Back to basics: How the discovery of transference is

TRANSFERENCE is a powerful phenome-non that underpins the great impor-tance of the relationship in coaching

outcome (De Haan, 2008a). Unnoticed ormisperceived transference seems to lie at theroot of mistakes and deterioration asreported in executive coaching relationships,such as misjudging the relationship, aggra-vating the status quo by collusion, the illusionof being all-powerful, or abuse of their powerby coaches (Berglas, 2002). In Berglas’ articletransference is explicitly mentioned as a phe-nomenon that is missed at the coach’s peril.In short, both to become relationally moreperceptive and to learn to avoid very real dan-gers in executive coaching, it is essential thatexecutive coaches take time to study transfer-ence. It is worthwhile then to go back to thesource and study the early writings abouttransference, in particular Freud’s technicalpapers. There is something powerful andunavoidable about the story of the discoveryof transference which may be recreated in

the development of every coach and in thediscovery process that every coach and clientundertake together. This paper is aimed athelping to appreciate the process of discov-ery of transference and countertransference.The paper inquires into what the processinsights we can gather could teach us whentaking on new clients. It argues that coachescan learn both from Freud’s discoveries andfrom the benefit of hindsight.

In many of the guides to the coachingprofession, transference is mentioned exten-sively in the context of psychodynamicapproaches to executive coaching (e.g.Peltier 2001, Chapter 2; De Haan & Burger,2004, Chapter 8; Stober & Grant, 2006,Chapter 5; and Palmer & Whybrow, 2007,Chapter 14). Moreover, a lot of executivecoaching handbooks and articles that areclearly not psychodynamically orientated stillunderline the importance of the phenome-non of transference, for example, Zeus andSkiffington, 2000 (p.24 and others) and

180 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 6 No. 2 September 2011© The British Psychological Society – ISSN: 1750-2764

Back to basics: How the discovery oftransference is relevant for coaches andconsultants todayErik de Haan

Purpose: In this study the phenomenon of transference (and parallel process) is explored in terms of itshistorical understanding and possible occurrences in real life sessions with clients.Design/Methodology: After a summary of the main historical breakthroughs in the discoveries of defences,resistance, transference, countertransference, working alliance and parallel process; this process of discoveryitself, which parallels the discovery of these phenomena in coach training and in new client relationships,is reversed to reveal a sensible approach to working with new clients in such a way that one makesmaximum use of information that comes through countertransference, transference and informing layersunderneath.Results: It is shown that Freud’s approach to the phenomenon of transference is still relevant today andparticularly within organisational contexts. Moreover the article shows that the discovery process oftransference, both by Freud and others and by new practitioners entering the field today, can be reversed toyield an approach to new clients which helps to understand them more fully earlier on in the relationship. Conclusions: Transference is still a very lively and relevant topic a good century after its first discovery.Coaches would do well to notice transference phenomena within themselves and their clients.Keywords: transference; parallel process; working alliance; consulting; history of psychoanalysis; coachinginterventions; Sigmund Freud.

Ashridge Business School http://www.ashridge.org.uk

Rogers, 2004 (pp.195–196). Books about psy-chodynamic approaches in consulting alsomention transference as an important phe-nomenon to be encountered and workedwith in practice (see, for example, De Board,1978; Hirschhorn, 1988; Czander, 1993).Increasingly, we find transference men-tioned in publications on consulting andcoaching, often under the name of ‘parallelprocess’.

In the past decades substantial empiricalevidence has demonstrated the phenome-non of transference (‘old issues from pastrelationships emerging in new relation-ships’) more objectively. For an overview ofthat evidence, see Andersen and Berk (1998)and Kraus and Chen (2010).

However, it is worthwhile and insightfulto go back to the original publications onthis phenomenon starting from SigmundFreud’s famous discovery, particularly if onewants to gain a fresh understanding of thephenomenon and its various manifestations.The next sections will trace the discoveriesaround transference from its first mention-ing in 1904 (Freud, 1904) until some 50 years later: 1955, when the related term‘parallel process’, and 1965, when the ‘work-ing alliance’ was introduced.

Freud on transferenceZur Dynamik der Übertragung (Freud, 1912) iswithout doubt Freud’s core text in the areaof transference. In it he defines transferenceas that part or those parts of the person’shighly individual, highly personal andlargely unconscious loving impulses which isnot being satisfied in her relationships. Hewrites literally that everyone will repeat oneor several of such ‘clichés’ regularly in thecourse of a lifetime (Freud, 1912). Hedefines transference, therefore, as at thesame time: (a) highly individual in its mod-elling itself after previous relationships; (b)unconsciously motivated; and (c) related tothwarted libido. He assures us there is noth-ing special about the phenomenon, except

for two ‘problems’: (1) more neuroticpeople have more thwarted libido, and,therefore, a more intensive transference;and (2) transference becomes the strongestresistance against treatment in psychoanaly-sis – in spite of it being originally an impor-tant bearer of healing and condition forsuccess. Freud (1912) argues that it is pre-cisely that part of the resistance thatbecomes transference (the example he givesmore than once is the faltering of ‘free asso-ciation’ which may point at thoughts aboutthe therapist) which is the first that maycome into conscious awareness. Time andtime again, he points out, when pathogenicmaterial is approached, that part of thepathology that may translate into transfer-ence, will be the first in consciousness anddefended most vigorously. In other words,the illness tries to defend itself by defendingitself in transference, by acting into transfer-ence; i.e. the relationship offered to the ther-apist becomes the illness. The consequenceis that conflicts with the illness will have to befought out (i.e. healing needs to be done) intransference, within this very relationshiphere and now. Victory in that conflict, Freud(1912) assures us, heralds an enduring cureof the illness. In Freud (1913) he expands bystating that if and only if the full intensity oftransference has been used up on overcom-ing resistances, will it become impossible forthe patient to continue the illness even afterthe transference is dissolved, i.e. after treat-ment.

