A Perspective on Leveraging the Mahabharata Framework
In the conversations, that also felt like accusations, I
found myself getting increasingly incoherent on my
resistance and disagreements with some of the
elements of the discussion, and decided that unless I
had viable and creative perspectives to the proposed discussions, my stance would be at best rankling and counter-productive. I do vividly remember Sarbari asking me why I was feeling the way I was at the peak of my dissonance, as well as my response – that, I really did not know.
The meeting left me feeling very dissatisfied with myself as well as others. I was pissed with myself, for lack of better words, as well as very angry with significant others – a state of mind that rendered me at best as a clerk – offering superficial energies such as volunteering to make quizzes and games for the proposed workshop in November.
Therefore, in the last past 8 weeks of so, I have been agonizing and delving deeper into my resistance and dissatisfaction with the proposed coaching report and approach. This has been a lonesome journey where I had to also engage with my biases and propensities that do not allow for a creative encounter, as well as my harsh judgments on my colleagues. I am happy to state that I did discover something for myself and
TAO Coaching 1
The HEROIC QUEST
that this report (which was intended to be a presentation at the TAO camp) seeks to present a different perspective on the proposed Coaching Academy design as well as the Coaching Report.
I am aware that this proposed alternative comes rather late in the ideation cycle leading to the first TAO Coaching workshop, but I believe that it does not really derail the existing workshop delivery by much.
It does, however, offer a different design to the existing Coaching Report, which is steadily being crystallized by Raghu, Ganesh and Vandana. I know that this particular document in its critique of the existing report, would create some bit of resentment given that we have collectively invested considerable time and energies, but I think in the long run, it would pave a more rigorous foundation to TAO Coaching and the academy that we are so keen to start on.
Basic Assumptions & Axioms
2.1 The Notion of Archetypal Patterns & the Monomyth
My recent bouts of reading have been largely triggered by the Four Princes story, as narrated by Pulin Garg, Pulin has been cryptic about his research as well as his axioms behind a wonderfully magical tale that has been deployed by many of us.
TAO Coaching 2
Research indicates that Pulin has been relying more on the concept of ‘Archetypal Patterns’, used more in literary theory and narratology as opposed to psychology. Archetypal patterns are universal patterns contained in the collective unconscious of human beings – this concept of a universal primal memory was postulated by Jung, and later worked upon by Campbell.
What is interesting is that Archetypal patterns are not necessarily complex characters in our mythologies but include within its array – various quests / plots (unconscious building blocks of human drama), symbols, and thresholds / situations. The diversity of these patterns was interesting to note, for it allowed for a creative exploration. I am penning some of these down, before offering the underlying axioms from this perspective.
Archetypal Patterns as Plot / Quest Patterns
Archetypal patterns can be a ‘plot pattern’ – a quest or a journey inside. There could be various types of such journeys undertaken – each journey has something significant to offer. Some of the archetypal journeys that I could understand and discern as significantly unique and different form each other include:
• • • • • • • •
The Quest for Identity (Quest for Who am I?) The Quest for discovering Promised Lands The Warrior’s journey to save his people The Search for Love
The journey in search of Knowledge
The Tragic Quest – penance or self denial
The Fool’s errand
The Quest for the Holy Grail (Human Perfection)
would engage with the plot or quest.
the short list of plots / quests above, one can easily understand how each prince identity
Archetypal Patterns as Situations
Apart from the abovementioned patterns that are like journeys and quests, the other forms of archetypal patterns are as Situations. Some of the situations include:
• The performance of the Super-human Task
• The Initiation across a threshold that beings new awareness and problems
• The Fall
• Death and Re-birth
• Battle of Good and Evil
• The Un-healable Wound – where the wound represents a loss of innocence or a
The Situations in my understanding are different from the Quest / Plot – the situations perhaps represent key thresholds or shifts that are more immediate and short term, without an extended journey towards a purpose or objective.
