Coaching Chemistry

When we think of coaching we typically think of a relationship between coach and client where the client undergoes some sort of change, whether that's learning a new skill or something more developmental. But what about the coach? What happens to them in the coaching relationship? Where does the change come from? Does the change come from within the client? Does the coach change the client? Does the coach get changed as well, or are they separate? 

I have been talking to a lot of other coaches recently and asking them how they see their relationships with their clients. I typically get one of four answers. I have started calling these the compulsion model, the crucible model, the catalyst model and the constituent model. Or, if you prefer, the 4Cs.

The compulsion model is one I see most often in coaches who focus on teaching skills. In this model the coach does something to the client to induce the change. Usually teaching them something. Much like the Bunsen burner you would use to start a chemical reaction. The coach is the flame that forces the reaction to occur. 

I also see this a lot in agile transformations - the job of the coach is (apparently) to come in and "make the organisation agile". The coach is acting on the organisation or team and making it change. This sort of relationship is fine for something like basic agile coaching where you are really just imparting some skills. The problem though, is that this is a model that pretty much ignores (or minimises) things like safety and consent. The coach is there to do something to someone rather than do something with someone. For anything deeper than basic skills, that sort of relationship is somewhat problematic. I wouldn't like to be doing developmental work to someone.

The next standard response I get is that the coach acts to create a safe space for the client and in that safe space the client can change. I call this one the crucible model because the coach is acting like the crucible (or beaker) in a chemical reaction holding all the ingredients together but playing no part in the reaction themselves. 

My problem with the crucible model of coaching is that I can't see what the coach is adding. Where is the coaching? Why do we have a library of interventions and coaching moves available to us, if all we have to do is hold space? And if the client is able to change themselves once they are in a safe space, why do so many people find it so difficult to change without some sort of active help?

I suspect that some coaching relationships are like this, but not the majority. For some people they may be far enough along their growth journey that they do just need a space held for them and can transform inside that space. But I think the majority of people need a more active coach/client relationship than that.

Next, we get the response that the coach is part of the change with the client, but unlike the client, they don't get changed themselves.  I call this one the catalyst model because, like a catalyst in a chemical reaction, their presence causes the other ingredients to react, but the catalyst itself is not altered by the reaction. The catalyst and the coach are the same going in as they are coming out. I think this model comes from the therapy community. They (well, certainly in some models of therapy) are trained to stay detached from the client and hold themselves outside the change as observers.

This one is really common. A lot of coaches see their relationships with their clients this way. I think it's a good model. It gives some agency back to the coach - they are actively facilitating the change with the client which feels right (but since I'm a coach, believing that you  are the catalyst to someone's transformation is very gratifying to the ego so I may just be biased here). The problem I have with this model is that it assumes an almost superhuman level of detachment on the part of the coach - to be a part of a profound transformation in someone else and not be impacted by this in some way yourself seems unrealistic. In chemistry, very few things are totally unreactive, even a glass beaker will participate in a tiny way with the reaction taking place inside it. 

And what about the potential for the coach to grow as part of the coaching relationship? In participating in the change, can I as a coach come out, not unchanged, but better? In helping my client transform, can I transform myself?

That brings us then to the constituent model. In this model the coach acts like one of the constituents in the chemical reaction. They play an active role in the reaction and, like the client, they emerge from the reaction changed in some way by the reaction that just took place.

So, much like the catalyst, the coach is adding something to the reaction taking place. But unlike the catalyst, this model acknowledges that the coach is also undergoing change. The relationship between coach and client changes both. I think this mutual change is a good thing. It's where I learn, through my work with clients, how to be a better coach. By seeing their transformation I learn new things about myself and those new things give me new insights that make me a better coach. Or maybe they don't. Maybe they are just new insights that I can use to know more about myself.

The more I find that I'm leaning into the potential for change in me that each of my coaching relationships brings, the more I find that I'm learning about myself and my coaching.