ArticlePDF Available

The Deeper Work of Executive Development: Outgrowing Sensitivities

December 2006
Academy of Management Learning and Education 5(4):463-483

DOI:10.5465/AMLE.2006.23473207

Authors:

Kaiser Leadership Solutions

Often overlooked in management theory and education, how leaders function in an intrapersonal sense - the "inner game" of leadership - is pivotal. We develop this idea in a specific application by describing how psychological wounds sensitize executives to be anxious about getting hurt again. These vigilant and unconscious concerns distort perceptions of organizational reality and lead to unnecessarily intense emotional reactions such as anger, fear, and panic. In turn, this kind of emotional perturbation can cloud judgment and hamper performance. We present a practical psychology of the inner world of distorted beliefs, anachronistic assumptions, and misplaced fears that often lurk beneath counterproductive behavior. Considerable attention is given to what management educators can do to work at this deeper level by helping leaders become aware of, manage, and, ultimately, outgrow being hypersensitive to failure, inadequacy, rejection, dependency, and the like.

Common Types of Sensitivities and Associated Distortions in Performance

…

Sequence of How Sensitivities Throw Off the Performance of Leaders

…

Figures - uploaded by Robert B. Kaiser

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Robert B. Kaiser

Content may be subject to copyright.

ROBERT B. KAISER

ROBERT B. KAPLAN

Kaplan DeVries Inc.

........................................................................................................................................................................

The success of individual careers and the fate of

organizations are determined by how effectively

leaders behave. But enhancing performance isn’t

just a matter of behavior alone, despite all the talk

of behavior-based assessment, behavior modifica-

tion, or behavior-focused performance coaching.

What goes on under the surface of the behavior we

see is as fundamental to performance as a solid

foundation is to the structural integrity of a sky-

scraper. Yes, when it comes to performance, be-

havior is where the rubber meets the road. And

behavior is the product of perception, self-regula-

tion, and motivation. What leverage might we find

for enhancing the performance of managers by

delving into the underlying drivers of their

behavior?

Mapping the Landscape

Hogan and Warrenfeltz (2003) have recently con-

ceptualized the field of management education

with their domain model, a taxonomy for classify-

ing the various skills that individual managers

can develop. The model defines the competencies

that educational activities can target in terms of

four broad categories: intrapersonal skills (regu-

lating one’s emotions, attitudes, and motivation);

interpersonal skills (building and maintaining re-

lationships); leadership skills (building a team

and guiding it in competition with rivals); and

business skills (planning, budgeting, coordinating,

and monitoring organizational activity). According

to Hogan and Warrenfeltz (2003), this ordering re-

flects a developmental hierarchy where intraper-

sonal skills are the hardest to develop and busi-

ness skills are the least difficult to learn.

An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 17

an-

nual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational

Psychology. These ideas have been influenced for the better by

two anonymous reviewers, Lynn Offermann, and our col-

leagues, Kerry Bunker, David DeVries, Rebecca Henson, Bob

Hogan, Denise Lyons, Sam Manoogian, Connie McArthur, Joel

Rothaizer, Amy Webb, and Randy White.

姝Academy of Management Learning & Education, 2006, Vol. 5, No. 4, 463–483.

........................................................................................................................................................................

463

The Deeper Work of

Executive Development

Often overlooked in management theory and education, how leaders function in an

intrapersonal sense—the “inner game” of leadership—is pivotal. We develop this idea in

a specific application by describing how psychological wounds sensitize executives to be

anxious about getting hurt again. These vigilant and unconscious concerns distort

perceptions of organizational reality and lead to unnecessarily intense emotional

reactions such as anger, fear, and panic. In turn, this kind of emotional perturbation can

cloud judgment and hamper performance. We present a practical psychology of the inner

world of distorted beliefs, anachronistic assumptions, and misplaced fears that often lurk

beneath counterproductive behavior. Considerable attention is given to what

management educators can do to work at this deeper level by helping leaders become

aware of, manage, and, ultimately, outgrow being hypersensitive to failure, inadequacy,

rejection, dependency, and the like.

We argue here for the utility of a deeper ap-

proach to management development by describing

an application we have created and refined over

the last decade in our work with senior leaders.

Before describing the theory and intervention

model, we locate this particular approach in the

broader field of management education.

Correspondence concerning this work may be directed to: Rob

Kaiser, Kaplan DeVries Inc., 1903 G Ashwood Court, Greens-

boro, NC 27455. E-mail may be sent to: rkaiser@

kaplandevries.com

Furthermore, skills in each successive category

build on those found in the previous one: for in-

stance, self-control is needed to maintain effective

relationships; interpersonal skills are prerequisite

for effective leadership, and so on.

The Hogan and Warrenfeltz domain model helps

to organize the comprehensive lists of competen-

cies and skills such as those offered by Boyatzis

(1982), Lombardo and Eichinger (2000), and Whetten

and Cameron (2002; see Hogan & Kaiser, 2005, for

an integration of common competencies into this

framework). Another contribution is that this model

helps us to appreciate how development in one

domain is linked to development in deeper do-

mains (see Figure 1). Understanding the sequence

of development across the full spectrum of what is

required for success in a managerial role helps

redirect educational efforts when attempts to im-

prove business or leadership skills head-on aren’t

working.

The Deeper Work

Most management development activities are

aimed at the domains nearer to the surface of this

model: leadership and, most often, technical busi-

ness skills (Burke & Day, 1986; Csoka, 1997; Porter &

McKibbins, 1988). Indeed, recent criticisms have

charged that contemporary business education is

too concerned with the principles and functions of

business and not concerned enough with helping

managers develop the skills to actually put those

principles into action (Mintzberg & Gosling, 2002;

Pfeffer & Fong, 2002). In particular, these critics

have pointed out the lack of education in the lead-

ership and interpersonal arenas. But even less

common are interventions that explicitly consider

the underlying drivers of managerial behavior

(Kaiser & DeVries, 2000). This approach hinges on

the assumption that growing as a manager re-

quires growing personally (Kaplan, 1990; Kaplan,

Drath, & Kofodimos, 1991; Kilburg, 2000; Lyons,

2002). In terms of the Hogan and Warrenfeltz (2003)

domain model, work on this deeper level is a mat-

ter of digging into the lowland of intrapersonal

skills, the province of one’s basic beliefs and as-

sumptions, as well as strategies for regulating

one’s impulses and emotional needs.

The potential leverage that intrapersonal skills

hold for improving interpersonal, leadership, and

business skills is suggested by how Salovey and

Mayer’s (1990) construct of emotional intelligence

has been appropriated by the leadership industry

and touted as a silver-bullet. In the same enthusi-

astic spirit, but with a measured tone, some newer

forms of management education are emphasizing

the development of intrapersonal skills. One nota-

ble example is the revolutionary program intro-

duced recently by Henry Mintzberg and col-

leagues, the International Master’s Program in

Practicing Management. The first module in the

curriculum concentrates on self-awareness and in-

trospection, what they call “developing the reflec-

tive mind-set.” The rationale is that self-knowl-

edge is the cornerstone of all insight

(Mintzberg, 2004).

The practical reason for addressing the intra-

personal domain in management development is

that improving performance involves not just ac-

quiring or modifying behaviors, but also contend-

ing with the skewed mental models, biased expec-

tations, and emotional overreactions that throw off

behavior in the first place. It is only practical to

work not only at a behavioral level but also at a

deeper level that is directly tied to behavior. And

because intrapersonal skills are harder to develop

(Hogan & Warrenfeltz, 2003) yet vastly consequen-

tial for the application of interpersonal, leader-

ship, and business skills, they may also provide a

competitive advantage, helping to differentiate

managers in the competition for senior leadership

jobs (Mintzberg & Gosling, 2002: 28). Further, edu-

cational institutions that excel in helping execu-

tives grow in this way may also realize certain

advantages.

What follows is an elaboration of a model we’ve

been working on in action-research with our exec-

utive clients (see Kaplan & Kaiser, 2003a). Our in-

tent is to show how this approach might be of

benefit to management development professionals

such as business school faculty, program trainers,

and executive coaches. The model fits nicely in the

intrapersonal domain and, by way of example, il-

FIGURE 1

The Hogan and Warrenfeltz (2003) Domain Model

464 DecemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education

lustrates the utility of working at this deeper level.

The central idea is that many executives—like

most people—are sensitive to being psychologi-

cally hurt by a repeat experience of a painful event

from the past. This anxious disposition can distort

an executive’s perception of organizational reality

and cause unnecessarily intense emotional reac-

tions such as anger, fear, and panic. When the

individual’s intrapersonal skills for regulating this

kind of distress are underdeveloped, the result is

defensive behavior that is all too often misguided

and counterproductive. Our framework is a kind of

practical psychology that can shed light on the

internal causes of some of the more puzzling per-

formance problems among leaders.

A Grounded Model

The research that led up to this framework wasn’t

“theory oriented”—rather, it was “problem ori-

ented” (cf. Lawrence, 1992) in the sense that we

developed the model in helping our executive cli-

ents overcome personal barriers in their leader-

ship (see Kaplan et al., 1991, and Kaplan, 1998, for

a summary of the approach). In other words, the

model is grounded in the experience of executives

struggling to address longstanding performance

issues. We do not offer this model as a panacea for

all performance problems, but it does provide a

fresh approach to some familiar, vexing problems.

Also, we were not interested in the wholesale im-

port of existing theory to apply to managers. For

instance, many of the dynamics we discuss can be

understood in terms of modern psychoanalytic the-

ory (Bernstein & Warner, 1981), in much the same

manner as Gabriel and Griffiths (2002) use psycho-

analysis to describe how unconscious processes

often inhibit emotional learning in organizations.

Our experience, though, is that few executives,

particularly male executives, are open to tradi-

tional therapeutic interventions (cf. Addis & Ma-

halik, 2003). Moreover, the clinical practice of psy-

choanalysis requires specialized training and

expertise, which the majority of management edu-

cators lack.

Rather than turning to pop psychology or cross-

ing the boundaries of professional expertise, we

developed a practical psychology for a particular

class of developmental issues facing managers.

Although our theory is largely inductive, it is in-

formed by existing theory and research, especially

the literatures on stress and coping and adult de-

velopment. For those educators and trainers who

take a purely behavioral approach, our purpose is

to demonstrate the utility of also working on the

individual’s personal development. For those who

already work on both the outer and inner levels,

we offer a framework that is derived expressly

from the managerial population and so may be

more directly applicable to managers.

AN INTRAPERSONAL APPROACH TO

PERFORMANCE PROBLEMS

To help executives improve their performance, it is

useful to start with an explicit conceptualization of

performance. One useful point of view is to think of

executive performance as a matter of form (Kaplan

& Kaiser, 2003a), in the same sense that athletes

have form. When an athlete is “on,” the person is

said to be in top form. As articulated in the concept

of flow (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990), having top form

means being fully engaged with the task, where

mind and body are moving with little or no friction

against the outside world. The mechanics of put-

ting, or shooting a jump shot, or swimming a free-

style race are executed with smooth precision and

the individual is able to manage a delicate coor-

dination between the self and the unfolding events

on the course, court, or in the pool. There is a

dynamic integration between responding to the

presenting challenge as well as the internal state

of the self.

When form is “off,” things aren’t so smooth. Phys-

ical action is tense and abrupt. Concentration is

broken. The individual loses focus on external de-

mands and the execution of form and diverts at-

tention and energy to manage internal demands—

primarily self-protection. The person is liable to

panic, primed for “fight-or-flight.” And form be-

comes distorted, a crude approximation of what it

is supposed to be. The grip is too tight, the follow

through isn’t there, or the stroke is choppy. Csik-

szentmihalyi (1990) has found this distinction be-

tween high-level and poor performance to apply

across a range of athletic, intellectual, and artistic

domains.

