|
The past few years I have been intensely involved with the International Coach Federation (ICF) serving on the board since 2004, as President-Elect (2007) and President (2008).
I have had the privilege of talking with or visiting with thousands of coaches in North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Australia and New Zealand. This year I am the immediate Past President of ICF and while I am still very involved with ICF, the level of intensity has dropped substantially which means I have time for a few new activities.
It is a great place to be!
As I thought about what to write for this first post, the word respect came to mind. I travelled around quite a bit in my role as ICF President and had the opportunity to interact with coaches, human resources professionals, organization leaders and individuals considering coaching in several parts of the world.
As I engaged in conversations and demonstrations around coaching or observed others in this process, I am struck by the respect the people I met had for coaching and coaches. Organizations are embracing coaching (See Bennett and Bush article ‚ÄúCoaching in Organizations: Current trends and Future Opportunities” OD Practitioner vol. 41. No.1, 2009).
A legitimacy and respect were not very common when I started coaching in 2000.
The public knows more about what coaching is today than they did a few years back. When I say, ‚ÄúI’m a coach,” I am not asked, ‚Äúwhat sport” anymore. There is respect for this emerging profession building outside the coaching community.
What is happening within the community?
Coaches come from different backgrounds and experience. Coaches come from various fields including psychology, counseling, management, organizational development, human resources, education, law, business among others. The diversity of experience within this community allows for lots of opportunity for expanding perspective and learning.
From my interactions with coach training organizations and universities providing coaching as part of their curriculum, I suggest we are seeing people take a more professional track to become a coach than what may have occurred in the early days where people hung out their sign to say, John Smith Coach, without any training or experience.
Over the last few years, I have spoken with a number of students who planned to use their learning to assist their organizations in navigating change, achieving corporate goals, improving personal or professional effectiveness or as a step in moving toward a coaching culture.
These individuals may decide to go out on their own one day, or they could become the purchasers of coaching for their organizations. They are people with an inside appreciation and respect for what coaching really is, how skills are developed and what people need to know.
Interesting to think about and consider where we might go from here. What do you see? Where do you think we might go from here?
Tweet This
Email to a friend
There are 11 Responses so far...
On Monday, I visited with some members of the Board of Trustees of McLean Hospital, the Harvard Medical School teaching facility where the new Institute of Coaching is housed, launched by a gift from the Harnisch Fund for Coaching.
Business leaders, physicians, medical professionals and others with over a half-century of volunteer service, they had a degree of sophistication and curiosity about coaching that was impressive indeed and speaks to Diane’s points.
They were – I daresay ARE – still wondering how coaching, which is not yet built on a solid, broad foundation of evidence-based, peer-reviewed, academic research, gains purchase among the staid academics of Harvard Medical School.
But they have enough experience and knowledge to see the rationale behind providing a home and a headquarters for that research, and for promulgating “the coaching conversation” in the teaching hospital setting.
They see the value of teaching mental health professionals (McLean is the largest psychiatric hospital in the HMS system) how to engage in a “coach approach.” They understand how a coaching mentality can serve doctors, patients, and the wider world.
Diane’s word “respect” came to mind often during that conversation.
I believe you will be seeing more respect for coaching as it is earned in the eyes of society’s gatekeepers, through the kind of academic “proof” they require, and through the successful practice of coaching by people from a variety of disciplines, training modalities, and schools of thought.
Diane, thank you for what you’ve written, and for all you’ve done as a professional and in volunteer service to the profession that has helped create that climate of respect.
Thanks Ruth Ann, for your comments and for all of your work.
How exciting to see the progress in research and anticipate the future with the foundation you and the team have created!
I’ve been a practitioner rather than a researcher throughout my career – at least that’s how I saw myself. That’s changed as I’ve experienced and been connected with this research community. I’m surprised at how much I enjoy exploring the research and connecting theory and practice. My “I Love Coaching Research” button Irene Stein gave me many years ago is on my office bulletin board. I have great respect for what many of you do as researchers, and I’ve learned I can contribute in my own way as well. Great learning!
Where are we going? That is a great question.
The way I see it, ‘respect’ for the coaching profession can come from many aspects.
The basic measurement to ‘gain respect’ to me is that the coaching result/outcome sought is attained by all stakeholders concerned.
