How Did You Learn to be a Coach?

Hi Francine, I like the question. The short answer is ‘practice practice practice.’ I learned to be a coach from real-life practice – as much of it as possible.

You asked for stories along the journey. Here’s one:

In the course of a session, a favorite coaching client said something very lightly, and with laughter, as a sort of joke. But I learned a LOT from it and increased my awareness of certain things. Here’s what she said:

‘Well, Andrea, if you told me what colour underwear you wear, I might go out and buy some.’

Do bear in mind this was in a lighthearted kind of way. The client isn’t in any way scary or seriously mentally ill or anything like that at all. In fact, she’s a delight and very coachable – a great client in all ways. But it was a telling remark anyway, since I think it’s true that some clients will tend to put you (the coach) on a pedestal.

For me, this is a nonstarter in a coaching relationship, and this early experience helped me foresee when a client might be ‘pedestalizing’ me or forestall a client from developing this ‘oh guru’ mentality towards me.

It might be cliche to say this on a site like this one, but hey, a coaching session is never about the coach, much less their underwear, right? It’s always always always about the client.

For any mentor coaches out there on the other hand, I know we could share stories about new coaches who (unconsciously?) can enjoy this power dynamic when it comes up and do nothing to dispel it. It might make a new coach feel more comfortable in their role as an ‘I’m being paid for this’ coach. Get any coach with a bigger ego and whoopsie, not a good thing, right?

So anyway, that’s a little story about a really effective coaching lesson for me that happened on the fly, with a client. I think we can learn loads of things this way.

As with Andrea, I learned to be a coach by practice, practice, practice. I remember when Thomas Leonard “coach 100 clients to become an experienced coach”. His belief was that by the time you had coached 100 people you would have experienced most challenges and opportunities for the first time, and with that experience you could coach most anyone who was coachable in most any situation.

Early on (against the advice of more experienced coaching) I coached my siblings and my friends for practice. To keep the relationships clear, there were some groundrules in place before we started. The first was that everything during the coaching was confidential and when we were in session it was a coach-client relationship. The second was that if the coaching got in the way of our friendship, the coaching would end. While the coaching never got in the way of my friendships, one time my parents asked how one of my siblings was doing. When I responded “I suggest you ask them because what we talk about in our coaching sessions is confidential” they realized that it was a professional relationship. The question never came up again.

Thanks for asking the question so I could take a trip down memory lane.

I got into coaching by … being coached! I saw the power of coaching firsthand after my own experience, and decided that I wanted to learn more. I was a management consultant at the time, and felt that coaching would be a wonderful addition to my consulting toolkit. After taking my coach training and getting certified, I found that coaching was my “tool of choice”, and I’ve been doing it ever since!

Francine,
I’ve found coach supervision to be the most impactful element of my training and development as a coach. It’s common and in some cases a requirement here in the UK for all coaches, whether new or experienced, in a training program or not. I have worked 1:1 with a supervisor and with a group. Both are valuable in different ways and like, coaching, there are different models and processes to use. The term supervision is a bit outdated, and doesnt do justice to the value or dynamics of the relationship between the coach and his or her “supervisor”.

Thanks, Carol! I’d be curious to know if you have a particular “aha!” moment from your coaching supervision? At present, there’s not much of this going on in many training programs in the States.

Marywayne, I’m wondering if there was anything specific that your coach did influenced how you coach?

I took a rather more unusual approach to becoming a coach. I never had an aspiration to become a coach, but my job required that I know about coaching (I’m involved in executive development for the UK Government). The easiest way to learn about the coaching industry was to do a coaching course.

What started off as one year post-graduate study grew and I completed a Masters in Coaching last year. There are some clear lessons for me in developing as a coach, first there is no one “correct” route. Second, given point number one a mix of approaches helps provide different perspectives, but not every course provides a mix. For me my course had a balance of academic/theoretical inputs, a requirement to coach, a requirement to be coached, participation in supervision, undertaking research, all structured around a reflective approach. Third, as a coach you have to keep learning, you can never stop, and you have to pay attention to yourself as much as others.

By the way I still don’t coach full-time but I do have a handful of clients because as Vikki pointed out, you need to practice, practice, practice.

An old Richard Bach quote springs to mind:

“You are never given a dream without also being given the power to make it true. You may have to work for it, however.”

Very nice work, folks!

Allow me to insert another Richard Bach quote, which springs to my mind almost every time I find myself coaching – or find myself seeking to be coached:

“Argue for your limitations and sure enough they’re yours.”

I became a coach because years ago I was pretty regularly arguing for my limitations, blaming others for my life’s results, and just being an all-around victimy jerk. Fortunately I stumbled across a quotation by one Thomas Leonard (for historical reasons I wish I could remember which one it was!). On my primitive Mac with dial-up, I followed a link to his website (took about 12 minutes to load I seem to recollect) where I was enchanted, surprised and challenged. Not too long after that he created Coachville and I joined. Then the Graduate √É√¢School of Coaching and whatever else seemed appealing.

Like many others, I coached friends and family for practice, and no fee. In fact it wasn’t until I hired my own coach that I dealt with the “…why should I get paid for this…?” question. Within 24 hours of the first session with my coach, I had my first paying client, and have been riding the coaching roller coaster ever since.

In addition I got a ton of value from a Coachville event I attended in Phoenix in ‘02 when I started to ‘get’ the concepts behind “Absence of…” and “Provocative Conversations”.

I will parrot some others and recommend practice, practice, practice.

And I would feel incomplete if I did not acknowledge the gifts the universe has given me from time to time by providing challenging clients who allow me to check into how much I still argue for my limitations and boundaries.

I look forward to the unfolding of coachingcommons.org. I almost feel like I’m back in the late ’90s when I found Coachville!

Given the emphasis on practice emerging here in response to Francine’s question – among other excellent tidbits – is anyone game for ‘imagining’ an easy-to-access, well organized, simple way for every coach to get loads of quality practice? throughout their life as a practicing coach?

Does such a thing already exist and if so, links?

Perhaps it’s catch as catch can, and that’s fine – organic and natural?

Or?

Francine – what are the goals of your study?

The two keys for me were 1) practice and 2) being coached. I think I learned the slow way and as we learn more about coaching we will find much more efficient ways.

