1976 Book: EST Making Life Work

Dr. Brock,

I came across your blog today. I have a pervasive and all consuming interest in the work of est, Werner Erhard, his derivative companies as well as the tangential coaching organizations that have formed around est’s former staff.

There is such a wealth of information available. As you mentioned in your blog, “Though some may consider ‘The History of Coaching’ a dry topic, Vikki believes ‘the roots determine the fruits’…..”. I was fascinated to find out that Werner Erhard is directly involved with the leadership of Harvard University today. Stewart Emory, the first president of est, is strongly affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business. Debbie Ford, a former seminar leader, is very popular in the coaching circuits today. Byron Katie was also a former seminar leader. Shya Kane was a former est leadership trainee. Dr. Phil was a participant in the training, not part of the leader body; however, if you notice some of the structure of his analysis, (costs/payoffs of behavior) it is directly lifted out of the technology of the Landmark Forum.

I thought I would share some of this in response to your comment today. est has produced quite a bit of “fruit”.

Didn’t Landmark Education/Forum inspire or inform The Art of Possibility by Rosamund Stone Zander and Benjamin Zander? Great read, that is … I particularly like the “Giving Yourself an A” exercise.

Hi Russ,

Thanks for your comment, Anthony Robbins and Benjamin Zander are two others who also attended a seminar from est (or Landmark – I don’t know the timing). After attending the Landmark Forum this weekend, I see more and more of the “fruit” from est in the coaching community and the world. In the 1990’s, Landmark was very proprietory and lawsuit prone about their language and technology. Similarly psychology has tried to build walls about the practice of psychology through certification and registration. What has happened in both cases is that the principles and technology of both Landmark and psychology have become woven into the fabric of life. My vision for coaching is that the same thing will happen in time.

When I interviewed Werner Erhard and some people from Landmark Education for my history of coaching dissertation, they kept asking me if I had attended one of their trainings – my response was no. Now that I have attended one I see how several of the coach training programs I have attended (and taught) were heavily influenced by est/Landmark.

Coaching is at the core of the technology of transformation taught at Landmark, though this coaching is on the directive side of the style of coaching that ranges from directive to facilitative. The International Coaching Federation and the Inner Game coaching of Sir John Whitmore is more the facilitative style of coaching. Neither is right or wrong, and both styles are appropriate depending on the client, the coach, the context, and the situation.

My goal with researching the history of coaching was to set a foundation for valuing the contributions to coaching of all people and modes of work through the perspective of collaboration and inclusion. That said, I see the end goal of coaching is effective communication in all relationships, such that people’s awareness is raised and each is at conscious choice. Psychology, Landmark, education, organization development, leadership, personal growth, … the list is endless … all support what I see as the end goal of coaching.

Thanks to Nancy Bilyk and Mick Leavitt for supporting me to attend the Landmark Forum. Due to their generosity I now know from my own experience that their est and other large group awareness trainings are a key root of coaching.

What I have written here may be radical to some. Please share your thoughts, and thanks Russ for continuing this conversation.

Dr. Vikki G. Brock
Team Lead, Hall of Fame and Virtual Museum
Coaching Commons

Hi Suz,

I had heard that “The Art of Possibility” had something to do with the Zanders involvement in Landmark. Can anyone verify this?

Dr. Vikki G. Brock
Team Lead, Hall of Fame and Virtual Museum
The Coaching Commons

Hi Vikki,

I still believe that the issues you bring us are vital to understanding and advancing the discipline of coaching. And this, despite the fact that we have major differences from our position in the discipline of coaching.

Here is my point of view.

There are basically two ways to ‚Äúmake history”. The first one, has to do with an “objective” reconstruction, from which one seeks the truth about past events. This kind of “make history” tells us that, without previous prejudices it is possible to reconstruct the objective facts.

The second one, understand that to ‚Äúmake history” necessary a previous “theoretical framework” . Therefore, depending on that previous “theoretical framework” the result of historical study can be radically different.

The first one is adapted for studies, for example, within the natural sciences (statistics, cause-effect, etc.).

The second one is adapted for studies, for example, within the social sciences, where the variables cause-effect cannot be known or controlled.

When I investigated, wrote and published “Art and Science of Coaching: It¬¥s History, Philosophy and Essence”, I began with a previous theoretical framework: coaching is essentially a non-directive metodology. For this reason, in my pages I do not mention any influence of Werner Erhard (or EST).

I say this because, if we understand that coaching is a non-directive discipline, not only Werner Erhard could not be considered a legitimate root of coaching, but as a bad influence. But if we understand that coaching is essentially a “follow-up support”, where any tools or knowledge is useful and legitimate application, then, we must accept that Erhard was a clear influence.

I understand that you are (reason why you have commented, for example, “Psychology, Landmark, education, organization development, leadership, personal growth, … the list is endless … all support what I see as the end goal of coaching”) in this second position.

I´m clearly in the first one.

When you say “both styles are appropriate depending on the client, the coach, the context, and the situation”, we are agree that there are two basically styles (this is the first step). However, from my point of view, their opposing methodologies require that sooner or later they must be differentiated more clearly in the market. What is clear to me, is that they can not be “the same thing” (I consider this is a serious problem to be solved within the coaching).

Personally I have studied Jack Rosenberg (the real name of Werner Erhard, the founder of EST) through the biography written by W.W. Bartley, III in 1978, entitled “Werner Erhard. The Transformation of a Man: The Founding of est”. According to Bartley, III “It is the story of Erhard¬¥s life, education, and transformation, and tells how a poor boy from Philadelphia, a car salesman named Jack Rosenberg, a liar, an impostor, and a wife-deserter, got to that Califormia freeway: how he became a man of integrity and compassion. It is also a universal story of the search for true identity and for Self” P. XX.

It does not have to be strange to us, therefore, that EST is more near to therapy than to coaching.

Therefore, answering your question, this is part of my experience/study on EST and his founder; and personally I do not feel influenced by its theories or practices.

I believe that in coaching all historical influence must be studied clarify the previous ‚Äútheoretical framework” that allows the historical understanding, otherwise the confusion will remain between us.

Hi Vikki, Leonardo and all,

I can’t resist responding to this one!

I experienced one of the many derivatives of est and it was the first powerful awakening experience of my life. It was also a set-back and hurtful. It claimed to be supportive but in fact it was manipulative, in terms of selling more programs to help you recover from the first, and also in terms of the righteousness of the leaders. The program allowed no concern for the ecology of an individual’s life (an NLP term) and claimed to know the truth about the way life works. Behind the program was the hypocrisy of program leaders who were out of integrity (taking drugs, constantly cutting others down etc.), which I believe was a result of the whole philosophy of directiveness and ‘putting others first’ within the program design.

