Welcome Self-belief Coaches!
to the SBCA Graduate Site
Self-belief Coaching Academy Grads
I am delighted to welcome you to the SBCA Graduate Site. Here you’ll find all the modules, tools, and call recordings from your SBCA Class.
You are also joining graduates of other classes in the program as we integrate these approaches into our respective coaching practices.
My hope is that you feel part of a community of coaches with a shared language, experiences, and references for this work. This is an ongoing conversation for all of us.
I am so happy you are here. Please make yourself at home!
Arohanui,
Welcome! Here you can get chatting with your fellow coaches!
So grab a cuppa and feel free to share 🙂
Hello Sas, Scott & Fellow Coaches…
My name is Nicola and I just graduated with the most recent cohort.
So happy to be here with you all.
I’m looking at the five orientations to goals and wondering:
Do these orientations tend to cluster or correlate with faces of the Protector? (e.g. Critic or Martyr with the shadowy elements of being Goal-Driven OR Bystander and Scapegoat with the shadow beliefs that can accompany Goal-Dreamer | Agnostic | Averse orientations)?
Or are people’s goal preferences and styles often quite distinct and not so correlating with Protector styles?
It’s interesting to me to wonder if people might fit the shadow profiles a bit with these beliefs – e.g. safety in those four core patterns of waiting, working, giving, quitting or not trying – but then, as they increasingly resource in their HAS, find more freedom and fluidity in where they truly tend to land with their goal-orientation, when in greater psychological safety and not so dominated by psychological risk.
I know we can’t pigeon-hole people, but I am curious about the idea that there might be some patterns here.
Sas – just checking, did any of your grounded theory work explore these kinds of queries?
Scott, I know you know these archetypes and Protector faces inside and out – any thoughts?
And to anyone who wants to chime in, thanks!
Nicola – so fun to see you here and christening our updated comments with such a juicy question.
My short answer is there doesn’t seem to be any correlation that could be considered reliable enough to say it’s a pattern.
However, I have found that the Protectors show up in consistent ways when it comes to goals. So as you offer – folks with a strong overworking pattern can be quite goal-driven as a way to fulfil this.
Equally, folks with a tendency to feel overwhelmed tend to be pretty agnostic about goals. However, I have worked with enough folks with a Scapegoat pattern who are very goal-driven (they tend to struggle to follow through!) to be careful of assumptions around this.
For me, a healthy relationship with goals is where it feels ‘right-sized’ for your self-concept. Where achievement and/or failure of a goal doesn’t impact your self-concept in a negative way. And how you treat yourself on the way to the goal is – I believe – as important as the outcome.
So if you don’t value goals, but you don’t feel like you are particularly missing out on anything then that’s healthy! And if you achieve loads of goals but you treat yourself with contempt, then there is no opportunity to expand your self-concept.
How does that land for you Nic?
Hi Sas,
That lands well!
Thanks for getting back to me so promptly, and this all makes good sense to me.
I’m glad you addressed self-concept as relating to goals, as well, after I hit send I remembered that I wondered a bit about those correlations, too.
Also, I have to share a cool thing about Courage-Based Planning:
Ok, so I think I’ll have to be a bit careful about entanglement because I think I have a mild attachment to the VALUE of goals, not for their own sake, but because they can be such a vehicle for growth and I have such a strong value of GROWTH.
But, that caveat shared, here’s some cool theory to chew on: you know Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, who is most known for having studied and come up with the concept of the flow state?
In case anyone reading hasn’t heard of it, here’s my summary:
Flow state is a state of consciousness in which we are deeply absorbed in our experience, time often feels to fall away and we have a subjective experience of flowing with our experience itself.
It is considered to be a state in which we are deeply focused and absorbed, and it has been studied extensively and found to contribute to people’s sense of wellbeing – aka, the more flow in our lives, the better we feel.
Ok, so if you accept that premise, here’s the cool connection I see to Courage-Based Goal-Setting, Planning and Action! (Sorry, nerding out here, can’t help it – this is EXCITING to me!)
In the book, Stolen Focus: Why You Can’t Pay Attention – and How to Think Deeply Again, Johann Hari references flow state and shares three components that help facilitate it:
- choose a clearly defined goal – one that requires resolve, commitment, and likely saying no to others in order to protect your brainpower for one key mission
- the process of working towards the goal must be personally meaningful
- finding an ideal ‘tension’ whereby we work at the edge of our abilities, but not beyond them (too easy = autopilot, too hard = anxious and off-kilter)
Again, the idea being that if we have all three conditions, we may achieve that satisfying flow state where our sense of separate ego reduces and we have a feeling of merging with our experience.
