It’s Official! The Client Does NOT Have All the Answers!

I quiver at the use of the term “TRUE COACH” or “TRUE COACHING”… the first question I ask is, TRUE FOR WHO?

My recent research suggested that learning occurs when BOTH the client AND the coach are NOT coming from an “I KNOW” perspective. As soon as one or the other slip into the position of “I KNOW” learning appeared to be reduced.

So if the expert-embargo has been lifted and all these coaches around the world suddenly feel they have a right to walk into their coaching sessions wearing their “I KNOW HAT”, “TRUE” LEARNING (whatever that is!) might be liable to go out the door.

For what it’s worth, I’ve heard that learning is what’s left over when people have forgotten what they’ve just been told. I wonder how much learning will be left over, after clients have forgotten everything their coaches tell them?

Kerryn Griffiths
Global ReciproCoach Coordinator
http://www.reciprocoach.com

As a PS to my last comment… on further reflection… and challenge…

Is it “official” just because the ICF says so?

Kerryn

Wow! I am wondering if the MCCs, PCCs, and ACCs who were credentialled before the ‘change’ to the new definition will still subscribe to the old thinking or embrace the new thinking?

I have been practising the ‘new thinking’ even before the change. However, I still know of coaches who still believe that the old definition is the ‘true definition’ of coaching.

Would coaches be subjected to more confusion now as a result of the change?

Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.

I’m in the process of qualifying with the UK’s biggest coaching provider and I’m wondering what my next best step will be. I agree that the process is definitely dogmatic and a half an hour assessments is pretty ridiculous even combined with 50 odd hours of coaching practice. I am eager to learn and develop for myself and the client and was puzzled by your article. I thought my next best move would be to qualify with the ICF now I’m not sure….

Wow!!!! wow, wow!!!

Hello Dave, your comment has promise.

I will be one who answers you as soon as possible.

You know… I practice the coaching that you say is NOT coaching. However, I think that there are, basically, two types of coaching (speaking methodological).

1) The non-directive coaching (that you said that is an imitation of Carl Rogers process, and for you is not coaching)

2) the facilitation-coaching (that you defend on this post, and that I said is incoherent and inconsistent).

As of today we don¬¥t know what kind of coaching will prevail… but I¬¥m sure that the second one (your kind of coaching) may have more possibilities (historically non-directive processes have not prevailed, although have survived).

However, I hope that more “crazy” as I defend a coherent and effective coaching. If not, I will have to return my MCC credentials to the ICF

PS: I´m happy because this is the first time that I read a clear position about coaching (despite disagreeing with you).

PS2: I´ll base my position very soon (although I did several times in this forum).

Ravier, I do respect your views on non-directive coaching. In fact, I have seen ‘master coaches’ who applied the non-directive coaching approach with artful mastery, not even once ‘inputing or contaminating’ the coaching conversation flow – pure genius being neutral, questions followed with seamless questions that led to coaching moments, and culminating in the coachee ‘discovering’, ‘realizing’, ‘committing’, ‘actioning’, and so forth, arriving at the coaching outcomes, yet the coachee’s experience of the coaching conversation is magical and natural! These are true coaching mastery which every coach should want to emulate and model.

My take is that, to reach such mastery level without ‘external inputs’ and through skilled non-directive coaching, harnessing the coachee’s ‘resources’ or ‘potential resources’ so that transformation metaphorizes or evolves or emerges; and at the same time, making sure that the coachee is not ‘put into a spot’ or ‘paralysis’; would mean coaching mastery that takes years of practice, talent, and strictdiscipline?

What really I am trying to say, is that, the ‘facilitative coaching’ provides a wider menu for coaches to use or call on ‘resources’ outside what are in the coachee’s ‘resources menu’. That does not mean that non-directive coaching should not be practice. It just mean that there is now more ‘options’ and ‘avenues’ for the coach to work with. Any chance of consideration to be dogmatic as well as flexible within the coaching definition (pardon me, no intention to make matters more complex)?

Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.

Hi Billy (and Dave),

I will respond in detail later. But I believe that Dave has several mistakes.

1. ICF or non-directive coaches never said that the client have ALL the answers. No man has all the answers (even the experts coaches as him : )

2. The “new” definition does not exclude the first, at all. A “creative process” is always a process that is done from within. Notice that is included in what I consider a non-directive coaching process ( http://leoravier.com/2009/02/08/el-proceso-de-coaching-y-su-esencia-creativa/ ) Any creative process requires that before there was nothing from which it drew.

