Spotlight

5/8/2016

Coaching has become increasingly well-defined over recent years, particularly owing to great efforts by e.g. the International Coach Federation and European Mentoring & Coaching Council to clarify, advocate and promote core professional standards and ethics. I believe that, on the whole, this has been a useful development. It adds credibility to the field and, in principle, focus, parameters and accountability for those who study, train and practice within it.

There are challenges too, not least the process and cost of credentialing to be recognised by the professional bodies. This can be prohibitive for practitioners who don’t have access to the time or financial resources to do this in spite of having, potentially, extensive knowledge, skill and experience in the coaching arena. The risk here is that increasing professionalism leads to increasing exclusivity, dictated more by economic circumstances than passion or expertise.

There are wider and deeper questions. Coaching is without doubt a powerful field of research and practice that can make a very significant impact. Its focus on reaching goals and solutions can enable people to live and work with greater focus, better ideas and higher levels of commitment. I have felt and witnessed it so many times that I am beyond need for convincing. Yet, as I read and speak with fellow coaches, it often feels like something important is missing.

How far are our coaching assumptions, models and approaches (e.g. vis a vis personal efficacy and choice) appropriate to non-Western cultures - yet applied uncritically? How well do we enable clients to grow in insight and resourcefulness as reflective practitioners – beyond reaching goals or solving issues? How willing are we to raise and challenge systemic implications of client choices – e.g. for families, teams, organisations and wider cultural groups?

Am I alone? What do you think?

69 Comments

Lisa Bakker

5/8/2016 03:36:59 pm

Good questions to ponder, thanks Nick.

Nick Wright

5/8/2016 03:37:37 pm

Thanks Lisa. I would love to hear your thoughts and reflections on them..! All the best. Nick

Cath Norris, MA, BA, Dip Couns

5/8/2016 07:40:58 pm

No you're not alone Nick. Working systemically certainly seems to be overlooked to a large extent. There's such a strong focus on individual work or business culture if and when coaches do move into working on collective issues. It's all good.. as far as it goes...There's huge potential for addressing some really juicy and urgent systemic issues though. The Art of Hosting attracts practitioners who are working on some hot issues, as does process work but they're both on the margins rather than central to the field.

Nick Wright

5/8/2016 08:01:48 pm

Hi Cath and thanks for the note. I hadn't heard of Art of Hosting before and its website looks interesting (www.artofhosting.org/) with its emphasis on four fold practice: presence, participation, hosting conversations, co-creation.

I think what we are talking about here raises all kinds of important spiritual and existential questions for coaches such as, 'What are we here to do?', 'What difference is our practice making at systemic levels (- in the world, so to speak)?', 'What cultural values are our presence and approach embodying and promoting?', 'What implicit influence are we exerting in the life and work of the client - and beyond?'

Most coaching literature I read and most coaches I speak with view their coaching practice in very pragmatic terms, e.g. how to apply this or than method or technique to enable a client to achieve personal goals, success or change. It's as if the impact is localised to the client and his or her immediate context with no ethical, cultural, political or practical significance beyond that to consider.

I think this is where supervision for coaches that develops critical reflective practice can be so valuable. It enables the coach to explore implicit beliefs, values and assumptions; wider systemic influence and influences; potential unintended consequences and ripple effects; ethical implications of coach and client decisions and actions etc.

All the best. Nick

Cath Norris, MA, BA, Dip Couns

9/8/2016 08:51:51 am

Yes Nick, supervision is a great starting point. I'd add training to that too. Training which provides an opportunity to explore the breadth and depth of our own context and apply that insight to where and how we practice.

"How willing are we to raise and challenge systemic implications of client choices – e.g. for families, teams, organisations and wider cultural groups?"

That's such an important question Nick and I think it relates to the training and information issue and being supported to see the opportunities which exist in terms of how we apply ourselves as coaches. The focus on working individually rather than systemically is very reflective of cultural norms.

Nick Wright

9/8/2016 09:18:01 am

Hi Cath and thanks for the note. 'The focus on working individually rather than systemically is very reflective of cultural norms.' I agree, particularly in North-Western cultural contexts. I think this raises some very important philosophical, ideological and practical questions for coaches.

If, for instance, I believe that as coach my role is to work exclusively with the client in relation to what he or she presents and perceives as goals, significant issues etc. - that is, an approach that seeks to avoid influencing or 'contaminating' the client in any way - I may avoid or struggle to bring wider systemic issues into the frame if the client hasn't done so...assuming I have the awareness and ability to do so (which relates to your training point)!

The mantra I use for my coaching practice is something like, 'in the best interests of the client', that is, a focus on, 'What would facilitate this client's movement forward (or deeper) in this situation at this time?' That ensures a clear ethical intention with room for flexibility and adaptability in approach.

Imagine now taking an alternative, wider, systemic stance. For instance, 'in the best interests of the team...the organisation...the wider community...the environment...the world.' This implies a wider vision and ethical commitment that extends, at times, beyond the goals of the client or what he or she (or I) perceive to be in his or her own personal best interests.

There have been parallel conversations in fields such as community development for many years now (e.g. the work of Catherine Widdicombe with AVEC). I would love to see similar conversations in the coaching arena. 'What are we here to do?' and 'How shall we do it?' have broader e.g. spiritual, existential, political, cultural and global implications than simple practical issues around coaching technique.

What do you think? All the best. Nick

Cath Norris, MA, BA, Dip Couns

9/8/2016 08:52:47 pm

Hi Nick, you've named and explored the aspect I was struggling with...how to work systemically with clients who are focused on individual concerns and stay client centred. I'm mulling over how you've framed that based on staying attuned to the clients needs. Do you have an example of working that way which you could share?

I know that shift happens organically in group coaching which has a diverse group of participants - when the facilitator has a systemic understanding and is able to recognise and name those dynamics.