Over the past year or two I’ve known some mediocre or even terrible coaches raise themselves very quickly to a masterful level through triad practice. This combines the benefits of practice, with being coached (when you take your turn to be the coachee) and adds a further benefits of witnessing coaching and getting feedback. If you also record the coaching sessions, then you can observe and reflect on your own coaching, and get a much more accurate view of the feedback you receive on your coaching. It takes guts to listen to your own coaching, but it is very developmental.

This approach can be almost free. It requires a commitment of time, some willing buddies and some clear standards to measure the coaching. My belief in this approach is the reason I’m committed to the development of the International Association of Coaching, whose certification process supports this approach to learning to coach masterfully.

Hi Francine,

Back in 1993, after going through a divorce and facing an identity crisis of ‘WHO AM I?’ if not someone’s wife, teacher, mother, etc., I began taking a series of workshops related to personal development. I was astounded at the changes and transformation in people around me as well as my own.

Following the initial workshop, I enrolled in several more and continued to be in awe of the facilitator, a psychotherapist ‚Äö√Ñ√¨ ‚Äö√Ñ√∫How does he understand people so well? How does he get people to change so dramatically for the better? He explained that he was ‘coaching’ and that he was prepared to teach a group of us how to do what he does. I was the first person to sign up!

After taking the training, we formed a group (thus, Life Coaching Group) and received weekly supervision. We recommended friends and relatives to each other and that’s how I got my first paying client.

Because of my extensive and thorough training and experience, once I started my own coach training program, I added supervision (Mentor Practicum) as a place for coaches to discuss their client challenges and subsequently practice coaching.

Thanks to all who have posted thus far. Like many of you, I entered coaching through my own indirect and unexpected route. In early 1993, I had moved to South Dakota from New York City (another whole story line in itself) and had a colleague at the university where I worked encourage me to attend a new workshop on something called Life Coaching, offered by Dave Ellis. She made me an offer I couldn’t refuse (no tuition cost!) and so I ended up attending one of Dave’s first formal coach training programs. At first, I was a little skeptical but tried out the approach and strategies with the colleagues I supervised and with some students with good results. The rest is, as they say, history. In 2001, I “retired” from higher education to coach full time.

As Andrea noted, I’m always studying something (a curious person in every sense of the word). Later this year on The Foundation of Coaching website, I plan to launch a large, multi-year study of how coaches develop. Because so many of us enter the field in different ways and have such diverse experiences in learning to be coaches and in becoming masterful, this conversation offers me some insights into the process as others experience it. In addition, I think it’s great to be able to tell our stories and learn from each others stories, so let’s keep the stories going!

(BTW, the study is a collaboration with lots of room for participation so if there’s anyone out there who’d like to join the planning team, just drop me a note)

What a great question! I guess I’d have to say that I’m STILL learning to be a coach. I hope the process of *becoming* never stops, because it’s such a juicy way to live and work. And it keeps me humble.

There have been three significant “teachers” for me:

First, I agree with those who mentioned practicing. Early on, I discovered that WHO I practiced with could have a huge impact on my learning curve. I came out of an HR background, and the easiest thing would have been to stay in the field I was most comfortable in — coaching within the human resources area, maybe with career transition, job performance or executive coaching.

But I was bored with that — been there, done that, had the T-shirt, etc. Instead, I decided to work with clients who I perceived as being at least a few steps ahead of me on the path of personal and professional development; people who were playing REALLY, REALLY B-I-G.

I’ve coached some amazing people (yes, I know we ALL have! LOL) whose courage and brilliance have inspired me to reach far beyond my own comfort zone. And their high expectations of me provided the structure I needed to really see myself as a PROFESSIONAL.

Secondly, I had the opportunity (and privilege) from very early in my coaching career to train other coaches. Teaching, modeling and mentoring a specific coaching method for seven years is great training! You can’t help but strive for perfect coaching form at the front of the classroom.

And lastly, the person who has trained me in the art of coaching is my teenage son. He has taught me how to keep my mouth shut and truly listen from the heart. And he ALWAYS catches me when I slip into my own agenda! Talk about coaching bootcamp…

Kathy, I found your response inspiring, especially in reading how you chose to work with bigger clients who stretch you. Like you, I have found that teaching and mentoring coaches has been one of my greatest learning opportunities, causing me to dig down and really understand what it is we do. Thanks for sharing your experiences!

Has anyone read Otto Laske http://www.interdevelopmentals.org/? He is a coach who writes about coaching based on levels of adult developmental stage.

I thought of him because he writes about the potential risk of coaching someone who is at a higher developmental stage than we are. I’m not saying that was your case, because it’s not about whether or not we are a CEO, but about how we view ourselves and the world and our own stage of development.

So, given your experience, and the value of hindsight, what do you think of Laske’s concern? Is there any validity to it in your mind? As we mentor other coaches, is it something we might ever be concerned about?

So many of the replies so far have mentioned practice, practice, practice. What if there’s more than just practice involved? I suspect that what we do with our practice- i.e. intentional ways of learning from our experience- is what helps us actually become better instead of just repeating what we do over and over again. One of my learning practices is to reflect on sessions that haven’t gone as well as I expected to see what I did with that client that worked and what didn’t work, and to consider what I might try differently. I teach my students to keep a reflection log and to take note of similar material. Would you share some of your intentional learning practices? How do you grow as a coach by using your practice as a learning tool?

I think Francine is close to the target in her last comment about “intentional learning from our experience”. While you have to practice to learn about coaching, there are other interventions that offer opportunities for learning about coaching, whether it be articles or books that you read, conferences attended, supervision received or research undertaken, etc, etc. The key issue is how do you integrate all this learning. Too often people have new material but don’t know how to integrate it, this was one of the reasons that I studied with i-coach academy (www.i-coachacademy.com) because their process required you to be able to articulate your own coaching model. Interestingly they are informed (in part) by David Kolb’s work on experiential learning.

As I mentioned in my initial posting, I don’t coach for a living, my key requirement is to understand coaching per se. However, I know that if I don’t coach and just read or attend conferences, I will lose my skills in the long run. So for me the challenge is how much practice is enough to keep my edge, and I currently have 7 clients at various stages of being coached by me.

Practice, practice, practice is great, and we all need to do this, but practice without reflection and integration into how we think about coaching isn’t itself much use.

