Available via license: CC BY-NC-ND
Content may be subject to copyright.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
http://www.business.brookes.ac.uk/research/areas/coaching&mentoring/
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 6, No.2, August 2008
Page 100
What is ‘Coaching’? An Exploration of Conflicting Paradigms
Yossi Ives
Abstract
This paper sets out the argument that quite fundamental issues, both theoretical and practical, divide the
various approaches to coaching. It does not suggest that any one approach is better or right; each
approach would be more appropriate in particular situations. However, by understanding more clearly the
nature of the difference between approaches, it will also be easier to fit a coaching model to specific
situations. It is argued here that goal-oriented approaches to coaching generally have a different
perspective than therapeutic or personal-development approaches on the role of the coach and on the
objective of coaching.
Introduction
Like many other emerging disciplines, coaching has struggled with problems of definition. Parsloe and
Wray (2000) argue that part of the reason for a lack of clarity about the definition of coaching is because,
“we are in the middle of an intellectual revolution.” The term ‘coaching’ can refer to a form of mentoring
(e.g. sports coaching), and this conception of the term has also been applied in areas such as education
and the workplace, leading to confusion about what coaching is. While a consensus emerged that
distinguished mentoring (instructional) from coaching (non-directive), the boundaries are not firmly set
(Parsloe & Wray, 2000). Thus, while some approaches to coaching strenuously discourage the coach
from advice-giving, others still regard the coach as a guide (e.g. Cavanagh, 2006).
Additionally, even as the coaching/mentoring dichotomy became more widely accepted, coaching
increasingly came under the influence of a range of therapeutic or personal-development approaches.
Whereas goal-oriented approaches to coaching are typically brief and aim for relatively immediate
results, therapeutic and personal-development approaches tend to go deeper and are more prolonged.
While coaching has been immeasurably enriched by the injection new ideas and techniques, it has led to
increased confusion about the precise nature of coaching and what it is designed to achieve.
Consequently, coaching has become increasingly difficult to define (Stober & Grant, 2006).
This study is intended to clarify the particular characteristics of goal-oriented coaching, which it is feared
has become obscured amongst the burgeoning of new ideas in the coaching orbit. While these
approaches have enormously enriched the coaching landscape, they have also made it a much more
confusing place. Goal-oriented coaching has its own unique philosophy, based amongst others on goal
and self-regulatory theories, which is worthy of serious exploration. Goal oriented approaches have much
to commend them, but sometimes seem overshadowed by what appear to be more complete approaches
to coaching, based on therapeutic or personal-development models. This paper argues that the field of
coaching would benefit by more overtly recognising that it incorporates quite diverse paradigms.
The paper proposes three dimensions across which to define coaching approaches: 1] Directive or non-
directive, 2] Personal-developmental or goal-focused and 3] therapeutic or performance-driven. It is
argued that goal-oriented coaching should be recognised a distinctive coaching paradigm, distinguished
by three key features: 1) non-directive, 2) goal-focused and 3] performance-driven. Goal-oriented
approaches to coaching have quite distinct features and theoretical foundations, and diverge from more
therapeutic of personal development approaches on the issue of what coaching is primarily intended to
accomplish.
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 6, No.2, August 2008
Page 101
However, while these models of coaching are based on differing coaching philosophies and
methodologies, they are not mutually exclusive. While each of the various approaches to coaching has
unique strengths and is best suited for particular situations, this paper highlights the important and
distinctive role of goal-oriented approaches.
This study is based on an analysis of a selection of books and articles on coaching. The typology set out
below was formulated using a clustering technique and textual analysis (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
The emergence of diverse approaches
In recent years we have seen the discipline of coaching benefit from an infusion of ideas from
diverse fields. Many of these approaches were brought together by Stober and Grant (2006). For the
purpose of the forthcoming discussion, a summary of a selection of approaches to coaching is presented:
Coaching from a humanist perspective – Based upon Rogerian (Rogers, 1951; 1959) person-
centred principles, it views positive change and self actualisation as a driving force in the human psyche
(Stober, 2006). Coaching, from this point of view, capitalises on a person’s inherent tendency to self-
actualise and looks to stimulate a person’s inherent growth potential. This approach draws from
psychotherapy a strong emphasis on the Practitioner-client relationship, suggesting that the relationship
itself (its warmth and positive regard) is a main ingredient for growth. It also promotes a holistic
approach, requiring the coach to address all aspects of the person.
Behaviour based approach - Peterson (2006) advocates a behavioural approach that
acknowledges the complexity of both the human being and her environment, but which nevertheless
focuses on facilitating practical change over psychological adjustments. This approach is action focused
insofar as it looks to the future and seeks to create change and imbed it in real life contexts, but it still
leans heavily towards personal development, emphasising the need for client learning, and to a lesser
degree adopts a therapeutic emphasis on the coaching relationship.
Adult-development approach – This approach is based on constructive-developmental theories:
that as people develop they become more aware of and open to a mature understanding of authority and
responsibility, and display greater tolerance of ambiguity. Coaching from this perspective is predicated
upon the idea of four main stages of development and it suggests that coaching at each stage needs to
focus on stage-of-development related issues (Berger, 2006).