Nick Wright

10/8/2016 09:21:04 am

Hi Cath and thanks for the note. You expressed very succinctly in one statement, 'how to work systemically with clients who are focused on individual concerns and stay client centred' what I've tried to express in a new blog today - but took four paragraphs to say it! http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/bubbles

Here's an example. A potential client, a senior leader, approached me to support her with various team issues. She painted a picture of the team and located the 'problems' she wanted to work on in individual team members. I was curious about how she construed her situation so asked, 'If your CEO was sitting here with us now, who or what would he say you need to be working on most?'

Her face turned red and her eyes filled with tears. 'My leadership style and approach', she replied. So I responded, 'Knowing that, what would like to focus on in our time together? What would make this most worthwhile for you?' By bringing someone from the wider system into the room (by use of imagination), it introduced a broader perspective and that opened new options for the client to choose from in our work together.

Does that make sense? All the best. Nick

Cath Norris, MA, BA, Dip Couns

10/8/2016 10:16:39 am

Yes Nick, I get it. You were working with her in a broader setting and you brought that context in and that's fair enough. I might have simply reflected back where her focus was - perhaps including any signals / senses I was picking up on - i.e. how she was in that. Perhaps there's a way which notices and names how the broader context is being experienced, which stays with exactly what the person is presenting us with? I'll ponder on an example :)

Nick Wright

10/8/2016 10:21:40 am

Thanks Cath. Yes, in that instance I was working in a business context which creates its own frame for the coaching relationship. I wouldn't approach every coaching relationship or situation in the same way. I agree that what you mention could be an alternative way of approaching it...and, in my experience, coaches are divided on what the 'correct' or 'best' approach would be! Look forward to hearing your example. :) All the best. Nick

Josie McLean

6/8/2016 08:17:09 am

You ask a wonderful question. I believe this because it’s a question I too have been asking for several years. I am concerned that the well intentioned move by accrediting bodies to place a stake in the ground about what coaching is and how it is done, is limiting the very evolution of coaching as a practice. I am perhaps a heretic, but i dont believe coaching is really a profession, it is a methodology that is highly compatable with other approaches such as action learning, process management.
In particular there are linear or newtonian assumptions underpinning ICF coaching competencies (the only ones i am familar with) that constrain coaching from becoming more systemic. The more I learn and develop, the more clear it becomes to be that unless we work systemically, we limit the outcomes we might achieve. Appreciating a systemic approach means moving away from ideas such as clearly defined goals, individual accountability for outcomes etc. and only coaching individuals.

Nick Wright

6/8/2016 08:42:14 am

Hi Josie and thanks for the stimulating reflections. I can so relate to your comment that, 'to place a stake in the ground about what coaching is and how it is done, is limiting the very evolution of coaching as a practice.' I guess that's one of the risks of codifying something in such specific detail in a competency framework. It's as if what is considered 'good practice' in one time period and cultural context can become regarded uncritically (at least by some practitioners) as 'good practice' per se.

Another challenge of codifying a human-relational discipline in this way is that, although it can identify behaviours that can be useful, it can't really capture and express well some of the qualities that, in my experience, often have the most profound and transformational impact, e.g. presence, belief, stance. These border on spiritual and existential qualities that lose their essential spirit and essence when attempts are made to squeeze them into behavioural competencies.

This isn't a critique of coaching per se. I think the same applies to all human-relational disciplines (if I can use the word 'discipline' in a general sense - I'm struggling to find adequate language...which is, of course, the same challenge that those who write competencies face!). You may find this related piece on leadership interesting? http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/qualities-of-leadership Let me know what you think?

I think your comment about a Newtonian paradigm resonates well with what I'm trying to articulate here. In Western cultural contexts, we have become so entranced by rational-scientific perspectives and approaches that we risk missing e.g. highly qualitative, spiritual, existential, cultural, emergent and systemic phenomena that are so central to human and social transformation.

This is where I believe fields such as Gestalt and social constructionism can add incredible insight, meaning and value to coaching thinking and practice. For instance, Gestalt's notion of field dynamics. If you're interested in this area too, here are a couple of articles by Parlett that I find incredibly illuminating and inspiring: http://www.gisc.org/gestaltreview/documents/theunifiedfieldinpractice.pdf; http://www.elementsuk.com/libraryofarticles/fieldtheory.pdf

All the best. Nick

Mark Molitor

6/8/2016 08:51:25 am

Good questions Nick Wright...with answers, I suspect, as diverse as each coach's unique approach (even if using similar models). In the coaching work that I do-all within a corporate context-enabling individuals to become reflective practicioners (using your words) is fundamental; it provides the context within which goals can be clarified and the true/core underlying issues can be addressed from a position of greater seeing and awareness. It, to me, lies at the very heart of adaptive change, and opens the door to insight & the possibility of sustainable transformational change...long after my clients have finished their work with me.

Nick Wright

6/8/2016 09:08:11 am

Hi Mark and thanks for the inspiring and encouraging response. I'm heartened to hear about your approach and commitment to sustainable transformation.

Have you come across Thompson & Thompson's book, 'The Critically Reflective Practitioner' (2008)? It has some very useful insights and ideas that can be applied in a coaching relationship and context.

The question of 'true/core underlying issues' is an interesting and challenging one. What we notice, acknowledge and pay attention to - in this context, what we regard as the true/core issues - is influenced by e.g. our worldview, paradigm, culture, beliefs, values, assumptions etc.

A different approach can be to step back and reflect with the client on, 'What is influencing what we are seeing as the 'true/core' issues here?', 'What are we filtering, not noticing, not paying attention to, that could turn out to be the key to what we are dealing with here?'

I think this relates to our previous brief conversation under the 'Invisible' blog: http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/invisible

For me, we can apply similar critically reflective questions to the coaching profession itself, e.g. 'What cultural and contextual phenomena are influencing and driving our beliefs about what is most important in coaching and how it should be conducted?', 'What are we missing that could turn out to be most significant?'

Does that make sense? All the best. Nick

Mark Molitor

8/8/2016 10:19:52 am

It makes great sense...and I now have another book to add to my reading list. Greatly appreciate your sharing.

