Don't depend on me!

One of the ethical issues that coaches should be aware of…  Oh, did the use of the word ‘should’ immediately concern you? You might want
to reflect on why that is, and consider a more nuanced approach. Not all ‘shoulds’ are bad (and I’ll come back to that…)

So, as I was saying, one of the ethical issues that coaches should be aware of is client dependence.

This has come sharply into focus for me recently from two different directions. One is the proliferation of advertisements on Linked In for advice from successful coaches on how to sign ‘big-ticket’ clients and generate long term coaching relationships (‘average client duration 60+ months’ boasts one such tout).

The other is the even greater proliferation of AI Coaching Bots being advertised on Linked In - with a monthly subscription and unlimited access. I have written previously about some of my reservations about AI coaching, and this is a
serious one.

So why is dependance bad? And why do both the Code of Ethics of the ICF and the Global Code of Ethics developed by the EMCC and the AC warn against it?

The goals of coaching are to develop coachees’ self-efficacy; to help them to discover and develop strengths and skills that they will be able to use independently of the coach.  For that reason coaching relationships are typically time-bound; and if a coachee wishes to extend the relationship, the coach has a responsibility to consider the risks of dependency and ensure that the focus of further sessions is clearly agreed and fits within the realm of coaching.

Some of the signs of dependency might be the coachee checking in frequently for approval or input on decisions; emotional reliance; the coachee making little or no progress in applying learning between sessions; and a desire to keep prolonging the coaching relationship.

These are all potentially bad for the coachee: but might be good for the coach (or the coaching bot) if it conceives its interests primarily as commercial: coach retention and dependency increases revenue.

That is precisely why the ethical codes warn against it. And Ethics, of course, is precisely that area of thinking where the word ‘should’ is appropriately used. It is very trendy in coaching circles to invite coachees to ‘ignore should and oughts’ and consider ‘what you truly want’. But when  it comes to ethics, that is a very flawed approach. I may truly want to gossip about my client’s juicy story, but I should not do so…

As I have had occasion to remark before: Caveat emptor - let the buyer beware.

Thinking Partnership Programme in the Lake District

If your role involves helping, stimulating, supporting, challenging or provoking others to think at their very best, you may be familiar with Nancy Kline's work, published as Time to Think, More Time to Think, and The Promise that Changes Everything. If you are not, these books are well worth reading and learning from. 

At the heart of Nancy's approach, which she calls a Thinking Environment, is the belief that attention is generative; that is, the quality of someone's thinking, in my presence, is at least in part a product of the quality of attention that I give to them. (If you doubt this, consider the reverse: when you are trying to think about something and the person who is meant to be listening is clearly not attending... see what I mean?) 

But in addition to a quality of attention that is in fact rare in most work contexts, there are nine other components; these work together as a system to produce that Thinking Environment which enables great thinking. Further, there are several applications: ways of using these components and this system, in different contexts (one-to-one, groups etc).

Foundational is the Thinking Partnership: a precise but easeful approach to enabling someone else to think outstandingly well. I have blogged previously about this many times, ranging from my initial exploration of the process with Nancy, through to its practical application in a coaching session. (Other posts may be found by clicking this link to an index of my posts about the Thinking Environment). 

The next Thinking Partnership Programme is on 12/13 March and 15 May. This will run at our home and office in the Lake District: a wonderful setting.

Previous participants have commented on the quality of the experience as being something like a retreat - and many have come back a second and third time for that reason (and to deepen their understanding of the work - and indeed to enjoy Jane's catering...).

This Programme teaches you the Thinking Partnership Session®, a uniquely powerful process for liberating the human mind. Through generative Attention and the building of Incisive Questions, this process produces breakthrough, independent thinking.

If you choose to join us, you will participate both as Thinker (considering topics of your choice), and as Thinking Partner (practicing this elegant expertise). Along the way you will explore all Ten Components of a Thinking Environment. This course is a prerequisite for the Coach Qualifying Course, should you wish to take your practice to the next level.

More details are on my website, here; and of course if you wish to talk about the programme, or have any questions, I'd be delighted to hear from you.

Caveat emptor

A meeting with a potential new coaching client this afternoon. She seemed well informed, especially around governance, ethics etc. 

Do you have supervision for your work?

No.

Do you observe confidentiality?

Yes (though I share all data from my sessions widely)

Do you encourage dependency?

Yes, that's my business model.

Might you blackmail me, if it were in your interests to do so?

Yes.

--

Welcome to the brave new world of AI coaching.

What do you mean, I am scare-mongering? I have been looking at this seriously, and am appalled that so many people whom I admire are jumping on this bandwagon.

It may be inevitable (after all the financial incentives are massive) but that doesn't make it ethical. 

We simply do not (yet) have the understanding and governance in place (if indeed that ever proves possible) to make AI coaching safe for clients.

