Perhaps the first spontaneous impression is that there
is a clear preference for empathic coaching, period! But maybe it is a bit more complex.
First a clarification of the terms. Empathic coaching is primarily based on
making positive contact with the coachee . From that positive contact, the coachee experiences support and recognition, and thus finds the courage
and strength to look at his own problem (challenge) and to look for a suitable
approach. The confronting approach is harder. The feedback that is given to the coachee partially removes his sense of comfort. It is not so much about giving support,
but about challenging and confronting.
The effectively used approach of the coach should depend
on the demand, needs, and capacity of the coachee . Based on the demand or need, expressed implicit or
explicit, and taking into account the capacity of the coachee, it needs to be
decided in which balance strong and empathic coachong is the most accurate. Both elements will probably always be
present in most situations, but in a very specific balance, which moreover may (will) change as the coaching progresses.
The pure empathic is particularly appropriate when the coachee feels bad abut himelf or herself, and is experiencing
a lack of self-confidence. Often this situation is accompanied by a lot of
emotional confusion. The confronting approach is not really a
contribution in this situation, but rather has the effect of making the problem
worse. There may be a quick break between the coachee and the coach; trust is gone because the coach is experienced as an additional part of the
problem. The empathic approach therefore serves to create a connection; understanding of the situation and acceptance
of the person with his problem. The coachee will not arrive at a constructive approach without emotional support .
The confronting approach has a completely different
purpose. It must get the coachee out of a certain delusion; a vision or approach that cannot
contribute to the solution at all, but rather is part of the problem. In
extreme cases, when it comes to arrogance, often based on a big ego, with little respect to others or ethics, it may even be
required to give the coachee a 'bang on the head' which gives him/her a shock to
break through the artificial self
protection. In other words, the coachee 's behavior and attitude is strongly questioned by the coach. There is no confirmation, but
contradiction; of course founded with good arguments.
A lot of empathy will be needed to make a good
combination between both aspects (empathy and confrontation). It is indeed often the case that an assertive,
arrogant or even aggressive attitude of the coachee is based on uncertainty and self-defense. This overcompensation must be assessed
differently to the coachee’s delusion mentioned above. It would be a very unproductive approach,
therefore, to make superficial judgments about the coachee 's behavior , and then to confront too hard. A proper balance becomes really crucial.
In order to make a good assessment of both the need
for confrontation and the ability of the coachee to cope positively with the confrontation,
specific questions will be necessary. Careful listening to the answers on the
right questions will have to be translated into a overall picture of needs and
capacities of the coachee.
The big challenge for a coach is to tune this balance
to the needs and possibilities of the coachee , and not based on his own needs or emotions ( eg personal ‘allergies’, as described adequately by Ofman (1)). Coaches are also people who experience the
situation in a certain way. In practice it also means that the
information given to them about the situation, problems or challenges is very
important. It must be used with the necessary skepticism; because the provider of this information
is often emotionally involved in the situation. Coaching therefore requires not only
strong empathy, but also the necessary self-knowledge, and an open mind to
listen to the real needs and possibilities.
Hugo Der Kinderen (October 2017)
(1) D. Ofman, Core Qualities, Scriptum,
2001
No comments:
Post a Comment