Coaching Psychology A new science in search for its identity**.
Arnon Levy PhD.*
Despite its short life, it could be said that life coaching has an undeniable footprint at the 21st century's culture; In a survey recently quoted in "Psychology Today" (1) it was found that coaching had been the second rapidly growing profession after the high tec. Careers..
. A survey conducted by ICF among leading coaches (2) revealed that no consensual definition of coaching could be formulated by scholars and practicing coaches. Moreover, there had almost been a consensus among practitioners that a universal definition would do no justice with this new expanding field. There were suggested definitions of particular coaching types: Health Coaching, Business Coaching, Couple Coaching, etc. It seemed, that it was easier for the practitioners to do well what they have been trained to do rather than to define it, and sometimes to deeply understand the process occurring during coaching. Other definitions of prominent scholars (3) suggested that coaching is a methodology that: Unlocks the person s potentials to maximize his own performance, to facilitate or improve his strengths or that : Coaching is helping the coachee to learn rather than teaching them (Whitmore, 1992).
According to Winnicott, the "environment, when good-enough, facilitates the maturational process" (1976, pp. 223, 239) The Winnicottian notion of
"facilitating environment" derives from an assumption that the infant has the inborn capacities to develop in the right way if he is not disturbed to do so. This assumption is invalid in coach/coachee relationships. The coach generates change in the coachee's life by proactive change -producingprocedures as applied in solution focused coaching, in Cognitive-Behavioral Coaching, and other active techniques. The clinical use of facilitating, goodenough, holding environments are often productive in the treatments of Disorders of the injured self rather than in Life coaching.
The idea of "the coachee has the solutions and the agenda" and "coaching is performed at eye level" is also a wrong interpretation of Blumental's 5 principles of HP. The revolution of the HP in the 20 th century has been expressed in the neglect of the medical model which considered the therapist as the "Savant" the one who has the secret knowledge that could heal. Blumental's approach was a bold innovation contrasted with the medical model in which the patient was considered deficient, dependent, neurotic or mentally ill. His approach was grounded by a deep respect to the client as a human being and together with Carl Rogers they encouraged an attitude of partnership and mutuality with their clients but not of equality.
The coachee provides the contents which are his latent vision, motivations and repressed desires but the coach maintains the agenda for the structure of the process. New learning emerge in the interaction between the coach and the coachee, new conduits, new insights and new paradigms but these originate in the process led by the coach.
Basically, CP has to distinguish itself from psychotherapy and from life coaching. From Psychotherapy it is much easier. Usually CP deals with nonclinical populations and it does not aim at reparation of clinical states or
disorders as it happens in psychotherapy. The distinction from life coaching is less obvious. It seems that the most qualified definition for CP has been suggested by the main figures in the field Palmer and Grant (3) as follows: Although this definition certainly describes what we are doing in CP, when we compare it to ICF definition of coaching we could paraphrase the 2 definitions and say:
J. Passmore in his new book says it loud and clear:" Coaching psychology is the scientific study of behavior to deepen our understanding and enhance our practice within coaching. Putting CP as the scientific academic form of C is one way of seeing it. Before we observe this option let us see what are some other possible forms to define and delineate CP: 1. CP is often suggested as a sub-discipline of psychology 2. CP is often seen as applied positive psychology. Let us explore the possibilities:
In addition to that let us be honest with ourselves: many coaches are apt professionals with a solid academic background and seriously try to develop valid methodology and ethical code.
22. The next 2 questions considering CP as applied positive psychology or a sub-discipline of psychology are intertwined. There is no doubt that C is deeply rooted in psychology. The idea of realizing personal potential and self-fulfillment originate as we know, in humanistic psychology. In addition, most of the techniques used by coaches are user-friendly adaptations of psychotherapy techniques and psychological models. This fact gives a good sense to bring C back to become a psychology subdiscipline.
Still there is a catch here. Although Coaching is mainly based upon Psychology and sports Coaching, we suggest that it should not become psychology sub-discipline neither in practice nor in essence. We mentioned that the vast majority of Coaching developers and practitioners are not psychologists. Of course we may claim that Coaching Psychology is a different discipline and as such, it could be defined as a Psychology specialty. In fact, if we do so we will be separating CP from its natural developmental context. We often claim against coaching that it is a profession which is not aware and does not refer to its broad background and origins in Psychology. If this is our claim we do not want to pay back with the same coin and separate CP from C. It also seems that as a specialty, CP does not bring much new annunciation to psychological science. Coaching Psychology conceptualization overlaps the fields of Psychological Counseling, Sports Psychology, Clinical Psychology, Organizational Psychology and Health Psychology. It overlaps also psychotherapy approaches such as: Solution Focused Therapy, short-term therapy, CBT, etc. So what would be the reciprocal contribution between Coaching Psychology and psychology? Not much. CP would be diminished and immersed into the existing knowledge in Psychology.