So, I think it is so cool that the Courage-Based process aligns with this, IMO:
- it invites us to get clear on ONE main goal (and right-sizes us with a 30-day suggested time frame)
- the chart | outline helps check that the arena is meaningful
- the Boob Plan is like a visual that helps assess that range of easy | do-able | stretchy | risky – and helps us play in that ‘middle zone’ of growth (not always the small easy circle, and thinking about ways to help us handle what currently feels risky) – and planning to resourcing and support to handle the ‘edgy’ feelings (presence of psychological risk and arising of self-doubt, in all the ways we know…)
I guess what I’m saying is that I honestly see so many parallels between these ‘parameters to support flow state’ and the courage-based approach to goals, and so I feel even more enamoured with the process – like, REALLY seeing how it helps people live deeper, richer, more engaged lives with greater likelihood of experiencing flow state (way beyond the measures of ‘what they achieve’ in any 30-day process).
I will honestly have to be careful to not feel ‘righteous’ about this fascinating correlation and use this theory to try and bamboozle anyone into trying Boob plans – but I just think it’s so COOL!
Ok, welcome any thoughts – and feel free to check my heady enthusiasm, if you think this brain candy could pull me away from presence with my immediate, here and now clients. (But I think I can check myself, I do!)
However, this connection adds even more motivation to continue to experimenting with this approach to goals for myself – keeping flow state in mind, as well as learning about my relationship with risk and self-doubt in relationship to goals.
Now… to handle the realities of sick kids at home, laundry and the like intruding on my capacity for flow state! 😉
Sas, did you already know all this and quietly fold it into this magic – or is this parallel new to you? Curious if you have any thoughts about my overlaying and playing with these ideas.
Really fun observation Nic!
I’m very familiar with Csikszentmihalyi’s work (he was also very good pals with Martin Seligman – they have done some really encouraging research in Positive Psychology – especially Values).
I really like Hari’s approach here and can absolutely see the parallels (sidenote: I don’t tend to both with psych-oriented books written by journos – I am a total snob!).
I hadn’t however, made the connection to flow state and goals – so this is fun!
I think I see the Courage-based approach as more utilitarian. For me, it was a way of getting around how the Six P’s tend to screw up our relationship to goals.
But this might be because I don’t tend to experience flow in the planning – it’s more in the ‘doing’ of the thing where it’s likely to bubble up – likely just my subjective experience.
I totally get that value of goals though. And I think this is the big one for clients – getting to why they don’t value goals – is it because they don’t hold any spark, or motivation? (this can be a sign of Reforming Self-concept). Or is it because underneath they don’t believe they can reach the goal?
[LOL about your snob tendencies re those books – no Gretchen Rubin or Brigid Schulte for you, then? ;)]
Well, I think it’s neat to consider that you totally helped ‘solve a problem’ – but that maybe that this process can be a gateway into sometimes helping people experience something even more ‘elevated’ than expected or intended.
I agree (subjectively speaking) that the flow state is more often to be found in the doing than the planning – but if the planning process facilitates the awareness, safety, support and tools that enables people to GET to the doing, wow, what a gift!
I agree about getting curious about our relationship with goals and the beliefs and values underpinning it – gosh, this stuff is endlessly interesting.
I love the tie to self-concept, too.
Ok, thanks for responding to my playing with these…
A Module Two Question: Self-Concept and ‘who’s’ in the driver’s seat
Sas, you make the reference that with the forming self-concept, Psychological Risk is in the driver’s seat and that, with the formed self-concept, Protection of Self-Concept is in the driver’s seat.
With Reforming (and perhaps Transforming) self-concept, what would you say is in the driver’s seat: something along the lines of ‘Witness Consciousness’ or Awareness itself?
Or something still ‘self’ related or constructed? Curious to hear your perceptions of this (even though I understand this will be a minority of people and clients)…
Thanks!
Kegan’s first book was called The Evolving Self and I have that sentiment in mind – I see the ‘Evolving Self-concept’ as being in charge of the psyche of those at a Reforming stage.
I really like your description of witness/awareness – more so, I think – for the Transforming stage.
