The reality of our modern and connected world is that many coaching sessions happen virtually these days, either by phone or by using extremely effective and affordable technology like Skype and Facetime. Overall, the use of technology in coaching is fantastic – it allows us to connect with more clients, more often and more affordably. However, there is still something to be said for maintaining the in-person connection with clients when possible, especially at the outset of an engagement while the relationship is being established. This is intuitive for many of us though we often struggle to articulate the difference between coaching virtually versus in-person.
Author and positive psychologist, Barbara Frederickson, in her book Love 2.0, does a great job of explaining the physiology behind interpersonal connection, something that can help us more clearly understand the difference between in-person and virtual interactions. The physiological dance of connection between two humans is possible in virtual settings but can be more difficult and happen more slowly. To understand why, let’s take a look at the three major things going on physically whenever we are interacting and truly connecting with another individual.
This physiological connectivity can happen via the use of phones and technology like Skype and Facetime. However, it is still somewhat restricted as screens provide a limited or blurred view of our facial expressions, body language and tone, all of which are vital to producing positive emotions and enhancing connection during conversation. Faceless communication like email, instant messaging and text are even more limited. As coaches, understanding this is particularly important because so much of our work relies on the strong and trusting relationship we form with our clients. It is this relationship that serves as the foundation for effective and true change. So, while we have all used phone and web technology for coaching and will continue to do so, it’s worth a second thought as to whether our coachees might benefit from more of the original face time.
Fredrickson, B. (n.d.). Love 2.0: How our supreme emotion affects everything we think, do, feel, and become.
This week’s NYT’s article about the University of Maryland’s actions in the wake of the tragic death of Jordan McNair […]Read more
Summer has unofficially come to an end (yep, even if the heat index was 105 and my kids were let […]Read more