How is Coaching Different?
By Leonardo Ravier
The ICF defines coaching as: “Coaching is partnering with clients in a thought-provoking and creative process that inspires them to maximize their personal and professional potential.
Professional coaches provide an ongoing partnership designed to help clients produce fulfilling results in their personal and professional lives. Coaches help people improve their performances and enhance the quality of their lives.
Coaches are trained to listen, to observe and to customize their approach to individual client needs. They seek to elicit solutions and strategies from the client; they believe the client is naturally creative and resourceful. The coach’s job is to provide support to enhance the skills, resources, and creativity that the client already has‚Äö√Ñ√π ICF – www.coachfederation.org
Which do you think is the most important aspect or characteristic of Coaching in relation to any other discipline or aid process?
Comment by Leonardo Ravier on 31 May 2008:
I would like to bring the discussion to another level or aspect related to the initial question.
Our role is to integrate or differentiate the coaching of other professions or processes aids? Or the way could be differentiation through integration? What do you think we should do to strengthen and develop coaching as a profession?
I would like to hear more opinions, I know that there is a wide range of thinkers among readers and contributors.
Comment by James on 15 May 2008:
Well done Leonardo, very much appreciate your post.
I agree with the term “intervention” not being associated with coaching.
To Jonathan’s point on “intervention,” if coaching is to have it’s own identity then we must be able to frame our discussion and thought around it in a way that is uniquely “coaching!”
I would suggest that the majority would experience the term “intervention” in a pejorative sense as it relates to coaching…that is to say their first experience of hearing the word within the context of a coaching dialog.
While a method may have an agenda, coaching in and of itself is not based on an agenda. Which is a distinction that seems to be uniquely coaching.
Leonardo, you make so many points…I’ll just share a couple thoughts at this point…
I don’t know that I see the process and context as being different sides of the same coin. A context can be held consistently over a given period all while using one or more processes.
A subtle point I offered was that of “being the first.” Is it possible that the perceived overlap between therapy and coaching can be, in part, due to therapy claiming to broad of territory for it’s own? In other words, if coaching had been recognized as a profession first…where then would this dialog be today? How would the therapy as a whole be shaped?
The next question for me is…who’s most concerned with the distinction of therapist versus coach? I truly don’t feel that this is something being driven by coaches. Who will ultimately decide what defines the coaching profession?
Comment by jsibley on 14 May 2008:
Leonardo, thanks for such a great job summarizing what we had said recently.
Stacey, thanks for chiming in. It’s true that “intervention” may come from another tradition, but I’m not sure it has to have the pejorative connotation you mention (although we could still agree to use a different term, even if that were true). Can’t one speak of intervening in a system, and aren’t we doing that even by observing, let alone coaching?
Also, as a historical note, and to highlight a potential similarity without wanting to demarcate turf or say that one thing is better than another, the idea of “meeting the client where he/she is” is an integral part of the social work worldview. Just an interesting similarity.
Glad to hear more voices and also looking forward to hearing more from James.
Comment by Stacey Basting on 13 May 2008:
I’m so enjoying this conversation. A lively debate is such a wonderful learning opportunity! I have a few thoughts related to recent posts.
First, I agree with Leonardo that viewing coaching as a subset of psychology would be unfortunate. While psychology based research in coaching currently dominates the field, coaching’s origins are simple. A “coach” carried passengers in the 15th century to their destination, private tutors (or coaches) saw students safely through exams, and sports “coaches” began in the 1880s to assist athletes in improving their performance. Basically, coaches have a history of meeting passengers or clients where they are at and accompanying them on a journey of sorts. It evolved prior to as well as along with psychology.
I think as coaching evolves, additional voices will further contribute to the literature. Psychology folks, with their rich tradition in publishing, simply have a head start. We’re now seeing more business management, leadership, adult education, theology, philosophy, and others adding their perspectives to the mix. How exciting that we can all learn from each other, honoring each others’ traditions and what we bring to the table and together creating a rich way of helping people learn and grow–not to create a cookie cutter, or child of another profession, but to create a new and powerful way of looking at things.