This description of ineffective performance also

pertains in the executive suite. When an execu-

tive’s form is off, it is often a matter of going to the

extreme (Lombardo & Eichinger, 2000; McCall,

1998). The tendency for intense, driven people to go

overboard is all too familiar. Consider the follow-

ing examples, couched in terms of dimensions

commonly found in competency models and skill

taxonomies (e.g., Boyatzis, 1982; Kaplan & Kaiser,

2003b; Lombardo & Eichinger, 2000; Whetten &

Cameron, 2002). Senior managers must have high

standards and hold people accountable but it is

not uncommon for some to cross over into abrasive-

ness. Just ask the people that work for them. To

empower is vital in running a portfolio of busi-

2006 465Kaiser and Kaplan

nesses or an entire enterprise, yet it is all too easy

for hands-off executives to trust and delegate to

the point of abdication. Strategic thinking is prob-

ably the most sought-after skill in top managers,

yet the strategic reach of some expansive vision-

aries can exceed the organization’s grasp—its ca-

pacity to execute. And nothing else counts unless

you can execute, yet it is so easy for executives

with a track record for getting things done as mid-

dle managers to get bogged down in operational

detail when they reach the top of the house.

Executives are also likely to go the other way—to

underdo things— despite how counterintuitive that

may seem when we think of them as bold, aggres-

sive people. But some senior managers have trou-

ble mustering the courage to address performance

issues with their team and deal with the problem

only when it becomes a crisis. Others have trouble

delegating authority and struggle with truly em-

powering their team. And some executives spend

almost no time tracking trends and contemplating

the implications for their strategic position, while

others get lost in the big picture and neglect the

managerial blocking and tackling needed for their

organization to execute.

Each example shows one of two basic types of

performance problems: overdoing and underdoing

(Kaplan & Kaiser, 2003b, c). In all cases, perfor-

mance of an otherwise valuable skill or competen-

cy—accountability, empowerment, strategic agil-

ity, driving for results—is distorted: Either the level

of performance falls well short or it is excessive.

This view of performance problems is important

because it helps us to define the developmental

agenda as a matter of pegging the elusive virtue

between the vices of deficiency and excess, by

either ramping up or toning down. It is also helpful

in setting up our proposed model for working at the

intrapersonal level by posing two questions: (1)

Why does the manager hold back in this area—

why the “inhibition?” Or, (2) Why does the man-

ager go overboard in that area—why the “compul-

sion?”

Sensitivities

If this is how an executive’s form is off, then what

throws it off? As with an athlete, it can be some-

thing as simple as fatigue or illness. Low on en-

ergy, it is harder to be sharp, one’s tolerance is

lower, one is more likely to overreact (Baumeister

& Heatherton, 1996). But beyond circumstantial fac-

tors, we have also found that an individual’s “bag-

gage” comes into play.

Lurking below the surface of poor form is—not

always, but more often than is commonly real-

ized—what we call a sensitivity (Kaplan & Kaiser,

2003a). In everyday conversation, sensitivities are

referred to as people’s “hot buttons” or “issues.”

More formally, we define a sensitivity as a set of

emotionally charged beliefs and expectations gen-

eralized from experience that serve to protect the

individual from repeating a painful injury—phys-

ical or psychological. They are products of the

adaptive learning system that functions as an in-

ternal alarm to warn us when danger is afoot

(Damasio, 1994).

These cognitive-affective-motivational networks

operate below the threshold of awareness in the

nonverbal experiential information-processing

system. This is a part of the human brain shared

with all vertebrates and is designed to automati-

cally interpret environmental cues through associ-

ations with content in memory (Epstein, 1990, 1994).

That is, sensitivities work by matching stimuli in

the present perceptual field with encodings from

the past without us being aware of this process.

Sensitivities create a vigilant disposition to anx-

iously expect, selectively perceive, and intensely

react to symbolic cues associated with a prior hurt.

They can also cause individuals to unconsciously

create emotionally charged episodes in an attempt

to replay historical events and resolve the under-

lying conflict.

Because this pattern takes place

outside of awareness, the person is apt to respond

with an habitual pattern of behaviors that elicit the

anxiously anticipated responses from others, thus

creating a self-fulfilling prophesy.

When an executive carries around a sensitivity,

it usually has roots in painful experiences in the

individual’s past.

These are events or episodes

We thank an anonymous reviewer for encouraging us to make

this point. This dynamic is known in psychoanalytic theory as a

“repetition compulsion.” Modern thinking about repetition com-

pulsions (e.g., Bernstein & Warner, 1981) holds that these cycli-

cal emotional states and associated behavior patterns were

originally adaptive when learned at an earlier stage of life (e.g.,

childhood), but in the context of the present stage (e.g., adult-

hood) they are usually self-defeating. They are continually

played out as an attempt to symbolically go back and master

the prior circumstances that resulted in injury with the hope

that this time they will prevail.

In our practice of executive development, we first observed this

phenomenon in relating assessment data on early life history to

present leadership and personal life data. There was almost

always a precipitating painful event, episode, or chronic situ-

ation that seemed to instill the sensitivity. But there are two

other theoretical ways one can develop a sensitivity. First,

through vicarious learning (Bandura, 1977): by observing some-

one else have the experience and making an association to

some aversive consequence and identifying in some way with

that individual. Second, there may be no painful or costly prior

experience, but the anticipation of an experience that could

466 DecemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education

from which the person came away feeling hurt or

inferior or incapable or unworthy or rejected. Fa-

miliar examples abound, from having one’s trust in

others grossly abused, to being rejected socially by

one’s peer group, to not doing well in school, to

being the unfortunate child of negligent or abusive

parents. Although experiences that leave lasting

effects classically occur in childhood, powerful

events in adulthood can have the same impact

(Janoff-Bulman, 1992). In effect, these experiences

injure “the body psychologic” to the point that the

wound remains sensitive to the touch years later.

The person is “once bitten, twice shy,” as the say-

ing goes. Overlaying the innate survival system is

a learned vigilance toward anything that even

vaguely suggests a particular harmful experience

might happen again. This creates a bias to detect

the early warning signs that predict a recurrence,

which sets us up to misinterpret a range of objec-

tively benign environmental cues as dangerous

(Ayduk et al., 2000). The survival value of this ten-

dency in our evolutionary history is obvious and,

although the threats we face in the modern world

are more psychological than physical, our neural

system is designed for survival in a physically

hostile world (Simeons, 1961). It is, ironically, the

very same mechanism that accounts for how ex-

quisitely adaptable we humans are.

Thus, sensitivities are automatically activated

by the features of situations that serve as symbolic

representations of past hurts. Once triggered, the

alarm is sounded and perceptions get further ex-

aggerated while self-protection takes priority. Ap-

praisals of situational demands and personal re-

sources to meet them get distorted (Janoff-Bulman,

1992; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). People’s sense of

what it will take to protect their well-being is over-

estimated, while their sense of what they can bring

to bear on the matter is underestimated. Thus the

definition of threat: When something of central im-

portance to a person such as physical safety, well-

being, self-concept, reputation, or a loved one is in

jeopardy and the demands of getting it out of

harm’s way are seen as exceeding one’s resources

to do so (Lazarus, 1991; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984).

When a person is psychologically threatened,

the physiological stress response is engaged. This

is an intense activation of the sympathetic nervous

system to prepare the body for “fight-or-flight”

(Benson, 1975; Cannon, 1932; see also Tomaka,

Blascovich, Kelsey, & Leitten, 1993). Motivational

urges for fight-or-flight manifest in reflexive, self-

protective behaviors that appear to observers as

odd and noteworthy. They have a rigid quality, and

the individual becomes distressed if he is blocked

from executing the sequence of behavior (Epstein,

1990). Self-protective actions following the “fight”

principle appear aggressive and undercontrolled;

those following the “flight” principle look like

avoidance and overcontrol. Whether the threat re-

sponse leads to either overdone (fight) or under-

done (flight) behavior depends on the individual’s

motivational regulatory focus (Higgins, 1997). A

promotion regulatory focus, where the preoccupa-

tion is with doing all that one can to prevail, pro-

duces compulsive “overdone/fight” behavior. A

prevention regulatory focus, where the emphasis

is on not provoking, or on otherwise steering clear

of harm’s way, engenders inhibited “underdone/

flight” behavior.

Figure 2 summarizes the major components of

how sensitivities produce distortions in manage-

rial behavior. It depicts the sequence of events that

follow the activation of a sensitivity, from exagger-

ated appraisals through emotional arousal and

motivation to the two types of distortions in form—

behaviors that are overdone and underdone.

Beneath counterproductive behaviors, many ex-

ecutives are sensitive one way or another—sensi-

tive in the sense of being quick to feel threatened

and react accordingly. If you buy the popular idea

of executives as supremely confident and capable

people, then the suggestion that many of them are

vulnerable to feeling threatened may be wildly

incongruous. The fact that sensitivities are not vis-

ible to the naked eye, however, doesn’t mean they

don’t exist. It merely points to how well we can

mask them (see Bunker, 1997).

Sensitivities and Performance Problems

It may be helpful to next consider examples of

specific types of sensitivities along with common

distortions in the form of “overdo” and “underdo”

that they cause. These examples are summarized

in Table 1. Note the following caveat: We do not

mean to suggest that underlying every perfor-

mance issue is a sensitivity. In many cases, inef-

fective performance can simply be a matter of a

lack of experience or skill in that area, poor orga-

nizational structure, or a person– organization mis-

fit. Nonetheless, sensitivities are often at play,

more often than the casual observer might expect.

cause significant psychological or physical loss may also func-

tion much like a sensitivity (see Lazarus & Folkman, 1984, on

vulnerability). The key feature both share with how we define a

sensitivity is the vigilant disposition to anticipate and defend

against an overwhelming attack on something central to one’s

identity— usually status, but also acceptance, ideology, or even

a loved one.

2006 467Kaiser and Kaplan

Sensitivity to Intellectual Inadequacy

A prime example of a sensitivity in executives is a

concern about their intelligence. It can be a feeling

of inferiority that stems from not graduating col-

lege or from attending a lesser school. It often has

to do with not having been a good student in ele-

mentary school or high school. Executives who fear

they are not really very smart often worry about

being “found out” (Clance, 1985).

If a senior manager were to doubt her intellec-

tual capability, what effect might that have on her

behavior? It can go either way: underestimate, un-

derdo and underestimate, overdo (Kaplan, 1999,

2002). Not feeling bright enough, some managers

shy away from or avoid altogether activities they

associate with intelligence. Often, they will avoid

serious efforts to acquire technical knowledge,

having concluded that they don’t have the smarts

to get it. Or they somehow never manage to get

around to systematic industry analysis and long-

term strategic planning. Or they fall curiously si-

lent in meetings, particularly with more senior

managers.

Conversely, some strain to contribute and prove

their intelligence—for example, by dominating

conversation and making it hard for others to get a

word in edgewise. Executives who feel inadequate

intellectually often believe they must work extra

hard to compensate. It is common for these senior

managers to overprepare for meetings and presen-

tations, painstakingly going over all of the mate-

rial to make sure they’ve got it all down. You’ll see

them tied to their notes, not allowing themselves to

be spontaneous, or not making room for audience

participation. They can also be abrasively impa-

tient with others. One senior person who didn’t

realize the extent of his intellect used to justify

coming down hard on others by saying, “I’m not

very bright and I get it. What’s the problem with

this person?”

