From msnbc.com – USA
May 18, 2009
By Selena Maranjian
If you think you stopped needing coaches as soon as you stopped playing Little League, think again. Coaches can play a critical role in the life of a business or an investor, or just about anyone. Think of them as mentors, if you want. A good coach will challenge you, guide you, instruct you, and help you be better at what you do. They can instruct in person, or through their writings or their life. Even people who have passed away, such as investing legend Benjamin Graham, have a lot to teach you.
Coaches abound in corporations. Larry Bossidy, former CEO of AlliedSignal — which merged with Honeywell (NYSE: HON) in 1999 — called himself a coach, helping his employees learn, perform well, and “win.” Debra Benton, who wrote Secrets of a CEO Coach, has worked with leaders of companies such as AT&T (NYSE: T), Colgate-Palmolive (NYSE: CL), and McKinsey. Many companies have the philosophy that it makes sense for a CEO to coach those under her, while seeking out guidance for herself as well.
Many believe that it’s better to promote from within than to hire from outside — it maintains a company’s culture more effectively and also boosts the morale of employees. The best way to do that is to focus on developing talent in-house, by coaching or mentoring.
Self-coaching
One way to be successful at work is to make those around you look good — you can do that by coaching and guiding them. Don’t neglect yourself, though, as you can probably benefit from coaching, too — in your business performance and even in your investing.
Many people choose to coach themselves, by reading about and learning from others. FedEx (NYSE: FDX) CEO Fred Smith, for example, avidly reads historical biographies to learn what made past leaders great. General Electric’s (NYSE: GE) Jeff Immelt also reads business books for leadership tips, though he knows he also has to put that learning into practice.
We too can coach ourselves from the knowledge of successful CEOs — as well as teachings from the world’s best investors, too. With all the good books — and articles — out there, don’t wait to start coaching yourself toward success.
Tweet This
Email to a friend
There are 17 Responses so far...
Selena said: “We too can coach ourselves from the knowledge of successful CEOs ‚Äî as well as teachings from the world’s best investors, too. With all the good books ‚Äî and articles ‚Äî out there, don’t wait to start coaching yourself toward success”.
Would someone like to explain me how anybody could coach himself?
I did a similar question on march, 2008 (here in TCC): http://www.coachingcommons.org/guest-contributors/what-is-self-coaching-is-it-really-coaching/
Here I explain why that´s impossible: http://leoravier.com/2008/01/03/%C2%BFautocoaching/ (but is in spanish).
I could translate it into English, but first I want to know if someone really believes that it´s possible to coach himself, and explain me how.
Thanks,
Ravier, L.
PS: I agree that one could be (or do) “self-conscious”, “self-responsibility” and/or “self-learn”. But coaching is based on a relationship between, at least, TWO minds that interacts in part of the process (specifically in the coaching sessions). Coaching process is essentially the result of humans interactions. The problem, again, lies in the differences concepts about what is coaching.
I am not so clear about the actual definition what ‘self-coaching’ means. Though I can see a possibility of a ‘second parallel self’ as the second position of “TWO minds that interacts in part of the process”. (still subject to debate, but just exploring…)
Micheal Hall, who co-developed the meta-coaching systems and neurosemantics, shared his thoughts on ‘self-coaching’ below (I am also interested to know what are your views on Micheal’s thoughts and his proposed self-coaching methodologies?)
Micheal wrote: “Of all forms of coaching, self-coaching is both the most challenging and the most powerfully profound.”….. “So, how does that work and how can a person learn to effectively self-coach?”
“…. self-coaching is actually the highest form of coaching and the most advanced. Why? Because in self-coaching, you have to work with your own self-reflexivity and be able to manage it. And the challenge is how to hold your experience or state in place while you jump meta-levels and then feed-forward and then notice how that fits or doesn’t, and to do all of that without going for a wild spin where you lose your equilibrium and get lost in your own matrix of frames!”
“One way numerous Meta-Coaches solve this is that they write down on a sheet of paper both their questions and their answers. They may even draw the little person in a bubble of a state (as I do in my presentations), and then step back from that to ask, ‚ÄúWhat state does that put me in?” Then, ‚ÄúAnd what does that mean to me?” And they continue to do that using the paper to stabilize the answers and experiences so as to keep tracking themselves through the self-coaching session.
With the paper in front of you, you can answer your questions with a single word or line and put that above as a frame or as an expression of the frame (some other emotion or verbal or behavioral response). This would actually help you with your basic tracking skills as a coach and your skill of looking for and detecting patterns.”
