The Theory of Coaching

At the beginning of the last century, two men raced to be the first to make it to the the South Pole - Roald Amundsen and Robert Scott.  While Amundsen used dogs to make his journey, Scott decide to make use of ponies and motorized sleds. What shaped their decisions on how to make it to the South Pole? Their different set of experiences and the ability to learn from them. Authors Sengupta and Heyden in their blog, The Leadership Lessons of the Race to the South Pole,  describe how these differences doomed Scott and handed success to Amundsen.

From his own experience as well as those of others,  Amundsen learnt that successful explorers are cautious. They remain flexible, and are ready to adapt targets and plans in light of conditions. When conditions are not right, it is better to turn back rather than rely on hope and luck. He believed that bad luck is often the result of insufficient preparation. This was his theory. 

On the other hand, Scott was a naval officer most of his life. Although he was to become synonymous with the Antarctic, his ill-fated 1911 venture was only his second polar expedition. However, despite the lack of experience of such climates, Scott was disinclined to rely others who knew similar terrain. Among the decisions which were to prove fatal for him, was the one not to use dogs for sledges, despite advice from both Amundsen and the pioneering polar explorer Fritjof Nansen. Instead, he relied on two options that had not been tested in polar conditions: ponies and motorized sledges. Neither proved well adapted. Scott's military background also played its part. Like all military men he was competitive. Since he was engaged in a race, he pressed on, despite worsening weather conditions.Scott compounded these decisions by making logistical and organizational mistakes that reflected a failure to appreciate from his previous experience just how unforgiving polar conditions are. 

When people face uncertainty, say Sengupta and Heyden, experience, the ability to learn from it, obsessive planning, and a willingness to alter course will trump determination and courage every time.

Shaping Theories from Experiences

Growth, as an American entrepreneur once famously said, means change and involves risk, stepping from the known to the unknown. In The Growth Imperative, author Clay Christensen a professor at Harvard, writes of how we often admire the intuition that successful entrepreneurs seem to have stepping from the known to the unknown, and build growth businesses. When they exercise their intuition about what actions will lead to the desired results, they  really  are  employing  theories  that  give  them  a  sense  of  the  right  thing  to  do  in  various circumstances.  These  theories  were  not  there  at  birth:  They  were  learned  through  a  set  of experiences and mentors earlier in life, as did Amundsen. 

According to Christensen, what brings predictability  to  any  field  is  a  body  of  well-researched  theory—contingent  statements  of  what causes what and why. Executives often discount the value of management theory because it is associated with the word theoretical, which connotes impractical. But theory is consummately practical. The law of gravity, for example, actually is a theory—and it is useful. It allows us to predict that if we step off a cliff, we will fall. 

Even  though  most  managers  don’t  think  of  themselves  as  being  theory  driven,  they  are  in reality  voracious  consumers  of  theory.  Every  time  managers  make  plans  or  take  action,  it  is based  on  a  mental  model  in  the  back  of  their  heads  that  leads  them  to  believe  that  the  action being       taken       will       lead       to       the       desired       result. Amundsen's mental model was dogs and skis should speed his journey to the South Pole. Scott's was different - which led to his decision to use motorized sleds and ponies.  

The       problem, writes Christensen, is  managers  are  rarely  aware  of  the  theories  they  are  using—and  they  often  use  the  wrong theories  for  the  situation  they  are  in.  It  is the absence of conscious, trustworthy theories of cause and effect that makes success in building new businesses seem random. No  matter  how  well  articulated  a  concept  or  insight  might  be,  it  must  be shaped and modified, often significantly, as it gets fleshed out into a winning business plan.

Rarely  does  an  idea  for  a  new-growth  business  emerge  fully  formed  from  a manager's head. And this is where a business coach comes in. He helps clients to shape and modify his theories and construct well formed mental models.  

                                                                                         Source: Quantum Leap

Unlike the Therapist, Consultant and the Trainer, who use prescriptive processes, a Coach (both Life and Business) helps his client clarify, construct and validate theories through a 3-stage generative process.

1. Co-create descriptions, or characterizations of the phenomenon client wishes to understand.
2. Co-create classifications of the phenomenon into categories in order to highlight the most meaningful differences.
3. Co-create articulation of a theory of what causes the phenomenon to occur and why

Through this generative process, the coach helps clients avoid forming both life and management theories. The result - minimal chances of client observing one or two successes, assuming they have seen enough and proceeding impatiently to implement them.


And perhaps, end up committing mistakes such as those of Robert Scott.

Links

1. A Chapter from Christensen's The Growth Imperative
2. The Leadership Lessons of the Race to the South Pole
3. The Difference Between Coaching and Consulting. 
4. How the Coach Helped the Keen to Grow Butterfly.