An additional distinction here is related to the term “intervention”, a possible carry over from certain psychology traditions. I would echo some of Leonardo’s comments here. I don’t find it useful in my coaching because it seems to imply the client as broken, rather than whole. I don’t see myself as intervening in anything. If I were, would I not be judging my clients’ current circumstance? That’s a trap I’d prefer to avoid.
As coaches with so many diverse backgrounds learn and grow in coaching, I think clarity in role and purpose is essential. However, I like the idea of a flexible definition that leaves room for growth, or perhaps it’s a definition based on process rather than content (where this thread began).
I like James’ encouragement to look at this with a new lens, viewing coaching as a tool versus a profession. Along these lines, I think you might find a post by David Drake on this site interesting…he shares an article he wrote about Coach as Artisan. He includes comments about the history of coaching as well as makes comparisons to the research tradition in psychology and other related fields. http://www.coachingcommons.org/inventing-the-future-of-coaching/are-coaches-artisans/
Looking forward to hearing more thoughts!
Comment by Leonardo Ravier on 13 May 2008:
Pascale, Kerry, Stacey, Jonathan and James, thank you very much for the contributions, thoughts and comments. This greatly enriches the debate.
I made a synthesis of the aspects that I consider most important about recent comments by Stacey, Jonathan and James and now I will give my point of view in this regard to continue the debate.
1. Stacey said that “I would venture to say that one difference is the goal / need of the client.”
She was referring, actually, that one of the most important differences — it is not so much in WHAT coaching does, but in HOW it does. This, I believe, is right and important.
2. Jonathan pointed out several important issues:
2.1. There is an important difference between coaching defining what “is” and defining how coaching differs from other fields.
2.2. There are not interventions in the coaching staff that could not be (or are not) used in psychotherapy.
2.3. That differences have less to do with process and more to do with context.
2.4. That coaching is a subset of psychotherapy.
2.5. That there may be a large overlap between coaching and psychotherapy and that we do not know what that overlap might look like.
2.6. That one reason coaches try to distinguish coaching from other fields is to make a case for why potential customers might want to use a coach rather than someone from a different field.
3. And James commented that:
3.1. “Context” is indeed at the core of this discussion.
3.2. He asked, rightly, “Perhaps the greater distinction could be this: is coaching a profession or a tool?
3.3. And then: “Which of the two (coaching or therapy) is more accessible to the general population?”
Well….Given the amount of information presented, I will give my point of view (synthetically) with a brief argument. Then we can expand on what you (and others) consider most important to discuss:
A. The coaching does the same as any other helping process (setting goals, tangible and intangible, or troubleshoot), but the difference lies in HOW it does. In this sense, I do believe that the PROCESS, not just the CONTEXT, must be part of the coaching identity, essence and substantial difference over other disciplines.
B. The differentiation of coaching to other helping disciplines, is not a “marketing” problem (get clients or orientation), it’s a matter of IDENTITY. What I am, and what YOU are, is what sets us apart from the rest of millions of individuals. By the same token, what the coaching IS (or should be), allows distinction from other help processes. If we do not succeed in this, we are facing a SERIOUS PROBLEM OF IDENTITY.
C. I do not think that the word “INTERVENTION” is fortunate to be applied to the process of coaching. The substantial difference in the process of coaching is its “NON-INTERVENTION” in others (unlike many of the psychological and therapeutic processes. Not all, but many). In this sense, coaching is closer to the non-directive therapy of Carl Rogers (but this was a first approach which failed as an entity in itself. Perhaps coaching could consolidate this fundamental principle of “non-directive” process).
D. I do not think it is possible to separate the “PROCESS” from the “CONTEXT” of coaching. Both are two sides of the same coin. And both must have one thing in common, a common denominator, the same essence, or the same PRINCIPLE. If not, if what we do is “therapy” or “psychology” in a different “context”… this is not enough to transform coaching into a real profession.
E. I do not think coaching “should be” a SUBSET of psychotherapy. I understand, however, that this is true in many cases. Today coaching is a subset of psychotherapy for psychotherapists, a subset of management for consultants, a subset of training for trainers, etc. But I do not think it “should be” so (this is because of the “adolescence” of coaching). Coaching is undergoing a process of change and development in search of its own identity (and that is fair and necessary).