@jsibley — I haven’t read Laske, so can’t comment on his concerns. But the feedback from my own clients has been consistently positive, and I feel I’m a better coach and person for it.

@Francine — You make a great point about combining intention for growth with practice. Coaching isn’t only transformative on the client’s end!

>Has anyone read Otto Laske http://www.interdevelopmentals.org/? He is a coach who writes about coaching based on levels of adult developmental stage. As we mentor other coaches, is it something we might ever be concerned about?

Hi,

I have spoken with Otto several times about his research and philosophy around levels of development. Quite frankly, I think his theory is very well taken. He is not referring to knowledge per se but rather to our understanding of how we operate in the world. Specifically, this refers to the ego and our EVOLVEment. The more enlightened we are, the more people we can coach effectively.

When clients are extremely evolved and have learned to recognize what is their ego vs. their true self, unless the coach is equally as evolved or more so, that client would not be appropriately challenged to stretch and grow. It’s not to say that the client can’t learn new ways or gain experience, but the growth process would not reach the potential possible. In some ways, the client would be short-changed.

As a very strong advocate of coaches (especially mentors) needing to clean up their own side of the street, it behooves us to continually learn and grow and that, in my opinion, should also include understanding basic spiritual principles such as those in Power of Now or A New Earth (Eckhart Tolle).

This is not to be construed as every coach should be involved in spirituality – NOT what I’m suggesting. Rather, by understanding the basic principles, the coaching can be that much more powerful and meaningful and the shifts created permanent. When a coach is not at an equal or higher level in this regard, that’s when I believe the client doesn’t fully get his/her needs met.

Best regards,
Marion

I want to add to the discussion about Otto Laske’s philosophy. I came to understand what he means quite vividly one time when I was observing some coaching during a coach-training session.

The client was struggling with some issues at work and he was considering how to handle a lack of opportunities and a stifling boss. To me it was obvious that he needed to consider leaving that job. Even if he decided not to, I felt that just considering leaving would give him more freedom to act.

But the coach steering the conversation completely avoided that option, always asking him about what he could do within the situation.

Afterwards I spoke to the coach about it, and she said she purposely avoided talking about leaving the job, because she thought he shouldn’t or couldn’t do that …it would be too drastic a step.

So she was severely limiting the client with her own limited world view. To improve her coaching, her world view needed to expand beyond the view of the client.

It’s easy to understand this example, because we can grasp the existence and validity of the wider world view. But what about those world’s we have not explored or even perceived?

Just to clarify — I wasn’t talking about coaching Mother Theresa or the Dali Lama. I just meant that early on, I consciously chose to attract people who approach life with a high degree of integrity, compassion and consciousness — qualities that inspire me personally to grow and stretch.

=^)

Jonathan, thanks for introducing Otto Laske’s model and theory. I’m familiar with his work both through his writings and papers and through having completed training in the introductory course he teaches. Coming from a background in adult learning and development, the model really resonates for me. What Otto is addressing is the degree of complexity of thought and context the coach and client are able to hold and integrate. Taking Angela’s example, it’s possible (although I’m not psychic today as I write this), that the client was indeed cognitively capable of recognizing multiple dimensions to his work challenge and seeking help from the coach to create a larger frame which would allow him to integrate seemingly conflicting needs and demands. And it’s equally possible that the coach was at a slightly less complex level of consciousness, thus tending to simply the problem and lead toward a more dichotomous resolution (instead of a larger, more integrative and complex one.)

Where I see this fitting in our conversation about how coaches develop is that it leads us to explore the question of how we grow our own cognitive complexity, our ability to think and see our client’s challenges (and our own challenges with some clients) in more complex and integrative ways.

Francine, thanks for putting such explicit wording on this. That’s really helpful.

Regarding my example, I shared your assumptions, tested them and did discover that the client could understand a larger frame and in fact that frame was very useful to him. Even if this frame had been too large for him, the coach would not even have been able to determine that without having the more complex view herself.

To your last paragraph, indeed, we need to understand how to best grow our own cognitive complexity. As far as I know, having your own coach, and working on improving your life, is an excellent way to do this.

Angela Spaxman said: “… we need to understand how to best grow our own cognitive complexity. As far as I know, having your own coach, and working on improving your life, is an excellent way to do this.”

This reminded me of a gathering/conference/discussion that Coachville held in Indianapolis shortly after the passing of Thomas Leonard. They invited a bunch of coaches to brainstorm a way (or ways) to help set the direction of Coachville.

I am not guaranteeing that what I quote below is completely precise, but as I recall, one of the frameworks that came from that gathering was: “Exceptional individuals become exceptional coaches.”

The intention (again, via my recollection) was to make it clear that it is necessary that we work on ourselves to truly be an excellent, or exceptional, coach. And in my opinion, it is life-time work.

What “working on myself” or “improving my life” means to me may differ in specifics from anyone else, but my experiences and beliefs, both as a coach, and as a human, makes a strong case for doing it; in otherwords, “… git ‘er done!” (I’ll take quotes wherever I find them!)

By the way, if anyone else was at the Indianapolis gathering, and has recollections they’d like to share, I’d love to hear from you. (Other than Andrea, I don’t remember if others on this list were there.) Much has entered my mind and memory since that weekend, and many of those memory cells about it seem to have been filled with other stuff.

Cheers
Kerry

Thanks for this fascinating discussion – it’s been great to read through the variety of replies.

I completely subscribe to Kerry’s philosophy of life-time work – as applicable to ‘me as a person’ as well as ‘me as a coach’; and in fact, could not feel in integrity with my clients if I were not investing time & other resources in my own development in both areas. This includes paying my own Coach, and in more recent addition, Business Mentor Coach as well. I also do a lot of self-coaching, which primarily takes the form of journaling and regularly giving myself the gift of time to explore how I’m feeling.

My personal/spiritual journey has had a strong impact on my coaching, in the sense that it is allowing me to continuously step more consciously into ‘Who I Am’ as a coach – which is about respecting my own evolving style and being aware of how effective that is for each client and their agenda.

I found trios/tryad co-coaching sessions to be one of the most effective tools during my coach-training; although with some hindsight it wasn’t until I let go of the strict time-limits of sessions that I really started stepping into my own style more fully.