Cognitive coaching – Auerbach (2006) claims that although coaching must address the multiple
facets of the individual, it is primarily a cognitive method. A fundament of cognitive coaching is the
view that one’s feelings and emotions are the product of one’s thoughts: a person’s perceptions,
interpretations, mental attitudes and beliefs. Cognitive therapy helps clients replace maladaptive and
inaccurate cognitions (Ellis, 1979; Burns, 1980). Auerbach argues that a primary function of the coach is
to assist the client in challenging and overcoming their maladaptive and distorted perceptions.
Adult learning approach – This approach seeks to use coaching to stimulate deep learning. It
draws from a range of adult-learning theories, such as andragogy (Knowles, 1980), reflective practice
(Boud et al., 1994) and experiential learning (Kolb, 1984), which collectively argue that adults learn by
reflecting on experiences. Cox (2006) argues that, similarly, coaching can be seen as a learning approach
designed to nurture goal-focused, self-directed learners who draw on their reservoir of previous
experience with a view to solving real-life dilemmas. Gray (2005) advocates a transformative learning
coaching model that seeks to raise the coachee’s critical reflection to question assumptions. He suggests
that coaching has become a tool in the increasing shift towards informal, self-directed learning in
organisations.
A positive psychology model – Kauffman (2006) argues that coaching should work to identify
and build on the client’s strengths and should seek to engender hope and happiness. Positive psychology
seeks to encourage people to look to what is good and going well in their lives to reinforce a positive
disposition. Positive emotions, it is argued, widens a person’s focus of attention and broadens access to
101
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 6, No.2, August 2008
Page 102
the person’s intellectual and psychological resources, resulting in improved performance. While certain
aspects of the positive coaching model can be utilised to better achieve specific goals, it would seem it is
primarily designed to effect general enhancement and life balance. Neenan and Dryden’s (2002) Life
Coaching is entirely based on positive psychology and focuses on changing perceptions and attitudes.
An adventure-based model – According to Kemp (2006) adventure education is an appropriate
conception of coaching, as both seek to press the boundaries and explore new frontiers and horizons.
Both, he argues, begin with an analysis of the present state, set out a desired destination and develop the
means of reaching it. Both involve a willingness to accept a measure of risk and uncertainty (with
coaching: psychological injury), to move to the edge of their physical or psychological comfort zone –
and that it is out of this risk that personal growth occurs. Kemp argues that adventure-based coaching
asks the participant to test his cognitive, behavioural and emotional competence, and to effect change by
formulating new behavioural responses to situations. Adventure is a process rather than an activity
(Priest 1999). The learning attained during the adventure is captured or anchored and the lessons are later
applied in real life settings.
Systemic approach – Coaching using a systemic framework is about helping the client to
recognise hitherto unrecognised patterns of behaviour and forms of feedback, and in so doing to see their
experiences in new ways. It also encourages a holistic view, in which various other parts of the system
may have relevance to the issue at hand. Humans are complex adaptive systems insofar as they consist of
a combination of interacting systems that are affected by change and can respond to changed
circumstances (See Carver & Scheier, 1998 chap 14). A systemic coaching model seeks to foreground
complexity, unpredictability and contextual factors, and highlights the importance of small changes; it
encourages openness, growth and creativity. This approach views the balance between stability and
instability as optimal for performance (Cavanagh, 2006).
Goal-oriented approach – The foregoing approaches may be contrasted with a strict goal-
focused or solution-driven approach which sees the primary function of coaching fostering the client’s
self-regulation. According to Grant (2006 p. 153), “Coaching is essentially about helping individuals
regulate and direct their interpersonal and intrapersonal resources to better attain their goals.” The
primary method is assisting the client to identify and form well crafted goals and develop an effective
action plan. The role of the coach is to stimulate ideas and action and to ensure that the goals are
consistent with the client’s main life values an interests, rather than working on helping the client to
adjust her values and beliefs. In this conception, coaching is essentially about raising performance and
supporting effective action, rather than addressing feelings and thoughts, which it is thought will be
indirectly addressed through actual positive results (Grant, 2003). This type of approach is sometimes
called ‘brief coaching’ (Berg & Szabo, 2005) as it aims to achieve its goals in a comparatively short
space of time and normally focusing on a relatively defined issue or goal.
Approaches to coaching chart – Chart 0.1
Type of coaching Objective of coaching
Humanist “Coaching is above all about human growth and change” (Stober, 2006 p. 17)
Behaviourist “The purpose of coaching is to change behaviour” (Peterson, 2006 p.51)
Adult development Coaching is about helping clients develop and grow in maturity
Cognitive coaching Coaching is foremost about developing adaptive thoughts
Goal-focused “Coaching is a goal-oriented, solution-focused process” (Grant, 2006 p. 156).”
Positive psychology
approach
“Shift attention away from what causes and drives pain to what energises and
pulls people forward” (Kauffman, 2006 p. 220)
Adventure coaching Stretching the client through entering into challenging situations and the
learning that arises.
Adult learning A learning approach that helps self-directed learners to reflect on and grow
from their experiences
Systemic coaching “Coaching is a journey in search of patterns” (Cavanagh, 2006 p. 313)
Quotes selected from Stober & Grant (2006).
102
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 6, No.2, August 2008
Page 103
While each of these approaches is distinct and offers a unique possibility for the coach, what is of
concern here is the often fundamental differences that emerge as to the definition and purpose of
coaching. What elements or qualities are indispensable to the core meaning of coaching, and what are
merely compatible accessories? Do these methodologies expand or dilute the coaching discipline?
