It is so easy to form a snap judgement in coaching. We form impressions of our clients – often without knowing it – and all of a sudden those impressions become ‘truths’, somehow fixed in our minds. We then start to act on those ‘truths’ and look out for further evidence to compound our beliefs.

I was working recently with a novice coach, John, who fell foul of this phenomena. He’d started to pick up signs that his most recent coachee wasn’t fully committed to the coaching relationship, and as he was irritated by this wanted to give his new coachee strong feedback about this.  However, in supervision it became apparent that what John had actually experienced was a slowness to return emails, and some delay and confusion around setting up their first meeting. When he finally met his new coachee, the coachee was full of apologies – he’d had to have extra time off work due to a family crisis. John’s irritation evaporated.

Peter Senge* calls this tendency to move unawarely from objective evidence (e.g. slow return of email) to unwarranted belief (e.g. the coachee is uncommitted) the ‘ladder of inference’. Like everyone else, coaches are prone to build assumptions and beliefs based on what they see and experience of the client. The difference for me is that coaches should know the difference between an observation and an inference, and they should know the difference between one piece of data and a genuine pattern. More grist for supervision!

Senge, P. et al ( 1994) The Fifth Discipline Fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization, London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing, pp242-246

I’ve recently started work with two new coaching clients – one who has fought tooth and nail for a coach and another who has been told come. As you’d expect the contrast between them is stark: client 1 is very clear about what they want to work on and very motivated, whilst client 2 is every so slightly resentful and more than a bit fuzzy about ‘their’ goals . As you can imagine this impacts the work hugely and I’m working hard to find an agenda that client 2 can call their own … and still aligns with the organisational need that sent them to me in the first place.

I believe we have to choose change – especially personal change – and that it is nigh on impossible to coach someone in directions they don’t buy-in to or pay only lip service to. I don’t think this necessarily renders them uncoachable so much as uncoachable on an imposed agenda. The ‘trick’ (if trick it is) is to connect to what people really care about, the reputation they want and the changes they are trying to make in the world… and then see if it aligns with the organisational paymaster.

So I’m with Peter Senge when he says “We don’t resist change. We resist  being changed”. Coaches are on dangerous territory if they see themselves as changing other people – we can only hope to help people change themselves in the directions they choose for themselves.

Driving home the other night I witnessed a hilarious and simultaneously alarming instance of road rage. Cut up by another driver, I watched an aggrieved motorist get out of his car and beat the bonnet* of his persecutor’s car with his hat, whilst roaring his displeasure.  A very ‘Basil Fawlty’ moment – spleen was vented but not a lot else was accomplished.

This reminded me about the value of the pause – the ability to stop, take stock and choose our response to a given situation – response-ability if you like. Instead of operating on ‘automatic pilot’ triggered by an event or situation we can engage the rational part of our mind long enough to make a more considered response. We may still choose to beat the bonnet but at least we are choosing not reacting.