The first thing we coaches tell our clients is, we are not therapists. We assume you are whole, not fragmented and in need of fixing. That appeals to clients; I am not a broken machine or a broken part of something; I am not an object to be fixed. If anything, I am deserving to be served. That is to say, it appeals to part of them. Another part of them, like all of us, may recognize that there are many different parts of ourselves and all too often they are in disagreement with one another; and THAT part feels a bit uncomfortable at that point in time: what am I doing here? Should I really be investing in a therapist instead of a coach?

Jungian coaches recognize this internal conflict as they recognize that coaches and therapists do very similar work, but under very different ground rules. The client has made a choice, and primarily the choice is where to come from in himself or herself. But he or she has made similar choices of where to come from in his decisions of commitment throughout his life. Whichever his choices, the different parts of himself are present, recognized or not.

The issue for the coach, who in his choice of profession has committed to serving and not fixing, goes beyond the vain question of what would make the client feel served, to the substantive question of what would serve to resolve the issues that the client's agenda raises?

By way of illustration and example: clients who come to coaching are frequently angry. These persons come from a victim-role place (which all but guarantees will make them angry) and their rant on whatever circumstances they have taken themselves as a victim ask in essence "is it not all right to be angry?" This they have done many times with others to solicit them to ask similarly of themselves, then they both can take comfort in that it IS all right. The coach has a choice of ways to deal with this.

One way would be the answer the question: no, it is not all right. Perceiving yourself as a victim will only strengthen the opposite, the victimizer part of yourself; and sooner or later that victimizer will take some action that would do you no good. But defining it as wrong characterizes it as a problem, that begs a solution - in other words, a "fix".

Another way, thinking of serving not fixing, the coach asks what has served himself, or would serve? The Jungian concept is that the events of our lives are in fact parts of ourselves, if the universal scope of the Greater Self is considered; and this is true even of the things that "happen" to us. Thus, all things happen for a reason. When one, be he a coach or not, fully accepts this, he comes to experience he is not angry like he used to be, indeed he has no need to be. If not angry, he would have no need to ask the question of whether it is all right to be angry, and with no negative answer would have no problem to fix. What serves here would be that Jungian concept.

But how can one get over being angry?

It can be a daunting concept to someone who has not been exposed to Jungian psychology for many years. Still, ways can be found to introduce it in an accepting manner. It may help to introduce it in reverse order. In the above example, you might ask, if you were NOT angry would you ask is it all right to be? And if you did not ask, would the answer to that question be important? Then, why might you not be angry? If you knew and understood the reason for given circumstances, would you be so angry? And if not, then IF ONLY you knew the reason. Maybe tomorrow you will!

It is so often temptingly easy to consider a given situation a problem to be fixed. Finding a way to serve is often not so easy. But the client has already wrestled with the question: why should I pay money just to be served? If he can do that, surely we as coaches can wrestle with what action WOULD serve.

I am indebted to Marlena Field's poem "Fixer" for inspiration of ideas for this article.

Copyright (c) 2009 Dave Smart