The Alternative Culture
When it comes to receiving and accepting expertise advice in the alternative culture, there is a concern, as in the professional culture, with source. In this case, however, the source is found to be credible if it offers a perspective that differs from (and often challenges) the accepted “truth.” “Show me something that is new, that is challenging to the existing ‘gospel”, that shakes things up!” As Thomas Kuhn (2012) noted in his analysis of scientific revolutions, the new, revolutionary studies that suggest alternative paradigms often come from “out-of-the-way” places, such as secondary and “backwater” educational institutions and research centers. Individual researchers and scholars who are not being funded by the “establishment” (such as governmental grants or pharmaceutical companies) are free to offer the “inconvenient truth.” As “independent” scholars and researchers, these women and men (often women) are welcomed in the alternative culture. Their perspectives and practices are often embraced with enthusiasm by members of the alternative culture. At times, this acceptance can be uncritical, and members of this culture are sometimes guilty of promoting the latest “fad” and of hopping from one new idea or plan to another one.
How then, can a coach operate most effectively in the alternative culture to help members of (and especially leaders) of this culture sort out what is valid and useful, from that which is attractive but not anchored in any “reality”? How do coaches help their clients sort out valid and useful expertise, rather than falling victim to the latest fad.? I would first suggest that coaches and the users of coaching services who are aligned with this culture conceive of coaching as a vehicle for the creation of programs and activities that further the personal (and often the spiritual) growth of all members of the organization (or even more broadly the entire community). Expertise often comes from domains other than management or even science. Those leaders who are aligned with this culture turn to coaches who value personal openness and service to others, as well as the integration of mind, body and spirit. Recent studies regarding wellness, neurobiological integration – often in alignment with a dose of Eastern philosophy and medicine—become welcomed sources of “expertise” for members of the alternative culture.
Both the coaches and leaders often do not accept an “artificial” distinction between personal and organizational coaching. Coaches who associate with this culture often embrace many untested assumptions about the inherent desire of all men and women to attain their own personal maturation. Both coaches and leaders wish to assist the development of others in the organization (or even the broader community). They conceive of the coaching enterprise as the encouragement of potential for cognitive, affective, physical and spiritual development among all members of the organization—not just the formal leaders.
The Advocacy Culture
Experts are invited in and listened to if they have been chosen in an equitable manner (without discrimination), based on carefully negotiated and widely accepted criteria. A process-oriented measure of credibility prevails. As I have already noted, the key question regarding the credibility and use of expertise often is: “Who has been invited to the table? The invitation should provide diverse perspectives—and in particular the perspectives of people who have been victims of long-standing discrimination. “Who invited you to be our expert?” “Show me to invitation list.” “How did you decide should be involved in this study?” Has this idea/recommendation been tested out in many different settings?”
Download Article 1K Club
