International Coaching Psychology Review

Special Group in Coaching Psychology

Interest Group in Coaching Psychology

ISSN: 1750-2764

International Coaching Psychology Review

Volume 1 No 1 April 2006

International Coaching Psychology ReviewEditorial Board

Co-ordinating Editors

United KingdomStephen Palmer, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit, Department of Psychology, City University, London, UK.

AustraliaMichael Cavanagh, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit, School of Psychology, Sydney University, Australia.

Co-Editors

Anthony M. Grant, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit, School of Psychology, Sydney University, Australia.Travis Kemp, PhD, International Graduate School of Business, University of South Australia, Australia.David Lane, PhD, Middlesex University, London, UK.Alex Linley, PhD, School of Psychology, University of Leicester, UK.Alison Whybrow, PhD, Manchester University, UK.

International Editorial Board

Tatiana Bachkirova, PhD, Oxford Brookes University, UK. Richard Nelson Jones, PhD, Cognitive Humanistic Institute, Thailand.Michael Carroll, PhD, University of Bristol, UK. James Pawelski, PhD, Positive Psychology Center,Cary Cooper, PhD, Lancaster University, UK. University of Pennsylvania, USA.Stephen Joseph, PhD, University of Warwick, UK.Carol Kauffman, PhD, Harvard Medical School, USA. Dianne Stober, PhD, Fielding University, USA.

Mary Watts, PhD, City University, London, UK.

SubscriptionsInternational Coaching Psychology Review is published bi-annually. It is distributed free of charge to the British Psychological SocietySpecial Group in Coaching Psychology and the Australian Psychological Society Interest Group in Coaching Psychology members. It is available to non-members (Individuals £20 per volume; Institutions £30 per volume) from: The British Psychological Society, SGCP,St. Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester LE1 7DR. UK.

Notes for ContributorsInternational Coaching Psychology Review (ICPR) is an international publication with a focus on the theory, practice and research inthe field of coaching psychology. Submission of academic articles, systematic reviews and other research reports which supportevidence-based practice are welcomed. The ICPR may also publish conference reports and papers given at the British PsychologicalSociety Special Group in Coaching Psychology (BPS SGCP) and Australian Psychological Society Interest Group in CoachingPsychology (APS IGCP) conferences, notices and items of news relevant to the International Coaching Psychology Community.

Case studies and book reviews will be considered.

The ICPR is published by the BPS SGCP in association with the APS IGCP.

1. CirculationThe circulation of the ICPR is worldwide. It is available in hardcopy and PDF format. Papers are invited and encouraged from authorsthroughout the world. It is available free in paper and PDF format to members of the BPS SGCP, and free PDF format to APS IGCPmembers as a part of their annual membership.

2. LengthPapers should normally be no more than 6000 words, although the Co-Editors retain discretion to publish papers beyond this lengthin cases where the clear and concise expression of the scientific content requires greater length.

3. ReviewingThe journal operates a policy of anonymous peer review. Papers will normally be scrutinised and commented on by at least twoindependent expert referees (in addition to the relevant Co-Editor) although the Co-Editor may process a paper at his or herdiscretion. The referees will not be aware of the identity of the author. All information about authorship including personalacknowledgements and institutional affiliations should be confined to the title page (and the text should be free of such clues asidentifiable self-citations, e.g. ‘In our earlier work…’).

Continued on inside back cover.

Roy Moodley, PhD, University of Toronto, Canada.

Ernesto Spinelli, PhD, Regent’s College, UK.

IT IS WITH MUCH EXCITEMENT THATwe write this, the first editorial in the firstissue of the International Coaching

Psychology Review (ICPR), and we feelhonoured to be the founding Co-ordinatingEditors. When we first discussed the possi-bility of setting up an international journalin 2004 with our colleague, Dr AlisonWhybrow, we were all excited that the collab-orative joint venture between the proposedBritish Psychological Society Special Groupin Coaching Psychology (BPS SGCP) and theAustralian Psychological Society InterestGroup in Coaching Psychology (APS IGCP)would bring our two coaching psychologycommunities together. At that time, in theUK, we were still attempting to form an offi-cial sub-system within the British Psycho-logical Society. Nevertheless, the CoachingPsychology Forum, (the forerunner of theSpecial Group) and the APS IGCP could seethe mutual benefits of working together onthis project.

Coaching psychologists are at the fore-front of developments in the coaching field.We now have many research and appliedpsychologists working in Australia, the UK,Europe and America, and benefiting bothorganisations and individuals who arepurchasers or users of coaching. Universitypsychology departments in Australia and theUK have set up units to focus specifically oncoaching psychology and not just coaching.

But what do coaching psychologists bringto the burgeoning field of coaching? Webring more than just a framework for aconversation with a client, such as thefamous GROW model. We bring a host ofpsychological theories and models thatunderpin, and bring depth to, the coachingrelationship. These include an under-

standing of mental health; motivation;systems theory; personal and organisationalgrowth; adaptation of therapeutic models tothe field of coaching; research into effective-ness, resilience and positive psychology.However, up until now, there has not beenan international publication specifically forcoaching psychologists to share their under-standing and research with colleagues.

Our intention is that the ICPR will have afocus on the theory, practice and research inthe field of coaching psychology. Any issue ofrelevance to coaching is welcomed: fromtheoretical and empirical research into theories, models and measures, to practicalapplication issues such as ethics and thereporting of cases. We welcome the submis-sion of academic articles, systematic reviews,brief reports and research reports whichsupport evidence-based practice. We intendpublishing conference reports and papersgiven at the British Psychological SocietySpecial Group in Coaching Psychology andAustralian Psychological Society Interest inGroup Coaching Psychology conferences.This is important as BPS SGCP and APSIGCP members may not always be able toattend each other’s annual conferences butwill still want to read the papers given. Weare also interested in notices and items ofnews relevant to the International CoachingPsychology Community such as coachingpsychology conferences.

The ICPR has Co-editors who are recog-nised as experts in their particular field ofcoaching psychology. In addition, the Inter-national Editorial Board consists of expertsin coaching psychology and related areasthat inform coaching psychology theory andpractice. We are pleased to be working with awell-known international team and we thank

International Coaching Psychology Review � Vol. 1 No. 1 April 2006 1© The British Psychological Society 2006 – ISSN: 1750-2764

Editorial – Coaching Psychology: Its time has finally comeStephen Palmer & Michael Cavanagh

2 International Coaching Psychology Review � Vol. 1 No. 1 April 2006

them for all of the support they have given usso far. However, this journal needs you too:your research, your theories, your ideas andyour contributions.

The circulation of the ICPR is worldwide.It is available in hardcopy and PDF format. Itis available free in paper and PDF format tomembers of the BPS SGCP, and free PDFformat to APS IGCP members as a part oftheir annual membership. Papers shouldnormally be no more than 6000 words,although the Co-Editors retain discretion topublish papers beyond this length in caseswhere the clear and concise expression ofthe scientific or theoretical content requiresgreater length.

Papers should first be submitted by e-mail to the Co-ordinating Editor in eitherthe UK or Australia who will focus onprocessing papers from their own coun-tries. Papers from outside the UK orAustralia can be submitted to either Co-ordinating Editor. The journal operates apolicy of anonymous peer review. Paperswill normally be scrutinised andcommented on by at least two independentexpert referees (in addition to the relevantCo-Editor) although the Co-Editor mayprocess a paper at his or her discretion. Thereferees will not be aware of the identity ofthe author. All information about author-ship including personal acknowledgementsand institutional affiliations should beconfined to the title page (and the textshould be free of such clues as identifiableself-citations, e.g. ‘In our earlier work…’).Full details are in our Notes for Contribu-tors. Structured abstracts are recommendedfor research papers.

We hope that the ICPR will be the firstplace coaching psychologists, academics,researchers and practitioners from otherassociated disciplines will consider submit-ting relevant papers. Few new academic andpractitioner journals start with over 2500subscribers who are members of the SGCPand IGCP. The readership will be muchlarger especially after six months as the ICPRwill be freely available online.

This ‘bumper’ inaugural issue has eightpapers ranging from historical to theo-retical, empirical, quantitative and qualita-tive research, practical issues and opinionpieces. The first paper is a largely historicalpiece by Stephen Palmer and AlisonWhybrow, the Co-proposers of the BPSSpecial Group in Coaching Psychology. Theyprovide a brief history of the formation ofthe BPS Special Group. (A similar history ofthe formation of the APS Interest Group willappear in the next edition – due out laterthis year.) It takes much effort and muchgenerosity on the part of many people tosuccessfully establish groups such as theSGCP and IGCP. We felt it appropriate thatthe early editions of the ICPR recognise andthank those involved for their efforts.

We have seven papers which discusssubstantive theoretical, research and prac-tical issues facing coaching. Anthony Grantleads off with his personal perspective onprofessional coaching and the developmentof coaching psychology. He suggests that ascoaching psychology continues to grow itschallenges will include the issue of distin-guishing the work and professional practicesof coaching psychologists from coaches whoare not psychologists. He believes that theemergence of coaching psychology canmake psychology more accessible andacceptable to the public.

Annette Fillery-Travis and David Laneboldly launch into the difficult waters ofmeasuring return on investment incoaching. Along with their review of thepractitioner and academic literature on thissubject, they present a framework for under-standing the varied purposes of coaching.They argue that before we ask ‘doescoaching work?’ we should be asking what isit being used for, and then design ourmeasures accordingly.

Alex Linley and Susan Harrington takeus on a journey into coaching from theperspective of psychological strengths. Afterconsidering the history of psychologicalstrengths in the wider psychological litera-ture, they present a theory of strengths based

Stephen Palmer & Michael Cavanagh

on a conception of the human person asboth capable and inherently motivatedtoward the development of the self. Theyargue for this conception as a foundation forcoaching.

Stephen Joseph’s article also considersthe foundational models within whichcoaching is situated. He takes a person-centred perspective on coaching psychology.He argues that because coaching psychologyhas emerged in relation to other profes-sional branches of psychology which doadopt the medical model, it has as a conse-quence implicitly adopted the values of themedical model. He believes that coachingpsychology should adopt the person-centredmeta-theoretical perspective instead.

As a counterpoint to the papers by Linleyand Harrington and Joseph, Whybrow andPalmer present some interesting empiricalresearch on the shape of coachingpsychology in the UK. They investigate,among other things, the backgrounds andtheoretical orientations of those involved incoaching psychology. They examine the leveland type of engagement psychologist’s havein coaching, and the range of attitudesexpressed by coaches towards issues such assupervision, training, and ongoing profes-sional development. This research also looksat how coaching psychology is changing interms of these important features over time.

In a similar vein, Spence, Cavanagh andGrant report on a survey of Australian lifeand executive coaches. Their data focusesaspects of coaching related to the duty ofcare in an unregulated coaching industry.They note that previous Australian studieshave suggested that many coaching clientsmay be using coaching as a socially accept-able form of meeting their therapeuticneeds. This highlights the need for coachesto have competencies that adequately safe-guard clients’ mental health and well-being.A key question that the paper raises iswhether or not coaches can reliably identifyand then refer clients with mental healthissues?

The final paper in this inaugural editionreports on the qualitative study conductedby Gyllensten and Palmer. Qualitative data isoften very rich data. They investigated theimpact of coaching on stress and provide uswith an opportunity to reflect on thecomments and experiences reported bycoaching clients.

These papers, and this issue of the ICPR,is a beginning. Already we can see a widerange of approaches and opinions, and wehope to be able to publish an even widerrange! As coaching psychologists, we havethe privilege of working in a fantastically richand exciting field. As several of the authorsin this issue point out, there is continuinggrowth and real engagement with coachingin the workplace and in the wider commu-nity. Coaching in general, and coachingpsychology in particular, has the potential tomake an effective and lasting contribution topeople’s lives and to our world.

It is our hope that the ICPR will come toplay a part in this great enterprise by being aforum that stimulates thinking, commentand research in coaching psychology. Aseditors, we look forward with great enthu-siasm, to receiving and publishing yourcontributions!

Stephen Palmer Coaching Psychology Unit,Department of Psychology,City University,London, UK.E-mail: [email protected]

Michael CavanaghCoaching Psychology Unit,Department of Psychology,Sydney University,Sydney, Australia.E-mail: [email protected]

International Coaching Psychology Review � Vol. 1 No. 1 April 2006 3

Editorial


The best psychology,to your inbox - free!

Sign up for The British Psychological Society’s free, fortnightly e-mailpacked with the latest research and links to the A-level syllabus.

www.researchdigest.org.uk

History of the UK coaching psychologymovement

ONE OF THE LEADING PIONEERS of coaching psychology, Dr AnthonyGrant, based at the Coaching

Psychology Unit, Sydney, Australia, hadgiven various papers in the UK whichincreased awareness of his ideas. He andStephen Palmer at the Centre for Coaching,London, had been in e-mail contactregarding coaching psychology. This contactacted as the UK catalyst which finallygalvanised action. In parallel with thisprocess there were many UK psychologistsworking in the field of coaching researchand practice who were also interested in thepsychology of coaching.

Initially Palmer received advice andsupport from the British PsychologicalSociety (BPS) office about taking coachingpsychology forward and there were anumber of options. The BPS has three keytypes of subsystems: Divisions, SpecialGroups and Sections. The BPS websitedescribes the subsystems as below.� Divisions exist where there is a clear

professional grouping and professionaltraining. Divisions’ main work is inpursuing and enhancing professionalpractice. Only those who have completedan approved training may join a Division

as a full member. (Their members canbecome chartered in specific areas suchas occupational, clinical, counselling orhealth psychology.)

� Special Groups exist to represent groupsof members working in a particular field.The members of a Special Group all havesome defining characteristics that are lessrigorous than that required for aDivision.

� Sections exist where members havedecided to pool and exchange scientificinterest and knowledge. Any membermay belong to a Section.

Usually the simplest way to establish aninterest group would be to set up a SpecialInterest Group (SIG) or Faculty within aDivision. At this time, as one of Palmer’s keyinterests was in the adaptation of therapeuticapproaches to the field of coaching itseemed that the ideal place to set up acoaching psychology SIG was within the Divi-sion of Counselling Psychology (DCoP). Theprocess seemed relatively straightforward.

With the agreement of the 2001–2002DCoP Chair, at the British PsychologicalSociety, Division of Counselling Psychology2002 Annual Conference, Palmer raised theissue of setting up a coaching psychology SIGat the Annual General Meeting. He was thengiven the go-ahead to run a workshop on


The coaching psychology movement and its development within the British Psychological SocietyStephen Palmer & Alison Whybrow

To many members of the British Psychological Society (BPS) it may appear that the BPS Special Group inCoaching Psychology (SGCP) has come from nowhere to somewhere in a short space of time. It held itsinaugural meeting on 15 December 2004 and by March 2005, it had become the third largest BPS subsystem with over 1600 Founder Members and by December 2005, it had almost 2000 members. Its paththrough the BPS bureaucracy helped to shape it into an inclusive branch of applied psychology. This paperwill cover the history of the coaching psychology movement within the BPS.Keywords: coaching psychology, coaching, British Psychological Society, Special Group.

coaching psychology at the conference andfacilitated the possible setting up of a DCoPSIG. A working definition of coachingpsychology was used at the workshop thatGrant and Palmer were developing for anarticle. Of the 29 BPS members whoattended the workshop, 28 were interestedin forming a Coaching Psychology SIGwithin the DCoP. E-mail addresses wereexchanged and an internet discussionforum, called the Coaching PsychologyForum (CPF) was set up for use of thesemembers to maintain contact and therebyfurther the field of coaching psychology. Atthis stage, most members were counsellingpsychologists.

Unfortunately, it was later discovered thatin 2002 DCoP did not have a constitutionthat allowed the formation of a SIG. Thisvexing problem later became part of thesolution as the delay provided new opportu-nities.

As CPF already existed as an internetforum, it was decided to keep it going, butstill restricting the membership to BPSmembers only, as they would have to abideby the BPS Codes of Conduct and wouldsupport the fledgling UK coachingpsychology movement. Non-BPS applicantswho wished to join CPF had to becomemembers or affiliates of the BPS; otherwisethey were not permitted to join.

Ho Law (2002), an occupational psychol-ogist who had attended the first workshop atthe conference, wrote an article aboutcoaching psychology and CPF which waspublished in The Occupational Psychologist,newsletter of the BPS Division of Occupa-tional Psychology. This generated a furthersurge in membership specifically by occupa-tional psychologists. During 2002, about 70BPS members from different BPS sub-systems joined the internet CPF. Thisbreadth of membership meant that if a SIGwas finally set up within any one BPS Division, many members would be alienated,i.e. would not be allowed full membership ofthe SIG unless they were also full membersof the said BPS Division. The initial constitu-

tional delay for setting up of SIGs withinDCoP had unintentionally created a newproblem. Should the CPF take into accountall of its new members, their diverse psycho-logical backgrounds and their membershipsof different Divisions?

Further advice was sought from the BPSoffice and at a CPF seminar (Palmer, 2003)and meeting held in London on 21 February2003, it was decided to submit a proposal tothe BPS for the setting up of a Special Groupin Coaching Psychology. At that time, a Divi-sion would have been premature as coachingpsychology is a relatively new professionalarea of practice for psychologists, and aSection did not reflect the professionalpractice aspect of coaching psychology.

Meanwhile CPF ran a number ofsuccessful and profitable conferences andworkshops at the BPS offices in London ondifferent aspects of coaching psychology.The BPS agreed to bank the fees on ourbehalf. Also, the CPF had representativesliaising with other professional coachingbodies including the Association forCoaching and the European Mentoring andCoaching Council and provided input for aChartered Institute of Personnel and Devel-opment publication (see Jarvis, 2004).(Further information about these threeorganisations is beyond the scope of thisarticle. However, details about them areavailable from their websites.) CPF’s website(CPF 2004) included an online journal, The Coaching Psychologist.

The Occupational Psychologist had a specialissue on coaching psychology (edited byChapman, 2003). In the following year, Selec-tion & Development Review had a special issueon coaching (edited by Hines, 2004). Bothspecial issues were largely written by CPFmembers and both were instrumental inpromoting support within the BPS for theSGCP proposal.

Passage to UtopiaThe passage of the proposal through the BPSdid take some time as various committeeseither approved it or commented on it. Some


Stephen Palmer & Alison Whybrow

committees agreed to have a presentationgiven by the co-proposers to help answertheir queries. The summary below illustratesits progress (Palmer & Whybrow, 2004a). � Professional Practice Board (PPB):

6 June 2003. Presentation to Board by co-proposers Palmer and Whybrow.Some challenging feedback was receivedfrom a couple of members. There was aconcern about the proposed SpecialGroup later becoming a Division. Themeeting was a transparent process whereco-proposers were allowed to stay towitness the outcome.

� Membership and Professional TrainingBoard (MPTB): 20 June 2003. Nopresentation to the Board.

� Board of Trustees: 5 September 2003. No presentation to the Board.

� BPS Council: 18 October 2003.Presentation to Council by Palmer andWhybrow. In the light of the discussions,Palmer and Whybrow reassured theCouncil that they personally had nointention of wanting to set up a Divisionat a later date. The caveat being that theycould not predict what other colleaguesmay want to do in the future.

� PPB and MPTB representatives wereappointed to provide input on revisingthe proposed draft rules for the SpecialGroup.

� Coaching Psychology Forum AGM 2 February, 2004. Feedback to membersabout progress.

� After receiving constructive feedbackfrom the PPB and MPTB representatives,the proposal was revised and thenreturned to BPS Board of Trustees (7 May) in 2004 for approval and thenthe BPS Council as part of theconsultative process (8 May). After themeeting, Chair’s action was required bythe Council Chair otherwise there couldhave been a delay until the followingCouncil meeting.

� Support sought from BPS members.Needed 400 (approximately one per centof BPS Membership). By 31 August over

1200 gave their support. This level ofsupport was higher than expected.

� Then finally a vote for or against theproposal by the entire BPS membershipwas necessary. The vote declared infavour of proposal on the 16 October2004.

� Inaugural meeting and oversubscribedinaugural conference held on 15December 2004 at City University,London, UK. Over 250 members turnedup for the meeting. The invited keynotespeaker from Australia was Dr AnthonyGrant.

� In 2005 the draft rules of the SGCP wererevised. However, the BPS Board ofTrustees did not approve the proposedrevised rules for the SGCP. In particular,they suggested that its rules should bemore appropriate to its Special Groupstatus or it should apply for Divisionalstatus in the usual manner. Two keyconcerns were that the proposed rulesincluded were the setting up of SpecialInterest Groups (SIG) (as supported bythe membership in attendance at theinaugural meeting), and the proposedrules invited one graduate member intraining to become a member of theSGCP committee. The SGCP committeemembers were overworked as theexisting draft rules would not allow theappointment of the number of additionalmembers they required. For expediencythe rules were revised again dropping theSIG and trainee elements. The Board ofTrustees accepted the final revisions andthese were approved by the membership.

The key lessons we learnt from this processwas to stay focused on the task and listen toall the feedback given by BPS staff and therelevant BPS committees.

During this whole process the AustralianPsychological Society Interest GroupCoaching Psychology, were supportive of theproposal. In addition to e-mail contact, in2003 Ray Elliot, their National Convenor,had a meeting in London with Palmer andWhybrow to discuss collaboration. In 2004,


The coaching psychology movement…

Dr Michael Cavanagh, the new NationalConvenor, held a meeting in Ide Hill, Kent,with Palmer and Whybrow to discuss thedevelopment of the International CoachingPsychology Review as well as other relevantissues.

Definition of coaching psychologyDefinitions or descriptions of coaching illus-trate the difference between coaching andcoaching psychology:� Coaching – Directly concerned with the

immediate improvement of performanceand development of skills by a form oftutoring or instruction – an instructionalapproach (Parsloe, 1995).

� Coaching – The art of facilitating theperformance, learning and developmentof another – a facilitation approach(Downey, 1999).

Whereas the initial CPF coaching psychologydefinition focused on the adaptation of ther-apeutic approaches to coaching:� Coaching psychology is for enhancing

performance in work and personal lifedomains with normal, non-clinicalpopulations, underpinned by models ofcoaching grounded in establishedtherapeutic approaches (Grant & Palmer,2002).

Since the workshop in May 2002, the defini-tion of coaching psychology graduallyevolved, influenced by BPS committees andpsychologists from different BPS sub-systemsbecoming involved with the CPF. Althoughthe two main groups were occupational andcounselling psychologists, others such ashealth, sports and clinical were CPF memberstoo. The final working definition used in thelast draft of the SGCP proposal was: � Coaching psychology is for enhancing

well-being and performance in personallife and work domains underpinned bymodels of coaching grounded inestablished adult learning or psycho-logical approaches (adapted Grant &Palmer, 2002).

However, this differs from the AustralianPsychological Society Interest Group in

Coaching Psychology definition. The UKdefinition went through a developmentalprocess which is still on-going.

The application of coaching psychologyThe following examples of the application ofcoaching psychology are intended to illus-trate areas of practice; they are not exhaus-tive and include: � Supporting people to develop effective

strategies for dealing with concernsabout specific areas of performance, forexample, giving presentations.

� Providing one-to-one support to facilitatepeople in achieving their life and/orwork goals.

� Facilitating the achievement of groupgoals.

� Supporting the development of effectivecoaching programmes in organisations.

� Supervising psychologists and non-psychologists in practice as coachingpsychologists or as coaches.

� Running training programmes incoaching psychology, the psychology ofcoaching and coaching.

� Undertaking research into theeffectiveness of coaching.

Figure 1 highlights the focus of coachingpsychology practice taken from a 2004 surveyof 109 CPF members (Palmer & Whybrow,2004b). It illustrates that coachingpsychology practice is being applied to bothbusiness and personal arenas. The highpercentage scores show that many partici-pants work in more than one specific area.

Aims and Membership The key aims of the SGCP are:� Development of coaching psychology;� Foster research and study of coaching

psychology;� Promote standards and guidelines;� Facilitate workshops and conferences;� Develop public awareness;� Working within the BPS and liaising with

external groups.Currently the membership criterion isstraightforward. Full membership is avail-



able to BPS members who hold the GraduateBasis for Registration (GBR). Thus, themajority of BPS members are eligible for fullmembership. Students or affiliates of theBPS join as affiliates. About 50 per cent ofthe members are already chartered psycho-logists.

Adaptation of therapeutic approachesused in coaching psychologyPsychologists have adapted a number of ther-apeutic approaches to the field of coachingpsychology including solution focused brieftherapy, cognitive behavioural therapy,rational emotive behaviour therapy, multi-modal therapy (e.g. Greene & Grant, 2003;Lee, 2003; Neenan & Palmer, 2001; Palmer,Cooper & Thomas, 2003; Peltier, B. 2001;Richards, J.T. 1999. Also, see Grant’s seminalwork, 2001). Figure 2 (overleaf) highlightsthe most popular approaches used by UKcoaching psychologists although otherapproaches are also practised to a lesserextent (scores in percentages). This wastaken from a survey of CPF members (Palmer& Whybrow, 2004b).

Recent progress and developmentsCoaching psychology in the UK had a greatstart with the newly formed SGCP havingover 1600 founding members. At the begin-ning of 2006, the SGCP had almost 2000members. During 2005, the SGCP published

two issues of The Coaching Psychologist in hard-copy format and placed a PDF copy on theCoaching Psychology website. In 2006, after18 months of planning the InternationalCoaching Psychology Review has been launchedin association with the APS IGCP. The SGCPran a successful workshop programme in2005 which culminated in the SGCP 2ndAnnual National Coaching PsychologyConference held on 19 to 20 December. Dr Michael Cavanagh, the current AustralianPsychological Society Interest GroupCoaching Psychology National Convenorgave a keynote paper and ran a workshop.

In 2005, the CPF website was transferredto the main BPS website and two e-mailgroups were set up to aid communicationand discussion for members. A membershippack was developed for members providingadvice and guidance on a number of rele-vant issues. At a professional level, SGCP hasheld roundtable discussions with the othermain coaching-related professional bodies.Coaching psychology competencies arebeing developed and this is likely tocontinue for sometime.

It is worth noting that the BPS monthlyAppointments Memorandum carried its first jobadvertisement for coaching psychologists inApril 2005 (see page 54). In December 2005,the UK’s first university-based CoachingPsychology Unit was set up in the Depart-ment of Psychology at City University,



Figure 1: Focus of coaching psychology practice (Palmer & Whyrow, 2004b).

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Busin

ess

Caree

r

Exec

utive

Lead

ership

Perfo

rman

ce

Perso

nal

Stres

s

manag

emen

tTe

am Life

Mento

ring

Coac

hing f

or

Exce

llenc

eSp

orts

Health

London, focusing on coaching psychologyresearch through MPhil, PhD and DPsychprogrammes. In 2006, information aboutcoaching psychology will be included in theDirectory of Chartered Psychologists which willhelp the public secure appropriate servicesfrom SGCP chartered members.

During 2005, membership was free andin 2006, it was raised to £3.50 p.a. The SGCPincome from its successful workshop seriesand conferences contribute largely towardsits overheads.

ConclusionCoaching psychology has seen a rapidgrowth in interest within the British Psycho-logical Society since 2004. From a smallgroup of 28 interested BPS members in 2002it has made great progress. Realisticallymembership of the SGCP is likely to plateauduring 2006 although this is hard to predictas the SGCP has an appeal to non-psycholo-gists who have joined as affiliates andpsychologists who do not feel they have ahome elsewhere in the BPS. The interna-tional standing of the BPS SGCP is likely tobe enhanced by publishing the InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, its good workingrelationship with the Australian Psycholog-ical Society Interest Group CoachingPsychology, and running successful confer-

ences with well known overseas speakers.Gradually psychologists in other countriesare likely to become interested in coachingpsychology too and this is already reflectedin the international editorial board of thispublication. The future is bright and wepredict that the SGCP will go from strengthto strength.

CorrespondenceProfessor Stephen Palmer, PhD, is HonoraryProfessor of Psychology at the CoachingPsychology Unit, City University, andDirector of the Centre for Coaching,London. He was Chair of the SGCP in 2005and is now Past Chair. He is on the NationalExecutive of the SGCP. He was formerly aCo-proposer of the SGCP with Dr AlisonWhybrow.

Dr Alison Whybrow is Treasurer of the SGCPand was formerly a Co-proposer. She is onthe National Executive of the SGCP.

Correspondence address:Professor Stephen PalmerCoaching Psychology Unit, Department of Psychology,City University, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, United Kingdom.E-mail: [email protected]



Figure 2: Coaching approaches (Palmer & Whyrow, 2004b).

Facil

itatio

n

Instru

ction

al

Cogn

itive

Beha

viour

al

Goal F

ocus

ed

Solut

ion Fo

cused

Perso

n Cen

tred

Eclec

tic

Proble

mFo

cused

Human

istic

NLP

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0



ReferencesChapman, M. (Ed.) (2003). Special issue: Coaching

Psychology. The Occupational Psychologist, 49,August, 3–33.

CPF (2004). Coaching Psychology Forum website.http://www.coachingpsychologyforum.org.uk

Downey, M. (1999). Effective coaching. London: OrionBusiness Books.

Grant, A.M. (2001). Towards a psychology of coaching.Sydney: Coaching Psychology Unit, University ofSydney.

Grant, A.M. & Palmer, S. (2002). Coaching Psychology.Workshop and meeting held at the AnnualConference of the Division of CounsellingPsychology, British Psychological Society,Torquay, 18 May.

Greene, J. & Grant, A.M. (2003). Solution-focusedcoaching: Managing people in a complex world.Harlow: Pearson Education.

Hine, P. (Ed.) (2004). Special Edition: Coaching.Selection & Development Review, 20(4), August,3–30.

Jarvis, J. (2004). Coaching and buying coaching services:A guide. London: CIPD.

Law, H. (2002). Coaching Psychology Special Group:An introduction. The Occupational Psychologist, 47,December.

Lee, G. (2003). Leadership coaching: From personal insightto organisational performance. London: CIPD.

Neenan, M. & Palmer, S. (2001). Cognitive behav-ioural coaching. Stress News, 13(3), 15–18.

Palmer, S. (2003). The development of coachingpsychology in the UK. Coaching Psychology Forumseminar held on 21 February in London.

Palmer, S., Cooper, C, & Thomas, K. (2003). Creatinga balance: Managing stress. London: BritishLibrary.

Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (2004a). The brief history ofthe UK BPS Coaching Psychology Movement: FromAcorns to Oak Trees! Paper at the BPS SpecialGroup in Coaching Psychology InauguralConference, held at City University, London, on15 December.

Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (2004b). Coaching psychologysurvey: Taking stock. Paper at the BPS SpecialGroup in Coaching Psychology InauguralConference, held at City University, London, on15 December.

Parsloe, E. (1995). Coaching, mentoring and assessing: A practical guide to developing competence. New York:Kogan Page.

Peltier, B. (2001). The psychology of executive coaching:Theory and application. New York: Brunner-Routledge.

Richard, J.T. (1999). Multimodal Therapy: A usefulmodel for the executive coach. ConsultingPsychology Journal, 51(1), 24–30.

WebsitesBPS SGCPhttp://www.coachingpsychologyforum.org.ukAssociation for Coachingwww.associationforcoaching.comEuropean Mentoring and Coaching Councilwww.emccouncil.org/Chartered Institute of Personnel and Developmentwww.cipd.co.uk

HOW CAN WE, AS PSYCHOLOGISTS,better work with our clients to helpthem to increase their performance,

development, skill sets and levels of well-being? How can we best facilitate the growthand development of normal, non-clinicalclients? How can we help them reach goalsin their personal and work lives? How we candesign and implement real-life interventionsthat allow us understand the psychologicalmechanisms of human change and develop-ment?

When many of us began to studypsychology, we thought that these were someof the essential questions that would becovered in our undergraduate and graduatepsychology degrees. Yet many of us weredisappointed by the taught material. To besure, the neuro-psychological aspects of ourdegrees were fascinating. Milgram’s studieswere thought-provoking. The buildingblocks of learning processes, as demon-strated in animal research on classical condi-tioning and associative learning gave usinsights into our own learning processes.The wide range of perspectives on person-ality theory and measurement gave us under-

standing of the structure of personality, andwhere would be we be without the zonule ofZinn!

Many of us were frustrated that there wasso little taught about the normal, well-func-tioning adult person, and even less abouthow to apply theory to practice, and it wasfrustrations such as these which gaveimpetus to the emergence of coachingpsychology.

Psychologists have been involved incoaching for many years (e.g. Filippi, 1968).The 1996 special edition of ConsultingPsychology Journal: Research and Practice dedi-cated to executive coaching and consultationwas a landmark publication on coaching inthe psychological academic literature. Theroots of coaching psychology stretch back tothe humanistic traditions of psychology (e.g.Maslow, 1968), and are related to the factorsunderpinning the emergence of the PositivePsychology movement (e.g. Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Snyder & McCul-lough, 2000). However, contemporarycoaching psychology as a specific academicsub-discipline can be considered to havecome into being with the establishment of

12 International Coaching Psychology Review � Vol. 1 No. 1 April 2006© The British Psychological Society 2006 – ISSN: 1750-2764

A personal perspective on professionalcoaching and the development ofcoaching psychologyAnthony M. Grant

Coaching psychology can be understood as being the systematic application of behavioural science to theenhancement of life experience, work performance and well-being for individuals, groups and organisationswho do not have clinically significant mental heath issues or abnormal levels of distress. Althoughpsychologists have long acted as coaches, coaching psychology has only recently emerged as an applied andacademic sub-discipline. As coaching psychology continues to grow there will be some exciting challengesfrom both within and outside of the profession of psychology. First among these there will be the issue ofdistinguishing the work and professional practices of coaching psychologists from coaches who are notpsychologists. Secondly, will be the place of coaching psychology relative to other psychological sub-disciplines, and thirdly will be the development of a research and practice agenda for coaching psychology.Keywords: coaching, coaching psychology, professional practice, non-psychologist coaches,positive psychology.

the Coaching Psychology Unit at the Univer-sity of Sydney in 2000 and the offering of thefirst postgraduate degree in coachingpsychology. The recent (2005) establishmentof a Coaching Psychology Unit at City Univer-sity, London, has been another importantstep in further developing the academicunderpinnings of coaching psychology.

As coaching psychology continues togrow there will be some exciting challenges,from both within and outside of the profes-sion of psychology. First among these therewill be the issue of distinguishing the workand professional practices of coachingpsychologists from coaches who are notpsychologists. Secondly, will be the place ofcoaching psychology relative to otherpsychological sub-disciplines, and thirdly willbe the development of a research andpractice agenda for coaching psychology.This paper presents a personal perspectiveon these issues and development ofcoaching psychology.

The nature of contemporaryprofessional coachingIt may be useful to firstly discuss the natureof general professional coaching beforeexploring aspects of coaching psychology.Definitions of coaching vary considerably(Palmer & Whybrow, 2005) and have beenthe subject of much debate (e.g. D’Abate,Eddy & Tannenbaum, 2003; Kilburg, 1996;Mace, 1950), but central to most definitionsare the assumptions of an absence of seriousmental health problems in the client(Bluckert, 2005), the notion that the client isresourceful (Berg & Szabo, 2005), willing toengage in finding solutions (Hudson, 1999),and that coaching is on outcome-focusedactivity which seeks to foster self-directedlearning through collaborative goal setting,brainstorming and action planning (Greene& Grant, 2003). In this way coaches helpclients enhance aspects of both theirpersonal and professional lives. Coaching isthus, collaborative, individualised, solution-focused, results orientated, systematic,stretching, fosters self-directed learning, and

should be evidence-based, and incorporateethical professional practice.

