Rethinking Coaching: A Q and A with Angélique Du Toit and Stuart Sim

Angélique du Toit and Stuart Sim come from seemingly different academic traditions—Angélique is an Executive Coach and scholar who studies coaching in the workplace, while Stuart is a literary critic. However, as colleagues at the University of Sunderland, they found synergy through their shared interest in critical theory as an analytical tool.

During the global economic downturn, Angélique and Stuart’s conversations turned to the question of how critical theory could frame a coaching practice that promotes a new mind-set in business and helps to avert crises. These discussions planted the seed of an idea that grew into a 2010 monograph, “Rethinking Coaching: Critical Theory and the Economic Crisis (Palgrave Macmillan, 2010).”

We sat down with Angélique and Stuart to discuss some of the central arguments of “Rethinking Coaching.”

Coaching World: Although we have reason to believe that professional coaches are using elements of critical theory in practice, the term “critical theory” is probably unfamiliar to many readers outside of academia. Can you give a brief definition and discuss what critical theory encompasses? How can it help shape the way we understand the world around us?

A&S: Philosophy as a discipline has always been centrally concerned with the art of interpretation and providing ways of testing the validity of the judgments that interpretations inevitably involve. Critical theory is essentially a kind of applied philosophy, consisting of the development of analytical methods by which to study systems (of any kind, in any area of life). Each critical theory has its own set of procedures by which to conduct analysis, and they yield particular interpretations of whatever is being studied—such as organizations. Critical theory can help us to understand the mechanisms of an organization, revealing its internal politics and dynamics. It can also help us to understand what beliefs underpin organizations’ practices, and also to judge whether these are logical or not, which is where skepticism comes in.

Skepticism is a long-established position within the history of philosophy, and it involves questioning the grounds of any argument or theory. It is particularly relevant in the case of belief systems (religions, ideologies, etc.), which most of the time are based on assumptions taken to be self-evidently true and thus beyond any need of proof. Proof is, of course, a critical element to philosophical discourse, and skeptics pick away at arguments and theories that fail to provide this at every step: Failing to have such proof renders one’s argument or theory invalid, and there’s no reason why your opponent should then accept what you say. It’s simply assumed in any religion, for example, that there is a divinity: That’s not up for question; it’s the starting point for the entire system of belief built on that premise. The theories that the business world operates by have their own equivalents to these supposedly self-evident truths: Market fundamentalism, for example, holds that the market must be absolutely free and must never be subject to any outside intervention. That’s just taken as a given. As with religion, these starting assumptions can all too easily turn into dogma and then be reinforced by the group-think ethic which entrenches them. We viewed skepticism as a method of resisting such a development, and ensuring that business life did not become dominated by a dogmatic mind-set.

CW: In “Rethinking Coaching,” you argue for the practice of radical coaching. How do you define this term?

A&S: Radical coaching is coaching with the ability and willingness to challenge and question the status quo or taken-for-granted perspectives within organizations in particular and society in general. Organizations have ideologies that drive the values, beliefs and behaviors of the organization and its stakeholders. However, these beliefs and practices might become entrenched assuming the status of a grand narrative or an absolute truth which may no longer be fit for the purpose or serve the well-being of the organization and those associated with it. The purpose of radical coaching is to challenge and question these ideologies’ validity and influence on the organization for the purpose of identifying and developing strategies based on values and beliefs that best serve the organization at a given time in its evolution.

CW: In your chapter on the limitations of coaching, you question whether an internal coach can engage in radical coaching that moves toward critique of the organization. As internal coaching expands, is there no hope for a radical internal coaching practice, or is there a way to reimagine internal coaching as a practice imbued by skepticism?

A&S: It is difficult to imagine how the radical coaching we refer to would be accepted from internal coaches or even whether it would be appropriate. It is also worthy of consideration whether, in fact, it would be possible for internal coaches to bring the challenge and reflection associated with skepticism, given that they are part of the system they would be challenging. There are also the many issues associated with confidentiality and contracting which would need careful consideration. In order to establish an internal coaching practice imbued with skepticism, it would be necessary for the organization to adopt a culture which at its core embraces the principles of challenge and questioning for the purpose of guarding against complacency. However, it needs to form part of the values of the organization rather than merely being paid lip service to and to include commitment at the very senior levels of the organization.

CW: Your post-mortem of the credit crisis includes a scathing indictment of group-think while acknowledging that teamwork and group cohesiveness are central values to most (if not all) organizations. How can coaches give clients what they require—which, often, is coaching for team effectiveness—in a responsible, appropriate way that encourages cohesion while discouraging group-think?

A&S: We saw group-think as largely a dogmatic position which discouraged questioning (which, of course, was to the advantage of those in power), and skepticism as a method of resisting this. Greater utilization of critical theory enables coachees to see that there is in fact a wide range of interpretations possible as regards any set of beliefs, and that dogmatic positions can always be subjected to question. Indeed, our overriding point throughout the book was that such positions must always be subjected to questioning, that this was the only way to ensure that belief systems remained open to new ideas. Unless new ideas are continually coming forward, authoritarian behavior tends to set in, and that is never in any organization’s longer-term benefit.

CW: As we slowly climb out of crisis and toward economic recovery, what’s your vision for the future—of coaching, of banking, of society at large? What steps can members of the coaching profession take now to help us move in the right direction?

A&S: Clearly, there has to be a change of consciousness within the business profession in general about its relationship to the general public, and coaching seems an ideal area in which to make individuals think more deeply about the beliefs they hold and operate by. The dangers of group-think and dogmatic belief-systems are only too evident in the prolonged aftermath of the credit crisis, and we do feel that coaching could play a key role in changing the culture that created this socially destabilizing situation. The more reflection there is by individuals on what they are doing within their organization, and whether it can be justified, the better: That seems an inherently democratic process to us. As the coaching profession matures it might be the time for us to move beyond a focus on—we would go so far as to say an obsession with—models and tools and to instead reflect on the philosophies which underpin our practices and our contributions to organizational and societal debates on the agendas which affect us all.