Early in coaching school, the mentor coach warned us against asking questions which would sound like interviewing rather than coaching.
Since then, the backburner of my mind has been churning, given that both coaching and interviewing involve:
* following a certain flow or structure
* asking open-ended questions (tip: tune in to the “What” questions)
* actively listening to the responses
* maybe empathizing with the interviewee (say, a doctor with a cancer patient)
* seeking improvement (say, a training needs analysis)
* asking a follow-up query
* forming conclusions
So what is the essential difference between the two? Because when we think we’re coaching, we may actually be interviewing.
I suppose this question resurfaced due to the barrage of media interviews about the current flood control controversy. I’ve listened to journalists interviewing senators and lawyers, and to legislators grilling contractors perceived as corrupt. But no one can say there was coaching.
So here’s my take: the difference is in the intent. Generally, the purpose of interviews is information, whereas that of coaching is transformation.
More to the point, another mentor coach gave me this valuable tip: where do you want the conversation to go?
If you are just collecting data and the coachee remains the same, then it’s an interview. It’s just a static exchange; the conversation is going nowhere.
But if you are facilitating the client’s thinking process such that you are drawing awareness and insights, then you are bringing the client forward to his expressed goal.
That doesn’t mean you won’t ask about his context, but the hidden trap of bring curious is to be bogged down with details. I find it a delicate balance and that’s why I appreciate the coaching mindset of “what is this really all about?”
And there you go. Are you after information or transformation? Are you looking for data or insight? This spells the difference between a journalist and a coach.
September 4, 2025
0 Comments