For Freud (1917) transference is alwaysthe same thing (‘immer das Gleiche’) whichwill never ‘allow its origins to be mistaken’: it is libido streaming back from the symp-toms – through heightened understandingof them – and into the relationship with thetherapist.

There are for Freud (1912) essentiallytwo types: positive, loving1 transference andnegative, hostile transference. Of the lovingvariety there are again two, associated witheros (erotic transference; see also Freud,

International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 6 No. 2 September 2011 181

Back to basics: How the discovery of transference is relevant for coaches and consultants today

1 It is hard to translate the tender German word ‘zärtlich’ but loving will do.


1915) and with agape (friendly transference).Transference is always there, from the verystart of the cure. In the initial phases lovingtransference represents the ‘strongest driveto the work’ (Freud, 1917) – later on, it maybecome an obstacle as it attracts additionallibido from freed symptoms, defences andresistances. Negative transference occursonly in a minority of cases, and usually some-what later in the cure.

The history of the discoveries related totransference and countertransference,seems to be transferential in itself, as itclearly is a repetition of the process of over-coming or eliminating obstacles (again, seeFreud’s 1917 lecture ‘Die Übertragung’):1. 1st Obstacle (1880s): the problem is (related

to the) unconscious, a hidden feeling orwish. Pills don’t work, hypnosis is not oflong effect, arguing with the patient –when it is at all successful – only instils anidea next to the unconscious, and doesn’treally touch it. Solution: (1) find outabout the unconscious by listeningclosely and with dedication; (2) discoversome of the suppressed material; (3)make it more conscious. Then one canwork with it more directly.

2. 2nd Obstacle (early 1890s): remem-bering stops, memory does not give in orgive away its treasures. At such a momentone discovers defences, such as repression.Solution: name them and shame them.

3. 3rd Obstacle (late 1890s): rememberinghalts again as it touches on somethingpainful, embarrassing or contrary tomorality, and the patient becomesreluctant. At such a moment onediscovers resistance. Solution: overcome it,by guessing or intuiting it2 and naming it.Historically, this discovery correspondedwith the start of the ‘fundamental rule’ offree association – as Freud’s earliertechnique was found to inviteunnecessary resistance by its directivenature.

4. 4th Obstacle (1900s): free associationhalts again, or becomes repetitive. A heightened interest in the helperbecomes apparent. Transference arrives onthe scene. In extreme cases we encounter‘transference neurosis’, as a new re-enactment of the neurosis. Solution: (1)maintain the transference, as it ‘opens upan intermediate region between illnessand real life, through which the transitionfrom the former to the latter takes place’(Freud, 1914); and (2) demonstrate howthe feelings and actions do not originatein the present situation, so that repetitioncan be transformed into remembranceand reflection (Freud, 1917). Here whatwe see is that ‘transference itself is usedfor resolving transference’ (Strachey,1934), i.e. that the force behind analysingthe transference is itself transferential inorigin: it is the positive, friendlytransference underpinning the therapy asa whole.

5. 5th Obstacle (late 1900s): counter-transference. First mentioned in Freud(1910) as the influence from the patienton the ‘unconscious sensing’ of thetherapist. Although, as many (see, forexample, Lear, 2005) have pointed out,countertransference must have beenexperienced without being recognised ornamed as such well before, for example,by Breuer in his work with ‘Anna O.’ orby Freud in his work with ‘Dora’.Solution: for this purpose Freud (1910)suggested self-analysis and ongoinganalysis (‘supervision’) for the therapistin order to understand and overcome theobstacle so as to be able to return to thework.

6. 6th Obstacle (late 1940s; i.e. post Freud):the therapist’s anxiety keeps bubbling upeven if well-understood. Solution:welcoming and using counter-transference as an antenna to deeperlistening (Heimann, 1950).

182 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 6 No. 2 September 2011

Erik de Haan

2 Freud seems to use ‘erraten’ and ‘vermuten’ interchangeably. Interestingly, Freud’s original term for workingthrough, ‘überwinden’, means to get through it or overcome it, not so much to work with it in any way.


Historically, each of these developments was‘first considered a somewhat annoying inter-ference with the work, then an instrument ofgreat value, and finally, the main battle-ground for treatment’ (Racker 1968).

