Confidence and Coaching: The growth of my confidence as a coach and the neuroscience behind that. Part 3
In Part 1 I examined the underlying mechanisms that lead to the external manifestation of confidence in someone, as seen by others AND the internal realisation that I have confidence in what I am doing. In Part 2 I built on Part 1 and examined how we might use the knowledge from Part1 to help us become better coaches. In part 3 I will examine how trustworthy our self-awareness is, and how knowing that might lead to greater confidence for both coach and client, in three key lessons;
Metacognition can be misleading
Self-awareness is less common than we think
Metacognition has causal power.
Metacognition can be misleading
In the first two blogs I have written about the immense value we have gained because of metacognition; at the same time we also need to be aware of its limitation.
“Subjective confidence in a judgement is not a reasoned evaluation of the probability that this judgement is correct. Confidence is a feeling, which reflects the coherence of the information and the cognitive ease of processing it. It is wise to take admissions of uncertainty seriously, but declarations of high confidence mainly tell you that the individual has constructed a coherent story in his mind, not necessarily that the story is true.” Kahneman [ref 28]
Fleming quotes Kahneman’s words above in full. Our capacity for self-awareness does not mean it is always accurate.
Our error-detection and self-monitoring systems are good for physical interactions with the world- if they weren’t, we would not survive for long (my two-part blog on Metacognition goes into this in more detail, see ref 2)-our body is ‘tightly coupled to its environment’ but still susceptible to illusions (such as optical illusions, see ref 2).
Our metacognition is even more likely to be susceptible to such illusions because its task is more difficult; to ‘conjure up a sense of whether we are right or wrong from a fairly loose and diffuse feedback loop’ [ref 29].
Fleming points out that ‘we often have metacognitive accuracy in mind when we critique colleagues or friends for lacking self-awareness- as in ‘Bill was completely unaware that he was dominating the meeting’. Implicit in this critique is the idea that if we were actually to ask Bill to reflect on whether he dominated the meeting, he would conclude he did not, even if the data said otherwise.’ [ref 30]; Our self-awareness is less moored in reality and so more susceptible to illusions.
One of the causes for these illusions to arise is the ease with which information is processed, what psychologists’ technical term is ‘Fluency’. For example, we can process written words more easily in a well-lit quiet room, not so well in dim light or noisy conditions. Easy to pronounce company names have higher stock-market valuations than more difficult names. Since fluency affects metacognition, we may feel we are performing well when we really are not. We feel more confident in our decisions when we act more quickly, even if faster responses are not associated with greater accuracy [ref 31].
Such judgements, when metacognition is also activated as part of the overall thinking process, can be thought of as the brain solving another of the kind of problems it faces every day when provided with limited data (such as making sense of an optical illusion-see ref 2), but this time working out what to think about itself based on limited data. The value of knowing this is that we can take Kahneman’s statement as now having a firm experimental foundation, demonstrated by Fleming, and, practically, we can now become more aware that our judgments may not be as good as we think they are, and so take steps to check our initial conclusion. We might seek out feedback more often, knowing that it can act as a firmer anchor for our self-judgements that increases the accuracy of our self-awareness.
Self-awareness is less common than we think
Our confidence, if it is not properly grounded in the real world, can blind us to the fact that we don’t really know what we think we know; we may then not activate our metacognition to pay conscious attention to our thoughts and beliefs. Consequently, self-awareness is less common than we think it is. Here’s why that is.
Our self-awareness has its roots in the fine control of our body that does not require conscious intervention for most of the time.
So, our self-awareness of our thoughts is similarly not ‘switched on’ all of the time. It operates on a ‘need to know’ basis [ref 32]. The analogy that Fleming uses here is with hierarchical organisations solving problems. In such organisations, authority is delegated down the management chain. Most problems never make it to the top, as they are handled at a lower level. Only problems that cannot be dealt with are passed up, leaving the most complex problems to be handled at the most senior level. Likewise, for animals with brains, most actions never make it to the Prefrontal Cortex (PFC) and our conscious awareness.
Let me use another concrete example from daily life, imagine yourself driving along a very familiar route. If you are an experienced driver who has driven that route many times before, it can be done almost without your being aware of it. When driving that route your mind is also more likely to wander away from the driving. This is a general feature; if a task if is well practiced, our minds are more likely to wander away from the task onto other things. Fleming refers to the psychologist Jonathan Schooler, who noted, “We are often startled by the discovery that our minds
have wandered away from the situation at hand.” Self-awareness depends on neural machinery that may, for various reasons, become uncoupled from whatever task we are currently engaged in
‘just as we would expect if self-awareness becomes redundant as skill increases’ [ref 33].
Pursuing this ‘mind-wandering’ theme, Fleming looks at what happens to our self-awareness when our mind does wander. It is not lost entirely but may become refocussed on whatever the daydream was about. This could mean that ‘we are no longer aware of ourselves as actors in the world’.
Experiments demonstrate that being asked to introspect during a task leads to increased activity in the PFC, which might be expected if the PFC is involved in self-awareness.
