Economía, management y coaching

PREGUNTA

Hola, quisiera saber cuál es la diferencia entre coaching directivo y no directivo.

Gracias.
María

………………………………………………………………………………………………………

RESPUESTA

María, agradezco que me haga esta pregunta.

Actualmente me encuentro debatiendo públicamente sobre este tema, traducido en la comprensión del coaching como “facilitación” frente al coaching como “no-directivo“, con personas de bastante reconocimiento internacional. Entre ellos se encuentran: la Dr. Vikki Brock (The Coaching Commons),   Angela Spaxman (Presidenta de la International Association of Coaching),  Jonathan Sibley (quien entre otras cosas coordina el Grupo de Interés Especial en Coaching y Psicoterapia en la ICF) y Rey Carr (fundador de Peer Resource).

El tema original de discusión comenzó tras mi opinión de que las teorías y prácticas desarrolladas por Jack Rosenberg (más conocido como Werner Erhard), fundador de EST, no tienen nada que ver con lo que yo considero es la esencia y sustancia del coaching (definido como coaching no-directivo). De hecho lo considero una pésima influencia para el coaching (reconociendo, sin embargo, que lamentablemente muchos “coaches” sí practican sus teorías).

La discusión, por tanto, derivó en dos sentido. Por un lado, si debemos considerar a EST y/o Werner Erhard como “raíz” del coaching, y por otro lado, la diferencia entre el coaching entendido como “facilitación” o como “no-directivo”.

Copio, a continuación, mi última respuesta a las propuestas y opiniones de las personas antes mencionadas, dado que entiendo que puede contestar a su pregunta.

Donald, Jonathan, Vikki, Rey and all,

WHY NON-SOMETHING: A PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION THAT CONCERNS TO ALL OF US

On the one hand, Donald declares his “allergy” to define something in a negative way, and on another, Jonathan says that this issue is a philosophical issue, adding that the ICF, EMCC or coaching schools will have their opinion.

Donald, said: “How the essence of something (process) could be a « non-something » (non-process) ? (…) “And I’m kind of allergic to a non-something being the essence of something. All my learning goes for something that is stated or define positively; what we are doing, instead of what we are not doing.”

Jonathan, said: “If something works, how is it decided whether it falls under coaching, who decides that, and why does it matter? (…) I think that the second discussion is more philosophical. Entities such as the ICF, EMCC, and schools of coaching will have opinions on this”

First we must understand that non-directivness is a central axiom for coaching. Does not mean it is the only one that can build the entire discipline, but at least for me, is which best defines and distinguishes our profession.

When I say “central axiom”, I mean that when the coaching stops being “non-directive” (or start to be directive) is automatically transformed into another thing (classical training, consulting, counseling, therapy, whatever). Therefore, without saying that the directive coaching is not coaching (I can´t know the future of coaching), I can say that it is inconsistent and contradictory (as well as inefficient in terms of discipline as its purpose … I’ll explain this later).

I am not saying that training, counseling, therapy, consulting and others aids disciplines are inefficient, but there is inefficiency and contradiction when we say that we are doing coaching and what we are really doing is another thing, because we transgressed the coaching essence, principle and purpose.

If we agree that the purpose of coaching is that the client achieve its goals according to their own experience, knowledge and resources, non-directive attends this purpose better than the concept of “facilitation” (I will talk about this later, too) .

Why define the essence as a “negative” term? Because this “central axiom” is a principle and guide, very useful to not transform the profession in another thing. Using the concept of “negative” to define something is not new, and isn´t bad. For example, the principle of “freedom” is more effectively defined as “non-violence” as any other positive definition. The same applies to “negative rights”, as opposed to “positive rights”.

This is not just a philosophical question, it is also an epistemological and methodological issue. It is true that the ICF, EMCC or schools should have answers or opinions on this, but I think it is something that is concerns to all of us.

THEORY AND PRACTICE OF NON-DIRECTIVE

Donald said: “What Socrates and Rogers were doing while non-directing? (…) I’ve noticed that the so-called non-directive essence adopts fluctuations, variability in the purity of the non-directiveness (…) Recent emergent coaching practices (since 1990) around the works of late David Grove, James Lawley and Penny Thompkins, Wendy Sullivan and Judy Rees, Philip Harland and Matthew Hudson, Angela Dunbar and Carol Wilson in UK (Clean Coaching, Clean Language, Symbolic Modeling, Emerging Knowledge, Clean Space, The Powers of six) have illustrated how the so-called non-directive approaches was covering up an underground directiveness”

What I see in all the examples you mentioned, is that, precisely, the non-directivness is the essential aspect that all of them are trying to collect in practice, even intuitively or unconsciously.

Obviously, pursuing the essence of non-directivness arise differences of approaches. And it is precisely there, where it is necessary to discuss, share and validate. But one thing is to try to get the non-directivness (understanding its essence), and another thing is to have theoretical differences (reject non-directivness and change it to a relative point of view, ei: facilitation) which produces inevitable contradictions within the coaching.

