Congruence and Coaching 

Congruence is about being genuine, acting without front or facade. You are congruent when you are aware of your own feelings and ensure that words and actions are matched to these internal feelings. But has the origins of congruence and the importance in coaching been lost?

Many theoretical underpinnings of coaching come from counselling. When I first studied coaching and counselling, I was introduced to the work of Carl Rogers, the founder of Person-Centered Therapy and his 3 core conditions:

  • Empathy
  • Unconditional positive regard
  • Congruence

Through his work, Carl Rogers identified that these three core conditions were necessary for psychological growth and successful therapeutic outcomes.

As coaches we learn to demonstrate empathy early on in our training through developing rapport, building trust and the core skills of active listening. Also, a coach develops a positive view and acceptance of the client, which is without judgement or evaluation. But, the third core condition, congruence, seems to be an under used term in relation to coaching and an under developed skill.

Congruence has been described as a state of being, when the outward responses consistently match the inner feelings towards a client. lockdown There is consistency. Carl Rogers wrote about congruence being the basis of trust, that being perceived as trustworthy requires the therapist to be “dependably real.” Through congruence “It is only in this way that the relationship can have reality…”

If words, tone and gestures are unified and consistent, the communication is clearer and more understandable. But if the coach or counsellor is incongruent, the client is likely to be confused and lack trust and confidence in the relationship.

In the coaching profession, congruence does not seem to be valued, as it is not often discussed. In his seminal book On Becoming a Person, Carl Rogers commented “The therapist permits as little of his own personality to intrude as is humanly possible… The therapist stresses personal anonymity in his activities, i.e., he must studiously avoid impressing the patient with his own (therapist’s) individual personality characteristics. To me this seems the most likely clue to the failure of this approach…” Carl Rogers wrote this in 1967, but if this is the ‘most likely clue to the failure,’ why are coaches still trying to be invisible and deny their own thoughts and feelings, fearing these would have a negative influence on the coaching space? Are coaches promoting incongruence and so denying one of the three core conditions?

Coaching has learnt much from counselling, but maybe not enough. There is a richness of complexity and subtlety which provides greater understanding. Rather than simple acceptance, coaches need to question and explore the origins of approaches.

In the core modules and optional modules of our postgraduate coaching courses, we explore what Carl Rogers said that through listening to your own inner feelings you can become more acceptant and congruent and “move out from behind the façade he has used, to drop his defensive behaviours, and more openly to be what he truly is.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s