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.

Non-Judgemental Coaching

I have been reflecting on Non-Judgemental Coaching, and this post is really my thinking aloud on the topic.

On the face of it, being non-judgemental seems a good stance for a coach to take, and it is often taken as a given for good coaching practice. See here, and here for a couple of fairly typical examples. 

But the more I think of this, the less that simple stance makes sense.

On the one hand, of course nobody wants to be judged, and further, as a coach, one tries to work with the client's material, including his or her judgement.

However, even in the first article cited above, the author writes:   It is, however, a truism that it is necessary and useful to challenge universal truths the Client holds if these are limiting or otherwise damaging to the process of self-change and realisation. Building the coaching relationship is a dynamic process which nurtures honesty, trust, reliability and curiosity.

Clearly, such challenges are based on a judgement, made by the coach, that 'these are limiting or otherwise damaging to the process of self-change and realisation.' So how can one call such an approach non-judgemental?

Likewise, to say that 'Building the coaching relationship is a dynamic process which nurtures honesty, trust, reliability and curiosity,' is to bring a lot of judgements to bear: not least, judgements about the desirability of 'honesty, trust, reliability and curiosity.'

Moreover, one of the things a coach may decide is important is to offer support to a client who is making a difficult decision, which others are deriding. It may well be the client's own decision; and indeed that may well be why, as a coach, one would want to support it, to help develop the client to develop his or her autonomy. But such support is in itself a judgement - approving the client's courage in making a difficult autonomous decision is judgemental.

Sometimes when I go down this track with people, they retreat into saying that being judgemental is making negative judgements, not positive ones. But even that won't do. If I approve some decisions, then the client knows that I am making a judgement. If I am then silent about other decisions, the client will understand that I am withholding approval - which is also a judgement.

Moreover, posing as non-judgemental, if that is not what we are actually thinking or feeling, is inauthentic; and therefore likely to be counter-productive in terms of the coaching relationship.

So I think that we need to be much more nuanced than this, and my current working theory is this:

1 I do not judge my clients, as people;
2 I am likely to reach judgements about their decisions, or actions; it may or may not be helpful to let them know these;
3 The client's own judgements about their decisions or actions are more important to elicit and to work with;
4 The client's judgements are not infallible;
5 It is part of my professional responsibility to make many other judgements: about the way in which we are working together; about what interventions might be appropriate; about ethical considerations; and more besides. 

But as I say, this is thinking aloud, so I am interested in others' views on this - and will doubtless develop, and possibly change, mine.

--

PS  (2021) I wrote this some 6 years ago now, and of all my blog posts, it is the one that is most visited on a regular basis - it now has nearly double the number of hits compared to any other post. I am curious about this: if you read this, and feel so inclined, could you add a comment to let me know what or who directed you here. Has someone somewhere put it on a reading list - and if so, as an example of wisdom, idiocy, or something in-between?...  Thanks  AS

Strategic Five Marketing - Again

I have been reflecting on why I am so angered by Strategic Five's apparently dishonest approach to recruitment, and also doing a little more digging.  This post is a summary of where I am up to. For the background, see my previous post, here, if you have not already read it.

I am angry because it seems to me both wrong in principle and cruel in practice to behave in the way that they seem to do. Cruel is a strong word, and I do not imply that is their intention, but I do not think it overstates the impact of their tactics.

Here's the story of the graduate whom I know best who was fooled by them. He graduated a couple of years ago, started doing a PGCE and then realised that teaching really wasn't for him. So he quit that after a year, and started looking for other jobs. He has found some filler jobs, as it were, to keep the wolf from the door, but is still searching for a reasonable graduate job. 

He has sent in many application forms and CVs and typically heard nothing back: that is a dispiriting process. Then he got an interview for a Graduate Management Programme - and the interview went well. He liked them, and they liked him. So his hopes were raised, his confidence, which had been flagging, was boosted. Over the weekend he told a few friends and got the response: 'I hope it's not Strategic Five...' As I recounted before, he tried to ascertain if he were being led up the garden path, Strategic Five denied it, and then, with tragic inevitability, on the Monday, it was confirmed: he'd been conned. Needless to say, that did nothing for his confidence.

What makes me angry is not just the impact on him, but the fact that Strategic Five seem to have been doing this repeatedly. 

A look at Twitter reveals comments like:

It is interesting that Strategic Five have not responded to these tweets, though they must be aware of them as their Twitter handle was quoted, which draws it to their attention: and their feed is not very busy with notifications, as far as I can see.

