Nancy Rommelmann in her April 9, 2008 blog entitlied "The Tyranny of Flawlessness" claimed that the rise in the coaching industry was connected to the rise in the elective cosmetic surgery. She reported coaching and cosmetic surgery both promoted eliminating human flaws. One by surgery, the other by some unknown other method. She also quoted Micki McGee and her book entitled Self Help, Inc. Makeover Culture in American Life
I have to dispute SOME of the statements by Micki McGee that Nancy apparently endorses because she published them, and some of Nancy’s statements about coaching, and unfortunately, I have to agree with at least TWO of Micki’s statements.
First lets discuss this question/statement. “Is the stratospheric rise in life coaching due to the fact that anyone can be one?”
The overwhelming reason for the rise in the growth of the personal coaching industry since about 1991 is because true Personal Coaching Works! The personal coaching process fulfills a human void that none of the other 9 major human improvement processes even touch, and personal coaching fills this human need better than anticipated. The human void I am referring to is the desire many people have to discover and unravel the mysteries of themselves. Once people truly discover and accept their own individual and unique humanity, they can very easily change the conditions around them to achieve remarkable coachable goals. They now KNOW themselves, versus GUESSING whom they are.
Unfortunately, I also agree that another reason for the rise in coaching is that anyone can CALL THEMSELVES a coach. This is especially true during the past 6 to 7 years. First, there is the herd or bandwagon process. The true successes generated by personal coaching during the 90’s brought in others. Since it cost nothing to call yourself a coach, thousands of people jumped in to give it a try. In addition, the coaching INDUSTRY promoted this tidal wave of new coaches through the meteoric increase in coaching schools. The number of FOR PROFIT coach training schools has grown from about 14 in 2000 to over 250 today, by SELLING the promises to training students to become successful coaches by buying their training, which is frequently given via long distance learning (read very low costs). The reason the number of coaching schools grew is because they made lots of money selling anything that resembled coach training to the many people who wanted to join in on the bandwagon of coaching.
Lets discuss the statement “Coaching, like behavioral drugs, promises a speedy recovery. It's very proactive.”
Personal coaching is not about promising speedy recovery, because personal coaching does not fix anyone nor alter minds like behavioral drugs. The true self-discovery that a personal coach assists clients to achieve is not fixing, but discovery and acceptance. Drugs alter the chemical makeup of the mind and CAUSE thinking, behavioral and emotional changes.
Personal coaching IS very proactive
But, I agree that personal coaching IS very proactive. Personal coaching is about moving forward towards achieving future based coachable goals by taking advantage of the newly discovered clear knowledge a person gains about him or her self. It is an extremely powerful and successful process that only some people can benefit from. To succeed at coaching people must want and seek to take full RESPONSIBILITY of their lives, which in turn allows them to gain control. No blaming others or seeking quick fixes through drugs, or surgery.
The rise of personal coaching is NOT connected to corporate personnel changes
I fully disagree that the rise in coaching had anything to do with the “downsizing of middle management,” or “the rise of the HMO and the decline in coverage for mental health,” or “because a lot of people coming to coaching from the financial industry.” These comparisons reflect the writer’s assumption that virtually all work related matters emanate from the corporate world and the “money, power, status, control, fakeness, and politics” of the corporate world drive everyone.
True personal coaching focuses on people seeing and ACCEPTING their true selves, in all aspects, without judgment or guilt. I completely disagree with the statement “coaching strikes me as running parallel with the cosmetic surgery industry: we should all appear flawless, as quickly as possible.” I also fully disagree with your statement “Both the cosmetic and coaching industries bank on the idea that you want to be flawless, as if this were something to strive for.” The flashy world of the media and corporations where image, spin, and fiction are everything and substance and truth are meaningless, can be considered a major force in driving people to cosmetic appearance enhancing surgery. You even support my belief by providing an example that is based solely on the corporate culture. Cosmetic surgery is all about fake image that others see.
True personal coaching is only about self-discovery, self-awareness to change the conditions around you, not changing the person’s physical appearance to suit others.
