What Are We NOT Looking @?

Hey, Ruth Ann

Good points!

You may know I’m a huge champion of peer-reviewed research, and you may also know that there is a substantial group of coaches who are not convinced of the need for research in coaching. I think it’s important for the people who are doing research to have the enthusiastic support of coaches who stand to benefit. So far, however, I don’t think we’ve directly addressed the concerns some coaches have. I would guess that the fear is that if they don’t do coaching in a specific way, it won’t be recognized as legitimate. No one wants to be pressed into a mold. I also think there is a suspicion about people with all those letters after their names that makes some coaches feel like “nobodies.”

I’d like to see an open discussion about this on the Commons, perhaps led by a non-researcher, but with Mary Wayne or one of her people on the call to answer questions and clearly define the distinctions of “evidence-based coaching” vs “belief-based coaching,” which is what we have now. Most of the research I’ve read has been done by psychologists turned coaches. These psychologists have been trained in research by virtue of their education, so research, citations and bibliographies are second nature to them. In fact, it’s required if the work expects credibility.

I think it would also be important to address any coach’s fears head-on. What exactly are the pluses and minuses for the average coach? What are the myths around the effect of research on us and our practices? What good is it? Who would suffer from it?

I made my point a few paragraphs ago, yes?! Any ideas about how this could happen, if you think it has value?

best, shirley

Note: One last comment, if I may. I had an epiphany about this several weeks ago when I started responding to Bill Dueease’s blog about who is and who isn’t a coach, including some comments about the early days of coaching and Thomas’s part in it. As I was typing my comments, I realized that it was just my opinion against his; just my perception against his; my memories against his. It occurred to me that if I wanted my comments to carry any weight, I would need to dig into my files and quote directly from them, then make them available for others to read and check if my interpretation was correct. In other words, I would need to take the trouble to do RESEARCH — to counter his opinions with evidence. Since I wasn’t willing to take the time, I stopped writing. This was a Blog, not an industry paper. So, let it go, Shirley. Not surprisingly, I came upon a discussion about responsible blogging and the dangers inherent in the freedom of the World Wide Web. But that’s another discussion.

best, shirley

Dear Shirley et al,

As always, right on the cutting edge.

And also, as you know from our many hours of personal conversation on this subject over the years, I think clients should be able to be coached by anyone they choose, regardless of formal training or credentialing.

As Dave Buck says, “You can’t legislate a deep conversation.”

And as I say, “Just because you’ve got intials after your name doesn’t mean you know how to coach effectively OR that you’re the right coach for a particular client at a particular time for a particular situation.”

Credentialing is an agreed-upon set of standards, agreed-upon by the people who wrote them and the people they could convince to go along (and pay!).

And we are already issuing invitations to expand the dialogue about research to include stakeholders other than Ph.D.s and doctoral candidates.

Who do YOU think should be at the table? Name names or give categories, such as “people who hire coaches,” or “people with no credentials but considerable coaching experience.”

Ruth Ann:

I just wrote an eloquent (IMHO) response to your question, but it seems WordPress identified it as an invalid something or other and not only didn’t accept it, but also blew it away. I can’t re-create it now, but i’ll try again later.

shirley

ps: if it went to some secret place on the Coaching Commons and you can find it, please post; it was worthwhile. sa

Greetings Shirley and Ruth Ann, this is my first post here and I am very excited about this forum!
I read both of your comments a few times and this is what came up for me.

As a Ph.D., and very interested in this discussion on research/evidence based coaching, I hope we leave the door wide open for everyone – including those who may “have letters after their names” because included in this group I am sure, are those who have many perspectives on this subject.

I for one have been very skeptical of not only evidence based research in the coaching field, but also coaching credentials developed by and administered by credentialing organizations. My concerns stem from cultural/racial biases and possible misuse of these processes. So, it is my hope that we keep the process open so we can learn from each other- perhaps new conceptions on this and a range of topics on what I consider a very important topic.

So, who do I think should be “at the table”? My vote is that EVERYONE who has a voice on this topic should be.

