Coaching

This little essay is not about coaching as a profession as in scholastic or intercollegiate sports, with concerns about team lineups, scheduling, budget, personnel, facilities, etc.  Rather, it is about people—individuals being taught one-on-one.  It is about a specific approach to helping a learner be able to teach himself. It is education in its most fundamental, effective, and lasting sense.  The word ‘educate’ comes from the Greek meaning ‘to lead forth, to bring out that which was inside, to work from the inside out.  I believe it is true that

                      Education is not the filling of a pail.

                      It is the lighting of a fire.

                      And the fuel for the fire is on the inside.

Coaching this outcome is the process of which I write.  The outcome is to help the learner have fun and success in what he is attempting to do.

Coaching is helping the individual remove the barriers that hinder accomplishment and success and arrival at the outcome.  It is giving the student, or athlete or novice the non-judgmental but accurate feedback that helps him see things through an undistorted ‘mirror.’  The coach helps the person see, feel, sense and develop an awareness of what is really going on in the attempted execution of a skill.  The coach is an extra set of eyes. The coach helps the person eliminate the ‘blind spots’ and, like a sculptor of marble, bring out what is hidden latent inside the rough block of stone (his potential).

   

The attitude of the one being coached is also critical. No one can be taught anything unless he or she is ready and willing to learn.  Since it is obvious that ‘it takes two to tango,’ it should be obvious that the role of the learner is to be trusting and receptive of the viewpoint that his coach brings to the task at hand.  One under the supervision (one of greater vision) of a coach must understand that he is working with his coach, not for the coach. 

   

This approach to coaching is not to have the coach be the ‘giver’ –it is not to establish a hierarchy with the coach telling the person what to do, but rather a partnership of trust where both work together.  The coach does not tell his student what is right or wrong (do this, do that) so much as work to open up the learner to what is possible. Together they analyze the learning situation with the learner seemingly and ultimately doing most of the analyzing.  The coach, though, patiently observes and guides the learner into his own discovery.  If the coach can be a generally silent and an exemplary model (yet an enthusiastic example) within the limitations / gifts of his own physical makeup so much the better. 

Coaching is an art and learning is also an art.  Taking a mechanistic approach to learning –trying to immediately ‘fix a problem’ or gain a proficiency instead of understanding it is, in my experience, a temporary or unsatisfactory solution. It is like cramming for a test—maybe then passing the test but soon forgetting the principle that was being tested.

Approaching either coaching or learning as a science is usually much less effective and certainly less enjoyable.  And both should be.