17

Ethics in Coaching

Clinicians are used to formal ethics codes and standards. Each subspecialty within psychology has a written code, and members of professional organizations are generally well aware of them. Therapists take required ethics courses in graduate school, and clinicians take mandatory continuing education in various ethical and legal topics as they evolve. Psychotherapists of various types are members of long-standing, established professions and these professions have rules, traditions, organizations, mores, and a culture. The American Psychological Association has been publishing ethical codes and standards since 1953. In psychotherapy, there is even a complex “standard of care,” the unwritten normative behaviors expected of members of the professional community. Practitioners are held to those standards.

This is not so true in management consulting or executive coaching. Executive coaching is too new for long-standing, well-defined group norms or formal professional structures, so coaches must monitor themselves. Ethical standards are in the process of development, and most coach-training institutes have now developed and published formal codes of ethics. Some of these codes are listed at the end of this chapter. There is a great unevenness in these codes, and although some of them are exemplary, no single document prevails. The Code of Ethics published by the International Coach Federation (2009), a nonprofit support and resource organization for coaches, is a solid, representative model of the kinds of codes that are available, and it mirrors much of the advice rendered by typical psychotherapy codes. The reader is also referred to Rodney Lowman’s text The Ethical Practice of Psychology in Organizations (1998), a casebook that demonstrates how the American Psychological Association’s Code of Conduct can be applied in business settings.

To a great extent, individual coaches are on their own to make difficult moral decisions, especially if they are not members of an organization that demands conformity to a pledge or code. There is no formal licensure process required of business coaches, and although clinical codes and standards are available as a reference point, they do not suffice. This chapter outlines areas where clinical and coaching ethics are similar or the same, along with several difficult areas where they differ. References and published guidelines are provided at the end of the chapter. As the practice of executive coaching continues to evolve, so will the need to clarify and codify ethical standards. For now, coaches must use thoughtful individual judgment and healthy doses of collegial consultation. In general, honesty and avoidance of exploitation are probably the best general guidelines for coaching practice. When unclear about an ethical issue or problem, a consultation with a mentor or trusted colleague is highly recommended.

Professionalism

Executive coaching is popular enough and mature enough to begin to ask the question: Is executive coaching a profession? If not, is it moving in that direction, should it move in that direction, and if so, how?

The concept of professionalism is an important one even though there is no widespread agreement on its definition. Practitioners in many fields strive to become professionals, but it is not exactly clear what this means. Older practitioners sometimes urge younger ones to “be professional” when they would like them to conform to norms or traditions, and this occasionally represents an unfortunate trivialization of an important ideal. If the concept of professionalism is to be of value, a set of consensus standards is required. The field of bioethics has produced some such standards that are worthy of scrutiny (Peltier, 2001). Here are components of professionalism found in the bioethics literature:

• Practitioners in a profession possess an important and uncommon expertise. They routinely do things for people that people cannot do for themselves. For example, you can color your own hair, but you cannot perform a root canal on yourself.
• Substantive and relevant barriers to entry exist. Such barriers typically include education, training, and certification designed to serve and protect the public. As a result, professionals often enjoy monopoly status in their area of expertise.
• Professionals are granted substantial autonomy in practice. They are trusted to do the right thing, to practice with excellence, and to look after the interests of clients without exploitation or incompetence. Patients or clients cannot effectively evaluate the recommendations or work of the professional. One can easily tell if they have gotten a good haircut, but they cannot evaluate a doctor’s recommendation that he or she needs an urgent appendectomy. This results in a fiduciary relationship wherein clients and patients must trust their doctor or professional. Professionals effectively look after the interests of people who cannot do so for themselves. The public does not feel that members of a profession need to be micromanaged to ensure trustworthiness.
• Professionals are formally organized to ensure that members maintain their obligation to the public. Organized structure is typically codified in written documents. Such organizations have both a self-serving and public service orientation. Public service obligations derive from the privileges granted by the public in exchange for essential trustworthiness required by asymmetric knowledge (the professional knows so much more than the client about the matter at hand).

