What Are Typical Reasons to Engage a Coach?

In a survey of 140 senior leadership coaches (Kauffman & Coutu, 2009), the three most frequent reasons behind coaching assignments were: to develop the capabilities of a senior or a high-potential executive; to facilitate a transition, such as moving to a larger role; and to provide a sounding board on organizational dynamics and to enhance the interactions of a team. This shift is not new to researchers, as Kiel, Rimmer, Williams, and Doyle (1996) note that only one-fourth of executive coaching clients are in need of “remedial” assistance to improve performance. Three-fourths are doing well and request coaching to help negotiate increases in responsibility as they are moving up the organizational ladder, often quite quickly. Wasylyshyn (2003) also found that a vast majority of executive coaching clients want to focus on their career success. These bright, accomplished individuals don't want diagnoses or proclamations; they want data about themselves and their subordinates that they can use as feedback. In addition, they value and benefit from having an independent sounding board to help them develop, challenge, and enhance their strengths (Coutu & Kauffman, 2009). Positive psychology–based leadership coaching also paradoxically assists leaders to grapple with the inevitable negative, toxic, or near-impossible demands of business life. Just having space to think and vent can restore equilibrium. Once back on an even keel, the executive can consider challenging issues more dispassionately.

Who Provides Executive Coaching Services?

Ten years ago, the field of coaching was without regulation, professional standards, required certification, practice benchmarks, or safety procedures (Grant, 2001; Scoular, 2001). Since then, as academically more rigorous coaching training programs have emerged globally, the second generation of coaches has become much more proficient and able to put their knowledge into action in leadership coaching. Resources for these populations have also increased with education and research offerings such as the Institute of Coaching (www.instituteofcoaching.org) and the International Positive Psychology Association (www.ippanetwork.org) and a veritable cascade of theory-based books and a few peer-reviewed journals dedicated to coaching. Coaches from psychology backgrounds as well as business are increasingly interested in current research (Doggett & Kauffman, 2013). Attempts to establish standards have intensified, but the credentialing subfield remains fragmented. (For full list and further details, see Scoular, 2001.)

Core Assumption

The core assumption in coaching is that the client has the resources necessary to address the challenge. This orientation is illustrated in Kimsey-House et al.'s (2011) Co-Active Coaching, a training manual that is built on the cornerstone that the client is naturally creative, resourceful, and whole. At the beginning of the engagement, the work is for coach and client to codesign a mutually optimal relationship. The leader creates a clear of vision of what she wants to achieve and who she wants to be.

This core assumption of course dates back to the work of Rogers (1963), whose main theoretical principle was the notion of an actualizing tendency. The metaphor used to describe this is that of an acorn, which contains within it all the potential to be a magnificent oak tree. As an acorn requires nourishment to release the “oaktreeness” that is already within, human beings require the support of their basic needs if they are to realize their potential. Rogers (1963) originally used the term “nondirectivity” to make the point that the direction of the sessions did not come from the therapist. But he did not mean that the sessions were directionless, simply that the direction comes instead from the client. The therapist is nondirective, providing an authentic, empathic, and accepting relationship in the understanding that this will satisfy the client's needs so that self-determination may be realized. Rogers referred to this as the person-centered approach.

The person-centered notion of the actualizing tendency and its practice implication of going with the client's direction, is, in some form or another, at the core of many approaches to coaching (Whitmore, 1996) and it is what sets coaching apart from the medical ideology (Joseph, 2006). It is in this sense that coaching is not a remedial intervention but a developmental one, in which the coach uses his or her knowledge and skills in such a way as to meet the needs of the coachee.

The evidence base for the person-centered approach is impressive, particularly when one considers the more recent and theoretically compatible work of Deci and Ryan (2008) and their colleagues on self-determination theory (SDT; see also Brown & Ryan, Chapter 9, this volume; and Patterson & Joseph, 2007, and Sheldon, 2013, for reviews of the similarities between person-centered psychology and SDT).

