Our role is to integrate or differentiate the coaching of other professions or processes aids? Or the way could be differentiation through integration? What do you think we should do to strengthen and develop coaching as a profession?

I would like to hear more opinions, I know that there is a wide range of thinkers among readers and contributors.

I agree with the term “intervention” not being associated with coaching.

To Jonathan’s point on “intervention,” if coaching is to have it’s own identity then we must be able to frame our discussion and thought around it in a way that is uniquely “coaching!”

I would suggest that the majority would experience the term “intervention” in a pejorative sense as it relates to coaching…that is to say their first experience of hearing the word within the context of a coaching dialog.

While a method may have an agenda, coaching in and of itself is not based on an agenda. Which is a distinction that seems to be uniquely coaching.

Leonardo, you make so many points…I’ll just share a couple thoughts at this point…

I don’t know that I see the process and context as being different sides of the same coin. A context can be held consistently over a given period all while using one or more processes.

A subtle point I offered was that of “being the first.” Is it possible that the perceived overlap between therapy and coaching can be, in part, due to therapy claiming to broad of territory for it’s own? In other words, if coaching had been recognized as a profession first…where then would this dialog be today? How would the therapy as a whole be shaped?

The next question for me is…who’s most concerned with the distinction of therapist versus coach? I truly don’t feel that this is something being driven by coaches. Who will ultimately decide what defines the coaching profession?

Stacey, thanks for chiming in. It’s true that “intervention” may come from another tradition, but I’m not sure it has to have the pejorative connotation you mention (although we could still agree to use a different term, even if that were true). Can’t one speak of intervening in a system, and aren’t we doing that even by observing, let alone coaching?

Also, as a historical note, and to highlight a potential similarity without wanting to demarcate turf or say that one thing is better than another, the idea of “meeting the client where he/she is” is an integral part of the social work worldview. Just an interesting similarity.

Glad to hear more voices and also looking forward to hearing more from James.

First, I agree with Leonardo that viewing coaching as a subset of psychology would be unfortunate. While psychology based research in coaching currently dominates the field, coaching’s origins are simple. A “coach” carried passengers in the 15th century to their destination, private tutors (or coaches) saw students safely through exams, and sports “coaches” began in the 1880s to assist athletes in improving their performance. Basically, coaches have a history of meeting passengers or clients where they are at and accompanying them on a journey of sorts. It evolved prior to as well as along with psychology.

I think as coaching evolves, additional voices will further contribute to the literature. Psychology folks, with their rich tradition in publishing, simply have a head start. We’re now seeing more business management, leadership, adult education, theology, philosophy, and others adding their perspectives to the mix. How exciting that we can all learn from each other, honoring each others’ traditions and what we bring to the table and together creating a rich way of helping people learn and grow–not to create a cookie cutter, or child of another profession, but to create a new and powerful way of looking at things.

An additional distinction here is related to the term “intervention”, a possible carry over from certain psychology traditions. I would echo some of Leonardo’s comments here. I don’t find it useful in my coaching because it seems to imply the client as broken, rather than whole. I don’t see myself as intervening in anything. If I were, would I not be judging my clients’ current circumstance? That’s a trap I’d prefer to avoid.

As coaches with so many diverse backgrounds learn and grow in coaching, I think clarity in role and purpose is essential. However, I like the idea of a flexible definition that leaves room for growth, or perhaps it’s a definition based on process rather than content (where this thread began).

I like James’ encouragement to look at this with a new lens, viewing coaching as a tool versus a profession. Along these lines, I think you might find a post by David Drake on this site interesting…he shares an article he wrote about Coach as Artisan. He includes comments about the history of coaching as well as makes comparisons to the research tradition in psychology and other related fields. http://www.coachingcommons.org/inventing-the-future-of-coaching/are-coaches-artisans/

Looking forward to hearing more thoughts!

I made a synthesis of the aspects that I consider most important about recent comments by Stacey, Jonathan and James and now I will give my point of view in this regard to continue the debate.

1. Stacey said that “I would venture to say that one difference is the goal / need of the client.”
She was referring, actually, that one of the most important differences — it is not so much in WHAT coaching does, but in HOW it does. This, I believe, is right and important.

2. Jonathan pointed out several important issues:
2.1. There is an important difference between coaching defining what “is” and defining how coaching differs from other fields.
2.2. There are not interventions in the coaching staff that could not be (or are not) used in psychotherapy.
2.3. That differences have less to do with process and more to do with context.
2.4. That coaching is a subset of psychotherapy.
2.5. That there may be a large overlap between coaching and psychotherapy and that we do not know what that overlap might look like.
2.6. That one reason coaches try to distinguish coaching from other fields is to make a case for why potential customers might want to use a coach rather than someone from a different field.

3. And James commented that:
3.1. “Context” is indeed at the core of this discussion.
3.2. He asked, rightly, “Perhaps the greater distinction could be this: is coaching a profession or a tool?
3.3. And then: “Which of the two (coaching or therapy) is more accessible to the general population?”

Well….Given the amount of information presented, I will give my point of view (synthetically) with a brief argument. Then we can expand on what you (and others) consider most important to discuss:

A. The coaching does the same as any other helping process (setting goals, tangible and intangible, or troubleshoot), but the difference lies in HOW it does. In this sense, I do believe that the PROCESS, not just the CONTEXT, must be part of the coaching identity, essence and substantial difference over other disciplines.

B. The differentiation of coaching to other helping disciplines, is not a “marketing” problem (get clients or orientation), it’s a matter of IDENTITY. What I am, and what YOU are, is what sets us apart from the rest of millions of individuals. By the same token, what the coaching IS (or should be), allows distinction from other help processes. If we do not succeed in this, we are facing a SERIOUS PROBLEM OF IDENTITY.