In the chronology of the emergence of the coaching discipline, coaching was directive, conceived as
guidance, teaching or instruction. As coaching emerged as a distinct discipline, it was regarded as a form
of facilitation or a people-management style, and strictly non-directive. Increasingly, however, coaching
has adopted therapeutic and personal development elements. With there being such differences between
these varying approaches, one needs to consider whether aspects of these approaches are
incommensurable and incompatible; are there basic features which form the core definition of coaching?
Core and disputed criteria of coaching
Whitmore (2002 p. 97) portrays coaching as “optimising people’s potential and performance.” According
to Evered and Selman (1989), “To coach means to convey a valued colleague from where he or she is to
where he or she wants to be.” Parsloe and Wray (2000 p. 183) summarise: “to focus, motivate and
support others in achieving their goal”, whilst Grant (2003 p. 254) defines life coaching as a
“collaborative solution-focused, result-orientated and systematic process in which the coach facilitates
the enhancement of life experience and goal attainment in the personal and/or professional life of normal,
non-clinical clients.” According to these definitions, coaching is an intervention aimed at helping the
coachee to focus on and achieve their clearly defined goals. The coach uses open-ended questions to
provoke thought, raise awareness, and to inspire motivation and commitment.
However, other conceptions of coaching include a focus on developing the coachee’s abilities. Costa and
Garston (2002 p. 21) identify as its aim the desire to enhance another’s self-directedness: the other’s
ability to self-manage, monitor and modify. Coaches, they argue, “apply specific strategies to enhance
another person’s perceptions, decisions, and intellectual functions.” Carter (2001 p. 15) refers to
coaching as “work-related development for senior and professional managers” (emphasis added). Many
definitions of coaching incorporate both elements of performance and development. According to Gray
(2005), “The coached client is someone who wants to reach a higher level of performance, personal
satisfaction or learning,” or to Downey (2003 p. 15) “the art of facilitating the performance, learning and
development of another.” Linder-Pelz and Hall (2008 p. 43) state that “Coaching is about facilitating a
client’s performance, experience, learning and growth and about actualising goals.”
While there are many prefixes to coaching (e.g. life, executive, cognitive), this paper suggests that most
approaches could be broadly grouped into personal-development and performance coaching. This
distinction is akin to Summerfield’s (2006 p. 24) division between ‘acquisitional’ (acquires a new ability)
versus ‘transformational’ (undergoes personal change) coaching. It also shares some similarity with
Peltier’s (2001) bifurcation of coaching into two main categories: a day-to-day management activity and
executive coaching.
With very few exceptions, it may be said that the following features are common to the full range of
coaching approaches:
A systematic process designed to facilitate development (change), whether cognitive, emotional
or behavioural
Intended for a non-clinical population
An individualised, tailor-made approach
Aims to encourage coachees to assume charge of their life
Based on the twin growth areas of awareness and responsibility
103
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 6, No.2, August 2008
Page 104
Reliant of the twin skills of listening and questioning
Involve a collaborative and egalitarian relationship, rather that one based on authority
Creates a relationship within which the client agrees to be held accountable for the choices she
makes
Designed to access the inner resourcefulness of the client, and built on her wealth of knowledge,
experience and intuition
One final feature is core to the overwhelming majority of approaches:
Focused on the achievement of a clear stated goal, rather than problem analysis
However, while the foregoing list gives the impression of a broad base of agreement across the coaching
literature, in fact there are issues of sharp divergence, relating to the nature of the coaching relationship,
the function of coaching and the scope of the coaching intervention. These issues are of paramount
importance to some approaches and have the capacity provoke intense disagreement and polarise
opinion. For example:
Does the coach need domain-specific expertise or knowledge?
Does the coach only ‘ask’ or may s/he also ‘tell’?
Is coaching primarily designed to foster personal growth or to raise performance?
How central is the relationship to the coaching process?
Is it essential for coaching to adopt a holistic view?
Is coaching primarily designed to address feelings or actions?
Should coaching aim to alter the client’s values?
While the multifaceted nature of many coaching approaches precludes easy categorisation, this paper
suggests that there are three main clusters of issues against which it is possible to categorise coaching
approaches: 1] Directive or non-directive, 2] Personal-developmental or goal-focused and 3] therapeutic
or performance-driven. While these three areas are independent of each other, they are here viewed as
closely related both conceptually and practically; goal-focused approaches to coaching are generally non-
directive, solution-focused and performance-drive.
In reality, no actual approach to coaching stereotypically fits the exact categorisations set out below, nor
does any of them conform consistently to this trichotomy, but by thinking in terms of ‘ideal types’ we
can see how some approaches are much closer to one side than the other. The three issues set out below
are comparative. For example, all coaching models would regard a totally directive approach as
incompatible with coaching. Similarly, all approaches to coaching would consider themselves solution-
focused compared with psychoanalysis. However, when these coaching methodologies are compared,
meaningful distinctions emerge, which this study sets out to explore.
