This is The Coaching Inn, a podcast from 3D Coaching. Hello and welcome to The Coaching Inn. My name's Claire Pedrick and today I'm in the good company of Jeff Matthews, who I met about a hundred years ago on a supervision course. Jeff, welcome. Thank you, Claire. Yes, we did, didn't we? Yes, we were sat at the feet of Peter Hawkins, I think, weren't we? Learning how to use supervisors. In his castle. Indeed. Tell us a bit about what you do, Geoff.
Okay. So having learned what I really want to do when I grow up, I guess I've become a coach now. I can actually describe myself as that, but it's been a 30 year journey. So first trained at the feet of John Whitmore only 30 years ago, which is quite scary really. Wow. And got very interested in the whole area of coach development and it's been that journey, recognizing that one's one's own experiment really in terms of we are the tool, aren't we?
there's something about that continued curiosity about our personal and professional development. yeah, so I've added to my coaching work that I do. Yep, one-to-one coaching, coach, supervisor, do work in leadership team coaching and yeah, spiritual accompaniments as well. So that's another area that I'm involved in. Yeah. Wow, wow, that's so interesting. And you and I had an in real life cup of tea. Yes, I think was the first person I've met in about 12 months, I think. Yes, same with you.
And we started talking about power and partnership and what we call people and how people engage. So tell us your thoughts on that, Geoff. Yeah. So part of my, I guess, area of development has been the move towards the professionalising of coaches as manifest in the ILM level seven and the professional qualifications. Now, one of the things I really noticed is what knots we managed to tie ourselves in what we call ourselves. Tell me about it. Am I coaching or am I mentoring?
And this kind of sort of idea that somehow the coaching police will emerge if you've offered advice and tap you in irons as a consequence. And it did strike me that that was weird. because I've been called a mentor when it felt like I was doing coaching and I've been called a coach when I knew damn well I was doing mentoring and you know, all that funny talking thing you do. And you know, tongue in cheek, as long as you pay me, I don't actually care what you call it.
Okay, I'm joking there to an extent, but this kind of argument about what we call ourselves, I think is intriguing. Some of that's political, some of it's... of management, some of it's about, you know, who can call themselves coaches and who can't, we can hear that. But it does seem to me that we get ourselves tied in knots. So that's one aspect that I've been interested in. And the other thing that's pervaded, I think my practice is a reflection on power in coaching.
So right from very early on, I got invited in to do, I know you do work in the same areas, how managers coach and how for me, coaching and coaching discourse has been somewhat naive about the idea of power. And time again, I used to hear that, you know, I've been trained as an executive coach, but I can't use this stuff inside the organization because I'm interested in the outcome.
And therefore the idea of me asking full questions and, you know, and I have to lead them in the end, I had to tell them what it was that they weren't doing because otherwise they wouldn't have got it. And so I found that interesting. And that led me to really think about the idea of how power manifests itself within coaching. And?
So yes, just building on that, guess that where that's taken us, taken me to is rather than thinking about power is the degree to which we are interested or disinterested in the outcome of the conversations that we have. So my definition of coaching is pretty Catholic in that I would say coaching covers any purposeful one-to-one conversation. So that's pretty broad.
And that would include, as it does for me, work with GPs, work with lawyers, work with professionals in terms of how we lead in the one-to-one domain. There's something about the rhythms of those conversations. And what we call self and other is important within that, because very often it will establish a dynamic in terms of the power of that relationship.
Inevitably, we as the coach are at some level one up in that, certainly as a mentor, you're one up, but certainly as the manager, you're one up in that conversation. It's inevitable. and therefore thinking very carefully about what is my interest here in the outcome. And I think we can describe healthy interest and unhealthy interest. Interesting.
Okay. And I think also if we think about disinterest as an executive coach, and I'm sure I know you position yourself much the same way as I do, you would go into a client call in as an independent external coach, disinterested in the outcome, not uninterested. there's an important distinction to make, I think, between being interested in the person because that's arguably, well, not arguably, we actively know that the active ingredients in coaching is the quality of the relationship.
It's the one thing that determines research. You read 60 to 80 % of the efficacy modality, very secondary in terms of, it doesn't matter almost what model you turn up with, turn up and create a trusted relationship, allowing people to be vulnerable, then it's going to work. And part of that therefore is a healthy disinterest in the outcome.
