Coaching: Anti-Systemic by Nature

What is Systemic Thinking?

Systemic thinking is about seeing the whole picture, the interactions, and the interdependencies within a system. In the business context, this means considering how different teams, processes, assets, and strategies all interact to produce the outcomes we observe.

What Constitutes Coaching?

Coaching, by contrast, is a more individualistic approach. It focuses on personal development, one-on-one relationships, and specific skills. The end goal is often the betterment of the individual, whether that’s a manager wanting to improve leadership abilities or an employee trying to enhance a particular skill set.

Why is Coaching Anti-Systemic?

Coaching tends to zero in on the individual, and by doing so, it inevitably takes attention away from the system. When we look at problems or opportunities for improvement from a purely coaching perspective, we’re neglecting how those individual actions or improvements scale to the wider system. In many cases, coaching may even create unintended systemic consequences. For example, coaching an individual to be a more effective team leader might inadvertently increase dependency on that individual, creating fragility in the system as a whole.

Can Coaching and Systemic Thinking Coexist?

Yes, but it’s complicated. While coaching can be part of a broader systemic strategy, it most often isn’t. This is largely because the methods employed in coaching—individual assessments, focused training, and personal feedback—don’t align with a systemic approach that requires a different set of tools: systems mapping, cause-and-effect analysis, and holistic problem-solving, to name a few.

Final Thoughts

Coaching is essentially anti-systemic because it focuses on individual elements rather than the interconnectedness of parts. It tends to create localised improvements but overlooks and even destabilises the broader system. This isn’t to say coaching doesn’t have value; it does, particularly for personal development. But when considering organisational effectiveness and resilience, “working on the 5%” (i.e. on the capabilities of individuals) seems like a fool’s errand.