In my experience with coaches, there exists an overwhelming desire to tell the coachee what to do. This, of course, is typically met with an equal and opposite desire by the coachee to NOT do as the coach suggests. I don’t mean that coachees overtly reject out of hand what the coach recommends; coachees tend to defend their approach or their action, or at the very least, explain why they did what they did.
Why this reaction? Why do we humans feel the need to explain ourselves, even when we KNOW that our actions may not have been the smartest?
As much as I think he’s been reading a bit too much of his own press, I do believe that Dr. Phil has a few incredible techniques. The one technique that I have admired most – and the one that seems to immediately turn around a seemingly hopeless situation – is a simple question. When his “coachees” are defensively trying to explain why they did what they did or why they are who they are, he asks, “So, how’s that working for you?”
The question, “How’s that working for you?” cuts through the posturing of “why” and focuses on the real issue – results. Asked another way, “Is doing what you’re doing getting you to where you want to be?”
If the answer is “yes, thank you, I think my approach is working quite nicely,” then there’s no amount of coaching, cajoling, or counseling that will convince the coachee otherwise.
If the answer is “no, that’s not getting me to where I want to go,” then an opportunity for coaching exists.
I believe that coaches would be more effective if they gave LESS of themselves (their insights, their perspectives, their “wisdom”) and act more as an objective mirror.
Do you agree? Do you disagree? Tell me what YOU think!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
`Put another way, people don't argue w8it5h their own data. They will argue with your input. . .
I agree. You've sparked another thought....
What input WILL have cause a person to consider opening his or her mind to the possibility that change might be needed?
Post a Comment