Content uploaded by Tatiana Bachkirova
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tatiana Bachkirova on May 08, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Philosophy of Coaching: An International Journal
Vol. 3, No. 1, May 2018, 6-22.
http://dx.doi.org/10.22316/poc/03.1.02
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) License which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.
The Limits and Possibilities of a Person-Centered Approach In
Coaching Through the Lens of Adult Development Theories
Tatiana Bachkirova
Oxford, UK
Simon Borrington
Oxford, UK
Abstract
The person-centred approach is one of the most recognised and respected
theoretical positions amongst coaches because coaching shares a number of
fundamental principles with this approach, such as the centrality of clients’
experiences and the commitment to the idea that the client already is in possession
of their own resources for growth. However, deviations from orthodox person-
centred practices commonly occur even when it is being claimed as the primary
theoretical approach. In this paper we offer a potential explanation for how such
discrepancies between the rationale for practice and the practice itself occur from
the perspective of adult development theories. Distinguishing person-centred
‘philosophical attitude,’ with its wide general appeal, from the unique and
integrated approach to practice developed from the work of Carl Rogers, we
suggest that the latter can further benefit and be enhanced by insights provided by
adult development theories.
Keywords: person-centred approach, coaching, adult development theories,
individual differences, philosophical pragmatism
Introduction
The person-centred approach (PCA) is well recognized as a basis for
interventions not only in coaching but also in counselling, mentoring, social
care, and teaching. The approach is grounded in a positive view of humanity
that sees the person as innately striving towards becoming fully functioning.
This ‘actualizing tendency’ (Rogers, 1951) can be blocked by a drive to act in
ways that are consistent with a person’s self-concept - the aspects of their
personality which have been approved during the individual’s development.
However, if the practitioner provides an environment that is safe and nurturing
the person can start to loosen their ‘conditions of worth’ and develop positive
self-regard, self-trust and the ability to view the world more accurately. This
Philosophy of Coaching: An International Journal
7
approach minimises directive techniques, such as interpretation, questioning
and collecting history, whilst also maximizing active listening, reflection of
feelings and clarification. Rogers (1951) emphasises the attitudes and personal
characteristics of the practitioner and the quality of the relationship as the prime
determinant of the outcomes. It is not surprising from this description that this
approach appeals to many practitioners. After all this time, since first being
proposed by Rogers (1951), it stills speaks to the hearts of those whose genuine
wish is for others to flourish.
From our experience of teaching different models to various coaching
practitioners, we find that they often demonstrate a preference for person-
centred theory as the one that resonates more than others. Firstly, it accords
with the commonly held assumption that coaching clients are resourceful and
capable (e.g. Rogers, 2012; Van Nieuwerburgh, 2017). Secondly, focusing on
the experiences of the client and being led by the client’s agenda is a central
tenet of coaching practice (e.g. Stout Rostron, 2009; Wilson, 2007). Thirdly, the
quality of the relationship between coach and client is considered the most
important factor in the outcomes of coaching (e.g. De Haan & Gannon, 2017;
Palmer and McDowall, 2010). It is hardly surprising, then, that novice coaches
often comment on how the theoretical foundation of the person-centred
approach is clear, convincing and elegant. For the same reasons, many highly
experienced coaches tend also to describe themselves as primarily person-
centred practitioners (Joseph, 2014; Palmer and Whybrow, 2006).
As promising as this picture may look, however, the reality in practical
application is not so straightforward. Although many practitioners often say that
the person-centred approach provides the fundamental attitude to their practice,
when asked what they do it appears that their actual practice takes many
different shapes and forms that would not be automatically recognisable as
conforming to the established criteria and expectations of ‘person-
centeredness.’ This perhaps stems from the potentially misleading presentation
of PCA as a “way [that] allows for quick rapport and accurate assessment of the
coaching situation” (Hedman, 2001, p. 76). In executive coaching, in particular,
PCA is not generally presented as a robust ‘standalone’ theory – a place to
begin, perhaps, but not to remain as the coaching relationship progresses, as it
disregards too many other useful approaches and interventions (Peltier, 2001).