COACHING AS A NON-DIRECTIVE VS FACILITATION

Vikki and Donald seem to agree on coaching to understand it as “facilitation”:

Donald said: “I’m listening exquisitely (a close encounter of a…) at what the client likes to have happen and I’m facilitating the process of change en route, on the direction of that. (…) So, for me the essence of coaching is more around the facilitation process and is client’s need driven for a kind of change. (…) And I go for the metaphor of « facilitation » for the core process of coaching…”

Vikki said: “I resonate with what Donald said: “coaching is a process driven by an expert in facilitation pertaining to the direction of a change wanted by a client. He is an expert of the process and not of the content.” For me non-directive was synonomous with facilitation prior to reading Donald’s comments – now I see them as distinct and I favor the word facilitation. I too believe that as a coach we can not help but influence, whether from a directive or facilitative position.”

Depending on the meaning concept of “facilitating” both of then (non-directivness and facilitation) can be integrated, or could be totally contradictory.

If by “facilitation” we understad the “act of assisting or making easier the progress or improvement of something”, obviously non-directive coaching is also a “facilitator”.

On the other hand, say that the essence of coaching is the “facilitation” tells us nothing more than obvious. Coaches work for their clients so that they achieve their goals or objetives better (“facilitation”), otherwise they will not pay us. But trainers, mentors and advisersare are facilitators, too.

The problem is that the “facilitation” concept does not say anything about the method used, while the “non-directive” defines clearly its methodology.

I do not think that facilitation is an alternative concept of the non-directivness. In short, “non-directivness” is a kind of facilitator, but not any process of facilitator is non-directive. So, a lot of aids “facilitations” are not coaching. And so, “facilitation” can´t be use to define the essence of our profession.

Donald said: “In my opinion, coaching is a process driven by an expert in facilitation pertaining to the direction of a change wanted by a client. He is an expert of the process and not of the content”

That paragraph may also apply to non-directive coaching. In fact the coach “is an expert of the process and not of the content”. Hence my comment about Vikki example being DIRECT (about the process), but not directive (about the content). The problem with this statement is the non-definition of “facilitation”. If the facilitation is not involved in the content, then it is clear that EST can not be considered as a root or background contribution to coaching (and also, can´t be considered as “facilitations” process).

Then (Donald) say: “The direction stem out from the client and, as a coach, I am facilitating with all my know-how, my way of being and intuition in the moment, the way for the client. I’m guided in my practice by six criteria : effectiveness, efficacy, efficiency, elegance, ecology and ethic. So, with a large span of possibilities, enlighted by the client’s needed change (learning), I’m interacting with the client in a professionnal manner, en route to …”

The key is here, “as a coach, I am facilitating with all my know-how” What does this mean? That you give to your clients everything you know, on any topic, and in the way that you feel better? Do you mean you believe that the true value of coaching process is your “know how”? Does this mean that coaches will be better when they know more, are more knowledgeable and they better share their wisdom? I stress that this type of coaching not adds nothing new to other aids disciplines like consultancy, advisory or training. All of them help people on their expertice and “know how”. Furthermore, it is dangerous for its arrogance; it is inefficient because it is constructed in an “incoherent amalgam” of contradictory processe based on the personal and relative vision of each coach about coaching. I don´t see any good future of this kind of coaching.

MY POSITION ISN´T BASED IN HISTORICISM, AND IS NOT JUST A PERSONAL BELIEF

Jonathan said: “I agree that whether a statement appears to be true ultimately matters more than who says it. However, in addition to considering whether someone’s hypothesis seems reasonable to me without any data, I also take into account the source of the hypothesis and what research backs it up. I find it helpful that you clarified that your statements were your beliefs and that you were the source.”

I think I have not explained well, Jonathan. Everything I say is part of my beliefs, and I am its source (though others have said it before, in part or entirely). By the same, I understand that what you say (or other), respond to your/their belief´s, and that you are the source of your words. However, beliefs may or may not be substantiated. At this point, I welcome your questions, but I would like to know your position and reasoning, and not just say that my position is a personal belief. First, because I have not said just that. What I said is: “And despite being an obvious personal belief, can be considered as certain and universal. This, at least, might be so, unless proven otherwise” And second, because I’m not limited to making statements, but also to substantiate, and I expect the same from who thinks different.

Therefore, I assume that my position is a belief but based on my personal research and experience, based also, on history, theory and ethics… all of which I can´t express here in totally for obvious reasons, but that I´m trying to summarize and explain through our dialogue.

On the other hand, Donald said: “So, I’m more on the side of the geneticists that can look at the reality of the coaching (metaphor of something continually adapting as the knowledge emerge) than to the side of historians that collect their data pertaining to their world view or limited by their oriented sightseeing”

I’m not sure if I interpreted your words well, Donald. But just in case let me clarify that my position is not historicist. That is, I do not base my position “manipulating” the story to my convenience. My way of studying and researching coaching is based on the study of social sciences. The story only serves me as a “guide”. History provide evidence of where we need to investigate, but never base any theory. My historical studies allowed me to see where I must investigate, it gave me guidance on where was the essence of my profession, nothing more. Then the reasoning is essentially theoretical, coherent and solid with practice. And finally, the coherence theory, based on historical evidence, moreover, are consistent with the ethical exercise of the profession.

