 ‘Taken out of context, I must seem so strange.’ (Ani Difranco) It’s an awareness of the context (in Gestalt psychology, the backdrop or ground) that often enables us to make sense of and navigate the specific issue (the focus or figure) in front of us. This principle came in useful today whilst facilitating a focus group of university research and teaching professionals in Scotland with cultural backgrounds in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Germany, Greece, Turkey and the UK. They knew their context well and were able to draw on insights from personal experience. This created the conditions for a rich conversation and diverse ideas to emerge. There were benefits, too, to my involvement as an independent facilitator. In that role, I was external to their system – intentionally out-of-context if you like – and that helped me to avoid making some of the same assumptions, and to ask questions from a fresh place or guide the group’s gaze towards unexplored places. I was detached and unaffected by the issues they wanted to discuss and that helped me to stay focused: to help them discern their wood from their trees. So, out-of-context within a context can be an advantage; as can contextual knowledge and understanding.
9 Comments
 ‘As coaches, the greatest tool we need to cultivate is our self.’ (Pamela McLean) Many years ago now, during a masters’ degree core module on psychological dynamics in organisations, I said to a colleague in a spirit of curiosity, ‘I keep feeling an impulse to hug you.’ They looked amazed and said, ‘I’m feeling really vulnerable today.’ I had no idea from their demeanour. They always presented as very calm, relaxed and confident. We discussed this in light of the programme focus that day and concluded that, intuitively and subconsciously, I had picked up on something of their anxiety and need for reassurance. A number of factors were at play here: it was unusual in our relationship and, mysteriously, it somehow felt like it was something about me, but not only about me. In later years, whist doing a postgraduate course in coaching psychology, I discovered this kind of noticing can be used powerfully in coaching conversations. Psychological practitioners call this use-of-self, the idea that what we observe in and between ourselves during an interaction can be used tentatively as an instrument for awareness-raising in another person. I use the word tentatively here because it’s about exploring a possibility and not superimposing our own feelings or interpretations onto the other. I saw this opportunity arise in an intense conversation recently where a manager was working very hard to cajole a team member into demonstrating greater proactivity and initiative. The team member was nodding in passive agreement rather than playing a more active role in their own development. Imagine if the manager had paused, reflected, and fed this back as an observation instead: ‘I’m feeling (intra-personally) a strong desire to see you being more proactive…and I’m wondering (inter-personally) if I’m taking too much initiative in this conversation.’ It's as if the manager imagines herself momentarily stepping out of the relationship to stand in an observing place; then looks back at herself, the team member and the interaction between them and shares what she notices from that place. This would bring here-and-now experience into focus and invite the team member to reflect critically on their own agency too.  ‘Capabilities are freedoms conceived as real opportunities.’ (Amartya Sen) I keep coming back to this question: what is it that makes the difference? I’ve been drawn recently to reflections on this theme by Indian economist and philosopher, Amartya Sen. He distinguishes between capabilities, which are our resources (including our abilities and our potential), and conversion factors, which are influences on the real opportunities we have to use and fulfil them. Sen focuses his work on wellbeing and on the kinds of lives people and groups are effectively able to lead. He moves on to questions of what people, groups and societies need. Sen offers some interesting illustrations. Two people have the same resources. One is able-bodied and the other has physical disabilities that confine them to a wheelchair. All else being equal, the able-bodied person has more net resources because the person with disabilities has more related expenses. The former may also have greater net opportunities in society because the latter may be limited to places that are wheelchair-accessible. This could lead us to the conclusion that the person with disabilities should be given more resources to ensure equity. Sen then asks, what if the able-bodied person is hard to please and needs more resources to achieve a sense of wellbeing? What if the person with disabilities is content with their life and needs fewer resources to achieve wellbeing? If the goal is wellbeing, should we therefore provide more resources for the able-bodied person? Sen poses two challenges before we leap to this conclusion: sometimes disadvantaged people lower their expectations as a coping mechanism; and society has a moral imperative to support the disadvantaged and vulnerable. Sen provides another example of a person who owns a bicycle. The bike is a means to an end, to ensure mobility rather than an end in itself. Yet to convert the potential of bike ownership to greater mobility, certain conditions need to be in place. These could