Over time coaches develop their own style that suits how they approach coaching sessions. They may choose different coaching models and tools to build those sessions around. Many of the choices a coach makes are drawn out from their own experience and intuition (Thomson B., 2009). One choice that coaches perhaps do not give a huge amount of their time to, is how directive they are as a coach. Do they allow the coachee to come up with their own solutions, or do they suggest outcomes from their own mind?
There are of course benefits to both approaches, and the choice of which approach to take could well be driven by natural communication style. Bob Thomson suggests in his book that the main difference between the two approaches is the degree of push and pull used by the coach. Push and pull is not a new concept in the business world, it is often used to describe how information is shared, it is either pushed to those that require it or pulled down by those that feel they need it.
In a coaching sense the push element is the coach solving someone’s problems for them, with the coach giving instructions, advice, providing feedback and offering guidance. This form of coaching could be incredibly useful when working with a less experienced client who may not be able to identify a solution or perhaps a coachee that is lacking some level of self-awareness. It is argued by Hui & Chan (2009) that this approach may minimise the recipients learning as it discourages mistakes and provides explicit answers to questions.
The pull element however sees the coach acting as a facilitator, taking much more of a listening stance during sessions and using summarising and paraphrasing and good questioning technique to build understanding and raise the awareness of the coachee, ultimately leading to the client finding their own solution to their problem. Active listening and good questioning technique are key attributes for this approach.
When viewing these two methodologies they could almost be described as transactional and transformational in their respective approaches. With the key to coaching being to raise awareness and responsibility, understanding these two approaches will leave a coach with greater understanding of which approach to use in which situations.
As discussed previously, it may be the case that deciding how directive to be during a coaching session is perhaps not always at the forefront of a coaches mind. But rather something that happens naturally depending on the prevailing circumstances of the conversation. It may well be that coaches actually operate on a sliding scale of directiveness throughout sessions, depending on the type of coaching that is taking place. On one side we have skills coaching which in truth is more directive in nature as it involves a high degree of instruction, at the opposite end of the scale we have development coaching which is more non-directive as it is focussed on self-awareness and reflection. Performance coaching sits somewhere in the middle with a balance of styles being used.
Action Point
Consider logging some of your interactions with peers or subordinates where you have utilised either a directive or non-directive approach. Complete the checklist table and think about how you could alter these interactions in the future.