The simple fact that Anthropic, the makers of Claude have found that Claude - and the other 15 leading models they tested - were all prepared to act unethically (eg blackmailing humans) in pursuit of their own interests, should be enough to put the brakes on this till we understand what is going on.

And that is not the only concern. See the Ada Lovelace Institute's report on the risks of, and unanswered questions concerning, AI Assistants.

The risks they enumerate include that they may:

1. Lead to widespread cognitive and practical deskilling.
2. Undermine people’s mental health and flourishing.
3. Degrade the quality of some public and professional services.
4. Call into question standards of quality, protection and liability governing professionals.
5. 

And a service that charges a monthly fee seems to me to be extremely likely have dependency as a part of the business model - whether or not intended by those who built it.

These all clearly transgress the Global Code of Ethics (adopted by the AC and EMCC, inter alia) and likewise the ICF's code of ethics.

And yet there are prominent people - whom otherwise I respect - who are pushing AI coaching hard on (for example) Linked In.

Of course, they will tell you that they have done the checks. But (and excuse me for being a little cynical here), I don't believe them.  More importantly even expert fans of AI like Stewart Russell, who delivered the Reith Lectures on the subject in 2021, don't think that anyone has done the necessary work. 

Let the buyer beware!

1. 
   

The Preparation Paradox

An interesting conversation with one of the coaches I supervise, in which we discussed the Preparation Paradox.

We both recognise that preparation is essential if we are to be the best coaches we can be. (Sure, we are both good enough to busk it and leave the coachee satisfied with the session, but that doesn't meet the standards we aspire to).

Gary Player

So preparation is essential; and yet the session frequently goes in a completely different direction from whatever we have prepared for. And so it should, if we are being client-led, which is an approach we both favour. 

Because of course we can't tell in what state the client will turn up, or what will be the most important issue to explore, in advance of the session. And that applies even when we may have agreed with the client in advance (at a previous session, or in other preparatory conversation) what we'll focus on this time around.  Because Stuff Happens, as Barry Oshry rightly points out in Seeing Systems.  And sometimes the stuff that happens raises issues that are both more important and more urgent than our best-laid plans had foreseen.

Nonetheless, we both know from experience, that the better we are prepared the better we are able to respond creatively, intuitively and appropriately to whatever arises - as long as we aren't attached to our plans.

Louis Pasteur

Of course, this is not a new discovery. Gary Player famously said: The harder I practise, the luckier I get; and in the same spirit (and some time before), Louis Pasteur observed that Fortune favours the prepared mind. 

So I offer this as a reminder, rather than a dazzling new insight; because, going back even further in our bank of popular quotations (a good few centuries before Christ), we learn from Ecclesiastes that There is nothing new under the sun.

However, the end of the year seems a good time to reflect on what we already know - and also a good time to wish all my friends, clients, colleagues and contacts a Happy Christmas, a restful and restorative break, and all good wishes for the New Year.

--

Images from Wikipedia, Creative Commons Licence.  Unfortunately there are no extant photos of the author of Ecclesiastes...

Why (good) coaches don't tell people what to do (#347)

You know how it is with Confirmation Bias: you get a hammer and every problem is miraculously a nail. In similar fashion, I mentioned the Karpman Drama Triangle to someone, and suddenly I'm applying it everywhere...

The idea is elegant and persuasive. Stephen Karpman was a student of Eric Berne, the originator of Transactional Analysis and author of the fascinating, if grim, book Games People Play. Karpman identified three roles that people adopt in the types of games that Berne described (and these games are far from benign....). These roles are Perscutor, Victim and Rescuer. 

As with the famous Parent, Adult, Child model of TA, the idea is that someone adopting one role invites someone else to step into a role, too. Thus if I act as a Victim, you might be tempted to Rescue me - or indeed to Persecute me. Drama ensues (and that is the point: the hypothesis is that all participants get some satisfaction from the emotional pay-off of the drama.)

What Karpman pointed out, that makes this particularly interesting, is that there is often then a switch in role. Thus if I start as Victim, and you seek to Rescue me, I may switch to Persecutor and push you into the Victim role.  The dramatic possibilities are thus greatly enhanced.

So when one of my friends told me that she was seeking to support another friend through a crisis, and added, 'But of course, she's a bit of a drama queen...' the alarm bells started ringing, and I pointed out the risk of my friend playing the role of Rescuer and where that might lead. 

And of course it is the same for coaches. If a person seeking coaching positions themselves as a Victim - of fate, of their employer, of a bully at work - then it can be tempting for the coach to play the Rescuer role, and tell the poor Victim what to do to protect himself, achieve redress or whatever.