Archetypal Patterns as Characters
These are more complex archetypal patterns that take the form of characters – characters that imbue our mythology. Often we attribute to the character, a role-taking propensity for many of the thresholds that the character has to engage with. Several characters across mythologies, are also on specific quests.
Archetypal Patterns, Notion of Self, Role-choices, and Context
Thus, Archetypal Patterns as a composite mix of Quests / Plots, Thresholds, and Characters apart from Symbols, represent a rich and complex inner world.
The following diagram chooses to represent how I link inner archetypal patterns with behaviors and responses to a context.
The diagram essentially underlines and attributes dynamicity to the extreme boxes – Internal archetypal patterns and external context. To me, the inner two boxes of Self Concept and Role- taking are like containers that seek to link the external VUCA context with internal plurality and multiplicity. However all four boxes in the diagram impact each other and have a sense of fluidity and movement.
TAO Coaching 4
This is where the notion of the inner journey or Quest seems very exciting – the VUCA context (including the world of systems) can be extremely overwhelming and traumatizing, if the person loses the ability to make magical journeys inwards.
Assumption 1: Awareness and working with the magical journeys / quests inside – in the form of new and coalescing archetypal patterns offers a person with resources and new energies to engage with the dynamic context outside.
The new patterns allow an individual to make better sense of the context, as well as make new choices on defining the Self Concept as well as Roles.
Thus I am extremely unwilling to translate archetypal patterns into individual archetypes (in a reductionist fashion) and then attribute behaviors to each archetype, hoping that the proportionate strength (?) of identifying with a particular archetype would be directly proportional to explicit and outer behaviors.
The present model of allocating individual scores to each of the Pandavas (archetype characters), and directly translating the proportional ratios of scores into behaviors is too simplistic and incorrect. Secondly, this process does not leave much for further dialogue except with the playing around of endorsing new behaviors without linking it back to either inner conversations or external context.
Assumption 2: It is the threshold or the stage of the Journey / Quest inside and how it mirrors the emergent outer context that triggers new role-taking and choice-making with the given archetypal pattern.
Let me use the Campbell’s model to illustrate what I imply from this assumption. A key stage in the Hero’s journey, as per the diagram on the left, is threshold 2 – “What treasure do I seek?”
I am sure you would agree that threshold 2 is extremely different from threshold 1 where the hero within is questioning ‘Normal Life’ and
experiencing a strange sense of self-doubt that accompanies the statement to self – that there is more to life.
Now lets take a person Z with scores of the following – Y = 60, B = 35, N = 72, S = 32, and A = 45. Given these scores, and that there are two thresholds / situations – you would agree that the Pandava-archetypal-patterns present different challenges and behavioral propensities for the same person:
There must be more to Normal Life
What treasure do I seek?
a) Z, while committed to the world of systems and relationships, would find ways to quell this question. Thus behaviors would include wishing to be more and more altruistic and committed to others, or denying any personal inner space to self with complete surrender to systems and relationships.
a) Z would choose to either look at a treasure that can heal his or her narcissistic injury, but would experience huge anxiety in even discerning this injury.
Or he would be searching for the Holy Grail – the perfect book of wisdom that can resolve all problems lying out there in the world of systems and relationships
However there may be deeply private fantasies that may be repressed or even consciously denied. It would be only in stressful times, when the context pushes Z out of the comfort zone, that Z would be able to look deeper and take the first step of even stating his goal.
b) Z would display dependency on others including Coaches, Gurus, and teachers – the manifest behaviors would be of being the good son and good follower, while the inner psychodrama would be of denying doubt, desires, ‘selfish’ agendas, and violence.
b) Z would find it difficult to articulate a vision for self alone given his Pandava-archetypal patterns, and would need to be offered contexts and spaces for deeper reflexivity.
It can only be an intense gift from the context or the Coach that may break down the current role-taking and sense-making, and allow Z to access the treasures that he seeks.
