654764

research-article2016
JABXXX10.1177/0021886316654764The Journal of Applied Behavioral ScienceVanheule and Arnaud

Article
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
2016, Vol. 52(3) 296319
Working With Symbolic The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
Transference: A Lacanian sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0021886316654764
Perspective on Executive jabs.sagepub.com

Coaching

Stijn Vanheule, PhD1 and Gilles Arnaud, PhD2

Abstract
The present study explores how aspects of Jacques Lacans psychoanalytic theory
can be applied to coaching, focusing on corporate dysfunction. Conceptually, the
article starts from Lacans distinction between the registers of the Imaginary and the
Symbolic, as outlined in his L-schema, and the concept of transference. It is argued
that by focusing on symbolic transference, and by exploring signifiers that insistently
return in a patients speech, Lacanian-oriented coaching can bring clients to the point
of recognizing the unconscious determinants of their daily interactions and behavior,
and make a step toward dealing differently with their desire, such that it no longer
has a disrupting effect on their performance. Principles for individual coaching are
outlined and two case studies are presented. The case discussions reveal that desire
and conflict can be clarified by mapping and addressing core signifiers of the clients
speech.

Keywords
psychoanalysis, coaching, consulting, stress, Lacan, change management, discourse,
unconscious, transference

This study explores how aspects of Jacques Lacans psychoanalytic theory can inform
the practice of individual coaching in organizations. Our main point is that this theory
provides an important tool for studying and addressing unconscious determinants of

1Department of Psychoanalysis and Clinical Consulting, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

2ESCP Europe, Paris, France

Corresponding Author:
Stijn Vanheule, Department of Psychoanalysis and Clinical Consulting, Ghent University, H. Dunantlaan 2,
B-9000 Ghent, Belgium.
Email: stijn.vanheule@ugent.be
Vanheule and Arnaud 297

observable organizational behaviors and problems. This tool is the L-schema, which
is a conceptual figure that differentiates between Symbolic and Imaginary rela-
tions. We will apply the L-schema to the psychoanalytic transference construct, and
argue that by focusing on symbolic transference, and by exploring signifiers that insis-
tently return in a patients speech, warded-off conflict and desire can be clarified.
Before addressing this L-schema, and applying it to the practice of executive coach-
ing, we provide some background on our overall theoretical approach.
This article starts from the theory of Jacques Lacan, a French psychiatrist and
psychoanalyst (1901-1981) who aimed at reinventing psychoanalysis by studying
Freuds work in detail, and bringing it into dialogue with related academic disci-
plines, like anthropology, linguistics, art, and philosophy. While Lacans work is nor-
mally addressed to a psychoanalytic readership, his ideas also permeate the field of
organization and management studies (Fotaki, Long, & Schwartz, 2012). Indeed, in
the past 15 years an increasing number of researchers have been using concepts bor-
rowed from Lacan to study corporate issues and enhance critical management studies
(e.g., Arnaud & Vanheule, 2007, 2013; Cederstrm & Hoedemaekers, 2010; Contu,
Driver, & Jones, 2010; Vidaillet & Gamot, 2015). These studies add new perspectives
to the body of psychodynamic literature on organizations, especially because of their
critical focus on the role and function of the unconscious (Arnaud, 2012; Neumann &
Hirschhorn, 1999).
However, despite the clinical focus of Lacans work, only a few studies use this
theory to address clinically related problems in organizations (e.g., Arnaud, 2002;
Bicknell & Liefooghe, 2010; Vanheule & Verhaeghe, 2004, 2005; Vidaillet, 2007) or
to define how Lacanian principles might facilitate intervention in organizations, such
as developing models for consulting and executive coaching (Arnaud, 1998, 2003;
Bracher, 1996; Driver, 2003). While Lacanian psychoanalysis often functions as a
critical metaframework through which organizational practices are read (Jones, 2007;
Wozniak, 2010), principles of its clinical orientation can also be applied to individual
coaching and organizational consultation, as already demonstrated in British and
North American schools of psychoanalysis (e.g., Gabriel, 1999; Gabriel & Carr, 2002;
Maltz, 2012; Newton, Long, & Sievers, 2006).
On applying principles of Lacanian psychoanalysis to individual coaching, a num-
ber of requirements need to be fulfilled. Most important, just like in psychoanalysis
qua clinical intervention, the client must experience an element of suffering in his or
her own functioning and be willing and curious to explore what is bothering him or her
(Kilburg, 2004). In line with the idea that all too often management consultants are
hired with the aim of legitimizing existing power relations, and defending the interests
of senior management (Clark & Fincham, 2002; Wright, 2005), Lacanian psychoanal-
ysis takes a more challenging focus and concentrates on the experience of discontent
in organizations (Arnaud & Vanheule, 2007; Gabriel, 1991). It aims at making people
articulate those issues about their job and about the organization they usually remain
silent about. Therefore, it might be thought of as a rhetoric intervention (Carter &
Jackson, 2004). Lacanian-oriented coaching invites people to go beyond the stories
they usually tell about their job and about the organization, and to articulate what
298 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 52(3)

bothers them and what really matters to them. However, if the person the consultant
works with does not experience a personal deadlock in the job, Lacanian-oriented
coaching cannot be initiated. Indeed, just like in Lacanian clinical work the impetus
for applying psychoanalytic principles is not given by the managers interests, or by
the consultants desire to know, but by the demand of a client who is struggling with a
problem she or he wants resolved (Armstrong, 2005; Vansina & Vansina-Cobbaert,
2008). This is important since, in line with the generally acknowledged idea that the
relation between consultant and client is crucial to the coaching process (Fincham,
1999; Schein, 1987), from a psychoanalytic point of view such a demand provides the
basis for a so-called transference relationship between the consulting client and a
coach (Czander & Eisold, 2003; Diamond & Allcorn, 2003). Here, the client suffers
and aims for a solution via the professional, just as a patient expects to find a solution
via the analyst (Arnaud, 1998; Gilmore & Krantz, 1985). From a psychoanalytic point
of view, such an expectation opens up the possibility that the client/patient reflects on
warded-off representations and desires that have had a disruptive effect on their func-
tioning (Boxer & Palmer, 1994; Czander, Jacobsberg, Mersky, & Nunberg, 2002; Hunt
& McCollom, 1994; Werr & Styhre, 2003). Similar to clinical contexts, in individual
coaching in organizations psychoanalysis is not only a very useful interpretative
framework but a practice that can catalyze change (Brown & Starkey, 2000; Czander,
1993; Gould, 1991; Kets de Vries, Kotorov, & Florent-Treacy, 2007; Krantz, 1999).
As indicated above, this article starts from Lacans basic distinction between the
registers of the Imaginary and the Symbolic, as articulated in his L-schema. In the first
part of the article, we discuss the theory underlying the L-schema. Along this way, we
introduce the idea of symbolic transference. Given that Lacans theory his highly
abstract, with concepts only a few might be familiar with, the next section starts with
Table 1 that succinctly explains key concepts. Subsequently, we highlight implications
for the practice of executive coaching, and finally we discuss two cases drawn from
our own practice, which make clear how a focus on symbolic transference leads to
detecting the unconscious determinants of some conflicting organizational behaviors.
We outline how Lacanian-oriented coaching can bring clients to the point of recogniz-
ing the unconscious determinants of their daily interactions, and, thus, make a step
toward managing their unconscious desire such that it no longer disrupts their lives.