It is true that there is an “overlap” between coaching and psychotherapy, but also between psychology and philosophy, or between mentoring and consulting. However, we all recognize what the substantial differences are between those other disciplines (in coaching this is not yet clear‚Äö√Ѭ∂ but that does not mean it might always be so).
F. I think coaching is not yet a consolidated profession. It has established itself as a tool, but has every POTENTIAL to become a distinctive profession, with an autonomy process and method (and not necessarily isolated from the rest of helping processes).
I hope, anxiously, to read your comments, questions or thoughts. It is imperative that coaches discuss these essential subjects. On this depends the future of our profession.
Comment by jsibley on 12 May 2008:
I’d like to hear other people’s thoughts about this discussion and the points / questions it raises.
I will try to sit back and leave room for other voices.
I’ll be happy to share additional thoughts after we’ve heard from others.
Best wishes,
Jonathan
Comment by James on 12 May 2008:
Jonathan,
I’m not sure I follow…on the hand your post starts with coaches wanted to make the discussion and then toward the end its stated that coaches aren’t driving the discussion of differences…can you clarify?
As for therapy helping people, of course that’s true. Still, there is huge difference between a dialog that is attached to a pathology and one that is not. One must address the pathology the other simply wants to move forward.
Is therapy needed, absolutely!
Is coaching needed, absolutely!
The distinction of difference, to my mind, will not be made through the lense of efficacy. Both work and within a very different context (as you suggested).
Perhaps, my posts have been a bit dense as I suggested earlier that along with the discussion of context it is equally important to decide…
“Is coaching a profession or a tool?”
This distinction really does shift this dialog.
Again coaching as a tool is universal in it’s application. As a profession what does it really mean to be a coach?
Is it an approach/bias that is applied when the tools of coaching are used? Meaning; spiritual, personal, business etc.
Does coaching as a profession mean that there is a consultive aspect that will be apart of the coach/client relationship? I think so!
Talk soon,
James
Comment by jsibley on 11 May 2008:
Hi James,
I think there are a number of reasons that coaches and others (and perhaps more so coaches than others?) try to distinguish coaching from other fields. I think one reason that coaches do so is to make a case for why potential customers might want to use a coach rather than someone from a different field, or rather than not seeking any help. I don’t think it is coaches who are driving discussions about differences.
Does it help our discussion to think of a continuum of some sort of mental or personal wellness? Perhaps we could agree that many therapists have traditionally helped those who are suffering get from 0 to even higher levels of wellness and flourishing? Might we agree that some therapists also work in this area, either by coaching without realizing it or by using other methods designed to help people thrive and flourish?
What do you (and others) think of this?
Jonathan
Comment by James on 9 May 2008:
Jonathan, Ok — rather than try to work through any distinctions or clarifications at this point…let me ask you this…and anyone else for that matter…
You said “if a coaching definition is intended to distinguish it from psychotherapy” isn’t that the place for us to start…
If in fact the ultimate goal is to separate coaching from psychotherapy by clarifying how coaching “IS NOT” the same, who then does this question serve to benefit…
Therapists or coaches? Without such a consideration we are simply engaging in a dialog with little point beyond who’s right or wrong…i.e. which end of the egg is better to eat from, the little end or the big end?!
Since this discussion seems to want to place a stake in the ground (even you used the phrase sub-set previously…clearly a positioning of the stake) it is highly unlikely that such a positioning will benefit each profession equally!
So again, who serves to gain from this definition?
If there is no real benefit either way…it seems that there would be little point in focusing on any overlap in process or method. Rather the concern would be, as you so well shared,…within the context of the dialog!
Using your Venn analogy I would offer that the overwhelming overlap as previously discussed would all but disappear by focusing on the context as the distinction.
The question for me now is this…
Can we clearly define to the benefit of the therapist and coach which context(s) is applicable to each? If so, then we have in my mind actually begun to benefit the client in a very significant way by clearly demarcating the two professions and, at the same time, by reducing the potential risk of a coach entering “unknowingly” (by way of unclear definitions) into a restorative process with a client and potentially causing harm.
Focusing on a method or process does not seem to have such a potential for clarity!
Comment by jsibley on 7 May 2008:
James, I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say and I’m sorry if I was unclear.
