Wednesday 31 October 2012

Coaching under scrutiny

I've just finished reading 'Smile or Die' by Barbara Ehrenreich, a damning indictment of the growth of the 'positive thinking' movement in the USA.  In her analysis she includes criticisms of positive psychology and also of coaching.  Some of her book made uncomfortable reading, some of it I disagree with and some of it I thought was long overdue in being said.  Obviously, I work in the coaching industry, so I've already got a view (and a vested interest), but nevertheless, it is a good discipline to read books like this, if only to hone your skills or to enhance your reflective practice.  Ehrenreich is matter-of-fact and to the point.  I like her directness.  I would love to meet her and talk with her because I think she would 'tell it like it is' and  in doing so, thoroughly test your own thinking.  Some of her criticisms are levelled at the industry, its overblown claims and its lack of evidence base.  Other criticisms are more about the potential harmful effects it can have on individuals, such as creating unrealistic hopes and expectations, developing motivation without capability and a failure to address the impact of an individual's circumstances on their opportunities.

Coincidentally, two papers covering the same topic were published in OP Matters (BPS, No 17, November 2012).  Rob Briner's paper ('Does coaching work and does anyone really care?') shows up a number of potential weaknesses in the coaching profession.  It has a relatively low 'entry point' (anyone can call themselves a coach), there is a lack of regulation in the industry and even a failure to agree what coaching is/is not.  There are serious ethical implications due to this lack or regulation and it also highlights his main point, that of efficacy.  There is a lack of rigorous studies based on sound methodologies (eg randomised controlled trials) and the evidence for the positive effects of coaching is, therefore, open to criticism.  Vicky Ellam-Dyson's paper ('Coaching psychology research:  Building the evidence, developing awareness') is an attempt to balance some of these criticisms, for example, highlighting the difficulties of carrying out 'robust' research in applied settings.  I can also hear the humanists start to respond with 'To submit coaching to empirical research methods is to miss the point that coaching is experiential, subjective and it is the study of meaning that is important').  I have some sympathy with this view but I also support the idea that if coaching (or one-to-one work in general) is to be seen to be credible, we need to establish a much firmer evidence base, which goes beyond self-reports of either coach or coachee.  'Do what works' is no longer enough of a rationale.  We also need to be ready to subject ourselves to tougher, industry-wide standards, a code of ethics and regulation.  Coaching is about to get tougher and I don't mean for the coachee.

Tuesday 16 October 2012

The role of the coach

I was sent this rather amusing image via Facebook the other day.  


Of course, it's meant as a bit of a put-down, a 'win-lose' strategy ('I elevate myself at your expense') and it is rather amusing, although I wouldn't want someone to use it on me.  So the fact that initially I found it amusing no longer sits comfortably with me.  Had I automatically put myself in the role of 'giver' rather than 'receiver'?  Why would I find it amusing from one perspective but not the other?  So it got me thinking, what is the difference between 'description' and 'insult'?  And why does one seem to matter more than the other?

Well, firstly, as I've just hinted, one important difference is that of intent.  A description implies a neutral stance, one of simply communicating a 'truth' that is 'out there'.  'Insult', on the other hand, implies that there is an intent attached to the narrative - there is an outcome attached to the 'description' - there is a lack of neutrality which is designed to achieve some aim or other.  An insult is designed to hurt and we feel it because it often attacks our sense of identity or we feel humiliated.  This particular statement works as an insult because it is attempting to form an equivalence between a person's opinion and an objective truth.  (ie 'I'm not just telling you what I think, it is also a fact, therefore true and indisputable'.)  It also implies that the receiver has failed to understand (and therefore there exists a difference in intellect) and also that the receiver has now walked into a carefully laid trap, which he only discovers at the moment it is too late to do anything about it.   It is saying 'Game, set and match - and if there is an audience to witness my expert humiliation of you, all the better'.

Let's leave aside the philosophical argument about whether there exists an objective world out there that can be described.  Minds much greater than mine have pondered this and I would add little to the debate!  What really struck me about this quote is that, more generally, it sums up what the job of a coach actually is.  In many circumstances the role of the coach is to separate 'facts' from 'interpretations'.   The popular psychology approach of Neuro Linguistic Programming (developed by Richard Bandler and John Grinder) is one where the subjective experience of the individual is put at the centre of the field of study.  It proposes that we convert the world of objective reality to our own highly individualised subjective experience through the processes of Generalisation, Distortion and Deletion.  These are necessary and inevitable processes, but lead to a version of reality that is very different from the 'world out there'.  Uncovering just how someone has converted the facts to an interpretation can give some powerful insights into why they act the way that they do, while also providing useful pointers on how the person can change, should that be what they desire.

Sometimes these interpretations are deliberate and conscious.  (Have you ever felt the need to protect yourself, by blaming someone else, when an objective hasn't been achieved?).  More often than not, these interpretations are largely unconscious and have been established over time.  The longer they exist, the more they start to feel like 'reality' and we forget that they aren't really facts at all, just our perceptions.  At times, if left unexamined, these patterns can lead to limited choice and behaviours that don't always get the results we want.

A good coach can help to recover the difference between the two and in doing so, open up greater choice for the coachee.

Monday 15 October 2012

Giving helpful feedback

It was widely reported in the UK press last week (see The Sunday Times, 14 October 2012 for an example), that Sir John Gurdon, recent winner of the Nobel Prize for medicine had been told at school that it was 'ridiculous' for him to consider a career in science.  On this news there flooded in many other examples of talented people being told at school that they were no good (including David Beckham being told that he wouldn't amount to much as a footballer).  Why would someone ever say such a thing?  I'm sure it was well meant at the time, but why make such a devastating prediction about someone's abilities, especially at such an impressionable age?  

There are many skills involved in giving feedback, one of which is knowing when you are moving from facts to interpretation (and then even further into prediction about the future).  Take the example of a young footballer who might be struggling with a specific skill.  The facts of the situation are based on tangible, visible elements such as his behaviour (in this case motor skills) and the results he is achieving.  Moving into an assessment of his current abilities is also a movement from the objective to more subjective territory.   Even so, the trainee's current performance might be more objectively compared against norms for his age group.  Shortfalls can easily be spotted and addressed without needing to go down the route of the 'no hoper' type of feedback seemingly given to Becks and Gurdon.  The performance manager who fails to notice when they are moving from facts to a more partial and individualised interpretation is setting him/herself up for difficulties while also potentially limiting the performance of their protege.  When ego gets involved and 'teacher knows best' takes over we are on dangerous ground.

When we train people to manage performance we first ask, 'Why would you take time out of your busy schedule to give someone feedback?'  There are many possible answers to this question, but we think, fundamentally, that you either want that person to repeat a good performance or to improve on their current levels.  Only once you are clear on your purpose can you then decide on what type of feedback to give (eg specific or general, motivational or formative) and what best style to use (eg ask or tell), how much to give and when to give it.  

Sure, there will be times (eg in selection interviewing or development centres) where some assessment of that person's potential has to be made, but telling someone they will never be any good (ever) surely can't help anyone?