The Internal Political Agenda of Coaching

While coaching is not traditionally described as political, it equips clients to navigate the social, cultural, and political structures that shape our lives with a key emphasis on agency and influence. Our ability to adapt to external threats often depends less on innate abilities or specific circumstances than the psychological foundation from which we interpret those challenges.  Coaching works within this internal space, shifting interpretations and thus our responses to external pressures through the inherently political process of empowering individuals to influence external change.

Using the example, “I see a tiger. I feel afraid, therefore I run” positions us as slaves to the limbic system. If we don’t wish to run, then we must not feel afraid. As with any troublesome emotion, however, the presence of the emotion signals neither good nor ill. Resilience during adversity requires a more sophisticated adaptation, one in which there is flexibility for the client to feel afraid, and yet not run.

Enter Schacter-Singer (Two-Factor) Theory: “I see a tiger. I feel something and I interpret the situation. I feel afraid, therefore I run.”  Through this lens, one must interpret the stimulus of seeing a tiger as something dangerous, for which fear is the response.  We know that merely seeing a tiger is not factually dangerous. When presented with an image of a tiger, we might interpret the image as art, resulting in a feeling of “awe,” rather than “danger.” We do not run, despite seeing a tiger, because our interpretation is greater than the stimuli itself.

So why bring up tigers into the subject of coaching at all? (I have had exactly zero clients present with tiger-based phobia). Because today’s stressors — including chronic political tension — are our tigers. Political stress may not have the same immediate life or death implications as a hungry tiger, but there is significant evidence linking the effects of chronic stress to poorer outcomes in our physiological and psychological health (Stress effects; Socioeconomic status and chronic stress). Coaching equips us with tools (mindfulness, cognitive frameworks, reframing, to name a few), that connect and link us to navigating stress. In particular, labeling is a key technique disrupting the automatic process between stimuli and response (Affect labeling disrupts amygdala activity), and this process applies whether the threat is a tiger, a power-hungry boss, or a distant but powerful political figure. Coaching’s role in the processing of stress can be a transformation of the reactive emotion (anxiety, resentment, anger, dissatisfaction etc.)  into the desired one (passion, meaning, engagement, peace, etc) via tools that enable reinterpretation.

For example, a client enters coaching with the statement: “I’m going to explode if I stay here. Everything is so political, nothing ever changes, and I’m giving up before before this eats away at who I am.” As coach, I acknowledge the feeling, and explore their framing, specifically, that giving up is the only solution. There’s quite a few springboards we can take to adjust the interpretation equation:

·         labeling the explosive emotion

·         challenging the current cognitive distortions (e.g., “nothing ever changes”),

·         examining what agency they do have in the current political framework, and

·         values work (what is being “eaten away”).

From here we can explore desired future states, emotional meaning, and behavioral strategies. The aim is not to talk the client out of their emotion but to partner with them in transforming the energy of withdrawal into intentional activity. Note that withdrawal is still an option, but one that can now be deliberately chosen.

Perhaps our client’s experience is an initial feeling of explosive anger. They observe justice and democracy are being circumvented, and with this awareness they create an action plan in line with their values. In this interpretive process, they might say something such as “I feel something, but before I act, I name it. I’m angry. I’m angry because I’m resentful that democratic processes are suspended. I see that justice is incredibly important to me, and I feel motivated to protect it. I am going to organize a transparency campaign. I’ll look into joining the ombudsman committee, too.”  By interpreting the feeling, the client has shifted from anger to motivation and identified actions that restore an amount of power to their situation. The initial feeling is both an outcome of the client’s perceived experiences, as well as input into the coaching conversation for action, increasing the client’s agency and power in this situation.

This simplification captures a core mechanism of coaching: emotional reactivity to purposeful development of one’s own self. The emotion was never wrong of course, any more than it would be wrong to be human. But we observe, assess, and leverage that emotion to become active participants in our own lives. Coaching is hardly apolitical; it is deeply intentional in cultivating empowerment and agenda-based action.