Nancy’s and Micki’s confusion about coaching is understandable
However, I do not blame Nancy or Micki for their confusion and disdain for coaching. They have a right to express their perspectives. The coaching industry has grown in size and complexity such that it does not offer the general public a clear understanding of what true personal coaching really is. In addition, the thousands of people who call themselves coaches provide anything but coaching, but call it coaching. Many new coaches discovered that claiming to be specialty “niche” coaches will attract attention and hopefully some unsuspecting people who fall for their charades. The media does not help, because they eagerly publicize the more outlandish and controversial of these niche coaches, which legitimizes them in the eyes of the public. You have probably come in contact or been told about these supposed coaches.
Explaining the true personal coaching process is not easy and it is an educational process. Consequently, what we have here is a failure to communicate.
|
||||||
|
Recent Articles
|
Response to "The Tyranny of Flawlessness" by Nancy Rommelmann
Comments
Re: Response to "The Tyranny of Flawlessness" by Nancy Rommelmann
Hello Bill. I want to clarify a couple of points, because it seems that some of my comments were understood out of context, and therefore not clear at all . . . This is one of the hazards of phone interview to blog post to secondary blog post . . .
1. I do not have any disdain for personal coaches. As a sociologist interested in changing notions of the self and of success, I observed that the birth of coaching coincides with the downsizing of the early 1990s and the consequent lack of career stability. This has three effects: 1) many educated middle management people were understandably concerned about job security; 2) many were "liberated" from the corporate cubicle world and in search of new work options where they can be in control of their workflow (i.e. not laid off again); and 3) many HR departments were in need of people to counsel people who were being laid-off and motivate those left in jobs where they're doing twice the work for the same pay. This socio-economic situation was a fertile ground for the rise of coaching. 2. When I commented that coaching is a quick process, that was in the context of comparing coaching to psychoanalysis, which traditionally asks the analysand to spend four to five hours a week in treatment in a treatment that can last many, many years. As far as I know, this sort of a time commitment would be unusual in the context of coaching. Moreover, coaching emerges at a time when medical insurance (for those fortunate enough to have it in the US) began to disallow reimbursement for protracted psychotherapeutic treatments. Speedier, putatively more efficient if not more effective therapies, such as cognitive behavioral therapy and psychopharmacology continued to be funded through some mental health HMOs. Therapists saw their client lists decline, and some recast themselves as coaches. Financial advisors recast themselves as coaches. And unemployed middle managers and academics recast themselves as career coaches. People in search of counseling began to see coaching as an alternative to psychotherapy, and since their HMOs weren't going to pay for the psychotherapy anyway, part of the legitimacy structure for psychotherapeutic interventions was undercut. (Being funded through a mechanism like health insurance was part of the former legitimacy of psychoanalysis and psychotherapeutic practices.) None of these facts mean would suggest that all coaching is oriented toward to corporate notions of success. Some certainly isn't. But the genesis of coaching as a profession seems to tie in closely with the crises that American corporations have faced in an era of increased global competition. 3. Finally, until quite recently there were not any training programs for coaches, and to the best of my knowledge there are not yet any state mandated licensure processes. So anyone can hang out a shingle as a personal coach. Some coaches do extraordinary work. Some don't. But there has not been a certification process. CoachU, the American Coaches Federation, and the International Coach Federation all seem to be moving toward the codification and professionalization of coaching practices, which may lead to licensure practices. But right now in New York State, where I live, you need more training to be massage therapist than a life coach or personal coach. I think that is something that will change for this industry, but for the moment that is just the situation. My question . . . and the point of my book Self-Help, Inc: Makeover Culture in American Life, is to ask what might we learn from and about the culture of self-improvement that could shift our consciousness from an individualistic, narcissistic, materialistic notion of success to a socially and politically engaged notion of success that calls for economic and social justice, as well as a sustainable existence on this green-blue rock that we call home. That question requires that I be deeply interested in the rise of coaching as a phenomenon, and also deeply concerned about the values that are promulgated by coaches. Re: Re: Response to "The Tyranny of Flawlessness" by Nancy Rommelmann
