What is “the self” or a “self”? Pause for a moment and try to answer this seemingly simple question. How well would your answer hold up to scrutiny? Most of us begin strong in our explanation, but soon go around in circles, contradict ourselves, or get stuck. These sensations get worse when we start asking sensible questions, such as:

• Is the self a “thing” that exists or an “idea” of ourselves?
•  If you look for the self, can you find it? Does it have a physical location?
• How changeable is it? Can the self be lost, eliminated, or recreated? Does the self endure throughout our lives like a thread?
• What is the role of culture or religion in shaping how we understand what the self is?

What does a phrase like “I’m not myself today” mean?

Who are you instead?

Despite over 150 “self” terms such as self-awareness, self-knowing, and self-realisation, and over 70,000 “self-help” books on Amazon, there is no agreed definition of what the self is. Where else would we accept this discrepancy? Western cultures seem obsessed with the self, yet content not knowing how to define it. Perspectives from the east suggest the self is illusory, non-existent, and unhelpful, a view which is gaining traction in the west. Development of the self is even gaining traction in vertical leadership development and “understanding self” is a core competency for coaches. Yet within the field of coaching, each associated methodology is tied to a foundational theory to explain behaviour change, bringing more definitions of the self. For centuries, the greatest thinkers in psychology, theology, philosophy, and recently neuroscience, have debated theories of the self. If they can’t agree or explain what the self is, what hope do we have of making it clear?

Defining the self is not the problem. We have an inordinate number of incompatible and contradictory definitions. More importantly, agreement wouldn’t solve the underlying issue: there is no empirical truth or objective way to prove what the self is. Even if such proof existed, educating (or convincing) people would be another matter. We do not see through, but rather with the self. Whatever way we each think about it, it is through our own unique lens: our experience is our own. This subjective nature means how we understand the self is a belief. We know beliefs when challenged can trigger strong emotions, are easily aroused and are heavily defended. We also know that beliefs shape behaviour and are central to the work in coaching. Meaning, coaches are working with the self whether they intend to or not. How can coaches integrate ideas of the self more effectively within their practice?

Focus less on defining and more about increasing awareness

The goal isn’t to have one agreed definition, this has questionable use for behaviour change. Instead, increased awareness of how we each think about what the self is, becomes a data point. Coaches can help their clients bring their perspective into the light of day: into conscious awareness rather than an inherent unattended belief. Just as organisations seek data about their operations through reporting, individuals can seek data about their internal processes through reflection. Why wouldn’t we want to know and understand a foundational view of who we are that may unwittingly influence our beliefs, motivations, assumptions, sense of agency, capacity to act and change?

Language is loaded with meaning

Each time we use words like “I”, “me” or “myself” we express an automatic idea of our view of the self. The words we use carry meaning irrespective of whether we have thought about ideas of the self in this way before. The strength of the self has a stamp like quality on our identity and personality. For coaches, this means the coaching conversation holds signals of the clients understanding, scattered throughout their sentences: “that’s such a ‘me’ thing to do”. Powerful questions can unlock new meaning and help the client see how their understanding of themselves may inhibit or liberate them in achieving their goals. 

Individuals understand their concept of “self” in three key ways and can vary widely

There are three factors at play in how we understand the self: stability of the self, thoughts of the self and unity of the self. Stability of the self relates to the notion of “sameness” and psychological continuity over time. For coaches, phrases such as “old me”, “present me” and “future me” may not mean the same thing to a client. It could relate to distinct phases of who they are, an evolution or represent consistency. Thoughts of the self relates to how we interpret the meaning of our thoughts. Are our thoughts patterns and reactions to experiences which should be noticed and scrutinised, or expressions of an inner voice which we should listen and pay attention to? Finally, unity of the self relates to the idea of “oneness” and integration compared to multiplicity where there are many distinct parts of the self. For example, themes of unity versus multiplicity emerge in coaching when a client is searching for their “true” self, seeking “authentic” leadership, or attempting to understand an experience where they “didn’t feel like themselves”. Simply being aware of the three factors can help clients detangle assumptions, test interpretations and make meaning from experiences more effectively.

Coaching is a vehicle for increasing self-awareness 

The role of coaching bridges the subjective and introspective inner world of the client with the outer world they behave in. How “I” understand “me” and make sense of “my” world and experience is a fundamental question for understanding human behaviour. Coaches can notice the language of the client, recognise that clients understand the self differently, get curious and use open questions to elicit awareness. Each time a client decides how much of who they were before is a part of who they want to be now (stability), tries to make big life decisions, and weigh their thinking (thoughts) or wants to bring more of themselves to work (unity), coaches are working with the Concept of Self. Coaches can also consider the suitability of the coaching intervention. Psychodynamic approaches for example have an assumption of the self over time. Mindfulness coaching which separates the self from thoughts or cognitive behavioural approaches may be a better fit for clients who do not share this view. As a coach, is the intervention based on your beliefs or those of your client when there is no “right” way to understand the self?

There are two selves in the coaching relationship

For coaches to effectively work with the self in their client work, they must understand how they define the self and what influence this may have on their beliefs. There are two selves in the coaching relationship and the way these interact shapes the working dynamic. Coaches learn about tools and techniques and the impact this may have on their clients. The self is a mandatory tool that can’t be shed: it is there all the time and must be utilised effectively and ethically. It will have an impact on your client. Because the self and how we think about it changes, this is ongoing work for coach development and maturity.

Find out more about the author Heather Frost.