#117 A Parable
In a small town, there was a clockmaker. The window of his workshop displayed many timepieces showcasing his skills, from humble alarm clocks to cuckoo clocks and even a grandfather clock. The townsfolk would marvel at his skills as they passed his workshop on their daily routines, and they would check and adjust their watches to the time shown on the magnificent grandfather clock.
A little further down the road stood the town’s church. The parish priest would pass by the clockmaker’s workshop every day and he too would set his wristwatch to the time shown on the grandfather clock in the window. This was a very important daily ritual for the priest because he was the person who rang the church bell to mark the hour throughout the day and to call parishioners to the church’s services.
Working away in the rear of his workshop, the clockmaker knew nothing of how the townsfolk relied on the accuracy of his clock to schedule their own lives. He simply listened out for the church’s bell at Evensong, which he knew would be at precisely six o’clock, and set the grandfather clock accordingly before closing up his workshop for the day.
What does this have to do with coaching?
The story illustrates a form of circular reasoning, where the priest and the clockmaker have inadvertently created mutual co-dependence rather than seeking independent verification. This is a major pitfall in any system where feedback loops exist without external validation. It strikes me that coaching can be like this because it is predominantly practice-based, and happens in a potentially closed system comprising coach and their coachee. If something seems to work, we keep doing it. But is our practice valid? Is it evidence-based beyond our client-feedback loops?
Independent Validation: In evidence-based practice, it's crucial to have independent sources of verification. In coaching, there is extensive research and peer-reviewed studies, which carry more weight than relying solely on practices and models that have been dreamt up by individual coaches, albeit with good intentions.
Avoid Circular Reasoning: Coaches must ensure that their practices are not only based on repeated routines but also on external, peer-reviewed evidence. This means seeking out authoritative sources, cross-referencing the models they use, and perhaps even engaging in research themselves.
Continuous Learning and Adaptation: Just as the clockmaker might benefit from understanding the broader impact of his work in his community, coaches should seek CPD and keep up to date with the latest research and best practices.
Coaching Supervision provides an excellent independent exploration of coaching practice by encouraging and enabling coaches’ reflective practice against evidence-based practice.
While the parable highlights a charming, interconnected relationship, it also serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of grounding practices in verified, independent evidence. By doing so, coaches can avoid the pitfalls of circular reasoning and ensure that their coaching practice is truly effective and reliable.
Do you know where the coaching models you rely on originated? Are they evidence-based? How can you challenge the assumptions inherent in your coaching practice?
