PART 3 | The Scientific Practice of Jungian Coaching
Read PART I | The Scientific Practice of Jungian Coaching
Read PART II | The Scientific Practice of Jungian Coaching
Case Study Discussion, further research and useful references
Time Boundaries in Jungian Therapy vs. Coaching
One of the differences between Jungian analysis/therapy and Jungian coaching is the manoeuvrability of time boundaries. In the therapeutic traditions, session frequency can vary between 4 or 5 times per week, to once per two weeks. In any event, the arrangement is fixed so as to provide a symbolic holding container.
Jungian coaching as defined here, acknowledges the paramount importance of unconscious processes, and the symbolic nature of the relationship between coach and client, in which both parties are changed. In the ‘dance’, appropriate self-agency, and therefore session duration and frequency can be appropriately varied according to client need. The client continuously shapes the container with the coach, by adjusting and agreeing goals and frequency. The British psychoanalyst and social work pioneer educator, Wolf Blomfield would allow variance to these frequencies on the basis of the manner in which symbolic holding is achieved, not by rigidity but by the symbolic holding movement, which he called ‘rocking’. This was derived from his teacher Winnicott (1965) who paved the way for careful, gentle, and human management of the therapeutic boundaries. Bridges (1999, p292), advocating discussion about the boundaries with the client, argued that:
A reductionist, rule-bound approach to therapeutic boundaries is not useful. Within an ethical framework, the conversation about boundary decisions is as important to psychotherapy as any decision about where to set the boundary.
This approach also challenges the conventional wisdom of the coaching contract to tightly manage time boundaries to guard against ‘drift’. On the one hand, it is important to avoid ‘nonvalue added’ activity, and on the other, it is frequently recognised that objectives change as presenting issues are resolved and as trust develops, as executives move through career and life cycles. It can be useful to imagine goals as milestones in a journey of exploration.
While these topics remain controversial in the therapeutic world, it is perhaps clearer in coaching circles. In the coaching tradition, sessions vary between weekly to monthly but can be more or less frequent as mutually agreed at the outset and reviewed in partnership with the client.
Despite the dearth of current research into this specific topic, in a study comparing the effectiveness of weekly to two weekly therapeutic ‘session dosages’ McConkie Erekson (2013) reported that better outcomes appeared to be associated with higher session frequency.
For coaching, while practice varies considerably, according to Coaching Research LLP (2013), better outcomes are similarly associated with more frequent sessions, and longer sessions were not found to be more effective than shorter ones. Furthermore, long before the pandemic, it was noted that:
Sessions conducted through phone as opposed to those conducted in person allowed for a more equal relationship and provided better feedback. Sessions conducted in person as opposed to those conducted through phone allowed more sharing of value-added information and suggesting helpful books.
As practitioners have absorbed on-line methods and techniques developed during the last ten years, it would be reasonable to consider whether not only value-added information can now be more easily provided, but also that the benefit of equality of relationship associated with on-line working is more widely available often providing sought after expertise and a multicultural perspective to diverse locations around the world.
Reflections
This series of blogs introduced the concept of Jungian coaching, shifting popular focus from Jung’s type psychology to the central idea of complexes and the use of the WAE. Recent neuroscience has been cited in evidence. The application of Jungian coaching has been demonstrated in the instrumental case study of leadership development, in which the WAE was reported by the client to have been most helpful in taking the work to a necessary depth to sustain progress.
Further client reflections on progress in the corporate personal case study emphasise self-agency as a critical success factor. In the case study, the client engaged in the ‘coaching dance’ in his preferred way, in an atmosphere of support and positive regard, with full confidence in the self-healing power of his own psyche. This ‘open access approach’ is one of the key differentiators between traditional analysis and coaching. Humanistic client-centred values and competencies featured strongly throughout.
‘Work with the unconscious’ was reported to have been a significant factor influencing positive change, in so far as awareness and management of complexes appears to have correlated with both achievement of desired outcomes and with revision of desired outcomes as development took place.
The neuro-scientific research into complexes invites suitably qualified coaches to consider the selective use of the WAE in coaching practice as one method of developing greater awareness of personal complexes.
Jungian Coaching lends itself to coach self-reflection and reflection on practice by the coach. This method of inquiry is especially valuable to the wider coaching community as it assists contribution to qualitative research (Mortari, 2015).
Areas for further research
The field of Jungian Coaching is in its early days and offers rich opportunities for practitioners and researchers to make significant contributions, for example
Further WAE research into precise situations where complexes could be a causal factor in human error (particularly leadership or critical operator error) is required. This would have a profound impact on safety-sensitive industries.
The topic of Jungian coaching in leadership will be explored in further blogs, which will cite the key research in this field.
Useful References
About the Author
Dr John O’Brien is a senior Jungian psychoanalyst and executive coach supervisor whose work bridges analytical psychology with leadership practice. He holds a Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology and a Diploma in Analytical Psychology from the C. G. Jung Institute Zürich, where he also contributes as a lecturer, examiner and training analyst.
John’s professional path began in vocational guidance, education, and counselling, before evolving into psychotherapy and psychoanalysis. Alongside his clinical work, he has extensive experience in individual and team consulting with major corporations and social service organisations, focusing on how psychological dynamics influence leadership, collaboration, and organisational change.
As both a practitioner and independent researcher, John seeks to integrate academic insight with lived human experience. His writing and teaching emphasise the relevance of Jungian thought for contemporary challenges, whether in individual development or in complex organisational systems. Through this work, his aim is to support processes of growth, reflection, and transformation at both personal and collective levels.
