Comments on: Coaching Research Update: Know Your “Hats”

By: Linda Ballew

Linda Ballew — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:24:22 +0000

Irene, applause for this research! Everyone wears different hats each day both professionally and personally. This article brought a new awareness for me of what hats I’m wearing and why. Thanks so much!

By: Irene Stein

Irene Stein — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:41:09 +0000

Mark, Thanks for pointing out my article in “Coaching.” I would be glad to chat with anyone who wants to know more about the “hats.” I gave a presentation to the ICF Research SIG a few months ago and would gladly present to other virtual venues. If others have questions, just contact me at irenestein@att.net. And I love the picture of the hat stack!
Irene

By: Paul Slater

Paul Slater — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:45:37 +0000

I really like the idea of coaching hats as a way of gauging how I’m operating or the role I’m fulfilling during a session with a client. Reflecting on how a session went is something I have always done, usually nothing more sophisticated that a mind-map of how I perceived the interaction went. From now on though I will also consider the ‘hats’ I have used and see if that sheds any light on how successful the engagement is.

By: Hazel Brief MSW

Hazel Brief MSW — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 06:19:23 +0000

Thanks for reminding me/we coaches of the flexbility and “fun” we need to be having in our sessions. Allowing and encouraging us to take off our hats, try others on is a great example to our clients. We are always encouraging them to reach outside that comfort zone, stretch a bit and see where you go. This is great advice for coaches too! I look forward to trying on some new hats and exploring!

By: Billy C H Teoh

Billy C H Teoh — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 04:55:37 +0000

There are many coaching systems that incorporate some sort of framework within their coaching processes where a coach engages in the appropriate ‘role/hat’. An example is inducing ‘motivation’ to change by challenging or awakening (the role as Challenger or Awakener); provoking ‘decision’ to change by probing or provoking; actualizing ‘solutions’ via the role as co-creator or facilitator/encourager/supporter of ‘solutions’; testing the viability of ‘solutions’ by seeking evidences and solidifying the ‘solutions’; etc., etc.

So the coach can ‘dance’ between different roles/hats within a given coaching session to arrive at the purpose-driven coaching outcomes. This I see is coaching at the ‘micro-level’ where a coach could be in the role/hat as ‘Listener’, ‘Challenger’, ‘Feedbacker’, ‘Feedforwarder’, ‘Re-focuser’, ‘Pattern detector’, ‘Future pacer’, ‘Metaphorer’, ‘Reframer’, ‘Re-experiencer’, ‘Recurser’, ‘Polarity integrater’, ‘Soul retriever’, ‘Perceptual processor’, ‘Entity processor’, and the many other roles/hats (that are part and parcel of any particular coaching method/philosophy/system/school of thought/etc.) that may be required to hold and achieve the purpose-driven coaching conversation.

Another interesting approach is to coach via the ‘macro-level’, where the coach, coaches based on coaching conversation types. Examples include the ‘committment conversation’ (for example: the goal of the coaching conversation is to unblock the coachee’s lip service, and enable the coachee’s to practice authentic committment), ‘dissent conversation’, ‘possiblity conversation’, etc., etc.

So with so many ‘roles/hats’ and so many coaching conversation types available to the coach, should we hold on to only one coaching school of thought, or should we open ourselves to where the limit takes us, or is there really a limit?

Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.