How to tell if someone should NOT be your coach

Unhappy male coachee listening to an executive coach give advice. Frustrated client holding a hand to his face.

Coaching has become very popular as organizations face an increasing need for individuals (or groups) to learn and grow more substantially and quickly than ever. Based on favorable if scarce evidence supporting the effectiveness of coaching not presented here, coaching should be given serious consideration as a key component of any organization’s talent management strategy. But, as is the case with anything powerful, you have to be careful with coaching engagements, or you can get hurt – badly. Because there is no "one best way" to coaching, there’s considerable risk of engaging the wrong person as a coach. And I'll be the first to say you can’t judge a coach by their title (or solely based on published credentials). The best of well-intended sponsors/buyers/users of coaching services are at risk of making a mistake before the coach even gets started. Here, I share some of the key ways for you to know when someone should NOT be your coach.

  1. They overlook ethical matters. This may seem obvious, but it’s much more complicated -- and risky -- than most think. Ethical issues abound in any situation where personal assessments are made, but they’re especially prevalent in coaching. Key questions must be addressed: What’s in-bounds/out-of-bounds? How will data be collected and shared? What happens next?

Coaching is extraordinarily powerful with rightfully high expectations since it isn’t cheap. There’s a lot of pressure that can lead to shortcuts or, kindly put, bad judgment. But individual and organizational “lives” are at stake. You need to engage someone well-versed in the substantial ethical issues that are a part of all coaching engagements – however formal.

  1. They get the role wrong. An executive coach is NOT;

a. Colleague – Your coach (by “your coach,” I mean the coach you engage) may be someone from within your organization, but they shouldn’t work directly with the coachee. It’s hard for a coachee to confide in someone that’s already close enough to have preconceptions or may affect the coachee’s fate “back on the job.” Using a colleague as coach has its place, but I advise against it for the majority of situations. A number of bad outcomes can occur for both coach and coachee when the two already work together.

b. Vendor – Assessment tools, for example, are a big part of coaching. Your coach shouldn’t be indefensibly partial about what assessments or other “coachware” they use. There’s more than one personality test, believe me. Check twice if the coach markets their tools exclusively. You want someone who knows a range of tools and how they work (i.e., their psychometrics).

c. TrainerCorporate trainers are specifically skilled at building and transferring new skills. While this may be a part of what an effective coach does, it’s rarely the “main course.” The coaching context simply isn’t right for a blog-standard training approach. For example, coaches build closer (i.e., deeper trusting) relationships based on coachee-centered discourse and need. (But note mistake 2d, immediately below)

d. Friend – Your coach isn’t meant to be or become the coachee’s friend, but this is a significant risk in with considerable “gray area.” A coach is expected to be friendly (i.e., “nice”), in fact this is key to building a trusting relationship, but boundaries MUST BE established and maintained between the two. Beyond the professional conflict that can arise when coach and coachee become close friends, the potential exists for much more serious ethical conflicts with life-changing psychological and legal consequences. Because of the highly sensitive interpersonal dynamic that emerges when self-disclosure to an authority figure is involved, the stage is set for transference. This is a catastrophic – about as bad as it gets. Any inappropriate relations must be managed swiftly and surely. If there’s any suspicion that an inappropriate relationship is forming, you should end the coaching engagement. Immediately! Full stop. This is no time to be bashful. {Respecting all caution, it is okay, even expected, for your coach to use friendly behavior. But they must not cross ethical boundaries that are much more critical for a coach than they are for others, e.g., a colleague (but they are important here, too.}

e. Boss – Again, bosses (possibly, you) aren’t excluded from coaching, they’re actually expected to coach. But bosses need to “stay in their lane.” In all likelihood the boss has had a role in the calling for the need of a coach in the first place. Boss’ never get the same story that an outsider can. I hope the reasons are obvious.

f. Short-order cook – Your coach shouldn’t be overly concerned with accommodating the coachee’s every need. Here again, the temptation of the coach is to give what is asked for, after all, that’s service, right? Wrong. What a coachee wants isn’t always what they need, in fact it’s exceptional when it is. A good coach knows when to accommodate, when to resist and when to suggest otherwise. They must maintain control of the relationship.

g. Subject matter expert (SME) – A coach is not an expert in the specific, technical/functional aspects of the coachee’s current or future job. That’s what a mentor is, and the skillsets are very different. Mentors impart organizational wisdom and job-related instruction. Coaches work with the coachee to evoke more general insights and lay plans for action and follow-up.

h. Messenger – This is a BIG one. (and shouldn't be 'h') It’s imperative that the coach not only be able to make an accurate assessment, they must be permitted to do so. Using a coach to provide feedback is cowardly and ineffective. On a personally relevant note, coaching as a profession and trade is tainted by this unsavory tactic. Don’t do this. At minimum, it will destroy trust.

  1. They didn’t adequately address objectivity.

A common challenge when engaging a coach is insuring objectivity. A good coach can’t be influenced by demands, information or circumstances. Being objective isn’t necessarily about having unrelated, or no prior involvement with the coaching party (i.e., coachee, sponsor, others involved) – it’s about being able to set aside circumstantial information when necessary for the good of a professional engagement. It’s being a trusted expert.

Beyond being objective, the coach must be perceived as objective. As I’ve mentioned, it isn’t impossible, but it is rare, to find a coach- and role-appropriate level of objectivity when considering internal coaches. But internal coaches frequently have too much history with the coachee for to be adequately insulated from the organization’s dynamics. The type of relationship an internal coach builds is almost always different from that of an external coach; the reason is objectivity.

When I have worked as an internal consultant, I’ve never taken on the role of executive coach – with one exception. That was a job in which I practically worked as an outside consultant and had no exposure to the coachee. The likelihood of a conflict of interest jeopardizing objectivity is especially risky for folks in HR. You can’t expect a coachee to share their deepest work-related concerns when they know, or think, that their “confidante” is about to run off and determine their pay. Even though conflicts are a risk for external coaches, handling deeply sensitive and personal discussions is one of the main tasks of the coach and vital to building trust.

{Oftentimes a coach does have a say in the coachee’s fate. In these cases, it’s imperative to respect boundaries and to have a comprehensive coaching agreement in place. The coachee needs to know and formally agree what they’re getting into.}

  1. They didn’t engage an expert in coaching. Coaching requires a plethora of specialized skills. SOME of these include:

This is just a partial list and doctoral degrees are conferred for each of these requirements. Every coaching engagement is unique and requires the coach to adapt in ways that optimize the engagement. True experts are more than a “one horse show” and can adjust seamlessly and effectively.

All of these mistakes need to be avoided in order for a professional and trusted coach-coachee engagement to exist. Without any one of these, it may be more than a professional lapse of judgment - you could have a real crisis on your hands.

...Thought you should know…

Psychways is owned and produced by Talentlift, LLC.

Personality disorders at work: When you see this person coming, run

Business man with hand extended to the viewer

Personality Disorders at Work

Nearly everyone I encounter when I have my I/O psychology hat on claims to know somebody at work with a personality disorder. “My boss is Narcissistic and OCD.” Or, “I can’t even ‘borrow’ her computer, she’s so Paranoid.” C’mon. Right? (there’s something about that word, “right” that’s beginning to bug me in today’s lingo) Can everyone possibly know someone – at work – that’s crazy?

They probably do. Really. (I bet that surprised you.)

But I don’t mean they’re right regarding the arm-chair clinical diagnosis they usually share with me in hope that I’ll “fix” the deranged individual. Most just happen to be right in a statistical sense that I’ll explain in a sec.

Time Out: I AM NOT A CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST. I do not specifically diagnose or treat mental illness in my capacity as an I/O professional. Neither does any other I/O psychologist that doesn’t also have a PhD in clinical psychology. But I do deal with it – probably more effectively than the average person. “Psychological types” is really a misnomer because all expressions of psychology operate within a range, not at discrete points. And so do clinical disorders. Experts in psychology know how to work with a range of “types.”

Almost all of these amateur psychologists are wrong regarding their “remarkably precise” assessments. The person they work with that they think should be “taken away” probably does NOT have a clinical condition personality disorder. And if they do, the assessor frequently misdiagnoses the given disorder.

Breaking News: “Schizo” does not actually mean split personality and “Psychopath” is no longer used as a formal diagnosis for a personality disorder anymore. My advice, stay in your lane.

Where they’re right is in recognizing and calling out dysfunction at work, just not the specifically dysfunctional.

This doesn’t mean that there aren’t any clinically affected people at work.

There are.

It doesn’t mean that they (and you) needn’t fear the behavior of some nefarious colleague.

You should.

Prevalence of Personality Disorders at Work

over 4% of people have a personality disorder

Data: A Serious Mental Illness (SMI) is one whereby an individual’s behavior is disruptive to the point of interfering with a significant life activity. Based on findings from a 2016 national survey, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) reports that about 4.2% of US adults suffer from SMIs. Yes, over 4% of people have a personality disorder. (The estimate includes all forms of mental illness beyond personality disorders, but personality disorders are much more prevalent than the rest.) This is higher than the January 2019 unemployment figure of 3.9% (and that was up .2% versus the previous month).

Do the math.

Dangerous Types at Work

Most instances of mental illness at work are not the kind that others need to fear for their safety – especially the personality disorders at work. But this isn’t always the case in an environment where legitimate power by authority is the norm. Here the individual with an SMI can do harm to others – especially, but not exclusively, to direct reports.

There is one clinical personality type (I use, “type” but this type is exclusively a disorder) that should be feared, not for physical safety but for psychological safety. When you see this type of person at work, RUN. These are the folks that can hurt you. These are people of the dark triad type.

The Dark Triad

This “type” is actually a combination of several personality disorders, or traits (“traits” are the behavioral form of “type” and these become “disorders” when they become SMIs.) For this reason, it’s called, “The Dark Triad.” And it’s THE most dangerous of all personality disorders at work.

The three personality disorders that comprise the dark triad include Narcissism, Antisocial, and Borderline. (The original conceptualization of the dark triad specified “Machiavellianism.” Other than Antisocial, “Borderline” is the next closest – but not equivalent – type by conversion of Machiavellianism to the new terminology.)

