|
Kim G√∏rtz is doing a minor investigation in regard to the utility of coaching. Here’s how you can join in.
Topic: A Global Perspective on a Specific Point in Regard to the Utility of Coaching (the limitations)
Just answer these two questions:
What can coaching do (and perhaps does)?
Please write no more than 1-3 issues/themes.
Example: It can bring joy, power and clarity
What can coaching NOT do (and perhaps never)?
Please write no more that 1-3 issues/themes.
Example: It cannot make people grow wings, walk on the water… (sorry for the bad example) Рbut you know; please sketch the limit of the utility of coaching)
Send your response to Kim G√∏rtz at kg@copenhagencoaching.dk before February 27, 2009.
Who’s Kim G√∏rtz ? Kim G√∏rtz studied philosophy and psychology at the University of Copenhagen, where he earned a Master’s degree in 1997. He has since taught at the Copenhagen Business School, Roskilde University and the University of Southern Denmark. Via his many-year association with the Institute of Management, Politics and Philosophy at the Copenhagen Business School, Kim has achieved a good understanding of the dominant trends and issues in business economics.
For the past four years, Kim G√∏rtz has been involved in various forms of business economics practice, helping to train business coaches, consulting for large private firms and advertising bureaus in communication projects (storytelling, copywriting, etc.), and giving lectures, workshops and seminars with special focus on ‚Äúvalue work” and Value-based management in firms. Kim has also been network moderator for several contexts where ‚Äúvalue work” has been important, both theoretically and practically.
For the last three years, Kim’s interests have increasingly been in the field of organisational learning, coaching, leadership, creativity, engagement and innovation, and this interest is reflected in his publications. He has just finished his cooperation with Nordea Bank A/S (the biggest bank in Scandinavia) and Learning Lab Denmark, The University of Education around an industrial Ph.D.-project. Here he has made a foundational research on coaching in business in relation to increased engagement and innovation.
Kim G√∏rtz has been running a ‚ÄúCoach-Caf√©” for a two years and have so far published seven books and several articles on philosophy, coaching and values in business-life: ‚ÄúThe Openness of Thought” (2003 in Danish), ‚ÄúLeadership with Values.” (2003 in Danish), ‚ÄúThe Philosophical Performance in business-life” (2007 in Danish), ‚ÄúCoaching in Perspective” (2008 in Danish), ‚ÄúCoaching for advanced” (2008 in Danish), ‚ÄúThe Philosophy and Practice of Coaching” (2008 at Wiley) and ‚ÄúValues with Meaning” (2008 in Danish). Before Christmas 2008, he delivered his Ph.D. Kim is now working as a senior-consultant at Copenhagen Coaching Center.
Tweet This
Email to a friend
There are 16 Responses so far...
I couldn’t get the link to go through successfully so I thought it may be interesting to share my thoughts here and see what others think?
What can coaching do (and perhaps does)?
Coaching can free, empower, create possibilities
What can coaching NOT do (and perhaps never)?
I think you need to be ready to be coached. And if you aren’t, at least open to the idea of change. If you aren’t open and don’t want to change, then it’s likely that the actions won’t transpire. You need to start pre-coaching almost if there is no desire for action.
Thanks Kim for asking the questions and Claire for sharing your thoughts. I agree with you as to what coaching can do and you are right on target with people needing to be ready to coach. As I look at what my clients have shared with me over the years I come up with the answers below:
What can coaching do (and perhaps does)?
Allow people to be heard, to share thoughts, and to be themselves in a safe environment
What can coaching NOT do (and perhaps never)?
Fix you and your life; make you happy; or tell you who you are.
Vikki G. Brock, Ph.D., MCC
http://www.vikkibrock.com
What can coaching do (and perhaps does)?
Coaching can allow people to “take another look”…to be an observer of themselves and what is around them…to see from a different place that may allow more choices for action.
What can coaching NOT do (and perhaps never)?
Coaching will never lead a person away from being his authentic self.
What can coaching do (and perhaps does)?
Effective Coaching can and does : bring out potential we never thought existed; build people to be comfortable about their strengths and give a lot of satisfaction- to coach and coachee alike.
What can coaching NOT do (and perhaps never)?
Coaching cannot and perhaps never : will make you change if you don’t want to change.
Coaching can inspire, catalyze, support; also provide collaboration and a sounding board.
Coaching cannot heal deep psychological issues; make clients do what they don’t want to do.
Jerri Udelson, MCC
Coaching can identify the embers, and fan a flame into fire.
It cannot start a fire by itself.
Coaching can and does provide a time and space for learning in a context of acceptance and respect where it is safe to explore fear and contradictions. Then -and only then- we can start designing who we want to become, which is when the learning process starts.
It cannot deal with psychological issues unless the coach has a background that enables him/her to do so.
Coaching can provide an exclusive time and moment in a safe space to let a person openly to express and reflect, from which clarity could be searched within himself/herself with the present of the coach in support.