3. Sincerely discredit the non-directive coaching because it looks like the client-centered therapy of Rogers is a very weak and nonsensical argument.

4. He said: “IT IS SOOOOO OBVIOUS that people are NOT experts in their own lives. How is it that anyone can continue to promote this nonsensical notion? Or worse, make it the cornerstone of the public awareness efforts of our Industry Association?” Well, I¬¥ll call on him to explain to me how to play my life… or what I have to write here : )

I don¬¥t know the meaning of “experts in their own lives”… what I know is that I own myself.

PS: This is just a preview … hopefully Dave answers me (because I see that is a copy of an article published elsewhere)

I agree with you Dave, 1000%. It has long bothered me that the ICF was touting a pale version of psychotherapy as the supposed gold standard for coaching.

I’ve wondered why there was so much institutionalized belief in the Rogerian model. Was it because too many industry-shapers are or were therapists?

From a marketing standpoint, trying to sell the concept that people should pay me to discover their own expertise is not only ludicrous, but shows a woeful lack of understanding of consumer psychology. No wonder so many coaches are struggling with a practice that never really gets off the ground.

I applaud the ICF for this redefinition, and can’t wait to see it permeate the coaching schools.

Deah Curry PhD, CPC
~ a mentor-coach boldly using my expertise
~ a psychotherapist closing down my practice
~ a graduate of an international coaching school

Ravier, I believe that we all have our perspectives (rightly so or not?). As a matter of fact, I strongly agree with you that ‘mastery’ of non-directive coaching can be the preferred skill for all coaches.

However, if we stick to the ‘philosophy’ that our responsibility as coaches include putting our coachees first; we are sometimes faced with coach-coachee relationship ‘issues’. What happens at coaching school training can sometimes be so different from coach practice. So should we stick to the ‘theoritical perspectives’ or response to the ‘practice perspectives’ as our guidepost?

In principle (correct me if I am wrong), non-directive coaching means that after ‘all avenues’ have been explored, and still the coachee is ‘stuck’, the coachee should seek other appropriate interventions (mentoring, consulting, therapy, counselling, training, etc.). In reality, although the practice of non-directive coaching is possible for those highly skilled; many coaches do ‘put on different hats’ where they are qualified to do so. I may be wrong. I believe ‘facilitative coaching’ may be a result of practice. So here we have those who practice from “coaching theoritical framework” (dogmatic); moving towards “facilitative coaching framework” (as the response from practice); and then evolving further to “XXXX coaching framework” (to arriving at the alignment that distinguish coaching as a true profession; threading on a line, acceptable to all stakeholders?)

Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.

Caveat: My comments here are my opinion and my interpretation of our discussions regarding the definition rewrite. My statements do not reflect the official position of the ICF nor the ICF Ethics and Standards Committee. My attempt here is to educate and share background information.

Dave and all,

Great to hear you weigh in on this Dave and glad you have seen and like the work we did on the Ethic Committee.

As I stated in my comments to post on coaches having coaches, you kicked off the revolution with your Myth’s of Coaching series back in 2004. Your definition was one of the models we used to construct this new definition.

What I failed to address in my previous posts on the subject is “Why three definitions?” “What was our thinking?”

The ICF continues to be, for better or worse (depending on your perspective, opinion, stance, etc), the primary coaching organization representing the coaching industry. As such we realized that we needed to have a general definition of coaching that was both broad and succinct in defining the general nature of coaching be it professional, personal, life, corporate, executive, or even sports coaching. This definition was designed for the world. Thus was born the first new definition – What is coaching. For how that was derived see the earlier posts.

The second definition: What is a professional coaching relationship?
This definition makes, in theory, a cleaner distinction between professional coaching and people’s general understanding of coaching as it relates to ad hoc coaching, coaching between friends, or even general sports coaching (though you could make the argument that you can have a professional sports coaching relationship). This definition speaks to the business agreement and respective responsibilities of the parties involved.

The third definition. What is an ICF professional coach
This third definition defines the ICF stand on the practice of coaching. This definition maintains the integrity of the Core Competencies as the benchmark for ICF Professional Coaching as well as a pledge to the ICF Code of Ethics.