It appears, therefore, that although the principles of PCA in coaching are
often readily assumed, the practice that then follows may deviate considerably
from these principles. Joseph (2014) goes as far as to suggest that “as long as it
is the coachee who is driving the session, the person-centred coach can draw on
Philosophy of Coaching: An International Journal
8
and offer to the coachee various exercises or techniques that may be drawn
from cognitive behavioural, multimodal, solution-focused and systems theory”
(p. 69). Such a wide interpretation of the person-centred approach seems to be
removing the uniqueness of principled non-directivity that is integral to it. It
becomes descriptive of a general interpersonal attitude of the coach to their
client (and, indeed, to people in general), with an appreciation of the quality of
the supportive relationship – “a philosophical approach to human relationship
not a set of techniques” (Joseph, 2014, p. 71). This attitude is naturally
compatible with any type and style of practice and not a particularly
controversial position to hold as nearly any approach could claim commitment
to the agenda of the client and importance of the supportive relationship. It
seems a useful but watered-down version of Rogers’ ideas in application for
coaching practice. We believe that this distracts practitioners from
understanding and utilising PCA as an integrated approach that combines an
established theoretical framework with a well-tuned methodology for practice,
falling to recognise that this integrated and fully-fledged PCA can be valuable
for clients exactly because of the uniqueness of this approach.
The question remains, however, why practitioners deviate from the PCA
as an integrated approach whilst continuing to subscribe to its principles and
even feeling strongly committed to them. Some obvious explanations for this
are that PCA as an integrated approach is too difficult for practitioners (Cooke,
2011), or that it does not work all the time (Peltier, 2001), or that there are some
clients for whom it does not work at all (Corey, 2009). Although the first two
reasons might have some merit, for the purposes of this paper we would like to
concentrate on the third one. It is with appreciation of the range of individual
differences that we wish to explore an extra dimension of these differences that
might shed some new light on the most and least suitable clientele for PCA in
coaching. Looking at it in this light may also have some practical application
for other types of supportive relationships.
The dimension of individual differences that we wish to consider is not
the one that is generally familiar to coaches and focuses on characteristics
identified using various psychometric instruments. This less familiar
dimension has been described by Cook-Greuter (2004) as ‘vertical’ in
comparison to the commonly used ‘horizontal’ and is to be found in patterns
described in adult development models by such theorists as Loevinger (1976)
and Kegan (1982). Although the coaching community has embraced adult
development theories more willingly than other supportive professional
relationships, this approach continues to be somewhat marginalised in both
academia and practice (Reams, 2016). However, we believe that adult
Philosophy of Coaching: An International Journal
9
development theories have the potential to add new insights into where, when
and why PCA is the most effective interpersonal strategy, and those occasions
when its suitability might be compromised.
Theories of adult development
Theories concerning the psychological development of adults (e.g.
Kolhberg 1969; Loevinger, 1987; Perry, 1970; Kegan, 1982; Cook-Greuter,
1999) interest us in relation to the above challenges to PCA because we believe
these theories shed further light on our understanding of individual differences.
Many of these theories are conceived in the tradition of developmental
structuralism, looking for patterns that connect specific psychological
phenomena. These patterns suggest that people differ not only from each other
in terms of personality types, learning styles and personal preferences, for
example, but also provide insight as to how an individual becomes significantly
different from the way they used to be in terms of how they make meaning of
their experiences, reason about their values and act in the world. In addition to
identifying certain patterns in the above changes, common to all people,
theories of adult development suggest that changes occur in sequential stages
through which people progress. The pace of such development is highly
individual occurring naturally as the result of engagement with life tasks but
can also be influenced by appropriate support and challenge that arise from
supportive relationships such as coaching or counselling (Bachkirova, 2014).
Table 1 describes a simple three-stage framework for adult development
in relation to specific psychological aspects as the most characteristic for the
majority of adults (Beck & Cowan, 1998; Wilber, 2000; Torbert, 1991) and
arguably most typical for the clientele of coaches. The choice of aspects (e.g.
cognitive style, ego development) is determined as being most descriptive
according to Loevinger (1976, 1987). The main input for each of these aspects
is drawn from the theories of Kegan (1982, 1994), Graves (1970), Torbert
(1991), and Cook-Greuter (1999, 2004), with the use of another simplifying
meta-perspective on these theories offered by McCauley et al. (2006). An
additional aspect of ‘engagement in action’ is proposed by Bachkirova (2011,
2016a).
The overarching categories of the three groups described are named
according to Bachkirova’s (2011) distinction of unformed, formed and
reformed ego. The term ‘ego’ is used to indicate the agency of the whole
organism (its capacity to act in response to internal or external stimuli). A sign
of a fully formed ego is the capacity of the organism to take ownership of past
Philosophy of Coaching: An International Journal
10
actions, withstand anxiety about what the future holds, and to possess the
ability to build relationships with others without losing the sense of who they
are (Bachkirova, 2011).
Stages
Unformed ego
Formed ego
Reformed ego
Cognitive style
(mostly Kegan
1982)
Socialised mind
Ability for abstract
thinking and self-
reflection
Self-authoring
mind
Can see
multiplicity and
patterns; critical
and analytical
Self-transforming
mind
Systems view;
tolerance of
ambiguity; change
from linear logic to
holistic understanding
Interpersonal
style
(Loevinger 1987;
Cook-Greuter
1999)
Dependent
Conformist/self-
conscious
Need for belonging;
socially expected
behaviour in
relationships;
peacemakers/keepers
Independent
Conscientious/
individualist
Separate but
responsible for
their own
choices;
communication
and individual
differences are
valued
Inter-independent
Autonomous/
Integrated
Take responsibility for
relationship; respect
autonomy of others;
tolerance of conflicts;
non-hostile humour
Conscious
preoccupations
(Graves 1970)
Multiplistic
Social acceptance,
reputation, moral
‘shoulds and oughts’
Relativistic/
Individualistic
Achievement of
personal goals
according to
inner standards.
Systemic/integrated
Individuality; self-
fulfillment; immediate
present;
understanding
conflicting needs
Character
development
(Loevinger 1987;
Cook-Greuter
1999; Kolhberg
1969)
Rule-bound
‘Inappropriate’ feelings
are denied or
repressed. Rules of
important others are
internalised and
obeyed.
Conscientious
Self-reliant,
conscientious;
follow self-
evaluated rules;
judge themselves
and critical of
others
Self-regulated
Behaviour is an
expression of own
moral principles.
Concerned with
conflicting roles,
duties, value systems.
Engagement in
action
(Bachkirova
2011)
Unformed ego
Reduced sense of
control over themselves
and environment.
Higher dependency on
others for action.
Formed ego
Capacity to take
ownership of the
past and act
independently.
‘Mind over body’
control of action.
Reformed ego
Harmony between
mind and body in
action. Appreciation
of complexity in the
relationship between
self and environment.
Philosophy of Coaching: An International Journal
11
Table 1 A cumulative description of the three stages in adult psychological
development with additions (Bachkirova, 2016a, p.302)
It is important to note at this point that there are many controversies and
misunderstandings in relation to adult development theories and their ‘use’ in
coaching practice, including:
• concerns about oversimplifying linearity and unjustified generalisation
in conceptualising individual development (Adam & Fitch 1982;
Westenberg & Gjerde 1999; Manners & Durkin 2001);
• implied judgment and over-categorising, particularly when the use of
measurement instruments is involved (Bachkirova, 2011);
• overzealous calls for prescriptive assessment and matching of coaches
and clients (Berger, 2006; Bachkirova & Cox, 2007).
(for extensive critiques of these, and other aspects, see Bachkirova & Cox,
2007; Bachkirova, 2014; Lawrence, 2017).
Our position is that adult development theories are not given sufficient
attention as they fall into the ‘no man’s land’ between the dominant modernist
and postmodernist camps, and from there are subjected to severe, but possibly
inconsistent, critique. For example, from the modernist perspective,
methodologies for measuring stages of development are not sufficiently precise
(requiring too high-level interpretation) to be considered as scientifically sound
(McCauley et al. 2006; Manners & Durkin 2001). As a consequence, the
research based on these measures is seen as highly questionable (limited
samples; lack of longitudinal studies; factors undermining quality of
measurement, e.g. verbal fluency, educational and social background, level of
IQ) (Adam & Fitch 1982; Westenberg & Gjerde 1999; Manners & Durkin
2001). From the postmodernist position, the above concerns are less relevant in
comparison to the violation of the principle of aperspectivism (Fishman, 1999).
With this commitment to the equality of perspectives, any apparent hierarchies
that are implied by developmental stages and the seemingly teleological nature
of these theories are too big a challenge (Paulson, 2007).
