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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.