The Primacy of the Symbolic

The major innovation Lacan made to psychoanalysis concerns his emphasis on the
dimension of the Symbolic in analytic work, a dimension he opposes to the Imaginary
(Fink, 1995; Nobus, 2000; Vanheule, 2011). In making this opposition, Lacan was
inspired by the structuralist movement that was introduced by Ferdinand de Saussures
(1916) linguistic analyses and further shaped by Levi-Strausss anthropological the-
ses in the 1950s. The main point he put forward is that both mental life and the pro-
cess of psychoanalysis are structured around the fact that as people think and speak,
they combine signifiers in chains. In this context, he adopts the term signifier from
de Saussure. According to de Saussure (1916), speech is composed of signifiers and
Vanheule and Arnaud 299

Table 1. Overview of Key Concepts of Lacanian Psychoanalysis, Based on No Subject, an

Online Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis That Provides More Extensive Descriptions:
www.nosubject.com.

Lacanian concept Meaning

The Symbolic The Symbolic is one of the three registers that structures human
existence, next to the Imaginary and the Real. It refers to the implicit
laws that govern social exchange relations. Since the most basic form
of exchange is speech, the Symbolic is essentially a linguistic dimension.
The signifier is the elementary building block of the Symbolic.
The Imaginary The Imaginary is one of the three registers that structures human
existence, next to the Symbolic and the Real. The imaginary is the field
of the ego, which aims at building images of the world. It is the realm
of imagination and illusions. The principal illusions of the imaginary are
those of wholeness, synthesis, duality, and similarity.
Signifier and Lacan takes the term signifier from the work of the linguist Ferdinand
signified de Saussure. It is the phonological element of the linguistic sign; not
the actual sound but the mental representation of such a sound. A
signifier is connected to a signified, which is the idea the linguistic sign
expresses. At the level of the unconscious, signifiers play an important
role: one signifier might be related to several signifieds.
Signifying chain In making up words from linguistic signs, and in articulating sentences,
signifiers are combined in so-called signifying chains.
Desire People express themselves via speech, but language never finally denotes
what we want. A remainder always remains unarticulated, which gives
rise to desire. A key desire Lacan recognizes is that humans want to be
desired by others. Unconscious desire takes shape through defences
against articulating ideas and impulses. In the analytic experience, desire
must be taken literally, as it is through the unveiling of the signifiers
that support it, that desire can be made clear. Desires that have not
be recognized and valued will insist through specific signifiers that
recurrently pop up in speech. Desires that have been repressedthat
is: actively excluded from conscious thoughttypically get expressed in
symptoms. This process is called the return of the repressed.
Transference In Freuds theory transference mainly refers to the patients relationship
to the analyst as it develops in the treatment. He subsequently used
it to explain how, in psychoanalysis, the relationship between patient
and analyst is affected by patients previous relational experiences.
Lacan discerns a symbolic and an imaginary component to transference.
The images the patient constructs about himself or herself, and about
the analyst, make up imaginary transference. Affective reactions also
belong to imaginary transference. Symbolic transference concerns
the articulation of desire through signifiers. The broader the patients
associations, and to more insisting signifiers come to the fore, the
better the symbolic transference. Symbolic transference is fueled by
a subject supposed to know. This means that it implies the belief that
behind the insisting signifiers in the patients discourse an as yet hidden
piece of truth about the patient can be found.
300 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 52(3)

Figure 1. Lacans L-schema (based on Lacan, 1955-1956, p. 14).

signifieds. Signifieds are the ideas or representations speech evokes, and thus refer to
its semantic content. Since all understanding of the content of speech coincides with
building mental images, Lacan qualifies this dimension as Imaginary. Signifiers, by
contrast, make up the Symbolic, and are the sound units of language to which repre-
sentations are attached. Just as computers can be programmed to make meaningful
operations starting from a mere combination of numerical digits, humans generate
meaning by combining syllables in words, and by following grammatical rules and
conventions in combining words in sentences. Along this way, signifiers are con-
nected in webs of signifying chains, which are like structures or skeletons around
which bodies of meaning are constituted. Following Freud, Lacan (1956) believed
that structures of signifiers not only constitute the basis of symptom formation but
also everyday activity. Lacan (1957) argued, therefore, that in analytic work psycho-
analysts should focus on the dimension of the Symbolic: imaginary effects, far from
representing the core of analytic experience, give us nothing of any consistency
unless they are related to the symbolic chain that binds and orients them (p. 11).
As an aid for distinguishing between the dimensions of the Symbolic and the
Imaginary, Lacan developed the L-schemaL refers to the first letter of his name,
which he discussed in his second (Lacan, 1954-1955) and third (Lacan, 1955-1956)
seminar, as well as in a synthesizing text on the latter seminar (Lacan, 1959; Figure 1).
The underlying idea is that in analytic work, all speech is organized along Imaginary
and Symbolic dimensions (Willemsen etal., 2015).
The axis of o to o makes up the Imaginary dimension, and stands for the relation
between ego (o) and other (o). Lacan (1949) discusses the roots of this imaginary
relation in his theory of the mirror stage, which states that early in life self-experience
is chaotic, and only becomes organized by recognizing ones self-image in the outside
world. Indeed, in his view, humans have no innate feeling of self-coherence. Early in
life, the infants incoordination is such that any semblance of self-experience is com-
pletely absent. The ego comes into being as a defense to this discordant and distressing
state. Based on mirroring (i.e., qualifying images, be they self-images or images of
others as mirror images), a subject identifies with a body image and regards this image
as its own (Vanheule & Verhaeghe, 2009, p. 396). By first discerning an external
image or other (o), and identifying oneself as equivalent with this image, the ego is
inaugurated, hence the symbol o. This mechanism of (imaginary) identification is not
restricted to infancy, but lies at the basis of all successive social interaction and is
characterized by the individuals tendency to hold fast to a particular self-image and a
particular image of others. Indeed, the crux of imaginary functioning consists of
Vanheule and Arnaud 301

evaluating the self and other in terms of equivalence (love) or difference (hate). It
makes up the symmetrical world of egos and of the homogeneous others (Lacan,
1954-1955, p. 244). Imaginary functioning is efficient in that it allows people to under-
stand each other. When we communicate, we establish an imaginary identification
with the other. For instance, when we enter a hotel to check in, we identify with the
role of guest. More precisely, the receptionist functions as a mirror in which we see
ourselves as a guest. In fact, the customer needs the receptionist to take his or her role
as a customer and vice versa. The same goes for the relation between manager and
employee, coach and client, husband and wife, and so on. In clinical situations, imagi-
nary identification is, for example, at play when the analysand occupies an explana-
tory attitude, narrating his or her life story as it were the plot of a novel, the analyst
standing in as audience. Along the imaginary dimension, we claim to know who the
other is, and what he or she wants. Inversely, we thus assume to know who we are
ourselves. Along that way, ego and other are in a reflexive and mutually dependent
relation.
While the Imaginary certainly has an organizing role in mental life, Lacan (1949,
1954-1955, 1959) stresses its tendency for misrecognition: It neglects the otherness of
the other, as well as the fact that in our own subjective functioning, the unconscious
makes up a dimension of otherness that continually disrupts the smooth continuity in
our self-experience. In the L-schema, this dimension of otherness is situated in the
Symbolic axis, which is made up by the symbols S and O.
The symbol S represents the ineffable experience (Lacan, 1954-1955, p. 245) or
the subject in its ineffable and stupid existence (Lacan, 1959, p. 459), and indicates
that ultimately no human knows who she or he is or what she or he wants. Usually, we
neglect this basic fact by adopting the ego roles (o) we use in daily life.
O, by contrast, is the symbol for the Other, and represents the dimension of other-
ness that can be found in the other qua interpersonal figure, but above all makes up to
the unconscious. As the unconscious is made up of signifiers, the S-O axis is Symbolic:

What unfolds there is articulated like a discourse (the unconscious is the Others discourse
[discours de lAutre]), whose syntax Freud first sought to define for those fragments of it
that reach us in certain privileged moments, such as dreams, slips and witticisms. (Lacan,
1959, p. 459)

