Just as I pause to ask myself the question “what next?” an e-mail lands in my in-tray from fellow coach and writer Len Williamson about Arnold Beisser’s Paradoxical Theory of Change. Len offers a brief description of the theory and explores the implications for coaching.

Beisser was a contributor in the field of Gestalt and this is amply reflected in his theory. Still, with or without any exposure to or understanding of Gestalt, it strikes me that Beisser’s theory has the ring of truth. With Len’s permission I offer his brief description here:

Arnold Beisser wrote an article in 1970 entitled ‘The Paradoxical Theory of Change’. In it he stated ‘that change occurs when one becomes what he is, not when he tries to become what he is not’. It is paradoxical in the sense that a person can change and start to become something he is not only when he truly knows what he is. It is a lynchpin of the Gestalt approach and one of the clearest descriptions of an idea originally set out by Fritz Perls.

I will here reflect on what this means in a coaching relationship and invite you to add your own thoughts. An individual who seeks coaching will often state their requirement as a need to change for some reason. It could be to work better with colleagues, gain a promotion or take a new direction in what they do. The role of the coach is to help the individual achieve the change he wants. The Paradoxical Theory of Change tells us that the most powerful way to do this is to help him describe exactly where he is now. By doing so the client gains insight and understanding about the attributes and characteristics he currently exhibits and begins to see how these might get in the way of the change he wants.

In many Gestalt coaching sessions a client will begin to realise that many of the obstacles to the progress he wants are present within who and what he is at that moment. When this occurs it is a great and helpful discovery as the client can be shown that he has control over changing things that are going on inside him. In fact he has much more control over this than he has over the often originally perceived idea that it is something or someone else that is getting in the way.

The other aspect of interest in this theory is the constant flipping of the client between a state he ‘should’ be in and the state he ‘is’ in. Invariably the client is in neither state but hangs somewhere in between. Making the shift to a clear description of what ‘is’ will give the client a powerful grounding from which he can then consider changing.

Finally it is noticeable that the ‘problem’ or ‘need for change’ cited by the client up front is often not the most important thing to fix for the growth and development of the client. It is always related to where the client actually is in that moment. The role of the coach is to help him describe this in as much rich detail as is possible.

Len asks for thoughts and I notice I recognise a great deal of what he says both as a client of coaching (and other approaches) and as a coach. Maybe my thought of thoughts – simple as it is – is that many approaches are in search of the same truths.

I notice that this in turn raises a question for me – how come we find it so hard to stay with these truths, even though they’re there to be had?