The other practice that has worked for me since my early days of starting a Coaching Log, is to consider and record what I learnt from each session I do with a client (regardless of how well they or I think the session progressed). It is not always easy to spot the point of learning or awareness, yet by holding that attitude I find it always takes me to a place of gratitude for each coaching experience; and reminds me of my commitment to continual growth.

I am curious whether others would consider Coach Continuous Professional Development to be sufficient vs Personal/Spiritual growth, as we evolve as coaches; and whether the niche we coach in has particular influence on that?

Sam, your response touched several resonant chords for me. My long-time practice of Zen Buddhism (including on-going work with my Zen teacher) has significantly shaped the lens through which I view the world, including who and how I am in a coaching relationship. It strikes me that the personal/professional development isn’t so much an either-or question as a matter of how we align our professional development practices with our personal values. You used the word “integrity” and I think that holds the key. In another thread on this site (David Drake- What Research is Important to you right now?), the author discusses his practice of self-assessment, identifying his own learning edges and then creating a learning practice to help fill the gaps. I like this idea, adding in the element of “what’s right for me”? along with “what will stretch me”?

My brain first wanted to give the facts of my coach training at CTI (Coach Training Institute) which I thoroughly enjoyed and “suffered” through as I did the personal work of each lesson while I learned. I laugh because by 11:00 a.m. of each 3-day in person training session, I was usually in tears. This was part of my learning process and I really felt launched.

The rest of my training has been through occasional seminars, ICF local meetings in Chicago with GREAT speakers and through my coaches. I’ve learned the most about COACHING by coaching, becoming more and more authentic and letting my clients see my vulnerability and weaknesses. Possibly the greatest coaching I’ve received is in learning to run a business and the fear of being really bold.

My clients teach me so much about what works as I’m coaching when a simple question from me or, more powerfully when I speak an intuition, stimulates huge insights that they build on and remember for a long time.

Coaching is amazing for it’s on-the-job accelearted learning. I am so glad you asked so I could appreciate formulating my answer!

[...] appreciated Francine’s comments about discerning “what’s right for me?” as she reflected on learning opportunities [...]

Gail, I loved your comment about courage required to become an entrepreneur. That sure resonates for me. It also raises another interesting aspect of learning to become a coach. In working with our clients, we learn to be couragous, to take risks in being fully authentic, present, transparent to better serve as allies and effective provocateurs of client growth. This way of being is, I think, cultivated and enhanced in coach training and practice. However, for coaches (like me and perhaps you, Gail) who transitioned into coaching/entrepreneurship from a 30 year career in a stable staff position, there’a whole new learning curve involved in becoming an authentic marketer of ourselves and our services. I’m eager to hear from others about how you cultivate this aspect of becoming a coach?

Francine:

What you ask about how to develop the marketing skills and mindset which I had to learn too, could fill a book. And HAS! Several are out there and yet that isn’t what you are looking for. Let me start by recommending Andrea Lee’s Multiple Streams of Coaching Income to broaden your mindset and give you tools.

I’m wondering… where in your 30 years in the business world did you observe people sharing messages to help solve problems? Even today, look to your favorite print, radio or TV ads. What catches your attention, especially on things you could be in the market for?

I am not sure if you are asking for direction, so I’ll cover that base just in case! I think it’s critical to learn how to LOVE marketing your business and yourself. And I see how it’s like coaching. Informing, asking provacative questions, collaborating on solutions… A key place to start is to know your WHO and WHAT… who you serve and what you do for them in measurable, observable, tangible language.

The the rest follows because you then know where your market or people with those issues hang out. Now you know where to network (online and off), speak, write, etc.

Welcome to the world of coaching and marketing, all rolled together. You are too good a “find” to keep to yourself!

Thanks, Gail, for the comprehensive and thoughtful reply! I know Andrea’s “pink spoon” model quite well and love the idea so much that I often recommend it to coaches whom I coach/mentor. I’d love to hear a little more from you about the inner work of becoming an entrepreneur. You’re quite right that the coaching world is awash in books, articles, websites, courses, workshops and more- all of which promise to teach a coach to become a successful marketer. I propose that there’s something more than information or even confidence (thought I loved your last line re: being too good a find). I wonder, for example, how individuals in other, comparable private-practice professions come to develop a sensibility that walks a line between providing a useful human service and “marketing” a product.

Hi Francine,

What pleasure to read this informative discussion and to see it taking such a strong turn from “formal” coach training options, and more to “informal” learning, like reflection, perspective and practice =) One study (google “NALL”) summarized that 80% ish of all learning is informal, on-the-job: given the responses so far, this can only resonate with coaches whose work helps client profit from their experiences, challenges, doubts and curiosities.

I’d like to add that how I learned to coach was, in huge part, working with my coach to take in my own inventory of what I’d already learned in life, at work, in school… Being coached quickly required me to recognize and USE my own toolbox of knowledge, skills and aptitudes/abilities from every other practice I’d ever seemed to have undertaken… I made very quick changes that settled me into a much better sense of where I really was and had to offer.

A “best part” of being a coach – and working with other coaches and clients now is helping them do the same: to recognize their prior learning and to help them use it to best manage the options, risk and consequences for making any particular choice.

I’ve been using this quote quite a bit lately, George Box, an industrial statistician, is credited with the quote “all models are wrong, some are useful”… coaching seems founded on that – Thomas Leonard had what was a brilliance for understanding models and using them perfectly in ways that were useful – I echo that I’m still learning (a lot)… I’ve taken a lot of “formal” coaching training… coaching just seems to be working well, works in harmony with models and what I learned in the (seems) distant past domains to which I have been exposed and continue to “float” when it seems of help to clients. The domains include (endless list, but a few important for me) life, work, travel, relationships, personal discovery, project management, leadership, facilitation, mediation, conflict management…

A great example, I agree, is Andrea’s marvelous Multiple Streams model. It is a joy… simple, and very useful. I explore with it almost every day, floating it around to see how it is or isn’t of use.

So, I am indeed still learning… and love to do so, alongside other coaches to be exposed to their own exploration and introduction of new models that (just might!!) be useful… then to learn through the great great pleasure of offering them up as we learn along with clients.

Loved this question =)

This is a great topic.

