Coaching is being used widely to promote learning and growth. In health and wellness, we know that our clients are more likely to achieve lasting changes in lifestyle behaviours, In the corporate world, coaching can improve the smooth running of the organisation, produce higher productivity and potentially more profit. In schools, better learning and student performance have been seen and in the medical world, Doctors nurses and other healthcare professionals are “connecting” more with their patients. We know that coaching works, we also know that a lot is done in the name of coaching that isn’t necessarily following the key principles of the coaching model.
After listening to Richard Boyatzis speak late last year at a conference, I recently read a report on his research which provides hard evidence of the effects of coaching on a person’s brain, by using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). I felt excited enough to pass this on as we often struggle to explain and justify why coaching is a better approach.
To create any change, it is essential for a person to be able to imagine possibilities. How could things be different? Often the first question we ask is, “How would you like things to be?” Depending on what has gone before, or how resistant a person is to change, this question can produce widely differing results.
“Coaching with compassion” is a term coined by the researchers, Richard Boyatzis and Anthony Jack which emphasizes focusing on the individual’s own goals, rather than following the coaches' agenda. Their research is aimed at showing how coaching, (in its purest sense) can open up the coached person’s brain to “consider possibilities” and hence, increase learning, rather than to become defensive and close down. This will often happen in a typical performance review when the individual is asked to focus on their deficiencies and weaknesses.
By seeking to arouse a “positive Emotional Attractor” a coach can help create positive emotions and the consideration of change. If the coach tries to “fix” the problem or emphasizes flaws or other shortcomings, the opposite will happen the Negative Emotional Attractor will be activated., diminishing the possibility of change or learning.
The experiments involved groups of students who were coached by two people using very different styles. One coach asked questions which focused on envisaging a positive future and the other focused on “a person’s failing and what they ought to do”. The brain scanner was used a week later when the students were shown a video of the coach they had seen the previous week. Sure enough, 7 days later, the students who interacted with the more “compassionate” coach had more positive brain activity – what they refer to as “visioning” – ie contemplating possibilities then those who had worked with a more negatively focused “coach”. (Not a coach as far as I’m concerned!) The other interesting fact was that even when neutral questions were asked, the initial interaction still affected the students’ responses. Which shows that by simply talking to a person about their desired, personal vision for 30 minutes, that interpersonal relationship will produce a positive response when the person chats to the coach about even neutral topics.
HOW CAN WE SIMPLIFY THESE FINDINGS?
Whatever position you hold, when you interact with a client, an employee, a team member, with the view of helping them improve some area of their life or work, if you focus on deficiencies, shortcomings or failings, or approach them with your solution, you will shut down their ability to even imagine a change, let alone create one! However, if we engage with them in a positive, facilitative manner that helps them envisage a more positive future, their brain will switch on in a completely different way and the likelihood of their moving forward is so much greater.
What better evidence to support a shift to a coaching approach and the need to train more people in coaching skills?