I agree that est is one of the important roots of coaching and also that it is NOT coaching. Coaching helped me recover from an est-clone and perhaps coaching was invented in part for this very need! Many of the distinctions and ways of looking at the world that were propagated through est are vital to coaching: the recognition of choice, responsibility, the power of language and many more. But in the long run, directiveness and pressure does not work as well as coaching does to support people on a sustainable path of self-development.

I am a believer in gray areas and am open to considering that Landmark is an evolution of est and may no longer be falling in to the same traps as I experienced. However I don’t think it is helpful to call transformational training coaching. A root of coaching, yes, but not coaching. I would guess this is the most common instance in the world where the term coaching is mis-used.

Thank you for the chance to air my thoughts on this!

Cheers,
Angela

President, International Association of Coaching
Career and Leadership Coach in Hong Kong

I just had a thought. I know there is a growing body of research into the effectiveness of coaching and what exactly makes it effective, but I wonder if there is any research comparing different levels of directiveness in coaching. From my personal perspective, I am convinced that the most powerful coaching is not very directive, but I wonder how much depends on the particular client.

Recently I was interviewed by a potential client, an experienced ‘coaching’ client, who rejected my services when it became clear he was specifically looking for a ‘directive consultant or mentor’, not a coach. He said non-directive coaching was useless for him. Interesting, eh?

Anyone know of any research in this area or where I could search for it?

Cheers,
Angela

What a great dialogue. Leonardo – you are right that my view of coaching is very broad and wide. My perspective comes in part from the Coaching and Buying Coaching Services published by the UK Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD). In this guide they define coaching from the concept of a range of activities: directive to facilitative, personal to business, short term to long term, holistic to specific, etc. It is from this view that I see est (and other large group awareness trainings) as one of the key roots of coaching.

Much as Angela stated, the directive style of coaching will not work in all situations, and in my opinion, the facilitative style of coaching will not work either. In fact, I use a combination of directive and facilitative coaching with my clients. I had a new client who kept “forgetting” our scheduled sessions. I took a more directive style using the ICF core competency of direct communication and ended our relationship until commitments were honored. This action on my part resulted in an opportunity for growth and forward movement for my client and me.

One other point is that the skills of coaching can be used by anyone and in any situation, for benefit and/or manipulation. What I am saying is that est and similar trainings use the skills of coaching within the range of what I define as coaching. From a historical sense I know that many of those I interviewed were first exposed to the concept of personal growth, responsibility, and choice through one of the above trainings. This is not to condone or judge the effectiveness of their methods – it is a fact.

My coaching style is predominately facilitative, though (as I described above) I can be directive as needed. In this post-modern environment there is an opportunity for us to be inclusive and integrate all perspectives. My wish for the world is for coaching to become the predominate worldview and means of communicating.

Thanks for this delicious dialogue.

Dr. Vikki G. Brock
Team Lead, Virtual Museum and Hall of Fame
The Coaching Commons

Hi Angela,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us (with me). One can really enjoy having this kind of dialogues.

Obviously, I agree with you when you say that EST is not coaching. However, you still considering, as Vikki said, that is part of the roots of coaching.

Being in agreement that is not coaching, I would like to explore the reasons that lead you to consider EST as a root of coaching.

On one hand, all disciplines of the “spectrum of consciousness” (referring to Ken Wilber) “awake consciences” in one way or another. Therefore, if we accept this point of view, they must all be considered roots of coaching.

But as I said before, I accept as root of coaching those disciplines, experiences, people, etc., that have provided tools, processes or theories that help to “awake awareness” … BUT from a non-directive method. In other words, the key of the true root of coaching is not what makes (ie: awake consciences) but how (non-directive meotodolgy). The added value of coaching lies in its methodology, not in its results.

Maybe, up to here, you agree with me.

On the other hand, you say:
‚ÄúMany of the distinctions and ways of looking at the world that were propagated through est are vital to coaching: the recognition of choice, responsibility, the power of language and many more”

Well, the recognition of choice, the importance of responsibility, the power of language and others, are concepts long before EST. Unfortunately Rosenberg (Erhard) distorted the true meaning and concept of these principles. For example, learned of Carl Rogers, but he learned wrong. If we have time we could do a breakdown of influences IN Rosenberg, and then see how he distortion these principles, blending them into what he called EST.

Therefore, I can not consider EST as a root of coaching, but on the contrary… distorted the true root… those principles.

This may sound too radical, but I sincerely believe that his influence, in respect of coaching, was terrible.

PD: Needless to say that I am criticizing the EST / Landmark through the prism of what I understand is the essence of coaching.

Hi again, Angela

I don´t know any research in this area, and I agree with you that it would be very useful.

Regarding your client, let me give you my opinion.

Despite that I¬¥m defending the non-directive coaching, I am aware that this is not useful for all persons and/or in all circumstances. But that does not makes it less attractive, or poor. Believe that we must incorporate opposing or contradictory methodologies to help “better” to our client is an error.

Water and oil can not mix even if we endeavor to do so. But in our case is worse, because any coaching directive practice spoils the true value of coaching.

PS: I¬¥ll delve on this subject when replying to Vikki… maybe tomoroow.

Hi Vikki,

Regarding the concept of coaching derived from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) and the subsequent consideration of the EST as ROOT of coaching, I think we should differentiate the motivation and purpose of the various disciplines or theories (eg EST, Lanmark, Insigth Seminars, etc..) from its methodology.

And as I commented to Angela, I think that in this point we must make a clear distinction. It isn´t the purpose or ends which differ coaching of any other discipline, but it´s means.

In my previous comment I said that the direct methods in the process of coaching eliminates its essence.

You say: ‚ÄúIn fact, I use a combination of directive and facilitative coaching with my clients. I had a new client who kept ‚Äúforgetting” our scheduled sessions. I took a more directive style using the ICF core competency of direct communication and ended our relationship until commitments were honored. This action on my part resulted in an opportunity for growth and forward movement for my client and me. (…) My coaching style is predominately facilitative, though (as I described above) I can be directive as needed.”

Well, from my point of view we are confusing two terms. In short, it is not the same to ‚Äúbe DIRECT” as to ‚Äúbe DIRECTIVE” (at least in coaching terminology). The ICF Core Competency of “Direct Communication” is very useful.