Contemporary professional coaching is across–disciplinary methodology for fosteringindividual and organisational change, andcomprises both personal or ‘life’ coaching,and workplace coaching with staff, managersand executives. There are no entry barriersto becoming a coach. In a study of 2529professional coaches Grant and Zackon(2004) found that coaches had come tocoaching from a wide variety of prior profes-sional backgrounds (in order of magnitude)consultants (40.8 per cent), managers (30.8per cent), executives (30.2 per cent),teachers (15.7 per cent) and salespeople(13.8 per cent). Interestingly, in that sampleonly 4.8 per cent of respondents had a back-ground in psychology (note percentages arenot accumulative).

Such diversity is both strength and aliability. The diversity of prior professionalbackgrounds means that the coachingindustry draws on wide range of method-ological approaches to coaching, and a widerange of educational disciplines informcoaching practice. On the other hand, dueto the diversity and sheer number of individ-uals offering coaching services, there is alack of clarity as to what professionalcoaching really is and what makes for aneffective or reputable coach (Sherman &Freas, 2004).

This diversity also means that there maybe a wide range of perspectives about whatconstitutes best ethical and professionalpractice, and what is the proper focus ofcoaching. Most coaches do not have a back-ground in behavioural science and, mostcommercial coach training programmes areshort courses based on proprietary models ofcoaching with little or no theoreticalgrounding, and finish with the granting ofsome kind of coaching ‘certification’.

Not surprisingly, there have beenconcerns expressed that inappropriatelytrained coaches tend to conduct atheoreticalone-size-fits-all coaching interventions(Kauffman & Scoular, 2004) and may cause


Development of coaching psychology

harm to clients, particularly those who haveunrecognised mental health problems(Berglas, 2002; Cavanagh, 2005; Naughton,2002). Although coaching is aimed at non-clinical populations it may be that some individuals seek coaching as a more socially-acceptable form of therapy. Indeed, recentstudies have found that between 25 per centand 50 per cent of individuals presenting forlife coaching met clinical mental healthcriteria (Green, Oades & Grant, 2005;Spence & Grant, 2005).

However, it is hard to find actual reportsof such damage beyond occasional news-paper articles about the impact of failedtherapy or counselling (e.g. Pyror, 2005) orsocial commentary articles decrying the riseof the self-help or coaching culture (e.g.Furedi, 2005). How are we to understandthis? At present, because there is no registra-tion or licensing requirements for coacheswho are not psychologists, there is no acces-sible body for disgruntled members of thepublic to complain to. If such damage is infact occurring then one assumes that reportsof such harm will surface in time. Alterna-tively, it may be that coaching clients arehighly resilient and in fact little harm isbeing done by non-psychologist coaches.Interestingly, more common are newspaperreports of inadequately trained businesscoaches or the inappropriate franchising ofcoach businesses as ‘lifestyle and wealth-creation opportunities’ or the promotion ofcoach ‘certification’ programmes (Walker,2004).

Coaching credentialing and thecredibility of coachesAn area of concern that has not as yet beendiscussed in the academic literature,concerns the hunger for credibility andcredentialing by some sections of thecoaching industry. This is an important issue.The general public are not well-educated asto the worth of various psychological qualifi-cations and accreditations (Lancaster &Smith, 2002) let alone coaching qualifica-tions, and may rely on impressive sounding

titles to guide them in their selection of acoach. Because coaching is an industry andnot a profession, there are no barriers toentry, no regulation, no government-sanc-tioned accreditation or qualification processand no clear authority to be a coach; anyonecan call themselves a ‘Master Coach’. World-wide there is a veritable industry offering arange of ‘coach certification’ programmes.

Some of these commercial coach trainingorganisations appear to be little more thancoach ‘credentialing mills’ where, followinga few days training and the payment of a suit-able fee, one can become a ‘Certified MasterLife Coach’. Unfortunately, it sometimesseems as if every man and his dog offer acoach certification programme, and thevalue of such certifications is highly ques-tionable. Indeed, it may be that the majorityof money made within the coaching industryis being made by commercial coach trainingorganisations rather than through actualcoaching by coaching practitioners.

Of course, organisations such as the Asso-ciation for Coaching (AC), the EuropeanMentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC)and the International Coach Federation(ICF), have put considerable effort intoestablishing credentialing processes andhave done important work in beginning todefine coaching competencies, and therecent establishment of the AustralianPsychological Society Interest Group inCoaching Psychology and the British Psycho-logical Society Special Group in CoachingPsychology are very welcome and vital movesin the development of professional coachingas well as coaching psychology.

However, the credibility and profession-alism of coaching is still tenuous. There areincreasing media reports which question thecredibility of unqualified life coaches whoappear to have the lowest perceived levels ofcredibility (e.g. Salerno, 2005). In contrast,psychologists who are coaches are viewed ina far more credible light and this is particu-larly the case for executive developmentalcoaching (Seligman, 2005).


Anthony M. Grant

Raising the bar for the coachingindustryAs the coaching market matures, the corpo-rations who are the main consumers ofcoaching are demanding higher standards ofqualifications from the coaches they employ,and postgraduate qualification in behav-ioural science are a key selection criteria forexecutive coaching (Corporate LeadershipCouncil, 2003). Psychologists have increas-ingly and more publicly become involved inthe coaching industry. The entry into thecoaching arena by psychology, with its atten-dant rigorous educational programmes andprofessional ethos and qualifications has, I believe, noticeably raised the bar for thecoaching industry in general.

In contrast to the commercial trainingprogrammes that dominated the coachingmarket during the late 1990s and early2000s, there are now a number of universi-ties that offer postgraduate programmes incoaching. As of December 2005, there arethree Australian universities offering coach-specific education as part of postgraduatedegree programmes. All of these are offeredby Schools of Psychology. At least seven UKuniversities offer coaching degreeprogrammes. Most of those are not offeredby Psychology Departments, rather they areoffered by Business Schools or from withinFaculties of Education. In the US sevenuniversities offer coach degree programmesand in Canada there are two postgraduateprogrammes in coaching. The majority ofthe North American programmes areoffered from within Business Schools ratherthan Schools of Psychology. These clearly arewelcome changes, and the involvement ofgraduate schools and universities will raisethe standard of the general coachingindustry.

However, as the bar gets raised within anincreasingly demanding market, and in thequest for credibility and the subsequentcommercial advantage, there has been ashake-up in the market. Coaches who do nothave proper training in coaching orpsychology are beginning to feel the pres-

sure to present themselves in a moreacademic or professional light.

The temptation for these people is toinappropriately leverage affiliations and/orqualifications which are only tenuouslyconnected to coaching practice. An examplehere might be the individual who holds aPhD in physics presenting themselves asholding doctoral qualifications relevant tocoaching, or the unqualified part-timeinstructor in a university-based continuingeducation programme presenting them-selves as an ‘adjunct professor’. The issuehere is that the general public, whenpresented with impressive sounding qualifi-cations and affiliations, may well attribute alevel of credibility which is not warranted. Inan applied area of practice such as coaching,this can be seriously problematic. And this isparticular of a concern given that there is noone central regulating body to which dissat-isfied clients can complain about unethicalpractices.

Psychologists have several importantfactors which enhance both their suitabilityfor coaching and their credibility as profes-sional coaches. Psychology is a recognisedprofession with established academic qualifi-cations and rigorous training, enforceableethical codes and barriers to entry, and havegovernment-sanctioned organisations whichare in a position to police the profession.Further, psychologists bring to coaching asolid understanding of the psychology ofhuman change, and the ability to developcoaching interventions based on theoreti-cally-grounded case conceptualisations usingevidence-based processes and techniques.

Unfortunately, in the past psychologistshave not been represented in the media asbeing uniquely competent coaching practi-tioners (Garman, Whiston & Zlatoper,2000). Yet psychology has a genuine andimportant contribution to make to profes-sional coaching in terms of adapting andvalidating existing therapeutic models foruse with normal populations and evaluatingcommercialised approaches to personaldevelopment to ensure consumer protection



and inform consumer choice (Grant, 2001;Starker, 1990). I believe that the emergenceof a sub-discipline of coaching psychologycan make psychology more accessible andattractive to the public.

What is the place of coachingpsychology?Coaching psychology can be understood asbeing the systematic application of behav-ioural science to the enhancement of lifeexperience, work performance and well-being for individuals, groups and organisa-tions who do not have clinically significantmental heath issues or abnormal levels ofdistress.

In broad terms, coaching psychology sitsat the intersection of sports, counselling,clinical, and organisational and healthpsychology. Where clinical and counsellingpsychologists tend to work with the clientwho is distressed and/or dysfunctional,coaching psychologists work with well-func-tioning clients, using theoretically groundedand scientifically validated techniques tohelp them to reach goals in their personaland business lives. Coaching is a robust andchallenging intervention, is results-driven,delivers tangible added value, is typically ashort-term or intermittent engagement, andenables the attainment of high standards orgoals.

It may be argued that psychology doesnot need another delineated sub-discipline,and that the work of coaching is alreadybeing conducted by psychologists. Indeed,there is evidence that there is considerableoverlap between both the training and theactual practices of different establishedpsychology sub-disciplines. For example,Cobb et al. (2004) found that trainingprogrammes across three areas, clinical,counselling and school psychology, weremore similar than different. Further, manyapplied, clinical and counselling psycholo-gists already consider themselves to be actingas ‘coaches’ and continue to work with clin-ical clients long after their initial treatmentobjectives have been met. This is because

clients frequently find such an on-goingperformance-enhancing relationship to behighly beneficial.

Paradoxically, such observations alsoargue for the formal establishment ofcoaching psychology. The fact that somepsychologists are already shifting to acoaching style once therapeutic aims havebeen met, suggests that there is a clientdemand for coaching by psychologists, andthat clients value a coaching relationshipwith a psychologist that is focused on goalattainment and well-being, rather than beingcurative. Further, as Kauffman and Scoular(2004) note, the vast majority of individualspresenting for executive coaching are notremedial clients, but are seeking support instretching and development. Thus interven-tions and helping relationships based on aclinical or medical model may be highlyinappropriate.

Unfortunately in the public’s mind,psychologists are often confused with psychi-atrists and have long been seen by the publicas being focused on therapy and clinicalwork (Webb & Speer, 1986), rather thanbeing proactive facilitators of human ororganisational change. There is a clear needfor psychologists to present their skills in away that the public finds attractive and acces-sible (Coleman, 2003). Further, manypsychologists find coaching to be anappealing and personally rewarding alterna-tive to therapeutic practice (Naughton,2002).

Thus, rather than act as a coach, it makesmore sense for psychologists to actually be acoach, to develop coaching skills and psycho-logical frameworks that go beyond existingclinical or counselling frameworks and appli-cations.

One challenge for an emerging sub-discipline of coaching psychology will be todevelop coaching interventions that utiliseexisting theory and technique, but do so in away that is relevant and engaging for non-clin-ical populations. If we can rise to this chal-lenge I believe that coaching psychology hastremendous potential to be a major force for


Anthony M. Grant

the promotion of well-being, productivity andperformance enhancement for the indi-vidual, for organisations and corporationsand for the broader community as a whole.Further, coaching psychology can speed thedevelopment of established and emergingpsychological approaches by acting as a real-life experimental platform from which tofurther develop our knowledge of the psycho-logical processes involved in purposefulchange in normal, non-clinical populations.

Coaching psychology and positivepsychologyRegardless of preferred theoretical orienta-tion (systemic, cognitive, psychodynamic,etc.) psychology as an applied helpingprofession has traditionally focused onameliorating distress and repairing dysfunc-tionality rather than enhancing the well-being and goal attainment of normal,well-functioning adults.

There have been long-standing calls forpsychology to broaden its relevance tosociety in ways that would help the generalpublic to use psychology in a positivemanner in their daily lives (Miller, 1969).Indeed, the general public and businessorganisations have a thirst for techniquesthat enhance life experience and perform-ance. The worldwide market for personaldevelopment material has grown signifi-cantly since the 1950s (Fried, 1994) andcontinues to grow. The American personaldevelopment and self-help book marketalone is worth over $US600 million dollarsannually (Wyld, 2001). However, traditionalpsychology as a research discipline and anapplied profession has not risen to the chal-lenge of meeting the needs of consumers inthe normal adult population (Fox, 1996;Laungani, 1999).

Recently there has been considerableinterest in a positive psychology that focuseson developing human strengths and compe-tencies (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000;Snyder & McCullough, 2000). The emer-gence of positive psychology is to beapplauded and welcomed, and marks a shift

in the research focus of applied psychologyaway from psychopathology. Positivepsychology can be understood a ‘the scien-tific study of optimal functioning, focusingon aspects of the human condition that leadto happiness, fulfilment, and flourishing’(Linley & Harrington, 2005, p.13).

There has been considerable progressmade by positive psychologists in developingtheoretical frameworks for understandinghuman strengths (Snyder & Lopez, 2002).However, most of the work thus far withinthe positive psychology arena has been aboutinvestigating correlational relationshipsbetween various constructs (Lazarus, 2003),for example, the relationship between self-concordance, well-being, goal attainmentand goal satisfaction (Sheldon & Elliot,1999), the measurement of constructs suchas well-being (Ryff & Keyes, 1996) or ataxonomy of human strengths (Peterson &Seligman, 2004) as an alternative to the DSMdiagnostic (APA, 2000).

Despite recent publications on the appli-cation of positive psychology (e.g. Linley &Joseph, 2004), to date there has been rela-tively little work within the positivepsychology arena about how best to opera-tionalise positive psychology constructs.Further, there have been concerns that over-enthusiasm for positive psychology may leadto ideological enmeshment, and that anover-simplistic dichotomous thinking about‘the positive’ or ‘the negative’ is not helpfulor accurate (Lazarus, 2003). We need tobring the promise of a positive psychologyinto fruition (see Ryff, 2003). One way tofurther develop the emerging field of posi-tive psychology is to extend past cross-sectional or correlation work by designinginterventions which to use coaching as anexperimental framework, and this may be animportant role for coaching psychologists.

Coaching psychology is inclusivetheoretically and sophisticatedtechnicallyAlthough the links between positivepsychology and coaching psychology are



clear, coaching psychologists employ a widerange of theoretical perspectives in theirwork, not just positive psychological frame-works. These include psychodynamic andsystemic (Kilburg, 2000), developmental(Laske, 1999), cognitive-behavioural(Ducharme, 2004), solution-focused (Greene& Grant, 2003), and behavioural (Skiffington& Zeus, 2003); also see Peltier (2001) for auseful overview of a range of theoreticalapproaches to executive coaching.

The relative value and efficacy ofdifferent theoretical approaches has beendebated long and hard in the clinical litera-ture. It is generally accepted that a key factorin therapeutic outcome is the quality of theworking alliance (Horvath & Symonds,1991), and the alliance is as important as thespecific theoretical orientation employed(Howgego et al., 2003). Every theoreticalframework emphasises a different under-standing and formulation of the presentingissue, and suggests different interventions.

Rather than try to fit a specific theoreticalapproach to the client, as is frequently thecase in clinical work within the medicalmodel, coaching should be collaborative andclient-centred. For some developmentalcoaching clients who are seeking in-depthexplanations this will mean coaching basedon a psychodynamic model. For others, whoare seeking a more psycho-mechanicalapproach, a cognitive-behavioural formula-tion and intervention will be more appro-priate. Similarly, for those with a defensivepessimism personality style, an over-emphasis on aspects of positive psychologymay not be helpful (Norem & Hang, 2002).

Coaching psychology needs to be theo-retically inclusive and I believe that theprofessional coaching psychologist shouldbe able to draw on a range of theoreticalframeworks, using client-congruent, theoret-ically-grounded techniques in order to besthelp the client reach their coaching goals.Such client-centred theoretical flexibilitybrings with it significant challenges in termsof the coach’s training and personal andprofessional development.

Firstly, in order to become skilled in theuse of a specific theoretical modality, practi-tioners tend to integrate the key tenants ofthe psychological framework into theirpersonal world view, and in a sense, theypersonally embody the core facets of theirpreferred theoretical approach in their ownlived experience (Binder, 2004). Indeed, ithas been argued that integration of one’ssense of self with one’s theoretical approachis essential in order to be a truly effectivetherapist (Norcross & Halgin, 2005). Thus,for example, the psychologist trained in acognitive-behavioural approach will tend tomake sense of the world, both personallyand professionally, using cognitive-behav-ioural concepts. In order to be flexible inworking with different theoretical perspec-tives, as best suits specific coaching clients,the coach needs view the presenting issuesfrom a range of theoretical perspectives andthis may well be very challenging personally.

Secondly, coaches need to be highlyskilled in dealing with mental health issues.It has been my experience that coachingpsychology is sometimes regarded somewhatdisdainfully by some clinicians, as if it is a softversion of ‘real’ clinical psychology. In fact Iargue that the contrary is the case. Clinicalclients frequently present for therapy withspecific symptoms and an expectation oftreatment. Coaching psychologists’ clientson the other hand may not know that theyhave a mental health problem (if indeedthey do have such problems), and may farless willing to engage in a therapeutic rela-tionship (if indeed they do need treatment).The coach thus needs finely attuned diag-nostic skills, maybe even more so than theclinician, and the ability to considerpsychopathological issues whilst engaging inthe type of goal-focused fast-paced relation-ship that characterises coaching.

Thirdly, the dynamics of the coachingrelationship differ from the often overtlyhierarchical relationship that is associatedwith consulting, clinical or counselling work.Applied and therapeutic psychologists tendto work from the position of being the


Anthony M. Grant

expert who has access to a privileged knowl-edge position from which they diagnoseproblems and prescribe interventions ortreatment (Carlson & Erickson, 2001).Clearly, psychologists do have skilledexpertise and expert knowledge about thepsychology of coaching that their clients donot have, otherwise there would be littlereason for the client to employ them. Also,in addition to the expert knowledge that acoach holds about the psychology ofcoaching, it is important for coaches to havea good understanding of the clients’ issuesand context.

The issue here is about the role of expertknowledge in coaching, and how expertknowledge can be best utilised within thecoaching relationship. There are variousapproaches to the use of expert knowledgein coaching. Expert knowledge in coachingcan be understood as highly specialised ortechnical knowledge held by the coach, in anarea where the coachee has less expertisethan the coach, and where such knowledgeis related to the coachee’s goals. The notionof the ‘coach as expert advice-giver’ is some-what controversial, and there is some differ-ence of opinion as to the appropriate role ofexpert knowledge in coaching. For example,John Whitmore’s (1992) work emphasises anon-directional ask-not-tell approach, andthis stands in contrast to the more directiveapproach of Marshal Goldsmith (2000)which emphasises robust feedback andadvice-giving.

The issue is not which of theseapproaches is right and which is wrong, butrather which best helps the client reach theirgoals, and which is the most apt at particularpoints in any specific coaching conversation.In essence this issue is about striking theright balance between process facilitationand content or information delivery, and thisbalance varies at different points in theoverall coaching engagement and withinindividual coaching sessions. The skilful andexperienced coach knows when to moveacross the ask-tell dimension, and knowswhen to promote self-discovery and when to

give expert-based authoritative or specialisedinformation.

The challenge for many applied psychol-ogists is to master such flexibility in workingwith coaching clients. Coaching requires asophisticated skill set and the ability to beable to draw on expert knowledge, whilst atthe same time facilitating the self-directedlearning which lies at the core of thecoaching enterprise.

Future directions for coachingpsychologyWhat is the future for coaching psychology?It will be useful to have detailed competen-cies and practices that mark coachingpsychology from counselling, clinical andother applied psychological practices.However, this will not be an easy enterprise.Boundaries between and definition ofexisting sub-disciplines are vague as theystand (Cobb et al., 2004). Although compe-tencies and practices are useful heuristics todefine the core functions of a sub-disciple,they tell us little about the overlap betweenvarious sub-disciple practice. Perhaps moreimportant, as a future research agenda, maybe the development and validation of psycho-logically-based coaching methodologies thatare effective and engaging for non-clinicalpopulations and the emergence of specificareas of coaching psychology practice.

Although executive coaching, workplacecoaching and life coaching have received themost media coverage to date, an importantemerging trend for coaching psychologiststo be aware of is health-related coaching.Examination of the academic literature indi-cates that health coaching is emerging as thefastest growing area of coaching, and thecoaching outcome research that is publishedin the medical press (e.g. Medline) tends tobe of better quality than the outcomeresearch published in the psychology press(e.g. PsycINFO) or the business press (e.g.Business Source Premier). Much of the health-related coaching is being conducted by dieti-cians, nurses and other health professionalsrather than psychologists, yet there is a clear



role for coaching psychologists who have abackground in the health sciences. Positivepsychology will prove to be an importanttheoretical basis for many coaching psychol-ogists, and this may particularly be the casein relation to health coaching, where thefocus is on both physical and psychologicalwell-being. Of course, the development ofBPS- and APS-accredited postgraduateprogrammes, including conversion coursesfor practicing psychologists who wish to workas coaches will be important and such moveswill further develop the professionalism,credibility and reputation of coachingpsychologists.

However, perhaps the most vital factor inthe development of coaching psychology willbe that we do outstanding work with ourclients. After all, they are what this is allabout.

ConclusionCoaching psychology has the potential to bea major force for the promotion of well-being and performance enhancement forthe individual, for organisations and societyas a whole. The emergence of a sub-disci-pline of coaching psychology can makepsychology more accessible and acceptableto the public. Further, through virtue oftheir training and professionalism, psycholo-gists are ideally placed to provide coachingservices. In addition, coaching psychologycan contribute to the development of estab-lished and emerging psychologicalapproaches by providing a methodology withwhich to further develop our knowledge ofthe psychological processes involved inpurposeful change in normal, non-clinicalpopulations.

CorrespondenceAnthony M. Grant Coaching Psychology Unit,School of Psychology,University of Sydney,Australia NSW 2006.E-mail: [email protected]

Note: This article was based on Dr Grant’skeynote address at the 1st Annual Conference ofthe BPS SGCP in London, December, 2004.


Anthony M. Grant

APA (2000). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of MentalDisorders: DSM-IV-TR (4th ed.). Washington, DC:American Psychiatric Association.

Berg, I.K. & Szabo, P. (2005). Brief coaching for lastingsolutions. New York: W.W. Norton.

Berglas, S. (2002). The very real dangers of executivecoaching. Harvard Business Review (June), 87–92.

Binder, J.L. (2004). Key competencies in brief dynamicpsychotherapy: Clinical practice beyond the manual.New York: Guilford Press.

Bluckert, P. (2005). The similarities and differencesbetween coaching and therapy. Industrial &Commercial Training, 37(2), 91–96.

Carlson, T.D. & Erickson, M.J. (2001). Honouringthe privileging personal experience and know-ledge: Ideas for a narrative therapy approach tothe training and supervision of new therapists.Contemporary Family Therapy: An InternationalJournal, 23(2), 199–220.

Cavanagh, M. (2005). Mental-health issues and chal-lenging cleints in executive coaching. In M.Cavanagh, A.M. Grant & T. Kemp (Eds.),Evidence-based coaching (Vol. 1): Contributions fromthe behavioural sciences (pp.21–36). Queensland:Australian Academic Press.

Cobb, H.C., Reeve, R.E., Shealy, C.N., Norcross, J.C.,Schare, M.L., Rodolfa, E.R. et al. (2004). Overlapamong clinical, counselling, and schoolpsychology: Implications for the profession andcombined-integrated training. Journal of ClinicalPsychology, 60(9), 939–955.

Coleman, S.K. (2003). Furthering professional develop-ment: An assessment of psychologists' awareness of howthey are understood by the public. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation. University of Hartford, US.

Corporate Leadership Council. (2003). Maximisingreturns on professional executive coaching.Washington, DC: Corporate Leadership Council.

D'Abate, C.P., Eddy, E.R. & Tannenbaum, S.I. (2003).What's in a name? A literature-based approach tounderstanding mentoring, coaching, and otherconstructs that describe developmental interac-tions. Human Resource Development Review, 2(4),360–384.

de Shazer, S. (1994). Words were originally magic.New York: Norton & Co.

Ducharme, M.J. (2004). The cognitive-behaviouralapproach to executive coaching. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice & Research, 56(4),214–224.

Filippi, R. (1968). Coaching: A therapy for peoplewho do not seek help. Zeitschrift Fuer Psychotherapieund Medizinische Psychologie, 18(6), 225–229.

Fox, R.E. (1996). Charlatanism, scientism, andpsychology's social contract. 103rd AnnualConvention of the American Psychological Asso-ciation: Presidential address (1995, New York).American Psychologist, 51(8), 777–784.

Fried, S. (1994). American popular psychology: An inter-disciplinary research guide. New York: Garland.

Furedi, F. (2005). The age of unreason. The Spectator(19 November), 2–3.

Garman, A.N., Whiston, D.L. & Zlatoper, K.W.(2000). Media perceptions of executive coachingand the formal preparation of coaches.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research,52, 203–205.

Goldsmith, M. (2000). Coaching change. ExecutiveExcellence, 17(6), 4.

Grant, A.M. (2001). Grounded in science or based onhype? An analysis of Neuro-Associative Condi-tioning. Australian Psychologist, 36(3), 232–238.

Grant, A.M. & Zackon, R. (2004). Executive, work-place and life coaching: Findings from a large-scale survey of International Coach Federationmembers. International Journal of Evidence-basedCoaching and Mentoring, 2(2), 1–15.

Green, S., Oades, L.G. & Grant, A.M. (2005). An eval-uation of a life-coaching group programme:Initial findings from a waitlisted control study. In M. Cavanagh, A.M. Grant & T. Kemp (Eds.),Evidence-based coaching (Vol. 1): Theory, research andpractice from the behavioural sciences (pp.127–142).Queensland: Australian Academic Press.

Greene, J. & Grant, A.M. (2003). Solution-focusedcoaching: Managing people in a complex world.London: Momentum Press.

Horvath, A.O. & Symonds, B. (1991). Relationbetween working alliance and outcome inpsychotherapy: A meta-analysis. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(2), 139–149.

Howgego, I.M., Yellowlees, P., Owen, C., Meldrum, L.& Dark, F. (2003). The therapeutic alliance: Thekey to effective patient outcome? A descriptivereview of the evidence in community mentalhealth case management. Australian & NewZealand Journal of Psychiatry, 37(2), 169–183.

Hudson, F.M. (1999). The handbook of coaching.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Kauffman, C. & Scoular, A. (2004). Towards a positivepsychology of executive coaching. In P.A. Linley& S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice(pp.287–302). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Kilburg, R.R. (1996). Toward a conceptual under-standing and definition of executive coaching.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,48(2), 134–144.

Kilburg, R.R. (2000). Executive coaching: Developingmanagerial wisdom in a world of chaos. Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.



References

Lancaster, S. & Smith, D.I. (2002). What's in a name?The identity of clinical psychology as a specialty.Australian Psychologist 37(1), 48–51

Laske, O. E. (1999). An integrated model of devel-opmental coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal:Practice & Research, 51(3), 139–159.

Laungani, P. (1999). Danger! Psychotherapists atwork. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 12(2),117–131.

Lazarus, R.S. (2003). Does the positive psychologymovement have legs? Psychological Inquiry, 14(2),93–109.

Linley, P.A. & Harrington, S. (2005). Positivepsychology and coaching psychology: Perspec-tives on intergration. The Coaching Psychologist, 1(July), 13–14.

Linley, P.A. & Joseph, S. (2004). Positive psychology inpractice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Mace, M.L. (1950). The growth and development of exec-utives. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School,Division of Research.

Maslow, A.H. (1968). Towards a psychology of being.New York: Wiley.

Miller, G. (1969). Psychology as a means ofpromoting human welfare. American Psychologist,24, 1063–1075.

Naughton, J. (2002). The coaching boom: Is it thelong-awaited alternative to the medical model?Psychotherapy Networker, 42, July/August, 1–10.

Norcross, J.C. & Halgin, R.P. (2005). Training inpsychotherapy integration. In J.C. Norcross &M.R. Goldfried (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapyintegration (2nd ed.) (pp.439–458). New York:Oxford University Press.

Norem, J.K. & Hang, E.C. (2002). The positivepsychology of negative thinking. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 993–1001.

Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (2005). The proposal toestablish a Special Group in CoachingPsychology. The Coaching Psychologist, 1, July, 5–11.


Peterson, C. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2004). Characterstrengths and virtues. A handbook and classification.Washington, DC: American Psychological Asso-ciation.

Pyror, L. (2005). Call to end free rein for therapists.Sydney Morning Herald, 19 September, 22.

Ryff, C.D. (2003). Corners of myopia in the positivepsychology parade. Psychological Inquiry, 14(2),153–159.

Ryff, C.D. & Keyes, C.L.M. (1996). The structure ofpsychological well-being revisited. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 96(4), 719–727.

Salerno, S. (2005). Qualifications needed to be a lifecoach: er...none. [Electronic Version]. Times OnLine. Retrieved 19 December 2005 fromhttp ://www. t imesonl ine .co .uk/ar t ic le/0,,7-1726677,00.html.

Seligman, M. (2005). The corporate chill pill. New Zealand Management, 52(6), 64–66.

Seligman, M.E. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. AmericanPsychologist, 55(1), 5–14.

Sheldon, K.M. & Elliot, A.J. (1999). Goal striving,need satisfaction and longitudinal well-being:The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality& Social Psychology, 76(3), 482–497.

Sherman, S. & Freas, A. (2004). The Wild West ofexecutive coaching. Harvard Business Review,82(11), 82–90.

Skiffington, S. & Zeus, P. (2003). Behavioural coaching.Sydney: McGraw-Hill.

Snyder, C.R. & Lopez, S.J. (Eds.) (2002). Handbook ofpositive psychology. London: Oxford UniversityPress.

Snyder, C.R. & McCullough, M.E. (2000). A positivepsychology field of dreams: ‘If you build it, theywill come…’ Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology,19(1), 151–160.

Spence, G.B. & Grant, A.M. (2005). Individual andgroup life-coaching: Initial findings from arandomised, controlled trial. In M. Cavanagh,A.M. Grant & T. Kemp (Eds.), Evidence-basedCoaching (Vol. 1): Theory, research and practice fromthe behavioural sciences (pp.143–158). Queensland:Australian Academic Press.

Starker, S. (1990). Self-help books: Ubiquitous agentsof health care. Medical Psychotherapy: An Inter-national Journal, 3, 187–194.

Walker, J. (2004). Business-class coaches. BusinessReview Weekly, 1 July, 15–18.

Walter, J.L. & Peller, J.E. (1996). Rethinking ourassumptions: Assuming anew in a postmodernworld. In S.C. Miller, M.A. Hubble & B.L.Duncan (Eds.), Handbook of solution-focused brieftherapy (pp.9–27). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Webb, A.R. & Speer, J.R. (1986). Prototype of aprofession: Psychology's public image. ProfessionalPsychology: Research and Practice, 17(1), 5–9.

Whitmore, J. (1992). Coaching for performance.London: Nicholas Brealey.

Wyld, B. (2001). Expert push. Sydney Morning Herald,15 August, 4.


Anthony M. Grant

SUCCESSFUL ORGANISATIONS INthe emerging knowledge economyinnovate continually to maintain their

place in such a dynamic marketplace. But itis the individual employee who must developthe flexibility and creativity needed to effec-tively drive growth and deliver appropriateresults. They expect (and are expected) toconstantly upgrade their technical and lead-ership skills. Whilst individuals view thisprofessional development as predominantlytheir own responsibility, they look to theirorganisation to partner them in accessingand resourcing it (Lane et al., 2000). Thechallenge for the employer is how to achievethis within the constraints of efficient timeand financial resource management.

In facing this challenge organisations areturning away from the traditional traininginitiatives with the implied ethos of one sizefits all. Flexibility and speed of response areimperative and thus development hasbecome more person-centred and tailoredto the individual. In this environment it is,therefore, unsurprising that coaching hasgrown in popularity as an option to meet theemerging needs of organisations and as suchhas become widespread and well accepted.

As identified by Dr Michael Cavanagh inhis keynote address at the 2nd AnnualConference of the Special Group inCoaching Psychology at the BPS, ‘coachinghas been around too long to be a management fad.’

It is an established part of the develop-ment portfolio available to the executive.

The market is still growing and recentestimates put its size as $2bn per year. In thiscontext, it is not surprising that the questionbeing raised by buyers of coaching is ‘Does itwork?’

In other words does coaching provide areturn on its investment in driving perform-ance up and impacting on the bottom line?

We argue here that this is the wrong ques-tion.

Before we can ask whether coachingworks we must ask what it is being used for. Isall coaching addressing similar aims whichcan be quantified by a standard method or isthere a number of purposes to the coaching?If the latter, then we need to consider ifthese purposes are coherent and form partof a framework of practice for the professionor whether the aims are too disparate toformalise.

We have looked to the academic andpractitioner literatures to address this issue


Does coaching work or are we asking thewrong question?Annette Fillery-Travis & David Lane

Within the context of an expanding market for coaching in all its forms organisations are asking thequestions ‘Does coaching work?’ They seek evidence of a return on investment. We argue within this paperthat this is the wrong question. Before we can ask whether coaching works we must ask how is it being used,is a coherent framework of practice and finally is it perceived or quantified as being effective within thatframework?

We review the practitioner and academic literature as well as our own research to address each of thesequestions in turn. We posit a framework of practice based upon the coaching agenda identify by coacheeand coach within the contracting phase of the engagement. This encompasses the coaching mode and roleas well as the supervisory relationships which exist. The research literature is then considered in the contextof the framework. Keywords: coaching, evidence, review, return on investment, external, internal, manager.

as well as our own research. It is clear thatcoaching practice has evolved almost aquickly as it has grown and there are now arange of roles, coaching models and frame-works of practice. At first sight there seems tobe a diversity of practice where few estab-lished norms can be assumed.

It can be argued that such diversity is tobe welcomed, and indeed expected, ascoaches respond to the individual needs ofthe client. We would agree if we were consid-ering the process of coaching only, i.e. thenature and description of the coaching rela-tionship. But within this paper we arelooking at how coaching is being used, itspurpose, and if it is considered effective by itsclients and their sponsoring organisations.Therefore, as a review document this workdoes not fully expand upon underpinningissues such as the emergence and develop-ment of learning organisations nor does itexplicitly cite the psychology literaturewhich underpins the process of coaching.

Instead we have reviewed the academicliterature on the efficacy of coachingpublished between 1990–2004 althoughwhere there is insufficient work some refer-ences are cited from 1930s. Similarly we haveidentified the general trend of the practi-tioner publications (both articles and books)to identify the focus of practice. We will alsodraw upon our own research into the experi-ence of over 30 HR directors or buyers ofcoaching (Jarvis, Lane & Fillery-Travis, 2006).

The first point of note is that in commonwith previous reviewers (Kampa & White,2002) we have found that the evidence basefor coaching has not increased at the samerate as practice. Research into the efficacy ofcoaching has lagged behind and it has onlystarted to develop seriously over the last fiveyears. As identified by Grant (Grant, 2003)the literature is at the point of expansion inresponse to the practice development.

We have focussed our interest on thefollowing questions:1. How is coaching being used within

organisations and who is doing it?

2. Is there a coherent framework of practiceacross the identified modes of coaching?

3. Is it perceived or quantified as beingeffective?

The consideration of these questions struc-tures the rest of this paper. Within it we iden-tify the coaching agenda or purpose to be anunderpinning concept which allows us todevelop a framework of practice whichencompasses both coaching mode and role.It is against this framework that the questioncan then be asked ‘Does it work?’

1. How is coaching being used within anorganisation?The School of Coaching survey (Kubicek,2002) last year provided data on whichcoaching modes are being used withinorganisations: � 51 per cent used external coaches;� 41 per cent trained internal coaches; and � 79 per cent manager coaches. We will consider each of these in turn andalso briefly mention team coaches.

