![]()
1 Introduction
In this short book, I am going to discuss what I call the coaching alliance. In this chapter, I will begin the book by discussing the coaching part of the term and then the alliance part of the term. Finally, I will make clear the approach I am taking in this work.
1.1. Two different types of coaching
Coaching is a term that is understood differently by different people (Downey, 2014). As such, it is important that you understand what I mean by coaching, so whether you agree with my view or not, at least you will understand this view. In my opinion, there are two different types of coaching, and these types are differentiated by their different focus. These two types of coaching are (1) development-focused coaching (DF-C) and (2) problem-focused coaching (PF-C). Let me consider them one at a time.
1.1.1. Development-focused coaching (DF-C)
Let me begin by defining what I mean by development-focused coaching.
Development-Focused Coaching (DF-C) concentrates on areas of coachee development. It is rooted in an open, respectful and collaborative relationship between coach and coachee. This relationship is a fusion between what coaches bring to the process and what coachees brings to the process. DF-C’s prime directive is to enable coachees, who are doing satisfactorily in life, to get more out of their life in a range of life areas. Coaches implement this directive by helping coachees (a) to set and achieve development-based objectives in one or more life domains and (b) to address the obstacles that are encountered as they pursue these objectives and their problematic responses to these obstacles. Coaches bring to the process both personal characteristics and professional expertise in the approach that informs their coaching. In utilising the latter, they will draw upon a range of strategies and techniques that are consistent with that approach and also upon strategies and techniques that stem from other coaching approaches if they are pluralistic in outlook. All interventions are carried out within a professional ethical context in which negotiated consent1 is paramount. Coachees bring to the process a range of strengths, capabilities and resources which they will be encouraged to draw upon during the process as they strive towards reaching their development-based objectives and as they deal with obstacles along the way.
DF-C, with its emphasis on fostering the development of the coachee, is what most people think of when they hear the word coaching. You will see from this definition, however, that while the focus of coaching is on development, coachees also need to be able to help their coachees “address the obstacles that are encountered as they pursue these objectives and their problematic responses to these obstacles”. When they do so, they need to be skilled in problem-focused coaching as obstacle-focused work is often synonymous with this second type of coaching.
1.1.2. Problem-focused coaching (PF-C)
Let me begin by defining problem-focused coaching.
Problem-Focused Coaching (PF-C) concentrates on coachees’ practical and emotional problems of living. It, too, is rooted in an open, respectful and collaborative relationship between coach and coachee. This relationship is, again, a fusion between what coaches bring to the process and what coachees brings to the process. PF-C’s prime directive is to help coachees effectively address their practical and emotional problems of living. Coaches bring to the process both personal characteristics and professional expertise in the approach that informs their coaching. In utilising the latter, they will draw upon a range of strategies and techniques that are consistent with that approach and also upon strategies and techniques that stem from other coaching approaches if they are pluralistic in outlook. All interventions are carried out within a professional ethical context in which negotiated consent2 is paramount. Coachees bring to the process a range of strengths, capabilities and resources which they will be encouraged to draw upon during the process of addressing their problems.
While coaching was originally designed to help coachees develop themselves rather than solve problems, people also seek coaching to solve problems. As I will discuss later in the book, people with problems of living where there is a strong emotional component (henceforth called emotional problems) may prefer to seek coaching for these problems because it is more acceptable for them to do so than to seek help from a counsellor or psychotherapist. Examples of such emotional problems include anxiety about performance at work, depression about how one’s career is going and anger at being criticised by one’s boss. Here, you need to help your coachee deal with these emotional problems, and thus you need to have the skills to do so (see Chapter 3). I will refer to this sub-type of PF-C as emotional problem-focused coaching (EPF-C).
People also seek coaching for help with problems where there is not a strong emotional component (henceforth called practical problems). Examples of such practical problems include difficulties in prioritising work projects, having too much to do and feeling overwhelmed, and problems motivating one’s team. Here, you need to help your coachee adopt a problem-solving approach. An example of such an approach has been provided by Palmer (2008) who has outlined a model he calls PRACTICE (where P = problem identification; R = realistic and relevant goals developed; A = alternative solutions generated; C= consideration of consequences; T = target most feasible solution; I = implementation of chosen solution; C = consolidation of the chosen potential solution; E = evaluation). I will refer to this sub-type of problem-focused coaching as practical problem-focused coaching (PPF-C).3
1.2. The coaching alliance: applying the expanded concept of the working alliance to coaching
In my view, one of the most important concepts that informs the practice of coaching is Ed Bordin’s (1979) concept of the working alliance that I subsequently developed (Dryden, 2006, 2011a). Hereafter, I will refer to this as the coaching alliance.
Bordin’s (1979) original paper highlighted the importance of the concept of the working alliance in the practice of psychotherapy, but he made it clear that it was also applicable to other ways of helping people. Although he did not mention coaching in his paper, it is clear that his ideas are highly pertinent to coaching. Indeed, O’Broin and Palmer (2010a: 4) have used the term coaching alliance and said that “the coaching alliance reflects the quality of the coachee’s and coach’s engagement in collaborative, purposive work within the coaching relationship, and is jointly negotiated, and renegotiated throughout the coaching process over time”.