Nick Wright

8/8/2016 10:20:33 am

Thanks Mark. I appreciate your thoughtful responses. All the best. Nick

Karen Drury

8/8/2016 09:33:08 am

Professor Rob Briner challenged me recently to improve the quality of coaching research by suggesting a contribution of 5% for every job I did. There is an implicit suggestion even in your 'critical' article - that coaching 'works' - and yet there is little empirical, solid, REPLICABLE research which actually proves that it adds benefit to organisations. I continue in my coaching practice because individuals tell me what we do together is of benefit to them. But does coaching work well enough for organisations? Can everyone get benefit from a coaching intervention? I'm not sure - yet.

Nick Wright

8/8/2016 09:57:08 am

Hi Karen and thanks for posing such stimulating thoughts! The first thought that came to mind for me vis a vis 'empirical, solid, replicable' is whether empiricism is the most meaningful and useful paradigm for exploring and making sense of, say, coaching and its effects.

In social constructionism, the choice of empiricism, solidity, replicability etc. reflects a particular worldview that presupposes, e.g. what coaching is, what can be known and how, what can be considered as valid etc. I must confess that I'm more convinced by phenomenological rather than positivist insights and approaches in this area.

I was reminded of a short piece I wrote a while ago that touches on related themes: http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/where-did-i-come-from, inspired by a Gestalt article by Ernest Becker: http://www.gestalt.org/becker.htm If you are interested to have a glance, I would love to hear what you think!

The second thought that came to mind is whether what you are commenting on is partly what the ICF and EMCC had in mind when they developed and published their practice and ethical standards: a way of codifying coaching behaviours that enables them to be taught, learned, replicated etc. I'm not sure what research they based their conclusions on.

Thanks again. Lots to think about. :) All the best. Nick

Karen Drury

8/8/2016 03:51:18 pm

Hi Nick I have to say the Becker - which I skimmed - sounds a desperate case. People GO into therapy because they think it will help. I wonder if he sold it as he tells it - the stripping away of layers of comfortable deception - he'd make a living as a therapist
My point is that if we SELL coaching on the basis of facts - which are what businesses buy - then we'd better make pretty sure that it stacks up in terms of those facts. Otherwise we're also in a comfortable lie, and I, for one, am not happy about that.
So while empiricism may not be the best way to judge coaching outcomes, it IS the way it's sold as an intervention to improve personal performance. So again - do we deliver what we sell? If not, should we be dismissed as purveyors of snake oil and charlatanism? Many - if not all - of the people I coach don't want a discussion about how many empiracists can dance on the head of a pin - they want to know if coaching helps. My best answer is 'it may do'.

Nick Wright

8/8/2016 04:12:04 pm

Hi Karen and thanks for the note. I agree that a coaching client is likely to be more interested in outcomes, that is, whether coaching can make a difference in things that are important to them. More interested, that is, than in the philosophy or science that informs the coach's outlook and approach. So there's something in that about how we communicate what we do, what it may achieve etc. in a way that is clear and authentic.

A conversation I often have with clients at the exploring and contracting stages is around what tends to makes a difference to whether coaching and coaching relationships are and are experienced as successful or worthwhile. That helps manage expectations both ways and provides a basis for review and evaluation alongside outcomes achieved.

The part I found interesting in Becker's article is the paragraph that, in effect, challenges an empirical scientific paradigm as to what is going on. It addresses, as an example, 'We don't know who we are, we don't know how we came here and we don't know where we came from.' It touches on deep spiritual and existential issues that are, in effect, inaccessible to or often dismissed by an empirical view of the world.

So, if we are trying to understand what makes a difference to the impact that coaching can have - if we can say that it does make a difference - the paradigm within which we view and evaluate it will impact on what we focus our attention on, what interpretations we make and what conclusions we draw.

If I understood your original note correctly, that was a dimension of the research challenge that the professor posed and that you are grappling with? All the best. Nick

Paul Zonneveld

8/8/2016 10:22:49 am

Hi Nick, I can totally relate to what you're saying. Goal related coaching is certainly a great way to coach and helps many people to take new steps in their lives Goal related coaching itself is also only a stage in the development of coaching practices. Systemic coaching for one is such a next step in coaching which also helps clients to become more contemplative and reflective and is applicable in many cultures as it follows the culture it is in.

Nick Wright

8/8/2016 10:33:06 am

Thanks Paul. Yes, I think systems-orientated coaching can enable a person to think more broadly than in terms of their own personal goals alone. I worked as a coach tutor with a team in the UK called 3D Coaching that used a model called SOGI: Society, Organisation, Group, Individual.

It is particularly useful for coaching in organisations as it enables a coach to pose questions from different places, e.g. 'What would be a great outcome for this community, this organisation, your team, your family, you?' It opens up far wider insights and perspectives than, say, 'What is your goal?'

Applying the cultural dimension, the coach could pose, say: 'What is construed as 'success' in this culture/environment?' or 'What is considered a legitimate way to achieve success here?' It helps the coach superimposing their own cultural assumptions onto the client.

Does that make sense? All the best. Nick

Mark Jan de Graaf

8/8/2016 10:34:02 am

I agree and I would like to ad that it al comes down to the connection between coach and cochee and "qualified" coaches aren't always better just because the have a piece of paper. I am a coach in training and received great feedback from my coachees. ( I only have 3 pro bono clients jet) I worry about the fact do I need a certificate and am I able to get sufficient funding to do this and build a practice. What I do know is that is is something I really love doing. I hope that I will be able to spread the importance of coaching and inspire someone else. I'm glad I had this opportunity it would be a shame if this would only be for the happy few.

Nick Wright

8/8/2016 10:43:01 am

Hi Mark and thanks for the note. It's great to hear your enthusiasm for the work you are doing! :) I think it's true that having a piece of paper does not, of itself, guarantee high quality coaching experience, practice or impact. My sense is that the ICF and EMCC standards and processes try to promote and improve the chances of 'good practice' and to reduce the risk of 'bad practice'.

Your comments touch on quite a few important questions in this area, e.g. what constitutes 'good practice' and who decides; is there such a thing as 'universal good practice' or does successful coaching depend on almost unlimited variables (the magic of the moment, so to speak); how can we ensure that passionate, insightful and skilful coaches are not prohibited from practicing because, e.g. they don't have access to finances or time for credentialing.