What I am trying to emphasize that it is the stage of the Quest / Journey inside and the Context outside that is more important than a general description of assorted propensities and role taking. Like MBTI, I think the lowest ranked archetypes may get triggered in extreme times, and the more prominent archetypes get overwhelmed, where a person may behave radically different than his or
TAO Coaching 6
her usual self. For example, the lowest ranks are B (35) and S(32). Chances are that threshold 1 may also invite a certain self serving and self destructive propensities when the person Z is in extreme stress. Z, quite tired of his N orientation, may wish to ‘indulge’ and ‘react’ with a nonchalance that may be more representative of childishness.
I also believe that threshold 2 would need more work from Z – either to look at a quest of healing his own wound, and with aspects of B and S; or to discover a treasure for self that goes beyond systemic responsibilities and dutifulness. In all of this, how Z makes sense of his context is equally critical for him to make a heroic journey inside.
I think it is the role of the Coach to enable the person to look at alternate worlds in his sense- making of the context. The Coach has to trigger new archetypal conversations within and not work with outward behaviors alone.
2.2 The Coaching Journey Building Blocks (Monomyth & mythemes) & Leveraging other TAO Models
I am not a very experienced nor a skilled coach. Both Raghu and Sarbari have donned the role of a Coach, and invested into the Coaching technologies, practices, and ideology a lot more than me. In my limited experience, I think where TAO can leverage existing artifacts (created by Raghu) is in positioning the Coaching Academy as a ‘Quest’ model.
In the Quest model of coaching, we are essentially working with two building blocks:
In narratology and comparative mythology, the monomyth, or the hero’s journey, is the common template of a broad category of tales that involve a hero who goes on an adventure, and in a decisive crisis wins a victory, and then comes home changed or transformed
While Campbell has championed this in as early as 1949 though the Russian folklorist Vladimir Propp had emerged with similar structure, I like how Phil Cousineau (in the 1990s) and Christopher Vogler (in 2007 onwards) have built on Campbell’s 17 stage model of the monomyth.
Campbell is the first to state that some myths focus only on 1 or some of the stages, and that each journey could take on these stages / thresholds as building blocks for discovering an individuated myth.
I believe that the TAO coaching academy can design a coaching journey that is individualized and specific to each individual – and that there is no prescribed format but for the individual to get in touch with his / her monomyth and experience a sense of replenishment and succor inside while engaging with a context.
I am assuming that work done inside (creating the monomyth for self) would yield to a new definition of self and further energize one to look at new role-taking and leadership.
The Mytheme of the Encounter with the Mentor
Mytheme, is a word used by a philosopher – Levi Strauss, that I have been writing about lately. Levi Strauss defines Mythemes as the unique archetypal pattern that embellishes a stage in the monomyth – and mythemes are the bundled to form a monomyth.
Let me offer an example here – All monomyths (as mapped by Campbell, Cousineau and Vogler have a critical mytheme – encounter with the Mentor, who initiates the individual into the heroic journey.
In my limited understanding, Bheema encounters Hanuman (as a frail monkey with his tail obstructing the path) – and this encounter initiated him into a specific journey of exploring power, omnipotence, and arrogance within. This encounter is a structural bundle of an archetypal pattern (mytheme) that is common across all such monomyths.
What excites me is that the Coaching Journey would be wholesome and replenishing for both the Coach and the Coachee if this mytheme is worked with – exploring the nature of trust and relationship, as well as transference and counter-transference that are critical processes to work with.
If the TAO Coaching Journey is constructed on some mythemes such as this, the offering is rich for both the Coach and the Coachee (given the archetypal patterns within each). For example, if my archetypal patterns are of high Y, high S, medium B and low N, it would be very interesting for me to work with a coachee who is high N, high B and low Y.
Unless on this mytheme of ‘Meeting the Mentor’, both of us are able to emerge with a deep and meaningful psychological contract, where we offer and receive gifts to each other – the Quest can be instrumental and manipulative.