SDT describes three basic psychological needs of autonomy, relatedness, and competence. When these basic needs are satisfied, people's intrinsic motivation toward growth and positive change is promoted. Often the core of coaching is discerning the leader's intrinsic motivations so as to counteract his or her extrinsic motivations. These are explored in the light of the leader's career trajectory to align his vision to his “real” self. Consistent with this philosophy, there is a shift from the “socialized self” to the “self-authored” way of navigating life and work (Kegan, 2008).

Authentic Leadership Coaching

One strengths-based approach that is becoming more widespread is leadership development programs based on George, McLean, and Craig's (2008) work on authentic leadership. This leadership model is based on the concept of authenticity, which refers to the leader developing a deep self-awareness, and tying her life experiences together in a way that allows her to respond in an agile way to leadership challenges. Typically this model will include the leader reflecting on significant experiences for leadership lessons and sense of meaning. Part of the process is developing clarity on values, which are identified and translated into observable action steps. The leader synthesizes this information in order to identify his or her core purpose, and then harnesses this knowledge and energy into optimizing individual, team, and organization dynamics, and ultimately, personal and business performance (George et al., 2008).

Authentic leadership is similar to Collins's (2001) description of shifting from a charismatic leader to one who is both determined and humble. It also can be aligned with Kegan's (2008) perspective of moving from “self-authored” to “self-transforming” approach to leadership.

Flow States and Optimal Performance

A related area of positive psychology, Csikszentmihalyi's (1991) study of the ultra-high-performance state (“flow”) has enormous potential for use by executive coaches. The benefits of being fully engaged and experiencing flow have been examined in many studies (e.g., Csikszentmihalyi, 1997). Csikszentmihalyi (1997) elaborated “nine conditions of flow,” including the optimal balance between challenge and skill, immediate feedback, and a task being autotelic, that is, inherently satisfying. Scoular (2011) breaks the nine conditions down for leadership coaches. The crucial ones for coaching, she argues, are the first four, which she calls the “preconditions” of flow, that is, the things that need to be in place before flow is likely to happen. Coaches and clients can take each in turn to identify blocks to attaining the flow state.

A positive psychology theoretical base does not assume that clients are paragons of virtue or that everything goes smoothly. Some leaders are dominating. Clear feedback and confrontation based on who they could be (but aren't) is often necessary. Others hold back or have an inner sabotaging voice that can undermine their leadership journey. At these times, the coach actively listens and uses curiosity to draw on his or her learning and experience to find the powerful questions that will help the client to reaccess her strengths, deepen her learning, and move toward fulfillment. Often this includes a “360,” where those “all around” the leader give anonymous feedback that is harnessed to discover blind spots, leadership impact, and help create a leadership development agenda.

In addition to the skills discussed above, executive coaches will also use various techniques derived from other more traditional approaches.

Behavioral and Cognitive Techniques

The techniques that executive and life coaches have pulled from behavior psychology include relaxation techniques, methods developed from systematic desensitization, and stress-management interventions. These interventions have been modified for high-performance athletes and executives needing to operate successfully despite stressful circumstances. The foundations of learning theory, however, were originally based on observation and study of normal behavior, and it has enormous potential for the field of positive psychology. Learning to enhance relaxation responses in the face of stress is an extraordinarily useful skill that top-level executives can tap into, as are diaphragmatic breathing and mindfulness meditation. A behavioral approach also suggests we look at the behavior of the leader, what supports it, and how it trickles or cascades down through an organization. Behavior analysis looks at each step of the chain of behaviors, identifies what reinforces these, and where in that process is most amenable to an intervention.

Cognitive therapy–based coaching takes techniques proven useful with anxious and depressed clients and applies them to those seeking self and performance enhancement. The literature is new, and there is emerging support for its effectiveness (Dendato & Diener, 1986; McCombs, 1988; Zimmerman & Paulson, 1995). The kinds of interventions used with high performers include cognitive restructuring (Davis, 1991), attribution training, and visualization. However, cognitive-behavioral coaching moves beyond the therapy model and focuses on optimal ways of thinking. For example, a visionary leader needs big picture, future-focused thinking. After launch, however, the same leader needs to narrow focus to identify obstacles, long-term strategic thinking, and capacity to engage in strategic deep dives where problems may exist. Cognitive coaching language moves beyond the idea of cognitive distortions and more to developing agile, lean, and synthetic thinking that can help leaders navigate complexity and rapid change.