External coachesVarious surveys have been undertaken inrecent years to investigate the use of this typeof coaching within the UK; the CoachingStudy (2004) published by UCE (a survey of1153 organisations across the UK) and TheInstitute of Employment Studies (IES)report (Carter, 2001) are but two of them.Each sought to identify what coaches werebeing commissioned to do within organisa-tions. Considering this information togetherwith the journal and research literature wecan group the potential functions for anexternal coach under two main headings:1. The coaching of a senior executive to

their own agenda;2. The coaching of managers after training

to consolidate knowledge acquisition andwork with the individual to support andfacilitate resulting behaviour change inrelation to a specific organisationalagenda.


Annette Fillery-Travis & David Lane

The tasks associated with the first functionincluded; supporting the induction of asenior manager, supporting particular indi-viduals identified as high potential or astargets for extra support, and acting as a critical friend or sounding board for a seniormanager where mentors are not appropriateor practical. It is also clear that coaching isbeing seen as a reward for senior managersand part of a retention package. Indeed ithas been noted within the IES (Carter, 2001)study that the phenomenon of ‘coachingenvy’ is a reality for the members of itsresearch forum. As cited by (Hall, Otazo &Hollenbeck, 1999), ‘Executives like the confi-dentiality and personal attention: they also likewhat coaching does for their careers.’

So once coaching is introduced to acompany other executives within thecompany want a coach.

Traditionally within this first option thecoaching agenda is totally free and definedonly by the coachee. It is not evenconstrained to the work role but allowsexploration of any issues that the coacheeidentifies as interesting. In our previousstudy on the efficacy of coaching (Jarvis,Lane & Fillery-Travis, 2006) we found thatorganisations were increasingly aware of thepotential difficulties for an organisation of‘free agenda’ coaching. These include aperceived ‘lack of control’ with the potentialfor distraction of the coachee from theprimary task and also the lack of a definedreturn on investment. In addition there isthe real possibility that the coachee may be‘coached out of a job’.

Organisations react to this latter issue inone of two ways: either by acknowledgingthat the coaching is revealing a hiddenproblem thereby creating an opportunity tomanage it effectively, or by reducing thepotential for this type of crisis to occur byrestricting the agenda of the coaching at thestart of the contract.

In the latter strategy the sponsoringorganisation will seek to have a more directinvolvement in the contracting phase usuallythrough involvement with the line manager

or the HR department. Within our ownresearch HR directors were increasinglyrequiring their external coaches to undergoa familiarisation process covering thecompany’s culture and ethos and to under-take to keep within a proscribed agenda.

The issues identified within the coachingagenda will, in general, be diverse and theexternal coach can be working at a variety oflevels of engagement. Categorisation ofthese levels of engagement has been devel-oping within the literature for some time.Grant and Cavanagh (2004) identify threegeneric levels: � Skills coaching which can be of short

duration and which requires the coach tofocus on specific behaviours;

� Performance coaching which will focuson the process by which the coachee canset goals, overcome obstacles, andevaluate and monitor their performance;and finally

� Developmental coaching which takes abroader more holistic view often dealingwith more intimate, personal andprofessional questions. This can involvethe creation of a personal reflective spacerather like what they call ‘therapy for thepeople who don’t need therapy’.

Other categorisations have been also beendeveloped, for example, Witherspoon andWhite (1996) identify four distinct roles forthe coach: coaching for skills, for perform-ance, for development and for the execu-tive’s agenda. For Peterson (1996) there arethree different types: targeted, intensive andexecutive. At the present time there are nouniversally identified definitions of theseroles. But it is clear that the level of compe-tence and skill required of the coachincreases with the level of engagement andat the highest level it is generally acknow-ledged that a mastery of practice is needed.Defining what ‘mastery’ of practice means inthis context has been the work of profes-sional bodies in recent years and the inter-ested reader is referred to their websites andpublications for further information.


Does coaching work or are we asking the wrong question?

It is whilst considering these levels thatthe concepts of professional practice, i.e.specified body of knowledge, accreditation,ethical basis of practice, are brought intofocus (Garman, Whiston & Zlatoper, 2000).As Lane (2006) points out, ‘This is notproposed as an argument that only psychologistsshould coach but rather that those who work ascoaches to address complex personal and profes-sional development should adopt the hallmarks ofa profession and work to an evidence based agendarather than promote untested propriety models builton ideas drawn from sources both spurious andcredible.’

Primary to this goal is the supervision ofthe coach. The various coaching profes-sional bodies are currently developingframeworks of professionalism and accredi-tation of coaching and coaches. Central tothe majority of these is the supervision of thecoach. For example, the EuropeanMentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC)states in its code of ethics, ‘A coach/mentormust maintain a relationship with a suitablyqualified supervisor, who will regularly assesstheir competence and support their devel-opment.’ The external coach will beexpected to be under supervision but mayalso provide supervision for others. We willdeal with this in more detail later.

This free agenda coaching engagement isin stark contrast to the second option for theexecutive coach – training consolidation(Smither et al., 2003) It is now widelyaccepted that sustained behaviour changeafter training can only be achieved throughmonitoring and consolidation activitieswhich continue after the training itself. Inthe past this has been in the form of ‘followon workshops’, etc., but external coaches arenow taking a role in providing one-to-oneassessment and feedback on the learningundertaken. This is obviously limited induration, typically one or two sessions, andthere is a highly constrained agenda definedby the training event or focus, with anoutcome of facilitating behaviour change toaffect the required response. One areawhere it is highly used is in the training of

manager coaches and the supervision ofinternal coaches. We will deal with those indue course.

Manager coachesAlthough current research has focussed onthe coach as an external consultant, there isa literature dating back to the 1930s onmanager coaches (Grant, 2003). Graham,Wedman and Garvin-Kester (1993) reportedan evaluation of a coaching skills pro-gramme for 13 sales managers with a total of87 account representative reporting to them.Although this focus for research hasdeclined in the last couple of decades it isstill an active and distinct modality ofcoaching particularly given the recentemphasis on the learning organisation.Quoting again from the recent survey by theSchool of Coaching – Is coaching beingabused? (Kubicek, 2002) – ‘Most organisa-tions will say ‘yes our managers are coaching’and ‘yes we support it’.

This survey of 179 senior HR managers inthe UK during February 2002: found thatmost organisations in the sample (79 percent) were providing coaching by linemanagers to their direct reports. Middlemanagers were the most likely group ofemployees to be receiving coaching (74 percent). It was interesting that only 38 per centof organisations had an initiative in place todevelop their managers coaching skills andthese were primarily for middle managers.Most of the respondents (70 per cent) hadcoaching as part of their developmentstrategy with 40 per cent mentioningperformance measures and 37 per cent acompetency framework.

An in-depth example of the use ofmentoring and coaching within a humanresource strategy is provided by Coca-ColaFoods (Veale & Wachtel, 1996). Herecoaching is viewed in its widest descriptionwhich includes instruction and problemsolving but the cohesiveness of the approachis worth investigation.

A study by Ellinger and Bostrum (1998)has attempted to define, through a qualita-



tive critical incident study, the ways exem-plary managers facilitate their employeelearning. They describe a range of behav-iours and the interested reader is referred tothis paper as well as the range of literatureon learning organisations which can informour training and development of themanager coach.

The coaching agenda for managers isusually solely concerned with the require-ments of the organisation and is focusedexplicitly on the achievement of work goals.It does not have the open agenda commonlyused by external coaches and, it is set for themutual benefit of manager and coachee.The manager needs the output from theemployee and seeks to develop it. Theemployee needs to satisfy the requirementsof the post and needs the help and advice ofthe manager in achieving this. This mutu-ality sets the focus for the engagement andhas an impact both on the learning needsthe coaching can address and on thetraining and supervision required for thecoach.

The benefits of this coaching are clear –the coach is on- the- spot with a clear identi-fication of organisational culture and anassessment of the coaching needs of the indi-vidual. There is minimal time delay betweenidentification of need and coaching inter-vention. As one of our case studies identified‘the business environment is changing toofast so we cannot continually retraineveryone – we need to use coaching toconstantly update and upgrade’.

It is unlikely and probably unethical forthe coaching to be at the developmentallevel where disclosure of personal and inti-mate information is required. But it willcertainly address skills and probablyperformance levels. Thus the level of skilland competence required of the managercoach is significantly lower then that of theexternal coach. However, some level ofcompetence is still necessary. In the Schoolof Coaching Study (Kubicek, 2002) concernwas raised that on average the managercoaches received only three days of training

to develop their coaching skills and that 67per cent of companies had no policy/strategy/vision with regard to the use ofcoaching (a strategy was more likely thebigger the organisation). As identified byGebber (1992) the task of coaching for themanager is, ‘the most difficult one to perform andrequires the biggest paradigm shift of any newsystem.’

We should expect managers to needsupport to attain competence in this role. Itis, therefore, not surprising that, as we indi-cated previously, external coaches arecontracted to provide some of this supportand help consolidate behaviour change.Alternatively this support can also besupplied by internal coaches whom we willconsider next.

Internal coachesThe coach manager is not the only form ofinternal coach. As discussed in ‘Theemerging role of the Internal Coach’(Frisch, 2001), ‘Coaching is now seen as aninvestment in the organisation’s future. Perhapsconcurrent with this has been the emergence of theinternal coach.’

When used in the remedial role it can beargued that the external coach’s separate-ness is essential to reduce defensiveness onthe coachee’s part and allow focus on theirdevelopment. However, in the senior devel-opment role the trained colleague orinternal coach’s knowledge of the organisa-tion and immediate availability can be beneficial.

It can be argued that HR professionalshave always undertaken some coachingwithin their job descriptions but it was‘informal and normally transactional’.Internal coaches are now identified andacknowledged by their organisations andCoaching Professional Bodies. Frisch definesinternal coaching as: ‘a one-to-one develop-mental intervention supported by the organisationand provided by a colleague of those coached whois trusted to shape and deliver a program yieldingindividual professional growth’.



There are several points arising from thisdefinition1. The internal coach is outside line

management, i.e. distinct from themanager coach.

2. (S)he will not always use standardassessment as external coaches as (s)hewill already know significant backgroundinformation and have access to theresults of organisational assessment.

3. Multiply interventions are assumed – it isnot a single informal discussion but anongoing programme.

This interaction was identified as differentfrom the many other training and advice-type engagements, e.g. discussion with HR,training, etc., as these are organisationallyfocused as opposed to the individual focus ofthe internal coaching relationship. Theadvantages were seen to be the ability to seethe coachee within their role and knowledgeof the environment within which thecoachee is working. The emergence of theinternal coach can be seen as ‘a tangiblemanifestation of the learning organisation’.

We have shown previously (Jarvis et al.,2006) that the tasks associated with this roleare:� Coaching individuals where manager

coaches are not fully used;� Providers of coach training to managers;� Supervision of manager coaches

providing support and further skills asand when required;

� Specialist coaches for senior managers.The coaching agenda within this mode is stillwell focused upon organisational objectivesbut it has a broader vision to that observedwith the manager coach. There will be anelement of mutual benefit although it can beconsidered ‘indirect’ as with externalcoaching. The coaching agenda can explorethe underpinning aspects of the behaviouror change required although it will still berestricted to some extent by the organisa-tional framework. As indicated previouslysupervision of internal coaches is necessaryand is often sub contracted to externalcoaches.

2. A framework of practice?In summary, current practice, as identifiedwithin our review, can be characterised bythe agreed coaching agenda and the rolelevel employed. Coaching is practiced withinthree modes; external, internal andmanager. The breadth and freedom of thecoaching agenda will increase as indicated inFigure 1 and the coach will employ a level ofintervention appropriate to the agenda.

These, in turn, will impact upon theoutputs that are expected. For instance arestricted coaching agenda is unlikely toimpact upon the development of thecoachee at the personal level. It may,however, address very specific skill enhance-ments which can be quantified by, forexample, comparing sales figures before andafter coaching in relationship building. Simi-larly external coaching with a broad agendain which the coach is acting within a devel-opment role will address issues such aspurpose and self for the coachee. Measure-ment of the impact of the coachee’s devel-opment may be difficult to quantify.

An asideBefore we consider the efficacy of coachingthere are several points upon which wewould like to comment. From the ‘Is coaching being abused?’ survey there isalso a perception that manager coaching isgood for middle managers but not for thoseat the top. This has led to a lack of integra-tion within the corporate strategies. Withinthis survey 63 per cent used coaching atsenior manger level, 74 per cent and 69 percent at junior and middle managers level.Blackman-Sheppard (2004) argues convinc-ingly that ‘executive’ coaching should be aresource to available for all employees.There is an interesting question which hasnot been addressed within the literature asyet – Does the mode of coaching on offerdepend upon your seniority within theorganisation?

Another critical point is that coaching isnot being confined to individuals – teamcoaching has started to be the subject of



both discussion and research publications.Diedrich (2001) discusses the lessonslearned from practice and identifies anumber of principles of practice. Within hispractice he does NOT identify teamcoaching with team building or team devel-opment.

‘The coaching of a team is a process where theconsulting psychologist has an ongoing,helping relationship with both the team andthe individual executives; that is he or she hastime for the team as well as one-to-one coachingcontacts with the team members over time.Coaching a team is an iterative process for boththe team and the individual that isdevelopmentally orientated as opposed to beinga problem-centred quick fix for the team.’

Within the literature there is not completeagreement with this view and some teamcoaches positively rule out coaching of indi-vidual members except for specific tasks.Coaching at the Top (Kralj, 2001) is a casestudy of an intervention to enable acompany to redesign their organisation. Allthe interventions were kept to a systems orteam level. The authors make a case thatcoaching should be expanded to includesuch team engagements.

3. Does it work? As with all human interactions there are amultiplicity of factors which will impact onthe whether the interaction has the desiredeffect. Indeed, when considering coachingthere will even be a variety of criteria forwhat is constitutes an ‘effect’. For instance, isit sufficient that the coachee perceivescoaching to have enabled him/her toachieve an identified goal? Or does theoutput have to percolate down to thebottom-line in terms of a quantifiableperformance measure for the organisation?

To date there is only two studies preparedto quote a return on investment, i.e. identifyan impact upon the bottom-line. Both ofthese are concerned with external coaching.The most frequently cited was carried out byRight Management Consultants andpublished in the Manchester Review(McGovern et al., 2001). The quoted figurefor ROI was 5.7 in terms of ‘tangible’ orquantifiable outputs such as increasedproductivity. There is a difficulty with thisstudy in terms of reliability as it surveyed theclients of the consultancy where the authorwas based and the results were based uponthe coachee’s own estimates. However, it



Figure 1: Coaching role, agenda and supervision.

does identify how the clients perceivedcoaching had impacted upon their behav-iour and hence the perceived ROI. In partic-ular it is of note that the frequency of impactwas higher for the intangible impacts (e.g.improving relationships (77 per cent) andteam work (73 per cent)) then for thetangible impacts (e.g. productivity 53 percent) and quality (48 per cent)). The otherstudy is provided by the Philips ROI institute(Philips, 2004) quoting a figure of 2.21,however, to date this study has not beenpublished and is only available from theirwebsite.

Generally published investigations haveconcentrated on the self-reporting ofimprovement by the coachee but somestudies have looked at assessment (ofimprovement) by colleagues and reports.Several seek to quantify improvement ofperformance of the coachee’s department orteam but as we shall see these have so fardelivered only tentative results. For allstudies identified the satisfaction of thecoachee was good or high and where self-reporting was used then the coaching wasidentified as having impact on the develop-ment of the individual. Where the studiesuse quantifiable performance measures,other then multisource feedback, the effec-tiveness is less well evidenced.

For ease of reading we have classified thestudies into those addressing externalcoaching, internal coaching, managercoaching and team coaching.

External coachingThe most researched task of the externalcoach has been supporting the impact ofmulti-source feedback and promotingimprovement in performance. We willconsider three such studies.a. The only study to date which compares

the performance of coached and non-coached individuals is that by Smither,London et al. (2003). They also gobeyond self reporting of improvementand compare 360 degree feedback pre-and post-intervention. The advantages of

360 degree feedback are well establishedin that it provides information on howthe coachee is perceived by others; onwhat should be improved and obtainsthese ratings from a variety of groups.However, as Smither et al. (2003) identify,there can be major problems in workingwith this information; there can be anoverwhelming amount of information,the difference between self and others’ratings can be difficult to reconcile andthere is often a need for guidance andhelp to figure out next step. Locke andLathan (1990) have shown that feedbackalone is not the cause of behaviourchange, it is the goals that people set inresponse to feedback which promoteschange. The question asked by this studywas: Could coaching facilitate this goalsetting with appropriate follow-throughand hence enhanced performance?

The subjects of the study were 1361senior managers in a global corporationwho received multi-source feedback inautumn 1999. After feedback, 404 of themanagers received coaching (five toseven hours covering review of feedbackwithin two to three individual sessions)and then responded to a brief onlinequestionnaire. In the autumn of 2000another multi-source feedback pro-gramme was carried out in which 88.3per cent of managers from the initialsurvey received feedback. In July 2002 abrief survey was carried out in whichraters evaluated the progress of themanager towards the goals set by themanager himself, based on the initialfeedback.

Managers who worked with a coachwere more likely to set specific (ratherthan vague) goals (d=0.16) and to solicitideas for improvement from theirsupervisors (d=0.36). They had a higherperformance improvement in terms ofdirect report and supervisor ratings,however, the effect size (d=0.17) wassmall.

It should be noted that the multi-



source feedback was being used withinthe appraisal system in a highaccountability culture, e.g. salary andresources were all linked to the results sothe effect of the coach might be maskedby this driver for change. Also this was avery short intervention with 55 per centof the managers having three or moreconversations, 29.4 per cent having twoand 15.6 per cent having just one.

b. On a similar vein Thatch (2002) alsoinvestigated the quantitative impact ofcoaching and 360 degree feedback onthe leadership effectiveness of 281executives within a single company.Within the first phase of the research apilot programme with 57 executives wasrun in which the coaching concentratedon one to three development actionsarising from a 360 degree assessment.After feedback from participants of phaseone the programme was launched inphase two with 168 executives over oneyear. The participants received fourcoaching sessions in all before a mini 360degree and participant survey. This wasrun the next year in phase three for afurther 113 participants. There was nochoice of coach and the duration ofcoaching was short although it was notedmany paid for further sessions from theirown funds. However, the 360 degree wasnot linked to appraisal and hence theimpact of the coaching interventionshould have been more clearly defined.Unfortunately no comparison was madewith non-coached executives.

The overall percentage increase inleadership effectiveness was 55 per centin phase two and 60 per cent in phasethree. The coaching impact was alsoassessed through the average number oftimes met with coach (3.6) and it wasnoted that there was a trend towardshigher contacts giving higher scores.From the qualitative feedback from theparticipants the factor of greatest impactwas the relationships with the coachthemselves with the 360 degree feedback

as the factor of second importance. c. On a smaller scale but with a similar

remit Luthans and Peterson (2003) againused multi-source assessment inconjunction with coaching. Theyidentified that there is usually adiscrepancy between the self-rating andthat of others. This is lessened byincreasing the self-awareness of thecoachee. Their proposition was that 360degree programmes should not seek todeal with this by lowering self-rating butby raising performance to the level of theinitial self-rating.

The authors conducted a studyinvolving all 20 managers in a small firmto determine how effective coaching wasat facilitating this improvement. At thestart of the study, and again three monthslater, 360 degree ratings were collected.After the initial assessment the managerswere met for a coaching session toanalyse the results. All managers met thesame coach and followed the sameprocess. The feedback was confidential tothe client and the coaching wasdevelopmental not assessmentorientated. The process was structuredaround: what are the discrepancies, whythey were present; what can be done;with the final part of the sessionconcentrating on the responsibility of theindividual to make the changes. Follow-up checks were then carried outrandomly and qualitative data collectedon whether the coachees had made thechanges discussed.

Given the short time-scale of the studyand the short duration of the coaching itis perhaps surprising that the initialdiscrepancy between self- and othersrating was eliminated in all three factorstested, i.e. behavioural competency,interpersonal competency and personalresponsibility. The reduction indiscrepancy was brought about throughthe elevation of the others rating not thereduction in the coachee’s ratings. Therewas an improvement in both the



managers and their employees workattitudes with a significant increase in jobsatisfaction with the work itself,supervision and co-workers. Organisa-tional commitment also increased.

Thus it is suggested that coaching has apart to play in getting the most fromfeedback to obtain benefits such as positiveattitude to work and reduced turnover.The authors also found evidence of animprovement in organisational perfor-mance, e.g. in sales figures (seasonallyadjusted) following coaching andfeedback. However, as they are systemslevel indicators they were not deemedsufficiently controlled to link directly withthe individual coaching intervention.

Other studies have concentrated upon theperception of impact by clients after acoaching programme. Generally groups ofclients are surveyed after completion of thecoaching programme. In general these haveprovided a universally positive response fromthe clients and researchers have sought todissect the positive impact into itsconstituent parts by asking ‘what worked?’These have been less successful and indicatealternative research designs will be necessaryto go beyond the first order question.a. A study which didn’t include multi-

source feedback was conducted byHarder & Company CommunityResearch in the US (2003). In this design24 executives from various organisationswere coached for 40 hours over 13months and three peer round-tableevents were also included for the sharingof experience and support. Theexecutive were given a choice of coachfrom a pool of 12 coaches recruited fortheir diversity of background andinterest. The coachees had less then fouryears’ experience at the executive levelbut no prior experience of coaching.

A learning contract was drawn up forall coachees and the research design wasa survey (before, middle and end), semi-structure interviews (over phone for 20)and case studies of five. At the end of the

study the overall satisfaction of thecoachees was 4.6 on a scale of 5. Onepoint of note was that significant changewas apparent at six months but this rateof improvement was not sustained at 12months.

b. A doctoral thesis from the US (Dawdy,2004) provides a comparative designexploring the perceived effectiveness ofcoaching and methods. The design of thestudy was to identify whether ‘one size fitsall’. Does executive coaching suiteveryone? The criterion used to groupthe executives was personality type.

Sixty-two participants took part in thestudy, all from a large engineering firm.They were all white males between 40and 50 years of age. They hadparticipated in a coaching programmefor at least six months and completed it.The coaching was provided by a singlefirm using the in-house frameworkalthough little detail is given. A survey ofthe participants was conducted and 90per cent of them considered coaching tobe effective. Ninety-one per cent thoughtit was valuable to their relationshipsoutside work whilst 75 per cent thought itwas valuable to their relationships withinwork. On the question of whether it hadfacilitated behaviour change on a scale 1not met to 7 met far beyond expectationsthe mean was 4.34 SE0.15. There was noeffect of personality type.

There was no significant difference inperception of the success of variouscoaching tools, e.g. interviews, feedback,etc., although 88 per cent of those whohad experience 360 degree rated it aspositive or neutral. A similar result wasfound for communication with the coach(82 per cent agreed), acquiring newskills (74 per cent) and coach’sencouragement (87 per cent). Thus thisstudy agrees with the norm – people liketo be coached and people perceive thatthey have changed behaviours as a result.But it goes not further.

c. Another thesis from the US (Dingman,



2004) asked the question ‘How does theextent and quality of participation in anexecutive coaching experience affectlevels of self-efficacy and job-relatedattitudes in job satisfaction, organisa-tional commitment and the conflictbetween work and family?’

The design used sought to identifythe quality of the coaching experiencedfor each individual, i.e. whether genericelements of the coaching process hadbeen implemented and the perception ofthe coaching relationship. These werethen related to the change in self efficacyand job related attitudes of the coachee.The assumption implicit in the work isthat positive job-related attitudescorrelate with high job performance andthus job-related attitudes indicative ofmore quantifiable outputs, e.g. specificmeasure of tasks completed.

The author had chosen to takeinvestigation of the relationship betweencoach and coachee a stage further andask the executive to rate their coach interms of three specific behaviours whichillustrate their relation, i.e. interpersonalskills, communication style andinstrumental support.

All coachees were coached using thesame programme to control somevariables but this does restrict thegenerality of the results. The authorlooked at the evidence for executivecoaching efficacy at each point usingKirkpatrick’s (1983) training evaluationcriteria.

The research instrument was an on-line survey distributed to the clients ofone coaching centre. Response rate was52 per cent, 82 per cent of clients weremale with an average age was 42. A number of coaches were used with 53per cent of them having a postgraduatedegree.

The hypotheses tested were that therewas a significant relationship between thecoaching process/quality and jobsatisfaction and self-efficacy. The quality

of the relationship was positive for self-efficacy but negative for job satisfaction.This may have been because theexecutives were being coached out oftheir jobs or alternatively there may besome aspect of relationship which wasnot tested and hence skewed results.

The author goes further in theanalysis and identifies that the processand quality of coaching impact on self-efficacy of the coachee and mediate jobrelated attitudes.

There was no support for therelationship between coaching andlife/work conflict or organisationalcommitment but we are not given anyinformation as to whether these areconsidered within the particularcoaching model used.

d. A very extensively cited study concerns theuse of a specific tool within a coachingcontext (Foster & Lendl, 1996). Eyemovement desensitisation and repro-cessing (EMDR) was integrated into anexecutive coaching programme and fourcase studies are reported. Participantsreceived one to 10 hours of coaching inwhich EMDR was used to desensitise anupsetting event which was standing in theway of the coachee’s performance. Theintervention was successful in all cases andeach coachee progressed well towards theiridentified goals. However, the study teststhe use of EMDR within a coaching contextand not the coaching interaction itself.

Internal coachingThe first reported attempt at examiningeffects of coaching in a public sector munic-ipal agency was undertaken by Olivero, Baneand Kopelman (1997). Although theydescribe the mode of coaching used as exec-utive coaching, within the definitions we areusing here their study investigated the effec-tiveness of internal coaching.

Their interest was in the effectiveness ofusing coaching as a means to translatetraining into behaviour change. It is knownthat two of the most dominant factors which



influenced this process are the opportunityfor practice and constructive feedback(Anderson & Wexley, 1983). They used anaction research methodology to determine ifcoaching could provide this support. Thirty-one managers underwent a conventionalmanagerial training programme. Then eightof the managers underwent a coach trainingprogramme and coached their peers, everyweek for two months, as they undertook areal life project. A knowledge inventory wascompleted before and after the workshop.

The productivity of each of the managerswas measured after training and aftercoaching. The measures chosen were appro-priate to the specific work of the manager,were quantifiably and of benefit to theorganisation. The result was a 22.4 per centincrease in productivity after the manage-ment training but an 88 per cent increaseafter coaching.

Although these figures seem clear cut,there are a number of issues which have tobe born in mind. By their very nature theprojects undertaken whilst the managerswere being coached would also havecontributed to enhanced productivity. It isalso unclear whether the intervention wascoaching or action research facilitation. Theauthors themselves are clear that this studydesign cannot address all the issues but theoutput does provide scare information onhow coaching can affect the bottom line.

Manager coachA rare study looking at effectiveness ofleaders as coaches and the performance ofteams was conducted in 2001 (Wageman,2001). The basis of the study was the genera-tion of self-managing teams. It is suggestedthat the principal reason for their failure is alack of motivation and the inability of themanager to create the right conditions forthem to thrive.

In this field study of the company Xeroxtwo factors are investigated: the design of theteam and the coaching by the manager.Thirty-four teams of between three to ninemembers were used, split between consistent

high performers and consistently poorperformers (18 superb teams and 15 poorteams). Multiple measures of team designand manager coaching were identifiedthrough structured interviews and a survey ofthe participants. These were then used toassess the teams. Quantitative measures ofperformance were obtained from the organi-sation and these related to bottom line quan-tities such as response rate, parts expenses,machine reliability, etc. The data analysis wasrigorous and large effects were seen.

The hypothesis that well-designed teamsexhibit more self-management and are moreeffective then teams with design flaws wassupported as expected. The hypothesis thatwell coached teams exhibit more self-management but NOT higher task perform-ance was also supported.

There was a negative coaching aspect anda positive coaching aspect. Negative aspectswere for behaviours such as identifying teamproblems and task intervention whilst posi-tive was providing cues, informal rewards,and problem-solving consultancy. There wasno support for the hypothesis that coachingalone influenced the bottom line factors.The hypothesis that coaching and designinteracted positively was supported for self-management but not for performance orsatisfaction. Overall positive coachingworked best for well designed teams andnegative coaching impacted more on poorlydesigned teams.

Graham et al. (1993) identified thattraining could develop manager coachingskills, at least within a sales environment,through a study of 87 account representa-tives who worked for 13 sales managers.Seventy per cent of account representativesindicated that they had observed a positivechange in their managers. This was mostshown by those who had worked for theirmanagers for two years whereas for lesser ormore time with the same boss thepercentage decreased.

Summary3. Does coaching work?



In all the studies undertaken, investigatingwhatever mode of coaching, the conclusionwas the same – everyone likes to be coachedand perceives that it impacts positively upontheir effectiveness. Thus, to the first orderthe answer is ‘Yes it does’.

But, if we consider the question withinthe context of our suggested framework ofpractice, we can start to develop a morestructured and useful answer particularly interms of ROI.

For external or executive coaching wherethe coaching agenda is broad and, by defini-tion, unconstrained then the identifiedoutputs will be of both direct and indirectimpact to the bottom-line. This is well illus-trated within the two studies specificallyaimed at producing a ROI. Both of thesestudies identified that the outputs of thecoaching would have ‘tangible’ and ‘intan-gible’ elements. Tangible elements such asproductivity and sales figures are relativelyeasy to measure and correct for externalfactors. The ‘intangible’ elements such asleadership or relationship handling can beidentified and even quantified but their rela-tive impact upon the bottom-line must, bydefinition, be considered on an individualbasis. Any study seeking to address this mustspecifically design in this issue at the start ofthe investigation.

To date studies of external coaching haveconcentrated on quantifying the ‘intangi-bles’ and assuming these will impactfavourably upon the bottom-line. Theimprovement in coachee behaviours, etc.post-coaching was consistent across allstudies, whether the coachees self-reportedor the quantification was through 360degree feedback.

If we now consider the more restrictedand organisationally focussed coaching

agenda found with internal and managercoaching then the research studies are, bydefinition, more closely focussed on‘tangible’, bottom-line outputs. The study byOlivero et al. (1997) is of particular note.The design used productivity as the factor tobe measured before and after coaching andthis was also the case with the study at Xerox.Both of these studies show significantimprovement in bottom-line measures afterthe coaching intervention.

It is clear from this analysis that when weask ‘Does coaching work?’ we must first iden-tify where within the framework of practicethe coaching is actually placed, howconstrained is the coaching agenda andwhether a tangible or intangible output isbeing sought. Only then can we identify ifthe evidence is available to answer the ques-tion as posed.

CorrespondenceAnnette Fillery-Travis and David LaneProfessional Development Foundation,21 Limehouse Cut,46 Morris Road,London, E14 6NQ, UK.E-mail:[email protected]@pdf.net



Anderson, J.P. & Wexley, A. (1983). Application-based management development: a method topromote practical application of managerial andsupervisory training. Personnel Administrator, 28,39–43.

Blackman-Sheppard, G. (2004). Executive coaching.Industrial and Commercial Training, 36, 5–8(4).

Carter, A. (2001). Executive coaching: Inspiring perform-ance at work (Vol. Report 379). London: The Insti-tute for Employment Studies.

Dawdy, G.N. (2004). Executive coaching: A comparativedesign exploring the percieved effectiveness of coachingand methods. Unpublished Doctorate, School ofEducation, Capella University.

Diedrich, R.C. (2001). Lessons learned in – andguidelines for – coaching executive teams.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,53, 238–239.

Dingman, M.E. (2004). The effects of executive coachingon job-related attitudes. School of LeadershipDevelopment, Regent University.

Ellinger, A. & Bostrom, R. (1998). Managerialcoaching behaviours in learning organisations.Journal of Management Development, 18.

Foster, S. & Lendl, J. (1996). Eye movement desensi-tisation and reprocessing: Four case studies of anew tool for executive coaching and restoringemployee performance after setbacks. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48,155–161.

Frisch, M.H. (2001). The emerging role of theinternal coach. Consulting Psychology Journal:Practice and Research, 53, 240–250.

Garman, A.N., Whiston, D.L. & Zlatoper, K.W.(2000). Media perceptions of executive coachingand the formal preparation of coaches.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,52, 201–205.

Geber, B. (1992). From manager into coach.Training, 29, 25–31.

Graham, S., Wedman, J.F. & Garvin-Kester, B. (1993).Manager coaching skills: Development and appli-cation. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6, 2–13.

Grant, A.M. (2003). Keeping up with the cheeseagain! Research as a foundation for professionalcoaching of the future. International Coach Federa-tion Conference Symposium on Research and Coaching,1–26.

Grant, A.M. & Cavanagh, M. (2004). Toward a profes-sion of coaching: Sixty-five years of progress andchallenges for the future. International Journal ofEvidence-Based Coaching and Mentoring, 2, 7–21.

Hall, D.T., Otazo, K.L. & Hollenbeck, G.P. (1999).Behind closed doors: What really happens inexecutive coaching. Organizational Dynamics, 27,39–53.

Jarvis, J., Lane, D. & Fillery-Travis, A. (2006). Doescoaching work? London: CIPD.

Kampa, S. & White, R.P. (2002). The effectiveness ofexecutive coaching: What we know and what westill need to know. In R.L. Lowman (Ed.), TheCalifornia School of Organisational Studies: Handbookof organisational consulting psychology: A comprehen-sive guide to theory, skills, and techniques(pp.139–158). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Kralj, M.M. (2001). Coaching at the top: Assisting achief executive and his team. Consulting PsychologyJournal: Practice and Research, 53, 108–116.

Kubicek, M. (2002). Is coaching being abused?Training, May, 12–14.

Lane, D., Puri, A., Cleverly, P., Wylie, R. & Rajan, A.(2000). Employability: Bridging the gap between rhet-oric and reality. London: Professional Develop-ment Foundation.

Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goalsetting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Luthans, F. & Peterson, S.J. (2003). 360 degree feed-back with systematic coaching: Empirical analysissuggests a winning combination. Human ResourceManagement, 42, 243–256.

McGovern, J., Lindemann, M., Vergara, M., Murphy,S., Barker, L. & Warrenfeltz, R. (2001).Maximising the impact of executive coaching.Manchester Review, 6, 1–9.

Olivero, G., Bane, K. & Kopelman, R.E. (1997). Exec-utive coaching as a transfer of training tool:Effects on productivity in a public agency. PublicPersonnel Management, 26, 461–469.

Peterson, D.B. (1996). Executive coaching at work:The art of one-on-one change. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48, 78–86.

Philips (2004).http://www.roiinstitute.net/websites/ROIInstitute/ROIInstitute/.ROI Institute.

Research, H.C.C. (2003). Executive Coaching Project:Evaluation of findings.

Smither, J.W., London, M., Flautt, R., Vargas, Y. &Kucine, I. (2003). Can working with an executivecoach improve multi-source feedback ratingsover time? A quasi-experimental field study.Personnel Psychology, 56, 23.

Thach, E.C. (2002). The impact of executivecoaching and 360 degree feedback on leadershipeffectiveness. Leadership and Organization Develop-ment Journal, 23, 205–214 (210).

Veale, D. & Wachtel, J. (1996). Mentoring andcoaching as part of a human resource develop-ment strategy: An example at Coca-Cola Foods.Management Development Review, 9.

Wageman, R. (2001). How leaders foster self-managingteam effectiveness: Design choices verus hands-oncoaching. Organisation Science, 12, 559–577.