Raghu’s business aligner framework is the most apt frame for containing the Quest journey or the monomyth. Going back to the previous section that put forth the links between the archetypal patterns, the notion of self, new role-taking, and sense making of the context, I see a tremendous synergy between the two frameworks.
Arguably, the Business Aligner Framework (with zones 1, 2, 3, and 4) offers a contextual journey that resonates with the internal monomyth. If we posit the journey of leaving Z4, and embarking into the unknown (Z1), and discovering the treasure in a do or die mode; then Z2 becomes the zone of fighting for the treasure of idea, innovation, opportunity, and Z3 becomes the zone for finding and making friends who join the quest, and Z4 is the zone of the hero’s return and resurrection.
We have been recently celebrating this as the contextual roadmap that the hero has to travel. However, we have not tied this with the internal journey, and have over-simplified this by prescribing tasks and behaviors for each zone.
Assumption 3: In the TAO Coaching (Quest / Monomyth), it would be critical for the Coach to work on internal conversations and archetypal patterns on specific mythemes / thresholds as opposed to work with behavioral interface between Role and System in each Zone.
Archetypal Patterns & Monomyth
Leadership Journey across the BA
Stage / Mytheme 1: The DEPARTURE
1.1 Questioning the Normal Existence – An internal journey commences with the awareness of the comforting pattern of how princes speak to each other within – including entrenchments and denials.
1.2 The Call to Adventure – envisioning the future for self (writing one’s obituary may trigger this) or just looking at what would usher in an adventure within; this may mean inviting B and S to the fore.
1.3 The Resistance: The current archetypal pattern would provide an understanding of the resistance within – the shackles and the restraints (N), the intellectual arguments (Y) within, the fears and anxieties (B) etc.
LEADERSHIP Threshold 1
1.1 Dissatisfaction with the Present Z4 – creating an awareness of various spaces including cribbing, debating et al that one co-creates in the context to engage with the dissatisfaction
1.2 Co-creating the first cut Vision as the first evocation to anchor organizational change; triggering evocation in others and inspiring others (this will not happen if there is no call to adventure within)
1.3 Awareness of the plurality of resistance within would lead to understanding the multiplicity of resistance from stakeholders to the dream / vision
TAO Coaching 9
Archetypal Patterns & Monomyth
Leadership Journey across the BA
Stage 2: Tryst with the Mentor & Crossing the threshold
It is important that the Coachee is able to get in touch with the Wizard / Witch / Mentor inside – the wise old guardian of the threshold of call to adventure.
I think the process of discerning and engaging with the Wizard / Witch inside gets sharpened with the exploration of the relatedness between the Coach and the Coachee – all that is unconscious needs to be examined.
For me this stage ought to offer significant gifts to both the Coach and the Coachee as each initiates a new adventure within.
If this stage is not worked with – there would be huge dependencies between the Coach and the Coachee with consequent rage and passive aggression
Stage 2: Planning to Enter Zone 1 (I don’t know) & delegating Z4 to others; Defining and c ontracting with TAO coach.
Stage 3: The Road of Trials
I think this inner threshold is all about engaging with desires, passion, past hurts and judgments that energize and persecute the hero who fights and fails.
Each trial may unleash fears and anxieties of each prince (Y,B,S and N), and entrenchments as well as patterns of self reproach and energy.
While the temptation of the coach would be to prescribe behaviors of a particular prince – I think the coachee ought to be invited to look at new archetypal patterns, and make choices on roles and self on his / her own.
Stage 3: The Journey within Z1 – Diving into the VUCA context
I think critical action choices anchored by the leader on specific Z1 initiatives can be worked with.
As opposed to content consulting on such initiatives, the Coach works with inner psychodrama and how this impacts organizational initiatives.
I do believe that at this stage the Coachee would be splitting and projecting meanings to people and structures – each archetypal configuration may yield its own patterns in the outside context.