With a Reforming Self-concept, people can stand back from their identity/self-concept/ego.
They can see that any one perspective (including their own) can only be partial, they can tolerate way more ambiguity and complexity. So their cognitive reasoning becomes more holistic and by its nature is evolving because they aren’t particularly attached.
Hmmmm, I like that framing: Evolving Self-Concept – with greater reflective distance and reduced attached to protecting some sense of a static self.
Awareness still feels connected to me, even here, something about the spaciousness and flexibility and non-attachment – and I hear you about how that may be even more significant or relevant in a Transforming stage.
You know, re-reading this Module, the one premise that seems worth musing on is the very notion of individualistic, separate selves.
I was looking at the list of developmental theorists and your reminder that white men created all of these dominant models – and it’s interesting how these models aren’t significantly contextual or relational, they sort of seem to reduce humans to these singular entities, as though they’re functioning and developing as separate little atoms.
Anyway, no need to respond to this one, just wondering aloud about the inherent biases and what I perceive as a key worldview assumption that informed many or most of these models of human development.
Thanks again for your responses, Sas!
Yes – it’s one of the common criticisms of DP. However, I don’t think it’s alone in a psychological theory that is individualistic!
I am going to be taking part in an action-learning research group with my Academic Supervisor to see what group process looks like in a coaching Supervision setting. I think there might be really interesting findings from this…
Hi there – me again! 😉
Ok, now working through Module Three for a second time.
Sas, perhaps you will address this in the upcoming Advanced Class – and if so, no rush, and I will catch the recording then:
I’m curious to understand more about how you would distinguish:
- the Protector that is inbuilt into the Healthy Self and/or our essential birthright human functioning built into our nervous systems in contrast to
- the Protector that we might understand to have roots in Survivor Self parts (identities & strategies) and may associate with the four faces of the compass (Bystander, Martyr, Critic, Scapegoat) or the more nuanced 12 Archetypes
It would be nice for me as a human as a coach to develop more nuance, literacy and vocabulary to discern what is: eg. wise, helpful, proportioned to the here-and-now protection (I’m guessing this is agile, grounded, more resourced?) vs that which is distorted, based on old programming, is more akin to a vigilant alarm system created in the past that now has trouble distinguishing and registering valid threats | risks.
I know that the flags of: distraction, control, compensation, illusions and denial are part of recognizing these Survivor-self, trauma-informed protector parts, but…
I’d love to hear more about how you:
- recognize this discernment in yourself (as a human and/or coach)
- talk about these distinctions with clients
- help clients discern Protection signals from their healthy and (or vs?) survivor selves
- any other details about this “Healthy Protector” that might be very worth getting to know, respect and communicate with
Thanks for anything along these lines – and/or addressing some of this in the upcoming class.
Love spiralling through this material for a second time.
So, I don’t make any distinctions based on the root cause of the Protector, because I think it’s ALL helpful and necessary for every individual to be who they are, in the here and now.
If we do try and make those distinctions, we risk getting into binaries that suggest a ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Protector, and I don’t think that necessarily serves the client.
From a coaching perspective, the nervous system response to threat/danger, is just as useful to explore as the four protective patterns offer, because we will only ever be able to do this retrospectively with the client in the session.
The distinction I do think is useful to make, is with Survivor Strategies. While these are not coachable, they are worth naming. I tend to offer to the client, something like: I’ve noticed that you tend to use humour when we are talking about this thing that you’ve also said is really vulnerable for you – what do you notice?
I think the art to this is about not getting caught up in teaching clients about these concepts, but coaching them – being curious about what we see and what the client tells us holds them back.
Please do say more if I haven’t understood your question 🙂
I think you understood my question… I was struck by the line in the notes about how the Healthy Self (prior to trauma|s) already a Protector as part of them, as distinct from the Survival Self, and was curious about that.
I definitely understand (and resonate with) your embracing of bringing curiosity, respect, compassion to wherever and however the ‘protection system’ is set off for the client (or ourselves!) and trying to not get hooked into binaries in this domain.
(To be careful or mindful of a part of me that might try to dissect or judge these aspects of the client’s inner ecosystem…)
I appreciate the example you provide about naming Survivor Strategies and how you might illumine that or work with one coming up IN THE MOMENT rather than intellectualizing or starting to teach concepts to a client.
I think that might be an edge for me sometimes (coach from it rather than teach it), and I appreciate you articulating this distinction. (I also give myself permission to be in process and in some areas, a beginner!)