Directive versus non-directive
Cox (2003) argues that the benefit of the coach’s wisdom and experience underpins both the
understanding of the situation and the adoption of suitable methods for dealing with it. Peterson and
Hicks (1996 p. 14) advocate a more directive role when they suggest that “Coaching is the process of
equipping people with the tools, knowledge, and opportunities they need to develop themselves,” which
Peterson (2006) indicates is to be achieved by enabling people to become better learners. However, as
Grant and Stober (2006 p. 363) note, the issue of “‘coach as advice giver’ is somewhat more
controversial.” Stober and Grant (2006 p. 2) cite Parsloe’s (1995) early definition of coaching in which
coaching is “directly concerned with the immediate improvement of performance and development of
skills by a form of tutoring or instructing.” Druckman and Bjork (1991 p. 61) portray coaching as
guidance from an expert with a view to align the student’s performance with that of the teacher. In
Hudson (1999 p. 6), a coach is described as a facilitator but also a guide.
104
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 6, No.2, August 2008
Page 105
These early (often partially) directive conceptions generally gave way to a clear non-directive
understanding of coaching, articulated by the likes of John Whitmore (2003). Parsloe’s (Parsloe and
Wray, 2000 p. 47) later definition follows a non-directive understanding of coaching, what he calls a
‘hands-off’ approach based on self-instruction. Whitmore (2003) suggests the hands-off approach should
be applied whenever possible. Parsloe and Wray (2000) state that, “the more rapidly a coach can move
from a hands-on to hands-off style, the faster improvement in performance will be achieved.” This is
because performance is enhanced when “control and responsibility is transferred from the coach to the
learner.” Stober (2006) draws from the humanist therapeutic tradition the need to facilitate another’s
growth rather than direct it. Accordingly, the coach manages the process rather than the content of the
client’s development.
However, with the growth in therapeutic coaching I would argue that we are witnessing a partial return
towards guidance. Cavanagh (2006 p. 342) insists that expert knowledge is critical to coaching, without
which the coach is no more than a “well meaning amateur”. Some coaches advocate sharing one’s
theoretical model with the client (Chapman, Best & Van Casteren, 2003). This is particularly common
within adult development or adult learning approaches. However, this may be generally inappropriate
within a solution-focused or more client-centric approach to coaching. Grant and Stober (2006 p. 363)
maintain that these two approaches are not “categorically different” but lie on a continuum, and the issue
should be guided by what’s best for the client. As has been suggested, this issue relates to the defined
role of the coach and on the purpose of coaching. Certainly, those who forcefully advocate the ‘ask not
tell’ approach would insist that their approach is ‘categorically different’. Grant and Stober are correct to
assert, however, that a skilled coach would know when it is appropriate to act as authoritative expert and
when to act as facilitator.
Cavanagh (2006 p. 337) derides ‘overly client-centric approaches,’ which insist that the solution is
within the client, as simplistic. He argues that “sometimes no matter how long we ask the solution does
not emerge, because it is not ‘in’ the client, nor are the raw materials available for it to emerge via a
process of questioning.” Why it is deemed any more likely that the coach has the answer within ‘him’ is
not explained! In fact, those coaching approaches that insist on a non-directive stance are generally
targeted at relatively defined issues and goals, with which it is entirely reasonable to consider that the
coachee could work out the solution.
Stober and Grant (2006 p. 3) state that coaching is “more about asking the right questions than telling
people what to do” (emphasis added). A strict non-directive approach would insist that coaching is
almost entirely about questioning and is not about directing. While solution-focused approaches
recognise the occasional need for the coach to suggest a solution, they take the view that for most
problems the solutions are relatively obvious but that the coachee needs to refocus from dwelling on the
problem towards seeking a solution. In this respect, the role of the coach is to conduct the process not to
direct the outcome, and in this view one of the most valuable skills of the coach is to know how not to
interfere! Grant and Stober (2006 p. 363) conclude: “A coach with highly developed applied coaching
skills can deliver excellent outcomes purely through facilitating a process that operationalises the
principles of coaching, rather than through an instructor mode that emphasises the delivery of expert
knowledge.”
105
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 6, No.2, August 2008
Page 106
Directive versus non-directive – How client-centric? – Chart 0.2
Is the coach essentially a facilitator or also a guide?
Should the coach be advising or sticking to an ‘ask-not-tell’ approach?
Does the coach need domain specific expertise or knowledge?
Should the coach be encouraged to share their theoretical ideas?
Development-focused or solution-focused
While there is a general consensus that coaching is forward-focused, coaching styles diverge
significantly in the extent to which they advocate delving into the subterranean aspects. Snyder (1995)
highlights how some coaches adopt a pragmatic approach towards their client’s problems, while others
adopt an exploratory style that seeks to uncover the underlying issues. Personal-development and
learning models of coaching, in particular, seek to address deeper dimensions of personality. Parsloe and
Wray (2000) state that “Coaching is a process that enables learning and development to occur and thus
performance to improve (emphasis added).” Writing from a behavioural perspective, however, Peterson
(2006) argues that insight-oriented questions are not at the heart of coaching. Grant (2006) similarly
suggests that coaching supports “solution construction in preference to problem analysis,” the latter
being a more therapeutic mode. Proponents of a strictly goal- or solution-focused coaching view
coaching as a method of helping clients to reframe their challenges as practical problems, and help them
discover the required internal and external resources. Snyder (1995) similarly views the coachee as a
primary contributor to discovering the solution, rather than a recipient of therapy. Many coaches are
steeped in a therapeutic model (Williams & Davis, 2002; Hart et al., 2001), and carry a deficit-conflict
perspective (Kauffman & Scoulder, 2004), which Kauffman (2006) argues leads them to look to identify
pathology and problems. Based upon positive psychology, Kauffman argues that coaches “shift attention
away from pathology and pain and direct it toward a clear-eyed concentration on strength, vision, and
dreams… from what causes and drives pain to what energises and pulls people forward” (Kauffman,
2006 p. 220).
