Linguistic Evaluation and Intervention: A Comprehensive Analysis of Coaching Logs and Clean Language Techniques

Introduction

This paper contains two caching logs that explore specific approaches to coaching practice. It is based on a coaching session that I hold with a client – Jack (not his real name), which was recorded and transcribed verbatim. In these logs, I evaluate the linguistic content of my interaction with Jack and critically reflect on an intervention that I prescribe thereafter. Fundamentally, my reflections will highlight what I noticed about my sessions with Jack and how my observations influenced the interventions and coaching approaches that I implemented. Particularly, I will describe the use of clean language as one of the coaching techniques as well as provide a brief description of the context within which I use the technique. Thus, I will conduct a critical evaluation of clean listening and how I responded to Jack as a practitioner, what I observed in Jack, the feedback my observations gave me and my thoughts or feelings about the reflection.

Client Context

For the past few days since March 2020, I have been coaching Jack who has been struggling with anger issues – affecting both his academic performance and relationship with peers, teachers and parents. His major challenge was poor anger management where he reacts negatively to various situations that he considers unfavorable. Jack’s anger has interfered with his learning and made him develop negative attitudes towards his teachers. He feels that he might end up losing a lot in school or fall into bigger trouble if he continues with poor anger management. Consequently, he contacted me for help, and we have done one session before.

A Reflection on the Use of Clean Language and Meta Model

Because Jack’s issue is related to the way he views people’s reactions towards him, I realized that it would be good if assisted him to connect with the internal representations that could enable him to reframe the way he symbolizes the world (Grimley, 2010), change his view of people’s opinions and consequently manage his anger. By using metaphors, Jack can reconstruct and transform the stories he tells himself and developed a better understanding (Drake, 2007). As Jack continued to narrate his story, I considered the use of clean language in combination with meta-model to help him develop specific meaning to his anger issues and de-generalize his thoughts as proposed by (Grimley, 2010). As we begin the session, I ask him to explain more about the issue she was facing:

G: So, in the last session we talked about the issues that you have at college and you said you recently got very angry towards your teacher and you hit the wall with your fist.

Jack: Yeah.

G: So, since this incident happened, has anything else happened at college? Have you seen your teacher since then?

Jack: Nothing happened but I have seen her at college. She moved me to a different class, which is great. I like this class better because I fit in.

G: Is there anything else about this new class?

Jack: Yeah, I get along with our teacher. He is very respectful towards me.

I could easily tell that Jack was a lot of more general views with his statements like “…I like this class better because I fit in…” I therefore used a meta model to have a deeper exploration of what he specifically meant (Drake, 2007). Nonetheless, upon reflection, I realize that I could have stopped at “…has anything else happened at college?” instead of adding “…Have you seen your teacher since then?” Asking whether he had seen the teacher since than prompted Jack to add something else on top of what was already in his mind. This triggered to think of whether I should have used clean language despite being a beginner in the coaching profession. According to Grant (2006), beginners in the coaching profession should avoid the use of clean language on the client’s unhappy experiences because the client may feel intimidated by a thought of the experience. Meanwhile, as Jack continued to explain his anger issues, I sought to illicit his definition of anger by developing questions as one of the techniques in clean language:

G: Okay. So, if we go back to the time that incident happened, do you remember how you were feeling before you lost your temper and hit the wall?

Jack: We were in the class; teacher was doing the lesson. My friend asked me something. Teacher saw us talking and told me off.

G: How this made you feel?

Jack: Angry, very angry. She disrespected me in front of my mates.

G: What kind of respect were you expecting from your teacher?

Jack: She should have pulled me outside and talked to me instead of embarrassing me in front of my classmates. I hate her, I really do.

I realize that I could have focused on “anger” rather than “respect” because anger was the subject of the context and not respect. If I asked about anger, I would have directed Jack inwards to evaluate his internal representation of anger (Greene & Grant, 2003). Moreover, I would have started the question with “and” rather than “so” especially if I listened carefully. As a coach, I would have practiced good listening skills to encourage the Jack into thinking deeper and talking more openly about his anger issues (Grimley, 2008). Good listening skills would also enable me to identify the right subject as I applied clean language in the session.

