About 5 years ago, a lot of the artists I had trained (and many of whom had become working professionals) started contacting me for ongoing training. Some were doing it because they felt they hit a glass ceiling in development. Others needed a learning pause in their busy schedules. And yet others were venturing into new areas and needed to build skills in them. Because of these reasons and more, I tried to create opportunities of learning for them, but it was very difficult, especially when it came to finding the common time. I kept trying to make the groups smaller and smaller, until they became one-on-one sessions. And before I knew it, I found myself in the middle of doing the extremely trendy, extremely sought after job of coaching.

My problem was that I didn't want to be associated with coaches who attended a 2-month coaching program or did a very expensive test or shadowed another coach for all the hours required by a federation or syndicate and quit their day jobs and are now coaches. Mind you, those coaches and programs can very easily be much more eloquent or academic or "better" than me or my programs. I wasn't comfortable being associated with them not because I thought I was better than any of them, but simply because my assumptions about coaching and methods were so different that I thought if they are called coaches, then I should probably be called something else. The most basic pre-requisites of a coach for me are ongoing experience and multiplicity of methodologies. My reasoning behind this merits another post, hopefully soon. But it's safe to say that my problem of being associated with coaches has usually been that they are either not current practitioners of the craft they are coaching and/or they are too attached to one, omnipotent methodology (of course, everyone is a practitioner of life, so according to my assumptions, if only everyone acquires a multiplicity of methodologies, then everyone is already a life coach).

And oh how easy it is to get lost in the ocean of such coaches when you're merely a drop like me. So… leave me out of it. I am not a coach. I am not certified by any board or method. I haven't succeeded any tests (neither the ones that borderline Ponzi schemes nor those that are just insanely expensive or any other). I am just someone who has a passion for reflection and facilitating learning process for others. So to speak.

So here is a breakdown of my approach to coaching. Some of this is just an attempt to communicate methods I learned from trial and error. Others could possibly be rephrasing or a different take on theories that already exist out there.

I am a big believer that performance skills (and all other skills, but that’s outside the scope of this article) are like muscles. They need constant workout, like going to the gym, or else they weaken. This is also the argument for approaching the artform as a craft, an approach of acquiring tools and the skills required to use those tools. Furthermore, this is strengthened by the assumption that talent - or any inborn ability - is merely a starting point and not an indicative of the level of the work, especially on the long run.

We, thus, have a way to build on any level of talent, through the approach of a craft, acquiring tools and the skills to use them, the unit of which is a trainable "muscle". For many people, one of the best ways to keep those “muscles” active or even make them stronger is by working with a coach (also like going to the gym).

Another important space a coach must provide, I think, is that of reflection. Stemming from experiential learning, the process of reflecting on experiences is of utmost importance if one is to learn from experiences in order to grow and improve. More often than not, we are stuck in the rat wheel of going from one performance to the other, or one rehearsal to the other, without really taking the required time to reflect. A coaching routine, again, you guessed it, like going to the gym, makes that space an integral part of our work.

In parallel to reflecting on the professional work a performer is doing, the coaching sessions work on strengthening the weaker skills of the performer while maintaining the stronger aspects. Through exercises, assignments, games, film study, and various other tools, performers get in a constant state of development and growth.

I’m big on using expressive arts tools, improv exercises/games (even when we’re not working on improv skills), and narratives in order to solidify strengths, improve weaknesses, and build new skills.

I am also a firm believer that a trainer or a coach should be a practitioner of what they train and coach. All my trainers and coaches are practitioners who can use experiences they’ve been through, but more importantly, have current and ongoing experiences. We share a collegiate as well as a mentorship relationship. That is why I think that the fact that I’m also constantly reflecting on my ongoing performances and sharing these reflections with the performers I coach as I facilitate a similar process for them can be the first and most important requirement of my approach.

If you are interested in the idea but still not totally sure, please, reach out and we can have a call (or a meeting if I’m in your city) and I think I can explain better then. If you want to know more, also reach out. Speaking of which, I could’ve also did a bad job explaining myself here. So, bottom line, just get in touch.