I don’t think it matters who was “first”. I think that when we contrast A with B (e.g., psychotherapy, consulting, mentoring), those who best know B might have important input into the discussion (and I don’t mean me, but all members of group B). Many comparisons of coaching and therapy have compared coaching to only one particular flavor of therapy, usually psychodynamic therapy. I am certainly not the first or only person to have commented on this.
I’m not saying that psychotherapy is “better” than coaching, either. I was suggesting (or meaning to suggest) that there may be a large overlap between coaching and psychotherapy and that we don’t know what that overlap might look like. I suspect that we would see a Venn diagram with 2 circles that are not evenly balanced, but I don’t think we have any research that shows what overlaps and what does not.
Comment by James on 7 May 2008:
Jonathan,
You said: “As we continue to (or begin to) do process research on coaching, we may find that the differences have less to do with process and more to do with context (where we meet, how we meet, the coaching contract vs. the therapeutic contract, who the client is and why they come)”
My sense is that “context” is indeed at the core of this discussion.
What concerns me with your later comments is the sense of dominion or ownership of a skill or process…if in fact we agree on context as the discerning difference, how then does the method become the differentiator. It is like you are wanting your cake and to eat it too.
Who would dispute, at least in this present context, that Coaching is the newest of the two professions…no one! It seems arrogant to assume that a method, although used in the context of a coach, could somehow by virtue of “I used it first…”
be given preference to judging what it is or is not!
By definition, science is constantly changing as today’s discovery replaces yesterday’s truth.
This dialogue, given the trend and the inclination of the general population to embrace it, must be bigger than a few who are set in their views.
Perhaps the greater distinction could be this: is coaching a profession or a tool?
This is where I sense the greatest difficulty!
From my observation coaching as a tool can very well be applied to other professions with great value and with great benefit. Imagine trying to do the same with therapy…oh my!
Does therapy require a pathology to proceed? It is a distinction that is repeatedly shared.
Coaching definitely does not require a pathology, nor is there any attempt to diagnose!
I struggle with the idea that a profession can, to it’s own benefit, be deemed the judge of ‘what is or isn’t’ of it’s kind, including that which is currently not a part of it. Clearly there is a logical element that gives such a thought great appeal and yet there is potential to do so with great bias and to be self-serving.
The apparent need of the psychotherapy profession to claim coaching as it’s own is to my mind a very self-serving need — a need that will only serve to quite a group (a population) of people who are clear that therapy is not a solution they want to seek…rather they seek to move forward in a very constructive and inquisitive way, seeking to reach for their potential rather than to embrace their past trauma.
And beyond this question of domain is the greater truth…
Which of the two is more accessible to the general population?
The question of who is a distinction that matters!
Comment by jsibley on 7 May 2008:
Somehow, I missed this thread earlier, so I’m glad it became active again.
I think there is an important difference between defining what coaching “is” and defining how coaching differs from other fields. Both approaches have value, but serve different goals. The former allows to say whether a process is or isn’t coaching, but may not tell us whether it is uniquely coaching (e.g., vs. consulting, mentoring, or psychotherapy). The latter is much more complicated.
I see an inherent problem when one field tries to distinguish itself from other fields when the other fields don’t have a clear definition of their own boundaries and when the first field (the one doing the distinguishing) potentially misses some of the nuances and/or variability of the other fields.
This potential problem is more acute, I believe, when there isn’t sufficient input from the neighboring fields (who should be the best judges of what there own field is or isn’t).
So, I think Leonardo’s response about “brief therapy”, etc. is quite helpful. If a coaching definition is intended to distinguish it from psychotherapy, for example, psychotherapists should be willing to agree that those characteristics do not, in fact, describe psychotherapy. This would rule out most, if not all, of the characteristics that have been mentioned.
Social workers, for example, are trained to use a strengths-based approach, even with those who are in much deeper distress than the typical. Social workers look at the “person-in-environment” using a systems perspective. Most social workers do not pathologize, unless forced to do so by their workplace or insurance companies. Social workers are trained to “start where the client is.”
I don’t think there are interventions in personal coaching that could not be (or aren’t) used in psychotherapy, especially with clients who are less overwhelmed. There may be a matter of degree, in some cases, but that doesn’t seem to be the sort of distinction most people are hoping for.
