The language trap of "Coaching"

Coaching can be described in many different ways, and the description changes with the viewpoint of the describer. For a modernist coach with a foundation in individual psychology coaching is about an expert practitioner unidirectionally helping a client. For an ICF coach it is about partnering with a client who is resourceful and whole. For an InterActional coach it may be about a fluid coach entangled productively in a co-constructed meaning making conversation with an other. The activity that we can observe is very similar:  two people talking to each other, one being a professional the other being a client. Yet, talking to our various colleagues, we learn that it is conceptualized quite differently. Common frameworks like ICF competences and EMCC standards also suggest that we are talking about “one thing”, when we are talking about coaching. This reminds us of the Wittgenstein quote: “Philosophy is a battle against the bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language.” (Wittgenstein, 1953  §109). We would wish that the coaching profession become more transparent about how they are respectively framing and conceptualising coaching. This would create more clarity, and we would not be talking to each other as if we were doing the same thing when we are actually not.

Another set of differences can be found in the context of coaching, which makes a difference if you believe context matters (a more post-modern leaning position). Business coaching would need to be different from life coaching, coaching an executive might be different from coaching a juvenile delinquent. The differences are about topics, goals, resources and agency. Each environment of the client offers different narratives about the client. In each environment the coaching relationship is experienced differently. The executive coach might be a highly paid and respected professional, the coach for a juvenile delinquent might be perceived as a necessary nuisance. Also in this case, being transparent about these differences would help us learn from another in our conversations. An awareness of the differences in environment and context would help us know what might be transferable, what might not be transferable from one context to another.

Cultural differences and differences in linguistic conventions are a third set of differences that are ignored when accreditation agencies gauge the professional level of a coach by a set of fixed standards. Active listening, for example, is experienced and expressed very differently in different linguistic communities. In some cultures, active listening can be observed when there are subsequent monologues (Finnish seems to be famous for this) in other cultures engagement is signalled by overlap (Italian seems to be a contender). More awareness and responsiveness to the linguistic and cultural norms in our clients’ environments would allow coaches to become more flexible and more attuned with their clients. We would wish for the coaching profession to acknowledge these differences and to direct research into this direction.

If we continue to fall into the linguistic trap of assuming that an activity named “coaching” is one thing irrespective of how it is conceptualized, in which environment it happens and which respective linguistic norms are in use, we are standing in the way of the development of the profession. Can we not do that please?

If you want to compare your coaching to others, learn about what other people are doing or simply hang out with us, why not join one of our free meetups and exchanges?

‍