On the way of discovery a lot of peoplewere left behind: initially peer hypnothera-pists, then Joseph Breuer, then Freud him-self (witness the delay in publishing the‘Dora’ case), and then certain earlierFreudian assumptions. This seems a path notjust of discovery, but also of a graduallyemerging honesty about the discoveries.Freud (1914) himself notes that ‘the devel-opment of psychoanalytic therapy was proba-bly delayed by a decade at the start, becauseof an erotic transference situation’, hintingat Breuer with ‘Anna O.’, Racker (1968) sur-mises that perhaps according to some Haeck-elian law3 this discovery process repeats itselfwith every new analyst and indeed every newschool of psychoanalysis, as they struggle ini-tially with defences and resistances, only tobecome more open about their own coun-tertransference at a relatively late stage.

Bruchstück einer Hysterie-Analyse (Freud,1905) is the first publication we have that isexplicit about transference. There is onlyone clear-cut transference example in thecase study, related to the first dream, involv-ing smoke ‘Dora’ smells just after dreaming.The smoke is linked in the therapy to Freud,whilst bearing in mind that also ‘Dora’sfather and ‘Herr K’ were passionate smokers.So in this very first book about (erotic) trans-ference we find the full Menninger-Malan(Malan, 1979) triangle-of-person (father, sig-nificant other and analyst) all connectedaround a cigar – the same cigar which hasbecome so proverbially associated withFreud. Later on, but more implicitly, it seemsto be the un-interpreted negative transfer-ence which leads to the breakdown of treat-ment.

In the ‘Nachwort’ (epilogue), which wasadded almost four years after writing thecase study, we find the first definition oftransference (p.279), and Freud makes a dif-ferent distinction from later years: the onebetween ‘unchanged reprint’ versus ‘revisededition’. This is an important distinction: thefirst boils down to a primitive displacementof one person by another, and the secondhas an element of sublimation and adapta-tion to it, and so, Freud continues, the con-tent of the second is ‘milder’ (Freud, 1905).Freud adds that the job of guessing andinterpreting transference is the ‘hardest’part of the work, whilst the analyst has towork in a self-reliant manner, with very scantevidence and without getting carried away.This may be the first, veiled reference tocountertransference, a concept that is notyet mentioned at this stage, but we knowfrom other sources Freud experienced withregard to ‘Dora’.

He then notes that people will judge thisphenomenon as a disadvantage, and perhapseven as evidence that the psychoanalyticcure engenders new pathology – and arguesagainst both positions, stressing first theinevitability of transference and then theconverse of the imagined opponent: ‘this,the biggest obstacle of the cure, is destinedto become the strongest instrument of itwhen we succeed to guess it time and timeagain, and translate it to the patient’.

By the time of the ‘Rat Man’ case (Freud,1909), Freud shows himself a real master ofthe transference. He demonstrates in somedetail how crucial breakthroughs in this treat-ment happen after Freud is able to sustainand interpret a heightened negative transfer-ence (rude and denigrating abuse directed atFreud combined with existential fear ofFreud) and to link the transference to someof the main discoveries of the treatment sofar, after which the Rat Man is able to providea host of new associations and improves.



3 In 1866, the German zoologist Ernst Haeckel proposed that the embryonic development of an individualorganism (its ontogeny) followed the same path as the evolutionary history of its species (its phylogeny)(Haeckel, 1866).


There are clear connections betweentransference and some of Freud’s other dis-coveries: resistance, repetition compulsionand death drive.● Resistance was introduced by Freud as

early as 1895 (Breuer & Freud, 1895):overcoming resistance is the crowningpiece of Studien über Hysterie. Istransference ‘resistance’ as the word‘transference neurosis’ (Freud, 1914)would lead us to believe, or istransference rather the ‘resisted’, therelationship that the patient is unable toremember or express, and does not allowinto consciousness (Freud, 1920)?Racker (1968) points to these twocontradictory positions that Freud musthave held at different times.

● The repetition compulsion is introduced inFreud (1914) as something under-pinning transference; indeed, in Freud(1920) as something even morefundamental than the pleasure principle.Transference is by definition a repetition,and when it is central to session, aftersession it can well be experienced as acompulsion.

● In 1920 Freud also introduces the deathdrive as an explanation of negative trans-ference. Before that, Freud was thinkingof ‘love’ and ‘hate’ in the unconscious asvery similar, almost interchangeable, ashe demonstrates in dream analysis(‘representation by opposites’; Freud,(1900)). There is good support for theearlier explanation: erotic and hostiletransference produce very similarobstacles to treatment – so it would seemthe death drive is not necessary to graspthe phenomenon of transference.

One can reconcile Freud’s various positionsby looking at transference as repeating(‘being’), rather than remembering(‘reflecting on’), who we are in this verymoment (this is close to the argument inFreud, 1914). Transference is then anexpression of the unconscious root of ourbehaviour which springs from earlier experi-ence. When the task is remembering, trans-

ference offers resistance to the task. Whenthe task is understanding or interpreting,transference comes across as the resisted: theaspects of our being here now that wouldcomplete the picture. Transference is not a priori driven in either direction, it is ‘alwaysthe same’ (Freud, 1917): that part of ourrelating here and now that we are not con-scious of. It can be an expression of love(Freud, 1912), it can be neurosis (Freud,1913) and it can be an expression of hateand self-destructiveness (Freud, 1920).