All the best. Nick

Jurrien Mammen

8/8/2016 10:44:03 am

Nick great post. Some of the best coaches in my life are not certified which allows them to work from their intuition/gut, some are still very young/natural. They can bring you to places you never dreamed existed. I'm currently learning more about morphological fields and I strongly believe we al become better coaches when better practices and experiences are discovered around the world which will bring us to uncharted territories (quantum physics, systems working, resonance..who knows). It is an exciting future especially when AI and 'apps' take away some of the more basic coaching needs. I'm curious :-)

Nick Wright

8/8/2016 10:51:51 am

Thanks Jurrien. I love they way you expressed that: 'They can bring you to places you never dreamed existed.' :) That has been my experience too. The question of intuition/gut raises such interesting and important points about the potential for fluidity and innovation in a professional field that can feel increasingly regulated, standardised, prescriptive etc.

There are very different views on this - as we might expect. I had an interesting conversation with a social worker in Germany recently who argued passionately that a strong foundation (similar to Bowlby's work on 'secure base') is necessary for innovation. It provides something to build out from, rather than everything being in flux. I can see his point...and I also believe that sometimes innovation emerges or is catalysed by 'chaos' too.

'Morphological' is a new word for me! I'm curious to hear more. Do you have any examples to illustrate what it could look like in practice? All the best. Nick

Corey Stanford, MBA, CPCC, PCC

8/8/2016 10:52:58 am

Excellent questions, Nick! I see many people shifting their idea of what constitutes coaching. Individuals and organizations apply their own definitions and assumptions, and that's not a bad thing. Some coaches feel threatened by being lumped in with others doing different work, and it's interesting to watch.

Case in point...I met a coach a few weeks ago and asked if she was interested in being involved with the local ICF chapter. She said she is a John Maxwell coach and has a very specific notion of what coaching is. To her John Maxwell certification represented coaching, not ICF.

A few weeks later I met another coach for the first time. He was also a John Maxwell coach and said he didn't feel the 3-day workshop that earned him that certificate qualified him to be a coach the way my ICF PCC credential did.

Why all the compare and contrast? Don't we all offer something unique in the world?

Nick Wright

8/8/2016 11:01:15 am

Many thanks, Corey. What you have described so well here resonates with my experience too. My bookshelf is filled with books on 'coaching' and most represent very different philosophies and approaches to each other. I actually like that diversity - I find it stimulating and useful for my own coaching practice - and I love your comment, 'Don't we all offer something unique in the world?'

At the same time, I'm aware that clients I work with often feel confused by what coaching could mean and look like in practice. They hear the word used by different people to mean different things and struggle to make sense of it. I'm reminded of a journal article I read a few years ago that researched 'mentoring' internationally and concluded there are probably as many definitions as there are practitioners!

So perhaps there's something here about finding clarity in the midst of diversity that preserves the great value of both? What do you think? All the best. Nick

Kathryn L. Kleypas PhD CPCC ACC

8/8/2016 11:02:33 am

I completely agree that credentialing can leave people out. It cost me $12,000 all total to get credentialed and it probably cost a bit more when you consider the opportunity cost in the form of missed wages that year. But instead of lowering the bar, I would like to see more fundraising for scholarships. One of the comments asked why all the compare/contrast. I think this is extremely important at this point in coaching's evolution as a respected discipline. I do absolutely agree that uncertified coaches can be effective. Absolutely. (And by the way in response to another comment, certified coaches use their intuition as well!). But there are also a lot of people out there calling themselves coaches who are damaging the discipline.

Nick Wright

8/8/2016 11:11:58 am

Thanks Kathryn. I think the idea of ensuring both quality and accessibility is so important in this arena. Fundraising for scholarships could be one way of increasing accessibility, especially for talented people in countries where $12k would be enough to buy a house. I wonder what other ideas could work too.

I think the quality issue is quite complex. Whilst supporting the quality principle - not least to ensure coaching is a valuable profession and that the worst practice is avoided - I'm aware of very diverse ideas in coaching-related philosophy and research as well as practice. Who decides definitively what 'quality' coaching is, especially if we take into account cross-cultural dimensions?

I'd love to hear if you have further thoughts on this. All the best. Nick

Birgitta Granstrom

8/8/2016 11:12:53 am

You are not alone! I'v been spent the last 10 years of my life to create a system that will bring the human evolution and the coaching to the next dimension....so I'm so grateful happy for your brilliant post!

Nick Wright

8/8/2016 11:17:55 am

Many thanks, Birgitta! :) Would you like to say a bit more about the system you have created? I'm aware that my own perspectives on coaching are influenced by my background in community development, human rights, international development, organisation development etc. I find it interesting how these things influence the 'systems' that emerge into awareness for us. All the best. Nick

Sarah Clark

8/8/2016 11:18:28 am

Great post! when I run a coaching workshop one of the participants will find a quote and a visual the most effective, another background research, another an activity and so it goes on. I have been working with up to 40 clients a week in group sessions for 16 years and the main learning for me is I can use up to 8 psychological coaching models but it is always about the person always. Person centred and there are always unexpected surprises and inroads least expected!

Nick Wright

8/8/2016 11:22:50 am

Thanks Sarah! I think the sensitivity and creativity you apply to working with different individuals can be important and useful when working with different cultures too. This means we could explore, for instance, what it might look like to shift 'person-centred' to 'group-centred' practice in a culture where 'group' is a very significant value and influence. You may find this related short piece interesting? http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/crossing-cultures All the best. Nick

Tuncel Gulsoy

8/8/2016 11:32:30 am

Nick as a relatively experienced coach I have felt the points you are raising fully in my heart. The cultural impact is very important. For example getting help in Turkey is considered as a weakness, being mentored in a national tradition which makes real coaching very difficult to practice. Thank you for this article which was very inspiring to me.