Indeed, symptoms, dreams, and lapses comprise the incoherent or conflictual experi-
ences and desires one is marked by. For Lacan, irrespective of the subjects conscious
intentions, the signifiers she or he uses reveal these experiences and desires. When
speaking about problems, our speech is permeated by signifiers that insist or repeat-
edly return because they have a particular value and weight. For Lacan, these signifi-
ers express desires and experiences that we repress because the ego (o) judges them
as unacceptable in relation to others (o). Due to this repression, such signifiers can be
qualified as Other (O), alien to the ego, but they nevertheless get manifested in our
functioning. Moreover, these signifiers address the question of the subjects identity.
Indeed, in Lacans view, the signifiers that make up the unconscious address the
302 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 52(3)

question as to who one is as a subject (S): The fact that the question of his existence
envelops the subject, props him up, invades him, and even tears him apart from every
angle, is revealed to the analyst by the tensions, suspense, and fantasies that he encoun-
ters (Lacan, 1959, p. 459). The particular signifiers, desires, and experiences that
underlie symptomatic behaviors differ from case to case and can only be grasped by
paying careful attention to someones speech. Lacan (1954-1955) suggests that as long
as these insisting signifiers are not read, they will return in speech and behavior,
which, at first sight, might seem irrational and meaningless.
A well-known example of how signifiers insist in speech, when underlying conflict
and desire has not been recognized, is Freuds analysis of his forgetting of the name of
the Renaissance painter Luca Signorelli, as he attempted to mention the painter to a
traveling companion. Below, we apply a similar line of reasoning to cases drawn from
our own coaching practice. Freud (1901) discusses this example in The Psychopathology
of Everyday Life, and Lacan (e.g., 1954-1955) repeatedly referred to it as an example
of how replacements between signifiers point to intimate details that are disorienting
for the ego (o), as they broach the question of who one is as subject (S). To mention
just one thread in Freuds more complex line of reasoning: As a polyglot, Freud associ-
ated that the signifier signor from the name Signorelli to the German Herr
signor and Herr mean master, mister, Lord, or man in English. The
signifier Herr, in its turn, first evoked ideas on how the Turkish deal with death and
sexuality, who often discuss these issues only with their doctor, and who eminently
value the word of the doctor as an all-knowing other. This idea finally evoked in Freud
a memory of one of his patients who had committed suicide due to an incurable sexual
disorder. This memory suggested that Freud was far from master and lord with
respect to his patient, a painful idea which was promptly repressed. What this example
shows is that the associative network of connections between signifiers (signorHerr
death and sexuality) brings Freud to the recollection of a situation he no doubt wished
to be different, and therefore repressed. A detailed schema of connections between
signifiers can be found in Freuds (1901) book. In terms of Lacans L-schema, the
repressed thoughts about the death of his patient are the Other (O) his ego (o) was
struggling with. These thoughts could not be acknowledged to his traveling compan-
ion (o) but strongly concerned him as a desiring subject (S).
In Lacans view from the 1950s, the main objective of psychoanalysis consists in
bringing a person to articulate the signifying material that make up his unconscious
the subject gives an account of himself. The fact that he gives an account of himself
is the dynamic mainspring of the analysis (Lacan, 1954-1955, pp. 255-256)and of
creating the time and space for allowing a person to assimilate these elements of the
unconscious: the spoken clarification is the mainspring of progress (Lacan, 1954-
1955, p. 255). This implies that psychoanalytic work should mainly concentrate on
the Symbolic axis of speech, not in the least because preoccupations that play at the
level of the Imaginary are actually determined by what plays at the level of the
Symbolic: the images of our subject are buttoned down [capitonnes] in the text of
his history, they are enmeshed in the symbolic order (Lacan, 1954-1955, p. 257).
Indeed, in his view,
Vanheule and Arnaud 303

Everything that happens in the order of the object relation [i.e., at the imaginary axis of
the L-schema] is structured as a function of the particular history of the subject, and that
is why analysis, and the transference are possible. (Lacan, 1954-1955, p. 299)

By paying attention to the Other signifiers that mark the individuals subjectivity, ana-
lytic work situates itself on the symbolic axis of the L-schema. Lacan therefore sug-
gests that the analyst should refrain from only being the kind of other (o) that acts as a
mirror in which the analysand can see his or her own identity (o). The analyst par-
takes of the radical nature of the Other says Lacan (1954-1955, p. 324), and his main
task consists in taking care that the signifiers that express the unconscious cause of the
symptom are read and recognized in analytic work.
Lacans theory of the signifier has strong implications for how the analyst deals
with transference (Fink, 2007). While non-Lacanian analysts often interpret transfer-
ence directly (Sullivan, 2002), Lacanian analysts usually do not, because one does not
achieve some sort of metaposition outside of the transference by interpreting it
(Fink, 2007, p. 140). Lacanian analysts handle transference differently: by not focus-
ing on the images and expectations, the analysand projects onto the analyst. Such
projections can be situated on the imaginary axis of the L-schema. All attention, by
contrast, goes to the play between signifiers at the Symbolic axis of speech.

Implications for Individual Coaching in Organizations

Lacan explicitly developed his reflections around the L-schema in a discussion of the
psychoanalytic cure. Yet we believe that just as these might be applied to therapeutic
work outside the psychoanalytic office, they also inform individual coaching in orga-
nizations, which then aims at recognizing unconscious desires that might disturb peo-
ples functioning. Indeed, far from claiming that such Lacanian-based coaching is
psychoanalysis, we think of it as a practice through which problems experienced in an
organizational context might be effectively addressed.
If one applies the ideas of the L-schema to individual coaching in organizations, a
coach assumes that his or her client does not know what she or he is actually saying
on addressing the coach. Interaction will always start on the imaginary axis: The client
will automatically address the coach with his or her concerns, and, more fundamen-
tally, what she or he would like to know, or should know. Moreover, the client will also
try to establish a certain (mirror) image in relation to the coach. In the Lacanian per-
spective, the coach takes into account this (imaginary) dimension, but does not work
with it. Focusing on the dimension of the Symbolic, she or he will firstly create time
and space for speech to unfold: not burdening the client with his or her own agenda or
questions, she or he allows the client to talk as freely as possible about what goes on
at work. Indeed, what is pivotal to such a psychoanalytic attitude in coaching is the
maintenance of a focus on the symbolic axis of the L-schema. Technically, she or he
picks up on returning signifiers, inconsistencies or vague elements in the clients
account (i.e., elements of the Other), and invites the client to explore, as broadly as
possible, what else comes to mind. The assumption is that by applying this method,
304 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 52(3)

desires and conflicts that have an effect on how a person relates to his or her job will
come to the fore. Naming and facing these desires and conflicts is the first step.
Subsequent attention is paid to elucidating and drawing conclusions on the material
that comes to the fore. Specific types of interventions used in analytical treatment, and
can facilitate such an attitude, consist of

Not answering demands directly, and not trying to make interpretations or give
explanations that aim to confer meaning on the clients problems and symp-
toms. Demands should be explored with the idea of grasping why an insisting
demand is so important for a client: Which concerns do these articulate?
Encouraging the production of associations (tell me more about this; what
comes to your mind) by the client on the possible cause of his symptoms or
problems (this being a necessary quest, for the signifier only appears with
meaning), and then paying attention to the signifiers that insist in the clients
story.
Asking patients to tell more about insisting signifiers, and to explore intimate
thoughts connected to these. Along this way, associated desires in relation to
significant others might be clarified.
Being as open as possible to surprise, in order to open up an alternative perspec-
tive to the clients world.
Taking up three concurrent roles, while never identifying with any (Leclaire,
1996): that of the direct interlocutor (who must refrain from imaginary com-
plicity), that of the third party who guarantees that attention is paid to the
dimension of the Other, and that of the subject that you are yourself. The latter
is important: Based on the clients story, you might hear associative links you
could present to the client.