The importance of transferenceFrom the earliest days, transference hasstruck Freud and other participatingobservers as a form of sublime co-operationand sublime resistance at the same time. Theimportance of transference for psycho-analytic treatment is considerable. Indeed,in Freud’s view transference has the capacityto take over the whole treatment (Freud,1917). Nonetheless, if one looks at thereports from Freud’s patients about his tech-nique, he rarely appears to address or inter-pret transference head-on (see, for example,Lohser & Newton, 1996). Other schools oftherapy also teach the concept, and it hasfound its way into our field of organisationalconsulting and coaching (see the referencesmentioned at the start of this article, or Ledford (1985)).

One can encounter the power of trans-ference in coaching and consulting bothearly-onset and in longer-term relationships.I was first ‘struck’ by transference in my workin management development through the1990s where we were wont to end a work-shop with an afternoon working with trainedactors. The participants would think of aconversation or a relationship that theywanted to improve, the actor would receiveshort instructions, and then the scene wouldbe played out several times, comprising itsoriginal course and trials of new approaches.The actors would consistently get standingovations at the end of the afternoon andwould remain with the participants as thehighlight of the workshop. Many partici-


Erik de Haan


pants remarked on how real the role-playhad been for them, how it had felt like beingin the room with the real person. It was sim-ilarly fascinating to observe the changes inthe participants when they were in thescenes, trying to wrestle with their bosses,rivals and clients. In organisational worknowadays one often uses Searles’ (1955)term ‘parallel process’ to refer to phenom-ena where both transference and counter-transference play a part, acknowledgingone’s own possible contribution to the phe-nomenon. The terms transference and coun-tertransference can then be limited todescribe individual responses or behaviours.

Case exampleA shadow consultant had just startedsupervising a team of change consultantsworking at a financial services organisa-tion. As the group session progressed,she noticed that whenever the projectleader was speaking her mind wanderedand even when she forced herself tolisten, she was only able to follow whatwas being said for a few minutes at most.When others in the team spoke, shefound it easier to concentrate, but wasconcerned about the quality of hersupervision because she had not fullyfollowed the project leader’s contribu-tion. When the same thing happenedduring the second session she decided toshare her experience with the group in away that avoided criticising the projectleader. She asked whether others felt thesame way and whether this might be areflection of their work with theorganisation in some way. To herastonishment several team membersadmitted that they too found it hard tofollow their project leaders’ thoughtprocess. The leader was initiallyembarrassed, but with the help of thegroup came to realise that their keyclient, the CEO, was isolated and remotefrom their colleagues, who also seemedto only half-understand what they weretrying to communicate. The supervisor

pointed out that the team’s experience ofthe project leader was in fact a classicexample of a parallel process, in otherwords a replication of what washappening in the client system.

The supervisor then helped the teamthink through what the project leadercould do differently and how this insightmight also be relevant to the CEO. Thisresulted in a profound shift in the team’seffectiveness, as they learned to share whatmight be construed as negative feedbackin a spirit of mutual inquiry rather thancriticism. The CEO was similarly defensivewhen the project leader shared theirobservations but was astonished at theiraccuracy when he sought feedback fromhis closest colleague.

Readers will recognise the power of ‘trans-ference interpretations’ in their work ascoaches or consultants: the inescapable andoften quite unhinging effect of feedback onhere-and-now behaviour whilst it occurs.One senses an almost devastating powerwhen such interpretations cut through astuck situation just by bringing to someone’sattention how they seem to initiate orrespond here and now with the consultant orcoach, and one is reminded of the quote ‘it is impossible to slay an adversary in absen-tia or in effigie’ (Freud (1912) and in differ-ent words in Freud (1914)), i.e. of the veryreal power to ‘destroy’ behaviour by a singlehypothesis or even summary in situ.

In contrast to the careful and slow firstjourney of discovery of transference, nowa-days we recognise the immediacy of transfer-ence and are inclined to see ‘parallelprocesses’ everywhere, in our clients, in our-selves, in the relationships we engage in.Freud (1913) also gives an example of imme-diate-onset transference, a patient to whomin the very first session ‘nothing’ springs tomind whilst in reality he is obsessed with thetreatment, the consulting room, and lyingon the couch. Harold Searles writes in 1955:‘…my experience in hearing numerous therapistspresent cases before groups has caused me to becomeslow in forming an unfavourable opinion of any




therapist on the basis of his presentation of a case.With convincing frequency I have seen that a ther-apist who during an occasional presentationappears lamentably anxious, compulsive, confusedin his thinking, or what not, actually is a basicallycapable colleague who, as it were, is trying uncon-sciously, by this demeanour during the presenta-tion, to show us a major problem-area in thetherapy with his patient.’(Searles, 1955; pp.169–170)

Case exampleHere is a recent example of quicklydeveloping transference from one of myown supervision groups of executivecoaches. The client was an Englishmanagement consultant who had beensent by his English client organisation to asubsidiary in Italy where he was to coach asenior manager. He described how hefound the exuberance of expression andemotionality of his new coachee difficultto handle. During supervision he workedwith another participant and discussedthe challenges posed by this new client. At the end of that short coachingconversation one of the supervisors drewattention to the fact that the clientseemed to have changed; he had neverseen him so animated and extravert. Werealised that he had copied his client’sbehaviour, particularly his gestures, andhe agreed when this was pointed out. It issurprising that he first felt almostintimidated by his client, and then wasable to intimidate someone else in thevery same way. This type of transferencethat comes across as ‘repetitioncompulsion’ can also be viewed as anunconscious learning process that helpsthe individual to handle new behaviourby first adopting that behaviourthemselves. It is the age-old story of howthe victim becomes the victimiser.

