HoganEtAl_Coaching on the Dark Side

International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2009 7© The British Psychological Society – ISSN: 1750-2764

ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVID-UALS seek executive coaching toenhance the effectiveness of leaders

and, by extension, to improve the perform-ance of organizations. Depending upontheir own theoretical orientation and thecontext in which coaching takes place, prac-titioners can offer interventions rangingfrom strengths-based to solution-focused tonarrative to developmental coaching (seeCavanagh, Grant & Kemp, 2005; Peltier,2001; Stober & Grant, 2006; for excellentsummaries of the range of strategies avail-able to executive coaches). Coaching is arelatively young field. As a result, somesuggest that the rationale for executivecoaching is poorly specified and thatcoaching lacks a cohesive conceptual foun-dation and firm research base to guidepractice (Barner & Higgins, 2007; Berman &Bradt, 2006; Feldman & Lankau, 2005;Kilburg, 1996; MacKie, 2007; Passmore,2007; Passmore & Gibbes, 2007). Still, Grant(2005) documents the exponential increasein scholarly papers devoted to executivecoaching in recent years. The outcome datacollected to date reveal that coaching gener-ally does help executives become more effec-tive leaders (Dagley, 2006; Kampa-Kokesch &Anderson, 2001) and can offer a substantialreturn on an organization’s investment inthe coaching effort (McGovern et al., 2001).

All coaches assess those with whom theywork. At times, assessment is primarily

impressionistic, based on interviews with theexecutive and others in his or her work envi-ronment (peers, superiors, etc.). Filteredthrough the coach’s expertise, and adaptedto the context in which coaching occurs,these impressions form the basis for thecoaching relationship and its goals. Struc-tured assessment (e.g. through personalitytesting, 360-degree feedback, etc.) offers amore systematic strategy for identifying aleader’s strengths and developmental oppor-tunities (cf. Cronbach, 1960). Standardizedmeasures are becoming more widely used incoaching (Alworth & Griffin, 2005; Pass-more, 2008), and we believe that psycho-metrically sound, well validated measurescan enhance and accelerate the coachingprocess.

Assessment in executive coaching is notmerely an intellectual exercise; rather, validassessment will provide the coach usefulinformation on which an intervention canbe based. Personality characteristics predictleadership effectiveness and, by extension,organizational outcomes. In this paper wereview briefly the literature linking person-ality to occupational performance, focusingon characteristics that can degrade executiveeffectiveness – the ‘dark side’ of personality(R. Hogan & Hogan, 2001). These aredysfunctional interpersonal and self-regula-tory patterns that interfere with the leader’scapacity to build and maintain high-performing teams. Awareness of these ‘dark

Coaching on the Dark SideEric Nelson & Robert Hogan

Dysfunctional personality characteristics can derail the career of an otherwise competent executive.Personality predicts both leadership effectiveness and derailment, and assessment of these characteristics iscritical for effective coaching and leader development. This paper reviews the relationship betweenpersonality and leadership and offers a taxonomy of flawed interpersonal strategies that can degrade aleader’s capacity to build and maintain high-performing teams. Assessment of these dysfunctionaldispositions facilitates the coach’s ability to build an effective coaching relationship, enhance the executive’sstrategic self-awareness, and identify appropriate targets and strategies for intervention.

Keywords: Executive coaching, leaders, leadership, personality, derailers, dark side.

Eric Nelson & Robert Hogan

8 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2009

side’ tendencies, and the underlying ‘mentalmodels’ with which they are associated,allows the coach to design interventions thatwill mitigate their impact on leadership and,indeed, on the coaching relationship itself.

Personality and LeadershipCompetent leaders build and maintain effec-tive teams that compete successfully withothers (R. Hogan, Curphy & Hogan, 1994).Research indicates that effective leadersunderstand their subordinates’ needs, abili-ties, and aspirations, and can persuade themto share the leader’s vision for the organiza-tion as a whole. This is, of course, the essenceof the ‘transformational’ leadership style(Avolio & Bass, 1995; Avolio et al., 1996; Bass,1985) that complements the equally impor-tant focus on ‘taking charge,’ communicatingclear expectations, and maintaining account-ability. Indeed, the capacity to move seam-lessly between ‘enabling’ and ‘forceful’ styles– without overdoing either – appears to becritical for effective leadership (Kaplan &Kaiser, 2006). Coaching and leadership devel-opment help executives remain versatile intheir leadership style, and resolve flawedinterpersonal strategies that impede theirability to motivate subordinates effectively.

Poor leadership is not simply an absenceof technical, cognitive, and strategic skills.Rather, dysfunctional dispositions (and theflawed interpersonal strategies associatedwith them) can degrade whatever skills andcompetencies a leader might otherwisepossess. At their worst, such leaders may beexperienced as ‘destructive’ (e.g. Einarsen,Aasland & Skotgstad, 2007; Tepper, 2000;Tierney & Tepper, 2007) or even ‘toxic’(Frost, 2004; Padilla, Hogan & Kaiser, 2007)by their subordinates and the organizationas a whole. Managerial incompetencecreates great misery for those associated withthe dysfunctional leader (R. Hogan & Kaiser,2005). Thus, recognizing and modifying thedestructive interpersonal strategies ofleaders will improve the competitive advan-tage of the team and the satisfaction andwell-being of the executive’s subordinates.

Bad management exists at all levels ofmost organizations. Hogan (2007) estimatesthat the base rate for bad managers mayrange from 65 per cent to 75 per cent, andone recent survey of managers and execu-tives suggests that as many as 27 per cent oftheir subordinates who have been rated ashigh potential are at risk for ‘derailment’(i.e. being either demoted or fired) forperforming below the level expected ofthem. Such findings are consistent with theresults of earlier reviews (e.g. Bentz, 1985;Dotlich & Cairo, 2003, Leslie & VanVelsor,1996; McCall & Lombardo, 1983) whichidentified insensitivity, abrasiveness, micro-management, and other dysfunctional inter-personal behaviours as the primary causes ofmanagerial failure. Bad leadership is bothcommon and highly consequential for theproductivity of organizations, and the resolu-tion of flawed interpersonal strategies isanother important goal of executivecoaching and leadership development.

