With so much already said (see postings 1 – 4 in this series), what’s left to say that’s new or different when it comes to managing your personal prejudices in a coaching situation? As I ponder what I aim to bring I am aware that I want to reiterate thoughts I have already shared:

• Continuing to learn: I could as easily end with as start with an emphasis on my own learning for, surely, my ability to manage my personal prejudices in coaching is a reflection of my learning at a given point in time. My ongoing investment in my own learning (via coaching, supervision and other means) together supply the resources I bring as a coach;
• Acting from a set of values and principles: Coaching is not coaching in which the coach knows the answers and the answers come from the coach. To me, this implies that no matter what I may think at different points in a coaching meeting it is for me to be open and curious, perhaps to have a view and still not to be wedded to the idea of being right. Out of this openness and curiosity come questions which build my own understanding as well as that of my client. These and other values and principles from which I work support openness and reduce the likeliness that personal prejudices (on either side) will limit the effectiveness of coaching;
• Disclosing – or not: Being aware of my prejudices opens up the possibility of disclosing them. With this comes the responsibility to choose. When might I disclose them? When might I not? In general, when I have broad faith in a bias I may choose to disclose it – to offer it to my client as a possibility, openly and without attachment. Equally, there are times when it is for me to notice a prejudice and to set it aside. Of course, there are times when my broad view (that X might work or that Y is unlikely to be effective) may prevail – but only because I have asked questions which invite open exploration. It is not my aim to lead my client in line with my own prejudices;
• Letting clients own their own decisions: One of the key ways in which I manage my personal prejudices in coaching is by remembering that my clients’ decisions are not mine to take. Even when I have a view that my client is choosing a path which may fail to meet his or her needs (or failing to choose a path which will meet his or her needs) it is for my client to know what suits. In truth, I find that the process of working with clients is such that I rarely have a strong sense of unease at a client’s decision. When I do, it may be for me to make observations or to ask questions to test a client’s thinking and still, no client decision is ever mine to make.

Phew! Over five postings I have explored prejudice and what it means to manage my prejudices. Sometimes I have wondered – am I taking the whole question too seriously? At other times I have been aware of how barely I am scratching the surface of this subject. There is always more to be said.

Meantime, I welcome your views.

Reflecting on and writing about prejudice in recent days I am bound to reflect not only on my own prejudices but also on the widespread use of words which imply bias or interpretation and yet go unquestioned. In the most simple way I can, I thought I’d list a few here:

• “How rude!” To what extent is there something called “rudeness” and is this term ever used without prejudice? If I describe your behaviour as rude am I not claiming to know something about what is or isn’t rude and in some way to have authority over your behaviour?
• Terrorist: who gets to decide that an individual is a terrorist (rather than a freedom fighter) or that an act is an act of terrorism? On what basis is one act an act of terrorism and another (whether deemed legal or illegal) a war?
• Mental illness: Thomas Szasz wrote a book questionning the use of the term “mental illness” or “mentally ill”. Is there any such thing? Jung Chang’s memoir Wild Swans with her description of her father’s response to the experiences he had under Chairman Mao’s regime illustrates just how behaviours that pass as “mental illness” could equally be seen as a sane response to the set of circumstances in which we find ourselves. So, is it prejudicial to describe someone as mentally ill?
• Thug: How often do our journalists use terms such as “hooligan”, “thug” and “vandal” as if to use such a term were to state a fact rather than to make an interpretation? And to what extent does the use of a wide range of labels – from “parent” to “paedophile”, from “late” to “leisurely”, from “hard-working” to “high-potential” – imply prejudice on the part of the speaker?

I wonder how you respond to these terms? And what other words and phrases would you identify as showing prejudice.

Yesterday, I explored what we mean by the word “prejudice” in response to my client’s question. Today I venture to ask myself why I or others might choose to manage my personal prejudices – and indeed, why we might choose not to.

I have to declare a bias! For all my instincts are in favour of being aware of my prejudices, of stripping them away, of letting them go… it is easy for me to make the case for managing one’s prejudices in a range of roles. I think of parents, leaders, teachers, coaches… Given my own bias, I want to recognise that there might be well-intended reasons for maintaining a prejudice and even that maintaining prejudice is inevitable.

What might be our reasons for maintaining a prejudice or bias? What needs might we meet by holding a prejudice? Yesterday I mentioned that generalisations simplify the act or process of living. It’s also easy to see how prejudice might be born of fear – a generalisation from one experience to protect us from similar experiences in future. It’s only a few steps, for example, from knowing that crime rates are high in xyz area to drawing the conclusion that all people who live in xyz area are dangerous and to treating them with suspicion. Even when we don’t hold a view we might choose to adopt it for fear of what happens if we don’t. Some of the most striking examples are visible in totalitarian regimes. Others are more subtle and can be seen by the discerning eye in our families, churches, workplaces and other communities. To maintain a bias may keep us safe from something we fear. It may also help us to maintain our place in a community.