Nick Wright

8/8/2016 11:34:20 am

Hi Tuncel and many thanks for sharing such an important insight and experience from Turkish culture. It resonated with a counselling course I took part in many years ago where a Turkish participant explained how 'advice giving' (which links to your comment about mentoring) is a fundamental aspect of counselling conversations in that context.

I was particularly interested in her insights about what that represented culturally in terms of beliefs, values etc, particularly in terms of relationships and respect. Given that background, do you have any ideas about how best to introduce and use coaching in Turkey and other similar cultural contexts? I'm keen to learn from you!

By the way, you may find this related short piece interesting:http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/crossing-cultures I would be very interested to hear your thoughts. All the best. Nick

Sanjay Kabe

8/8/2016 01:03:55 pm

The Spotlight is Spot On!. The coach essentially ignites the (dormant?) burning fire in the coachee and here, all roads ( coaching frameworks, methodologies,..) lead to Rome. I believe even the "Western" coaching perspectives have been influenced by "Eastern/Non-Western" thoughts ( Esalen was! ). If not, they have to be encompassed and embraced to make it (w)holistic. I agree with you that coaching has to enable the "reflective practioner" in every professional - as Donald Schon would like us to be!

Nick Wright

8/8/2016 01:06:24 pm

Thanks Sanjay. Interesting comments! Can you say a bit more about what Eastern/non-Western thoughts you see reflected in Western coaching thinking and practice? They may be a key to applying coaching cross-culturally? All the best. Nick

Karen Drury

8/8/2016 07:03:17 pm

Hi Nick - I think the point Rob was making was that if we present coaching in a positivist framework to sell it , it should stack up -and, as he looks vainly for systematic reviews of coaching that are evidence based, that currently isn't the case. If you take your personal views to the nth degree, is it possible to measure coaching at all? how do you measure 'spirit'? In which case, is coaching anything which should be SOLD at all? all the best Karen

Nick Wright

8/8/2016 07:23:25 pm

Hi Karen and thanks for the note. I do appreciate the challenge you (and Rob) are posing!

I worked with one organisation where we introduced external coaching and action learning opportunities for leaders. We worked up front on ensuring people were clear about what coaching and action learning are, what is possible if we do them well, what they involve in practice, what they call for in terms of proactivity, co-creativity, contracting, contribution etc.

One year later, we arranged a meeting of our full leadership group and invited those who had taken part in coaching and action learning to offer their honest reflections on their experiences, e.g. why they got involved, what they hoped for, what happened, what worked and didn't work for them, what they discovered and learned, what difference - if any - it had made to their leadership etc.

The explicit intention was to be real and not to try to 'sell' what they had been doing to colleagues. The stories that people shared were some of the most profoundly inspiring and moving I had ever heard, ranging from 'my personal world fell apart this year and this was the only thing that enabled me to continue at all' through to marked shifts in confidence, insight, approach etc.

In that context, this was sufficient to convince the executive team that investments in coaching and action learning were absolutely worthwhile. We didn't have hard quantitative measures of success but, instead, real and powerful human stories and experiences of engagement, learning and change.

So...perhaps it comes down to research questions such as, 'Who wants to know?', 'What do they want to know?', 'Why do they want to know?', 'How can we know?', 'How can we test what we know?', 'How can we demonstrate what we know in terms that both we and our stakeholders consider convincing, compelling, valid?' etc. All the best. Nick

Karen Drury

9/8/2016 08:29:04 pm

Ah, but what paradigm will you be using for your research? :)

Nick Wright

9/8/2016 08:29:42 pm

Excellent question, Karen. Now we're talking... ;)

Gwen Griffith

8/8/2016 07:26:25 pm

Great point Nick.

The client's "why's" may be utterly "foreign" to us in the West. Their internal alignment to their own goals depend on how they define their "why".

Our work is to appropriately support and take time to understand those why's. Especially in cross-cultural work, outcomes are secondary to supporting the why. (IMHO)

Nick Wright

8/8/2016 07:29:46 pm

Thanks Gwen! I think that's a great point about the 'why'. We could say that, as coaches, we need to be sensitive to possible differences in 'why' and, rather than necessarily to understand the client's whys per se, to enable them to reflect on their own whys and their potential possibilities, implications etc? What do you think? All the best. Nick

Alan Wingrove

9/8/2016 08:31:04 pm

Nick and Karen, your discussion thread is really interesting - and very timely for me! I am in the final stages of my certificate in coaching supervision and my research has raised a number of questions for me....

1. As regards credentialing, I agree with Nick about the time and cost being exclusionary to some. I also wonder about the value of it to clients. If it were to become a linear professional development path, it would have far more credibility.

2. The value of coaching - and the 'wellbeing' versus the 'practical'.... I believe this depends on the coaching discipline you choose. Most coaching models have evolved from the helping professions and work well for life coaches; whereas businesses believe they want practical, tangible outcomes. In fact, we know that looking after the wellbeing of their staff produces tangible results for businesses, but many coaches don't sell this as a good return on their investment - and many organisations don't buy it!

3. I'm starting to question if the current models fit the 'hyper-connected' world of busy executives. I'm continually hearing, 'I'm too busy....' and I'd like to research what 'I'm too busy' means for the coaching profession; especially as regards mindfulness and presence.

Just a thought....

Nick Wright

9/8/2016 08:48:35 pm

Hi Alan and many thanks for posing such interesting questions. Sounds like your supervision course is proving stimulating and useful! Some quick reflections on your questions:

1. If we were to agree that credentialing helps to ensure coaching quality and accountability and that it focuses the coach's attention on those things that make the greatest positive difference for the client (and there are a lot of assumptions tied up in that statement!), it would seem to follow that credentialing would help to assure value for the client, whether the client is aware of it or not. Also, some clients may also view credentialing as a credibility badge - as an association with a professional body that seeks to uphold coaching ethics and standards (again...lots of assumptions tied up in that statement). Does that make sense?

2. The question of the value of coaching touches on the important points that Karen was raising too. There are so many factors that influence the effectiveness of a coaching relationship and experience. not limited to the model, insights and skills of the coach. I think this is where explicit conversations with a client about (a) the change they want to see and (b) what achieving change is likely to call for in that relationship, culture and context is very important at the contracting and review stages.

