courtesy Tomas Roman, here http://www.linkedin.com/groups?viewMemberFeed=&gid=1966137&memberID=102598556)
I think the "because" sentence is important,
and leads to a richer meaning of the topic.
Security - in a maslowian sens - is good.
Conformity - is not good, indeed.
I do like very much the 'pleading' for MOBILITY
Tim Gallwey would give a whole chapter in his
Inner Game of Work.
Conformity is a submissive position to exterior -
to Self 1, in TG's terms - ignoring
the mirriad of possibilities a person is born with - the Self 2.
As for 'conservatism of life' - this is a contradiction in terms:
life can't be conservate!
only a corpse could be :)
So, my future is secure as an
aware and trustful choice of myself = Self 2.
Mobility is the very fundamental of coaching.
It prevents the worst situation:
Coach's Self 1 coachs Client's Self 1!
Also the other one:
Coach's Self 1 coachs Client's Self 2, the mobility owner!
It is possible, with a directive person 'labeled' coach..
The coaching request of a person
springs of the hardly seen Self 2,
but the first session is likely to be 'conduct'
by Self 1, the conformity owner.
How to be there with your Client for
having a last session lead by Self 2 -
i.e. the person her/himSELF?
a coach indeed is a coach in deed :)
alte postari inspirate (sic)
si un citat din autor