The Process of Highly Effective Coaching

An Evidence-Based Framework

Robert F. Hicks

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781317433040
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Human Resource Management
• Index: Business

The Process of Highly Effective Coaching offers a unique blend of theory and practical methods for conducting effective coaching conversations. It provides an umbrella under which all of the major conceptual models for helping people change can not only coexist but work together. In addition to using this integrative approach, The Process of Highly Effective Coaching presents a framework for conducting coaching conversations and for relating the coaching process to the coaching competencies defined by the International Coach Federation, the largest coach-credentialing organization in the world.

Chapter 1
Becoming a Master-Level Practitioner

In the Disney movie Fantasia, Mickey Mouse is the sorcerer’s apprentice. As an apprentice, he is consigned to perform menial tasks while watching and learning from the master. But Mickey aspires to be a great sorcerer himself, so one night when the master sorcerer leaves he puts on the sorcerer’s hat and copies one of the sorcerer’s techniques to perform a laborious task: getting water from the well for the household. Mickey proceeds to cast a spell to animate a broom to fetch the water for him and, to his surprise and satisfaction, he is successful. The broom does his work for him and fetches the water repeatedly. Mickey starts to imagine himself as a master sorcerer having command over all of the elements. However, a problem arises: he cannot make the broom stop fetching water, and it begins to flood the house. In an attempt to stop the water Mickey chops up the broom, but that only makes the problem worse as pieces of the broom multiply into new brooms that also fetch water. Finally, Mickey frantically turns to the sorcerer’s book of magic to look for another technique that will counter the first. Just when it seems that there is no hope of stopping the water, the master sorcerer appears, takes his hat back from Mickey, and magically dries up the flood and restores order.

What was Mickey’s error? Mistaking technique for mastery. This is the very same mistake made by coaches who assume that the use of coaching tools and techniques equates to mastery. It is the reason that so many coaches and coach training programs emphasize the “coaching toolbox.” But what actually distinguishes a master-level practitioner from those less competent? This subject has not been well researched in the field of coaching, but it has been a topic of research in psychology, specifically counseling psychology, and the results of that research can inform the coaching community. Mozdzierz et al. (2014) argue that master-level practitioners think differently than other practitioners. Specifically, they employ a non-linear thinking strategy that gives them the ability to evaluate the client’s situation in real time and know just what to say or ask, when to say or ask it, and how to do so in ways that those who are less advanced do not—or seemingly cannot—do!

As in all professions, the path to master-level coaching competence can be described on a continuum from novice to journeyman to the master-level practitioner. Stoltenberg (1993, 1997) has described an integrated developmental model for psychotherapists that describes points of reference for three levels of counselor development culminating in “Level III” mastery—the integrated level. While not all elements of his model apply to coaching, his descriptions of each level do serve as a guide for distinguishing among novice, journeyman, and master-level coach practitioners.

According to Stoltenberg, Level I Practitioners are characterized by a strong internal focus, feelings of anxiousness, and the use of structure and specific techniques with clients, often in a formulaic manner. Coach practitioners at this level are very self-conscious and apprehensive about their abilities. Their anxiety tends to cause the Level I coach to focus “on his or her own fears and lack of knowledge and leaves little remaining attentional capacity to effectively attend to the [client]” (Stoltenberg, 1993, p. 133). Their strong internal focus interferes with insightfulness, causing them to emphasize the use of specific techniques to the detriment of seeing the big picture. The thinking of Level I coaches is primarily linear as opposed to the non-linear thinking of more advanced practitioners. They want to know what steps to follow. Due to their heightened anxiety, they have a great concern about not making mistakes. They have a strong desire to learn the “correct” way to coach so that their anxiety is reduced and self-efficacy is increased. This desire is typically demonstrated by “How to” questions, e.g., “What do you say when the client says (or does)…?” or “What does it mean when…?” The motivation for perfection is driven by a genuine aspiration to do good work, help clients, and develop expertise. When asked to go beyond technique or learn an approach that is not immediately within their skill set, they often become bewildered and frustrated.

With time and practice Level I coaches move to Level II. Level II coaches have developed more confidence in their skills and are comfortable in the role of coach. This comfort level allows them to be less mentally distracted and better able to attend to the client’s needs and goals. Overall, their attention is less on themselves and their internal processes and more on the client and the client’s narrative. Such a shift in orientation takes place only when the coach has an increased sense of calm, comfort, interest, and fundamental understanding of the nature of the coaching process. This other-awareness allows for a more careful and accurate assessment of the client’s view of the world as well as his or her thinking and emotional state. At the same time, the other-awareness that is symbolic of the Level II practitioner may cause the coach to attend too closely to the client’s narrative and become lost in irrelevant details or inaccurate perceptions. Also, at times, the coach may over-identify with the client. Over-identification can cloud the coach’s objectivity, rendering her less able to assist the client in developing appropriate goals and pathways to those goals because of an unwillingness to challenge the client when needed.