As we continue to (or begin to) do process research on coaching, we may find that the differences have less to do with process and more to do with context (where we meet, how we meet, the coaching contract vs. the therapeutic contract, who the client is and why they come). It may also be increasingly difficult to find categorical differences and we may have to limit ourselves to differences of degree. We may also find that it is easier for therapists to say what the attributes of psychotherapy are that are less typical for coaching.
This may well sound controversial, but we may find that coaching is a subset of psychotherapy (at least, personal coaching) – either now, or in the future as psychotherapy continues to evolve and look at the entire spectrum of wellness. This may not be true, but for now, I don’t think we have much evidence to the contrary.
Comment by Stacey Basting on 6 May 2008:
Interesting questions, Leonardo. I’m intrigued by question #2…what are the differences between coaching and other processes besides the competencies and skills of the coach.
Just thinking “aloud” a bit, I would venture to say that one difference is the goal/need of the client. If we think of a client as a learner…how will they learn best in the situation at hand?
-Do they want/need a mentor to model behaviors that they would like to implement?
-Are they dealing with an isolated, complex issue that they would prefer to contract consultant expertise rather than learn it themselves? Or they prefer to be told what might work by an expert in the field and then try it themselves?
-If they learn best through self discovery and dialogue, then transformational coaching might be the ticket.
-If they want one on one feedback as they actively try new strategies and ways of being, transactional coaching might work best for them.
-If they have emotional issues, or something in their past that is unresolved that they need to heal before moving forward, perhaps therapy is the right route.
My examples are not comprehensive by any means, but I think that each intervention meets different needs for different learners. I also think that there is a different power relationship in each.
What’s interesting to me is that most executives I talk to seem to stumble upon coaching…they don’t necessarily weigh all the options available to them (e.g. coaching, consulting, therapy, mentoring, etc) and then choose. A friend or colleague recommends a coach, or perhaps they are assigned a coach. Would it be useful for a client to know the options and consciously choose?
Just a few thoughts to generate discussion…
Comment by Leonardo Ravier on 6 May 2008:
Hello Kerry, thank you for your response and point of view. Stacey, thank you too.
I invite more people to participate in this “debate”, ando also I have some questions or considerations to bear on some of your comments.
In summary, you recognize that substantial differences of coaching with other disciplines aid are:
Kerry
1) No attachment
2) Hearing truth without judment
3) Rapport (with empathy, trust and acceptance)
Stacey
4) Ability to live in the questions without rushing too quickly to the “answer”.
5) To honor people’s humanity
6) Working with the individual client to maximize his / her potential rather than pushing people toward a predetermined standard
I believe that the six points are really important, but:
1) Don¬¨¬•t you believe that, for example, “brief therapy”, or humanistic psychology or transpersonal, or psychosynthesis, are also regarded that six points, among others?
2) Are the differences of coaching in relation to other processes aid only in the “competencies or skills of the coach”?
Comment by Stacey Basting on 18 April 2008:
I, too, think your definition is spot on, Leonardo. Among many things, I love that it incorporates and simultaneously distinguishes between coaching that is done, needed, and successful at both a transactional level and a transformational level. And Kerry, your point about coaches not being attached to outcomes differentiating them from other professionals is ever so true.
As I think about important characteristics of coaching that distinguish it from other professions is the ability of a coach and client to live in the questions without rushing too quickly to the “answer” or answers. Business, as well as many other professions, have fallen into a problem/solution mind set. I think coaching breaks away from that mold.
I also think that coaching tends to honor people’s humanity and laugh with them at their flaws and foibles. Coaching is grounded in working with the individual client to maximize his/her potential rather than pushing people toward a predetermined standard. We meet the client where they are. It’s okay for them to be vulnerable with a coach, and if the trust is there in the relationship it can enhance their learning.
Comment by Kerry Sim on 16 April 2008:
Folks, I began this some time ago, before Leonardo’s most recent posting; then got a request for an unscheduled coaching session. Then I came back to the forum. I think Leonardo’s latest is bang-on, and I too leave out the notion of “expert” or “expertise” – though I like his phrase “expert in the process of coaching” and also could accept the term “experienced” – as in life/growth experienced.
So, below is my posting as originally written a couple of hours ago:
“Which do you think is the most important aspect or characteristic of Coaching in relation to any other discipline or aid process?”
This was the posed question.