An executive may seek out or be referredfor coaching for many reasons (Giglio,Diamante & Urban, 1998; Stern, 2004). Insome cases, superiors may identify an execu-tive as being at risk for derailment; in thesecases the organization may provide theopportunity for coaching. In other cases, anorganization may create a programme for allof their senior leaders, ‘high potential’middle managers, or others to enhance theirpersonal development as leaders. In eitherinstance, knowledge of potential dysfunc-tional interpersonal patterns is critical forcoaching success. In the case of the‘derailing executive,’ the flawed interper-sonal style may itself be the reason forreferral. For those referred for assistance inenhancing existing skills (in order to helpthe high potential manager move moreeffectively up the corporate hierarchy),assessment of potential derailing characteris-tics allows the coach to offer ‘preventivemaintenance’ that will reduce the likelihoodof problems emerging in the future.

Coaching on the Dark Side

International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 4 No. 1 March 2009 9

The nature of dysfunctional dispositionsDysfunctional dispositions are part ofeveryone’s personality. We prefer to think of‘personality’ in terms of a person’s ‘reputa-tion’ among those in his or her social envi-ronment. Personality trait descriptors (e.g.conscientious, flamboyant, volatile, confi-dent, etc.) summarize how a person is seenby others. The ‘strength’ of any personalitycharacteristic reflects the likelihood that aperson will behave (and be perceived) in acertain way during social interaction. Thewidely accepted ‘Five-Factor Model’ (FFM)of personality (Goldberg, 1981; John, 1990;McCrae & Costa, 1987; Wiggins, 1979) iden-tifies primarily positive characteristics, andassessments based on this model predictsuccess in a wide variety of employmentcontexts (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Bono &Judge, 2004; Hogan & Holland, 2003; R. Hogan, 2007; R. Hogan & Hogan, 2007;R. Hogan, Hogan & Roberts, 1996; Judge etal., 2002; Mount, Barrick & Stewart, 1998;Tett, Jackson & Rothstein, 1991). The predic-tion of occupational performance improveswhen the dimensions of the FFM are alignedwith the competencies judged to be impor-tant for a specific job (Anderson et al., 2006;Campbell, 1990; J. Hogan & Holland, 2003;Hough, 1992; Hurtz & Donovan, 2000).

Assessments derived from the FFM revealwhat might be described as the ‘bright side’of personality. Dysfunctional dispositions, incontrast, reflect the ‘dark side’ (cf. Conger,1990; R. Hogan & Hogan, 2001). Thesebehavioural characteristics degrade executiveperformance and interfere with the indi-vidual’s capacity to capitalize on the strengthsrevealed through FFM assessments. The past20 years have produced a growing interest inthese dark side characteristics, particularlyfor people in leadership roles (Furnham &Taylor, 2004; Goldman, 2006; Judge, LePine& Rich, 2006; Khoo & Burch, 2008;McCartney & Campbell, 2005; Moscoso &Salgado, 2004; Najar, Holland & VanLanduyt, 2004). These studies have repeat-edly found that managers who derail are astechnically skilled as those who do not.

Instead, managerial incompetence is prima-rily associated with ‘personality defects,’ trou-bled interpersonal relationships, inability tobuild a team, lack of follow-through, anddifficulty making strategic transitions (cf.Lombardo, Ruderman & McCauley, 1988;McCauley & Lombardo, 1990).

Flawed interpersonal behaviours reflectthe influence of underlying mental modelsor ‘schemas.’ Schemas are organized knowl-edge structures through which we encodeour perceptions of social interaction,allowing us to make sense of our ownbehaviour and the behaviour of others(Fong & Markus, 1982; Kihlstrom & Klein,1994; Markus, 1977; Sedikides, 1993; Young,Klosko & Weishaar, 2003). Personal schemasreflect our basic beliefs about ourselves andthe world – beliefs that are based on early lifeexperiences. Schemas function automati-cally outside conscious awareness, serving asperceptual ‘filters’ that cause individuals tointerpret social information in ways that fitschema-relevant expectations (Baldwin,1992). Thus, schemas tend to be self-perpet-uating. For example, individuals who werefrequently criticized early in life may developbelief structures – schemas – that they arelikely to be criticized in current interper-sonal encounters. These people may eveninterpret innocuous feedback as critical, andthey may become overly perfectionistic oraccommodating to minimize the risk ofanything they might construe as criticismfrom others.

Several variables affect the likelihoodthat dysfunctional behaviour will emerge inany given social or leadership context. First,the probability of dysfunctional behaviourreflects the strength of the relevant under-lying schema; certain ineffective interper-sonal patterns are simply more likely forsome people than for others because therelevant underlying schema exerts a morepervasive influence on overt behaviour.Second, situational factors will affect theemergence of dysfunctional behaviour. Mostpeople can manage dysfunctional tenden-cies most of the time. But stress, work over-

load, fatigue, high emotion, and lack ofsocial vigilance can increase the probabilityof maladaptive behaviour. Furthermore,dysfunctional behaviour is more likely toappear in situations that are ambiguous(Green & Sedikides, 2001; Koch, 2003),where leaders have too little structure andtoo much discretion (Kaiser & Hogan,2007), or that resemble the situations thatproduced the relevant schema in the firstplace. Finally, organizational culture canpotentiate dysfunctional behaviour (Balt-hazard, Cooke & Potter, 2006; VanFleet &Griffin, 2006). Thus, personality, situational,and organizational influences interact toinfluence the emergence of dysfunctionalbehaviour in any given performance orinterpersonal context (cf. Tett & Barnett,2003; Tett & Guterman, 2000).