But if you're a manager in the organization, you're gonna be very interested in the outcome of that conversation because the improvement of the performance of the person you're working with is gonna show up in your performance review, is gonna show up in your evaluation. So that idea of how that is made overt rather than covert, rather than the leading questions.
So have you tried, have you thought about, you know, those kinds of things that you and I kind of, find ourselves getting allergic to when we're training coaches, know, the leading question that isn't a question at all, of course, but is advice disguised as a question? And we found ourselves thinking about that. And certainly, think as executive coaches going into organisations, being aware that we might have an unhealthy interest in the outcome of the conversation. Even when we're external.
Yes, exactly that. So And certainly even if we are internal, we can have an unhealthy interest in the outcome of it. There's politics, know, if I'm one part of the organization and politically it's something else going on with another part of the organization, how is that manifesting itself within the system, I think is important to be thought through.
But certainly as coaches, the unhealthy interest would include some of those ego traits, needing to be liked, needing to control, needing to look smart. needing to add value in some kind of a way rather than just being present to the client. There are always, sometimes that unhealthy interest can manifest itself. So you're describing stance, aren't you? You're describing how we are in the room. I think that's a really useful phrase. Yes, I think I am.
So the idea of coaching as a dance, as a way of being, and therefore, hey, now how am going to stand with you here? What's my orientation? to you, how am I going to be with you? I think is exactly it. Yeah. I call it being attentively not bothered would be my version of disinterest. very attentive and also not bothered. Yes. I really like disinterest. I should have to think deeper. Do you know there's something about that dance though that I'm really interested in.
So for listeners in the UK, We have that TV show, don't we, Strictly Come Dancing? And in this season, I don't know if you've seen it. No, not this one yet. In this season, they've got two men dancing together. And the thing that I think is most interesting about that is that on Saturday, they switched leading. So one of them was leading and one of them was following, and then the other one was leading and the other one was following. And the judges were commenting on how difficult that is.
But I've been stalking on YouTube some videos about liquid leadership, where there are some dancers in the States who do teaching on exactly that. How do you move in the moment in leadership? And they do that through dance. And it's so interesting. So I'm excited about the next few weeks and hoping these lovely two men don't go out because I think there's lots to learn. Yes, I think that's really interesting. flow of leadership.
Another place where I've seen, we often use metaphors don't we to get at this stuff and it's very helpful to do that. Where I have seen it really well demonstrated is improvised jazz. There's a guy called Alec James I think who does some stuff on this and fascinating. You'll get four musicians in an improv jazz band and you'll have four people stood behind them from the audience and you'll get a hat.
They take it in turns to put the hat on the leader and the musicians have to move with whoever's currently got the hat. the people stood behind them that are determining who's leading and who's not at any point. And watching that ebb and flow and how a skilled musician can do that, I think is interesting. And I think that leads, if we're talking about stance, perhaps the second view. So we've got this idea of interest and disinterest and health in which we can be.
But if you just pick up on that earlier theme, which just I'm very interested in exploring, is what we call ourselves... completely! So what are the things I'm encouraging increasingly in my work is to move from nouns to verbs. So rather than, you know, is it client led, coach led or mentee led, mentor led, which we can kind of hear as, you know, coach, mentor, all nouns. What is it we're actually doing?
So rather than talking about that, can continue, which classically we've got one end is, you know, client led and the other end is coach led. Perhaps if we were to look at the idea of exploring and offering as a way of thinking about that. I think particularly if we think about interest and disinterested and offering and exploring, we finish up with a classic two-by-two matrix, which I'm going to bust open in a moment.
I two-by-two matrices have got a problem with them as well, but we'll get that in a minute. I think some of our listeners will be very pleased that you said that. But just for the purposes of this debate, any or beginnings of it, there's something about how you finish up classically with four quadrants. So I can be disinterested and be in the space of exploring classically a stance, you the earlier point of executive coaching.
Whereas I can be exploring and healthily interested, which is the space I would suggest to performance coaching. I can be healthily disinterested, but offering. which is the space very often of mentoring. And then we finish up in the top left-hand corner, we can be offering and be interested in the outcome, which for me is the box of championing, I would suggest. Either we're championing individual or potentially a process or a procedure.
think about coaching supervision actually as a form of champion, because it's something about holding the normative ethical boundaries within supervision, as well as the formative and the restorative elements within coaching supervision that we might be working with. So as a good coach, of course, you'll be working around all four of those areas. Have you written this, Geoff? Not yet, but I probably ought to. Well, I'm in the process of writing it up, yes, so we're kind of shaping it.
