Coaching: Where does it fit in?  

There is no clear distinction in the literature between coaching, consulting and mentoring. It appears that the term is widely used due to the term being more modern, popular and known to yield results. Stern (2004) explains that the origins of the word “coaching” comes from a mode of transport once used in Hungary to transport people. He draws an analogy between coaching “carrying a client” and the carriage carrying a person. The terms “coach” and “coaching” seem to be used very broadly, and it is complicated to determine exactly what is meant by the use of the term.

Examples of different types of coaches include, for instance, health coaches, creative coaches, publishing coaches, public speaking coaches, image coaches, etc. These coaches use their expertise combined with a coaching methodology in order to help clients to reach predetermined goals. Their success in the marketplace testifies to the fact that one does not need a degree in psychology in order to engage in coaching practice. By contrast, most coaches working with high profile companies are highly trained individuals with MBA or PhD qualifications. They either have a background in various disciplines regarding the corporate world or a background in psychology. Their methodology will depend on their expertise and interest and they normally do not follow a predetermined methodology prescribed by a coach training school.

Coaching has become very popular as it is perceived to change lives. At the very least, the outcome of a coaching intervention is that clients gain knowledge and insight about themselves. It is applied through organizations as well as with individuals. According to Passmore (2007), the ultimate value derived from executive coaching is situated in the improvement of workplace behavior and effectiveness. Unfortunately, there is a gap in empirical research to describe and explore all the possibilities and avenues of executive coaching through the eyes of experienced practitioners in the field (Kilburg, 2007).

With roots in a wide variety of disciplines stretching from medicine, education, clinical psychology, positive psychology, and organizational development; and support provided by cognitive neuroscience, philosophy (ontology), linguistic models, and narrative approaches; and with manifestations found in sports coaching, relationship coaching, business coaching, and a multitude of other forms of coaching, it is very difficult to establish where the boundaries of an ideal coaching intervention can be drawn (Kilburg, 2007). There is a strong distinction in most of the training programs between coaching, therapy, and counseling versus consulting and mentoring. Coaches are taught to refer a client quickly to relevant professionals if they encounter any issues that fall outside of the realm of coaching that they have trained in and therefore outside of their expertise.

An eclectic approach is derived from numerous theories, practices and approaches which are utilized during a coaching intervention to facilitate change and guide development. This approach provides a framework to facilitate improvement for the client from a practical point of view without the debate around the theory of coaching practices. Different approaches provide a better balance and diversity in the coaching experience (Turner and Goodrich, 2010).

A distinction can be made between coaching approaches. Some are based on positive aspects, such as an ultimate vision or dream of the future, coupled with wholeness, strength, energy, encouragement, acknowledgement, and other positive elements. In contrast, we find a “lack of” perspective, characterized by “what went wrong”, deficits, resolve of conflict, and “what is not working”, etc. This reminds strongly of the Adlerian approach and the focus on problems, rather than solutions. The latter approach is not very pleasant for the client, as they may be already be beating up on themselves about those elements. In my opinion both coach and client will enjoy a more positive approach, focused on the future and possibilities and options rather than a perspective on the past. Positive psychology provides the theoretical and scientific roots for effective and valid coaching (Stober & Grant, 2006). Not all psychology practitioners agree about this point.

I believe the eclectic approach to coaching yields the most results and contributes to a rich experience for clients resulting in life changing behavior and thinking patterns. It requires a combination of different roles, such as running a business, delivering on coaching competencies, listening like a therapist, and advising like an industrial consultant. Therefore, people with a wide range of skills tend to be most successful (Gottschall, 1989).

Kilburg, R. (2007). Toward a conceptual understanding and definition of executive coaching. The wisdom of coaching: Essential papers in consulting psychology for a world of change (pp. 21-30). Washington, DC US: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/11570-001

Passmore, J. (2007). An Integrative Model for Executive Coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 59(1), 68-78. doi:10.1037/1065-9293.59.1.68.

Stern, L. R. (2004). Executive Coaching: A working definition. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 56(3), 154-162. doi :10.1037/1065-9293.56.3.154

Stober, D. R., & Grant, A. M. (2006). Positive psychology: The science at the heart of coaching. In Evidence based Coaching Handbook: Putting best practices to work for our clients. pp.219-253. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Turner, R. A., & Goodrich, J. (2010). The case for eclecticism in Executive Coaching: Application to challenging assignments. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 62(1), 39-55.   doi:10.1037/a0018650