include, for instance, the physical ability to ride a bike; a social-cultural context that allows the person to ride a bike; and environmental conditions such as safe roads or suitable bike paths that make using a bike feasible. It’s a combination of capabilities and conversion factors that make this difference. So, what does this look like real situations? As far back as 2003, I wrote a research paper as part of an organisation development (OD) masters’ degree that aimed to identify and address common factors that influence engagement and effectiveness in organisations. I proposed that culture, complexity, capability and climate were critical variables. It’s about releasing and harnessing individual potential on the one hand, whilst creating the conditions in which people thrive on the other. This is, in my view, where coaching, action learning and OD intersect. What do you think?  ‘Extraordinary people are ordinary people making extraordinary decisions.’ (Sharon Pearson) Who’s in the driving seat? It’s an important question in coaching and action learning. After all, the client or presenter chooses the direction, speed, route and destination, even though we travel together. As a coach, if I find myself taking the wheel consciously or inadvertently, I would need to pause, take a breath and rethink or recontract our roles. Too much control risks distracting or disturbing the client’s own insight, potential and agency; a loss that would outweigh a gain. So, what does this look like? The client decides their own starting point, their desired goal and how they’d like to get there. I help facilitate the journey insofar as the client finds this beneficial, and offer silence, questions or reflections, or signal signposts in the road, as minimal prompts. The client navigates their own way, discovering or creating solutions to any challenges they encounter on route. I travel alongside to offer support and challenge, to sharpen awareness and skill. What have been your experiences of working with a coach? What made the difference for you?  ‘Our cultural strength has always been derived from our diversity of understanding and experience.’ (Yo-Yo Ma) Assertiveness is often framed as a positive trait – being clear, direct and confident in expressing our thoughts and needs. But in cultures where relationship, harmony and saving face are highly-valued, a Western style of assertiveness can sometimes feel abrupt or even rude. It’s a lesson I’ve learned – no, I’m still learning – through having made painful and embarrassing cross-cultural mistakes. So how can we adapt an assertive approach without losing our voice? Here are some general rules-of-thumb: *Observe and learn: Pay attention to local communication styles. Notice how disagreements or requests are typically handled. *Use indirect language: Try to frame your points in a way that aligns with cultural norms (see practical examples below). *Be mindful of non-verbal cues: In high-context cultures, non-verbal communication carries weight. Ensure words, tone and body language are congruent. *Seek local feedback: Engage with culturally-knowledgeable friends or colleagues to refine your communication approach. Here are some practical examples: 1. Listen beyond words: A Vietnamese colleague told me, ‘Yes doesn’t always mean yes here.’ Instead of relying solely on verbal confirmation, pay attention to body language, tone and hesitation. If someone says, ‘That might be difficult,’ they may be politely saying no. Example: If you ask someone if they can meet a deadline and they respond with, ‘That could be a challenge but we will try our best,’ this may mean they cannot meet it. Try asking, ‘I understand it’s difficult. What timeline do you think would be realistic?’ 2. Use indirect language: Rather than saying, ‘I disagree with this approach,’ try, ‘I wonder if there’s another way to look at this?’ or ‘Would it be possible to explore an alternative?’ Softening language allows for discussion without putting anyone on the spot. Example: If a team in Thailand proposes an idea you find impractical, instead of rejecting it outright, you could say, ‘This is an interesting idea. What challenges do you foresee in implementing it?’ This approach encourages dialogue without shutting them down. 3. Frame feedback as a question: Direct or implied criticism can feel very personal in some cultures. Instead of ‘This report isn’t clear,’ try ‘How do you think we could make this report even clearer?’ It invites reflection and change without causing embarrassment. Example: If a junior colleague in Singapore submits a report with errors, instead of saying, ‘This isn’t detailed enough,’ ask, ‘Could we add a bit more background information to clarify this section?’ This encourages improvement whilst maintaining respect. 4. Leverage relationships: In hierarchical cultures, feedback is often best received through the appropriate channels. Instead of challenging a senior colleague directly, discuss concerns privately or ask a trusted intermediary to raise the point. Example: If you need to push back on an unrealistic request from a senior manager in the Philippines, rather than directly saying, ‘This won’t work,’ you might discuss your concerns with a colleague who has a good relationship with them and ask them to introduce the idea tactfully. 