Chapter 5: A Coach's Eye View of Life
You may gasp in shock, but I found little to pick at in chapter 5. I think that's because I agree with the values and practice of coaching, even if I disagree with Stoltzfus' placement of it in theology and philosophy of ministry. So now that's he's talking about coaching itself, I'm with him nearly 100%.
The chapter opens to Brett's story, a reitred military officer who is working towards a second career in law. The pressures of career change and relocation are squashing him, and he's thinking he chose the wrong path long ago. Now, Stoltzfus does something interesting at this point in their conversation. Rather than just question Brett on his choices and direct him towards his own solutions, Stoltzfus reframes the issue for him:
Here's what I see. For the first time in twenty-some years, you're asking fundamental questions about your destiny. You've told me you want to learn how to pray so you can hear what God has for you instead of just following what seems logical. You mentioned that you and your wfie had been struggling for years, but for the first time you've gotten help and you're working with a counselor. And now you've hired me as a coach to help you dig in and discover what you should be doing with the rest of your life. God seems to be much more a part of thinking and actions than he was three years ago. From where I sit, you are more in the center of God's will for your life than you've ever been. [62]
I do not think classic coaching method, in its humanistic/secular origins would advocate this kind of value-based evaluation by Stoltzfus. But it's really ingenious and just what Brett needs. Because this is Christian coaching, there must always be a revelatory/prophetic role that the coach plays which is absent in secular coaching. Sometimes it will be to ask questions steering people back to the revelation they have already encountered. Sometimes it will be like this -- providing a voice that reframes and in so doing encourages prophetically. In either case, we are playing a cooperative role with the Spirit who reminds bleivers of the revelation they have encountered in Jesus.
Part of the genius of coaching combiuned with this prophetic stance is that it takes a complete look at life and sees conflict and difficulty as essential to growth [63]. While almost everyone agree with this theortically, our service to people is often designed to remove pain, stress, pressure, and difficulty. This is counter productive. Coaching can teach the pastorially gifted, the apostolic, and the spiritual friend to take the right stance in regrads to pain and difficulty in the life of another. What we are asked to do by God is be faithful. Don't remove pain or problems, but be a witness, providing support, courage, and a sounding board. Just as God seldom removes pain from lives, but instead joins people in their pain, we too should mimic him.
Stoltzfus gets into eschatology when he begins to talk about the big picture of Christian destiny [64-65]. And he should, since eschatology determines mission, to some extent, and our destiny is all about mission. Stoltzfus joins a growing number of people rejecting a static view of the afterlife: it is not eternal retirment, or endless harp strumming on clouds. We are being trained to do God knows what in the coming ages. This is a useful eschatology, one shared by the likes of Dallas Willard and N.T. Wright. I would, however, recommend that Stoltzfus transitions from the use of heaven to an eschatology of new heavens and a new earth, since that fits more with the biblical texts supporting this view. Just a minor adjustment of language that will strengthen his position textually.
Another on the money statement by Stoltzfus is:
Transformational coaching produces far-reaching change because it prioritizes who you are becoming over what you are doing [66].
While what you are doing is still somewhat important, who you are is far more the point. This is an important change in thinking about God's will and our lives. Generally speaking, we tend to objectify everything, including ourselves, so our focus becomes right outcomes. We want to know which way God wants us to go because we want to be successful, and thus be fulfilled by who we are instrumentally. Rather, we should strive to know how God wants us to relate to him and others in our current context, so we are fulfilled intrinsically. The difference is, process becomes more important than outcomes, though they are important, just much less so. You could make a large number of different decisions at any given point and still be in God's will provided how you made the decision (process) was correct. This is far more real, redemptive, and helpful then our usual "one prefect path" view of God's will.
I also like Chapter 5's emphasis on responsbility [67-68]. Stoltzfus is right in tying leadership capacity to responsiblity [67]. This is Christ's view of things. However, I would encourage us to think of relational resposibility, rather than task-oriented responsibility. Someone doing a church job is not as developmentally effective as being faithful to a relationship God has given them. Most of us have enough task-responsibility at work, which may mean we need some coaching there, but we need much help developing relational responsibility from our faith community. This is counter-cultural since even families are generally publics and not communities and rampant individualism and autonomy short-circuit this. This starts with their relationship to themselves, as Stoltzfus points out: "'leaders take responsibility' for their own growth" [68]. Next, they should take responsibility for their relationships to friends and family members, serving and introducing task responsibility only as it relates to that service.
