Why should coaches get training?

My premise is that "coaching" is a specific skill set for which one can be trained. But let's start with the idea that "coaching" could also be viewed as a centered set, rather than a bounded set, at least until we start seeing governments begin to regulate coaching as an industry. As a centered set, there's an overall direction that is the key point of coaching, which is: "Help clients get from A to B." This is what coaches and what clients want, too; and because it's centered set, there are many ways to do so. This leaves room to break the rules, (for example, the core competencies laid out by the International Coach Federation could be considered the 'rules'). From a legal perspective, and from a legalistic perspective also (these are not the same; I want to be clear that this article is not meant to offer a legalistic perspective insisting on training for every single coach) coaching does not HAVE to be done a certain way. This allows coaches a great deal of flexibility to use their creativity, which can be wonderful.

Breaking rules, of course, means that there have to be some in the first place. A friend of mine once likened it to a boxer versus a street fighter. A boxer plays by certain rules, but when a street fight breaks out, it can be life or death. "So with __ type of clients, Adam, why wouldn't you use anything at your disposal?" he asked. "They're in life or death situations!"

I conceded the point, replied that he was right-- the high-risk demographic he was talking about could die, literally, if they aren't careful. I added, "But even if I'm in a street fight, I'm still always going to look like a boxer. The training will be evident in my posture." He felt this was an acceptable point as well. So we came to a sort of agreement I felt useful.

We fight for our clients. We go into battle beside them. So why not refer to the age-old battle story of David vs. Goliath to explain why training is useful and, I submit, even necessary for (most) coaches to become the best coach they can be?

Goliath is this massive dude relying on his natural ability to be big, intimidating, to make his impact based on his size. I liken that to personal charisma. Goliath, like some coaches who can get by on personal charisma to influence people, doesn't need to be trained at all to beat just about anyone. He's like Andre the Giant in the Princess Bride: "I don't even exercise." He's the best, because he was born that way. Alpha Male and all that. (We don't really know if Goliath worked out or not, and it doesn't matter. We know he terrified everyone, but lost the fight.)

David, on the other hand, had gone through a ton of training with a simple weapon. Think of his five pebbles as five coaching questions: he only needed one of them, in addition to a certain mentality, to outperform the untrained giant.

So there are lots of coaches out there relying on their instincts or personal charisma to be somebody that influences others, while training in coaching skills is absolutely transferrable even for people who don't have naturally charismatic (large) personalities.

In fact, based on the fighting "rules" of the times, David is initially saddled with a bunch of heavy armor. He shrugs it off, preferring to keep it light, and allow himself to be flexible within the context of a battle with a very big dude. So for him, he tried to take the bounded set of "all fighters wear armor" to a centered set, "trained fighters use their training as appropriate, and suit up appropriately." He pairs this with a stated mindset, a belief or faith.

For those who want to be a coach, or hire a coach, it's important to understand: do I need a Goliath? Someone whose personal charisma will rub off on me (maybe)? Or do I need a David, someone who has developed their skill through a ton of training and is willing to go into battle by my side, flexible, prepared, with skills that anyone could learn if they took the time-- but that most people won't bother acquiring? It's not that one is entirely bad and the other is good. This isn't about right and wrong. If you want to go coach with your big, bold personality as your bid, be my guest. If you want to hire someone based on the force of their personality, it's not a bounded set, there's no rule against it.

But if you're not sure that Goliath is you, (I'd say there's better than 99% chance that it isn't you) then you're going to need training. The good news is that with intensive training, you can learn to be effective-- possibly even more effective than that coach you know whose personality dominates the landscape. Training helps coaches help their clients get from A to B more consistently than they would by simply relying on their instincts and charisma.

A final comment: if you're going the Goliath route, you're taking on the responsibility to re-invent coaching. You have to decide what it means, how it is practiced ethically, and you'll spend just as much time, if not more, figuring out how to consistently help clients, than if you got the training. I'm not saying you can't be successful. The job is getting clients from A to B. Sounds simple. But it isn't easy.