This all said, I think my familiar old Bystander used to struggle (sometimes deeply) with variations on this – like, “what is my intuition, wise instinct or healthy protective alarm vs a more neurotic, based-in-the-past hyper-vigilant old echo of dysregulation?” and get caught in a kind of indecisive, confused paralysis there.
That doesn’t happen so much anymore, and I think I might be able to help a client recognize and be with such a pattern, just naming that I could see some other people’s Bystander tendencies sometimes struggling in a bit of a stuck way with these kind of discernment questions.
And since that protective pattern has a lot of conditioning in me, interesting for me to notice when I still have a subtle (or not-so-subtle) longing for binaries, certainty, or am struggling to tolerate ambiguity, uncertainty, contradiction, or not-knowing.
In life AND in coaching.
Thanks, Sas. I think I’m good for now.
Look forward to your upcoming Advanced Practice session | recording.
Follow Up Q’s after wonderful Advanced Practice Session on the Protector Matrix:
Loved the question: “What is [your protective strategy – quitting, waiting, etc…] protecting you from?”
I know that my deeper learning will come from experimenting and just playing with this…
AND I’m curious:
Q1: Do you find that many people are able to reflect and surface this fairly adeptly for themselves? Or is it often like this points a flashlight to illuminating their underlying: worries, fears, the perceived risks and the protective beliefs – and so, they might hit that ‘don’t know’ kind of ‘blind spot’ shadowy terrain?
(Btw, I see that the above presents a binary, but please humour me and I hope you know what I’m getting at here)!
I know if it’s the latter, we’ve got tools like “Uncovering Protective Beliefs” or “Belief Buster” to explore… but just curious if you have any thoughts on this query.
Q2: I was also curious if you feel like we can draw on this matrix as practitioners equally effectively whether we use the whole compass and model with clients or not?
That is, with some of my longer-term clients, I have used and definitely would continue to draw on the whole compass – such a great frame of reference and SO helpful for enabling subject-object shifting, providing concepts and language to recognize and name protective parts and patterns and healthy resources and possibilities! BUT with shorter-term clients or someone in for a single session without the reference frame, I think trying to provide and orient someone to the model might feel a little confusing and ‘too much’ – and so, would you just work at gently being with them where they are:
e.g.
- awareness of protector = more insight, compassion and choice
- experimenting = disrupting old patterns and leaning into healthier options and new resources
- creating new evidence, beliefs and patterns = expanding Healthy Self, internal resources, and integrating expanding new identity, sense of possibility etc…
and no need to name or get into archetypes, etc…?
Is this making sense?
Just trying to think how I might be able to best draw on the deep wisdom here without necessarily using the language and ‘jargon’ of the model…
Also, absolutely LOVED the integration and weaving in of the stress response patterns with the four different protector patterns!
Thanks for the class – and also any further thoughts…
A question for Sas — which is showing my level of ignorance but heyho. 🤣
Thoughout the course you keep referring to ‘meta’ stuff.
What does it mean?
I have no idea.
I’ve tried Googling it but that doesn’t seem to give me an answer.
I saw someone else use this term on Linked In this morning so it’s obviously an accepted term that has passed me by somewhere…..
Thankyou!
Hello Sas, Scott & Fellow Coaches…
My name is Nicola and I just graduated with the most recent cohort.
So happy to be here with you all.
I’m looking at the five orientations to goals and wondering:
Do these orientations tend to cluster or correlate with faces of the Protector? (e.g. Critic or Martyr with the shadowy elements of being Goal-Driven OR Bystander and Scapegoat with the shadow beliefs that can accompany Goal-Dreamer | Agnostic | Averse orientations)?
Or are people’s goal preferences and styles often quite distinct and not so correlating with Protector styles?
It’s interesting to me to wonder if people might fit the shadow profiles a bit with these beliefs – e.g. safety in those four core patterns of waiting, working, giving, quitting or not trying – but then, as they increasingly resource in their HAS, find more freedom and fluidity in where they truly tend to land with their goal-orientation, when in greater psychological safety and not so dominated by psychological risk.
I know we can’t pigeon-hole people, but I am curious about the idea that there might be some patterns here.
Sas – just checking, did any of your grounded theory work explore these kinds of queries?
Scott, I know you know these archetypes and Protector faces inside and out – any thoughts?