Whereas we both speak good English, there were instances of misunderstanding in the sessions probably because of Jack’s tendency to use ‘youthful’ language. Nonetheless, I expected that clean language would improve how we communicate during the entire session because fundamentally, clean language would help simplify the questions by using Jacks’ words and consequently minimize assumptions (Grimley, 2010).

G: Correct me if I misunderstood. So, you want other people to do things that you ask for them to do, but when they want you to do certain things or act in certain ways, you get angry?

Jack:(He goes quite for a bit)

I guess I never realize that’s what I do. I think I am a bossy person (laughs)

I could have reframed the question to “So, you want other people to do things that you ask for them to do and what happens?” which may have been more straightforward for Jack considering that the structure of the question significantly impact on the outcomes – which might be the reason for Jack’s silence. Based on this experience, I have learned that regardless of the client’s response, little mistakes such as poor sentence structure can have a significant impact on the success of clean language. I realized that poor sentence construction could not only confuse the client but also affect the application of clean language by incorporating unnecessary assumptions. Henceforth, I intend to be keener when constructing my sentences to ensure that I avoid confusing the client or making assumptions. According to Knight (2012), language and sentence structure has a significant influence on our metaphor interpretation and how we think.

However, I was amazed by how I managed to use sequence and source questions to let Jack talk about his anger issues, which made me realize that he not only experienced such issues at school but also at home. This indeed, reveals the power of clean language in letting the client open and provide a deeper view of the problem at hand, typically by revealing the wider scope of the problem as opposed to a narrower view (Kovecses, 2002). With the help of these sequence and source questions, I not only had a better understanding of Jack’s anger issues but also helped him realized that my intervention plan needed to address his anger issues when he is home too.

G: If you hurt her, what would happen next?

Jack: They would chuck me out of the college forever, they might even send me to jail.

G: It is good that you know hurting someone physically is a criminal offence.

Jack: (laughs) Yeah, I know that, that’s why I hit walls or furniture.

G: So, you also hit the furniture?

Jack: Yeah, sometimes at home.

G: What happens at home?

Jack: I sometimes get angry at my mum or my brother

To conclude, I have a feeling that my skills on meta model and clean language are not yet perfect. However, upon reflecting on my session with Jack, I realize the usefulness of these linguistic tools in developing effective and efficient coaching sessions. I noticed that apart from just asking clean questions, it is also good to practice clean behavior during the sessions (Lawley & Tomkins, 2006). I also realized that clean language can really be useful if combined with person-centered approach to provide a better understanding of the client’s inner thoughts.

Reflective log 2- Creative Coaching (Spheres of influence)

In my sessions with Jack, I realized that his anger was triggered by things that fell into three categories namely, things he could influence, things he could control and things he could totally not control nor influence. As I heard him talk about his anger issues and things that made him react angrily, I could creatively develop a framework in which all his anger issues would fall as illustrated below:

Then I designed an activity in which he could think of his personal life, school life or both and list as many complaints as he would like. I also made him code these complaints with either “outside my control and influence” or “within my control and influence”. I would then have him reflect on some specific questions that enhanced his ability to elicit a deeper meaning to his anger issues.

For instance, I prompted Jack to identify the category within which the complaints fall. Then he would read the complaints that he had no control over and notice how he feels about them. Moreover, I asked Jack whether there are any complaints outside his control and influence over that he could develop a different approach to so that he could have control over. For example, upon realizing that his teachers tend to be more formal during the lesson and tends to shun jokes during class sessions, perhaps he could request the teacher to use other teaching strategies that would make the lessons more fun. This is based on the premise that sometimes it is possible to find ways of influencing things that seem to be out of our control or at least have an opinion in it (Pennington, 2009).