Assessment of the dysfunctional disposi-tions that commonly appear in interpersonalrelationships – performance risks – allows usto predict the likelihood that such risks willimpair an executive’s success. To facilitatesuch predictions R. Hogan and Hogan(1997; see also R. Hogan & Hogan, 2001)created an inventory (the Hogan Develop-ment Survey; HDS) that assesses 11 of thesecharacteristics. Constructs included in theHDS were identified through an exhaustivereview of material ranging from research onmanagerial derailment to the ‘personalitydisorders’ section of the Diagnostic andStatistical Manual of Mental Disorders,fourth edition (American Psychiatric Associ-ation, 1994; see Hogan & Hogan, 1997, 2001,for a description of the links between certainpersonality disorders and the scalescomprising the HDS). Hogan and Hogan(1997) designed the HDS to addresscommon interpersonal themes in the workcontext that can undermine an individual’seffectiveness. Each theme is associated withan underlying cognitive schema that facili-tates understanding of the expectations,attributions, and mental models thatunderlie interpersonal strategies that ulti-mately prove counterproductive. Listedbelow are the 11 constructs comprising the

HDS and a brief description of the schemasassociated with each pattern of dysfunctionalinterpersonal behaviour:

Excitable. High Excitable individuals areemotionally volatile and easily disappointedin projects, people, or organizations. Theyalienate employees through unpredictabledisplays of anger or frustration. These exec-utives seek understanding and respect, butconditions early in life led them to believethat others will ultimately disappoint orexploit them. As a result, they are constantlyvigilant for signs of possible rejection, givingup easily and ready to strike out emotionallyor withdraw from those whom they expectwill let them down. Strong displays ofemotion allow the person an illusion ofcontrol while simultaneously keeping othersat an emotional distance where they are ulti-mately less threatening.

Skeptical. High Skeptical executivesmistrust others’ motives and doubt theirintentions. They expect mistreatment; as aresult, they are quick to find it. In such situa-tions, they may recoil in an angry orcombative manner to gain control anddistance themselves from others. In theworkplace, they are often shrewd, politicallysensitive, and difficult to fool. However, theircynicism leads them to distrust authority andto fear that subordinates will attempt tocircumvent them. These beliefs underlie acontentious interpersonal style character-ized by irritability, argumentativeness, andinsensitivity to criticism.

Cautious. High Cautious individuals fearcriticism and are quick to feel rejected. Theyare careful, conservative, and worried aboutmaking mistakes. They attribute unsuc-cessful experiences to an inherent defectthat sets them apart from others. They avoidgiving other people the opportunity to seetheir deficiencies. Even positive feedbackcan be distorted or discounted. While noone enjoys criticism, these individualscannot tolerate the unpleasant feelings asso-ciated with making a mistake; as a result,they seek to avoid unpredictable events suchas social interactions and decision making.



Reserved. High Reserved leaders prefersocial isolation. They dislike working inteams or meeting new people. Others findthem difficult because they tend to be with-drawn and uncommunicative. They lacksocial sensitivity – the capacity to notice andrespond effectively to the needs and feelingsof others. They believe that life is best livedon a purely rational basis. As a result, theyare typically impervious to both praise andcriticism and rarely offer such feedback toothers. They prefer that others perceivethem as tough, resilient, and self-sufficient.

Leisurely. As a result of early socializationexperiences, the high Leisurely leader avoidsdirect expressions of annoyance and frustra-tion. He or she expresses such feelings inindirect ways. Persons in positions ofauthority are typically perceived as eitherincompetent or unfair. In reaction, the highLeisurely person believes in the right topursue a personal agenda at his or her ownpace. He or she envies those who aresuccessful but at the same time resents themand maintains an illusion of self-sufficiencyand self-respect by covertly resisting expecta-tions.

Bold. High Bold individuals believe theyare unique or exceptional in some way. Thehigh Bold executive was often the ‘goldenchild’ of the family, lacking the boundariesand discipline that help children learn andrespect their own and others’ limits. Thisindividual believes that he or she should nothave to accept subordinate positions andshould be exempt from difficult or dull tasks.The high Bold leader is sublimely insensitiveto the impact of his or her behaviour onothers, believing that subordinates shouldeagerly contribute to the leader’s personalprogress.

Colourful. High Colourful persons arenaturally extraverted and gregarious.However, they often mistake attention foraccomplishment. Historically, attention andaffirmation were predicated upon charm,appearance, and the capacity to entertain.Far less attention was paid to competence,persistence, and achievement. These individ-

uals covertly doubt their real abilities andfear that others will notice their ‘weak-nesses.’ Under stress, the high need forapproval leads to exhibitionistic and ‘enter-taining’ behaviours in place of real produc-tivity.

Imaginative. The high Imaginative personshares with the high Reserved individual aninsensitivity to social cues. As the Reservedperson withdraws, however, the high Imagi-native leader relishes social interaction as anarena for sharing novel ideas, opinions, andstyles. High Imaginative individuals believein their own uniqueness and a need toemphasize creativity over practicality. Theyvalue inner experience to define reality, notwhat others might consider rational or objec-tive. Viewing themselves as special, they aretypically immune to criticism and rejection.

Diligent. High Diligent individuals grewup in environments that valued high levels ofperformance, criticizing work that wasjudged to be substandard in some way. As aresult, these individuals believe that only twooptions are possible in any performance situ-ation: perfection and failure. There is noroom for ‘shades of gray.’ Indeed, they oftenhave difficulty judging the realistic impor-tance of any given task. They distrustautonomous thinking; as a result, they valuerules, standards, and social custom to definethe appropriate response in a performancesituation.

Dutiful. High Dutiful leaders enjoyed anurturant environment early in life;however, caregivers failed to ‘pull back’ asthe child became more capable of self-suffi-ciency. Lacking mastery experiences, thisindividual did not develop a sense of compe-tence and self-efficacy, continuing to believethat he or she must rely on others for impor-tant decisions. The unpredictable orunknown is avoided, as the high Dutifulperson doubts his or her capacity to copesuccessfully with novel challenges or situa-tions. Belief in the self as ‘weak’ impairs thisexecutive’s capacity to think independently.