And to anyone who wants to chime in, thanks!
Nicola – so fun to see you here and christening our updated comments with such a juicy question.
My short answer is there doesn’t seem to be any correlation that could be considered reliable enough to say it’s a pattern.
However, I have found that the Protectors show up in consistent ways when it comes to goals. So as you offer – folks with a strong overworking pattern can be quite goal-driven as a way to fulfil this.
Equally, folks with a tendency to feel overwhelmed tend to be pretty agnostic about goals. However, I have worked with enough folks with a Scapegoat pattern who are very goal-driven (they tend to struggle to follow through!) to be careful of assumptions around this.
For me, a healthy relationship with goals is where it feels ‘right-sized’ for your self-concept. Where achievement and/or failure of a goal doesn’t impact your self-concept in a negative way. And how you treat yourself on the way to the goal is – I believe – as important as the outcome.
So if you don’t value goals, but you don’t feel like you are particularly missing out on anything then that’s healthy! And if you achieve loads of goals but you treat yourself with contempt, then there is no opportunity to expand your self-concept.
How does that land for you Nic?
Hi Sas,
That lands well!
Thanks for getting back to me so promptly, and this all makes good sense to me.
I’m glad you addressed self-concept as relating to goals, as well, after I hit send I remembered that I wondered a bit about those correlations, too.
Also, I have to share a cool thing about Courage-Based Planning:
Ok, so I think I’ll have to be a bit careful about entanglement because I think I have a mild attachment to the VALUE of goals, not for their own sake, but because they can be such a vehicle for growth and I have such a strong value of GROWTH.
But, that caveat shared, here’s some cool theory to chew on: you know Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, who is most known for having studied and come up with the concept of the flow state?
In case anyone reading hasn’t heard of it, here’s my summary:
Flow state is a state of consciousness in which we are deeply absorbed in our experience, time often feels to fall away and we have a subjective experience of flowing with our experience itself.
It is considered to be a state in which we are deeply focused and absorbed, and it has been studied extensively and found to contribute to people’s sense of wellbeing – aka, the more flow in our lives, the better we feel.
Ok, so if you accept that premise, here’s the cool connection I see to Courage-Based Goal-Setting, Planning and Action! (Sorry, nerding out here, can’t help it – this is EXCITING to me!)
In the book, Stolen Focus: Why You Can’t Pay Attention – and How to Think Deeply Again, Johann Hari references flow state and shares three components that help facilitate it:
Again, the idea being that if we have all three conditions, we may achieve that satisfying flow state where our sense of separate ego reduces and we have a feeling of merging with our experience.
So, I think it is so cool that the Courage-Based process aligns with this, IMO:
I guess what I’m saying is that I honestly see so many parallels between these ‘parameters to support flow state’ and the courage-based approach to goals, and so I feel even more enamoured with the process – like, REALLY seeing how it helps people live deeper, richer, more engaged lives with greater likelihood of experiencing flow state (way beyond the measures of ‘what they achieve’ in any 30-day process).
I will honestly have to be careful to not feel ‘righteous’ about this fascinating correlation and use this theory to try and bamboozle anyone into trying Boob plans – but I just think it’s so COOL!
Ok, welcome any thoughts – and feel free to check my heady enthusiasm, if you think this brain candy could pull me away from presence with my immediate, here and now clients. (But I think I can check myself, I do!)
However, this connection adds even more motivation to continue to experimenting with this approach to goals for myself – keeping flow state in mind, as well as learning about my relationship with risk and self-doubt in relationship to goals.
Now… to handle the realities of sick kids at home, laundry and the like intruding on my capacity for flow state! 😉
Sas, did you already know all this and quietly fold it into this magic – or is this parallel new to you? Curious if you have any thoughts about my overlaying and playing with these ideas.
Really fun observation Nic!
I’m very familiar with Csikszentmihalyi’s work (he was also very good pals with Martin Seligman – they have done some really encouraging research in Positive Psychology – especially Values).
I really like Hari’s approach here and can absolutely see the parallels (sidenote: I don’t tend to both with psych-oriented books written by journos – I am a total snob!).
I hadn’t however, made the connection to flow state and goals – so this is fun!
I think I see the Courage-based approach as more utilitarian. For me, it was a way of getting around how the Six P’s tend to screw up our relationship to goals.
But this might be because I don’t tend to experience flow in the planning – it’s more in the ‘doing’ of the thing where it’s likely to bubble up – likely just my subjective experience.