The recent Harvard survey of experienced coaches reported a majority opinion that executive coaching is in its “adolescence” as a profession (Kauffman & Coutu, 2009, p. 24). Many respondents felt that whereas the skills of coaches were highly developed, the profession is not. Many pointed out the problem posed by charlatans and dilettantes and the need for enhanced credentialing. This problem is associated with inadequate barriers to entry. Some training and credentialing paths into coaching are merely weekend seminars, and anyone willing to pay the tuition is welcome. Credentials are offered, but it is reasonable to doubt the credibility of such a process. As a legal and practical matter, there is no requirement that a new coach even partake of any training at all. If people want to call themselves “executive coaches” and organizations want to hire them, what’s to prevent that? Who would stop Jack Welch or Steve Jobs or Carly Fiorina or Colin Powell from taking an assignment as an executive coach, even though none of them has special training or certification in coaching? Here are representative comments of coaches from the Harvard survey (Kauffman & Coutu, 2009, p. 25):

It is encouraging to note the development of several rather new written instruments to codify coaching ethics, including the previously mentioned International Coach Federation’s Code of Ethics. Several important coaching organizations recently produced and signed a “Statement of Shared Professional Values” in the United Kingdom (UK Coaching Round Table, 2008). This agreement lists one metaprinciple (“To continually enhance the competence and reputation of the coaching profession”) and seven aspirational principles related to difficult coaching issues. The 2008 Handbook of Coaching Psychology lists 10 major coaching associations or interest groups and four professional journals in its appendices (Palmer & Whybrow, 2008).

The fact that effectiveness is extremely difficult to gauge poses a second major obstacle to professionalism. It is difficult to actually describe what coaches do in concrete, measurable terms. How do coaches and others know if and when coaching is excellent or, on the other hand, worthless or harmful? If we do not know excellence, how do we agree on it or attain it in the field? Most of what we think about coaching is anecdotal, as little outcome research is currently available. Here is one more quote from the Harvard survey: “To be credible, coaching must codify its purpose, objectives, methodologies, and ethics and generate credible research that measures real impact” (Kauffman & Coutu, 2009, p. 25).

A third important professionalism question has to do with supervision. If the field is to monitor its members and conduct effective quality assurance, perhaps regular, ongoing supervision needs to become a systematic part of the executive coaching culture. Carroll (2008) explored this question in detail, noting that counseling psychology has a long-standing tradition of active, regular supervision and that this practice has produced significant benefit for clinicians and clients alike. He noted that much of the conceptual and practical spadework has been done, so that coaches could conveniently adopt those models for use in this young profession. Supervision offers so many clear benefits including the opportunity for reflection, training, development of new coaches, sharing of best practices, handling of difficult or complex cases, protection of clients, monitoring of weak coaches or those with poor judgment, enhanced referrals, and the stress relief that comes with sharing the burden with colleagues.

Scope of Practice

Scope of practice refers to limitations on the behaviors and practices of a professional in any field. It describes the areas that are within bounds or off limits, depending upon a person’s license, the definition of that person’s professional work area, personal training, competence, and expertise. There are two categories of scope of practice: professional scope defined by a profession or a license, and personal scope determined by a practitioner’s own personal training and experience. For example, professional scope prohibits a psychologist from giving injections to a patient. Injections are within the scope of practice of physicians, but outside of the scope of practice of psychology and all psychologists, based upon the definition of their profession, the training of all psychologists, and legal limitations imposed by state boards. Some psychologists administer psychological testing and provide full psychological assessments and some do not. Such activities are within the legal scope of practice of the profession of psychology, but outside of the personal scope of practice of those psychologists lacking ample training and experience in testing and assessment themselves. In this case, individual psychologists are expected to use solid personal and professional judgment to determine whether to conduct psychological assessments.

There are at least two reasons why scope of practice is an important issue with regard to coaching and psychotherapy. First, there are areas of overlap in practice, and it is left to individual coaches to monitor themselves and manage their professional behavior. Who is to say when or whether it is appropriate, for example, for a coach to use the cognitive methods described in this book? What if their business client’s career is suffering from that client’s characteristically negative point of view? At what point does this constitute a mild depression or dysthymia, and does coaching then converge with psychotherapy? Should Jack Welch practice counseling or psychotherapy with executive clients? Although there are relatively clear clinical guidelines and benchmarks available to decide how to handle psychologically distressed clients, who actually makes this referral decision, and on what basis? Coaches are unlikely to be eager to refer business clients for psychotherapy when it means that they may lose a client, or when it implies that the coach thinks that their client is mentally ill, especially when that client is happy with the coaching and wants to continue. How do coaches decide whether their behavior constitutes coaching or personal/mental health counseling? Business clients or human resources personnel cannot be expected to have clear guidelines regarding this decision. The public must therefore depend on the professional ethics and personal judgment of each practicing coach. When these situations arise—as they no doubt will—coaches are strongly encouraged to get supervision or consultation or use a mentor. They must remember to keep the best interests of their client in mind; however, they define the term client.

