RIP - Proteges, Mentees and Coachees!

I am putting the finishing touches on my next book, tentatively called Coaching Up and Down the Generations. One of the things I have always struggled with is what to call the person who is being coached. Each company I have worked with and for has had a different name. Sometimes these learners are called proteges or coachees and if we are talking about mentoring, then the person might be called a mentee.

These names all seem so patronizing to me and tend to reinforce that the coach and mentor is the one who "knows," like a mountain-top guru. And while there is a time for sharing sage advice, I would like the overall focus to be on the goals and interests of the person being coached. And we know that often the best coaching comes in the form of a question, not an answer.

For this book, I decided to call the person who is receiving coaching a performer. The person who seeks coaching has a goal and when he/she moves forward toward that goal, he/she performs. This makes sense to me and I like that it puts the focus where it belongs. And if I could rename the coach, I would call him/her a helper, because this reduces the guru aspect of coaching and reinforces the service oriented nature of good coaching.

What do you think? Have you heard of a name that is even better than "performer?" Do tell!

Comments

[Tom Foster]

I call 'em "players."

[lisa haneberg]

Tom, I can see that logic - coaches and players... thanks!

[Rich Michaels]

I like "students" though the term does have the problem of people associating age to the term. Other terms like players, or performers have multiple associations such sports or the arts and performers for me creates a mental distance or level of abstraction away from the subject entity just like the term "learners" does. I agree with you that the terms mentee, coachee, etc can feel demeaning. So I don't think I've helped but, at least for me, it was an interesting mental exercise and I'll have to give it some more thought. Thanks.

[davidburkus]

I like performers. Even players in sports are a type of performer.

[lisa haneberg]

David and Rich - thanks for chiming in. It may not be critical what we call them as long as we are clear about who is in control and who is running the show (not the coach). But to write a book about coaching, we do need to call them something! :-)

[Benjamin Lichtenwalner]

Kudos for trying to fix this. Never heard of "performers" before, but I like it.

I've struggled with a similar concern related to the manager / employee relation in Servant Leadership circles. Direct reports are often referenced as "my employees" when in fact they are only the individuals a leader are responsible to. But trying say that every time.

Excited to see the book.

[lisa haneberg]

Yes, Benjamin, you are right, the same strange dynamic occurs between managers and those they serve.

[Jennifer T.]

I like performers - much better than the other terms you mention. I also like the "Talent" - the term used by Gregg Thompson and Susanne Biro in their book, Unleashed - expecting greatness and other secrets of coaching for exceptional performance. (BTW, its a great little book.) You didn't ask, but I like Coach better than "helper". Helper gets your point across about the coach being in service, but I'd prefer to read about that and stick with the familiar term "Coach". Thanks for asking Lisa!

[Ros]

I too am battling with naming the roles. I have chosen to use the terms Navigator and Explorer with analogies about a compass and a map but when I look at the text, I am concerned that the terms are trite.

Wish there was a more dignified word for the person being coached and even that term implies a relationship that is not equal.