In this episode of OnCoaching, Zoltán Csigás talks with Prof Reinhard

Stelter from the University of Copenhagen, head of the Coaching Psychology

Unit at the Department of Nutrition, Exercise and Sports. He has a practice

as coach, mentor and a supervisor and is an accredited coaching psychologist

(associate fellow at ISCP). He has also been a visiting professor at Copenhagen

Business School since 2009. In the conversation they cover topics of identity

in coaching, evolution of the generations of coaching and the future of the

profession as well.

Hello, my name is Zoltan Csigás, and this is Zoltan Podcast ON COACHING. . In the series, I'm talking with an internationally renowned coaching scientists and coaches. We explore their personal and professional insights on the science of coaching, and on the helping professions. Are you interested in how they got close to this profession? Are you curious about the new frontiers they are exploring right now? Join me and listen to the conversation, inspiration, and some fun is ahead. I'm so happy to have my next guest, who is rain hard seltzer. Welcome, Reinhart. I'm glad to have you on the show. And then delighted that you have accepted my invitation.

Thank you very much. I'm pleased.

I like to say that you are the professor of coaching psychology at the University of Copenhagen. And this is the moment that I would like to give you the word that will give us a quick introduction of yourself.

Probably one thing is that I'm German. I have lived in Denmark since 84. I worked at the University for more than 30 years, my job has, of course, developed quite a bit. So I don't do the same stuff than I did in 87. When I started, I have a background, also in psychotherapy and a PhD in psychology. I I'm doing research and teaching, and I'm doing coaching.

So do it from all the angles. Yeah.

And I also work as a mentor.

As a mentor, Oh, yeah. Then you have an insight into all of the aspects of coaching and coaching, development and aging. I'm not telling a secret that that's one of the reasons why I've invited you to this conversation. Whoa, that's really a lot. And I immediately got one question that you said that your job has changed in the university. And what was the change that you have welcomed the most in this chase, actually.

It's actually my journey towards coaching. Because it somehow accidential in some sense. One of my areas, it's also sports psychology, wrote a handbook in Danish sports psychology. And the director of publishing house, the Danish psychological publisher, asked me what I could write a book, which was more for practitioners. I think he had an idea, it would be something like mental training or so more for sports people. And I said, Oh, I'm not so much interested in that. And there was also just published another book from a Norwegian colleague on the topic, I said to him, I will return. So I had to think about it. And I actually started to teach in the area of coaching. At the university, I had really no really clue how coaching would look like in my understanding, the first place. So I had two basic theoretical foundations. One was a series on identity. It was actually an area where I wrote my PhD, and new learning theories. So that was actually the fount is the theoretical foundation for my work. So then I returned and our our some other colleagues started to work in the area of coaching to publish a book. And this was my only bestseller was more than 444 You know, Denmark has only less than 6 million people. The book has, I think, altogether, about 25 copies sold. And the book edition from book club with 3000 copies just in one print. I mean, this is really a big shot in that says it's still selling the book is from 2002. So it's more than 20 years old. That's quite amazing. And then my journey started and couple of years later since 2009. I also teach at Copenhagen Business School. My main work is as a department of sport and exercise and nutrition, actually, and I also work as a visiting professor at Copenhagen Business School about a Teach for the last 14 years. Leaders and public enterprises so it could be headmaster's of high schools, people from the government offices, police, military. A lot of people from the health sector. Doctors had no says and all these. So this is actually how I came to further develop my understanding of professional dialogues, I would say, to broaden the perspective on coaching, also a bit.

And I really like that you use the word professional dialogue, because that's what I'm hearing is that you were carefully not saying coaching in the first place. But you were saying professional dialogue, which implies for me a much broader understanding of, of what we are talking about helping professions, then what is really interesting for me, the diversity of your background. So you mentioned sports and exercise, psychology, or sports and exercise and even nutrition as one of the main areas. And even then you mentioned identity theory, as a basis for your understanding, as if I take a look at these two fields. Well, they do seem to be very far fetched from each other. Do you put these together?