Sensitivity to Being Weak

A standard implicit expectation for those who hold

senior jobs in a male-dominated leadership cul-

ture is that they be strong, dominant figures (Lord,

FIGURE 2

Sequence of How Sensitivities Throw Off the Performance of Leaders

468 DecemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education

Foti, & DeVader, 1984). At least some of the attrac-

tion to positions of power and authority in organi-

zations comes from a need for status. Often, but

certainly not always, such a need originates from a

desire to compensate for feelings of inferiority

(Adler, 1917). It is no surprise, then, that some ex-

ecutives are anxious to prove their strength. When

problems arise, they swoop in and take charge,

crowding out their staff. They can hog airtime in

meetings, making it a one-way flow of information

that holds others captive to a monologue. To mask

uncertainty, they can present themselves in an

overly confident way that comes across as sheer

arrogance. And sometimes they are so concerned

with “being right” that they’ll run roughshod over

others in an anxious effort to prove their point, no

matter how trivial it may be. To say this can be

intimidating is an understatement.

Going overboard in asserting oneself is but one

reaction to worrying about appearing weak: Oth-

ers include putting too little emphasis on enabling

others to be in a strong position and treating them

with less than due consideration. Executives wor-

ried about not measuring up personally may not

seek input on important decisions. And when oth-

ers take the initiative to serve up solutions or sug-

gestions, these managers can be nearly impossi-

ble to influence. They are also challenged in their

efforts to sit quietly and listen to someone else,

frequently giving in to the urge to interrupt a

speaker with their opinion or with a midstream

criticism of that person’s point. They can have trou-

ble stepping back to let a direct report learn by

working through a tough problem. And they are

frequently sparing with words of encouragement

and praise.

Sensitivity to Disapproval

Executives who are acutely concerned with being

liked often find it unbearably difficult to express

dissatisfaction and hold people accountable. They

equate being firm with being harsh and hold back

when an individual’s performance isn’t cutting it.

They’ll also procrastinate in removing a person

from the job, even when that person is clearly fail-

ing. Others with a fear of being rejected have a

hard time drawing boundaries around participa-

tion. Not wanting to offend, they’ll allow decisions

to stall while giving everyone ample opportunity to

weigh in. When a consensus isn’t forthcoming,

they have a hard time taking a stand and moving

forward. They can also have difficulty with influ-

encing. At the first sign of opposition, the tendency

is to cave in and avoid the conflict.

One executive we coached kept himself holed up

in his office and avoided walking the halls and

having informal conversations with his staff. He

feared forgetting someone’s name or what project

a person was working on and made the assump-

tion that this would be an inexcusable faux pas,

leaving the other person “totally deflated.” The

shame of it was that he was very well liked by his

staff and had a lot of interpersonal credit with

TABLE 1

Common Types of Sensitivities and Associated Distortions in Performance

Sensitivity to ...

Impact on Performance

Underdo—do too little Overdo—do too much

Intellectual inadequacy Doesn’t contribute ideas in meetings Strains to prove self

Doesn’t trust own judgment Works extreme hours

Avoids technical learning Impatience with the pace of others

Avoids industry analysis and

strategic planning

Overprepares for meetings, presentations

Being/appearing weak Doesn’t delegate or empower Talks too much, a “know-it-all”

Doesn’t seek, listen to, or use input Taking over when problems arise

Doesn’t check own judgment Has to always be right, always win

Short on praise or encouragement Arrogance

Disapproval/rejection Doesn’t hold people accountable Indiscriminate with praise

Doesn’t express dissatisfaction Sugar-coats tough messages

Doesn’t stand his/her ground Too inclusive

Not visible Overreacts to constructive criticism

Depending on others Difficulty building a team Micromanages

Doesn’t delegate or seek help Tries to do it all him-/herself

Reluctant to partner with peers Parochial—to focused on own unit

Authority Avoids conflict with superiors Too aggressive with superiors

Ambivalent about own authority Unduly deferential

2006 469Kaiser and Kaplan

them. But as a result of sky-high expectations for

what it takes to be likable and his insecurity about

being able to meet those self-imposed standards,

he scared himself away from opportunities to reg-

ularly check the pulse of his unit and make a

personal connection to his staff.

A sensitivity to disapproval can also lead to

overdoing it. One example is when an individual

is indiscriminant with praise. Over time, these

kind words lose their currency. These managers

may also lose credit for their niceness, instead

being criticized for being soft or sugary-sweet.

Managers with an excessive concern about being

accepted also tend to take constructive feedback

personally, no matter how respectfully delivered. If

they don’t go into a tailspin, they might react de-

fensively, perhaps even with hostility toward their

“accuser.” They overgeneralize the feedback about

a specific instance and take it as an indictment

about them as a human being.

Sensitivity to Depending on Others

Managers who subscribe to the saying, “If you

want something done right, do it yourself,” run into

problems in senior roles that require building a

strong team. A history of being let down in some

significant way makes it hard for people to trust

others. An inability to delegate important tasks

leaves these managers spread thin. They find that

there just isn’t enough time to get everything done

and only get a fraction of their people’s potential

contribution. Or once they reluctantly hand over

responsibility, their tendency to check up con-

stantly on their direct reports’ progress becomes

maddening micromanagement.

Some suspicious executives have difficulty in

cross-functional collaborations because of the

worry about being let down by the other party.

They might let an issue escalate, preferring not to

ask for help lest the helper come back with a re-

quest for an even bigger favor of his own. Or con-

versely, they may be unwilling to make sacrifices

for other people, expecting the favor will go unre-

turned or unappreciated.

Sensitivity to Authority

Effective policy making and strategy formation re-

quires senior managers to take their seat at the

table and be a real player with their peers and

bosses. But some who have had painful experi-

ences with authoritarian or volatile parents can

have trouble engaging in dialogue and debate

with authority figures. In some cases, they are too

quick to defer, fearing dissent could get ugly. In

other cases, expecting resistance, they’ll attack

with counterpoints, bludgeoning the audience

with their position rather than simply offering an-

other perspective to factor into the discussion.

One executive grew up with limited means and

with a physically abusive father. The feedback we

gathered from the rest of the senior team indicated

a unanimous concern that he was strangely quiet

in team meetings. One person said, “I’d like [him]

to be more assertive, to call me on my assump-

tions, and challenge me to understand the needs of

[his business units]. I’ve grown up in a silo and

don’t have the perspective on his businesses. I

need him to educate me.” When we asked the cli-

ent questions to unpack the assumptions behind

his choosing not to point out how his colleagues’

ideas for running the company were shortsighted,

he said, “If I challenge them, they’ll skewer me.

They won’t fight fair. And if I take on [the CEO], I

might lose my job. I grew up poor . . . it’s something

I’d never want my family to have to go through.” In

the throws of an emotional hijacking of his other-

wise clear thinking, he was unable to accept that

his colleagues were asking him to push back and

challenge them. And he seemed to forget that his

personal financial situation was quite comfort-

able. But that is what happens to perception and

judgment when we are utterly captive to our great-

est fears.

Intrapersonal Skills as the Bedrock of

Performance

Hall has argued that career success in the modern

era hinges on two metacompetencies that he calls

adaptability and identity, which largely involve

self-awareness, emotional regulation, and the

ability to learn from mistakes (Briscoe & Hall, 1999;

Hall, 2002). These skills are thought to facilitate the

development of other competencies. Similarly,

Hogan and Warrenfeltz (2003) suggested that in-

trapersonal skill is the foundation on which man-

agement careers are built because how one man-

ages the self has implications for all other aspects

of managerial performance. Impoverished skill at

regulating the emotions and impulses from an ac-

tivated sensitivity can pose problems in interper-

sonal relationships, in fulfilling important leader-

ship roles, and in applying basic business skills.

The disruptive influence of unregulated feelings

of threat in relationships is transmitted through

behaviors that appear curious and idiosyncratic, if

not annoying, to coworkers. We often make an at-

tribution of malicious intent on the part of an ex-

ecutive who is, under the surface, trying to protect

himself. It is sadly ironic that the behavior we

470 DecemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education

experience as offensive so often originates from a

defensive posture in the actor.

The disruptive influence of unregulated

feelings of threat in relationships is

transmitted through behaviors that

appear curious and idiosyncratic, if not

annoying, to coworkers.

Sensitivities also account for one-sidedness or

a lack of versatility in a manager’s leadership

style. Executives who tend to be too forceful and

directive, for instance, also tend not to be as

participative or empowering as they need to.

Similarly, executives who shy away from strate-

gic responsibilities tend also to put too much

time and energy into the tactical and operational

aspects of their jobs. Since versatility on major

oppositions like these is integral to overall effec-

tiveness (Kaplan & Kaiser, 2003b, c; Dennison,

Hooijberg, & Quinn, 1995), failure to contain the

polarizing effects of a sensitivity can also limit a

career.

And the effective application of basic business

skills like budgeting, monitoring, and coordinating

resources depends on clear judgment—when the

emotional perturbation kicked up by threat clouds

one’s thinking, this becomes difficult to achieve.

Again, sensitivities are often at the root of prob-

lematic behaviors that can undermine both an or-

ganization and a career.

[T]he effective application of basic

business skills like budgeting,

monitoring, and coordinating resources

depends on clear judgment—when the

emotional perturbation kicked up by

threat clouds one’s thinking, this

becomes difficult to achieve.

Without the requisite intrapersonal skills to reg-

ulate the effects sensitivities have on behavior,

motivation, and judgment, performance deficits

will show up in the interpersonal, leadership, and

business skill domains. Education and develop-

ment efforts to remedy these needs will be only

partially effective, at best, to the extent that they

neglect consideration of an individual’s function-

ing in the intrapersonal sphere.

The value of business schools and leadership

programs has come under question in recent years,

in large part because of a lack of evidence linking

career success with either holding an MBA degree

or graded performance in MBA programs (Pfeffer &

Fong, 2002). A persistent criticism is the near ex-

clusive focus of such curricula on functional busi-

ness knowledge to the neglect of deeper, harder to

develop competencies like leadership, interper-

sonal skills, and intrapersonal skills (Mintzberg &

Gosling, 2002; Porter & McKibbins, 1988). To the

extent that management development interven-

tions can enhance intrapersonal skills, they may

have a stronger positive impact on the careers of

the managers they educate. This raises a question:

“How do managers develop intrapersonal skills?”

Surely there are many ways to incorporate self-

development in business schools and leadership

programs. In the following, we describe one way

with strategies, tactics, and techniques that we

have found useful in our work helping executives

gain a measure of control over a sensitivity of one

kind or another.

ADDRESSING SENSITIVITIES IN EXECUTIVE

DEVELOPMENT

“All the greatest and most important prob-

lems of life are fundamentally insoluble ...

They can never be solved, but only

outgrown”

—C. G. Jung (quoted in Fritz, 1989).

In the following, we outline a process and set of

techniques for helping executives overcome the

limiting effects of a sensitivity. Our goal is to pro-

vide some general ideas for doing this kind of work

to management educators— business school fac-

ulty, leadership program trainers, and executive

coaches. Our intent is not to offer a cookbook set of

ingredients and procedures but rather to describe

the process we have developed and make refer-

ence to additional resources for further under-

standing and application. Table 2 includes exam-

ples of possible curriculum content to stimulate

ideas for how to implement this approach in the

classroom. The contents of this table are discussed

more fully below. Again, we do not regard this as a

fixed design; our hope is that educators will regard

this material as a starting point and adapt it ac-

cording to their expertise, resources, and setting.

