First Cinnie, I must say that I really like how you draw on so many resources in your explanations, descriptions and analyses. Reading your book, at almost every juncture I think of some other work that was done in an area, you allude to it (“name, blame, claim”, “cognitive biases”, “the Beyond Reason core concerns”, etc.) and draw a very full and thorough picture. It makes for a very rounded reading experience and is very satisfying. Thanks!

Chapter 2

On the basis that you walked yourself through the cycle in the (Not So) Merry Go Round, what are your reflections on this analysis? What other elements may add? What other analyses have you found useful? What other comments or questions do you have about this chapter?

I appreciate the image of the conflict rule book that people have and understanding that those rule books can be adjusted and changed. It is a simple, but powerful way of looking at how we deal with situations.

As regards to the precipitating interaction I appreciate how you point out that revisiting things over and over in our head – or talking to others about it – brings with it the risk of entrenching us. It’s something I personally struggle with, so it’s good to have this warning put out there very clearly. It is such a fine balance between the cathartic effect of venting and being able to move on and getting more caught up in the past...

In the section about the boundary you seem to refer to what I learned of as the “name, blame, claim” framework (from Felstiner, Abel and Sarat’s 1980 article “The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming, Claiming...”). Obviously, the go-round of conflict is more complete in terms of the detail and the timeframe considered. This detail comes at the cost of complexity. I am glad to learn about other ways to analyze conflict/disputes – the more tools we have, the better we’re equipped!

Another approach I am familiar with is the CCC “Comprehensive Conflict Coaching” Model by Jones and Brinkert (he’s one of the other professionals I was able to interview!), which draws more heavily on the narrative approach to conflict management. There seems to be a difference in that in the CCC model explicitly addresses questions of power and that the coaches pro-actively seem to try to empower/train their clients with communication and negotiation skills.

Chapter 3

This chapter considers the types of questions that commonly arise in the inquiry stage and other conversation points that come up in the intake - once coaching is going ahead. What other questions may people ask - for which you also wish an answer? What other comments or questions do you have about this chapter?

In the section about how coaching works you mention “conducting a short coaching session” to “demonstrate how coaching works” (pg. 85). Working in a very different (software) field, I’m curious how such a demonstration session works. Are there any demonstrations – or even transcripts (a la “Purple House”) that you could share?

In regards to the client and the coach being mutually suited for each other and for coaching I wonder if you are ever concerned to a point that you bring this up during the initial stages or maybe work some type of contingency into the agreement? Or is the detail in the conflict management coaching agreement (pg. 91 – 93) always sufficient? Say, for instance, the client keeps insisting you give advice or provide training?

In the paragraphs about the length of the sessions and coaching (pg. 98 – 100), I was wondering, could you give a few examples? Jones and Brinkert explain that in the CCC model coaching “a moderately  extensive conflict coaching relationship may include 8 – 12 one-hour sessions and span over 2 to 3 months” (pg. 41). I realize that situations probably differ vastly, but if you could maybe refer back to the examples of Wayne, Clara and Greg from chapter 2 it would help the reader a better perspective on this topic?

Lastly, Cinnie, how do you manage to not give advice? I would struggle incredibly holding back from that. Is that a skill one develops over time? That is still one of the most intriguing aspects of the CINERGY models for me....

Hi Andre:

To begin with, I am very appreciative for  your comments and compliments. Thank you.

Chapter 2:

With respect to your comments about the 'boundary' of the Not So Merry Go Round of Conflict, I think  that how I describe  the evolution (or maybe it's the 'evilution' :))  from a conflict to a dispute is not exactly the 'name, blame, claim' framework you refer to.

I suggest that the evolution of interpersonal conflicts to disputes occurs when we experience that the other person has crossed a line for us. That is, we all have boundaries that denote our level of tolerance and there are some behaviors that push us too far and we know longer keep our feelings inside. Sometimes, it is a repeated behaviour  that we have been internally processing and putting up with for a period of time (and then one day we no longer accept it). Whatever that point is- when we externalize our reaction to being pushed - is when the other person is now engaged and gets on his/her own merry go round. That`s what I refer to as the dispute.

Chapter 3:

Demonstration:

I don`t have any precedent tapes of a demonstration that I show the client about how coaching works. Rather, I find it`s very useful for the client to have his or her own experience of what it`s like. What Tammy describes is what I do as well.

Being mutually suited:

With respect to the question about being mutually suited for each other in the coach-ciient relationship, this topic is typically part of the inquiry and intake conversation, and I don`t make it a separate term of the Agreement per se.   I  stress the importance of building a trusting relationship during the initial discussions and ask the client if it`s okay with him or her that we share any concerns as they arise. I have not had a client say no to this and I have had clients raise matters that come up for them. This type of dialogue models  openess and flexibility and serves to co-create and build a partnership.

Advice giving:

It`s rare in my practice that clients insist on me giving advice or training. On the occasions when people do ask for my advice I take the same approach that Tammy does and it works effectively.

You asked in this regard, how to hold back from giving advice. This is one area that distinguishes coaching  from consulting, mentoring, advising. To start with, my coach training taught me a lot about the importance of self determination in this forum and the value of empowering people to help themselves. When I was then doing research in the development of my coaching model, the repeated experience of the study group members was that their most memorable insights and durable changes came from them figuring things out for themselves.

Learning how to ask possibility questions and honouring adult learning principles are integral to accomplishing this. This is consistent with the philosophy of the International Coach Federation which refers to clients as creative, resourceful and whole. When coaches let clients know that we trust they have the answers-  in whatever way we do that- the clients find the answers that work for them and their contexts.

Timing and duration of coaching:

With respect to your question about the timing of sessions and duration of coaching, this does indeed vary from client to client. I mentioned that in the research, the majority of study group members said that 50-60 minutes was the maximum amount of time they could concentrate. Sometimes sessions may be less than 50 minutes but generally, I schedule an hour for each session.

As for duration - in addition to intake time of approxiamtely one hour  -  I am typically retained for at least 8 sessions for dispute specific matters. In my experience, the minimum time it takes a client to go through the model and be prepared to follow through on one goal is approximately 6 hours. However, I have coached clients who are able to proceed in less time and others who require more time.  When clients are working on shifting conflict conduct and a series of disputes related to the behaviours, I may be retained for up ot 6 months. I do want to add that in some cases, budgetary constraints limit the duration of coaching.

In the examples from the book  I do not recollect the exact duration of those  Andre,  but  I  would guestimate an average of 8 sessions each in addition to intake.

Thank you for such great questions Andre and let us know if there is anything else you may want to ask.