Bordin argued that the working alliance is comprised of three domains: bonds, goals and tasks. Later, I added a fourth domain, which I call “views” (Dryden, 2006). The subsequent chapters are each devoted to one domain of the coaching alliance, but I will first provide brief descriptions of these four domains (Dryden, 2012).
- Bonds refer to the interpersonal connectedness between the coach and coachee.
- Views refer to the understandings that both participants have on salient issues in coaching.
- Goals/Objectives refer to the purpose of the coaching meetings. In this book, I use the term goals when writing about the aims of PF-C and the term objectives when writing about the aims of DF-C.
- Tasks refer to the procedures carried out by both coach and coachee in the service of the latter’s goals/objectives.
Please bear in mind that although I will devote one chapter to each of the domains of the coaching alliance, I see these domains as very much inter-related.
1.3. The approach taken in this book
I have written this book for all coaches, and in doing so, the approach I have taken is informed by pluralism (Cooper & McLeod, 2011). The major features of pluralism that are relevant here are as follows:
- There is no one absolute right way of conceptualising coachees’ issues and objectives – different viewpoints are useful for different coachees at different points in time, and therefore, coachees need to have a broad coaching practice repertoire.
- There is no one absolute right way of practising coaching – different coachees need different things at different points in time.
- Coaches should ideally acknowledge and celebrate coachees’ diversity and uniqueness.
- Coachees should ideally be involved fully at every stage of the coaching process. (O’Broin & Palmer, 2009)
My own approach to coaching is a flexible, cognitive-behavioural one that is informed by pluralism (Dryden, 2018). Although this is not a book on cognitive-behavioural coaching, I will, however, exemplify some of my points in the book by drawing on my own practice.
In this chapter, I have (1) outlined the pluralistic approach that I am taking in this book, (2) defined the two different types of coaching and (3) introduced the concept of the coaching alliance. Each of the following chapters is devoted to a particular domain of this alliance, beginning with the coaching bond.
![]()
2 Bonds in coaching
When considering the bond between you and your coachee, a number of issues come to the fore. In this section, I will consider the following:
- The “core conditions” of coaching
- The reflection process
- Your interactive style as coach
- The bonds of influence
2.1. The “core conditions” in coaching
If Bordin’s (1979) paper is one of the most seminal in the helping literature (which includes coaching), then perhaps a paper published by Carl Rogers (1957) over 20 years earlier is perhaps the most seminal. In this article, Rogers argued that there were six conditions that were necessary and sufficient for personal change to occur. Over the years, three of these conditions have been regarded as core and have been thus called “the core conditions”. These conditions are empathy, unconditional positive regard4 and genuineness. What is important for coaches to recognise is that coachees need to experience the presence of these conditions for them to have the potency for change.
Different coaches have different views on the necessity and sufficiency of these conditions. My own view is that it is important, but not necessary, for coachees to experience their coaches as empathic, accepting5 and genuine in their interaction. For some coaches, a particular “core condition” may be more helpful to them than others. Thus, one coachee may value your honesty more than your acceptance of them. This raises the question concerning how you can tell which condition your coachee values more than others. This question naturally leads us to a discussion of what I call the “reflection process”, which is a key aspect of what it means for you and your coachee to be pluralistic partners in the coaching process.
2.2. The reflection process in coaching
I mentioned in Chapter 1 that the approach to coaching taken in this book is influenced by pluralism. As such, it adheres to a version of what has become known as George Kelly’s6 first principle. It states: “If you want to know what is wrong with someone, ask them, they may tell you” (Bannister & Fransella, 1986). The version which underpins what I call the “reflection process” in coaching is as follows: “If you want to know what is right and wrong for your coachee, ask them, they may tell you”. The reflection process is interactive and not only incorporates the coachee’s view, but also the coach’s. What is particularly constructive is what comes out of the resultant discussion especially if you privilege your coachee’s viewpoint rather than your own.
In one of the Marx Brothers’ movies, Groucho stops the action and gives a reflective commentary on what has just happened. The reflection process in coaching is similar in that the coach and coachee reflect on what has transpired, is transpiring or may transpire between them. This may be done formally, for example, in a review session or by feedback at the end of a session feedback, or it may be done more informally during the process of coaching.
I used to think that this reflection process, which I see as a forum for coach and coachee to discuss matters pertaining to the coaching in which they are involved, was “extra to” or “outside” coaching. I now see it as an integral part of coaching and a vehicle for demonstrating the state of the relationship with respect to the degree of mutual respect, acceptance and trust present in that relationship.
2.3. Interactive style in coaching
The third area relevant to the coaching bond concerns the interactive style adopted by both coachee and coach and the degree of goodness of “fit” between these respective styles. Coaching alliance theor...
