I've been reading through some coaching articles that use academic approaches to state the case, and I've noticed the need that is put out that coaching needs an academic basis to enhance credibility. I'm not sure about this. I've spent many years studying and working in a university context, and sometimes it's about methodology for the sake of methodology. Often it's about ego rather than real and effective change. I've seen examiners of dissertations and theses hunting for errors in the referencing system instead of testing the central argument.
One very signficant aspect of coaching is the need for intuitive clarity. Perhaps this can be modelled, and improved: proving what's clear shouldn't be necessary. When you can reduce what works to steps that can be followed, you have a recipe. I'm of the opinion that coaching is about modelling on an intuitive basis, not copying what works for someone else. Sure, excellent tools are good, and known procedures indispensable, but I cannot imagine one situation when on-the-spot decisions are irrelevant. Mindfulness, in contrast to stringent methodology, seems to be more relevant to coaching.
No comments:
Post a Comment