Yes, sometimes I also struggle a bit. But I think that is a closer connection than you think. Because identity is actually, it took me one and a half years before I really started my PhD to find a topic, which was really something important, from my perspective, and I think identity issues is one of the most important topic in the area of psychology, which you relate to the changes in society. Because if you think about how the concept of identity and self understanding has changed, than from during the last 50 years, I mean, if we go 50 years back, we after World War Two, the period 50s 60s, beginning of 70s, we got our identity by birth, more or less through our family background. And it was a clear continuum of the development. And I think the first change came through the revolution through a growing educational focus, which actually happened in the US after the Soviet Union had their Sputnik around the earth. And the US became aware of we are also in competition in regard to education. So they started in the educational revolution, and it came maybe later to Europe, this brought some new perspectives toward that whole understanding of identity, because you could say, the German sociologist or the spec described, it was an elevator effect, the whole society moved somehow a bit upwards, but they lost the identity in relation to the social background, to the class identity. And suddenly, there was a, you had to work towards your identity. And this development grew even further, since we have social media. And I think it's somehow dread for a lot of young people who are very, I mean, it has always been a, the age, the time between maybe age 13, to beginning of the 20s, has always been a difficult time for young people. Now, through social media, these young kids and young adults have to work on the identity, identity becomes actually quite kind of performative act in that way, you can see if in this being a performer, then they have a better chance to develop an identity they are satisfied with, if you are not so good at it, you have a very broken identity, and different unclear identity and self concept. And here, of course, if we speak about dialogue, which I actually prefer, coaching is a transformative dialogue. So I talk about transformative dialogues, then we could say, the transformation is actually when people see I'm not really satisfied, what I'm doing, how I, how I understand myself, and so on. So it's actually this transformative dialogue. And transformation means that you actually become something slightly different, you understand yourself in a slightly different way. And that sense coaching is a transformative dialogue towards redefinition of your identity.

That's fascinating because how I understand it is that in your approach, when you're understanding coaching is an identity forming act. We are supporting them in becoming better performers. Let me use these words in expressing themselves or in doing themselves, which then feeds back to their own identity to the life that they are they are living with or they are experiencing for themselves.

Yeah, I mean, I struggled with that become better performers. Because this is actually not my do, we are forced to perform through social media, for example, or in, in our everyday life, we perform through our clothing, through our way of consuming things. So our way of eating our way of seeing different firms that are performative acts, but what I actually work towards is that people find a kind of stance, this is me closer, more clear understanding what they are standing for

motivation, or external pressures to mold, an internal reflection.

So of course, I mean, if you think it's actually conversation with yourself, in some sense, when you see you as a dialog holder, the coach is actually some external person, you use some kind of a mirror or dialogue, partner of somehow reflect slightly different than you are used to. But you always have somehow if you reflect on things, if you talk about things that has always an aspect, and that you talk with another part of yourself,

who I have a number of follow up questions for this week. And I was just rereading some of my old stuff from Rogers. And then were telling me, it really resonates with the non directive psychotherapy of Rogers, or the Rogers Yeah, and approach to reflecting and giving the other person a non judgmental space, or a non judgmental reflection in which they can get correct fi according assessments are a reflection of themselves compared to the incorrect or false or even sometimes challenge reflection that they get in their past from parent figures, whatever. So how is it related by concept in your mind, so the rajarshi approach, I mean,

I'm very much in favor with the Raj Aryan understanding in general, because I think he really grasped something which is very essential for, for these transformative dialogues. And I remember something I read from him in his earlier time, when he was working as in a clinic at a time in the 50s. Psychologists, not the most respective people, it was a psychiatrist, so rather respective people, and he had a client in a hospital, where he and this client was very difficult. And he didn't want to talk to a psychologist, in the first place. Rogers was sitting together with this client. And this client refused to talk. And the only thing Rogers could do is talking and reflecting to the client. What happened with him, Rogers. And it took, I mean, I don't know how many sessions so it was a very difficult case. And he was staying in permanently in this place, the client. And I think they had several sessions during one week, maybe two or three. And it took 14 days before the client started to talk. I think this says something about what it means you have to earn credibility as a dialogue guide, I'm talking about a dialogue guide instead of coach because this broadens this also to other professional dialogues. Sometimes we have something coaching like conversations, but they are not clearly coaching one to one and one hour or something. So he really had to credibility Rogers in this case. And I think this is something which is very important that we have to deserve to be dialog guide for another person. And this means to develop trust and Tegrity show respect and generosity are very important concepts in that sense.

