Appropriate?

The first question offers a major challenge for many professional coaches—for many people who have been involved in the provision of coaching for many years come out of a strong personal religious commitment. In many cases, they chose to become a professional coach precisely because they believe that certain fundamental values and deeply-felt concerns for the human condition are not being properly addressed in many of the human services that were prominent at the time (usually 1990s or early 2000s) This did not mean, however, they wished to use coaching as a way to “proselytize” their own specific religious faith. They could do this overt “recruiting” through their church or some other explicitly religious forum. The challenge, therefore, was for these “early” coaches to be values-oriented and promoting of human welfare without “preaching.”

The summit conversation often evolved around the way challenging questions regarding personal values and commitments can be framed. A commitment to helping their client find their own personal “quest” often was emphasized, as was the identification of moments in their client’s life and work that conveyed some fundamental life purpose. In many ways, the suggestions being made were aligned with the “spiritual assemblage” process described by Matt Friedman, my rabbinical colleague.

In the workplace?

The second question was often addressed as the “soulful” engagement of leadership in the workplace. For a leader to be soulful, they must be deeply caring of not only the welfare of their organization but also the welfare of those employees with whom they work. “Soulfulness” was often aligned with an emphasis on coach-based leadership, as well as leadership being “appreciative” in nature. One of the summit participants stated that they look forward to working with and receiving support and feedback from a leader who is “helpful”: “I prefer to hear it from someone who is here to H.E.L.P. They make an Honest Effort as Loving People.”

Other conversations regarding the nature of spiritual leadership focused on legacy—making a difference and leaving something behind. Should “legacy” be considered a spiritual term? The topic of late life leadership came up in conjunction with the matter of legacy. Is it particularly appropriate to bring up spiritual (or at least values-based) matters when we are coaching someone near the end of their career. When is it appropriate to ask: how would you like to be remembered? Should we invite our leader to reflect back on their early aspirations as a leader? What kind of a leader did you want to be? Were these aspirations fulfilled? Did they change over time?

Attention also turned to the matter of spirituality when working with newly minted leaders. When is it appropriate to ask: What kind of leader do you wish to be? How does the answer to this question get linked to the “actual” behavior engaged by this leader as they take on this role. Is exploration of the gap between aspiration and reality related to the fundamental journey toward some spiritual truth and integrity—and perhaps some “forgiveness” of oneself for not always being what we would aspire to be as a leader.