Second, there are some who claim to be coaching when actually practicing psychotherapy without a license. This matter presents serious ethical challenges. Most states and countries have a system of regulation for psychotherapy, usually in the form of a state board. People desiring to practice psychotherapy or mental health counseling are required to complete a carefully prescribed course of formal studies culminating in a licensing exam. Licensees are required to then complete ongoing programs of continuing education for the rest of their careers, and the hours are monitored by the board. These boards have jurisdiction over those they license, but no authority over those not licensed. It has become virtually impossible to keep up with all of the people out there practicing life coaching and various other forms of “coaching,” as there has been an explosion of interest in this kind of activity. There are now thousands of life coaches waiting in cyberspace to help people change and grow. These “coaches” have many letters after their names such as PCC, CUCG, CPCC, MCC, LMT, CEC, CPC, CLO, CLC, and NCGC (the list seems endless). They offer to help you “align your life, deal with harmful emotions, remove self-doubt, rekindle your relationships, transform your life, make more money, and achieve your greatest dreams.” One Web site calls coaching “one of the fastest growing professions in the world.” Coaches offer quick fixes and fast results. Training to become such a coach can also be fast, with some “institutes” offering an education program that lasts just one weekend. The situation has become mind boggling, and it is virtually impossible for the public to know what is of value, what is a harmless waste of time and money, and what is downright dangerous.

Although there have always been people standing by to help others improve their lives (for a fee), the situation causes problems for those calling themselves coaches, as they are likely to be viewed as part of this larger meshuga. There is no simple solution to this problem, as no one should necessarily stop those who want to help others (even when it is for a fee) and no one should reflexively try to stop people from seeking help from those willing to provide it. It seems incumbent upon good practitioners everywhere to ensure that they train themselves well and practice only that which they truly know how to do. Practitioners are also obligated to avoid making false or misleading public statements or advertisements as well.

Two Different Cultures

There is a cultural problem one encounters when making the transition from clinical counseling to management consulting or executive coaching. It has to do with primary value orientations in the two fields of mental health and business coaching. In business, there is a proprietary culture, one based upon a competitive market premise. Buyers and sellers compete for the best deal they can get. Each expects the other to compete. Buyers do not expect sellers to look out for them or for their interests. Caveat emptor prevails, and everyone knows it.

This is very different from the fiduciary culture of psychotherapy. Clinicians use an “ethic of care” to guide their work. In this model, doctors or therapists take care of patients or clients. They look after their clients’ best interests. These interests are central to the arrangement, and the arrangement is cooperative. The clinical relationship includes essential fiduciary dynamics as a result of asymmetric information. Clients must trust therapists to look after their interests, and clients are not always in the best position to know whether this is actually being done. Therapy clients are often in a weakened or vulnerable position. Think about how competent you might be (as a client) just after your spouse has announced an intention to divorce, or when you seek counseling because your child has died, or because you find yourself seriously depressed and you cannot figure out why. If a psychiatrist prescribes a particular antidepressant medication, you are in no position to adequately evaluate that recommendation. You must decide whether to trust the doctor, and if you do, accept his or her advice.

Executive coaches must navigate between these two cultures. On the one hand, they are working in a business culture, where the profit motive rules. It would be considered unethical for a business, particularly a corporation (as a public entity), to place any value above that of delivering a healthy return to shareholders. That is the primary purpose of the corporation. Other purposes come second. This point of view is well understood by corporate officers and leaders. Coaches must understand it as well. On the other hand, executive coaches must apply some aspects of the fiduciary ethic of care to their individual clients. This balancing act can become tricky and confusing. Consider the circumstance where executives must cut costs to protect profit or to protect the survival of the company. Even though downsizing—the release of good people—is heartbreaking to the executive as well as to the person who will lose his job, it must be done. A coach must, therefore, be able to understand the point of view of the corporation and find a way to synthesize the competitive with the cooperative point of view. It can be downright inhumane to lay a person off from his or her job, but it must be done sometimes for a company to remain viable.

