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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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 =)