Thanks for providing this space for my voice!
Be! Well,
Charlyn

Hi Ruth Ann, Lynn here

At the risk of offending someone, I must say it feels like you’re channelling our beloved Thomas. Thank you for your inspiration, insight, philanthropy and willingness to step up and out front and get the conversations rolling (and action being taken!).

I so miss the days of receiving numerous emails from Thomas Leonard as he brainstormed new ideas and threw them out there to see what stuck and what didn’t.

I definitely want to go check out the website “The Gift of Coaching”. I’ve been Coaching since 2001 (and have been coached since 1998). As a Coach, I know what I am good at is helping other people (via the coaching process) to figure out what they’re inklings are and then take actions on them to create the life they want. What I am NOT, definitely NOT good at, is marketing my Coaching. My business is not brimming although I am aligned with businesses, people and clubs that do bring me clients. Pretty much I would rather eat a large bug than market myself.

But I draw the line at marketing. I think sometimes we Coaches can be pretty co-dependent too. For instance, I’m a certified retreat leader and cannot tell you how many Coaches contacted me to lead retreats with them, but did not have the training or know how. I’m all for collaboration but collaboration after having done the homework.

I feel that we Coaches could certainly come up with a system/company that would match Coaches to clients. There are some out there now, I’m aligned with one but have not received too many clients from them in the past year (5-6). This service for both Coaches and Clients would have to take into consideration many aspects with the Core Competencies of Coaching right up front.

Anyway, I am hopeful for our community of Coaches. I believe that we can create a community that will allow for Coaches to collaborate and succeed. I believe that there is enough work out there for all of us, when we allow for the right clients to come to us and pass on the ones who there is not a ‘fit.’

Thank you for creating this opportunity for us to brainstorm, think, feel and get off our duff’s, dust out the cobwebs and take Coaching to the next level.

lk

I’d like to add a new post to Ruth Ann’s article, ‘What are we not looking at, yet?’

The question I’d like my colleagues to look at is: What does it really take to build and sustain a successful coaching business?

I’ve discovered over the past 7 years that a ‘coaching’ business always uses the coaching model as a platform…more coach offerings include not only coaching, but consulting, keynote speaking, training sessions, tele-trainings and products.

To me, it is the combination of all of these things that creates a sustainable and interesting business…but at the core of them all is the use of the evolutionary ‘coaching model.’

I think that the more new coaches are taught about diversifying their businesses…and the more this is seen as not only acceptable, but downright smart…..the better chance they will have at succeeding.

Hello,
Dumb question here … the question posed is what are we not looking AT in coaching … has the discussion already been had around what we’re looking FOR?

There is a part of me that sees through my filter of research and analysis, where defining psychological constructs is critical (e.g., what is “well-being?” – the absence of depression or stress? self-esteem? contentment? positive regard?), and the questions posed are more likely to be narrowing than broadening (e.g., to test what works, what doesn’t with different people, in different scenarios, or to test which of several approaches “wins”).

There is another part of me that does not want to apply my scientist filter – because breaking things down may build up cred and careers, but takes away some of the “magic”.

I do a lot of work with dreams, the night ones, and there is a whole body of work devoted to classifying dream themes via content analysis, there is another whole body of work devoted to understanding how brain activation/function serves up a dream. I have high regard for the investigators who created and pursue these big research programs, but when I read through their papers, that “magic seeker” inside gets sad and asks: but what about the dream? what about how dreams come to us in the service of health and wholeness? where did the magic and meaning get lost amid the defining and slicing and dicing?

Thank you for stimulating this dialogue. I would be interested in contributing to future conversations around coaching impacts (both with my “research and analysis” hat as well as my retreating “magic seeker” hat). Actually, what I’d REALLY like to do is to find a way to marry the two … and I’m not there just yet.
Suzanne

P.S., Wanted to say, I really like this quote, as it so rings true for me: ‚Äö√Ñ√∫Just because you’ve got intials after your name doesn’t mean you know how to coach effectively.”