“Self-coaching is fascinating in that you play both roles simultaneously. You are both coach and client; you both facilitate the process and then you step in to experience the question or response that you provide as the coach to yourself. And as you do this, unlike when you are being coached by a colleague, now the experience of your own truthfulness, authenticity, and honesty moves to a new level. It’s harder to hide from yourself! It’s harder to want to say something that would make you look better in the eyes of your coach. In self-coaching, your coach knows you pretty well!”
“And yet, you can lie and deceive yourself even in self-coaching. We all do. After all, we all have blind spots and areas in which we are more ‚Äúsensitive” and so can easily judge ourselves or blank out and so avoid the issue. All of that is still possible. Of course, if you do and you persist at the self-coaching, this becomes another issue you can address. You can coach yourself and access resources for a more solid sense of self, for more self-honesty, and for more openness to your ‚Äúshadow” side.”
“Another technique that some coaches use is they use a tape-recorder to record the questions and answers. Then they can listen to it later, and make comments about their comments in the next session.”
“For myself, I have developed the ability to pose a question and then hold that question in my mind. As I do, sometimes I will keep repeating it and noting the answers I get. Sometimes I turn the question into an image or a frame and then dance around the image or frame eliciting numerous responses and possibilities. By holding the question in place and letting my mind dance around it, I think of it as circling the question and getting multiple perspectives about the question.”
“With self-coaching, you may experience a lot of noise and the rushing in of other thoughts. These may interrupt you. They may grab your attention so that you are suddenly off and running in a different direction. And while you can certainly use that if you detect it, to stay focused on the coaching theme that you want to explore, you might run the genius pattern on accessing a genius state of ‚Äúbeing a focused client” ‚Ķ or on the state you find most supportive for self-coaching.”
“Another choice could be to run the Intentionality pattern to create a highly focused intention for your self-coaching. Running the Intentionality pattern will enable you to create a really high and strong reason why for your self-coaching practice and that will help to create the laser-beam focus.”
“Finally, the process of receiving coaching from a colleague is a great way to learn to integrate the self-coaching processes.”
My experiences in e-coaching (electronic coaching) and m-coaching (mobile coaching) ring similar issues to ‘self-coaching’. Many times, I do request the coachees/clients to ‘reflect’ on the menu of ‘self questions’ which I provided, and then suggest to them to build layers of additional ‘self-questions’ as a supplementary; complementary self coaching ‘on top and over’ the e-coaching and m-coaching processes. Could that be entring the domain of ‘self-coaching’?
Anyway, I am an ever evolving learner, and if my views do not make sense, do feedback to me. I definitely appreciate refreshing thoughts, brilliant opinions; suggestions, and exhilarating perspectives.
My anchoring philosophy is that everyone’s view is seldom wrong and likely to be correct from his/her perspectives/internal mappings unless there is a violation of ‘universal laws’? (again, debatable – what constitutes universal law?)
Meta-cheerio.
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.
Billy, You’ve encouraged me to answer you deeply. But I ask you patience, because I can¬¥t do it until next week.
Thank you.
Ravier, L.
Hi Billy,
I decided to translate part of my article “Self-Coaching?” to English in response to your comment.
———————————————–
O. Introduction
First of all we must answer what we means to be a coach of yourself (self-coaching). Then see how it works, and finally conclude if it is really possible.
In advance, the conclusion of my argument is that:
Self-coaching is not coaching. By definition is a contradiction in itself, and creates confusion about the real benefits of coaching as a discipline. This does not imply at all that this procedure call “self-coaching” has some useful as mental exercise of self-reflection, and is quite useful in different contexts that could be created by coaching.
1. Background and Objective: What is self-coaching?
In brief, coaching is a process where a client hires an expert coach to help him to think and develop action plans to achieve their most desired goals (primarily through questions). The basic idea of the so-called ‚Äúself-coaching”, would mean the possibility that oneself is who takes those questions and reflections to determine, without the interaction of a coach, their action plans, and also achieve those objectives.
2. How would ‚Äúself-coaching” work?
Therefore, to make ‚Äúself-coaching” work, you should ideally be trained as a coach, and then “auto-apply” the process of coaching. He or she would constantly make a question in his/her mind such as “If I had a coach at this point, what does he or she ask me? What would he or she do right now?, etc..” You must take a “double game” or “role” of a permanent coach and coachee to achieve the result of the process in yourself. It is clear therefore that anyone who wants to apply himself to the process of coaching, at least, he must be a coach (in the sense of training and developing the necessary skills, know the principles and models that are used in coaching , etc.). If not, the “auto-coaching-process” would be inefficient (in this case it’s actually possible).
