Learning to learn is the best thing that can be "taught".
Imagine you are in a room with a child with whom you have an emotional bond. The room is large, open, with large windows that let in plenty of light; it has a staircase against one of the walls and is decorated in a modern, minimalist way where, despite this, he feels comfortable and safe. This child is about one year old; he doesn't know how to walk yet, he is learning. He can already stand up and take a few steps, leaning on the furniture and walls. He hears a noise outside the room and sees something passing by one of the windows; his attention and gaze briefly wander away from the child. When they return to the room, and to the child, she sees that she has managed to climb up to the fourth step of the stairs.
We pause the scene, as if we had a command with the ability to stop reality. What do you do? Keep for yourself the first answer that comes to you, the one that appeared instinctively and spontaneously. I can tell you in advance that what you answered is neither right nor wrong. This reflection intends to reveal your tendency towards a particular type of help, which has advantages and disadvantages, both for you and for others; in this case for the child. In fact, all kinds of help can be both beneficial and harmful for the helper and the helped.
The answer I get most often is: "I run as fast as I can, pick up the child and put him/her down". Instinctively, this seems to be the right and appropriate decision, given the context, if the criterion is that of the majority. Let's see: the fact that it is a child puts the situation at an extreme point, where there is the presumption, presumptuously founded, that we have more capacity to solve that situation than the child. On the other hand, the interpretations arising from the analysis of the risk of the situation cannot be avoided: the child may seriously hurt himself.
Let us judge this set of judgements. What is the real motivation for this response to the said situation? Is it to prevent the child from getting hurt? Is it to diminish or eliminate the feeling of guilt for our inattention? To demonstrate our power? To avoid the discomfort caused by the prospect of having responsibility for a "negative outcome"? Ultimately, however altruistic we may be, the answers to these hypotheses, perhaps with the exception of the first, seem to be directed at the self, the adult. What are the advantages for the child? He won't get hurt, that's for sure. He can have a feeling of security and protection caused by the adult's action. What are the disadvantages? It can create dependence (for some this can be an advantage), it can become afraid of the situation and, above all, it may not learn to go down stairs.
At the other extreme, standing by and watching can be a way of responding to the situation and helping that child. Provided that this 'doing nothing' includes the conscious intention to be helping in that way. This position inevitably implies the consideration of other readings of reality, at least of that particular situation. It also implies access to other perspectives of what it means to "help". In this scenario, the risk of injury to the child remains and so does the presumption of greater capacity on the part of the adult. Add to that the process needed to overcome the discomfort caused by our own interpretations and emotions. The advantages? The child can gain more autonomy; he can learn, by himself, even if he gets hurt, to evaluate the situation; ultimately, literally, he can take the necessary steps to start knowing how to go downstairs. For this to happen, however, he has to feel that he is being helped, even if he is not picked up and put down safely.
It may seem that I am defending the latter hypothesis to the detriment of the one we explored first. That is not the case. We are talking about extremes. Between the two there are many other hypotheses: approaching; holding hands; only one hand; without touching, supporting an eventual fall... Of course, the answers may vary if variables are introduced in the situation. For example, if it was a child, if it was the second or the third, the answers could be different; if it was an older child who could already walk; if it was an adult; if we have or not and how attached we are to the child...
Once again, there are no right answers. What will be more interesting to consider is the idea that it is not the situation, in itself, that has to dictate our responses. It is the interpretation of the situation, including emotions, that conditions our actions and reactions.
Beyond children on stairs
Those who have the responsibility to lead and to create conditions for the generation of a particular culture will have to develop particular sensitivity and attention to the way they interpret situations; namely those that may contribute to the development of others. All answers, even non-answers, will be open to interpretation and will have advantages and disadvantages, both for oneself and for others.
In today's world of work, people are increasingly demanding to be treated with consideration and respect for their abilities, both those they already have and those yet to be developed. Basically, they ask for power and protagonism so that the feeling of belonging to something greater than themselves can be established. On the side of those who lead, it is necessary to give them space, time and such power and protagonism. Translated into "business jargon", one has to delegate. It seems to me that there is a misconception about delegation: tasks are not delegated, responsibility is delegated. So by giving power, you open the possibility for others to make mistakes and learn from it.
What we call coaching today, in essence, seeks to recover this way of helping: helping others learn to learn. For me, more than tools, techniques or models, leaving this message is the main function that coaching can have in people and organisations.