The process we outline below has much in com-

mon with the themes identified by Pfeffer and Fong

(2002) that characterize innovative MBA programs

and new leadership development programs that

hold promise for making executive education more

relevant to the practice of management. First, it is

only applicable for experienced managers and ex-

2006 471Kaiser and Kaplan

TABLE 2

Sample Content and Materials for a Curriculum to Address Sensitivities in Management Education

Developmental Track

Content

Instructional Method

Lecture Reading assignment Writing assignments Group activities Facilitated activities

Track 1: Managing the

symptoms of a

sensitivity

Becoming aware of

the sensitivity

General orientation and

overview of

sensitivities theory

Kaplan & Kaiser (2003a)

chapter on

sensitivities

Journal entries about things

that “get under your skin”

and examples across

time

Small group discussion of

sensitivities, how they

operate, and visible

examples from daily

life

Kegan & Lahey’s (2001) “four

column”/competing commitments

exercise for identifying

sensitivities

Recognizing when

you are threatened

Cognitive, affective,

and physical aspects

of stress & coping

(Lazarus & Folkman,

1984)

Articles, chapters, or

websites on

biofeedback

Journal entries around

feelings and bodily

sensations associated

with overreacting

Role playing and practice

using biofeedback

Biofeedback demonstration and

training

Short-circuiting the

fight-or-flight reflex

Introduction and

overview to basic

stress management

techniques (e.g.,

applied relaxation,

deep breathing)

The Relaxation

Response (Benson,

1975); Learning to

Relax, cassette tape,

available from the

non-profit Institute

for Rational-Emotive

Therapy

(www.rebt.org)

Identifying multiple coping

techniques for dealing

with different types of

distressing situations

Role play for channeling

counterproductive

tendencies into

appropriate outlets

Demonstration and training in

applied relaxation (Ost, 1987)

Managing energy Importance of

maintaining energy,

practical guides to a

healthy life-style

Loehr & Schwartz (2001)

Harvard Business

Review article on

ideal performance

states

Setting goals for diet, sleep,

and exercise and keeping

a log of performance

against those goals

Discussion and sharing

on building in

oscillation between

stress and renewal in

daily life (Loehr &

Schwartz, 2001)

Materials for teaching the Loehr &

Scwartz, (2001) energy

management program are

available from LGE Performance

Systems

(www.corporateathlete.com)

Using others to keep

you in bounds

Research on social

support and help

seeking associated

with development

(Addis & Mahalik,

2003)

Generate a list of

individuals with potential

to be a confidant, deputy,

and/or advisor

Role playing the role of

confidant, deputy, and

advisor as well as the

role of help seeker

Track 2: Outgrowing a

sensitivity

Uncover basic

beliefs/assumptions

Theory of social

constructivism

(Kegan, 1994),

overview of stress

and appraisal

(Lazarus & Folkman,

1984)

Chapters from In Over

Our Heads (Kegan,

1994) on how we

make meaning;

Albert Ellis’ A New

Guide to Rational

Living (Ellis &

Harper, 1975)

Journal entries about

situations that elicit

sensitivities—what of

personal significance is

at stake? What are the

demands and my

resources? How do I know

what is going on?

Discuss and role play

beliefs, expectations,

and assumptions that

are active during

distressing situations

Refer to learning from Kegan &

Lahey’s (2001) “four column”

exercise, distinguish assumptions

from facts

(table continues)

472 DecemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education

Conduct behavioral

experiments

Overview of systematic

desensitization

(Seligman, 1993)

Write down expectations for

experiments: “If I do this,

then what negative

outcome do I expect?”

Role playing exercises to

practice with new

behavior and receive

feedback

Training and practice identifying

opportunities for low-risk

experiments with new behavior

Systematic reflection

on experience

How often do “if, then”

expectations prove true?

What are the boundary

conditions? What am I

learning by testing my

assumptions?

Discuss examples of

practicing new

behaviors in the

workplace and lessons

learned

Explore values and

the self-concept

Selected chapters from

Ibbara’s (2003)

Working Identity

Listing “me” and “not me”

attributes and behaviors

along with counter-

attitudinal essays about

them

Group discussion of

“possible selves”

(Ibarra, 2003) and their

potential and risk

Training in the journaling technique

of “autobiographical self

awareness” (Torbert & Fisher, 1992)

Form a support

system

Overview of ground

rules and norms for

learning

communities

(Kegan & Lahey,

2001)

Chapters 4–7 in Kegan

and Lahey (2001)

Identify potential mentors

and teachers in the

workplace

Establish and enact a

“learning community”

with classmates

Notes: This table describes content and does not treat the question of sequence and ordering in curriculum design. Alternative instructional methods are presented for each

content theme to illustrate knowledge acquisition (lecture, reading), reflective processing (writing), and interactive/experiential practice (small group process, work shop). Note

that the content of Track Two is intended to supplement the iterative cycle of action and reflection discussed in the text.

2006 473Kaiser and Kaplan

ecutives because the work is grounded in their

direct experience. Further, it requires an iterative

cycle of action and reflection, which also must be

grounded in meaningful, real-world experiences.

Second, the focus is on changing how managers

think about business issues—in this case, how

they understand their own leadership and the

emotional drivers of their behavior. Finally, this

process involves a significant action component. It

is designed with constructive behavior change

foremost in mind and thus requires a great deal of

behavioral experimentation and practice on the

job. Rather than “make work,” executives can use

existing work situations and naturally occurring

performance episodes as a high fidelity training

ground, thus minimizing the transfer problem.

Ethical Concerns and Professional Boundaries

Before discussing intervention techniques, a few

words of caution and a discussion of professional

boundaries are in order. When we present this

approach to professional groups, the following

question comes up: “Is this training, consulting,

counseling, or therapy?” These questions are part

of a larger debate concerning lines of professional

demarcation initiated by the rising popularity of

executive coaching (Hart, Blattner, & Leipsic, 2001).

At present, there are no legal guidelines or stan-

dards of practice set forth by professional bodies

such as the American Psychological Association or

the Academy of Management that unequivocally

designate this type of executive development work

as exclusively in one domain or another (Kampa-

Kokesch & Anderson, 2001; Lowman, 1998). The pro-

cess we describe includes elements discussed by

some (Hart et al., 2001; Kilburg, 2000; Sperry, 1993)

as clearly in the consulting or coaching domain

(e.g., focus on current and future work perfor-

mance, linking awareness to action) as well as

some elements that verge into the therapeutic

realm (e.g., interest in past experiences, underly-

ing dynamics). The process also involves elements

common to both domains (e.g., voluntary participa-

tion, confidentiality, a collaborative client–service

provider relationship). As Kilburg (2000: 16 –17) sug-

gests in the context of executive coaching, the

lines of distinction are fuzzy, and effective execu-

tive development necessarily involves examina-

tion of emotional dynamics and prior experiences

(see also, Kampa & White, 2002). We agree with

Lowman (1998) who has argued that when it comes

to psychological consulting to managers, the ques-

tion is less about licensure and more about profes-

sional competence. Professional bodies tend to

agree: for instance, psychologists are bound by a

code of ethics governing their professional conduct

to practice only within their area of expertise

(American Psychological Association, 2002). Simi-

larly, the Academy of Management’s (2002) Code of

Ethical Conduct maintains that members shall

only accept assignments for which they have ap-

propriate expertise.

We offer the following considerations to those

who would engage in this approach to manage-

ment education and development. First, educators

and consultants need competence with psycholog-

ical principles including emotion, motivation, and

unconscious dynamics (see also Kilburg, 2000). We

strongly discourage professionals who lack this

kind of expertise from attempting this type of work

(see also, Lowman, 1998). However, such training

may be available through local psychology depart-

ments.

Second, responsiveness to the learner is a must.

Thus, participation in such a process must be

strictly voluntary and confidential. For instance, in

a business school setting, this type of process

should be elective, not mandatory. In a coaching

setting, there should be no mandate that the de-

tails be shared with the organization. Another form

of responsiveness is to be mindful of the function-

ing of the individual. This process is only intended

for well-functioning adults; it is inappropriate for

individuals who suffer pathology or are signifi-

cantly impaired. According to conventional crite-

ria, holding down a job, successfully attending

higher education, and so on suggests a lack of

pathology and a sufficient level of functioning (see

American Psychiatric Association, 1994: 32, for as-

sessing level of functioning and degree of impair-

ment). This is one way to distinguish between per-

sonal development and therapy.

Third, know your professional limits and the

boundaries on your expertise. And stay within

them. For instance, the learner should do the lion’s

share of making sense of introspection and reflec-

tion on historical life events. The educator’s role is

to provide a structure and facilitate a process; the

content is up to the learner. Avoid making diag-

noses or interpretations on the individual’s behalf.

Also, be prepared to make an outside referral if a

participant shows signs of significant distress

(e.g., intense and prolonged changes in mood, a

major change in personality, reckless or self-

destructive behaviors). To that end, it is wise to

have a prepared list of mental health professionals

in your area for making referrals.

No set of prescriptions can substitute for mea-

sured professional judgment. This type of work

requires true expertise; we urge readers contem-

plating this approach to stay within their knowl-

474 DecemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education

edge base or to seek additional training and edu-

cation where needed.

Setting the Stage

By the time education and development profes-

sionals begin working with an executive whose

performance is hampered by a sensitivity, many

habits of mind and behavior have been firmly es-

tablished. Indeed, we frequently hear from execu-

tives who receive a hefty amount of feedback de-

scribing their shortcomings something along the

lines of, “This isn’t new—I’ve heard this message

before.” What is most helpful to the individual at

this point is a more complex understanding of the

counterproductive behavior and a rich array of

strategies for change.

Assessment

In determining whether a sensitivity is in fact the

culprit, it helps to have a comprehensive assess-

ment of the individual’s leadership in the context

of his life history. Data on early life, current per-

sonal life, and previous and current job perfor-

mance supplemented with a battery of psycholog-

ical assessments provide the unique pieces to the

puzzle. Jointly sifting through all of the data, one

can work with the manager inductively to build a

theory of the individual’s leadership strengths and

limitations as well as motivating factors (see

Kaplan, 1998). As the pieces are laid out, one

guides the manager through the dynamics of how

sensitivities play out so the individual can have

authorship in how the pieces are put together. This

step is crucial because the final picture has to feel

legitimate and make sense to the manager. This

can be a powerful reflective exercise. It is not un-

common for the individual to report being signifi-

cantly moved from this process of constructing a

view of leadership role performance problems as a

function of lifelong issues explicitly connected to

private fears and powerful unconscious needs for

self-protection as well as the unrealistic assump-

tions and expectations that come part and parcel

with these intense emotions.

The foregoing assessment model was borne out

of our consulting practice and may be difficult to

implement in traditional classroom models. How-

ever, we have two alternative suggestions: One is

to add assessment and sessions with feedback

deliverers to the curriculum design. Or to establish

relationships with university or organizational re-

sources such as counseling centers, psychology

departments, or even human resources. A less

elaborate alternative is to adopt a process known

as the “column exercise,” described in full detail

by Harvard psychologists, Robert Kegan and Lisa

Lahey (2001) in their book, How the Way We Talk

Can Change the Way We Work. The process can be

used with classroom-sized groups to facilitate in-

dividual learners through a self-discovery process

beginning with a frustrating work situation to

identifying how one is contributing to it and how

this is related to basic feelings of fear and urges

for self-protection. It typically reveals a heretofore-

unconscious set of fear-tinged beliefs, assump-

tions, and commitments akin to what we call a

sensitivity.

Managing Expectations

Fresh from having their eyes opened to a new way

to understand issues they have struggled with,

executives who are characteristically action-

oriented often feel a pull to get to work on “solving

the problem.” It’s the educator’s responsibility to

calibrate expectations. For one, the work of out-

growing a sensitivity is a long-term process and

demands a different mentality than executives typ-

ically bring to the problem-solving table (Sperry,

1993). For another, there is a wide range of options

to promote such development. This can be sorted

out by helping the leaders develop action plans

tailored to their specific issues and preferred

learning styles, plans that run on two parallel

tracks, one for dealing with symptoms in the short-

term and another for the long-run proposition of

outgrowing the sensitivity altogether.

