Burning Up the House
Mark Tuesday, April 8, 2008 on your calendars. It will turn out to have been a very significant day in the history of the Coaching vocation. On that day at CAM (The Conversation Among Masters) in beautiful Asheville, North Carolina a most amazing discussion took place over lunch. CAM had brought together Master Certified Coaches, and others who play a significant role in the world of Coaching, to have a meaning-full conversation. And what a conversation we had over that lunch!
Gathered around the table were some of the most experienced practitioners of the coaching art, several of whom had been present at the creation. They had built this profession, and now they came together to set it on fire.
Looking out the windows of the meeting room at the Grove Park Inn, we could see the breathtaking Blue Ridge Mountains stretching out before us. As the conversation unfolded about the future of Coaching, we were put in mind of how, on those mountains, both Nature and Humans will sometimes set fire to sections of the forest to create the opportunity for new growth. We wondered whether, before we could contemplate the future growth of Coaching, we would first have to courageously examine what it is time for Coaching to let go of. We wanted to set the profession on fire with all its glorious possibilities. We knew, at a gut level, that the new fire would have to be fueled by burning up the house.
Imagine, if you will, the courage it took for those who had built the structure of this profession to now examine what they had to say good-bye to in order to insure its future. But there was no hesitation, no regret. The task was approached with a sense of joy and a feeling of liberation. It was a moment for smashing taboos. Anything was on the table. We would refuse to be bound by tradition or convention. The foundation for the future would be preserved. That which had once served us, but now limited our growth would be released with honor and piled on a hero’s pyre.
Brain sparks flew around the table, igniting conversation and illuminating the path. These are just some of areas the group was courageous enough to put the torch to (Warning: Coaching traditionalists may find some of the following to be shocking and inappropriate for children):
- Being “agenda-less” is a myth. It’s not all about the client. The client is part of a society, as is the coach. The coach has a duty to promote social responsibility in the client.
- Certification is a barrier to many who could greatly benefit the future of coaching. We must welcome those who can help us build that future.
- Coaching has become isolated as a profession unto itself. We must burn down the walls and play in other professions’ sandbox, and welcome them into ours. Even if it means foregoing the safety of the title of “coach.”
- If there is to truly be a Coaching “profession”, we must stop fragmenting and must open up the borders within the profession. Any profession, to be worthy of that title, must be based on a solid academic foundation which validates it to society and prepares future professionals. And academia means openness, the free exchange of ideas and methods. Which Coaching school one graduated from must no longer matter. Which certification one holds, if any, must no longer matter. We must not hold on to our ideas as if they were property. Rather, we must plant them as seeds for the new growth in our Coaching forest. The ideas that unite us and promote our growth must be nurtured. The ideas that divide us and lead to stagnation must be tossed in the fire.
- To become a “profession,” Coaching has come to take itself much too seriously. It has lost the whimsy, humor, and perspective that, in the beginning made it such a powerful tool for personal development. We must be willing to let go of the “seriousness” and return the sense of “joy” to Coaching.
- Most importantly, we cannot hold on to the way things are done today simply because we have become masterly at it. If finding new approaches to Coaching means that we must return to a Novice state, we must be willing to place our Mastery on the fire. If integrating with other professions and sources of wisdom means that we become children again, then we are ready to play.
The question, of course, was faced: What next? We realized that the path to that answer might be different for each of us. We decided to pursue a Quest for Fire. We were put in mind of the legendary Grail Quest. No one on that Quest had a clear idea of what the Grail would turn out to be. They just knew they had to search. They each had an individual path to the common goal of the Grail.
We, too, would pledge ourselves to such a Quest. We would individually search for the future of Coaching. And we would form a sort of Round Table here at the Coaching Commons to share what we had learned on the Quest, and to mutually support each other as we faced the Monsters that any Quest inevitably encounters.
We had lit the fire, and it warmed us and lighted the path. But we know there are two types of fire. The ancient Greeks created the word “pyros” for the ordinary, consuming sort of fire that pyromaniacs use so destructively. They also had another word, “tekein” for the melting, shaping, creative sort of fires that tek-nologists use so creatively.