Coaching cannot help paying your bill. (but can help you to clarify why there is a bill outstanding, why you could not afford to pay and what would you like to see happen to change the situation, then how to achieve it.)
What coaching can do?
It can challenge any limiting belief or assumption and free the coachee to puruse a whole new game.
It can form a plan to move any goal ahead, in which there is value and meaning to the client.
What coaching can NOT do?
It cannot really make any fundamental behavioral change in an indvididual unless he/she is committed to it for a long term.
“You cannot wake up a person who refuses to wake up” (Navajo saying)
It cannot bring self-esteem to a person who does not have it in there somewhere already…the line to therapy is very thin but it IS THERE!
Re-reading Bonnie Chan¬¥s comment, in my understanding of what coaching is and is not,(“…can help you to clarify why there is a bill outstanding, why you could not afford to pay and what would you like to see happen to change the situation, then how to achieve it.)the “why” (cause)question will trigger an explanation related to the past, whereas asking “what” questions (what are you going to do from now on, what is your commitment re paying your bills, what actions can/will you perform so that you can change the pattern (in case there is one). What I mean is that referring to the past (why questions)can be counterproductive. It is the commitment to designing a different future what motivates change.
My understanding was of a quick and spontaneous reply.
Can
Coaching can assist and develop leadership potential
Coaching can enlighten and inspire coachees to better professional and private lives.
Can not
Coaching cannot work without trust and reciprocal alliance.
Coaching cannot be used for quick fixes
What coaching CAN DO will greatly depend on the skills of the coach, and the motivational intent of the coachee to go from where he/she is now (whatever the coaching goal and context is) to the targeted outcome. Coaching can do ‘wonders’ only when there are ‘perceptual shifts & evidenced-based actions’, whether they come from the coach’s skills of explorations within the coachee’s perceptual maps & frames or through deliberate instigations of the coach’s perceptual maps & frames onto/to the coachee (whatever the coaching strategy applied by the skilled coach). When there are positive changes in the coachee’s perceptual maps and frames that would move towards the coaching outcomes, then the magic of coaching happens. So for me, coaching can do many things only if correlated to the coaching outcomes sought. What then makes coaching works?
Coaching CANNOT DO what other interventions works best or are more appropriate. There are many times that coaching is NOT the answer. In any coaching session context, there will be many times a coach may be required to put on various hats or roles (though still applying a coaching style). For example, a coach may be playing a consulting/mentoring role (if qualified to do so), but uses a ‘declarative/procedural knowledge’ coaching style, or playing a counselling role (if qualified to do so), appropriately using a ‘metaphoric’ or ‘historical perspective’ coaching style. Coaching possibly would not be appropriate where intervention works require other more sophisticated structural, processing, systemic and human potential developmental approaches. What would determine when coaching is inappropriate?
Meta-cheerio.
Billy C H Teoh
http://www.austincharles.com.my
Re Billy Teoh´s answer to the questions, it is sooooo easy to agree with those who think as we do!!! He somehow expressed exactly what I think.
The last quesiton he poses (What then makes coaching work?) is one for which I don¬¥t think there is one single answer, or at least one that will satisfy us all, specially those of us who think that good intentions and a 40 or so hours course is enough to turn just anybody into an “international coach” (as if being ¬¥international¬¥had to do with a paper that states so), including abilities for executive coaching, organizational coaching, life coaching… you name it. Regardless of the theoretical frame that informs the coach or the model used, unless there is an explicited theory (or even theories)to support the intervention and plenty of experience, it relates to actual coaching in a similar way as that of a mother applying a band aid to her child¬¥s injure knee. It helps, but it does not turn her into a physician.
Unless change is sustainable and can be replicated over and over, in my opinion it does not fall under the “coaching” category.
Moreover, not being alert to the limitations of coaching (even with capital C)can be not only ineffective but downright counterproductive.
I kind of like Diana’s idea that coaches should be using coaching processes that would translate into coachees”sustainable desired changes’. This normally happens when there are ‘substantial transformational shifts’ in a coachee’s frames of a particular issue, or a shift in values, or beliefs, or views from the coachee’s status quo, that would lead to sustainable changes.
The coach’s work manifests itself when these sustainable changes/shifts happen. More often than not, the coachee may become more aware, or realize something that is his/her ‘blindspot’, or sees a ‘new perspective’ of the issue (this could be temporary shifts/awareness). The coach could then ‘navigate’ into areas of sustainable change/shift (commonly through various techniques like NLP, EFT, Neurosemantics, etc. etc.) with the intent to make the change/shift ‘permanent’?
As with any change, whether behavioural, innate or otherwise, sustainability requires some consistent ‘repeats’, ‘evidence of benefits’ of the new change/shift, belief in the change/shift, coachee’s ‘motivation’ to sustain the change/shift, and ‘WIIFM to sustain the change/shift’. The onus is on the coachee to get it happening and sustaining. The coach’s responsibility is to facilitate the process to achieve the sustainability of the desired change/shift. Would a ‘temporary shift/self-awareness’ constitute as a good coaching process?