In setting up this kind of work, trainers, consult-

ants, and educators should also actively manage

expectations about seeing results. The work is

hard and requires a significant investment of time

and emotional energy to outgrow a deep psycho-

logical wound, if indeed it can be outgrown. The

literature on how people actually change addictive

behaviors and other powerful habits is clear: It

takes sustained effort over a long period of time.

Moreover, people cycle through the stages of

change, making substantial progress for a period,

then having a relapse, and cycling back to making

progress again and so on. People go through this

cycle several iterations before making a lasting

change, which then requires ongoing maintenance

(for a validated model of how people change, see

Prochaska, DiClemente, & Norcross, 1992). Under-

standing the implications of a commitment to this

kind of personal development is necessary to keep

developmental goals in perspective and persevere

through the inevitable setbacks and frustrations.

2006 475Kaiser and Kaplan

Track 1: Minimizing the Disruptive Effects of a

Sensitivity

Although we suggested that outgrowing a sensi-

tivity is ultimately a long-term proposition, we find

it useful to approach development on two parallel

tracks: one concerns containing the counterproduc-

tive effects sensitivities have in the here-and-now,

and the other concerns personal transformation in

outgrowing the sensitivity over time. Developmen-

tal goals on the first track are focused on manag-

ing symptoms to minimize the disruptive impact of

sensitivities on day-to-day behavior. Learning to

do this includes becoming aware of one’s sensitiv-

ities, learning how to recognize their onset and

how to interrupt the sequence, managing one’s

energy level, and seeking the support of a col-

league. These steps build generic intrapersonal

skills in a way comparable to traditional stress

management training and the emerging soft-skills

training conducted under the emotional intelli-

gence banner (Cherniss & Adler, 2000).

Becoming Aware

According to constructive-developmental theory,

the basic grammar underlying adult development

is the movement from being utterly subject to

something to being able to take it as object (Kegan,

1994). When we are subject to a sensitivity and the

network of beliefs that grow up around it, we are

under its control. It has us. When we can take it as

object, though, it becomes something we have and

can therefore control in some measure. So the first

step on this developmental path is bringing the

unconscious fears, perceptual biases, and exag-

gerated response tendencies into awareness (see

Assessment section above).

When we are subject to a sensitivity and

the network of beliefs that grow up

around it, we are under its control. It has

us. When we can take it as object,

though, it becomes something we have

and can therefore control in some

measure.

It can be difficult to penetrate the wall of ratio-

nalizations and defenses that shelter a sensitivity

from awareness. It is painful to poke at a psycho-

logical wound. Further, seeing one’s vulnerability

can conflict with a self-image as capable and

strong (Bunker, 1997). Nevertheless the only way to

contain a sensitivity’s disruptive effects is to ac-

knowledge it.

Learning to Recognize the Signals

Emotions evolved in humans to serve an adaptive

function, namely, to prepare the body for action

appropriate to the interpretation of what is hap-

pening in the environment (Plutchnik, 1980). We

call them feelings precisely because we can sense

the physical vibrations and excitations various

emotions produce.

The emotions of fear and anxiety have charac-

teristic physiological correlates (Benson, 1975; To-

maka et al., 1993): increases in heart rate and vas-

cular resistance produce a dramatic increase in

blood pressure and bodily tension. Helping execu-

tives recognize these emotional signals enables

them to detect the onset of threat and the trigger-

ing of a sensitivity. It’s a matter of moving atten-

tion from the head to the body, of settling into

oneself. When executives learn to do this, they are

in a prime position to use their natural biofeed-

back loop to “catch themselves” before the fight-

or-flight response kicks in and engenders counter-

productive defensive behavior.

Learning to Short-Circuit the Fight-or-Flight

Reflex

Learning to recognize when one is falling into the

sequence of experiencing threat and the motiva-

tional urges for fight-or-flight is a necessary pre-

cursor for bleeding off the tension that produces

exaggerated behavior responses. But now the

question becomes: “Once one senses the pattern is

set in motion, what to do?” One technique is simple

to employ—redirect the tension and urge to act

from something counterproductive to a benign ac-

tivity. For example, one executive had a habit of

interrupting people in meetings. She was com-

pelled to raise her concerns or objections sponta-

neously. After she learned to recognize when she

was about to fall into this habit, we worked with

giving her a behavioral alternative. Now she

writes her comments and objections to a speaker’s

message on paper instead of blurting them out. It

took practice to reroute this tendency, but she has

managed to minimize its occurrence. And to boot,

she has a written record of her thoughts and re-

sponses to refer to later—after having the chance

to reconsider if they really are worth mentioning

after all.

Another way to short-circuit anxious behavior is

to develop skill at calming the mind and body at

will. There are two approaches to this that have

476 DecemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education

been experimentally demonstrated to work (Selig-

man, 1993): applied relaxation and transcendental

meditation. Through repeated practice, people can

classically condition their bodies to calm down at

the sound of their internal voice saying “relax” or

some other phrase (see Ost, 1987). People can also

train themselves to substitute a “relaxation re-

sponse” for a threat response with the breathing

and passive mindfulness techniques employed in

centuries-old meditation rituals (see Benson, 1975).

Managing One’s Energy

Most people intuitively understand that it’s harder

to cope with demands in both the external and

internal environment when you are tired or ill. It

requires a real effort to catch oneself in the act of

falling prey to the threat response. Indeed, recent

theoretical and empirical work has demonstrated

the existence of a single, finite energy source re-

sponsible for the functioning of all physical and

psychical activities (Baumeister & Heatherton,

1996). When this energy source is low, people have

greater difficulty regulating their behavior and fall

into old habits and routines. So another thing ex-

ecutives dealing with a sensitivity can do is ac-

tively manage their energy levels. This includes

the things we know we ought to do: Maintain a

healthy and balanced diet with plenty of water, get

a good night of sleep, don’t overindulge with alco-

hol or smoke cigarettes, and make regular time for

aerobic exercise.

Another less known technique comes from Jim

Loehr, a sport psychologist who works with world-

class athletes on maintaining what he calls an

“ideal performance state” (Loehr & Schwartz, 2001).

There are two key components to his model of

energy management. First is what is called “oscil-

lation”—the rhythmic movement between energy

expenditure (stress) and energy renewal (recov-

ery). What Loehr has found is that the primary

enemy of high performance is not stress, but rather

the lack of a disciplined recovery regimen to punc-

tuate periods of stress. The second component in-

cludes rituals that promote oscilliation. These rit-

uals are regular sequences that need to be

established as a regimen. An example is always

taking a brief, uninterrupted break between meet-

ings rather than dash from one to another. Another

example is taking regular vacations, especially

following intense periods at work. As counterintui-

tive as it may seem, systematic use of downtime

can enhance one’s productivity.

Enlisting Help To Keep You in Bounds

The extent to which executives don’t take full ad-

vantage of the social support they have available

is surprising. So another thing we recommend to

executives working to curtail the effects of a sen-

sitivity is to enlist a confidant, deputy, or advisor.

Although we recommend reaching out for help on

the deeper, long-run developmental activities, a

helping relationship with a trustworthy colleague

can also provide invaluable assistance in contain-

ing the disruptive effects in the near term. Three

particular ways are keeping the individual fo-

cused on developmental issues with real-time

feedback, providing a source of advice or counsel,

and defining an open space in which to vent or

process distressing emotions.

There is a pragmatic basis for encouraging ex-

ecutives to share with a trusted coworker what

they are learning about themselves and working

on developmentally: It holds them accountable to

staying focused on the developmental agenda. The

psychology of public commitments is well docu-

mented: Telling other people you will do some-

thing dramatically ups the odds that you will in

fact do it (Cialdini, 2000). Noteworthy here is that

managers engaged in executive coaching who

share their development plans with coworkers are

more likely to show performance improvements

(Fulmer & Goldsmith, 2001).

Having someone in the workplace to turn to for

advice when one is struggling with an emotionally

charged issue is highly advantageous. Tapping into

that person’s experience, knowledge about the situ-

ation, and understanding of the particular issue can

broaden an individual’s view of the situation and

possible solutions. The colleague can also provide a

safe way to check one’s assumptions and see if one’s

assessment is out of alignment. The individual also

can authorize the confidant to provide real-time feed-

back when overreacting is detected.

A confidant also provides opportunities to blow off

emotional steam in a safe setting. The process of

giving voice to unsettling emotions and doomful ex-

pectations has an uncanny way of helping us to see

straighter about the reality of a situation. The mere

process of talking about something that is feared can

be relieving. After having been listened to, and lis-

tening to yourself speaking out loud, it is common to

experience a release of pent up tension and stress.

Track 2: Outgrowing the Sensitivity Altogether

In many ways, the goal of efforts in Track One is

damage control: preventing a sensitivity from get-

ting the best of you in daily life. The goal of Track

2006 477Kaiser and Kaplan

Two is to promote personal growth over the long

haul. Adult development and learning is fueled by

an iterative sequence of reflection and action

(Hogan & Warrenfeltz, 2003; Mintzberg, 2004). That

is, introspection into one’s experience provides in-

spiration for trying new ways of doings things,

while trying out new behaviors provides grist for

the mental mill to generate ways in which one

might approach things differently. Both action and

reflection are necessary; as Mintzberg (2004)

quipped, action without reflection is thoughtless

while reflection without action is passive.

Most adult learning is incremental—it’s a matter

of adding knowledge and facts that fit into one’s

existing mental models. Except for the self-aware-

ness component of identifying one’s sensitivities,

the content in Track One above largely requires

incremental learning. Transformational learning

is different altogether—it concerns changing fun-

damentally the nature of the mental model. Infor-

mational learning changes what we know; trans-

formational learning changes how we know

(Kegan & Lahey, 2001). And transformational learn-

ing is the key to outgrowing a sensitivity because

it promises to reconstitute the way a person con-

ceives, perceives, and experiences the self and the

world. This does not mean that outgrowing a sen-

sitivity requires people to radically alter their

identities. But achieving a developmental mile-

stone of this sort requires a character shift (Kaplan,

1990). Such a shift is not so much a revolution in

who one is, but an evolution significant enough to

be considered fundamental.

What follows are steps that build on the incre-

mental learning from the short-term, containment-

oriented techniques to facilitate the natural course

of adult development. Using these techniques

takes time, patience, and discipline. Counterpro-

ductive patterns established by a sensitivity are

powerfully resistant to change and become deeply

ingrained habits through years of repetition. This

doesn’t mean that it is impossible to make a trans-

formational shift, but it does mean that the resolve

to grow must be fierce. When approached with

discipline and steadfast commitment along with a

sense of humor and compassion for oneself, follow-

ing these guidelines can result in expanding the

complexity of one’s way of knowing and being in

the world, making one more adaptable to cope

with the exigencies of life and work.

Uncover Basic Beliefs and Assumptions

To get perspective on a sensitivity and hold it as

object requires an understanding of how it is set off

by how one makes sense of one’s circumstances.

People construct their understanding of the envi-

ronment by drawing upon the contents of their

mental models—the basic beliefs and tacit as-

sumptions they hold about the nature of the self,

other people, and the world (Kegan, 1994). To move

this kind of knowledge from subject to object, indi-

viduals can build from skill at using biofeedback

established to monitor for the fight-or-flight re-

sponse. Now they take this one step further by

noting the circumstantial contingencies that are

paired with the fearful feelings. The goal is for

learners to get a clearer sense of what it is about

how they interpret events that threatens them:

“What meaning do I make out of these situations

and how does this produce fear?”

