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.