One of my question surrounding this and to follow up on the things that you just said is that, how do people know what to contract for? But how I see the most people have performance goals. Most people have issues that they are struggling with, I mean, not working relationship, career courier move, or something like that? How do these people become subjects to serve level coaching? How do these conversations turn out to be identity shaping things instead of just performance related conversations? How do these people become clients for third generation coaching instead of first or second generation coachings which are their initial needs?

It's an import Question you raise, I think it comes quite automatically. I mean, there's some actually some research that people change their goals during the session, though they come with one idea and it moves on to something else. So what people in the first place think, might not be the really the core of, of the issue they are struggling with. And I think it's totally fair that they come with an idea, and they just want to have a better life or whatever. It's also goal, but it's very global, very broad. But I think, if you come to, I mean, at what I tell people is that I include myself a bit more in this reflective process, so that I don't only ask questions, and this is something which I think is important for me to state that I not only ask questions, but I participate as a co reflecting partner. And I think I give this second voice which everybody has in his mind when thinking about things that you talk to yourself to another part of yourself. I'm the third party and I reflect, in that sense also to the issues at stake. For the moment, I think it comes quite automatically, what I tried to I mean, I worked from an understanding the concept of intentionality has three levels, the lowest level, the most concrete level is goal. The next level is purpose. And the highest level is meaning and what is important, we have to relate the concept of meaning to some personal values. Now we start to reflect on a much deeper level. And I talk actually about the sustainable dialogues, and they are sustained. This is quite a popular word in many senses. But here, sustainability means actually, that you don't have to go to a coach every second week for the next five years. Because you always have new goals, new ideas you want to achieve, I hope to really free people from the dependency of going to dialogue guide, they are so far that they are guided by their own value and these guiding staff for their personal and professional development. I think it comes quite natural. If you go to something which is much more existentially important, then people you know, they think this is exciting. I never get an opportunity to talk about things like this. What is really me what is really important? What is the driver for my actions? So when people start to talk about maybe a career move, then I would at some point I would ask, so what is it really, what is your mission for you, relatedness, and your relation to the world and to your job area. So if you really go in depth with these perspectives, they talk about purpose and meaning. So higher perspectives of higher dimensions of this concept of intentionality, then you get to something, which is where people get excited, where they suddenly can see, oh, now it's really very important that I reflect on things like this, what is my mission? What are central values, guiding values for my work, and for my way of living? I think this is very important. And then the dialogue becomes much more sustainable that people say, No, I found the basic idea why I'm living on this planet here.

Oh, my evil, provocative question here is how you find the boundary, where this coaching would become an existential therapy. What is the thin line? We'll just go over that way. And, and we're just putting it here in brackets that, yes, you do have a background in psychotherapy. So you as an individual practitioner, I don't have any questions about your ethics, because well, you were certified in whatever to do all the fields. But the practitioner who is inspired by the idea of coaching on the level of meanings, and giving a bit more of themselves and inviting deep personal reflection, how could they find the theme line what they shouldn't cross?