Will the fire that was lit that day be a “pyros” or a “tekein”? Only we – and you – can determine that.
NOTE: Thanks to all who sat around that table and sparked the fire! Lable Braun, Linda Conklin, Joan Cook, Lynne Gilliland, Ruth Ann Harnisch, Susan Klein, Andrea Lee, Maggie Lichtenberg, Rich Maxwell, DJ Mitsch, Isabel Parlett, Jay Perry, Bobette Reeder, Jim Richmond, Drazia Rubenstein, Laurie Sheppard, Diane Krause-Stetson, Scott Wintrip, Karen Wright, Kathy Baske Young.
Popularity: 84% [?]
Comment by jsibley on 29 April 2008:
You raise some interesting questions about personal ethics, Angela. There are probably a number of different views on your example within our group. Personally, I don’t think I would accept a coaching assignment that would help someone to do a better job of selling more cigarettes, even if the assignment meant they would be a better, more humane manager. At the same time, I can understand why someone else might take that assignment.
At the same time, there are other potential assignments that would fall into a grayer area for me, and I’m sure we can each imagine potential assignments where we might have ethical qualms.
I imagine there are at least 4 possible decisions when faced with an assignment that appears to conflict with our personal values or morals:
- take the assignment, as we are coaching a person and will help them
- take the assignment and try to influence the person toward our own moral position
- refuse the assignment without clearly specifying any moral grounds
- refuse the assignment while clearly stating a moral conviction
Thanks for an interesting and provocative discussion.
Jonathan
Comment by Angela Spaxman on 29 April 2008:
Hi Lable,
Thanks for extending my explanation. I agree with your comments.
I think the difficulty with this concept is that it makes sense in theory but in practice it might be very difficult to implement. This is, to me, one of the very enjoyable aspects of coaching: to be expanded continuously by our clients to withhold our judgments and use a bigger perspective while staying true to ourselves.
My example would be a client (imaginary) who wants to improve their leadership and is doing that by increasing the sales performance of a cigarette company (or arms company, or even luxury goods …whatever you would label as ‘bad’). While I might not support the products this client is promoting, I believe that developing leadership skills in humans (including raising personal awareness) is inherently good, and so I could focus on that ‘good’ that I’m supporting while assuming the rest is somehow ‘perfect’ even though I may not know how.
So that is the edge we have to walk all the time: the edge between our own moral compass and our ability to trust in a bigger perspective. As usual, it’s a paradox, and the more we do of both the more successful we are.
But it’s tricky to take a moral stand in a coaching conversation. I think the easier way to exercise our moral compasses is in the way we attract clients. As we create our own businesses, we are free to support those whose success we believe will have the biggest impact on what we care about.
Cheers,
Angela
Comment by Lable on 25 April 2008:
Hi Sheila,
Welcome to the conversation, and thank you for being willing to enrich it by taking a challenging point of view!
First let me say that not so long ago I strongly agreed with your point of view, Sheila, but have come to change my mind. As recently as a year and a half ago, I argued vehemently at a meeting of the International Consortium for Coaching in Organizations (ICCO) that coaches should absolutely not promote a social agenda in their coaching.
My thinking has evolved since then to something very much like your viewpoint, Angela. I certainly can’t speak for the log-burners, but I can tell you where I see it. I think to act agenda-less is not authentic because we are not agenda-less. To take it to the extreme, I don’t think any of us would coach our clients to be great murderers or child molesters, if that was their agenda. What we’d probably do in that case, at the very least, is withdraw from the relationship, and I’m not sure even that would fully meet our social responsibility in that absurdly extreme case.
In the case of most social responsibility issues, it is not that balck-and-white. I am not advocating at all that we decide what is “right” or “wrong”. But I am advocating that we hold the client to the standard of their best selves, however they see their best selves. In almost all cases the client’s vision of their best self is a socially responsible one, and I think we need to coach them to that. However, if the client’s image of their best selves truly is a socially harmful one, I couldn’t possibly coach them to that. If the client wanted help being more effective at an endeavor that involved dumping toxic waste or exploiting child labor in foreign countries, it would be an incompatible relationship and I would feel ethically responsible to withdraw from that relationship.