It is therefore not correct to summarize my position as a “historical and personal belief.” This is completely uncertain, and I hope to have clarified.

“PUSH” (DIRECTIVE) AND “PULL” STYLE (NO-DIRECTIVE) OF COACHING

Jonathan say: “As we continue this discussion (which I hope will be the case), could we clarify what we are talking about when we distinguish directive from non-directive? For example:
- Is this a binary distinction or does directiveness fall along a continuum, as suggested in the document Vicki cited: http://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C31A728E-7411-4754-9644-46A84EC9CFEE/0/2995coachbuyingservs.pdf.”

On page 19 of that document, under the title “Some generally agreed characteristics of coaching in organizations” it recognize the essence of non-directive coaching (textually: “It is essentially a non-directive form of development”). Nevertheless, it also recognize a valid “direct style” (p. 25). Finally, on page 57, Figure 19 shows the representation of the “continuum of coaching styles base don how directive the coach is in working with the individual” under the title “Coaching styles continuum.”

In that chart, which I have referred to as “directive coaching” and “non-directive coaching” is represented as “push style” (directive) and “Pull style” (non-directive).

I do not think is very useful to determine which is the “directivness” degree that are be using the coach, but rather, understand that good coaching should be exercised with PERMANENT TREND TO NON-DIRECTIVNESS(”Pull style”). Put another way, the coach should move away, permanently, from the “push style”. The area of “work done by coach” (see the chart, page 57), in my view, should be avoided consciously and permanently in the process of coaching. Otherwise we drop the helping relationship in opposite processes, and create inconsistency and inefficiency.

Jonathan, ask: “- Are some people suggesting that any step toward directiveness is either ineffective coaching or not coaching, or is it at some point in the continuum that this believed to be true?”

I do not accept a “Pull style” as an option within the coaching, because I understand that there are other professionals, other methods and other tools to do it better. But mainly because from a methodological point of view is incoherent. That is to say, one method (Push) inhibit the other (Pull). I think that clients could looking for better help taking an advisor and a coach at the same time complementary (in different persons), but not that one person holding both roles in a process called just “coaching”.

Therefore, as we move closer to “push style”, coaching becomes less efficient, since the responsibility is transferred from client to coach, and with it the essence of coaching itself.

That´s why I believe that in that chart is not considering “Coaching styles continuum” but rather a gradual path of “coaching” to “consulting, advisory, whatever… “.

DIRECT AND DIRECTIVNESS COACHING, AND “IF WORKS… WHY DOES IT MATTER?”

Jonathan, ask: “- Is there a distinction about being directive about content and about process? Is there a difference between saying “what if you tried X” and “what if you tried to look at your problem using framework X”? Are some arguing that to suggest a framework is also “too” directive? Isn’t prescribing non-directiveness and not allowing directive approaches in some way directive (is this similar to what you were suggesting, Donald?)”

I think your question is poorly posed. A coach, in my view, should be avoided at all times to be directive. Telling a client to do “X” or telling to use an “X Framework” is the same in essence, though not in degree (in both cases he is being directive). What a coach can and should do is to be direct about the process (I explained this already). That is one of his responsibility as professional.

Then, you ask: “- What works and how do we know it? – If something works, how is it decided whether it falls under coaching, who decides that, and why does it matter?”

The question is, What means that “work”? That the client achieved their goal? Clearly, training, consultancy, advice, mentoring, etc.. are disciplines or professions that are helping their clients achieve their goals. That is, being directive may be very useful for a client, but that does not mean it’s coaching (I ask you,
Is Coaching all that work?).

In my point of view, if the coach is a mix of different disciplines that “work”, our profession does not add anything really new (Did not do the same thing the other aids professional?). Moreover, this would require all coaches to be training in all aids disciplines. And finally the coach turned into a “super-man” able to take care of any need, any person in any situation. I do not think this is the way for coaching. In this path, the coach becomes an “expert”, as consultants, trainers, and others. An “eclectic expert”… attractive and dangerous at a time (as EST training).

Therefore, Effective, useful, powerfull? In what sense? In my view coaching look for, not only that the client achieve its objectives, but also (and more important) get those in a certain way: using their experience, knowledge and resources. This is the distinctive essence of coaching. And the non-directive coaching offers a methodology to do it well.

EST AS A ROOT OF COACHING

Rey, say: “that Thomas Leonard actually worked for Werner Erhard. Thomas was a financial officer for the est organization during the early days and he observed directly the power of personal transformation that occurred for est participants. This is another concrete way that est and the roots of coaching are connected”

Well, one thing is that Thomas Leonard has worked with Werner Erhard, and quite another, thus can be considered EST as roots of coaching. I do not deny that these connections are intriguing and useful in the research process, but not all connections should be considered root.

Ravier, L.

Para leer todos los comentarios y/o comentar sobre este post en Coaching Commons: Pulsar aquí