Coaching is “hot”. More and more people hire a coach where they can be themselves. But real wisdom you get by trusting a master.  
By definition the coach concentrates himself on the client and not the other way around. With that the coach differs essentially from a master. The master controls a profession (like leadership) and his apprentice concentrates on him to learn that profession also. In the movie Karate Kid the master assigns his apprentice to wash his car, scrub the floor and the fence without explain why. Off course this is a caricature, but one who shows us why mastery is “out” and coaching “hot”. A master is linked to concepts which don’t fit in these times of individual autonomy. Concepts like obedience and docility are fitting less than taking responsibility and empowering. Nowadays you must especially discover yourself.  And the coach helps you with that. Not for nothing the first rule of coaching is: The coach en the client use the first meeting to set the objectives. They are making a step-by-step plan with learning targets, learning results and planning. With a master there is no step-by-step plan, learning objectives and learning results: The apprentice puts himself aside and has an open mind for a different approach. He cannot imagine the final objective. Who learns to play the violin doesn’t now in advance what iit is to be a violin player. At the most he desires it, but is the master who needs to guide him in that desire. Most coaches don’t take a position. He is not for the content. He asks: “What do you want to be??”. The coach wants you to be oneself. But can learning be combined with “just be yourself”?
In the book “Meesters en discipelen” (Masters and apprentices) the writers  Cortois en van Herck plead for a rehabilitation of the principle master and apprentice. “Mastery is not a slave imitation that leads to uncritical minds. Just by following starts a critical and even an original mind. Without following you can’t learn and following demands trust.” Let’s take children as an example. They have two opposite characteristics. They are amazed about everything. They ask and ask and aren’t satisfied that easy. At the same time they are very credulous and you can tell them everything, like Santa Claus or the fairy of teeth. The philosopher Wittgenstein asks himself what of these two characteristics is the most important regarding gaining knowledge. Being critical or credulous. According to him it is the second. First you must believe before you can doubt. The persons who are constantly critical during learning, such as the method of learning, the material or the master etc. etc. learns nothing First you have to trust that what is dished up has a determined objective. Only after that you learn the deeper bases and meanings of the material and only then you are able to be really critical. Besides that you are then and only then being creative and original regarding the material. Attaching importance to following is not new. Already Aristotle wrote that mankind differs from animals because they are great imitators. And present research shows us the same. Small movies are made of employees who are sitting beside their managers in a meeting. And every time the boss puts his arms over each other or his chin supports with his hand the employee does the same. Following is also important because we have a lot of “silent knowledge”. Knowledge that is not explicit. Take as an example the analysis of a X-ray. A student in medicine cannot learn that from a book. An experienced doctor has to demonstrate that to him: there is a swelling and there a fracture. Off course you can explain later how that swelling an fracture looks alike, but you cannot explain how you look to that picture. Why something attract your attention and why you just leave out some things. That is why there is a distinction between “knowing that” and “knowing how”. “Knowing that” refers to the theory, but in “knowing how” it matters how you are acting in practice. You only learn that by following the examples. A master is with that a guide. He points at the important issues. And because he is doing that constantly and you follow him you will learn the principle from which point of view he points to.  You are becoming a master yourself. And with that ‘knowing that’ and ‘knowing how’ goes hand in hand.
And that is the problem with coaching: most coaches don’t demonstrate anything and deny their own “knowing how”. Coaching is the fear to be a master. Apart from that a coach can be very useful when a people pass through a difficult period in their work or private life. If this is not the case then a coach has to be also a master in acting and behavior. Only then the client learns enough!