[.. continued from last post]
Third, it is the space. We held the session in her quiet little penthouse in a very old house. From where I sit, I can see the trees through a small window. The room is ‘populated’ with books. The lighting is mild and it is always very quiet. I find such environment to be like magic to me. I feel like I am in a private and safe space. I believe it makes a big difference. To illustrate the point, if the same analyst runs the sessions with me in a corporate board room (especially if I work in the same company), I think we could hardly go that deep. Overall, I do not think we always need exactly this particular set up in order to make people talk. But the point is to create a safe and cozy space…. at least to avoid the corporate board room….
Last point. I come up the above for coaching and facilitation with an assumption. For coaching, my assumption is that it is to draw out thoughts and / or emotions which would not be expressed without the work of coaching. It is different from psycho-analysis, basically, in a way that coaching is future-focused. But it is also about drawing out thoughts and / or emotions from the coachees. The same applies to facilitation to group. Whilst coaching is about enabling conversation with self, facilitation is about enabling conversations with each others.
There are of course some types of coaching and facilitation which are more transactional, and the above points are less relevant.
See also previous posts on similar topics