Further guidelines on the technique of Lacanian interviewing (analytic listening,

asking questions, making interpretations) can be found in the work of Bruce Fink
(2007).
A major implication of adopting Lacanian psychoanalysis as a framework for indi-
vidual coaching in organizations is that by exploring a particular individuals story, the
clients desire occupies a central role. Indeed, with the help of Lacanian-oriented
coaching, individuals can be brought to the point of recognizing desires they are driven
by, which influences how they act professionally and helps them decide on how they
want to proceed in professional life. In this process, the coach clearly occupies a sup-
portive but confrontational role, and helps individuals make up their mind in an orga-
nizational setting. As a consequence, the outcomes of such coaching cannot be fixed.
Some clients might decide to leave the company; others might rearrange the balance
between work and family time; and still others might find a new lan in their job. Just
like Lacan in the 1950s clearly warned against imposing normalizing standards to
analysands, Lacanian-oriented coaching refrains from imposing organizational targets
onto individuals. Critical studies on the practice of organizational consulting addressed
the power status quo consultants as professional helpers (Clark & Salaman, 1996)
Vanheule and Arnaud 305

tend to create (Alvesson & Johansson, 2002; Sturdy, 1997; Sturdy, Handley, Clark, &
Fincham, 2009; Whittle, 2005; Wright & Kitay, 2004). By accentuating subjective
desire, Lacanian-oriented coaching has the potential to avoid this trap and to question
power dynamics in organizations (Western, 2012). Indeed, when adopting a Lacanian
perspective on coaching, coaching itself gets somewhat redefined. What stands to the
fore, is the clarification of what is repressed, not fulfilment of immediate objectives
clients and their managers might have in mind.
The conceptual model of Lacanian psychoanalysis does not exclude addressing
group dynamics too. For example, based on Lacans discourse theory, which we do not
discuss in this article, the broader structure of social relations in a group might be
studied (Lacan, 1969-1970; Van Roy, March-Paill, Geerardyn, & Vanheule, in press;
Zizek, 2004). This could give rise to interventions that focus on teams or on the com-
pany as a whole. Yet in the context of executive coaching the target is not the group,
but the position an individual occupies in relation to the other and in relation to desire.
Nonetheless, such approach has profound effects on group dynamics, mainly because
coaching can bring the individual to position himself or herself differently.

Transference at Work
As outlined above, Lacanian interventions build on recognizing repressed desires and
experiences that mark the individuals subjectivity, and achieves this by grasping the
specific signifiers that insist in the individuals speech. Such analytic work is only
possible if a readiness for transference can be observed in the patient or client. In a
1967 text on the principles that guide the work in his psychoanalytic school, Lacan
(1967, p. 247) says that transference makes up the first condition for psychoanaly-
sis. In making this claim, Lacan is following Freud (1909), who coined the concept
transference. Freud first used it to describe how the affective tone or libidinal
cathexis connected to one mental representation might be transferred to another. He
subsequently used it to explain how, in psychoanalysis, the relationship between
patient and analyst is affected by patients previous relational experiences (Laplanche
& Pontalis, 1967).
Lacan (1954-1955), for his part, discerns an imaginary and a symbolic component
to transference. The imaginary component concerns the image the patient has about
himself and about the analyst, and the affective reactions (shame, love . . . ) these
images entail. In his view, this only concerns the imaginary axis of the L-schema, and
obfuscates what is really at stake, that is, the way in which a patients subjective posi-
tion is determined by signifiers, of which some have been repressed. Indeed, the crux
of transference, says Lacan, does not reside in the notion that a person projects his or
her previously learned relational expectations onto the analyst. Instead, what is crucial
in transference is that, due to the interplay between a signifier articulated by the ana-
lyst and a signifier articulated by the patient, an expectation emerges: underlying the
patients signifier, a body of unconscious knowledge can be found that makes up the
patients subjectivity (Lacan, 1967). Hence, Lacans (1967, p. 249) suggestion that
transference implies a subject supposed to know. The idea of the subject supposed
306 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 52(3)

to know is not to imply that the patient presumes that the analyst knows the origin and
meaning of his problemsthis would only be an imaginary supposition in which the
analyst is seen as an expert or possessor of knowledge. Rather, transference implies
the belief that behind the insisting signifiers in the patients discourse, to which the
analyst attends, an as yet hidden piece of truth about the patient can be found. The
subject supposed to know that is at work in transference refers to a piece of, as yet
unrecognized, subjectivity that the patient presumes to be present in his own function-
ing. If symbolic transference is at play in relation to an analyst, the analyst is seen as
the guide who knows how to gain access to, and how to handle this, as yet hidden piece
of truth.
Applied to Lacanian-oriented coaching, this means that a condition to be fulfilled
for an intervention along the lines of Lacans L-schema is that the client does not posi-
tion himself or herself as a mere consumer who passively awaits the coachs solution.
Without a minimal desire of self-discovery in the client, a Lacanian intervention is not
possible. If such openness is present, or grows during preliminary meetings, the main
task of the analyst consists of echoing outstanding signifiers and inviting clients to
explore contexts, other than the immediate one they are concerned with, in which
these signifiers might have played a role (Kisfalvi & Maguire, 2011). Sometimes,
these other contexts are seemingly unrelated situations in current organizational func-
tioning. Frequently, they are past situations that took place in the organization that
produced unresolved tension, and/or conflicting issues from an individuals past that
disturb their current functioning. Symbolic debts from the past often disturb the
organizations relational and psychological economy (Arnaud, 2002).

Two Cases: Franoise and Xavier

When observing companies, the Lacanian psychoanalytic approach encourages us to
focus (among other things) on repeated setbacks that seem at first to suggest mere
management inadequacies. As mentioned previously, these can often be intricately
linked to certain insistently returning signifiers that bear witness to unacknowledged
desires. Below, we present two cases in which we illustrate how insisting signifiers
might be mapped on a process of executive coaching. The first case concerns Franoise,
a woman in her 40s, who is in charge of business development in a recruitment firm.
Gilles Arnaud (2002) has previously published this case. The current article provides
a reanalysis of the notes made during and after Arnauds coaching sessions. The sec-
ond case (unpublished) concerns Xavier, a man in his 40s, who is the CEO of a chain
of retail shops in household electronics.

Franoise and Her Small Clients

Methodologically, the materials concerning the case of Franoise were collected dur-
ing several meetings. The second author of the article was the coach. First, we had a
meeting with the CEO and with Franoise separately, taking an hour each. During
these meetings, the problem and the organizational context were discussed. Then, we
Vanheule and Arnaud 307

had three interviews with Franoise that used the Lacanian methodology of carefully
focusing on the Symbolic axis of Franoises functioning. These meetings took 2
hours each. They started from the question of what she considered being the cause of
her current problems. Subsequently, seven more individual meetings took place with
Franoise, each taking about 1 hour and 15 minutes. No audio recordings were made,
but the author carefully took notes during the sessions, which were further supple-
mented after each session. These notes were the basis for writing up the case and dis-
cerning central themes (Hollway & Jefferson, 2000). The insisting signifiers we
examine below were mapped, and further discussed with the client during the coach-
ing process. In preparing the case, we carefully studied the notes about the coaching
process with the aim of grasping the structure of crucial signifiers and related desires
in this case. In line with Lacanian qualitative methodology (Vanheule, 2002), crucial
links between essential signifiers and related desires have been mapped in two sche-
mas (Figures 1 and 2), which were constructed based on discussions between both
authors. These lasted until agreement was reached.
The CEO of the recruitment firm consulted us first about Franoise, who was caus-
ing him concern since she appeared incapable of taking up her new marketing objec-
tive, which consisted in developing the companys key accounts. Conversely, Franoise
seemed immutably attached to the small clients, who had made the fortune of the firm
in the past: I prefer earning one euro from 1000 small clients to earning 1000 euro
from a single big one. Weve always done it like that. Small clients is a signifier that
insistently returns in her speech. While it was the CEO who initially asked for the con-
sultation, hoping that she would change her marketing strategies, Franoise agreed with
the plan of starting coaching sessions. No promises were made to the CEO as to whether
his objective would be reached. Franoise was highly interested in the coaching. On a
previous occasion, she had participated enthusiastically in a 2-day training program that
we directed. Symbolic transference, with its desire to know what lies beyond readily
observable problems and preoccupations, was established fairly easily.
During the first meetings, an omnipresent figure appeared in Franoises discourse:
Dominique, the former director and founder of the firm, who had recruited her about
20 years earlier. Dominique apparently had a motherly attitude toward Franoise:

She was a second mother to all of us [Franoise and her three colleagues in the original
firm], and especially so for me. She completely took me under her wing; she took care of
my training, of me finding a place in the job. She really gave herself completely. What
else could I have wished for? Working with her was like a dream come true.

