Coaching models - which one?

On today's eurocoach list, Carole says "When I started my quest to be a coach some 18 months ago, I was told that there was no right or wrong way to coach, there were different methods and to find a way that was comfortable for me and my client.

So I studied hard but was told to use the TGROW model, as this was the only way. I wasn't comfortable with this as it felt like working from an instruction sheet, following the rule book that was written for some other time. However, I worked hard, passed with flying colours, got lots of pats on the back 'well done you are now a qualified coach'.

Now I coach my own way, relaxed comfortable, using communications skills, something I am extremely good at, that suits the style of my client. I listen and hear what they say, I ask questions and listen to the answers and make suggestions." (That's just an excerpt to give you an idea of her point)

And my reply is:

Carole's contribution sounds good to me. I find that the more experienced and effective a coach is, the less what they do looks like coaching.

I suppose if you watched Picasso and Van Gogh paint, it wouldn't look like they did it the way your art teacher told you to. It certainly wouldn't look like 'paint by numbers'. They would probably ignore the 'rules' about composition and subject.

Any model - yes ANY model of anything - is a simplified, generalised version of that thing that allows us to interact with it in some way, more easily.

By definition, a model cannot be accurate. A lot of new coaches, watching what I do, ask 'do you coach using the GROW model?' to which I reply 'No! GROW is NOT a coaching model'.

All the people who have 'invested' in GROW will hate this, so I will explain. GROW does not tell you how to run a practice, or win clients, or form relationships, or manage expectations, or send invoices. There is more to coaching than setting goals - an awful lot more - because as a coach you are providing a professional service.

When a model becomes accurate enough to truly represent the thing that it is a model of, it isn't a model anymore - it is the real thing! When you build a model aeroplane that you could sit in, and all the controls work, and it has an engine, and it can fly, it's not a model aeroplane anymore - it IS an aeroplane!

Therefore no model can be used to coach, however a coach might select from a number of models in order to keep one eye on the process of the coaching session, which I think was Coen's point. The model doesn't dictate the journey, but it is a road sign which you can choose to follow or ignore depending on your experience and confidence.

A friend of mine wanted to move from project management into coaching. He was very focused on getting qualifications so that he could coach properly and he wanted to know about all the models.

After he came on our Ascent adventure coaching experience (www.ascent-experience.com), and he let go of his own fears and doubts, he realised that he needs no qualifications, no techniques, no models. Now he's in a much better place to go and learn some techniques! Previously he had been reliant on techniques, so having no techniques stopped him from beginning the journey. Now the techniques are an enabler for him to work in other ways.

I'll explain more what I said about intent, perspective and relationship. Intent = having the client's best interests at heart, maintaining focus on the client's own goals and also being aware of what you gain from coaching so it is a fair and equal exchange. Perspective = you see the client's situation in a different way - just from the outside, or at a different level or whatever. The key is that you are not bound by the client's rules and doubts about what won't work. Relationship = a medium through which communication can take place. This means both listening properly, and also being able to give feedback that resonates and is accepted rather than bouncing off the client's defensive shield.

I occasionally play badminton, and there are a lot of players who have been playing for years but their level of focus on the game is hitting the shuttlecock as hard as they can and running around a lot. When we go on court, they ask "do you want to play front and back or sides?" Which is a very odd question, as the shuttlecock doesn't conveniently land that way. Watch two good players, particularly ones who player together regularly, and you will see a dance, where each player flows into the space left by the other. They orbit around each other so no square inch of the court is left uncovered. The players who rely on a strict 'sides' rule often glare at each other when the shuttle falls neatly down the middle, thinking 'that was yours'. Where do you think an opposing team aims their shots?

As a coach, do you want to end a client relationship with both of you glaring and thinking "that was yours..."

Those players who stick to the formula are usually completely worn out at the end of the game and can't go back on court without a 10 minute rest. I find also that some coaches describe sessions as 'draining' as if they have had to supply all of the energy for the interaction, as if they think they have to do all the hard work. At one company, I do six sessions in a day, back to back. I end the day with more energy and vitality than I started. A coach, in my mind, is a catalyst to release energy from the client. If you're putting energy in to maintain the relationship then there is something wrong.

Any game, played at a high level of expertise and strategy is a dance. You don't see where one role ends and the other begins.

Now academics are fascinated by this, so they spend hours watching this dance. They look for anything that they can see the dancers doing, and they write it down. Then they simplify what they have written and if they want to make money out of it, they give it a snappy acronym so that they can trademark it. Then ordinary folk buy the book or go on the training course, and when they try out the model they don't get the same result. You can get a paint by numbers Picasso, and produce a facsimile of Child with Dove (which you can do yourself at http://www.enchantedlearning.com/artists/picasso/coloring/childdove.shtml)

But can you reproduce the brush strokes? The subtlety of colour? The passion that was felt in creating it? The experience that was the inspiration for it?

When a complex human interaction is reduced to an acronym, it becomes a commercial product like GROW or SPIN, which is fine if your objective is to make money. What is your objective?

Pete