Regardless of the distinction to be drawn, there is an important implication to be drawn from these survey results: some coaches are facing major challenges regarding their own care and feeding. If the source of their discontent is the environment in which their clients operate, then what is the lingering impact on the coaches? Are they “infected” by the environment of their clients? Do they need to take care of themselves, while taking care of their clients? Why are some coaches quite positive about the environment in which their clients work, while others are quite negative? Will our demographic analyses yield any insights?
What if the toxicity is to be found in their own coaching home? How do some of the coaches who responded to our survey avoid burnout if they face challenges in their own professional practice setting? We may be getting some beginning idea about why professional coaches often work in isolation and operate as we noted in our second essay, as “autonomous professionals.” It might have something to do with the environment in which they are working. This could be their “home” environment (the office or organization in which they work) or in the working environment of their clients. We can’t tell from this set of data.
As I noted at the end of the second report, it would seem that a dialogue regarding the results reported in this third report is warrented — especially given the recent emphasis on mentoring and supervision in the field of professional coaching. Who does the mentoring and supervision? Do we need to address the issue of workplace environments and the potential impact of negative environments on the ongoing development of coaches — and the potential for disillusionment and withdrawal into professional isolation?
Download Article 1K Club
