It is not only procedure, but also the underlying principle, of Socratic Method that applies to coaching. Nate that the Socratic Method inherently relies on the suspension of any search for solutions and instead focuses on exploring underlying assumptions and personal values related to the issue at stake. It therefore demands that we release our attachments to solving the problem and let go of our own judgments and ideas in order to enable us to listen to the client. It requires a commitment and a process to build a shared awareness of the fundamental questions of interest to the client. If this outlook issued in the process, effective questioning- meeting Rogers’ description of “deeper” (p. 63), “super-useful” (p. 64) questions or Whitworth et al’s ‘curiosity’ (1998, pp. 63ff)—becomes much more likely.

As an approach to doing philosophy, which is perhaps an extension of the Socratic Method and may be equally useful for coaches, we also recommend Creel’s (200 I) model of what is termed rational dialogue. Creel (2001) maps out a four-phase model of rational dialogue: assertion, justification, comprehension and evaluation. In this model, the first two phases belong to the speaker and the second two to the listener. The listener’s comprehension is considered important in order to understand correctly what the speaker has said. This is critical for coaches as it illustrates the importance of reflecting, paraphrase and summarising. In Creel’s original model, evaluation is also undertaken by the listener and therefore might run counter to many (though not all) people’s coaching practice. The difference, though, is merely one of emphasis, as the client-centred coach would simply encourage the speaker (client) to evaluate for themselves what they are saying.

A final note of caution on questioning techniques: knowing the right questions to ask to ‘sting’ a client into realisation or awareness is an important skill for the coach. Also important, though, is knowing when to stop asking questions. On the one hand, the intention is to stimulate rather than irritate; on the other, if the coach waits until a client is absolutely clear about the assumptions underlying their values and beliefs, for example, there may be no action. As Howard argues (2000 p. 26) ”there is a time for questioning and a time for doing: Each, at best, forms, informs and is informed by the other”.

The Socratic dialogue – the whole idea of a constructive dialectic—is a foundation stone for both the method of philosophical inquiry and the collaborative reflective process which take place in coaching. Neither can be meaningful without a degree of challenge, of testing the truth. The philosophies that follow, each with their own epistemology, embody different ways of challenging our understandings of what we think we know and what we think is happening around us but all of them answer to the echo of Socrates’ questions.