As they get better at short-circuiting the fight-or-

flight response, learners can devote attention to

identifying the appraisals that immediately pre-

cede the shot of anxiety that comes with being

threatened. Here it is important to identify the

thoughts about what of personal significance is

thought to be at stake in the encounter, what was

assumed to be the demands for ensuring its secu-

rity, and what were the estimates of one’s ability to

meet those demands (see Lazarus & Folkman,

1984).

This exercise is designed to identify and unpack

tacit beliefs and operating assumptions that shape

appraisals and determine emotional experience

(Lazarus, 1991). The reason is that those assump-

tions will need to be carefully examined. Assump-

tions get you into trouble when you forget that they

are assumptions and instead take them to be facts.

The learning opportunity occurs when tacit beliefs

are recognized as assumptions rather than self-

evident truths; they then become open to disconfir-

mation. There’s no point testing the validity of

something one holds to be true. Learning to distin-

guish between facts and assumptions breaks the

seal of self-limiting ways of interpreting the envi-

ronment that contain a person.

Assumptions get you into trouble when

you forget that they are assumptions and

instead take them to be facts. The

learning opportunity occurs when tacit

beliefs are recognized as assumptions

rather than self-evident truths; they then

become open to disconfirmation.

The basic course of learning is to begin with a

fuzzy boundary around a principle and to slowly

establish a more precise definition through re-

peated experience and contemplation. Because the

478 DecemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education

beliefs associated with a sensitivity are acquired

under conditions of high arousal and fear, they

tend to be broad overgeneralizations (Epstein,

1990). And because they reside in the unconscious

experiential part of the mind and are vital to a

person’s sense of security, one is typically subject

to them. Thus, these beliefs and assumptions are

unlikely to have been formed under rational scru-

tiny. Being able to tamp down the excessive dis-

tress associated with threat, the individual is in a

strong place to begin exploring the validity of

these assumptions, articulate boundary condi-

tions, and make a more accommodating mental

model.

Conduct Behavioral Experiments

Exploring revisions to one’s mental models opens

the door for trying out new behaviors. As individ-

uals grow somewhat more comfortable with being

in situations that have traditionally been threaten-

ing, they are ready to experiment with new ways of

acting. This includes freeing oneself from inhibi-

tions of not doing something because of a fear of

increasing the likelihood of harm (doing the under-

done) as well as holding back on compulsions that

were thought to be vital to overcoming the threat

(not doing the overdone).

This process is best taken one small step at a

time by capitalizing on naturally occurring, rela-

tively low-risk opportunities to try out new behav-

ior on the job. The purpose here is to test the net-

work of implicit beliefs and assumptions identified

in the previous exercise. Being able to recognize

assumptions for what they are, the person can seek

out disconfirming evidence. It is important to take

stock of when the expected negative consequences

don’t occur—and guard against rationalizing away

the reasons for disconfirmation.

By conducting increasingly more “risky” behav-

ioral experiments like these, the person is follow-

ing a proven method for overcoming fears and

phobias called systematic desensitization (Selig-

man, 1993). By doing the thing that fear preclud-

ed—and doing it not just once but consistently—

people gradually learn subtle nuances that

indicate when their fears are and are not war-

ranted. Phobias become self-sealing by depriving

the individual of the very experience that could

disprove the fearful assumption. Therefore it is no

small accomplishment to get over this barrier. The

way to reduce one’s fear is to do what one is afraid

of, safely.

It is naı¨ve to assume that all experiments will

prove the individual’s self-protective beliefs and

assumptions are wrong. That is why it is important

to conduct the initial experiments when the risk is

relatively low. As comfort with conducting them

grows and the mental models become more differ-

entiated, one is then ready to raise the stakes—

slowly and deliberately. This is another instance

of where the help of a coach, confidant, or learning

group in a classroom comes in handy.

Systematically Reflect on Experience

To capitalize on the potential learning from behav-

ioral experimentation, it is useful to take time to

think through the results. One technique for doing

this is to make regular entries in a journal. Writing

out one’s experience and observations is more

than a kind of exercise in discipline—it’s a way of

processing the lessons learned at a deeper level

(Mintzberg, 2004). When a person has to take the

time to articulate an idea or a lesson, the changes

to the mental model are strengthened.

Writing in a journal doesn’t have to be a big

deal—like writing a dissertation. It’s not intended

to be read by a critical audience. Actually, it is only

intended for the author. There is no imperative to

toil over grammar, structure, and composition ei-

ther. The habit of regularly structuring thoughts to

some minimum degree and writing or typing them

out is enough. We should emphasize this point: We

know of several cases where executives would

avoid using a journal out of a fear that they weren’t

good enough writers, that they didn’t have time to

“write the whole story” and so on.

There is evidence that journaling can in fact

facilitate transformational learning. A study of

MBA students who were trained in the journaling

and reflection method of “autobiographical self-

awareness” found that a significant proportion of

these adults made a developmental stage transi-

tion over the course of a year (Torbert & Fisher,

1992). Moreover, reflective exercises like journaling

are relatively easy to implement in both short

courses and longer programs. And executives typ-

ically don’t engage in these exercises on their own,

but do report finding high value in them when

instructed how to do so (Mintzberg, 2004).

Explore Values and the Self-Concept

Values and ideas about what “is me” and what “is

not me” derive from conclusions about what is the

subjectively right way to be (Ibarra, 2003). And be-

cause people are motivated to appear rational,

those things that a person finds threatening tend to

get devalued in the process of justifying behav-

ioral choices. Behavioral choices in the context of a

sensitivity owe themselves to one of two basic

2006 479Kaiser and Kaplan

motivational strategies for dealing with threat

(Higgins, 1997): the prevention regulatory focus

that causes avoidant, underdo behaviors and the

promotion regulatory focus that produce aggres-

sive, overdo behaviors.

As self-awareness of the emotional basis for pre-

ferred ways of behaving expands from following

the prior steps, executives have the opportunity to

cast their value structure in a new light (Lyons,

2002). Consider how values are expressed in one’s

leadership style. We routinely find that the leader-

ship style of an executive is often lopsided be-

cause the individual polarizes on fundamental du-

alities like forceful versus enabling leadership or

strategic versus operational leadership (Kaplan &

Kaiser, 2003c). The pattern is to overdo one side of

the equation and underdo the other. The overdone

side is highly valued by the person, a central way

in which he defines himself. The underdone side is

devalued, often viewed as a caricaturized version

of the vital organizational role that it is in reality,

and regarded as the antithesis of the individual’s

self-concept. If the person defines himself through

identification with the overdone side, he also de-

fines himself through dis-identification with the

underdone side. And through the process of justi-

fying one’s leadership behavior, values and be-

liefs about leadership in general get formed.

One way that growing as a person is central to

growing as a leader is by coming to recognize

when biases in implicit beliefs about leadership

spring from the same network of assumptions and

beliefs wrapped around a sensitivity. As execu-

tives gain greater perspective on this, they can

entertain the possibility that the need for protect-

ing themselves from threat has influenced their

beliefs about leadership more so than the reality of

organizational needs. This puts the person in a

prime position to reformulate their leadership

values.

The effect of reforming the structure of one’s val-

ues is that it frees the individual to be more ver-

satile. Behaviors that were once out of the realm of

possibility become accessible (Lyons, 2002). And

behaviors that were taken to the extreme continue

to be seen as important, but the negative conse-

quences of their rigid intensity can be considered.

So the person can reallocate emotional invest-

ments in the way he understands how he leads,

manages, and relates to others. Another benefit

here is that roles that the individual heretofore

undervalued—and thus may be absent from the

team he has staffed— can be appreciated and

filled accordingly.

Form a Support System

Finally, some measure needs to be taken to pro-

vide social support for the individual’s ongoing

effort to bring about personal transformation. It is

all too easy to slip back into old habits, especially

in periods of chronic or intense pressure. Also, the

human mind has an innate mechanism for pushing

unresolved issues into the unconscious recesses.

Forming a network of other people to sustain the

effort can be most effective in keeping the devel-

opmental agenda on the radar. This is an exten-

sion of the reasons for enlisting a confidant dis-

cussed earlier.

A coaching relationship is one way to build so-

cial support. But the danger here is in becoming

dependent on the coach. The coach’s role is not

about giving the manager a fish, it is about teach-

ing him how to fish. Further, a formal coaching

relationship is time-bound. An additional, more

sustainable support system can be found in the

people with whom an individual works.

More sustainable forms of support can be found

inside the organization, with one’s coworkers. One

example is mentoring (Kram, 1985), which involves

a developmental relationship between a more ex-

perienced manager and a less experienced pro-

te´ge´. Mentors serve two roles, one of socioemo-

tional support through acceptance, counseling,

and encouraging the prote´ge´, and one of career

facilitation through providing challenging assign-

ments, sponsorship, and sharing insights and

skills. There is clear evidence that mentoring is

related to career and job satisfaction as well as an

enhanced sense of professional identity and com-

petence (Allen, Eby, Poteet, Lentz, & Lima, 2004).

Mentoring programs are most effective when par-

ticipation is voluntary, mentors get to choose their

prote´ge´s, and role expectations are clarified at the

outset. Using this general technique in the present

context would involve explicitly identifying the

goals of personal growth and gaining some mea-

sure of control over one’s sensitivities. Obviously,

it would be advantageous for the mentor to have

had a similar experience with such an issue, either

personally or in a mentoring relationship with an-

other individual.

In the right environment and organizational con-

text, one can also engage with peers to form a

“learning community” (Kegan & Lahey, 2001). The

purpose of such a group is to create a holding

environment where people can jointly work on

their development. A peer learning community

needs to be a trustworthy and safe place where

individuals can share what issues they are grap-

pling with and what they are learning about them-

480 DecemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education

selves, and find support for the inevitable growing

pains that come with development. Challenge is

another essential ingredient. It takes a good col-

league to be able to feel both empathy for the

struggle and the comfort to keep you honest. In the

spirit of dialogue and continuing commitment to

development, these groups should meet on a reg-

ular basis.

Beyond supporting individual development, this

technique also holds promise for promoting devel-

opment at the team and organizational levels as

individuals come to understand each other more

completely and mutual trust and respect deepens.

We have seen powerful, unanticipated effects

among the teams we’ve helped set up these kinds

of peer learning communities. Outsiders report a

noticeable increase in collaboration, communica-

tion, and mutual support. They also recognize an

enhanced ability for constructive debate and

healthy conflict over key decisions. And over time,

as the individuals move up and out in their career

trajectories, they bring these deeply personal/pro-

fessional bonds with them. The result is that func-

tional boundaries become permeable and silos

erode, enhancing organizational effectiveness

through the relational conduit formed through the

shared process of peer learning.

CONCLUSION

At the root of many executive performance prob-

lems are sensitivities that dispose the individual

to feel threatened. Unless these motivational

sources of ineffectiveness are acknowledged and

the individual learns how to regulate them, signif-

icant and sustained performance improvements

are unlikely. The deeper work of executive devel-

opment requires becoming aware of one’s sensitiv-

ities and learning how to minimize their disruptive

influence. In the best case, through a variety of

means, relationships, and sustained effort, indi-

viduals may develop better intrapersonal skills

and even outgrow their sensitivity to attain a

greater peace within themselves that is reflected

in the actions we see as observers.

Looking over the course of a life that has made

such a journey can be like examining a cross-

section of an aged tree. In the rings representing

the earlier years of life we might find evidence of a

wound, a distortion in the rings where the tree was

cut. For several succeeding rings, the distortion

persists and is even amplified. But as we move our

eyes to the outer rings, we find that the years have

had a mellowing effect. The once prominent dis-

tortions have given way to a smoother form, one

that approximates a perfect, unbroken circle, save

for the slight asymmetry telling of the path the

gentle old perennial has traveled.