My consistent answers to ‘how did I learn to be a coach’ has been; practice, practice, practice; engage in experimentations on what works, what doesn’t; and seeking mentor coaching and peer coaching whenever appropriate.

Recently there was another discussions with my peers about coach supervision as a route to learning to be a ‘performing’ coach.

There was plenty of confusion about the definition of coach supervision and what it really encompasses.

Is the ‘coach supervisor’ focusing on the coach that he/she is engaged to supervise?; or on the effectiveness of the supervisee’s coaching processes on his/her coachee/client? or on the skill sets/competencies that the supervisee has yet to acquire or master or outside the supervisee’s capabilities & capacities?

These brings us to the issue of who qualifies to be a coach supervisor, and to what extent will the coach supervisor be accountable – to the supervisee? or to the success of the supervisee’s coachee/client coaching outcomes/goals? All these issues seem to be interwind.

My take is that, a coach can benefit as much from mentor coaching and peer coaching compared to coach supervision.

Mentor coaching and peer coaching are generally pro bono, while there generally is a fee for coach supervision.

There are debates about the pro and cons about coach supervision, mentor coaching, and peer coaching.

I personally believe that a coach should be ethical, accountable and responsible to assess whether he/she needs to opt for coach supervision, mentor coaching, or peer coaching; and disagree that a coach must be coached-supervised in order to qualify for a coaching contract.

I strongly advocate mentor coaching and peer coaching but not coach supervision (as it is still not well-defined yet and that the onus of effectiveness of coaching is on the coach himself/herself, not on coach supervision).

My challenge to advocates of coach supervision is that ‘what are the things that can be achieved by coach supervision that cannot be achieved through mentor coaching and peer coaching?

If there are limited value-added from coach supervision, why are we promoting coach supervision when mentor coaching and peer coaching can just do the job as good?

Are there enough evidences that coach supervision will ensure ‘quality’?

To me ‘quality’ of coaching is because of the coach himself or herself. Of course, ‘quality’ coach supervision, mentor coaching and peer coaching possibly will contribute to the enhancement of the ‘quality’ of coach deliveries, to a certain extent.

Having said that, learning to be a ‘performing’ coach is a ever evolving personal journey. Supporting ’systems’(including mentor coaching, peer coaching or even coach supervision) are tools that would accelerate the process of becoming a ‘performing coach’.

The only guarantee of effective coaching is the coach himself, and his/her success in ‘making’ the ‘uncoachable client/coachee’ – coachable.

Meta-cheerio.

Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.

Hi Billy, Francine, et al

This is a very rich discussion filled with such wonderful insights and knowledge. BTW – Kerry – I was in Indianapolis and remember the Open Space work we did as well as all of the deep discussions.

From having mentored, trained, and supervised so many coaches, the key seems to always come back to personal growth. The coaches that have taken the time to learn about themselves and then have the ability to apply that to their coaching seem to get a better grasp on coaching.

It would appear that coaches who have not done a great deal of introspective work have a harder time relating to their clients and/or rely upon learned information more so than combined knowledge and life experience. Life experience is a huge advantage.

As for supervision – it depends on who and how. I believe clients get value from coaching in every conversation (unless there are blatant missteps). However, there is a great difference in the quality of the value they receive. The client can leave a conversation with some action plan or the client can leave the conversation with a whole new perspective and shift in thinking.

In supervision, my goal is to help coaches learn how to be more effective and efficient and to create a deeper, more meaningful conversation that transforms the client and propels them forward. The key is to ascertain the theme of the conversation vs. getting stuck in the plot. If the theme becomes the crux of the conversation, the client may learn how to change, handle a problem, deal with a situation not only in the present but also for the future. When the change is so profound, the client has the ability to apply the knowledge to future situations and actions to be taken by the client are naturally borne out of the conversation by the client.

One of the best ways that I know to practice and improve is to record coaching conversations (with client’s permission). Listening to yourself coach (after the fact) can be revealing and extremely helpful. Often, it’s a way to realize what could have been more powerful, more precise, more meaningful, more direct, more present, etc. And, having a mentor coach (or supervisor) listen, can often reveal even more wisdom and knowledge.

Best regards,
Marion

Thanks Marion for your great sharing.

Introspections, reflections, feedbacks, and ‘imparting’ what one has learnt may be some of the better vehicles to learning, development and personal growth. What else?

All of the above could be via the individual or via other’s support (supervision, mentoring, peering, etc.)

In coach training, recording coaching conversations and working in groups of threes or fours (each playing the role of the coachee, the coach, the observer and the mentor coach) may be effective methods and are quite standard mode of training deliveries nowadays. Anyone who would like to share other innovative coach training approaches?

However, in practice, since many of the coaching conversations are ‘personal’, obtaining permission from the coachee becomes a challenge when the paying stakeholder is the Organization, and not the coachee himself/herself. Because the coaching conversations may at times ‘deviate’ into the private territories of the coachee and into ’sensitive information’, the use of audio-visual recordings may reveal beyond what is permitted to be ‘exposed’ in a coach-coachee relationship, especially to a third party. Accessibility to such recordings must, if done, be agreed upon by the coachee himself/herself, with the intent of using the audio-visual recordings clearly specified and explained to the coachee concerned. What if the Organization insists on accessibility even without the consent of the coachee/client, since the Organization is the ‘paymaster’?

Off track a bit but inter-related, feedback is essential for personal growth. However, my experience with ’supervision’ is slightly different as ’supervision’ tends to operate on the mode that one is ’supervised’ based on a set value system, set criteria and set ways of doing things.

A good example may be: one must follow the coaching principle of ‘positive psychology’ i.e. lots of positivity, encouragements, supports, etc. versus another ’supervisor’ whose coaching principle include ’seeking the truth’, which means somewhere within the coaching conversations, there will emerge ‘fierce conversations’, which sometimes ‘positive psychology’ will not facilitate the path to ’seeking the truth’.

That is one good example of the challenge of ‘coach supervision’- should the coach supervisor operate based on a particular coaching system (common to find that there are many coach supervisors coaching ’supervisees’ according to their preferred systems, their own value systems, and their own set of coaching principles). Isn’t it fair to say that ‘resistance to change’ is often the result of ‘imposing one’s views’, while ‘embracement to change’ is often when one can find the ‘alignment & agreement’ with what are being ‘imposed’ with what one’s personal point of views and values?