‘Dark Side’ characteristics and coachingPersonality predicts leadership effectiveness.Knowledge of an executive’s personalityshould facilitate coaching efforts and theultimate success of a leadership develop-ment programme. It is somewhat surprising,therefore, that very little attention has beengiven to the links between personality andcoaching. Two recent papers are exceptions.Stewart et al. (2008) assessed the relation-ship between an executive’s scores on a five-factor personality measure and ‘transfer oflearning’ from the coaching environment tothe workplace. Coaching appeared to bemost effective for executives scoring high inemotional stability, conscientiousness, andopenness to experience, and conscientious-ness was a robust predictor of the executive’suse of newly developed skills in his or herday-to-day managerial activities. In a similarvein, McCormick and Burch (2008) offereda taxonomy of coaching targets linked specif-ically to the executive’s scores on assessmentsderived from the five-factor model. Forexample, McCormick and Burch (2008)recommend that executives scoring low onExtraversion be encouraged to work toremember people’s names, learn conversa-tion skills, create enthusiasm and excitementwithin their teams, etc.

Many authors have suggested that avariety of ‘intrapersonal’ factors maydegrade managerial performance andshould, therefore, be addressed in thecontext of executive coaching. Kaiser andKaplan (2006) and Johnson (2008), forexample, argue that dysfunctional interper-sonal behaviours frequently reflect distortedbeliefs and flawed ‘mental models’ that anexecutive may have about the self and othersin the environment. Kaiser and Kaplan(2006) suggest that effective coaches must beprepared to confront the subtle fears offailure, inadequacy, and rejection that cancloud the executive’s judgment and impairinteractions with subordinates and peers.This viewpoint echoes Kilburg’s (2000, 2004)emphasis on the value of psychodynamicconstructs in coaching. Indeed, the popular

concept of ‘emotional intelligence’ assumesthat effective coaching allows executives totranscend flawed views of the self and othersto create a management style marked by self-awareness, empathy, and interpersonal sensi-tivity (Salovey & Mayer, 1990; Goleman,1998).

Assessment of dysfunctional dispositionsenhances the precision and potential effec-tiveness of coaching in at least three ways.First, the relationship between the coachand the executive is an interpersonal rela-tionship that the coachee is likely to findsomewhat stressful. As such, dysfunctionalinterpersonal strategies tend to emerge inthe relationship. Knowledge of the execu-tive’s potential responses allows the coach toanticipate problems and craft the relation-ship accordingly. Second, enhanced ‘self-awareness’ is an essential precursor tomeaningful change. The results of a ‘darkside’ assessment can help the executivemake sense of any negative feedbackreceived from others (e.g. the results of a360-degree assessment). Third, being awareof the executive’s typical dysfunctional inter-personal patterns will allow the coach tochoose specific targets for developmentalintervention and identify the interventionstrategies most likely to be effective. Weexamine each of these domains in moredetail.

Crafting the coaching relationshipThe quality of the relationship between thecoach and the executive is critical for theultimate success of the coaching effort. Firstand foremost, the coach must create anatmosphere of trust so that the executive canrisk being honest about his or her concerns,perceptions of others in the organization,and expectations for coaching itself. Second,the coach must be perceived as an expert infacilitating change and knowledgeable aboutbusiness processes, the status of the execu-tive’s organization, and the nature of effec-tive leadership. Finally, the coach must beable to respond empathically to coachees,allowing them to feel respected and under-



stood even as they develop new self-percep-tions, understand how others perceive them,and learn how to lead more effectively.Kemp (2008) notes that, although thecoaching relationship is important for thesuccess of developmental efforts, little atten-tion has been directed to this aspect ofcoaching. The relationship between thecoach and the executive is a ‘real relation-ship.’ If the effectiveness of coaching is influ-enced by the quality of the relationship, thenit is important to consider the qualities thatthe coach and the executive bring to theinteraction.

As we suggested above, people organizetheir interpersonal experiences in terms ofschemas. These schemas influence percep-tions, information processing, attributionsabout the causes of events, etc. It makessense, then, to assume that the executive willbring to the coaching process a set of beliefsand expectations that will influence his orher reactions to the coach and, ultimately,readiness for change. These expectationsmay be shaped by a number of factors: thecontext in which the executive was referredfor coaching, the attitudes communicated(either implicitly or explicitly) by seniormanagement about the value of coaching,and the extent to which others in the organ-ization are concurrently receiving coaching(Gilpin-Jackson & Bushe, 2006; Ruvolo,Petersen & LeBoeuf, 2004). But the execu-tive also brings to coaching the sameschemas and interpersonal strategies thatinfluence his or her other relationships. Tothe extent that these schemas are associatedwith dysfunctional interpersonal strategies,these strategies are likely to emerge in thecoaching relationship as well. Awareness ofthis allows the coach to anticipate road-blocks to the development of a productiverelationship and ways the executive is likelyto ‘push back’ against developmental recom-mendations. The coach can then craft therelationship to reduce the influence of thesefactors.

Consider, for example, an executive witha high score on the Excitable scale of the

Hogan Development Survey, a ‘dark side’measure. This executive seeks affirmationbut expects disappointment, and occasion-ally uses emotional displays to createdistance from others. He or she may initiallyrespond to coaching with enthusiasm,leading the coach to be optimistic abouthis/her readiness for change. But the execu-tive is also likely to be easily discouraged withcoaching, perhaps even responding angrilyto negative feedback or to the coachingprocess itself. In contrast, an executivescoring high on the HDS Mischievous scale islikely to be charming and overtly responsiveto the coach’s efforts. But high Mischievousindividuals have difficulty taking responsi-bility for their behaviour and tend to ignorethe expectations that others hold for them.Such people often perceive coaching as irrel-evant and show little follow-through or‘transfer of learning’ into the day-to-daywork environment. In both examples, knowl-edge of the executive’s scores on scalestapping ‘flawed interpersonal strategies’ willallow the coach to predict problems andplan the coaching effort accordingly. For thehigh Excitable individual, the coach couldpredict disillusionment early in the relation-ship, offer heightened empathy inpresenting feedback, and take steps toensure that commitment to the process ismaintained. For the high Mischievouscoachee, the coach could remain construc-tively skeptical of the executive’s expressedenthusiasm, building into the coachingprocess multiple ‘accountability checks.’

The flawed interpersonal strategies thatmay be problematic (or potentially problem-atic) in the executive’s work environmentare likely to recapitulate in the coachingrelationship. As the old saying goes, ‘fore-warned is forearmed.’ Assessment of ‘darkside’ characteristics prior to or early in thecoaching process allows the coach to besensitive to these self-defeating behavioursand plan accordingly to minimize the extentto which they can interfere with effectivecoaching.