Likewise, I took a quick look at The Student Room website and found these. The first is quite recent, but the second is from 2013 - so this has been going on for some time.

Note in both the Twitter comments and the fuller comments on The Student Room how frustrating the experience was for these duped graduates: and then remember that two of Strategic Five's four professed values are Honesty and Respect.

I have emailed Strategic Five, and tweeted at them, but had no reply: again for a marketing organisation, that seems strange. Likewise, I find it strange that they boast about their client base including 'the Nation's biggest brands' but do not name a single client on their wwwsite.

One last thing I dug up: Strategic Five are advertising a range of jobs with a range of salaries on recruitment websites. These are almost certainly bogus, given that their Linked-In site says they have 1-10 employees - recruiting 15 'marketing' jobs would more than double their size in one go.

Strategic Five Marketing: A Scam?

Has anyone come across the organisation Strategic Five Marketing ?

It seems to me that they are conning graduates. I know of three, now, who were enticed with prospects of Graduate Management Schemes, only to discover it is commission-only door-to-door selling.

Here’s the spec for the role:

Graduate Management Program 

Graduate Progression Opportunity - No Working Experience Required
Strategic Five Marketing are an ever growing outsource sales and promotions company specialising in face-to-face customer acquisition, branding and management - and affiliated with the Nations biggest blue chip brands within the industries of telecoms, beauty, charity, electronics and entertainment, and fresh produce. 

With graduation looming, we are now looking for the next generation of ambitious and career driven candidates excited to embrace a graduate opportunity, with full training provided, to kick start their careers.

Graduate Management Candidates must be:
Customer focused and confident to build rapports with our customer and client portfolio.Be coachable to embrace creative marketing and branding methods.Career driven and competitive to progress towards team leader, campaign co-ordinator, and marketing management positions.Enthusiastic to learn business sectors including finance, recruitment and HRProfessional and articulate to work alongside the Nations biggest brandsPrevious candidates of the Graduate Management Program 2014 have come from backgrounds of business management, art and design, sports and leisure/ coaching, and also applied backgrounds such as sciences, law and performing arts. 

Successful Candidates will be Offered:
Full training and on-going mentoringInvite to National and local social and corporate eventsInternational and National travel opportunitiesCareer progression and business developmentCareer stability and full time positions

For a graduate looking for work in a tough market, that sounds quite appealing. 

The third of the three I know of was pleased to be invited to an interview, and even more pleased when invited back for the following Monday. Initially he thought it was for a second interview, but then found it was for a day of working with them to see what it’s like. However, over the weekend a friend told him that it was a scam to lure people in to unpaid door-to-door selling.

A mutual friend takes up the story:

So they refused to admit that it was commission based door to door sales right up until the last minute! He phoned ahead to ask what he'd be doing and was told he'd be with someone from accounts. Peter from accounts took him to meet the clients in Sunderland and said that he wouldn't describe it as door to door sales, when asked, although the clients were in their houses and he was knocking on their doors trying to sell them stuff!! In what sense he was from accounts it never emerged, because his job was selling not accounting. Very nutty!  

Another friend has pointed me at these organisations, which, while apparently unrelated, seem to have similar feel: DS-MAX and The Cobra Group. 

I would particularly urge my academic friends and colleagues to let their graduates and their career services know about this. If people want to go into commission-only door-to-door selling, that’s fine by me (I suppose, grudgingly) but not under false pretences.

Oh, and I notice that Strategic Five has four corporate values, of which the first is Honesty, and the third, Respect. I’ve already dropped them a line, and will, of course, report back their response, if any… I did enter a 'visitor post' on their Facebook page, politely asking about this. It has not been posted. In fact, no visitor posts have been posted. I wonder why?

Organisational Integrity (ii)

Here's what lay behind my post before Christmas.

A client had approached me and asked me to design and run an awayday for them.  We had met and discussed the needs, and agreed a draft design for the day, a date and so on.

Then they said that we would have to go through a tendering process.  (I was slightly surprised at this, as the value of the event was not high, and I was already on an approved suppliers' register, following a  previous 'framework' tender).

But what concerned me was that:

A) Either I was the only person being asked to tender, in which case it seemed entirely meaningless (particularly as one of their organisational priorities is reducing meaningless work...);

B) Or they were inviting others to tender, in which case:

1.  Either they had really decided to use me, but were going through the motions (wasting their own and others' time, and compromising their integrity) or
2. It was a real competition, in which case I had been misled earlier, when we had agreed that I would do the work, on a specific date etc (on the basis of which I did the (admittedly small amount of) consultation and design at no cost).