At the end of the day, all coaching should be about the supervisee’s client/coachee. Here we are having a scenario where the coach supervisor is attempting to understand the supervisee’s client/coachee via the supervisee’s perspectives. Does that really make full sense, as coaching is normally ’spontaneous’ and ‘presence’ is crucial? How do we replicate ‘presence’ – although the suggestion of audio-visual recordings may be possible, are we supporting the premise that the coach supervisor should have access to these recordings? Is it an ethical move?

Coach supervision probably will work if there are pre-agreements between the coach supervisor and the supervisee to the set of supervision criteria. It will probably work if the scope of coach supervision is clear cut – is supervising the supervisee for development purpose? is supervising to ‘help’ the supervisee to upskill? is attempting to understanding the issues of the supervisee’s client/coachee/stakeholder, and the supervisee’s coaching processes and approaches part of the supervision portfolio? is the supervisee being coached on areas outside the supervisee’s domain of ‘understanding, expertise, experience’, etc.

These supervisory roles have to be specified upfront. The supervisees should have the right of choice who will be their respective supervisors. There should not be only specific interest groups who ‘qualify’ to supervise, and supervision should not be officially compulsory to secure a coaching contract. The client/coachee/stakeholder concern should decide whether any coach should be supervised or not. Do you agree or disagree with my points of view here?

The main issue is until and unless we have a universally accepted ‘coach code of operating principles’ which are generally accepted as best or appropriate practice, I see the value of coach supervision as more of a marketing tool. Am I being too obvious or unfair here?

Using coach supervision as a tool is definitely useful provided the ’supervision’ intent, purposes, and outcomes are measurable, fair, attain value-added to the supervisee, and upgrade, uphold, propel the coaching ‘profession’ forward.

The coaching ‘profession’ trend is moving towards ‘coach supervision’, which I agree is a good thing provided it is not ‘abused’?

As a developmental tool, it is a great tool. My one concern is ‘developmental’ to whose standards, practices, ways and approaches?

What are your thoughts on my thoughts? I appreciate the feedback, contrasting opinions and your input where my thoughts may be flawed.

Meta-cheerio.

Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.

HI again,

My understanding of coaching is to always seek the truth. And, using ICF Core Competencies or IAC Coaching Masteries, one has a terrific guideline to follow.

Each of these organizations have spelled out very clear and distinct aspects of each Competency/ Mastery so that it can be distinctly recognized within the coaching conversation.

When coaches want ICF certification (or IAC certification), they choose a coach who already has that credential and is familiar with the guidelines and requirements.

A ‘good’ supervision – in my opinion – is one where the supervisor helps the coach hone their skill and technique and make improvements in their effectiveness as a coach.

Another HUGE difference from what I’ve observed (and in training a coach to become a supervisor) is that the ‘typical’ style is to share “this is what I would do in that situation” which oftentimes is not effective since it doesn’t open up possibilities.

In good supervision, the coach offers ‘universal’ ideas/ suggestions that can be applicable in all situations and actually coaches the coach vs. tells the coach how to improve. As we know, when we receive good coaching, we make permanent shifts in our thinking and that holds true for good supervision as well.

Example: A coach gets sucked into the details and story early on in the conversation. My style is to stop the coaching and talk with the coach about the theme that is going on…. with the intention of helping the coach get out of the story and see the relevance of the situation as a whole. I could simply ‘tell’ the coach you are stuck in the details, but that wouldn’t help the coach improve next time. So it’s coaching the coach that makes for good supervision.

Best regards,
Marion

Thanks Marion for keeping taps on the ICF and IAC coaching competencies, and sharing your experiences in training coaches to become coach supervisors.

My focus for this discussion is on ‘coach supervision’. Is it necessary or not, in the context of learning and skill enhancement?

I definitely agree and subscribe to the ideal, where a coach supervisor is able to engage in the coaching process/style with his/her supervisee (supervising, mentoring, or peer supporting?).

To quote: “In good supervision, the coach offers ‚Äòuniversal’ ideas/ suggestions that can be applicable in all situations and actually coaches the coach vs. tells the coach how to improve”.

Here again, as with my experience is where the coach supervisor (is playing the mentoring role, although may be using a coaching style while mentoring), ’suggests’ probable solutions based from the coach supervisor’s perspectives, and perhaps ‘challenges’ the supervisee to explore the ’suggested probable solutions’ and aligning with his/her (the supervisee’s) own perspectives/frames (facilitating the co-creation of the ’solution’ that the supervisee will have ownership of, and take action on.)

Marion’s statement: “the ‚Äòtypical’ style is to share ‚Äúthis is what I would do in that situation” which oftentimes is not effective since it doesn’t open up possibilities” conjures up that coaching is not about ‘telling’.

Although the principle is not to ‘tell’ or ‘advice’ in coaching (consulting include telling and advising), but framing in ‘possibility frame’ may create multiple layers of meanings and interpretations that could facilitate the coachee/client to view the ‘telling’ as an exploration journey, not telling per se.

For example: “I would do that in that situation…..”, if replaced with “In that situation, I did…..; what other possibilities and ideas could you build on, from what I did in dealing with that situation?”

The coaching processes can be applied no matter which role one is in i.e. when mentoring, one can use a coaching style approach; when consulting, one can use a coaching style as well, etc. The same goes for coach supervision. A coach supervisor can use a coaching style to ’supervise’.

The thing about coach supervision is that there will always be ’set rules’ or ‘criteria’ to follow, which also would measure the efficiency and effectiveness of coach supervision. More often than not, there will be guidelines for ’supervision’, and if a coach supervisor is ‘governed’ to follow that ’set rules’ or ‘criteria’, then establishing the ‘right’ or appropriate quality level of coaching is still subjected to debate. Which ’supervision guidelines’ ensure ‘quality coaching’?

There are criteria set, for example, to follow the ICF standards, the IAC standards, the internally preferred standards, the proprietary coaching system, the coaching models to be compliant with, etc.

The challenge is, where are the evidences that manifest which criteria/guidelines will lead to ‘quality coaching’, and hence should be the ‘ideal model’ governing the ‘coach supervision’ portfolio? Defining ‘quality coaching’ is already a challenge by itself, let alone, coach supervision.

