Last Saturday I was introduced to Thinking-Intentions Profile, a powerful coaching technique. The process is conducted in a group of 3-5 people and is divided into five stages:
1. The coached person clearly states his or her problem statement or some other issue.
2. Group coaches start asking direct questions.
3. The coached person steps out from the the discussion and the coaches discuss impressions as if the coached person is not in the room.
4. The coached person is re-invited into the discussion and is offered a list of solutions
5. The coached person is given an opportunity to select appropriate recommendation and commit to them.
Prime deliverable of the coaching session: validation or invalidation of the problem statement. If the coached person is able to validate or invalidate of her/his problem statement by the end of the coaching session, then the minimal goal of the session was achieved. In other word, it is important for the coached person to verify her/his perception in the actual context. By context I mean the social environment of the given individuals. Collective coaching represents a micro-model of such environment.
Thrust and objectivity of the coaches. Trust established between the coaches and the couched person helps the questions to be asked and answered as clear as possible. In other words, distrust between two parties creates distraction for the cognitive process. Such process should not tolerate any elusive statements and unspecified assumptions. Limited experience with this method does not allow me to say if the coached person should be taken out from his/her comfort zone. Perhaps such techniques can be useful when the group reaches a preliminary conclusion that the initial problem statement is invalid.
Discussion requires self-discipline form the coaches and tolerance from the coached person. The “out of the room”/ “behind back” simulation opens door for initial discussion. However, the substance of the discussion has to be sustained within or near acceptable border of the coached person. Otherwise, sharp criticism or insensitive comments may easily turn defensive mechanisms of the coached person ruining the purpose of the session. It is important that the coaches are able to skillfully balance on the border of acceptable and unacceptable criticism/comment/etc. Defining such borders by trail and error (forward and backward, expansion vs. contraction) is key in shaping physiological portrait of the coached person.
Solutions. This stage allows infinite number of possibilities and solutions. The level and degree of the relationship between the coaches and the coached person dictates the dynamics of this stage. Difference or similarities in age, gender, race, religion, language, culture, etc will define acceptable limits of this stage.
Commitment can be the most sensitive stage of the coaching. It is only a temporary or formal closure of the process. Once the process of coaching is started, it has a life of its own. Afterthoughts and reevaluations may take numerous iterations, time, effort and emotional energy. It is an important detail that some amateur coaches are not ready for. It is the biggest warning that should keep away such amateur coaches from taking this responsibility from the beginning. Another important detail is that the coached person may or may not commit to the suggested solutions. Depending on the situation, the coached person may not openly commit to some suggestions and tacitly reject other suggestions.
Lessons learned. I call it an emotional cycle. Thrust creates clarity. Trust also builds connection/bond. Clarity helps to identify problem and give suggestions. Commitment to some of the suggestions reinforces the bond. The bond cannot be broken if you want to maintain the thrust. The art of coaching is an ability to understand this dynamic and stay outside of it at the same time. It is similar to the skills of the successful doctor, who is able to remain empathetic and professional at the same time.
No comments:
Post a Comment