Coaching, Professional Coaching or Psychotherapy?
From what I read and hear in some opinion articles and humorous pieces about coaching and the type of methodology used in these processes, I conclude that the authors look at this reality in a generalized way and with little depth of analysis and information. The polarization that is forming around the topic seems unproductive to me, as it is more anchored in personal beliefs—often inflamed—than in reflection on broad and credible sources of information.
Several years ago, a psychotherapist friend asked for my help: she wanted to refer a "client" to me with whom she was struggling to work. The client brought into psychotherapy difficulties in relationships with partners and team leadership. He was more interested in discovering strategies to address these issues than in understanding the root causes of the relational difficulties he felt.
Recently, I suggested to another psychotherapist friend that she seek the support of a professional coach. Previously, this friend had undergone therapy, which helped her understand her difficulties in setting boundaries with more powerful individuals. However, that learning was not sufficient to handle a change in the management philosophy at the company where she worked. Even less so, to choose how she wants to advance in her career. What she tells me about the work with this colleague is that he challenges her to look at her situation from angles she had never considered before. Aware of the nuances regarding the scope of work of professional coaches versus that of psychotherapists, she also said to me: “Indeed, they are different interventions; what is worked on in the sessions is different.” Throughout my life, I have attended a three-year training program in Gestalt therapy, have been a client of psychotherapy and am a regular client of coaching. I also have no doubts about the difference between the two, nor about the type of themes that make sense to work on in each context.
According to some researchers who have studied the genesis of professional coaching in corporate contexts—understood here as a process aimed at “unlocking a person’s potential to maximize their performance,” per John Whitmore—coaching emerged in the U.S. over 50 years ago. The theoretical framework of professional coaching is influenced by Adult Education/Learning, Social Sciences (Management, Organizational Behavior, and Social Psychology), Philosophy, and Psychology (in this regard, it is interesting to consult the works of Elaine Cox, Tatiana Bachkirova, and David Clutterbuck).
I have had the opportunity to train with psychotherapists from countries such as the UK and the US, for whom it is very clear that there are different forms of personal development, which include professional coaching and psychotherapy. They view these processes as complementary, not exclusive. They accept that it is different to work with a functional person who wishes to improve their professional performance or learn something in a dimension of their life, and to work with someone dealing with deep emotional difficulties who faces a fundamental problem that “prevents” the improvement of their performance and life.
Professional coaching, when conducted in accordance with the ethical code of associations such as the ICF or EMCC, does not address the second type of situation. The codes of these organizations state that the approach to such situations should be conducted by other professionals with specific training to handle them. The perspective that professional orders should prevent the work of coaches seems to be linked to the idea that anyone who wants to expand their personal and professional potential needs, and wants to have, psychological care.
Since I completed my first coaching training over 15 years ago, I have suggested psychotherapy to several clients, believing that their issues should be worked on in that context. In most cases, clients accepted the suggestion, but once I heard in response, “I’ve already done that, and I’m done talking about my father. Now I want to change how I relate to the new team.” This person made significant progress when she analyzed her relationship with various stakeholders through a behavioral model of communication and decision-making. She connected many of her difficulties to different behavioral styles. Through this, she defined new strategies for her meetings with different stakeholders. I do not believe that the “emotional wounds” that led me to suggest psychotherapy for this person have been healed. But she has the freedom to choose how she wishes to deal with them.
In all these cases, I am speaking of professional coaching. What is the reason for this clarification?
A few years ago, I was in Funchal facilitating a training session on coaching for leadership and took the opportunity at the end of the afternoon to receive a massage. The therapist asked me what I was doing on the island. Upon hearing my response, she enthusiastically began talking about aura readings and other expressions that elude me, which are not part of my work as a coach and which I did not encounter in any of the training sessions I completed as a coach. In another situation, I heard on a radio program a reference to a festival promoting "aura readings, astrology and coaching." Some of the misunderstandings that currently exist stem from the use of the term "coaching" to lend credibility to beliefs and practices that are not recognized by peer-reviewed scientific research, which professional coaches from the ICF are also expected to adhere to.
One of the interesting specifics of professional coaching conducted under the auspices of credible associations is that their professionals adhere to a code of ethics that prevents them from entering contracts in which they commit to specific results. You read that correctly: one way to recognize a professional coach is that they do not commit to outcomes at the end of the process. Their work is to help the client find the solutions that are appropriate and beneficial in their context.
Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash
