Should coaches consider the intimacy created in the coaching relationship and its impact, asks Lis Merrick of the Coaching and Mentoring Research Unit at Sheffield Business School

The concept of intimacy is so often tainted with sexual overtones that the coaching profession tends to shun discussion of it or shuffle with uncomfortableness when it is mentioned.

Intimacy at work has been well researched by Ridley-Duff1. He links intimacy to the idea of detailed knowledge about something or someone: “Intimacy develops when two people seek to give each other both attention and assistance. In giving and getting attention, they seek opportunities to increase levels of access and information. As the amounts increase, emotional changes occur.”

So what is intimacy in coaching and mentoring? Are we considering the “bond” as outlined in psychotheraphy by Bachelor and Horvath, and Bordin, Horvath and Bedi as quoted in Norcross and Goldfried2?

A core ingredient of the therapeutic alliance as identified in the research literature is this emotional bond between the therapist and client which keeps them engaged in the treatment.

Or, as described in mentoring literature, is it about the substantial emotional commitment by both parties, which leads to an intense interpersonal relationship as researched by Bowen3 and Clawson and Kram4, who confirm that often the coach who is able to get closer to their clients has a greater effect on their learning, but that increasing levels of intimacy cause tension and anxiety for both men and women. They believe mutual trust and respect develop the intimacy and make the relationship more effective but feel that achieving an appropriate level of intimacy is not easy and needs managing. Burke, McKeen and McKenna5 suggest that managing a level of intimacy that is developmentally productive in the relationship is key. Brown6 also refers to this “productive level of intimacy”.

Productive intimacy

Lobel, Quinn, St. Clair and Warfield7 consider the factors inducing psychological intimacy to include a deep emotional bond, mutual interest and respect and a willingness to devote time and energy to another person. This creates communication which takes place in deep, rich ways and involves a high level of self-disclosure and a sense of trust.

Some of the questions I am exploring with coaches and mentors are:

  • The qualities of the coach/mentor that benefit the forming of intimacy in the coaching/mentoring relationship.
  • The spontaneous qualities that develop in the relationship and create closeness between the coach/mentor and learner.
  • The dynamic spectrum of intimacy that mentoring/coaching relationships can move along.
  • The helpfulness, or not, of intimacy in the relationship, to the learner, the relationship process and the relationship outcomes.

What my research seeks to do is take the lid off some of the suppression and embarassment around this subject and then bring a direct and fresh look at this fascinating topic of mental closeness within a learning relationship.

If you are interested in becoming part of this research, please contact me: E.M.Merrick@shu.ac.uk

References

  1. R Ridley-Duff, Emotion, Seduction and Intimacy: Alternative Perspectives on Organisation Behaviour, Men’s Hour Books, 2007.
  2. J C Norcross and M R Goldfried, Handbook of Psychotherapy Integration, Oxford University Press USA, 2003.
  3. D D Bowen, “Were Men meant to mentor Women?”, in Training and Development Journal, 39, pp30-34, February 1993.
  4. J G Clawson and K E Kram, “Managing cross-gender mentoring”, in Business Horizons, May-June, pp22-32, 1984.
  5. R J Burke, C A McKeen and C S McKenna, “Sex, differences and cross-sex effects on mentoring: some preliminary data”, in Psychological Reports, 67, pp1,011-23, 1990.
  6. C Damken Brown, “Male/female mentoring: turning potential risks into rewards”, in IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication,36 (4), December 1993.
  7. S A Lobel, R E Quinn, L St. Clair and A Warfield, “Love without sex: the impact of psychological between men and women at work”, in Organizational Dynamics, 23 (1) pp5-16, 1994.


Coaching at Work, Volume 5, Issue 5