All approaches to coaching include consideration of the wider context as part of the coaching format, and
recognise that coaching needs to be adjusted in accordance with the specific environment. However,
various coaching models approach this dimension quite differently. Numerous writers on coaching (e.g.
Stober, 2006; Peterson, 2006; Williams et al., 2002) advocate addressing all aspects of the person, as
lasting change cannot be achieved without a fundamental and holistic reorientation. In particular, the
positive psychology approach as well as the systemic approach described earlier advocate looking at the
wider context: the client’s happiness (positive psychology) or the complex layers of subsystems (systems
approach). In contrast, goal-focused approaches generally focus on specific aims. They seek to integrate
an ongoing self-regulatory process into daily modes of behaviour, rather than aiming for a clear end
result or breakthrough.
These conflicting tendencies support varying time remits for the coaching process. Personal-development
and in particular therapeutic approaches typically require an extended time period to effect change.
Conversely, Judge and Cowell (1997) and Sperry (1993) argue that coaching is designed to act in a far
shorter time-frame that traditional for therapy. For while there are short-term therapy models (e.g.
possibility therapy (O’Hanlon, 1998) and solution-focused therapy (de Shazer, 1985, 1988))
comparatively speaking, coaching tends to focus “as rapidly as possible on potential solutions that the
person can recognise and take personal responsibility for implementing (Parsloe & Wray, 2000 p. 65).”
Another element is that adult-development approaches to coaching (Berger, 2006; Cox, 2006) don’t seek
to pre-state specific aims. In fact, Brookfield (1986 p. 213) argues that personal learning “cannot be
specified in advance in terms of objectives to be obtained.” West and Milan (2001) suggest that the role
of coaching is to create the psychological space for reflective learning. This is in contrast to the
106
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 6, No.2, August 2008
Page 107
overwhelming emphasis in much of the coaching literature on the need for a clear goal (e.g. the GROW
model in Whitmore, 2003; Greene & Grant, 2003; Berg & Szabo, 2005). To some extent, these two basic
perspectives on coaching differ as to the description or definition of a goal. Goals exist at varying levels
of abstraction (Locke & Latham, 1990), forming a hierarchal goal structure (Carver & Scheier, 1998).
For example, Little’s (1989) ‘personal project’ or Emmons’ (1986) ‘personal strivings’ are more general
constructs compared with the term ‘goal’ in the coaching literature.
Development-focused or solution-focused– How outcome-centric? – Chart 0.3
How holistic a strategy must the coach adopt (breadth)?
To what extent must the coach delve beneath the surface (depth)?
Is coaching problem- or solution-focused? Is the focus on what’s holding the person
back or what can help to pull him forward?
Is coaching primarily designed to achieve specific aims, or more general development?
Is coaching short-term or longer-term?
What is the primary role of feedback: to guide future actions or a learning tool?
Therapeutic versus performance-driven
All coaching models recognise that effective management of the relationship is vital (
Whitworth,
Kimsey-House, Sandahl, 2007). If the client feels forced into the relationship, or if he is not convinced it
is designed to help him, the coaching is unlikely to be successful (Latham, Almost, Mann & Moore,
2005). However, coaching models vary as to both the degree of importance and the extent of the requisite
relationship skills. As a minimum, the coach must display a genuine interest in the client, apply effective
communication skills such as listening and verbal skills, and needs to provide an encouraging and
supportive space within which an exploration of the coachee’s strengths and weakness and hopes as well
as her aspirations can occur (Skiffington & Zeus, 2003).
However, the more therapeutic approaches to coaching display an increased emphasis on the practitioner-
client relationship (e.g. Stober, Wildflower & Drake, 2006), extending the range and depth of issues that
are perceived to be crucial to its success, bringing coaching more in line with the therapeutic relationship.
Stober (2006) advocates a high degree of empathy and unconditional positive regard and acceptance of
the client. This, it is suggested, may be related to a broader remit of coaching such as personal
development and affective issues. Stober’s emphasis on the relationship reflects a conceptualisation of
coaching as designed to achieve a more therapeutic aim: to nurture personal growth
1
. In contrast,
Peterson (2006) argues that in coaching the nature of the relationship is less important, although an
effective relationship is a prerequisite.
Coaching researchers (e.g. Stober, 2006) recognise that there are fundamental differences between
theories and practices of therapy and coaching. While coaching shares with psychotherapy the purpose of
developing individuals, enhancing their potential and creating a supportive relationship, the differences
are as important as the similarities. Psychological disciplines are ultimately designed to ameliorate
dysfunction, whereas coaching is intended to stimulate future development (Grant, 2003). While therapy
primarily addresses feelings, coaching is focused on changing actions (changes in feelings are a
consequence). Cavanagh (2006 p. 320) makes an important distinction between coaching and therapy
based upon complex adaptive systems theory. The purpose of coaching, he argues, is to push the coachee
1
Even with regard to therapy, the client and client’s resources (rather than the client-therapist relationship) are the
most critical factor to a successful outcome (Hubble & Miller, 2004; Linley, 2006). The relationship is likely to be
even less salient with most coaching interventions, where the sensitivity of the subject matter is normally far less
than in a typical therapy situation.