Enhancing strategic self-awarenessMuch of our behaviour is automatic andrepetitive: we tend to do what has seemed towork in the past. It is the novel, the unex-pected, and the discomforting that motivateself-reflection and change. Correspondingly,expanded self-awareness is a cornerstone ofmost coaching interventions. R. Hogan andBenson (in press) argue that meaningfulself-awareness (which they label ‘strategic’self-awareness) requires, first, understandingone’s strengths and limitations and, second,understanding how they compare with thoseof others. Hogan and Benson note thatintrospection alone cannot meaningfullyenhance strategic self-awareness; rather,such awareness requires performance-basedfeedback derived from structured assess-ment. In other words, executives need feed-back on their habitual ways of dealing withpeople. Armed with this information, leaderscan devise plans to expand their capabilities(add new skills), expand their capacity(improve existing skills), or compensate forshortcomings. Information that focuses onlyon the positive fails to address genuine limi-tations – performance improves only whenpeople know what they are doing wrong, andeven strengths can turn into problems after apoint (Kaplan & Kaiser, in press).

Most coaching includes some type ofperformance evaluation highlighting theexecutive’s strengths and weaknesses. Oftenthese evaluations are in the form of 360-degree ratings derived from assessmentsoffered by higher-level executives, peers, andsubordinates. Multisource feedback ratingscorrelate well with other measures of leader-ship effectiveness (Smither, London & Reilly,2005); indeed, Shipper and Wilson (1991)found that subordinate’s ratings of a leader’sperformance are more highly associatedwith team effectiveness than either peer orsuperior ratings. Thus, ratings offered bythose who work for the executive may be crit-ically important in facilitating strategic self-awareness and identifying areas for potentialchange. But feedback derived from others’perceptions is typically insufficient in itself to

motivate lasting change in leader behaviour(Craig & Hannum, 2006; Gregory, Levy &Jeffers, 2008; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; London& Smither, 2002). Executives at risk forderailment are unlikely to benefit from feed-back alone, as they are typically self-absorbed, unwilling to take responsibility,and reluctant to learn from their mistakes (J. Hogan, Hogan & Kaiser, in press).

This, of course, is where coaching can beparticularly important. Armed with bothmultirater and personality assessment data,the coach can assist the executive in makingsense of the perceptions of both subordi-nates and others. Consider, for example, anexecutive who is referred for coachingbecause the team’s productivity is decliningand staff morale is low. Multirater assessmentreveals that subordinates view the executiveas too forceful and inadequately facilitative.Assessment of ‘dark side’ characteristics canhelp pinpoint the behaviours that contributeto negative staff perceptions. For example, ifthe leader scores high on the Reserved scaleof the HDS, we can conclude that the execu-tive tends to withdraw, to appear tough andcold, and to lack empathy for staff concerns.In contrast, if the executive scores high onthe Bold scale, it is likely that he or she is self-centered, fails to accept responsibility formistakes, and sees staff as a tool to further hisor her career progress. To the degree thatthe coach can help the executive make senseof the subordinates’ ratings, this will increasethe client’s strategic self-awareness.

Identifying targets and strategies fordevelopmentA cursory review of the executive coachingliterature reveals a wide variety of develop-mental interventions. Coaching strategiesrange from deep-muscle relaxation to askingcolleagues for ongoing feedback to assertive-ness training to instruction in strategicproblem solving. Riggio and Lee (2007)provide an extensive review of techniques tohelp executives develop the competenciescritical for effective leadership. The ques-tions, of course, are what techniques to



employ, where to begin, and how. In manycases, the answers to these questions will beshaped by the context of coaching, theagreements reached between the clientorganization and the coach, etc. In othercases, the coach will have more latitude inidentifying both the targets for coaching andthe intervention strategies employed.

There is considerable debate in the liter-ature on the difference between coachingand psychotherapy: is the coach a counselloror a technical consultant on matters ofbehaviour change (Hart, Blattner & Leipsic,2001; Joo, 2005; Witherspoon & White,1996)? Although there are differencesbetween coaching and therapy (Gray, 2006;Levinson, 1996), effective coaches movealong the continuum between them to dealwith the needs of the executive and his/herorganization. Further, the coach has aresponsibility to identify and intervene withthe factors most likely to enhance the execu-tive’s leadership – despite what he, she, orthe organization think the executive’s needsare. Any development target will be theproduct of several different causal processes.Coaching tends to emphasize proximalrather than distal causes (which are oftenthe focus of traditional psychotherapy). Evenso, a development issue can be cased byfactors ranging from insufficient social skillsto faulty cognitive schemas. The distinctionis important: skills development approacheswill fail if the problems are a result of deficitsin intrapersonal self-regulation or flawedinterpersonal strategies. Coaching is notsimply ‘a technology followed by a formula’(Schein, 2003, p.80).

Assessment provides the key for decidingbetween the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of executivedevelopment. Consider an executive whosemultirater feedback indicates insufficient‘forceful’ leadership. This person has diffi-culty being appropriately assertive, settingclear expectations, and holding staffaccountable for their performance. Seniormanagement fears that this talented execu-tive may derail if she cannot find a balancebetween enabling and forceful leadership.

The coach might design a programme ofrole-playing, behaviour rehearsal, and grad-uated practice to help the executive becomemore appropriately assertive. This is a wellresearched and widely accepted behaviouralintervention for unassertive individuals. Butwhat if assessment of dysfunctional interper-sonal dispositions reveals this executive behighly Cautious? In this case the executivewould be influenced by fear of failure, aver-sion to risk, and expectations of criticism.Although behavioural techniques can some-times ‘work backward’ to modify existingschemas, it is usually more effective toaddress the schema directly using well estab-lished cognitive techniques (cf. Ducharme,2004; Grieger & Fralick, 2007; Young et al.,2003). When the executive becomes aware ofhis/her possible mistakes and flawedbehaviour, behavioural interventions arelikely to be significantly more effective.