But it certainly forms the cornerstone now of my level 7 work that I'm doing very differently. Hashtag copyright Geoff Matthews, everybody. I'm really interested in what you said, because you started off by saying client-led, coach-led, and then you changed that to exploring versus offering. Because one of the things that interests me is that how often an offer sounds like a statement. Yes. And you said versus, is it and?
Because sometimes an offer can actually be offered likely in a way that actually is an exploration. So here's a model, here's a way of thinking about things. I'm wondering what you make of that. Yes. This is slightly blowing my mind. In a good way, just saying.
Which is why I think actually dissolving the two by two matrix, because two by two matrix has a versus or an or in it because it has, you know, it's either one side of the line or the other side above and below or left and right, depending if you're looking at it. Whereas in here what we're looking at, it's almost like a target. It's green, amber, red. Have I got my stance with you in terms of how I'm working with you, where we need to be at the moment?
in order for me to be the most useful I can be to you. And in my stance, is the way that I'm being coming across to you in the way in which I'm intending it to? yes, that's right. Because it may very well be that my intention is exploratory, but you're receiving it as instructional and that's my tone. Exactly, yeah. And therefore the ability to be able to get that feedback in the moment.
This is why the notion of the dynamic relationship, which dance and music gives us, I think, is a better metaphor than the fixed nature of two-by-two matrices. Yeah. So we start to think about almost like some kind of, well, the image that came up for me was, you know, these films like Star Wars, where you've got the kind of fast jet-fighter-y thing flying through some narrow canyon. with the walls on either side. There's something about staying in the middle, isn't there?
Because if you start to, know, green, green, green, amber, amber, red, red, red, red, red, and then to put it back into the center again. And there's something about how we veer away. So there's something about the dynamic nature of coaching that we, how do I move to be with you? Which is where I think certainly coaches turn themselves in a real old not here. Gosh, it feels like I'm about to give advice here. Is that all right? Well, is it going to be helpful?
The exhortation that I do offer on my coach training program suggests that the fundamental idea in coaching is wait, W-A-I-T, why am I talking? What is the strategic purpose or intention behind what it is I'm doing? How can I be most useful to you? And then again, Whitmore got for me nailed it right back 40 years ago when he first wrote it. raising awareness in order to invite responsibility. What is the best way that I can be with you now in order to raise your awareness around what's going on?
And it might be offering, it might well be a two bit matrix, it might well be a model of some description, and or it might well be a question or some kind of way of illuminating what's going on for you. And that's the craft skill. Yeah, and I'm very struck this week because I did three talks last week. in various parts of the world and they were all about partnership. One of the things that really shocked me was the one that had the most people at it. It had several hundred people there.
They were a bit blown over by the concept that if you're working in partnership, you need to check in. Yeah. And because surely we should be knowing what we're doing. But of course, I don't know how to work with you, Jeff. If I was coaching you or we were in a supervision relationship or you were with me, neither of us knows how to work with the other one unless we work it out between us and that requires us to check in. Absolutely. Yeah, yeah, I'd really agree with that.
And that's that useful separation, I think, of content and process. Yeah, absolutely. Content review. Are you getting what you needed from this in terms of the direction and the outcomes that you're looking for and how are we working together? The process for you? Yeah, think it's imperative. Yeah. And regularly, I was training a group of people this morning who are coaching at work. I'm not going to say using coaching. In fact, they're mentoring, but they are coaching. But they're not coaches.
Verb, not now. And one of them was saying, but I do check in. Because at the end I say, was anything we've done today at all useful for you? And I said, yeah, but that's a performance review. It's also a closed question. Well, exactly. But it's also, it's because what you're actually asking is, am I any good? Was I any good? And actually that's not the purpose of checking in, is it? The purpose of checking in is, is this a useful direction for you? What insights are you getting?
And do we need to change direction? Yes, absolutely. And finding a way of inviting that, that the client feels comfortable with it and we don't get into the unhealthy interest in the outcome of some kind of ego. You know, have I been all right for you? Please give me some compliments. Something about how you do that in an objective way, I think. Yeah, totally. I topped and tailed this conference with a guy called Nick Bolton who works for the International Centre for Coaching and Supervision.
Right. And he's going to be a guest on a future episode everybody. But he was talking about moving from doing coaching to creating dialogue. And that's what we're talking about, isn't it? Yes, I think it is. Yes, it is. And yeah, and therefore the ebb and flow of that. And yeah. the stance, the careful choreography of how am I working with you? Am I just on your toes or am I gliding you gently down around the dance floor in a way that we're both appreciating working with?
Yeah, yeah, I'm thinking about Jung. Learn your theories as well as you can and put them aside when you touch the miracle of the living soul. Yes, exactly that, isn't it? It's all very well. because it is about the craft skill and it's about using those devices to begin with, but then it's just trusting yourself and as you say going with the dial. Yeah, yeah. So power is my, well power has been my learning journey for quite a long time really, power and partnership.
What do you think we need to do differently to manage power in a more mutual way? I think there's something about being much more overt about it. It's something about naming it, I think.
And as some of stuff I've been really struck by in the very appropriate work that's being done around gender, sexuality and the whole work around... black and ethnic minorities and the way that turns up in any of the coaching sessions that we're in and privileges some voices over others and being really live to some of that stuff. So there's something about the genuine but curious inquiry into any difference that we potentially experienced that could be experienced as power imbalance.
I think there's something around that. There's something around the acknowledgements, particularly if you're coaching as an internal coach inside an organization about power structures and and prior relationships, roles that you have inside the system that you're in that isn't coach and coachee, but actually something else. If you're an HR partner or an HR director or a chief executive in certain instances, I'm some chief executive. I've put myself up for coaching and nobody's come.
thought, yeah, not surprised. Why would they? Because they walk into your office and you're the chief exec. Yeah. And that's about personal power. Isn't it as well as about role power? Exactly that, yes. And as you're triggering that, I think it's Derrida or Foucault that talks about the three sources of power. it might be Foucault, French philosopher, who says that three sources of power are personal power, terms of how we turn up, role power, which comes from our status, and cultural power.
And I think it's a really useful model to reflect on. And on occasions where it's a very appropriate thing to be over, it's about those things in the room. Because named, we can do something about them. You're touching on some very holy ground here, Geoff. Right. I'm working with someone at the moment who's black and I'm white. And they really were encouraging me when we had our kind of pre-conversation to do some reading about white fragility.
And that's led me to a book called Me and White Supremacy. So I've read it too. Have you? Well, I'm dabbling on day one, lesson one. Yeah. Because I think it's going to be a deep and painful journey, actually. Yeah, I concur. That's been my experience of working with it. Yeah. So for our listeners, it's a book that helps those of us who are white to really explore our own privileges.
and to be able to articulate those and to do some work about the impact that we have and what we, the privileges that we don't even imagine that we thought we had have on the work that we do and the way we are in the world. Yeah, it's really important, it's really important work and some of level seven work I'm doing at the moment, how to supervise the very appropriately as a woman of colour challenge the grow model.
as being a white Anglo-Saxon capitalist based, actually I think that is a reduction of Whitmore's original work, have to say. Whitmore would be the first one to say, wish he'd never invented Grow, I think I've heard him say that. I wish that too, Geoff. Only because of the way that it's been reduced to a problem solving technique. therefore it's seen to be coaching.
This woman was making the point that the way it's laid out, particularly options phase, assumes a degree of options, which potentially aren't available within a system for all the clients that we're working with. And therefore it comes from a tradition of the world's your oyster. You can do anything you want as a kind of way, you the American self-help movement kind of might've explored some of this. And that is simply not the case for all the clients that we're working with.
So being alive, think Whitmore would be the first to say actually that's a misinterpretation of grow and we could spend some time looking at that. I think that's right. But often the way it is taught, it comes from, as you say, a white Anglo-Saxon capitalist male perspective. It also begins to be future focused and then used badly, sets everybody off walking in the opposite direction, which is where I have a problem with it.
because I think it gives, not used badly, I think it can give far too much knowledge and information to the person who's using it rather than giving new insights to the person who's come to think. Yes, yes, yeah, absolutely, yeah. So it's an interesting one.
Yeah, so absolutely, think anyone that's not engaged with some of that material needs to, the other great book just done on that theme is David Bedeel's book Jews Don't Count, which I'd also strongly recommend in addition to some that's around white fragility and why I've stopped talking to white people about race, which is another excellent book.