I would also like to add a hearty "amen" to Stoltzfus' view of Christian destiny [70-71].
Chapter 4: The Heart of a Coach
I think Stoltzfus' point that you must learn more than methods -- that it is an issue of the heart -- is a point well taken [47-48]. Especially in a day and age where authenticity is a premium, but highly valued. People are getting quite good at seeing through mechanical performances to our real motivations and character.
I am still struggling with the language of believing in people. I believe in Christ working in people, and I believe things about people, but I'm not sure I place much faith upon people themselves. Perhaps I'm missing the point here. Stoltzfus talks about seeing people as God sees them and quotes some great passages. However, there are some subtlities that make me squirm. For example:
God's response to us was totally out of keeping with what we looked like on the surface [49].
"On the surface" bothers me. Our problem was not a surface problem. We were not diamonds in the mud in need of polishing. We were corrupted in our inmost person. So when Stoltzfus asks the question, "what did God see in you when he made that incomprehensible choice?" [49], I answer "nothing". Stoltzfus answer is "grace and destiny," and it's the association of these things with "in you" that bother me. Neither of them are in us to begin with. They are in God. He did it because he was "looking" into himself. Grace and destiny are in Christ and only come to us as Christ enters us.
Likewise, I am uncomfortable with statements like, "honoring a person's capacity to run their own life" [56]. The implication of the Kingdom is that I should only honor a person's willingness to allow God to run their life.
OK, now on to what I agree with. These values statements by Stoltzfus couldn't be more right on:
- God initiates change using every life using every life experience to develop our character and perpare us for our destiny [50].
- As coaches [I read Christians], we consciously choose to interact with our clients [brothers and sisters] in terms of their destiny, not their problems [51].
- The three most crucial disciplines of believing in people [I would say knowing people] are: listening, asking questions, and keeping the client [person] responsible [55].
I think Stoltzfus is right in saying that heart changes go: skills - disciplines - heart [57]. But here we must be very careful. When talking about transformation of this kind, we must ask, what are we transforming into? For me, I'll be taking a look at the skills a little bit as we go because some of the statements I've been concerned about in the last few posts sound philosophically humanistic. It's probably just a case of overstatement and lack of clarification. But, I've been too materialistic (in the philosophical sense) and humanistic most of my life, so I do not want to transform into that.
I could go into my thoughts on "Imitating the Way God Deals with Us" [58-59], but most it is the same issues I've been raising, so I won't be repeating them.
I would like to say that I have heard from several people (inclunding those commenting on this blog) a more appropriate theological grounding and better sense of coaching in the spectrum of ministry. There is also an acknowledgment of some of the hype associated with the usual presentations, namely statements like "Jesus was a coach" and "the Spirit is a coach." That is a tremendous relief and makes me think we may be able to use this wonderful strategy to correct some of our values, objectives, and practices without it become a monster that bites us in the butt.
In Defense of Criticism
Before I get into my thoughts on Chapter 4, I would like to put in a short defense of criticism. It seems I am coming off as "riled up," as Chadd put it, and some people who have been around me when I do this have even said that I seem unloving (this was a criticism in San Antonio). For my perspective, that is not the case. I view my criticism as service. I love coaching. And even more, I love the people that I will influence with it. That is why it is essential, at least for me, to test it through and through. It is because of my love for both of theses that I do this.
History teaches, at least how I see it, that there are two ways that Satan usually poisons God-movements. One, he attacks the character of the catalysts. While it's not right for me to critique other's characters, I will critique me own vigorously, and will mention observations where I think others should think if critigue is needed. Two, through the principles and ideas attached to the Gospel -- through the expedients that get the job done. Therefore, I will criticize every one of these. I think this is the role of the prophetic in a potential movement such as ours. Apostolicly gifted people could often care less. They are interested in moving forward. While that is understandable, God has given prophetically gifted people for health as we move forward. Few people have intended to start cults, heresies, and corrupt movements. But the errors of the pinoneers are multiplied and magnified in those who proceed them. Our own heritage should be proof enough of that.
I would call for a witness Jeremiah. During the reign of Josiah, one of the few good kings after David, there was a move towards revival [2 Cr 34-35]. The temple was restored, the law found, the people recommitted. But Jeremiah, while he knew Josiah was legit, criticized that people saying they were just following the king, but their hearts weren't with it [Jer 3:6-10]. His criticism was mostly ignored, the weaknesses subverted the movement, and the revival never really happened. Josiah died, his successor was evil, and the nation sped towards the exile.
