When the fit between coach and client does not fit - what then?

Blog post by Svea van der Hoorn:

The idea that that the relationship / the alliance / the fit between the coach and the client is paramount is such a commonly held view that it is almost mistaken for a fact. In the coaching world this has given rise to the idea that chemistry sessions are not only a necessity, but a sign of good practice. I am often looked at askance when I say “I do not do chemistry sessions”. Intriguingly I am seldom asked “Why not?” or “What do you do instead?” The more usual response is to change the subject or to begin to explain to me why the relationship IS essential and chemistry sessions ARE necessary, with much quoting from research. Most of the research being quoted comes from evidence-based practice with very little attention to practice-based evidence. Evidence-based practice is regarded by many as good science, while practice-based evidence is regarded as poor science or not science at all. For solution-focused coaches, embedded in a social constructionist perspective, such argument building is awkward. For more on this, take a look at Russ Curtis’ YouTube video “Decolonising counselling: evidence-based practice vs practice-based evidence” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KphpXQbi408&t=22s).

What if there were something beyond this reliance on coach-client relationship / alliance / fit? What if there were practices that coaches could add to their repertoires so as to be able to better serve a wider diversity of clients? The good news is that there are – not just one, but a few ideas and practices worth coaches’ attention.

The Common Project as a possibility

Reference: https://sikt.nu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/The-common-project-small-revisions-2017.pdf

In a training course, a participant sheepishly asked “But what if I can’t relate to a client? I know I don’t like them and I know I shouldn’t feel like that, but if I am honest, I just don’t feel empathy towards them?” There was a pause in the breathing in the room as all eyes swivelled from the speaker to the trainer and I experienced what is meant by the saying “You could hear a pin drop”. A long silence ensued. Uncomfortable shuffling on chairs. The trainer walked across to the flipchart, furled the used page over to reveal a clean blank page and began to draw. Two vertical ovals side by side – one marked Coach, the other marked Client. Then another oval, horizontal not vertical, which encircled them both. The trainer turned to the group and said “This is what we take for granted as the way to work – in the relationship (pointing at the horizontal oval that encircled the coach and client ovals). And our talk about confidentiality increases the idea of the session being a safe space created between the coach and the client. And the notion of psychological safety reinforces this – a safe space, a bubble within which the coaching conversation takes place”. Breathing and the rustle of note-taking began to return to the room. Some participants hazarded glances at the question asker, checking if they were recognising the folly of their question. Their eyes communicated “Relationship is essential. If you can’t relate to a client there’s something wrong with you”. Their sense of being right lasted only a moment and the trainer continued speaking. “And what if that is merely a common way, but not THE way?” Heads snapped up from notebooks, hands stopped writing. “What?” Taking a few steps back to the flipchart, the trainer drew a second diagram. Two vertical ovals, one marked coach, one marked client. And an X, located between the two ovals and slightly above. Then followed two more ovals – one linking the client to the X, and one linking the coach to the X. The trainer spoke “When the coach is as engaged with and committed to the client’s desired future as the client is, they can collaborate. They collaborate with the client’s aspiration. There is no need to be pre-occupied with one another as individuals, chemistry is irrelevant. Commitment to the client making progress towards their X is what they each relate to, not one another. If they do that well enough and consistently, they will likely begin to relate in the more usual way to one another, but even if they don’t, the client can and usually does report making progress.” Work together on the common project. And that requires being engaged together in an activity, not only in talking”. A practical tip was added. “To work in this way, sit alongside, not across from your client. Your gaze windows need to focus on the project at hand and not so much on each other. Preferably both focus on something practical and tangible, for example a piece of paper on which you as coach invite the client to take charge. Surrendering the pen (or annotation permission if online) so that the client leads in a scaling activity. Coach asks questions like Where are you already in relation to 10? What tells you that you are there already and not lower? What might be signs that you are moving up this scale towards your better future? Be a space holder while the client does the marking and the writing. Stay off centre.” Easier said than done. Disturbing.

Willing to be disturbed

Reference: https://ncs.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/uploads/tools/NCs_PS_Toolkit_DPL_Set_B_WillingDisturbed.pdf

“We have to be willing to let go of our certainty and expect ourselves to be confused for a time”. Margaret Wheatley wrote about this inevitability of being disturbed already in 2000, and that the choice we have is whether to be willingly or unwillingly disturbed – being disturbed will happen. And it will likely happen repeatedly. This makes me ponder about easily spoken about ideas like “trust and safety are essential in coaching”. What do we mean by trust and safety? What about discomfort and perturbation? Which leads me to reflect on what kinds of habitats do we need to co-create for conversations where both coach and client can be disturbed and be disturbing in ways that support learning and growth?

Those who know me will have heard me describe myself as an ethics nerd and proud of this. I love the complexity and creativity that ethical conundrums offer us, despite them often bringing discomfort and disturbance. One of my comments in supervision and in coaching education when we are talking about how to resource yourself to face ethical dilemmas is “seek out and cherish colleagues who think differently”. Pay attention to colleagues or fellow participants in coach education courses who irritate, intimidate or unsettle you. They are the ones to have on your ethical dilemma resolution trusted peers list. By all means hang out routinely with those who think similarly and with whom you enjoy the comfort of appreciation and agreement – for coffee and catch ups. But when the chips are down, talk with those who think and do differently, and who do so with generosity of spirit towards colleagues. They are also the ones who let us expand our capacity to be willingly disturbed. They let us practice common project conversations and going beyond the usual engaging within trust and safety relationships. They stretch our capacity to go beyond ourselves.

If you would like to spend time with like-minded and different-minded colleagues, participate via LinkedIn  and come to our free meetup and exchange sessions to discuss conundrums, learn about our courses and meet people who can become your companions in being willingly disturbed.

‍