Very erudite man, you know, David Baddiel, known as a comedian, but he's intellectually incredibly capable and has got some really interesting things to say about from a Jewish perspective in terms of his experience of being a Jew, this kind of binary that Jews sometimes find themselves in at one level, they are critiqued as being somehow behind all the global conspiracy theories ever and are hugely privileged.
In the next minute, they're in the ghetto and he describes them as Schrodinger's cat of racism, know, this kind of either or depending on what suits. yeah, he goes on to develop those themes. Very interesting read. I'll pop those book recommendations in the programme notes for people who want to dig deeper and go further.
But what I'm sensing you saying, and I think I and I so agree with you, is that we need to do work on our own stuff and how we show up in order to be good at any kind of dyadic one-to-one conversation. I think so, absolutely. Is knowing where your healthy interests and disinterest lie, where the buttons of your own ego the notion of dying to self and the idea of really being an effective coach, you're saying about a second half of life journey and how we work our way through that.
I think that's something that's important in terms of our development. Yeah. So you're also, you do supervise, you are supervising, I'm trying to get the words right after what you said earlier. You are supervising. I'm supervising. And you are coaching. verb. What's the difference for those of our listeners who don't know? I found myself asking exactly the same question a group of supervisors the other day and made myself incredibly popular by suggesting there wasn't much.
I think I agree with you. And of course after the no, no, no, there's loads of difference kind of pushback. Some key differences, think. Funny enough, it speaks actually to the idea of interest and disinterest and exploring and offering. Certainly within the work that I do as a supervisor, particularly on the level seven programmes that I run, there is a training dimension to that.
Therefore, I am interested in the outcome in the sense of supporting people to be the coach that they're, to develop their coaching signature style. I was about to use the dreadful trove to become the coach they always wanted to be, but you know, the kind of thing. If I see another one of these profiles that suggests that people feel potential, I shall scream, think, we need to find a different way of expressing that.
But there's something about becoming the coach that you're being called to be, isn't there, think. And therefore, that is one element that is different in supervision, is there's something about the way that we are supporting people on that journey. So therefore, there is an implicit developmental dimension, formative dimension to it. I think the other explicit dimension, which is probably less so in coaching, although discussed, is the normative boundary in terms of ethical practice.
So as a coach supervisor affiliated as we both are to professional coaching bodies and therefore are held accountable and responsible for ethical practice, are asked to call, if we spot it, on ethical, dangerous practice and classic standards on safeguarding. Yes, to an extent that exists, of course, in the coaching relationship, but not quite to the way that it does, think, within the coaching. And for me, that potentially is the difference, I think, between the two.
But I've certainly coined and have used the phrase, it from Peter Hawkins originally, think, amongst others, but the idea of leadership supervision, for me, is a form of executive coaching. Yeah. of supporting senior leaders in their work in the one-to-one domain. Well, if we have the Catholic definition of coaching that is any purposeful one-to-one conversation, how is that different from coaching supervision? And then you've got a different name for it. It's the same stuff.
I'll introduce the same ideas or the same way of working in an executive coaching conversation that's focusing on somebody's leadership in the one-to-one, problem with a team member or a problem with a key member of the team. Same stuff. I'll have Hawking's seven eye model out, I'll have coaching constellations out, I'll have some of those ideas that we're working with. So that's the differences I would see between the two.
Yeah, my definition of coaching is a conversation where somebody feels heard and gets new insights into their own stuff. Yeah. Or which I really thought of as you were describing your definition. It's a conversation between two people about one of us. Which makes it slightly different. I love that. From a conversation between two people about both of us. Yes, it is. Yeah. And that's all it is. And that's all it is. And everything you've described is that, isn't it? Yeah, yes, absolutely.
Yeah. Yeah. And I know you're very wedded to the idea of simplifying coaching and me too, in terms of this idea of the second simplicity. Yes, we've made it complicated and we've needed to. There's something about sophistication. becoming a profession, but now there's something about the second simplicity, think, making it simple, but not simplistic. I think that's the place that we're at. And that for me is the direction of the craft skill that we're talking about, I think.
And I certainly do regard it as a craft skill. think I'm much more interested in guilds of practice than I'm about black belts for karate. I think there's a subtle difference between those things. I think it's flying hours, not black belts and bands and dance. Sam Isakson, who was on the podcast two or three weeks ago talking about coaching and tech and IT, AI, intelligence.