What is the difference between coaching and psychotherapy and there are a lot of people who try to mark the distinction. Then some people say yeah, coaching is much, much more future oriented, much more forward oriented and therapy is much more go back in to your biography and your personal history. But I mean, there are also psychotherapeutic approaches, which would never go back to childhood and things like this. So this definition would be a failure. I had a longer talk, I was one staying for several months in Sydney at the coaching psychology unit there with totally grant and Michael kavanah. And Michael Kevin, who is the rounder in Sydney, he is actually clinical psychologist, and we had to talk about this. And he said, the difference between coaching and therapy is the background of the client. The clients are different, not what you're talking about. I mean, why not talk about existential issues in coaching. I mean, there is also a method or approach to coaching which is called existential coaching. And I'm somehow inspired also by existential thinking. So I try really to balance between an existential phenomenological experiential based understanding. And on the other hand, more social constructionist understanding, we create something together, we form new narratives in collaboration. And that sense, I'm really trying to unite some ideas, which somehow are, quite, in some sense, also a bit controversial. But I think it's important to have this existential perspective, habit, as a part of coaching because I think we are really struggling a lot in these times, which we call the VUCA world or hyper time of hyper complexity or so that a lot of different ways sociologists have described the time we are living in. In that sense, we need to find some kind of deeper existential stance from where we live and work and think, in that sense. It's has growing attention also in society. I feel it in here in Denmark, I really feel a closer attraction to these approaches. And for the last 1213 years, I have actually a very special week course at the Copenhagen summer University, which tries to combine coaching, leadership, and the philosophy of Soren Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard is, we decided that he is actually the first third generation coach in the world. This is about 200 years ago. So it's not me who invented to be moderate. I mean, some ideas are based, so that we have to choose ourselves is something what Soren Kierkegaard says, and this choice will never end. So we cannot choose like the supermarket and choose something. But we have to work on it permanently. So in that sense, there's always something to work on. And we need the other to develop. And here, there's also another idea which comes in and maybe it's some similar background, it's the Korean German philosopher, visual tool Han. And he has published recently, quite a bit of his work is translated to English to Stanford University Press. And he talks about the expulsion of the other. And this is actually something we are very much in danger, you read it today, I read an article just the debate article in the news. And the other day, I saw something on German TV, that the climate of having discussions on the internet is getting more and more sharp, we hate speech. And you know, we do not see the other as something as a kind of inspiration, we think my way of seeing things is the only one. And this is even strengthened by algorithms. That's the idea of visual Treuhand that we are in these bubbles. So if we are Trump fans, we are in this bubble of Trump fans. And then there are others who are not in this bubble, and they are in another bubble, but they never talk to each other anymore. So it's only a self fulfilling prophecy of your own talk, which goes into his circle, and you won't develop and he said, Han said maybe there will be in the future and you profession, and this profession is called listener. And the basic idea and this goes back to somehow to Kierkegaard and tau also to my understanding referred that tends to several people that we need otherness to develop. The voice of the coach or the dialogue guide, is a voice, which supports or introduces something different into the conversation, which is important for the development of my client.

Thank you very much. And I really liked that you brought in the philosophical background. What I like in what you are saying, as they reflect on one of these, for me fundamental questions of the boundaries between coach and culture, how much can I put into the conversation as a coach from myself?

I have arguments for it. So it's not just a statement that I say, oh, it would be good to have something more than only questions. Because the old school coaching is asking questions. I mean, that's the was the first definition. I can remember. It was given by John Whitmore. It's more than asking, not instructing or educating people or teaching them. But it's also to ask questions. But there's more to it. Because we live in a world with which has changed. I mean, coaching started in the 90s, as a further development as a kind of toy and pause for psychology into the organizational world. So that was the beginning. At that time, it was good. The coach would ask a lot of questions to help the person, the coachee, or the client, get new reflections. But I think how I describe the changes in our world, we need more, we need more to really come forward to new ideas. In that sense, the CO reflecting partner, I reflect on, I talk about I share gifts, sometimes I reflect back, that I get to learn something from my client actually about the understanding of something existentially important for me. And in other cases I can give to my client, I'm impressed by something, so that I really, maybe put out also a different perspective that the client may be thought, Oh, I'm just really stupid. But my reflection might be totally different. So I give a present or a gift back to really give my perspective to thing. This other than this, which Han mentioned, is actually quite important. And sometimes you even have to be somehow a bit provocative. It comes from the systemic approach, they talk about irreverence, so that you really say something and you try to push to the limits. What is really acceptable as something new for the conversation, which wouldn't offend or wouldn't really, my client would just go blank or blank, I have to find these elements also that I push something into the conversation, which is somehow a bit provocative, maybe somehow under the surface of the client, which the client tries to keep off

