Following on from other contributions on the topic of competence, Bob Garvey argues for a return to the values of humanism
Discourses are employed in order to shape social contexts. Coaching, located within a business context, is influenced by that context and the main discourse of business management is the ‘rational pragmatic’ (Garvey & Williamson, 2002).
This means certain ways of thinking and behaving are valued and others are not. For example, the management discourse values a reductionist perspective and is concerned with simplification of the complex and celebration of the practical.
Arguably, many professional bodies are populated by people who subscribe to the management discourse outlined above and it is often argued that coaching is radically under-theorised (Brunner, 1998; Garvey 2011). Clearly this is not a problem for the ‘rational pragmatic’ manager because theory is devalued in the managerial discourse as practicality is elevated.
However, according to Lewin (1951:169) “there is nothing as practical as a good theory”. Therefore, whether managers like it or not, there is always a theory behind a discourse.
One common theory of learning is that it is a social activity and not a solo performance.
In many organisations, including professional bodies, what constitutes learning is dominated by the rational pragmatic discourse. This creates a model of learning, which in turn leads to a model of assessment. Enter competence frameworks, the preferred model of coaching assessment by many professional bodies and a solo performance model!
These frameworks specify ‘what’ should be learned and they construct pre-specified codes, often positioned as learning outcomes or descriptors. Then the learner is taught these and tested to see if they have learned it.
This ‘technicists’ approach to learning is one that we have become so used to that we no longer notice it; it has become a dominating discourse with an overwhelming rationality and practicality that makes absolute sense to the rational pragmatic mindset.
The problem with the technicist approach is that we simply learn what is pre-specified and then feel that we have ‘arrived’ and developed ‘expertise’ or competence. This approach ignores ‘how’ we learn, which is curious given that learning through social interaction in coaching is key to its success.
However, arrival is also an end point. The EMCC states that coach or mentor should not perform “beyond the limits of their competence” (Barnett, 1994).
This is a curious statement. It suggests there is indeed an end point and without specifying it, implies that every coach and mentor should know where that is.
In a recent coaching encounter with an established client, I became aware that something was not right. The client had a history of mental health problems and dark, very dark thoughts were being voiced to me. Was I at the limits of my competence? What to do?
Point 1:
In recognising that this was occurring, I was being very competent I referred to our ground rules and said that I was feeling uneasy about these disclosures.
Point 2:
Again, very competent I also said that I was happy (well maybe not happy!) to listen to what he wanted to say.
Point 3:
Very competent to maintain my good relationship and not stop the discussion and cast the client off When the client finished, they said they wondered if they needed to contact their psychiatrist.
I agreed and the client asked me to stay while he called his psychiatrist’s secretary. We closed the session and the client thanked me and said that they felt better that I had listened and that their burden had been reduced.
Our relationship was maintained and reinforced. The client was supported and helped by being listened to. Territory was not invaded.
So, a complex situation for which the EMCC competence framework provides little help, only an unexplained and undeveloped rule. The limit of competence perhaps?
It could be different
Many argue that coaching has its roots in a person-centred humanism philosophy. This central tenet of person-centred humanism is about an ethical and democratic way of being. It is about individuals having the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives.
It recognises the human potential to act in an ethical way to build a more humane society through a sense of free enquiry and the infinite capacity for people to learn and develop. It is an inclusive philosophy and deeply challenging to operationalise.
So what is an alternative to competence?
One way forward is to return to the underpinning values of humanism, recognising that the managerial discourse does not hold all the answers. This would mean that assessment of a coach’s ability would necessarily become dynamic, situational, peer-led within social contexts and ongoing.
Therefore, CPD becomes essential rather than supervision, for example.
Observations of practice, discussions about practice, sharing of experiences and critical reflection leading to reflexivity become essential in the recognition that coaching is an ongoing learning process.
A coach would not ‘arrive’ when ‘passing’, but would be developing a way of life and a way of relating. Assessment would therefore be continuous, embedded in practice and peer led.
Are we ready for that or are the dominant voices just too dominant? Time will tell.
References
- R Barnett, The Limits of Competence, London: Open University Press & Society for Research into Higher Education, 1994
- R Brunner, ‘Psychoanalysis and coaching’, in Journal of Management Psychology, 13(7), pp515-517, 1998
- B Garvey, A Very Short, Fairly Interesting and Reasonably Cheap Book about Coaching and Mentoring, London: SAGE Publications, 2011
- K Lewin, Field Theory in Social Science: selected theoretical papers, in Cartwright, D (Ed.), New York: Harper & Brothers, 1951