Also if a coach is already credentialled, what would be the rationale for ‘coach supervision’? Is it necessary to ‘coach supervised’ for those already credentialled? Some may debate that the coaching skills for those credentialled are not in question, but the client/coachee having additional perspectives of the ‘contexts’ of the coaching may benefit from supplementary ’supervisory’, ‘mentoring’, and ‘peer supporting’?

As far as I am aware of, most coach supervision providers require that ’supervisees’ are compliant with their own ’set of criteria/rules/standards/methodologies/models/etc.’. So if one is ’supervised’ based on the ICF standards, one would be ‘assessed’ and ’supervised’ according to ICF standards, and so on.

The issue that emerge now, is that there are now so many ‘coach supervision’ providers, including from Universities, coach training providers, etc. that there is no one universally accepted ‘coach supervision standards’, and that the evaluation of the ‘quality’ of coach supervision’ itself is subjected to further debate.

I am not clear where exactly coaching stands at this juncture in time, but my inkling is that there are still many unfinished issues that needs to be resolved before we embarked into the domain of coach supervision.

My personal guidepost is to evaluate the performance of any coach based on the coach’s ability to assist his/her client/coachee to attain his/her coaching goals/outcomes based on agreed efficiency and effectiveness measures pre-agreed upon. That would be the messurement.

That being said, I am for coach supervision, coach mentoring, or peer coaching as long as these ’supports’ can help achieve that for the client/coachee (the focus is always on the client/coachee/stakeholder) even when the ‘definitions’ of coach supervision, coach mentoring, and coach peer supporting, have yet to be universally defined.

So the vicious cycle continues…..what types of coach supervisors should any coach be supervised by? Supervised based on what school of thoughts, criteria, standards, etc? How do we measure the benefits of coach supervision? To what extent would coach supervision impact the ’supervisee’ himself/herself? the supervisee’s coaching processing skills? etc.? Compared with other ’supporting’ systems for the supervisee, what else may be more or as effective as coach supervision?

On a personal note, I strongly believe that coaching is evolving into ‘clarity’ as we take the journey to explore outside the boundaries of our comfort zones; permit ourselves to scrutiny of our thoughts; and continue to ‘resolve’ the many issues that confront us now and in the future.

Meta-cheerio.

Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.

Hi Billy,

Just re-read your post to get a sense of your framework and to figure out where I’m taking exception.

While I think your point is valid that most supervision coaches will want to adhere to a set of standards and ‘guide’ the coach in a particular direction, that is not what I do – at all. In fact, in my ICF approved laser coaching course, I don’t discuss any proficiencies, masteries, or competencies until the very end and then only as a resource.

The reason – I don’t teach to a particular set of standards but rather to ‘being a good coach’ – that is asking provocative and powerful questions, knowing and understanding human behaviors, strategies, needs, etc. and readily being able to identify the theme of the conversation.

When mentoring/supervising, it’s helping the coach identify the theme and it’s a conversation to ascertain how the coach is thinking about the client’s challenges. There is never a hint of adhering to any guidelines other than helping the client in a more powerful and profound way so that the client’s thinking is shifted more so than it otherwise may have been.

As for credentialed coaches – they have come to recognize and clearly state that they get into ’sloppy’ habits, forget some of the bare basics, haven’t been exposed to recognizing strategies, and seem to have lots of room for growth and improvement. In fact, the ‘typical comment’ is that within 2 or 3 weeks of supervision, they are already knowing a distinct difference in the quality of their coaching. At no time, is any model or methodology advocated – just deeper more profound work with the client.

As for measuring outcomes that the client anticipates or requests, what is most often discovered is that the request is a manifestation on a superficial level. i.e. I want to make a decision about xyz. In the coaching that I do and teach, it’s looking at what is causing the client to feel stuck in making the decision – not focused on the decision itself. In turn, the client comes to the decision with a deeper understanding of what was creating the dilemma in the first place.

Another example – A client ‘claims’ that he wants to get rid of clutter in his office. Rather than focus on how to do that, the focus is on what is creating the clutter – what’s behind that? In one instance, we discovered that the client had a fear of success and this was his excuse. If we had focused on the clutter, it would have been temporarily handled – but not necessarily in the long term. When going deeper (as does the supervision assistance), the client makes a permanent shift in thinking.

Hope this clarifies.

Best regards,
Marion

Thanks Marion for the rich insights into your practise.

Permit me to understand further.

Your point on: “While I think your point is valid that most supervision coaches will want to adhere to a set of standards and ‚Äòguide’ the coach in a particular direction, that is not what I do – at all.” It is great that you allow the ‘theme’ and ‘energy flow’ to ‘guide’ your coach supervision endeavours, and “don’t teach to a particular set of standards but rather to ‚Äòbeing a good coach’.”

Would it be possible for you to share how your clients (the supervisees)evaluate the effectiveness of your coach supervision based on your approach? Marion, the reason I am asking this question is to have a clearer understanding of what makes good coach supervision versus poor supervision.

I am also unclear about what ‘being a good coach’ in your context means? Correct me if I am misinterpreting. Are you saying that you coach supervised accordingly to the ‘theme’, and the coaching that particular coaching proficiency, mastery or competency as it emerges (ICF, IAC, etc?)? How do we measure a coach supervisory ability to ‘diagnose’ and ‘capture’ proficiency, mastery or competency ‘weaknesses’ or ’sloppiness’ in supervisees?

Would it be great to have some way of differentiating how we measure coach supervision, versus mentoring, versus peer coaching/supporting, so that once for all we can have some form of platform or evidence-based ‘mechanisms’ to advocate or ‘challenge’ the concept of coach supervision, mentoring and/or peer coaching?

Your statement: “As for credentialed coaches – they have come to recognize and clearly state that they get into ’sloppy’ habits, forget some of the bare basics, haven’t been exposed to recognizing strategies, and seem to have lots of room for growth and improvement.” for me is surprising (I am not a credentialled coach and am not aware of the credentialling processes).

It seems to me that there is much room to ‘close the gaps’ in the credentialling processes, as per your statement above. I am sure the purpose of ‘credentialling’ include ensuring the proficiencies, competencies, and road to mastery are embedded into the credentialling processes. For one, if I am a client, I would expect to be confident of the performance of the credentialled coach.