REFERENCES

Academy of Management. 2002. Code of ethical conduct. Acad-

emy of Management Journal, 45: 291–295.

Addis, M. E., & Mahalik, J. R. 2003. Men, masculinity, and the

contexts of help seeking. American Psychologist, 58: 5–14.

Adler, A. 1917. Study of organ inferiority and its psychical com-

pensation. New York: Nervous and Mental Diseases Pub-

lishing Co.

Allen, T. D., Eby, L. T., Poteet, M. L., Lentz, E., & Lima, L. 2004.

Career benefits associated with mentoring for prote´ge´s: A

meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89: 127–136.

American Psychological Association. 2002. Ethical principles of

psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist,

57: 1060 –1073.

American Psychiatric Association. 1994. Diagnostic and Statis-

tical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th ed. Washington, DC:

Author.

Ayduk, O., Mendoza-Denton, R., Mischel, W., Downey, G., Peake,

P. K., & Rodriguez, M. 2000. Regulating the interpersonal

self: Strategic self-regulation for coping with rejection sen-

sitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79:

776 –792.

Bandura, A. 1977. Social learning theory. New Jersey: Prentice

Hall.

Baumeister, R. F., & Heatherton, T. F. 1996. Self-regulation fail-

ure: An overview. Psychological Inquiry, 7: 1–15.

Benson, H. 1975. The relaxation response. New York: Avon.

Bernstein, A. E., & Warner, G. M. 1981. An introduction to con-

temporary psychoanalysis. Lanham, MD: Jason Aronson,

Inc.

Boyatzis, R. E. 1982. The competent manager. New York: Wiley.

Briscoe, J. P., & Hall, D. T. 1999. Grooming and picking leaders

using competency frameworks: Do they work? Organiza-

tional Dynamics, 28: 37–52.

Bunker, K. A. 1997. The power of vulnerability in contemporary

leadership. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and

Research, 49: 122–136.

Burke, M. J., & Day, R. R. 1986. A cumulative study of the effec-

tiveness of managerial training. Journal of Applied Psy-

chology, 71: 232–246.

Cannon, W. B. 1932. The wisdom of the body. New York: W. W.

Norton.

Cherniss, C., & Adler, M. 2000. Promoting emotional intelligence

in organizations: Guidelines for practitioners. Alexandria,

VA: American Society for Training and Development.

Cialdini, R. B. 2000. Influence: Science and practice, 4

ed. New

York: Allyn & Bacon.

Clance P. R. 1985. The imposter phenomenon. Atlanta, GA:

Peachtree Publishers.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. 1990. Flow. New York: Harper & Row.

Csoka, L. S. 1997. Bridging the leadership gap. New York: The

Conference Board.

Damasio, A. 1994. Descartes’ error. New York: Grossett-Putnam.

2006 481Kaiser and Kaplan

Dennison, D. R., Hooijberg, R., & Quinn, R. E. 1995. Paradox and

performance: Toward a theory of behavioral complexity in

managerial leadership. Organizational Science, 6: 524–540.

Ellis, A., & Harper, R. A. 1975. A new guide to rational living.

Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Epstein, S. 1990. Cognitive-experiential self-theory. In L.A. Per-

vin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research:

165–192. New York: Guilford Press.

Epstein, S. 1994. Integration of the cognitive and the psychody-

namic unconscious. American Psychologist, 49: 709 –724.

Fritz, R. 1989. The path of least resistance. Columbine, NY: Faw-

cett.

Fulmer, R. M., & Goldsmith, M. 2001. The leadership investment.

New York: Amacom.

Gabriel, Y., & Griffiths, D. S. 2002. Emotion, learning and orga-

nizing. The Learning Organization, 9: 214 –221.

Hall, D. T. 2002. Careers in and out of organizations. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hart, V., Blattner, J., & Leipsic, S. 2001. Coaching versus therapy:

A perspective. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice &

Research, 53: 229 –237.

Higgins, E. T. 1997. Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psy-

chologist, 52: 1280 –1300.

Hogan, R., & Kaiser, R. B. 2005. What we know about leadership.

Review of General Psychology, 9: 99 –112.

Hogan, R., & Warrenfeltz, R. 2003. Educating the modern man-

ager. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2:

74 – 84.

Ibarra, H. 2003. Working identity. Harvard Business School

Press.

Janoff-Bulman, R. 1992. Shattered assumptions. New York: Free

Press.

Kaiser, R. B., & DeVries, D. L. 2000. Leadership training. In W. E.

Craighead and C. B. Nemeroff (Eds.), The Corsini encyclo-

pedia of psychology and behavioral science, 3

ed. New

York: Wiley & Sons.

Kampa-Kokesch, S., & Anderson, M. Z. 2001. Executive coaching:

A comprehensive review of the literature. Consulting Psy-

chology Journal: Practice and Research, 53: 205–228.

Kampa, S., & White, R. P. 2002. The effectiveness of executive

coaching: What we know and what we still need to know. In

R. Lowman (Ed.), Handbook of organizational consulting

psychology: 139 –158. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Kaplan, R. E. 1990. Character change in executives as “re-form”

in the pursuit of self-worth. Journal of Applied Behavioral

Science, 26: 461– 481.

Kaplan, R. E. 1998. Getting at character: The simplicity on the

other side of complexity. In R. Jeanneret and R. Silzer (Eds.),

Individual assessment: The art and science of personal psy-

chological evaluation in an organizational setting. San

Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Kaplan, R. E. 1999. Internalizing strengths: An overlooked way of

overcoming weaknesses in managers. Greensboro, NC:

Center for Creative Leadership.

Kaplan, R. E. 2002. Know your strengths. Harvard Business Re-

view, 80: 20 –21.

Kaplan, R. E., Drath, W. H., & Kofodimos, J. R. 1991. Beyond

ambition: How driven managers can lead better and live

better. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kaplan, R. E., & Kaiser, R. B. 2003a. The turbulence within: How

sensitivities throw off performance in executives. In R. J.

Burke and C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Leading in turbulent times:

31–53. Oxford: Blackwell.

Kaplan, R. E., & Kaiser, R. B. 2003b. Developing versatile lead-

ership. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(4): 19 –26.

Kaplan, R. E., & Kaiser, R. B. 2003c. Rethinking a classic distinc-

tion in leadership: Implications for the assessment and the

development of executives. Consulting Psychology Journal:

Practice and Research, 55: 15–25.

Kegan, R. 1994. In over our heads: The mental demands of

modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. 2001. How the way we talk can change

the way we work. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kilburg, R. R. 2000. Executive coaching. Washington, DC: Amer-

ican Psychological Association.

Kram, K. E. 1985. Mentoring at work. Glenview, IL: Scott, Fores-

man, and Co.

Lawrence, P. R. 1992. The challenge of problem-oriented re-

search. Journal of Management Inquiry, 1: 139 –142.

Lazarus, A. A. 1971. Behavior therapy and beyond. New York:

McGraw-Hill.

Lazarus, R. S. 1991. Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University

Press.

Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. 1984. Stress, appraisal, and coping.

New York: Springer.

Loehr, J., & Schwartz, T. 2001. The making of a corporate athlete.

Harvard Business Review, 79: 119 –128.

Lombardo, M. M., & Eichinger, R. W. 2000. The leadership ma-

chine. Minneapolis, MN: Lominger Limited, Inc.

Lord, R. G., Foti, R. J., & DeVader, C. L. 1984. A test of leadership

categorization theory: Internal structure, information pro-

cessing, and leadership perceptions. Organizational Be-

havior and Human Performance, 34: 343–378.

Lowman, R. L. 1998. The ethical practice of psychology in orga-

nizations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Asso-

ciation.

Lyons, D. 2002. Freer to be me: The development of executives at

mid-life. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Re-

search, 54: 15–27.

McCall, M. W., Jr. 1998. High flyers. Boston, MA: Harvard Busi-

ness School Press.

Mintzberg, H. 2004. Managers not MBAs. San Francisco: Berrett-

Koehler.

Mintzberg, H., & Gosling, J. R. 2002. Reality programming for

MBAs. Strategy and Business, 26(1): 28 –31.

Ost, L. 1987. Applied relaxation: Description of a coping tech-

nique and review of controlled studies. Behavior Research

and Therapy: 397– 409.

Pfeffer, J. & Fong, C. T. 2002. The end of business schools? Less

success than meets the eye. Academy of Management:

Learning and Education, 1: 78 –96.

Plutchnik, R. 1980. Emotion: A psychoevolutionary synthesis.

New York: Harper & Row.

Porter, L. W., & McKibbin, L. E. 1988. Management education and

development. New York: McGraw-Hill.

482 DecemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education

Prochaska, J. O, DiClemente, C. C., & Norcross, J. C. 1992. In

search of how people change: Applications to addictive

behaviors. American Psychologist, 47: 1102–1114.

Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. 1990. Emotional intelligence. Imagi-

nation, Cognition and Personality, 9: 185–211.

Seligman, M. 1993. What you can change and what you can’t.

New York: Knopf.

Simeons, A. T. W. 1961. Man’s presumptive brain: An evolution-

ary interpretation of psychosomatic disease. New York: E. P.

Dutton.

Sousa, D. R. 1995. How the brain learns. Reston, VA: NASSP.

Sperry, L. 1993. Working with executives: Consulting, counsel-

ing, and coaching. Individual Psychology, 49: 257–266.

Tomaka, J., Blascovich, J., Kelsey, R. M., & Leitten, C. L 1993.

Subjective, physiological, and behavioral effects of threat

and challenge appraisal. Journal of Personality & Social

Psychology, 65: 248 –260.

Torbert, W., & Fisher, D. 1992. Autobiographical awareness as a

catalyst for managerial and organizational development.

Management Education and Development, 23: 184 –198.

Whetten, D. A., & Cameron, K. S. 2002. Developing management

skills, 5

ed. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Longman.

Rob Kaiser is a partner with

Kaplan DeVries Inc. He has

over 75 publications and pre-

sentations on leadership, per-

sonality, and development. Rob

also coaches individual man-

agers and their teams; his spe-

cialty is helping high potentials

prepare for the executive suite.

Rob received an MS in industri-

al/organizational psychology

from Illinois State University.

Bob Kaplan is the founding

partner of Kaplan DeVries Inc.,

a consulting firm specializing

in executive development for

individuals and teams. He has

worked with executives and

conducted pioneering research

on leadership development

since the early 1980s. Bob has a

PhD from Yale and is based in

New York City.

2006 483Kaiser and Kaplan

Trait Psychopathy, Job Performance, and Career Success: A Multisource Approach

Chapter

Jun 2023

The present chapter aims to expand the trait-based approach to psychopathy by distinguishing between potentially adaptive and maladaptive features of psychopathic personality in the workplace. Answering the calls for a facet-level approach to psychopathy, we hypothesized that fearless dominance and self-centered impulsivity would exhibit differential relations with organizationally important criteria. Moreover, we addressed suggestions to investigate moderating variables. To do so, we explored (mal)adaptive effects on job performance and extrinsic career success. To test our hypotheses, we conducted a multidimensional assessment of psychopathy and used a multisource business sample of 184 manager-superior dyads. Our results supported the differential relations of both factors: self-centered impulsivity had maladaptive effects on job performance, whereas fearless dominance possessed adaptive potential—but only under specific conditions, namely, high enterprising job characteristics or the combination of low self-centered impulsivity and high educational level. Further, fearless dominance was positively associated with extrinsic career success when the educational level was high, indicating successful intelligence-based socialization into society. We discuss the results of our more nuanced approach to psychopathy by demonstrating that the (mal)adaptive effects of the different traits offer an intriguing new perspective for understanding job performance and career success.KeywordsPsychopathyJob performanceCareer successEnterprising job characteristicsSocialization into society

Stress adaptation and resilience of academics in higher education

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2023

Academics in higher education around the world indicate high levels of stress from multiple sources. The COVID-19 pandemic has only served to intensify stress levels. Adaptation and resilience are needed if academics, particularly those focused on education and teaching, are to endure, learn, and bounce back during this era of stress and contribute to education quality and student learning. This review is organized to answer two key questions. First, what are the main forms of stress for academics, especially those focused on education and teaching? Second, what are the responses of academics to stress and is the concept of resilience relevant to understand the consequences for academic careers oriented toward education and education quality? To answer these questions, we first critically review the literature on the responses of academics to stress and the concept of resilience, which has been employed by multiple disciplines, including teacher education. We then broadly define the resilience of academics as their capacity to learn from and adapt to stress; our definition is perhaps less about individual personality characteristics and more associated with the relational aspect of the socioecological higher education ecosystem. There are, however, limits to resilience and its potential effects on education quality and student learning. Given higher education’s adverse operating environment and the significant contributions of academics to the knowledge economy and graduate quality, understanding and building the resilience of academics to adapt and succeed has never been more critical.

