Trust In Coaching

Out of the comments and emails about the Attributes of Master Coaching piece, the common theme I saw was trust, which makes sense because it is a core issue from childhood that carries throughout life.  The core issues include trust, autonomy (resourcefulness & skill) and initiative (relating to others effectively).   

Now, I did try to capture this issue in the second to last item on the list…

Fully invested in the coached employee’s (or athlete’s) positive outcome.

Leading Courageously

Integrity / Trust 

Relationship Builder

 …but since so many have highlighted the importance, it probably bears further exploration.

First, perhaps we can discuss what is means to be “fully invested in the coachee’s positive outcome.”  It’s easy to see how this can end up being defined differently by coach vs. coachee where the coach is focused on a winning team or on performance while valuing other quality of life issues less than the coachee. 

When does an obstacle to be overcome on the path to target performance become a critical variable that warrants redefinition of the target?  It’s difficult to say exactly when this is the case and could easily vary from individual to individual, but it is important that the coach and coachee be on the same page.  As I emailed to a good friend regarding this topic: “That’s why plan refinements are so important because life is full of curve balls.”

So say we have a coach who is really good at specific performance improvement at the expense of theirs and the coachee’s overall quality of life.  Would that coach still be considered a master coach?  Different people might answer that question differently.  I tend to side on the idea that a true Master Coach takes the longer view, which is going to include an element of sustainability of performance and positioning the coachee to leverage near term gains toward a much longer term life plan.  All while optimizing short range performance.  I’d argue that it is the coach with a longer time horizon that would be able to do this best.

These concerns are also present in child-rearing, as I referenced above in the mention of core decisions.  A well-timed nurturing response is just the right thing to move someone forward, as Jennifer Harrison has found in her coaching experience.  It’s the first lesson an infant learns—whether the environment is safe and nurturing or not to be trusted.  I’ve read oodles of parenting material that quote studies that demonstrate we reach the highest from a stable platform.  Another way to say this is if we know we have support if we fall, we’ll take more chances.  As parents (and coaches), we can’t protect someone from all of the vagaries of the harsh world, but we can provide support that enhances the freedom to learn. 

This is not to say that more nurturing and support is always better.  Too much coddling negatively impacts autonomy just like described in this article about over-parenting. The key to masterful coaching/parenting is knowing when to nurture, when to challenge, and when to let the learning process proceed unimpeded.  Excellence at the process of coaching is one thing.  Knowing how to best respond to each individual in a sea of continuously changing variables is where the true mastery lies. 

I would propose that some emotional intelligence competencies are critical in doing this well.  Here’s the labels from the book Executive EQ: Emotional Intelligence in Leadership and Organizations by Robert Cooper and Ayman Sawaf.  Can you see how the consistent expression of these capabilities can turn an adequate coach into a great coach?  For reference, the competencies are organized by cornerstone, with the cornerstones listed in order of necessity.  For example, can you really have authentic presence if you don’t first have emotional honesty and emotional energy?

So back to the issue of trust.  Trust is generated when coach and coachee goals are consistent with each other.  As a personal anecdote, I can compare my middle and high school swim coach with the coaching at UGA.  The swim coach in my younger years was most interested in developing the youth into self-sufficient, disciplined athletes and adults.  Never did I get the impression that performance was required at the expense of personal issues.  Those of us who trained the hardest did it because we wanted to (or were pressured by parents in some cases), but not because he mandated it. 

My experience as a walk on at UGA was quite different.  The lead coach was concerned about developing a winning, top tier team and put his energies into his star players.  I was given the opportunity to see if I could cut it, but the program was what it was.  The onus was on me to bring my game up to the level of the program, not to optimize my personal performance.  The result was overtraining and burn out for me, but without any resentment because I understood the situation going into it.  If I wanted my swimming to continue to be a huge priority in my life, I would have gone to a DII or DIII school with a swimming program.  UGA has a stellar swimming program, just not the best program for me.

So why did I bother defining what makes a great coach?  There was an interesting discussion on the USAT list on LinkedIn about whether it makes sense to add non-technical coaching skills to the certification courses.  There were two basic belief systems reflected in the responses:  1. people either have coaching ability or not through some magical combination of childhood role models and genetic gifts,  and 2. coaching is a skill that can be improved through deliberate practice of the appropriate skills. I’m w/ #2, which is pretty evident in the biased wording I chose.  If #2 is indeed correct, then there’s significant value in coaching coaches.  Yes, I agree that temperament and personality play a role in a coach’s coaching talents, but just like in triathlon, just because we don’t start with the best genetic predisposition and related skills learned in childhood doesn’t mean that we can’t become very adept triathletes with enough of the right kind of deliberate practice.  Why wouldn’t coaching be the same?

Be Sociable, Share!

•