Multimodal Therapy

The coaching potential of the Lazarus (1976, 1997) multimodal therapy has been discussed by Richard (1999), who suggests that executive coaching should be integrative and holistic in approach. To achieve this, the coach evaluates seven dimensions of the client's life in terms of his or her BASIC ID: behavior, affect, sensation, imagery, cognition, interpersonal relationships, and drug/biology modality. Although opening up various modalities for coaching skills is useful, the tone of Richard's work is extremely medical and has a remedial focus.

In building a positive psychology approach, it is possible to use these dimensions as potential reservoirs of strength or as seven “intelligences.” Kauffman (2010) has expanded and applied this model to coaching with her PERFECT perspective. When making split-second decisions, how can we scan through all we have learned and apply it to our client's challenge? One way of scanning is to think of P—What might be going on physically with the client. Is there a medical or neuropsychological force behind how they are managing? E—What is going on in the environment. This includes cultural issues, organizational dynamics, and shifts in organizational structure (mergers and acquisitions, shifting to a matrix or performance culture). R is for interpersonal relationships—exploring and adjusting how we relate to peers, bosses, and direct reports. F addresses feelings—including emotional intelligence, core emotional style, and pace. E is for effective thinking—working toward the ideal match between cognitive style and specific challenge. C is the exploration of continuity of past, present, and future. The coachee examines lessons from the past, drawing on current resources and experience and developing an ideal relationship with and vision of the future. Finally, T speaks to transcendence—a mind-set of rising above ego, pulling on values, understanding personal and organizational purpose, and shifting to a strong ethical moral stance when navigating business development and decisions.

Systems Theory

Systems theory is another theoretical reservoir that has been used by coaching psychologists. Laske (1999) harnesses insights from family systems theory and constructive-developmental psychology in working with executives. Kilburg (1996) has developed a highly complex model of executive coaching based on systems theory, psychodynamic theory, and models of change that include elements of applications from chaos theory. While his work is complex, with a 17-dimensional model, his extensive experience and integrative approach have been used to train many American executive coaches. In Britain, systems theory is more commonly brought into coaching directly from management writers such as Senge (1990). Pascale and Miller (1999) use both systems theory and emergent change/complexity work to help people articulate bigger possibilities than previously thought and to identify steps toward achieving them. In essence, like any ecological niche, changes in one area affect the whole environment and the reverse. The systems coach explores these overview dynamics and is alert to the law of unintended consequences that arise from these interventions.

Emotional Intelligence

Although not a psychological school of thought in itself, Goleman's (1995, 1998) work on emotional intelligence (see also Caruso, Salovey, Brackett, & Mayer, Chapter 32, this volume) has had a significant impact on executive coaching. His five areas of emotional and social intelligence include self-awareness, self-regulation, motivation, empathy, and social skills. In theory, Goleman's orientation, which builds also on Gardner's (1983) classic Frames of Mind, is compatible with positive psychology's emphasis on multiple and diverse intelligences and strengths.

Transtheoretical Model of Change

The Transtheoretical Model of Change, developed by Prochaska, Norcross, and DiClemente (1994) is a theory used by many executive and life coaches. It is highly relevant to individual and organizational change processes. Prochaska et al. (1994) suggest six stages of change: precontemplation, contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance, and termination. Clients are not expected to move through these in a linear fashion. The normal course of change is described as a repeated spiral through the early stages until the client can enter into an action mode, eventually achieving maintenance of the targeted skill set, and finally moving through termination and pursuit of a new goal area. It is crucial, as Dean (2004) emphasizes, to create stage-matched interventions rather than to assume that all clients are ready to move into action. For example, the measure of success with someone in the contemplation stage would be shifts in his or her thinking, not completion of action steps. Prochaska, Prochaska, and Levesque (2001) examine in more detail how to apply the stages of change to development within organizations, in order to reduce resistance to change and to synthesize models of change. This is a useful model because the coachee's goals often shift over the course of coaching (Kauffman & Coutu, 2009).