a one sided conversation and somehow a similar picture came out. It was a COBOL, specific coaching supervision of mine and, and I clearly remember that my that I had an issue about how much can I put into the conversation and my supervisor told me that I could imagine the my client as being avoided anymore, with a lot of potential cage, being in a cage, then he told me that is not my job to open the cage, but it is my job to shake the cage, provoke that anymore, so that finally it will break free from the cage by itself. But I do need to shape the cage and I, I really love that picture. I really love your enthusiasm on how you speak about this topic. And they really see the interconnectedness of the philosophy of the even the current events in our lives, social media bubbles. And what is interesting for me is that without the background in narrative psychology puka guides phenomenology, how do you put these concepts or the concept of concepts of surge generation coaching? to research what what are the tools or ways how you can examine such process? Is there a need? Yeah, I mean, sure on this.

I mean, of course, I do research I've done quite a number of objects, actually, all of them are group coaching. This has something to do with that you include more people in it, if you have one to one coaching, we had a large project a couple of years ago, with the young boys with migrant background, it is schools, I actually could attract 26 coaches with a background like us, for example, it will be part of it. And we did, we had coaching sessions of 45 minutes. About every fortnight for two years, the idea was actually toward more towards a slightly different approach. And this golden standard, we actually try to control group from another school, but it's very difficult. I mean, because there are so many elements in it. We had, for example, how to bring a line of thinking into 26 coaches who are somehow different, of course, we had conversations before and when we they blocked actually, voluntarily, they didn't get any money. We had some kind of interviews in the beginning to really have a some kind of common ideas. And because I'm quite a one on person, Denmark, then you also how I work, they in that sense, they also apply to be part of it, because they wanted to support my idea and things like this. But basically, it was much more an action research project than a classical, golden standard project, which would be the ones where you normally would talk about evidence based. I'm actually somehow I wrote about this in my book guide to third generation coaching, there's actually a chapter on this issue, where I discuss evidence basis, and where it comes from the medical world is very critical. 30 years ago, nobody in psychology would talk about evidence based. And this is a new thread. So it's also a political thing. It can be very restrictive. And I remember that in in Germany, maybe 15 years ago, suddenly, only three different kinds of psychological approaches were accepted, because they had this evidence base, which was maybe easier for cognitive coaching, then if you work based on crystal or other more fluid approaches, which have no clear the same clear structure, but more philosophical idea behind it. So in that sense, evidence is also a political concept in a specific discourse. And Foucault, the French philosopher, sociologists has been, for example, very critical in regard to this specific discourses, which is also a way of imposing power. So at that time, in Germany, everybody suddenly did a cognitive behavioral training, but they, they returned to the clinic, and they do the same stuff, and they always done. But now, they have the license. In cognitive behavioral coaching, which was the one except way of

this may sound stereotypical. But that sounds like Eastern European fondness for by Eastern European listeners, there's just something very personal for me. With that in mind, I do agree the different discourses, they do play a strong role in how they shape science and research and complete professions. What kind of investigation so research, would you consider as useful or forward pointing in the case of I

mean, I think what is important to really wrap this up again, so I'm not against evidence base, we have to do some quality assurance, but we have to define evidence base in a different way than they did in medical sciences. So we cannot just copy something which doesn't fit to a different area now. And they even have to work evidence based and pedagogy is normative approach. I mean, there's something a view of what a human being is like behind it. And it's very different. At some point of time, that was maybe also behaviorism part of pedagogy, which is very different than if you work, let's say from Rudolf Steiner perspective, which is popular in Europe in some areas, which is totally different. You can't compare these things and just evaluate them on the same level. So there's a normative understanding behind it. I think. My idea is, in that sense also to combine psychology Do you with more philosophical understanding? Also in the way I've worked in coaching psychology and dialogue? Because there has been a tradition, which goes back 2500 years to Aristotle and, and Socrates. And so why shouldn't we include these people our understanding?

We should definitely. I'm against blindly following any single direction, even in the case of research. So just going for just for qualitative or for quantitative Oh, from any whatever single direction and I'm against, I think that the bubble that I have already, you know, pierced in my life is that no single research direction is good in itself. Yeah. What is interesting for me is, do you have any ongoing projects, or things that are interesting for you that you could share with us that you're working on from the research or development perspective?