So why not consider life coaching as a form of applied positive psychology as many suggest? Certainly, the main objects of inquiry in life coaching such as: search for meaning in one's life, study of personal and universal values systems, of the authentic identity, of personal strengths, are to be found in positive psychology. Indeed, the emergence of positive psychology is a meaningful development in the history of psychology. It continues the gradual separation of psychology from the medical model. Its subjects of inquiry such as: the search for happiness, resilience, personal strengths, validity of value systems etc. are almost a daily concern of contemporary practicing therapists who encounter these subjects much more than the oedipal conflict. Positive psychology took the challenge of treating these issues with scientifically based methodology and thus it substantially contributes to respond to the large public's demands and to the zeitgeist of the beginning of the 21st century. So could CP be considered applied positive psychology?
Coaching Psychology seems to possess quite broader vision and boundaries than Positive Psychology. As Grant (4 )has put it, certainly Positive Psychology can cooperate with CP in the research of certain aspects such as happiness, resilience, personal strengths etc. Yet, is seems that PP cannot provide the over-arching, higher order competencies required by the new science of CP. CP uses a variety of change-producing psychotherapy techniques such as pacing and leading, mirroring, anchoring, re-framing, etc. which usually are not related to Positive Psychology's practices. Unlike positive psychology CP also uses approaches such as Cognitive Behavioral Coaching, NLP, Solution Focused Coaching, system approaches, etc. In addition, Coaching Psychology places as first priority the coaching alliance, rapport creation, and coaching relationships. CP may use clinical psychological knowledge to diagnose mental states, to understand the coaching and therapeutic needs of the coachee. None of these practices account among Positive Psychology's practices or research. The gap between the 2 fields goes far beyond the difference between theory and practice. CP aims at enhancing self-actualization which is a much more complex concept than the concept of enhancing what is positive in life.
So where are we now? I did not come here for the slaughter of sacred cows but to offer a possible constructive perspective.
We suggested that coaching should not be overwhelmed by the concept of mentoring. Life Coaching as we suggested is not devoid of disguised mentoring.
Life Coaching as NLP have been highly influenced by some most practical and most successful techniques and vision of psychology and psychotherapy without leaving their visiting card. Now it is the time for psychology to take it back with the new spirit that they have put inside and we can create from it the integrated knowledge for a new behavioral science of self-actualization.
The golden era of psychology and psychoanalysis have been by the time of Freud's disciples when psychoanalysis had been integrated with other disciplines such as Anthropology, Sociology, Biology, Literature etc. If we look at CP as the science which studies authenticity, meaningfulness, value system and self-actualization we can describe it as the harbinger of a new behavioral science of subjectivity. In this science we can earn the knowledge accumulated by the practice of coaching together with knowledge from research in psychology and psychotherapy and contemporary relevant disciplines. Relevant disciplines shall be for ex. Ethology to study animal behavior comparable to human value systems (eg. altruism research in nature versus in human cultures) comparative culture studies (eg. research of meaning creation and value systems in different cultures), Developmental psychology (eg. To study the development of the cognitive/emotional attitudes), neuro-science and evolutionary theory to study the reciprocal interrelations between the functioning of the self, the human brain, and coaching practice. Let me illustrate this point:
This phenomenon probably occurs since the self, as well as the human brain function as a complex adaptive system. As such the self as the brain tends to possess self-regulation and selforganization that create the new reorganization during the coaching process. The study of these functions and others in the brain and the self-enhance our understanding about the coaching process. Let me summarize here in saying that for the last 100 years psychology and psychotherapy have been construed upon the medical model, and subjects of research in psychology has been selected to adapt to models borrowed from natural and social sciences.
These models still prevail to a large extent in psychology and we are today at a point where our psychological science and psychotherapy practice `seem to be in crisis and on the defensive and are frequently threatened by alternative New Age and coaching practices. In Thomas Kuhn's terms it seems that psychological science is gradually developing into a paradigm shift. He expects these experiences to take place within a focused and time limited process.
*Arnon Levy Ph.D, clinical psychologist, psycho-anthropologist, and coaching psychologist, former chair of the Israel Association of Psychotherapy, and founder of the coaching studying program in Tel Aviv University. Founder of: IACP Israel Association for Coaching Psychology & CPA Coaching Psychology Academy All rights reserved. ** This paper is an invited lecture to the 3 rd International Congress for Coaching Psychology held in Rome, Italy Frentani Congress Center May 16-17 2013. The paper is the basis for a book being written "Coaching Psychology a New Behavioral Science of Self/object Actualization" References: 1. Psychology today 17.2.10 2. The Future of Coaching as a profession The Next 5 Years 2005-2010. ICF research report 2004. Diane Brennan, David Matthew Prior.. 3. in Palmer S. & Whybrow A. Handbook of Coaching Psychology. 2007. Routledge; East Sussex, New York. 4. Grant A. M. & Cavanagh M. J. : Evidence based Coaching: Flourishing or Languishing
? Australian Psychologist, December 2007; 42(4): 239-254.. Bugental J. The Search for Authenticity, 1965 Irvington Pub.. 7.. Levy A. Beyond the Empty Glass (in Hebrew) 1998, Cherickover Pub. Tel Aviv 8. Levy A. The False Paradigm: Revisiting the Domains of the Existential Psychotherapy (In Hebrew. ) Sihot-Israel review of Psychotherapy. 2006/3