3. Relevance and efficiency in human learning: Is this possible? Can you be a coach of yourself? Is it as effective? How useful is it?
We can conclude that “being a coach of yourself” requires:
a) That you must be a coach, or at least be trainied as such (if that is not so, whoever conducts self-coaching will be limited by their lack of knowledge about the process of coaching, even with the help of a multimedia system, test or form).
b) That you must take a double role (coach and coachee) permanently.
c) That you must follow all the steps and requirements in the process of coaching.
d) That you must ask yourself the questions and listen as you would do with an external coach.
e) That you must obtain the results of the self-coaching, like those obtained from an external coach.
Is it really possible to achieve that? Definitely, NO.
Why? Let’s see in detail…
a) Be trained as a coach: It’s obvious that anyone can be trained as a coach (coach training is becoming increasingly diversified and specialized). However, it is equally clear that no one becomes a good coach. With this statement I am not prejudging people’s abilities, but simply recognizing a reality that is evident in any profession. Anyone can study to be an engineer, architect, doctor or a musician, but not all those who do that become effective and/or efficient in its performance (in fact, many end up changing or leaving the profession). The same applies to coaching.
Training in coaching is essential, but not necessarily sufficient to act as such (and this applies to coaching and “self-coaching”).
b) Assume a double role: Technically speaking it is impossible for a human being to “transform” and act as if he/she were two. It is impossible for a human mind to divide into two minds, and try to interact independently of one another, asking and listening as if one are two people or individuals. An individual (indi-visible) can never be, or act as if they were two individuals. What we can do is to “play to be another” with the logical limit of time and space alternating, never paralleling (this limits the ability to get a real coaching)
c) Follow the steps and requirements of a coaching session: obviously one can follow, for example, the GROW steps model (or other) itself. However, good coaching does not have preset models or guides. The coach will act according to listen to his client, he never follows a pattern of conduct or behavior. Doing this is anti-coaching. This point is closely linked to the next.
d) Self-questions and self-listen: One can ask questions and answer them by and for itself, but it is precisely when those questions and answers have been exhausted when you look for an interaction with a coach or third party (another person). Coaching is by definition a process that must be made between at least two people. The effectiveness of coaching is the result of the INTERACTION or inter-relationship that breaks the ‚Äúintra-activity” or ‚Äúintra-relationship” (these terms do not exist because they are a contradiction in itself, is not possible to speak technically of a ‚Äúrelationship” for oneself… understood as a ratio of two units).
e) Results of self-coaching: Someone may argue they have applied “self-coaching” and that it has been instrumental to define and achieve his or her goals. Nobody has denied that what is called ‚Äúself-coaching” it would be useful. Saying that would be the same as to say that personal reflections or thinking that one makes with oneself is useless and ineffective.
No, I¬¥m not saying that. What I¬¥m saying is just that the self-reflection (which is useful) is not coaching. Those who have seen the benefits of ‚Äúself-coaching” really see the benefits of reflection (or self-reflection), but that is not coaching. Who hires a coach wants to interact because they understand (explicitly or implicitly) that the interaction will arise necessarily new thinking (knowledge) that self-reflection alone does not provide… or may take longer to achieve.
Conclusion
For all these reasons I consider that ‚Äúself-coaching” isn¬¥t possible.
1) By definition (since it requires at least two people)
2) By the reality of human nature (an individual, is just that, ONE) 3) By the dynamics and methodology (the interaction is a different process to “intra-action”, and the application of coaching process is not limited to a pattern of behavior or conduct)
and finally 4) By results obtained (one thing is to think and act for oneself, and another thing is to stimulate reflection by an INTERACTION).
Ravier, L.
Excerpt translated from Spanish. Original text in spanish: http://leoravier.com/2008/01/03/%C2%BFautocoaching/
Thanks Ravier for taking the effort and time to translate your thoughts from Spanish to English for the benefit of all.
Really appreciate what you have done to enlighten us on the subject matter being discussed about ‘self-coaching’.
Permit me to seek clarifications and comment on some of your thoughts.
According to your definition: “1) By definition (since it requires at least two people)”, coaching can only exist when there are two persons involved.”
