|
The word “coach” carries a lot of power, but it may not be the best–or only word–to describe the work being done by coaches around the world, according to a new report by researchers at the Institute of Coaching at Harvard Medical School’s McLean Hospital and the Business School at Oxford Brookes University.
Carol Kauffman and Tatiana Bachkirova note that “coaching” can mean two things right off the bat: “a type of conversation” between two people (who can be parents, tutors, friends, colleagues, bosses); or a “professional service offered by a professional to a client under an explicit contract.”
When a coach takes on the secondary meaning of the word–a professional service–there are additional levels to be considered, including contracts, conditions, responsibilities, and the exact focus of the coaching being done.
Kauffman and Bachkirova argue that having two meanings of the word, and a universe of specifics involved with the second definition of coach (as professional service) can lead to untold numbers of misunderstandings: “If you see coaching as a conversation in which a topic of importance for one person becomes a focus of attention for both, then of course anyone can coach. If you see coaching as a professional practice you need to be a professional with all implications that follow from this word and the perspective becomes ‚Äòno’ – ‚ÄúNot anyone can really coach.”
The authors urge coaches to be aware of potential misunderstandings, and to address them with determined specificity: “We suggest that in any discussion of coaching it is useful to have clarity about which of these two basic views each individual holds on the nature of what they are calling coaching. Otherwise there can be two separate conversations occurring without either party knowing the other is discussing something quite different.”
So how can coaches define their work? Be specific.
“The ambiguity of the term ‚Äòcoaching’ should not be a good excuse for coaches to be vague and overambitious about what they can offer,” write Bachkirova and Kauffman. “In a field of such diversity, the best practice for coaches is to be explicit about the areas of expertise. The four questions discussed here can be used as a responsible way to define ones own coaching practice.”
The authors suggest answering four essential questions:
• Identifying what your coaching is designed to achieve (What is it for?) -
Improving performance
• Identifying what specific elements of your coaching process are (What does it involve?) РCognitive-behavioural models and procedures
• Identifying contexts of coaching (Where is it?) РOrganisational contexts (may be being more specific what sector and type of business)
• Identifying type of population that coaching serve (Who is it for?) -Executives
Addressing the specifics, the researchers suggest, may be as beneficial for the coach as it will be for the client: “After all, it is the sign of developmental progress for an individual to face the nature of the self and discover that it may not be what they thought it would be. So probably in the same way, we as the whole field, are ready for a similar challenge.”
The authors’ complete work is published in the latest issue of Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice.
NOTE: The Harnisch Foundation is the founding funder of The Institute of Coaching at Harvard Medical School’s McLean Hospital.
Tweet This
Email to a friend
There are 4 Responses so far...
Implicit in your suggestion of the four questions to answer to define your coaching practice, is that there is only one answer to each question. If the population that you serve, for instance, includes “executives, small business owners, and parents”, you should be looking to narrow that down…because by trying to appeal to all of those markets, you lessen your attractiveness to all.
If you find yourself trying to put multiple answers in the four questions, it may be time to rethink your strategy and target market, and start getting a lot more specific!
‘Be specific’ to me is a positioning strategy. It by far does not fully explain the range of versatility a coach can be engaged in.
Although a coach may be primarily be engaged in ‘performance coaching’, it is very likely within the coaching process itself there will be many ‘developmental’ and ‘transformational’ experiences that the coachee goes through with the coach, even though the primary objective is to ‘improve’ the coachee’s performance; using a specific coaching methodology (grounded on a specific platform – developmental psychology, positive psychology, cognitive psychology, NLP, cybernetics, semantics, ontology, etc. etc.); under a specific context (Organizational, personal, team, etc. settings); and with specific measurements of coaching success (KPIs, behavioural change, paradigm shifts, physical evidences, etc.).
Without having full access to the research paper, I am interpreting the four questions as ‘pre-framing’ questions i.e. a ‘tool’ to identify the coach’s most appropriate positioning, for branding purpose.
Pre-framing is a process where we coaches go through to set the stage to be more efficient, effective, and meaningful in our coaching. For example, I almost always start off by pre-framing: “My role here would include asking questions, which may be outside your comfort zone at times, in order for you to discover your needs, potentials, solutions, and the many things that would make the difference for you. Would you be game for it?” (The pre-framing process would include ‘information’ of all the above four questions).
What are your thoughts on positioning and ‘segmenting’ our target markets? Would that increase our ‘attractiveness’ to our target markets, and in what ways would that reduce our ‘attractiveness’ to our non-segmented markets?
Meta-cheerio.
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.
The Odinet website will be posted in English and German in 5 more days. It pretty much shows what some of us are doing in order to build a future for coaching. At times it looks as if we were busier seeking ways to broaden our practice, attract more clients and design better results for us than for our clients. So far, only a handful have shown interest in exploring different answers to the question “What makes someone a professional coach?”. In my opinion, the future of coaching depends on our having an answer to that question, which is not the same as asking what coaching is. As Mark accurately points out, anyone can call him/herself a coach. Associations have no official recognition and -so far- have carefully evaded answering that question. It is possible to see the profession as a “set of skills”, but -even in that case-, training in those “skills” is enough to be a professional. Would any of us be willing to undergo surgery under the hands of a surgeon who is technically perfect but knows little about anatomy and physiology?
If coaching were like any other of the traditional professions, it would require much more effort to become a coach (and to be able to apply to any of the associations that enable us to write letters after our name) and few people would be interested in becoming a coach. As it now stands, coaching is a relatively easy way to enter into a field in which results are difficult to measure and/or assess. Coaching is here to stay…is it? How long will it take until we realize that the future of our profession lies in our defining standards. Regardless of the theory that sustain each coaching school, there has to be a theoretical frame to sustain the practice, but training professionals under these conditions would stop being the lucrative business it is when we offer people to become “professionals” (and even “international coaches”?!) in a week end. May be it¬¥s time to lift our heads and stop looking at our own belly buttons and start looking at those we may serve by becoming real PROFESSIONALS.
Diana, your question: ‚ÄúWhat makes someone a professional coach?” is still a debate that has yet to arrive at an universally agreed conclusion, acceptable to all stakeholders including practising coaches. The initiative of the UK Coaching Bodies Roundtable and similar other initiatives may assist in the arrival of ‘universally acceptable’ coaching standards & practices (whether as universal professional standards & practices or cross-recognition of professional standards, etc.)?
When there are agreed universally accepted coach’s competencies & standards (with as accurate as possible assessing & measurable indicators of levels of the professional coach’s skill sets, behaviours, traits, and professional practice code of conduct); agreed fair, consistent, reliable ‘mechanisms’ to validate professional coaching practice (including evidence-based evaluations of coaching effectiveness); and a rigorous credentialling process which may include assessments, feedbacks, and evaluations from all stakeholders including evidences of effectiveness of practices FROM the perspectives of the coachees (perhaps a self, peer, mentor/supervisor-coach, external assessors and coachee evaluation process or XXX degrees approach?); the ‘professional coach’ could then become definable and distinguishable?
At the end of the day, professional standards & practices are merely ‘guidelines/frameworks/codes’; and only the coach himself/herself can consistently manifest his/her coaching professionalism by living & breathing the the universally accepted professional coach’s ‘guidelines/frameworks/codes’. Perhaps the coachee/client should be the ultimate decider?
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.