I think that any coach should be DIRECT about the process (the coach is a specialist in this regard), but should not be DIRECTIVE about the content of the process. What I mean is that a good coach should be attentive to the process and must be DIRECT when they see that they are not in compliance with the principles that make the process work.

But this has nothing to do with being DIRECTIVE (to guide the client or give tips, advice, knowledge, etc.). Coaches are experts in the process itself, not the content of the process (for the second one are consultants, advisors, psychologists, mentors, etc). So I think that the case you comment is correct, and you’ve done well, you’ve been DIRECT, but not DIRECTIVE.

It is true, as you saying ‚Äúthe skills of coaching can be used by anyone and in any situation, for benefit and/or manipulation.”… but the competencies, abilities or skills of the coach is not coaching. Coaching as a discipline is a coherent and harmonious relationship between principles, competencies and models, that respect the non-directive essence. Any of these individual parts (principles, competencies or models) can easily be transformed into something totally opposite of coaching when it used separately.

Therefore, up to here, when you say, ‚ÄúFrom a historical sense I know that many of those I interviewed were first exposed to the concept of personal growth, responsibility, and choice through one of the above trainings. This is not to condone or judge the effectiveness of their methods – it is a fact.” I understand that is not reason enough to consider root of coaching.

Finally, I do not think that what we call post-modern environment involves an advance or progress in human development. I support and believe in the interdisciplinary integration, but is not an end in itself. Any integration should be done consistently (coherent manner). Moreover, despite our wishes, not everything can be integrated.

Thank you too for this dialogue.

Ravier, L

This discussion is fascinating. Leonardo, among all that you have said we agree on much and there are still some points I’d like to take further.

Oil and vinegar make salad dressing. Mixing opposites can create something completely new that ‘transcends’ the ingredients. Of course, if you add too much of any ingredient, it tastes bad. The proportion is important.

Perhaps this is the case with directiveness in coaching? On Vikki’s example, I also agree with you that she is describing direct communication, not directiveness, necessarily. If she had prescribed exactly _how_ the client should manage his/her time in order to make the coaching sessions, that would have been directive. But I couldn’t be so certain as to say that directiveness could never be appropriate. Every client is different.

I like the phrase you used, the “non-directive essence” of coaching. I agree that this is the ground on which coaching is built –the oil. The other ingredients are added in different proportions to suit the salad (the client).

Importantly, you said, “It isn¬¥t the purpose or ends which differ coaching of any other discipline, but it¬¥s means.” On a strictly personal basis, this is not how I see coaching. That’s because if I could find a better way to sustainably speed the personal growth of successful people, I would immediately switch. Actually a better way to describe this is to state that whenever I find a better way, all those subtle improvements I make in my coaching and in my understanding of life, then I take that on and attempt to integrate it into my way of working.

Of course, I can see that this is a problematic belief to hold for a profession. At an extreme, I might start practicing Shamanism and continue to call myself a coach. But, is this really that far-fetched? I know coaches who are Shamans. The best coaches are deeply committed to self-improvement, so is it therefore inevitable that our ‘profession’ will include great diversity and a continuing evolution of the way we work, including more and more opposites as we go?

Angela,

I´ll answer you (I think that our conversation can move towards points of vital importance), but I´m waiting a while to see if any other readers or contributors want to join the discussion.

Until then,

Ravier, L.

I’ll take the plunge. I hadn’t looked at Coaching Commons in a couple of days, thinking that not much would be happening – imagine my surprise!

There seem to be at least two overlapping discussions – the role of Werner Erhard and his relationship (or not) to coaching, and whether anything that is directive can fall under the umbrella of coaching.

I’ll admit to not knowing much about EST, so I won’t address that. I would like to address the belief that good coaching must be non-directive. In a nutshell, my question is “who says so?” It’s one thing to hold that as a personal belief but that doesn’t mean it’s a universally held belief or that it is necessarily true.

While psychoanalysts might feel that CBT is not as effective, and that it’s not psychoanalysis, I don’t think they would argue that it’s not therapy. And, in therapy, many researchers talk about the “dodo verdict” (a reference, I believe from Alice in Wonderland), that many forms of therapy seem to be helpful (all are winners).

Some may find the following irrelevant, but there is a lot more research into psychotherapy process than into coaching process and the ongoing research continues to look at “what works for whom” – a question of fit.

I am a big fan of Kegan and Lahey’s work and find the methodology described in “Immunity to Change” to be incredibly powerful. I believe it can be used in coaching. Will it help everyone with every coaching issue? No. Yet I believe that it can be used in a coaching context, as coaching, and will help some of the people some of the time. Truth? Who knows. But it’s my belief.

One of the things I have also observed in studying psychotherapy is that the style of therapy chosen should probably fit the personality of the therapist. And, some therapists are more empathic and others are more goal-oriented (and some are both). Perhaps, with time, we will find something similar for coaching.

So, particularly without more detailed outcomes research, how can we decide now what works for whom and to what degree it might be more a matter of taste (of the coach and of the client) than it is about what is or isn’t allowed to be called coaching.

Jonathan

Dear Angela, Jonathan and All,

INTRODUCTION

I’ll try to be brief and orderly, so that the conversation makes sense to readers, and for us.

I will start replying to Jonathan when he says: ‚ÄúI would like to address the belief that good coaching must be non-directive. In a nutshell, my question is ‚Äúwho says so?” It’s one thing to hold that as a personal belief but that doesn’t mean it’s a universally held belief or that it is necessarily true.

While I understand your question (”Who says so?”) it is clearly meaningless. And I’ll tell you why. It does not matter who says it, but if what is said may or may not be true. In this case ‚Äúwho says so”…. me.
And this, obviously, does not help anyone.

Therefore, at least for me, it is clear that what is really important is the foundation, not its identification with a person or group of people (and it should not matter if it’s an isolated individual, institution, association and think tank … is irrelevant).

Therefore, I (Ravier Leonardo) argue that the essence of coaching is it´s non-directivness. And despite being an obvious personal belief, can be considered as certain and universal. This, at least, might be so, unless proven otherwise.

So, then, in addition, I offer what I consider sufficient evidence to reflect my beliefs or point of view.

COACHING ¬øDOES TASTE MATTER?

I see a repeat appearance in this discussion, and it is thought that in the end, coaching ‚Äúis a matter of personal taste”.

Angela uses the metaphor of the “ingredients” and the “tastes”: ‚ÄúMixing opposites can create something completely new that ‚Äòtranscends’ the ingredients. Of course, if you add too much of any ingredient, it tastes bad. The proportion is important.”