Billy’s RESPONSE: If you defined coaching as a criteria that there must be at least two different person involved, then I see your point that ‘self-coaching’ cannot happen.
You stated “Self-coaching is not coaching. By definition is a contradiction in itself, and creates confusion about the real benefits of coaching as a discipline. This does not imply at all that this procedure call ‚Äúself-coaching” has some useful as mental exercise of self-reflection, and is quite useful in different contexts that could be created by coaching.”
Billy’s RESPONSE: Am I correct that you see ‘self-coaching’ as just a procedure and exercise using self-reflections? Don’t we coaches engage in the ‘reflective thinking’ process as well i.e. evoking the coachee in reflective thoughts’? Don’t we sometimes coach coachees to engage in double looping (self-reflection) i.e. self-reflection causes the coachees to not only examine the consequences of their actions, but also why they may have done those actions in the first place (instead of the coachee examining his/her actions like “I interrupted my customer which resulted in him not responding and my losing the sale”, the coach engaged the coachee to self-reflect; examine on what is ‘causing his/her action’, for example, the coachee’s belief that he/she as a salesperson should be talking all the time versus asking or recognizing buying cues. Through the self-reflective process, the magic of coaching works.
In this respect, my belief is that self-reflection is part and parcel of any coaching conversation whether ‘instigated’ by the coach or via ‘self-reflection’ by the coachee himself/herself. Does this statement makes sense at all?
You stated: “Therefore, to make ‚Äúself-coaching” work, you should ideally be trained as a coach, and then ‚Äúauto-apply” the process of coaching.”
Billy’s RESPONSE: I do agree with that in order to ‘apply self coaching’, one must be familiar with the coaching processes. That I would think would be one of the pre-requisites.
Your statement: “b) That you must take a double role (coach and coachee) permanently.”
Billy’s RESPONSE: To engage in playing both roles as coach and coachee concurrently requires high discipline, clarity of roles, clarity in state management i.e. in ‘control’ of one’s cognition, feelings, and physical responses (muscles). Is that possible? How many people can really engage in self-coaching per se?
My view is that it may be outside the realm of many, but there are possibilities for self-coaching or to put in Ravier frame of thought – a procedure or exercise using self-reflections.
Your view: “e) That you must obtain the results of the self-coaching, like those obtained from an external coach”
Billy’s COMMENT: Coaching outcome/goal can possibly be ‘measured’ if the outcome/goal has been specified with clarity and conviction upfront. What works with coaching (involving two or more persons), should work with ‘self-coaching’, as long as there are ‘evidences’ of attainment of the specified outcome/goal. Coaching has more utility values if it is evidence-based. What do you think about this?
Your statement: ” b) Assume a double role: Technically speaking it is impossible for a human being to ‚Äútransform” and act as if he/she were two. It is impossible for a human mind to divide into two minds, and try to interact independently of one another, asking and listening as if one are two people or individuals. An individual (indi-visible) can never be, or act as if they were two individuals. What we can do is to ‚Äúplay to be another” with the logical limit of time and space alternating, never paralleling (this limits the ability to get a real coaching)”
Billy’s RESPONSE: As with any coaching conversation, it is the discipline and more often the ‘chemistry’ that facilitates the ‘conversation flow’. With coaching that would be more effective because of the ‘space and time; processing’ capacities and capabilities available. With self-coaching, all these variables would probably work against self-coaching?
However, ‘real coaching’ involves ‘interactions’, whether with another person or self. The vast differences would be in efficiency and effectiveness of the coaching process. How do we validate the coaching outcome as a result of coaching versus self-coaching would be an area to explore further?
Your statement: “The effectiveness of coaching is the result of the INTERACTION or inter-relationship that breaks the ‚Äúintra-activity” or ‚Äúintra-relationship” (these terms do not exist because they are a contradiction in itself, is not possible to speak technically of a ‚Äúrelationship” for oneself‚Ķ understood as a ratio of two units).”
Billy’s RESPONSE: I am not aware of any psychological studies that support or argue on the possibilities of having ‘relationship with self’, its effectiveness and so on, and hence is not in a position to response. However, if anyone can shed light on this, that would be great.
Your statement: “Who hires a coach wants to interact because they understand (explicitly or implicitly) that the interaction will arise necessarily new thinking (knowledge) that self-reflection alone does not provide‚Ķ or may take longer to achieve.”
Billy’s RESPONSE: In a way, Ravier, you are correct about the higher likelihood of interactions between coach-coachee could lead to new knowledge, insights, etc.