But if the coach succumbs to that temptation, the best outcome is that the Victim stays in Victim mode, relying on others to rescue him,  and that's not good.  Victims attract Persecutors. But the other likelihood is that the Victim moves into Persecutor mode, attacking the coach and blaming her for the advice given and its (inevitable) disastrous consequences. The coach then finds herself in Victim mode, defending herself, her good intentions and so on.  And neither party learns. 

So what is a coach (or a friend, come to that) to do. According to TA theory, it is to resist the call to move into Rescuer (or any other game-playing role) and remain in Adult - inviting the other person into Adult too: by resisting the temptation to take any responsibility for the situation, but supporting the person whose problem it is to generate and enact solutions that he believes will be effective.  

I think this is particularly pertinent now, as we seem to have created a culture in which many rush to claim victimhood as it bestows many advantages. But teaching people to be Victims is not in their best interests, nor anyone else's.

--

Image courtesy of AI (Grok)

Our Story of Ourself

A couple of coaching meetings recently have reminded me how valuable it can be to reflect on our stories about ourself. Often we have several versions: perhaps one (a) that is subtle and sophisticated, one (b) that is more of a shorthand version and maybe one (c) that is either more optimistic or more pessimistic than (a) and (b) - depending whether those incline to optimism
or pessimism, and in contrast to them.

When we are very busy, tired or stressed, it is easy to rely on (b) as an heuristic (see box) to save cognitive load.  However there are risks of over-reliance on (b), not least because it may become a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

For example, part of my (b) story is that I am shy and not good at casual social interaction. That is true to some extent, though an (a) version would be more sophisticated and recognise that when I make an effort, I can get by just fine in unstructured social encounters.  

But over-reliance on (b) tempts me to avoid such situations, which over time erodes my (already limited) skills in that context. Furthermore, that can be reinforced by a number of factors.  

One is Confirmation Bias: that tendency to notice and attribute meaning to things that confirm what we already think. That will incline me to notice as significant every occasion on which I don’t engage well socially, and to treat as abnormal (or even not to notice at all) those occasions on which I engage well.

Moreover, when I am acting out of my (b) story, by being a bit more withdrawn, that may well make others less inclined to engage with me, creating an elegant self-fulfilling prophecy.

To counter those risks, it is useful to raise our awareness, by reflection, and possibly by disclosure to others and inviting their feedback. 

If we wish to weaken our (b) story and strengthen our (a) story (or even an optimistic (c) story), one useful strategy is to collect and mentally curate exceptions: those times when things didn’t go the way the (b) story might have predicted. 

We can then choose to attend to our more positive story more of the time and try to live out of it, thus recruiting confirmation bias and the likelihood of a self-fulfilling prophecy to support who we are trying to become, rather than who we worry that we might be seen as.

Intentionality versus automaticity

Aristotle being corrected by a teenager...

I'm always interested in tensions and apparent paradoxes. At present I am thinking about the tension between Intentionality and automaticity.

A lot of my work involves helping people to clarify their intentions, and develop options or strategies in pursuit of those intentions; and to use their time and other resources in a mindful way, to accomplish those goods to which they aspire.

Further, I remember as a teenager, thinking that Aristotle had got it wrong (ok, so I was precocious...) when he talked about virtues as habits. Surely for an act to be virtuous, one has to have a good intention, not merely be acting out of habit.

However, as I understand a little more about how the brain works, I am increasingly clear about the value of automaticity. We cannot attend to everything intentionally, as we simply don't have the cognitive capacity. So building good habits - automating a number of activities - is clearly an important strategy; and of course that is something else that I have long sought to help my clients to do. As well, of course, as my children. This is about building strong neural pathways, that fire automatically: hence automaticity.

So habits reduce cognitive load, leaving our brains free to be intentional about non-recurrent choices. Additionally, habits make good choices more reliable. My strong habit (which took a long time to build) of getting out of bed early and going up the hill on my bike is now sufficiently robust that even if the weather is challenging (the feels-like temperature here was -9 this morning) I don't faff about or bottle out. Though, to be strictly honest, I did go for a shorter than usual ride this morning.  And I realise that was what Aristotle was getting at, so maybe he wasn't such a fool as my teenage self had imagined. 

Viktor Frankl

Yet I remain convinced of the importance of intentionality; not least because of Viktor Frankl's great wisdom and insight: 'Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms - to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.' 

One way to address this tension, of course, is to be very intentional about the creation of habits that support us in becoming the person we aspire to be: habits of thought (thinking well of others, for example) as well as habits of behaviour.

But habits can erode over time, and we may grow over time, so I think that is insufficient. So I think another thing to think about is the conscious competence model. We can develop a discipline (or even a habit) of bringing our habits out of unconscious competence into conscious competence to examine them, polish them, re-establish them at the highest level (all highly intentional activities) and then return them to unconscious competence in a better state, where we can rely on them, and allow that automaticity to free up cognitive capacity for other challenges we may face.