Does that align with what you were saying, Angela? Is that still something you would strongly disagree with, Sheila?
And thanks again for taking the conversation into an interesting new direction.
Lable
Comment by Angela Spaxman on 25 April 2008:
“The coach has a duty to promote social responsibility in the client.”
Like Sheila, I also disagree, and at the same time I agree. Let me try to explain.
If the coach tells the client what to think or do, it diminishes the power of the coaching relationship by reducing the coach’s trust in the client and the client’s responsibility for themselves. This is not coaching and is not effective.
There is also a bigger perspective whereby the coach does hold an agenda that enhances the coaching relationship and the value of what is created in the relationship. It goes like this.
The coach believes that the client is always making choices based on their fears and desires, and that when the client transcends their fears to make rational and intuitive choices based on their highest desires, then those choices are for the highest good of society and the planet.
The coach’s agenda is therefore to have the client make choices based on their highest self.
Is this what the group of original log-burners intended?
Do other coaches share this belief?
Comment by Sheila Mikulin on 25 April 2008:
“The coach has a duty to promote social responsibility in the client.”
I could not disagree more. Perhaps being completely agenda-less is difficult; however, it is in the striving for this that ennobles the coaching process. The client is aware of his/her own responsibilities to their society based on their own unique values and desires and what they wish for their society. It is not our place to tell them “what to think or do - ever!” How did the coach become a moral authority?
Interesting discussion…..
Sheila Mikulin, M.A.
http://www.lifevisioncoachingllc.com
sheila@lifevisioncoachingllc.com
Comment by Lable on 22 April 2008:
Hi Gail!
Welcome to the conversation. You’re right - it has been way too long, and the admiration is definitely reciprocated. I think you are bringing up a key point. Is our relationship with the client limited by the title of Coach? Do we need to give up the title in order to bring our total selves fully to the client interaction, or can we retain the distinction “coach” and still bring all of our knowledge, wisdom, and guidance to our clients?
Thanks.
Lable
Comment by Gail Sussman Miller on 22 April 2008:
I stand ready to toss the stated myths into the fire including some perhaps others have already burned, variations, that coaching must be 1:1, that we cannot direct or tell our clients how to do things (when we have expertise in that area), and I happily give up the title “coach” to be trainer, consultant or chief bottle washer as long as I can contribute and create meaning on the way to making money.
Thanks for sharing Lable’s words, a man I admire and have not heard from in too long.
I see a “good” fire here and I am ready to toss a log on.
Comment by Lable on 22 April 2008:
Hi Angela! Your post represents what I really love about the field of Coaching - the willingness to look fearlessly into the Unknown - because that’s where most of the real learning takes place. For a certifiphobe to accept the responsibility for leading a credentialing organization, and for the leader of credentialing organization to look honestly at the value of certification - in what other profession would that happen? It gives me great optimism for the future of Coaching!
Thanks.
Lable
Comment by jsibley on 21 April 2008:
I believe that coaching and positive psychology are very much in dialog, at least among some participants. Martin Seligman partnered with Ben Dean for a while, although I’m not quite sure whether either of them is still teaching authentic happiness coaching. Robert Biswas-Diener has a book on positive psychology coaching available here: http://www.amazon.com/Positive-Psychology-Coaching-Putting-Happiness/dp/047004246X
Carol Kauffman is organizing a positive psychology and coaching conference at Harvard this September and there is information here:
http://www.harvardcppi.org/
So, yes, there is a natural relationship between coaching and positive psychology, and I think those in the positive psychology field are increasingly aware of this. It may be that many coaches are not yet aware of positive psychology and what it can bring to coaching.
One additional note. I believe that the fit between positive psychology and coaching is a more intuitive one than the fit between positive psychology and therapy. At a conference I attended last December on positive psychology and therapy, there weren’t any clear answers about how to integrate the finding of positive psychology into traditional therapy. There are times, for example, when people are truly overwhelmed and suffering. This may not be the most appropriate time to talk about “flourishing.” However, as we continue to look at the entire wellness continuum and how therapy and coaching fit together, I think we will have more answers.