In summary, the importance of transferenceis not only related to the ubiquity and theimmediate onset of the phenomenon, butalso to the myriad of possibilities and the

complexity of relational patterns that arecopied, repeated, partially repeated, or mir-rored in transference. Transference is notonly ‘always the same’ (Freud, 1917), but it isat the same time an immensely rich phenomenon that plies and adapts itself tosession after session, and within sessions.

Newer thinking abouttransference/countertransferenceNowadays the term ‘transference resistance’(Freud, 1912) is less and less heard, whilstthe emphasis now is more on the associativequality of transference. As a consequence ofthis, Freud’s (1913) advice to leave thetheme of transference untouched as long asthe patient’s communications run on isobserved less, and more therapists feel thattransference can be explicitly addressedfrom day one (an observation that alsoRacker, 1968, makes).

Here is a brief summary of a few newerinfluential papers in the area of transfer-ence:● Strachey (1934) looked into the

conditions which have to be fulfilled for atransference interpretation to be‘mutative’ or ‘killing’ as Freud called it in1912.

● Heimann (1950), in a short article, brokeground for reappraising the concept ofcountertransference. Heimann andfollow-up studies such as Racker’s (1968),gave therapists permission to listen moredeeply to the countertransference theybring to the occasion as well as inparticular their our own transferentialresponse to the patient, and to use theinformation contained in ourcountertransference for the benefit ofthe patient.

● Harold Searles (1955) was the first tomake an important new distinction in thephenomena of transference, as hepointed out the fact that there areessentially two possibilities, namely thatthe patient either relives his/her earlierposition (e.g. feeling how it felt withfather, acting as they acted with father,


Erik de Haan


etc.) or incorporates the position of theother (e.g. feeling and/or acting likefather). He called these two options‘unconscious identification’ and‘complementary unconscious identifica-tion’. In our field they are sometimescalled parallel and inverse transference(see, for example, De Haan, 2004,pp.82–84). Freud must have been awareof the distinction, see, for example, hisanalysis of the play of his 18-month-oldgrandson in Jenseits des Lustprinzips(Freud, 1920), chapter 2, where he showsa boy who takes the role of the‘perpetrator’, his mother, and thusdisplays inverse transference from theearlier interaction with his mother.Another example is the case example onthe previous page.

● Greenson (1965) introduces the conceptof working alliance as a broadening ofFreud’s (1912) ‘zärtliche Übertragung’(friendly transference), which opened upthe prospect of actually measuringtransference. Bordin (1979) wasinstrumental both in creating a ‘two-person’ or interpersonal description ofthe working alliance and in identifyingthree measurable aspects of it (goals, tasksand bonds), which allowed the workingalliance to be operationalised. There isnow a plethora of working-alliancepsychometrics available, for example, theWorking Alliance Inventory (Horvath &Greenberg, 1986) which has been madeavailable to executive coaches.

The still newer, relational school of psycho-analysis also attaches great importance totransference, arguing1. the idea that change happens in the

relationship, and only in therelationship, which brings the hypothesisthat change in the transferentialrelationship here-and-now is a necessaryand perhaps sufficient condition to bringabout change outside the consultingroom (Stolorow & Atwood, 1992);

2. the philosophical position that it is notreally libido as Freud used to think

(Freud, 1917), and it is not our objectseither (Fairbairn, 1952) that drive us, butthat it is relationship (Mitchell & Aron,1999), i.e. being in a relationship that isfamiliar to us and where we can thrive orcontinue to suffer in similar ways becausewe have experienced it before.

Relational psychoanalysis moves the conceptof transference right to the centre of person-ality theory as well as of psychotherapy, whereperhaps it should have been all the time sincethat very first case history in Studien über Hysterie (Breuer & Freud, 1895), that of‘Anna O.’, were it not for the intricacies ofthe discovery and revelation process. It isimportant to note that many of the innova-tions that the relational school claims to havemade are perhaps not as new as advertised,and that much of relational thinking goes allthe way back to Freud or is at least not con-trary to Freud’s theories (Mills, 2005).

In summary, it is safe to say that transfer-ence has become completely mainstream inpsychodynamic psychotherapy, and thattherapists are open to a very broad spectrumof occurrences, or phenomena, or events inthe here and now, whilst they are workingwith their patients, ranging from the ‘real’relationship (rapport, working alliance) torepetitions of patterns taken from elsewhere,both as intuited from their patients and assensed from within themselves. The psycho-analytic literature gives them full encourage-ment to think about these phenomena andto use them to build what are hopefully‘mutative’ interpretations, or interpretationsthat really make a difference.

Applications for taking on new clientsFreud (1917) stated that the natural emer-gence of neurotic transference and counter-transference tends to have a rather lateonset, i.e. after defences and resistance havealready appeared and been noted. As dis-cussed before, nowadays it is thought thatthis observation may have been due to miss-ing earlier transference (Racker, 1968). Itseems worthwhile to consider actively work-ing against missing out on earlier transfer-




ence phenomena by attending to transfer-ence from the earliest relationship with theclient. There are two clear advantages ofthus working against the phylogenesis of psy-choanalytical technique. Firstly, it preparesus better for our sessions as we will havealready considered our own share in theprocess. Secondly, we would be literallycountering a process which in itself con-tributes to pathology as it repeats itselflargely unnoticed, against the possibility ofnew learning or thinking.