Matthew Rochte
Coach for Seasoned Coaches
http://www.CoachingIntentionally.com

Hi Billy,

You asked: “However, if we stick to the ‚Äòphilosophy’ that our responsibility as coaches includes putting our coachees first; we are sometimes faced with coach-coachee relationship ‚Äòissues’. What happens at coaching school training can sometimes be so different from coach practice. So should we stick to the ‚Äòtheoritical perspectives’ or response to the ‚Äòpractice perspectives’ as our guidepost?”

Theory must guide our practice, not vice versa. And therefore, there must be consistency between both. If they (theory and practice) are “divorced” is because something is wrong inside coaching profession.

You said and asked: “In principle (correct me if I am wrong), non-directive coaching means that after ‚Äòall avenues’ have been explored, and still the coachee is ‘stuck’, the coachee should seek other appropriate interventions (mentoring, consulting, therapy, counselling, training, etc.). In reality, although the practice of non-directive coaching is possible for those highly skilled; many coaches do ‚Äòput on different hats’ where they are qualified to do so. I may be wrong. I believe ‚Äòfacilitative coaching’ may be a result of practice. So here we have those who practice from ‚Äúcoaching theoretical framework” (dogmatic); moving towards ‚Äúfacilitative coaching framework” (as the response from practice); and then evolving further to ‚ÄúXXXX coaching framework” (to arriving at the alignment that distinguish coaching as a true profession; threading on a line, acceptable to all stakeholders?)”

Well, I think is on the contrary. When client tested all other options (mentoring, consulting, therapy, counselling, training, etc.) and didn¬¥t find the solution/goal (or knows that these disciplines will not help)… non-directive coaching can be an option because, coaching, as ICF said is a “thought-provoking and creative process”. So, if somebody else has the answer (mentor, consultant, psychologist, counselor, tutor or a faciitator-coach) YOU DON¬¥T NEED TO CREATE ANYTHING (just pay for that knowledge).

PS: The definition of “What is coaching?” is an extension of that shown in the code of ethics (particularly detailed for those who are not familiar with coaching). Anyway, I deduce that the ICF is not taking a position with respect to “coaching methodology” (prefers ambiguity … that some call “integration”).

…….. I¬¥ll wait to answer other comments because I think this is the most important issue to talk about.

Ravier, L.

Ravier, as I have said, we apply and test ‘theoritical frameworks’; and in the process, and when ‘PRACTICE’ evidently point us to the need to re-think about the ‘theoretical frameworks’, we may need to come up with new thinking or practice that improve or disprove of the ‘theoretical frameworks’ (the challenges & alignment of the coach’s THEORETICAL philosophy, practice, concepts, ideas, etc.; to the coach’s PRACTICE; and the coach’s PERFORMANCE). BTW, from where I come from, ‘theoretical frameworks’ are of less importance (but still important) to my clients than ‘conceptual frameworks’ [those that address 'real-time' issues - a good example is using a 4 or 7 of 9-steps coaching process; when a 3-step coaching process can still be practically acceptable (can we discuss this sub-topic in another thread?)]

The IDEAL is that ‘theoretical’ coaching should be anchored on ‘non-directive coaching approach’. However, in the PRACTICE of coaching, emerges the need to examine other approaches -hence the proposal of the ‘facilitative coaching approach’.

Ravier, I know you are committed to ‘non-directive coaching’. I used to be so compliant to the dogmatic approaches (strictly following the ‘rules’ of what I was taught at coaching school). In practice, it became so obvious that what were taught at coaching school, may not be best or appropriate for our clients. So I always have the focus on the needs and ‘preferences’ of the coachee (what works appropriate for the coachee – a ‘non-directive coaching’ or a ‘facilitative coaching’ approach?).

We can debate forever, but for me, at the end of the day it is what appropriately work for my clients that really matter, whether ‘non-directive’ or ‘facilitative’? Anyway, we have choices to subscribe & practice the ‘non-directive’; or ‘facilitative’ approach; or in my case, both (depending on what are my clients’ preferences).

Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.

Perhaps ‘precision’ definitions of ‘non-directive coaching’ and ‘facilitative coaching’ could shed more clarity to this discussion here?