Without setting out to respond to all of these critiques in attempting to not
‘throw the baby out with the bath water,’ we will briefly indicate how ‘a third
way’ of philosophical pragmatism enables the possible option of keeping the
ideas of adult development theories relevant to helping practices whilst utilising
them for the purpose of exploring PCA. We will sketch our position through
four points which we believe justify the validity of adult development theories
Philosophy of Coaching: An International Journal
12
in relation to helping practices, thereby hopefully addressing a number of
concerns that may give rise to reservations about these theories.
1. All theories can be valid if they are useful according to the pragmatic
principle of expediency (James, 2014). It can be argued that theories of
adult development have passed the test of time so far. There is a
growing body of research, both qualitative and quantitative, in support
of these theories (e.g. Berger and Atkins, 2009; Manner et al., 2004;
Reams, 2016). There are new ways of conceptualizing practice based on
meaningful interpretation of psychological phenomena using the idea of
adult development (Chandler & Kram, 2005; Kegan & Lahey, 2009;
Berger, 2006; Bachkirova, 2011). Practitioners make adjustments in
engagements with clients when clients demonstrate a different way of
thinking, for example (Berger and Fitzgerald, 2002; Berger, 2012;
Reams & Reams, 2015; Lawrence & Allen, 2018).
2. According to John Dewey’s pragmatic account of learning and growth
(1916), we conceptualise individual development not in a controversial
teleological sense with a predetermined end state, but as a socio-
biological drive to learn, which does not stop in adulthood, and which
also corresponds to an actualising tendency (Rogers, 1951).
Psychological development is open-ended with infinite unfolding
potential in the same way as any learning process (Dewey, 1916).
Psychological development is a natural process that happens in the life
of the individual in response to living in and acting on this world. It is
influenced by many internal and external factors and thus happens at a
different pace for different people. As development is a natural process,
the amplifiers of this process, such as people and events, are also
natural.
3. Although some patterns of changes in various aspects of individual
development can be identified (e.g. Table 1), specific stages are not
fixed, and sequences are not linear but are contingent upon context, the
nature of each psychological aspect, and upon individual circumstances.
Rather than the ‘ladder’ model of development, we see development
according to the ‘onion’ model (Laurence & Moore, 2018). This model
implies a non-substantial nature of the self (Bazzano, 2014) or a
modular nature (Bachkirova, 2011) according to which various
functional mini-selves are assembled when called upon by the tasks of
the internal or external environment. Although qualitatively different
new ways of meaning making and acting, for example, develop as new
layers of the onion, all layers can be represented in different situations
Philosophy of Coaching: An International Journal
13
and contexts. Even if a more advanced level of meaning making is
already available to the person, depending on the circumstances, a
particular mini-self can act and become dominant from the earlier layer.
4. According to the above view on the self and development, we argue that
although some sort of gauging of where an individual’s ‘centre of
developmental gravity’ might be is theoretically possible, measurement
and precision in this task is not only incredibly difficult but also not
necessary. Bachkirova (2011) proposed that the actual issues that clients
bring for coaching are already an indication of this centre. The
practitioner, as in PCA, can be led by the client, and their specific
expressed and emergent needs form the developmental theme that
becomes the focus of coaching. Table 2 gives an indication of the
developmental themes that clients bring for coaching according to the
three stages described in Table 1. These themes indicate the types of
difficulties that clients experience and wish to overcome. Such
classificatory markers should be viewed only as additional material for
reflection that the practitioner may utilise in preparation for sessions and
in supervision.
Unformed ego
Formed ego
Reformed ego
Decision-making in difficult
situations with a number of
stake-holders
Taking higher level of
responsibility than they feel they
can cope with
Work-life balance connected to
inability to say ‘no’
Performance anxiety
Issues of self-esteem
Coping with high amount of
self-created work
Achievement of recognition,
promotion, etc.
Interpersonal conflicts
Problem solving
Learning to delegate
Stress management
Dissatisfaction with life in spite
of achievements
Internal conflict
Not ‘fitting in’
Search for meaning
Overcoming life crisis
Initiating a significant life
change
Staying true to themselves in a
complex situation
Table 2: Three groups of developmental themes (adapted from Bachkirova, 2013)
We hope that the above provides a brief framework for understanding
adult development theories. We also believe that, in the context of
philosophical pragmatism, adult development theories are not in conflict with
Philosophy of Coaching: An International Journal
14
the basic tenets of person-centred theory and reflect the influence that John
Dewey had on Rogers’ ideas concerning the inherent nature of the actualizing
tendency (Rogers, 1951). Making such a case in support of adult development
theories provides us with a lens through which PCA can be explored in a
coaching context. It is possible that other helping practices may benefit from
any insights arrived at in this way.