However, I do believe the magic of ‘self-reflection’ does sometimes lead to ‘new AhHa experiences’, ‘discovery of self, not previously known’, etc.
Thanks Ravier for getting my thinking DNA cracking and entering into refreshing thoughts, and sharing your perspectives and points of views on self-coaching.
Are we gaining more clarity on what coaching is or is not, in view of this discussion?
Meta-cheerio.
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.
Two things stood out for me in this disussion and I thought I’d give my two cents worth:
Michael: self-coaching is actually the highest form of coaching and the most advanced
Billy: I am not aware of any psychological studies that support or argue on the possibilities of having ‚Äòrelationship with self’
Regarding the latter point, I have done a study of coaching in which a relationship with self emerged as a THIRD entity in the coaching relationship. The findings suggested that what we are used to referring to as the coach-client relationship, is in fact not a two-way relationship, but a three-way relationship between coach, client AND self. Hence all the coaching outcomes relating to self, SELF-awareness, SELF-confidence etc.
Regarding the former point, self-coaching also emerged in this study as a kind of by-product of being coached and something that clients engaged in automatically to different degrees as a result of being coached.
Having said that, I’m a trained and experienced coach and I’ve been coached by an uncountable number of coaches over the years. It would be fair to say that, as the findings of my study would suggest, I’ve developed some degree of self-coaching ability and made much a habit. Despite this, at the moment I have two coaches and a year doesn’t go by without me having AT LEAST one coach.
Is the ultimate goal to be able to go without a coach?
That’s a nice moral high-ground that gives coaches a good escape hatch
Should coaches really be aiming to work themselves out of a job?
Another nice moral high-ground, but if anything were to be a competing goal/value to stop a coach in her/his tracks, that would be a pretty good one!
Kerryn Griffiths
Hi Billy,
I’m back! Thank you for your comment. I would like to say something more…
1) You RESPONSE: ‚ÄúBilly’s RESPONSE: If you defined coaching as a criteria that there must be at least two different person involved, then I see your point that ‘self-coaching’ cannot happen”
No, it’s the opposite. I define that coaching requires at least two people because self-coaching is theoretically impossible.
2) You RESPONSE: ‚ÄúIn this respect, my belief is that self-reflection is part and parcel of any coaching conversation whether ‚Äòinstigated’ by the coach or via ‘self-reflection’ by the coachee himself/herself. Does this statement makes sense at all?”
Yes, “self-reflection” is part of coaching, but isn¬¥t coaching.
3) You RESPONSE: “I do agree with that in order to ‚Äòapply self coaching’, one must be familiar with the coaching processes. That I would think would be one of the pre-requisites.”
Correct, but I do not think that is the only pre-requisite (if so, of course “sefl-coaching” could be a reality).
4) You RESPONSE: ‚ÄúTo engage in playing both roles as coach and coachee concurrently requires high discipline, clarity of roles, clarity in state management i.e. in ‚Äòcontrol’ of one’s cognition, feelings, and physical responses (muscles). Is that possible? How many people can really engage in self-coaching per se?
My view is that it may be outside the realm of many, but there are possibilities for self-coaching or to put in Ravier frame of thought – a procedure or exercise using self-reflections”.
Well, here we have the biggest problem. An individual is ONE, and can not assume TWO roles (individual roles), unless he or she do it as a game, or is mentally ill (my sentence, (b) has not been challenged yet).
5) You COMMENT: ‚ÄúCoaching outcome/goal can possibly be ‚Äòmeasured’ if the outcome/goal has been specified with clarity and conviction upfront. What works with coaching (involving two or more persons), should work with ‘self-coaching’, as long as there are ‚Äòevidences’ of attainment of the specified outcome/goal. Coaching has more utility values if it is evidence-based. What do you think about this?”
I agree with you, but the process of coaching (see: http://leoravier.com/2009/02/08/el-proceso-de-coaching-y-su-esencia-creativa/ ) seeks precisely to draw more than one get it by itself (either in time, quantity or quality of creative thinking and its application to solutions or goals).
I think “self-reflections” are great exercise that, thank God, saves us from hiring coaches all the time:) But I insist, is not coaching.
6) You RESPONSE: ‚ÄúI am not aware of any psychological studies that support or argue on the possibilities of having ‚Äòrelationship with self’, its effectiveness and so on, and hence is not in a position to response. However, if anyone can shed light on this, that would be great”.
