Sleep coaching and sleep hacks are booming. Optimization sells, so do routines. After 24 years of chronobiology, I am delighted that the topics of sleep and chronobiology are gaining momentum. Together with the SleepmasterAcademy, we are now training more and more coaches and experts to become pioneers who are bringing the topic “to the people”.
Despite all the joy, however, there is also a dark, almost paradoxical side to our work that is hardly ever addressed in our industry. I’m not talking about the Solomon paradox, but a paradox that doesn’t even have a name yet. That’s why I’m giving it a name for the first time today.
SPP – System-stabilizing prevention paradox
The system-stabilizing prevention paradox describes the effect that individual prevention measures reduce the negative consequences of a system on those affected, thereby stabilizing this very system in the long term instead of changing it. (Michael Wieden)
If this paradox applies to many types of prevention, especially secondary and tertiary prevention, I would like to explain it below using the example of “sleep and chrono coaching”.
A large part of what is understood today as sleep optimization takes place within a system that works biologically against people, in particular against their circadian rhythm. This raises a key question: do sleep coaches actually help, or do they inadvertently contribute to keeping a dysfunctional system stable?
A look at the causes quickly makes it clear that the problem rarely lies with the individual. Early school hours, rigid working models and shift work in particular are not marginal phenomena, but deeply rooted structures that intervene directly in biological processes. The consequences have long been known: chronic sleep deprivation, social jet lag and long-term health risks, including depression and metabolic disorders. Nevertheless, responsibility is usually individualized. The message is then not: “The system is timed incorrectly”, but rather: “You need to optimize your sleep.”
This is precisely where a tension arises that cannot simply be resolved. Sleep coaches mainly work on the behavioral level. They help with routines, light control and specific strategies to improve sleep. This is effective and often necessary. At the same time, this form of support has a side effect: it reduces the level of suffering within an unchanged system. And it is precisely this suffering that is often the prerequisite for structural changes to be initiated in the first place. There is also the risk that health consequences are only postponed and then become noticeable in terms of time, but also symptomatically, if a causal connection is no longer established. Doctors do not usually recognize this.
System error shift work and school start times
This dilemma is particularly evident in the example of shift work. It has been known for years that it is problematic for health because it directly destabilizes the circadian rhythm. Nevertheless, it is often treated as if it could be “controlled” by targeted measures. Strategic naps, targeted caffeine consumption, optimized sleep environments or light management, alternating shifts, 50/50 sleep, nutrition tips, etc. are then considered preventative measures.
But here it is worth taking a closer look at the wording. Prevention of what, actually? From the consequences of a system that is itself the cause? In this context, behavioral prevention shifts, or rather conceals, the actual problem instead of solving it. It enables people to temporarily deal better with a burden that structurally remains. This creates the impression that the system is working, although it is biologically contradictory. There are also extrinsic motivational incentives (night bonuses) to compensate for the “disadvantage”. Health for money? Pure SPP.
Alternative approaches have long existed, such as a chronotype-based organization of working hours in the sense of chronotype-optimized personnel deployment and shift planning or ChronoWorking. The difference is fundamental: here it is not the person who is adapted to the shift, but the structure is adapted at least partially and as best as possible to the biological reality of the person.
A similar pattern can be seen in the education system. Young people develop a later sleep-wake cycle for biological reasons, while early school start times ignore this. The resulting problems are then addressed at an individual level. Melatonin supplements, midday naps or the use of daylight lamps are supposed to help the system cope better, and coaches help with this and unwittingly serve the SPP.
There is no question that these measures may make sense in the short term, but they do not change the cause. They shift the consequences of a structural contradiction. If pupils learn to adapt to an early system using such strategies, this system appears stable to the outside world, even though it disregards fundamental biological principles. This is supported by narratives such as “We did it before!”, which increases the pressure on coaches to succeed.
Coach between individual or system supporter?
This is precisely the paradox of modern sleep optimization. Without support, people remain in pain. With support, they adapt better. In both cases, the system remains untouched. The better the coaching works, the less visible the actual problem becomes.
This does not mean that sleep coaching is superfluous, quite the opposite. But it does mean that it needs a clear positioning. Support at the behavioral level is important as long as it does not obscure the view of the structural level. It makes a difference whether measures are communicated as a solution or as what they actually are: Strategies to deal better with an unfavorable environment. SPP must therefore be addressed and actively tackled.
This also shifts the role of sleep coaches. They are not only companions of individual change processes, but always also multipliers and supporters of a certain understanding of the system. They help decide whether sleep problems are perceived as an individual optimization issue or as an expression of systemic faulty structures. But what can they do?
SPP – Coach and the system
Schools and employers are examples of activities that the coach can also support. Every school, as well as every employer, can change this system for themselves. Schools can change school start times, employers can support chronotype-based working hours. It is not uncommon for a client to be the first point of contact with the company, and it is up to the coach to motivate them to make contact with the company or school. Presentations and workshops can be an opportunity to work out solution scenarios. We have also integrated the basics of this into the “ChronoCoach” training, so that the coach can also develop measures in cooperation with those responsible from BGM, HRM or company/school psychologists.
Conclusion on SPP
The role of the coach must therefore move away from individual support in order to be able to tackle relationships and not just support the system itself. In the long term, this will determine which direction the coaching industry takes. If it remains in the mode of adaptation, it will stabilize existing systems. If it opens its eyes to structural causes, it can become a driver of change.
After all, the central observation cannot be avoided:
If a system works because people learn to regulate themselves against it, the coach becomes a reinforcer of the system if he exclusively supports this learning process.
Interesse an mehr (kritischen) Themen zu Schlaf und Chronobiologie? Abonniert gerne meine „ChronoCoach-Update“.
