When we say social construction, we are privileging one aspect, but it’s not the only aspect, which is the tendency into which we fall. Why wouldn’t the structure of the sky affect our conversation, if everything is connected? Why wouldn’t the issues that you experienced yesterday affect this conversation today? Why wouldn’t the fact that you belong to a long tradition of ancestors in a particular cultural branch also have effect on today? We are constituted from multiple sources. If we don’t bring the multiplicity of elements that constitute us, coaching can fall into arrogance-“! know you; so let me tell you,” rather than having awe for the mystery that the other person is.

So, can I coach you? Yes. Could my coaching be effective? Yes, it can be very effective. But don’t believe that the effectiveness came because I reached the essence of you. That is not true.  I can dance with you—but reaching your essence will be too much of a claim from me. I can have good insights; I can get to know you somehow. But more than that? No.

Bill. I want to go back to Teilhard de  Chardin  and  how  he writes about the whole universe being contained  in  every  grain of sand, and that fragment of my entity,  who I  am,  is contained at the very moment of my own conception- all the different possibilities, all the different ways of what I could be. It’s interesting, too, that 50 years ago we had the notion of fractals—that we are a replication of some fundamental entity that flourishes over time.

There’s a piece of what you’ve written or at least talked about—that all elements of the organism are contained in its origins- which is strange stuff Is there some truth in that?  Are there ways in which your own work goes back to systems theory and, in other ways, it’s the opposite of systems theory?  It’s as if all the elements are contained in the system right from the first, but it’s a matter of what flourishes and what remains dormant, not what is added to the system.

Julio.  The word being is pretty good in the sense that it refers to a noun, but it’s a verb: being.  In Spanish, that’s a problem. We say ser, which does not appear to refer to unfolding.  It looks like a fixed thing, ser, instead of being.  That’s an advantage in the English language and also in German.  We are never it; we are unfolding.  Now, maybe another interpretation of coaching is that I will support you in unfolding in the way that you want to unfold. I will be part of the dance in which what wants to happen will happen. It takes away the idea of effort, of control and prediction, of Let’s do it- which is the scientific approach and tradition. What if coaching is nothing but helping the human being align with him or herself so that what wants to happen will happen? That could be another way to interpret coaching.

Let me help your unfolding to continue. Maybe you are a little bit stuck right now, and let’s recover the flexibility and the unfolding Coaching, in that case, looks more like a dance.  As a matter of fact, the reason I’m referring to this is because in my experience that happens in many cultures.