Thus, if a ‘dark side’ assessment indicatesthat potential derailing patterns are ‘withinnormal limits’ a coach may use directive inter-ventions targeted to improving existing skillsor the acquisition of new ones. In this case,the coach may be functioning as a ‘technicalconsultant.’ But if the assessment reveals theinfluence of distorted cognitive schemas,these will need to be addressed beforebehavioural interventions will be productive.In this case, the distinction between coachand counselor blurs considerably.

ConclusionCoaching is intended to help executivesbecome more effective leaders. Ineffectiveleadership is more common than manybelieve, and bad leaders not only reduce theproductivity and profitability of the businessunits for which they are responsible, theyalso create misery, anxiety, and hostilityamong those who report to them. Person-ality predicts both effective and ineffectiveleadership. Dysfunctional characteristics –flawed interpersonal strategies that canderail an executive’s career – are associatedwith specific cognitive schemas that causethe behaviour of self and others to be



Alworth, E. & Griffin, B. (2005). The application ofpsychological assessment to executive coaching.In M. Cavanagh, A.M. Grant & T. Kemp (Eds.),Evidence-based coaching, Volume 1: Theory, researchand practice from the behavioural sciences(pp.97–110). Bowen Hills, Queensland, Australia:Australian Academic Press.

American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diagnosticand Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.).Washington, DC: Author.

Anderson, M., Foster, J., Van Landuyt & Tett, R.(2006). Meta-Analytic Investigation of Personalityand Holland’s RIASEC Model. Tulsa, OK: HoganAssessment Systems.

Avolio, B.J. & Bass, B.M. (1995). Individualconsideration is more than consideration for theindividual when viewed at multiple levels ofanalysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 6, 199–218.

Avolio, B.J., Jung, D., Murry, W. & Sivasubramaniam,N. (1996). Building highly developed teams:Focusing on shared leadership process, efficacy,trust, and performance. In M.M. Beyerlein, D.A.Johnson & S.T. Beyerlein (Eds.), Advances ininterdisciplinary studies of work teams (pp.173–209).Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Baldwin, M.W. (1992). Relational schemas and theprocessing of social information. PsychologicalBulletin, 112, 461–484.

Balthazard, P.A., Cooke, R.A. & Potter, R.E. (2006).Dysfunctional culture, dysfunctionalorganization: Capturing the behavioural normsthat form organizational culture and driveperformance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21,709–732.

Barner, R. & Higgins, J. (2007). Understanding theimplicit models that guide the coaching process.Journal of Management Development, 26, 148–158.

Barrick, M.R. & Mount, M.K. (1991). The Big Fivepersonality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyondexpectations. New York: Free Press.

Bentz, V.J. (1985, August). A view from the top: A 30-year perspective on research devoted to discovery,description, and prediction of executive behaviour.Paper presented at the 93rd Annual Conventionof the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles.

Berman, W.H. & Bradt, G. (2006). Executivecoaching and consulting: ‘Different strokes fordifferent folks.’ Professional Psychology: Researchand Practice, 37, 244–253.

Bono, J.E. & Judge, T.E. (2004). Personality andtransformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,901–910.

Campbell, J.P. (1990). Modelling the performanceprediction problem in industrial andorganizational psychology. In M.D. Dunnette &L.M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial andorganizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 1,pp.39–74). Palo Alto, CA: ConsultingPsychologists Press.

Cavanagh, M., Grant, A.M. & Kemp, T. (Eds.).(2005). Evidence-based coaching, Volume 1: Theory,research and practice from the behavioural sciences.Bowen Hills, Queensland, Australia: AustralianAcademic Press.

Conger, J.A. (1990). The dark side of leadership.Organizational Dynamics, 19, 44–55.

Craig, S.B. & Hannum, K. (2006). Research update:360-degree performance assessment. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58,117–122.

Cronbach, L.J. (1960). Essentials of psychological testing(2nd ed.). New York: Harper.

Dagley, G. (2006). Human resource professionals’perceptions of executive coaching: Efficacy,benefits, and return on investment. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 1, 34–45.

Dotlich, D.L. & Cairo, P.C. (2003). Why CEOs fail.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

perceived in maladaptive and unrealisticways. Assessment of these ‘dark side’ charac-teristics facilitates coaching by enhancingthe coach’s ability to develop the coachingrelationship according to the personality ofthe executive, help the leader make sense ofinterpersonal experiences and multiraterfeedback, and target developmental inter-ventions to the specific needs and character-istics of the executive.

CorrespondenceEric Nelson & Robert HoganHogan Assessment Systems,2622 East 21st Street,Tulsa, OK 74114,USA.E-mail: [email protected]: [email protected]



References



Ducharme, M.J. (2004). The cognitive-behaviouralapproach to executive coaching. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56,214–224.

Einarsen, S., Aasland, M.S. & Skogstad, A. (2007).Destructive leadership behaviour: A definitionand conceptual model. The Leadership Quarterly,18, 207–216.

Feldman, D.C. & Lankau, M.J. (2005). Executivecoaching: A review and agenda for futureresearch. Journal of Management, 31, 829–848.

Fong, G.T. & Markus, H. (1982). Self-schemas andjudgments about others. Social Cognition, 1,191–204.

Frost, P.J. (2004). Handling toxic emotions: Newchallenges for leaders and their organizations.Organizational Dynamics, 33, 111–127.

Furnham, A. & Taylor, J. (2004). The dark side ofbehaviour at work: Understanding and avoidingemployees leaving, thieving, and deceiving.Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.

Giglio, L., Diamante, T. & Urban, J.M. (1998).Coaching a leader: Leveraging change at the top.Journal of Management Development, 17, 93–105.

Gilpin-Jackson, Y. & Bushe, G.R. (2006). Leadershipdevelopment training transfer: A case study ofpost-training determinants. Journal of ManagementDevelopment, 26, 980–1004.

Goldberg, L.R. (1981). Language and individualdifference: The search for universals inpersonality lexicons. In L.W. Wheeler (Ed.),Review of personality and social psychology (Vol. 2,pp.141–165). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Goldman, A. (2006). Personality disorders in leaders:Implications of the DSM-IV-TR in assessingdysfunctional organizations. Journal of ManagerialPsychology, 21, 392–414.