Jonathan said it was a “matter of taste”: ‚ÄúSo, particularly without more detailed outcomes research, how can we decide now what works for whom and to what degree it might be more a matter of taste (of the coach and of the client) than it is about what is or isn’t allowed to be called coaching”

Frankly I do not think this is the best way to coaching as a serious discipline. This brings us to a ‚Äúrelative coaching”, where nothing can be proven or demonstrated.

Jonathan talks about Kegan’s and Lahey, Angela of Shamanism, and so we could follow each of the coaches in the world … And in the end what do we say?

As you said Jonathan ‚ÄúTruth? Who knows. But it’s my belief”
This shows us how far coaching has to go to be a real discipline with a serious theory body to work with people. As long as coaching doesn´t have the tools to test and evaluate how and why, our profession will continue to be a deformed amalgam of inefficient integrations. And it is a really pity.

My view is that the essence of non-directive coaching is the necessary and sufficient backbone, from which we can, and must, build the whole theoretical framework and practical coaching. Using this column it is possible to determine the PRINCIPLES that guide us, the COMPETENCIES that are needed, and the MODELS are applied.

But not only that… A historical study of non-directive approach, from Socrates to Carl Rogers through actual coaching, although not proof, is a key aspect to consider. I am convinced that coaching is a refined evolution of the past non-directive methodology, issues that because “scientism” the academy disregards and forgot.

And finally, practice is showing that in the name of “integration” coaching has no identity, and it is also inefficient.

Ultimately, I defend my position from history, from a coherent theory and from an ethical and efficient practice. I hope you understand that even I¬¥m an isolated individual who speaks, I try to do it based on the consistency of the theoretical, historical and ethical isuess … itself from the social sciences.

THE COACHING IS NOT THERAPY (though it may be therapeutic)

Jonathan, you start questioning my beliefs about my personal views on coaching, and immediately jump to talk about your experience or knowledge in therapy, assuming such a comparison valid. Well, if it is true that the evolution or development of therapy (and other disciplines) can be inferred or learn about what could happen in coaching, the comparison has its own limitations. And you should take into account (unless you understand that coaching is the same as therapy…. In which case, the word ‚Äúcoaching” is meaningless).

You say: ‚ÄúOne of the things I have also observed in studying psychotherapy is that the style of therapy chosen should probably fit the personality of the therapist. And, some therapists are more empathic and others are more goal-oriented (and some are both). Perhaps, with time, we will find something similar for coaching”

Well. I agree with you. I think that, within any discipline, diversity is rich. And in coaching, our personalities will move to different styles of coaching.

However, integration is possible only when the expertise and the central core of the discipline is clear, obvious and agreed upon by the majority. Disagreements over whether certain practices are or are not coaching will always be, but the current gap between believing that the essence of coaching is it non-directive methodology vs. the “anything is or could be coaching”, is harmless. And sooner or later it will pass us a big bill.

Finally, it is clear that coaching, although it is not therapy, it can be therapeutic … like a conversation with a friend, sex, or a spa shower. But I understand that we agree that the coaching does not have a therapeutic purpose, Or not?.

¬øCOACHING FOR ALL AND EVERYTHING?

One of the arguments used here can be summarized as “anything that helps my client is welcome to coaching.”

That idea is the foundation of Angela’s words when she says: ‚ÄúThat’s because if I could find a better way to sustainably speed the personal growth of successful people, I would immediately switch”.

Or Vikki, when she says ‚Äúthe directive style of coaching will not work in all situations, and in my opinion, the facilitative style of coaching will not work either. In fact, I use a combination of directive and facilitative coaching with my clients”

Or Angela, again, when she says: ‚ÄúI know coaches who are Shamans. The best coaches are deeply committed to self-improvement, so is it therefore inevitable that our ‚Äòprofession’ will include great diversity and a continuing evolution of the way we work, including more and more opposites as we go?”

The point here is, what is the basis or foundation of believing that the coach must take care of all human needs?

With this question in mind, and with the idea of the non-directive essence of coaching, I think that:

Non-Directive Coaching
- It´s limited to working with the knowledge of the client
- Only works for certain people and circumstances (not for all and for everything)
- The coach is a specialist in non-directive processes (unique and different feature from any other processes aid)
- The coach recognizes its limitations
- It is a distinct discipline

‚ÄúDirective” coaching
- It doesn’t work only with the knowledge of the client
- Works, or could work, for any person or circumstance
- The coach isn´t a specialist, but could use everything as he likes (it´s a taste matter).
- The coach could hardly recognize their limitations
- It is a relative discipline (not distinct)

I conclude that the matter is not ‚Äúwhat is best for the client”, but to understand that consistency of discipline is the best guide to help our clients.

On the other hand, we must reflect about the ‚Äúinfiltration”… And I¬¥m not talking about the consultants, counselors and psychologists that say that they do coaching, but in reverse. Of what coaches do when they use the training, consulting, therapy, and others discipline in their coaching processes.

I tried to be brief. Sorry, but it was necessary to elaborate.

Ravier, L.

Apologies for the technical glitches with the comments section this week – problems are now solved. Thanks to our readers for alerting us promptly. Please continue this compelling conversation.

Quick comments on a « Non-Something » … English is not my habitual langage. Please accept the imprecisions.

While hand-writing notes about the affirmation of what could be the essence of coaching.
(non-directive essence of coaching) , I wrote Co-aching… As soon as I realized what was on the paper, I took it as a sign that something was bugging me… The awareness that emerge looks like :

How the essence of something (process) could be a « non-something » (non-process) ? And a kind of non-something that … « is the necessary and sufficient backbone to build theoretical framework and practical coaching… »

And a non-something that we share with others in education, in therapy, in communication…

What Socrates and Rogers were doing while non-directing ?
As I’m not an historian, but more of a kind of modeler, I’ve noticed that the so-called non-directive essence adopts fluctuations, variability in the purity of the non-directiveness. So non-directive essence (label) can be described as having a fuzzy logic and, at least, a relative plasticity‚Ķ

Recent emergent coaching practices (since 1990) around the works of late David Grove, James Lawley and Penny Thompkins, Wendy Sullivan and Judy Rees, Philip Harland and Matthew Hudson, Angela Dunbar and Carol Wilson in UK (Clean Coaching, Clean Language, Symbolic Modeling, Emerging Knowledge, Clean Space, The Powers of six) have illustrated how the so-called non-directive approaches was covering up an underground directiveness. So, with Clean Coaching we assist in the emergence of very powerful practices in coaching that move away coaching from the paradigm of consultation, mentoring, therapy, and that is closer to what I consider the essence of our profession. A powerful trend is emerging there…

Here are my beliefs and my practices. The coach is a vector of something. I pretend, as a coach to be an expert of something. I’m listening exquisitely (a close encounter of a‚Ķ) at what the client likes to have happen and I’m facilitating the process of change en route, on the direction of that.
I process something and my powering questions to the client are intuitively emerging in the moment in the context of the needs (direction aimed) of the clients. I do have different kind of patterns of questions that have been reality tested for their conductivity ‚Ķ and I’m delivering the questions in the respect of the client and in the respect of my knowledge‚Ķ that I apply for the benefits of the clients.