Exploring the applicability of the Person-Centred Approach in light of
theories of adult development
As we already identified above, there is a clear difference between having
a person-centred attitude and utilizing fully integrated PCA in practice. In this
section we explore the use of PCA as a full methodology when working with
clients from the three different stages of adult development. It is possible that
the main strength of this approach is to be realised when used in working with
clients who are situated at a particular developmental stage – a stage we have
identified as that of ‘unformed ego’. We would also suggest that PCA may have
some limitations and may be ultimately ineffective when working with clients
who are at the ‘formed ego’ and ‘reformed ego’ stages.
Unformed ego
The most characteristic feature of an individual at the developmental
stage of ‘unformed ego’ is that of someone who is very unsure of their abilities
in certain areas of their life and consequently in need of more guidance and
support. This leads to a higher dependency on others, which can result in a
reduced sense of control over their environment. The issues of confidence and
self-esteem often become an overarching developmental theme for coaching
people with an unformed ego, because their wellbeing depends on how they are
seen, valued, and validated by others (Bachkirova, 2011). Kegan (1982) even
suggests that, strictly speaking, ‘self-esteem’ is not an applicable term for
individuals at this stage, as their ‘esteem’ does not come from their sense of
‘self,’ but rather from the received and unexamined opinions of others. In
Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (1954), self-esteem and belonging would be the
corresponding stage for the unformed ego.
The value of PCA at this level of intervention comes with the provision of
unconditional positive regard for these clients, irrespective of their actions,
achievements, values or their stage of development. This is a most powerful
supportive strategy for a client who is lacking in self-acceptance and, if it is
offered together with other conditions typical to this approach, can allow the
Philosophy of Coaching: An International Journal
15
client to reclaim self-respect and to gain a deeper sense of their own needs and
potential strengths (Joseph & Bryant-Jefferies, 2007; Joseph, 2014).
It is noteworthy that, according to various researchers, this group of
adults constitutes by far the most populated developmental stage in comparison
to the other two (see Cook-Greuter, 2004). Even if the validity of these statistics
can be challenged in terms of the proportion of a general population, anecdotal
evidence from coaching practitioners and coaching supervisors tend to support
this estimation in relation to coaching clients. However, coaches may not be
confident enough, or misled by some literature (e.g. Peltier, 2001), to work with
these clients using PCA as the sole methodology, ‘uncontaminated’ by other
approaches. In our view they should be encouraged to do this without feeling
obliged to bring any greater methodological diversity to their practice.
Formed ego
There is some anecdotal evidence arrived at from coaching supervisors
that when PCA coaches work with clients who can be usefully identified as
‘formed ego,’ they may find themselves less equipped to deal with the client’s
needs. The need for acceptance by these clients is no longer an overriding
concern. Clients at this stage are generally able to accept themselves and ‘to
stand on their own two feet.’ They can differentiate themselves from their
immediate contexts and express their individuality. They manage tasks that are
important to them by relying on their own resources. They can reflect on their
own qualities in a more detached way and may willingly face and even create
challenges to test their ego.
These capabilities do not mean that these people are free from difficulty.
Their choices may be constructive or destructive even if chosen according to
their own criteria. The sense of control and self-ownership that they have
developed may lead to an overestimation of what is possible and realistic for
that individual. The sense of independence from other people may lead to
conflicts in relationships or isolation. However, they will feel less like the
victims of circumstance and some may even enjoy the emergent challenges.
Therefore, they may experience the style of a PCA practitioner as insufficiently
challenging. They may wish for a more open and intense engagement with the
coach, not necessarily in a directive style but as being more actively involved in
a dialogue with a greater degree of self-disclosure and even confrontation.
In coaching, and particularly in executive coaching, these clients do not
constitute an unusual clientele even though this group is statistically smaller
Philosophy of Coaching: An International Journal
16
than the unformed ego group (Cook-Greuter, 2004), which might go some way
in explaining the concerns expressed in coaching literature about the limitations
of PCA. Therefore, we suggest that when dealing with clients from this
developmental category, although a person-centred attitude is perfectly
appropriate, it is justified to move beyond a strict adherence to a person-centred
methodology and to draw upon other resources. It might explain why, on
encountering this type of client, practitioners who are committed solely to PCA
may find that they are insufficiently equipped.
