Words Make Worlds: Social Constructionism and Coaching

David
11 minutes ago
5 min read

“She’s resistant to change.”

The phrase landed easily in the conversation. We all nodded, perhaps picturing the same “difficult” colleague. But later, I found myself wondering — what happens in that moment of naming? What kind of world gets created when we say ‘she is resistant’? Social Constructionism invites precisely this kind of curiosity.

Social Constructionism is one of the ideas I value the most from my Systemic Family Psychotherapy training. (Burr, 2015) describes it as ‘involving seeing the world — its categories, knowledge, “truths”, identities — as produced and sustained through social processes, language, interaction and cultural/historical contexts, rather than being simply reflections of some objective or natural reality.’

Social Constructionism reminds us that the words we use are not just neutral descriptions — they are acts of construction. Each label, category, or metaphor shapes what we notice, how we relate, and what we believe is possible.

From “to be” to “to do”

For example, the grammar of our language quietly creates reality. Compare these two sentences:

She is resistant to change.
She often disagrees in meetings.

Both point to something happening in a workplace. Yet they describe different worlds.

The first uses the language of being — fixed, internal, unchangeable. The second uses the language of doing — observable, contextual, open to variation.

When we use “to be” language, we turn behaviour into identity. It is an ‘=’ sign.

She is resistant.
He is disorganised.
I am not strategic.

But when we shift to “to do” language, we describe patterns of action.

She tends to hesitate when change feels risky.
He sometimes misses details under time pressure.
I often focus on immediate issues before stepping back to plan.

The shift is subtle, but the impact is profound. “To be” closes; “to do” opens. One invites judgment whilst the other invites inquiry. In coaching conversations, this distinction matters. When a client says, “I am indecisive,” we can gently explore — “What do you do when you feel unsure?”

This is especially useful in group coaching settings e.g. asking the CEO in front of the team including the CFO, “What behaviour do you observe when you find your CFO appears unsure?”

Suddenly, there is movement. The client can see patterns, exceptions, possibilities for choice. The conversation moves from essence to experience and from identity to action.

As coaches, we are always working in language. Each question, metaphor, or reflection doesn’t just describe reality — it creates a version of it.

When I ask, “Why are you anxious?”, I assume anxiety is an inner thing to be explained.
When I ask, “What happens when anxiety shows up?”, I invite the client to notice context, triggers, and relationship.

Every question is a small intervention — a new construction of what is 'real'. In a way, coaching is about helping clients come to new constructs which are more productive to the underlying tasks.

Beyond grammar

I coach in English, Mandarin and Cantonese. On reflection, social constructionism guides me to notice the difference when coaching in different languages.

In English, a client might say, “I am anxious.”
In Chinese, the same experience might be expressed as “我觉得有点紧张” — literally, “I feel a bit tense.”

The difference is not just grammatical; it’s ontological.

In English, “I am anxious” fuses emotion with identity — I am this way.
In Chinese, “我觉得有点紧张” describes a passing experience — I feel something, for now.

One defines a state of being whilst the other allows movement and change. In English, emotions can sound like fixed attributes to be managed or resolved.In Chinese, they often appear as temporary sensations within a relational field.

Even my own presence as a coach changes. In English, I might find myself searching for precision and clarity. In Chinese, I often listen for harmony and resonance — how words land between us, not just what they mean.

The language invites different ways of knowing, as well as different realities of self and relationship.

Stories instead of truths

In executive coaching, we often hear labels that sound factual:

“She’s not strategic.”“He’s a poor communicator.”“I’m not leadership material.”

From a social constructionist view, these are not truths to be verified but stories to be explored. They reflect how a system talks about itself.

A constructionist coach listens for how these stories are made — who says them, in what context, and for what purpose. The work is less about diagnosing and more about re-authoring the narrative.

So rather than asking, “How do I fix being un-strategic?”, the question becomes, “In what situations do I tend to focus on the immediate, and what makes that useful or limiting?”

The shift in language opens a new field of possibilities — not by solving the problem, but by changing the conversation that holds the problem in place.

When we start to hear stories instead of truths, we also begin to see how whole workplaces live within shared narratives — about performance, leadership, or professionalism.

What counts as “normal” at work

Social constructionism draws our attention not only to the micro level of language, but also the broader landscape of meaning we work within. What we call “normal” in organisations today is not timeless truth, but a product of collective agreements and shifting histories.

For example, once, being “professional” meant keeping personal life separate — emotions, family, vulnerabilities were left at the door. Now, labels like ‘hybrid work’, ‘wellbeing’, and ‘authenticity’ have entered the vocabulary and interestingly their existence in our social interaction create reality! The boundary between “professional” and “personal” is being reconstructed. Saying “I need a mental health day” would have been unthinkable in many workplaces twenty years ago. Today, it’s increasingly legitimate — though not yet everywhere.

A shift in discourse creates a shift in what is possible.

When someone struggles with “work–life balance,” what social story of work are they living inside? Coaching then becomes not just about individual change, but about helping people see the larger stories shaping them — and exploring how they might contribute to re-author those stories.

Invitation to reflection

Perhaps the question for all of us e.g. coaches, leaders, parents is – ‘What worlds are we creating through the categories, labels and languages we are given to use?’ In fact, this very blog post is also shaped by the categories, labels and languages available to me. They are not neutral as they appear to be. They emphasizes certain things while ignoring others, without the users being necessarily aware of such.

So, maybe the practice is to pause and listen for the stories our words are building and to ask: