One of the primary exercises I request, early in a coaching relationship, is for each client to write a short essay answering - what does he or she want to be known for. In the case of a corporate client I request that a process be established that produces a Character Statement that describes most of the same elements as in the case of the individual. The question as two distant parts – Who is this ‘I’ in the world; and, ‘what are the acts the community members in that world should notice about that ‘I’?
As any coach, worth the title, I must master the work that I assign as an article of faith to the value of my work.
It is obvious that my existentialist is showing.
In this intellectual stream of thought ‘I’ holds a spot of importance not because it has answered this question with greater accuracy, but because it posses rich questions to those who would
attempt to answer this question. For instance Martin Buber approaches the question of individuality by asking: what does it mean when someone uses the word ‘I’, or its equivalent? After all, to be an individual person involves being able to speak for yourself in the first person: every language offers that possibility, in its own grammar. Even in the world of avatars and profiles there is the assumption that behind all the masks someone stands speaking to the world.
So for those who would make such utterances, the first person is a home that is a core stand we each must take. But Buber then ask us to look again at that first person, that ‘I’. He suggests that ‘I’ has two fundamentally different ways of being used: there are two distinct first persons. By this, he does not mean there are two grammatical rules or dictionary meanings. He means that people are doing one of two things when they take up their temporary home in the first person and say ‘I’ to the world, to the others – in community or not.
The question – am I using either the word ‘I-Thou’ or the word ‘I-It’?
According to Buber, ‘I-Thou’ and ‘I-It’ are the primary words’ in our lives. If your ‘I’ is an ‘I-Thou’, you are being yourself in the face of an equivalent person or presence – in community. If, on the other hand, your ‘I’ is an ‘I-It’, you are being yourself in a world which
has no equivalent presence to your own, a world of objects not persons – others – not in community. So ‘I-Thou’ expects a reply, it is the ‘I’ of dialogue and responsiveness.
You can give your view in a disagreement by saying ‘I think you are wrong’ in such a way as to recognize that the other will have his own response. You don’t mean to imply doubt, but you do mean to allow the other to be present, to participate. In the virtual world this is like permitting visitor comments. Or, you can say ‘I think he is wrong’, and make the other into a mere object of your commentary, an object which, if it speaks again, will merely be observed and judged like other objects – noise – spam – or disallowed comment.
In either case the only way to judge which ‘I’ is the current stand is in the context of the engagement.
- So the first element for which I will be known is to stand for tactics of transparency from which ‘I’ is speaking: authenticity.
This raises two issues, the first relates to the general context of the reality assumed for this
‘I’ to exist as internal voice from within and the second is what is meant to be engaged with this ‘I’.
- The bare description of the world for this ‘I’ is that it conspires with other ‘I’s, and not ‘I’s to create reality: a maker of reality not a seeker.
Simply, we in community confront and engage objects in our meaning making efforts to organize and describe our lives. In this age, we have come to recognize that everything is made up of buzzing atoms or as patterns of energy or as chemical formulae that have no consciousness of human feeling or intent. But for to us, these added facts do not undermine the status of the ‘I’ we see: we make ourselves, not alone - we do not find ourselves. The ‘I’ in this case is an expression more about the continuing exercise of overlapping choice in the face of neither a world that neither knows nor cares about our existence.
The status of the ‘I’ is bounded in social status: reputation. That experience reality of ‘I’ is through recognizing that experience of not ‘I’ in the negative: somewhere between here and there the ‘me’ has ended and other realities come into play. This is where the context and engagement of community enter the picture. You are known by what others say you are!
In community - the co-joining of realities into a language game of pre-established and continually changing rules opens up. It is not so much that there are formal hand books of required language for each community. As it turns out – even when there are such books they
are of varied or limited usefulness. What actually performs the heavy lifting is the cultural affiliations self selected by each ‘I’. You learn texting not by reading the books on it, but in the usage with friends that respond to your utterances or not. In this sense you know the game in the playing.
Not only do you learn the game in the playing – you learn the status of the players in the playing. The notion that reputation defines a hierarchy of influence that the community spreads in or against the reality of the ‘I’s ability to be heard in playing is a key that I as a coach focus all my skills, knowledge and abilities.
- My skills, knowledge and abilities are focused on providing strategic and tactical acts to increase the reputation of my clients
Thus far what I have explained has specifically defined my role as coach both from the individual and organizational framework. What I have provided is a definition of my views and my ontological positioning of the world I suggest each client arrives with in seeking my advice and consul. In summary they believe that they want to speak from the stand point of an authentic ‘I’ to be heard by use of an authentic voice both within a specific community and non communities for the purpose of co-creating a reality to their liking. They also believe that this is done through the use of social media tools that engage in language games that they wish to master by engaging selected communities.
As a trusted advisor/coach I have to be available for my clients in their efforts to engage the artifacts of the cultures they are engaged. The culture makes itself known by what it recognizes, how it uses those insights in narratives and rituals celebrating desired behavior, and penalizing betrayals when necessary. Therefore the metrics of my client’s effectiveness of engagement would be noticed in:
· The rites of cultural performance
Rites of enhancement spread good news about my client’s interest either on an individual basis or organizational, provide public recognition for achievers, and motivate others to perform: quarterly recognition, promotional announcements.
Rites of renewal serve to refurbish social structures in my client’s interest and improve how it is functioning: team building, sensitivity training, employee orientation, team learning, team planning, performance goal setting, and organizational events.
Rites of reorientation serve to heighten the awareness of my client’s interest and application through recognition of customer needs and knowledge: business plans, internal marketing campaigns, competition from external vendors, relationship building, increased technological vertical, horizontal and diagonal technologies of surveillance, increased demands for managerial responsibility (increased operational/service provisional visibility), increased use of minimal relationship communication paths (computer based systems), and geographically independent communication infrastructure.
Rites of loyalty shower gifts and tokens on the convert to signify the benefits of belonging.
Rites of disloyalty relinquish ones material belongings in order to signify separation.
Rites of condemnation indict the character of despicable, idolatrous, or stupid.
Whatever the outcome, I want to be known as my client’s ultimate ally. Simply put I want to be known for strengthening my client’s relationships. My coaching works to assist clients by empowering them to achieve their dreams and aspirations by unlocking their authentic voice within selected communities. My ontological positioning directs my clients to the broader and deeper elements of their reputation to help them see beyond today to what they are creating in the now not waiting to find themselves tomorrow. I help ordinary folks do extraordinary things.
As my client’s ultimate ally my singular focus is on establishing more authentic and purposeful goals for them by enlisting tools that empower, motivate, inspire, and steer them towards success.
My method of coaching helps clients to bridge the gap between where they are searching now and where they can create a space to be. Client goals may vary from personal fulfillment to professional and business achievements and better family relationships. In which ever status you find yourself my approach is customized to fit you not the other way around. I look forward to hearing from you and learning about what voice you want to create in the world.
Blogged with Flock
|