At the beginning, Dominique would take Franoise on, what she used to call,
small clan outings (in twos or threes, with another consultant each time) to canvass
and meet small clients. These meetings reminded her of exhilarating trips with her
mother when she was young; trips kept secret from her father and which her mother
called outings between ourselves. Dominique was totally devoted to small cli-
ents, and reiterated their importance to the team through aphorisms that had a certain
law-like air (e.g., Thou shall always cherish small clients). These aphorisms, which
308 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 52(3)

Figure 2. Word bridges/connections between signifiers in the case of Franoise.

were part of Franoises training, are still part and parcel of the firms informal cul-
ture. However, after serious health issues, Dominique sold the firm (in spite of having
promised not to do so to Franoise), but she remained shareholder: Her husband
advised her to sell the company, which she did, because of her illness. Then there was
this buyout by X [the current director of the firm]. Moreover, Dominique had negoti-
ated the position of Head of Development for Franoise, who became responsible
for ensuring the continuity of the business. She then also became a shareholder.
In Franoises account, a number of word bridges or reiterated signifiers could be
discerned that appear to connect her current fixation on small clients to other rela-
tional contexts: her relationship with her previous boss and her relationship with her
mother. Similar to how Freud (1901) schematically depicted relationships between
key signifiers underlying his forgetting of the name of Luca Signorelli, connections
between signifiers can also be schematically depicted in Franoises case (Figure 2).
In Figure 2, the arrows between the signifiers that are marked by a black rectangle
depict the word bridges across the storylines. These links indicate that her current fixa-
tion is unconsciously rooted in other relational contexts, to which the connections
between the signifiers point.
Crucial in Franoises case is the affective value of the small outings she used to
have. In relation to her mother, shopping together without the fathers knowledge had
a conspiratorial value: my mother called it our small outings; it was just the two of
us. A similar desire of relational closeness was discerned underlying her professional
behavior, where it was marked by conflict. In relation to Dominique, she had the privi-
lege of having small clan outings. On these outings, she was the preferred compan-
ion: Dominique was really inseparable in relation to me, she said, We made a
fantastic duo. Conflict was engendered the moment the company was sold. On the
one hand, Dominique promised that their business would remain small:

On several occasions she declared, and even promised that she would never sell the firm;
that she would never go for an opportunist policy of growth. She wanted to be the one
who supervised the activities and the capital of the company.
Vanheule and Arnaud 309

Figure 3. Desires and conflicts expressed in word bridges/connections between signifiers in

the case of Franoise.

Then, the buyout came: We [Franoise and the three other team-member of the
original firm] experienced this as nothing but a betrayal; look what she said! By con-
tinuing to focus on small clients, Franoise remains faithful to the principle that
Dominique abandoned. We hypothesize that by being nominated to be the new Head
of Development and by becoming shareholder of the business, Franoise never had the
freedom or opportunity to express this conflict. The good news surrounding the buyout
obfuscated the disappointment about the loss of confidentiality and conviviality.
In terms of the symbolic axis of the L-schema, the example illustrates, on the one
hand, Franoises small client preoccupation, which echoes a desire for closeness
with her mother and with Dominique. On the other hand, it also expresses conflictual
feelings about these relational contexts (see Figure 3). By following how identical
signifiers emerged in different contexts, we traced this desire and conflict. In this
respect, the expression small outings was key. In terms of the imaginary axis of the
L-schema, the outings with Dominique produced a symmetrical world of egos
(Lacan, 1954-1955, p. 244). The outings entailed a feeling of conspiracy and shared
interest, and enabled Franoise to see herself as the others beloved protge, which
provided her with narcissistic gratification. Since the buyout, this imaginary relation
fell apart. The new company structure provided her with the position of Head of
310 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 52(3)

Development, yet this position did not give rise to imaginary identification. The new
organizational structure did not function as a mirror in which she could see herself as
beloved protge in relation to the CEO.
In French, the signifiers small clan or petit clan and small client, petit cli-
ent have strong phonological similarities. In Franoises current preoccupation, it is
not petit clan that stands to the fore, but petit client. We believe that the shift to
being preoccupied with small clients reveals the unconscious process of displacement.
Displacement takes place when the conflict attached to one idea (small clan) is
repressed, and the affective importance of that idea is transferred onto another idea
(small client), which consequently becomes overvalued because of the weight it car-
ries from the repressed thought (Freud, 1900). Thanks to her focus on small clients,
Franoise neglects her desire for what is irreparably lost: moments of relational close-
ness and times of joint adventures. Coaching helps her articulate this loss.
As indicated above, apart from the three initial interviews with Franoise seven
further interviews were conducted. The following four (individual) meetings with her
started from the same listening attitude, but had a more interpretative emphasis and
focused on the underlying desire and conflict. The last three sessions more broadly
explored Franoises work-related attitude. An element that clearly came to the fore
during these final meetings was her tendency to establish incestuous relationships at
work (I enjoy nothing more than doing everything in-house). Being very devoted to
her job, she explored her tendency to do things behind the backs of father figures. It
should be noted that as the coaching sessions progressed, Franoises resistance toward
developing a market in which bigger clients we addressed gradually disappeared.
Starting from the sixth coaching session, she took action to profile the firms recruit-
ment solutions in relation to bigger companies.

Xavier and His Convergence Strategy

The second case concerns the CEO of a chain of retail shops. Here too, Gilles Arnaud
was the coach. The coaching process was fairly brief, and spread over five meetings
on a weekly basis. Xavier contacted the coach 6 weeks after having participated in a
1-day training conducted by Gilles Arnaud and a colleague. During the training ses-
sion an incident took place, which at first surprised Xavier (see below: Xavier was
confronted with a slip in his spelling), but subsequently resulted in an exploration of
the dynamics that fueled the slip. All coaching sessions were similar to the case of
Franoise, focusing on the Symbolic axis of L-schema. Each coaching sessions took
approximately 1 hour. Again, no audio recordings were made but the coach carefully
took notes during and after the sessions. All materials were analyzed along the lines
described in the case of Franoise. Links between essential signifiers and ideas are
mapped in a schema (Figure 4).
Xavier and the coach first meet during a training session on team dynamics in com-
mercial settings. The HR staff of the company from which Xavier is the CEO orga-
nized this training. The company consists of a franchised chain of retail shops in
household electronics. During one of the breaks, Xavier proudly tells the trainer about
Vanheule and Arnaud 311

Figure 4. Desires and conflicts expressed in connections between signifiers in the case of
Xavier.

