on Fri, 12/12/2014 - 14:21 by Jim Smith, PCC (not verified)
Brian, I laughed out loud at your story. Been there, done that. As a mentor coach/assessor in the ICF world, I have certainly called out advice giving when I see it. AND... I totally agree with your BOTH/AND perspective, and here is some additional framing I give it: Coaching is coaching. If you are giving advice, you are not coaching. if you are teaching, mentoring, or in any way holding yourself as the "expert" in that client's world, you are not coaching, because coaching is about honoring what/who the client already is (whole, creative, and resourceful, etc). That said, let's recognize that in a coaching RELATIONSHIP, there may be moments when when shifting the conversation from coaching to teaching, training, mentoring, or consulting is truly in service of the client's goals. Sometimes the client truly will benefit from learning a new distinction, a different approach, or about a resource that is simply not anywhere on their radar. To me, the difference between a good coach and a person who is using the term without training/understanding is this: The unskilled "coach" (intentional use of quote marks) plows ahead, believing they know best what the client needs, and often oblivious to the distinction between these different types of conversation -- they truly think consulting or training is coaching, that it's all one and the same. The skilled coach, on the other hand, understands in that moment that what they are about to offer is NOT coaching, so they make that transparent to the client, by asking permission and/or by doing the hat swap thing. I use a metaphor of different coaching tools. There's a hammer, a screwdriver, a wrench, etc. Allowing ONLY coaching in a coaching relationship would be, to me, like only ever using a hammer. (you know the metaphor....). Yet this is alsowhy the ICF insists that you demonstrate COACHING in your competency assessment -- because you have to be able to prove you know how to use that hammer well, and as it's intended to be used. Thus, I'd assess your coaching competency in an on-stage situation by this filter: If you asked permission, or in any way signaled to your client, "In this COACHING conversation, I'm about to use a different tool than coaching to help you move forward," then I as an observer can tell you know the difference. In some groups, this can be a divisive issue; I know I've been in some lively arguments! I've also been in your place, on stage, with the "purists" in the audience. I believe there is space for BOTH points of view to be correct. Thanks for a fun post!
Knowing the difference is key
Brian, I laughed out loud at your story. Been there, done that. As a mentor coach/assessor in the ICF world, I have certainly called out advice giving when I see it. AND... I totally agree with your BOTH/AND perspective, and here is some additional framing I give it: Coaching is coaching. If you are giving advice, you are not coaching. if you are teaching, mentoring, or in any way holding yourself as the "expert" in that client's world, you are not coaching, because coaching is about honoring what/who the client already is (whole, creative, and resourceful, etc). That said, let's recognize that in a coaching RELATIONSHIP, there may be moments when when shifting the conversation from coaching to teaching, training, mentoring, or consulting is truly in service of the client's goals. Sometimes the client truly will benefit from learning a new distinction, a different approach, or about a resource that is simply not anywhere on their radar. To me, the difference between a good coach and a person who is using the term without training/understanding is this: The unskilled "coach" (intentional use of quote marks) plows ahead, believing they know best what the client needs, and often oblivious to the distinction between these different types of conversation -- they truly think consulting or training is coaching, that it's all one and the same. The skilled coach, on the other hand, understands in that moment that what they are about to offer is NOT coaching, so they make that transparent to the client, by asking permission and/or by doing the hat swap thing. I use a metaphor of different coaching tools. There's a hammer, a screwdriver, a wrench, etc. Allowing ONLY coaching in a coaching relationship would be, to me, like only ever using a hammer. (you know the metaphor....). Yet this is alsowhy the ICF insists that you demonstrate COACHING in your competency assessment -- because you have to be able to prove you know how to use that hammer well, and as it's intended to be used. Thus, I'd assess your coaching competency in an on-stage situation by this filter: If you asked permission, or in any way signaled to your client, "In this COACHING conversation, I'm about to use a different tool than coaching to help you move forward," then I as an observer can tell you know the difference. In some groups, this can be a divisive issue; I know I've been in some lively arguments! I've also been in your place, on stage, with the "purists" in the audience. I believe there is space for BOTH points of view to be correct. Thanks for a fun post!