An interesting debate developed at the European Mentoring and Coaching Council conference at Ashridge in April. The main thrust of the debate on coach training was about positioning. One camp was heralding the value of a performance orientation to coach development, another, the learning and development approach and another the psychological. Such arguments are polarising and unhelpful.
One explanation is that there is no unifying theory of coaching and mentoring. This matters because: “There is nothing more practical than a good theory” (Lewin, 1952:169). This challenging statement from a heavyweight of change implies that there is a close relationship between theory and practice. It means that theorists need to offer new ideas to help people deal with situations and that research in the social sciences should be applied and practical.
The challenges to creating a theory are considerable because coaching and mentoring practice draws on at least five antecedents: sport; developmental psychology; psychotherapy; sociology; and philosophy. In each are mediating concepts contributing to the multiple understandings, viewpoints and mindsets in the discipline. These, in turn, create practical applications.
The academic develops critical insights into theories and comments on practical applications. Many adopt positions and create brands. The manager, however, is seeking practical solutions that will make his or her business bigger, better, cheaper, faster and more competitive.
Some coaches are tempted to construct frameworks from research. There is disappointment if things do not work out – and faddism when they do. Eventually, the fad grows beyond its capability as the market is flooded with brands. The quality diminishes with new entrants, variations of practice grow and professional bodies form to try to regulate.
The researchers offer this table (see Garvey, 2009) as a framework for discussion in the knowledge it will change. They offer it in the spirit of Phillips (2007:38): “One learns […] the value of weak theory: theories that are obviously wrong invite conversation; strong theories create a fight-or-flight situation.”
The researchers have tried to be robust in their thinking and intend to provoke conversation, rather than induce fight or flight. Let the conversation begin! n
References
R Garvey, P Stokes, D Megginson, Coaching and Mentoring: Theory and Practice, Sage, London, 2009.
S Gibb and P Hill, “From trail-blazing individualism to a social construction community; Modelling knowledge construction in coaching”, in The International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching, 4(2), 2006.
K Lewin, Field Theory in Social Science: Selected Theoretical Papers, Tavistock, London, 1952. A Phillips, “After Strachey”, in London Review of Books, 4 October 2007, pp36-8.