Level II practitioners are on the way to learning how to think differently. A more complex view of the coaching process is beginning to develop, and they are more comfortable with not knowing because they understand and appreciate the power of the coaching process itself. They can begin to relinquish their struggle to make something happen in coaching and instead let it happen. Level II practitioners are less enamored with “the coaching toolbox” as they begin the shift from linear to non-linear thinking. In other words, micro-level skills, which have been the focus of their operational model, are starting to be replaced by a more sophisticated cognitive map of the coaching process. They are better able to put what they do within the context of a larger conceptual (and theoretical) framework. The Level II practitioner begins to understand that there is value in knowing the evidence-based models and methods that can be applied to the practice of coaching.

Level III (master-level) practitioners are much more balanced than Level I or Level II practitioners. They can engage in an empathic understanding of the client while simultaneously pulling back into a more objective, third-person view of the situation. In other words, they can be a part of, and apart from, the conversation simultaneously (this is called a dual level of consciousness and is discussed in Chapter 10). This ability allows the master-level coach to relate what is happening in the coaching session to previously learned theory and to make reasoned decisions about how best to manage the coaching conversation for the client’s benefit. Level III practitioners comfortably engage in non-linear thinking by taking in and integrating information from the client while adapting to the needs of the situation and flow of the coaching conversation. Chi (2006) attributes this ability to being able to detect and recognize features of a given situation that Level I and Level II practitioners cannot. To do this, master-level practitioners have a schema, a mental framework that allows them to assimilate and accommodate information intuitively so that they can demonstrate coaching agility by “dancing in the moment” (a popular phrase in the coaching community).

Coaches at this level experience a sense of comfort with their ability while simultaneously remaining realistically aware of their limitations. Miscues are taken in stride without an undue sense of guilt or failure. Instead, frustrations, reversals, or adversities become a source of learning. The master-level coach understands that his or her approach to coaching is continually evolving as a product of personal maturation and professional growth. However, perhaps the most interesting characteristic of the master-level practitioner is that practicing at this level becomes less of a goal and more of an expression of self-actualization. Mozdzierz and his colleagues make this clear in their book, Advanced Principles of Counseling and Psychotherapy:

The irony is that once someone achieves true mastery of his or her province, the person seems to care less about being a master and more about bringing out the best in himself or herself. Paradoxically, master practitioners understand that although earlier aspirations (i.e., those described in our introductory volume as being at Levels 1 and 2) may have been driven by a desire to be a master, they now have little concern or preoccupation with such matters. They are more concerned with being themselves, relating in an authentic way, and being fully available to clients.

(2014, p. 10)

The path to mastery is not a straight one. It is fraught with frustration and stumbling blocks. In fact, Michelangelo reportedly said, “If people knew how hard I worked to get my mastery, it wouldn’t seem so wonderful at all.” Although the process of mastery does take time and hard work, it does not have to be painful—nor mysterious. Two models, in particular, the Scientist-Practitioner model and the Reflective Practitioner model, have been very influential in developing professionals in the behavioral sciences. Each model has something to offer the coaching community and both outline a path to mastery.

The Scientist-Practitioner

Kurt Lewin, the renowned German-American psychologist and pioneer in the field of social psychology, declared, “There is nothing more practical than a good theory” (Lewin, 1952, p. 169). The simplicity of this phrase understates the power and complexity of the ideas that led to its creation. Its principal message is that evidence-based theories and models not only can, but also should, provide ideas for understanding and conceptualizing how a practitioner approaches the task of helping individuals. Lewin’s statement draws attention to the linkage between the theoretical and the practical: a linkage that he believed must not be ignored by everyday practitioners. His message spawned interest in understanding how practitioners learn and improve professionally and gave rise to the development of the Scientist-Practitioner model.

A major tenet of the Scientist-Practitioner model is the notion that clinical practitioners should be trained in research and those theoretical models that will enable them to apply informed critical thought to the practice of helping others. It is based on the belief that psychology incorporates science and practice, and, therefore, each must continually inform the other. Currently, however, the Scientist-Practitioner model is not accepted by everyone. David Shapiro (2002) points out the fact that clinicians, as a rule, do not see themselves as theorists and researchers. In their minds, there is often a divide between research, theory, and practice. This observation holds true for coaches as well—perhaps even more so. It is not a stretch to say that doing research is not in their DNA; they would rather be coaching.

Coaching as an Expression of Personality

For most people who choose to coach as a vocation, their innate interest is in helping others. Coaching is their passion and helping others is a natural extension of who they are as people. John L. Holland—the creator of the well-known career development model, Holland Occupational Themes—argued as far back as 1959 that an individual’s vocational choice was very much a product of personality. He explained that one’s personality interacts with his or her environment and produces, what he termed, an adjustive orientation. Holland stated, “The person making a vocational choice in a sense ‘searches’ for situations which satisfy his hierarchy of adjustive orientations” (Holland, 1959, p. 35). Holland developed a typology of six personality types and corresponding occupational environments that ultimately produced the Holland Codes (Occupational Themes).

