Who am I in my coaching? What coaching means to me and what I bring to it

These thoughts were stimulated by a discussion in a members forum on the Fiona Harrold message boards. I have decided to post them here too. The context of the discussion was the re-imagining and re-packaging of coaching. It was a lengthy discussion (over 100 posts) which I had hitherto only contributed to briefly on a few occasions.

In my coaching I am coming from a very particular place, a place which is founded upon and made up of all of my life experience. The same can be said of all of other coaches. I have had a very timely reminder of this this past weekend, whilst attending a course called 'Working with Others' run by the Oasis School of Human Relations I came to that course with my experience and met others with very different experience. For me, there was nothing 'new' on the course, in terms of content. What was new for me was the particular communication model in use, the excellent way in which this was modelled by the facilitator and the dynamics of the particular (wonderful) group of people who were on the course. It was a useful reminder for me of the skills and experience that I do have as well as the areas where I need to do some more work. It was also a reminder not to underestimate myself or my skills and experience.

In terms of coaching-specific training, I did the Newcastle College Certificate and Diploma in Life Coaching and also the Positive Impact Coaching diploma (also NC). The Life Coaching course re-kindled my interest in NLP and led me to the Practitioner Certificate which I am now engaged in. The Positive Impact Coaching course reminded me of the value of my CCI Co-Counselling background and the tool box of skills which I have from that. Angus McLeod who wrote the course is a former Co-Counsellor and demonstrates theses skills, particularly in his style of listening and feedback; I attended a one-day workshop which he ran whilst I was doing the course and it was worth it to see him in action.

I was recently considering doing the Coaches Training Institute (CTI) course and had an hour-long discussion with one of the CTI UK coaches in order to learn about the course and what I would gain from it. I was well aware that part of the reason that I was considering doing another course is my own lack of confidence and wanting to postpone the 'doing' of coaching by clinging on to the role of learner for a while longer.

I entered into the CTI call expecting a hard sell and did not get that at all. The coach to whom I was speaking began by asking me my background. On the basis of this and her subsequent questions, and my responses and questions to her, her advice was along the lines of 'do the course by all means if it will make you feel better, but you probably won't learn much.' This was an amazing - and unexpected - response and of course, for me, an excellent 'modelling' of CTI integrity in action. On the basis of this I would recommend CTI training to others - because of the authentic response I received. I have, however, decided that CTI training is not a good investment for me. It would provide me with useful practice time and a network of contacts, but I don't need to invest several thousand pounds in order to gain that. I can set up practice time for myself and I can utilise and develop other networks. The Certification Programme would be useful, but I cannot access this other than by doing the preliminary course.

So, where am I going with this? I think that the point I am trying to make is that all models are only useful as a starting point and to me that is a fundamental truth.

I was brought up as a Quaker and thus listening and questioning - making up my own mind about things - are core beliefs/values/ ways of being for me, although I lost my way for a long time in the early part of my adult life and forgot how to trust myself. I am no longer a Quaker but I recognise and value the lessons I learned from it in childhood.

What I bring to my coaching practice now is an eclectic mix of all that I am and all that I have learned.

Another discussion point on the Fiona Harrold forum was around the use of terms such as 'designed alliance' in coaching. The comment was made that it didn't mean much to clients. I agree, it doesn't mean much to your average person, so why use it other than when talking to other coaches or in your own practice notes? I used to be an advice worker (two career stages back) and underwent Citizen's Advice Bureau (CAB) training, which (along with skills and values like listening skills, equality, confidentiality and impartiality) emphasised things like not using jargon - either from lack of awareness or to professionalise or mystify. I am never comfortable with using jargon - in coaching or elsewhere - and I try to be alert to this in myself and to pick myself up when I do it and to rephrase and reframe. There is a lot of jargon out there in coaching as elsewhere and it is used to conceal and to mystify rather than to illuminate. In my coaching process I try to find terms and phrases which will mean something to my client rather than referring to something as (for example) a 'designed alliance' . I try also to be alert to falling into the other extreme of over-simplifying to the point of being patronising.

One of the reminders which came up for me over the weekend (on the Working with Others course) was of a book by Nancy Kline called 'Time to Think' which I bought when I was doing my coaching training. It's a brilliant book about how to create a 'thinking environment' which is (for me) the basis of coaching. I do not see my role as being to give advice and I am very reluctant to take on that role. If people want advice then I would suggest that coaching is not for them. The crux of coaching is that my client already has all of the resources that she or he needs to succeed. That is the belief that I try to hold and to work with. I see my role as being to create an environment in which they can access their own resourcefulness and creativity, and I do that by listening and by asking questions. I do not have all of the answers and I do not want to take on a 'one-up' role.

As you can see, I am thinking aloud here and working out some things for myself in the process. What I love about coaching is that I am learning and developing all of the time. In fact that's what I love about my life!

What we (i.e. coaches) are all searching for - I hope - is ways to make our coaching sit comfortably with who we are. In doing that I don't want to lose sight of what coaching is. I set out to become a coach, not an advice worker (been there) or a counsellor (don't want to go there). I call what I do 'coaching' because it fits the description. Ok, not everyone understands what it means, so then it is my task to illuminate and clarify.

The discussion on the message boards also raised questions about thee usefulness of contracting. I think contracting is crucially important. Unless the contract is made explicit, how do I know that I and my client understand it in the same way or indeed that we are working to the same ends? Just because it seems difficult or the client may not see the usefulness of it (at least initially) is not a reason to chuck it out. I do have difficulty with contracting myself and I think that this is simply my discomfort about trying to lay down some kind of formal process (a 'rule' or set of rules). It would be very easy for me to rationalise myself into reasons for not doing it.

I'm reminded of something which I once read about marriage (women's studies circa 1984!): it is a formal contract, the conditions of which do not become apparent until such time as either party wishes to terminate it.

Contracts are necessary. The contract still exists whether we formalise it or not - like a contract of sale does, or a contract of employment. Better to make it explicit, up-front and out there!

So, to all coaches out there I'd say, keep learning, keep growing and above all keep asking questions. We are in a continual (or is it continuous) process of evolution and change.