|
In whatever way coaching resembles the Professional culture as identified by Bill Bergquist and Vikki Brock in our forthcoming coaching anthology, it may indeed be useful to think about coaches as artisans. In a paper I wrote recently, I described it as follows, “it is a new era in which coaches are seen as people who are skilled in an applied art and master craftspeople who can adapt, as necessary, the mediums through which they deliver their work. As coaching matures, those who continue to excel, will do so by weaving together the strands of science and practice at higher levels.”
As Stacey Basting requested in her post, I have uploaded a pre-press version of the article, “Finding our way home: Coaching’s search for identity in a new era“. I would love to get people’s reflections. The paper attempts to place coaching within an historic and developmental context as the basis for decisions about its future, e.g. the relationship(s) with science and evidence. One of the gifts of the Coaching Commons as it grows will be as a forum to help coaching professionals position our field in the existing landscape while at the same time evolve new ways of thinking about what it means to be a profession. I believe we can do so with vigorous and rigorous imagination and courage.
Tweet This
Email to a friend
There are 3 Responses so far...
David,
Thank you so much for sharing your article. I love how it encourages us to look with new eyes at our evolving field.
Thinking of coaching as a movement rather than a profession greatly intrigues me. I often describe coaching as exploring the “hows”, rather than the “whats” or the “whys” in our lives. I wonder: As coaches, if we’re all about seeing things differently and exploring alternatives…does it really make sense that we would build a box for ourselves as a profession? Are we simply falling into the same trap that we assist our clients out of? As you say…have we thought about what the ramifications of this approach might be? I have a friend who works in several arenas – consulting, politics, and education. While she is trained as a coach, she does not take on the label. She views coaching as her tool, not her profession. What if we looked at that model on a grander scale. Interesting!
Another field we may learn from is Adult Learning. In the arena of Adult Learning, traditional approaches, such as university classes and executive trainings, have become commodified (ala Karl Marx). They are packaged and sold using a problem/solution paradigm. The executive clients I’ve been speaking to in my research have shared that what they value in coaching is the individualization–the art of coaching–not the package of strategies they’ve encountered in course materials or how to leadership books. They make individual connections with individual coaches as human beings and artfully design a new perspective on the world for the client. Given my experience with Adult Learning, I would hate for coaching to ever become commodified!
This got me to thinking… Many coaches have left professions driven by rationality and science. What is it that drove us away from those fields? Why is it that we embraced coaching as an alternative? What a great research project this could be!
And once we find that out….how can we protect those precious aspects of coaching as we continue to evolve and grow?
David – here are thoughts from a fellow pot stirrer. I hope you love a good dialog…wink!
The only fork I see is a strong need by a more intellectually driven community to define something in such a way that they then can justify their desire to pursue what otherwise would challenge their justification for being an intellect.
Why is there this unrelenting need to compare coaching with something it is not?
If this discusion is going to hold any kind of value, the distinction of what coaching is and isn’t would be most helpful…so, in it purest form…what is coaching?
Coaching is an intentional form of communication built on listening, curiosity, inquiry and acceptance.
Anyone, and I do mean anyone, in any moment, can be masterful at communicating as such.
One of the most provocative elements of the coaching movement is the sense of “FREEDOM!” The ability (permission to be) to simply be who and what we are without condition or judgment. This goes against all social conditioning! It’s time for a change!
Rather than share my bias on certification, I simply make the point with these questions: how many coaching certifications are available today and who is it that’s going to lay claim to defacto standard?
The article for me has a great sense of urgency and what I know is this: the urgency is not a product of coaching itself, rather it is the product of a subset of coaches and their need to quantify or even justify their value.
Coaching itself does not seek anything…and as for it’s roots…well…hmmm…how long have we humans been around?
Once you place a proprietary framework around the process of coaching you are no longer speaking entirely of coaching. In fact I would argue that coaching at that point is only a very small part of the discussion.
The beauty of coaching in it’s purest form is that there are no intellectual barriers, no social barriers, simply put there are no barriers. Any barriers that are presented, depending on the associated agenda, will only add to “domestication” as coined in the book “The Four Agreements” in varying degrees.
I guess for some there is an “unprecedented phenomenon” — all I see is a group of people saying “I’m ready to claim what has been taken, through social conditioning for so many generations, from me!”
