Evidence vs. Empathy : Why Evidence Based Inclusion is Not The Same As Coaching

Here are 3 popular posts from the last week:

I disagree with so much of what I read here. But I don't argue with people.

You had me at "Data is not evidence"

10 years ago Apple, Meta, Google and others first released their “Diversity data”; they were attacked by many “experts”.  Personally, I was impressed. 😁

Share this with one of your colleagues who needs to know this.

PS.

I write here every single day.

Make sure you follow me for daily insights and inspiration.

Yesterday We Hosted The Authority Series.

Our guest was author Shakil Choudhury who spoke about his book Deep Diversity.

Shakil shared a lot of practical insights including:

- The role of emotions in addressing racial injustice

- How to spot our patterns of bias in everyday life

- How we can combines science with compassion in opposing racism

Make sure you check out our LinkedIn Live!

Check it out here.

I don’t talk about it much but I’m a coach.

I don’t really take on coaching clients much. 

If you wanted me to coach you (outside of our programme). 

The answer is going to be no.

A few years ago I had a wild coaching offer for you. 

Only a handful of people took me up on it. 

1 become a successful entrepreneur with her own leadership coaching business 

1 got a high level promotion after we worked together 

1 went from unhappy in her job to getting a six figure Global Head of Diversity and Inclusion role, put her kids in private school, international travel.. the lot. 

I was happy with those results as a novice. 

I’ve refined my process A LOT since then but I never wanted to be a coach in the traditional sense. 

I’ve been reminded of this because I was reading over my old coaching notes.

Why?

5 years ago I completed a Professional Certificate in Coaching. 

It’s a post grad course that provides solid training in coaching. 

I was told this particular course is the gold standard in coaching in the UK.

Having rigorous standards is important here. 

Coaching is an occupational group trying to establish itself as a profession, but it’s not a profession. 

Despite what you’ve been told, to be a profession you need 4 things. 

Market Enhancement: We have a skill and people want it. 

Market Closure: We control who can do this work. 

Professional Closure: We have standards that we require before you do this work 

Professional Power: Our technology is better than alternatives and this influences our clients

I talk about this in a lot more detail on the show. 

I talked about this a bit in my PhD. 

I’ve talked about this when I spoke at The International Coaching Federation’s International conference a few years back. 

I don’t think they liked what I said because I’ve never been invited back! 😆

I’m not picking on coaches. 

I’m a qualified chartered accountant and accountancy isn’t a profession either.

Anyone can set up a website today and tell the world that you are an accountant or that you are a coach and start doing that work. 

If this was public knowledge, no one would be able to intervene.. at least in the UK. 

If you set up a website and say you’re a heart surgeon and wanted to start doing that work. 

If this was public knowledge, someone would intervene.. at least in the UK. 

Medical Doctors have perfected the “professionalisation project” and by any standard are a profession. 

Coaches are not. 

Accountants are not. 

This also means DEI experts are not “professionals” either. 🤔

I knew this when I signed up to become a coach. 

I didn’t become a coach because I wanted to join a profession. I became a coach because I wanted to acquire coaching skills. 

It was one of the nicest learning experiences I’ve ever had. 

I was in a cohort with some amazing people.

You were challenged and guided by leaders who really knew their stuff. 

They weren’t 3 steps ahead of you. They had deep expertise. 

I’m still in contact with the course leaders and Professor. 

But I always felt like the odd one out. 

For the most part: 

- Everyone there wanted to be a leadership coach. 

- Everyone there wanted to become a Master coach. 

- Everyone there wanted a coaching business. 

That’s not what I wanted. 

Here’s a quote from my coaching notes: 

“I’m not actively trying to be a Master coach, I break a lot of coaching rules“

We were taught a key principle of coaching is that we assume that the person being coached has the answers they need. 

The role of the coach is to guide them or as the ICF says partner with them “ in a thought-provoking and creative process that inspires them to maximize their personal and professional potential.“

I love that idea of maximising potential. It shows up in the way we define Inclusion. 

But it was also challenging for me because Evidence Based Inclusion suggests there’s a good chance you do not have all the answers you need. 

My emphasis is not just on disciplined execution but gathering the evidence you need to make better decisions. 

You may not have this evidence. 

Here’s a short excerpt from an assignment I wrote on that course: 

“Organisations seek my advice as a subject matter expert, in practice this means that leaders want me to tell them what to do.  Although I consider myself to be collaborative; upon reflection I understand that I am accustomed to providing authoritative interventions… this means I often assume responsibility for the outcome.”

I go into a lot more detail on the show including how I felt stifled and hesitant at times on the course. 

Not because of them, it was because of me. 

I needed that experience to iterate the work I do now. 

This was several years ago but it still fascinates me. 

I spend a lot of time co creating, collaborating and partnering. 

The truth is a lot of people hire me because: 

- They want me to tell them things they don’t know 

- They don’t have all the answers they need 

That’s not the same as coaching at all. 

I became comfortable with that on the course. 

I went through the same programme as everyone else. 

But I apply it in a way that suits my purpose. 

Which is helping you to build Inclusion in the workplace on your own terms using a system that sticks. 

Sometimes that’s a focus on individual achievement. 

Sometimes it’s a focus on the organisation.

In my experience 

Evidence Based Inclusion : 

• Focuses on the organisation
• Doesn’t assume you have the answers
• Creates a burden of proof, you require empirical evidence

Coaching : 

• Focuses on the Individual
• Assumes you have the answers
• Creates no burden of proof, you don’t require empirical evidence

I’m oversimplifying all of this, but you get the point. 

It’s also worth noting. 

You may find yourself in a place where you’re learning something that’s really useful. 

But you want to apply it in a way that is different to others. 

The environment may not be set up for you to do that. 

That’s ok. 

For me, it’s funny because the coaching skills allowed me to understand this myself and apply it appropriately. 

In this sense, I had to combine the answers I already had, with gathering evidence for what I wanted to achieve. 

I’m thinking, maybe this is something you can do too.

You don’t have to choose one or the other, you can choose both. 

Have you shared this with a colleague yet?

Think about who needs to know this.

Sharing means you're helping them in their career.

As always

I’m cheering you on.

Dr. Jonathan

Book a call with me if you want to get serious about our own Inclusion Journey.