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is an application of Jungian theory widely used by leadership coaches. Much of its powerful draw stems from its inherent positive psychological premise—all healthy personality profiles have different but equal contributions to make—and an assumption that anyone can learn to recognize and develop their preferred strengths. Like other strengths approaches, it emphasizes that no single pattern is inherently good or bad; organizations need all types if they are to function at their best. Businesspeople find this valuable because it accords with their reality for numerous reasons (flawed selection processes, restructuring/change, the need for entrepreneurs to take on radically different tasks as their organizations grow). The MBTI is useful in understanding how individuals respond to stress (Scoular, 2011).

Strengths Finder

The strengths-building perspectives (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001) suggest that coaches should focus on strengths and values, rather than weaknesses. Several tools can be used to assess strengths. The Gallup Organization's StrengthsFinder identifies 34 strengths, such as harmony, focus, input, strategic, and winning over others (WOO; persuasion). Gallup is used by many Fortune 500 companies and is nearly always part of an extensive, companywide program requiring large numbers (typically 1,000) to participate. The Gallup emphasis is on identifying and using one's talents.

Values in Action

The Values in Action (VIA) instrument (Peterson & Seligman, 2004) describes 24 strengths that are divided into 6 categories: cognitive, humanity, community, courage, temperance, and transcendence. The VIA is available free (www.viacharacter.org). Taking one's top five strengths is seen as a “strengths signature,” which is as unique as one's signature. The VIA Strengths Survey is used often in life coaching and has been somewhat adapted to an executive population (www.viacharacter.org). Clients can take the VIA and learn their top strengths and virtues, then brainstorm with their coach for ways to “recraft” their jobs to “deploy their strengths and virtues every day” (Seligman, 2002, p. 166). Preliminary research suggests that using these strengths at work increases emotional well-being and job satisfaction.

The VIA approach suggests we negotiate our challenges by using our top strengths. For example, someone afraid of conflict can use their love of learning (and teaching) to shift from feeling they need to ramp up assertiveness and bravery to considering how to turn the encounter into a teaching rather than fighting model.

Realise

The Realise2 was based originally on the VIA's UK data subset but has been further developed to assess three dimensions: natural strength, usage, and energy (Linley, Willars, & Biswas-Diener, 2010). As such, clients' use of strengths can be described one of four ways: (1) “realized strengths” (natural, frequently used, and energizing); (2) “learned behaviors” (which become useful with practice but otherwise don't come naturally, and therefore drain energy); (3) “weaknesses” (things we are not good at, typically don't use, and drain energy if we do); and (4) “unrealized strengths” (which are natural strengths that energize us when using them, but that for some reason we seldom currently use).

Such assessment tools as those described here (see also Rashid, Chapter 31, this volume, on strengths-based assessment) may yield “aha” moments for the coachee. Leaders may be surprised to see their signature strengths, or to discover unrealized strengths, quickly providing new impetus for change. In addition, positive psychology offers many other instruments, such as those measuring optimism (Seligman, 2002), positive and negative affect (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), psychological well-being (Ryff & Keyes, 1995), satisfaction with life (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985), subjective happiness (Lyubomirsky & Lepper, 1999), mental well-being (Tennant et al., 2007), or authenticity (Wood, Linley, Maltby, Baliousis, & Joseph, 2008), which can also be used in practice and research.

What Works?