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.
Chapter 2: What is coaching? Part II
I really like the fact that Stoltzfus is explaining the process using Doug as an example. That really works better than pure theory.
I think it might also be important to note, given all my critical comments, that I believe in and practice coaching skills, though I do not always do so in the context of strict coaching (in fact I don't do too much that is strictly one discipline or method) and would not generally label them coaching skills. Just to make this clear, I got all the trigger statements in the exploratory conversation. Not bragging. Just letting you know I'm not blowing this off. I think, given the way I'm reacting, it would be reasonable for my co-readers to provide a little accountability.
I firmly believe in intuitive listening [21]. I think it is a skill that is absolutely essential to life and mission. However, we chould be careful not to make it the sole property of coaching, or not work it into many daily manifestations outside of coaching relationships. For example, I have heard many people refer to intuitive listening in the grocery store line as "coaching." It is listening, but given the absence of time and the complete process, it does not, in my understanding equal coaching.
Again, Stoltzfus is making statements that are theologically hard to back up. For example, I would challenge any Christian anthropology that claims:
People can solve their own problems [21].
While it may be that Christianity needs to move away from "clergy can solve everyone's problems" and "professionals can solve your problems," I wouldn't go so far as to endourse the statement above. What are we talking about? Humanism or Spirituality? If the former, sure, humans can solve their own problems. If the latter, no they cannot. They can only solve problems in the context of participation with God. (Everything that is not faith is sin.) Therefore, prayer, meditation, and all spiritual disciplines must be part of the process. Likewise, you might want to encounter revelation somehow. Maybe Doug's example is just one and these things are assumed, but as far as coaching encapsulates much of the decision process, it concerns me that these are not present. Coaching without these is humanistic and will lead to deism, methodologically if not ontologically.
I would agree with Stotlzfus that coaching works in cross-cultural situations [22]. In NYC, I have worked with several people from different cultures to plant churches. All of them have been older than me, and a few have been more educated then me. In almost all cases, it is impossible for me to be an authority, though, given relational effort, I can be an influence. (Yep, I agree with Stoltzfus that influence is more important than authority [28].) It has worked well. However, there are difficulties present because I do not have influence in certain areas -- especially in regards to information.
I'm wondering a little bit about why we need "coaching" as a container at all. It is likely to become a subculture of its own that will bite us in the rear. Why couldn't we just add ministry values like: Intuitive listening [21], exploratory questioning [23], valuing personally unique spiritual development [23]? Then we can simply develop methods to express these values. Doing so might be more reproducible in the long-run.
I will say that "Let the client do the thinking [25]" is important. Actually "let the other person do _______" is a really great rule. I think it is an ethical implication of Jesus' calls to practice non-manipulation and non-coercion and his methodology in involving his followers in his ministry. However, coaching is not an answer to Jesus' art of doing beside someone. Currently, there are few places in Christianity were co-mission is practiced, which should be a great concern given its centrality to theology and Jesus' practice. This is perhaps where I am the most frustrated with my own methodology at the moment.
Again, I'm not sure I agree with Stoltzfus' anthropology or philosophy of ministry when he says:
Letting go of responsibility is what allows you to believe in the client unconditionally [29].
For one thing, I question how releasing responsibility is Christ-like. While I agree we are not to blame for mistakes people make in the growth process, responsibility has little to do with blame. It is the "ability to respond," and if we give than up, I'm not sure we follow a Jesus who said, "I haven't lost any that you've given me." (No blame, because it didn't include Judas, but faithfulness shown in remaining in a position to respond.) Likewise, I'm not sure how much we should believe in people. Sure we can believe in them as they participate with God. But without participation, humans are broken and incomplete.
Now, I understand Stotlzfus isn't quite meaning things the way I'm taking them. He's assuming all I'm saying. But that's just the problem. Such assumptions only work in a shared matrix of experience. As soon as this process is taught in a context that does not assume this, it will lead to bad things. Both inside and outside the church, this context (of mature, spiritual people) is pretty rare. I think this book and methodological package is ripe for a movement like the simple church to pick it up, apply it too broadly, legalize it, condemn those who don't use it and be a bonofied cult (think ICoC [
wiki]).
