Coaching differs from more traditional counselling therapy practises in a number of ways.
I describe the experience of coaching as somewhere between a therapy session and a chat with a good and wise friend.
Primarily coaching is present-focussed and forward looking and concerns itself with any present, or pressing matter, and is less retrospective in both approach and content, though inevitably we may reference historical themes.
Coaching serves those who are for the most part well, and seeking support or guidance in a transition phase of life; for example being guided through existential crisis towards recovery, or navigating and moving beyond a creative block.
A good rapport between coach and client is essential. Rapport governs successful outcomes, naturally. Both therapists and coaches can have niche specialisms.
Coaching is a non-clinical approach, and never results in diagnosis (or references diagnostic measures), or medical intervention, which is key to point out. I am not an advocate of the pharma-medical paradigm, given I know many alternative, 100% success outcome modalities, otherwise exist. Appropriate talk support in a nurturing and validating environment is particularly effective for sustained wellness.
Between the coach and client, coaching in practise is conversational, collaborative and is a shared exploration experience. Both coach and client hold equal status. In clinical therapy practises, the patient and therapist generally have a slightly different transaction in that typically patients are disempowered or majorly disrupted, and seeking answers from the therapist, who holds the power of influence.
Though all therapies have their place and function, which can create value and be beneficial, I find coaching to be dynamic and progressive whereas, in my experience, counselling therapies can keep you held in, or attached to, outdated narratives, especially if sessions continue over extended periods, a kind of holding pattern can be realised. I prefer the transcendental, revelatory nature of coaching and the swift pace of progress. I appreciate the plentiful opportunities for learning and realisation
My general experience of men is that they prefer to not delve back into the past, and are more inclined to focus on the here and now, hence coaching is the ideal given it is less retrospective. Both practises of coaching and therapy can be short or long-term, depending on the client’s requirement.
My coaching style is non-formulaic, which I find best reflects the needs and nature of creative individuals. I will not try to categorise, label or diagnose you in any way. I accept and regard each individual in their own unique way. All of our interactions are confidential.
From my perspective, coaching does not have a specific goal outcome, other than to create value, rather it is a space created for exchange, process and exploration. Sessions are for the client to define in terms of theme and direction. My only request is that you are both entirely honest with yourself and with me, and this is my only rule.
I welcome any subject matter from daily dilemma to abstract concept. I have had personal experience of existential crisis and spiritual emergent experiences. In addition, I am both academic and a practising Buddhist, so bridge the gap between the intellectual and the spiritual. I have language for, and comprehension of, a breadth of human experience.
Coaching is as effective via a telephone conversation as it is in person, which is important to note given I have an international clientele. In practise, sessions can be anything from challenging to therapeutic, revelatory to comforting. Coaching concerns itself with the entire individual in terms of self and experience; so both inner reality and outer circumstance are acknowledged.
I accommodate and regard much that the clinical paradigm might attempt to pathologise, as natural phenomena of experience and an essential expression of the human condition. I accept and respect any non-normal experiences and will never discredit any of your personal perception, or the language you relate to this. I theorise that there is much that the medical paradigm perspective cannot answer or justify and that the heavy orthodoxy of science in the West is reductionist in its appreciation of anomalous experiences, or anything outside the parameters of it understanding or governance.
Wholeness leads to wellness.
If you’d like to discuss further whether coaching is for you, please make contact.