International agreement – Can it work?

Lessons from Apartheid South Africa

Clearly, gathering together all the major stakeholders in coaching in order to begin to discuss common frameworks and standards is a daunting task. There is much potential for the polarisation, division and even disintegration as everyone argues for their own perspective.

Thankfully, discussion processes exist that can help us avoid those outcomes. One such process is the model adopted by the leaders of the opposing factions in South Africa in order to collectively discuss the future for South Africa at the end of apartheid – the Mont Fleur process. This is the model on which we would like to loosely base the Global Convention on Coaching (GCC).

How does it work?

The process itself is relatively simple. Representatives of the stakeholder groups gather together to identify the key issues and potential ways forward. They do this by developing a series of future scenarios based on different ways of resolving the key questions. For example, in South Africa, the participants developed four potential scenarios for the way South Africa might develop. The first was based on a strategy of avoiding a negotiated settlement. (they named this the Ostrich scenario) The second considered a prolonged transition process which attempted to respond to all parties but satisfied none. (the Lame Duck Scenario) The third sought to buy a way forward via unrestrained spending, (the Icarus scenario) and the fourth envisaged a systematic approach in which key building blocks are put in place to support change. (the Flight of the Flamingos) Through the generation and discussion of these possible scenarios, previously warring parties were able to reach shared understanding and agreement. (For a more detailed account of this process as used to solve complex issues in South Africa and elsewhere, see Adam Kahane (2004) Solving tough problems. San Francisco: BK press.)

What might this look like for coaching?

Once the areas to be explored have been identified, working groups on each area, made up of representatives of the various stakeholder groups, would develop scenarios based on different ways of resolving the issues associated with their area. For example, the working party on a code of ethics might consider what the future would look like if there were (i) no formal shared codes of ethics, (ii) a single code to which all subscribe, (iii) a core code with variations for different groups, or (iv) disparate multiple codes for different groups and stakeholders. The scenarios for each key issue area would be disseminated to the wider discussion group for feedback and a white paper produced for discussion at the Global Convention on Coaching in July 2008.

For a more detailed explanation please read the linked document: The Process

Brief descriptions of the roles of members of the Global Convention On Coaching

Working Group Member

The Working Group Member is the heart of the process. The role of the working group is the “think together” so as to understand and address the complex issues raised by the subject matter of their working group. By thinking together, we mean something quite different to the voicing of previously established positions and opinions that so often characterises debates and workplace discussions. Thinking together entails seeking to view the issues under consideration in the light of the different perspectives represented in the group and outside the group - and to genuinely allow ourselves to engage with those different perspectives “from the inside” as it were. Hence the first movement of this dialogue is respectful understanding. From this position it becomes possible to stand back from our own individual perspectives to see the range of possibilities that may emerge to address the subject matter of the group. From this new perspective, new collective solutions and understanding are able to emerge.

The group’s role then moves to identifying the possibilities for collective action (and inaction) with respect to their topic area, and to explore the possible futures created by these actions and articulating these in scenarios.

As much a possible throughout the process, working group members will also seek to consult with and understand the multiple perspectives existing in the community of coaching stakeholders. Following distribution of the scenarios to the wider coaching community for comment, the working groups will reflect on the feedback received in order to further build and refine scenarios, and produce White papers that reflect the range of voices in the wider coaching community. These will form the basis for discussion at the GCC in July 2008.

Wider Consultation Group Members

The wider consultation groups form an integral and important part of the dialogue process. It is through their participation that the GCC becomes truly representative of the coaching world. Aside from following the dialogue as it appears on the web platform, and providing ad hoc feedback along the way, wider consultation group members will be asked to provide assistance and formal considered feedback and comment on the draft scenarios and white papers developed by the working groups at a number of points throughout the process.

Working Group Chair

The role of the working group chair is to enter into the above dialogical process and at the same time ensure that the working group progresses through the process to achieve its aims. Each working group has two major deliverables. Firstly, to produce a set of scenarios concerning how their topic area might unfold into the future if different approaches are taken. These scenarios will be distributed for comment and feedback from the wider coaching community. Secondly, following feedback from the wider coaching community, the working groups will produce a white paper outlining these scenarios, the feedback received and any others scenarios/issues that emerge in the light of this the feedback.

In order to achieve these task, the working group chair will be expected to:
Regularly meet with and engage the working group members via the online platform.
Foster a working space that seeks genuine understanding and engagement with all points of view
By the quality of their involvement, model the type of open, reflective and respectful approach to dialogue
needed for the working group to achieve it aims.
Encourage member contributions where members are silent.
Ensure the voices of the wider consultation group are heard.
Work with the facilitator to ensure that the dialogue process is supported and enacted in the group.

Working Group Facilitator

The role of the facilitator is to ensure that group interactions are genuine dialogues, in which all member’s contributions are heard, and that genuine understanding of the differing perspectives is fostered. This role will include:
Assisting all members in understanding the heart of other members contributions
Where appropriate, assisting member in developing their contribution in ways that enhance the dialogue
Surfacing issues that may be blocking, derailing or destroying genuine dialogue for discussion in the group.

Steering Committee

Aside from the administrative and leadership role in planning for the 2007 and 2008 events, a key role of the steering committee will be to monitor the process and progress of the groups, provide support and coaching where necessary, particularly for the chairs and facilitators.