Demystifying Coaching II (Not an evaluator, Not time-consuming, Not psychotherapy)

Myth 4: The Coach Acts as a Performance Evaluator

Another common confusion, especially in business contexts, is the idea that the coach functions as an eva luator of the coachee's performance.

It may be thought that the coach is there to judge, rate or formally report on the employee's performance to management. However, this role contradicts the fundamental nature of coaching.

The coach's role is not to eva luate, but to help the person optimize his or her performance.

The coach is a facilitator of development, a partner in the coachee's growth, not a judge.

His objective is to create a safe space for exploration, learning and improvement, which would be incompatible with a formal eva luative function that could inhibit the client's sincerity and openness.

Performance appraisal belongs to the reporting line or HR processes, not to the coach.

Myth 5: Coaching Takes Too Much Time

There is also a perception that embarking on a coaching process is an excessive time investment, which may deter people or organizations with tight schedules.

There is a fear that the process will be long, arduous and that results will take a long time to manifest themselves.

However, this idea does not fit the reality of most coaching programs.

While it requires commitment, the longest programs rarely exceed nine months.

More importantly, the benefits are not postponed until the end of the process; the individual begins to see improvements almost immediately from the first few sessions.

Coaching is designed to be an efficient and focused process, generating progressive and tangible changes in a defined time frame, not an endless intervention.

Myth 6: Coaching is a Type of Psychotherapy

Perhaps one of the most persistent and potentially problematic myths is the equating of coaching with psychotherapy.

Coaching is mistakenly thought of as a form of "light" or alternative psychological therapy. However, this is not the case at all.

As mentioned earlier in differentiating the two disciplines, their approaches, goals and populations are distinct.

Psychotherapy addresses psychological problems, pathologies and often explores the past to heal, while coaching focuses on the present and future to achieve goals and develop potential in functionally healthy people.

Although some tools or techniques may superficially overlap (such as the use of questions or active listening), their application, depth and purpose are different.

Confusing coaching with psychotherapy can lead to seeking an inappropriate intervention for the real needs of the person.

Summary

It is a common confusion that the coach functions as a formal eva luator of the coachee's performance, especially in the business environment. The role of the coach is to optimize performance and facilitate development, not to judge or formally rate performance.

There is a perception that coaching is an excessive investment of time. While it requires commitment, longer programs rarely exceed nine months, and improvements are felt almost immediately. It is a process designed to be efficient and focused.

One of the most persistent myths is that coaching is a type of psychotherapy. Psychotherapy addresses pathologies and explores the past for healing, while coaching focuses on the present/future and the development of potential in functionally healthy people.