Notice how there has never been a push to certify or define the self-help world…why is that?
Perhaps because it is most often incomplete, with occasions of brillance, and most importantly it has never intruded or threatened an established domain of commerce and intellect…coaching on the otherhand is effective, result oriented and does intrude in what some feel is their domain of commerce and intellect.
If we as a group are really concerned about the well being of coaching I suggest that the solution does not lie in a formal definition or professional designation. Rather it lies in preserving the open architure and form that is inherently coaching in it’s purest form.
Just once, if we could get over this need to validate and justify, and pay attention to history, perhaps we can choose to play and live by a new set of rules…as few as possible!
Quit trying to hold onto to something that is not meant to be held.
Coaching is not seeking a place within the broader scholarly and professional landscape. People are seeking that position for coaching! Let’s be clear about this!
Coaching itself does not have an agenda! People do!
James
Are coaches artisans?
To me that depends on the coaching interactions they engage in during their ‘structured’ coaching sessions.
Coaching can be art as well as science? Am I correct to see coaching from both these perspectives – art as navigating the coaching conversation between the coach’s frames and the coachee’s frames of references, to arrive at given coaching outcomes + science in employing meticulous ‘replicative methodologies’ that would bring about ‘change’ to attain the given coaching outcomes?
For example. I do approach a coaching session by ‘pre-determining’ the ‘directional flow’ of how the coaching session should proceed i.e. work within the ‘timeframe’ for each of the coaching conversation stage as I move from the ‘Review’ stage to the ‘Lesson Learnt/Transferance’ stage (see below for brief explanation), though the dynamics & fluidity of the coaching conversation will always go with or ‘dance around’ the coaching conversation flow states, energy levels, and ‘discoveries’.
A brief description of the ‘coaching conversation stages/flows’ below.
Through my coaching practices, a coaching mapping model was developed: RGOCIAL Model (copyright) Austin Charles.
Within each ‘coaching conversational stage’, there are specific models/techniques/methods/processes that further refined the coaching processes. For example, using the pre-qualifying and precensing questioning methodologies (part of the 6Ps + 3Ps coaching questioning types), or the simple three steps “IEA” processes, say when into Well-formed Problem/Gap Analysis Conversation stage, or using the Kepner-Tregor ‘problem analysis’ processes instead, etc.
#1. Well-formed Review Conversation (Objectives include diagnostics/reviewing previous agreed plan of actions/anchoring the conversation for positive performance, developmental, transformational, remedial or generative change)
#2. Well-formed Problem/Gap Analysis Conversation (Objectives include gauging the current situation)
#3. Well-formed Outcome Conversation (Objectives include setting meaningful & aligned goal or outcome in which to work on, within the coaching session itself)
#4. Well-formed Commitment Conversation (Objectives include verification of the decision and committment to handle the issue at hand, and work towards the attainment of the agreed coaching goal/outcome)
#5. Well-formed Innovative Solution Conversation (Objectives include the exploration, generation, and creation of viable attainable solutions that will lead to reaching the goal/outcome)
#6. Well-formed Action Plan/Solidification Conversation (Objectives include the conceptualization and mapping of the action plans, testing the viability of the action plans and solidifying the action plans via evidence-based procedures i.e. coaching action plans are evidence-based, and value-based)
#7. Well-formed Lesson Learnt/Transferance Conversation (Objectives include evidences of some form of ROI of the coaching processes i.e. answering the question: ‘has this coaching session being efficient, effective, adding value, meaningful, and will lead to actioning and results?’)
To ensure high quality of the coaching processes at each conversational stage, the ‘pre-qualifying and precensing questioning’ techniques are imbedded as looping processes.
Now since each ‘coaching conversation stage/flow’ uses the ‘art of coaching’ as well as sometimes ‘replicative’ and ‘scientific’ techniques, is it fair to view coaching beyond ‘artisan’s skills’?
What are your thoughts on my ‘breaking up’ my coaching session into ‘conversation segments’, and mapping the coaching conversation?
Could ‘defining’ the art of coaching & the science of coaching, bring better clarity of what coaching distinctively should be, and once and for all, provide us the ‘unifying force’ & ‘identity’ (I am presupposing that there will be debate here again?) that we coaches, for a long time deserve.
Meta-cheerio.
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.