‘It’s about recognizing the spark of greatness even in moments of darkness – and nurturing it to light the way forward.’ (Dr Wayne Dyer) Coaching has been described as ‘the art of the obvious’ – helping clients recognise what is hidden in plain sight. Coaches use various techniques to bring these insights to the surface such as asking thought-provoking questions, mirroring language and gestures, or engaging clients in physical experiments. A shift in awareness often provides the focus, energy and momentum needed for meaningful change. Coaching in action: Lisa’s fear of presentations Lisa, a new manager, says she feels scared of giving presentations. She feels sick and tries to avoid them. Someone may pose direct questions like:
While these could be useful, deeper exploration may be needed. Different coaching approaches offer varied pathways for insight and growth. Here are some examples, drawing on my own studies, training and practice in diverse psychological fields: Solutions-focused
Strengths-based
Cognitive
Psychodynamic
Neurolinguistic
Gestalt-somatic
Existential
Spiritual
Critical
Behavioural
Conclusion Different coaching approaches provide unique lenses through which clients can explore and address their challenges. The key is finding the method that best aligns with the clients' needs and interests, and unlocks awareness, confidence and action for meaningful growth. Would you be interested to work with a coach? Get in touch!
27 Comments
‘Don't be too quick to offer unsolicited advice. It certainly will not endear you to people.’ (Harvey Mackay) In Germany today a friend, Margitta, and I shared experiences of giving well-meaning advice to others when it hasn’t landed well with those we’d hoped to help. The push-back has sometimes taken us by surprise, leaving the relationship bruised by what happened and what lay behind it. Margitta went on to explain that a German word for advice, Ratschlag, means quite literally to ‘hit with counsel’. Being ‘struck’ unexpectedly could understandably provoke a defensive response. Sometimes it’s about giving advice that someone didn’t invite; or at the wrong time when, say, empathy would have been more appropriate; or that it simply didn’t fit with them or the complex and felt realities of a situation they were dealing with. On occasion, it could have been a result of mansplaining – a man telling a woman something she already knows – which can be and feel patronising. (I may have just done that inadvertently by explaining what mansplaining means). Remember: ‘I’m not in X’s situation’ and, even more importantly, ‘I’m not X in X’s situation’. This is a useful word of caution to speak to ourselves. It’s also a main reason why developmental practices such as coaching and action learning focus on offering open questions rather than posing suggestions or solutions. Advice has its place, but: Is a person asking for it? Is this the best time for it? Is it appropriate? Am I the right person to give it? Can the relationship bear it? 'Will AI tools like ChatGPT or DeepSeek replace the need for human coaches? What, if anything, is the added value that a real human can bring in an increasingly AI-dominated arena?' Nick Wright (UK) and Dr Smita Singh (India) offer their own reflections here: I (Nick) have to admit that I feel quite conflicted in my response. On the one hand, I have a deep conviction that human presence lays at the heart of effective coaching, On the other, I can see a huge potential for Artificial Intelligence (AI) in this arena. The opening questions beg deeper questions for me such as: ‘Which aspects of human interaction such as empathy, intuition and relational depth are essential to coaching – and can these be emulated by AI?’ ‘Are there specific situations, industries or types of coaching where AI is more or less effective than a human coach?’ ‘What are the potential costs and benefits of using AI for coaching in contrast to those of working with a human coach?’ An AI can generate questions to help us address day-to-day challenges. For example, if I’m wondering why one of my team colleagues has stopped speaking to me, I could ask the AI what coaching-type questions I could consider. ChatGPT generated these questions when posed with that scenario: ‘Can you recall any recent interactions or events where there might have been a misunderstanding or conflict, even if it seemed minor at the time?’ ‘Have you noticed any changes in their behaviour toward others, or is their silence directed only at you?’ ‘How might you create a safe space to approach them gently and ask if something is wrong, showing that you’re open to listening and understanding?’ That said, in more complex situations, for instance where emotions are running high, posing questions alone isn’t enough. As human beings, we respond to presence, empathy and a felt-sense of being heard and understood. Although an AI can increasingly convincingly mimic these things, and although we have a remarkable ability to anthropomorphise non-human entities, we still somehow experience the relationship intuitively and qualitatively as different. As AI, deep learning and robotics continue to develop further, the blurring of human-non-human boundaries will blur further too. AI could make coaching more widely available, accessible and affordable. Perhaps, for some, it will be good and enough. I (Smita) have always wanted to address concerns about the scalability, consistency, accessibility and data-driven insights in the coaching field. I hope this issue can be effectively addressed with the advent of AI. Technology-enabled coaching will be a great asset but, yes, reflecting on the questions Nick raised above, a reflective approach will help determine whether we will benefit from it. Today, we have continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and fitness trackers that measure heart rate and sleep quality and, based on that data, doctors make more-informed and accurate decisions. Likewise, having AI help the client identify challenges with more clarity will undoubtedly enhance the quality of coaching. There are areas where AI may not, or should not, be left alone; for instance to help a client address emotional intelligence or high-stake situations, like deciding one’s career etc. Human coaches can deal with complex, open-ended questions and offer more insightful, reflective and customised responses than any AI. Additionally, AI may may not be much help with, say, trust-building. Humans can engage with clients more deeply and intimately than AI, which is essential for fostering trust and accomplishing coaching objectives. AI coaching could, however, contribute significantly to technology and software development, health and wellness, finance and accounting and other practical or technical areas. Human coaches may be far better suited to areas like senior leadership development, team building and creative fields that help artists and designers develop their talent. Yet, here too, we could take help from AI and make it more data-driven. Coaches and clients with, say, an MBTI ‘sensing’ preference may enjoy access to numbers over intuition. AI is here to stay but, like all other scientific inventions, it has two sides. It’s in our hands how to use it. I would like to believe that it will not replace human coaches but, instead, will enhance and help the coaching process become more data-driven, and make it attractive for younger coaches to make a career in this field: ‘human-empowered AI-enabled coaching’. What do you think? We’d love to hear about your experiences, insights and ideas of using AI in coaching. (Dr Smita works in India as faculty at IMT Nagpur business school and is also a management consultant, coach and author.) [See also: Coaching and the poor; Coaching through an East-West lens; Artificial] 'Is coaching too dominated by a Western cultural paradigm? What could we do to make coaching more sensitive and appropriate to different cultures?' Nick Wright (UK) and Dr Smita Singh (India) offer their own reflections here: I (Nick) first began to ask myself these questions when I was invited to coach three women from different countries in South East Asia: Singapore, Myanmar and Indonesia. I noticed that, when I asked them questions that implied personal autonomy in decision-making, they often looked at me quizzically as if there were something strange in the questions. I was puzzled and didn’t understand what this meant until, later, when coaching a woman from the Philippines, she explained that the questions didn’t really make sense in their cultural contexts, where individual decisions are often subject to wider family and community decisions. She helped me to understand that personal autonomy is a Western cultural construct and assumption – a key difference between individual and collective cultures. This was a profound revelation to me. Since then, I’ve noticed other differences too when coaching cross-culturally with people in and from different parts of the world. The next most striking and recurring theme has been that of perceived authority in a relationship, and the implications of cultural authority in wider systems. In Western cultures like the UK, we tend to frame the coaching relationship as essentially egalitarian and, as coaches, we typically relate to those we are coaching with that stance. I’ve noticed through experience, however, that this approach can sometimes create discomfort, awkwardness or confusion when working with people from cultures in which higher power-distance relationships are the norm. I’ve learned, for instance, to accept that people in the Philippines will call me ‘Sir Nick’ – a sign of respect – in spite of how alien that feels for me. A third area, and the one I still struggle to get right, is direct (low context) vs indirect (high context) communication. Western coaches are often trained to ask short, incisive questions and to feed back concise, challenging reflections or responses. In some cultures, however, this style of relating can come across as blunt, disrespectful or rude. As I continue to think through and practice greater cross-cultural curiosity, awareness and competence in these areas, therefore, I’m learning to reframe, e.g. ‘What do you want to achieve?’ as, say, ‘What goals are important to you and the people who matter most in your life?’; ‘We are equals in this process’ as, ‘I’m here to support you in a way that best aligns with your values and traditions’; ‘What is holding you back?’ as, ‘What challenges do we need to address together as we move forward?’ I (Smita) agree that, as coaches, a contextual understanding is absolutely essential. Without it, it’s possible that we may fall prey to our default settings, or to our routine preferences in dealing with coachees. When working cross-culturally, I find it’s a good idea to do some homework beforehand, in exactly the way that consultants do before they engage in the first meeting with a client. This may give us some insight and understanding of cultural dimensions like those Nick has mentioned above, such as power distance and/or individuality versus collectivism. If we discover and use metaphors from the client’s culture or reflect the metaphors a client uses in their own language, it can also accelerate the relational rapport-, credibility- and trust-building processes. This will make it easier for the coach and client to work together smoothly. As an illustration, I noticed that, when I was writing my book on ‘Accelerated Action Learning’ with Nick and other UK specialists as contributors, I had to adopt a very straight forward and, what felt to me like formal, way of communicating. By contrast, when I talked with coaches in India or other Asian countries it was very different. Asian coaches preferred rapport-building and general chatting before starting with the coaching conversation itself. There are some similarities in the time management of coaching conversations too. Western coaches and coachees are often and ordinarily monochronic in their approach, for example with strict scheduling and punctuality as important values and behaviours whereas, by contract, coaches and coachees in and from Eastern cultures are typically polychronic in their approach, for example viewing interpersonal relationship and being present in the moment as important. At the bottom line, any winning coaching conversation will be client-centric. I find that, if we start from an appreciation of the coachee’s own cultural frame of reference, we will often achieve better outcomes. Social media and Artificial Intelligence (AI) can provide useful research resources in this area. I’ve created my own simple ‘DFS’ framework that proves useful when working with coachees. D is for Dive into the coachee’s culture and background before the first conversation; F is for Float with that insight and information when you meet, greet and work with the client; S is for Swim to help the client navigate through the labyrinth of their own thoughts, feelings and experiences as swiftly and effectively as possible. In my experience, this culturally-sensitive approach can build and sustain great relationships and outcomes. What do you think? We’d love to hear about your experiences, insights and ideas of working cross-culturally too! (Dr Smita Singh is a faculty member at IMT Nagpur Business School in India and is also a management consultant, coach and author.) [See also: Artificial coaching; Coaching and the poor] ‘Hope reflects a psychological state in which we perceive the way-power and the willpower to get to our destination.’ (Charles Snyder) I’ve spent much of the past 18 years working with leaders in beyond-profit organisations, enabling them to lead and influence transitions in the midst of dynamically-complex change. This often involves helping them to develop the qualities and relationships they need to support themselves and others to survive, thrive and perform well in the face of an uncertain and, at times, anxiety-provoking future. A recurring challenge that such leaders encounter is how to instil and sustain hope within themselves as well as within and between others. Putting on a brave face my inspire confidence in the short-term but can feel inauthentic if their foundations are wobbling – and authenticity is a critical condition for building and sustaining trust. New leadership calls for resilience, resourcefulness and faith. Hope Theory offers some useful insights and ideas here. If we (a) have a desired future in mind (vision), (b) can see a way by which it can be achieved (way-power) and (c) are motivated to take action to do it (willpower), we are more likely to experience genuine hope. It’s very different to abstract idealism or naïve optimism, which may engender a good feeling but lack any grounding in reality. Yet what to do if someone is stuck: devoid of vision, unable to see a way forward or lacking in any sense of agency to do anything about it? This is where co-active leadership, coaching and action learning can really help; offering practical means by which people and groups can discover or create fresh goals, find or devise innovative solutions, and gain the traction they need to move things forward. Do you need help with hope? Get in touch! ‘What happens is what happens. The beauty is in the imperfection.’ (Will Moule) I can already hear those with a perfectionist streak raising shrill voices of protest. ‘Surely we should be aiming for the ideal?’ I ran an Institute of Leadership and Management recognition workshop for Action Learning Associates-trained Action Learning (AL) facilitators yesterday. One of themes we discussed is how to work with emergence in an AL set (a group of peers doing AL together). This is core to AL facilitation and often quite different to, say, managing training. How is that? What does that mean? Firstly, the agenda for an AL set lays in the hands of set members; the process in the hands of the facilitator. More often than not, the facilitator won’t know in advance what challenges set members will choose to address in a specific AL round (session) when they select and work on issues to reach a solution. Peers are unlikely to know, too, what questions they will pose and how an exploration will unfold organically during that round. Those presenting (that is, thinking through an issue with support and challenge from peers) sometimes don’t know at the outset what the crux of an issue is for them; and won’t know until the round progresses what direction an exploration may take, what discoveries may surface and what the resulting outcomes may be. AL therefore involves inviting and staying with, as far as we can, a state of curiosity – an openness in the moment to whatever of significance may arise. A paradox for the facilitators lays is that, insofar they may try to control what happens in a set to achieve an ‘ideal’ process or outcome, that same effort to control may inhibit or even prevent optimal results – a bit like how grasping a beautiful flower too tightly may squeeze the life out of it. An effective AL facilitation style entails adopting an open, agile presence and stance, trusting that what needs to be said will come up naturally. Hold the process and release the group. (See also: Emergence in coaching; Test and learn; Plan vs prepare) ‘Active listening creates the space for a person to hear their own voice.’ (Liz Dunphy) I had a fascinating conversation with a group of engineering managers at a coach training event with my colleague, Liz, yesterday. One of the things we looked at with the participant group was when coaching is an appropriate intervention, and when not. After all, coaching isn’t a magic bullet and it isn’t always the most efficient of effective solution to an issue. The managers were particularly concerned about the thought of delegating authority to less-experienced staff where serious health and safety risks and concerns were paramount. In order to illustrate where coaching can be useful, for instance where complex ethical or relational dilemmas are concerned and where there are no simple right-or-wrong textbook answers, I shared an example from my own personal experience. As a young apprentice in industry, two tradesmen once said they would sneak off-site to a pub. They insisted forcefully that, if the supervisor appeared, I should cover for them by saying I had seen them working behind a control panel. I felt conflicted ethically but didn't want to appear disloyal. (These managers yesterday leapt in with all kinds of different advice for how I could and should have responded, especially when I told them the supervisor did appear and I had felt forced to lie.) Shortly afterwards, the supervisor saw those same tradesmen crossing the car park, asked them where they had been, and they confessed to having been in the pub. The supervisor laughed off their misdemeanour with them but was furious with me, and it wrecked the trust in our working relationship. An integrity issue with relational consequences. Imagine, now, that I had been able to chat that situation through quickly with a colleague, a coaching-style conversation if you like, before making that fateful error of judgement. Imagine if they had given me a listening ear, space to hear myself say out loud what I was about to do. Imagine if they had reflected back my tone and expression so that I could have seen myself, as if in a mirror. Imagine if they had helped me think through a variety of different options and implications to make a better, wiser and more authentic decision. Imagine. ‘Trust that what needs to be said will come up naturally, either from you or the other person.’ (Liz Dunphy) A commonly-held belief is that the power and potential of coaching resides in asking great questions. It is after all true that a well-worded, placed and timed question can shift our entire perspective, open up fresh possibilities and create a seismic shift in our sense of agency. I’ve experienced that personally and have seen and felt its impact. What else makes the difference? ‘We learn from an early age what the ‘correct’ answers are – those that will win us approval.’ (Rudi Weinzierl) For coaching questions to land well and to do their work without being deflected by defences, there’s something about being in a receptive state of curiosity, of invitation, of a desire and willingness to learn. Yet, deeper still, I notice the mysterious power of presence. Here I am grappling with a complex issue and struggling to find or create a way forward. Somebody I trust comes alongside me, is really present to me, listens actively and intently without even saying a word…and something shifts inside me. It’s like the presence of God – transformational. A new insight surfaces into awareness as if it were released, catalysed by the quality of contact between us. It was already there, perhaps, but hidden from sight or out of reach. In the moment, it can feel like a realisation, a revelation. Questions stimulate and crystallise our thoughts and galvanise our responses. Emergence arises through presence. (See also: Emergence in action learning; Test and learn; Plan vs prepare) ‘I can’t dream while the platform’s burning.’ (Benjamin Downing) It’s hard to think straight, let alone creatively, if we feel threatened, anxious or stressed. It’s like trying to see clearly while thick clouds of emotion-filled dust are kicked up in the air. For coaching to be effective, sufficient psychological safety and trust are critical success factors. This means co-creating the conditions for a person to engage in critical reflection, decision-making and action. Without it, searching questions are likely to trigger defensive routines. These risk dynamics can be amplified if, for instance, a person is being coached by their own line-manager and worried about how it could affect subsequent performance evaluations; or if coaching has been commissioned by HR as a remedial intervention, rather than something the person has chosen for themselves; or if a person being coached has been betrayed before and doesn’t feel fully-confident in the boundaries of confidentiality they’ve agreed with a coach. In view of this, I find that careful contracting with potential and new clients is very important. It means discussing these and any other issues of hope or concern explicitly from the outset. I may ask, ‘If we were to work together, what would that mean for you (potential outcomes, consequences or implications)?’ And, ‘Given that, if our work together were to be successful (for you, your team or organisation), what would you need (from me, yourself or others)?’ Do you need help with creating psychological safety? Get in touch! 'There is frequently more to be learned from the unexpected questions of a child than the discourses of adults.' (John Locke) My 5 year-old daughter asked me, ‘Dad, why is it cold downstairs but hot upstairs?’ ‘Because warm air rises’ I replied, gesturing a floating-upwards movement with my hands. ‘But why does it rise?’ That’s a great example of a 2nd question. A 2nd question takes us closer to critical reflection. It’s useful in disciplines like coaching and action learning because it challenges a person to think more deeply, pushing beyond surface-level responses to what lays behind, beneath or beyond. Here’s why it matters, with some examples: 1. Uncovering underlying motives Q1: ‘What are your goals for this project?’ Q2: ‘Why are these goals important to you?’ The 1st question may reveal what someone wants, but the 2nd question uncovers why they want it. It reveals a person’s values and motivations, helping to align efforts and understand the true significance of success. 2. Moving beyond assumptions Q1: ‘Why do you believe this solution will work?’ Q2: ‘What evidence have you found that supports this belief?’ The 1st question asks for an opinion, but the 2nd question invites critical examination of that opinion. It challenges the person to consider facts, research or data to foster a more informed and reflective response. 3. Challenging initial reactions Q1: ‘Do you think the new policy is fair?’ Q2: ‘Who benefits the most from this policy, and who might be disadvantaged?’ The 1st question elicits a gut reaction, often based on personal experience or bias. The 2nd question invites a deeper analysis by examining the broader implications, encouraging critical thinking about fairness for all parties involved. 4. Exploring various alternatives Q1: ‘Why did you choose this option?’ Q2: ‘What other options did you consider, and why did you reject them?’ While the 1st question focuses on decision-making, the 2nd question helps a person consider whether alternative solutions were fully explored and whether biases or incomplete information influenced their choice. Would you like support with developing your second question skills? Get in touch! |
Nick WrightI'm a psychological coach, trainer and OD consultant. Curious to discover how can I help you? Get in touch! Like what you read? Simply enter your email address below to receive regular blog updates!
|