F.A.Q.

Defining who is a coach and what a coach is is not a simple matter. The profession still encompasses such a mosaic of profiles, approaches, and techniques that HR managers find it difficult to make a choice. Do they prefer a former operational professional or a psychotherapist who has converted to coaching? The two do not have the same approach. Indeed, coaches come from two major professional backgrounds. They are:

• Either former business professionals who have taken an interest in and trained in human resources.
• Or psychologists, psychotherapists, or psychiatrists who have turned to the business world.

We find as many men as women practicing this profession, where business experience and age are assets. Several training centers do not accept candidates under 35 years of age. It is an activity rarely practiced full-time; according to certain studies, only 30% of coaches make their living solely from coaching. Most often, coaching activity coexists with training, consulting, therapy, or outplacement, for example.

Coaching is not a form of therapy, even if the consultation gives that appearance. What are the main differences?

• Coaching is future-oriented and will not necessarily question the archaic scenarios or personal issues from the client's past as in psychotherapy.
• In coaching, the questioning focuses immediately on objectives, the reality of the facts, and the action to be taken. In psychotherapy, the focus is on the person's suffering.
• In coaching, we speak of a client. In psychotherapy, we speak of a patient.

Coaching is not training, even if certain sequences may include educational input, nor is it consulting, because the coach is not a specialist in their clients' field of activity and does not claim to provide answers, but rather to help the coachee ask questions they do not necessarily think of on their own. A "push" approach versus a "pull" posture... While coaching sometimes includes an element of training, it nevertheless differs from it. To use a mountaineering analogy, training is based more on a "push" approach—pushing, encouraging to climb—whereas coaching follows a "pull" approach—pulling, inspiring the desire to ascend. The coach works on raising awareness and developing the coachee's innate qualities, while the trainer aims to provide new knowledge to fill a gap or perfect existing knowledge.

First, discuss it openly with your coach.

If the problem persists, a client may contact EMCC Belgium.

The coach must distinguish between the individual's interest and the company's interest, intervene without merging with either of these two poles and, as prescribed by professional ethics, "act in the interest of the overall system." It is therefore a matter of viewing the human subject not as an undivided and isolated entity, but rather as a complex whole integrating the reality of a complex environment. Coaching is situated at the heart of complexity (Lenhardt, 2006).

External coaching is provided by a professional coach from outside the company. They therefore do not participate directly in the situation; they are neutral, not engaged in achieving the coachee's short- or medium-term operational objectives. From their position external to the company system, they can broaden the coachee's reflection to help them perceive broader implications than those initially estimated. The coachee can more effectively discern their areas of intervention and better understand how the system in which they operate functions.

The external coach does not have in-depth knowledge of the organization where they intervene and often proves more costly than an internal coach. However, they are not a stakeholder in the hierarchical or career issues internal to the company. They can provide a neutral and "de-dramatized" observation of the situation. They can also act as a mediator-arbitrator, managing communication. They can also allow their clients to benefit from the full richness of their experience with other organizations (Lenhardt, 2006).

Internal coaches belong to a non-hierarchical structure with the managers they support. These coaches are trained and designated to support the development of managers. They are part of the company and, as such, carry its values and practices. Thus, the help and support provided will necessarily be colored by these elements. However, internal coaching undoubtedly allows the management function to be transformed by enriching it with a human dimension and enabling hierarchies to take greater responsibility for the development of each of their employees.

Internal coaches must find their place in the company as agents of change because they are necessarily subject to hierarchical issues and stakeholder dynamics from which they cannot escape (Lenhardt, 2006). Internal coaching nevertheless presents certain advantages: integrated into the structure, they understand its stakes, culture, and history. They offer skills that can be easily mobilized to respond to a crisis or provide close support (Lenhardt, 2006).

The manager cannot merge with the coach posture without endangering the people involved in the relationship. As a leader, they can nevertheless internalize the coaching approach by helping their employees find solutions in their professional environment. This attitude will serve them from the moment they agree to temporarily replace the hierarchical relationship with an empathetic listening relationship that will lead the interlocutor to put forward their ideas and talents (Lenhardt, 2006).

A leader cannot fully merge into a coach identity, because they are bound by an obligation of results, unlike professional coaching which is only subject to an obligation of means. However, every manager is in a managerial ambiguity: being both the "boss" and the "trainer." Coaching can become a management style, with the leader then adopting a resource leader posture (Lenhardt, 2006).