About the word "coach" — pioneer John Whitmore writes in Coaching for Performance (1992):
"We may drop the word coaching or add new terms to the crop that already exist: counselling, facilitating, empowering, mentoring, supporting, guiding, psychotherapy. Their applications differ somewhat but they overlap, and though they may be expressed differently, the underlying principles of awareness, responsibility and self-belief are common to all."
The latter sentence complements your good coaching bullet points.
A corollary problem is that of visibility (in the cognitive sense) — sure, you and I and coaches inside may be hesitant to call ourselves coach-practitioners, but how else can we avoid wasting time when the average inquirer ask us "so, what do you do"?
Such a scenario gently pushes me the Dangerous Idea: to totally own the word — at least for the time being. And then, because the word "coach" can be immediately grasped by the Interested Person, I can then add my unique context around the word to demonstrate to them that I genuinely represent the best in this industry.
Further, because of the stigma and mystery, I see opportunity. As I see in life: where there are lowest lows, there too are the highest highs. And this doesn't mean I condone net-negative behavior of mediocre coaches. But I was a software developer — am I going to carry the burden of the hundreds of thousands of devs who failed to ship on time, or inserted buggy code into a product?
This coach-practitioner profession is packed with certification processes. And I understand how that should assist with smoothing out the "highest-lowest" dynamics I just mentioned. But a curious thing I found? All the developmental psychology involved in earning a place inside coaching associations and federations. Which leads me to the question: "What if coaches are simply people interested enough in understanding the human mind (and how it grows) such that this very interests leads to community enrichment, which results in fellow members seeking them for assistance, no matter the area?"
What I'm hearing in this is: owning the word "coach" is an opportunity to serve the higher calling of human development. I feel the gravitational pull of purpose in how you talk about the role and it's value. This strikes me as a spiritual stance to the practice.
Really appreciate the thoughtfulness and depth in your comment. Lots to ponder
About the word "coach" — pioneer John Whitmore writes in Coaching for Performance (1992):
"We may drop the word coaching or add new terms to the crop that already exist: counselling, facilitating, empowering, mentoring, supporting, guiding, psychotherapy. Their applications differ somewhat but they overlap, and though they may be expressed differently, the underlying principles of awareness, responsibility and self-belief are common to all."
The latter sentence complements your good coaching bullet points.
A corollary problem is that of visibility (in the cognitive sense) — sure, you and I and coaches inside may be hesitant to call ourselves coach-practitioners, but how else can we avoid wasting time when the average inquirer ask us "so, what do you do"?
Such a scenario gently pushes me the Dangerous Idea: to totally own the word — at least for the time being. And then, because the word "coach" can be immediately grasped by the Interested Person, I can then add my unique context around the word to demonstrate to them that I genuinely represent the best in this industry.
Further, because of the stigma and mystery, I see opportunity. As I see in life: where there are lowest lows, there too are the highest highs. And this doesn't mean I condone net-negative behavior of mediocre coaches. But I was a software developer — am I going to carry the burden of the hundreds of thousands of devs who failed to ship on time, or inserted buggy code into a product?
This coach-practitioner profession is packed with certification processes. And I understand how that should assist with smoothing out the "highest-lowest" dynamics I just mentioned. But a curious thing I found? All the developmental psychology involved in earning a place inside coaching associations and federations. Which leads me to the question: "What if coaches are simply people interested enough in understanding the human mind (and how it grows) such that this very interests leads to community enrichment, which results in fellow members seeking them for assistance, no matter the area?"
What I'm hearing in this is: owning the word "coach" is an opportunity to serve the higher calling of human development. I feel the gravitational pull of purpose in how you talk about the role and it's value. This strikes me as a spiritual stance to the practice.
Really appreciate the thoughtfulness and depth in your comment. Lots to ponder