his company, and his business achievements, in such a way that he stands at the
forefront of the picture, which contrasts with the training program that focuses on team
dynamics. At one point, Xavier invites the trainer to take a look at the posters he had
distributed across the company, which consist of slogans that aim to characterize the
companys mission and strategies. Xavier is proud of these posters, saying things like
you see how well all is formulated?; this is our spirit. A keyword in Xaviers dis-
coursefrom a Lacanian point of view, we call it a master signifier (Hook &
Vanheule, 2016)is convergence: Xavier repeatedly says, and writes on his poster
that thanks to his business strategy the until-then independent retail shops can con-
verge. However, the posters contain a typo: instead of convergence (same word is
used in French and English) it says convergeance. The trainer points to the typo, but
Xavier denies it this is not an error, the word should indeed be written like this.
Xavier asks a number of his employees to underscore his correctness, and they con-
firm it. To prove his point, Xavier takes his smartphone and checks the orthography
online. To his own dismay, he observes that he was wrong: this is a disaster, we will
have to replace all posters and business cards we just had made. The coach responds
saying that convergence was actually written like vengeance (the same word in
French and English). Xavier is baffled by this remark, which comes down to an inter-
pretation. He suddenly turns his back and leaves without saying a word. Six weeks
after the incident Xavier contacts the trainer, asking for further consultation concern-
ing the incident. They agree to have a number of coaching sessions.
During the coaching sessions, the convergeance slip stands to the fore (see Figure
4). Xavier is told that associative explorations of ideas connected to this slip might
shed light on underlying dynamics he is struggling with. Xavier agrees, indicating that
the vengeance intervention made him think about his own functioning. Fairly
quickly symbolic transference, in which a search for unconscious determinants stands
to the fore, is established. Xavier explains that convergence is indeed a key strategic
target in the company. What he wants is that all stores apply the same marketing and
selling policy. In past years this led to growth, and the name of the company is now
associated with a reputation of good quality. Yet the idea of vengeance rather makes
312 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 52(3)

him think of the previous CEO: Paul. Paul established the company, managed it for
years, and hired Xavierhis right handas his future successor about 15 years ago:
I would become the CEO the moment Paul deemed me ready for doing so. Yet in
actual practice, Paul was most harsh in relation to Xavier: Even the slightest expres-
sion of appreciation was lacking. Pauls lack of recognition made him think of his
father, who also never appreciated what his son accomplished, and filled Xavier with
both a grudge, and feelings of uncertainty and fear for not meeting the standards pater-
nal figures imposed on him. Five years ago the situation changed dramatically. While
Paul still had not qualified Xavier as his successor, Xavier actually became the CEO
when Paul suddenly died from a cardiac arrest.
As this aspect of his career is explored, Xavier indicates that in terms of the con-
vergence policy, he wants to have established in the company, people think of him as
an iron hand in a velvet glove. In a joking way, by contrast, he characterizes Paul as
an iron hand without a velvet glove. Paul was a slave driver and failed to appreci-
ate what Xavier, and other people in the company, accomplished. Under his direction,
input from collaborators was minimal expressing yourself was not part of the corpo-
rate identity. Xavier aimed at changing this, and at launching a joint project: local
stores should converge. For the first 3 years after Pauls death, this worked well.
However, in the past 2 years the companys profit was decreasing. Xavier reacted to
this by intensifying his convergence policy, hence the poster campaign. Driving his
sports car from store to store, he started paying unexpected visits with the aim of
checking whether they implemented the quality guidelines. As the coaching ses-
sions proceeded Xavier began to see parallels between Pauls style, and his own way
of managing the company in recent years: implementing convergence was Xaviers
revenge in response to Pauls despotic leadership, but in recent years Xavier himself
tends to act with a vengeance in relation to those who do not slavishly follow his con-
vergence policy. By the end of the coaching, Xavier realizes that expressing your-
self still does not make part of the company policy, and that his strong emphasis on
convergence might actually undermine marketing and sales in local stores. Indeed, the
main outcome of this coaching trajectory is that our client began to reflect more criti-
cally on the management style and strategies he harshly imposed.

Discussion
Addressing the question of how principles of Lacanian psychoanalysis can be applied
to individual coaching in organizations, we examined the logic of Lacans L-schema
and studied the case of Franoise, a poorly performing business development profes-
sional in a recruitment firm, as well as the case of Xavier, a CEO who, thanks to a slip
in his spelling, started to reflect more critically on his management style and strate-
gies. The main idea behind the Lacanian intervention is that the client has to engage in
a process of spoken clarification (Lacan, 1954-1955, p. 255). By attending to, and
pointing out, returning signifiers, the coach, just like the Lacanian analyst invites the
client to explore personal experiences, and to leave behind fixed images of himself or
herself and others. This is done by exploring the particular history of the subject, and
Vanheule and Arnaud 313

by articulating desires and conflicts that might have an effect on their current function-
ing. We assume that the clients speech will automatically follow along the imaginary
axis of the L-schema: (s)he will engage in telling who (s)he is, who the other is, and
outline her or his image of the problems at hand. Yet Lacanian analytic work consists
of countering this tendency and of grasping the dimension of the Other in the clients
speech, which we situate at the symbolic axis of the L-schema. If unconscious desires,
inhibitions, and histories of disappointment (particularly those that do not fit with the
image we have of ourselves and others) are not recognized, they can disturb our daily
behavior. Painful, but repressed, aspects of our subjective experience do not simply
fade away, but emerge in seemingly irrational and counterproductive behaviors, as
well as in signifiers that insist in speech. In both cases, we detected this process and
also observed that in the coaching process, which consisted of individual meetings,
they developed a symbolic transference relationship. This means that similar to what
takes place in clinical psychoanalytic contexts, both clients actively explored warded-
off desires and conflicts. The coachs main task consisted of attending to these desires
and conflicts by following the chain of (returning) signifiers. Obviously, this approach
has important implications for the practice of coaching, as well as for research.

Implications for Practice

When implementing a Lacanian way of working in coaching, one must note that, at
first, the coach, like the analyst, only has access to a discourse that could be qualified
as imaginary. What first stands out, are the clients images and ideas about what is
wrong, his or her affective reactions to these, and his explicit wish for a solution. For
example, in the case of Franoise the tension between Franoise and the CEO is piv-
otal, which gives rise to the formulation of a problem: Franoise fails to realize the
marketing objectives of the recruitment firm. This problem is a symptom, around
which the client could chitchat for hours.
Guided by Lacans distinction between the Imaginary and the Symbolic, we do not
stick to this imaginary level. Obviously, in developing a fruitful working relationship,
the coach must establish a relation of trust, in which the image of a potential solution,
and affective relief stands out. At first the coach functions as a mirror, in which the
client hopes finding a truthful image of himself or herself, with his or her own strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. Such imaginary relation is a precondition for
further work. Yet a Lacanian inspired coach will not work by addressing these imagi-
nary concerns, but encourage a search for underlying dynamics, which we, in line
with Lacan, called the creation of a subject supposed to know. This gives rise to
symbolic transference. By stimulating the client to tell about concerns in an associa-
tive way (see also Implications for Individual Coaching in Organizations section), and
asking open questions, we subsequently aim at obtaining a broad story, in which the
coach can then focus on the symbolic dimension of speech, and discern returning sig-
nifiers. Through analytical listening, one can perceive the way in which associatively
signifiers hinge onto each other and, thus, aim at having the client articulate repressed
desires and conflicts. If a transference relation takes shape, aspects of Lacanian
314 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 52(3)

psychoanalysis can be effectively applied in disentangling organizational difficulties.

We believe that this underscores the relevance of more broadly applying Lacanian
psychoanalysis to the study of organizational dilemmas.
Indeed, in the frame of organizational interventions, the Lacanian-oriented coach does
not occupy the role of the expert called on to deliver expected answers, but aims at ques-
tioning practices and keeping the Symbolic dimension open (Arnaud, 1998, 2003). To do
this, she or he has to constantly question his perceptions and attitudes (that is to say, not
take anything for granted), and refuse to settle into the comfort of a defined position.

