Trauma and coaching

There is a lot of buzz in the coachosphere around clients and their “trauma” and, as usual, I am in two minds about it. On the one hand, I am deeply passionate about treating people with care, compassion and respect – on the other hand, I really do not buy into this narrative of cause and effect when it comes to “trauma”.

Being kind to people with horrible experiences

Being kind to people who have experienced terrible hardships, obviously, is a good thing. If a client starts talking about very sensitive issues, I will tread lightly. I will let the client know (by my way of being, not so much with words) know that this is a safe space and do everything to make them feel comfortable. Examples have been going outside when someone felt too closed in a room or pacing up and down the room with someone who needed to get rid of some energy.

Usually, it is about slowing down and treating whatever response the client is having as normal. Obviously, I will partner with the client and let them decide how much they want to share about anything. In my questions and responses, I will demonstrate curiosity about the client’s resilience and their preferred relationship with the experienced hardship. In “trauma informed coaching” this may be labelled “spotting signs of dysregulation, staying within the client’s window of tolerance and using grounding techniques.” In my language this just falls under the label of “being a decent human being” and “working as a social-constructionist or interactional coach”.

Negating the language of cause and effect

I try not to be recruited into the narrative of “a person has a problem today which was caused by a trauma in the past, therefore we have to find the trauma and resolve it.” This narrative of linear causation limits possibilities rather than opening them. Remember the language of “killing the souls of children” or “lasting effects” when talking about child abuse? How is a person who has experienced abuse going to feel about that? Do they no longer have souls? Will they forever be damaged? Narratives of linear causation add to the victimization.

In my practice, when a client makes a connection between their past experience and problems they are currently experiencing, I accept this as the way that they are making sense of the world. It is most often influenced by the dominant narrative of “this is what happened and therefore…”, but as a coach, I am happy to accept the sensemaking of my client.

However, I do invite clients to speak about what they prefer for the future rather than inviting focus on the past: explanations are usually more part of the problem than part of the solution. Obviously that includes listening to the client’s story and acknowledging their hardship (and I am so sorry that I have to stress this over and over again, as this is one of the most prevalent misunderstandings of Solution Focused coaching).

I do not hold the view that people who have experienced hardships will almost always develop problematic responses. I also do not hold the view that “a cause” for a present issue needs to be identified. Therefore, the theoretical background of “trauma-informed-coaching” makes no sense for me. What does make sense is what I stated above: being a decent human being and working as a social-construcionist or interactional coach” which includes all the responses a “trauma-informed coach” would have plus some (imho) more useful theory around it.

Extreme responses that the coach is uncomfortable with

Now, there is one more caveat: sometimes clients feel so overwhelmed with a story from their past that the coach starts feeling it is not something they are ready to handle. As coaches, we are not in the position to diagnose mental illness and we should stay clear of that. However, we should make sure that the client has all the resources at their disposal that they can access and that we do not move out of our professional comfort zone.

If, as coaches, we feel that a client could use the help of someone who specializes in “trauma responses”, we should refer the client to such specialist. Obviously we should do that without making things worse for the client by telling them that they are a “too difficult case” or something along those lines. Mentioning that people who have experienced similar kinds of difficulties have found it very helpful to talk to * insert appropriate specialist * and asking the client to contact said specialist to see if this may not be a more helpful place to start might be a kinder way of doing it.

Sorry for the rant, especially sorry for upsetting “trauma informed coaches”. I know that you are coming from a place of care and the desire to serve your clients best and I agree with the practice: being kind, compassionate and respectful. I just really don’t agree with the theory. If you are interested in discussing, please come to one of our free meetups and exchanges.

‍