That could manifest the efficiency & effectiveness of the coaching process/style/approach, and the meeting the needs of the coachee/stakeholders (where the Corporation or third party is sponsoring the coaching ‘intervention’).
One perspective I see coaching going forward is to explore the possibilities of ‘modelling & replicating’ efficient and effective coaching methods/techniques/styles/processes that can consistently produce the coaching results we coaches want consistently.
The idea here is to propogate ‘predictive coaching outcomes’ via ‘replicative’ coaching processes. What if, by applying a certain coaching process (replicating), the likely coaching outcome could emerge?
I know the debate could be each coaching situation is unique by itself, and ‘replication’ can never produce the consistent coaching result we want. But what if, that is possible?
My experience in my coaching practice seems to point to the direction that this may be possible? For example, certain coaching questions have the tendencies to evoke ‘consistent’ responses.
Could ‘replicating’ great coaching questions (working at the micro level) provide the way forward?
What about ‘replicating’ great coaching models (working at the macro level)?
What about ‘replicating’ great coaching styles (working on the soft skills components of the coach)?
Validity, reliability and consistency of the coaching process, to me, could lead to ‘respect’ towards the coaching profession.
What are your thoughts?
Meta-cheerio.
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.
Hi Billy,
Thank you for your thoughtful and thought provoking comments. As I read and thought about ‘predictive coaching outcomes’ and ‘replicative’ coaching processes, it occurs to me that as practitioners, we do have some sense of what works and what doesn’t. We don’t necessarily repeat exactly the same process with each client, but there are likely elements that we do repeat. As you well said, there will be debate. I’m thinking it’s not that the client’s situation is unique but more that the client is unique and creates some variability making replication difficult and potentially decreasing the value and effectiveness of coaching. That said, I suspect there are opportunities for increasing consistency, effectiveness and outcome.
One practice that comes to mind is using ‘reflective practice’ for myself as a coach. I credit Dianne Stober and Leni Wildflower, while I was at Fielding, for getting me started on reflecting and documenting after coaching sessions with questions like ‘What I observed? My reaction? Client’s reaction? What theories might have come into play? What I learned and what I might do differently as a result of the learning?’ My awareness around what I do as a coach grows each time I engage in this practice. And it allowed me to write case studies for presentation and one that is published in “The Philosophy and Practice of Coaching” (Drake, Brennan, Gortz, 2008).
Carrying the practice forward, I encourage clients to engage in reflection to raise their awareness and look for the learning as well. It is new learning for most people because they haven’t taken the time to reflect, and many tend to be critical initially rather than look for what they can learn. Anyone else have this or other experieince with clients?
As I read “validity, reliability and consistency of the coaching process” it reminds me of work at ICF over the past 18 months around evaluation and enhancement of the individual credentialing process with a simlar goal in ensuring objective, valid, reliable and consistent exam/evaluation processes for the coach. More clearly understanding what happens in coaching, what works, what doesn’t, articulating the competencies and body of knowledge seem to me to be part of where we are headed as professionals and toward a profession.
Good to be here with you Billy.
What other thoughts are out there?
Diane
Thanks for starting this dialogue Diane. I loved Ruth Ann Harnisch’s comments about harvard. As you know i started specifically targetiing mental health therapists 10 years ago to move into coaching as a modality or to add coaching to their business/practice.
Even though I have trained thousands of therapists, there are many who believe they can be a coach by just changing what they call what they are doing! As we know, to really be a coach, you do have to learn new skills or new ways of delivering those skills and a different mindset from therapy.
In my first book in 2002 (2nd edition 2007), “Therapist as Life Coach” I stated: “Life coaching is a twentieth-century phenomenon with roots in early psychological theories. It is a profession still experiencing dynamic growth and change. Life coaching will no doubt continue to interact developmentally with social, economic, and political processes, draw on the knowledge base of diverse disciplines, enhance its intellectual and professional maturity, and continue to establish itself internationally and domestically. Cooperative efforts among diverse professional groups will enable life coaching to develop in more unified and collaborative ways in order to strengthen its influence.”