Witherspoon, R. & White, R.P. (1996). Executivecoaching: A continuum of roles. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48, 124–133.



References

‘…one cannot build on weakness. To achieveresults, one has to use all the available strengths…These strengths are the true opportunities’(Drucker, 1967, p.60).

WRITTEN ALMOST 40 YEARS AGO,management guru Peter Drucker’swords might now seem to have an

almost prophetic quality. Yet it is equallydifficult to believe that – at least as far asstrengths are concerned – so relatively littlehas been achieved in the intervening fourdecades. Why could this be? One answer isthat with regard to psychological research atleast, strengths were largely defined out ofthe personality lexicon (Cawley, Martin &Johnson, 2000). A second answer is thatthere is an undeniable ‘negativity bias’(Rozin & Royzman, 2001), because theprevailing view is – and much evidenceattests – that ‘bad is stronger than good’(Baumeister et al., 2001). That is to say – incontrast to Drucker – many people believethat weakness will always undo strength. Thisleads to a third answer, that the culturalethos is that strengths take care of them-selves, but weaknesses result in risk and asso-ciated costs for organisations. On this basis,the argument follows, weaknesses need to bemanaged or they will undo our good workelsewhere. As we are so often told: ‘Work on

overcoming your weaknesses more thanmaximising your strengths’ (Smart, 1999,p.138). But does all this really hold true?

In this article, we will argue that strengthshave been neglected for too long in bothresearch and practice, yet the modern zeit-geist of coaching psychology and positivepsychology suggests they are due for arevival. We will begin by defining strengths,and examining the small amount of workthat has been dedicated to understandingstrengths to date at a broad conceptual level.We will then examine the implications of thisknowledge of strengths for coachingpsychology, showing why we believe thatstrengths represent an inner capacity thatcan be facilitated and harnessed through thecoaching relationship. We then explore theimplications of this approach for practice,and provide some early suggestions as to theapproach and practice of strengthscoaching, while also addressing some of thecriticisms that might be levelled against astrengths-based approach to coachingpsychology.

What is ‘Strength’?A traditional approach to strengths mighthave used the arm dynamometer as its assess-ment metric. The arm dynamometer was adevice for assessing the physical strength in


Strengths Coaching: A potential-guidedapproach to coaching psychologyP. Alex Linley & Susan Harrington

As unlikely as it might seem, strengths have been a much neglected topic in psychology until relativelyrecently. In this article, we provide an historical context for the study of psychological strengths before goingon to consider three approaches to understanding strengths. We locate a psychological understanding ofstrengths in the context of an assumption about human nature that is characterised by a constructivedevelopmental tendency within people, showing how this assumption is consistent with theory and researchabout psychological strengths, and how it is consistent with the theoretical approach of coaching psychology.We then begin to examine what strengths coaching might look like in practice, together with consideringsome caveats and future research directions for the strengths coaching approach.Keywords: strengths, fundamental assumptions, positive psychology.

the arm of candidates for steelwork (Arnoldet al., 1982), and is a tongue-in-cheek meansof highlighting that in this article we are notconcerned with physical strengths, but ratherwith psychological strengths.

The history of the psychology of strengthsis relatively short. In large part this is becausestrengths might be considered under therubric of personality, and when Allport(1937) proffered his seminal definition ofpersonality, he explicitly defined out ‘char-acter’ as being in the realm of ethics andphilosophy: ‘Character is personality evalu-ated, and personality is character devalu-ated. Since character is an unnecessaryconcept for psychology, the term will notappear again in this volume…’ (Allport,1937, p.52). This exclusion of characterfrom definitions of personality was decisive(Nicholson, 1998), and had the effect ofexcluding a psychology of strengths from thepersonality lexicon because ‘strengths’ wereconsidered value-laden – and hence part ofcharacter, which was of concern to ethicistsand philosophers, rather than psychologists(Cawley et al., 2000).

However, Allport notwithstanding, theconcept of strengths did appear within thebusiness literature, first with Peter Drucker(1967), as above, and subsequently throughthe vision of Donald O. Clifton of TheGallup Organization (e.g. Buckingham &Clifton, 2001; Clifton & Anderson, 2002;Clifton & Nelson, 1992). The advent of posi-tive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmi-halyi, 2000) promoted the need for a largerconceptual understanding of strengths, andled to the development of the VIA Classifica-tion of Strengths. This is a framework of 24character strengths, organised loosely undersix virtues. The 24 strengths are believed tobe universal (rank order correlations across42 different countries produced a meanSpearman’s rho=0.75; Seligman, 2005). Theywere identified through extensive literaturesearches in psychology, psychiatry, philos-ophy, and youth development; reviewinghistorical lists of strengths and virtues frommoral studies and religious works; brain-

storming with senior figures in the field; anddiscussions with numerous conferenceparticipants (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

Of course, this is not to say that strengthswere entirely excluded from the map ofpsychological research, for indeed strengthsresearch had continued for years (McCul-lough & Snyder, 2000). However, the funda-mental distinction is that strengths are nowbeing understood as pieces of a much larger,integrated picture of positive human func-tioning, rather than as isolated constructs(e.g. optimism, creativity, gratitude) beingresearched as individual fragments ofpsychological knowledge. That is to say, weare now moving towards understanding amore holistic psychology of strengths thatlocates strengths within our assumptionsabout human nature and our broader knowl-edge of human functioning, thus painting amuch fuller picture of positive psychologicalhealth.

Defining strengthThis renewed interest in the concept of‘strength’ prompts us to consider exactlywhat a ‘strength’ is. Clifton used the termtalent to refer to ‘a naturally recurringpattern of thought, feeling, or behaviourthat can be productively applied’ (Clifton &Anderson, 2002, p.6), while strength referredto ‘the ability to provide consistent, near-perfect performance in a given activity’(Clifton & Anderson, 2002, p.8). Under-stood in this way, strengths are producedthrough the refinement of talents withknowledge and skill (Clifton & Anderson,2002), and the only value-label applied to astrength is that it ‘can be productivelyapplied.’

In contrast, Peterson and Seligman(2004) adopt a more explicit virtue ethicsapproach in their definition of strengths as‘the psychological ingredients – processes ormechanisms – that define the virtues. Saidanother way, they are distinguishable routesto displaying one or another of the virtues’(Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p.13). As such,to be included as a strength within the


P. Alex Linley & Susan Harrington

Peterson and Seligman (2004) classification,a construct must facilitate the display ofvirtue, which in turn is considered to lead toa ‘good life.’ This definition of strength isimbued with a moral valence that goesbeyond the positive valence that is typicallyassociated with ‘strength.’

Building on both of these definitions,and recognising that – in our view at least –strengths need not always be morallyimbued, but should be defined in a way thatspecifies both the process and the outcomeof using a strength, in an earlier article(Linley & Harrington, 2006, p.88), wedefined a strength as ‘a natural capacity forbehaving, thinking, or feeling in a way thatallows optimal functioning and performancein the pursuit of valued outcomes.’ This defi-nition effectively broadens the potentialremit of strengths much wider, and opensthe door to the consideration of capacitiesthat may be tremendously productive, yetwhich do not carry an inherent moral value.This is arguably a more pragmatic definition,capturing the phenomena likely of interestin real world applications, such as coachingpsychology, and as such is the definition weshall use throughout this article when we talkabout ‘strengths.’

A theory of strengthsHow we think about strengths is inevitablyshaped by how we think about humannature, and how we answer the question ofwhat it means to be human. Withinpsychology – and especially therapeuticpsychology, the legacy of Freud has been the‘ghost in the machine’ that haunts much, ifnot everything, of what we do (Hubble &Miller, 2004). The unwritten view is thathuman beings cannot be trusted, and as suchshould be controlled and directed. However,just as positive psychology more generallyhas challenged us to reconsider our funda-mental assumptions (Linley & Joseph, 2004),so has strengths psychology specificallyraised this issue: ‘To break out of this weak-ness spiral and to launch the strengths revo-lution in your own organisation, you must

change your assumptions about people’(Buckingham & Clifton, 2001, p.8).

Buckingham and Clifton (2001) go on toargue that the two most prevalent assump-tions about people are: (a) that each personcan learn to be competent in almostanything; and (b) that each person’s greatestroom for achievement is in their area ofgreatest weakness. Stated like this, coachingpsychologists might disagree, and argue thatmuch of what they do is already focused onworking with people’s strengths rather thanfixing their weaknesses. If this is the case foryou, we applaud you and your work, andoffer the language, concepts and theory ofstrengths psychology as a foundation onwhich you can build and expand yourstrengths-based practice further.

However, when working as a coach inorganisations, it is also often found thatthere are multiple and conflicting agendasin organisations that do not always allow thecoach to do as much as they might wish toplay to the strengths of their coaching client.For example, consider these questions in thecontext of your coaching, while also thinkingabout the conflicts you may be facingbetween the agenda of the organisation andthe agenda of the coaching client.

Do the organisations you work withemploy you to ‘round the edges’ of yourclient, addressing the things that they aren’ttoo good at and that might be perceived tobe holding them back or costing the organi-sation in some way?

Or do the organisations you work withemploy you to sharpen and hone theiremployee’s strengths, building on the quali-ties that have already got them this far?

Do they employ you to plug the gaps inemployee’s skills and competencies, workingwith them in their ‘areas for development’(read: weaknesses)?

And if you work with individuals outsideof an organisational context, do the individ-uals you work with typically retain you to ‘fixtheir problems’ or ‘harness their strengths’?

Very often, with an organisationalcontract – and even with a coaching contract


Strengths coaching

with an individual – the implicit specificationmay be to fix weakness, because weakness isbelieved to result in risk and cost. Yet theagenda of the coaching client might often bemore concerned about how they can play totheir strengths. This is a difficult contractualdynamic, and one that might place the coachin a situation where their own aspiration is tohelp the client to play to their strengths, butthe organisational agenda (of the ultimatelypaying client) is one of weakness mitigation,risk reduction, and damage limitation –which, so the organisational mindset goes,are all best achieved by dealing with weak-ness rather than playing to strength.

An answer as to the efficacy of dealingwith weakness is often found with the benefitof organisational experience, where themost crushing question is usually this: Whatare the issues that come up each year at anemployee’s annual review – the same issuesthat were supposed to have been addressedlast year (or the year before, or the yearbefore that)? Many people recognise this asthe developmental treadmill, running everfaster but going nowhere, because, as wequoted Peter Drucker (1967, p.60) at thebeginning of this article, ‘one cannot buildon weakness.’

As coaching psychologists, however, weneed more than the rhetoric of businessbooks to convince us that our assumptionsmight need to be challenged. As such, we goon to present a theory of strengths that drawsfrom the assumptions about human natureshared by Karen Horney and Carl Rogers,that there is an innate developmentaltendency within each of us to actualise ourpotentialities, to become what we are capableof becoming – in strengths psychology parl-ance, to play to one’s strengths. We will firstoutline the key assumptions of this approachto human nature, and then demonstrate howthis approach accounts for both existingtheories – and data – about the psychology ofstrengths.

In essence, both Karen Horney and CarlRogers (among many others, including Aristotle and Carl Jung; see Joseph & Linley,

2004) argued that inherent within peopleare socially constructive forces that guidepeople towards realising their potentialities.When people’s tendency toward self-realisa-tion is allowed expression, Horney argued:‘…we become free to grow ourselves, we alsofree ourselves to love and to feel concern forother people…the ideal is the liberation andcultivation of the forces which lead to self-realisation’ (Horney, 1951, pp.15–16).Rogers also believed that human beings areorganismically motivated toward developingto their full potential, and are striving tobecome all that they can be, a directionalforce of becoming that he referred to as theactualising tendency: ‘This is the inherenttendency of the organism to develop all itscapacities in ways which serve to maintain orenhance the organism’ (Rogers, 1959,p.196). Rogers was conceptualising the actu-alising tendency as the basic drive toward thedevelopment of our capacities: ‘It is the urgewhich is evident in all organic and humanlife – to expand, extend, to becomeautonomous, develop, mature – thetendency to express and activate all thecapacities of the organism, to the extent thatsuch activation enhances the organism orthe self’ (Rogers, 1961, p.35).

The central theme that runs throughoutthese fundamental assumptions abouthuman nature is that human beings have anatural tendency to want to develop theircapacities, to exploit their natural potential,to become all that they can be. Of course, itis only too evident that this does not alwayshappen, since this directional force can bethwarted and distorted through externalinfluences that disengage us from ourselves.Organisationally, employees are continuallyencouraged to focus on and address theirweaknesses, a message that is often rein-forced via HR processes such as perform-ance appraisal and pay/reward schemes. Ingeneral, individuals are not encouraged todevelop and capitalise on their strengths andwhat they do best.

As a result, people may often find it verydifficult to actually know what their strengths



are (Hill, 2001). This being so, it is arguablya large part of coaching and coachingpsychology to strive to re-engage the indi-vidual with their natural self, to help them toidentify, value and celebrate their innercapacities and strengths, to help themunderstand why sometimes they feel ‘in theirelement’ at work, and at other times theyfeel tired, disengaged and de-motivated.Adopting a strengths approach allowspeople to engage with themselves in whatthey do best, and to begin to discover thepower within them that coaching so oftensets out to release.

It is notable that this is a central themethroughout many of the leading books in thefield. For example, Whitmore (2002, p.8)describes coaching as ‘unlocking a person’spotential to maximise their own perform-ance. It is helping them to learn rather thanteaching them.’ Gallwey (2002, p.177)describes the Inner Game approach tocoaching as ‘the art of creating an environ-ment, through conversation and a way ofbeing, that facilitates the process by which aperson can move toward desired goals in afulfilling manner.’ More importantly,perhaps, Gallwey (2002, p.215) goes on todescribe the most important lesson of theInner Game: ‘It all begins with desire’ (originalitalics). Desire is the force that motivates usto achieve, yet where does desire come from?This is where Horney and Rogers wouldargue that the tendency toward self-realisa-tion, or actualising tendency, is felt: indesire, as the force that drives us on, as anatural, self-generating ambition.

How do these assumptions about humannature – and the assumptions about peoplethat have informed some of the most influ-ential coaching models – sit with what weknow about strengths? The short answer is‘very well.’ First, consider how Clifton andAnderson (2002, p.6) present talents, whichthey believe to be the underpinning founda-tion of strengths: ‘A talent is a naturallyrecurring pattern of thought, feeling, orbehaviour that can be productively applied.A great number of talents naturally exist

within you…They are among the most realand most authentic parts of your person-hood…There is a direct connection betweenyour talents and your achievements. Yourtalents empower you. They make it possiblefor you to move to higher levels of excel-lence and to fulfil your potential.’ From thisbasis, ‘strengths are produced when talentsare refined with knowledge and skill’ (originalitalics; Clifton & Anderson, 2002, p.8).

Second, consider how Peterson andSeligman (2004) describe possible criteriafor a signature strength. They suggest,among other things, that a signaturestrength conveys a sense of ownership andauthenticity (‘this is the real me’); a sense ofyearning to act in accordance with thestrength, and a feeling of inevitability indoing so; and that there is a powerfulintrinsic motivation to use the strength(Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p.18).

Third, the definition provided by Linleyand Harrington (2006). A strength is ‘a natural capacity for behaving, thinking, orfeeling in a way that allows optimal func-tioning and performance in the pursuit ofvalued outcomes.’

In each case, there is a strong emphasison the fact that strengths are natural, theycome from within, and we are urged to usethem, develop them, and play to them by aninner, energising desire. Further, that whenwe use our strengths, we feel good aboutourselves, we are better able to achievethings, and we are working toward fulfillingour potential. Consider the definition ofcoaching psychology provided by (Palmer &Whybrow, 2005, p.7; adapted from Grant &Palmer, 2002) as being ‘for enhancing well-being and performance in personal life andwork domains underpinned by models ofcoaching grounded in established adultlearning or psychological approaches’, and itbecomes clear that a strengths-basedapproach to coaching psychology offerssignificant added value.

Playing to our strengths enhances well-being because we are doing what we naturallydo best (Park, Peterson & Seligman, 2005),


Strengths coaching

and generating feelings of autonomy, compe-tence, confidence, and self-esteem therefrom. Playing to our strengths enhancesperformance because we are going with ourown flow, rather than struggling upriveragainst the currents of our natural capacities.And most fundamentally, a strengths-basedapproach is solidly grounded in establishedlearning and psychological approaches thathave a lineage back to Aristotle, through CarlJung, Karen Horney, and Carl Rogers, to themodern coaching approaches of Whitmoreand Gallwey, integrating finally with the defi-nition of coaching psychology that nowunderpins the further development anddirection of this new discipline. As we hopeto have shown, a strengths-based approach tocoaching psychology is one that is built onfirm psychological principles which guide usin facilitating our clients to harness their ownnatural abilities in the fulfilment of theirpotential, resulting in significant benefit forindividuals, family units, organisations andsocieties. In the next section, we will givesome consideration as to what a strengthscoaching approach might look like inpractice.

Strengths coaching in practiceIs the concept of strengths coaching new? Topsychology and coaching psychology it maybe, but in athletics ‘strength coaches’ havelong been employed to help athletes assesstheir strengths and build on them, and insocial work, the strengths coaching perspec-tive has a worthy tradition (Noble, Perkins &Fatout, 2000; Saleebey, 1992). In each case,the emphasis is upon a focus on humanpotential and positive client attributes as thefoundation stones of any success. While it isrecognised that the identification andunderstanding of problems and obstaclescan be important, this is counterbalancedwith an equal, if not greater recognition thatthe identification of, and playing to, clientstrengths is the goal that should guide bothassessment and intervention.

It remains an open question as to howone might best identify strengths, especially

in light of the point above that many peoplefind it difficult to recognise their ownstrengths (Hill, 2001). There is obviously astrong argument that if strengths are charac-terised by an intrinsic yearning to use themand a feeling of inevitability in doing so, andthey are a natural part of us, that they willshine through under most circumstances.This view accords very closely with the non-directive approach of person-centredtherapy, and is that adopted by our colleagueStephen Joseph (see Joseph & Linley, inpress). Within this approach, the coach is akeen observer of the ebb and flow of thecoaching conversation, being finely attunedto the subtle nuances of language andemotion that might indicate the presence ofa strength. The coach might then choose toreflect these observations back to the client,working with them to identify and celebratethe strength, to raise the strength withintheir consciousness, and to explore, develop,refine and apply the strength.

However, this approach assumes that thecoaching conversation would provide a suit-ably conducive environment for the naturaldisplay of strengths, and that the coach isthen able to detect and identify thesestrengths. Our approach adopts what webelieve to be a more pragmatic standpoint,that is, that the coaching conversation doesnot, of necessity, always allow this to happen– and for at least one very good reason.Some strengths are contextual, beingdependent upon the context for theirdisplay, and if the coaching conversation –without being at fault – does not provide thiscontext, the strength is unlikely to shinethrough (consider, for example, the diffi-culty in identifying the emotional flexibilityof a call centre worker or the insight of a topsalesperson through a coaching conversa-tion). For these reasons, we subscribe to amore pragmatic assessment approach tostrengths, believing that strengths assess-ments can provide the context for a depthand breadth of coaching conversations thatwould not otherwise be possible – but always,we are at pains to point out, being predi-



cated on the basis that this strengths assess-ment is being driven by the client’s agenda,rather than the agenda of the coach.

If one were to adopt this pragmaticapproach to strengths assessment, there aretwo explicit strengths measures, at present,that merit consideration. The CliftonStrengthsFinder (www.strengthsfinder.com)was developed by Donald O. Clifton and hiscolleagues at The Gallup Organization.Based on more than 30 years of research, itis predicated on Clifton’s belief that ‘toproduce excellence, you must study excel-lence.’ The StrengthsFinder assesses 34themes of talent, primarily within appliedoccupational settings, and provides a feed-back report that documents one’s top fivethemes of talent, based on an ipsativescoring method that compares yourresponse to each theme of talent with yourresponse to each other theme of talent. Themeasure is atheoretical, with the 34 themeshaving been retained as those which werethe most prevalent from a larger pool ofseveral hundred themes that were identifiedthrough structured interviews with excellentperformers across different occupations,countries, and cultures (Buckingham &Clifton, 2001).

The Values-in-Action (VIA) StrengthsQuestionnaire (www.viastrengths.org) wasdeveloped by Christopher Peterson andMartin Seligman. It was one of the majorearly initiatives of the positive psychologymovement, designed to provide a classifica-tion of strength and virtue just as the Diag-nostic and Statistical Manual provides aclassification of mental disorder and disease(Peterson & Seligman, 2004). The VIA Ques-tionnaire measures 24 signature strengths,which are loosely organised under six virtues(wisdom and knowledge, courage, humanity,justice, temperance, and transcendence).The feedback reports again provide therespondent with a brief description of theirfive signature strengths, based on an ipsativescoring approach. The VIA Questionnaire isbroadly theoretically-based, having beendeveloped on the basis of extensive

academic groundwork (as described above,see also Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

Relative to existing personality assess-ment approaches, strengths assessments doarguably advance the agenda of personalityassessment – but it is still very early days, andmuch work remains to be done. Of existingpersonality assessments, those which mightbe considered most closely allied with thestrengths approach are the personality typeindicators, such as the MBTI® and the TypeDynamics Indicator (TDI). The approachtaken by type assessments of personality isvery much one that can be used to identifythe strengths of each personality type, but wewould caution again that the universe ofstrengths is much broader than could becaptured purely by an assessment of person-ality type.

Overall, though, the crux of the strengthsperspective is that it changes the nature ofthe questions one asks as a coach from beingdiagnostic and problem-focused to potential-guided and solution-focused (Linley,Harrington & Hill, 2005). Consider thefollowing examples of a strengths-basedapproach to the coaching conversation:

What are the things that you do best?How do you know when you are at yourbest?What are the key strengths and resourcesthat you can draw upon to find a solutionto this situation?Tell me about a time when you weresuccessful at doing this before….Who do you know who has done thissuccessfully? How did they do it?What do you feel is the answer that iscoming from inside you?

While, of course, the specific question isalways shaped by the client and theircontext, we hope that the above exampleswill serve to provoke a re-evaluation of thetraditional approach that one might take asa coaching psychologist, and facilitate theexploration of what a strengths-basedapproach might look like, how it works, andwhy it works. These are fundamentallyimportant questions that we are only at the


Strengths coaching

beginning of trying to answer, and there isclearly a broad research and practice agendain front of us as coaching psychologyresearchers and practitioners.

Some of the more important researchquestions may be: How do strengthscontribute to the achievement of goals?What are the effects on well-being andperformance of playing to one’s strengths?What are the effects on stress and burnout ofplaying to people’s strengths? Does playingto one’s strengths influence people’s motiva-tion? How best can we, as coaching psychol-ogists, identify and/or assess people’sstrengths? How best can we, as coachingpsychologists, adopt a strengths coachingmodel within our practice? How does astrengths coaching approach compare interms of effectiveness and efficacy with othercoaching psychology models? And is there adownside to playing to one’s strengths?

This last question provides a usefulcaveat. Some people might consider that wedo not need any help to do what we’re bestat – that it should come naturally – but whatwe do need is help to overcome our weak-nesses. For many, this is the prevailingcultural ethos laid down to managers andthe mindset adopted by many employees, asshown with the quote from Brad Smartabove. The underlying theme of thisapproach is that if we do not manage weak-ness, then it will undo the best efforts of anystrength. However, here we must be carefulto consider the nature of the weakness, andwhether it is actually integral to successfulperformance. Often, when we take a secondlook, it would be possible to redefine rolesand positions to accommodate weakness andplay to strength, so the real issue may lie inthe organisational culture and climate.

On the other hand, there may be situa-tions where there is a very real level ofminimum competence that it is necessary forone to possess. For example, if a managerunintentionally alienates his staff, emotionalintelligence training might help (Salovey,Caruso & Mayer, 2004). While the trainingwill never develop the manager into a

paragon of emotional intelligence, it mightwell do enough to limit the damage that heor she would otherwise inflict. This havingbeen achieved, he or she should then be freeto focus on what they are best at and play totheir strengths.

This is where coaching psychologists canprovide a uniquely valuable input, since as anindependent and objective sounding boardfor the client, removed from the agendas andpreconceptions that might be found withinthe organisation, the coaching psychologistcan deliver difficult feedback but within asupportive and facilitative environment. Andwhen this feedback is delivered in a way thatis potential-guided, being focused on futureachievement on the basis of past success,building on the foundations of what theclient does well and the successes that havepropelled him or her this far, then the wholenature of the coaching conversation changes.From being defensive, closed, and insular,clients become engaged, open, and recep-tive. They leave the coaching session feelingcelebrated, valued, and appreciated, with are-engaged enthusiasm, energy, and motiva-tion, being keen to get back to work, or life,and perform even better.

This should be the hallmark of goodcoaching psychology, we suggest, not leastbecause again it is premised on soundpsychological models. As Fredrickson’s workon positive emotions has shown, the experi-ence of positive emotions serves to broadenour thought-action repertoires (increasingcreativity and stimulating mental flexibility),and build cognitive resources that act asbuffers against subsequent negative events(Fredrickson, 1998; Fredrickson & Branigan,2005; Fredrickson et al., 2003), as well asbeing integral to human flourishing(Fredrickson & Losada, 2005). This beingthe case, it should arguably be the role of thecoaching psychologist to facilitate the posi-tive emotions of their clients, not leastbecause positive emotional experience hasbeen shown to predict performance success(Losada & Heaphy, 2004). We suggest thatstrengths coaching is an exemplary and



sustainable way of facilitating positiveemotion in clients through harnessing theirnatural capacities, and allowing them to domore of what they do best, predicated as it isupon an understanding of the constructivedevelopmental tendencies that we believeexist in all of us.

ConclusionIn this article we have introduced the field ofstrengths psychology, examining the smallliterature available to date and suggestinghow a psychology of strengths can be under-stood within the context of a fundamentalassumption about human nature that positsa constructive developmental tendencytoward the fulfilment of one’s capacities andthe fulfilment of one’s potentials. We haveexplored how adopting a strengths approachto coaching psychology leads to a shift in theperspective of the questions we might ask,changing them from being diagnostic andproblem-focused to potential-guided andsolution-focused. We have argued that astrengths coaching approach identifies andcapitalises on people’s natural capacities,helping them to understand where theircapacities may be and building on theresources they already have, and leads toincreased engagement, energy and motiva-tion. In turn, these create greater experi-

ences of positive emotion which research hasshown engender increased creativity, mentalflexibility, resilience, and enhancedperformance. As such, we suggest that thestrengths coaching approach is a model ofcoaching psychology, with a solid theoreticaland empirical grounding, that harnesses theinner potential of people, thereby facili-tating their optimal performance and well-being. It is yet another example of thepowerful integration of coaching psychologyand positive psychology.

CorrespondenceCorrespondence concerning this articleshould be addressed to either:P. Alex LinleySchool of Psychology,Henry Wellcome Building,University of Leicester,Lancaster Road, Leicester, LE1 9HN, UK.E-mail: [email protected] orSusan HarringtonPotenthos Ltd.,University of Warwick Science Park,Barclays Venture Centre,Sir William Lyons Road,Coventry, CV4 7EZ, UK.www.potenthos.comE-mail: [email protected]


Strengths coaching

ReferencesAllport, G.W. (1937). Personality: A psychological inter-

pretation. New York: Holt.Arnold, J.D., Rauschenberger, J.M., Soubel, W.G. &

Guion, R.M. (1982). Validation and utility of astrength test for selecting steelworkers. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 67, 588–604.

Baumeister, R.F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C. &Vohs, K.D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good.Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370.

Buckingham, M. & Clifton, D.O. (2001). Now, discoveryour strengths: How to develop your talents and those ofthe people you manage. London: Simon & Schuster.

Cawley, M.J., Martin, J.E. & Johnson, J.A. (2000). A virtues approach to personality. Personality andIndividual Differences, 28, 997–1013.

Clifton, D.O. & Anderson, E.C. (2002). Strengths-Quest: Discover and develop your strengths inacademics, career, and beyond. Washington, DC: TheGallup Organization.

Clifton, D.O. & Nelson, P. (1992). Soar with yourstrengths. New York: Dell Publishing.

Drucker, P.F. (1967). The effective executive. London:Heinemann.

Fredrickson, B.L. (1998). What good are positiveemotions? Review of General Psychology, 2, 300–319.

Fredrickson, B.L. & Branigan, C.A. (2005). Positiveemotions broaden the scope of attention andthought-action repertoires. Cognition andEmotion, 19, 313–332.

Fredrickson, B.L. & Losada, M. (2005). Positive affectand the complex dynamics of human flourishing.American Psychologist, 60, 678–686.

Fredrickson, B.L., Tugade, M.M., Waugh, C.E. &Larkin, G. (2003). What good are positiveemotions in crises? A prospective study ofresilience and emotions following the terroristattacks on the United States of September 11th,2001. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,84, 365–376.

Gallwey, T. (2002). The inner game of work: Overcomingmental obstacles for maximum performance. NewYork: Texere.

Grant, A.M. & Palmer, S. (2002, May 18). CoachingPsychology. Meeting held at the Annual Confer-ence of the Division of Counselling Psychology,British Psychological Society, Torquay, England.

Hill, J. (2001). How well do we know our strengths?Paper presented at the British PsychologicalSociety Centenary Conference (April), Glasgow,Scotland.

Horney, K. (1951). Neurosis and human growth: Thestruggle toward self-realisation. London: Routledge& Kegan Paul Ltd.

Hubble, M.A. & Miller, S.D. (2004). The client:Psychotherapy’s missing link for promoting apositive psychology. In P.A. Linley & S. Joseph(Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp.335–353).Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Joseph, S. & Linley, P.A. (in press). Positive therapy.London: Routledge.

Joseph, S. & Linley, P.A. (2004). Positive therapy: A positive psychological theory of therapeuticpractice. In P.A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp.354–368).Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Linley, P.A. & Harrington, S. (2006). Playing to yourstrengths. The Psychologist, 19, 86–89.

Linley, P.A., Harrington, S. & Hill, J.R.W. (2005).Selection and development: A new perspectiveon some old problems. Selection and DevelopmentReview, 21(5), 3–6.

Linley, P.A. & Joseph, S. (2004). Toward a theoreticalfoundation for positive psychology in practice. In P.A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positivepsychology in practice (pp.713–731). Hoboken, NJ:Wiley.

Losada, M. & Heaphy, E. (2004). The role of posi-tivity and connectivity in the performance ofbusiness teams: A non-linear dynamics model.American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 740–765.

McCullough, M.E. & Snyder, C.R. (2000). Classicalsources of human strength: Revisiting an oldhome and building a new one. Journal of Socialand Clinical Psychology, 19, 1–10.

Nicholson, I.A.M. (1998). Gordon Allport, character,and the ‘culture of personality’: 1897–1937.History of Psychology, 1, 52–68.

Noble, D.N., Perkins, K. & Fatout, M. (2000). Onbeing a strength coach: Child welfare and thestrengths model. Child and Adolescent Social WorkJournal, 17, 141–153.

Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (2005). The proposal toestablish a Special Group in CoachingPsychology. The Coaching Psychologist, 1, 5–12.

Park, N., Peterson, C. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2004).Strengths of character and well-being. Journal ofSocial and Clinical Psychology, 23, 603–619.

Peterson, C. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2004). Characterstrengths and virtues: A handbook and classification.Washington, DC: American Psychological Associ-ation.

Rogers, C.R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personalityand interpersonal relationships, as developed inthe client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.),Psychology: A study of a science, Vol. 3: Formulationsof the person and the social context (pp.184-256).New York: McGraw Hill.

Rogers, C.R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston,MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Rozin, P. & Royzman, E.B. (2001). Negativity bias,negativity dominance, and contagion. Personalityand Social Psychology Review, 5, 296–320.

Saleebey, D. (Ed.). (1992). The strengths perspective insocial work practice. New York: Longman.

Salovey, P., Caruso, D. & Mayer, J.D. (2004).Emotional intelligence in practice. In P.A. Linley& S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice(pp.447–463). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Seligman, M.E.P. (2005). Positive interventions (andother new stuff). Paper presented at the FourthInternational Positive Psychology Summit,October, Washington, DC.

Seligman, M.E.P. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Posi-tive psychology: An introduction. AmericanPsychologist, 55, 5–14.

Smart, B. (1999). Topgrading. Paramus, NJ: PrenticeHall Press.

Whitmore, Sir J. (2002). Coaching for performance(3rd ed.). London: Nicholas Brealey.



THE PROFESSION OF COACHINGpsychology provides a new professionalarena for thinking about psychological

practice and the facilitation of well-beingand optimal functioning in various lifedomains. It is in the interest of any newly-emerged professional group to demarcate itsterritory and many commentators in the newfield of coaching psychology have distin-guished the practice of coaching psychologyfrom that of clinical and counsellingpsychology. The argument that advocates ofcoaching psychology make is that whereasclinical and counselling psychologists workwith people at the lower end of the psycho-logical functioning spectrum, coachingpsychologists work with people at the higherend of the spectrum (Grant, 2001). Thus,instead of working to alleviate distress anddysfunction, coaches work to facilitate well-being and optimal functioning. But thisdistinction in practice belies a more compli-cated conceptualisation. In this paper, whichis an elaboration of a previous discussion onthis topic (Joseph, 2005), it will be arguedthat because counselling and clinicalpsychology have adopted the medical modelas their underlying meta-theory, coachingpsychology in defining itself in relation tocounselling and clinical psychology, hasinadvertently also adopted the medical

model. It will be argued that the meta-theo-retical perspective of the person-centredapproach (i.e. that people are intrinsicallymotivated towards well-being and optimalfunctioning) is more congruent with theethos of coaching psychology. Finally, thepractical implications of the person-centredmodel for coaching psychology and howthese differ to those of the medical modelwill be discussed.

Person-centred approachThe idea that we should focus on developingpotential is not a new one. In psychology, itis an idea that can be traced back to theperson-centred approach originally devel-oped by the psychologist Carl Rogers (1951,1961). But although Rogers was concernedwith the facilitation of optimal functioning,he is rarely acknowledged in the context ofcoaching because he did not use the termcoaching. Rogers adopted the term coun-selling, but he might equally well have usedthe term coaching, because in person-centred practice, the terms are interchange-able. Unlike other therapeutic approaches,person-centred practice was neverconcerned with ‘repairing’ or ‘curing’dysfunctionality, and never adopted the‘diagnostic’ stance of the medical model inwhich the therapist is the expert. This is not


Person-centred coaching psychology: A meta-theoretical perspectiveStephen Joseph

Coaching psychology provides a new professional arena for thinking about psychological practice. Manywill recognise the ethos of coaching psychology as different from the medical model and many coachingpsychologists would not recognise a description of the profession as grounded in the medical model. It willbe argued, however, that because coaching psychology has emerged in relation to other professional branchesof psychology which do adopt the medical model, it has as a consequence implicitly adopted the values ofthe medical model. The implication of the medical model is the view that we ourselves are the expert on ourclient’s life. This stands in contrast to the person-centred model view which is that our client is their ownbest expert. It will be argued that coaching psychology should reject the medical model and instead adoptthe person-centred meta-theoretical perspective.

to say that person-centred practitionersdon’t work with distressed and dysfunctionalpeople. They do, but their focus, no matterwhere the client lies on the spectrum ofpsychological functioning is to facilitate theself-determination of the client so that theycan move toward more optimal functioning.The person-centred approach is a meta-theoretical approach to working withpeople, be they in one to one settings, insmall groups, in community settings, or asapplied to social policy. It is not a set of ther-apeutic techniques but an attitude based onthe theoretical stance that people are theirown best experts (Joseph, 2003).