Concerning the complaints that were outside his control, I assisted Jack to identify anything that he would let go of. For instance, if it was a rule that he should not talk to his friends in an ongoing lesson, the best thing to do would be to avoid talking with colleagues while the teacher is in class. Finally, I asked Jack to look at the list of activities that he could not influence or control, then identify one that he could concretely address.

How I applied the Framework

I noticed the ease with which this framework assisted Jack in managing his anger issues. Typically, as I listened to Jack talk about his anger issues and used the framework to identify the areas where he was expending his energy the most. If I noticed he was focusing on items outside his control and influence or recognize that he was physically and mentally draining when talking about certain issues, I would ask him to repeat the above exercise or just call it out. For example, I would say:

I can notice how you are talking a lot about hating to things in another people’s way. I also realize that you are so frustrated with being confronted in front of your peers because you have been sharing this with me for linger durations since the last session. I would like to hear you talk about something that is more under your control or sphere of influence, perhaps how you would avoid such confrontations? I suggest that our conversation should transition from the things that are out of your control to the things you can control and avoid anger because you are more likely to feel better if you focus your energy on things more control over.

As we advanced deeper into our conversations, I noticed that he felt that his core principles of interaction i.e. not being under the control of anyone was being eroded and this angered him. However, I made him understand that he could avoid anger by avoiding confrontational situations. According to Tossey et al (2014), coaches have the responsibility of assisting clients realize when their energy is being drained in things that fall outside their control domain and point out the need for them to shift their focus to items that fall within “inside their control” domain without necessarily letting go or shifting their perspectives.

I was also keen to assist Jack in realizing that things do not necessarily either exist inside or outside our control. Rather, some things may be outside our control, but we have some influence over. This was worth exploring with Jack and letting him know that regardless of the situation, he can always look for an opportunity to shift to a place of his control and use that to manage his anger.

In conclusion, even though my sessions with Jack may have not completely addressed Jack’s anger issues, the creative technique has been useful in dealing with his emotions that are closely related to his anger issues. Consequently, I am impressed to see how I have improved in dealing with emotions. Using the Spheres of Control as a creative coaching tool, Jack’s anger management issues have improved. I intend to explore other creative coaching techniques such as picture cards to assist my clients to overcome their problems.

References

Drake, D.B. (2007). The art of thinking narratively: Implications for coaching psychology and practice, Australian Psychologist, 42:4, 283-294, DOI: 10.1080/00050060701648159

Grant, A.M. (2006). Solutions-focused coaching. In J. Passmore (Ed.), Excellence in coaching: The industry guide. London: Kogan Page

Greene, J., & Grant, A.M. (2003). Solutions-focused coaching: Managing people in a complex world. London: Momentum Press

Grimley, B. (2008). NLP Coaching. In S. Palmer & A. Whybrow (Eds.) Handbook of Coaching Psychology: A guide for practitioners (pp.193-210). London: Routledge

Grimley, B. (2010). The NLP Approach to Coaching. In T. Bachkirova, D. Clutterbuck & E. Cox (Eds.) The Complete Handbook of Coaching. (pp.383-393) London: SAGE Publications

Knight, J. (2012). Deletion, distortion and data collection: the application of Neuro-linguistic Programming (NLP) meta-model in qualitative interviews. Australasian Journal of Market & Social Research Jun 2012, Vol. 20 Issue 1, (pp.15-21)

Kovecses, Z. (2002). Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press

Pennington, W. (2009). Executive Coaching World: A Global Perspective. London: Chi Teaching

Rees, J., & Sullivan, W. (2008). Clean Language: Revealing Metaphors and Opening Minds. Carmarthen: Crown House Publishing

Tosey, P. Lawley, J. and Meese, R., (2014) `Eliciting Metaphor through Clean Language: an Innovation in Qualitative Research’, British Journal of Management, 25(3): 629-646, which has been published in final form at doi: 10.1111/1467-8551.12042

Looking for further insights on Lifestyle Development and Health? Click here.