The point is that a “relationship” implies two entities. The relation to oneself is nothing more than a symbolic or metaphorical way of expressing the idea that someone argument and against-arguing to himself. This is what great philosophers do (rigor and contradiction), but that is not “self-relationship”. I insist, relationship with oneself is not possible.
7) You RESPONSE: “In a way, Ravier, you are correct about the higher likelihood of interactions between coach-coachee could lead to new knowledge, insights, etc.
However, I do believe the magic of ‘self-reflection’ does sometimes lead to ‚Äònew AhHa experiences’, ‚Äòdiscovery of self, not previously known’, etc”.
Ok. I agree with you … but the magic of “self-reflection”, the magic of “the great philosophical treaties” are not coaching.
Finally, each discipline has its place. And coaching is not to be confused with philosophy (creative teacher of “self-reflection”). We face a profession with its own identity… but in danger of extinction if we do not recognize it¬¥s identity. Coaching is not any process that helps achieve goals.
It is a specific process, unique and independent.
COACHING is not…:
a) “self-reflection”, although using reflection.
b) psychology, although we consider the “soul” or “mental activity”
c) philosophy, although we use arguing and against-arguing
d) therapy, although it may be therapeutic
c) etc., etc., etc.
Ravier, L.
Thanks Ravier for your perspectives and interpretations. You have given and defined what coaching IS NOT, and why self-coaching is not possible due to your definition of ‘relationship’ (“An individual is ONE, and can not assume TWO roles…….” – any scientific findings that had validated that this is true or not that you are awared of?).
You stated: “Yes, ‚Äúself-reflection” is part of coaching, but isn¬¥t coaching.”. In what aspects is coaching “…… a specific process, unique and independent.” Would you like to share how you define coaching, so that I can understand from your perspectives?
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.
Well, Billy…
a) About “any scientific findings that had validated that this is true or not”, I could say that:
…My statement is scientific (belonging to the social science). It is a self-evident truth that can not counter-argument without contradiction.
You and I know that we have ONE body, ONE mind, ONE soul… that you are and I¬¥m ONE person. And this is enough to know that it is not possible a RELATIONSHIP [which requires at least two minds] within ourself.
Otherwise we should change the meaning of “interpersonal relationship” [which is based on coaching]. See at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interpersonal_relationship
b) About my definition of coaching:
I invite you to read my LAST TWO COMMENTS in this discussion
http://coachingcommons.org/featured/1976-book-est-making-life-work/
There I explain what coaching is for me. And why I disagree with other positions such as the “coaching facilitator”
And see how works the non-directive process of coaching,
as I see it, here:
http://leoravier.com/2009/02/08/el-proceso-de-coaching-y-su-esencia-creativa/
c) Also look at my other statements, here in TCC:
“Coaching still needs to demonstrate its autonomy and separate identity in relation to all professions or disciplines around it (philosophy, psychology, therapy, consulting, etc.).
The key to the success of coaching as a discipline is in the presentation of a coherent and integrated THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK with its own distinct identity from any other discipline (not only a mix of its).
This is the quest we have to do for the profession. And I think that the key is in the NO DIRECTIVE essence and/or NO INTERVENTION aid (very close to the non-directive therapy of Carl Roger, but most developed)”
From: http://www.coachingcommons.org/featured/coaching-works-we-have-proof
“I think that the success of coaching, is based on its alternative proposal to psychology or psychotherapy. If we can not separate from its, the coaching will lose specific weight and will end disappearing or changing (mutated) into ‚Äúsomething else”, another discipline.
The proposal is to discover and describe what is the essence of coaching, what is the unique and special proposal helping people, and then, develop the discipline on that essence. The interaction with other disciplines is good but not sufficient for the foundation of coaching”
From: http://www.coachingcommons.org/guest-contributors/to-what-degree-has-coaching-grown-out-of-psychotherapy
“However, I believe that coaching should work only with that knowledge that the client owns, not with that is beyond him. The knowledge that is out of the client, in my view, should be worked by other professionals (consultants, advisors, psychologists, mentors, trainers, etc.). Otherwise, hire a coach would be transformed into a mixture of the above, and transformed the discipline into a ‚Äúsuper-ego profession”, extremely arrogant, losing its more humane essence. We can not, the coaches, be professionally ALL disciplines at the same time. I do not believe in that kind of coaching.”