In brief, Carl Rogers proposed the meta-theoretical perspective that human beingshave an inherent tendency toward growth,development, and optimal functioning,which he termed the actualising tendency (see,Rogers, 1959, 1963). But these do nothappen automatically. For people to self-actualise their inherent optimal nature theyrequire the right social environment. Rogersproposed that the right social environmentwas one in which the person feels under-stood, valued, and accepted for who they are.In such an environment, Rogers reasoned,people are inclined to self-actualise in a waythat is congruent with their intrinsic actual-ising tendency, resulting in well-being andoptimal functioning. But when people don’tfeel understood, valued, or accepted for whothey are, but only feel valued for being theperson they perceive someone else wantsthem to be, then they self-actualise in a waythat is incongruent with their intrinsic actual-ising tendency, resulting in distress anddysfunction.

The person-centred meta-theoreticalperspective is an established psychologicaltradition supported by over 50 years ofresearch and theory (see, Barrett-Lennard,1998), as well as recent developments inpositive psychology (see, e.g. Joseph &Linley, 2004, 2005, in press). This assump-tion that human beings have an inherenttendency toward growth, development, andoptimal functioning provides the theoretical

foundation that it is the client and not thetherapist who knows best. This serves as theguiding principle for client-centred practice,which in essence, is simply the principledstance of respecting the self-determinationof others (B. Grant, 2004).

Applications of the person-centredapproach have been not only to therapy, butto education, parenting, group learning,conflict resolution, and peace processes (see,Barrett-Lennard, 1998), all based on the samephilosophical stance that people are theirown best experts, and have within themselvesthe potential to develop, and to grow. Whenthis inner potential is released the personmoves toward becoming more autonomousand socially constructive. These ideas havetaken root in many contexts, but often thework of Carl Rogers goes unrecognised andunacknowledged. But they are ideas whichwill be easily recognisable to coachingpsychologists (e.g. Whitmore, 1996).

What might be less familiar is that theperson-centred way of working does notmake a distinction between people in termsof their level of psychological functioning,because the process of alleviating distressand dysfunction is the same as that for facili-tating well-being and optimal functioning.Both ends of the spectrum of functioningare defined in relation to the extent to whichself-actualisation is congruent with the actu-alising tendency (Ford, 1991). When there isgreater congruence, greater well-being andmore optimal functioning results. But whenthere is less congruence, greater distress anddysfunction results (see Wilkins, 2005).

Thus, the person-centred approachoffers a genuinely positive psychologicalperspective on mental health because of itsunified and holistic focus on both the nega-tive and the positive aspects of human func-tioning (Joseph & Worsley, 2005). Coachingpsychology would be the same activityrequiring the same theoretical base, and thesame practical skills, as required for workingwith people who are distressed and dysfunc-tional. A person-centred coachingpsychology, in contrast to one underpinned


Stephen Joseph

by the medical model, would view under-standing and enhancing optimal func-tioning and the alleviation of maladaptivefunctioning as a unitary task, as opposed totwo separate tasks as is the case when viewedthrough the lens of the medical model.

The medical modelMaddux, Snyder and Lopez (2004) haveargued that the adoption of the medicalmodel in psychology can be traced back to theorigins of the discipline and the influence ofpsychoanalytic theory, and the fact that prac-titioner training typically occurred in psychi-atric hospitals and clinics, where clinicalpsychologists worked primarily as psycho-diagnosticians under the direction of psychia-trists trained in medicine and psychoanalysis.This led clinical psychologists to adopt themethods and assumptions of their psychiatristcounterparts, who were themselves trainedspecifically in the medical model.

There were three implication of this.First, psychologists began to think in termsof dichotomies between normal andabnormal behaviours, between clinical andnon-clinical problems, and between clinicalpopulations and non-clinical populations.Second, it locates human maladjustmentinside the person, rather than in theperson’s interactions with the environmentand their encounters with socioculturalvalues and social institutions. Third, itportrays people who seek help as victims ofintrapsychic and biological forces beyondtheir control, and thus leaves them as passiverecipients of an expert’s care. These threeimplications stand in contrast to the person-centred model which views well-being ascontinuous, emphasises the role of the socialenvironment, and the self-determination ofthe person.

Thus, the medical model refers to thepremise that there is discontinuity betweenpsychopathological functioning and optimalfunctioning so that understanding and alle-viating distress and dysfunction is a separatetask from facilitating well-being and optimalfunctioning. Thus, a medical model

coaching psychology would be a differentactivity requiring a different knowledge baseand different skills than required forworking with people who are distressed anddysfunctional.

Person-centred versus the medicalmodelIt should be clear from the above, that theperson-centred model and the medicalmodel are mutually exclusive. The formerviews understanding and enhancing optimalfunctioning and the alleviation of maladap-tive functioning as a unitary task. The latterviews understanding and enhancing optimalfunctioning as two separate tasks. Insofar ascoaching psychologists have viewed the alle-viation of distress and dysfunction and thefacilitation of well-being and optimal func-tioning as two separate tasks, therefore, theyhave implicitly adopted the medical model.It will be argued that coaching psychologyshould take a stance of opposition to themedical model.

The alternative is the person-centredmodel. Terms like coaching, counselling,and psychotherapy are interchangeable inperson-centred practice because they allrefer to the practice of respecting the self-determination of others. Thus it would bepossible to talk of any arena of professionalpsychology as person-centred, if it adoptedthe meta-theoretical perspective that humanbeings have an inherent tendency towardgrowth, development, and optimal func-tioning. We could equally well talk of person-centred counselling psychology orperson-centred clinical psychology. However,these arenas of professional psychology havenot adopted the person-centred model, butrather the medical model. If clinical andcounselling psychology had adopted theperson-centred meta-theory as opposed tothe medical model, there would now be noneed for coaching psychology, because clin-ical and counselling psychology wouldalready be concerned with the full spectrumof human functioning!


Person-centred coaching psychology

The fact that clinical and counsellingpsychology have chosen to ground theirpractice in the medical model as opposed tothe person-centred model does not meanthat this is also the best way for coachingpsychologists to view human nature. Indeed,the medical model in psychology is nowsubject to so much criticism (see, Albee,1998; Bentall, 2004; Maddux, 2002; Maddux,Snyder & Lopez, 2004; Sanders, 2005) that itwould seem questionable to also adopt themedical model for coaching psychology. I would argue that historically, clinicalpsychology adopted the medical model inthe first instance for reasons of securingpower and status in a professional arenadominated by psychiatry (see also, Proctor,2005). Ironically, counselling psychology hascome to adopt the medical model (albeit notto the extent of clinical psychology) becausethe professional arena when it was first devel-oping was dominated by clinical psychology.

Counselling psychology began to emergeas a distinct profession from clinicalpsychology in the late 1980s, with an explicitemphasis on the therapeutic relationshipand the full spectrum of functioning,elements largely lacking in clinicalpsychology at the time. But, over the past twodecades, counselling psychology has movedcloser towards the values of traditional clinical psychology with its emphasis onunderstanding psychological problems as ifthey were discrete medical conditionsrequiring specific treatments. Thus, coun-selling psychology has become more abouttherapeutic technique (at the expense of therelationship), and about psychopathology(at the expense of understanding the fullspectrum of human functioning). This hasbeen the result of market forces in an arenadominated by the values of clinicalpsychology. The very emergence of coachingpsychology at the beginning of the 21stcentury can in some ways be seen as theresult of the failure of counsellingpsychology to stand its ground and maintainits principles as an alternative way ofthinking to that of clinical psychology.

Vision and missionBut, times are changing and with the adventof the positive psychology movement ourfundamental meta-theoretical assumptionsare once again the topic of reflection (see,Joseph & Linley, 2004, 2005; in press; Linley& Joseph, 2004). In discussing the future forclinical psychology, Maddux et al. (2004,p.332) conclude: ‘The major change for clinical psychology, however, is not a matterof strategy and tactic, but a matter of visionand mission.’

Coaching psychology can be at the fore-front of these changes. As already indicated,how we define the territory of coachingpsychology is bound up in our meta-theoret-ical assumptions. We are now in a position totake stock of the history of psychology, thecriticisms of the medical model, and toreflect on the person-centred perspective asan alternative meta-theoretical underpin-ning for the profession of coachingpsychology.

The medical model disempowers peopleas it is the coach who is the expert, whereascoaching psychology, Palmer and Whybrow(2005) say, is ‘grounded in values that aim toempower those who use their services’ (p.8).As individual practitioners we may indeedhold true to the values of empowerment, butthe profession of coaching psychology is notyet well grounded in these values sufficiently,because it has emerged out of medicalmodel thinking applied to psychologicalpractice.

Most coaching psychologists are probablyin agreement that the medical model is notthe path they want to pursue. Various alter-native models (e.g. Greene & Grant, 2003;Whitworth, Kimsey-House & Sandahl, 1998)which embrace the idea that the coachee isan equal partner who has the answers withinthemselves have been proposed as alterna-tives to the medical model (see, Kauffman &Scoular, 2004), without always recognisingthat this is in essence the person-centredmeta-theoretical perspective, as developedby Rogers (1959).


Stephen Joseph

Implications for training and practiceBut what are the practical implications ofcoaching psychology adopting the person-centred meta-theory as opposed to themedical model? There are four key areas todiscuss: who we work with, what we train to do,what we do in practice, and who we work for.

1. Client groupWhat we call ourselves professionally deter-mines who we work with, and to that extentcoaches and therapists work with differentpopulations (Grant, 2001). But, to definethe profession in this way is to belie a morecomplicated picture and to implicitlycondone the medical model view. As alreadyemphasised, the person-centred perspectiveprovides a unitary way of working with clientsalong the spectrum of functioning. Theoret-ically, a person-centred coaching psychologyis applicable to the range of clinical andhealth care settings, constrained only by thedepth and duration of experience andtraining of the practitioner, rather than anyarbitrary discontinuity between well-beingand psychopathology.

If coaching psychology adopts the meta-theoretical perspective of person-centredtheory it may come into conflict with otherdivisions of professional psychology who viewmaladaptive functioning as their domain.But the possibility of conflict should notstand in the way of developing a theory ledprofession if the dichotomous thinking ofthe medical model is simply incorrect andunhelpful. Certainly, coaching is not aboutthe alleviation of distress and dysfunction perse, but it is about the facilitation of well-beingand optimal functioning. However, the ques-tion is whether these are in reality a unitarytask rather than two separate tasks?

Within the person-centred perspective, itdoes not matter where the person starts,coaching can be valuable to all. As Shlien, oneof the founders of person-centred psychology,said in a talk originally given in 1956:

‘…if the skills developed in psychologicalcounselling can release the constructivecapacities of malfunctioning people so

that they become healthier, this samehelp should be available to healthypeople who are less than fullyfunctioning. If we ever turn towardspositive goals of health, we will care lessabout where the person begins, andmore about how to achieve the desiredendpoint of the positive goals’ (Shlien,2003, p.26).

Depth and duration of training and experi-ence are the only issues, therefore, in deter-mining where on the spectrum ofpsychological functioning a person-centredcoaching psychologist is able to work. Thereare also other practical issues, such as theassessment of self-harm, which a competentpractitioner must be aware of. But the theo-retical principle that coaching psychology isapplicable across the spectrum of psycholog-ical functioning stands in contrast to themedical model view that coachingpsychology would only be applicable to nonclinical and relatively highly functioningpopulations.

2. TrainingThere are implications for training. Trainingprogrammes that are influenced by themedical model will emphasise the develop-ment of intellectual knowledge so that thecoach can take on the role of expert.Training programmes that are influenced byperson-centred principles will emphasise thedevelopment of the self-awareness of thecoaching psychologist and their interper-sonal and emotional literacy skills, and inlearning how to facilitate self-determinationin others. Training in person-centredpractice is very different to what mostpsychologists learn in their training. Groom(2005) in writing about how his practice hasdeveloped, says:

‘Most of my coaching time is spenttripping over myself. I can hardly wait toexplore the coachee’s issues before I amrushing in to get them ready to set goals,or to analyse their lifestyle imbalance, doa cognitive checklist or evaluate their ownself-care strategies. I am learning to slow



down…I am arguing here for a fuller,deeper kind of listening ….nowadays Ifollow more and lead less…that we bringourselves fully into the relationship’(Groom, 2005, pp.21–22).

This quote from Groom (2005) exemplifiesthe shift in thinking that comes with a moveaway from the medical model toward theperson-centred model. Training wouldinvolve learning to slow down, to listen, andto be able to follow the client’s direction andnot one’s own. This shift in emphasis doesnot exclude more traditional aspects oftraining. There are a variety of ways ofworking that may be classified as person-centred (see, Sanders, 2004). Person-centredwork does not rule out setting goals,checking strategies, and so on, but it empha-sises the client’s role in taking the lead andthe coach’s ability to follow, whereas themedical model emphasises the coach’s rolein taking the lead and the client’s ability tofollow.

3. PracticeIn terms of person-centred coachingpsychology practice, the task of the coach isto nurture a social relationship which isexperienced as authentic by the coachee andone in which they feel accepted and under-stood. But although the therapeutic processis the same as that in counselling, the factthat we have developed these differentprofessional arenas based on the medicalmodel creates difference in content. Whatterms we use will determine what clients wework with. The public understanding is thatcounselling is about looking back in life atwhat has gone wrong, whereas coaching isabout looking forward to what can go right.If we offer counselling we will get clients whowant to look back, and if we offer coachingwe will get clients who want to look forward.The task of the person-centred therapist orcoach is the same in either case, to stay withthe person and to facilitate the person’s selfdetermination. Thus, at a theoretical processlevel, the person-centred psychologist’s taskis always the same, be they employed as a

coaching, counselling, or clinical psycholo-gist, but at the practical level of content thesessions would be different, simply becauseclients will bring different material to coun-selling compared to coaching.

The person-centred approach does notprescribe techniques of practice, but allowsfor a diversity of practice methods, insofar aspractice is securely grounded in the meta-theoretical assumption that people have aninherent tendency toward growth, develop-ment, and optimal functioning, and that thistendency is facilitated by the right social envi-ronment (Rogers, 1959, 1963). Thus, theperson-centred coaching psychologist candraw on various cognitive-behavioural, multi-model, solution-focused and systems theoryapproaches (see Kauffman & Scoular, 2004).There is no prohibition of the use of tech-niques per se. What is different about theperson-centred way of working is that thetechniques become an expression of themeta-theoretical assumptions of person-centred theory rather than an expression ofthe meta-theoretical assumptions of themedical model. It is not the fact that thecoach uses a particular technique or assess-ment tool that is the issue, but how they use it.

Cognitive-behavioural psychology, forexample, offers a wealth of techniques thatcan be helpful to people in learning aboutthemselves and in exploring the relationshipbetween our thoughts and our feelings, howwe make sense of reality, and what we say toourselves which can hold us back fromachieving our goals (Neenan & Palmer,2001). But two different therapists, or twodifferent coaches, can employ the same tech-niques in very different ways, one taking thelead as expert, the other assuming that theclient is the expert and following their lead.

4. Clients’ agendaThis takes me to the final and most impor-tant implication of the person-centredmodel, and that is the question of whoseagenda the coaching psychology is workingto. In person-centred psychology, the task isalways to facilitate more optimal functioning


Stephen Joseph

in the sense that the person moves towardsgreater self-determination. Often this is atodds with the needs of the wider social envi-ronment (Joseph & Linley, 2004, 2005, inpress; Linley & Joseph, 2004). The medicalmodel with the coach as expert who takesthe lead can direct the coachee in a variety ofdirections, not all of which may be facilitativeof the client’s self-determination. It might besaid that clinical and counselling psycholo-gists have already sold themselves to theagenda of the National Health Service at theexpense of the self-determination of theirclients (Proctor, 2005). If coachingpsychology adopts the medical model it toois in danger of becoming a force for control-ling people rather than for facilitating theirself-direction.

ConclusionAt the meta-theoretical level, either we holdourselves as the expert on our client’s lifeand take the lead, or we hold our client astheir own best expert and it is they who takethe lead. As the new profession of coachingpsychology emerges it is appropriate that wereflect on the fundamental assumptions thatare shaping the direction of its development.

CorrespondenceStephen JosephDepartment of Psychology,University of Warwick,Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.Tel: +44 2476 528182Fax: +44 2476 524225E-mail: [email protected]



ReferencesAlbee, G.W. (1998). Fifty years of clinical psychology:

Selling our soul to the devil. Applied and PreventivePsychology, 7, 189–194.

Barrett-Lennard, G.T. (1998). Carl Rogers’ helpingsystem: Journey and substance. London: Sage.

Bentall, R. (2003). Madness explained: Psychosis andhuman nature. London: Allen Lane.

Ford, J.G. (1991). Rogerian self-actualisation: A clari-fication of meaning. Journal of HumanisticPsychology, 31, 101–111.

Grant, A.M. (2001). Towards a psychology of coaching.Sydney: Coaching Psychology Unit, University ofSydney.

Grant, B. (2004). The imperative of ethical justifica-tion in psychotherapy: The special case of client-centered therapy. Person-Centered and ExperientialPsychotherapies, 3, 152–165.

Greene, J. & Grant, A. (2003). Solution focusedcoaching. Essex, UK: Pearson Education.

Groom, J. (2005). Effective listening. The CoachingPsychologist, 1, 21–22.

Joseph, S. (2005). Person-centred coachingpsychology. The Coaching Psychologist, 1, 3–5.

Joseph, S. (2003). Client-centred psychotherapy: Why the client knows best. The Psychologist, 16,304–307.

Joseph, S. & Linley, P.A. (2004). Positive therapy: A positive psychological theory of therapeuticpractice. In P.A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp.354–368).Hoboken: Wiley.

Joseph, S. & Linley, P.A. (2005). Positive psycho-logical approaches to therapy. Counselling andPsychotherapy Research, 5, 5–10.

Joseph, S. & Linley, P.A. (in press). Positive therapy: A meta-theory for positive psychological practice.London: Routledge.

Joseph, S. & Worsley, R. (2005). A positive psychologyof mental health: The person-centred perspec-tive. In S. Joseph & R. Worsley, (Eds.), Person-centred psychopathology: A positive psychology of mentalhealth (pp.348-357). Ross-on-Wye: PCCS Books.

Kauffman, C. & Scoular, A. (2004). Toward a positivepsychology of executive coaching. In P.A. Linley& S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice(pp.287–302). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Linley, P.A. & Joseph, S. (2004). Toward a theoreticalfoundation for positive psychology in practice. In P.A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positivepsychology in practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Maddux, J.E. (2002). Stopping the ‘madness’: Positive psychology and the deconstruction ofthe illness ideology and the DSM. In C.R. Snyder& S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology(pp.13–25). New York: Oxford University Press.

Maddux, J.E., Snyder, C.R. & Lopez, S.J. (2004).Toward a positive clinical psychology: Decon-structing the illness ideology and constructing anideology of human strengths and potential. InP.A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychologyin practice (pp.320–334). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Neenan, M. & Palmer, S. (2001). Cognitive Behav-ioural Coaching. Stress News, 13, 15–18.

Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (2005). The proposal toestablish a special group in coaching psychology.The Coaching Psychologist, 1, 5–12.

Proctor, G. (2005). Clinical psychology and theperson-centred approach: An uncomfortable fit.In S. Joseph & R. Worsley (Eds.), Person-centredpsychopatholgy: A positive psychology of mental health(pp.276–292). Ross-on-Wye: PCCS Books.

Rogers, C.R. (1951). Client-centred therapy: It’s currentpractice, implications and theory. Boston, MA:Houghton Mifflin.

Rogers, C.R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality,and interpersonal relationships as developed inthe client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.),Psychology: A study of a science, Vol. 3: Formulationsof the person and the social context (pp.184–256).New York: McGraw-Hill.

Rogers, C.R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston,MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Rogers, C.R. (1963). The actualising tendency inrelation to ‘motives’ and to consciousness. InM.R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motiva-tion, Vol. 11 (pp.1–24). Lincoln, NE: University ofNebraska Press.

Sanders, P. (2004). The tribes of the person-centred nation:An introduction to the schools of therapy related to theperson-centred approach. Ross-on-Wye: PCCS Books.

Sanders, P. (2005). Principled and strategic opposi-tion to the medicalisation of distress and all of itsapparatus. In S. Joseph & R. Worsley (Eds.),Person-centred psychopatholgy: A positive psychology ofmental health (pp.21–42). Ross-on-Wye: PCCSBooks.

Shlien, J.M. (2003). Creativity and psychologicalhealth. In P. Sanders (Ed.), To lead an honourablelife: Invitations to think about client-centered therapyand the person-centered approach (pp.19–29). Ross-on-Wye: PCCS Books.

Whitmore, J. (1996). Coaching for performance(2nd ed.) London: Nicholas Brearley.

Whitworth, L., Kimsey-House, H. & Sandahl, P.(1998). Co-active coaching: New skills for coachingpeople toward success in work and life. Palo Alto, CA:Davies-Black Publishing.

Wilkins, P. (2005). Person-centred theory and‘mental illness’. In S. Joseph & R. Worsley (Eds.),Person-centred psychopatholgy: A positive psychology ofmental health (pp.43–59). Ross-on-Wye: PCCSBooks.


Stephen Joseph

CALL FOR PAPERSSpecial SectionPOSITIVE COACHING PSYCHOLOGY:INTEGRATING THE SCIENCE OFPOSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY WITH THE PRACTICEOF COACHING PSYCHOLOGY

In 2007, the International Coaching Psychology Review will include aspecial section, Positive Coaching Psychology: Integrating the Science ofPositive Psychology with the Practice of Coaching Psychology.Relevant topics include, but are not limited to:� Applying positive psychology principles in coaching psychology;� Strengths-based coaching psychology;� Coaching for happiness and well-being;� Performance enhancement through positive psychology;� Integrating coaching psychology and positive psychology.

All submissions will be peer-reviewed, and should follow the ‘Notes forContributors’ given in the International Coaching Psychology Review.Priority will be given to empirical reports, but theoretical papers, reviewpapers, and case studies that significantly advance our knowledge ofcoaching psychology and positive psychology are also welcome.

The deadline for submissions is 31 July, 2006. Electronic submissions areencouraged. Correspondence and submissions should be directed to theGuest Editors of the Special Section:

P. Alex Linley Carol KauffmanSchool of Psychology Harvard Medical SchoolHenry Wellcome Building 22 Mill Street, Suite 405University of Leicester Arlington, MA 02476Lancaster Road United States.Leicester, LE1 9HNUnited Kingdom.E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]


Overview

THE SPECIAL GROUP IN COACHINGPSYCHOLOGY (SGCP) came into exis-tence in October 2004 and almost

overnight became the third largestsubsystem within the British PsychologicalSociety (BPS). Once the pathway had beencleared for the BPS membership to expresstheir views there was a resounding ‘yes’ vote,the strength of which was somewhat of asurprise even to the SGCP founders.

The overwhelming interest in the area ofcoaching psychology and continued growthof the SGCP demonstrates the energy andenthusiasm of psychologists to explore andunderstand the scope of coaching psychologyand its fit within the broader applied psycho-logical as well as coaching arena.

This paper is concerned with under-standing the current profile and practice ofpsychologists working as coaches, the implica-tions of this and how coaching psychologyspecifically is being applied to maximise the

performance and well being of people in workand non work situations. There are few surveysof coaches and their practice, indeed Grantand Zackon (2004) provide a useful overviewof work done in this area to date. Even less isknown about the characteristics and views ofcoaching psychologists in particular.

We recognise that issues discussed herewill be relevant both to psychologists andnon-psychologists practising as coaches,however, we focus specifically on psycholo-gists throughout this paper.

IntroductionAs the profile of the coaching profession hasrisen, the recognition and practice ofcoaching has proliferated among psycholo-gists. However, psychologists were findingthemselves practicing as coaches in a rathermixed up and confused market place. Inrecognition of the current state of thecoaching arena, the Coaching PsychologyForum (CPF) and subsequently, the SGCP


Taking stock: A survey of CoachingPsychologists’ practices and perspectivesAlison Whybrow & Stephen Palmer

Objectives: This paper presents the findings of two surveys exploring the practices and perspectives of themembership of the Coaching Psychology Forum (CPF), the precursor to the Special Group in CoachingPsychology.Design: The study was cross-sectional in designMethod: The two surveys were conducted 12 months apart. The surveys focused on psychologists’ practiceas coaches and their views on a number of relevant issues such as required training and experience topractise as a coaching psychologist.Results: The membership of the CPF consists of psychologists with diverse applied psychologicalbackgrounds, who practice coaching in a variety of settings from a range of psychological developmentalperspectives. Issues around training and development for coaching psychologists emerged, highlighting theneed for an understanding of the underpinning competencies of the domain and how these fit with existingapplied psychological domains. Additionally, important research questions were raised.Conclusions: The outcome of the surveys highlights the diversity in practice and perspectives of themembership of the CPF and the energy and enthusiasm for the development of the profession of coachingpsychology. Keywords: coaching psychology, professional practice, supervision, continuing professionaldevelopment, British Psychological Society.

was set up with the purpose of providing aclear focus on the psychological underpin-nings of coaching and a consistent focus onquality and ethical practice.

Psychologists have been practising in thearea of maximising individual well being andperformance in work and personal lives fordecades (e.g. Parkes, 1955). Indeed, longbefore the popular concept of coaching as itis now perceived, existed. Despite this, theprofession of psychology has taken a longtime to establish itself formally within thecoaching space and recognise the need for aspecific focus on coaching psychology.

This tardiness might be understood moreeasily if psychologists believed coaching tobe something so inherent to the practice ofpsychology, to their existing repertoire ofskills, that there was no need to identify it asa separate domain of enquiry. The tremen-dous energy underpinning the formation ofthe SGCP suggests that whilst psychologistmight believe coaching to be inherent totheir role as psychologists, rather thanassuming they already have the necessaryunderstanding, psychologists are very keento explore and understand this domain.

The diversity of membership of the SGCP,the variety of psychological frameworks thatinform individual coaching practice and therange of views on professional issues suggestthat there is a lot of shared learning, explo-ration and discussion to come. This richbackground to the SGCP is brought to life inthe responses to two cross-sectional surveysthat were conducted 12 months apart of whatwas then, the CPF membership. Thesesurveys were designed to illustrate:� Which applied psychologists are working

as coaches;� What approaches are being used;� What psychologist’s expectations are

about specialist training as coaches;� What views there are around the issue of

supervision; � Where coaching psychology is being

applied; � What psychologists want in terms of

ongoing development.

MethodMembers of the CPF were invited tocomplete the surveys by general e-mail ateach iteration. A total of 90 members of theCPF participated in the survey in 2003 (T1).A similar survey was repeated 12 monthslater in 2004 (T2) when 109 members of theCPF took part. Data were collected onlineusing www.surveymonkey.com as the surveyplatform. The survey took between five and10 minutes to complete. Respondents hadthe opportunity to record their views quanti-tatively, by choosing one or more options inresponse to the questions, and/or qualita-tively, by expressing their personal perspec-tive in response to each question. Wherequestions were repeated in the two surveys,direct comparisons can be drawn betweenthe two samples. Additional data, such asmembership data was gathered from themembership records of the CPF and subse-quently the SGCP.

Results and DiscussionMembership The profile of membership has changedduring the lifetime of the CPF and the SGCP,partly as a result of development of the groupwhich is outlined in Palmer and Whybrow(this issue). The two largest groups at T1were counselling and occupational psycholo-gists, with occupational psychologists beingmuch the larger group by the T2 survey.

Once the membership of the SpecialGroup was promoted more openly across theentire BPS membership, a more diverse setof applied psychologists from across the fullrange of BPS subsystems became involved. Inaddition, a large number of psychologistswho did not belong to a specific subsystembecame part of the SGCP.

The main subgroups that comprised theSGCP in December 2004 are detailed inFigure 1. Interestingly, the largest sub groupare those psychologists with GBR status, whoas yet have not taken their formal profes-sional development to the level of CharteredPsychologist status. The reasons for theprevalence of this group of psychologists


Taking stock

could be that the SGCP provides a profes-sional home that they have not yet foundwithin an existing subsystem. Similarly, thisalso suggests that coaching psychology isarea of psychological interest and practicethat really is not covered sufficiently by anyone existing subsystem alone.

Whilst psychologists may believe thatcoaching is something they do, or should bedoing within their area of professionalpractice, it is likely that it is beingapproached very differently across thedifferent applied domains of psychology.Thus, the diversity of subsystems in the SGCPsuggests there is a great opportunity forshared learning. Indeed. exploring thesedifferent perspectives and approaches islikely to enhance psychological practicemore broadly, not just the understandingand practice of coaching psychology.

Why are psychologists members of theCPF/SGCP?In discussion, many psychologists seecoaching as a subset of their repertoire asapplied psychologists, combining coachingskills and other areas of skill and expertise intheir day to day work. This is reflected in theresponses to this particular question. Thelargest group of people who responded at T1

reported that they were members of the CPFbecause they worked part-time as a coach(48.9 per cent). This outcome was repeatedin the T2 responses shown in Figure 2.

Relatively few psychologists reportworking as a full time coach (11.1 per centT1; 11.9 per cent T2). With the further devel-opment of coaching psychology as an appliedarea of psychology, more psychologists mayhave an opportunity to work in this area on afull-time basis. This in itself will have a recip-rocal impact on the development of theprofession as psychologists’ expertise in thearea of coaching deepens and enriches thelearning and research in this area.

Reviewing the qualitative comments thatpeople provided at T1, many were membersof the CPF because they were interested indeveloping their coaching skills, networkingwith other coaches and improving theirpractice, by T2, it seems members wereconcerned with the development of theCPF/SGCP as a professional body, specificcomments included: � A desire to maintain the emphasis on the

professional development of the field ofcoaching across the UK.

� A body that works with the broadercoaching arena rather than controllingwhat non-psychologist coaches do.


Alison Whybrow & Stephen Palmer

Figure 1: Membership across BPS subsystems.800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

GBR COP

Chart

ered

CClin

CCop CE

PCF

PCH

P

GBR = Graduate basis for registration;COP = Chartered Occupational Psychologists;Chartered = Chartered Psychologists with no affiliation;CClin = Chartered Clinical Psychologists;

CCoP = Chartered Counselling Psychologists;CEP = Chartered Educational Psychologists;CFP = Chartered Forensic Psychologists;CHP = Chartered Health Psychologists.

� The integration of coaching skills andapplication as a subset of a broader roleas an applied psychologist.

� The appropriate use of the descriptorcoaching psychologist by psychologistsusing coaching skills.

The integration of coaching skills as a subsetof a broader role as an applied psychologist issupported by the fact that coaching is a parttime activity for many members of the SGCP.Together, these provide some momentum tothe idea of accrediting competencies thatspan divisional boundaries. Indeed, theongoing diversity of the SGCP will depend inpart, on maintaining the inclusive and openrelationships across BPS subsystems. Thus, itmay be that the SGCP can provide a differentmodel for the development of an appliedarea of psychology than typically exists withinthe BPS.

The shift from the CPF being seen asmore of an interest group to one which isfulfilling a role as a professional body reflectsnot only the development of the CPF, butparallel developments taking place withinthe broader coaching space. In movingforward, the SGCP would benefit fromcontinuing to ensure that it engages effec-tively as a subsystem within the BPS, and alsoas a leading professional body in the generalcoaching arena.

How well does the BPS meet members’coaching psychology needs?The overwhelming support for the develop-ment of the SGCP was assisted by a feelingamong psychologists that the BPS did notmeet their needs or interests in the area ofcoaching practice. At T1, more than 85 percent of respondents felt the BPS did notmeet their coaching needs.

Interestingly, many psychologists joinedother professional coaching bodies, such asthe Association for Coaching, and the Euro-pean Mentoring and Coaching Council as ameans of furthering their professionalinterest in coaching. Although seen as moder-ately useful in meeting psychologists’ needs inthis area, other professional bodies weredescribed as limited to the extent that theyreferenced psychological models or provideda research basis for coaching practice. Theextent to which the SGCP fills these gaps willbe useful to monitor as it develops.

Where are psychologists applyingcoaching?The growth in coaching has taken place inpersonal and work domains. In the businessarena, coaching has proliferated as organisa-tions have grasped the promise of main-taining and enhancing their competitiveadvantage through the effective develop-


Taking stock

Figure 2: Time spent working as a Coaching Psychologist (T2).50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Full-

time

Coac

h

Part-

time

Coac

h

Intere

sted i

n

Coac

hing

ment of their human capital. Specifically, thesporting analogies have resonated, with theconcept of the coach enabling the develop-ment of ‘corporate athlete’ appealing tosenior executives. The personal coach forthe board member has been widelyembraced and seen as a part of the packagefor those at senior levels.

A second development within organisa-tions is the idea of coaching skills being asubset of the line manager’s skills. Many ofthe alternatives to the Tayloristic commandcontrol model of working have continued tobe developed under the banner of coaching,potentially enabling every line manager tohave appropriate coaching skills at theirfinger tips in order to get the best out ofthemselves and those that they work with.

Developmental coaching is perhaps athird area for the practice of coaching withinbusiness, enabling coaching to be focused atassisting the development of a specific skillset within employees. Alongside the growthof coaching opportunities within business,the concept of having a personal coach hasgained credence to assist people in achievingtheir overall life goals.

The focus of coaching practice wassimilar at T1 and T2 (see Figures 4 & 5).Slight differences in the profiles may reflectthe fact that further variations of coachingfocus were included in the survey at T2.

Given the growth in coaching opportuni-ties, it is not surprising that most respon-dents at T1 describe themselves as workingin more business related fields such as exec-utive, leadership, team, business, and careercoaching, with fewer describing themselvesas working in personal/life, health andsports domains (see Figures 4 & 5).

The coaching practice reflected in bothprofiles may reflect the composition ofrespondents at the time, the majority ofwhom were occupational psychologists, andtherefore may reasonably be expected to befocusing their coaching practice within thebusiness arena.

The profile may also reflect the fact thatmany different ‘types’ of psychologist arepracticing within organisations, and that theprofessional subdivisions within the BPSmerely reflect the professional training andnot necessarily the area of professionalpractice of many psychologists.

This seems an appropriate point to raisetwo particular questions. First, what is theboundary between coaching and otherforms of applied psychology such as coun-selling or occupational psychology?

In any coaching relationship theboundary between ‘coaching’ and ‘coun-selling’ is a potential issue, where practi-tioners are working in the personal and lifecoaching domains, this becomes more



Figure 3: BPS meets members’ needs (T2).45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Comple

tely

Mostly

Modera

tely

Somew

hat

Not at

all

apparent. Interestingly, reviewing respon-dent’s qualitative responses people useddescriptors such as ‘relationship coach’ and‘rehabilitation coach’ among others. Whentherefore, does coaching become coun-selling, and indeed, when does counsellingbecome coaching? Is this a useful distinctionto make?

It appears that the boundary of thecoaching/counselling skill set is not clear, asthe skill sets across the different appliedareas of psychology are not clearly differenti-ated. A useful concept is competence towork with a particular presenting issue or setof issues, when is it more appropriate to be‘coached’, when is it more appropriate to be‘counselled’ and when and how do psychol-ogists refer to other more appropriatelyqualified colleagues? (Summerfield, 2002)

Given the predominance of coachingpractice in organisational settings, a similarargument may arise regarding occupationaland coaching psychology domains. Greaterunderstanding between psychologists of theareas of competence across the domain ofapplied psychology would be useful.

Second, how do the coaching skills useddiffer across the range of coaching contextsindicated in Figures 4 and 5? What is thecompetence required to work as an execu-tive coaching psychologist compared to ahealth coaching psychologist? Is there in factany qualitative difference between psycholo-gists working in these different areas?

