While this leaves the coach, and for that matter, the informed client, to choose as best they can what fits and which approach(es) are most applicable, at this point it would be helpful to have some framework within which to place these theories. We believe that a contextual model of coaching might provide useful themes and a framework for evidence-based practice. In addition, there are some core principles that guide applications across the various approaches that can integrate various techniques. We discuss both and how they may form a framework for cross-disciplinary, multitheoretical evidence-based coaching.

The medical model draws on the notion that physical illness has biological causes and that physical illness can be cured by an appropriate medical intervention. In extending this to psychological and psychotherapeutic domains, the psychological or psychotherapeutic medical model holds that behavioral and emotional problems are analogous to physical diseases and such emotional problems can be diagnosed and cured, with the patient returning to normal functioning. Thus, the medical model relies on a number of components: a distressed client, an explanatory theory for the distress, a diagnosis based on a diagnostic system, and an accompanying treatment derived from the theory, with the resulting outcome seen as due to the specific ingredients of that treatment. The use of the medical model in psychotherapeutic domains has been consistently critiqued for its emphasis on pathology (Barbour, 1995; Hafner, 1987) and deficit reduction (Ingram, 2005), and such critiques are perhaps even more salient in the coaching realm where clients are not being treated for mental illnesses.

One by-product of the widespread use of the medical model is that there has been considerable evaluation of psychotherapeutic treatment and comparisons of the effectiveness of different psychotherapeutic approaches. However, as has been argued by Wampold and associates, among others (Wampold, 2001; Wampold et al., 1997; Wampold, Ahn, & Coleman, 2001), the medical model’s requirement of determining the specific, active ingredients does not fit the data from psychotherapy outcome literature.

The literature tends to show that psychotherapies are generally equivalent, and this has become known as the Dodo effect (from Rosenzweig’s 1936 perceptive proposition that different psychotherapies’ success was likely due to common factors akin to the words of the Dodo in Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland: “Everybody has won, and all must have prizes”).

In discussing this topic and its relevance to the need for research and evaluation in coaching, Kilburg (2004, 2005) edited a two-part series on coaching in Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research. Kilburg (2004) describes the tension between the empirical, logico-scientific tradition and the constructivist-narrative approach to ways of knowing. He notes that executive coaching as a discipline can benefit from both:

Lowman (2005) in his contribution to this special issue, argues that without a scientific foundation, executive coaching runs the risk of becoming as extinct as the dodo. While he does not see narrative or more qualitative approaches as without value (he in fact concludes that both qualitative and quantitative approaches are needed), Lowman argues that grounding coaching in empirical research is required for the continued development of coaching. Lowman also specifies some common themes identified through the case studies contained in the special issue that are analogous to psychotherapy outcome studies and are germane to this discussion: (1) a trusting relationship may be critical to success; (2) the environmental context is key; and (3) the coach’s belief in the efficacy of his or her approach may be more important than the particular approach itself. As we will see, this fits with an overarching framework different from the specific ingredient requirements provided by a medical model metaphor for psychotherapy, and in turn, coaching.

A meta-model that offers a different approach from the medical model and can also leverage the complementary nature of both empirical and constructivist-narrative approaches to theory and evidence is that of the contextual model. We propose a contextual model for coaching expanded from the four components described by Wampold (2001) for a contextual model of psychotherapy (which in turn was adapted from Frank & Frank, 1991).

The seven thematic factors of the proposed model are:

Thus the contextual approach seeks to understand the process of coaching, the “how” of coaching, rather than trying to compare the effectiveness of one coaching model to another. It asks the question, “What are the common themes that are effective in coaching and within what context?”

These common themes include such concepts as the coach-client relationship, characteristics of the client and the coach, and how these interface in the successful application of techniques to each individual client’s context. Each coaching intervention needs to have a rationale for the techniques used that fits the particular coaching context of a particular client with a particular coach in a particular relationship. The contextual model emphasizes the importance of the meaning attributed to the procedures by practitioner and client, above and beyond the efficacy of any particular procedure (i.e., it works partly because we act from the belief it will be helpful).

Likewise, a contextual model states that any approach to coaching should provide a context of positive potential growth by the client that is supported by the coach. This part of the meta-model highlights the importance of the shared view of why coaching is being done, regardless of the particular theoretical perspective. This factor can be contrasted with the medical model in which the practitioner is frequently positioned as the “expert who diagnoses and then repairs,” rather than a collaborative partner in positive growth (Maudsley & Strivens, 2000).