So, for me the essence of coaching is more around the facilitation process and is client’s need driven for a kind of change. I can adopt a posture where I refrain myself of getting in the way of the client. That posture defines a behavior that is not exclusive to the kind of practice that I have, that I share with many others‚Ķ

Could the non-directiveness be considered more as a fuzzy boundary condition for a coaching practice to be on the magic island and not as a core concept of what we are doing? I suggest that such a boundary condition should not be the essence of coaching. If I had to follow the pathway that a non-something could be the essence of something, I much prefer that « non-knowing » be THE non-something.

Because, how can I be directive if I adopt the non-knowing posture. Non-knowing is also what I consider another fuzzy boundary condition of coaching. And I’m kind of allergic to a non-something being the essence of something. All my learning goes for something that is stated or define positively; what we are doing, instead of what we are not doing.

What’s the intentionality and the process when coaching a client ? My answer
goes more around a ¬´ sound (validated techniques based on multidisciplinary knowledge) facilitation ¬ª of change process applied on the direction needed (stated, wanted, emergent direction) by a person : that’s what I call a professionnal manner.

Does coaching have the essence and characteristics of a profession ? I like to say Yes, but the boundaries are fuzzy (more open, permeable, in quest of precision) and I think the evolution of coaching will keep in its genes a kind of fuzziness. Till now, the openness has been very useful for the expansion of coaching… after the big bang…

The coach acts as a vector of force in the interaction (because we cannot not influence in a communication), and anyway, we are distillating influence (even though its a very soft and clean one). Something is happening there that is a product of a kind of interaction, that is driven by a kind of flow. The direction stem out from the client and, as a coach, I am facilitating with all my know-how, my way of being and intuition in the moment, the way for the client. I’m guided in my practice by six criteria : effectiveness, efficacy, efficiency, elegance, ecology and ethic. So, with a large span of possibilities, enlighted by the client’s needed change (learning), I’m interacting with the client in a professionnal manner, en route to ‚Ķ

In my opinion, coaching is a process driven by an expert in facilitation pertaining to the direction of a change wanted by a client. He is an expert of the process and not of the content. The facilitation process is rich of different genes that evolved through time to become more and more specifics for a kind of task in a context that is large in perspectives. Some genes are there, but not active any more. And its useful to know their existence. Somewhere in the future, those less active genes could favor the emergence of something good for the coaching.

So, I’m more on the side of the geneticists that can look at the reality of the coaching (metaphor of something continually adapting as the knowledge emerge) than to the side of historians that collect their data pertaining to their world view or limited by their oriented sightseeing. (In that matter many thanks to Dr. Brock for the dissertation GROUNDED THEORY OF THE ROOTS AND EMERGENCE OF COACHING).

About fuzzy concepts
‚ÄúHowever, fuzzy concepts may also occur in scientific, journalistic, programming and philosophical activity, when a thinker is in the process of clarifying and defining a newly emerging concept which is based on distinctions which, for one reason or another, cannot (yet) be more exactly specified or validated. Fuzzy concepts are often used to denote complex phenomena, or to describe something which is developing and changing, which might involve shedding some old meanings and acquiring new ones.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuzzy_concept

And I go for the metaphor of « facilitation » for the core process of coaching…

Donald Fortin, Ph.D., Professionnal coach certified in NLP, Certified hypnosis practitioner, Certified Clean Facilitator. French web site : http://www.coachera.com

First, thank you, Leonardo for reading our comments so attentively and for responding so specifically.

I agree that whether a statement appears to be true ultimately matters more than who says it. However, in addition to considering whether someone’s hypothesis seems reasonable to me without any data, I also take into account the source of the hypothesis and what research backs it up. I find it helpful that you clarified that your statements were your beliefs and that you were the source.

As we continue this discussion (which I hope will be the case), could we clarify what we are talking about when we distinguish directive from non-directive? For example:

- Is this a binary distinction or does directiveness fall along a continuum, as suggested in the document Vicki cited: http://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C31A728E-7411-4754-9644-46A84EC9CFEE/0/2995coachbuyingservs.pdf.

- Are some people suggesting that any step toward directiveness is either ineffective coaching or not coaching, or is it at some point in the continuum that this believed to be true?

- Is there a distinction about being directive about content and about process? Is there a difference between saying “what if you tried X” and “what if you tried to look at your problem using framework X”? Are some arguing that to suggest a framework is also “too” directive? Isn’t prescribing non-directiveness and not allowing directive approaches in some way directive (is this similar to what you were suggesting, Donald?)

I think that there are at least 2 major discussions taking place.

- What works and how do we know it?

- If something works, how is it decided whether it falls under coaching, who decides that, and why does it matter?

I think that the first of these argues for some of the research efforts that are underway and are still to come.

I think that the second discussion is more philosophical. Entities such as the ICF, EMCC, and schools of coaching will have opinions on this. Issues include practicing safely and competently (e.g., should non-clinicians practice something that looks like therapy), legal issues, marketing and positioning.

