Leadership Coaching Review Blog

Chapter 3: The Power of Coaching

Chapter 3 begins with the story of Randy [31-33], a apsotolic type who writes, trains leaders, etc., which I found personally convicting. When questioned about hobbies, recreation, and fun, Randy drew a blank. I have too when asked that question. I say, "I work for fun." Or "I write for fun." But that's not really Sabbath. Randy hadn't taken a day to do nothing since 1998. It would be really hard for me to say as well. I take days off, but not to do nothing. They are full of dating activities with my wife and errands.

Incidentally, Stoltzfus makes an evaluative judgement he calls "following his intuition." He practices what I would consider a mentoring skill (or a mentoring/coaching cross-skill?) and asks a leading question: "When was the last time you took a Sabbath?" Again in the mentoring role, Stoltzfus assigns some Biblical research as homework without working Randy through the required conversation for Randy to develop that solution on his own [32]. This is not problematic, but it does show me that even in coaching, strict forms are not so important and modes and roles can be fluid. The point is to do more listening, give the other person more responsibility, etc. Again, we may adopt the values, but be more flexible than a one approach person.

I thought Stoltzfus did a better job in this chapter of making this a strategy for leadership development. At least he used the term 'leader' more. That makes me more comfortable, because I do not see coaching as fully applicable in every situation. Again, it is how you work with the mature, or how you work with people in areas where they are mature.

Again, I am wondering about Stoltzfus' theology, but this time his theology of change. I agree, with his statement that:

transformation doesn't primarily come from classes, seminars, books or large-group ministry events (which are all informational), but through significant relationships that influence us and pivotal life experiences [33].

But this answer does not take into consideration a couple of things. First, it does not filter out our materialistic pragmatism. If you ask people what's wrong with their life, they will tell you the material reasons for their problems. But it unlikely they will tell you the spiritual causes of their problems. So if you ask a group of leaders what influenced them, and they are assuming that to be material, you'll get a certain answer.

For example, in my theology of change, I would see encountering the Word as part of the essential change process. I would also see the participation of God, especially in the Spirit, as central. The former happened in Randy's process [32], but Stoltzfus gives the credit to "a close relationship with his coach and the right question at the right moment" [36]. True, these were factors, but his lack of recognition of revelation's influence concerns me.

Second, it doesn't take into account memory markers. Most people who have studied change agree that it happens over very long periods of time gradually, but that we tend to pick events in our minds as turning points ascribing to them credit for the change. For example, ask someone, "when did you become a man?" He will likey give a punctiliar event, while it was, in reality a many-year process.

Let me say why this is important, in my opinion. Stoltzfus closes out this chapter by telling the story of a Fortune 50 executive who discovered the effectiveness of coaching in the office. He then provide this commentary on why coaching works better than top-down leadership:

As a leader, your ability to compel others to follow you simply because you are the leader isn't what it used to be. People expect to be listened to. They want to have a say, to understand the vision and have a chance to buy into it -- much more than they did a generation or two ago [46].

Welcome to postmodernity, where heroes and authorities have been de-constructed and debunked. People have lost their faith in the establishment, and instead they place their faith mostly in themselves, and somewhat on relationships, provided they have a certain feel. Putting coaching into this cultural context is good contextualization, but like most contextualization, it is a razor's width away from accomidation.

Sure, it might be great for people to self-identify problems and solutions [40-41]. But we may be pandering to a post-modern liability, namely the radical individualization of truth. The Kingdom implies a conquest of our hearts that is achieved by submission. It is submission to authority, as the language implies, not simply attentiveness to influence. The point is, we each have personal kingdoms we will defend and which the Kingdom is trying to trump. One of the most persistent and yet dangerous competitors with the Kingdom of the Heavens is our strategies for life. A person who only coaches will be blindsided by these strategies precisely becuase of how the method works. Absolutizing coaching as the only form of ministry, or over applying it could allow these kingdoms to remain unchallenged (unless we do what Randy's coach did -- confronting and Word-reality check). We must remember, that while Jesus preached the Kingdom to the crowds, he practiced it with his disciples, and this involved a lot of commanding, telling, etc. (and some coaching too) [44]. To make Jesus into a coach simply can't be supported. It may work as a contextualization of the Gospel, but it is not it.

Again, if people are mature enough to be passionate Kingdom seekers already, they are ready for coaching. Otherwise, we are in danger of overapplying it. Better to fit it into a spectrum than make it the whole deal.

Also, I would like to make one note again on where this might fit into the simple church movement. I think many of the things Stoltzfus points out are excellent. I really like S.E.A. [38] and I.D.E.A.L. [42] as processes. The values and skills are a must for a caring, loving Christian. But for simple church partitioners we need to move these into the position of skills of spiritual friendship and nurture and drop their association with a special role or title. Professionalizing these skills is not a good idea. Attaching them to a particular role may not be either. It needs to fall in the process of maturing everyone -- every disciple, or it will lead to cultish over-under relations or a specialized clergy class very quickly.

posted by soulster @ 8:24 PM