Briefly, each Holland Code represents a vocational environment that people with a matching personality would find to their liking. Each code or theme is symbolized by a letter and the corresponding word that represents the essence of that occupational environment: R-Theme (Realistic), I-Theme (Investigative), A-Theme (Artistic), S-Theme (Social), E-Theme (Enterprising), and C-Theme (Conventional). Those who would embrace the Scientist-Practitioner model gravitate toward the Investigative theme. The Investigative occupational environment is a fit for people who are scholarly, scientific, and technical by nature. Their personalities are described as analytical, introspective, reserved, and logical. They enjoy conducting research, developing theory, and solving problems.

By contrast, literature reviews of the personality characteristics of coaches and counselors conclude that traits such as warmth, friendliness, acceptance, patience, sensitivity, sociability, empathy, and cooperativeness typify those who are attracted to, and most active in, helping others (Pope & Kline, 1999). These characteristics fit the Social occupational theme precisely. The work represented by this theme attracts people who are concerned about the welfare of others. They are helpers who like tasks involving social interaction and relationship building. This theme embodies an interest in working to enlighten, inform, help, train, or counsel. It is difficult to imagine practitioners who are typified by the Social occupational theme gravitating to the Scientist-Practitioner model since it does not fit their personality or perceived self-image. Perhaps that is one reason it has not resonated with the coaching community. Coach education programs (primarily in the United States) have largely ignored the tenets of the Scientist-Practitioner model. However, by doing so, they may have stunted the ability of coaches to apply scientific theory to practice and, in the process, slowed the acceptance of coaching as a discipline.

The Reflective Practitioner

The challenge of professionalizing a vocation is certainly not limited to coaching. Most established occupations have had to deal with the issue of how best to increase the professional competence of their members. During the 1980s, educators reexamined the process of training teachers and administrators with the goal of producing more capable practitioners within the field of education. This effort led to the adoption of the Reflective Practitioner model as a means of developing fresh insights and ideas that advance the practitioner’s work. Reflective practice is different from merely reflecting. Reflecting is the act of thinking carefully about something, while reflective practice is “the mindful consideration of one’s actions, specifically, one’s professional actions” (Osterman, 1990, p. 134) to develop one’s skill as a professional.

The process of reflection as a means of enlightenment stretches as far back as Socrates. His use of inquiry to induce reflection, self-discovery, and learning became known as the Socratic Method. This method is very much a part of coaching as it exists today (Hicks, 2014). The modern roots of reflection as a learning process are attributed to John Dewey. In his book Experience and Education (1938), he argued that learning is foremost an activity that arises from a person grappling with, and thinking about, a problem or one’s experiences. However, this approach did not become fully operational until Chris Argyris and Donald Schön began researching professional effectiveness in the early 1970s. Their research investigated how professionals become skilled. They concluded that accomplished practitioners are Reflective Practitioners. They use their experience as a basis for assessing and revising their existing “theories of action” to develop more effective intervention strategies.

According to Schön (1987), learning and growth take place by purposely reflecting on what occurred as a result of one’s professional actions as compared to what was expected or desired. From reflective practice, alternate action strategies (i.e., theories of action) are then developed, which, when constantly refined, enable the practitioner to become more skillful and ultimately professionally effective. However, Schön believed that reflective learning is not always possible because of the intuitive nature of our actions:

When we go about the spontaneous, intuitive performance of the actions of everyday life, we show ourselves to be knowledgeable in a special way. Often we cannot say what it is that we know. When we try to describe it, we find ourselves at a loss, or we produce descriptions that are obviously inappropriate. Our knowing is ordinarily tacit, implicit in our patterns of action and in our feel for the stuff with which we are dealing.

(Schön, 1983, p. 49)

A Case in Point

When I began coaching, it didn’t exist. In the late 1970s, I was a newly minted Ph.D. and had just finished my internship as a clinical psychologist in the state hospital system of California. After passing my state psychology exams, I was faced with a decision: Do I start a clinical practice or do something different? After due consideration, I decided to apply my psychological training to the “people problems” found in organizations as a consulting psychologist.

During my consulting activities, I would often be pulled aside by managers and executives for personal consulting. They would be struggling with some issue and wanted advice. However, there was a problem: I didn’t have any advice to give as I did not have the professional experience from which to draw upon to offer advice. When asked to answer a question such as “How do I lead people with whom I was previously a peer?” or “How do I handle this politically charged situation?” I had no clue.

Since I could not offer solutions, I could do but one thing: help them find their own answers. I used a variety of approaches that were extracted from different therapeutic models; e.g., person-centered therapy, solution-focused counseling (brief therapy), cognitive-behavioral therapy, and behavioral modification—to name a few. Over time, I was able to facilitate a discussion that helped clients think through their situation, overcome limiting assumptions and counterproductive thinking patterns, develop paths to action, and experience the positive effect of their actions.

After twenty-five years of coaching executives and professionals, as well as consulting to a myriad of organizations across a range of industries, I entered academia. The University of Texas at Dallas provided me an opportunity to create a Graduate Certificate in Executive and Professional Coaching and I was privileged to teach in it. I quickly realized that my coaching was very intuitive at this point in my life. As ...