Indeed, many coaches have noted the pitfalls associated with a coaching context in which the client feels mandated or forced into coaching (Latham, Almost, Mann, & Moore, 2005). Even if the coach is able to communicate an empathic, nonjudgmental, and authentic stance, as in the humanistic approach, if the client is unable to trust that the context is set up for his or her success, the likelihood of success is threatened. The systems and complexity theory approach might conclude that the openness of the system is suspect.

Taking the contextual model as a meta-model for coaching approaches, the importance of the rationale is immediately clear. Each perspective represented in this book uses a particular lens by which the coach is making sense of the client and his or her situation. Often the coach goes on to educate the client about the coach’s expert hypotheses or assessments of the situation (Chapman, Best, & Van Casteren, 2003). So a coach using the adult development approach will use the framework of a particular stage of development or complexity of mind to understand clients and where their strengths, limitations, opportunities, or challenges might lie (Laske, 1999). Similarly, a psychodynamic or cultural approach might be used by other coaches in building a rationale for why X is happening for client Y in situation Z.

As a coach employs a rationale for helping a client make meaning of their experience, a contextual model requires the coach to use procedures consistent with that rationale in order to be effective. As the previous chapters have demonstrated, each perspective/rationale represented in this book has procedures by which the coach can engage the client in positive growth. A cognitive or behavioral coach may utilize specific homework assignments to further the client’s development, as might a coach using a goal-oriented approach, but the rationale behind the procedure might differ.

A contextual model of coaching would also encompass an explicit outcome of what is expected in coaching. Many coaches, regardless of theoretical perspective, use the identification of specific goals for the coaching scenario as a way to shape the conversation and agree upon the aims of the coaching engagement. But the perspectives represented in this book might lead the coach to frame these goals differently. For example, a psychoanalytically informed coach might work with a client toward the goal of developing insight into the client’s defense mechanisms in order to act more effectively in a specific situation. A coach using a positive psychology approach might explicitly contract with a client to increase his experience of fulfillment at work, with the idea that this goal will encompass other goals such as enhanced performance and reduced stress. The behavioral and integrative goal-focused approaches discussed would likely start with clearly articulating goals for action with the client.

In summary, the contextual model can act as an overarching framework in which various theoretical approaches, models, and applicable evidence can be placed. In using an evidence-based approach, and emphasizing the use of knowledge and expertise in the service of a particular client, the contextual model offers coaches a “meta” view, and this may be useful in enhancing recognition of the similarities and differences between different approaches and in this way help forward the development of coaching theory and practice.

Drawing on the seminal work of Rosenzweig (1936), Prochaska and DiClemente (1984), and Egan (1974), we can delineate seven key principles that underpin the human change process. These seven principles are: (1) collaboration, (2) accountability, (3) awareness, (4) responsibility, (5) commitment, (6) action, and (7) results (see Figure 12.1).

Regardless of preferred theoretical perspective, the foundation of effective coaching is the successful formation of a collaborative relationship, within which the coach can hold the client accountable. The term accountability relates to the fact that, as an integral part of coaching, clients will be enacting specific action steps that move them toward their goals. Such actions are designed in collaboration between the coach and the client.

As we all know, change is not always easy, and we frequently procrastinate or avoid doing tasks that take us outside of our comfort zone. The coach needs to be able to hold the client accountable for the completion of such tasks. Many coaching engagements fail if the coach is not able, for one reason or another, to monitor and evaluate the client’s progress toward goals and appropriately address any performance shortfalls directly and promptly.

To facilitate this process, it is important that the coach and client spend some time discussing the nature of their relationship, and that they jointly design the dynamics of their working alliance. Most problems in coaching can be circumvented by having a clearly articulated and shared understanding of the coach-client relationship. The perspectives in this volume all share recognition of the importance of a robust and positive working alliance.

It is from this platform that the coach can work with clients to raise their awareness of the issues, and help them find ways to take responsibility for change. The client’s awareness levels can be raised in many different, ways including behavioral, cognitive, or emotional assessments, 360-degree feedback, direct real-life observations or shadow coaching, or feedback generated from within the coaching session itself, as in the use of immediacy (Egan, 1974), and such awareness-raising tools will again be chosen in line with the preferred theoretical perspective.

One useful understanding of the notion of responsibility is the ability to choose one’s response (response-able) (Whitmore, 1992). To be response-able requires that the client have an awareness of the issues. Again, the various perspectives all note the importance of clients’ understanding of their situation and their ultimate responsibility for any change, while coaches may differ in the methods they employ to help clients in this step.

