This week I came across an interesting paper from Erik de Haan, a renowned researcher and director at the Ashridge Centre for Coaching.
We now have scientific evidence that coaching is effective. What’s really interesting in this meta review is that coaching works regardless of the method used – but the best outcomes are most likely if the method is aligned with the coach’s natural disposition and the client’s issue.
There are lots of lessons here.
It gives us as coaches permission to choose an approach that fits our personality and philosophy, because it’s important to be authentic and build a rich relationship with the client. As a person-centred practitioner I see echoes of Carl Rogers here, particularly the core condition of congruence.
It also invites us as coaches to lean into methods we are less comfortable with when the type of client issue demands it. For example, my natural stance is drawn towards exploring and supporting, but sometimes I need to move into suggesting and confronting to be of better service to the client. (Conversely, you could take the oppositive view and build a niche as a coach specifically around your natural stance and the specific client issues that fit best with that.)
In the paper, the 2×2 matrix model which maps coaching intervention types to MBTI personality styles is particularly intriguing here.
Even more interestingly, this paper invites clients to choose the model they want to work with – which would imply that we as coaches would need to be more explicit and transparent about how we work. That is an interesting point: it goes back to being congruent and transparent. But it’s true: we wouldn’t serve clients very well if they regarded us as mysterious black boxes of wisdom.
Lots to think about.
Picture: Kouji Tsuru via Unsplash
True Horizon Coaching 