107
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 6, No.2, August 2008
Page 108
towards the edge of chaos, towards a controlled and managed instability, a condition in which human
growth and change is most likely. The role of the coach is to ensure that the coachee does not slip into a
state of chaos, in which there is a systems breakdown. This Cavanagh points out is the exact opposite of
therapy, which is designed to deal with those who have passed into a state of chaos, and the role of the
therapist is to retrieve the client into a state of stability and order. He argues that “therapy seeks to
comfort the afflicted. In coaching, however, the coach is often called upon to afflict the comfortable!” In
other words, whereas therapy is about restoring stability, coaching is about encouraging a measure of
instability.
While both humanist therapies and coaching seek to raise awareness, they refer to very different types of
awareness and to quite divergent ends. In therapeutic terms, awareness is getting in touch with one’s
feelings and is perceived as a therapeutic end in itself (e.g. Yontef, 2005). By contrast, in goal-oriented
coaching, awareness refers to attaining a clearer understanding of one’s circumstances and is a means
towards taking appropriate action (Whitmore, 2003), comparing the way things are with the way they
could be (Parsloe & Wray, 2000).
Therapeutic versus performance-driven – How relationship-centric? – Chart 0.4
Is coaching intended to stimulate inner (affective, psychological) or outer
(cognitive-behavioural) change? Is coaching primarily designed to change feelings
or actions, personal growth or improved performance?
How central is the relationship to the coaching process?
Is awareness raising a means or the end?
What kind of awareness is raised: getting in touch with feeling or attaining a clearer
understanding of one’s circumstances?
Builds on existing motivations, or seeks to create new ones? Is coaching supposed
to attempt to change the client’s values?
Is the coach trying to achieve stability or create instability?
Comparative analysis
As noted earlier, no approach is exclusively in one category (e.g. ‘directive’ or ‘non-directive’), but is in
reality somewhere in the middle. Furthermore, the terms used to describe the coaching approaches (such
as ‘therapeutic’) are relative; even among the coaching approaches clustered together by this study there
is likely to be considerable variation. There is an inherent danger of clustering approaches, and the
temptation not to do so is great. However, for the sake of the argument presented here, it is useful to
identify broad tendencies – with the clear understanding that such categorisations are likely to be
contentious, fraught and imperfect. The chart highlights that it is only goal-oriented approaches to
coaching that are strictly non-directive, goal-focused and performance-driven. It also draws attention to
the common pairing of personal development aims and a therapeutic approach in non goal-oriented
approaches.
Comparative chart – chart 0.5
Type of coaching Directive vs. non-
Directive
Solution vs.
development focus
Therapeutic vs.
performance
Humanist Non-directive Development Therapeutic
Behaviourist Directive Solution Performance
Adult development Directive Development Therapeutic
Cognitive coaching Directive Development Therapeutic
Systemic coaching Non-directive Development Therapeutic
108
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 6, No.2, August 2008
Page 109
Positive psychology Directive Development Therapeutic
Adventure coaching Directive Development Performance
Adult learning Non-directive Development Therapeutic
Goal-oriented Non-directive Solution Performance
Conclusion
This paper sets out the argument that quite fundamental issues, both theoretical and practical, divide the
various approaches to coaching. It does not suggest that any one approach is better or right; each
approach would be more appropriate in particular situations. However, by understanding more clearly the
nature of the difference between approaches, it will also be easier to fit a coaching model to specific
situations. It is argued here that goal-oriented approaches to coaching generally have a different
perspective than therapeutic or personal-development approaches on the role of the coach and on the
objective of coaching.
Increasingly, coaching approaches are therapeutic in nature (Judge & Cowell, 1997)
2
and attempt to
identify the profound psychological causes of the coachee’s problems. Coaches often draw up a
psychological profile of their client before proceeding with coaching (Gray, 2005). In contrast, goal-
oriented coaching is designed to directly stimulate effective action. Given that coaching is designed to
address the healthy population, as Gray (2005) argues “it is far from clear why coaching should
necessarily so often adopt a psychotherapeutic approach” and is actively discouraged by some coaching
training organisations as it blurs the line between coaching and therapy. Goodman (2002) likewise insists
that coaches who “overemphasise personal enlightenment will ultimately undermine a coaching
program” (2002 p. 197). Hodgetts (2002) and Saporito (1996) argue that while psychotherapy focuses on
the individual’s personal issues and the holistic person, coaching needs to focus on achieving work-
related improvements. Similarly, Grant (2003 p. 253) claims:
In working with individuals to improve the quality of their lives, psychology has
traditionally focused on alleviating dysfunctionality or treating psychopathology in
clinical or counselling populations rather than enhancing the life experience of
normal adult populations.
It is important that the gap between these two trends in coaching does not widen, to retain the distinctive
goal-focused character of coaching.