And lots of people have picked up on some of the things he said and have pinged messages to us on social media about what they've picked up from that. But he runs an apprenticeship in coaching. Right, yes. And he's going to come back and talk about it. Yeah. In terms of a craft, that sounds really interesting. It's one of the reasons why I stayed with ILM. People who been through the ILM, it's useful, but it can drive you up the wall on occasions in terms of the way it's put together.
But what I really like about ILM, of course, it's based on the London Craft Guilds. That's where it came from. Right. So it's this notion of action research that you go out and have the practice first and then put it against the theory rather than the other way around, which I've always valued. And therefore that notion of of an apprenticeship. And that whole kind of craft guild structure is interesting. Okay, we have to watch the gender specific language, so excuse that.
But the notion of journeyman is from the French, which is how far you can travel in a day. So the idea of applying your trade as a stonemason or wherever else was how far you could travel in a day. So a journeyman pro is learning there. And then you have the master. There's something about your masterpiece is the piece you create in order to get entry into the craft guild.
So there's something about that and the way in which Hurrah, ILM have now moved to you have to able to demonstrate, you know, 20 minutes or an hour of your coaching, which is required to be reviewed, not from the point of view of how good it was, but actually from the point of view of capability to reflect on it. Right. That's actually what they're looking for.
So you can produce the worst piece of material you've ever done, but if you're able to reflect on it effectively, that's the piece, then we know you're capable. If you can spot what it is that's gone on in the session, actually now hearing that back, what I'm now hearing is this was great and this worked, but what I would now do differently is this. That makes an effective practitioner. I think it's the blind practitioner that hasn't realised what they're doing and how it's working.
So for me that is something about the way that as coaches and supervisors we help people stand back from the work in order to able to get an objective view of what's going on. And this is a craft, coaching, and it is a journey isn't it? Yeah absolutely it is. And sometimes we fall over on the way and that's okay. It's okay yeah and we all make mistakes it's how we recover from it that's the crucial piece.
In fact that comes back to the analogy of jazz is a bum note very often in a jazz, improvised jazz session can make it the most wonderful craft thing there because you have to work around it. And what they don't do is all put their instruments down and go, I'm terribly sorry, I made a great big mistake there. They just play through it, don't they? Yeah, they did. I learnt to paint a number of years ago now from a guy who'd been a fine art professor of painting at Leicester University.
And he'd got a commission from the Queen. And he was painting this true story, he was painting this picture and he said, this just isn't going right at all, I can't. And he thought, right, what I need to do is I need to go next door and get my neighbour who doesn't know, the last thing he painted was the fence with creosote, to come around and said, yeah, come round. What I want you to do is to mark the canvas anywhere with any colour off the palette. There you are, there's the range.
And the guy did, and he pointed to where this guy had made, that's the mark he made. But then I had to work around it in order to recover the mark. And actually what emerged from that was much better than if I'd have just carried on around doing what I was doing, which I thought was a fascinating insight into the craft of, and I don't know if you, how you all work, but occasionally some those inverted commas and mistakes have led to the most wonderful work, you know, we've ever done.
Totally, as long as we don't apologize, because that makes it about us. Exactly. You've got to work through it, haven't you? You have, yeah. Well, what a joy to talk to you, Geoff. If people want to get in touch with you and talk more about supervision or your training, how do they get in contact with you? Yeah, so it's the Madison Group is the name of the name my organisation goes under. me and my colleagues that we work with.
it's jeff at the hyphen madison with one D hyphen group.co.uk as an email address. There is a website which probably needs updating like all good coaching websites do, yeah, which gives a bit of an overview and insight, but be very happy to hear from people and any reflections and thoughts about what we've talked about this afternoon greatly received. Well, thank you so much.
And I'm going to keep thinking about quite a number of those things about disinterest and yeah, interest and disinterest is one to really sit with and you've challenged me to keep going with the tricky journey into me and white supremacy. So thank you for that. So thank you, Jeff, for joining us and thank you to listeners for listening. I'm Claire Pedrick and I've been in conversation with Jeff Matthews. Bye bye.
If you've enjoyed what you've heard today, please share the podcast with a friend who might also be interested. And if you'd like to become one of our regulars at The Coaching In, you can subscribe at Podbean or on iTunes. We look forward to meeting you on the next podcast. You've been listening to The Coaching In. Find out more about us at www.3dcoaching.com.