I do agree that no one coach can master all ‘coaching contexts’ and require some form of ’support’. Mentoring and peer coaching to me may be good platforms.

Coach supervision as I interpret it is to coach supervised accordingly to a prescribed or agreed set of practices, principles, proficiencies, competencies, etc. My main concern is how do we come to a consensus which to adopt as best practice or not to adopt at all and let it be in the domains of the individual coach supervisor? What issues should we than further question?

Most coachee or supervisee (in the context of being coach supervised), would have come to terms with what he/she wants to attain, is clear of that coaching goal; has ‘made’ the decision and commitment to pursue the coaching goal; work on the solution or solutions, and the likely ‘outcomes’ that would emerge when actions and evidence-based efforts are carried out; manifesting into the realization of the coaching goal.

In coach supervision, are we working on both fronts i.e. on the supervisee as well on the ‘contexts’ of the supervisee’s coaching work on his/her coachee? I am still unclear to what extent should coach supervision encompass in relation to the stakeholders concerned? Also if the coach supervisor work does encompasses on the stakeholders’ ‘issues’, my question is, how does the coach supervisor ‘understand profoundly’ the meta-levels ‘concerns’ of the stakeholders since he/she is invoking, eliciting and soliciting directly from a third party i.e. the supervisee? How does the ‘detection’ of the real issue – the issue behind the issue be validated and verified?

Marion, thank you for being part of my learning to be a better coach, and reminding me that it is the ‘issues’ we are focusing on, and not the person.

Meta-cheerio.

Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.

Hi Billy

I was getting ready to reply as I was reading until I got to the last sentence – While we need to address the ‘issues/challenges’ we must always keep the person in mind (the person receiving the coaching. If that person is the coach doing the coaching, then the whole person needs to be kept in mind as well as their particular challenges in doing effective coaching.

What makes for great coaching? First off, it should be powerful, effective, and masterful. Can be subjective but overall – in my mind, it’s about creating a permanent shift in thinking to the point where the client can no longer return to their original thinking. To do that, the coach needs the skills and tools to go deeper (more levels) than superficial surface ‘make a list’ work. It’s also incumbent upon the coach to ascertain the theme and there are only so many that continue to surface.

So as a supervisor, it’s helping the coach (doing the coaching) to step back and figure out the theme and to ask open-ended questions, allow way more silence than they think the client needs, and lead by following the client’s response (lead by following). It’s about getting to the deeper place without going on a fishing expedition. When it’s done well, it seems so effortless, but in actuality there is skill and insight required. When the coach walks away with new techniques, tools, and a better understanding of how to peel the layers, the coach improves his/her efficiency and mastery.

To address your question about addressing the effectiveness of the supervision….
A sample of unedited excerpts from testimonials from coaches having gone through the experience of being supervised:
“Thanks to Marion’s smart way of structuring each call to provide practice and supportive feedback, I’ve been able, in a relatively short time, to expand my range as a coach and to coach more confidently and intuitively. Marion keeps the focus on our coaching and her incisive comments have sharpened my coaching.”
and
“The skills and the practice that the program focused on are those skills that will separate the truly gifted coaches, the truly masterful coaches, from everyone else.”
and
“You have taken us each by the hand and have taught us how to honor another’s journey, how to have compassion and understanding, how to lovingly see through the stories, ours and others, while truly embracing our own uniqueness. Of course, I wouldn’t forget the all powerful one…how to create a loving space for someone to grow in.”

From what I understand about what you write, it’s not about working on the goal or the solutions related to the goal but rather working on the thinking that is choosing that goal. What is truly important is the experience the client wants to have vs. how it will manifest. Most people believe that what they want will manifest in a particular way. Ex: I want $1M vs. I want to feel free and easy and not trapped by a crazy work schedule. That can be accomplished in ways that may have nothing to do with the amount of money – it’s the experience that matters. Therefore, addressing a goal that a client requests oftentimes misses the underlying concerns and perspective that may need to change.

The way the ‘issue behind the issue’ may be verified is when the person receiving the coaching feels that he/she can not only transcend the original problem but is now equipped to handle future situations that are similar. The coach has empowered the client to think for themselves. That’s one measure of effective coaching.

Hope this clarifies some of your questions.

Best regards,
Marion

Thanks Marion. I did not expect such comprehensive response especially on your transformational coaching approaches. Thanks for the sharing.

From the testimonials that you have kindly shared, I can presuppose that you are passionate about your work and that you truly does have impact on those that you coached and supervised. Empowering those you coached and supervised is a great principle to work with and you seemed to have the natural knack for it.

I kind of like the notion of your taking your coachees and those who you supervised to a new level of experiences that empower them to be ’self-sufficient’ and tapped on their newly learnt/acquired ‘resources’ via your coaching efforts, and applying them to the future (future pacing – as a process within the coaching process).

You have re-confirmed some of the ‘knowledge’ I picked-up during my coach training days to that of what are actually being practise especially on ‘inducting’ into deeper meta levels and hence ensuring that “addressing a goal that a client requests” will not “misses the underlying concerns and perspective that may need to change.”

However, in practice, I am sharing from my perspectives, ‘inducting’ and journeying into meta-levels to get to the leverage points that would address the ‘true issue/issues’ is so dependent not only on the skills of the coach, but more so on the ‘respond-ability’ or ‘willingness to respond’ of the coachee concerned. Loopings and ‘themes’ would emerge and ‘dissipate’ as soon as they emerge.

The luxury of ‘unlimited coaching time’ is not available to the corporate executive coach (especially in the Asian settings, as Asians, I am just generalizing, have a cultural tendency to be ‘more conservative and reserved’?) as many times, the measurement of coaching effectiveness ultimately is measured on the coachee’s attaining his/her ‘tangible’ KPIs.

Perhaps life coaching in general, does not face this ‘time constraint factor’ as the key measurement would be ‘transformation’ compared to ‘development’ and ‘performance’ coaching?

Anyway, I am always on a continuous learning path, and is picking up great lessons from all the postings in the ‘Coaching Commons’ directly or indirectly.

What a great way to learn.

To your highest and your great coaching work.

Meta-cheerio.

Billy C H Teoh
Malaysia.