Coaching is a funny old thing.

I mean life coaching, which is any coaching that isn’t a professional specialism.

It’s all kinds of educated support for others. And there are a lot of different schools of thought.

For example, one topic I’ve seen debated this week is client commitment. And the different schools of thought have vastly different opinions.

The range is everything from “well, it’s just a friendly conversation they happen to pay me for” to “I will sack clients who don’t do their homework”.

Both these extremes give off kinda culty vibes: the one for denial of the power differential, the other for control and threat. And they sound a bit like “everything is a nail because I have a hammer”.

What about the rest of us?

Where do we sit on that spectrum?

How do we find the discernment to be flexible, responsive, transparent and respectful?

When do we give clear and direct advice (without any requirement it is followed), and when do we sit back and let the client develop over time?

How do we come to notice when we are not the best coach for a particular client? Or when the initial coaching agreement has reached an end (which may include a shift to a more supportive consultant role)?

How do we come to recognise that we will rarely know the affect of our work in the long term? And then how do we hold ourselves to a standard that acknowledges that our value is not easily measured?

There is so much nuance in how a talented coach will approach each client and each situation. Which is way better than hitting everything with a hammer because that’s the tool you’ve got.