By Sandra Perry
Hello again, and welcome to our third piece on this series of coaching conversations. This month, we explore the critical importance of trust in building rapport in the coaching relationship between a coach and coachee (person being coached).
When one hears the word “rapport” other similar words that come to mind are: “being in ‘sync’, being on the same ‘wavelength’ as the person with whom you are talking” (Wikipedia). In general, everyday conversations between coach–coachee or manager/subordinate and even in personal relationship settings, we can observe ourselves in an ongoing rapport-building process, consciously or unconsciously. Being “in sync” or on the “same wavelength”, is dependent on certain factors, best described by (Flaherty 2005: 49-58), as sharing:
- mutual trust
- mutual respect and
- mutual freedom of expression.
What is immediately noted is that each of these 3 elements is preceded by the word “mutual”, thus placing the onus on both individuals in the coaching relationship to demonstrate and share these characteristics. One of the key questions that I explore with coaching clients in the very beginning sessions is: “what would ‘switch the lights off?” or end our coaching relationship” and most would respond that they would exit the relationship, if there is a breach of trust or confidentiality.
Both coach and coachee enter a coaching relationship on the basis of trust. As the coach, one’s expectation in this regard is that the coachee will be honest and truthful in sharing information that is necessary to take the coaching process forward in order to arrive at real and necessary outcomes. On the other hand, as the coachee, one’s expectation is that the coach will receive such information without judgement and use such information in a manner that benefits the process and deepens the relationship. Both parties, without necessarily stating it upfront, place a high level of expectation, the expectation being that, on each other when they enter the relationship that the information shared, should shape the conversation through the masterful techniques of the coach in directing the conversation, and all is highly dependent on trust.
When one hears the word “trust”, and thinks of other associated words, the words “honesty” and “integrity” come to mind. At a broader social sciences level, the subject of trust remains a matter of ongoing research. In the context of the social sciences, “the degree to which one party trusts another is a measure of belief in the honesty, benevolence and competence of the other party. Based on the most recent research, a failure in trust may be forgiven more easily if it is interpreted as a failure of competence rather than a lack of benevolence or honesty” (Wikipedia). James S Coleman in his works on Foundations of Social Theory advocates four key aspects to support this perspective.
Let us start in this case, with the coachee sharing personal information about themselves with their coach. By doing this, the coachee or “trustee” is placing trust in the coach or “trustor” as referred to by Coleman. This leads to Coleman’s first of the four key aspects that “allows actions that otherwise are not possible (i.e. trust allows actions to be conducted based on incomplete information on the case in hand)”. The coach in return, in receiving this information, uses it in a manner that takes the coaching conversation to a level where outcomes are formed. Hence, the need for honesty as the basis for the conversation.
At the beginning of a coaching relationship, one discovers that a lot of the trust in the relationship is built on assumptions by both parties. This then deepens and forms the basis of the mutual trust when one starts to observe behaviours and actions from both parties (coach and coachee) as the relationship progresses. One way in which honesty is observed is in the simple act of both coach and coachee “walking the talk”, in other words, taking the conversation to the level of implementation and fulfilling the desired outcomes between the coaching sessions. There is an observable shift in the rapport in the relationship, when this “walking the talk” is achieved. In the case where the walk is much slower than the talk, in other words, when the actions that need to be taken between sessions tends not to happen as intended or planned, the rapport-building process also tends to lag in pace. Lack of foresight by the coach to explore reasons for this failure lack of action between sessions, could have implications for the trust in the relationship for the future and if not addressed, may seriously affect rapport and result in the relationship breaking down.
Leading from this, Coleman’s second of the four key aspect relates to trust in the context of what I would call ‘trust – for better or for worse’. Coleman states that if: “The person in whom trust is placed (the “trustee”) is trustworthy, then the “trustor” will be better off than if he or she had not trusted. Conversely, if the trustee is not trustworthy, then the trustor will be worse off than if he or she had not trusted.”
Let us take this back to the context of the coaching relationship. In the context of being given a mandate by an organisation to coach an individual, the coachee may, during the course of a coaching conversation, divulge to the coach, aspects of his/her work that may need to be dealt with directly with their line manager through a normal workplace coaching. However, on the basis that the coach–coachee relationship is seen as “external” and is assumed to offer a higher level of mutual trust, the expectation from the coachee is that the information given is received by the coach without judgement and used in a manner that guides the conversation towards arriving at a way forward to the situation. When the information received is used “for better” the level of trust and rapport of the relationship visibly increases (this is gauged from feedback). If however, a breach of confidentiality occurs, such as if the information shared or exchanged was used or shared inappropriately with persons outside of the coaching relationship, this could result in a situation of “for worse”.
A good case in point, where lessons on trust can be drawn (though not of a coaching nature), that can be recalled from memory and is known to have been reported on by the media in the late 1980s in South Africa was the case of a severe breakdown in the trust relationship between a medical doctor and one of his patients. For the purposes of this conversation, we could call the doctor the “trustor” who divulged the HIV status of a client or in this case, the “trustee” during a social setting, allegedly during a game of golf. This breach of confidentiality became known to the patient and resulted in serious legal implications for the medical doctor. This was clearly a case of information received and shared, resulting in a case of “for worse” for both the patient and the doctor. The patient situation having worsened from the social stigma associated with the medical condition and the medical doctor from the point of integrity.
The above case was used in this coaching conversation to illustrate that the accused doctor’s behaviour was not the only thing brought into question, but the medical profession had to share this burden. It is reassuring to note that the coach–coachee relationship is also governed by a code of ethics and standards derived from international best practices and codes, and in the South African context, the Coaching and Mentoring Association of South Africa (COMENSA), is the professional body governing this code for professional coaches and mentors. (The topic of ethics and coaching is a subject of a conversation for the future.)
The question could arise, how could one assess or measure trust and is it actually possible to measure? Coleman made reference to “a time lag” that “exists between the extension of trust and the result of the trusting behaviour”. One can relate to this when one recalls earlier coaching conversations, where the direction is largely exploratory until the coachee feels ‘in sync’ with the coach and starts sharing at a much deeper level. At times, in a conversation when listening is really masterful, the question pops up as “what and why is the client not expressing freely – what is it that the client is not telling you as the coach?” This type of question popping up could probably indicate that somewhere in the conversation, the trust level is not where it should be and through redirecting, the conversation with the appropriate questioning, the coachee may provide the missing elements in the information.
As you can see, the subject of rapport has barely been touched on, as I really appreciated using Coleman’s writing on trust to introduce the subject of building rapport. Lauren Buys dedicates an entire chapter to this and I would like to continue with this conversation in our next month, going into more detail on his writing about the “Scale of rapport” by Starr (2003:109).
On this note, I would like to end this conversation and look forward to our next conversation leading on from this. The last topic for this year, the December issue would deal with coaching and ethics. As we embark on our own conversations, both personal and professional, it may of interest to become more attuned to what makes us ‘gel’ with some people and not others. Our own observations of self and others, are at most times, our best teacher
Recommended reference:
- Management by Coaching 7 basic keys by Lauron Buys [Chapter 5]
- Foundations of Social Theory by James S. Coleman
If you have a question or a coaching experience that you would like to share, please send it through to sandra@regenesys.co.za/linda@regenesys.co.za
DISCLAIMER: These coaching conversations are aimed at sharing information with you as fellow coaches or as coach/managers in the workplace. It is not intended as coaching advice and in no way advocates that you take what is shared here as adequate to coach professionally. It must be acknowledged that coaching is a growing profession and with expanding interest from the academic community, a whole body of knowledge and research is available for reference.