3. The 'I'm too busy' phenomenon is an increasingly common voice among leaders and professions - which may represent all kinds of important things personally, culturally and systemically. It can also be an incredibly fruitful focus for conversation in leadership coaching - paradoxically, if the client is willing to make time to engage with it. I will often pose questions such as, 'So time is an issue. What would it take for you to choose to prioritise this in the midst of other competing demands on your time? What would need to happen for that to happen?'

I'd be interested to hear if these reflections resonate with your own ideas and reflections too. All the best. Nick

Anne Rotschi

10/8/2016 09:24:06 am

Dear Nick, thank you for those opening questions. I am a new coach (certified in November 2015). I am a Westerner and I did my training in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. I had asked myself the question to which extend the training would be applicable to Westerners ! I was actually surprised that the training (recognized by ICF) was really universal. I would be happy to connect you with my mentor coach who is Malaysian if you want to elaborate more.

Nick Wright

10/8/2016 09:34:52 am

Thanks for sharing an interesting and different angle on this, Anne! You reminded me that, a few years ago, I edited a book called 'Empowering Asian Mindsets Through Coaching' by Wai K Leong - also based in Kuala Lumpur. I had picked up a copy in the airport whilst passing through Malaysia and found his insights fascinating. I wrote and offered to edit the book to make it more accessible to a Western market and audience. Wai accepted. An interesting experience!

Whilst it certainly isn't realistic or valid to apply the same cultural traits to all countries, regions, communities or individuals in West or East (or anywhere else!), I was interested to hear of some of the challenges Wai faced applying ICF-type principles in Asian cultures where age, hierarchy, respect, relational expectations etc. introduced dynamics that were quite different to those encountered typically in the West.

I encountered some of those dynamics whilst working in South East Asia too which sometimes proved quite tricky. I occasionally inadvertently learned the hard way... :/ I'd be interested to hear more about your experiences too. By the way, you may find this related short piece interesting? http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/crossing-cultures I'd love to hear your thoughts! All the best. Nick

Bob Reuter

10/8/2016 09:37:40 am

Nick, a question I have about coaching based on any theoretical or empirical foundation is whether the coaches have assumed that their values and beliefs are appropriate for all others. No matter how universally acceptable, e.g., happiness, flourishing, etc., it is difficult to believe that these concepts apply to all western individuals let alone globally. As a following develops around a particular approach, e.g., Watson, Skinner, Seligman, Leary and with it often comes a "one size fits all" mentality. I believe that is the trap one should not fall into as there are limits to all human relations disciplines (a good term).

Nick Wright

10/8/2016 09:44:33 am

Thanks for the note, Bob. You articulated well what I notice and feel concerned by too - possibly because I've had experiences in other cultures where differences have only become apparent when things have gone horribly wrong! It's not to say that everything is different...but that we need to be sensitive to the reality that there are cultural differences that influence how coaching is perceived, experienced and practiced and what difference that makes to its acceptability and effectiveness.

By the way, have you come across Plaister-Ten's new book, 'The Cross-Cultural Coaching Kaleidoscope' (2016)? It has some interesting insights and ideas in this area. You may be interested in this related short piece too? http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/crossing-cultures All the best. Nick

Philip Beddows

10/8/2016 08:37:01 pm

The first thing to say is that of course it works! Can we honestly be coaches and think coaching doesn't work?

There has been a range of research into the effectiveness & value of coaching over many years, and the Institute of Coaching is one entity that is doing a lot to explore such matters in fine detail and has been offering grants to researchers for some years now: http://www.instituteofcoaching.org/research-grants.

Thomas Leonard who founded the ICF and then what became the IAC (International Association of Coaching) spent years exploring coaching mastery and is quoted as often asking "“What separates a great coach from the rest; how do I find a great coach; and, how do I know I am a great coach?”.

Coaching works. However, a particular method and approach may be effective in itself, but when practised by different coaches with different coachees in varying contexts will inevitably produce different results. Sometimes it may work very well, at other times less so.

Nick Wright

10/8/2016 08:43:28 pm

Hi Philip and thanks for the note and the IOC link. The research that you point to could be of interest to Karen (above) too. I think questions around 'what makes a great coach' can be intriguing. For instance, it depends on our definition of coaching, what is construed as 'great' in different systemic and cultural contexts etc. Lots to think about. All the best. Nick

Karen Drury

11/8/2016 08:44:16 am

I tried to access the research but the papers themselves are behind a paywall. Research that I've looked at previously suffers from a variety of issues - poor sample sizes, inadequate methodology, self report bias, cross sectional design and frankly TINY, barely-above-nothing effect sizes. I also note that the Research Digest is being sponsored by Meyler Campbell, an organisation whose entire raison d'etre is to encourage the view that coaching 'works'. And indeed, the whole IoC is hoping that coaching 'works' because it makes money from accreditation and professional membership fees. Strangely, I also believe that coaching CAN impact individuals - I am a coach and my clients tell me so - but what I'm concerned with is the lack of critical evaluation of the field as a whole and the promises made about what it can deliver for organisations. The 'evidence' for coaching is as solid as that available for engagement.

And if we're going to quote coaching gurus, David Clutterbuck has said that evidence for the field is flimsy. Also look at work done by Jarvis, for the CIPD. Or comments by Eldridge & Dembkowski who say that the answer to the question 'does it work' is a TENTATIVE yes. Studies, say Passmore & Gibbs should be built on controlled groups with random selection of participants. It doesn't happen, we rely on case studies. I also have a question - People say that coaching 'works' - but would it work if the process was poor? Few studies look at the method used by the coach. And what if the coach was bad? Or if the coachee was resistant? So WHAT works? And what does 'works' actually mean? And if it's a combination of factors, I'd be interested to see the research methodology that would measure it. Often coaching is completely divorced from objective, performance data. I know it CAN work with individuals - but definitely works? And with whole organisations? Not sure.