Mentoring Graduate Students: A Study on Academic Rejection, the Pressure to Publish, and Career Paths

Article

Feb 2023

Within the academic context, mentoring is a positive and ongoing relationship between a professor and student that fosters academic growth and accomplishment. Thus, mentors are crucial for graduate students in both masters and doctoral programs. Currently, there is a lack of research regarding mentorship, especially when it involves common obstacles that a student may experience such as academic rejection, the pressure to publish scholarly work, and career conversations postgraduate school. Academic rejection refers to the act of receiving a rejection for a scholarly task such as a rejection notice for a manuscript, award, grant, or even employment. Accordingly, the current study aims to qualitatively explore academic rejection, the pressure to publish , and career conversations postgraduate school using a convenience sample of 75 current faculty members who are appointed to a criminology and criminal justice department at a university or college. Themes related to academic rejection, the pressure to publish, and career conversations are discussed, as well as the implications of these themes are further discussed. ARTICLE HISTORY

Ears on the Street: Practitioner Opinions on What Competencies Sales Executives Need and How to Develop Them

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2022

The goal of this in-depth interview study was to gain knowledge about important, needed and developed competencies of executives. Supplementary design factors and implementation barriers were examined as framework conditions for compe-tency development. The study (N = 66) gathers information from three different subject groups: executives (n = 22), freelance trainers (n = 23), and corporate HR professionals responsible for executive development (n = 21). A total of 13 important competencies were extracted from the answers of all respondents. Groups agreed on five competencies (leading, communication , achievement motivation, organizing and strategy, social influence) which are therefore classified as needed. Design factors and implementation barriers were classified, ranked according to relevance and evaluated in general and on a group-specific basis. The two most important design factors mentioned by all subject groups are: 1) to ensure the practical relevance of development programs; and 2) to include time for discussion and reflection. The three most common barriers are daily business, conflicting old habits and lack of motivation. Results also show that other competencies are also developed, but are not classified as needed (e.g., openness for novelty, and self-reflection). These findings provide insight and guidance for creating training and development programs for sales executives that focus on the competencies that are needed and how these can be developed.

Understanding STEM academics’ responses and resilience to educational reform of academic roles in higher education

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2022

Background Across the globe, there have been significant reforms to improve STEM education at all levels. A significant part of this has been teacher reform. While the responses and resilience of STEM teachers to educational reforms in secondary education have received significant attention, the responses and resilience of STEM teachers in higher education remains understudied. In higher education, educational reforms of academic roles have seen increasing numbers of STEM academics focussed on education. Responses of STEM academics to education reform of the academic role have some parallels with teacher resilience, but there are also potential misalignments within a culture which values and prioritises science disciplinary research. This study examined the responses of STEM academics in higher education to educational reform of the academic role using the theoretical construct of resilience and Bronfenbrenner’s socio-ecological model. This was a 2-year case study of 32 academics and senior educational leaders in higher education in STEM. Data collection included semi-structured interviews which were theme coded and inductively analysed. Results The responses and resilience of STEM academics focussed on education appeared to be dependent on interactions between individual disposition in the microsystem and influences of the exosystem and the external macrosystem. Five major themes emerged about the value and quality, scholarship and expertise, progress and mobility, status and identity and community and culture of STEM academics focussed on education. The exosystem was a significant unidirectional influence on STEM academics where judgements were made concerning academic performance, awards, and promotion. Responses of senior leaders in the exosystem were influenced by the macrosystem and culture of science. Academics focussed on research, rather than education were more valued and more likely to be both financially rewarded and promoted. Conclusion During this pressured decade, where COVID-19 has intensified stress, more attention on the direction and reciprocal relationships in the socio-ecological model of higher education is needed in order for educational reform in higher education STEM to be effective. Resilience of STEM academics to educational reform in higher education is a dynamic quality, and the capacity to “bounce back”, learn from challenges, and realise expectations of educational reform will depend on an understanding of resilience and support of Bronfenbrenner’s spheres of influence.

The Powerful Shift from Developmental to Transformative Coaching to Realize Later Stages in Vertical Holistic Leadership Development

Preprint

Full-text available

Jan 2022

ÇOK ULUSLU VE ULUSAL İŞLETMELERDE ÖRGÜTSEL YAPILARIN YÖNETİCİLERİN YÖNETSEL YETKİNLİK KAZANIMI ÜZERİNDEKİ ETKİSİ

Thesis

Full-text available

Jan 2018

M. Çağrı Pehlivanoğlu

Coaching on the Dark Side

Article

Mar 2009

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

Presentation Leaders' Self-Development Model: A Synthesis of Research

Article

Full-text available

Jun 2021

Blickle, G., Beckert, N., & Genau-Hagebölling, H.A. (2023). Trait psychopathy, job performance and career success. Short Version (book chapter #35 in A. Akande (Ed.), Globalization, Human Rights and Populism. Reimagining People, Power, and Places (chapt. 35). Springer Nature. Springer Nature. ISSN 978-3-031-17202-1)

Preprint

Full-text available

Feb 2023

The present chapter aims to expand the trait-based approach to psychopathy by distinguishing between potentially adaptive and maladaptive features of psychopathic personality in the workplace. Answering the calls for a facet-level approach to psychopathy, we hypothesized that fearless dominance and self-centered impulsivity would exhibit differential relations with organizationally important criteria. Moreover, we addressed suggestions to investigate moderating variables. To do so, we explored (mal)adaptive effects on job performance and extrinsic career success. To test our hypotheses, we conducted a multidimensional assessment of psychopathy and used a multisource business sample of 184 manager-superior dyads. Our results supported the differential relations of both factors: self-centered impulsivity had maladaptive effects on job performance, whereas fearless dominance possessed adaptive potential – but only under specific conditions, namely, high enterprising job characteristics or the combination of low self-centered impulsivity and high educational level. Further, fearless dominance was positively associated with extrinsic career success when educational level was high, indicating successful intelligence-based socialization into society. We discuss the results of our more nuanced approach to psychopathy by demonstrating that the (mal)adaptive effects of the different traits offer an intriguing new perspective for understanding job performance and career success.

Coaching versus therapy: A perspective.

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2001

This article reports a study of current perceptions among professionals regarding therapy and coaching. Whereas therapy and counseling have been traditional fields of study and practice, coaching is not as well developed. It is helpful to examine the perceptions of practicing professionals in order to delineate the distinctions and overlaps in these modalities. A set of 7 questions was used to explore these viewpoints with a participant pool of professional coaches--therapists. Interview data and narrative summaries provide a perspective on the controversy of coaching versus therapy.

Beyond Pleasure and Pain

Article

Full-text available

Dec 1997

E. Tory Higgins

People approach pleasure and avoid pain. To discover the true nature of approach–avoidance motivation, psychologists need to move beyond this hedonic principle to the principles that underlie the different ways that it operates. One such principle is regulatory focus, which distinguishes self-regulation with a promotion focus (accomplishments and aspirations) from self-regulation with a prevention focus (safety and responsibilities). This principle is used to reconsider the fundamental nature of approach–avoidance, expectancy–value relations, and emotional and evaluative sensitivities. Both types of regulatory focus are applied to phenonomena that have been treated in terms of either promotion (e.g., well-being) or prevention (e.g., cognitive dissonance). Then, regulatory focus is distinguished from regulatory anticipation and regulatory reference, 2 other principles underlying the different ways that people approach pleasure and avoid pain.

Careers in and out of Organizations

Book

Jan 2002

Douglas Hall

Promoting Emotional Intelligence in Organizations

Book

Jan 2000

Freer to be me: Development of executives at midlife.

Article

Jan 2002

Denise Lyons

This article describes a study of 8 senior executives who participated in a rigorous executive development process that includes 360-degree feedback from colleagues and family members. The study aimed to shed light on this practice of executive development by conducting an in-depth examination of the clients' experience of the process. In addition, the study assessed the degree to which these executives showed evidence of individuation, which is the developmental task that Jung associated with mid-life. Personal interviews and the Thematic Apperception Test were the primary methods used for data collection. Findings related to gender differences are reported in the article. The study suggested that executives have the potential to benefit, personally and professionally, from participation in this kind of development, at least as they see it. Implications for practice are discussed.

The power of vulnerability in contemporary leadership.

Article

Jan 1997

Kerry A. Bunker

Discusses ambiguity, change, and uncertainty as the emerging constants in contemporary organizations. Downsizing, reengineering, merging, and restructuring appear to be givens for the foreseeable future. The old psychological agreement, founded on the exchange of hard work and loyalty for lifetime employment, has been repeatedly violated and probably permanently undermined. Although these sweeping changes may represent necessary adjustments to a more competitive world, they also combine to have dramatic impact and fallout relative to the human and emotional well-being of the system, and thereby on the bottom-line performance of the organization. It is noted that providing successful leadership in such an environment increasingly demands that executives have the ability to (1) understand the complex and varied impact that transition has on people and (2) provide credible and authentic leadership that will facilitate the healing and revitalization process. It is concluded that the capacity to assess and accept one's own emotional response and personal vulnerability, coupled with the ability and willingness to model healthy coping behaviors, can serve as powerful leadership tools that greatly enhance the recovery effort.

The wisdom of the body

Article

W.B. Cannon

The Path of Least Resistance

Chapter

Dec 1994

Robert Fritz

The structure of anything refers to its fundamental parts and how those individual elements function in relation to each other and in relation to the whole. Once a structure exists, energy moves through that structure by the path of least resistance. Energy moves where it is easiest for it to go. Every structure contains within it the inclination toward movement, that is, a tendency to change from one state into another state. But some structures tend to move, whereas others tend to remain stationary. The structures that tend to remain stationary consist of the elements that hold each other in check. The structures in some people's lives lead to oscillation. Oscillation can be slow or quick. To attempt a psychological solution to a structural phenomenon does nothing to change the underlying structure. One can learn to recognize the structures at play in life and change them so that he can create what he wants to create.

Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct

Chapter

Jul 2013

Know your strengths

Article

Mar 2002
HARVARD BUS REV

R.E. Kaplan

Just as they can fail to recognize their weaknesses, leaders sometimes underrate their strengths-and everyone pays the price. Positive feedback can help bring executives' perceptions in line with reality.

The Deeper Work of Executive Development: Outgrowing Sensitivities

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

Facial emotion recognition: A cross-cultural comparison of Chinese, Chinese living in Australia, and...

Distress in OC patients confronted with facial expressions of anger and disgust: results of a pilot...

Boredom begs to differ: Differentiation from other negative emotions