I believe the time has come for Coaching to be so ubiquitous that clients seek it out, and psychotherapy will be reserved for those who need treatment or recovery ….not just a diagnosis for conversations that a trained coach could provide.
Coaching is for discovery and action….therapy is for recovery and healing. And traditional psychotherapy is not as widely regarded globally, but coaching has shown to be.
I am so proud to be part of this developing profession!
To quote Patrick: “Coaching is for discovery and action…therapy is for recovery and healing”, brings us back to the question ‘what exactly is coaching?’
What I learnt at coaching schools is that coaching is NOT therapy, consulting, training, and so on. Yet in real practice, it is all of that (coaching in the context of therapy, consulting, mentoring, etc. if one is qualified), except that in say therapy, consulting, mentoring, training, and a host of communication processes, a “coaching style” is used.
To me, coaching is not about the profession, but more about the style and approach used.
So, if coaching can ‘permeate’ into many professions how can we then make coaching into a profession?
However, there are some critical distinct ‘features’ about how I operate in a coaching context i.e. it has to have at least these 4 key ingredients:
1. it has to be purpose-driven,
2. it is enabling the opening up of new perspectives and possibilities,
3. it must manifest the co-creation of solutions (or steps towards solutions) leading to evidence-based actions
4. it must ultimately be arriving at the intended permanent ‘change/outcome’ ecologically.
In coaching practices, there are many times where we will be called upon to ‘dance’ into various roles (consulting, counselling, mentoring, training, etc. – assuming we are qualified in these roles), where we can engage in these roles, but using a ‘coaching style & amp; approach’ (better not to play these roles within the coaching session itself – I provide say ‘learning materials’ in between intervals of coaching session to assist in the facilitation of the coaching session, but this is explicitly explained as NOT coaching).
What are your thoughts on my practising this way?
It might sound ridiculous, if we follow exactly what is being taught at coaching schools i.e. using a ‘socratic questioning approach’ (it may seem too ‘cold’ towards the coachee??????) especially when the ‘call/need’ is not for coaching but where ‘teaching’ would be more effectively or even therapy may be the ‘solution’. Ever experience such situations during coaching?
Coaching conversation mapping i.e. mapping the way the conversation directional flow in a pre-determined manner, can have it pros and cons compared to free style coaching conversation.
What is the objective/outcome of this coaching conversation – would it lead us to the kind of coaching conversation we want to engage in?
The issue I am raising here is, should a coach make a ‘judgment call’ on what coaching conversation is appropriate, ask for the opinion from the coachee, or just let the ‘coaching flow/energy’ decides?
This is another issue that may distinctly differentiates coaching from other professions.
Where then can coaching go from here?
Unless and until there is clarity in what coaching encompasses, with little or grey ‘similarities’ or a set of distinct differences, then coaching may not be recognizable as a ‘true profession’.
Although, there are many views including coaching has a ‘time-span’, ‘there is goal setting’, ‘coaching is a partnership’, ‘the need for content understanding is not a pre-requisite’, etc; consensus on these ‘criteria’ that manifest what coaching is or is not has yet to be agreeable and ‘standardized?
What then should be the way forward?
Meta-cheerio.
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.
Hi Billy,
You bring up some great points, and readers of these comments may want to also read the comments on the blog post “1976 Book – EST, Making Life Work” as a similar discussion is going on there.
From my perspective I see a future for coaching as the worldview on how people communicate with each other – using all the tools and skills of coaching in all aspects of their lives. That said, I’m not sure coaching needs to become a profession as we know it today. I want to see coaching become woven into the tapestry of life (much as the Professional and Personal Coaches Association foresaw in 1997), much as psychology has become woven into the fabric of living.
I suggest that we look to the broader picture of how coaching can serve humanity and the world, and how each of us can contribute to that. When we spend energy on figuring out whether we are a profession or not, our focus may be taken off the bigger picture of making a difference.
Thanks Diane for starting this thread,
Vikki Brock, Ph.D., MCC
Team Lead Hall of Fame and Virtual Museum
The Coaching Commons
I agree with Vikki that it is ideal if we could seize every moment or opportunity to coach. That is the essence of ad hoc coaching – permeating coaching as part of our everyday interactions whenever opportunity emerges. Definitely that would elevate the credibility and value that coaching brings to any conversation provided we are clear what exactly is coaching, and practising coaching ‘as it should be’?