Nick Wright

11/8/2016 08:56:36 am

Hi Karen and thanks for posing such great questions. I too have experienced and witnessed significant change though what I have called 'coaching'...and I still have questions. Here are some thoughts on the general proposition that 'coaching works':

I have an encounter with a person who describes themselves as a coach and what we do together as 'coaching'. Something significant changes for me, perhaps new awareness, fresh insights, novel ideas, renewed confidence. That experience is true for me. What I/we attribute the change to is, however, far more complex.

We often attribute it, almost exclusively, to the qualities and attributes of the coach and what he or she does: e.g. how he or she applies, skills, techniques, great questions etc. And I am convinced that those things do make a difference. However, it projects too much responsibility onto the coach and ignores or denies our own agency in the change.

Or we miss surrounding or subconscious factors that influence how we approach and experience the encounter and what results from it, e.g. I have heard great things about this coach so come with high expectations; I find the coach attractive and want to impress her; we meet in a relaxed setting that enables me to step back psychologically from my day-to-day work; I've invested time and money in this and am determined to extract value from it; my promotion depends on my ability to demonstrate what I've learned from it.

This means that when we say 'coaching works', we need to be clear about what we mean by 'coaching', what we mean by 'works' and, where it does work according to these definitions, to understand as well as we can what accounts for the change that results.

All the best. Nick

Alan Wingrove

11/8/2016 10:36:46 am

Nick and Karen, still a great conversation - and a great question, Karen, of 'what paradigm'. It's a challenging question, because (I believe) that's my research.... we seem to be delivering coaching to a paradigm that I'm not sure exists any longer - and if the paradigm has changed then do we need coaching models to meet it?
And what great thoughts about 'what' works.... Theo Compernolle's book, Brain Chains, evidences the increased anxiety a 'hyper-connected' world can create and how clients now value their coaching time as the only time they have for 'quality thinking'.
Is that a return on their organisation's investment? Possibly, but equally in terms of well-being as performance?
Just a thought....

Nick Wright

11/8/2016 10:45:13 am

Thanks for your feedback and for posing such stimulating reflections, Alan. Yes, I think the 'paradigms' question is fundamental to this conversation as it sets, in a sense, the terms of reference for what we think about, what we notice and filter out, the beliefs, values and assumptions we bring to it, what we seek to evaluate and how etc.

I'm curious - what do you believe the paradigm is that no longer exists? Sounds intriguing! What influence does the paradigm that no longer exists have on what we construe as coaching 'good practice'? What could a new coaching paradigm look and feel like for coaches and clients?

Thanks for referencing the Brain Chains book. I think you pose an important question: when we are evaluating the effectiveness of coaching, it depends on e.g. what different clients in different cultures and contexts - and at different times - perceive and value as the goals and potential benefits of it. All the best. Nick

Alan Wingrove

15/8/2016 10:13:58 am

Nick, the paradigm that I am not sure exists any longer is that of 'time'. Clients in business seem to be valuing themselves less and less; being too busy at work to give themselves or their families 'time'. They also appear to be giving less time to thinking and reflection, which may explain some of the poor decisions being made?
One role of a coach is to provide a 'safe, reflective place for our clients' - which may be difficult if the client is only 'half-present'. What impact does this have? I'm not sure is the answer, which is why I'd like to research it.
This links to Jane's comments. Being contentious, we seem to have become so inward looking at 'what the coaching profession is doing' that we may be losing sight of what the customer wants and what difference what we are doing at the moment is making.
I believe we are all 'going for gold' but, as Jane asks, "are we truly making it that?"

Nick Wright

15/8/2016 10:34:47 am

Hi Alan. I think that's a really interesting insight. It reminds me of some leadership development work I did with an international organisation where people who were senior leaders said they felt continually busy and stressed because they didn't have enough time to do everything.

Instead of moving into things like time management (which always sounds a bit strange to me anyway!), I was curious about what 'busyness' represented psychologically and culturally in that context. So I asked, 'If you were to ask a peer here how work is going for them at the moment and they were to respond, 'Really well, thank you. I'm not at all busy and have lots of free time on my hands', what kind of feeling and response might that evoke in you?'

The reaction was intriguing and revealing. Some said things along the lines of, 'Very annoyed because they aren't as busy as me and, therefore, aren't pulling their own weight as much as I am.' Others said, 'They obviously aren't as important as I am, or their work isn't as important as mine is, because they're not as busy as I am.'

It was as if subconscious, unspoken personal and cultural beliefs and values around, e.g. 'busy' = important' and 'busy = adding value' were driving their personal and team leadership behaviour - without realising it. We moved on to explore the risks if leaders are 'too busy' and the benefits if leaders are 'not at all busy' to begin to shift the cultural narrative and, therefore, personal and team behaviour, experience, sustainability and effectiveness.

Does that resonate with your research insights too? All the best. Nick

Alan Wingrove

17/8/2016 11:16:02 am

Hi Nick, your experience in the international organisation resonates strongly with my research insights. I like your 'busy = important' and 'busy = adding value' and I have also found 'busy = increased self-worth'.
"If the mobile phone rings incessantly and emails need responding to, then I have self-worth, am important and am adding value." is apparently becoming the cultural 'norm' in many organisations and, I believe, is then taken into our social culture. Perhaps that is why it is becoming more common to see a group of people in a restaurant all 'glued' to their devices and not saying a word to one another.

Jeremy R. Johnson

11/8/2016 09:57:18 pm

Initially, I thought many of the "coaching assumptions, models and approaches" had too strong of a therapy bias. A coach I worked with during my certification refused to answer my questions about her thoughts under the guise of "honoring me by letting me come to my own answers." As a business owner, I found it maddening and a waste of time. My initial coaching was in athletics, then the military, and business.

As a practicing coach, I find it effective to bring pieces from each of these worlds in different combinations to address different clients and situations.

Would it benefit the coaching world to bring all types of coaching under one umbrella with multiple branches?

Nick Wright

11/8/2016 10:08:12 pm

Hi Jeremy and thanks for posting such an interesting perspective. I too have worked with people, especially less experienced managers, who have felt frustrated by non-directive coaching when what they are really looking for is something more akin to mentoring.

