Gavin F. HUrley, Author of Playbook of Persuasive Reasoning; Twitter @Gavin_F_HUrley

If we market our personal educational services outside of an institution, what services do we actually pitch? Moreover, what is our educational brand? Who is the persona that we pitch? Are we teachers who teach? Instructors who instruct? Trainers who train? Coaches who coach?

The label we put on our instructional services projects a crucial optic. It can excite our clients and boost their confidence—or it can sour our client buy-in and deflate their enthusiasm. You may be skeptical about the importance of the label. You may think it is merely semantics. But, the language matters. Especially when inviting potential clients into instructional opportunities.

As a university professor for a decade, I cannot overstate the importance of buy-in when teaching others. After all, in learning situations, participants generally own their agency. For a group—or individual—to thoroughly understand a subject, they must initially want to understand the subject. The clichéd adage can ring true within education: ultimately, “you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink.” Participants, at some point, must believe in the value of learning the subject. If they don’t, they won’t invest their attention. Understandably, they want to reasonably allocate their time. As such, it is the instructor’s responsibility to communicate the instructional value.

Therefore, to be candid: we have to persuade clients to want to pay attention. As ancient rhetoricians have rightly recognized: instruction and persuasion do not need to be mutually exclusive. To this end, “coaching clients” can be more persuasive than “training clients” or “teaching clients.” Many of us probably intuited that “coaching” has a stronger appeal. But, what is the reasoning behind this appeal?             

1.) Coaching conveys confidence in others

According to education experts, “teaching” and “coaching” distinctly differ from one another. The act of teaching transmits new information to a pupil; while the act of coaching refines a pupil’s already existing information and knowledge.

How is this distinction persuasive? Coaching can emphasize confidence in the pupil much more explicitly than teaching or training. Confidence is baked into a coach’s situation. When we coach, we automatically have faith in our client’s base-level competences. Clients generally react positively to such faith. After all, a coach’s initial confidence radiates respect. It respects their foundational knowledge.

Overall, coaches smooth over a lopsided power dynamic. Rather than “smart teachers” who teach “not as smart students,” coaches work to fine-tune individual current competencies. Coaches coach, sometimes literally, on a much more even playing field.

Let’s think about a high school varsity soccer coach. A varsity soccer team presumably knows how to play soccer. Team members, who consist of primarily seniors, have all played freshman or JV high school soccer before. As such, the coach assumes their fundamental competency. During practices, coaches do not teach the rules of the game or what part of the foot to use when passing the ball. Rather, coaches refine the team’s existing skills. Coaches strive toward evolution, not introduction. Seeking mastery, they aspire the ultimate prize: winning together. 

2.) Coaching avoids two “training” stigmas

At work, when we read emails about required “workplace training,” what do we often do? Sigh. No, wait, we deeply sigh. Face-to-face, online, or off-site training workshops often steal time from the workday. In some cases, they even steal time outside of work.

“Workplace training” is often top-down. Upper management often looks to maintain quality control and/or adherence to compliance standards. Consequently, “training” connotes a negative stigma. Coaching, on the other hand, offers a more personalized model. Coaches emphasize individualized improvement instead of mass compliance efforts. As a result, coaches can more effectively celebrate the human dignity of their clients. The client receives individualized attention, which, in turn, makes them feel good. Ultimately, it can help kindle optimistic and constructive learning.

Yet, athletic people may insist on the upside of the term “training.” To them, it may carry a more positive connotation in the fitness world than in the workplace world. Fitness training may be associated with exhilarating muscle gains at the gym, burning calories, or productive skill building. However, despite the positive long-term goals, physical “training” still involves painful sensations: lactic acid in the muscles, lungs burning, and post-exercise fatigue. Coaching, in contrast, is often not associated with such visceral pain. Therefore, unlike the term “training,” “coaching” can offer a more optimistic—and approachable—term for educational efforts. Again, the more positive association can help sell the educational services. 

3.) Coaching implies energy, strategy, and presence

Coaches crave more than the imparting of knowledge. Coaches coach to win. Coaches crave victory. As a result, they have skin in the game. In many ways, a coach’s reputation is based on the success of the client. A coach may guide a certain strategy but he or she is also sure to guide the application of the strategy. This is a crucial connotation carried by coaching: the act and art of doing.

To spark “doing,” effective coaches kindle motivational fires: calling out from the sidelines, exciting the team, realigning the team’s priorities—all within the present moment. This attention requires both care and charisma. Effective coaches inspire teams to perspire. And these coaches can do this every step of the way—including during "game play."

When we offer coaching services, we also serve inspirational aims. Present alongside our team, we guide our team toward victory. We are there for them. We hunger for their success—clearly communicating our care. 

In conclusion—

If we seek to excite clients about learning, we may want to embrace the rhetorical power of “coaching.” Potential clients may be naturally apprehensive about “teachers” or “trainers”—perhaps from ineffective formal education or grueling gym experiences. We can reverse their—possibly negative—impression of education.

As coaches, we can motivate clients toward growing their abilities. When we define ourselves as coaches, we take a first step toward more palatable and persuasive educational optics. We can offer active instructional experiences that are more readily received by potential clients.