Implications for Research

We discussed how coaching might be oriented starting from the Lacanian theory con-
cerning the Symbolic and the Imaginary. By means of a case study, we discussed how
a focus on the logic of the signifier might give rise to recognizing and clarifying desires
and conflicts that have been warded off first. Starting from our theoretical framework,
we assume that such symbolically oriented recognition has a profound effect on dys-
functional organizational behaviors. These get resolved as conflicts and desires get
recognized, which is also what the case studies show.
However, at this level, further research is needed. We believe that it would be highly
relevant to compare multiple single case studies in a broader qualitative research
design. This might give rise to finding characteristic desires and conflicts underlying
dysfunctional organizational behaviors. We presume that these will align with those
discussed by other scholars in psychodynamic organizational research (Sievers, 2009;
Zaleznik, 1990). More important, such comparative research might shed light on dif-
ferent trajectories of associations between signifiers that are related to these desires
and conflicts, and thus highlight different kinds of repression, or other psychological
defenses at the basis of dysfunctional organizational behaviors. Indeed, a main added
value of the Lacanian approach is that it gives rise to a pragmatics of the signifier:
unconscious processes are not so much presumed to be active in the black box of the
mind, but in the materiality of speech. Obviously, such focus on the signifier should
not be limited to the study of Lacanian inspired coaching only. We believe that the
detailed study of patterned ways in which signifiers relate should be integrated more
strongly in Lacanian studies as such.
This focus on the Symbolic also implies an ethical position concerning the status
and finality of organization and management studies. Obviously, with psychoanalysis,
the issue is no longer about denying the existence of unconscious psychological phe-
nomena in organizations. Nevertheless, one must not lapse into the opposite extreme
of becoming engineers of the soul (Lacan, 1955, p. 296), that is, trying to exploit
knowledge of the unconscious, manipulate imaginary, or symbolic dynamics to the
benefit of the conventional power relationships in a company, and thus establishing
subtle social control over employees. Between managerial impotence and omnipo-
tence, there is room for the emergence of a type of management and consulting prac-
tice that can work on and with lack at the level of the Symbolic (Arnaud & Vanheule,
2007; Driver, 2009).
Vanheule and Arnaud 315

To Conclude
Despite the fact that Lacanian psychoanalysis might inform individual coaching prac-
tices, such coaching still differs substantially from a Lacanian psychoanalytic cure.
Coaching, as described here, aims at addressing specific problems; opens up a space
for speech and reflection; and comes to an end when the central issue in a persons
malfunctioning has been clarified. In terms of the psychoanalytic cure such as envi-
sioned by Lacan, the observation Franoise and Xavier made concerning the determi-
nants in their own behavior is not an endpoint, but a starting point based on which a
broader exploration of the unconscious could be set into motion. For example, a cen-
tral issue that was observed, but that was not addressed in the consultation concern
both clients position in relation to their parents, which probably makes up a template
based on which they more globally interact. Characteristically, in psychoanalysis, this
mode of positioning is questioned, thus opening up to other questions concerning how
one deals with existence and drive-related issues. In coaching these, further steps are
not taken (Garvey, 2014). Nonetheless, Lacanian-oriented coaching is both useful and
unique in that it aims at addressing subjective problems by focusing on unconscious
desire. Also, it might be noted that in focusing on organizational problems the Lacanian
approach strictly starts from the organization such as experienced by the individual.
Indeed, the Lacanian-oriented coach does not work with his or her appreciation of
organizational dynamics, or with his or her understanding of the organizational mean-
ings connected to the individuals problems. Change is envisioned by transforming the
subjective position an individual occupies. Even though organizational dynamics do
not make up the prime target of the intervention, such subjective transformation often
has a profound impact on organizational dynamics.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

References
Alvesson, M., & Johansson, A. (2002). Professionalism and politics in management consul-
tancy work. In T. Clark & R. Fincham (Eds.), Critical consulting: New perspectives on the
management advice industry (pp. 228-246). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Armstrong, D. (2005). Organization in the mind: Psychoanalysis, group relations, and organi-
zational consultancy. London, England: Karnac.
Arnaud, G. (1998). The obscure object of demand in consultancy: A psychoanalytic perspec-
tive. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 13, 469-484.
Arnaud, G. (2002). The organization and the symbolic: Organizational dynamics viewed from
a Lacanian perspective. Human Relations, 55, 691-716.
316 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 52(3)

Arnaud, G. (2003). A coach or a couch? A Lacanian perspective on executive coaching and

consulting. Human Relations, 56, 1131-1143.
Arnaud, G. (2012). The contribution of psychoanalysis to organization studies and manage-
ment: An overview. Organization Studies, 33, 1121-1135.
Arnaud, G., & Vanheule, S. (2007). The division of the subject and the organization: A Lacanian
approach to subjectivity at work. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 20, 359-369.
Arnaud, G., & Vanheule, S. (2013). Lacanian psychoanalysis and management research: On the
possibilities and limits of convergence. Management Decision, 51, 1664-1677.
Bicknell, M., & Liefooghe, A. (2010). Enjoy your stress! Using Lacan to enrich transactional
models of stress. Organization, 17, 317-330.
Boxer, P., & Palmer, B. (1994). Meeting the challenge of the case. In R. Casemore (Ed.), What
makes consultancy work (pp. 358-371). London, England: South Bank University Press.
Bracher, M. (1996, June). Lacanian resources for organizational consulting. Paper presented
at 13th Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of
Organizations, New York, NY.
Brown, A., & Starkey, K. (2000). Organizational identity and learning: A psychodynamic per-
spective. Academy of Management Review, 25, 102-120.
Carter, P., & Jackson, N. (2004). For the sake of argument: Towards an understanding of rheto-
ric as process. Journal of Management Studies, 41, 469-491.
Cederstrm, C., & Hoedemaekers, C. (2010). Lacan and organization. San Francisco, CA:
MayFly.
Clark, T., & Fincham, R. (Eds.). (2002). Critical consulting: New perspectives on the manage-
ment advice industry. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Clark, T., & Salaman, G. (1996). Telling tales: Management consultancy as the art of storytell-
ing. In D. Grant & C. Oswick (Eds.), Metaphor and organizations (pp. 167-184). London,
England: Sage.
Contu, A., Driver, M., & Jones, C. (2010). Jacques Lacan with organization studies.
Organization, 17, 307-315.
Czander, W. (1993). The psychodynamics of work and organizations. New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Czander, W., & Eisold, K. (2003). Psychoanalytic perspectives on organizational consulting:
Transference and counter-transference. Human Relations, 56, 475-490.
Czander, W., Jacobsberg, L., Mersky, R., & Nunberg, H. (2002). Analysis of a successful con-
sultative effort from four psychoanalytic perspectives. Journal of Managerial Psychology,
17, 366-380.
de Saussure, F. (1916). Course in general linguistics. New York, NY: Philosophical Library.
Diamond, M., & Allcorn, S. (2003). The cornerstone of psychoanalytic organizational analy-
sis: Psychological reality, transference and counter-transference in the workplace. Human
Relations, 56, 491-514.
Driver, M. (2003). Nothing clinical, just business? Reflections on psychoanalytically grounded
organizational diagnosis and intervention. Human Relations, 56, 39-59.
Driver, M. (2009). Struggling with lack: A Lacanian perspective on organizational identity.
Organization Studies, 30, 55-72.
Fincham, R. (1999). The consultant-client relationship: Critical perspectives on the manage-
ment of organizational change. Journal of Management Studies, 36, 335-351.
Fink, B. (1995). The Lacanian subject: Between language and jouissance. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Vanheule and Arnaud 317

