In the course of coaching processes; Whether these are organizational or personal, it is essential that the coachee notices - with the help of the coach - the two categories at stake displayed in her speech: facts and interpretations.
The importance of these distinctions lies in the opening - or not - of the paths that lead to the achievement of their objectives.
Let's look at those categories:
• the category of the facts
• the category of the interpretations (opinions or judgments) that deal with a fact.
What is a fact?
A fact is an event, something happens. For example: it started to rain.
What is an interpretation?
It is what can be said about that manifestation of nature that can be read or interpreted in many ways, according to the different people who observe the rain. The interpretation is the personal version that each one gives on the same fact. It is the realm of personal assumption.
Going back to the example, someone can say that it is a sign of future floods; Others may say that they augur well for the crops, and so there may be various personal interpretations of the phenomenon of rain.
The example is very clear; almost obvious…
When a personal interpretation is confused with a fact, we take away the possibilities of taking an appropriate path towards the desired objective.
And it is much more difficult to make that distinction the more involved our emotionality is.
Let's clarify all this with an example:
Suppose someone wants a salary improvement in your company. He has many reasons to ask for it and also "many good works to his credit" that would support the request. But delay the appointment request over and over again.
When asked about procrastination, he says something like this:
"- Well, my boss would not agree, because he never agrees with anything I do or say."
When he is still asked when his boss did not agree with the things he did or said, he responds after thinking about it a lot, which actually happened twice, but for him they were very important and it affected him a lot.
Here you can see the following: there is an interpretative judgment of this person on the behavior of the boss: "he never agrees with what he says or does."
The fact is: twice you did not agree. But the emotional climate left by those two times, acts in such a way that he firmly believes that his boss always says no to everything. This judgment prevents him from opening the possibility of making an appointment and talking about his desire. We do not know what the boss can tell him this time, but we do know that instead of opening a possibility; his interpretation of the conduct of the superior closes him off all the way to his desired increase in salary.
He does not even try, due to the solidity he gave to his own judgment, forgetting the concrete fact.
Examples such as the previous one are riddled with people's speeches. We live in interpretive worlds just because we are human. "The real" is not directly approachable. Our only access tool is interpretation. But there are interpretations that we make that seriously hinder our lives and others that make it possible.
In the example given, the interpretive alternative could have been the following:
My boss twice disagreed with me; I will see if this time, and with foundation, I can put him on my side and get my salary increase ”.
This way, tacitly includes the interpretation that the boss could have a reasonable, accessible and sensitive side to "the good tasks previously carried out".
This interpretation would make the person open that possibility and, if successful, finally obtain the long-awaited increase.
A successful coaching process achieves that the coachee finally incorporates "the good habit" of acquiring the distinctive character between facts and interpretations. It is the beginning of the process that leads to success or failure, depending on whether we choose to open or close the door of possibility.