Areas of Similarity

There are numerous areas where clinical and coaching ethics overlap. The usual virtues of integrity, honesty, and responsibility are urged by consulting codes (Institute of Management Consultants, 2008; International Coach Federation, 2009) as well as clinical codes of ethics (American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, 2001; American Counseling Association, 2005; American Psychological Association, 2002). Virtually all professions advocate such values. Among the paragraphs of these worthwhile normative values are three particular areas of similarity between the work of mental health professionals and the business of coaches that deserve special attention.

Similarity 1: Clear Agreements

Clear agreements between practitioners and clients are recommended, and they are required by ethics codes in both cultures. These make good sense and good practice. They do, however, require sophisticated communication skills and a solid professional self-esteem. Clients will appreciate such clarity and it is worth the effort. Clients in the business world are often used to clear agreements and written contracts, generally more so than most psychotherapists. In any case, the need for clarity at the beginning of the coaching relationship is quite real. When this seems difficult, colleagues or mentors can help. The Complete Guide to Consulting Contracts (Holtz, 1997) would also be helpful. Existing codes of ethics for coaches generally emphasize the need for clear agreements between coaches, clients, and sponsoring organizations. In the Harvard survey of experienced coaches, 88% reported that they establish an upfront timeframe for the coaching initiative (Kauffman & Coutu, 2009, p. 11) and most advocate clear agreements regarding progress reports.

Similarity 2: Whistle-Blowing

Both cultures, business consulting and clinical counseling, advocate whistle-blowing, particularly when colleagues behave poorly or are found to be incompetent. Both cultures recommend that someone step in and say something to a colleague or report unethical behavior to a professional organization or board, even though most practitioners are loath to actually do so when faced with this situation.

Similarity 3: Know your Limits

Psychotherapists are taught to practice within their personal limits. They are urged to use specific counseling techniques only after adequate training and supervision. They learn which clients or patients to accept for treatment and which to refer, based upon their training, experience, and (their own) personality. No ethical psychotherapist would attempt to treat every patient who shows up for an appointment. The standard of care requires an intake interview to assess and evaluate the fit between professional and client. When the fit is suboptimal, a referral is made on behalf of the best interests of the client (and, from a longer-term, pragmatic point of view, the best interest of the clinician as well. Most seasoned psychotherapists recall the occasions when they took on a patient against their better judgment and suffered for it later). Many formal coaching codes of ethics prescribe appropriate referral when a client has needs that cannot be met by a current coach.

Business and consulting standards require that coaches decline work for which they are not qualified and that they represent their skills honestly to other people. Deceptive advertising is expressly prohibited, but business people are used to hyperbole when consultants hawk their services, and nearly everyone has been burned by a consultant who could not deliver that which had been promised. Even so, it may be difficult for coaches to accurately assess the limits of their own expertise. If you have never worked with a certain kind of client or have never worked in a particular industry, how are you to know if you have the expertise in advance? Do you err on the side of a conservative presentation of your skills or do you take a risk, present a confident front, and hope that you build your parachute on the way down, and figuring things out when you get on site? Since coaching is relatively new—both to coaches and clients—an aggressive approach seems defensible, especially since the mental health of a person in a fragile state is not typically at stake as is often the case in clinical psychology. A more aggressive, experimental tack is certainly more acceptable when the coach has a mentor or support group in the wings.

Areas That are Unclear

There are many more areas of executive coaching where the ethics of clinical practice can be instructive but inadequate. Psychotherapists are likely to be naive about these business areas and without deliberate preparation could wade into an ethical minefield. As a result, they could end up harming clients or client organizations. Here are some of the minefields.

Who Is the Client?

