In our search for identity we often tend to confuse nouns and verbs. Throughout the history of human existence the argument has raged whether we are simply the things we do (verbs) or if there is something intrinsic in us that forms our identity irrespective of what we happen to do (nouns).

In the field of philosophy, for generations there was the assumption that we possessed a soul which was a reflection of God, the great "I AM" (noun). As the Enlightenment swept through Europe, this assumption was examined and challenged, culminating in Descartes’ famous statement, "I think therefore I am." In this Cartesian viewpoint, my noun-ness (I AM) is only knowable through my verb-ness (I think). I must DO something before even I myself can be aware of my existence.

In the 1960s, this viewpoint was triumphant through the psychology of Behaviorism. The Behaviorist, as best exemplified by B.F. Skinner, was totally agnostic to a person’s noun-ness. It didn’t matter if anything was "in there" in the black box called a human being. All that mattered was the person’s verb-ness, the behavior they exhibited. If I could train someone to react a certain way every time, what did it matter what they "thought"? Their thoughts didn’t affect the world. Only their behavior did.

By the late 1970s, Behaviorism had been displaced by Cognitive Psychology as the dominant psychological model. Cognitive Psychology once again stressed the importance of noun-ness. The "thing" called a human being had certain intrinsic ways of processing information, and this was crucial because it limited the types of behavior, therefore, that a human is capable of. Humans do not have infinite degrees of freedom because we are pre-wired in certain ways. Cognitive Psychology set about discovering exactly how we are wired.

Back and forth. Back and forth. The pendulum has swung between nouns and verbs. Why is this important? Because it has some very pragmatic implications. Most recently, I’ve been thinking about the pragmatic implications of whether the word "coach" is best used as a noun or a verb.

I think the pendulum has swung too far towards the noun when it comes to "coach". Much too much of the profession’s attention is about noun-ness. How to get certified so that everyone knows that the noun "coach" refers to you. How to market this noun, this thing called "coach". I do not see nearly enough nowadays on the verb-ness of coaching, I.e., how to effectively coach.

The distinction between "coach" as a noun and "coach" as a verb is especially crucial as the coaching profession faces its moment of truth. Many people have left the corporate world in search of the noun-ness called "coach"; they want to become a thing called "coach". The sad truth is that the number of people who have flocked to the profession far outnumbers the carrying capacity of the coaching industry. Most coaches, unfortunately, are not making a living wage. And yet, they tenaciously hold on by their fingernails, obsessed with the noun-ness of coaching, obsessed with being "a coach".

Coaches need to go back to the corporate world. That, in a nutshell, is the essence of the Project Coaching model. There is a desperate need for increased coaching (verb) in the corporate world. It is the answer to addressing a multi-billion problem in lost productivity. It is also the answer to making the workplace a thriving, exciting, enjoyable place to be. Equally important for coaches, it is where the money is. There are tens of thousands of people out there who are great coaches, but lousy entrepreneurs. They need to go back to the corporate world and get a steady paycheck.

The response I get from most coaches to this line of argument is, "But the corporate world isn’t ready to accept me back as a coach." My response to them is, "So What?" This is where the difference between a noun and a verb is so crucial. So what if the corporate world isn’t ready to accept you back with the title "Coach"? Don’t worry about the noun-ness of coaching. Leverage its verb-ness. Just coach. Almost no one started their careers as a coach. There is certainly some skill set you had before you became a coach. Use that skill set to get a job back in the corporate world. And when you get that job, don’t worry if it’s as a marketer or a manager or an HR partner or a technician, just coach. Be a marketer in a coach-like way. Be a manager in a coach-like way. Be a technician in a coach-like way. Don’t worry about the title (noun) you have, just coach (verb). The superior results you will achieve when compared to those who are doing the same job without the verb-ness of coaching will speak for itself. Just coach.

I once saw a famous actor asked by young people starting out in the profession what were the chances they were going to make it as an actor. The actor surprised them by saying, "100%". When the audience gasped at this response, the actor explained, "If you want to know the chances that you’ll be a star, the odds are heavily stacked against you. But if you want to know the chances that you will be able to have a profession as an actor, the chances are 100%. The world is full of opportunities to act."

The world is also full of opportunities to coach. So what about it, coaches? Firefighters are at their most heroic not when they’re standing on the sidewalk hosing down a building. They’re at their most heroic when they run into a burning building to save lives and property. Are you willing to rush back into the burning building of the corporate world, regardless of the title you get? And once you’re back in the burning building, just coach. And those of you reading this who aren’t coaches: Whether you’re project managers or marketers, HR partners or technicians, are you willing to learn the techniques, the verb-ness of coaching, so that you too can just coach? I hope the answer from all communities is a resounding "Yes". As for me, tomorrow morning I’m going to back to the noun-ness of my job as a manager, and I’m going to revel in the verb-ness of coaching and being coached.