The most pertinent question for most coaches is what works most effectively for whom. There is evidence on effectiveness of matching methods that promote well-being with individual characteristics (Lyubomirsky, Dickerhoof, Sheldon, & Boehm, 2011; see also Layous, Sheldon, & Lyubomirsky, Chapter 9, this volume), but we know very little about the techniques and tools that are most helpful in the executive coaching relationship (Kauffman & Bachkirova, 2009). In part this is because executive coaching is often associated with helping the client reach specific goals as opposed to promoting well-being. However, this is not always the case, and executive coaching can fulfill a variety of functions (David, Clutterbuck, & Megginson, 2013). For example, some forms of executive coaching are more open-ended, directed toward the leadership identity and development of the client. Others are more specific and solution-focused. Randomized controlled studies measuring outcome of coaching interviews are ideal to answer this question. Such trials are expensive and difficult to run. At this early stage of development, however, even small-scale studies remain useful for hypothesis generation and for building pilot data to support the argument for a more sophisticated trial. In addition to establishing that coaching works, we also need to understand why it works.

Understanding the Process of Change

Qualitative studies can be useful to develop our understanding of why coaching is helpful. There have been few thematic analyses of coaching sessions, exploring just what is being talked about and how. Similarly, there are few studies in which researchers observed live or recorded sessions. Such studies provide rich data from which to build new hypotheses about how coaching may work and what in-session factors may be influential. Quantitative studies can then be used to further investigate the statistical association between within-session factors and outcome measures.

Bennett (2006) reviewed coaching research and found six themes. These can both organize our thinking and provide a roadmap for developing specific research questions. How do the coach, the coachee, and the relationship impact effectiveness? Do theoretical orientations and tools make a difference? Finally, what about the culture, environment, or organizational context for coaching? The following are six areas for research that we hope will stimulate reflective practice.

1. The coach. What aspects of the coach might impact the nature and effectiveness of coaching? How important are background, business experience, or specific coaching competencies? Do more effective coaches have a higher commitment to learning, academic training, a growth mind-set, or cognitive agility? Although intuition is lauded, it's not well understood. It would also be useful to study and reflect on intangible qualities of who the coach “is” rather than what he or she “does,” for example, level of confidence, sense of purpose, ethical maturity, joy, or resilience.
2. The client. Intuitively it seems obvious that a client who has greater readiness, capacity to relate, and is interested in coaching should get more out of the experience. However, these are assumptions that anecdotal experience does not always support. Reluctant coachees can become avid supporters of coaching. What does make for a “great” client, or someone who absorbs coaching? The factors mentioned above referring to the qualities of the coach would be relevant for the client as well.
3. The relationship. In psychotherapy research, the quality of the relationship is seen as the key predictor of successful outcome (Orlinsky & Rønnestad, 2005). Are “hierarchical” coaching relationships less successful than egalitarian relationships? How much time do coaches mentor and advise, and is this related to outcome? We need new research that explores the range of coaching relationships and how these vary according to what the leader requires for development. Some engagements are nondirective, delicate, iterative interactions, whereas others are directive and confrontational. Are there situations in which the latter is preferable to the former?
4. Coaching tools, techniques, and theory. What processes matter the most in coaching? Are lengthy initial assessments helpful or is it more effective to begin coaching immediately? Do we know how coaches decide to match a particular part of their toolbox to a particular client? Does it matter how techniques are introduced into the session and whether they arise from the coach or the coachee's frame of reference? Do those emphasizing strengths and positive psychology fare better than coaches using more traditional approaches?
5. Coaching outcomes. What is our understanding of what makes coaching effective? What is under the surface—what are the mechanisms of coaching? These could be the reflective space, increased self-efficacy, locating blind spots, or increasing awareness. It could be, for example, the reflective space, increased self-efficacy, locating blind spots, increasing awareness, focus on strengths, or building hope. How long do the effects last? There are few longitudinal studies of coaching. Such studies are critical to judge the lasting effects of coaching efficacy. How far do they generalize? Does quality of life improve outside of the work setting? Are those who are coached more resilient than those who are not coached? Finally, what are guidelines that contraindicate coaching?
6. Organizational context. In leadership coaching, an additional challenge is, what is the goodness of fit between the leader and the organization? Do the values, purpose, and style align enough for a good partnership? Is the coach clear about how to handle confidentiality? There is wide interest in global and cross-cultural coaching. How important is this expertise? It is now common for organizations to shift drastically in the face of changing, discontinuous markets. How well does a coach manage sudden shifts in corporate culture?