Coaching in Space
Ok, ok, I kind of, maybe, misled you with that title. This is not about coaching in outer space. But space is critical for good coaching. In this case I am talking about interpersonal space, instead of being out there with the stars and planets.
I have had the great privilege to coach executives and leaders from companies with less than 100 to companies with over 500,000 employees. There are a few things that really resonate with me and that have, I believe, greatly enhanced my coaching. One of those is understanding the limitations of expertise and the value of creating a space where people can get clear on their challenges, not be told what they are.
Of course, this is not an original idea. The great Edgar Schein, in his seminal work on process consultation and helping, originally articulated that there are three roles a “helper” can play; the Expert, the Doctor-Patient, and the Process Consultant role.
In the Expert role the helper is the content authority—they diagnose and fix the problem or provide the solution from their vast knowledge about the area being addressed. This can be greatly helpful, from having a knowledgeable plumber fix your annoying toilet issues to having someone structure an offsite meeting or build best practices for succession planning. This can be quite effective and efficient when the problem is technical or knowledge based. And the helper can build trust quickly through the competent delivery of their expertise.
This is an attractive model for coaching, especially for new coaches as it feels safe and comfortable; you are working from a place of knowing and experience. But there are some drawbacks.
First among them is that the Expert needs to be right. Every time. As this relationship is transactional in nature the Expert is only as good as their last transaction. It can also foster dependency on the part of the person being helped. While this may seem to be a good coaching business model, it does not move the helped person towards a place of autonomy. And while you may say to me, “So, what’s the problem, I don’t want to know how to fix the toilet!” it definitely has a downside in that there may be underlying issues that need to be addressed that are behavioral, systemic, or relational. It also infers that this type of problem, maybe only addressed at the technical level, can be outsourced by the person needing help. And, yes, some problems (such as the leaky toilet) can and maybe should be outsourced, but my experience with executive coaching says that there are many more of those behavioral, systemic and relational problems lurking then there are technical ones.
The Doctor-Patient role creates more of a relationship than pure transactional role. In this relationship the helper “diagnoses” the problem and prescribes a “cure”. This cure can be something done to the person being helped, by the coach, or it can be something they undertake under the coach’s guidance. And this can be useful, it can uncover hidden patterns or blind spots, especially when combined with assessment tools or data. However, it also reinforces the passivity of the person being coached or helped and can trigger defensiveness and even inhibit ownership of the change they need to make, “You’ve told me what’s wrong—not you fix it” is often the response of the person you are trying to help.
Moreover, this helping role, much as a real doctor, needs exhaustive understanding of the problem and the solution and the “patient” in this scenario might not give you all the “symptoms” just the ones they feel comfortable sharing. So, while this role can be very useful, I find it less useful for coaching. (My grateful acknowledgement here to Michael Bungay Stanier for helping me see this so clearly and articulating Schein’s work so well).
Lastly, we have the Process Consultant role, and this brings us full circle back to space. The Process Consultation model of helping (or coaching) declares that it is the creation of an interpersonal space between the helper and person being helped that is most powerful. The helper is an expert on context, not content. It is inquiry based. The coach stays out of expertise and diagnosis so that the client can get clear on the real challenge, for them. It is not based on what the coach has previously experienced that may seem analogous but is not the same; with the same people, social dynamics, relationships, and mindset of the person being coached.
This means two things.
The coach has no power over what the coached identifies as the issues and what they choose to do about them—and that can feel a bit exposed and powerless. Get used to it.
This opens up the door for the person being coached to develop true insight into themselves (at their pace), increases their relational awareness, and encourages them to figure out how to adapt.
This is best for the kinds of challenges I see in those I have coached—complex, interpersonal, and adaptive challenges. Those can only be solved by creating a space for the person you are helping or coaching to examine themselves and their role in what is happening, in a way that is self-revealing, not imposed.
My advice? Well…don’t give advice. Create space for others through disciplined curiosity, patience, and empathy. And maybe then, you will actually be able to reach for those stars in your own coaching impact on your universe.