Reformed ego
In regard to the third developmental category, the ‘reformed ego,’ PCA
may be an effective methodology when these clients have an explicit need to
process their developmental themes in their own way with the main relational
requirement being the presence of a supportive listener. Such individuals are
quite capable of self-developing. They already accept themselves and working
with them would need more freedom and creativity than perhaps PCA as a
methodology can offer. It would also need the overall capacity of the
practitioner to resonate with these clients’ meaning making system and
therefore may require the practitioner themselves to be at a developmental stage
that enables them to offer responses, where necessary, of sufficient depth.
The kinds of themes that reformed ego clients tend to want to address
indicates that their capacity to act and reflect go beyond those of the two other
groups. This capacity is determined by achieved ability to act efficiently, thus
leaving more energy and attention available for the conscious awareness of the
situations, the organism as a whole and the relationship between them
(Bachkirova, 2011). This allows recognizing conflicts between their various
sub-selves, nuances of contexts and limitations to the ways the situations are
perceived and interpreted. These clients can be in control of the situation
without the need to control everything, as they are better equipped to be able to
tolerate the ambiguity of some needs and tasks. Instead of investing in being
right and efficient, they become increasingly interested in being authentic and
not engaging in self-deception. They can be insightful about their internal
conflicts as well as being constructively critical about the state of affairs around
them. As this group seems to be even smaller than that of the formed ego, they
may suffer from a lack of understanding from and substantive connection with
others.
Coaching relationships with these clients may come to a premature end
when they recognise that a particular practitioner cannot offer more than these
Philosophy of Coaching: An International Journal
17
clients can already do by themselves. If the engagement is to continue it might
become more developmental for the practitioner than for the client. Alternative
approaches to PCA that may be more productive, such as Gestalt and
Existential, have been recommended as being more stretching for these clients
(Bachkirova, 2011). These methodologies may be more efficacious in tapping
into ‘the client’s growth edge’ (Berger, 2012, p. 94). However, we would argue
that more than the methodological approach itself, it is the self of the
practitioner that makes the key difference at this level of engagement. This
might also hold to be the case in supportive relationships other than coaching.
Conclusion
In this paper, we have been using a lens of adult development theories to
explore the applicability of PCA for different clientele of coaching with a view
to offering an explanation for some potential limitations of this approach. We
have been suggesting the need to expand the use of PCA for clients of
‘unformed ego’ stage and to consider other coaching approaches as better
options than PCA for clients who are at developmental stages beyond
‘unformed ego,’ e.g., Solution-Focused approach for formed ego stage, and
Gestalt and Existential approaches for reformed ego clients (Bachkirova, 2011).
Although we, hopefully, have already addressed some of the reservations
that PCA practitioners outside of coaching might have in relation to these
theories, there is yet another reservation that is left to discuss: the concern that
theories of psychological development imply a judgement being made about
some status level of another person. This would seem to clash with a
commitment of the person-centred practitioner to the idea of coaching
relationships as being fundamentally non-judgemental. We believe however
that similar judgements are made on an everyday basis by all of us. What
matters is the purpose of the judgement (or assessment) and its validity. It is
more than possible in person-centred practice to assess where the client is in
terms of their meaning making or engagement in action, whilst at the same time
displaying unconditional acceptance and positive regard. Making a
developmental assessment does not entail providing a ‘complete’ understanding
of the client, but it can help the practitioner to listen in a better way to clients’
concerns and to be more present in their search for a better fit between the
context in which an individual’s difficulty arises and their capacity for dealing
with it (Kegan, 1994; Berger, 2012).
We also believe that being more developmentally minded or having at
least a curiosity about psychological development in adulthood can be
Philosophy of Coaching: An International Journal
18
developmental for practitioners as it adds another dimension to the spectrum of
psychological diversity they face in their work. It is important to emphasise yet
again that the self of the practitioner, their attitude to change and human nature,
their personal values and the way that they make meaning play very important
roles in establishing the appropriate supportive relationship for the client in
question. Theories of adult development have something important to say in
this regard. Kegan (1994) argued that people feel ‘in over their heads’ in any
work they do when the complexity of their job is greater than the capability of
their meaning making system. In coaching practice this is also possible and
probably most noticeable with approaches in which the practitioner cannot hide
behind various techniques and interventions, PCA being one of these. Although
we do not subscribe to the strong views of some coaching authors (e.g. Laske,
2006) who argue that the coach should know their stage and be at the same or
higher stage of development as their client, we recognise the inherent
complexity of the relationships showing a significant developmental mismatch
between the coach and client.