For example, the boss or the voice of wealth
TAO Coaching 10
Archetypal Patterns & Monomyth
Leadership Journey across the BA
may be held differently in terms of feelings and judgments given one’s patterns. For example a greater impact of B or an S would term this stakeholder as a needless controller to be rebelled with.
Stage 4: Discovering the Treasure (New Knowledge, Perfection, Love, Healing, Power, Safety etc.)
As opposed to just one treasure, I think each individual would look at his or her monomyth with the objective of discovering a treasure that is meaningful and self replenishing.
However search for this treasure may mean ‘death’ of certain ways of looking at self and world, and ‘re-birth’.
I think Stage 4 would be very intense for the individual almost like LSEs in module 1.
One of the inner processes that would be critical to discovering the treasure would be ‘Self Authorizing’ and associated processes of working with ‘legitimacy’ (adhikara), information and knowledge asymmetry (partial knowledge), and values (dharma). These all belong to A.
For men especially, self authorizing would imply ‘atonement with the father’ as per Campbell framework.
Stage 4: The Z2 War
The intensity within, I suspect and assume, would be mirrored by the intensity outside in Z2. All Z2 would be competitive zones for conflicting ideas championed by passionate people.
Z2 is all about questioning the decaying Z4 and the quest for ‘re-birth’ of new perspectives or lens of looking at the organization.
To me Z2 is the space of war – for every new Z2 idea, many other ideas die! The context demands the leader to examine competition, heightened stakes, and risk taking.
Stage 5: Return & Reintegration (What do I do with my newfound treasure? Who are the companions and friends that I collaborate with?)
This stage / mytheme is about discovering new friendships within that energize new friends outside.
I was speaking to Sarbari about my disdain for the
Stage 5: Networking in Z3
I think Z3 is often misunderstood as some instrumental partnerships and ‘win-win’ networks that get created around some new project or experimentation.
I think Z3 offers a space for moving away from ‘Mine’ towards ‘Ours’ – where the
TAO Coaching 11
Archetypal Patterns & Monomyth
Leadership Journey across the BA
B and N archetypal bundle. As we explored this theme, it was evident that this disdain for the B and S bundle inside hampered my relatedness with others outside including offering and receiving of gifts or of complementing and collaborating.
Return and reintegration also means a new way of looking at self (and others) and offering self (and others) – replenishment, order, and fertility to one’s context.
The key question that follows the discovery of the treasure within is – How do I offer it to others? The archetypal patterns would be exciting to explore benevolence, offering, commitment to others, and valuing self.
Each of the Pandava-archetypes would look at return and restoration from a different lens. For example how does N dominant archetype value self while including others and how does B dominant archetype let go of monopolizing it.
treasure discovered in the earlier stage experiences a shift towards collective ownership.
Collective ownership and mobilizing commitment within select teams and stakeholders is a leadership process that gets manifested in Z3.
This is where the leader has to let go of possessiveness and experience a joy in opening the offering for others to join in and even re-shape what was discovered.
However in this process, the leader would be still prone to looking at networks in the form of allies and enemies.
Stage 6: The Return Threshold
There are times when having found bliss, insights, and enlightenment, the hero may not want to return to the ordinary world to bestow the boon onto his fellow man (beyond the coterie discovered in Z3)
Thus the archetypal pattern needs to be worked with from a Y and N perspective.
Self doubt and anxiety are to be managed within – this means working with S, A, and B aspects of the archetypal configuration.
Stage 6: Re-structuring, Resurrection, and Re-design of Z4
Design, deployment, and control of new perspectives (new product, new delivery model, new revenue model, new innovation, new design of a COE, new culture, new practices.