I totally get that value of goals though. And I think this is the big one for clients – getting to why they don’t value goals – is it because they don’t hold any spark, or motivation? (this can be a sign of Reforming Self-concept). Or is it because underneath they don’t believe they can reach the goal?
Well, I think it’s neat to consider that you totally helped ‘solve a problem’ – but that maybe that this process can be a gateway into sometimes helping people experience something even more ‘elevated’ than expected or intended.
I agree (subjectively speaking) that the flow state is more often to be found in the doing than the planning – but if the planning process facilitates the awareness, safety, support and tools that enables people to GET to the doing, wow, what a gift!
I agree about getting curious about our relationship with goals and the beliefs and values underpinning it – gosh, this stuff is endlessly interesting.
I love the tie to self-concept, too.
Ok, thanks for responding to my playing with these…
Hello Nicola, lovely to see you here xx
Hello Sharon! (Fellow SBCA Graduate! ;))
Nice to see you here, too.
A Module Two Question: Self-Concept and ‘who’s’ in the driver’s seat
Sas, you make the reference that with the forming self-concept, Psychological Risk is in the driver’s seat and that, with the formed self-concept, Protection of Self-Concept is in the driver’s seat.
With Reforming (and perhaps Transforming) self-concept, what would you say is in the driver’s seat: something along the lines of ‘Witness Consciousness’ or Awareness itself?
Or something still ‘self’ related or constructed? Curious to hear your perceptions of this (even though I understand this will be a minority of people and clients)…
Thanks!
Kegan’s first book was called The Evolving Self and I have that sentiment in mind – I see the ‘Evolving Self-concept’ as being in charge of the psyche of those at a Reforming stage.
I really like your description of witness/awareness – more so, I think – for the Transforming stage.
With a Reforming Self-concept, people can stand back from their identity/self-concept/ego.
They can see that any one perspective (including their own) can only be partial, they can tolerate way more ambiguity and complexity. So their cognitive reasoning becomes more holistic and by its nature is evolving because they aren’t particularly attached.
Hmmmm, I like that framing: Evolving Self-Concept – with greater reflective distance and reduced attached to protecting some sense of a static self.
Awareness still feels connected to me, even here, something about the spaciousness and flexibility and non-attachment – and I hear you about how that may be even more significant or relevant in a Transforming stage.
You know, re-reading this Module, the one premise that seems worth musing on is the very notion of individualistic, separate selves.
I was looking at the list of developmental theorists and your reminder that white men created all of these dominant models – and it’s interesting how these models aren’t significantly contextual or relational, they sort of seem to reduce humans to these singular entities, as though they’re functioning and developing as separate little atoms.
Anyway, no need to respond to this one, just wondering aloud about the inherent biases and what I perceive as a key worldview assumption that informed many or most of these models of human development.
Thanks again for your responses, Sas!
Yes – it’s one of the common criticisms of DP. However, I don’t think it’s alone in a psychological theory that is individualistic!
I am going to be taking part in an action-learning research group with my Academic Supervisor to see what group process looks like in a coaching Supervision setting. I think there might be really interesting findings from this…
100% agreed about the psychology paradigm as a whole.
Exciting about group process and supervision!
Look forward to learning more with and from you.
Hi there – me again! 😉
Ok, now working through Module Three for a second time.
Sas, perhaps you will address this in the upcoming Advanced Class – and if so, no rush, and I will catch the recording then:
I’m curious to understand more about how you would distinguish:
It would be nice for me as a human as a coach to develop more nuance, literacy and vocabulary to discern what is: eg. wise, helpful, proportioned to the here-and-now protection (I’m guessing this is agile, grounded, more resourced?) vs that which is distorted, based on old programming, is more akin to a vigilant alarm system created in the past that now has trouble distinguishing and registering valid threats | risks.
I know that the flags of: distraction, control, compensation, illusions and denial are part of recognizing these Survivor-self, trauma-informed protector parts, but…
I’d love to hear more about how you:
Thanks for anything along these lines – and/or addressing some of this in the upcoming class.
Love spiralling through this material for a second time.
So, I don’t make any distinctions based on the root cause of the Protector, because I think it’s ALL helpful and necessary for every individual to be who they are, in the here and now.
If we do try and make those distinctions, we risk getting into binaries that suggest a ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Protector, and I don’t think that necessarily serves the client.