It is likely that there are more similaritiesthan differences between coaching psycholo-gists working in difference contexts, butimportantly, small differences between the


Taking stock

Figure 5: Focus of coaching psychology practice (T2).

Figure 4: Focus of coaching psychology practice (T1).

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Busin

ess

Caree

r

Exec

utive

Lead

ership

Perfo

rman

ce

Perso

nal

Stres

s

manag

emen

tTe

am Life

Mento

ring

Coac

hing f

or

Exce

llenc

eSp

orts

Health

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Exec

utive

Perso

nal li

fe

Busin

ess

Perfo

rman

ce

Lead

ership

Caree

rTe

am

Mento

ring

Health

Spor

ts

application of skills and competence aregoing to be significant in terms of individualimpact. Similarly, tools and techniques mayvary between the contexts as each area startsto develop its own a subset of expertise andexperience.

This variety in focus of coachingpsychology underlines the need forcontinued dialogue and shared learningopportunities whether through conferences,workshops and publications.

What psychological frameworks andapproaches are used?The profession of psychology brings with it alarge number of developmental frameworksthat attempt to explain how and why humansbehave as they do. From work by Peltier(2001) we see that a good range of psycho-logical therapeutic frameworks are beingadapted for application in the coachingcontext. Which of these frameworks arepsychologists using in the coachingpsychology arena? The responses from ourmembers are given in Figures 6 to 9 below.

At T1 the majority of respondentsdescribed themselves as using a facilitativeapproach to their practice, within a Cogni-tive, Behavioural and/or Solution Focusedframework. Many other diverse frameworkswere also being used by coaching psycholo-gists, including Psychodynamic, RationalEmotive Behavioural Coaching, Humanisticand Transactional among others.

The qualitative comments revealed afurther rich seam of approaches notcaptured here, including Existential/Gestalt, Personal Construct Psychology, andPositive Psychology

The range of frameworks applied goesfrom behavioural, cognitive behavioural,transactional to psychodynamic, gestalt, andrational emotive behavioural approaches.

At T2, a similar diverse range of psycho-logical frameworks were being applied bycoaching psychologists. Some additionalapproaches were emerging in the ‘other’responses such as Motivational Interviewing,Psychosynthesis and Hypnosis.

It is interesting to consider why the mostpopular frameworks that psychologists areusing in their coaching work are CognitiveBehavioural, Person-Centred and Solutionor Goal Focused.

It could be because these approaches aremore effective at generating positiveoutcomes for coaches. To date there is verylimited research that has looked at the effec-tiveness of different coaching approaches(Grant, 2001a). Much is inconclusive.However, there is some specific evidence forthe effectiveness of Cognitive Behaviouraltechniques.

A second reason is that the use ofdifferent psychological frameworks may bemore to do with familiarity and expertiserather than the demonstrated utility of suchframeworks.



70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Facil

itatio

n

Instru

ction

al

Cogn

itive

Beha

viour

al

Solut

ion Fo

cused

Eclec

tic

Human

istic

REBC

Integ

rative

Proble

mFo

cused NLP

Figure 6: Approaches used (T1).


Taking stock

Facil

itatio

n

Instru

ction

al

Cogn

itive

Beha

viour

al

Goal F

ocus

ed

Solut

ion Fo

cused

Perso

n Cen

tred

Eclec

tic

Proble

mFo

cused

Human

istic

NLP

Figure 8: Approaches used (T2).

Figure 7: More approaches used (T1).70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Action

Multim

odal

Inner

Game

Psyc

hody

namic

Trans

form

ation

al

Trans

actio

nal

Trans

perso

nal

Other

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Trans

form

ation

al

Trans

actio

nal

Integ

rative

Psyc

hody

namic

Ratio

nal E

motive

Beha

viour

al

Inner

Game

Multim

odal

Trans

perso

nal

Action

Other

Figure 9: More approaches used (T2).70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0



Maybe coaching psychologists havelimited access to the required knowledge ofa broader set of developmental frameworksand how these might usefully be appliedwithin the coaching space.

Further, people may be working withthese approaches differently. Are theyapplying them in a ‘pure’ sense, orcombining frameworks to create their owncoaching model?

Research in to the effectiveness ofdifferent approaches within differentcoaching contexts is needed (Grant, 2001a)to enable us to ensure we are using the mosteffective approach or combination ofapproaches within particular situations. Forexample, how effective is the facilitation orinstructional model of coaching? How doesthe effectiveness of the approach changeduring individual transition? Another inter-esting area relates to intervention adherenceor compliance in executive coaching asthere are hardly any papers published onthis topic (Kilburg, 2001).

The use of therapeutic approachesadapted to coaching within personal, group,organisational and training contexts opensup new and important areas of research. Forexample, although the theory and practice ofthe cognitive-behavioural, problem-solving,and multimodal coaching approaches havebeen illustrated (see, Neenan & Palmer,2001; Neenan & Dryden, 2002; Palmer,Cooper & Thomas, 2003; Richard, 1999)more research is needed into their effective-ness with non-clinical populations. However,the existing research has been very encour-aging (e.g. Grant, 2001b). In addition, theNorth American-based Cognitive Coachingsm,which is a variation of cognitive behaviouralcoaching as practised in the UK, has muchpublished research (e.g. Edwards & Newton,1994; Foster, 1989).

Part of the remit of the SGCP is topromote research into coaching psychology.However, it is unlikely that research willprovide simple answers, but through theprocess of research the theory, skills andtechniques of coaching psychology applied

in the coaching space may be better under-stood.

Continuing Professional DevelopmentA diverse range of applied psychologistsmake up the membership of the SGCP withthe largest subgroup being non-charteredmembers of the BPS with the Graduate Basisfor Registration. All are looking to furthertheir understanding or practice in coachingpsychology. As coaching psychology is both anew area, and at the same time consists of anestablished skill and knowledge base that isdissipated across the areas of appliedpsychology, Continuing Professional Devel-opment (CPD) is of key interest to members.Through CPD, some understanding may bereached as to how individuals’ existing skillsets and knowledge base fits within thedomain of coaching psychology, and whatpsychologists need to do to enhance theircoaching practice. A substantial majority ofrespondents thought that ongoing CPD wasimportant (78 per cent).

Respondents expressed interest in avariety of CPD activities (see Figures 10 & 11).The most popular CPD activities at T1 wereworkshops, closely followed by conferencesand seminars. Interestingly more were inter-ested in short certificated courses, rather thanshort courses alone suggesting an interest forsome form of coaching accreditation.

The qualitative comments confirmedthat members were keen for their ongoingtraining as coaches to be recognised by theBPS or accredited in some way. One of thereasons for this appreciation of a sign ofcompetence or quality is likely to be due tothe very chaotic market place wherecoaching providers and coaching buyers findthat demonstration of coaching competenceis a key issue.

At T2, seminars superseded conferencesas the second most popular activity. A number of respondents expressed aninterest in doing a Doctorate specifically inCoaching. The qualitative commentsrevealed further ideas about relevant CPDactivities including:


� Online networks for experience sharing;� Publication of e-newsletters to enhance

coaching practice;� Local action learning sets and CPD

activities.What is required in terms of the areas ofcompetence to be an effective coach orcoaching psychologist has yet to be defined.However, the range of psychological frame-works being applied in by coaching psychol-ogists, suggests there is much sharedlearning to be gained from both formal andinformal CPD activities.

What qualifications and experience areneeded for coaching psychologists?Psychologists have asked: What is coachingpsychology? What are the competenciesrequired? The beliefs of the membershipabout qualifications and experience areoutlined in Figures 12 and 13 overleaf.

Qualifications that respondents believedwere necessary to be a ‘coaching psycholo-gist’ ranged from a psychology degree to afull doctorate in coaching or coachingpsychology with a variety of levels in between.Interestingly, a number of people believed

Taking stock

Worksh

ops

Conf

erenc

es

Semina

rs

Shor

t Cert

ifica

ted

Cour

ses

Shor

t Cou

rses

Distan

ce Le

arning

Diplom

as

DPsyc

hPh

DMSc

Figure 10: CPD activities (T1).90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Worksh

ops

Semina

rs

Conf

erenc

es

Shor

t Cert

ifica

ted

Cour

ses

Shor

t Cou

rses

Distan

ce Le

arning

Diplom

as

DPsyc

h

DCoac

hing

PhD

MSc

Figure 11: CPD activities (T2).90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0



that no degree in psychology was necessary topractice as a coaching psychologist.

Certainly, to practise as a coach, a degreein psychology is not necessary. Psychology isnot the only profession to bring a relevantknowledge base and set of frameworks ofdevelopment to the coaching arena. Thus,the coach without a psychology degree maystill have the same or more expertise in theirfield compared with a coaching psychologist.The question of individual competency as acoach is one that is much broader than theprofession of psychology alone.

What then does a degree in psychologyprovide, and why is this important? Oneperspective is that if someone has a degree inpsychology they have an established body ofknowledge underpinning their practice.This body of knowledge is extremely relevantto the practice of coaching and thereforeprovides one appropriate level of differentia-tion. However, as the respondents to thesurvey suggest, whilst a degree in psychologyis agreed as necessary by the vast majority, it is not sufficient training to qualify individuals as coaching psychologists.

Psyc

h deg

ree no

t nec

essary

Psyc

h deg

ree

Psyc

h deg

ree gi

ving G

BR

Certi

ficate

in C

oach

ing

Diplom

a in Co

achin

g

MSc in

Coa

ching

Certi

ficate

in C

oach

ing

Psyc

holog

y

Diplom

a in C

oach

ing Ps

ycho

logy

MSc in

Coa

ching

Psyc

holog

y

DPsyc

h/DPro

f/PhD

in

Coac

hing/C

oach

ing Ps

ycho

logy

Figure 12: Training requirements (T2).70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

GBR +

3 ye

ars’ f

ull-ti

me

GBR +

5 ye

ars’ f

ull-ti

me

BPS Ch

artere

d Psyc

h

UKCP Re

gistra

tion

BACP

Accred

ited

Figure 13: Experience required (T2).40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0


The qualitative comments providefurther insight into respondents’ perspec-tives about the development of competenceas a coaching psychologist:� Respondents expressed the need for

counselling skills to be an integral part ofany coaching qualification.

� There should be recognition that thereare various routes to gaining the skillsand experience necessary to be acoaching psychologist.

� That criteria should be set and all thoseusing the term coaching psychologist todescribe themselves need to demonstratethey have achieved these standards.There should not be an automatic ‘in’ forpeople just because they are members ofthe SGCP.

� That formal qualifications do notnecessarily deliver the competent coach.

� That we can’t be definite about whatqualifications and experience arerequired beyond GBR as a minimumuntil coaching psychology is more clearlydefined.

� That an understanding of valid, reliablemeasurement such as at least BPS full Level B certification where thecoaching psychologist is working in anorganisation.

� There should be more emphasis onexperience and pragmatic applicationthan formal qualifications andtheoretical/academic understanding.

In addition to the recognised educationallevels, further experience in coaching wasalso considered necessary. Three years’coaching experience in addition to thepsychology degree was considered necessaryby 28 per cent to practise as a coachingpsychologist, where as 39 per cent thoughtchartered psychologist status should be therecognised qualification level.

Relatively few people (10 per cent)thought that five years’ experience as a coachin addition to a degree in psychology wasnecessary and less than five per cent thoughtthat accreditation through the two main coun-selling professional bodies was important.

Members of the SGCP, nearly half ofwhom are chartered psychologists (albeitfrom a range of divisions) are keen to under-stand the domain of practice of coachingpsychology. Without this, as indicated by thecomments received, they have limited under-standing of what it is their aiming for interms of the competence required topractice in their chosen field of work.

Relatively crude indicators such as adegree in psychology, experience, charteredpsychological status clearly do not demon-strate whether a person has the necessaryskills, specific experience and roundedknowledge base required to practise effec-tively in the coaching domain.

We have an opportunity through theSGCP and IGCP in Australia to raise ourunderstanding of the competence baseunderpinning effective coaching psychologypractice. By establishing the psychologicaltheory underpinning the practice ofcoaching, and creating standards for studyand practice, psychologists, clients and thepublic in general will be more informed as towhat constitutes good coaching from apsychological perspective.

The question of accrediting psychologistsas coaching psychologists is not one that iswithin the remit of the SGCP, but is one that isfrequently raised by members. Currently thereis no process for achieving this within the BPS.The question of accrediting cross-divisionalcompetencies is once again raised in order tofurther the practice of coaching psychology.

What are the supervision requirementsfor coaching psychologists?Supervision is a key issue within the SGCP,and this issue is mirrored in other profes-sional coaching bodies such as the Associa-tion for Coaching (AC) and the Associationfor Professional Executive Coaching andSupervision (APECS). On the one hand,supervision is presented as a means of under-pinning the professional status of coaching,it also has a huge potential in maintaining aswell as raising the quality of practice ofcoaches generally.

Taking stock



There are different models for supervi-sion for applied psychologists within theBPS, clinical and counselling psychologistsare required to undertake personal supervi-sion as part of their conditions of registra-tion. Occupational psychologists are not yetrequired to take part in any further personalsupervision once qualified.

The views of respondents are outlined inFigure 14. The majority thought supervisionduring training was necessary, and 39 percent thought ongoing supervision of experi-enced coaching psychologists was necessary(with only 14 per cent feeling it was notnecessary). The qualitative comments pointto a range of views on supervision:� There are different models of

supervision in practice that need to beconsidered.

� Reflective practice is a must, practitionersshould have self knowledge and insightto know when to access supervisionrather than a formal framework beingimposed.

� Supervision requirements need to takeaccount of the other supervision that theindividual is already involved in perhapsas part of their membership of anothersubsystem.

� Because coaching is not working withpsychologically disturbed people, sosupervision along the lines of clinical andcounselling models is unnecessary

controlIf we consider the nature of the coaching rela-tionship between the coaching psychologistand the coachee, it is likely the relationship ismore often 1:1 than 1:many. Merely as a prece-dent then, existing models of supervisionwithin subsystems where psychologists workmainly on a 1:1 basis would seem relevant.

If we consider the nature of how psychol-ogists work, with many coaching psycholo-gists working independently, or at least oftenat some distance from other psychologists.This potential isolation would indicate thevalue of some form of supervision.

Most importantly, having regular struc-tured, shared reviews of our professionalactivities and planned approaches with ourclients, with a fellow professional isimmensely powerful, promoting opennessand learning as well as a source of insightand input that we would otherwise bedenied.

The question of coaching normal, non-clinical populations rather than workingwith clinical populations does not necessarilyexcuse coaching psychologists from therequirement for supervision of theirpractice. The complexity of individuals issuch that a simplistic clinical/non-clinicaldichotomy is too crude to be meaningful asan indicator of the level of risk and vulnera-bility of the potential client population.

There are various models of supervision,

No sup

ervisi

on

durin

g trai

ning

Supe

rvisio

n

durin

g trai

ning

Supe

rvisio

n of

expe

rienc

ed C

Ps

not n

ecess

ary

Supe

rvisio

n of

expe

rienc

ed C

Ps

nece

ssary

Figure 14: Views on Supervision (T2).70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0


Taking stock

such as peer supervision, co-coaching, super-vision from within the same area of appliedpsychology, supervision from someone with adifferent applied psychological background,etc. There is no requirement to engage inonly one form of supervision.

As one respondent highlighted, a require-ment for supervision can be seen from anumber of perspectives, one of which is as aform of unnecessary control. Supervision isindeed a form of control, but not one thatwould be considered unnecessary even by themost experienced coaches and coachingpsychologists. Not only can supervision serveas a safeguard for both the coach andcoachee, but also enhance the quality of thework of coaching psychologists and, there-fore, the quality of output for our clients.

ConclusionsFrom the surveys conducted, we can see thatcoaching practice for BPS members is auniquely cross-disciplinary activity, involvinga diverse range of applied psychologists. Thisdifference is something that is likely toenliven and enhance the development ofcoaching psychology and psychology moregenerally, as psychologists come together toshare, learn and discuss their approaches toa common area of practice.

Primarily described as only part of thework that applied psychologists are involved,coaching psychology may be a meansthrough which the BPS develops a moreradical approach to the professional devel-opment of applied psychologists.

The outcome of the surveys provide someimportant areas of investigation for the BPSand the SGCP specifically. First, to under-stand the boundaries of coaching psychologyand to manage the boundary issues aroundcoaching psychology practice. Second, togain insight into the effectiveness of variousapproaches in different coaching situations.

A critical area of development, high-lighted by Grant and Zackon (2004) in rela-tion to their study and no less relevant to the

SGCP, is that of defining competencies andstandards that transcend prior subsystemallegiances and ideologies. Indeed,harnessing the diversity within coachingpsychology practice is likely to enhance theprofession more broadly.

In terms of practical application, afurther remit of the SGCP is to increasecoaching psychologists’ understanding ofthe effective application of a diversity ofapproaches. Something that can besupported through maintaining a focus onCPD activities for members.

There are several process implicationsfrom the survey that the SGCP need to takeon board. First, that no particular subgroupof psychologists is dominant on the SGCPcommittee. Such dominance would poten-tially skew the development of the SGCP andmay limit its continued attraction to the fullrange of subsystem members, thus limitingthe richness of the development of coachingpsychology as a whole.

Second, as a member-driven organisa-tion, it is important that the subgroupswithin the SGCP are represented throughthe activities of the group. For example,those already working as coaches and thoseinterested in the area of coaching wouldneed a balance between the developingexpertise as an applied profession and open-ness to psychologists not actively practisingin the area. The continued effectiveness ofthe SGCP at meeting members’ needsshould be regularly reviewed.

It seems that continued dialogue andshared learning is key within the SGCP itself.However, it must also be remembered thatthe SGCP provides a focal point within theBPS for engaging external coaching bodiesand the public in general who are interestedin coaching. Additionally, the SGCP providesa vehicle psychologists can use to influencethe development of coaching beyond theBPS. The influential voice that the SGCP hashad to date is important to maintain inmoving forward.



CorrespondenceProfessor Stephen Palmer, PhD, is Directorof the Coaching Psychology Unit, CityUniversity, and Director of the Centre forCoaching, London. He was Chair of theSGCP in 2005 and is now Past Chair. He is onthe National Executive of the SGCP. He wasformerly a Co-proposer of the SGCP with DrAlison Whybrow.

Dr Alison Whybrow is Treasurer of the SGCPand was formerly a Co-proposer. She is onthe National Executive of the SGCP.

Correspondence should be addressed to:Professor Stephen PalmerCoaching Psychology Unit, Department of Psychology,City University, Northampton Square,

ReferencesEdwards, J.L. & Newton, R.R. (1994). The effects of

Cognitive Coachingsm on teacher efficacy and empower-ment. Research Report No. 1994–1, February.Evergreen, CO: Authors.

Foster, N.J. (1989). The impact of Cognitive Coach-ingsm on teachers’ thought processes as perceivedby cognitively coached teachers in the Plymouth-Canton Community School District. Doctoraldissertation, Michigan State University, 1989.Dissertation Abstracts International, 27, 54381.

Grant, A.M. (2001a). Towards a psychology of coaching.Sydney: Coaching Psychology Unit, University ofSydney.

Grant, A.M. (2001b). Coaching for enhanced performance: Comparing cognitive and behaviouralapproaches to coaching. Paper presented at the 3rdInternational Spearman Seminar: ExtendingIntelligence: Enhancement and New Constructs,Sydney.

Grant, A.M. & Zackon, R. (2004). Executive, work-place and life-coaching: Findings from a large-scale survey of International Coach Federationmembers. International Journal of Evidence-BasedCoaching and Mentoring, 2(2), 1–15.

Kilburg, R.R. (2001). Facilitating intervention adher-ence in executive coaching: A model andmethods. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practiceand Research, 53(4), 251–267.

Neenan, M. & Dryden, W. (2002). Life Coaching: A cognitive-behavioural approach. Hove: Brunner-Routledge

Neenan, M. & Palmer, S. (2001). Cognitive behav-ioural coaching. Stress News, 13(3) 15–18.

Palmer, S., Cooper, C. & Thomas, K. (2003). Creatinga balance: Managing stress. London: BritishLibrary.

Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (2006). The coachingpsychology movement and its developmentwithin the British Psychological Society. Interna-tional Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1), 2–9.

Parkes, R.C. (1955). We use seven guides to helpexecutives develop. Personal Journal, 33, 326-328


Richard, J.T. (1999). Multimodal therapy: A usefulmodel for the executive coach. ConsultingPsychology Journal, 51(1), 24–30.

Summerfield, J. (2002). Walking the thin line:Coaching or Counselling? Training Journal,November, 36–39.

LTHOUGH COACHING HAS BEENdescribed as a ‘boom’ industry

(Naughton, 2002), very little isknown about the composition of thecoaching industry in Australia. Whilst theunregulated nature of coaching hasprompted recommendations relating to theformal preparation of coaches (Garman,Whiston & Zlatoper, 2000) and the need forstandards of competence (Brotman, Liberi& Wasylyshyn, 1998), acting on these recom-mendations becomes difficult whilst thecharacteristics of the industry remainhidden. As such, this paper has two principleaims. The first is to begin building a profileof the Australian coaching industry byreporting the findings from a survey into thecharacteristics and practices of Australiancoaches, in particular the breadth of skills,experience and training that currently existsamong practicing coaches. Second, we willdiscuss the implications of these findingsand question the degree to which coaches

are adequately equipped to address mentalhealth issues when they happen to emerge incoaching engagements.

Two strands of coaching researchProfiling the Australian coaching industry.The current study was designed to investi-gate characteristics of Australian coachingpractitioners. Whilst we expect the findingsfrom this study to complement earlier find-ings by Clegg, Rhodes and Kornberger(2003), the present study extends the scopeof the research by asking respondents tooutline the particulars of their experience,education and training, ethical practices andprofessional affiliations.

Such information has importance for theprofessionalisation of the industry. Forexample, if the march towards profession-alism is to include some degree of standard-isation in coach education (as has beensuggested by Grant, 2003), then it will benecessary to accurately assess the areas in


Duty of care in an unregulated industry:Initial findings on the diversity andpractices of Australian coachesGordon B. Spence, Michael J. Cavanagh & Anthony M. Grant

Little has been reported about the skills, experience and training of coaches in the Australian context, yetthese are critical factors in the ethical practice of coaching. Previous research and experience suggests thatformal coach training varies considerably in terms of curricula and quality. At the same time, data isemerging that suggests a significant number of coaching clients may be using coaching as a socially-acceptable form of meeting therapeutic needs. This raises questions about the duty of care coaches owe totheir clients in safeguarding their mental health and well-being. Similarly, it raises questions about thedegree to which current industry training assists coaches discharge that duty of care. In order to explorethese issues empirically, a total of 148 Australian coaches answered a questionnaire covering three areas:(i) current coaching practice; (ii) background experience and coach training (iii) ethics and professionalaffiliations. A minority of respondents reported a background in psychology or counselling, yet more than10 per cent of respondents indicated that they regularly coached clients in relation to issues commonlyassociated with serious psychological distress (e.g. fears about personal loss, life crises, social isolation andself esteem). The preliminary data presented here indicate that there is need to identify the range and depthof issues presented in coaching, the training needed for coaches to effectively identify and refer clients withmental health issues, and the limits and responsibilities of our duty of care as coaches.

A

which ‘knowledge gaps’ most obviously exist.In this paper, mental health issues will bepresented as one such area.

Mental health issues and coachingThis discussion is prompted by two recentcoaching studies (Green, Oades & Grant,2005; Spence & Grant, 2005) that suggest lifecoaching may be attracting individuals whowish to address an array of mental healthissues (e.g. depression, social anxiety)without the stigma often associated withtherapy and counselling. This raises thepossibility that life coaching may be publiclyperceived as a socially acceptable form oftherapy (Cavanagh, 2005) and, if so, it ispertinent to ask: ‘How well equipped areAustralian coaches for dealing with themental health issues that may emerge incoaching?’ Whilst anecdotal evidencesuggests that depression, anxiety, personalitydisorders and suicidality are all the mostcommon mental health issues found incoaching, open discussion of such matters israre within the industry.

Given that there are no barriers toentering the industry, it may be that fewcoaches possess the requisite skills or confi-dence to deal with such issues. If so, thencoaching engagements have the potential tobe counterproductive for clients whenmental health issues are salient to the goalsof coaching (Berglas, 2002; Cavanagh,2005). For the unwary or uninformed coach,such a situation may have legal ramifications.

It is not the intention of this article tocreate undue anxiety about what mighthappen in coaching, or even to suggest thata majority of coaches currently act unethi-cally. Indeed we are unaware of any cases inwhich an Australian coach has been sued fornegligence arising from a coaching relation-ship. Rather, this article seeks to raise aware-ness about the obligations of coachingpractitioners, by exploring the potentiallinks between coaching, mental health issuesand the law. Given that litigation is currentlyon the rise in Australia (Betts, 2004) thisissue appears to be ripe for discussion.

Specifically, we will examine what legal obli-gations exist for coaching practitioners in anunregulated industry, before questioning thedegree to which existing ethical frameworksassist coaches discharge their legal duty ofcare.

The Australian coaching industry:What we know and what we don’t knowAlthough little is known about the profile ofthe Australian coaching industry, anecdotalevidence suggests that it is populated by adiverse range of practitioners whose ‘stock intrade’ is the experience derived from a widevariety of professional and non-professionalbackgrounds. Beyond that, however, littlecan be said with certainty, as research on theAustralian industry appears to be limited to asolitary working paper focused specificallyon business coaching (Clegg, Rhodes &Kornberger, 2003).

In this study, Clegg and colleaguesassessed the structure and characteristics ofthe Australian business coaching industry bysurveying 42 coaching firms. They sought toascertain: (i) the basic contours of thebusiness coaching industry; (ii) the charac-teristics that distinguish one firm fromanother; and (iii) perceptions of the compet-itive environment. Based on their data theydrew three conclusions. First, businesscoaching firms in Australia ‘tend to be youngand small’ (p.8), with 65 per cent of firms inbusiness for less than five years, 86 per centemploying less than five people and morethan 50 per cent of businesses working out ofhome offices.

Second, most firms appeared to see them-selves as generalists, with only 12 per centdedicated to business coaching, whilst 51 percent of firms offered business coaching andat least two other types of coaching relatedservice (either executive coaching, lifecoaching, consulting, training or coachtraining). Lastly, firms in the industry appearto have a poor appreciation of the competi-tive environment in which they work, withover half the respondents unable to identify asingle competitor by name.


Gordon B. Spence, Michael J. Cavanagh & Anthony M. Grant

Whilst this study provides some usefulinitial insights into the Australian industry,particularly in respect of its maturity, thereare many areas of interest that have yet to beexplored. For example, little is known aboutthe diversity of coaching-related skills,training and experience amongst Australiancoaches. Given that coaching has rapidlyemerged in the past decade (Naughton,2002), two questions can be posed about theindustry. Firstly, what experience do coachesdraw upon in coaching, and secondly, whatspecific coach training have they had?

In addition, the unregulated nature ofthe industry invariably prompts questionsabout ethical standards and practices withinthe industry. For example, do coachesdiscuss ethical issues with their clients? If so,how do they do this? What are the bound-aries of confidentiality and disclosure withinthe coaching relationship? What profes-sional affiliations do coaches hold? Whatevidentiary bases do coaches draw on tosupport their claims of efficacy?

This study seeks to examine some ofthese questions, by presenting the findingsfrom a survey of practicing coaches anddiscussing the implications of these forfuture research and training needs.

Survey of Australian Life Coaches andExecutive CoachesThe survey was conducted during the FirstInternational Coach Federation AustralasianConference held in Sydney during August2002. It should be noted that the resultsreported here represent initial findings onlyand a three-year follow-up is planned, for thepurpose of detecting change across theindustry during the research timeframe.

MethodInstrument. To ensure the highest possibleresponse rate, it was decided that the ques-tionnaire should be brief and easy tocomplete. For this reason, the surveyconsisted primarily of forced choice items,with respondents selecting from a range ofpossible responses (e.g. ‘How many hours a

week do you coach?’ (i) <5 hours; (ii) 5–10hours; (iii) 11–20 hours; (iv) >20 hours). Inaddition, in order to gain more detailedinformation, a small number of freeresponse items were included (e.g. ‘In yourexperience, what are the three mostcommon issues that lead clients to seekcoaching?).

The final questionnaire consisted of 25items arranged in three areas of generalinterest: (i) current coaching practice; (ii)background experience and coach training;and (iii) ethics and professional affiliations.Items were designed to assess the followinginformation: general demographic data (e.g.age, sex), coaching status, modes ofcoaching, niche specialisation, industrybackground, coach specific training,coaching related experience, professionalaffiliation and endorsement of a recognisedethical code.

Procedure. The questionnaire was printed onone (double-sided) A4 page and included ashort participant information statement andconsent clause. Conference delegates wereintroduced to the surveys via a series ofannouncements made throughout theconference. To assist, conference organisersagreed to include the questionnaires inapproximately 400 conference informationsatchels, with respondents asked to completethe questionnaires and place them in asealed collection box located in the confer-ence foyer. The survey took between five to10 minutes to complete.

ParticipantsRespondents were Australian coaches whowere practicing at the time of the survey.From the initial pool of 155 respondents,seven surveys were excluded on the basis thatthey were not practicing coaches. Thus, thefinal sample became 148, representing aresponse rate of 37 per cent.

The sample consisted of 110 females (74per cent) and 38 males (26 per cent), with amean age of 43.5 years (females = 42.7 years,males = 46 years). Not surprisingly, 88 per


Duty of care and coaching

cent of the respondents were located onAustralia’s eastern sea board (New SouthWales 55 per cent, Queensland 10 per cent,and Victoria 23 per cent) however, as thissurvey was conducted in Sydney, the resultshould not be viewed as an accurate reflec-tion of the geographical distribution ofcoaches in Australia.

ResultsCurrent coaching practiceHere practitioners were asked about thedepth of their coaching experience, whereand how they did their coaching, mostcommonly encountered coaching issues,and niche specialisation (if any).

Coaching status. First, to assess the currentlevel of engagement in coaching practice,practitioners indicated whether coaching wasa full-time or part-time occupation. As seen inTable 1, over half the sample confirmed thatcoaching was their main occupation (58 percent) and, of these, 69 per cent indicated ithad been their main occupation for less thantwo years. Only 12 per cent reported greaterthan five years experience. When consideredregardless of occupation status, approxi-mately a third of the sample (31 per cent)reported total coaching experience of lessthan one year, with more than half the totalsample possessing less than two years’ experi-ence (55 per cent).

In addition, respondents were asked toquantify their coaching experience (in termsof total clients and numbers of hourscoached) and indicate their weekly activitylevels. As shown in Figure 1, a sizeable

proportion of the respondents appear to beearly-career coaches, with 38 per cent ofcoaches having coached fewer than 10clients, 22 per cent reporting less than 50hours total coaching experience and 41 percent reporting that they coach less than fivehours per week.

This data also suggests that the industrymay include a core of highly experiencedcoaches, as 26 per cent of respondents havecoached a total of more than 50 clients and38 per cent report that their total coachingexperience amounts to greater than 200hours. Finally, 70 per cent of coachesreported that they coach for less than 10hours per week.

Modes of coaching. Next, respondents wereasked to indicate: (i) where they conductedmost of their coaching sessions; and (ii) whatpercentage of the time was spent coachingusing face-to-face, e-mail or telephonicmeans. Over half the respondents (56 percent) reported conducting most of theirsessions from home, while 16 per centcoached at work, 13 per cent from a rentedoffice and 15 per cent coached from theclient’s office.

In addition, face-to-face coaching wasreported as more usual than technologyassisted coaching (i.e. telephone, e-mail, on-line chat). As can be seen in Figure 2, 36 percent of respondents reported that theircoaching was always conducted face-to-face(with 27 per cent reporting mostly), whilstonly 12 per cent always coached by tele-phone (with 10 per cent reporting mostly).In addition, 73 per cent reported on use of



Table 1: Coaching status and experience.

Response item N <1 year 1–2 years 2–5 years >5 years

How long has coachingbeen your main 87 41% 28% 19% 12%occupation?

How long have youbeen coaching?

148 31% 24% 25% 20%

e-mail in their coaching (with only 27 percent reporting rarely). Only one respondentindicated that they sometimes used on-linechat to conduct coaching sessions.

Niche specialisation. Over half the coachessurveyed (55 per cent) confirmed that theyhad some sort of a niche specialisation. Ofthose, 71 per cent reported an interest inexecutive/corporate coaching, with theremainder (29 per cent) reflecting more of alife/personal coaching orientation. Whilstthese proportions are not surprising given acoaching literature dominated by executiveand workplace coaching (e.g. Brotman et al.,1998; Garman et al., 2000; Kampa-Kokesch &Anderson, 2001), it should be noted that 45per cent of all respondents did not name aspecialisation. This suggests that a significantportion of the coaching community perceivethemselves as generalists and are willing tocoach in multiple domains and, presumably,across a broad range of issues.

Common coaching issues. Respondents indi-cated that the ‘three most common issues’they encounter in coaching arecareer/business related issues, relation-ships/interpersonal skills, and direction/goal setting issues (see Table 2 overleaf).When considered along with data justreviewed on niche specialisations, theseresults are not overly surprising althoughfinancial and health/fitness issues may havebeen expected to feature more prominentlyin the results. Interestingly, the data alsorevealed the presence of several issues thatmay indicate clinical or sub-clinical mentalhealth concerns. For example, approxi-mately 10 per cent of the coaches surveyedindicated that they commonly coach clientsin relation to issues that include self-esteem,self-worth, personal loss, life crises, socialisolation and distress.

While such issues do not with certaintyindicate the presence of mental healthissues, our experience suggests such a link,particularly in cases where distress is great



Figure 1: Total coaching experience and activity levels.

Figure 2: Predominant modes of coaching delivery.

40

30

20

10

0

80

60

40

20

0

%

%

Total Coaching Clients(N=148)

<10 11–25 26–50 >50Clients

Never Rarely Sometimes Mostly Always

40

30

20

10

0

%

Total Coaching Hours(N=148)

<50 50–100 101–200 >200Hours

50

40

30

20

10

0

%

Hours per Week(N=148)

<5 5–10 11–20 >20Hours

E-mail Face-to-face Phone

enough to motivate clients to seek assistance.As we shall soon show, recent evidencesuggests that serious mental health issues arebeing taken into coaching engagements.However, given that few coach trainingprogrammes offer any formal training in therecognition or referral of mental healthissues, it is unlikely that practitioners areadequately equipped to deal with such situa-tions (Grant & Zackon, 2004).

Background experience and coach trainingIn this section, participants were asked toindicate: (i) which industry they spent mosttime working in prior to becoming a coach;(ii) what sort of coach specific training theyhad received; and (iii) what forms ofcoaching-related experience they hadacquired.

Industry background. As can be seen in Table3, the industry group most well representedin this sample was consulting. Whilst this wasnot unexpected, the disparity between

consulting and other corporate sectorgroups (particularly human resources andtrainers) was surprising, as was the smallnumber of human service professionals (e.g.counsellors, psychologists, social workers)who, when taken together, accounted foronly 20 per cent of the sample. Otherindustry groups accounted for seven percent of responses and included the armedservices, information technology, sport andrecreation, tourism and the dramatic arts. Ofcourse, caution should be exercised in inter-preting these results, as the location for thesurvey (the ICFA conference) most likely didnot attract a representative sample of practi-tioners from the broader coaching commu-nity, rather a disproportionate number ofcoaches affiliated to the ICFA.

