Since I started my private practice as a coach, I have been aware of the present debate between the coaches that give advice (including myself, a lot of times) and the coaches that help the client to come with his own answers and solutions.
My friend Abiel, from
I knew something about Argyris because some of his theories were used by
Reading these articles and some other that I found by myself, I started to realize the importance of natural coaching: this means, the client creating, within the space created in the conversation with his coach, his own solutions, possibilities and answers in order, not only to solve his current situation, but, to create a new future.
I will leave you with a paragraph that I took from one of his articles.
In the next post, I will write an example of "natural coaching" of course, in the domain of sales.
To other coaches
Also, a lot of coaches that I know, can use the following text, if they read it, to argue in favor of "natural coaching". Because sometimes there is a debate about the type of coaching but they don't know how to support their assertions.
About my practice
And for me, this doesn't mean that I will quit the practice of giving advice to my clients. What they need to know sometimes, is not 'there' period. But, I will make them to think more and more before I tell them what to do.
Chris Argyris is the James Bryant Conant Professor Emeritus of Education and Organizational Behavior at Harvard University in Cambridge,
Two Kinds of Commitment
"To understand why there has been no transformation (in the work force), we need to begin with commitment. Commitment is not simply a human relations concept. It is an idea that is fundamental to our thinking about economics, strategy, financial governance, information technology, and operations. Commitment is about generating human energy and activating the human mind. Without it, the implementation of any new initiative or idea would be seriously compromised. Human beings can commit themselves in two fundamentally different ways: externally and internally. Both are valuable in the workplace, but only internal commitment reinforces empowerment. (See the exhibit "How Commitment Differs.")
Compare the following
External Commitment-Tasks are defined by others.-The behavior required to perform tasks is defined by others.-Performance goals are defined by management. -The importance of the goal is defined by others.
compared with:
Internal Commitment
-Individuals define tasks.-Individuals define the behavior required to perform tasks.-Management and individuals jointly define performance goals that are challenging for the individuals.-Individuals define the importance of the goals. External commitment -- think of it as contractual compliance -- is what an organization gets when workers have little control over their destinies. It is a fundamental truth of human nature and psychology that the less power people have to shape their lives, the less commitment they will have. When, for example, management single-handedly defines work conditions for employees, the employees will almost certainly be externally committed. That commitment is external because all that is left for employees is to do what is expected of them. The employees will not feel responsible for the way the situation itself is defined. How can they? They did not do the defining.
If management wants employees to take more responsibility for their own destiny, it must encourage the development of internal commitment. As the name implies, internal commitment comes largely from within. Individuals are committed to a particular project, person, or program based on their own reasons or motivations. By definition, internal commitment is participatory and very closely allied with empowerment. The more that top management wants internal commitment from its employees, the more it must try to involve employees in defining work objectives, specifying how to achieve them, and setting stretch targets."