They also demonstrated that becoming engrossed in a task leads to decreased activity in the PFC, implying that self-awareness can decrease if a task becomes more engaging [ref 34].
Fleming does not mention the work of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi [ref 35] on the psychological state of ‘Flow’, but this ‘loss of self’ is one of the features of in a ‘state of flow’ (often called being ‘in the zone’) that Czikszentmihalyi describes. I wrote about my personal experience of flow in my blog on ‘Coaching and Novel writing’ [ref 36].
Becoming stressed also leads to loss of self-awareness.
This implies that, when stressed, at times when we may need to be aware of how we are feeling in order to seek help, we are less likely to do so, and plough on regardless. Further, we are not aware that we are not aware, which can have most unfortunate results. However, I hope that, armed with this knowledge, we might pause when stressed and take a little more time coming to important decisions.
With the current experimental evidence, it suggests that our self-awareness guides how we behave. The experiments show that, when given a task, altering how we feel about our performance at that task is sufficient to change our behaviour, even if our actual performance itself does not change. If we are made to feel more confident, then we are less likely to change our mind about a decision in the task.
But we know that, at times, out metacognition can be wrong. Fleming tells us about ‘The Coriolis illusion’ when pilots are flying in thick cloud. Sometimes pilots caught in this situation believe that their aircraft is banked over when it is flying straight and level. Trying to ‘correct’ this illusion can lead to the pilot crashing the aircraft. Pilots are now trained to trust their instruments, unless there is a very good reason not to. The lesson here is that we should not place too much trust in our self-awareness if other sources, most likely to be external feedback, from automated systems or from feedback from others, tells us we are veering off course. [ref 37] This is the causal power of metacognition we also need to be aware of.
Applications to Coaching
At its heart, I believe that coaching has the aim of altering what people know and how they feel about themselves. When I think back to the people I have coached, their confidence in their abilities almost always lies at the heart of what they want to get from our coaching sessions, whether that is overtly stated or not. Often, when our coaching has come to its natural conclusion, my client’s confidence has increased. The growing evidence from my coaching programme seems to point in that direction as well. My confidence in my ability to coach effectively has changed over time, as I have seen how effective my coaching can, most of the time, be.
By exploring and relating the latest scientific evidence from neuroscience (Part 1) and connecting it to the psychological understanding of how self-awareness affects confidence (Part 2), there are new understandings and insights (Part 3) that have emerged that I believe can be used it to help us also refine our practice. Here are my thoughts on what we might do.
For our CLIENTS
Distilling the key points from its explanations, we now know [and can be tested for through our coaching conversations] that our client’s self-awareness is:
a. Not always there
b. Can be changed by external factors
c. Their metacognition and self-awareness may not be accurate (which we may see as a ‘limiting belief’)
d. Their level of confidence affects their behaviour.
This knowledge allows us to approach a coaching session with an open mind.
How are they feeling?
There is a point to the opening ‘chit-chat’ because we can form an opinion of their current mental state (using our own ‘mind-reading’ ability!) and their current ability to engage with us as their coach. Long-term we can be confident that by coaching we can get them to help themselves change their beliefs and remove their blockers to their learning. This is not new, but, for me, I am reassured that what was empirical now has a firm theoretical foundation.
Similarly, I have always found that my clients are happy to know a little about the science behind their experiences. Our feedback to them can include these facts and help them to reflect more accurately on their thoughts, and what they do as a result of those thoughts. In addition, their knowing this may make it easier for them to ask for feedback from the people they work with, maybe in a systematic way, so they can see themselves in a different light. Further, their knowing that their confidence can change, may help them remove blocks to their development.
For our SELF as the COACH
Building on what I have said about our client’s learning, and going back to what Kahneman said; “Subjective confidence in a judgement is not a reasoned evaluation of the probability that this judgement is correct…” We now know that our own confidence in our coaching can be wrong. I think this points a finger very firmly towards the need for us, as coaches, to seek feedback on our own performance. The science of learning supports the art of coaching, and gives weight to ways we can develop our practice confidently because,
a. We are told this is the right thing to do, and that we must all get supervision, as the ‘gold standard’ of our CPD. [ref 38]
b. Now that we know why this is right, we can feel more confident that seeking it out and getting it is an effective practice for our self-development (there is a reason that Doubting Thomas is the patron saint of scientists!).
From personal experience, I know how difficult asking for feedback from a client or colleague can be. But once that hurdle is surmounted, the act of asking gets easier and we become more receptive to that feedback. I still vividly remember being introduced to the ‘goldfish bowl’ technique and plucking up the courage to use it on myself with the team I managed. I learned that there was one thing I was not doing that really annoyed them. I decided to act on that and the results were immediate and beneficial. “I see that you are doing X much more quickly now,” was the verbal comment I got from one of my team. Embarrassing? Yes. But productive?
Even more so. I now ask my clients, generally once we have reached the natural end to our coaching, for feedback, “warts and all, to help me improve my coaching for my next client.” None refuse, very few don’t follow up on their promise. It works.