Whom the client is is a practical as well as philosophical issue. It is similar, in some ways, to the problem that occurs in clinical practice when third-party payers (such as health insurance companies) become involved in treatment. Loyalties become stretched and twisted. When a company hires a coach to work with an individual executive, who is the client? Is it the sponsoring company, who hires and pays the coach to help with a business need? Or is it the individual executive, who is seeking to grow and move forward in his or her career? This question is easily answered when the executive personally pays the coach’s fee. But, what about when the company pays the bill, as is more typical? In a 1999 doctoral dissertation, Macmillan posed this question to business consultants and found widespread uncertainty and disagreement. To whom does the coach owe loyalty? What happens when a client’s interests or intended behavior are at odds with those of the company? For example, what if a client wants to focus on developing skills that the company clearly does not need, or skills that the client would like to use in her next job or as an entrepreneur? What happens when a client is angry and contemplating legal action against the company, or is plotting his next move to a new company? How does a coach work with such a client? These are difficult questions indeed. Along with the obvious challenges related to loyalties, confidentiality or discretion can also become tricky.

Clear contractual arrangements spelled out in advance are one antidote, especially when such problems can be anticipated at the onset. However, specific difficulties in these areas are often unforeseeable. A second guideline is to favor openness. Direct discussions between coaches and clients about such problems—at the beginning and continuously as they arise—can help enormously.

For example, a coach can raise the issue: “Jane, I’m concerned that what you and I are talking about may not be aligned with the company’s goals. What you want to work on with me doesn’t seem to be in the firm’s best interest, yet it is the company that is funding our work together. What’s your thinking about this? Does it seem fair to you? What should we do?”

Such a discussion might cause the focus of coaching to change. It might necessitate a discussion with the person in the company who authorized the coaching in order to seek “permission” to wander a bit. Results from the Harvard survey of coaches revealed that 132 of the 140 coaches found that the focus of coaching shifted frequently. Fifty-eight of the coaches reported that they eventually worked on “deeper goals” with clients (Kauffman & Coutu, 2009, p. 8). Some organizations would have no problem with coaching that serves to enhance the skills of a valued executive even when there is only a small chance that the effects will be immediately applicable to current business needs (although other organizations might). Some companies will figure that by providing coaching to a smart, effective executive, they will create goodwill and cement a long-term positive relationship—or smooth over a bad relationship prior to a parting of the ways.

There is also a chance that a discussion with your client about shifting goals might precipitate termination of the coaching. It is certainly difficult to justify a coaching process that is contrary to the best interests of the organization that is paying for the coaching. Coaches in that position should make a reasonable adjustment when this happens. Change the focus, rethink the content and purpose, and move in the direction of integrity. Ask the question: “How would I feel if I had to honestly describe what we are doing to the client’s boss or to a group of senior managers?” If the answer to that question is uncomfortable, reconsider and realign. Occasional forays into tangential territory seem inevitable and acceptable, but when the focus is wrong, the work is wrong, especially when this is a secret.

Confidentiality

There is another important ethical component of executive coaching that is unclear: To what extent is the relationship between coach and client confidential? In clinical practice, both the fact of the counseling relationship (contact confidentiality), and the content of the relationship are confidential, and the rules are clear. Psychotherapists do not even reveal the names of their clients. In clinical work there are a few rare exceptions (e.g., child and elder abuse, danger to third parties), and these can be discussed with clients ahead of time. But what about the coaching relationship? Many people in the company are aware that coaching is happening and with whom, but the rules for content confidentiality are essentially up for grabs. Coaches often tell clients that they will treat communication confidentially, but such a promise is not always realistic. The Harvard survey of experienced executive coaches reported that 70% of coaches kept the executive’s manager informed of progress and 55% communicated with human resources personnel about their work (Kauffman & Coutu, 2009, p. 3). Coaches and clients must somehow define and establish working arrangements as they go along, and clients vary with regard to their interest in privacy. Some (naively) do not seem to care. Others are positively paranoid about it. Even when clear arrangements are struck at the onset, difficulties can arise. What do you do about information that you (the coach) wish the “boss” (of your client) or the sponsoring organization could have? What if the entire company culture could benefit from impressions or information you got from your individual client?

There is a second difficult aspect of confidentiality in executive coaching. To what extent does the coach owe the organization a confidential relationship? Coaches come across important information about the company, not just about the client. For example, how should coaches handle proprietary secrets and insider stock information? What about a merger in the wings? What about illegal activities proposed by your client or borderline activities by the company? Information or rumors about sexual harassment or problematic office romances? This is a swamp, and the coach must be thoughtful and careful. Adequate guidelines, specific to executive coaching, are not really available, and even where they do exist, individual coach maturity is essential.