2
Linley(2006p.4)advocatesadoptinglessonsfromthetherapyliteraturebasedonthe“common
factors”betweenthetwodisciplines,orifnothingelse“asabasisformwhichtoconstructcritical
coachingresearchquestions.”Whattheareasofcommonalityareneedscarefulconsideration.Stober,
WildflowerandDrake(2006p.3)arethereforecorrectthat“evidencebasedcoacheswoulddowellto
firstevaluatetheevidence’sapplicability”tocoachingbeforeextrapolatingfromotherdisciplines.
109
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 6, No.2, August 2008
Page 110
References
Auerbach, E. A. (2006) cognitive coaching in Stober, D. and Grant A. M. (Eds) Evidence-Based
Coaching Handbook, Wiley, New York, N.Y.
Berg, I. K. & Szabo, P. (2005) Brief Coaching for Lasting Solutions, W. W. Norton & Company, New
York, N.Y.
Berger, J. G (2006) Adult development theory and executive coaching practice in Stober, D. and Grant
A. M. (Eds) Evidence-Based Coaching Handbook, Wiley, New York, N.Y.
Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Walker, D (1994) Using experience for learning, SRHE and Open University
Press, Buckingham, England.
Brookfield, S. (1986) Understanding and facilitating adult learning, Open University Press,
Buckingham, England.
Burns, D. D. (1980) Feeling good: The new mood therapy, William Morrow, New York, N.Y.
Chapman, T., Best, B., & van Casteren, P. (2003) Executive coaching: Exploding the myths, Palgrave
Macmillan, New York.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998) On the self-regulation of behavior, New York, Cambridge
University Press.
Carter, A. (2001) Executive Coaching: Inspiring Performance at Work, The Institute for Employment
Studies, Brighton.
Cavanagh, M. (2006) Coaching from a systemic perspective: A complex adaptive approach in Stober, D.
and Grant A. M. (Eds) Evidence-Based Coaching Handbook, Wiley, New York, N.Y.
Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (1996) Cognitive Coaching: A foundation for Renaissance Schools,
Christopher-Gordon Publishing, Norwood, MA.
Corey, G. (1991) The theory and practice of counseling and psychotherapy (4th edition), Brooks Cole
Publishing, Pacific Grove, CA.
Cox, E. (2003) The Contextual Imperative: Implications for coaching and mentoring, International
Journal of Evidence-Based Coaching vol. 1 number 1, August 2003.
Cox, E. (2006) An adult learning approach to learning in Stober, D. and Grant A. M. (Eds) Evidence-
Based Coaching Handbook, Wiley, New York, N.Y.
de Shazer, S. (1985) Keys to Solution in Brief Therapy, W W Norton & Company, New York, NY.
de Shazer, S. (1988) Clues: Investigating Solutions in Brief Therapy, W W. Norton & Company, New
York, NY.
Downey, M. (1999) Effective Coaching, Orion Business Books, London.
Druckman, D. & Bjork, R. A. (1991) In the Mind’s Eye: Enhancing Human Performance, Washington
DC: National Academy Press.
Ellis, A. (1979) The practice of rational-emotive therapy, in Ellis, A. & Whiteley, J. (Eds), Theoretical
and empirical foundations of rational-emotive therapy, Brooks/Cole, Monterey, CA.
Emmons, R. A. (1986) Personal Strivings: An approach to personality and subjective wellbeing, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1058-86.
Evered, R. D. & Selman, J. C. (1989) Coaching sales performance: A case study, Organisational
Dynamics, 1989 18(2) pp. 16-32.
110
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 6, No.2, August 2008
Page 111
Goodman, R. G. (2002) Coaching senior executives for effective business leadership in Fitzgerald, C &
Beger, J. G. (Eds), Executive Coaching: Practices and Perspectives (pp. 135-253), Davies-
Black, Palo Alto CA.
Grant, A. M. (2003) The impact of life coaching on goal attainment, metacognition and mental health,
Social Behavior and personality, 31(3), 253-264.
Grant, A. M. (2006) An integrative goal-focused approach to executive coaching in Stober, D. and Grant
A. M. (Eds) Evidence-Based Coaching Handbook, Wiley, New York, N.Y.
Grant, A. M. & Stober, D. (2006) Introduction in Stober, D. and Grant A. M. (Eds) Evidence-Based
Coaching Handbook, Wiley, New York, N.Y.
Gray, D. E. (2006) Executive Coaching: Towards a Dynamic Alliance of Psychotherapy and
Transformative Learning Processes, Management Learning, Vol. 37, No. 4, 475-497, SAGE,
London.
Greene, J. & Grant, A. M. (2003) Solution-focused coaching: A manager’s guide to getting the best from
people, Pearson Education Limited, London.
Hart, V., Blattner, J. & Leipsic, A. (2001) Coaching versus therapy: A perspective, Consulting
Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 53(4) pp. 229-237.
Hudson, F. M. (1999) The Handbook of Coaching: a comprehensive resource guide for managers,
executives, consultants and human resource professionals, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.
Hodgetts, W.H. (2002) ‘Using Executive Coaching in Organisations: What Can Go Wrong (and How to
Prevent it) in Fitzgerald, C. and Berger, G.J. eds) Executive Coaching: Practices and
Perspectives Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.
Hubble, M. A. & Miller, S. D. (2004) The client: Psychotherapy’s missing link for promoting a positive
psychology, in Linley, P. A. and Joseph, S., Positive psychology in practice, 335-353, Wiley,
Hoboken, NJ.
