A systems theory approach to coaching

There are as many sceptics as there are proponents of coaching, and as many opinions as there are points on a continuum. There has been quite an increase in the viewpoint of coaching as something akin to therapy, especially therapy within a psychodynamic framework.

Earlier this year, an article in the Harvard Business Review pointed out some of the dangers of coaching, especially where there is mental illness or a personality disorder involved. The article was written from a psychodynamic perspective and cautioned that, in these cases, coaching may exacerbate existing problems rather than solve them.

Coaching is one of those concepts that may be easier to define along the lines of what it is not rather than what it is.

Jill Hamlyn, MD, The People Business

Given the percentage of the occurrence of different types of mental disorders across any given population, there is always a chance that a coach may well find him- or herself working with someone who is unfortunate enough to suffer from a psychological or psychiatric problem. However, I would argue that it is both unfair and counterproductive to impose a predominantly Freudian analysis and diagnostician`s viewpoint on a situation that should not necessarily be situated in a psychoanalytical framework.

This is not to say that the work of Freud is wrong or that psychoanalysis is a bad thing, but what must be realised from the outset is that coaching is not therapy. The results of coaching may very well be therapeutic and its effects are, for the most part, beneficial. However, spending time with a coach and spending time with a therapist are two diverse situations with different problems, needs, goals and outcomes.

Assuming situations in which both coach and client are relatively free from crippling neuroses - which is likely to be the scenario in the vast majority of cases - why is there suddenly a large red flag being waved? Three main areas appear to be at issue here. Firstly, there is an issue around the definition of coaching. Unless one has been coached, it is virtually impossible to know precisely what is involved. The second issue is which theoretical framework to situate coaching in, an issue which is closely related to the first. The third issue relates to the coach. Unlike its close cousin, psychology, there are few regulations governing who can and cannot coach. There is now a proliferation of coaching courses and it seems that the industry is starting to acknowledge the necessity of some sort of benchmark or standardisation. However, virtually anybody who has the time and money can take one of these courses and call themselves a coach upon completion. No doubt some courses are extremely rigorous and those that make it through are equipped to coach in some areas. However, there is always the danger of unscrupulous individuals who saw this particular gravy train coming and were anxious to leap onto it, use it to their best advantage and then slip off into the shadows while nobody was looking.

Various people see coaching in various ways. Those who take a more ho-hum approach to coaching would argue that it is little more than paying someone a lot of money to tell you what to do and how to live your life - something that everybody should be able to do for themselves anyway. Others see it as a more credible form of therapy, in which the therapist actually comes to your office and without all the baggage that "being in therapy" seems to produce. Coaching is one of those concepts that may be easier to define along the lines of what it is not rather than what it is. The danger here, however, is in being too prescriptive. Coaching is far from a nebulous concept, it is just that each situation is different and there is no one formula that can be imposed in order to answer the question of what coaching is.

Even though there is no coaching formula, within all the available literature on the subject, there are certain common key elements that stand out. The majority opinion is that, by its very nature, coaching is something that is goal-oriented and solution-focused. There are certainly problems and issues raised within a coaching session, but these are more likely to be of a work-related nature. Some personal issues may be present, but more as they relate to work or relationships at work than the digging out of any personal demons. Sessions may take place face-to-face, over the telephone or via e-mail, but each one is oriented in the now rather than the past. Within a personal coaching session, the client only needs to reveal as much as they feel comfortable with, or as much as the issue at hand demands. Coaching incorporates learning, and is extremely practical. Clients can immediately apply what they have learned in a coaching session, and the change that takes place is also immediate - insight coupled with practical ways of putting that insight into place in order to obtain the best result from a situation.

Given the above coaching parameters, it would therefore seem inadvisable to situate it within a psychodynamic framework. Intra-psychic battles of the id, ego and superego are fine in psychoanalysis where only the self and self`s history are under the spotlight, along with the influence of family. However, this particular approach fits the notions and goals of coaching badly. We may all have unconscious conflicts that plague us from time to time and we may take these to work, but the goal of coaching is not to uncover these conflicts. Neither is it to diagnose psychiatric disorders.

If we were to situate coaching within a theoretical framework, systems theory would probably be the most appropriate one. Considering the organisation as a system linked to various other systems such as the individual`s family and friends, we have a good relationship between what coaching is, how it works and a framework into which it fits. Derived from the Greek, a system is an organised whole, which encompasses some sort of structure. The concept may be further modified by type, for example an open system versus a closed system. Subsystems may form part of and function within systems, which may, in turn, form part of and function in suprasystems. Once in place, each system functions as a gestalt - the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

It is assumed that systems made up of people have open boundaries that are at least semi-permeable. This allows information to flow in and out, information that has an impact on the system as a whole. Although the principle of homeostasis exists in systems, in which the system strives to regulate itself, the system is able to change, especially if it is an open system. Change in one system can lead to change in another, and if it is a positive change, the knock-on effects can be tremendous.

Coaching fits into a systems theory framework beautifully as one session can very often create an immediate positive change in an individual. This change may be barely perceptible or it can be enormous. Either way, an individual who has changed will react to the environment in a different way, which then has an impact on the environment, as well as on the individuals who inhabit that environment. The emphasis here is not on pathology, but on healthier person-to-person interactions and enhanced problem solving abilities.

Not everybody is cut out to be a coach. It is a vocation, a calling, more than it is a job or a way to get rich quickly. As with the definition of coaching, there is a very real danger of being too prescriptive in determining who the ideal coach is. Nevertheless, there are some guidelines. Since coaching is not therapy (even though there are therapeutic benefits associated with it), the coach is not necessarily a therapist, even though there may be a background in psychology. However, good listening skills in the here and now are imperative. A clear, calm, rational and non-judgemental attitude is an asset. Of value, too, is the ability to think on your feet, coupled with experience in whichever area you are coaching.

Within a systems theory framework, room is made for the concept of resistance. Even the smallest change can seem scary and certain elements of a system may actively resist such change. Clients who come in for coaching sessions may be extremely resistant to begin with and there are some that will never entirely give themselves over to the process. These clients will challenge a coach and sessions may be uncomfortable. Coaches and potential coaches have to be aware of themselves and their reactions to such situations - and it may be that some coaches are as resistant to change as some clients. A healthy stance to have is where the coach relishes clients who challenge, as they represent the best opportunity to learn and grow.

Within a coaching session, both client and coach create a truth that is part of the moment. In many instances, it is a narrative process in which clients tell the story of their lives, whether this is the story of their personal lives or their work lives, or both. Coaches offer advice or comment on the story as a whole, the content of which may be accepted, rejected or challenged by the client. The coach becomes part of the client`s system and, as such, has a responsibility to integrity. Maintaining this integrity and a commitment to the truth of the moment is one of the hallmarks of a good coaching session - and a good coach.