Let us embark on a thought experimentreversing the ‘order of appearance’ as dis-cussed in the first section, i.e. the natural andhistorical genesis of therapeutic discoverywhich indicates that the ‘root of the matter’ is 1. avoided altogether;2. hidden in the unconscious; 3. defended against; 4. buried beneath resistance to the therapy; 5. transferred into the therapy room

(repeated rather than remembered); 6. obscured by countertransference. This would mean that we train ourselves tobe aware of our countertransferenceresponses in general, and also specificallybefore contracting with a new client. Wewould be literally counting back from thisfinal discovery, countertransference. And inthis way we can identify six principles to bearin mind during a coaching relationship:

6. ‘Put your own countertransference first’Racker (1968) suggested that there is auniversal countertransference responsewhich is oedipal (Freud, 1900) in nature.In essence and if we are completelyhonest, we will find that we want ourclients of the other sex to love us, and wewant to defeat (‘murder’) our clients ofthe same sex, even if these tendenciesmight well be reversed (according to the‘negative Oedipus complex’; Freud,1923). Not exactly an ideal situation tobegin a helping relationship, which isprecisely why these tendencies were notwritten about for such a long time andwhy we need to think hard about them

before we commence a coachingrelationship.

What we might try to do whenpreparing for new client work or forindividual sessions, is ask ourselves whatinstinctual responses we can detectwithin ourselves. This can go a bit furtherthan just liking and disliking, attractionand aversion. We can easily form aspontaneous ‘image’ of the client in ourmind, even if we have not met the client.Sometimes it is a glance, sometimes aposture, sometimes an action in theroom – rarely is this image verbal. It ismore of a sense of being-in-the-room withthe other person. Once we have thissense we can analyse it and explore howwe are unconsciously preparing for ourclient: are we feeling superior, con-descending, anxious, desiring, etc. Rarelydo we feel ‘neutral’, despite all theexhortations of classical psychoanalysis,and if we do there is probably scope formore analysis of our own felt neutralityand what it masks.

Whilst the client meeting draws closerand we gather more information andexperience, general counter-transferentialpatterns become more specific. The clientwill remind us of someone in particular orwill prompt in us a flurry of emotion witha single gesture. Emotions that we feelduring the sessions have a counter-transferential component. Racker (1968)also describes how some of our outlookmay change into a ‘depressive’ one wheremuch of our feelings are related to oursuperego, and we may experience feelingsof self-doubt, inadequacy, or superioritywith regard to our client.

Later uses of countertransferenceinclude our response to perceivedruptures in the relationship.Experienced coaches and consultantslearn that annoying interferences mayturn out to be the main arena of theirwork. This is true both for individualclients and for sponsors of the coachingwork as well as organisational clients.


Erik de Haan


Time and time again one can notice thatthe best and most effective consultingwork is done soon after an annoyingfrustration or irritation, but only if therelationship survives this rupture.

5. ‘Attend to the client’s transferentialpatterns from the start’Once we are somewhat aware of ourcountertransference response and wehave analysed some of our feeling towardour client, we can begin attending to whatthe client brings in terms of transference.In this regard, it is productive to thinkabout this quote: ‘place yourself on the side ofthe tendency towards repetition, or on the side ofthe struggle against the resistances whichoppose repetition’ (Freud, 1920; as quotedby Racker, 1968; p.48). In other words, wecan keep our empathy firmly on the sideof the transference in order to try tounderstand its origins from within, inparticular to understand some of theclient’s central conflicts through theacting out of the transference, and alsothe repressed memory or impulse that hasgiven rise to this particular transference atthis particular time. Transference neednot be something that is developed overtime between coach and client. Similar tocounter-transference, transference willstart from session 1 and even before.

It is important to work with trans-ference in a way that is at the same timeopen-minded and robust, in other wordsto adopt both a thick and a thin skin whenresponding to transference (De Haan,2008b). A thick skin allows us to sustainthe workings of transference and preserveus in the midst of pulls to respond incertain emblematic or ‘cliché’ ways. A thinskin helps us to sense and pick up subtlecues that can inform us about thisbehaviour and its trans-ferential origins.

4. ‘Within the sessions notice ‘resistance tocoaching’ as an undercurrent’Within what we perceive of thetransference towards us, we try to identify

and overcome the resistance of the clientfrom moment to moment. Freud (1912)wrote that ‘resistance accompaniestreatment on every step’ and later (Freud,1940) that ‘overcoming resistances is thatpart of the work which causes the mosttime and the greatest trouble’. Within thecontext of this paper it is relevant to notethat in the last technical introduction thatFreud wrote, from his last year in Londonand left unfinished, he follows the sameorder as here: he covers transference firstand then moves on to resistance as the‘other important part of our job’ (Freud,1940), whilst in his earlier, morehistorically based overview (Freud, 1917),resistance comes first.