Judge, W.Q. and Cowell, J. (1997) ‘The Brave New World of Executive Coaching’ Business Horizons 4
(40).
Kauffman, C. (2006) Positive psychology: The science at the heart of coaching in Stober, D. and Grant
A. M. (Eds) Evidence-Based Coaching Handbook, Wiley, New York, NY.
Kauffman, C. & Scouler, A. (2004) Toward a positive psychology of executive coaching in Linley, A., &
Josephs, S. (Eds) Positive psychology in practice, Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Kemp, T. (2006) An adventure-based framework for coaching in Stober, D. and Grant A. M. (Eds)
Evidence-Based Coaching Handbook, Wiley, New York, N.Y.
Kolb, D. A. (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the source of knowledge and development,
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Latham, G.P., Almost, J., Mann, S. & Moore, C. (2005) New development in performance management,
Organisational Dynamics, 34(1) pp. 78-87.
Linder-Pelz, S. and Hall, M. Meta-coaching: a methodology grounded in psychological theory,
International Journal of Evidence-Based Coaching, vol. 6 no 1, February 2008.
Linley, P.A. (2006) Coaching research: Who? What? Where? When? Why? International Journal of
Evidence-Based Coaching, vol. 4 no 2, August 2006.
Little, B. R. (1983) Personal striving: A rational and methods for investigation, Environment & Behavior,
Vol 15, 273-309.
Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. (1990) ‘A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance, Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
111
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 6, No.2, August 2008
Page 112
Miles, M. and Huberman, M. A. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills.
Neenan, M. and Dryden, W. (2002) Life Coaching: A Cognitive-Behavioural Approach
O’Hanlon, W. (1998) Possibility therapy: An inclusive, collaborative, solution-based model of
psychotherapy, in Hoyt, M. F. (Ed.) The handbook of constructive therapies: Innovative
approaches from leading practitioners, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Parsloe, E and Wray, M. (2000) Coaching and Mentoring, Kogan Page, London.
Parsloe, E. (1995) Coaching, Mentoring and Assessing, Kogan Page, London.
Peltier, B. (2001) The Psychology of Executive Coaching, Brunner-Routledge, Sussex.
Peterson, (2006) People are complex and the world is messy: A behavior-based approach to
executive coaching in Stober, D. and Grant A. M. (eds) Evidence-Based Coaching Handbook,
Wiley, New York, N.Y.
Peterson, D. B. & Hicks, M. D. (1996) Leader as coach: Strategies for coaching and developing others,
Personnel Decisions International, Minneapolis, MN.
Priest, S. (1999) The semantics of adventure programming in Miles, J.C. & Priest, S. (Eds), Adventure
Programming, Venture Publishing, State College, P.A.
Rogers, C. R. (1951) Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications, and theory, Houghton
Mifflin, Boston.
Rogers, C. R. (1959) A theory of therapy, personality and interpersonal relationships, in Kochm, SW.
(Ed.), Psychology: A study of science (PP. 184-256), McGraw-Hill, New York.
Saporito, T.J. (1996) ‘Business-Linked Executive Development: Coaching Senior Executives’
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research 48 (2) 96-103.
Skiffington & Zeus (2003) Behavioral coaching: How to build sustainable personal and organisational
strength, McGraw-Hill Australia, Sydney, Australia.
Snyder, A. (1995) ‘Executive Coaching: The New Solution’, Management Review 84 (3) 29-32.
Sperry L. (1993) Working with executives: consulting, counseling and coaching, Individual Psychology:
Journal of Adlerian Theory, Research & Practice, 49(2) pp. 257-266.
Stober, D. Coaching from the humanistic perspective (2006) in Stober, D. and Grant A. M. (eds)
Evidence-Based Coaching Handbook, Wiley, New York, N.Y.
Stober, D. and Grant A. M. (2006) Toward a contextual approach to coaching models in Stober, D. and
Grant A. M. (eds) Evidence-Based Coaching Handbook, Wiley, New York, N.Y.
Stober, D., Wildflower, & Drake (2006) Evidence-Based Practice: A Potential Approach for Effective
Coaching, International Journal of Evidence-Based Coaching, vol. 4 no 1, February 2006.
Summerfield, J. (2006) Do we coach or do we counsel? Thoughts on the ‘emotional life’ of a coaching
session, The Coaching Psychologist, 2006, vol. 2 no. 1., May 2006
West, L. & Milan, M. (Eds) (2001) The reflecting glass, Palgrave, London.
William, P. & Davis, D. C. (2002) Therapist as life coach: Transforming your practice, W. W. Norton,
New York.
Williams, K., Kiel, F., Doyle, M. and Singara, L. (2002) ‘Breaking the boundaries: Leveraging the
Personal in Executive Coaching’ in Fitzgerald, C. and Berger, G.J. eds Executive Coaching:
Practices and Perspectives Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.
Whitmore, J. (2003) Coaching for Performance, Nicholas Brealey Publishing, London.
112
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring
Vol. 6, No.2, August 2008
Page 113
Whitworth, L., Kimsey-House, H., & Sandhal, P. (1989) Co-active coaching: New skills for coaching
people toward success in work and life, Davie-Black, Palo Alto, California.
Yontef, G. (2005) Gestalt therapy theory of change, in Woldt, A. M. and Toman, S. M., Gestalt Therapy:
History, Theory and Practice, Sage, London.
113