My own sense is that we need to explore with the client what they are looking for, what they would find most useful, what would be in their best interests etc. and to discuss options of different types of intervention against that backdrop. Coaching may be one option among many.

One of the tricky issues at the moment is that different people use 'coaching' to mean different things, including in different countries, which can create confusion. I guess this is one of the benefits of the ICF and EMCC efforts to bring some degree of standardisation...although that presents its own challenges too.

All the best. Nick

Jane Keep

12/8/2016 09:46:23 am

Great and much needed conversation. For me the question is how much has our coaching to this point (there are literally 1000's of coaching hours every day in organisations and in our working days in UK alone, let alone world wide) supported the evolution of this planet? how much has coaching supported us to deal with the atrocities in our world today? How much has coaching supported our workplaces to become open, transparent, places where people flourish and only move on because they are ready for something greater? How much has coaching supported every single coaching client to be the best they can, to flourish, to realise that they are indeed greater than they probably begin to appreciate? How far has the coaching industry taken all our industries to be the best places to work, the most effective and most successful? and how do we truly know the impact of our coaching and does it matter?

How have I through my coaching enabled people, organisations, communities and humanity to evolve, to develop, to make changes to the atrocities? and as a coach, how much of an exemplary (not perfect) role model am I - am I fully vital, well, healthy, living an honest, open, aware life, willing to learn at every step of the way, with a strong foundation of self care, of appreciation, and of understanding where my qualities are best utilised, not relying on tools, or cowering under a set way of coaching, but coaching in a way I know makes a difference (without arrogance, aloofness)? For all the codes of conduct we have, for all the standards, accreditations, workshops, and conferences we have for coaches - how much have we truly evolved the coaching industry - to serve what purpose? Id love a round table with a large group of coaches to sit down and look beyond accreditation, beyond standards, beyond qualifications and beyond codes of conduct and look at where coaching is needed?

How can we all be the best we can - exemplary (and not perfect), coaching in a way that we know makes a difference (without arrogance) supporting workplaces, and every person on this planet to become their own student of their own life, to be confident to try and test things out, to realise how much they can appreciate about themselves, to realise they matter and self care is foundational to life and work, to speak up, to nip things in the bud, to make work about people and relationships, and to serve those they serve to the best of their ability? ... off my soap box ... there is much to say about this topic and Im playing a devils advocate here to think bigger in this conversation - as coaching can be pure gold - are we truly making it that?

Nick Wright

12/8/2016 09:54:15 am

Hi Jane and many thanks for expressing that so beautifully. You have captured so well what lays deep in my heart. What kind of world do we want to create and, in relation to that, what are we willing to be and do, to be part of, to advocate on behalf of others etc?

For me, it's a spiritual, existential, global, social-transformational vision that provides the backdrop for my coaching beliefs, values, thinking, stance, approach and practice.

I love your final comment: 'Coaching can be pure gold - are we truly making it that?' Excellent! Incidentially, you may be interested in a related (provocative-with-good-intention) piece I posted this week: http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/bubbles All the best. Nick

Alan Wingrove

15/8/2016 10:37:59 am

I have also been giving thought to Jane Keep's comment, "Id love a round table with a large group of coaches to sit down and look beyond accreditation, beyond standards, beyond qualifications and beyond codes of conduct and look at where coaching is needed?"

I'm not sure I'd go for a 'large' group of coaches, initially. However, I'd love to get a small group together.... As part of my programme I have been reading 'Presence' by Peter Senge, C. Otto Scharmer, Joseph Jaworski and Betty Sue Flowers; which is a record of conversations they had over a period of time.

This has led me to thinking whether a small group of people, willing to explore and challenge the 'status quo' would add value, if they recorded their thoughts and conversations on a blog, LinkedIn or similar?

Your thoughts?

Nick Wright

15/8/2016 10:40:40 am

Hi Alan. I guess that is some of what we are doing here and now in this conversation? Perhaps a different angle might be where to open a conversation that has the greatest possibility of surfacing diverse insights and experiences - including cross-culturally - and exerting influence where this could be useful? All the best. Nick

Funmi Johnson

16/8/2016 08:26:30 pm

I'm a coach working in Lagos, Nigeria at the moment. It's a bit of a dichotomy in the sense that there is a lot of exposure to the Western world, but also there are very deeply entrenched cultural and traditional beliefs that can sometimes make coaching quite challenging in that environment. What I have found to be the number 1 most effective way of helping my clients is to be flexible. I come to coaching by way of administration, a legal career and an equalities practitioner. I draw on aspects of all that experience to work with clients, as well as my Christian faith. So, it's not about sticking slavishly to models, but asking what the client needs to move forward and what do i have in my toolbox that can help do that.

Nick Wright

16/8/2016 08:31:36 pm

Hi Funmi and thanks for the note. I really like your emphasis on flexibility as it enables you to adapt in response to client needs. I would be fascinated to hear more about that kind of cultural and traditional beliefs in Nigeria can make coaching challenging - and how you work through that. Do you have any examples you could share?

I've faced some 'interesting' challenges when using coaching principles in Africa and Asia - although my experience in Africa was limited to Uganda which may be quite different. By the way, you may be interested in this related blog on the cross-cultural front? http://www.nick-wright.com/blog/crossing-cultures All the best. Nick

Funmi Johnson

27/8/2016 05:26:18 pm

Hi Nick, for example, the culture is very deferential, so there is a marked reluctance to disagree with 'authority', so I have to be very careful about offering an opinion or even advice. I also find that there is an expectation that I will impose my views, instead of working with the client to surface issues.

Nick Wright

27/8/2016 05:28:41 pm

Hi Funmi. Your experience re deference to perceived authority definitely resonates with my experience in Uganda. I had to be very careful of expressing anything that sounded like an opinion to avoid people defaulting to my view as a sign of politeness and respect. All the best. Nick

Spotlight

Leave a Reply.

Nick Wright

Archives

Categories

Spotlight

Leave a Reply.

​Nick Wright

​Archives

Categories

Nick Wright

Archives