From: http://coachingcommons.org/featured/which-are-the-core-competencies-in-coaching/
“First I must say that I do not understand that my conception and practice of coaching is the only possible (I recognize that coaching is in a maturing process, in which these issues will be defined gradually). Simply, I do not believe in the practice of ‚Äúcoach/adviser” as an alternative discipline to consultancy, advice, etc. (for me it’s like to pretend to believe that the existence of the ‚Äúwarm snow” is possible, that is a contradiction in terms)
I’m not sure this is a matter of ‚Äúbalance” (“seek a middle way”) from coaching and counseling. Accept the advice (at any level), involves planting the seeds of destruction of the essence of coaching. Why? As you say, ‚ÄúIs not this a primary path of learning, for coaches to gain the sensitivity to know when and how to share information, not for their own sake but for the other?” Well, I think the problem is not the coach’s ability to know when and how to share information, but to do so (although moderately) alters the process of coaching.
From my point of view, there is only one type of information that the coach can share: I am referring to information or knowledge of the coaching process itself (but not their content).
There are several points have been discussed in relation to this issue. For example, many coaches complain about the ‚Äúintrusiveness” in coaching, when in reality, if we accept the ‚Äúcoach/adviser,” we are the ‚Äúintruders”.”
From: http://coachingcommons.org/featured/which-are-the-core-competencies-in-coaching/
Ravier, L.
Thanks for your comprehensive sharing. I had already responded partially to you, but somehow, there was a technical hitch when I hit the ‘Submit Comment’ button (time out).
I will respond again when I am back from assignment.
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.
Thanks Ravier for your comprehensive sharing. I will respond to only part of what you have posted which I wish to explore further, given that I will be much engaged in my assignments for the next few weeks.
I would like to further explore (more academic in nature rather than hard pure science) on your statement “….is enough to know that it is not possible a RELATIONSHIP [which requires at least two minds] within ourself.” I have to agree with you that interpersonal relationship is only possible where there are two or more persons involved (two or more seprate minds); and if you defined it that way, ‘self-relationship’ (i.e. a person may not be able to have ‘two minds’ within oneself to have meaningful, effective and a ‘coaching’ dialogue process with self) is almost impossible.
However, I am still going to remain neutral and open on this, as generally we are still very far off in understanding the interconnectivities between our consciousness & unconsciousness; the intricacies of our mind-feeling-body-soul; and the full potentialities of our brains. Will new discoveries in the neurosciences and related sciences point to the possibilities of us, being humans engaging, or evolving to be able engaged, or having the capacity to engage in efficient & effective ‘self-dialogue’ with self, and hence, make self-coaching possible? I do not have the affirmative answer to this question, though, I would not discount the possibility.
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.
Ravier, I quote you: “The key to the success of coaching as a discipline is in the presentation of a coherent and integrated THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK with its own distinct identity from any other discipline (not only a mix of its).”
What would be the ‘THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK’ as you see fit that could be universally accepted or considered by the majority of coaches worldwide?
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.
Ravier, your statement: “From my point of view, there is only one type of information that the coach can share: I am referring to information or knowledge of the coaching process itself (but not their content).”; to me is synonymous to one of the basic principle of the Socratic Method (question follow by answer, then follow with another question…..). All coaches if defined this way, may have to be ‘fluent’ with the Socratic Method?
The assumptions include that the coach is skilled enough to engage, elicit and evoke information, knowledge, solutions, action plans, committments, etc. that are the ‘resources’ owned and known by the coachee, and that the coachee already has these ‘resources’, ‘latently hidden’ somewhere for the coach to engage the coachee to ‘discover’?
If ‘intrusiveness’(as you defined it) is a no-no for effective coaching, I can see your point that ‘contexts’ will be insignificant as part of the coaching skill, and there will be no need for niche coaching? Perhaps, then, defining coaching can be clearer, i.e. if that is a part of the universally accepted coaching definition?
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.
Bill,
About your first comment…
I understand and accept the value of reflection (“self-reflection” is a redundant term. Every “reflection” is a “self-reflexi√≥n”). But note that now you use the term “dialogue”… no, you can not talk to yourself either. Dialogue is achieved only with two people, and this is the foundation of coaching.
The body can not “relationship” with the mind or soul. Feelings or emotions can not “relationship” with logic. For there, to be a “relationship” or “dialogue” between “body-soul-mind-feelling-etc.” they should be separate entities. And body, mind, soul, feelings, logic and whatever, are/is ONE. Want proof? Separate your mind or soul from your body… and see how they “interact”
The conscious and the unconscious are not real entities separated from each other, it is ONE “thing” (there are, by calling in some way, levels of consciousness or levels of unconsciousness… nothing more).