What a great dialogue. Thanks to all you for the rich comments and perspectives – Leonardo for clarifying the stage and terms; Donald for distinguishing between non-directive and facilitative; Jonathan for identifying that there are at least two conversations going on here.
I resonate with what Donald said: “coaching is a process driven by an expert in facilitation pertaining to the direction of a change wanted by a client. He is an expert of the process and not of the content.” For me non-directive was synonomous with facilitation prior to reading Donald’s comments – now I see them as distinct and I favor the word facilitation. I too believe that as a coach we can not help but influence, whether from a directive or facilitative position.
As for the two discussions:
- What works and how do we know it? I believe that what works varies with the coach, client, situation, and context – and what works today may not work tomorrow. That said, there are some things that work in most situations, such as listening and asking questions.
- If something works, how is it decided whether it falls under coaching, who decides that, and why does it matter? I’m not sure it matters for the average coach, however it does matter for the field as a whole (including training schools, clients, purchasers, the public at large). Coaching came from a variety of disciplines, many of which believe coaching is an integral part of their discipline. I find that different schools of thought around coaching determine what is and what is not coaching for them. I strongly believe that the intent behind the skills and practice of coaching influence what is perceived as coaching (I know, this may be opening up another round of discussions).
Vikki G. Brock, http://www.vikkibrock.com

I’m getting in late on this exciting dialogue. My contribution actually fits the earlier part of the discussion about est and coaching. I learned from Vikki’s historical research on coaching and the article that Bill Dueease wrote about making coaching history come alive (Peer Bulletin, February, 2009), that Thomas Leonard actually worked for Werner Erhard. Thomas was a financial officer for the est organization during the early days and he observed directly the power of personal transformation that occurred for est participants. This is another concrete way that est and the roots of coaching are connected.

On a related note I lived in the SF Bay Area during the time that est was growing, and my brother became one of the early est seminar leaders. Whenever I’d visit his house, we use to tease him about whether we could go to the bathroom during our visit (a prohibited practice that was often ridiculed in discussions about est), but the most fun we had with est (the seminars were far from humorous), was when we saw the movie Semi-Tough (released in 1977) with Burt Reynolds, Kris Kristofferson and Jill Clayburgh. Burt and Kris play NFL football players who take a seminar called “IT.” The seminar is a complete and great parody of est, and it’s one of the best send-ups of the types of large group personal growth interventions at the time.

Donald, Jonathan, Vikki, Rey and all,

WHY NON-SOMETHING: A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION THAT CONCERNS TO ALL OF US

On the one hand, Donald declares his “allergy” to define something in a negative way, and on another, Jonathan says that this issue is a philosophical issue, adding that the ICF, EMCC or coaching schools will have their opinion.

Donald said: ‚ÄúHow the essence of something (process) could be a ¬´ non-something ¬ª (non-process) ? (…) ‚ÄúAnd I’m kind of allergic to a non-something being the essence of something. All my learning goes for something that is stated or define positively; what we are doing, instead of what we are not doing.”

Jonathan, said: ‚ÄúIf something works, how is it decided whether it falls under coaching, who decides that, and why does it matter?” I think that the second discussion is more philosophical. Entities such as the ICF, EMCC, and schools of coaching will have opinions on this”

First we must understand that non-directivness is a central axiom for coaching. Does not mean it is the only one that can build the entire discipline, but at least for me, is what best defines and distinguishes our profession.

When I say “central axiom”, I mean that when the coaching stops being “non-directive” (or starts to be directive) it is automatically transformed into another thing (classical training, consulting, counseling, therapy, whatever). Therefore, without saying that the directive coaching is not coaching (I can¬¥t know the future of coaching), I can say that it is inconsistent and contradictory (as well as inefficient in terms of discipline as its purpose … I’ll explain this later).

I am not saying that training, counseling, therapy, consulting and others help disciplines are inefficient, but there is inefficiency and contradiction when we say that we are doing coaching and what we are really doing is another thing, because we transgressed the coaching essence, principle and purpose.

If we agree that the purpose of coaching is that the client achieve its goals according to their own experience, knowledge and resources, non-directive attends this purpose better than the concept of “facilitation” (I will talk about this later, too) .

Why define the essence as a “negative” term? Because this “central axiom” is a principle and guide, very useful to not transform the profession into another thing. Using the concept of “negative” to define something is not new, and isn¬¥t bad. For example, the principle of “freedom” is more effectively defined as “non-violence” as any other positive definition. The same applies to “negative rights”, as opposed to “positive rights”.

This is not just a philosophical question, it is also an epistemological and methodological issue. It is true that the ICF, EMCC or schools should have answers or opinions on this, but I think it is something that is of concern to all of us.

THEORY AND PRACTICE OF NON-DIRECTIVE

Donald said: ‚ÄúWhat Socrates and Rogers were doing while non-directing? (…) I’ve noticed that the so-called non-directive essence adopts fluctuations, variability in the purity of the non-directiveness (…) Recent emergent coaching practices (since 1990) around the works of late David Grove, James Lawley and Penny Thompkins, Wendy Sullivan and Judy Rees, Philip Harland and Matthew Hudson, Angela Dunbar and Carol Wilson in UK (Clean Coaching, Clean Language, Symbolic Modeling, Emerging Knowledge, Clean Space, The Powers of six) have illustrated how the so-called non-directive approaches was covering up an underground directiveness”

What I see in all the examples you mentioned, is that, precisely, the non-directivness is the essential aspect that all of them are trying to collect in practice, even intuitively or unconsciously.

Obviously, pursuing the essence of non-directivness bring up differences of approaches. And it is precisely there, where it is necessary to discuss, share and validate. But one thing is to try to get the non-directivness (understanding its essence), and another thing is to have theoretical differences (reject non-directivness and change it to a relative point of view, ie: facilitation) which produces inevitable contradictions within the coaching.

COACHING AS A NON-DIRECTIVE VS FACILITATION

Vikki and Donald seem to agree on coaching to understand it as “facilitation”:

Donald said: ‚ÄúI’m listening exquisitely (a close encounter of a‚Ķ) at what the client likes to have happen and I’m facilitating the process of change en route, on the direction of that. (…) So, for me the essence of coaching is more around the facilitation process and is client’s need driven for a kind of change. (…) And I go for the metaphor of ¬´ facilitation ¬ª for the core process of coaching‚Ķ”

Vikki said: ‚ÄúI resonate with what Donald said: ‚Äúcoaching is a process driven by an expert in facilitation pertaining to the direction of a change wanted by a client. He is an expert of the process and not of the content.” For me non-directive was synonomous with facilitation prior to reading Donald’s comments – now I see them as distinct and I favor the word facilitation. I too believe that as a coach we can not help but influence, whether from a directive or facilitative position.”

Depending on the meaning concept of “facilitating” both (non-directivness and facilitation) can be integrated, or could be totally contradictory.

If by “facilitation” we understad the “act of assisting or making easier the progress or improvement of something”, obviously non-directive coaching is also a “facilitator”.

On the other hand, say that the essence of coaching is the “facilitation” tells us nothing more than the obvious. Coaches work for their clients so that they achieve their goals or objetives better (‚Äúfacilitation”), otherwise they will not pay us. But trainers, mentors and advisers are are facilitators, too.

The problem is that the “facilitation” concept does not say anything about the method used, while the “non-directive” defines clearly its methodology.