Coach specific training. Over 90 per cent ofcoaches in this sample reported havingcompleted some form of training. Theseincluded training within a coach trainingschool (62 per cent), tertiary study in a



Table 2: Most common coaching issues.

Coaching Issue Description Freq. (N=136)

Career/Business Includes career management and transitions, business generation, 43time management, professional development and strategic development issues

Relationships/ Includes leadership and interpersonal skills development, 40Interpersonal team building and conflict management

Life Direction/ Includes need to find direction, life purpose, goal clarification, 40Goal Setting resolving ambivalence, exploring options and assistance

setting goals

Work/Life Balance Includes developing stress reduction strategies, more family time, 25exploring new interests, finding hobbies and reduced hours in office

Mental Health Includes issues related to developing self-esteem, negative life 15events, social isolation and distress

Financial Includes debt reduction, increasing savings, financial and 12retirement planning

Health & Fitness Includes increasing exercise levels, improved dietary habits, 11more sleep, weight reduction and more holiday time

coaching related field (such as psychology orsocial work) (20 per cent) or training in ahelping-related methodology (e.g. in-houseworkshops) or Neuro-Linguistic Program-ming (NLP) (13 per cent). Of this training,68 per cent of qualifications were obtainedwithin the last five years, with 84 per centobtained within the last 10 years. Encourag-ingly, only five per cent of respondentsreported having no coach-specific training atall and only two per cent had received someform of short in-house training or intensiveworkshop.

Coaching-related experience. Finally, respon-dents reported on background experiencethat could broadly be defined as ‘coaching’because these experiences either developedor broadened core coaching skills. Mostpopular amongst these were training (57 percent), consulting (41 per cent), counselling(48 per cent) and natural therapies (33 percent). Less frequently reported experienceincluded psychology (31 per cent), medita-tion (10 per cent), social work (nine percent), youth work and sport (both eight percent). Interestingly, while 31 per cent ofrespondents claim an experiential back-ground in psychology, less than 20 per centindicated any formal tertiary level study inbehavioural science. This may indicate a lackof clarity over the boundaries betweenpractice in psychology and other forms ofhelping relationship.

Ethics and professional affiliationsParticipants were also asked to confirm howthey informed their clients about ethical stan-dards in coaching practice. In this regard, 89per cent of the coaches confirmed that theyprovided their clients with some form ofethical instruction, whilst 11 per cent did not.Of those that did, 40 per cent gave a verbalexplanation, 11 per cent provided a writtenhand-out and 49 per cent provided both.

Only 23 per cent of respondentsreported no professional affiliations. Of theremainder, many of the coaches heldmultiple affiliations, with the InternationalCoach Federation (ICF; 57 per cent) moststrongly represented. Coaches also reportedaffiliations with Coachville (30 per cent), theAustralian Psychological Society (12 percent), the Psychologists Registration Board(10 per cent) and a number of other institu-tions (13 per cent) such as the AustralianInstitute of Management and the AustralianAssociation of Career Counsellors.

Discussion of survey resultsAs reported earlier, there has been at leastone other attempt to sketch the contours ofthe Australian coaching industry, albeit onesegment of the industry: business coachingfirms (Clegg et al., 2003). In contrast, thecurrent study has been broader in its scope,focusing on individual practitioners (ratherthan firms) and without segmenting theindustry according to niche specialisations



Table 3: Background experience and coach training.

Industry Sector % Type of Coach Training %

Consulting 24 Coach Training School 62Human Resources 14 Tertiary Institution 20Counselling/Psychology 14 Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) 11Training 13 No formal training 5Education 11 Other 2Marketing 8Finance 5Social Work 4Others 7

(e.g. business coaching). Whilst these studiesmight appear to be qualitatively different, wewould argue these differences are onlysuperficial and that these two studies areentirely complementary.

For example, although the Clegg studyfocused on business coaching ‘firms’, themajority of these entities operated with lessthan two people (of which 48 per cent wereone-person practices) and only 12 per centof respondents reported an exclusive focuson business coaching. Indeed, data fromboth studies suggests that the Australiancoaching industry is not yet mature enoughto allow meaningful segmentations of theindustry. That is, the Clegg study found that51 per cent of respondents reported offeringat least two other types of coaching service,whilst no niche specialisation was reportedby 45 per cent of coaches in our sample.

A diverse industry. Apart from validating manyof Clegg et al.’s (2003) earlier findings, thisstudy also extends them. Most notably, thefindings have shown the great diversity thatexists within the Australian coachingindustry. Despite the existence of a smallcore of highly experienced practitioners, thevast majority of coaches appear to have littlecoaching experience and report a greatdiversity in skills and experience.

There are at least two reasons why theindustry might reflect such diversity. First,coaching is a ‘feel good’ industry and rightlypromoted as a dynamic, future-focused andstrengths-based form of human helping. Assuch, it has obvious and wide-rangingappeal. After all, what could be more satis-fying than assisting another to scale the self-actualised heights of their Maslovianpyramid? Increasingly, coaching appears tobe attracting the attention of people inestablished occupations who seek either amore meaningful career (e.g. a managementconsultant who wants to become an execu-tive coach) or an expanded practice (e.g.clinical psychologist and life coach).

Second, the diversity of the coachingindustry may reflect the lack of barriers to

entry. It is not difficult to become a coach.The Australian coaching industry is freefrom any form of regulation. One has only todecide that they will become a coach andsecure their first client to begin coaching.Just as significantly, getting started requiresonly a small investment of capital and hasfew overheads. Hence, with no barriers toentry and little financial outlay, a career incoaching may appear very accessible, finan-cially viable and immediate.

For some, diversity might be perceived asa major strength of the coaching industry,with consumers able to choose from agreater range of practitioners andapproaches than would be available if theindustry were regulated. Of course, thispresupposes that consumers know what theyare looking for in coaching services and arethus capable of making informed decisions.Yet, as evidence we are about to present willsuggest, the general public may not under-stand the nature of coaching or the coachingindustry and, if so, they are likely to find theindustry difficult to navigate.

Of greater significance to the presentdiscussion, however, is the observation thatrelatively few respondents (20 per cent)reported any formal training in psychologyor the helping professions (e.g. counselling,social work, nursing). Given that theseprofessions dedicate themselves to themental and physical health needs of individ-uals, this result was somewhat surprising.Even more surprising was the finding that amuch larger proportion of respondents (31per cent) claimed an experiential back-ground in psychology. The precise nature ofthis psychological experience is unclear.However, it seems that for a significantproportion of respondents, experience inpsychology is not linked with formaltraining. This may reflect a very broad defi-nition of psychology, such as used in thepersonal development/self-help genre, or itmay indicate a bias toward using personaldevelopment efforts as a basis for creden-tialing. At any rate, it is an issue that warrantsfurther investigation, and suggests psycholo-



gists need to have a stronger presence incoaching.

Indeed, the call for psychologists tobecome more involved in coaching hasexisted for sometime (Brotman et al., 1998;Garman et al., 2000; Kampa-Kokesch &Anderson, 2001) and there is increasingevidence that these calls have not goneunheeded (Cavanagh, Grant & Kemp, 2005;Green et al., 2005; Spence & Grant, 2005).Nevertheless, a lack of clarity around psycho-logical services in the minds of coaches isworrying given the findings of two recentstudies in the area of life coaching (Green etal., 2005; Spence & Grant, 2005).

These studies examined the efficacy ofindividuals and group-based life coachingprograms. Given the distinction that is regu-larly made between coaching andpsychotherapy (i.e. ‘coaching is nottherapy’), these studies both screened theinitial pool of participants for high levels ofpsychopathology using a mental healthscreening tool, the Brief Symptoms Inven-tory (BSI, Derogatis, 1993). Interestingly,this screening procedure detected the pres-ence of unexpectedly high levels of psycho-logical distress in both samples. With the BSIcriterion set at two standard deviations abovethe mean, both studies reported that 52 percent and 24 per cent of their initial samplesmet (or exceeded) these levels. In both casesthese participants were excluded fromfurther participation and offered a clinicalreferral. These findings are important asthey say something about the likelihood thatclinical concerns will emerge in coachingengagements.

Whilst it is tempting to suggest that theresults of Green et al. (2005) and Spence andGrant (2005) reflect a publicly held percep-tion of coaching as ‘socially acceptabletherapy’, it should be acknowledged that thestudies in question were offering free lifecoaching and may have attracted partici-pants for many different reasons. However,these initial participants must also haveperceived coaching to be a plausible optionfor addressing their deeper psychological

concerns, which may invalidate the ‘freecoaching’ explanation. For these reasons,our claims can only be advanced tentatively(as these studies did not set out to directlyinvestigate the public perception ofcoaching), however, it does seem plausiblethat coaching may be attracting a subset ofpeople with clinical concerns (e.g. depres-sion) who wish to avoid the stigma attachedto therapy or counselling.

Mental health issues in coaching:Importance and impactWhile coaching seeks to assist people toenact change, it is often carried out underthe assumption that one is dealing with indi-viduals who are not suffering from clinicallevels of distress. This assumption justifiescoaches in taking a direct and robust andchallenging approach with clients. Hence,the presence of significant levels of distressand/or psychopathology may be of majorimportance to well-being of the coachee andsuccess of the coaching project. Forexample, a person suffering from unrecog-nised depression may willingly and eagerlyidentify stretching goals in the hope thattheir attainment may help ‘make thingsbetter’. Unfortunately, the impact of depres-sion on energy and motivation may meanthat the person is unable to rise to, or main-tain the goal-directed behaviour required bysuch a ‘challenging’ coaching process(Cavanagh, 2005). What ensues may be apattern of regular non-completion of setcoaching actions, followed by (at best) disen-gagement from the coaching process. Morelikely, however, for such a person, coachingmay be experienced as yet another in a seriesof failures, i.e. yet more evidence that theyare unable to measure up to what they see asthe legitimate demands of life. This negativeruminative cycle is likely to worsen a depres-sive episode and may even give rise to poten-tially dangerous levels of hopelessness andsuicidal ideation.

Despite the considerable diversity thatexists in the coaching industry, most coachesappear to unite around at least one common



understanding: coaching is not therapy.Indeed, most coaching engagements areusually prefaced by an explanation thatcoaching is not concerned with treating deeppersonal problems (the aim of therapy andcounselling), but rather to assist healthypeople unlock more of their potential andbecome more effective (Cavanagh & Grant,2004; Peltier, 2001; Williams, 2004).

Given this focus, it might be expected thata large number of coaches have little or notraining or experience in dealing with mentalhealth issues. The preliminary findings of ourstudy are consistent with this expectation.Less than 20 per cent of the sample indicateda background in the helping professions(such as psychology, counselling or socialwork). At least superficially, there wouldappear to be a significant lack of mentalhealth specific knowledge and training. As aresult, it is doubtful whether many coachesare well equipped to effectively recognisemental health issues in their clients, or toassess their own capacity to assist clients whosepsychological status (e.g. mental health issues,personality styles) make them challengingindividuals to coach (Cavanagh, 2005).

This is concerning given the earlierreviewed evidence that suggests coaches arealmost certain to encounter significantmental health issues at some point in theircoaching practice. Indeed, as Table 2 indi-cates, over 10 per cent of coaches indicatethat they regularly deal with issues often asso-ciated with mental health problems. As such,it seems appropriate that further researchaddress two important questions:

Question 1: What guidance do coaches receive in theappropriate handling of mental health issues?A recent review of courses offered by coachtraining providers revealed that mental healthtraining is not currently represented in thevast majority of course descriptions (Grant &Zackon, 2004). The majority of the coaches(62 per cent) reported here received theirtraining from a coach training school. Onemust conclude that most coaches are left todevelop their own approach to addressing

mental health issues with minimal guidance(if they do so at all).

One form of guidance freely available topracticing coaches are the ethical guidelinesof industry bodies. According to the datapresented earlier, 57 per cent of respondentswere members of the ICF and 89 per cent ofthe total sample provided their clients withsome form of ethical instruction. As such, itwould appear that a large number ofAustralian coaches are ‘bound’ by the ethicalguidelines and standards of conductadvanced by that organisation.

However, a review of the ICF Code ofEthics (ICF, 2005) reveals no mention ofmental health issues and only vague refer-ences to scenarios where mental health issuesmight be inferred. For example, whilst provi-sions 18, 19, 20 and 21 (see Table 4) aredesigned to ensure that coaches act in thebest interests of clients, there was little or noreadily available information regardingreferral procedures at the time of writing (e.g.types of alternative assistance, how toapproach a referral conversation, or buildinga referral network). Encouragingly, we notethat some mental health related guidelineshave been developed elsewhere by the ICF(i.e. ‘Top Ten Indicators to Refer to a MentalHealth Professional’). While a welcome devel-opment, these guidelines may encourage anoverly simplistic approach to mental healthissues as they only list of the common symp-toms of major depression. There is nomention of anxiety disorders, personalitydisorders, or any other forms of mental distur-bance likely to be seen in coaching.

In sum, it appears that the majority ofcoaches may have little knowledge, experi-ence or guidance for dealing with mentalhealth issues that may arise during thecourse of a coaching engagement.

Question 2: In an unregulated industry, what dutyof care does a coach owe their client? The ICF isone of the few coaching organisations to havearticulated a framework for ethical practice.Anecdotal reports suggest that these princi-ples have also been adopted by many coaches



not affiliated with the ICF. Whilst this isundoubtedly a good thing, one wonderswhether these guidelines are adequate fordischarging the legal and moral obligationscoaches have towards their clients.

From a legal standpoint, the absence ofany Australian case law means that legal deter-minations have not yet been passed down forthe guidance of coaching practitioners.Whilst it is possible that such determinationsmay never be made, it seems more likely(given that Australia is becoming increasinglylitigious – see Betts, 2004) that the activities ofthe coaching industry may be subject to legalscrutiny at some point in the future. As such itis worth briefly considering what conditionswould contribute to a determination of negli-gence in a coaching engagement.

According to Katter (1999), any claim ofnegligence must first prove the existence ofa duty of care between two persons. For this, itwould be necessary to show that: (i) a coachcould reasonably foresee that the coacheewould be harmed by action or inaction ontheir part; (ii) a close, causal relationshipexisted (proximity); and (iii) it is fair, justand reasonable for the law to impose thatduty on a coach (Katter, 1999). Given this setof conditions, it is quite conceivable that alegal duty of care could be demonstrated toexist in a coaching relationship. Thefollowing hypothetical case study outlines aset of circumstances in which such a deter-mination might be made:

A client with a history of depressionpresents for career coaching. Afteragreeing the desired coaching outcome(e.g. career transition), the client andcoach set some intermediate (sub) goalsand plan a course of action. Before toolong, however, the client begins toexperience difficulties, fails to meetagreed targets and starts to feelinadequate. Despite the coach’s bestattempts to support the client withencouragement and revised goals, theclient continues to under-perform,begins missing sessions and finallydiscontinues coaching amid feelings ofworthlessness. The coach, whilst puzzledby the client’s behaviour, has noknowledge of the client’s clinical historyand does not offer a clinical referral.Meanwhile, the client experiences adepressive episode and attempts tocommit suicide. Upon recovering theclient files a motion and sues fornegligence, arguing that the coach had aduty to investigate the client’s history ofmental health and to refer to anappropriate mental health professional.

In this scenario, according to Katter’scriteria, it might be argued that a coach, as apaid ‘expert’ in human behaviour, is obli-gated to take action to determine what isreasonably foreseeable (the first requirement)in a coaching engagement (including askingabout any history of mental illness), and that



Table 4: ICF standards for professional conduct with clients.

Standard Description

# 18 I will respect the client’s right to terminate coaching at any point during the process. I will be alert to indications that the client is no longer benefiting from our coaching relationship.

# 19 If I believe the client would be better served by another coach, or by another resource, I will encourage the client to make a change.

# 20 I will suggest that my clients seek the services of other professionals when deemed necessary.

# 21 I will take all reasonable steps to notify the appropriate authorities in the event a client discloses an intention to endanger self or others.

the personal nature of a coaching settingamply provides for such enquiries. In addi-tion, the client might argue that coachingrelationships, with its focus on personalaccountability for inaction, helped to causethe depressive episode that led to the self-harm (the second requirement). If (i) and(ii) are successfully argued then, accordingto Katter’s guidelines, it may be consideredfair, just and reasonable (the third require-ment) to impose a duty of care on the coach.Although somewhat simplistic, we believethat this example demonstrates how a legalduty of care might be determined, and thatexisting frameworks of ethical coachingpractice do not adequately guide practi-tioners in how to discharge such duties.

Limitations of the present studyThis paper set out to draw together twostrands of coaching research. On one hand itconsidered survey data indicating a consid-erable degree of diversity of skills, experi-ence and training within the Australiancoaching industry, and on the other, empir-ical data suggesting that coaching isattracting individuals who may wish toaddress an array of mental health issueswithout the stigma often associated withtherapy or counselling. In doing so, we havesought to promote discussion about theemergence of mental health issues incoaching, outlined the legal duty of careowed by a coach to a client, and questionedwhether coaches possess the requisite knowl-edge and skills to adequately discharge theseresponsibilities.

Whilst the synthesis of these researchfindings has been an important step inaddressing questions of importance for theprofessionalisation of the coaching industry,it would be premature to draw any firmconclusions from the data given certain limi-tations of these studies. For example, we arenot able to report a response rate for oursurvey. Whilst we do know that 148 out of400 delegates (37 per cent) did complete thesurvey, we know nothing about the charac-teristics of the non-respondents, including

their reasons for not responding. Moreimportantly, in distributing the survey at anindustry conference, it is highly likely thatsample was biased and non-representative ofthe broader coaching community. As such, itis difficult to make generalisations about theAustralian coaching industry from the avail-able data.

In addition, some items in the surveyquestionnaire may have been too open tointerpretation and not permitted an accu-rate assessment of individual characteristics.For example, whilst the item: ‘What forms ofcoaching-related experience have you had?’was designed to tap into experiences thateither developed or broadened corecoaching skills (e.g. counselling), it may bethat respondents were biased towardsreporting greater levels of experience byincorporating experience only tangentiallyrelated to coaching (e.g. interactions withchildren).

Finally, whilst the life coaching datapresented in this paper has been presentedas evidence for a public misperception ofcoaching as ‘socially acceptable therapy’, thiscannot be firmly concluded as this was notdirectly investigated by either Green et al.(2005) or Spence and Grant (2005). As such,the field would be enhanced by an investiga-tion of publicly held perceptions, both aboutthe nature of coaching and attitudes towardsthe coaching industry. Some further recom-mendations will now be made for the benefitof future researchers.

Directions for future researchWhilst this paper has provided a first step indeveloping a detailed profile of theAustralian coaching industry, several issuesare worthy of consideration by futureresearchers. In our view, the issue of greatestimportance relates to the mental healthneeds of clients and several questions areposed to help guide future efforts.

When a mental health issue arises in coaching, howdoes it emerge? While mental health issues maybe indicated by a range of obvious signs of



distress or disorientation (e.g. crying), experi-ence suggests that may clients with mentalhealth issues present at coaching in ways thatmay mask the presence of mental healthissues, or at least make them more difficult todetect. For example, the socially anxiousclient may present with goals aroundenhancing presentation skills rather than afrank admission of debilitating anxiety insocial settings. Seriously depressed clients maypresent seeking assistance with time manage-ment, procrastination, career change, or evenattaining unrealistic stretch goals.

While some research does exist linkingthe type of personal goals adopted by indi-viduals to the development of negative affectand vulnerability to depression (Emmons,1992; Street, 2002), there is no research todate investigating the relationship betweengoals and mental health in coaching clients.As personal goals are the usual starting pointin any coaching relationship, one avenue forfuture research would be to study thepresenting issues of coaching clients(expressed as personal goals) and correlatethese with well-established measures ofpsychopathology.

How do coaches define ‘mental health issues’? Do they recognise them when they arise? Approxi-mately 10 per cent of coaches in this surveyreported that self-esteem, negative life events,social isolation and distress were all issues thatthey commonly encountered in coaching.Such issues may reflect deeper psychologicaldistress and, hence, may indicate the presenceof mental health concerns. The currentresearch does not indicate whether respon-dents make any substantial distinctionbetween issues such as ‘improve my careerprospects’ and ‘improve my self-esteem’, norwhether they are likely to investigate for poten-tial mental health difficulties. Thus, anotheravenue for research could be to assesscoaches’ perceptions of issues that are inap-propriate for coaching, and to determine howadept coaches are at recognising the presenceof underlying psychological issues and imple-menting appropriate referral procedures.

What mental health training does the industryprovide? Having identified mental healthissues as an area of importance to practicingcoaches, it would be useful to examine whatlevel of mental health training is currentlyprovided within the industry. As such, acontent analysis of the various curriculumoffered by coach training providers would behelpful for both identifying whether atraining need exists in the preparation ofAustralian coaches and for making recom-mendations about appropriate syllabus.

Some general comments. Ultimately the longevityof the coaching industry will be governed byits ability to deliver value in an ethical andprofessional manner to individuals, groups,organisations and the broader community.Whilst Cavanagh and Grant (2004) havesuggested that this is best achieved by ‘devel-oping a widespread standard of practice thatincorporates theoretically guided and empiri-cally tested models and techniques’ (p.13),only a small amount of empirical work has yetbeen conducted and little is known about thetheoretical perspectives that inform coachingpractice in Australia.

Aside from those important considera-tions, the ability of the coaching industry to‘deliver value’ is tied to the ability of thosewithin the industry to uphold their duty ofcare towards clients. We hope that thecurrent longitudinal study will assist the bothconsumer of coaching services, coachtraining providers and coaches by providinga better understanding of profile of thecoaching community and identifying wheresome critical training needs exist.

ConclusionWhilst ‘coaching is not therapy’ has becomea catch-cry throughout the coachingindustry (Cavanagh & Grant, 2004),evidence suggests that coaching may beperceived somewhat differently by potentialconsumers (Green et al., 2005: Spence &Grant,2005). It seems highly probable that,for a subset of people with clinical issues(such as anxiety and depression), coaching



Berglas, S. (2002). The very real dangers of executivecoaching. Harvard Business Review, June, 87–92.

Betts, J. (2004). Are we becoming more American?Class action litigation – Australia v United States.Retrieved 13 August 2005, fromhttp://www.freehills.com.au/publications/publications_1582.asp

Brotman, L.E., Liberi, W.P. & Wasylyshyn, K.M.(1998). Executive coaching: The need for stan-dards of competence. Consulting PsychologyJournal: Practice and Research, 50(1), 40–46.

Cavanagh, M. (2005). Mental health issues and chal-lenging clients in executive coaching. In M.Cavanagh, A.M. Grant & T. Kemp (Eds.),Evidence-based coaching: Theory, research and practicefrom the behavioural sciences (Vol. 1, pp.21–36).Brisbane: Australian Academic Press.

Cavanagh, M. & Grant, A.M. (2004). Executivecoaching in organisations: The personal is theprofessional. International Journal of Coaching inOrganisations, 2(2), 6–15.

Cavanagh, M., Grant, A.M. & Kemp, T. (Eds.).(2005). Evidence-based coaching: Theory, researchand practice from the behavioural sciences (Vol. 1).Brisbane: Australian Academic Press.

Clegg, S., Rhodes, C. & Kornberger, M. (2003). An overview of the business coaching industry inAustralia (Working Paper). Sydney: TheAustralian Centre for Organisational, Vocationaland Adult Learning.

Derogatis, L.R. (1993). BSI Brief Symptom Inventory:Administration, scoring, and procedures manual (4th ed.). Minneapolis, MN: National ComputerSystems.

Emmons, R.A. (1992). Abstract versus concrete goals:personal striving level, physical illness, andpsychological well-being. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 62(2), 292–300.

Garman, A.N., Whiston, D.L. & Zlatoper, K.W.(2000). Media perceptions of executive coachingand the formal preparation of coaches.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,52(3), 201–205.

may be seen an alternative to therapy orcounselling, one that is stripped of its socialstigma and negative stereotypes.

This evidence suggests important mentalhealth issues are likely to arise in coaching.In our view this presents coaches with anumber of challenges and opportunities.Coaches face the challenges of makingjudgements about the nature of the client’sissues and limits of their competence, andthen presenting their concerns to the clientand referring appropriately where necessary.In this, coaches have to tread the fine linebetween identifying when pathology needsto be addressed and pathologising the client(Maddux, 2002). This challenge introducesadded complexity to the coaching engage-ment for which coaches need to be trained.

Furthermore, the process of referral isnot an intrinsically attractive one. Manycoaches may fear clients will becomeconfused or angry when referral isattempted. In addition, referring clientsaway from coaching results in an immediateloss of income. Whilst these difficulties areundoubtedly trumped by a coach’s duty ofcare, they also present as opportunities for

coaches to demonstrate to clients that theyoffer a sophisticated and differentiatedservice to the market – one which adds realvalue to the client by ensuring the mostappropriate intervention is selected. Thus,in developing an informed and professionalstrategy for dealing with mental healthissues, coaches will be working towardsdischarging both a legal and ethical duty ofcare owed to their client, and moving thecoaching industry toward a more profes-sional footing.

CorrespondenceGordon B. Spence, Michael J. Cavanagh &Anthony M. GrantCoaching Psychology Unit,School of Psychology,University of Sydney, Australia.E-mail:Gordon B.Spence:[email protected] J. Cavanagh:[email protected] M. Grant:[email protected]



References

Grant, A.M. (2003). Keeping up with the cheese! Researchas a foundation for professional coaching. Paperpresented at the First International Coach Feder-ation Research Symposium, November, Denver, US.

Grant, A.M. & Zackon, R. (2004). Executive, work-place and life coaching: Findings from a large-scale survey of international coach federationmembers. International Journal of Evidenced-BasedCoaching and Mentoring, 2(2), 1–15.

Green, L.S., Oades, L.G. & Grant, A.M. (2005). Anevaluation of a life-coaching group programme:Initial findings from a waitlist control study. In M. Cavanagh, A.M. Grant & T. Kemp (Eds.),Evidenced-based coaching: Theory, research andpractice from the behavioural sciences (Vol. 1,pp.127–141). Brisbane: Australian AcademicPress.

ICF (2005). The ICF Code of Ethics. Retrieved 12August 2005, fromhttp://www.coachfederation.org/ethics/ICF_Code_of_Ethics_01_22_05.pdf

Kampa-Kokesch, S. & Anderson, M. Z. (2001). Exec-utive coaching: A comprehensive review of theliterature. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practiceand Research, 53(4), 205–228.

Katter, N. (1999). Duty of care in Australia. Sydney:LBC.

Maddux, J.E. (2002). Stopping the ‘madness’: Positive psychology and the deconstruction ofthe illness ideology and the DSM. In C.R.S.S.J.Lopez (Ed.), Handbook of positive psychology(pp.13–25). New York: Oxford University Press.

Naughton, J. (2002). The coaching boom: Is it thelong-awaited alternative to the medical model?The Psychotherapy Networker, 42, July/August, 1–10.

Peltier, B. (2001). The psychology of executive coaching.New York: Brunner-Routledge.

Spence, G.B. & Grant, A.M. (2005). Individual andgroup life coaching: initial findings from arandomised, controlled trial. In M. Cavanagh, A.M. Grant & T. Kemp (Eds.), Evidenced-basedcoaching: Theory, research and practice from the behav-ioural sciences (Vol. 1, pp.143–158). Brisbane:Australian Academic Press.

Street, H. (2002). Exploring relationships betweengoal setting, goal pursuit and depression: A review. Australian Psychologist, 37(2), 95–103.

Williams, P. (2004). The potential perils of personalissues in coaching the continuing debate:Therapy or coaching? What every coach mustknow! International Journal of Coaching in Organi-sations, 2(2), 21–30.



Coaching and stress

WORKPLACE STRESS CAUSESdistress and ill health (Health andSafety Executive (HSE), 2001).

There are many different definitions of stressand according to the HSE (2001) stress is ‘theadverse reaction people have to excessive pressuresor other types of demand placed on them’. Withincognitive definitions of stress there is morefocus on the perceptions of the individual.Palmer, Cooper and Thomas (2003) proposethat ‘stress occurs when the perceived pressureexceeds your perceived ability to cope’ (p.2).

A variety of interventions are used totackle workplace stress (Cooper &Cartwright, 1997). One intervention that isnot commonly associated with stress reduc-tion is coaching. Nevertheless, it has beensuggested that coaching can be useful inreducing stress (Busch & Steinmetz, 2002;Hearn, 2001; Jones, 1996; Meyer, 2003;Palmer, Tubbs & Whybrow, 2003). Hearn

(2001) suggests that coaching can help indi-viduals to identify stressors, develop strate-gies for change and maintain solutions. Aswell as tackling stress directly, coachingcould reduce stress indirectly by helping anindividual to reach their personal goals (e.g.improve performance, efficiency, or commu-nication), and thereby decrease any stresscaused by the perceived deficiency in thearea targeted in coaching (Gyllensten &Palmer, 2005a). However, it is also possiblethat coaching will increase awareness of workstressors that may or may not be tackled bythe organisation. This increased awarenessmay lead to increased stress.

Whilst it is recognised that there is a lackof research on coaching effectiveness and oncoaching and stress (Gyllensten & Palmer,2005a), the current qualitative and quantita-tive research in this area is reviewed below.Grant (2001, 2003) has conducted two quan-titative studies investigating the effects of


Experiences of coaching and stress in theworkplace: An InterpretativePhenomenological AnalysisKristina Gyllensten & Stephen Palmer

Objectives: This paper will present the findings from a qualitative study exploring experiences of workplacecoaching.Design: The study adopted a qualitative design. Semi-structured interviews were used and the method ofanalysis was Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (Smith, Jaraman & Osborn, 1999). Methods: Two large organisations participated and nine individuals, who had taken part in coaching,were interviewed. The interviews focused on the participants’ experiences of coaching, and one of the topicsinvestigated was coaching and stress. Results: ‘Management of Stress’ was identified as a main theme which, in turn, comprised of a number ofsub-themes. According to these sub-themes coaching had helped the participants to reduce stress indirectly,to cope with stressful situations, and was a resource that the participants would consider using in thefuture. Moreover, coaching also had the potential to cause stress. Conclusions: It was concluded that coaching could help to reduce stress indirectly and help individuals tocope with stressful situations. However, as coaching also had the potential to cause stress it was suggestedthat it was important that coaches clearly explain what can be expected from coaching. In addition,limitations with the study were discussed. Keywords: work-related stress, coaching, Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis,management of stress.

coaching that demonstrate a positive impactof coaching on mental health. Grant (2001)found that cognitive coaching significantlyreduced levels of depression and anxiety.Additionally, Grant (2003) reported thatparticipation in a life coaching programmesignificantly reduced levels of depression,anxiety, and stress.

Compasspoint Nonprofit Services (2003)used both quantitative and qualitativemethods to investigate the effects ofcoaching in a group of Executive Directors.The findings indicate that whilst there wasno significant reduction of stress andburnout after coaching, coaching hadhelped participants to reduce stress byencouraging the coachees to take time forthemselves regularly and by highlighting theimportance of self care. Furthermore, theparticipants reported that they felt betterequipped to cope with any future feelings ofburnout as a result of the coaching.

Wales (2003) used a phenomenologicalapproach to explore the experience ofcoaching in a group of managers. Thecoaching relationship provided a safe envi-ronment where the managers could sharefears and anxieties, identify coping skills, andtest new behaviours. Coaching was found tohelp the participants to reduce their experi-ence of stress and manage their work/lifebalance. At the beginning of the coachingrelationships, many of the participantsreported that they had been experiencinghigh levels of stress. Following coaching theparticipants described themselves as morerelaxed, less angry, and better able to under-stand and deal with work and personal pres-sures. Coaching had also helped theparticipants to become more proactive indealing with the different roles in their lives.

Various case studies have reported thatcoaching was effective in reducing clients’stress levels (Hearn, 2001; Richard, 1999). A case study describing the coaching of aRegional Drug Strategy Manager wasreported by Ascentia (2005). The coachingproduced a number of benefits includingstress reduction. Stress levels were reduced

despite the fact that stress was not specificallytargeted in the coaching, and the managerwas going through challenging periods ofchange. In addition, the stress levels had alsobeen reduced among the members of themanager’s team.

The current studyThe current study was Part III of a largerpiece of research on coaching and stress.Part I of the research investigated whethercoaching reduced stress. A quasi-experi-mental design was used and stress was meas-ured before and after coaching. It was foundthat coaching did not significantly reducestress (Gyllensten & Palmer, 2005b). Part IIof the research investigated whether therewas a relationship between participation incoaching and levels of stress. A correlationaldesign was used. Participation in coachingdid not significantly predict levels of stress(Gyllensten & Palmer, 2005c). Part III of theresearch used a qualitative methodology. A qualitative methodology was suitable as theaim with Part III of the research was to gaina deeper insight into the participants’ expe-riences of coaching and their views andexperiences of coaching and stress. Thequalitative research process is flexible, inter-ested in rich descriptions of the topic, andenables the discovery of novel themes(Denzin & Lincon, 2000; Holliday, 2002).This article will only present some of thefindings from Part III of the study.

The aim of the current study The aim of the current study was to investi-gate participants’ experiences and views ofcoaching, specifically, the process ofcoaching, evaluation of coaching (was thecoaching beneficial or not – how, in whatway) and if/how coaching impacted onstress.

Methods Interpretative Phenomenological AnalysisPhenomenology relates to the person’s indi-vidual view of an event rather than an objec-tive statement about the event (Smith,


Experiences of coaching and stress in the workplace

1996). The present study used InterpretativePhenomenological Analysis (IPA) to analysethe data from the semi-structured interviews.IPA is a practical and systematic approach toanalysing rich data (Baker, Pistrang & Elliot,2002). The main aim of IPA is to explore andunderstand meanings of experiences of theparticipants (Smith & Osborn, 2004). IPAhas been used extensively in healthpsychology research but according to Smithand Osborn (2004) it is appropriate for arange of psychological research questionswhere the aim is to investigate the meaningof the participants’ experiences. IPA recog-nises that the research process is dynamic,and the researcher takes an active role inattempting to get an insider’s perspective ofthe participant’s experience. However, thiscannot be done directly or fully, but rathervia a process of interpretation (Smith &Osborn, 2003). IPA assumes that there is arelationship between an individual’s verbalaccounts and their cognitions and emotions.Nevertheless, it is recognised that the rela-tionship is complicated and individuals mayhave difficulties reporting what they arethinking or/and they may not want to self-disclose (Smith & Osborn, 2003).

Participants The participants in the current study wereselected on the basis of having participatedin workplace coaching and thereby beingable to contribute to the research questionas recommended by Smith and Osborn(2003). One UK organisation from thefinance sector and one Scandinavian organi-sation from the telecommunications sectorparticipated in the study. Both organisationsmainly focused on telephone-based workand had in excess of 3000 employees. Poten-tial participants were selected by a contactindividual at each organisation. Overall,nine participants were interviewed, six wereemployees of the UK organisation and threewere employees of the Scandinavian organi-sation. Six females and three males partici-pated and the mean age of the intervieweeswas 33 years with a range of 23 to 52. Four of

the participants held management positionsand all nine worked full-time. All partici-pants had taken part in coaching withintheir organisation.

Procedure The interview schedule was based on the aimof the research and previous literature. Maintopics included details of coaching, thecoaching process, evaluation of coaching,and coaching and stress. The questions werepiloted prior to the research interviews.Semi-structured interviews were used as thismethod is flexible, enables the collection ofrich data, and is suitable for IPA studies(Smith & Osborn, 2003). The interviewstook between 30 to 45 minutes and wererecoded and transcribed in their entirety.The lines in each transcript were numberedfor ease of reference. In the transcriptsparticipants were assigned one of the firstnine letters of the alphabet. The letter ‘I’ wasused to denote the Interviewer.