I think the thread has drifted a bit with discussion about the definition of ‘expert’ and ‘expertise’. I have no particular problem with this, and it may be useful, but is it answering the question?
I think not, and I will use this opportunity to take my own stab at doing so.
First of all I find it difficult to say that there is one MOST important. For me there are several, and at any given time during a coaching experience, one may surface and be most important at that time.
That being said, I will now say state one that I personally consider a foundational aspect, at least in my own practice and experience. It is non-attachment by the coach to the outcome. The client may be attached; the coach not so much.
Another, is hearing truth without judgment. Truth is not too terribly hard to come by in a coaching environment, what causes knotty moments is when a person’s truth (including the coach’s) is judged. I believe this has previously been defined as “Relish Truth”. To me that means find value, acceptance, even joy when truth appears. Relish it simply because it is truth. If you (the coach) find yourself judging a truth, accept that very judgment as another truth of yours, then let it pass for the moment.
A third, for me, is rapport, or connection. This I will describe as a mixture of empathy, trust, and acceptance. If I as a coach, or as a client, do not connect (and rather quickly I believe) with the other person, it is unlikely that much value will result from the coaching experience.
As to “…in relation to other disciplines or processes…” the above aspects rarely appear, as far as I can tell in other discipline; and if they do, they usually don’t last long. Note: I said rarely do these appear, not never.
I will brazenly state that from what I observe in other disciplines (consulting, counseling, therapy, teaching etc.) it is rare to have one of the main parties non-attached to outcomes. Usually there is a very particular outcome desired, and usually both parties are attached to it.
By the way, being non-attached is not the same as being indifferent. Indifference is an absence of full participation in the process. Non-attachment is fully participating in the process, without success being defined as a specific result. A preferred result may be the target, yet success will not be determined only by that. Success is defined via the process as much as the result.
Judgement. It is an almost automatic response for humans to judge something. It is natural. The value in a coach/client relationship is when a judgment is accepted, then bracketed, or set aside. This is done in order to continue to elicit truth from the exchange. Again, in other disciplines, I see judgment being held, and often getting in the way of clean, truthful exchanges.
Rapport, or connection, in my opinion, is not strengthened when attachments or judgments are present. A basic rapport/connection may be established, but it will be limited by whatever attachments or judgments the participants hold on to. Connection will not likely grow deep enough for other than shallow-ish results. Whenever the results are acceptable, sufficient connection has been established.
So, there you have it, my take on the original question: discuss, dissect, as desired.
Comment by Leonardo Ravier on 16 April 2008:
Stacey,
I´m agree with the definition of the ICF, and also with your comment 100%.
I think the coach needs to be expert in the process of coaching.
After studying the different lines or coaching schools around the world, I have developed a very personal definition of coaching, which sought to integrate all views under a common denominator.
“Coaching is the art of discovery the science of the human being as an entity. This art is a process that is created between two people (minimum), where one tries (the coach) that the other (the coachee) becomes aware, fortifies its belief in itself and finds motivation to act responsibly, dominating his body, emotions and language, defying itself to achieve his objectives within the dominion of being and doing. ”
Art and Science of Coaching: Its history, Philosophy and Essence, pag. 143 2005.
(Is not easy for me to translate my definition to English, but I hope you understand)
I tried to integrate, on a definition, a number of things:
1. The coaching is an art.
2. Coaching works with the knowledge of the client (thus discover the “science” of the human being as an individual)
3. Coaching is a process, where at least two people are needed (coach and coachee).
4. The coaching has 3 goals elementary. The client: a) take AWARENESS (ie knows where you are, what you want to achieve, and how will); b) SELF-BELIEVE (Confidence + self-esteem), which lets you know that you can achieve it; c) AND RESPONSIBILITY, which translates to act responsibly and accordingly to their AWARENESS and SELF-BELIEVE.
5. I have included the appearance of the ontological coaching, too. In other words, the quest for mastery of the body, emotions and language (that beyond its exclusive to this school of coaching, is part of the process of coaching itself).
6. And finally, that coaching can work under both tangible objectives (related to the “doing”), as abstract or intangible objectives (related to the “being”).
I do not think, in any way, that is a complete definition of coaching. However, the exercise of trying to approach a better definition is useful to be aware of what and how we are doing coaching, Don´t you think so?
