How do you balance coaching styles?

A directive style of coaching is not coaching. It is Consulting or Instructing. Essentially, giving people advice or telling people what to do or how to do it are very different things from coaching. It is the easy way out. True coaching requires trust and a belief by the coach that the person being coached is capable of making decisions and solving for their own situations. Directive is often over-used by one particular temperament who generally prefer to control interactions and often struggle with true coaching. Rarely should a coach give advice or solutions. While it has a place in management (E.g. when someone is new to a task), it is not coaching. (Source: Coaching for Commitment)

I think this AI article conflates executive coaching with consulting/teaching/mentoring, or the more sports-oriented definition of coaching. Executive coaching is about building a trusting relationship with the client that is focused on their growth and internal change they want to make. This kind of coaching isn't really designed for learning new "technical" skills, but to help the client understand where they're blocked and why. A directive style can't help with that, because only the client knows their own internal landscape and what will work for them. You can't tell them what the answers are.

A non-directive style of coaching is actually the preferred style of coaching if you are truly coaching, not instructing, managing or mentoring someone. First, it is the coach's job to help the client establish clarity, foster confidence and commitment. Most people already have the answers they seek. They simply need a good coach to help bring it out of them. The coach must be egoless and without bias, which is difficult for some people - especially those who are not well trained in coaching. The idea that it is more time-consuming is also false. Clients spend more time explaining why your ideas and suggestions won't work than if you were using effective coaching skills to solicit what they think, feel, or know already to be true.

All coaching should be tailored to the agenda, situation and needs of the person being coached (there should be no confusion if coaching is client-centered), this definition appears to be based more on Situational Leadership, by Kenneth Blanchard, which is a management/leadership tool versus a coaching tool. If using this approach, identify first what role you should play based on the situation that the employee is experiencing. See Coaching for Commitment which discusses four roles people play: coach, mentor, manager, instructor - Any role other than coach is not considered coaching. By definition, the non-directive coach definition above speaks more to what a coach actually is, and does. (Source: Coaching for Commitment Simplified)

This is definitely a part of coaching. Still, the coach would need to be very careful not to provide too many suggestions, advice, or guidance, and allow the person being coached to come up with their own answers and solutions based on their own knowledge and experience so that they can be empowered to be successful. Clients should always be encouraged to leverage their strengths! This method is not at all risky if the coach is well-trained in the ways of coaching and understands that trust must be established before the coaching engagement even begins. Trust building is part of the coach’s job. Coaches need to have the client establish the ideal state up front, as well as the current state, and the gap to solve for.

This is what a coach should be doing. If the coach is on their game they should be well-versed in many tools and modalities and know how to apply them to the client's unique situation and needs. I would expect nothing less of a great coach! The negative comments at the end of this definition would only apply if the coach were unskilled, unseasoned or untrained. It is the coach's job to ensure that clear communication is occurring, that the client is being seen, heard and encouraged to self-solution and that clear objectives and goals for the coaching engagement have been established upfront. There should never be a time during an engagement when the coach or client do not know the direction in which the coaching engagement is moving.

There is some good content here but as AI, it needs more input from seasoned coaches, coaching authors and trainers. What are defined here as coaching styles are really coaching skills. Except "Directive" which is not coaching but a role. Interesting that the client-centric "styles" (integrative, collaborative, non-directive) have negative wording: "Confusing, risky, overwhelming, ineffective, time-consuming, contradictory.” If we want to tell people what to do and how to do it (directive/situational) why even talk about coaching? The best coaches are a trusted sounding board, egoless, active listeners, ask thought-provoking questions, validate, trust a client's insight, keep the conversation solution-focused and know when to stop talking.

Balancing coaching styles is key to effective coaching. Five main styles include: 1. Directive: Quick results but may limit autonomy. 2. Non-Directive: Fosters self-discovery, but can be time-consuming. 3. Situational: Adapts to client needs but can be inconsistent. 4. Collaborative: Builds partnership but must avoid over-guidance. 5. Integrative: Combines styles but needs clear communication. Experts favor Non-Directive and Integrative approaches. Success depends on adaptability, client-focused care, and establishing trust and clarity. The goal is client empowerment, tailored to individual needs and readiness.

The roles, assessment, expectations, goals, measures of success, etc are all things that the coach and the client work out in contracting and continually check in on to make sure that things are headed in the direction (or decide that re-contracting needs to happen). The arc of the relationship has an overall contract (what does the client want to get out of the engagement, and how will the coach and client know if it's successful) as does each session (what's the desired outcome for this session; what does the client want to be true or learn about themselves, did that happen). It's useful to have a written plan for the coaching and to have checkpoint conversations for the engagement (at least in the middle, and at the end).