What I mean is that when one reflects on their feelings or emotions, or when one reflects on his body, there is no dialogue, there are “MONOLOGUE”(speaking metaphorically of “dialogue” is good, but it is theoretically incorrect.) But think about our “monologues” is great!, because it allows what we call “self-awareness”, which is simply to realize for ourselves what happens to us. Great!, But that is not coaching. No dialogue, no relationship, and no coaching.
There is also a great danger if we accept “self-coaching”. If “self-coaching” is coaching, then anything that makes a coach (third person to help) can be seen as coaching (because coaching is taking place in an exclusively internal process, no matter what are doing that third person). And back to what I always say, if everything is coaching ends up being nothing.
If we accept self-coaching we have a serious inconsistency in our profession.
Ravier, L.
About your second comment/question
You asked: “What would be the ‚ÄòTHEORETICAL FRAMEWORK’ as you see fit that could be universally accepted or considered by the majority of coaches worldwide?”
Well, is a fascinating topic that I discussed a lot. Here is an example, where I discuss my position (on what I call “non-directive coaching”). http://leoravier.com/2009/03/23/coaching-no-directivo/
The theoretical framework for understanding what is explained there is this: http://leoravier.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/knowledge_base_coaching.jpg (I introduced it in the first meetings of the GCC). Then I developed more extensively, but it would take me a lot of hours to explain in full.
What I can bring forward is that the theoretical framework of coaching should be based on historical, theoretical and ethical studies (typical of social sciences), and that these three areas must be consistent.
And what I discovered or recognized, is that the essence of coaching lies in its non-directivity process. And that essence is enough to build the entire discipline of coaching. And finally, I see many incoherence or inconsistency in the vision of facilitator coaching, that tends to advice.
Ravier, L.
PD: in the graph above, “Practical coaching” must be “pragmatical coaching”.
Hi again Billy,
I answer you your last comment
You asked: “Ravier, your statement: ‚ÄúFrom my point of view, there is only one type of information that the coach can share: I am referring to information or knowledge of the coaching process itself (but not their content).”; to me this is synonymous to one of the basic principles of the Socratic Method (question follow by answer, then follow with another question‚Ķ..). All coaches if defined this way, may have to be ‚Äòfluent’ with the Socratic Method?”
Yes and No. YES, because the non-directive process has its roots in Socrates (mayeutics), but NO because coaches have developed a more sophisticated process (in fact, Socrates didn´t do what he said he did. And also, he didn´t do coaching, obviously. Simply read the dialogues of Plato in this regard).
You asked: The assumptions include that the coach is skilled enough to engage, elicit and evoke information, knowledge, solutions, action plans, committments, etc. that are the ‚Äòresources’ owned and known by the coachee, and that the coachee already has these ‚Äòresources’, ‚Äòlatently hidden’ somewhere for the coach to engage the coachee to ‚Äòdiscover’?”
Absolutly, YES!. If he or she do not have that, it would be necessary to turn to another kind of helping process (consultancy, advice, psychology, mentoring, training, etc.).
You asked: “If ‚Äòintrusiveness’ (as you defined it) is a no-no for effective coaching, I can see your point that ‚Äòcontexts’ will be insignificant as part of the coaching skill, and there will be no need for niche coaching? Perhaps, then, defining coaching can be clearer, i.e. if that is a part of the universally accepted coaching definition?”
In principle, a coach should (and could do, theoretically) cover any type of coaching. Now if we can not do it (in practice) is for other reasons (affinity, taste, safety, etc.). This makes that in non-directive coaching also exist “niches”. But also, I believe that within non-directive coaching is possible to study and deepen diferentes on niches, and specialize on them. Why? … because depending on the type of “target” may require new non-directive models.
I have models for personal coaching, executive, team or group and organizational (all different but all of them respect the non-directive process). The same could be done, I imagine, with niches within these broad areas.
Ravier, L.
Thanks Ravier for taking me back to this thread which I must have missed out on your comments above.
I am trying to grasp where you are coming from (meaning your background and strong convictions of your understanding about all things coaching). I would want to stay at this juncture to be neutral until I am in a better position, after I am more ‘scientifically’, ‘evidently’, and ‘factually’ ready to take the discussion to the next level (please take this as my learning curve).
I will certainly share my thoughts and perspectives, once I have a better understanding so that my discussion can be more relevant, meaningful, and makes good sense to the evolution of coaching.
Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.