Micki,
Thank you for your further clarifications. You are absolutely right when you said: So anyone can hang out a shingle as a personal coach. “Some coaches do extraordinary work. Some don't.” That is the beauty and the curse of the entire coaching community. Anyone can call them self a coach. Some are great, some are mediocre, some are awful. The problem is which coach is great and which is not, and how does a person determine a great coach and find the right coach. But I disagree with your other comment: “ But there has not been a certification process.” In fact there are over 56 different coaching certification labels, all purporting to have a different process. But they are marketing activities to create a false sense of legitimacy. Certifying coaches the way medical people or lawyers are certified does not uncover, the best coaches, nor will it protect the public from bad coaches. I believe that certification for coaches has not worked and I do not believe it will work. It appears you want to impose some qualifications and a rigid structure process by certifying coaches, like what is done for therapists. But since the coaching process is much different than therapy, I believe the two cannot be treated the same. Once again this revolves around your misunderstanding of what the coaching process is. Unfortunately, your confusion about coaching is far more common than not. You are not alone. You are treating the coaching process as if it were like therapy, which it is not. You are welcome to read my blog or website to learn the differences between the two so you will understand. http://www.findyourcoach.com/discover-coaching-lvl1.htm#therapy I am not purporting to be the expert on the two nor have the power of structuring coaching. But I am stating that once you research coaching (wherever you go) you too will discover how they are different. You are also encouraged to visit this great website which independently presents all aspects of coaching: http://www.peer.ca/coaching.html There are other web sites that attempt to explain the differences as well. Their different methods and different purposes explains the rapid rise in popularity and usefulness of coaching, before I came along. Once again it appears you equate the rise of coaching to the demise of corporations, and now the rise of HMO’s. Far more coaching is conducted outside the corporate umbrella. We have found that a majority of the supposed coaching performed through corporations is really consulting, training, and/or teaching disguised as coaching, since the corporations frequently impose their own requirements on the supposed “coaches” as a condition of hiring them. Personal coaching is a free form process where the coaches will hopefully not train, teach, advise, nor impose their wills on their clients. Instead, coaching is about bringing out the hidden powers within the client. Thus your comment and concern of “That question requires that I be deeply interested in the rise of coaching as a phenomenon, and also deeply concerned about the values that are promulgated by coaches.” Bothers me the most and exposes why I objected to your positions. Coaches do not impose, or teach or advise on their values, but assist clients to reveal and recognize and accept their own (previously unknown) beliefs and values. Using a controlled certification process, which you appear to recommend, is another form of imposing the values and beliefs of the regulators and certifiers, and people in power on others. I am more concerned about your apparent desire to impose you opinions on coaches and others in the name of righteousness. I encourage you to hire your coach to clarify your inner passions, beliefs, talents, and priorities, so you can pursue them on your terms with freedom and great success. Trackbacks
TrackBack URL: |
Blog awards
The Coach Connection Blog was judged as the top-rated coaching blog by a panel of experts working in conjunction with Peer Resources (See Peer Bulletin No. 154 (July 1, 2007) ISSN: 1488-6774. Judges described this blog as "tackling difficult and controversial topics, providing a wide-ranging and creative focus on coaching, and sharing practical advice to strengthen coaching practice."
Login
Links
This Month
Month Archive
Search
Powered by BlogHarbor
 RSS Newsfeeds
Main Page RSS
Coaching Industry Buzz RSS
RSS Newsfeed
Recent Photos
Recent Comments
Recent Visitors
Max123 - Fri 20 Nov 2009 11:56 PM EST
winston - Fri 20 Nov 2009 04:00 AM EST
Adlinn - Fri 20 Nov 2009 02:39 AM EST
HELLOOOOOOOOOOOO - Mon 16 Nov 2009 05:11 AM EST
tom jenny - Fri 30 Oct 2009 02:04 PM EDT
|
||||
|
|
||||||