Stoltzfus makes my point about relationship in the last post pretty well:
Coaching is relationship... the biggest reason Christians in general experience so little transformation in their lives is that they ignore the Bible's relational mandate for how to effect change [29].
I would like for us to be careful, however, with making coaching
all the solution. We should not professionalize spiritual friendships, nor make it something for which you need special training , other than working out the Gospel in your life. Much of what Stoltzfus talks about rightly belongs to friends and co-journiers as their responsibility, and to the care and discernment power of community. And, yes, "fulfilling your destiny is only possible in community [29]" is true, but coaching=learning community may not be. Coaching can occur in a learning community, but a learning community should not be assumed when two individuals get on the phone and one moves the other through a goal-seeking process.
I know. I'm doing just what Stoltzfus doesn't want me to do. I'm straining out methodologies, values, and techniques from coaching, but not really buying in like he wants. Sure, he and others will say I have to take the whole package or it won't work. Before I do, he'll have to convince me in more ways than using glowing testimonials, repetion, and bold, but theologically unsupported statements. Until he shows me why it should be moved to the core, it is just methodology. Otherwise, it will have the same idolatrous effects as group theory did when it was the latest fad. Sure, it made a great tool. But when we placed it at the center, it became a cruel master, bending us to itself and distracting us from the pursuit of God with fake fixes, psuedo-life, and false or unchristian community.
Can coaching help you follow Jesus? Sure. Can it help you reach your individualistic life goals? Yes. But we must learn to know the difference between these two, and so far American Christianity has faltered much in this distinction.
Chapter 1: What is Coaching?
Throughout chapter 1, Stoltzfus differentiates between other modes of ministry and coaching, namely mentoring and counseling. This is very helpful. A sort of definition in terms. For example, concerning coaching and counseling he says:
...counseling tends to concentrate on helping people get well, whereas coaching works with healthy people who want to further improve their lives [14].
He also makes it a point to say:
Note that the coaching approach is not superior to the counseling approach, or vice versa. Both are valid, useful and different. Which one you use depends on the person you are working with and what you're attempting to accomplish [15].
It would seem to me that this would indicate coaching is not an complete ministry paradigm, counter to the position in the first part's introduction. If you can change from counseling to coaching when the situation requires, how much has it become an identity -- i.e. who you are. I think I would recommend Stoltzfus tone down his original rhetoric in favor of advocating a really important methodology, rather than a complete ministry overhaul in exclusion of all other methodologies.
Eventually, I think practioners will have to ask this question.
Are we talking about diversifying our methodolgies or specializing vocationally? This will especially have to be asked in the simple church and missional movements. If coaching does not cover everything in ministry, we cannot just replicate coaches and view ourselves as having equipped the church. The principles of simplicity and reproducability would be against specialization if coaching is one highly trained role (which it is if you look at the list on page 4).
If, instead, we should diversify our methodolgies with coaching, it must be paired down to be reproducable in every apostolically sent disciple. In other words, it would be better if it was communicated as a missional communication ethic or in the base narrative (though this is a challenge if we use the Bible as narrative, esp. because coaching is not extremely prevelent in the methodology of Jesus).
In another issue, I was wondering if you can make evaluations in coaching. For example, on page 14, there is this comment:
I agree--I've always known you to have a great work ethic, and I think being able to dream can only make you more focused and productive.
This seems both evaluative and advice giving. Is this ok to do in the name of encouragement?
Again, I'm not sure if I agree with Stoltzfus' statements like:
Change is more a function of motivation than information.
and
We know what we need to work on. What we lack is energy and motivation to get started and follow through.
I think the first is a false dicotomy based on the failure of the current church system to produce transformation. I would argue, from experience and the biblical text, that change is more a function of relation than of either motivation or information. Coaching may work better than pedagogy, but perhaps that is because it is more relational. Theologically, the Spirit works mostly through the conduits of grace we call friendship and fellowship. Likewise, grace (
karis) is manifested in gifts (
karismata) given to humans so they may bless and nurture each other.
While what Stotlzfus is saying in the second statement is likely true for developed and mature individual leaders, it should not be universalized in the least. Jesus proclaimed a Gospel because the
information of the Kingdom of God was a necessary precursor to change. Then, by implication, they were to enter the relationship of discipleship (where perhaps coaching occured, but according to the narrative it was more likely mentoring). Likewise, theologically, it is not energy and motivation that are the problem, otherwise we could justify ourselves by works (see Romans 7). It is rather our ability to surrender to the participation of God and join him in his Spirit and life that leads to justification in Christ (see Romans 8). Again, relationship is the change-agent.