UK organisation The interviews with the participants from theUK organisation took place at one of theorganisation’s sites. Prior to the interview theparticipants were asked to read and sign aconsent form indicating their understandingof the study and agreement to take part. Theconsent form stated the participants’ rightsto anonymity, withdrawal and ensured secu-rity of the data. The interviewer then askedthe participants for permission to switch thetape recorder on and start the interview. Atthe end of the study the participants wereinvited to ask questions and they wereinformed that they were welcome to contactthe researcher if they had any further ques-tions or concerns regarding the research.

Scandinavian organisation All interviews with the participants from theScandinavian organisation took place overthe telephone. Initially, the researchercontacted these participants via e-mail. Thisinitial e-mail outlined the aim of theresearch, the confidentiality and anonymity


Kristina Gyllensten & Stephen Palmer

of the study and the right to withdrawal. Ifthe participant replied to this e-mail andagreed to take part in the study the partici-pants’ e-mail reply was kept as a proof oftheir consent (all participants allowed theresearcher to print and keep the e-mail). Atthe beginning of the telephone conversationthe researcher asked for the participants’consent to switching the tape recorder on.Following this consent the researcheremphasised that participation was voluntaryand that the participant should only agree totake part in the research if they had under-stood and agreed to the conditions outlined.Once the participant had given a verbalconsent to taking part in the study the inter-view commenced. At the end of the interviewthe participants were invited to talk aboutany issues or ask questions related to thetopic. They were also informed that theycould contact the researcher if they wantedto discuss any questions or issues related tothe interview.

Analysis The analysis was conducted in accordancewith Smith, Jarman and Osborn’s (1999)guidelines to doing IPA. As suggested bySmith and Osborn (2003) an ideographicapproach to analysis was used, where theanalysis begins with a detailed investigationof a specific case before the other cases areincorporated and a more general categorisa-tion emerge. In accordance with thisapproach one transcript was read a numberof times and notes of anything significant orinteresting were made. Prevalence within thedata is not the only important factor whenthemes are selected: richness of text passagesand ability to explain other aspects of theinterview are also important factors (Smith,Jaraman & Osborn, 1999). The next step ofthe analysis involved reading the transcriptagain and recording the emerging themes.The themes were listed and connectionsbetween themes and superodinate conceptswere noted. Finally, the themes were orderedcoherently and a table of themes wasproduced. This process of analysis was

repeated for the remaining transcripts and afinal table of superordinate themes for thewhole group was constructed. The mainthemes that emerged were: management ofstress, confidence, the coaching relation-ship, coaching = investment in staff. As thetopic of this article is coaching and stress thecentral focus will be on the main theme‘management of stress’. However, there willbe a brief discussion of the other mainthemes.

Evaluating the analysis The qualitative analysis is a subjectiveprocess and different researchers may havearrived at different conclusions. In IPA theresearcher’s personal frame of referenceinevitably influences the analysis(Golsworthy & Coyle, 2001). It has beensuggested that good qualitative practiceinvolves researchers specifying theirpersonal perspective relevant to the study, asthis enable readers to interpret theresearcher’s analysis (Elliot, Fisher &Rennie, 1999). In this study the researcher’sinterpretative framework has been influ-enced by; training and practice in coun-selling psychology, particularly in workingwith issues of work stress; previous researchon stress; and training in coachingpsychology. As the researcher was aware ofthese factors from the beginning of the studymuch effort was made to ‘bracket’ (Baker etal., 2002) preconceived ideas and expecta-tions in order to minimise unwarranted idio-syncratic interpretations or unwarrantedselective attention in the interviews.

Various criteria have been suggested forthe evaluation of qualitative studies, and thefollowing is a summary list of publishedguidelines: openness of theoretical frame-work by researchers (Baker et al., 2002; Elliotet al., 1999); situating the sample (Elliot et al.,1999); methods described in detail to allowreplication (Baker et al., 2002); groundingthe data and presentation of evidence (Bakeret al., 2002; Elliot et al., 1999; Popay, Rogers &Williams, 1998; Smith, 1996); providing cred-ibility checks by the use of an independent



audit, member checks or triangulation(Baker et al., 2002; Elliot et al., 1999; Smith,1996); internal coherence of the data-basedstory/narrative (Elliot et al., 1999; Popay etal., 1998; Smith, 1996); limitations of theextension of the findings are specified (Elliotet al., 1999; Popay et al., 1998). The presentstudy has attempted to address these guide-lines in the following manner. Theresearcher’s personal perspective has beenhighlighted and basic descriptive data aboutthe participants have been presented. Themethods of the study have been thoroughlydescribed to allow replication. Examples ofthe data have been provided to illustrate eachtheme. The data has been presented in anarrative that aims to highlight the phenom-enon under study in a coherent manner.Moreover, a summary of the analysis has beenpresented in a in a model that highlights therelationship between the themes. Finally, it issuggested that the findings should not begeneralised to all coaching situations butonly to the groups studied and possiblysimilar groups in similar settings. However,despite the fact that the findings are notgeneralisable to all coaching situations it ispossible that coaches can benefit from someof the issues highlighted in the research.

Results The management of stressManagement of stress was a main theme thatemerged from the analysis. It is important tonote that that this theme does not only high-light the positive impact of coaching indealing with stress but also the negativeaspects including coaching causing stress.Four sub-themes emerged and theseincluded: indirect work on stress; copingwith stress; use coaching for stress in thefuture; and cause of stress. Their relation-ship is depicted in Figure 1, ‘The Manage-ment of Stress’.

Indirect work on stress The participants had not sought coachingspecifically to reduce stress. However,coaching appeared to help participants toreduce stress by helping them to manageother work-related problems that werecausing them stress. Thus, it could besuggested that coaching reduced stress indi-rectly. One route coaching reduced stressindirectly was by helping participants tobecome more satisfied with their job role.Indeed, role ambiguity is a common stressorin the workplace:



Figure 1: The Management of Stress.

Reduced stressIndirect workon stress

Coping with stress

Cause of stress

Use coaching forstress in the future

COACHING

No, it definitely reduced the stress because byworking on everything that we have worked on Ifeel happier in my role so I think it has definitelyhelped with stress. (B: 331–332)

Another indirect route to reduced stress wasimproved confidence. Confidence was oneof the other main themes found in theanalysis and many of the participants hadsought coaching in order to increase confi-dence. Low confidence appeared to have anegative influence on well-being andperformance. It was reported that whenconfidence and job-satisfaction wereimproved, as a result of the coaching, stresswas reduced:

I didn’t necessarily go to do the coaching to reducestress, but I suppose it has done because I feelhappier in what I am doing, and more confident,and organised. (B: 338–340)

According to some participants improvedconfidence automatically reduced stress:

But overall yes it reduced it, because by me feelingmore confident I think that automatically reducesstress… (D: 379–380)

Pressure and high workload were sources ofstress for the participants. Once againcoaching helped to reduce stress indirectlyby helping the participants to become moreconfident and assertive and decline extrawork. Thus, it appeared that the coachinghelped the participants to increase aware-ness of their own limitations regarding workdemands and to clearly state these limita-tions at the workplace:

I know now when to say ‘it is too much, we can’ttake on any more’ and I feel that I will say that.Whereas previously I may have just said ‘oh yes Iwill do it’ and just end up worrying and gettingstressed over it, so yes I do. (D: 414–417)

I used to sometimes feel that maybe I was taking ontoo much and ending up with too much work thatI couldn’t physically do. So in my mindset I know

how much work I can take on and when to startrefusing things you know. I will take on as muchas I feel I can cope with. (E: 334–337)

Worrying about situations at work wasanother source of stress. Improved confi-dence lead to less worry about these worksituations and this lead to reduced stress:

I would get stressed about worrying about thingsand, you know I would sort of, I would worryabout going into team meetings so that wouldstress me. And because of this coaching and thegoal of becoming more confident then that doesn’tworry me anymore so I don’t let it effect me. So yesfrom an indirect point of view I am less stressedthan I was when I first started. (E: 368–372)

Uncertainty over dealing with problems atwork was a major source of stress accordingto the participants. Discussing problems andproblem solving were key activities of thecoaching. Highlighting and discussing prob-lems at work and developing new solutionshelped to reduce stress:

…my coaching sessions also made some thingseasier for me to work with afterwards. Because Ifound new ways to do things, I found my way outof things that I thought ‘how do I do that’. Andthen I discussed it… and that kind of clarity takesaway the stress feeling. (J: 389–392)

You can’t just all of a sudden eliminate all yourproblems in life, but you got to sit down and planhow you are going to tackle those problems. If youknow that then it makes it so much easier tocontend with and deal with. I think that has reallyhelped over the last couple of years. (E: 447–451)

It was also suggested that coaching couldplay a role in preventing future stress byproviding an opportunity to discuss prob-lems and to find solutions, the inability tosolve problems being an identified cause ofstress:

Because if you have like things you have to do andyou don’t know how to do them I think it is



stressful. And coaching can help you to find outhow to solve the problems, and in that way I thinkit can prevent future stress. (J: 399–401)

However, it is important to note that not allparticipants felt that coaching had helpedthem to reduce distress. It is, therefore,important to remember that stress is acomplex phenomena that is influenced by amultitude of different factors:

I am not that susceptible to external factors, if Iwake up in the morning feeling low that is the wayit is regardless of what coaching I have done. (A: 539–540)

Coping with stress Coaching was not always helpful in elimi-nating or reducing stress. Nevertheless,coaching helped some participants to copewith situations that were causing them stress:

I never doubted my ability to be competent. Thething that was always undermining me was mynervous reaction – it was something I could neverever cope with. I just hated that, and I just didn’twant to feel it. What the coaching has helped me todo is help me deal with that stress. Not to eradicateit. (A: 615–618)

It has not reduced the feeling of pain. It has helpedme to cope with it. (A: 660)

In the past some participants had felt unableto remain in distressing situations and had,therefore, avoided these situations. However,with the help of coaching, the participantswere able to remain in and cope withdistressing situations that they had beenunable to tolerate in the past:

So whereas previously I would have run away andavoided the situation and those feelings, whereasnow they are still there but I feel I can cope withthem and sort of manage them. That is whatcoaching has helped me to do. (A: 623–625)

Yes, and I am able to sort of stay in there and livewith it. As uncomfortable as it (presentations) is I

am finding I can cope with it now, which previ-ously I just couldn’t have done. (A: 640-641)

Working in a new job role, that was differentto the previous one, was identified as a causeof stress. The stress caused by this situationhad been so serious for some employees thatthey had chosen to leave the organisationrather than to continue and face the newwork situation. Coaching helped someparticipants to remain in the organisationand to cope with the new job role. Thus,coaching may have had an important organ-isational function in reducing staff turnoverin a period of organisational change:

The job I applied for has completely changed. Andquite a lot of people found that really difficult thatchange, because it is kind of an uncomfortablezone I suppose. And quite a few people left, butcoaching has definitely helped with that. So I don’tknow, maybe if I did not have that support I don’tknow whether I would still be here. (B: 431–434)

Although coaching did not always manage toeliminate or even reduce stress some partici-pants expressed hope that continuous workin coaching could help to eliminate thedistress:

…I have obviously done loads of presentations inthe past and just hated them, and never seekingopportunities and all the rest of it. It has helped meto be able to cope rather than eliminating my stress.So I mean you could ask me this question in 12months time and I might have totally knocked thestress thing over. (A: 650–654)

Use coaching for stress in the future As stated previously, the participants had notsought coaching in order to deal with whatthey perceived to be workplace stress.However, when discussing the usefulness ofcoaching in dealing with stress the partici-pants any reported that they believed thatcoaching could be suitable:

I think if I did use coaching for stress, and thatsort of thing, then it would help, but I think it



definitely would help, but it not something that Ihave used it for before. (B: 360–362)

But I think that using the tools from the coachingcould have some positive effects so I would not beso stressed. (H: 393–394)

Although they had not used coaching forstress in the past, the participants consideredgoing to coaching for stress problems in thefuture, with one of the participants contem-plating booking further coaching sessions inorder to deal with worry that was causingstress:

I mean I don’t know whether it would be useful tobook more coaching sessions, I might do it actually.I think I still could do with working on theworrying side of things, and worrying about whatpeople think and that type of thing. I think I doput added stress and pressure on myself sometimesbecause of that. (D: 404–408)

Furthermore, the participants reported thatthey would recommend coaching tocolleagues, as a means of tackling stress.Thus, increasing awareness in the workplaceof the potential benefits of coaching:

But I know if any member of my team is sufferingfrom stress I would direct them to go and see acoach. So I imagine that they would be quite goodat sorting that out. (C: 395–396)

One explanation to why participants had notyet approached the coaches regarding prob-lems with stress was because the stress prob-lems they were facing were not viewed to beserious enough. There appeared to be a viewthat in order to seek coaching for stressthere should be serious problems with stress:

I know that if I had a problem with it (stress) Iwould go to them and they would sort it out but Iam not stressed above a level that I can work at.(C: 337–338)

When the participants considered wherethey would like to seek help if they suffered

from stress it appeared that that seeing acoach was preferable to seeing a manager.This was principally for reasons of confiden-tiality, the participants believing a meetingwith a coach as being more confidential thanone with a manager:

I think most people would rather go to a coach totalk about stress than their team manager. Becauseonce again if you talk to your team manager thenit is going to go down on your file, it is just youdon’t want it on your paper ‘he suffers from stress,bla, bla, bla’. (C: 390–393)

Similarly, for some participants seeing acoach was viewed as preferable to seeing acounsellor in order to deal with stress. Thereason for this was that seeking help from acounsellor made the problem seem moreserious. This indicates that employees maybe more willing to participate in coachingthan in counselling. One possible reason forthis is that there may be a stigma associatedwith counselling:

Yes, because it if you go to a counsellor then thatmakes it real. If you go to a coach then that is justchatting to one of your friends about it. Do you seewhat I mean, if, I think actually counsellingwould be the next step along from a coach, but Ithink most people would rather go to a coach andtry and sort it out that way. (C: 400–403)

However, it is important to highlight that thisview, that attending coaching implied a lessserious problem, was not held by all partici-pants, some believing that coaching was verysimilar to counselling, and counsellingpsychology:

I mean, at university I did do a bit of counsellingpsychology and that is what coaching is at the endof the day in a way isn’t it. It is like being a coun-sellor to someone. (D: 179–181)

Cause of stress As well as being able to reduce stress or helpparticipants to cope with stress it was alsoreported that coaching could in fact cause



stress. It was pointed out that openness tocoaching was an important factor in deter-mining its usefulness. For those coacheeswho considered coaching a ‘waste of time’ itactually became a source of stress. This wasbased upon the perception that the timetaken up by coaching could be used in amore constructive manner. The attitudes ofthe coachees, therefore, being vital:

But you have to get to a point where you can actu-ally see that you get something out of the coaching.Because if you are sitting there and you think it isa waste of time you will just be a bit more stressedknowing that you could have used your time muchbetter at work instead of being coached. So youhave to have a coaching set-up that you feel willgive you something otherwise it won’t help you. (H: 435–439)

Nevertheless, the skills and competence ofthe coach was also viewed as important. Ifthe coach was insufficiently skilled thecoaching session could be perceived as a‘waste of time’:

Well it depends on the opinion about it. Because ifyou go there and you feel it is a waste of time andyou keep on insisting it is a waste of time, it will bea waste of time. So somehow you have to decidethat this is something I will get something goodfrom, so you go into it with a positive mind. Butalso of course you need to have someone coachingyou that knows what they are doing. Because otherwise I guess it could be a waste of time. (H: 444–449)

Another reason to why coaching could beperceived as unproductive, and therebycause stress, was if there was an overemphasis on discussion that did not lead toany action. It would appear that the partici-pants sought practical results from thecoaching:

Sometimes there is too little action. (G: 452) Whenit takes too much time or resources. I think it tendsto be when we just talk and talk and nothinghappens. (G: 456–457)

The appreciation and perceived benefits ofcoaching did not seem to be immediate forall participants. Indeed, although partici-pants reported that there was a risk thatcoaching could be unproductive, thereappeared, however, to be a process in whichthe participants could learn to appreciatecoaching after a period of time:

Well I think the first time I participated in it I wasvery disappointed, I did not see any meaning in itand I left with the feeling that I had spent a lot oftime and didn’t get anything with me. (H: 119–121) But the following times I think itimproved very much. And at the end of it, it wasreally good. (H: 125–126)

Coaching could also cause stress by encour-aging the participants to focus on theirproblem(s). By focusing on the problem(s)at the beginning of the coaching the partici-pant became more aware of the extent of theproblem and this, subsequently, could causedistress:

I think my first couple of sessions in a way mademe feel worse. Because it was making me focusmore on the problem, so I was becoming moreconscious that the problem existed and thinking‘god yes I do, do that’, and I was focusing on myown behaviour. But once I got over that in the longrun it helped definitely. (D: 157–161)

Although the coaching initially causedincreased stress it did, however, eventuallyhelp to reduce stress. Once again therewould appear to be a process in which theparticipants could derive benefit fromcoaching after a period of time:

I think like I say in the early stages possibly itmakes you feel worse, but then once you really getto grips with everything it makes you feel a lotbetter. (D: 215–217)

Furthermore, participants highlighted thepotential risk associated with leavingcoaching before these initial feeling of stresshad been worked through. Thus, there



appeared to be a risk that coachees wouldleave coaching feeling more distressed thanwhen they entered:

And if they weren’t prepared to see it through itcould have a negative effect. But as long as peopleare prepared to see it through to the end I think itdefinitely has a positive effect. (D: 294–296)

Overview of additional main themesManagement of stress is the central focus ofthis result section. However, a brief outlineof the three additional themes is presentedbelow.

The three additional themes thatemerged from the analysis included: thecoaching relationship, confidence, andcoaching = investment in staff. It was foundthat the relationship between the coach andthe coachee was viewed as very importantand necessary for the coaching to develop.This relationship was dependent on trustand improved by transparency. Coachingalso helped to increase the participants’confidence and this lead to other benefits,including improved job performance,assertiveness, and well-being outside work. A valuable coaching relationship andincreased confidence did of course have apositive impact on the management of stress.

There appeared to be some initial scepti-cism towards the concept of coaching,however, once the participants had attendedcoaching it was viewed as a sign that theorganisation valued and invested in their staff.

Discussion The participants in the current study hadnot sought coaching in order to tackle stressdirectly. Nevertheless, the participantsexpressed that coaching had helped them toreduce stress indirectly, for example, byhelping to improve confidence and problemsolving skills. However, coaching did notalways help to reduce stress and it is impor-tant to recognise that stress is a complexprocess that can be influenced by manyfactors other than coaching. Coaching hadhelped some individuals to cope with

stressful situations. Thus, the coaching hadhelped them to stay in stressful situationsrather than avoid them. Avoidance behav-iour can be a behavioural response to stress(Palmer et al., 2003). It was further foundthat coaching was viewed as a resource thatthe participants would consider using totackle workplace stress in the future.However, coaching also had the potential tocause stress. Coaching could cause stress bybeing perceived as a waste of time and by notleading to any action. This could be theresult of a coachee not being open to thecoaching process or an unskilled coach.Some participants reported that there was aprocess of learning to appreciate coaching.Increased focus on the target problem was afurther example of how coaching couldincrease stress. This could occur at the earlystages of coaching and participants reportedthat it was important to stay in the coachingto work through this stage.

The finding that coaching helped toreduce stress was similar to the results fromthe Wales (2003) qualitative study with asample of managers. According to Wales(2003) coaching had helped to reduce stressand anger and had increased awareness andcapability of dealing with pressures. Simi-larly, Grant (2001, 2003) found that cogni-tive coaching and life coaching significantlyimproved mental health. The findings fromthe current qualitative study were, however,different from those in the quantitativestudies conducted in Part I and Part II of thesame larger piece of research. Part I of thestudy found that coaching did not signifi-cantly reduce stress (Gyllensten & Palmer,2005b) and Part II found that coaching wasnot a significant predictor of levels of stress(Gyllensten & Palmer, 2005c). Similarly,stress levels were not significantly reducedafter coaching in the quantitative part ofCompassPoint Nonprofit Services’ (2003)study. However, the qualitative part of thesame study found that coaching had helpedto reduce stress. The CompassPointNonprofit Services’ (2003) study is particu-larly interesting to compare with the current



study as both found that the qualitative andquantitative methodologies produced some-what different findings regarding stressreduction and coaching. A possible reasonfor this inconsistency is that there is aproblem measuring reduction of stress withquestionnaires. The stress process may betoo complex and hold so many differentmeanings for individuals that a question-naire is not the most suitable way of meas-uring it. On the other hand, theinconsistencies between the qualitative andquantitative approaches may reflect the factthat the individuals who were interviewedwere in a minority or that they felt requiredto report positive aspects of coaching.Further research is needed in order to clarifythis discrepancy.

Limitations Issues relating to qualitative research designshave been discussed under ‘Evaluation ofAnalysis’. Nevertheless, there are somefurther limitations of the study that needs tobe highlighted. It is always possible thatrecruitment bias will have an impact on theresearch when the sample is relatively small(Chapman, 2002). Indeed, it may be the casethat only those individuals who consideredthat their coaching was successful agreed totake part in the study. Moreover, the contactpersons, based at the organisations, mayunintentionally (or intentionally) have putforward individuals who were positivetowards coaching. Six of the participantsworked in the UK organisation and threeworked in the Scandinavian. All interviewswere analysed as one sample as they had allexperienced workplace coaching withintheir organisations and, therefore, would beable to inform the researcher about thetopic under investigation. However, there isthe risk that the results were consequentlymore representative of the experiences ofcoaching in the UK organisation. It wouldhave been preferable to have a more equalamount of participants from both organisa-tions. A further limitation was that thecoaching differed between the organisa-

tions. Problem solving models were animportant part of both organisations’coaching approaches. However, the organi-sations also used different coaching tech-niques and theories.

Implications and conclusionsThe current study found that coaching washelpful in reducing stress indirectly. Thiswould suggest that it could be useful to intro-duce coaching in organisations that arefacing problems with workplace stress. It wasalso found that coaching had helped partici-pants to cope with stressful situations such aschanging job roles. Thus, organisations thatare planning major changes to job roles maybenefit from employing coaches to help theemployees through the period of change.Furthermore, the participants were positivetowards using coaching for stress. Indeed,participants in both the current study and inprevious research (Gyllensten, Palmer &Farrants, 2005) have reported that coachingis viewed as preferable to counselling forworkplace stress. A potential reason for thisbeing that counselling implies a moreserious problem with stress and may carry astigma. Consequently, coaching has thepotential to reach the individuals who arenot comfortable seeking counselling forstress at their workplace. In addition, it isimportant to note that the study also foundthat coaching can actually cause stress. Basedon the participants’ views it is important thatthe coaching leads to some form of action. Itis also important that the coach explainswhat the coachee can expect from coachingand highlights that excessive focus on thetarget problem may cause an initial increasein distress. If the coachee is aware of what toexpect they can then make an informedchoice regarding the suitability of coachingand thereby reduce the likelihood of it beingperceived as a ‘waste of time’ for both thecoachee and coach. Finally, the current studyhighlights the need for further qualitativeand quantitative research on coaching andstress. Future research could investigate thediscrepancy between qualitative and quanti-



tative approaches. Further, quantitativestudies could employ larger sample sizes inorder to investigate the effectiveness ofcoaching in reducing stress and qualitativestudies could investigate the process ofcoaching as well as the outcome.

Authors detailsKristina Gyllensten & Stephen PalmerCity University, London, UK.

CorrespondenceProfessor Stephen PalmerCoaching Psychology Unit, Department of Psychology,City University, Northampton Square, London, EC1V 0HB, UK.E-mail:[email protected] [email protected]



ReferencesAscentia (2005). Case studies. International Journal of

Evidence-Based Coaching and Mentoring, 3(1).Baker, C., Pistrang, N. & Elliot, R. (2002). Research

methods in clinical psychology: An introduction tostudents and practitioners (2nd ed.). Chichester:John Wiley & Sons.

Bush, C. & Steinmetz, B. (2002). Stress managementand management. Gruppdynamic und Organisa-tionsberatung, 33, 385–401.

Chapman, E. (2002). The social and ethical implica-tions of changing medical technologies: Theviews of people living with genetic conditions.Journal of Health Psychology, 7, 195–206.

CompassPoint Nonprofit Services (2003). Executivecoaching project: Evaluation of findings. Retrieved28 January, 2005, from www.compasspoint.org

Cooper, C.L. & Cartwright, S. (1997). An inter-vention strategy for workplace stress. Journal ofPsychosomatic Research, 43, 7–16.

Denzin, N.K. & Lincon, Y.S. (2000). Introduction:The discipline and practice of qualitativeresearch. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincon (Eds.),The discipline and practice of qualitative research(2nd ed., pp.1–14). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Elliot, R., Fisher, C.T. & Rennie, D.L. (1999).Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitativeresearch studies in psychology and related fields.British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 215–229.

Golsworthy, R. & Coyle, A. (2001). Practitioners’accounts of religious and spiritual dimensions inbereavement therapy. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 14, 183–202.

Grant, A.M. (2001). Coaching for enhanced performance:Comparing cognitive and behavioural approaches tocoaching. Paper presented at the 3rd Interna-tional Spearman Seminar: Extending Intelli-gence: Enhancement and new constructs.Sydney, Australia.

Grant, A.M. (2003). The impact of life coaching ongoal attainment, metacognition and mentalhealth. Social Behaviour and Personality, 31, 253–264.

Gyllensten, K. & Palmer, S. (2005a). Can coachingreduce workplace stress? The Coaching Psychologist,1, 15–17.

Gyllensten, K. & Palmer, S. (2005b). Can coachingreduce workplace stress? A quasi-experimentalstudy. International Journal of Evidence-BasedCoaching and Mentoring, 3(2), 75–87.

Gyllensten, K. & Palmer, S. (2005c). The relationshipbetween coaching and workplace stress: A corre-lational study. International Journal of HealthPromotion and Education, 43, 97–103.

Gyllensten, K., Palmer, S. & Farrants, J. (2005).Perception of stress and stress interventions infinance organisations: Overcoming resistancetowards counselling. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 18, 19–29.

Health and Safety Executive (HSE) (1998). Organisa-tional interventions to reduce work stress: Are they effec-tive? A review of the literature. Suffolk: HSE Books.

Health and Safety Executive (HSE) (2001). Tacklingwork-related stress: A manager’s guide to improvingand maintaining employee health and well-being.Suffolk: HSE.

Hearn, W. (2001). The role of coaching in stressmanagement. Stress News, 13, 15–17.

Holliday, A. (2002). Doing and writing qualitativeresearch. London: Sage.

Jones, J.D. (1996). Executive coaches. MississippiBusiness Journal, 18, 5–7.

Meyer, J. L. (2003) Coaching and counsellingpsychology in organisational psychology. In M.J.Schabraq, J.A.M. Winnburst & C.L. Cooper(Eds.), The handbook of work and health psychology(2nd ed., pp.569–583). Chichester: Wiley.

Palmer, S., Cooper, C. & Thomas, K. (2003). Creatinga balance: Managing stress. London: The BritishLibrary.

Palmer, S., Tubbs, I. & Whybrow, A. (2003). Healthcoaching to facilitate the promotion of healthybehaviour and achievement of health-relatedgoals. International Journal of Health Promotion andEducation, 41, 91–93.

Popay, J., Rogers, A. & Williams, G. (1998). Rationaleand standards for the systematic review of quali-tative literature in health services research. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 341–351.

Richard, J.T. (1999). Multimodal therapy: A usefulmodel for the executive coach. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 51, 24–30.

Smith, J.A. (1996). Beyond the divide between cogni-tion and discourse: Using interpretative phenom-enological analysis in health psychology.Psychology and Health, 11, 261–271.

Smith, J., Jaraman, M. & Osborn, M. (1999) Doinginterpretative phenomenological analysis. In M.Murray & K. Chamberlain (Eds.), Qualitativehealth psychology (pp. 218–240). London: Sage.

Smith, J.A. & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretativephenomenological analysis. In J.A. Smith (Ed.).Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to researchmethods (pp.51–80). London: Sage.

Smith, J.A. & Osborn, M. (2004). Interpretativephenomenological analysis. In G.M. Breakwell(Ed.), Doing social psychology research(pp.229–254). Oxford: BPS Blackwell.

Wales, S. (2003). Why coaching? Journal of ChangeManagement, 3, 275–282.




The Special Group inCoaching Psychology

We are pleased to present further details of our 2006 Event Programme.These events will offer opportunities for further training and developmentin topics which have been carefully selected to complement coachingpsychology. We really look forward to seeing you at one or more events.

30 June 2006:‘Managing Personal and Client Stress in Coaching Psychology’Facilitator: Jenny Summerfield, CPsychol.This one-day event will be held at the Work Foundation, 3 Carlton Terrace,London, SW1Y 5DG, and will run from 10.00am to 5.00pm.Registration from 9.30am.

7 September 2006:‘Positive Psychology in Coaching Psychology’This one-day conference will be held at the BPS London Office and will runfrom 9.30am to 4.30pm. Registration from 9.00am.

For further details and information about these events see the ‘News Page’of the BPS SGCP website on: http://www.coachingpsychologyforum.org.uk.For booking information please contact: Tracy White, E-mail: [email protected]

18 & 19 December 2006:‘SGCP 3rd Annual National Conference’This ‘not-to-be-missed event’ will offer a series of stimulating andthought-provoking parallel papers, full-day workshops, mini-workshops,and round-table discussions. Leaders in the field of Coaching Psychologywill provide a mix of stimulating and thought-provoking sessions. Parallel research paper and poster sessions will also provide some of thelatest thinking and research in Coaching Psychology. Further details will soon be announced on the SGCP website.

The 2006 membership fee to join SGCP is £3.50. BPS members can join andimmediately benefit from member rates at events.


Interest Group in Coaching Psychology

Second National Symposium

Asking the right Questions:

Exploring the cutting edge of Coaching Psychology

July 14 and 15, 2006

Venue: Palazzo Versace

Queensland, Gold Coast Australia

The 2006 Symposium will focus on the practice of coaching by Psychologists in

Australia and will provide a unique opportunity for practitioners to share experience

and knowledge regarding the practice of coaching. Join international keynote speakers

(Dr. Robert Hogan - international authority on personality assessment, leadership, and

organisational effectiveness, And Professor David Lane – authority on measuring

coaching outcomes). There will be a range of symposia and opportunities to discuss the

issues of importance in coaching with both fellow practitioners and national experts.

Come and share your experience and hear from other coaching psychologists on the

issues that help to differentiate psychologists as coaches.

• What are the questions and answers that give us – as Coaching Psychologists –

the edge?

• How has practice in the field of coaching evolved over the last few years?

• How do you ask and answer the challenging questions of your coachees?

• What is the latest research

• How do you ask the questions that get you the job as coach?

For Registration Details and Call for Papers go to:

www.psychology.org.au/units/interest%5Fgroups/coaching

For enquiries, please email: [email protected]

Want to contribute a paper or symposium? • Write a short summary (200 words) on your chosen topic

• Email this to the IGCP Qld Committee ( [email protected] )

• CLOSING DATE: Friday, 29TH

April, 2006

PD Points will be available for presenters and attendees.

4. Online submission process(1) All manuscripts must be submitted to a Co-ordinating Editor by e-mail to:

Stephen Palmer (UK): [email protected] Cavanagh (Australia): [email protected]

(2) The submission must include the following as separate files:� Title page consisting of manuscript title, authors’ full names and affiliations, name and address for corresponding author.� Abstract.� Full manuscript omitting authors’ names and affiliations. Figures and tables can be attached separately if necessary.

5. Manuscript requirements� Contributions must be typed in double spacing with wide margins. All sheets must be numbered.� Tables should be typed in double spacing, each on a separate page with a self-explanatory title. Tables should be comprehensible

without reference to the text. They should be placed at the end of the manuscript with their approximate locations indicated inthe text.

� Figures can be included at the end of the document or attached as separate files, carefully labelled in initial capital/lower caselettering with symbols in a form consistent with text use. Unnecessary background patterns, lines and shading should be avoided.Captions should be listed on a separate page. The resolution of digital images must be at least 300 dpi.

� For articles containing original scientific research, a structured abstract of up to 250 words should be included with theheadings: Objectives, Design, Methods, Results, Conclusions. Review articles should use these headings: Purpose, Methods, Results,Conclusions.

� For reference citations, please use APA style. Particular care should be taken to ensure that references are accurate and complete.Give all journal titles in full.

� SI units must be used for all measurements, rounded off to practical values if appropriate, with the Imperial equivalent inparentheses.

� In normal circumstances, effect size should be incorporated.� Authors are requested to avoid the use of sexist language.� Authors are responsible for acquiring written permission to publish lengthy quotations, illustrations etc for which they do not

own copyright.

For Guidelines on editorial style, please consult the APA Publication Manual published by the American Psychological Association,Washington DC, USA (http://www.apastyle.org ).

6. Brief reportsThese should be limited to 1000 words and may include research studies and theoretical, critical or review comments whose essentialcontribution can be made briefly. A summary of not more than 50 words should be provided.

7. Publication ethicsBPS Code of Conduct – Code of Conduct, Ethical Principles and Guidelines.Principles of Publishing – Principle of Publishing.

8. Supplementary dataSupplementary data too extensive for publication may be deposited with the British Library Document Supply Centre. Such materialincludes numerical data, computer programs, fuller details of case studies and experimental techniques. The material should besubmitted to the Editor together with the article, for simultaneous refereeing.

9. Post acceptancePDF page proofs are sent to authors via e-mail for correction of print but not for rewriting or the introduction of new material.

10. CopyrightTo protect authors and journals against unauthorised reproduction of articles, The British Psychological Society requires copyright tobe assigned to itself as publisher, on the express condition that authors may use their own material at any time without permission.On acceptance of a paper submitted to a journal, authors will be requested to sign an appropriate assignment of copyright form.

11. Checklist of requirements� Abstract (100–200 words).� Title page (include title, authors’ names, affiliations, full contact details).� Full article text (double-spaced with numbered pages and anonymised).� References (APA style). Authors are responsible for bibliographic accuracy and must check every reference in the manuscript and

proofread again in the page proofs.� Tables, figures, captions placed at the end of the article or attached as separate files.

Contents

1 Editorial – Coaching Psychology: Its time has finally comeStephen Palmer & Michael Cavanagh

5 The coaching psychology movement and its development within the British Psychological SocietyStephen Palmer & Alison Whybrow

12 A personal perspective on professional coaching and the development of coaching psychologyAnthony M. Grant

23 Does coaching work or are we asking the wrong question?Annette Fillery-Travis & David Lane

37 Strengths Coaching: A potential-guided approach to coaching psychologyP. Alex Linley & Susan Harrington

47 Person-centred coaching psychology: A meta-theoretical perspectiveStephen Joseph

56 Taking stock: A survey of Coaching Psychologists’ practices and perspectivesAlison Whybrow & Stephen Palmer

71 Duty of care in an unregulated industry: Initial findings on the diversity and practices ofAustralian coachesGordon B. Spence, Michael J. Cavanagh & Anthony M. Grant

86 Experiences of coaching and stress in the workplace:An Interpretative Phenomenological AnalysisKristina Gyllensten & Stephen Palmer

St Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester LE1 7DR, UKTel 0116 254 9568 Fax 0116 247 0787 E-mail [email protected] www.bps.org.uk

© The British Psychological Society 2006Incorporated by Royal Charter Registered Charity No 229642

International Coaching Psychology Review

Documents

Transcript of International Coaching Psychology Review