Assumption 3 underlies the significance of the 6 thresholds / stages / mythemes and the mirroring contextual initiatives that the leader has to anchor. To me each threshold may imply looking at the
TAO Coaching 12
Pandava archetypal scores differently. This is because each threshold would evoke and provoke some aspects of the archetypal patterns (including entrenchments of one archetype, and denial of another). The Coach with an in-depth understanding of the Quest (across the six thresholds) can co-anchor conversations that are critical for the Coachee at that stage.
Understanding and diagnosing of the context as a parallel process as offered by the Business Aligner Framework enables the Coach-Coachee to also work on linking inner realities and appreciation of the external context and maybe even choosing new behaviors if required. However it is the energizing within that to me is more significant in Quest based coaching.
As the cost of repeating myself, I think BA allows for a Quest-based coaching – unleashing the monomyth (hero’s journey) within a container that allows for working on two levels – the Inner World and the Context. Choice of role-taking and choice-making is finally the Coachee’s responsibility.
TAO Coaching 13
At this moment, I would also like to reinforce that most monomyths are ‘masculine’. It was Campbell who said much later in his life that said:
“ … Mythology and much of the mythic story-telling of the world are from the male point of view. When I was writing The Hero with a Thousand Faces and wanted to bring female heroes in, I had to go to the fairy tales. These were told by women to children, you know, and you get a different perspective. It was the men who got involved in spinning most of the great myths. The women were too busy; they had too damn much to do to sit around thinking about stories…”
Thus the Quest model of Coaching may be replete of exploring masculinity in terms of the process (from Z1 to Z4) and of the inner journey – whether we like it or not. The next section is
The Pandava-Archetypal-Patterns & Interpretation
The inner world of archetypal patterns can be seen as a blossoming flower. The core of the flower is the Arjuna archetypal space, and the four petals stand for the other pandavas – the south east petal belongs to Y, the north east petal is for N, the south-west petal is for B, and north west petal is for S.
The blossoming flower has essentially three sizes – if the archetypal scores are low – the flower takes the shape of red lines. If the archetypal scores are medium – the flower assumes the size and shape as given by the green lines; and for high scores – the flower reaches the size as bounded by the blue lines.
To me the blossoming inner world is an interesting pattern as opposed to a graph that looks like the EUM-I chart sans a universe score.
I am of the firm belief that actual scores of the five archetypes are not really critical as I am not sure of how reliable the instrument is. For example, I am not sure whether the instrument scores of 45 or 48 for Bheema are really significant. That it is a medium score is good enough to work with as far as I am concerned.
TAO Coaching 14
If I was to offer my Pandava-archetypal scores, the figure on the left would represent the Self Current scores:
a) Yudhistara – Medium (Green)
b) Bheema – Low (Red)
c) Nakula – Low (Red)
d) Sahadeva – High (Blue)
e) Arjuna – High (Blue)
This archetypal pattern has significance for me across the six stages or
mythemes mentioned in Part 2. I am offering some of my first cut speculations of how I would define both my context and my inner world processes for the first stage. I would leave it to you to play with other stages of my quest.
Stage Inner world Sense making of the Context
1.1 Questioning the Normalcy of my context
1.2 The Call to Adventure
1.3 The Resistance
With a high Sahadeva (S) / Arjuna (A) orientation and lower inclination for Bheem (B) and Nakula (N) – I am prone to
a) Private questioning in my inner world but without actually sharing it with others or acting upon it.
b) S is more likely to converse with Y inside and not with N and B. This gets me entangled with propriety and hierarchy and perhaps blind to my own feelings (N) and my own action orientation (B)
c) Medium (Y) would form a balance between A & S vis-à-vis B & N; the coping mechanism would be to follow my role orientation
d) In the call to adventure and stress, B would influence my action orientation – but would be followed
High S & A would imply a pull towards mapping and a holistic perspective of the context.
a) There would be a pull towards understanding the multiplicity of the context, without getting constrained by rights and wrongs.
b) The context would be seen through a theoretical lens – feelings of the stakeholders within may not be critical. The orientation would be to look at the context from outside in.
c) Action orientation (unless the SI scores reveal a higher score for B) towards the context may not be as important as the content of the context itself. Prone to analysis.