As you can see, I haven¬¨¬•t included the notion that the coach should be “expert” in the area where the client feels stuck.
I think the definition of the ICF is imperative (ei. “maximize their personal and professional potential”, “thought-provoking and creative process”, “partnership”, “believe the client is naturally creative and resourceful”), but I am not sure if it¬¨¬•s enough.
Any other point of view or comments on the matter?
Comment by Stacey Basting on 15 April 2008:
Pascale -
Can you give us an example of what you mean?
Comment by Stacey Basting on 15 April 2008:
I’m wondering whether “expert” is a loaded word. What exactly do we mean when we use it? If we interpret coaching expertise as a coach having a certain content knowledge, more than the client, then I would agree with Leonardo that we have two alternate positions here. I can help a client who works in mergers and acquisitions who wants to see different results with the staff members he supervises realize his full potential as a leader and not know much about the business side of what he does. What I, as his coach, bring to the table is my ability to listen, ask powerful questions, and assist him in thinking differently or showing up differently in the conversations he’s having with himself and others he coordinates action with each day.
On the other hand, expertise could also be interpreted as being masterful in coaching core competencies…more a process expert than a content expert per se. In this regard, I agree that a coach needs to have expertise in asking powerful questions, looking at things in new ways, listening well, generating/co-creating practices that will assist a client in getting unstuck and moving toward their desired outcome.
Another possible definition for “expertise” might be the level of development of the coach in relation to the client. Otto Laske* has studied and written about the impact a coach’s developmental level can have on the client reaching their developmental potential. While I’m not sure I like the linear idea of stages and steps, with the coach always being above…it does make sense to me that coaches who have been through certain things and are able to think in new ways would be better able to serve their client in reaching their next level of development. This is why I think it’s so important for us as coaching to invest in our own learning and development.
Perhaps the key is that the ICF definition of coaching is only the tip of the iceberg. It seems to capture the intention and spirit of coaching, but does it really define what it is that we do? Can we, with so many coaching approaches and the inherent nature of co-creating with a client, be more specific in a definition, or is the intention sufficient? If we were, what might be the consequences?
I’m interested in hearing more from Leonardo, Pascale or others…is ICF’s definition of coaching sufficient? What does coaching “expertise” look like to you?
*Laske, O. (1999). An integrated model of developmental coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal, 51.3, 139-159.
Comment by Pascale Cotton on 15 April 2008:
Yes, I did mean “the coach also has to be an expert in the areas where the client feels stuck”. Experience shows that the most successful coaches are those who have 1 or 2 clearly defined niche(s) in which they are experts. This also helps the clients move more quickly towards creative and individual solutions.
Comment by Leonardo Ravier on 15 April 2008:
Stacey,
Thank you for your comment. I would like to use this forum to think together.
Pascale said:
“In order to really maximize the client’s potential, the client also has to be an expert in the areas where the client feels stuck”.
Don´t you think she meant this?:
“In order to really maximize the client’s potential, the “COACH” also has to be an expert in the areas where the client feels stuck.
If so, I think we have two alternative positions on the main feature of Coaching, don´t you think so?
Comment by Leonardo Ravier on 15 April 2008:
Pascale,
Do you mean that the “COACH” (not the Client) must be an expert in the area where the “CLIENT” feels stuck?
If yes,
1. Do you know another update definition of Coaching (fuller)?
2. If we accept that the coach must be expert in these areas, is it not also “maximize the client’s potential,” the most important aspect or characteristic of coaching?
Comment by Stacey Basting on 13 April 2008:
Good point, Pascale. One of the things that I love about coaching compared with classes or training, is that it is individualized to and co-created with the client. There is no “canned” curriculum that is expected to work for all participants. The dialogue is dynamic and generative. The best coaches I’ve seen do not come across as an expert. Their clients may describe them as a trusted friend. Lately, I’m coming to realize the benefits of coaching outside of one’s content area of expertise…which, for me, keeps me from falling into that expert trap.
Comment by Pascale Cotton on 13 April 2008:
The ICF definition of coaching is right but rather out of date as it presents only one side of coaching. In order to really maximize the client’s potential, the client also has to be an expert in the areas where the client feels stuck.