What might our reasons be for choosing not to examine our prejudices and to manage them? One reason is that our prejudices are often unconscious, resting on beliefs we take to be truths – matters of fact. How many of us take “you have to work hard to succeed” to be the ultimate workplace truth, for example? Perhaps there’s another reason we choose not to examine our prejudices. For some of us at least hold the view that we are the sum of what we think. To open up our beliefs to examination can be frightening indeed – for who are we when our beliefs have been stripped away and found to be false? With what do we replace them?

Given the reasons we have to maintain our prejudices, why might we choose to manage them – to bring them into conscious awareness, to examine them, to let them go or at least to choose how we respond to them? It’s clear that there can be negative consequences from holding a prejudice, both for the person who holds it and for others with whom they are in contact. Consider the parent, for example, who forms and expresses the view that Johnny is the lazy one in the family (or stupid or ugly…) and that this is a bad thing or that Sally is the resourceful one in the family (or bright or capable) and that this is a good thing. Research in many fields suggests that such declarations tend to sow seeds for the behaviour of the children (or adults) involved. We can expect that over time Johnny and Sally will tend to conform to the ideas their parents have of them. In the field of leadership, research shows how the beliefs of leaders can have the same impact across teams or even whole organisations.

Even when the beliefs of parents (or leaders) are “positive”, they may have unintended and undesired (or undesirable) consequences. In the family Sally may feel pressure, for example, to live up to her parent’s description of her and may fail to ask for help when she needs it. Both Sally and Johnny may over time feel increasingly estranged from their true selves and from the adults who have labeled them in whatever way.

And what about coaching? It seems to me that any hidden assumptions, generalisations or beliefs held by the coach may limit what’s possible in coaching. It’s not that the coach’s experience counts for nothing – often coaching clients look to their coach for input and observations based on their own experience. At times, it’s the coach’s personal experience or experience of other’s progress that tells them that more – much more – is possible for a client. At the same time, when the coach presumes to have an answer, he or she may unwittingly limit the client in his or her progress or in the expression of his or her authentic self.

Perhaps authenticity is the hidden “plus” in all of this. For insofar as we value authenticity and see benefits in recognising and nurturing authenticity in ourselves and others, we are likely to want to go beyond our prejudices and to be open to a level of insight which cannot come from generalisations of any kind.

I wonder, what do you think?

This question, from a client commissioning coaching, has been deeply thought-provoking such that I have decided to explore it here. I notice that I have no easy answers even whilst wishing to come to coaching without prejudice. The first thought that comes up for me as I engage with this question is, in turn, a question: what is a prejudice?

It isn’t often that I take my Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (that’s just two volumes) off the shelf but now I do. Amongst the definitions it offers are the following: 1. a previous judgement; esp. a premature or hasty judgement. 2. preconceived opinion, bias favourable or unfavourable […] usually with unfavourable connotation.

I wonder just how far to take this. One way of looking at it is to describe a prejudice as a generalisation which may or may not be injurious to the person(s) who are the object of the generalisation. If we take this definition, we might want to ask ourselves what difference there is between a prejudice and a belief. It seems to me that the answer to this question is a matter of degree and is generally in the eye of the beholder. It may equally be held in the eye of a group of beholders: such groups might include nations, or people of a common profession, or members of a single family.

An example of one such prejudo-belief is that homosexuality is in some way wrong, erroneous, sinful… the list of such judgements is long. It’s easy to see that different groups hold very different views about sexual preference and/or the choice to act on sexual preference. It’s also easy to see that different groups hold opposing views with equal sincerity and equally positive intentions. Whilst some groups campaign for acceptance of homosexuality and equal rights for homosexual men and women, for example, other groups seek to surpress homosexuality and even to heal people of homosexuality.

When it comes to homosexuality, it’s easy to identify different groups with deeply held, sincere and opposing views. But what about prejudices or beliefs that are so widely held that they are never questioned? Perhaps beliefs against homosexuality have fallen into this category at various times and in various cultures. (Quite recently I met someone who told me that homosexuality does not exist amongst the men of her country of origin. It is my guess that it does). What is received wisdom for one group or generation may be seen as a myth by another. It is the nature of prejudice that it is often unconsciously held.

It is easy to see how prejudices come about. For it is in the nature of human experience that we construct a map of the world around us and beliefs about what’s true or not true, what works and doesn’t work etc. We need this map or Weltanschauung to simplify the act of living. It helps to hold certain beliefs in order to save time in making choices based on diverse and complex data, for example. Equally, living in society and negotiating our interactions with others implies negotiating a path between many options and ways of interacting. Life can be simpler – or at least appear to be simpler – if we have shared beliefs which guide everyone’s behaviour.

So how do we differentiate between a belief and a prejudice? Perhaps the act of owning a belief goes some way towards making it conscious though it may still be prejudicial. This is the simple difference between saying “X is true” (or simply “X”) and “I believe X is true”. In addition, the closer a belief is to the data it seeks to reflect (the closer the map to the territory) the further we are from a prejudice and the closer we are to a belief. Or are we? I wonder if, insofar as there is any gap between the map and the territory, there is always the risk of prejudice, of bias favourable or unfavourable.

I wonder, what are your views?