TAO Coaching 15
by judgmental Y (bringing in remorse) and fear of accusations (S)
e) In times of deep stress and angst, N would surface – however continuing relationships around empathy, compassion, and sacrifice would be a struggle.
f) Call to Adventure would be discarded as a fantasy with B held in dissonance.
g) Resistance would be more driven by doubt (A) and double-binds. Playing the waiting game may be a coping mechanism.
d) The Call to Adventure – or movement towards Z1 would be driven by doubt (S) and not passion (B) nor healing (N).
e) The resistance would come in the form of S influence on A – a certain skepticism towards change, adventure and transformation.
f) With a high S and medium Y, the adventure may be towards seeking new knowledge.
g) All adventures sought would be on the fringe of the system, and not including significant others.
Tryst with the Mentor / Dialogue with the Coach
The Road of Trials / Entering Zone 1
Finding the Treasure / Entering Zone 2
Return – Exploring Companionship / Entering Zone 3
Return and Resurrection / Redesign of viable Z4 systems
At this juncture, I am quite unsure about the other two charts – that of SI and OP. I am not terribly compelled to look at SI for the scores emerge largely because of the EUM-I instrument design. SI scores
TAO Coaching 16
may signal to a wish-list for newer archetypal patterns within I guess or my need for change. For example, my N score is really low and my SI scores show it to be medium. This shift may imply the following:
a) My inner patterns are to postpone the feelings perspective when it comes to both reflection and sense making of the context. Thus often I may be unaware of feelings (especially ones that I repress such as victimhood) that may be accumulating till a point of discharge. This may leave me sulking or feeling martyred – a recurring pattern if I do not negotiate with my context or am aware of the build up.
b) My wanting to invest into the N archetype may stem from wanting to change this pattern. It may also be wanting to experience a nature of touch that high A & S and medium Y may otherwise deny.
c) Again the exact scores (or the size of the petal) of SI versus SC to me is of little significance unlike EUM-I scores. It is the direction of shift that may be worked with by the Coach.
The OP scores can be worked a lot more innovatively for Coaching. For each stage of the Hero’s Quest (Monomyth), one may work with the Others’ score (OP) and explore the following patterns:
a) Patterns of Splitting and Projection – what do I disown and project onto the significant Other? For each stage, the Other scores would offer some insights on this process.
b) Relatedness between the Coach and the Coachee – The other score can be used to jointly explore the nature of relatedness between the Coach and the Coachee. Dynamics of penetration, giving and receiving, dependency, power & authority etc. are useful to explore.
c) The SC-SI, SI-OP, and SC-OP analysis of the EUM-I report may be used as well.
On the thresholds / mythemes as well as the Zones, I was hoping that some of the adjective pairs can provide more insights.
a) The pair of ‘Competitive-Collaborative’ may offer insights into the movement from Zone 2 to Zone 3.
b) The pair of ‘Dynamic-Static’ may be a good starting point for exploring the onset of the journey within, and the movement towards Zone 1.
TAO Coaching 17
c) The major shifts in ranks may signal to the treasure sought by the Hero – of Knowledge, Love, Healing, Protection, Perfection etc. For example the word ‘Sacrificing’ that often gets the lowest rank these days has a fair amount of significance across the thresholds of the monomyth. Again ‘Dutiful’ is another word that measures both the resistance to change or commitment to the adventure that the Leader / hero seeks to invest in.
d) The word pair – Tough and Tactful would be insightful when the hero goes through the trials or ventures into Z1 and Z2. The pair signals towards deployment of inner resources.
I would invite others to join in if this frame of the Quest based Coaching makes sense. I am sure that the permutation of the Pandava-archetypes and the word ranks would offer insights into the dilemma the hero / leader has to engage with at every threshold.