Of course, awareness and response-ableness are insufficient in themselves. Clients also need commitment to action so that they can move forward toward the goals and results. Thus the coach needs to be able to enhance the client’s motivation levels and build commitment to action, and to ensure that at any point in time, the action steps match the client’s ability for change. Trying to change too much too soon can be a major derailer, and conversely, underchallenging action steps will fail to engage the client; so the coach needs to be mindful of the client’s readiness for change.

The seventh principle is results, in that coaching should be directed toward a specific outcome or result, and such results orientation is the essence of good coaching.

Again, each theoretical perspective will have specific tools and techniques to operationalize these principles and use specific theoretically oriented language that describes these principles. Nevertheless, we hold that coaching is about the systematic enactment of these seven principles.

What does expert knowledge in coaching look like? Expert knowledge in coaching can be understood as highly specialized or technical knowledge held by the coach in an area where the client has less expertise than the coach, and where such knowledge is related to the client’s goals. For some coaches this will be about behavioral science or organizational change. For example, in leadership coaching the coach may have specialized knowledge of personality styles and how they relate to leadership styles and organizational effectiveness. Other coaches may have specific expertise in the application of economic science or business models, or in the assessment and enhancement of intrapersonal and interpersonal competencies. In a learning alliance such as coaching, wherever one individual holds more expert knowledge than the other, there is always a potential dynamic of the “coach as expert advice giver.”

The notion of the “coach as expert advice giver” is somewhat controversial, and there is some difference of opinion as to the appropriate role of expert knowledge in coaching. A nondirectional ask-not-tell approach may be best characterized by the work of John Whitmore (1992), which emphasizes facilitation of client self-discovery, and the directional, tell-rather-than-ask approach may be characterized by the robust approach of Marshall Goldsmith (2000), which emphasizes direct feedback and advice giving.

However, these are not categorically different approaches to coaching. Rather these two approaches lie on a continuum. The issue is not which of these approaches is right and which is wrong, but rather which best helps clients reach their goals, and which is the most apt at particular points in any specific coaching conversation. In essence this issue is about striking the right balance between process facilitation and content or information delivery, and this balance varies at different points in the overall coaching engagement and within individual coaching sessions. The skillful and experienced coach knows when to move across the ask-tell dimension, and knows when and how to promote self-discovery and when and how to give expert-based authoritative or specialized information.

Clearly, in addition to the expert knowledge that a coach holds about the process of coaching, it is important for coaches to have a good understanding of the clients’ issues and context. Furthermore, it would be unprofessional and unethical not to impart important expert information in a timely and appropriate fashion. However, a coach with highly developed applied coaching skills can deliver excellent outcomes purely through facilitating a process that operationalizes the principles of coaching, rather than through an instructor mode that emphasizes the delivery of expert knowledge.

It has been our observation in teaching coaching theory and skills to a wide range of individuals that some consultants making the transition to coaching tend to place greater value on the role of the expert advice giver. In contrast, many therapists and counselors transitioning to coaching often place greater emphasis on attending to the process and the asking aspect of the coaching process. These of course are generalizations. What is it that is happening here?

It is possible that coaches tend to rely more on the telling mode of expert advice giving than on facilitating the process of client self-discovery when their applied coaching skills are challenged by the situation, or where their coaching skills are not very well developed. In a sense, this is understandable as we all need something to fall back on when the coaching process may not be going as well as we would like, and slipping into the expert telling mode is one way to get the coaching conversation back on track. Not least, we may slip into the telling mode to unconsciously reassure ourselves that we are in fact bringing value to the conversation. These potentials require monitoring and reflection on the part of the coach.

In summary, different approaches may emphasize a particular range in the ask-tell dimension regarding expert knowledge. It is imperative for coaches to monitor their behavior on this dimension for potential overemphasis on either end. Domain-specific knowledge experts may find the contextual model useful in coaching practice. The seven thematic factors provide a means of analyzing how the coaching is conducted, whereas the seven principles provide a framework to analyze what is being done.

Evidence-based practice asks the coach to consider the questions of why they are acting in one way or another in the coaching session and whether their choice is consistent with the rationale and procedures from which they are operating. The evidence-based coach will incorporate regular reflection on their use of knowledge and its application, and we hope the proposed contextual model provides a useful framework for the development of an evidence-based, reflective coaching practice.

We have particularly focused on applicable knowledge from a variety of perspectives and how that knowledge can be integrated with coach expertise. How these are utilized in specific client contexts remains for further explication and to individual coaches’ discretion.

Evidence-based practice holds promise as a guide for critical evaluation and development in coaching. We have argued for a broad definition of applicable evidence and sources of knowledge. We think this is the most appropriate stance for an emerging area. We look forward to continuing development in terms of linking existing bodies of knowledge to coaching and in coaching-specific theory and evidence.