A coach should facilitate the process to make things happen for the coachee to achieve his/her desired ‘ecological’ coaching goals/outcomes, yet the ‘real transformation’ is really up to the coachee. So to me sustainability can only happen if the coachee ‘perceives’ and is ‘convinced’ that the change/shift is of utmost necessity, importance, and value.
As with the issue of ‘certification’. I view ‘certification’ as declarative knowledge, with some level of procedural knowledge – some coaching courses do require some form of demonstrable coaching skills; though not necessarily validating coach’s performance skills.
Coaching skills can only be honed by practice, practice, and practice, and for me a lot of experimentations. Doing what it takes to make the coaching processes efficient and effective should be what coaches should constantly be doing. For example, in my case, I have even used a blend of local dialects and jargons and ‘structured coaching questions (that would seemed ‘ridiculous’ to get to the heart of the issue)’ to get the coaching process effective.
I believe, and that is my belief, that the coachee’s ‘interests’ should be at the forefront of any coaching conversation (though there are always ‘conflicts of interests’ if the co-stakeholders happened to be the team, or Organization of the coachee – how would we as coaches then ‘assimilate’ and ‘align’ co-stakeholders’ needs?)
I guess for a coach like myself, having the courage that coaching just ain’t working and acknowledging it is something that is part of my responsibility and accountability. Many times I have experienced ‘chemistry incompatability’ (for me it is important to establish and determine if the coaching relationship would work upfront, and that my coachee feels comfortable working with me and vice-versa). Also it is important, at least for me to acknowledge that I myself as a coach am not perfect, and there are many times that the coaching relationship is going nowhere (usually amiable agreement to ‘freeze’ or disengage – most of the time because the coachee is no longer able to commit to the coaching process or requires some other interventions like counselling, training, etc., before continuing with the coaching relationship or just that the ego-strengths of either the coachee or coach are diminishing).
What could a coach do, if the Organization ‘insists’ on assigning a coachee that is ‘coachable’ but find difficulty in ‘chemistry’ with the assigned coach? What then can the coach and/or the Oganization do beside changing to another coach?
Interestingly, although coaching to me is supposed to be purposed-driven, in reality, coaching when purposed-driven can be very challenging. What do you think?
Meta-cheerio.
Billy C H Teoh
http://www.austincharles.com.my
In my opinion, unless we ask ourselves some basic questions, finding a common ground from where to start thinking together will continue to be unattainable. What does “coaching” aim at producing? and -to me- “bringing out the best in the coachee” is not a valid answer, since it could be used in dozens of other domains; What theories inform the coaches profession? Is it a profession or a set of skills; Do we want it to be a profession? What are the advantages and what the setbacks of making such a decision?
Back in 2003, Alan Sieler stated that “If coaching is to gain credibility as a professison, it is essential that coaching practice be informed by rigorous and substantive theory”. Regardless of what sort of theory informs the practice, that practice will be a function of the interpretation the coach has about what it means to be a human being…
I the last 15 years, zillions of coaches have bloomed which promise people from all walks of life that they can become coaches in either a week end (received one such invitation some hours ago), via telephone conversations plus some reading and writing. By the same token, everyone (or just about) is teaching how to become a coach in 5 easy steps, whereas no one is willing to teach us how to become a loyal follower.
I was initially trained as an Ontological Coach and that still constitutes the basis of my practice, but not the only theoretical frame that informs my doing or that of some of the coaches it has been my honour and pleasure to train. I still don¬¥t understand what a “provocative question” is and some of us who have had the chance to coach abroad have learnt (the hard way in many cases), that what is “provocative” in one setting/listening/culture is a no-no in others!!!!
Sustainable change -in my experience- is the result of the commitment of both coach and coachee to produce a shift in the observer. It takes time, respect, trust, a toolkit and a first aid case. It takes broad shoulders to support uncertainty; courage to question one´s deepest beliefs and values; honesty to see that many times our actions are not a manifestation of those values.
Corporate Social Responsibility, for example, refers to TBL in broad terms we all agree with, but it says nothing about layoffs, and some of us have had to deal with managers who have had to fire dozens, hundreds, even thousands of people…
Leadership, empowerment, authentic self… what are we talking about? What do we mean when we use the “BIG” words? What do our clients expect from us and what is needed so that we can be of use?
I agree with Billy Theo that the real transformation is up to the coachee, but it is the coach who has to create the context for “coaching to happen”.
As for the issue of certification, it should be as rigorous as in any other professsion, although -if that were the case coaching schools and associations would probably stop being the lucrative business they now are.
Hi all of you
thank you very much for all your comments – and all your beautiful thoughts, supporting in spirit…
you are everyone simply making this world a better place to be a part of…
coach-planet…
Kim