I do not think that facilitation is an alternative concept of the non-directivness. In short, “non-directivness” is a kind of facilitator, but not any process of facilitator is non-directive. So, a lot of help “facilitations” are not coaching. And so, “facilitation” can¬¥t be used to define the essence of our profession.

Donald said: ‚ÄúIn my opinion, coaching is a process driven by an expert in facilitation pertaining to the direction of a change wanted by a client. He is an expert of the process and not of the content”

That paragraph may also apply to non-directive coaching. In fact the coach ‚Äúis an expert of the process and not of the content”. Hence my comment about Vikki’s example of being DIRECT (about the process), but not directive (about the content). The problem with this statement is the non-definition of “facilitation”. If the facilitation is not involved in the content, then it is clear that EST cannot be considered as a root or background contribution to coaching (and also, can¬¥t be considered as “facilitations” process).

Then (Donald) said: ‚ÄúThe direction stems out from the client and, as a coach, I am facilitating with all my know-how, my way of being and intuition in the moment, the way for the client. I’m guided in my practice by six criteria : effectiveness, efficacy, efficiency, elegance, ecology and ethic. So, with a large span of possibilities, enlighted by the client’s needed change (learning), I’m interacting with the client in a professionnal manner, en route to ‚Ķ”

The key is here, “as a coach, I am facilitating with all my know-how” What does this mean? That you give to your clients everything you know, on any topic, and in the way that you feel better? Do you mean you believe that the true value of coaching process is your “know how”? Does this mean that coaches will be better when they know more, are more knowledgeable and they better share their wisdom?

I stress that this type of coaching adds nothing new to other help disciplines like consultancy, advisory or training. All of them help people on their expertise and ‚Äúknow how”. Furthermore, it is dangerous for its arrogance; it is inefficient because it is constructed in an “incoherent amalgam” of contradictory processes based on the personal and relative vision of each coach about coaching. I don¬¥t see any good future for this kind of coaching.

MY POSITION ISN´T BASED IN HISTORICISM, AND IS NOT JUST A PERSONAL BELIEF

Jonathan said: ‚ÄúI agree that whether a statement appears to be true ultimately matters more than who says it. However, in addition to considering whether someone’s hypothesis seems reasonable to me without any data, I also take into account the source of the hypothesis and what research backs it up. I find it helpful that you clarified that your statements were your beliefs and that you were the source.”

I think I have not explained well, Jonathan. Everything I say is part of my beliefs, and I am its source (though others have said it before, in part or entirely). By the same, I understand that what you say (or others say), respond to your/their belief´s, and that you are the source of your words. However, beliefs may or may not be substantiated. At this point, I welcome your questions, but I would like to know your position and reasoning, and not just say that my position is a personal belief.

First, because I have not said just that. What I said is: ‚ÄúAnd despite being an obvious personal belief, can be considered as certain and universal. This, at least, might be so, unless proven otherwise” And second, because I’m not limited to making statements, but also to substantiate, and I expect the same from those who think differently.

Therefore, I assume that my position is a belief but based on my personal research and experience, based also, on history, theory and ethics… all of which I can¬¥t express here in total for obvious reasons, but that I¬¥m trying to summarize and explain through our dialogue.

On the other hand, Donald said: ‚ÄúSo, I’m more on the side of the geneticists that can look at the reality of the coaching (metaphor of something continually adapting as the knowledge emerge) than to the side of historians that collect their data pertaining to their world view or limited by their oriented sightseeing”

I’m not sure if I interpreted your words well, Donald. But just in case let me clarify that my position is not historian. That is, I do not base my position “manipulating” the story to my convenience. My way of studying and researching coaching is based on the study of social sciences. The story only serves me as a “guide”.

History provides evidence of where we need to investigate, but never basis for any theory. My historical studies allowed me to see where I must investigate, it gave me guidance on where the essence of my profession was, nothing more. Then the reasoning is essentially theoretical, coherent and solid with practice.

And finally, the coherence theory, based on historical evidence, moreover, are consistent with the ethical exercise of the profession.

It is therefore not correct to summarize my position as a “historical and personal belief.” This is completely uncertain, and I hope to have clarified.

‚ÄúPUSH” (DIRECTIVE) AND ‚ÄúPULL” STYLE (NO-DIRECTIVE) OF COACHING

Jonathan said: “As we continue this discussion (which I hope will be the case), could we clarify what we are talking about when we distinguish directive from non-directive? For example:
- Is this a binary distinction or does directiveness fall along a continuum, as suggested in the document Vicki cited: http://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C31A728E-7411-4754-9644-46A84EC9CFEE/0/2995coachbuyingservs.pdf.”

On page 19 of that document, under the title “Some generally agreed characteristics of coaching in organizations” it recognizes the essence of non-directive coaching (textually: “It is essentially a non-directive form of development”). Nevertheless, it also recognizes a valid “direct style” (p. 25). Finally, on page 57, Figure 19 shows the representation of the “continuum of coaching styles base don how directive the coach is in working with the individual” under the title “Coaching styles continuum.”

In that chart, which I have referred to as “directive coaching” and “non-directive coaching” is represented as “Push style” (directive) and “Pull style” (non-directive).

I do not think is very useful to determine which is the “directivness” degree that are be using the coach, but rather, understand that good coaching should be exercised with PERMANENT TREND TO NON-DIRECTIVNESS (”Pull style”).

Put another way, the coach should move away, permanently, from the “push style”. The area of “work done by coach” (see the chart, page 57), in my view, should be avoided consciously and permanently in the process of coaching. Otherwise we drop the helping relationship in opposite processes, and create inconsistency and inefficiency.

Jonathan asked: ‚Äú- Are some people suggesting that any step toward directiveness is either ineffective coaching or not coaching, or is it at some point in the continuum that this believed to be true?”

I do not accept a “Pull style” as an option within the coaching, because I understand that there are other professionals, other methods and other tools to do it better. But mainly because from a methodological point of view is incoherent. That is to say, one method (Push) inhibits the other (Pull). I think that clients could look for better help taking an advisor and a coach at the same time complementary (in different persons), but not that one person holding both roles in a process called just “coaching”.

Therefore, as we move closer to “push style”, coaching becomes less efficient, since the responsibility is transferred from client to coach, and with it the essence of coaching itself.

That¬¥s why I believe that chart is not considering “Coaching styles continuum” but rather a gradual path of “coaching” to ‚Äúconsulting, advisory, whatever… “.