This is tremendously important. We must have good theology in doing anything this early in what we are doing. The solution is not to dump coaching or this book, but to place it in context. I'm thinking it belongs in
DNA (see
here) as a component of
Nurturing Relationships, but should not be universalized as the definition of those relationships.
If coaching fits in our Christology, it is what you do after the person has moved from servant of the master to friend (Servant to Son on Cheek scale). It is the equivalent of Jesus' relationship with the disciples after he ascended. He worked narratively in their lives with the Spirit, reminding, comforting, etc. Then his role, expressed narratively and in the Spirit, is closest to coaching. By implication, it would be after someone has been counseled and mentored in discipleship that they would move into coaching once they have come into their identity (Son on the Cheek scale).
Part I Intro: The Coaching Paradigm
I'm wondering about some of the absolutist statements made in the intro to Part I. For example, on pg 2, Stoltzfus says:
If you approach leadership coaching as a set of toolsand techniques to add on to your existing ministry paradigm, you'll never be a coach. I can't emphasize this enough: leadership coaching is a whole new discipline, with an underlying philosophy and value set that most likely is far different than what you're used to
On page 4, he says:
It's when you believe enough in the coaching paradigm to reorder your own life around it that you'll truly be great at coaching others.
This raises some concerns for me. First, our ministry paradigm should be based on theology, especially if we are missional. Therefore, Stoltzfus must present a theology of coaching or a theology where coaching is the outcome to demand the kind of exclusivity he's talking about. My understanding is that only Christ and discipleship to him should be something you "reoder your own life around".
If coaching does not equal Christianity, it must, in my opinion remain a method. While it may join who we are, it can not be central to who we are. It is more marginal than our commitment to Jesus.
I'm not willing to go to back to legalisms of any sort, and the church growth movement was effective in making many people servants of way of doing things while claiming they were the way God would do them. I'm not particularly interested in those kinds of truth-claims for methodologies.
I would suggest a deeper look into the theological presuppositions underlying coaching. For example, on pages 2-3:
Simply put, coaching is a radical belief in people, practiced in a consistent, disciplined way in order to help others grow.
I'm not sure a biblical theology warrants a "radical belief in people." It would seem to advocate a radical belief in Jesus, and through him to the Father, but not in people. True, we may put faith in people, such the repeated apostolic commissions entrusting (in-faithing) the Gospel into human hands. But this is a faith in the participation of God in a person, more than it is a faith in people. It is a faith in new creatures, and not old ones. Therefore, like Paul told Timothy, such faith should only be put into those who have proven themselves trustworthy as new creations. Thus, theologically speaking, coaching is for those in whole, biblically, we may put our faith. Therefore it cannot be a complete paradigm for ministry, and while it may be part of our identity and we should adopt many of its values, it cannot be core.
I like coaching, I do it, and I know it works. But I think we need to take a step back from the fadish trust placed in it by corporate America and other places and put it in its theological place. (For Kent and Chadd, this was one of the things that made me very uncomfortable in San Antonio).
What this blog is about...
This blog is an interactive book review of the book
Leadership Coaching by Tony Stoltzfus. The main reviewers on this blog are members of a coaching quad that will begin in early January 2007. We've been given the assignment of reading the book before then. This blog will let us interact on the book before our first meeting, especially since we are spread across the country and beyond.
More information about
Leadership Coaching from Amazon.com:
Book Description
Leadership Coaching is an essential tool for anyone who wants to learn to coach or improve their coaching skills. Written by a top Christian coach trainer, it is filled with real-life stories, practical tools and application exercises that bring coaching techniques to life. Part I is an in-depth look at how coaching fits with the purposes of God. Starting with key biblical concepts about how God builds leaders, this book goes beyond proof-texting to present an integrated, values-based paradigm for leadership coaching. Part II uses a hands-on, interactive approach to show you how to coach. Utilizing the seven key elements of effective coaching as a framework, each facet of the coaching relationship is explained in detail. Then follow-up Master Class sections help you internalize the key concepts and try them out in real life. Leadership coaching is a great introduction to a powerful way of helping others grow
Buy the book through rUrevolutionary.com, and you'll help support that great site:
click here.