Yeah, I mean, now I actually bought a bit more theoretical, I'm going closer to the end of my career, and I'm working on a book, I'm getting 70, next year, maybe I don't look like this. But truth, actually work on a book at the moment, on the future of coaching, it will be a Danish book. Because this is something good testimonial for the somehow correct my career at the University, I will not go and just do gardening in two years. So I will continue. But maybe we'll talk more as a practitioner. I gave actually a lecture at Budapest last year, the future of coaching and this really think this is very important to think about also, this will not be about artificial intelligence, and coaching, which will be somehow also be included in the future of coaching. I reflect a lot about this currently, maybe there will be check EDP, in some kind of first generation coaching. So there will be possibilities for sure. But I think it will never happen in third generation coaching. Because, I mean, artificial intelligence has difficulties to really show emotions and come with personal experiences. So that will be anyway, it has to be very clear. Do I talk to a real person? Or do I talk robot machine?

I think that for me, that brings in the questions of trusting your machine, eventually, the questions on what constitutes a human at all, that will be a huge topic to discover. But just keeping our time limits in mind, we you share, if it is not a secret, a few thoughts on the future of coaching that you will have in your mind.

I still somehow my idea of third generation coaching, which I see. And I try to argue more for this, and we actually talked quite a bit about during our conversation now about there are really a lot of changes. And we are somehow trapped in really building up ourselves our ego, though. Psychological issues become much more prevalent in society, anxiety, depression, burn out grass, and we have to react on this, we have to, of course, there are structural conditions difficult to change. But there are some ways to do it also in conversations. And we have to include these conversations more in everyday life. This is something you know a lot of people think about coaching as something which is an organization alive, I think we have to include it much more in civil society. I know that there's for example, here in Copenhagen at the university or their student coaching the university is is struggling more to really keep up their performance. And it's important that in that sense, I think there's a really specific quality on group coaching because you see something you can develop a kind of solidarity and common understanding about some issues that you are not alone. With these questions. You are struggling with the other people who are fighting this with similar problems. This will be something I'm really work of trying to promote that dialogue should be part of the civil society should be strengthened in specific groups. Here suddenly it pops up that we have, you know, the conversation rooms that people just beat up a community house and They talk about some issues which are staged by a facilitator. And then they they have a good talk about something which is important. We have to develop what is called in sociology, social capital, in organizations in neighborhoods. I mean, as I said, we are so much challenged by these bubbles, dialog or not dialog, the posts on social media where people just post something out, which is not very appreciative in regard to accepting other people's understanding of things, we

are using your very soft words to describe the phenomena,

we really have, if we do not want to lose, also our democratic society, we really have to work on this, we need to develop fora for community building. And this is something I'm really striving for. And maybe this might be a kind of force generating coaching, but coaching goes into the civil society and really tries to help people to be in contact and talk. We have here in Denmark, there's a woman, she is having coffee with people who wrote hateful mailstore. She was a former politician. And she's now really working on this issue. And I think this is something which is very brave and fantastic to do, so that you meet your enemies, if you could call this like this. So people who write hateful things, and if you really come into contact with them, something can develop in a new way. And I think this is something which is very important to develop dialogical fora and civil society, which opens up for something which is so important to keep our democratic societies

Thank you very much I really appreciate is that although we haven't mentioned the word, systemic approach, or I don't recall mentioning it, I think we really got to it that you were thinking in the very large scale. And I as a coach or a practitioner, and then the thinking about coaching, I definitely agree with you that we have a tool or approach or a perspective in our hands, which is capable of changing the world, for the better. Definitely. I'm just a huge fan of human cooperation. And I think without that we don't so we definitely need to work on it. And coaching is I think that's the best way, our best toolkits to help us in getting there. Thank you very much for all your insights, and all your thoughts. I'm really grateful for you joining me in this conversation and

thank you very much for the possibilities to have these reflections together with you.

Thank you for listening to on coaching podcast, where I have curious conversations with virginal coaches and researchers. If you enjoyed this episode, make sure to rate us and subscribe. I also invite you to visit Zolt educational comm where you can access more resources regarding the coaching industry. We will