C. I do not think that the word “INTERVENTION” is fortunate to be applied to the process of coaching. The substantial difference in the process of coaching is its “NON-INTERVENTION” in others (unlike many of the psychological and therapeutic processes. Not all, but many). In this sense, coaching is closer to the non-directive therapy of Carl Rogers (but this was a first approach which failed as an entity in itself. Perhaps coaching could consolidate this fundamental principle of “non-directive” process).

D. I do not think it is possible to separate the “PROCESS” from the “CONTEXT” of coaching. Both are two sides of the same coin. And both must have one thing in common, a common denominator, the same essence, or the same PRINCIPLE. If not, if what we do is “therapy” or “psychology” in a different “context”… this is not enough to transform coaching into a real profession.

E. I do not think coaching “should be” a SUBSET of psychotherapy. I understand, however, that this is true in many cases. Today coaching is a subset of psychotherapy for psychotherapists, a subset of management for consultants, a subset of training for trainers, etc. But I do not think it “should be” so (this is because of the “adolescence” of coaching). Coaching is undergoing a process of change and development in search of its own identity (and that is fair and necessary).

It is true that there is an “overlap” between coaching and psychotherapy, but also between psychology and philosophy, or between mentoring and consulting. However, we all recognize what the substantial differences are between those other disciplines (in coaching this is not yet clear‚Äö√Ѭ∂ but that does not mean it might always be so).

F. I think coaching is not yet a consolidated profession. It has established itself as a tool, but has every POTENTIAL to become a distinctive profession, with an autonomy process and method (and not necessarily isolated from the rest of helping processes).

I hope, anxiously, to read your comments, questions or thoughts. It is imperative that coaches discuss these essential subjects. On this depends the future of our profession.

I will try to sit back and leave room for other voices.

I’ll be happy to share additional thoughts after we’ve heard from others.

Best wishes,

Jonathan

I’m not sure I follow…on the hand your post starts with coaches wanted to make the discussion and then toward the end its stated that coaches aren’t driving the discussion of differences…can you clarify?

As for therapy helping people, of course that’s true. Still, there is huge difference between a dialog that is attached to a pathology and one that is not. One must address the pathology the other simply wants to move forward.

Is therapy needed, absolutely!
Is coaching needed, absolutely!

The distinction of difference, to my mind, will not be made through the lense of efficacy. Both work and within a very different context (as you suggested).

Perhaps, my posts have been a bit dense as I suggested earlier that along with the discussion of context it is equally important to decide…

“Is coaching a profession or a tool?”

This distinction really does shift this dialog.

Again coaching as a tool is universal in it’s application. As a profession what does it really mean to be a coach?

Is it an approach/bias that is applied when the tools of coaching are used? Meaning; spiritual, personal, business etc.

Does coaching as a profession mean that there is a consultive aspect that will be apart of the coach/client relationship? I think so!

Talk soon,

James

I think there are a number of reasons that coaches and others (and perhaps more so coaches than others?) try to distinguish coaching from other fields. I think one reason that coaches do so is to make a case for why potential customers might want to use a coach rather than someone from a different field, or rather than not seeking any help. I don’t think it is coaches who are driving discussions about differences.

Does it help our discussion to think of a continuum of some sort of mental or personal wellness? Perhaps we could agree that many therapists have traditionally helped those who are suffering get from 0 to even higher levels of wellness and flourishing? Might we agree that some therapists also work in this area, either by coaching without realizing it or by using other methods designed to help people thrive and flourish?

What do you (and others) think of this?

Jonathan

You said “if a coaching definition is intended to distinguish it from psychotherapy” isn’t that the place for us to start…

If in fact the ultimate goal is to separate coaching from psychotherapy by clarifying how coaching “IS NOT” the same, who then does this question serve to benefit…

Therapists or coaches? Without such a consideration we are simply engaging in a dialog with little point beyond who’s right or wrong…i.e. which end of the egg is better to eat from, the little end or the big end?!

Since this discussion seems to want to place a stake in the ground (even you used the phrase sub-set previously…clearly a positioning of the stake) it is highly unlikely that such a positioning will benefit each profession equally!

So again, who serves to gain from this definition?

If there is no real benefit either way…it seems that there would be little point in focusing on any overlap in process or method. Rather the concern would be, as you so well shared,…within the context of the dialog!

Using your Venn analogy I would offer that the overwhelming overlap as previously discussed would all but disappear by focusing on the context as the distinction.

The question for me now is this…

Can we clearly define to the benefit of the therapist and coach which context(s) is applicable to each? If so, then we have in my mind actually begun to benefit the client in a very significant way by clearly demarcating the two professions and, at the same time, by reducing the potential risk of a coach entering “unknowingly” (by way of unclear definitions) into a restorative process with a client and potentially causing harm.

Focusing on a method or process does not seem to have such a potential for clarity!

I don’t think it matters who was “first”. I think that when we contrast A with B (e.g., psychotherapy, consulting, mentoring), those who best know B might have important input into the discussion (and I don’t mean me, but all members of group B). Many comparisons of coaching and therapy have compared coaching to only one particular flavor of therapy, usually psychodynamic therapy. I am certainly not the first or only person to have commented on this.

I’m not saying that psychotherapy is “better” than coaching, either. I was suggesting (or meaning to suggest) that there may be a large overlap between coaching and psychotherapy and that we don’t know what that overlap might look like. I suspect that we would see a Venn diagram with 2 circles that are not evenly balanced, but I don’t think we have any research that shows what overlaps and what does not.