I think ‘non-directive coaching’ includes the premise that the coachee has all the ‘answers/resources/potentials’ and as such the coach should not provide ‘these’? How true is it that the coachee has all the QUALITY ‘answers/resources/potentials’ would not only depend on the coachee himself/herself, but also the mastery skills of the coach to evoke ‘them’?

‘Facilitative coaching’ includes the premise that the coachee may not have all the answers/resources/potentials’ and need ‘inputs’ from the coach? Again, to what extent is this true?

In my ‘facilitative coaching’ approach, I share ‘probable solutions’ with the coachee when he/she is stuck after ‘exhausing’ (subject to debate on my coaching skill mastery level?), using the ‘non-directive coaching’ approach first. The ‘probable solutions’ are actually not the coachee’s solution, but as one of the ‘facilitating tools’ to assist the coachee to access his/her potentials/awareness/creativity to generate solutions that are truly ‘owned’ by himself/herself. Often, the ‘probable solutions’ are followed by similar coaching questions like: “What are your thoughts on what I have shared with you to resolve the issue that we had just explored? If you are to own the solution, what changes or improvements would you be considering?…….”

Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia

FYI:

In this new study of coaching http://www.frank-bresser-consulting.com/globalcoachingsurvey.html you can find statements like this:

“There is an overall balance of directive and non-directive coaching approaches in the world”

Ravier, L.

My experience has been that When the client says, I get it…. and then I hear … Now what? The fact is… If the client had all their own answers … They wouldn’t need a coach. As a coach, I utilize empowering…. Non Directive….. Mentoring.. Directive…… And then I hold them accountable for their results. I think its a more well rounded experience for the client. Thats just how I do it….. It may or may not work for someone else.

My current MCC coach does this when it’s time to give me a few answers:

‚ÄúLet me take off my coaching hat now and tell you a story”

Or

‚ÄúI’m going to stop coaching now…”

To this MCC, ‚Äúcoaching” does not seem to involve giving me the answers, however it does form a part of most coaching sessions.

Having said that, the impact that his questions and silences have on me deliver more powerful learning than what he tells me (even though that’s helpful too). When he tells me something, I feel like I understand it on one level and then I go away and apply it. When he helps me discover something, then it really hits home and the change is automatic, almost magical.

This discussion suggests to me that coaching is reaching a new stage of maturity. That stage, when it no longer struggles to have one definition (as it has done for many years), but moves on to grow into a ‚Äútree” with different styles of coaching as branches of the same coaching tree. Just as CBT, EFT or solution-focused therapy are all ‚Äútherapy”, perhaps one day we won’t be discussing ONE definition of coaching anymore, but instead will be branching out to discuss (but not bag) different branches of coaching, such as (from this discussion alone) ‚ÄúRogerian coaching”, which may be a kind of coaching in which clients predominantly generate their own answers, or ‚Äúconsultant coaching”, in which coaches provide a fair number of answers. Already there are so many budding branches; I’m working on a learning-based coaching; there’s a book on appreciative coaching; and transformative coaching. They all draw on different theoretical bodies (education, appreciative inquiry and transformative learning respectively), which inform the coaching methods employed.

Kerryn Griffiths

Kerryn, I like your ‘tree metaphor’ where coaching could branch-off as it evolves, though ‘anchored’ from the same ‘root’. This probably provides the ‘flexibility’ for practising coaching. However, we still have not come to a consensus to the definitive answer to the question: “What is coaching?” (I am refering to the ‘root’) or have we?

The way I go around ‘explaining’ coaching is to pre-frame to my clients what they would expect – what my coaching would involve i.e. processes, limitations, perimeters, boundaries, etc.; my role as a coach; their role as my coachee; how would we measure my coaching efficiency & effectiveness; administrative aspects, etc. This will be on a case-to-case basis as I respond to the ‘needs’ & ‘preferences’ of each client.

There is no consistency for me to ‘describe’ coaching as one client may prefer the non-directive approach, while another may prefer the directive approach or another a combination of both, etc. The client’s definition of coaching is influenced by the coach-coachee relationship experience. Great because we as coaches are responding to our clients as best fit. Not so good as there are more ‘perceptual positions/understanding’ about what coaching is (possibly the cause of the lack of clarity of what coaching is, in the first place?)? Hopefully, I am not adding salt to the wound, by revisiting the question: “What is coaching?”

Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.