This might require from the PCA practitioner a sensitivity and honesty in
relation to the ‘in over their head’ phenomenon in relation to certain clients and
further require them to consider referral to a colleague who might be more
suitable for such a challenge. On the other hand, in recognising his or her own
limitations the practitioner is provided with an incentive for continuing not only
professional but also personal development (Bachkirova, 2016b). It has been
argued (Cook-Greuter, 1999; Berger & Fitzgerald, 2002) that each stage
enriches individual capacity for reflection and for effective interaction with
others and with tasks. The capacity to understand others and to notice nuances
and details of situations increases with a better opportunity to articulate and
potentially change these situations – all-important for the coaching practitioner.
References
Adams, G., & Fitch, S. (1982). Ego stage and identity status development: A
cross sequential analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
43, 574–583.
Bachkirova, T. (2011). Developmental Coaching: Working with the Self.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Bachkirova, T. (2013). Developmental coaching: Developing the self. In J.
Passmore, D. Peterson, & T. Freire (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell
handbook of the psychology of coaching and mentoring (pp.135–154).
Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Ltd.
Philosophy of Coaching: An International Journal
19
Bachkirova, T. (2014). Psychological Development in Adulthood and
Coaching. In E. Cox, T. Bachkirova & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The
Complete Handbook of Coaching (2nd ed.) (pp. 131–144). London:
Sage.
Bachkirova, T. (2016a). Developmental coaching: theory and practice. In R.
Wegener, S. Deplazes, M. Hasenbein, H. Künzli, A. Ryter and B.
Uebelhardt (Eds.), Coaching as an individual response to social
developments (pp. 295-306). Wiesbaden: Springer VS Research.
Bachkirova, T. (2016b) The Self of the Coach: Conceptualization, Issues, and
Opportunities for Practitioner Development. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, 68(2), 143-156.
Bachkirova, T., & Cox, E. (2007). A Cognitive Developmental Approach for
Coach Development. In S. Palmer & A. Whybrow (Eds.), Handbook of
Coaching Psychology: A Guide for Practitioners (pp. 325–350).
London: Routledge.
Bazzano, M. (2014). Togetherness: Intersubjectivity revisited. Person-Centred
& Experiential Psychotherapies, 13(3), 203-216.
Beck, D., & Cowan, C. (1996). Spiral Dynamics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Berger, J. (2012). Changing on the Job: Developing Leaders for a Complex
World. Stanford: Stanford Business Books.
Berger, J., & Atkins, P. (2009). Mapping complexity of mind: using the
subject-object interview in coaching. Coaching: An International
Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 2(1), 23–36.
Berger, J. (2006). Adult Development Theory and Executive Coaching Practice.
In Stober D. & Grant, A. (Eds.), Evidence Based Coaching Handbook:
putting best practices to work for your clients (pp. 77-102). Chichester:
John Wiley.
Berger, J., & Fitzgerald, C. (2002). Leadership and Complexity of Mind: The
Role of Executive Coaching. In C. Fitzgerald & J. Berger (Eds.),
Executive Coaching: Practices & Perspectives (pp. 27–58). Palo Alto:
Davies-Black Publishing.
Chandler, D. & Krum, K. (2005). Applying an adult development perspective
to developmental networks. Career Development International, 10(6/7),
548-566.
Cook-Greuter, S. (2004). Making the case for developmental perspective.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 36(7), 275-281.
Cook-Greuter, S. (1999). Postautonomous ego development: Its nature and
measurement. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Graduate School of Education.
Philosophy of Coaching: An International Journal
20
Cooke, B. (2011). The person-centred approach in coaching supervision. In T.
Bachkirova, P. Jackson & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), Coaching &
Mentoring Supervision: Theory and Practice (pp. 133-143).
Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Corey, G. (2009). Theory and Practice of Counselling and Psychotherapy (8
ed.). Belmont: Thomson Brooks/Cole.
De Haan, E. & Gannon, J. (2017). The Coaching Relationship. In T.
