In contrast, when the “ideal self” is activated early in the coaching process, it is accompanied by affirming thoughts, a connection to that which is deeply meaningful, and a sense of optimism and self-efficacy that correspond to an increase in positive emotions that support the developmental process in a host of ways, and even fleeting experiences of positive emotions, such as joy, interest, contentment, and love, build an individual’s resources to respond effectively to more negative emotional experiences.

Positive affective states broaden our perceptions through an enhanced ability to see interconnections between disparate concepts, more inclusive cognitive categories, and enhanced memory and creativity. Positive emotions also facilitate persistence in learning, contribute to building social bonds, and increase the likelihood of cooperation and reciprocity. Finally, positive emotions can serve as a buffer to chronic stress, providing support for behavioral, cognitive, and biological coping mechanisms.

A third reason to coach first and foremost to the “ideal self” is linked to the fact that it evokes intrinsic motivation — the only type of motivation that remains sustained without constant external reinforcement -, helping coachees fulfill the three key psychological needs of autonomy, relatedness, and competence.

A fourth and final reason to value an initial focus on the “ideal self” relates to the distinction between promotion and prevention motivation. Promotion focused motivation is concerned with accomplishments, hopes, and aspirations, whereas prevention focused motivation is concerned with security, protection and prevention of negative outcomes. When people perceive a correspondence between the orientation towards a goal and the means used to approach it, this stimulates a feeling of “rightness” and commitment increases. Since coaching is a personal development activity, it fits promotion focus better than prevention focus. When we encourage individuals to focus on the “ideal self” they tend to feel greater motivation and engagement in the change process.

Not a coaching approach focused on fixing problems

The coaching process of intentional change described by Jack, Passarelli, and Boyatzis (2023) and focused predominantly on the “ideal self” involves five discoveries and can be summarized as follow: (1) articulation of the “ideal self”, (2) increased awareness of the “real self”, (3) setting a learning agenda to move toward one’s “ideal self”, (4) implementing the learning agenda through deliberate action, and (5) leveraging supportive relationships for one’s change efforts.

Let’s note, that the first step is particularly important since it increases the salience and clarity of the “ideal” and “accepted self”. This provides a powerful motivational anchor and gives coachees a basis for generating their own goals rather than following external expectations (their “ought self”).

It’s also worth pointing out that while focusing primarily on the “ideal self” rather than the “real self” certainly resonates well with solution-focused coaches and practitioners inspired by Carl Roger’s work, it differs significantly from some mainstream coaching methodologies that advocate collaborative goal setting, encouraging clients to focus on fixing performance deficits and problematic behaviors (aspects of the “real self”). Drawing strongly on the medical model of diagnosis and “cure” or treatment, the problem-fixing orientation, derived from traditional cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), tends to focus (exclusively) on identifying then fixing problematic behaviors and thoughts.

Potential implications for coaching interventions within organizations

As executive coaches, it may seem worth considering the advantage of starting some coaching engagements by focusing on the “ideal self” rather than allowing externally imposed needs and objectives to shape consideration of the “real self”.

The exploration of the “ideal self” should then be used to frame subsequent conversations about the “real self”, leveraging empathic listening, focusing on developing the individual’s strengths rather than fixing their weaknesses.

According to Jack, Passarelli, and Boyatzis’ findings (2023), this strategy seems more impactful to foster increased acceptance of the “real self” than focusing directly on the “real self”, while also minimizing resistance and denial, and helping coachees effectively process feedback.

Individuals whose “ideal self” is salient appear to be better able to scan the broad environment and perceive emerging themes. They experience more positive emotion, are more open to new ideas, and possess more sustained intrinsic motivation.

If Jack, Passarelli, and Boyatzis’ current findings (2023) are further confirmed by research and empirical experience, it could have implications for the way coaching interventions are designed and framed within organizations. Organizations would benefit to be made aware of the likely costs of imposing organizational goals on the coaching process. Coaches would indeed have greater success at engendering the positive change sought by organizations by accepting that the coaching process is framed in terms of the individual’s personal vision of an ideal future, rather than framing the coaching process in terms of presenting problems.

Synthesis

One of the biggest challenges to developing a clear path to one’s improvement and development (the vision of one’s “ideal self”) are the multiple “ought selves” that others have imposed upon us and that we have internalized. Much as coachees may seek to conform to externally imposed expectations, activating the “ought self” tends to trigger unconscious resistance or willfulness.

It is precisely because limiting thoughts associated with the inherent conflict between “real” and “ought” aspects of the self are so readily available to us that the coaching approach put forward by Jack, Passarelli, and Boyatzis (2023) emphasizes the critical importance of a sustained and uncontaminated focus on the “ideal self” at the beginning of coaching engagements. This enables coachees to free themselves from certain ideas and attitudes of others and that they have consciously and unconsciously adopted, to identify a more personal path defined by their values and aspirations.

Not only does a focus on the “ideal self” may help foster an increased attitude of acceptance toward the “real self”, but it also produces greater sustained motivation to change by fostering intrinsic motivation. And the more we accept ourselves as we are, the more open we become to change.

Reference
Jack, A.I., Passarelli, A.M. and Boyatzis, R.E. (2023). When fixing problems kills personal development: fMRI reveals conflict between real and Ideal selves. Front. Hum. Neurosci. 17:1128209.