Here I provide a brief summary of the corresponding behaviors typical of each of the three disorders:

Narcissistic Personality Disorder – Extraordinarily self-confident; grandiosity and entitlement; preoccupation with self; over-estimation of capabilities

Antisocial Personality Disorder – Enjoy taking risks and testing limits; manipulative; deceitful, cunning, and exploitative; disrespectful of people and normative values

Borderline Personality Disorder – Moody; intense but short-lived enthusiasm for people, projects, and things; instability in relationships; hard to please

Essentially, the dark triad individual is self-absorbed, malevolent, and callous. You don’t want to bunk with this person on your team building adventure.

The especially insidious thing about this disorder is attributable to two facets:

  1. Appeal. People with the “dark triad” traits are especially cunning, colorful, charismatic …. And deceitful. They are not only incredibly difficult to identify for their pathological behavior, they’re actually quite charming – on the surface. Even they have themselves convinced that they’re extraordinarily good people. Don’t buy it.
  2. Leadership Potential. Some elements of the dark triad are in fact predictive of leadership. (Guess which ones?) Narcissists tend to rise to high levels in the organization on their own coattails. The intensely enthusiastic traits of the Borderline personality, even if episodic, provide the reinforcing motivation of compliments and appreciation others are comfortable promoting.

And the dark triad is especially hard to assess. On personality tests, these types present themselves as being inclined toward leadership roles, outgoing, conscientious and likeable — all the characteristics that typically predict a high potential leader. I’ve written about how personality tests don’t tell the whole story. Well, the dark triad type comes from one of those books.

people who exhibit dark triad behaviors are attractive

This is a wolf in sheep’s clothing if ever there was one. What makes these features so dangerous is that people who exhibit dark triad behaviors are attractive (they get more dates) and ascendant (they get more promotions).

In terms of risk of impact – it’s high. If you work for someone like this you will be the primary target of attack. It’s important to watch yourself and them. They can do things that are highly disruptive while gliding along the lake like a swan, only you get kicked with their webbed feet (with talons).

Taken separately, each of the three components of the dark triad can deliver a real blow to the self and others’ psychological well-being. However, the antisocial component is undoubtedly the most dangerous of the three.

They don’t just not care about you, they want to hurt you.

People with antisocial personality disorder have a history of delinquency, whether they got caught or not. They push limits over the line not because it will offer them any actual advantage – they simply HAVE to feed an insatiable need to disrupt others. They don’t just not care about you, they want to hurt you. If this is the predominant trait you see in someone – duck and cover (not sustainable) or jump and run (also has its downsides, but generally better than hanging around).

Dealing with the Dark Triad

People with the dysfunctional types of the dark triad can’t be fixed. Even with intensive therapy the recidivism is very high where there is not a co-dependence (i.e., addiction) driving the condition. So, when you see these people coming, you need to take the wheel of your “magic bus” or, be thrown under it.

Here are some tips that may help you to deal better with a person with these co-morbid character traits:

  1. Know the enemy. Identify or validate your suspicious character carefully. There are some known flaws in their game. They tend to lie a lot — and well. Listen for evidence of contradiction or rewriting their past. One of their biggest lies is covering their tracks. They rarely keep a job for longer than 18 months but have excellent “reasons” for why they resigned – most having to do with the former employer’s unethical behavior.
  2. Be sure to include an assessment for the dark triad in your selection and recruitment systems. This assessment needs to be thorough. Simple testing or interviewing will reveal a star that knows how to interview and has plenty of impressive work experience because they’ve been fired so many times. An expert helps here. You do NOT want to hire or promote them. This is a clear case where character counts more than expertise.
  3. Avoid letting them get hyper-angry. Never fight back (especially if it’s your boss). Don’t talk when they’re ranting. Just let the bluster blow itself out. (They like hearing themselves anyway). You’ll have a better chance with them tomorrow – or even later that day. Their attitude can change with the weather.
  4. Feed their need for adoration. As cunning as they are, narcissists can’t resist the Siren’s songs of praise. This tactic can defuse an otherwise explosive situation and give you time to execute your exit strategy.
  5. Protect your actions and behaviors. These liars will stop at nothing to serve themselves and deny others. Keep a third person around to serve as a witness and confidant. Take notes of any/all interactions. Do nothing you wouldn’t do on trial.

If you know how they operate, you can best control, or at least influence, how they behave. But be warned, the Dark Triad is notoriously difficult to outsmart – especially with trickery. They know a thing or two about being manipulative and tend to think others act this way, too. They’re generally a bit on the paranoid side looking out for the types of things they would do to others. A defensive posture in attitude and behavior is the best default strategy.

Now that you’re adequately scared, I’ll remind you that all personality types, including personality disorders at work, exist in degree. I’ve painted an especially dark case to make my point. Most are not this extreme. A sophisticated and level-headed style of communication will help to keep things civil with less explosive outbursts, threats, lies, etc.

Remember, all humans are animals. Some are brutal sluggers. Don’t fight a slugger with your fists.

Psychways is owned and produced by Talentlift, LLC.