The first two decades of the third millennium have witnessed a proliferation of coaching psychology approaches. These approaches have extended the original modules developed in the 1980s and 1990s such as GROW and co-active coaching into new territories. Many of these new approaches have been drawn from the therapeutic and counselling domain; these initially included cognitive-behavioural coaching, solution-focused coaching and psychodynamic coaching during the 2000â2010 period. This was followed by a more diverse range of models including motivational interviewing, acceptance and commitment coaching, compassion-based coaching and Gestalt, which have each been developed for use in coaching. In the period post-2020, other models are also now being considered as possible frameworks for use with coaching clients in non-clinical relationships, such as dialectical behavioural therapy and meta-cognitive therapy (for a wider discussion of third wave cognitive-behavioural coaching (CBC), see Passmore & Leach, 2022). In addition to the influences from therapy, psychological models have also been translated for use in coaching psychology practice, such as positive psychology and mindfulness. This flow of models from therapy and psychology contrasts with the relative sparse influence from change management and organisational development, with appreciative coaching being a rare exception drawing on appreciative inquiry as a structure to frame positive-focused conversations.
This multiplicity of available frameworks can be confusing for the coach. Some have responded by focusing on a single model or framework as a way to structure all conversations. However, the evidence suggests the majority of coaches have adopted a more eclectic approach and have sought to integrate a range of different models into their work with clients. This follows suggestions from writers in the emerging years of coaching, such as Alison Hardingham (2006) and Jonathan Passmore (2006), who advocated for a more eclectic approach, by which the coach should draw from a number of different streams and, in doing so, would be best able to respond to the unique individual and their specific presenting issue, as opposed to forcing each client to become the round peg required to fit the shape and size of âholeâ offered by the coach. These ideas of eclectic approaches have been further developed (Hardingham, 2021; Passmore, 2021), with an emphasis on each coach developing their own distinctive evidence-based approach informed by the cultural context, types of clients and their own personal style to build an approach which is informed by science but which can also be flexed and adapted to meet the client where they are.
Where does this leave coaching? Are coaching and coaching psychology essentially the same, or are there differences? For many clients, and even for practitioners, this is an academic debate. But it matters for three reasons: Firstly, it is important to define something to be able to provide it. If the label on the tin says âtomato soupâ, but it is crab soup when you open it, you may well be disappointed. A failure to clearly define and manage boundaries can also lead the coach into difficulties and risk causing harm to the client if the coach is not qualified and trained to work with an issue. Secondly, definitions matter for research. If we have not clearly defined our intervention, it is hard to measure the effect. We might be assessing if lunch poisoned the individual; however, if we cannot differentiate between the wholemeal bread and the crab soup, we do not know if the problem is a wheat intolerance or shellfish poisoning. Finally, and possibly most important for practitioners, if it is not clearly defined, we cannot teach it. Knowing the crucial ingredients â and the boundaries â allows for a syllabus and criteria for assessment to be developed: definitions matter.
This is not the place for a deep discussion of definitions, but practitioners should know what they are doing and be able to define, with precision, their intervention. In doing so they may reference one of the many definitions available: John Whitmoreâs classic definition of coaching: âunlocking a personâs potential to maximise their own performance. It is helping them to learn rather than teaching them â a facilitation approachâ (Whitmore, 1992, p. 8), Laura Whitworthâs definition of co-active coaching, âa relationship of possibilities ⌠based on trust, confidentialityâ (Kimsey-House et al., 2011, p. 19), Passmore and Fillery-Travisâs (2011) more process-focused definition â⌠a Socratic-based dialogue between a facilitator (coach) and a participant (client) where the majority of interventions used by the facilitator are open questions which are aimed at stimulating the self-awareness and personal responsibility of the participantâ, or one of the professional bodiesâ definitions, such as that of the International Coaching Federation.
For us, coaching psychology has a distinctive role to play. âCoaching psychology is âthe wellâ which refreshes the wider coaching professionâ (Passmore & Yi-Ling, 2019, p. 79). Coaching psychologists draw on their deeper understanding of research to actively contribute new theories, models, frameworks and, most importantly, evidence, to take forward evidence-based practice. While their practices may be consistent with many other evidence-based practitioners, their understanding of the wider psychological frameworks and the evidence underpinning their approach mark them out as distinctive. The client may witness little of this deeper knowledge in an individual session, but the wider body of coaching will benefit from their contribution, as they challenge and push the boundaries of practice through scientific-led enquiry, engaging in research and sharing their work through journals and other publications. In essence, the coaching psychologist is a scholar-practitioner, constantly crossing and re-crossing the bridge between practice and academia.
The British Psychological Society defines coaching psychology as âthe scientific study and application of behaviour, cognition and emotion to deepen our understanding of individualsâ and groupsâ performance, achievement and wellbeing, and to enhance practice within coachingâ (BPS, 2021).
As we continue to move forward, the definition of coaching and the areas of work in which coaching psychologists engage is likely to continue to change. It is twenty years since this journey of encouraging a focus on evidence-based coaching practice started, marked by the formation of the âCoaching Psychology Networkâ within the British Psychological Society. Two decades on, that group has evolved into the Division of Coaching Psychology with pathways for accredited training and the pace of change for coaching is quickening. While evidence will continue to grow in importance, digital platforms, artificial intelligence (AI) coaching apps and the blurring of the boundaries between coaching and counselling are likely to continue. The world of coaching in 2050 will be a fascinating place but, whatever changes, psychology, understanding human behaviour, emotion and cognition will be at its heart.