Fink, B. (2007). Fundamentals of psychoanalytic techniqueA Lacanian approach for practi-

tioners. New York, NY: Norton.
Fotaki, M., Long, S., & Schwartz, H. (2012). What can psychoanalysis offer organization
studies today? Taking stock of current development and thinking about future directions.
Organization Studies, 33, 1105-1120.
Freud, S. (1900). The interpretation of dreams (Standard Edition of Freuds Collected Works).
London, UK: Hogarth.
Freud, S. (1901). The psychopathology of everyday life (Standard Edition of Freuds Collected
Works). London, England: Hogarth.
Freud, S. (1909). Five lectures on psychoanalysis (Standard Edition of Freuds Collected
Works). London, England: Hogarth.
Gabriel, Y. (1991). Organizations and their discontents: A psychoanalytic contribution to the
study of organizational culture. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27, 318-336.
Gabriel, Y. (1999). Organizations in depth: The psychoanalysis of organizations. London,
England: Sage.
Gabriel, Y., & Carr, A. (2002). Organizations, management and psychoanalysis: An overview.
Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 348-365.
Garvey, B. (2014). Fundamentals of coaching and mentoring. London, England: Sage.
Gilmore, T., & Krantz, J. (1985). Projective identification in the consulting relationship:
Exploring the unconscious dimensions of a client system. Human Relations, 38, 1159-1177.
Gould, L. (1991). Using psychoanalytic frameworks for organizational analysis. In M. Kets
de Vries (Ed.), Organizations on the couch (pp. 25-44). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hollway, W., & Jefferson, T. (2000). Doing qualitative research differently: Free association,
narrative, and the interview method. London, England: Sage.
Hook, D., & Vanheule, S. (2016). Revisiting the master-signifier, or, Mandela and repression.
Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 2028.
Hunt, J., & McCollom, M. (1994). Using psychoanalytic approaches in organizational consult-
ing. Consulting Psychology Journal, 46(2), 1-11.
Jones, C. (2007). Read [Review of Lacans Ecrits]. Ephemera, 7, 615-621.
Kets, de, Vries, M., Kotorov, K., & Florent-Treacy, E. (2007). Coach and couch: The psychol-
ogy of making better leaders. London, England: Palgrave.
Kilburg, R. (2004). When shadows fall: Using psychodynamic approaches in executive coach-
ing. Consulting Psychology Journal, 56, 246-268.
Kisfalvi, V., & Maguire, S. (2011). On the nature of institutional entrepreneurs: Insights from
the life of Rachel Carson. Journal of Management Inquiry, 20, 152-177.
Krantz, J. (1999). Comment on challenging resistance to change. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 35, 42-44.
Lacan, J. (1949). The mirror stage as formative of the function of the I. In J. Lacan & J. A. Miller
(Eds.), crits (pp. 75-81). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Lacan, J. (1954-1955). The seminar of Jacques Lacan, Book II, the ego in Freuds theory and in
the technique of psychoanalysis. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lacan, J. (1955). Variations on the standard treatment. In J. Lacan & J. A. Miller (Eds.), crits
(pp. 269-302). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Lacan, J. (1955-1956). The seminar 1955-1956, Book III, the psychoses. New York, NY: W.
W. Norton.
Lacan, J. (1956). The function and field of speech and language in psychoanalysis. In J. Lacan
& J. A. Miller (Eds.), crits (pp. 197-268). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
318 The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 52(3)

Lacan, J. (1957). Seminar on the Purloined Letter. In J. Lacan & J. A. Miller (Eds.), crits
(pp. 11-48). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Lacan, J. (1959). On a question prior to any possible treatment of psychosis. In J. Lacan & J. A.
Miller (Eds.), crits (pp. 445-488). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Lacan, J. (1967). Proposition du 9 octobre 1967 sur le psychanalyste de lEcole. In J. Lacan &
J. A. Miller (Eds.), Autres crits (pp. 243-260). Paris: Seuil.
Lacan, J. (1969-1970). The seminar 1955-1956, Book XVII, the other side of psychoanalysis.
New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
Laplanche, J., & Pontalis, J. B. (1967). Vocabulaire de la psychanalyse. (The Language of
Psychoanalysis). Paris, France: PUF.
Leclaire, S. (1996). crits pour la psychanalyse. (Writings for psychoanalysis). Paris, France:
Arcanes.
Maltz, M. (2012). Organizational thinking, leadership and subsequent action: Psychoanalysis as
a guide? Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 22, 529-539.
Neumann, J., & Hirschhorn, L. (1999). The challenge of integrating psychodynamic and orga-
nizational theory. Human Relations, 52, 683-692.
Newton, J., Long, S., & Sievers, B. (Eds.). (2006). Coaching in depth: The organizational role
analysis approach. London, England: Karnac.
Nobus, D. (2000). Jacques Lacan and the Freudian practice of psychoanalysis. New York, NY:
Routledge.
Schein, E. (1987). Process consultation (Vol. II): Lessons for managers and consultants.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Sievers, B. (Ed.). (2009). Psychoanalytic studies of organizations: Contributions from the
International Society for the Psychoanalytic Study of Organizations (ISPSO). London,
England: Karnac.
Sturdy, A. (1997). The consulting process: An insecure business? Journal of Management
Studies, 34, 389-413.
Sturdy, A., Handley, K., Clark, T., & Fincham, R. (2009). Management consultancy boundaries
and knowledge in action. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Sullivan, C. (2002). Finding the thou in the I: Countertransference and parallel process analysis
in organizational research and consultation. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 38,
375-392.
Van Roy, K., March-Paill, A., Geerardyn, F., & Vanheule, S. (in press). Reading Balint group
work through Lacans theory of the four discourses. Health. DOI: 10.1177/1363459315628041.
Vanheule, S. (2002). Qualitative research and its relation to Lacanian psychoanalysis. Journal
for the Psychoanalysis of Culture and Society, 7, 336-342.
Vanheule, S. (2011). The subject of psychosis: A Lacanian perspective. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Vanheule, S., & Verhaeghe, P. (2004). Powerlessness and impossibility in special education: A
qualitative study on professional burnout from a Lacanian perspective. Human Relations,
57, 497-519.
Vanheule, S., & Verhaeghe, P. (2005). Professional burnout in the mirror: A qualitative study
from a Lacanian perspective. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 22, 285-305.
Vanheule, S., & Verhaeghe, P. (2009). Identity through a psychoanalytic looking glass. Theory
& Psychology, 19, 319-411.
Vansina, L., & Vansina-Cobbaert, J. (2008). Psychodynamics for consultants and managers.
London, England: Wiley.
Vanheule and Arnaud 319

Vidaillet, B. (2007). Lacanian theorys contribution to the study of workplace envy. Human
Relations, 60, 1669-1700.
Vidaillet, B., & Gamot, G. (2015). Working and resisting when ones workplace is under threat
of being shut down: A Lacanian perspective. Organization Studies, 36, 987-1011.
Werr, A., & Styhre, A. (2003). Management consultantsfriend of foe? Understanding
the ambiguous client-consultant relationship. International Studies of Management &
Organization, 32(4), 43-66.
Western, S. (2012). Coaching and mentoring: A critical text. London, England: Sage.
Whittle, A. (2005). Preaching and practising flexibility: Implications for theories of subjectiv-
ity at work. Human Relations, 58, 1301-1322.
Willemsen, J., Inslegers, R., Meganck, R., Geerardyn, F., Desmet, M., & Vanheule, S. (2015). A
metasynthesis of published case studies through Lacans L-schema: Transference in perver-
sion. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 96, 773-795.
Wozniak, A. (2010). The dream that caused reality: The place of the Lacanian subject of science
in the field of organization theory. Organization, 17, 395-411.
Wright, C. (2005). Critical compendium on consultants and gurus. Journal of Management
Studies, 42, 467-470.
Wright, C., & Kitay, J. (2004). Spreading the word: Gurus, consultants and the diffusion of
employee relations paradigm in Australia. Management Learning, 35, 271-286.
Zaleznik, A. (1990). Executives guide to motivating people: How Freudian theory can turn
good executives into better leaders. Chicago, IL: Bonus.
Zizek, S. (2004). The structure of domination today: A Lacanian view. Studies in East European
Thought, 56, 383-403.