3. ‘Try to pick up cues – defences – whichhelp to deepen the conversation’Whilst spotting relational phenomena likecountertransference, transference andresistance, we continue practicing our‘evenly hovering’ free association to listento our client both consciously andunconsciously. On this level theinformation in our sessions is wellcaptured by Malan’s (1979) triangle ofconflict, which includes defences,anxieties and hidden feelings or impulses.Malan (1979) argues that the first of thesewe will notice is the defence, as defencesform layers of (pre-)consciousness aroundmore hidden anxieties and feelings.Resistance and defence are coupled:resistance can be defined as ‘defenceprotracted into the here-and-now’, i.e. asadditional defence needed when thecoach comes uncomfortably close.

2. ‘Follow the deepening content of theconversation: anxieties’Being somewhat aware of the context atthis moment (countertransference,transference and resistance), helps to besecure enough to become more fullyaware of the content of the session in thisvery moment, i.e. what goes on for theclient underneath words spoken, issues




and ideas offered and defencesdemonstrated. We can see the origin ofdefences as a layer of protection,isolation, and/or dampening of anxiety,which thus becomes the next discovery inour journey of understanding.

1 ‘Spot authentic feelings and wishesbeneath those anxieties’Finally, anxiety can be seen as aconsequence of an emerging desire orfeeling which is problematic orunwelcome. This deep feeling or impulselies at the root of much of the perspectivesthat went before, and will only bediscovered last through under-standingever better the relationship in the room,resistances, defences and anxiety.

Figure 1 is a sketch of the various aspects of(or perspectives on) the here-and-now in acoaching session, without wanting to reifyany of these aspects. Each of the six conceptsmay describe the same affect or emotionduring a session, under various viewpoints,so all six amount essentially to one and thesame ‘thing’, the thing that is going on atthis moment, which could be called thesymptom as it presents itself right now. Thevarious perspectives or ways the symptomengages with us, are each always there andthey are themselves multilayered, ambiguousand contradictory. Of these six, resistancewould probably be the one most ‘objective’,or best observable. All others are usually hid-den under the surface, to various degrees.

ConclusionTransference, or the re-emergence of pastrelationships within present relationships, isa fascinating phenomenon. Not just becauseit is so infinitely varied and rich, as the tracesof meaningful relationships in our lives andcareers are bound to be. Not just becausetransference leads to curious misunderstand-ings and impositions on partners in a rela-tionship. What makes transference sofascinating is that it occurs, or at least begins,subliminally, in an area of consciousness that

we do not have much access to, not eventhrough introspection. Transference phe-nomena have great potential for self-under-standing and personal development, as theyprovide us with a ‘royal road’ towards per-ceiving how previous relationships haveaffected us. In the realm of leadership andcoaching, transference gives us the promiseof access to the ‘shadow side’ of our leader-ship aspirations, the aspects of ourselves andour past that propel us forward to take upcertain roles and engage in certain relation-ships, but that are largely hidden from ourown view, and barely accessible by reflectionor introspection. These shadow sides maywell have something to do with the frustra-tion of our own desires and wishes (as Freudsuggested), which would explain why thereare such frequent indications for transfer-ence in helping conversations.

By opening our eyes to the possibility oftransference, even of crossed or inversetransference where we repeat other people’sroles in a relationship rather than our own,we may enrich our relationships and ourlives. And as a minor concomitant, we mayenrich our experience of executive coachingand enhance our effectiveness as coaches aswell. Studying the roots of transference as wehave done in this article, both the historicalroots and the roots in our own client rela-tionships, may bring a great return on ourefforts to find meaning and understanding.

The authorDr Erik de Haan is Director of Ashridge Centre for Coaching, Trainee Psychody-namic Psychotherapist and Visiting Professorat the Vrije Universiteit of Amsterdam.

CorrespondenceDr Erik de HaanAshridge Centre for Coaching,Ashridge Business School,Berkhamsted,Hertfordshire HP4 1NS, UK.E-mail: [email protected]


Erik de Haan




Figure 1.

This is an overview of the six ‘stages of discovery’ or the six Freudian distinctions that inform thephenomenon of transference, building on Malan’s Chapter 10, Figure 1 (1979, p.90). This is an effort todepict graphically how countertransference may be an entry point for an understanding of the otherperson, and can be built upon through transference, resistance, etc. The figure contains:● three relational perspectives on the other person:

1. CT: countertransference;2. T: transference;3. R: resistance;

● and three intrapersonal perspectives on the other person:4. D: defence;5. A: anxiety;6. F: hidden feeling or impulse.



Erik de Haan

Andersen, S. & Berk, M.S. (1998). The Social-Cogni-tive Model of Transference: Experiencing pastrelationships in the present. Current Directions inPsychological Science 7(4), 109–115.

Berglas, S. (2002). The very real dangers of executivecoaching. Harvard Business Review, June, 86–92.

Bordin, E.S. (1979). The generalisability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 16,252–260.

Breuer, J. & Freud, S. (1895). Studien über Hysterie[Studies on hysteria]. Leipzig/Vienna: Verlag FranzDeuticke.

Czander, W.M. (1993). The psychodynamics of work andorganisations. New York: Guilford Press.

De Board, R. (1978). The psychoanalysis of organisa-tions. London: Routledge.

De Haan, E. (2004). Learning with colleagues.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

De Haan, E. (2008a). Relational coaching. Chichester:Wiley.