Organizations I work with ‘understand’ the urgency to build a ‘coaching culture’ to have the competitive edge. Implementation is another thing, because ad hoc coaching is easier said than done. Why then is it so challenging to implement?
This brings us back to the issue. How can we anchor coaching as a credible ‘concept’?
My personal view is that coaching has yet to arrive at, as an ‘understood concept’ because we have still not found a ‘unifying force’/common ground that can define coaching with precision, branding, or clarity.
For example, the concept of personality has a ‘unifying force’ i.e. the Big 5 Model. What would the ‘unifying force’ for coaching look like?
Making a difference has many meanings to many stakeholders even within the ‘same context’. I am definitely on the same page as Vikki as I too would like ‘to see coaching become woven into the tapestry of life,’ though how many coaches will be on the same page will depend on the ‘agreement of such a branding strategy.’
Do we need coaching to be recognizable as a profession? If yes, should we address this issue head-on?
Either case, we still have to ravel with the issue – ‘as a profession’ or ‘as a conceptual coaching framework that serve humanity and our world’.
Now that brings us back full circle to the initial question put forward by Diane: “where are we going?”
Meta-cheerio.
Billy C H Teoh
http://www.austincharles.com.my
Thanks Pat, Vikki and Billy. I’d say we’re on the path of raising awareness, integrating coaching in work and life conversations and increasing professionalism among those who are coaches and the respective organizations. This is an ongoing journey. To be continued….
Best regards,
Diane
What fun to find this discussion! It’s nice to meet you Billy. I really connect with what you’ve written. (By the way, I’m in Asia too, in Hong Kong.)
As far as whether or not coaching should be built into a profession, I would have to say yes and no. I believe it’s useful to have the uniting forces of a profession and also the ubiquity of a ‘practice’ that is interwoven into life. We can have both, right?
Perhaps that’s why I’m drawn to the idea of creating a “‚Äòunifying force’/common ground that can define coaching with precision, branding, or clarity”, as Billy said. And I agree with the 4 key ingredients he put forward.
1. it has to be purpose-driven,
2. it is enabling the opening up of new perspectives and possibilities,
3. it must manifest the co-creation of solutions (or steps towards solutions) leading to evidence-based actions
4. it must ultimately be arriving at the intended permanent ‚Äòchange/outcome’ ecologically.
I would be tempted to add two more criteria:
5. coaching is a partnership,
6. the coach must have an equal or higher stage of development than the coachee. (While we can learn a lot from our children, for example, they are not coaching us.)
Are there any more criteria we could add? Are there any reasons these criteria aren’t appropriate for what we view as some valid form of coaching?
Thanks to all for all these enlightening words.
Thanks to you for a fascinating conversation.
I would like to suggest that the future of coaching will also include the theories and practices of American philosopher, Ken Wilber, author of over 25 books in the area of individual/cultural development (http://www.kenwilber.com/professional/books/index.html)
I have been including this work in my own coaching practices for the past couple of years with phenomenal results, results that otherwise not have materialized had I stayed with the traditional coaching models.
The effort to evolve the benefits to clients is now underway. You can learn more here:
http://www.integralcoachingcanada.com/integral_coaching.php
This effort is being led by Sean Esbjörn-Hargens, PhD.
Sean is an associate professor and Chair of the Integral Theory Program at John F. Kennedy University in Pleasant Hill, California. He is founder and Director of the Integral Research Center, which supports graduate and post-graduate research. In addition, he is the founder and Executive Editor of the Journal of Integral Theory and Practice and the co-founder of the first global Integral Theory Conference.
Sean is a leading scholar-practitioner in Integral Theory. He has worked closely with Ken Wilber for a decade operationalizing the Integral (AQAL) model in multiple contexts. He is a founding member of Integral Institute. He is currently the most published author applying the Integral model to a variety of topics: education, sustainable development, ecology, research, intersubjectivity, science and religion, consciousness studies, and play. Sean co-edited Ken Wilber’s book The Simple Feeling of Being and has just completed writing a book with environmental philosopher Michael Zimmerman called Integral Ecology: Uniting Multiple Perspectives on the Natural World.