Bachkirova, G. Spence & D. Drake (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of
Coaching (pp. 195-217). London: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and Education: An introduction to the
philosophy of education. London: Macmillan.
Fishman, D. (1999). The Case for Pragmatic Psychology. New York: New
York University Press.
Graves, C. (1970). Levels of Existence: An Open System Theory of Values.
Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 10 (2), 131–155.
Hedman, A. (1999). The Person-Centered Approach. In B. Peltier (Ed.), The
Psychology of Executive Coaching: Theory and Application (pp. 66-80).
London: Routledge.
James, W. (2014). Lecture 6: Pragmatism’s Conception of Truth. In D. Olin
(Ed.) William James: Pragmatism, in focus (pp. 99-115). London:
Routledge.
Joseph, S. & Bryant-Jefferies, R. (2007). Person-centred coaching psychology.
In S. Palmer and A. Whybrow (Eds.), Handbook of Coaching
Psychology: A Guide for practitioners, (pp. 211-228). London:
Routledge.
Joseph, S. (2014). The Person-Centred Approach to Coaching. In E. Cox, T.
Bachkirova and D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The Complete Handbook of
Coaching (pp. 65-76). London: Sage.
Kegan, R. (1994). In Over Our Heads. London: Harvard University Press.
Kegan, R. (1982). The Evolving Self: Problem and Process in Human
Development. London: Harvard University Press.
Kegan, R. & Lahey, L. (2009). Immunity to Change: How to overcome it and
unlock the potential in yourself and your organisation. Boston: Harvard
Business Press.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stages in the development of moral thought and action.
New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
Laske, O. (2006). From coach training to coach education: Teaching coaching
within a comprehensively evidence-based framework. International
Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 1(1), 45-57.
Philosophy of Coaching: An International Journal
21
Lawrence, P. (2017). Coaching and Adult Development. In T. Bachkirova, G.
Spence & D. Drake (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Coaching (pp. 121-
138). London: Sage.
Lawrence, P. & Moore, A. (2018, in press). Coaching in Three Dimensions:
Meeting the challenges of a complex world. London: Routledge.
Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego Development: conceptions and theories. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Loevinger, J. (1987). Paradigms of Personality. New York: Freeman.
Manners, J., & Durkin, K. (2001). A Critical Review of the Validity of Ego
Development Theory and Its Measurement. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 77(3), 541–567.
Manner, J., Durkin, K. & Nesdale, A. (2004). Promoting Advanced Ego
Development Among Adults. Journal of Adult Development, 11(1), pp.
1927.
McCauley, C., Drath, W., Palus, P., O’Connor, B. & Baker, B. (2006). The use
of constructive-developmental theory to advance the understanding of
leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 634–653.
Maslow, A. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.
Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (2006). The coaching psychology movement and its
development within the British Psychological Society. International
Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1), 5–11.
Palmer, S. & McDowall, A. (2010). The Coaching Relationship: Putting people
first. London: Routledge.
Paulson, D. (2007). Wilber’s integral philosophy: A summary and critique.
Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 48(3), 364-388.
Perry, W.G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the
college years. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Peltier, B. (2001). The Psychology of Executive Coaching: Theory and
application. London: Routledge.
Reams, J. (2016). An Overview of Adult Cognitive Development Research and
Its Application in the Field of Leadership Studies. Behavioral
Development Bulletin, 22(2), 334-348.
Reams, J. & Reams, J. (2015). Awareness based technologies for leadership
development: Utilising Immunity to Change Coaching. International
Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 13(2), 14-28.
Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centred therapy: Its current practice, implications
and theory. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Rogers, J. (2012). Coaching Skills: A Handbook (3rd ed). Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Philosophy of Coaching: An International Journal
22
Stout Rostron, S. (2009). Business Coaching International: Transforming
Individuals and Organizations. London: Karnac.
Torbert, W. (1991). The Power of Balance. Newbury Park: Sage.
Van Neeuwerburgh, C. (2017). An Introduction to coaching skills: A practical
guide (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Wilson, C. (2007). Best practice in performance coaching: A Handbook for
Leaders, Coaches, HR Professionals and Organizations. London:
Kogan Page.
Westenberg, P., & Gjede, P. (1999). Ego development during the transition
from adolescence to young adulthood: A 9-year longitudinal study.
Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 233–252.
Wilber, K. (2000). Integral Psychology. London: Shambala.