DIRECT AND DIRECTIVNESS COACHING, AND “IF WORKS… WHY DOES IT MATTER?”

Jonathan asked: ‚Äú- Is there a distinction about being directive about content and about process? Is there a difference between saying ‚Äúwhat if you tried X” and ‚Äúwhat if you tried to look at your problem using framework X”?

Are some arguing that to suggest a framework is also ‚Äútoo” directive? Isn’t prescribing non-directiveness and not allowing directive approaches in some way directive (is this similar to what you were suggesting, Donald?)”

I think your question is poorly posed. A coach, in my view, should avoid at all times being directive. Telling a client to do “X” or telling to use an “X Framework” is the same in essence, though not in degree (in both cases he is being directive). What a coach can and should do is to be direct about the process (I explained this already). That is one of his responsibility as professional.

Then, you ask: ‚Äú- What works and how do we know it? – If something works, how is it decided whether it falls under coaching, who decides that, and why does it matter?”

The question is, what are the means that ‚Äúwork”? That the client achieved their goal? Clearly, training, consultancy, advice, mentoring, etc.. are disciplines or professions that are helping their clients achieve their goals. That is, being directive may be very useful for a client, but that does not mean it’s coaching (I ask you, Is Coaching all that works?).

In my point of view, if the coach is a mix of different disciplines that ‚Äúwork”, our profession does not add anything really new (Did not do the same thing the other aids professional?). Moreover, this would require all coaches to be training in all help disciplines.

And finally the coach, turned into a “super-man,” would be able to take care of any need, any person in any situation. I do not think this is the way for coaching. In this path, the coach becomes an “expert”, as consultants, trainers, and others. An ‚Äúeclectic expert”… attractive and dangerous at the same time (as EST training).

Therefore, effective, useful, powerful?
In what sense?
In my view, a coach looks for not only that the client achieves his/her objectives, but also (and more important) gets those in a certain way: using their experience, knowledge and resources. This is the distinctive essence of coaching. And the non-directive coaching offers a methodology to do it well.

EST AS A ROOT OF COACHING

Rey said: ‚Äúthat Thomas Leonard actually worked for Werner Erhard. Thomas was a financial officer for the est organization during the early days and he observed directly the power of personal transformation that occurred for est participants. This is another concrete way that est and the roots of coaching are connected”

Well, it’s one thing that Thomas Leonard worked with Werner Erhard, and quite another, thus can be considered est as roots of coaching. I do not deny that these connections are intriguing and useful in the research process, but not all connections should be considered root.

Ravier, L.

I have a few quick thoughts.

It sounds as though your belief, Leonardo, is that it is not about whether directiveness works or not, but about whether it can be allowed in coaching or not. I believe research will help us to see, some day, whether non-directiveness is more helpful than directiveness and in which contexts. Even if it turns out that some level of directiveness can be helpful, the question will remain whether it falls under some form of “orthodoxy” of coaching.

To me, this is reminiscent of the history of psychotherapy. Once upon a time, there was psychoanalysis. This was quite an orthodoxy, in my opinion, with strict entry criteria and elders who could determine what fell within psychoanalysis and what did not. Over the years, research has shown that there are many ways to help a client in therapy and that many of those ways have little in common with psychoanalysis, but are still considered therapeutic and forms of psychotherapy. Do we still need to understand better what frameworks and techniques should be considered under the label “coaching”, recognizing that it may be along a continuum and not just a binary choice of “in” or “out”? Yes. Do we still need research on what works for whom? Yes.

On another note, one of the ancestors of coaching, as I understand it, was sports coaching. This doesn’t mean that current coaching has to look like sports coaching. However, imagine a sports coach working with an athlete on their swimming stroke or tennis serve in a purely non-directive way. I believe a bridge between sports coaching and other domains was looking at the “inner game”. I believe sports coaching isn’t just about technique, but doesn’t sports coaching involve some form of directiveness? This is not my area of expertise, so I’m hoping someone will jump in with more about this.

Perhaps there should be a new name for a pure form of non-directive coaching (NDC?). It’s probably not prudent to ask someone who only does psychoanalysis for cognitive-behavioral therapy. The psychoanalyst would refer to a colleague. Similarly a NDC coach could refer to a more eclectic colleague, who might still be allowed to call herself or himself a coach.

I’ll dive back in …this is interesting, although a bit daunting to mix in this illustrious crowd!

I believe that strictly and precisely distinguishing between forms of help, called coaching or whatever, is important for the researchers, academics and others of that bent. It helps us learn, and distinguish. But it completely misses the perspective of the customer, and from their point of view is largely irrelevant and confusing. Do they care the exact nuances of the service they will receive? Yes, of course they care: they care about what works for them. And therefore that is why ‘what works’ continues to be my focus, as a practicing coach, in developing my coaching and explaining what it is.

I would like to build on the direction Jonathan took in suggesting a new term, NDC. I think that we coaches, in order to improve our effectiveness, can learn to articulate better, in the client’s language, exactly what it is we do so that they can be better guided in their selection of services. In the client’s language, coaches would describe what kind of people they help, what kind of results they achieve, what kind of services are included (advice, inspiration, clarifying, sounding-board etc.) in words that mean something to the client. In practice, this information is communicated in subtle ways that lead to the client’s comfort with the whole person who will be their coach, not just the methodology that the coach will be using.

From the point of view of the quality of our delivery of coaching, I think we need to be constantly aware about what exactly we are doing. This self-awareness must be the practice of a successful coach because we are always subject to the pulls of the ego, which might cause us to give too much direction, or cling too strongly to a methodology when it is not working. This is also the realm where the researchers and academics can most help the practicing coach.

Hi all,

As Angela says, I will dive back in also. You might check out a similar thread that is starting called “The Future of Coaching: Where Are We Going?”

I agree that the customer or consumer does not care what the distinctions are between coaching and other fields, nor do they care whether coaching is a profession or not. And focusing on these distinctions can take the focus of us (coaches) off the true purpose of our work, which I see as contributing to humanity and making a difference.

What would happen if we accepted that there are many ways to coach, that work form the many types of consumers of coaching, who want support with the various situations they deal with in the context of their lives? We could then trust that the client can determine if there is a match between who the coach is and what they offer, and between who the client is and what they want. Sometimes I believe we make things too complex (for me I feel this pull when my ego or pocketbook get involved). What could simplify this discussion? (notice that I don’t have the answer, which is much like a NDC or facilitating coach).

Vikki G. Brock
Team Lead, Hall of Fame and Virtual Museum
The Coaching Commons