Goleman, D. (1998). What makes a leader? HarvardBusiness Review, 76(6), 93–102.

Grant, A.M. (2005). What is evidence-basedexecutive, workplace, and life coaching? In M. Cavanagh, A.M. Grant & T. Kemp (Eds.),Evidence-based coaching, Volume 1: Theory, researchand practice from the behavioural sciences (pp.1–12).Bowen Hills, Queensland, Australia: AustralianAcademic Press.

Gray, D.E. (2006). Executive coaching: Toward adynamic alliance of psychotherapy andtransformative learning processes. ManagementLearning, 37, 475–497.

Green, J.D. & Sedikides, C. (2001). When do self-schemas shape social perception?: The role ofdescriptive ambiguity. Motivation and Emotion, 25,67–83.

Gregory, J.B., Levy & Jeffers, M. (2008). Developmentof a model of the feedback process withinexecutive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal:Practice and Research, 60, 42–56.

Grieger, R. & Fralick, F. (2007). The use of REBTprinciples and practices in leadership trainingand development. Journal of Rational-Emotive andCognitive-Behaviour Therapies, 25, 143–154.

Hart, V., Blattner, J. & Leipsic, S. (2001). Coachingversus therapy. Consulting Psychology Journal:Practice and Research, 53, 229–237.

Hogan, J., Hogan, R. & Kaiser, R.B. (in press).Management derailment: Assessment andmitigation. In S. Zedeck (Ed.), AmericanPsychological Association Handbook of Industrial andOrganizational Psychology. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Hogan, J. & Holland, B. (2003). Using theory toevaluate personality and job-performancerelations: A socioanalytic perspective. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 88, 100–122.

Hogan, R. (2007). Personality and the fate oforganizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Hogan, R. & Benson, M.J. (in press). Personalitytheory and positive psychology: Strategic self-awareness. In R.B. Kaiser (Ed.), The perils of thepositive. Forthcoming.

Hogan, R., Curphy, G.J. & Hogan, J. (1994). What weknow about leadership: Effectiveness andpersonality. American Psychologist, 51, 469–477.

Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. (1997). Hogan DevelopmentSurvey Manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan AssessmentSystems.

Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. (2001). Assessing leadership:A view from the dark side. International Journal ofSelection and Assessment, 9, 40–51.

Hogan, R. & Hogan, J. (2007). Hogan PersonalityInventory Manual (3rd ed.). Tulsa, OK: HoganAssessment Systems.

Hogan, R., Hogan, J. & Roberts, B. (1996).Personality measurement and employmentdecisions: Questions and answers. AmericanPsychologist, 51, 469–477.

Hogan, R. & Kaiser, R.B. (2005). What we knowabout leadership. Review of General Psychology, 9,169–180.

Hough, L.M. (1992). The ‘Big Five’ personalityvariables – construct confusion: Descriptionversus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139–156.

Hurtz, G.M. & Donovan, J.J. (2000). Personality andjob performance: The ‘Big Five’ revisited. Journalof Applied Psychology, 85, 869–879.

John, O.P. (1990). The ‘Big Five’ factor taxonomy:Dimensions of personality in the naturallanguage and in questionnaires. In L.A. Pervin(Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and research(pp.66–100). New York: Guilford.

Johnson, H.H. (2008). Mental models andtransformative learning: The key to leadershipdevelopment? Human Resource DevelopmentQuarterly, 19, 85–89.

Joo, B.K. (2005). Executive coaching: A conceptualframework from an integrative review of practiceand research. Human Resource Development Review,4, 462–488.

Judge, T.A., Bono, J.E., Ilies, R. & Gerhardt, M.W.(2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitativeand quantitative review. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 87, 765–780.

Judge, T.A., LePine, J.A. & Rich, B.L. (2006). Lovingyourself abundantly: Relationship of thenarcissistic personality to self and otherperceptions of workplace deviance, leadership,and task and contextual performance. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 91, 762–776.

Kaiser, R.B. & Hogan, R. (2007). The dark side ofdiscretion: Leader personality and organizationaldecline. In R. Hooijberg, J. Hunt, J. Antonakis &K. Boal (Eds.), Being there even when you are not:Leading through strategy, systems and structures.Monographs in leadership and management, Vol. 4(pp.177–197). London: Elsevier Science.

Kaiser, R.B., Hogan, R. & Craig, S.B. (2008).Leadership and the fate of organizations.American Psychologist, 63, 96–110.

Kaiser, R.B. & Kaplan, R.E. (2006). The deeper workof executive development: Outgrowingsensitivities. Academy of Management Learning andEducation, 5, 463–483.

Kampa-Kokesch, S. & Anderson, M.Z. (2001).Executive coaching: A comprehensive review ofthe literature. Consulting Psychology Journal:Practice and Research, 53, 205–228.

Kaplan, R.E. & Kaiser, R.B. (2006). The versatile leader.San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

Kaplan, R.E. & Kaiser, R.B. (in press). Towards apositive psychology for leaders. In A. Linley(Ed.), Handbook of positive psychology and work.New York: Oxford University Press.

Kemp, T. (2008). Self-management and the coachingrelationship: Exploring coaching impact beyondmodels and methods. International CoachingPsychology Review, 3(1), 32–42.

Khoo, H.S. & Burch G.S.J. (2008). The ‘dark side’ ofleadership personality and transformationalleadership: An exploratory study. Personality andIndividual Differences, 44, 86–97.

Kilburg, R.R. (1996). Toward a conceptualunderstanding and definition of executivecoaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practiceand Research, 48, 134–144.

Kilburg, R.R. (2000). Executive coaching: Developingmanagerial wisdom in a world of chaos. Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.

Kilburg, R.R. (2004). When shadows fall: Usingpsychodynamic approaches in executivecoaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practiceand Research, 56, 246–268.

Kihlstrom, J.F. & Klein, S.B. (1994). The self as aknowledge structure. In R.S. Wyer, Jr. & T.K.Strull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition(pp.153–208). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates.

Kluger, A.N. & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects offeedback interventions on performance: A historical review, meta-analysis, and apreliminary feedback intervention theory.Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284.