Further, I was expected to sign declarations of non-collusion,  non-canvassing etc, including a statement that I had not talked with anyone at the organisation about this bit of work.

That was clearly a nonsense, and I could not sign it.

The good news is that I have talked all this through with the appropriate senior managers, they agree with my analysis that the system has thrown up something which, inadvertently, goes against a number of their own principles of operation, and they are sorting it out.

But as a supplier, it can be hard to raise such issues ('I can't sign that!') if one fears one may lose a contract, or even a client.  There must be a better way...

Organisational Integrity

I am increasingly interested in the ways in which processes intended to increase transparency, fairness etc can sometimes drive people within organisations to act in ways that are lacking in honesty and integrity.

I am not attributing any ill-will here, or intention to deceive, but rather noticing that the cumulative effect of some processes and their collision with other organisational needs (both strategic and pragmatic) can have some unintended consequences that make the organisation look dishonest.

I will blog more on this shortly, when I have more time and when I have discussed the specific issue that has brought this into sharp focus with the appropriate senior managers...

These ethical dilemmas...

Clare has just gone off to University, and had used the last of my stock of flipchart paper to line her trunk...

And then I found an old pad, beside the filing cabinet.  But it was rather faded and yellowed.  So the dilemma was do I bin it, as it doesn't convey that professional image which I strive to achieve (you may have your own views on how successfully....)?  Or do I use it?  After all, binning it would seem a waste.

I did toy with the idea of keeping it for the next time somebody needs to line a trunk, but by the time that comes round we will have forgotten about it.

Then I reflected on our stated policy about environmental impact and all that, and realised it is wholly meaningless to use recycled paper etc and then throw away a pad of flipchart paper unused.

So it's on the flipchart stand today and I'll be using it for the Highlights Awayday: and have to rely on the efficacy of my facilitation to create the desired image of professionalism.

Roger Steare on Love in Business

I went to the York St John's Business School Annual Lecture last week.  Both speakers were very good, but I was particularly struck by Roger Steare (who was the reason for my going at all).

I had been intrigued and impressed by his book Ethicability, and his work as a corporate philosopher.  On this occasion he was talking about the Power of Love in Business.

His essential thesis was that if we leave our emotional self at home when we go to work, we lack integrity - in its meaning as wholeness - and that lack of integrity is costly for ourselves, our colleagues, our organisations and the world.

This was explored in some depth and from a number of perspectives: if I understood correctly, we were being taken through his new book: the Power of Love. On the basis of the lecture, it should be well worth reading.

Ethics and narrative

I mentioned that I've been reading a fascinating book: Ethicability by Roger Steare.

He talks about three kinds of ethical approach:

1) Rule-based (eg deontology)
2) Social agreement based (eg utitilatarianism)
3) Values or principles based.

He points out that all three have their use, and also suggests that the first tends to make us behave as children, the second as adolescents and the third as adults.

This made me wonder if there might be a parallel with modernism and post-modernism and... whatever comes next. 

Modernism could be seen as rule-based; and when people object to my claims for the possibility of absolute truth, I think they may be objecting to this: rules laid down to be applied to all people in all places and at all times.

Post-modernism, social constructionism (the position of many in the narrative world) etc might be regarded as a reaction against that, and an attempt to replace rules with agreed interpretations that are necessarily variable depending on who agrees them.  This interpretation resonates with me as some of the academics in particular with whom I have debated this seem to be reacting against precisely that rule-bound notion of truth that 1) would suggest - and one or two also seem to me to have something of the adolescent's idealism, pride in rebellion, and impatience with other perspectives...

I (naturally!) think I am in the more mature position of 3)  I make truth claims for values, such as the intrinsic goodness of love rather than hate, of hope rather than despair and of faith rather than nihilism.


THese may need to be interpreted and mediated through social discourse (at level 2) and may on occasion need to be translated to rules (as at level 1 - for example, I would hate to meet a driver who thought the rule that we drive on the left side of the road [in the uk]  was not in any sense true and therefore not binding on him or her...)
So I think some of the conversations I have been in have been based on a series of false assumptions - both ways: I think people were assuming I was wanting to make truth-claims of type 1) and have reacted against them; and I was assuming they were reacting against what I really think and believe and reacted against that!

Ethics

Reading Ethicability by Roger Steare: very interesting.  Styles himself as a 'corporate philosopher;' seems to have done significant work with serious organisations, and certainly puts his material across well on paper.

Not sure I agree (of course) with all of it, but it is very thought-provoking and I am broadly in sympathy with his approach and insights.