CONCLUSIONS
None of these ideas are new. However, they have emerged fresher after grappling with the science. We can, as coaches, feel happier that our practice has strong foundations, and is not just an ‘empirical’ practice [ref 39].
I have found that writing this series of blogs has forced me to read and reread Stephen Fleming’s book to make sure I was happy in my own mind, that I understood what he was saying. The practical outcome of that, for my coaching, was that, whenever a client’s own confidence was mentioned, I knew I had a sound theoretical context in which my questions would be based. I felt that I could put more considered questions to my clients. The result of that is that I am a more confident coach, and some of my latest clients have told me that they view themselves in a different way as a result of our coaching.
I hope the readers of these blogs will benefit from that as well.
Afterword:
It strikes me that there are two kinds of confidence.
The first is a confidence that is not justified, which never asks for feedback, and is in the end, based upon an illusion of capability that is self-fulfilling, because it grows and feeds its feeling that it is so good it does not need feedback. I guess we can all recognise that in others. This kind of confidence is unjustified because it is not based upon reality.
The second is a confidence that is based on self-reflection and feedback freely sought and given. This leads to a maturity that seeks feedback as a matter of course, which matches our understanding of our abilities to the reality of those abilities. This allows us to focus our leaning on the things that need to be developed, leading to real growth. This kind of confidence is justified because it matches with reality.
Let’s hope that I have more of the latter than the former.
Andrew Parrock (MSc, CMgr, MCMI) has, since graduating in 1980, been a teacher, a tax specialist and a manager. He spent 10 years as a volunteer mentor with undergraduate students at UCL and, later, Brunel University as part of the National Mentoring Consortium. He discovered coaching late in his career and has now become an accredited coach at Practitioner Level with the European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC).
References
“Know Thyself: the new science of self-awareness” by Stephen M. Fleming. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Know-Thyself-New-Science-Self-Awareness-ebook/dp/B08QRMXN2H/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1REO2TFDTNCFD&keywords=know+thyself+stephen+fleming&qid=1669826334&sprefix=stephen+fleming%2Caps%2C73&sr=8-1
https://the-goodcoach.com/tgcblog/2022/2/28/metacognition-thinking-about-thinking-in-the-context-of-my-coaching-practice-part-1-by-andrew-parrock and https://the-goodcoach.com/tgcblog/2022/2/28/metacognition-thinking-about-thinking-in-the-context-of-my-coaching-practice-part2-by-andrew-parrock
Know Thyself op cit p225 note14.
Andrew Parrock -op cit
Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns#:~:text=Rumsfeld%20stated%3A,things%20we%20do%20not%20know.- accessed 11th August 2022
‘Know Thyself’ op cit page 78
Know Thyself’ op cit page 79
Daniel Kahneman; ‘Thinking Fast and Slow’ 2011
Know Thyself’ op cit p85-86
BBC 1, 21st June 2022
The Quote Investigator: https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/02/03/you-can/ accessed 17th August 2022
Lynne Hindmarch ‘Self-Efficacy and coaching’: The Good Coach website, accessed 17th August 2022. https://the-goodcoach.com/tgcblog/2017/1/31/self-efficacy-and-coaching
Know Thyself’ op cit pp126-128
Know Thyself’ op cit pp 148-149
Amy Brann online course: ‘Neuroscience for coaches’; taken in 2020. Module 2: ‘The Emotional and Social Brain’
Know Thyself’ op cit p 87
ref BB: Know Thyself’ op cit p 89
‘Ego- get over yourself and lead’ by Mary Gregory. Many references to comfort zones, particularly chapter 4 ‘taking ourselves on’, which also looks at ‘how becoming more conscious is a choice’.
‘Know Thyself’ op cit p90
Know Thyself’ op cit pp 90-91
Know Thyself’ op cit pp 92-93
‘Know Thyself’ op cit pp 94 and 95
CSNet book club 4th October 2022- https://csnetbookclub.org/
‘Know Thyself’ op cit p100
‘Deliberate Practice and Acquisition of expert Performance: A general Overview’ by K Anders Ericsson, PhD. Academic Emergency Medicine 2008; 15: 988-994 (ISSN 1069-6563, PII ISSN 1069-6563583)
Sam Horn’s blog “What can I do id I’m running out of patience?” https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-can-i-do-im-running-out-patience-sam-horn/?trackingId=
Daniel Kahneman -op cit p104
‘Know Thyself’ op cit p103
‘Know Thyself’ op cit p102
‘Know Thyself’ op cit pp 102-105
‘Know Thyself’ op cit p105
‘Know Thyself’ op cit pp 106-107
‘Know Thyself’ op cit p107
‘Flow; The psychology of optimal experience’ New York; HarperCollins, Csikszentmihalyi, M (1990)
‘Know Thyself’ op cit p110
K. St John-Brooks ‘Internal Coaching-the Inside Story, Chapter 9 p202: “It is widely recognised within the coaching profession that supervision makes a significant contribution to coaches’ continuing development”.
‘Empirical’: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic. -Google, from ‘Oxford Languages’ Collins English Dictionary: “derived from or relating to experiment and observation rather than theory.”