Koch, E.J. (2002). Relational schemas, self-esteem,and the processing of social stimuli. Self andIdentity, 1, 271–279.

Leslie, J. & VanVelsor, E. (1996). A look at derailmenttoday. Greensboro, NC: Center for CreativeLeadership.

Levinson, H. (1996). Executive coaching. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48,118–123.

Lombardo, M.M., Ruderman, M.N. & McCauley, C.D.(1988). Explanations of success and derailmentin upper-level management positions. Journal ofBusiness and Psychology, 2, 199–216.

London, M. & Smither, J.W. (2002). Feedbackorientation, feedback culture, and thelongitudinal performance management process.Human Resource Management Review, 12, 81–100.

MacKie, D. (2007). Evaluating the effectiveness ofexecutive coaching: Where are we now andwhere do we need to be? Australian Psychologist,42, 310–318.

Markus, H. (1977). Self-schemata and processinginformation about the self. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 35, 63–78.

McCall, M.W., Jr. & Lombardo, M.M. (1983). Off thetrack: Why and how successful executives get derailed(Technical Report No. 21). Greensboro, NC:Center for Creative Leadership.

McCartney, W.W. & Campbell, C.R. (2006).Leadership, management, and derailment: A model of individual success and failure.Leadership and Organization Development Journal,27, 190–202.

McCormick, I. & Burch, G. St. J. (2008). Personality-focused coaching for leadership development.Consulting Psychology Journal: Research and Practice,60, 267–278.

McCrae, R.R. & Costa, P.T. Jr. (1987). Validity of thefive-factor model of personality acrossinstruments and observers. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 64, 51–56.

McGovern, J., Lindemann, M., Vergara, M., Murphy,S., Barker, L. & Warrenfeltz, R. (2001).Maximizing the impact of executive coaching:Behavioural change, organizational outcomes,and return on investment. The Manchester Review,6(1), 1–9.



Moscoso, S. & Salgado, J. F. (2004). ‘Dark side’personality styles as predictors of task,contextual, and job performance. InternationalJournal of Selection and Assessment, 12, 356–362.

Mount, M.K., Barrick, M.R. & Stewart, G.L. (1998).Five-factor model of personality andperformance in jobs involving interpersonalinteractions. Human Performance, 11, 145–165.

Najar, M.J., Holland, B.D. & Van Landuyt, C.R. (2004,April). Individual differences in leadershipderailment. Paper presented at the 19th AnnualConference of the Society for Industrial andOrganizational Psychology, Chicago.

Padilla, A., Hogan, R. & Kaiser, R.B. (2007). The toxic triangle: Destructive leaders, susceptiblefollowers, and conducive environments. TheLeadership Quarterly, 18, 176–194.

Passmore, J. (2007). An integrative model forexecutive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal:Practice and Research, 59, 68–78.

Passmore, J. (Ed.). (2008). Psychometrics in coaching:Using psychological and psychometric tools fordevelopment. London: Kogan Page.

Passmore, J. & Gibbes, C. (2007). The state ofexecutive coaching research: What does thecurrent literature tell us and what’s next forcoaching research? International CoachingPsychology Review, 2(2), 116–128.

Peltier, B. (2001). The psychology of executive coaching.New York: Brunner-Routledge.

Riggio, R.E. & Lee, J. (2007). Emotional andinterpersonal competencies and leaderdevelopment. Human Resource ManagementReview, 17, 418–426.

Ruvolo, C.M., Petersen, S.A. & LeBoeuf, J.N.G.(2004). Leaders are made, not born: The criticalrole of a developmental framework to facilitatean organizational culture of development.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,56, 10–19.

Salovey, P. & Mayer, J.D. (1990). Emotionalintelligence. Imagination, Cognition, andPersonality, 9, 185–211.

Schein, E.H. (2003). Five traps for consultingpsychologists: Or how I learned to take cultureseriously. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice andResearch, 55, 75–83.

Sedikides, C. (1993). Assessment, enhancement, andverification determinants of the self-evaluationprocess. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,65, 317–338.

Shipper, F. & Wilson, C.L. (1991, July). The impact ofmanagerial behaviours on group performance, stress,and commitment. Paper presented at the Impact ofLeadership Conference, Colorado Springs.

Smither, J.W., London, M. & Reilly, R.R. (2005). Does performance improve followingmultisource feedback? A theoretical model,meta-analysis, and review of empirical findings.Personnel Psychology, 58, 33–66.

Stern, L.R. (2004). Executive coaching: A workingdefinition. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practiceand Research, 56, 154–162.

Stewart, L.J., Palmer, S., Wilkin, H. & Kerrin, M.(2008). The influence of character: Doespersonality impact coaching success?International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching andMentoring, 6, 32–42.

Stober, D.R. & Grant, A.M. (Eds.). (2006). Evidence-based coaching handbook. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Tepper, B.J. (2000). Consequences of abusivesupervision. Academy of Management Journal, 42,100–108.

Tett, R.P. & Burnett, D.B. (2003). A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 500–517.

Tett, R.P. & Guterman, H.A. (2000). Situation traitrelevance, trait expression, and cross-situationalconsistency: Testing a principle of trait activation.Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 397–423.

Tett, R.P., Jackson, D.N. & Rothsstein, M. (1991).Personality measures as predictors of jobperformance: A meta-analytic review. PersonnelPsychology, 44, 703–742.

Tierney, P. & Tepper, B.J. (2007). Introduction to The Leadership Quarterly special issue: Destructiveleadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 18, 171–173.

VanFleet, D.D. & Griffin, R.W. (2006). Dysfunctionalorganizational culture: The role of leadership inmotivating dysfunctional work behaviours.Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21, 698–708.

Wiggins, J.S. (1979). A psychological taxonomy oftrait-descriptive terms: The interpersonaldomain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,37, 295–412.

Witherspoon, R. & White, R.P. (1996). Executivecoaching: A continuum of roles. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48,124–133.

Young, J.E., Klosko, J.S. & Weishaar, M.E. (2003).Schema therapy. New York: Guilford.



Documents

HoganEtAl_Coaching on the Dark Side