From a coaching perspective, the nervous system response to threat/danger, is just as useful to explore as the four protective patterns offer, because we will only ever be able to do this retrospectively with the client in the session.
The distinction I do think is useful to make, is with Survivor Strategies. While these are not coachable, they are worth naming. I tend to offer to the client, something like: I’ve noticed that you tend to use humour when we are talking about this thing that you’ve also said is really vulnerable for you – what do you notice?
I think the art to this is about not getting caught up in teaching clients about these concepts, but coaching them – being curious about what we see and what the client tells us holds them back.
Please do say more if I haven’t understood your question 🙂
I think you understood my question… I was struck by the line in the notes about how the Healthy Self (prior to trauma|s) already a Protector as part of them, as distinct from the Survival Self, and was curious about that.
I definitely understand (and resonate with) your embracing of bringing curiosity, respect, compassion to wherever and however the ‘protection system’ is set off for the client (or ourselves!) and trying to not get hooked into binaries in this domain.
(To be careful or mindful of a part of me that might try to dissect or judge these aspects of the client’s inner ecosystem…)
I appreciate the example you provide about naming Survivor Strategies and how you might illumine that or work with one coming up IN THE MOMENT rather than intellectualizing or starting to teach concepts to a client.
I think that might be an edge for me sometimes (coach from it rather than teach it), and I appreciate you articulating this distinction. (I also give myself permission to be in process and in some areas, a beginner!)
This all said, I think my familiar old Bystander used to struggle (sometimes deeply) with variations on this – like, “what is my intuition, wise instinct or healthy protective alarm vs a more neurotic, based-in-the-past hyper-vigilant old echo of dysregulation?” and get caught in a kind of indecisive, confused paralysis there.
That doesn’t happen so much anymore, and I think I might be able to help a client recognize and be with such a pattern, just naming that I could see some other people’s Bystander tendencies sometimes struggling in a bit of a stuck way with these kind of discernment questions.
And since that protective pattern has a lot of conditioning in me, interesting for me to notice when I still have a subtle (or not-so-subtle) longing for binaries, certainty, or am struggling to tolerate ambiguity, uncertainty, contradiction, or not-knowing.
In life AND in coaching.
Thanks, Sas. I think I’m good for now.
Look forward to your upcoming Advanced Practice session | recording.
Follow Up Q’s after wonderful Advanced Practice Session on the Protector Matrix:
Loved the question: “What is [your protective strategy – quitting, waiting, etc…] protecting you from?”
I know that my deeper learning will come from experimenting and just playing with this…
AND I’m curious:
Q1: Do you find that many people are able to reflect and surface this fairly adeptly for themselves? Or is it often like this points a flashlight to illuminating their underlying: worries, fears, the perceived risks and the protective beliefs – and so, they might hit that ‘don’t know’ kind of ‘blind spot’ shadowy terrain?
(Btw, I see that the above presents a binary, but please humour me and I hope you know what I’m getting at here)!
I know if it’s the latter, we’ve got tools like “Uncovering Protective Beliefs” or “Belief Buster” to explore… but just curious if you have any thoughts on this query.
Q2: I was also curious if you feel like we can draw on this matrix as practitioners equally effectively whether we use the whole compass and model with clients or not?
That is, with some of my longer-term clients, I have used and definitely would continue to draw on the whole compass – such a great frame of reference and SO helpful for enabling subject-object shifting, providing concepts and language to recognize and name protective parts and patterns and healthy resources and possibilities! BUT with shorter-term clients or someone in for a single session without the reference frame, I think trying to provide and orient someone to the model might feel a little confusing and ‘too much’ – and so, would you just work at gently being with them where they are:
e.g.
and no need to name or get into archetypes, etc…?
Is this making sense?
Just trying to think how I might be able to best draw on the deep wisdom here without necessarily using the language and ‘jargon’ of the model…
Also, absolutely LOVED the integration and weaving in of the stress response patterns with the four different protector patterns!
Thanks for the class – and also any further thoughts…
A question for Sas — which is showing my level of ignorance but heyho. 🤣
Thoughout the course you keep referring to ‘meta’ stuff.
What does it mean?
I have no idea.
I’ve tried Googling it but that doesn’t seem to give me an answer.
I saw someone else use this term on Linked In this morning so it’s obviously an accepted term that has passed me by somewhere…..
Thankyou!