One of the first steps in coaching is the definition of terms. There are words that are used so often, and in such varied contexts and connotations, that they mean wildly different things to different people. “Coaching” is one such word (as is “Coach”), and we must be clear about what we mean by coaching. There are other words that have numerous, vague definitions, and some of them occur frequently and unexpectedly in coaching. Among them, words like “panic,” “grief,” “enthusiasm,” and “excitement.” These are common terms in everyday conversation, but coaching invites us to be specific about what we mean when we use these words.

 

“Panic” is a versatile and often a confusing word. People use the term to mean anything from mild shock to the full medical definition of a panic attack, as well as anything in between. The triggers of panic attacks vary from person to person, but tend to have the same symptoms. However, panic attacks are merely the most obvious and violent form of panic, and because of that, the effects of panic can go unnoticed when it does not rise to a full-blown attack. People often overlook or dismiss the impact of panic in the absence of violent panic attacks.

 

It is not the coach’s proper role to define terms, but rather to let the client explain what he means when he uses a word. Here, without a client in dialogue, I will offer my own definition of panic. To be panic, the reaction must meet several criteria: it must be purely catabolic energy (what people usually call “negative energy”), it must be disproportionate to the stimulus, it must be self-perpetuating, and it must be irrational. Irrationality in particular sets panic apart from proper fear. All panic is fearful: not all fear is panic.

Let us take three examples, with caveats. The first caveat is that, because of the “varied contexts and connotations” mentioned above, it is difficult to find universal examples of panic triggers. Any given person may be terrified by situation A and unfazed by situation B, or vice versa. Examples of panic triggers will therefore either resonate strongly, or not at all. The other caveat is that the term panic often implies senseless hysteria: “That isn’t panic, that is rational apprehension!” Such reactions will be discussed in more detail shortly. For now, I invite you to approach these three examples with an open mind that these could be and are triggers for a large number of people, and that the label of “panic” is ultimately accurate.

 

Politics

 

Whatever one’s ideological leanings, the general consensus is that “politics,” both as a topic and a practice, has gotten worse in recent memory. Who is to blame, how and when the decline began, the consequences now and in the future, are all infinitely debatable. Regardless, in the digital age, it is increasingly difficult to separate the rhetoric from the facts, and almost impossible to find unemotional assessments of the current state. News is couched in dire terms: we must fight back, or hold the line, or the world as we know it will end. To be civically engaged at all means exposing oneself to a deluge of panic.

 

Pandemics

 

Slightly less recent than politics, but hardly less impactful, were the pandemic years of the early 2020s. We were ceaselessly bombarded with the most dire news for several years, regardless of our nationalities or political leanings. The only thing in the news was death and the looming threat of death. How we interacted, how we connected, how we lived, how we dressed, each and every facet of life was overwhelmed by the pandemic. One’s beliefs around the messaging were largely irrelevant; none of us escaped the bombardment, no matter what we thought of it. Even the most sanguine attitude will wear down when every interaction and every thought come back to the same dire topic.

 

Planet

 

Since the late 1960s, the prevailing opinion on things has held, that the Earth is dying and we humans are responsible. Acid rain, deforestation, ocean acidification, plastics, ozone depletion, species extinction, global climate change (and its antecedents, global warming and global cooling), the list is seemingly endless. Every aspect of our lives, every smallest and most basic thing we do, is poisoning the air, land, and water that sustain us. We are told that nothing is too small to have a big and negative impact, and so we are urged, in desperate tones, to scrutinize absolutely everything: how and what we eat, how we travel, how we clothe and clean ourselves, how we light our homes, where we live, how we work, how we play. The crisis is becoming more acute every day, we hear, and we must do something, anything, or we will suffer for it.

 

Panic

 

In considering our three examples, we must remember that there is a slight but vital difference between panic and fear. It is quite possible to fear the outcomes of political discourse, disease spread, and pollution, and still remain entirely rational. No matter how dire a situation, however, it is always possible to let rational fear become irrational panic.

 

Panic is the result when we cede control to fear, letting the fear lead us rather than us leading the fear. This is not at all to suggest that panic is overcome simply by choosing not to panic; if it was that easy, there would be no need for coaches or a variety of other helping professions. Where panic occurs, coaching comes back to its core purpose: enabling the client to see his situation with clarity, and then choosing whether his current approach serves his best interests. Choice is the core of coaching. All of us experience a gamut of emotions that we consider positive and negative, which in itself is normal and healthy. Such emotions become a problem when we let them happen to us, unexamined and unquestioned. Instead, coaching drives us to choose how we want to be in the world, rather than waiting for emotions to direct us. Sometimes, indeed, fear is the best answer to a situation: it makes us alert, focused, and energized. If we recognize the need for fear and choose it, it is a valid choice. Panic, by contrast, is never positive; whatever short-term benefits we get from the jolt of adrenaline are burned up by the panic itself. Coaching is not about undoing fear, but, perhaps counterintuitively, helping the client to choose whether to be afraid or not.

 

Change for Panic

 

Panic is a common topic in psychotherapy, and rightly so. Uncontrolled panic attacks are a debilitating issue that requires medical care for acute symptom control. Only when symptoms are addressed is there a chance for the clarity necessary to start exploring causes. An individual’s triggers for panic may emerge in the conversations therapy or coaching. Regardless, once the symptoms are controlled, at least one challenge remains: however uncomfortable and unwelcome the symptoms of panic, the change to a new way of thinking that would undo the panic is sometimes more frightening than the panic itself. Stepping into the unknown, even if it is something purely internal like a new mindset or outlook, can be an overwhelming prospect.

 

The goal in coaching is always clarity that allows for true choice. When we defer our wills to our fears, when we avoid change because the unknown seems worse than the familiar fear, we are choosing to limit and harm ourselves. Choosing to participate in coaching is choosing to take back control. Just like therapy, coaching cannot “cure” fears, because fears are not diseases. Coaching can, however, bring clarity to the fears and allow the client to choose whether the fear is worth it or not.