5. Respect the pause: Silence is powerful. In Western cultures, we may jump in to fill gaps. But in cultures where people reflect before responding, allow pauses. If you ask a question and don’t get an immediate answer, don’t rush to rephrase – wait. You might get a more thoughtful response. Example: In a negotiation in Cambodia, you propose a fee rate. The other party remains silent. Instead of jumping in with a revised offer, wait. The pause doesn’t necessarily mean disapproval. It may signal they are considering it.  ‘A significant role of leadership is to identify vicious cycles and find ways to turn them into virtuous cycles.’ (Clinton Keith) ‘Fortunately, the virtuous cycle is every bit as cascading and self-amplifying as the vicious cycle.’ (Bruce D. Perry) Ever felt stuck in a downward spiral? You try to push forward but something keeps pulling you back. That’s the nature of a vicious cycle, a pattern where negative thoughts, emotions and behaviours keep reinforcing each other, keeping you trapped. Just as negativity feeds on itself, so does positivity. That’s the nature of a virtuous cycle. Shift the pattern and you can move from a cycle that drains you to one that empowers you. Picture this: You hesitate to speak up in a meeting because you’re afraid of sounding foolish. You stay quiet, others dominate the discussion and you leave feeling even less confident. Next time, the hesitation grows even stronger. That’s a vicious cycle. Try this: You take a deep breath and contribute just one point. You realise no one ridicules you. Encouraged, you try again and confidence starts to build. A virtuous cycle begins. Or ever had an argument where both sides keep retreating into defensiveness? One person withdraws, the other feels ignored and lashes out, making the first withdraw even more. Round and round it goes. Flip the script. Instead of shutting down, acknowledge the other person’s frustration. A simple ‘I hear you’ can create a shift. The more you listen, the more they soften. The more they soften, the easier it becomes to connect. Or picture a toxic workplace where micro-management breeds resentment and that creates disengagement. People feel stressed so they make mistakes, or undervalued so they do the bare minimum. Managers tighten control, making things worse. Switch the cycle. Trust. When leaders empower people, engagement increases. Engaged people perform better, reinforcing trust. Performance improves. A virtuous cycle.  'A physicist friend of mine once said that in facing death, he drew some consolation from the reflection that he would never again have to look up the word ‘hermeneutics’ in the dictionary.’ (Steven Weinberg) I’m reading Henri Nouwen’s deeply introspective, honest and inspiring book, ‘The Return of the Prodigal Son’. At the start, the writer reflects on the relationship between Jesus’ original narrating of the parable in one time and context; the artist Rembrandt’s depiction of that account in a painting in a different time and context; and his own reflections of both, each in light of the other, in yet another time and context. As I'm reading the book here and now, I find myself in the centre of that hermeneutical triangle, in the midst of my own life and context too. This notion of hermeneutics, the art of interpretation and how we place ourselves in relation to an experience or a narrative, is important in psychological coaching because the ways in which clients construe and interpret their experiences shape their emotions, behaviours and decision-making. Social psychology provides some hermeneutical principles – attribution theory, perspective-taking and social constructivism – that I find useful to help clients shift their thinking patterns and develop a greater sense of awareness, understanding and agency. Attribution theory examines how people explain life events: whether they see a cause in themselves or in external circumstances. A balanced approach acknowledges both personal factors and external influences. A client who failed a job interview may say, ‘I didn’t get the job because I’m just not good enough.’ A coach could reframe this by asking: ‘What feedback (if any) have you received from the employer, and how do you interpret it?’, or ‘Apart from your own performance, what broader factors might have influenced the panel's decision?’ Perspective-taking is the ability to step into another person’s shoes and to view a situation from their standpoint. This skill is vital in coaching because clients often become stuck in a rigid, self-focused interpretation of events. Suppose a client is frustrated because their boss gave them critical feedback. They feel attacked and believe their boss doesn’t appreciate their hard work. A coach could ask: ’What assumptions might you be making about your boss’s intentions?’, or ‘If a colleague were to receive similar feedback, how might they interpret it?’ Social constructivism suggests that many of our beliefs about identity, self-worth and success are shaped by societal norms and cultural messages. Coaching can help clients recognise and challenge these inherited beliefs. Example: A client struggling with work-life balance may say, ‘I feel guilty if I’m not busy all the time.’ A coach could ask: ‘What messages did you receive when growing up about the value of hard work and being busy?’, or ’How do the expectations in your work environment reinforce or challenge your current beliefs around 'busyness'?’  ‘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!  ‘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] |
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!
|
RSS Feed