Leveraging the power of Alternative Interventions in Coaching – A Psychotherapy perspective

By: Shilpa Limsay

 “Presence is more than just being there” – Malcolm Forbes

“If your presence doesn’t make an impact, your absence won’t make a difference” – Unknown

While thinking about how important the “presence” of a person is in any relationship, it also struck me how in my therapy and Coaching work, my “presence” rather than the techniques or methodologies used by me, made all the difference.

It got me thinking as to how this “presence” will help set the tone for the Coach-Coachee relationship and how the relationship between Coach-Coachee is the bedrock on which the success of any Coaching engagement rests on. This belief, in turn draws its essence from the school of HUMANISTIC PSYCHOLOGY, what is alternatively referred to as the third force in psychology.

As an executive Coach who is also a practicing psychotherapist, I am fascinated by some of the similarities between the two fields at their very core.

In this article, I explore this similarity focusing especially on the importance of “presence and instincts.”

Carl Rogers, one of the pioneers of HUMANISTIC PSYCHOLOGY, advocated what is known as the “person centered approach”. Before Carl Rogers, psychological help was largely a directive, prescriptive enterprise consisting of diagnoses, advice, interpretation and authority. With Rogers’ entry, the field was irreversibly pushed in the direction of giving clients more autonomy and responsibility for their treatment. This approach emphasised the potential of humans to learn and grow when provided with the environment of a warm and nurturing relationship.

This approach was based on the assumption that human beings are essentially trustworthy, that they have immense potential for self-understanding and resolving their problems without direct intervention on the therapist’s part and that they are capable of self-directed growth. Rogers emphasised that the personal characteristics and attitudes of the therapist and the quality of client-therapist relationship as the prime determinant of the outcome of the therapy. He consistently relegated to a secondary position matters such as therapist’s knowledge of theory and techniques.

Rogers has identified three attributes that create a growth-promoting atmosphere in which clients can become what they are capable of becoming.

Congruence

Genuineness, openness to experience; the therapist is what he is and without façade.

Unconditional positive regard

The therapist cares and accepts the client as he is and praises without preconditions.

Empathic understanding

The therapist perceives the inner world of the client as if it is his own.

Research has shown that these attributes, and not the therapist’s technical knowledge and skill are drivers for therapeutic change in the client.

In Coaching too, the relationship between the Coach-Coachee is the bedrock on which the Coachee can make huge changes within himself/herself, thereby reinforcing the fact that the relationship is the fundamental part of the Coaching engagement.

I remember a Coaching engagement of mine where the Coachee was a couple of years older than me and had agreed to go through Coaching as he felt that it was an organisational mandate. He appeared to be ‘suitably enthusiastic’ about the Coaching but from the outset, I sensed an attitude of “I don’t need this” and “what will YOU teach me?” My unconscious picked this up and in turn didn’t allow me to have a feeling of unconditional positive regard for him. The Coaching engagement from there on, as can be expected, went down hill…

In hindsight, the engagement could have been put back on track by my being authentic and expressing the following feelings tentatively to him on:

1. his giving out signals that he didn’t need Coaching and
2. his pre-disposition to the belief that a Coach should be male, preferably with graying hair, if not totally bald. And unfortunately, I am neither!

By doing this, I could have started off a more open and authentic relationship with him, or the Coaching engagement could have been closed at the 1st session itself. Either way, a positive direction for the Coaching engagement.

Just the way the “presence” of a Coach/Therapist sets the tone for a relationship the two have, there is another commonality that Therapy and Coaching have – the story behind the story. Coming from the field of Applied Behavioural Science and Psychology, my view is that this concept is extremely relevant. It is imperative that the Coach examines the layers below, as not doing so, could lead to transient, surface level behavioural change.

I will illustrate this with a very interesting Coaching engagement I had with Coachee ‘A’, which is still very close to my heart…“A” was a perfectionist, and after discussions, we arrived at a sub goal where he was “to allow people to make mistakes”.

I had to delve into his family history and subsequently work through his relationship with his father. He was very resentful of his father telling him that his head was filled with “cow-dung” and he would get “nowhere” in life. He had therefore become very competitive and risen through the ranks rapidly to prove a point to his father. He had very high standards for himself and therefore others. Most of my Coaching sessions with him were spent in talking about his relationship with his father and how in his head his father’s voice kept making him feel very judged.“A” and I worked on him starting to appreciate himself for who he was in the corporate context and outside of it as a human being. We also worked on him learning to be kind to himself. In doing this for himself he first started allowing himself to make mistakes (and learn from them) and therefore others…

Would my Coaching with “A” have been possible without our opening up his layers and seeing the story behind the story?

Thirdly, I would like to demystify the world of behavioural science a bit and state how each one of us have the capability within us and can use it for our Coaching work. I believe that all of us have the natural ability to pick up certain signals – which is known as this esoteric thing called “instinct”. If certain facts can validate that instinct I would follow that line of thought.

In my Coaching assignments I have learnt to watch out for small signals that speak – does the Coachee call you up to fix appointments for the sessions, does the Coachee come on time for sessions, and does the Coachee actually embark on the actions that have been discussed in the Coaching sessions. If I have a client who is regularly coming late or “forgetting” the meeting I may bring that up with the Coachee.

I had a Coachee “B”, who seemed reluctant to meet me for the first session itself. He cancelled our session and was also procrastinating about scheduling the sessions. With some difficulty we had our first session where I asked “B” about my observation, that he didn’t seem to want to have to go through the Coaching program. He was equally honest and said that he thought that the Coaching engagement was to “correct” him. I had to explain to him that Coaching was ONLY for top performers and that he was being looked at by his company for being a part of the top talent pipeline. His entire attitude changed from then on and HE would call me to fix sessions eagerly and was very sad when our sessions ended.

We can all use our natural inherent abilities of “presence” and “instinct” to take our Coaching sessions to another level altogether. While Coaches may not be therapists, being therapeutic in their orientation in the way Carl Rogers meant it can make a huge difference. As Margaret Millar said – “Most conversations are simply monologues delivered in the presence of a witness.”

So would you like to be a witness or a presence?

Shilpa Limsay is a CEO Coach and Organisational Change Catalyst based in Bangalore