De Haan, E. (2008b). Becoming simultaneouslythicker and thinner skinned: The inherent con-flicts arising in the professional development ofcoaches. Personnel Review, 37(5), 526–542.

De Haan, E. & Burger, Y. (2004). Coaching with colleagues. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fairbairn, W.R.D. (1952). Psychoanalytic studies of thepersonality. London: Tavistock & Routledge.

Freud, S. (1900). Die Traumdeutung [The interpretationof dreams]. Leipzig/Vienna: Verlag FranzDeuticke.

Freud, S. (1905). Bruchstück einer Hysterie-Analyse[Fragment of an analysis of a case of hysteria].Monatsschrift für Psychiatrie und Neurologie,Band XXVIII, Heft 4.

Freud, S. (1909). Bemerkungen über einen Fall vonZwangsneurose [Notes upon a case of obses-sional neurosis]. Jahrbuch für psychoanalytische undpsychopathologische Forschungen, Band I. Leipzig/Vienna: Verlag Franz Deuticke.

Freud, S. (1910). Die zukünftigen Chancen der psy-choanalytischen Therapie [The future prospectsof psychoanalytical therapy]. Zentralblatt für Psychoanalyse, Band I.

Freud, S. (1912). Zur Dynamik der Übertragung[The dynamics of transference]. Zentralblatt fürPsychoanalyse, Band II.

Freud, S. (1913). Zur Einleitung der Behandlung[On beginning the treatment]. InternationaleZeitschrift für ärztliche Psychoanalyse, Band I.

Freud, S. (1914). Erinnern, Wiederholen und Durcharbeiten [Remembering, repeating andworking–through]. Zeitschrift für Psychoanalyse,Band II.

Freud, S. (1915). Bemerkungen über die Übertra-gungsliebe [Observations on transference-love].Zeitschrift für Psychoanalyse, Band III.

Freud, S. (1917). Vorlesungen zur Einführung in die Psychoanalyse, XXVII. Vorlesung: Die Übertragung[Introductory lecture on psychoanalysis 27: The trans-ference]. Leipzig/Vienna: Verlag Hugo Heller.

Freud, S. (1920). Jenseits des Lustprinzips [Beyond thepleasure principle]. Leipzig/Vienna/Zürich: Internationaler psychoanalytischer Verlag.

Freud, S. (1923). Das Ich und das Es [The Ego and theId]. Leipzig/Vienna/Zürich: Internationaler psychoanalytischer Verlag.

Freud, S. (1940). Abriss der Psychoanalyse [An outline ofpsychoanalysis – unfinished]. InternationaleZeitschrift für Psychoanalyse und Imago.

Greenson, R.R. (1965). The working alliance and thetransference neuroses. Psychoanalysis Quarterly 34,155–181.

Haeckel, E. (1866). Generale Morphologie der Organis-men [General morphology]. Berlin: Verlag vonGeorg Reimer.

Heimann, P. (1950). On counter-transference. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 31, 81–84.

Hirschhorn, L. (1988). The workplace within – psycho-dynamics of organisational life. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.

Horvath, A.O. & Greenberg, L. (1986). The develop-ment of the Working Alliance Inventory. In L. Greenberg & W. Pinsoff (Eds.), Psychothera-peutic processes: A research handbook. New York:Guilford Press.

Kraus, M.W. & Chen, S. (2010). Facial-feature resem-blance elicits the transference effect. PsychologicalScience, 21, 518–522.

Lear, J. (2005). Freud. Abingdon: Routledge.Ledford, G.E. Jr. (1985). Transference and counter-

transference in action research relationships.Consultation, 4(1), 36–51.

Lohser, B. & Newton, P.M. (1996). Unorthodox Freud –The view from the couch. New York/London: Guilford Press.

Malan, D.H. (1979). Individual psychotherapy and thescience of psychodynamics. London: ButterworthHeinemann.

Mills, J. (2005). A critique of relational psycho-analysis. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 22(2), 155–188.

Mitchell, S.A. & Aron, L. (1999) (Eds.). Relational psychoanalysis – the emergence of a tradition. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.

Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (Eds.) (2007). Handbook ofcoaching psychology – a guide for practitioners. Hove & New York: Routledge.

Peltier, B. (2001). The psychology of executive coaching:theory and application. New York: Brunner & Routledge.

References


Racker, H. (1968). Transference and countertransference.New York: International Universities Press.

Rogers, J. (2004). Coaching skills – a handbook. Maid-enhead: McGraw-Hill.

Searles, H.F. (1955). The informational value of thesupervisor’s emotional experience. Psychiatry, 18,135–146.

Stober, D.R. & Grant, A.M. (2006). Evidence-basedcoaching handbook: Putting best practices to work foryour clients. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Stolorow, R.D. & Atwood, G.E. (1992). Contexts ofbeing – the intersubjective foundations of psychologicallife. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press.

Strachey, J. (1934). The nature of the therapeuticaction of psychoanalysis. International Journal ofPsychoanalysis, 15, 127–159.

Zeus, P. & Skiffington, S. (2000). The complete guide tocoaching at work. North Ryde, NSW: McGraw-Hill.



Sigmund Freud


Documents

Back to basics: How the discovery of transference is