Understanding a client vs. Understanding with a client

As part of a social constructionist reading group, I stumbled upon an interesting article: Arnason, V. (2005). Gadamerian dialogue in the patient-professional interaction. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 3, 17–23. The article is about patient-professional interaction but can be fruitful for coaching interactions as well. Here are my takeaways:

The professional interaction can be characterized by the professional’s expertise and compliance of the client in a paternalistic relationship. This happens when the practitioner has privileged knowledge that is relevant to the client and the client wishes to follow it. While there may be some use for this model, it is very limited in coaching conversations.

Another way of characterizing the relationship could be one of client autonomy. Coaches value client autonomy highly (even the ICF competency 8 states that we should promote it).

Arnason states that the above two ways of characterizing the professional – client relationship “contribute to the estrangement” (p.17) between clients and practitioners. In narrative terms, the paternalistic relationship centers the practitioner. The client autonomy relationship centers the client, but almost leaves the practitioner out of the picture.

An alternative may be what Arnason labels “the contractual” relationship. He presupposes that in the medical profession, this relationship is always unequal, as the practitioner will have privileged knowledge (e.g., how to fix a heart) which the client does not have. A contract between a weaker and a stronger party does not sound like a good idea, either. This is different in coaching, I think. A coach is hired by the client, they or their organization pay for them and at least my experience of coaching is not one where clients feel like I have the answers and they don’t. I am not saying that this could not be the case, but to me it seems less enshrined than in a relationship between a medical professional and their patient.

Aranson proposes to look for a dialogical collaborative alternative and finds it in Gadamer’s theory of mutual understanding. Gadamer problematizes “understanding” a person. For one, it is not really possible to “understand” a human being like understanding the functioning of a bicycle. We will never be able to predict humans like that. The subject is way too complex for that. Then, our own perception of the other is always shaped by cultural, personal and theoretical presuppositions, so that we don’t see the other as they are but through our lenses, as we are. Also, morally, we should refrain from treating others like objects that we can manipulate.

Now, I hear you protest: of course, as coaches, we would never do that! Really? When I reflect on my practice, I catch myself every once in a while thinking I understand another person. It’s when I think: “Of course, this is why they are acting this way!” or “Typical, as a white male, he is ….” In these circumstances I am privileging my own view of the client rather than collaborating or being in a dialogue. I am engaging in observation rather than interaction or communication (p. 18).

The dialogic alternative is to “understanding someone” is “understanding with someone”. I think this is what we do as coaches. We are collaborating in dialogue, co-constructing growth, insights, solutions, development (whatever the client wants) with the client as part of a contractual relationship of equals. Let’s stay mindful of the temptation of “understanding” the client by “observation” which can lead us out of collaboration.

But what about “sharing observation”, such a crucial part of the ICF core competences (CC6 and CC7)? I don’t think that we have to refrain from “sharing observations” – it all depends on how we experience our observations. Are we trying to “observe the client” and match our observations with our framework or are we in conversation and we are naturally noticing something that may be helpful to the client and offer it to the client as a contribution to our co-construction?

I hope these musings have been somewhat helpful. As I am writing this I am aware that I am in a dialogue in which I don’t see your faces or hear your answers. I you’d like to, join us for a free meetup and exchange to change that 😊.