There are two preliminary (and admittedly inadequate) answers to these confidentiality questions. The first is the “cure-all”: direct, frank, explicit discussions at the onset of coaching. It is the coach’s responsibility to bring up confidentiality and to do so in a way that does not unnecessarily alarm. Clients might not initiate such a discussion, because they do not want to give the impression that they have something to hide or that they are too private or not open enough. Others have not given the matter any thought, but would have concerns if they did. Many cannot anticipate the difficulties lurking around the corner, whereas a good coach certainly should. The most difficult ethical problems are often those that cannot be fully anticipated at the onset.

Therefore, a frank discussion about the demand for confidentiality (if demand exists or should exist) must be initiated by the coach, complete with examples. This discussion can start with the prospective client and include essential others, such as seniors, colleagues, and human resources personnel who might later inquire about progress. One way to head off problems is to offer regular progress reports to the organization, done collaboratively by the coach and client. The format can be devised at the beginning and based upon established goals. That way, if someone asks about coaching, the answer can be, “We’ll have a written progress report for you in a couple of weeks.” Face-to-face meetings with third parties should include your client whenever feasible.

It is often a good idea to encourage clients to be open about the fact that they are getting coached. Coaching can be framed as a positive—something that healthy, realistic, ambitious people do from time to time—and it is a compliment that the company is willing to fund it. There is a clear trend in the coaching world in this direction, as many see the fact that someone has a coach as a plus.

In reality, most people are happy to cooperate with the confidentiality arrangements that coaches and clients establish. They are generally aware that much is at stake, and few desire to do anything that might “gum up the works.” Most others in the organization realize that they, too, have a vested interest in the positive development of the client.

The second “cure” for this problem requires that groups of coaches work together to establish consensus norms. These can be hammered out in professional meetings or through discussions in journals, but, in any case, written guidelines are sorely needed. Coaches with experience should continue to make their thinking about this matter public, and written codes for coaches now emphasize the importance of confidentiality as well as clear agreements between coaches, clients, and sponsors of coaching. The International Coach Federation (2009) describes practices for careful management of coaching records in its code. Principle number four of the UK Coaching Round Table “Statement of Shared Professional Values” (2008, p. 3) states:

Coach-training institutes should regularly upgrade their ethics codes. As the field or profession of coaching evolves and matures, codification of group norms regarding confidentiality will become clearer and more useful to practitioners.

Consent

In clinical practice, nothing is done without clear client consent. In business coaching, clients may participate in coaching without a clear consenting agreement, especially when told that they need coaching to advance their career, to make partner, or to simply survive with the company. What executive would decline such an “opportunity”? It is likely that clients sometimes participate in coaching with mixed motives and ambivalence, yet they are generally unwilling to reveal these motives to coaches. This is akin to mandated therapy when clients are referred to a clinician by a court or government body. The consent is not really voluntary in the strictest sense of the word, but it has to suffice.

Current coaching codes now mention the requirement for informed consent, and the International Coach Federation code (2009), for example, states that “I will carefully explain … prior to or at the initial meeting … the nature of coaching, the nature and limits of confidentiality, financial agreements, and any other terms of the coaching agreement or contract.”

Coaches must remain alert for this mixed-motive scenario and confront it appropriately from the point of view of the client (rather than from the perspective of the company). Help clients figure out what to do. Such a discussion depends upon the level of trust established in the coaching relationship. Even without trust, a coach can offer a well-crafted statement to alert a client and open the “bidding.” For example: “You know, sometimes it seems like you are not completely engaged in the coaching. I think about it a lot and wonder if you don’t have some mixed feelings.” One could add, “If I were in your position, I might have mixed feelings, too, given the current situation.”

It may also be useful to develop a written consent form, appropriate to the corporate culture. This form could be used as a format for discussion of the important issues at the onset of the coaching relationship.

Boundaries

Since about 1980, the standard of practice in psychotherapy has moved toward increasingly rigid professional boundaries. This change evolved because a small number of therapists damaged clients by blurring or ignoring appropriate boundaries. Other professions such as dentistry and law have recently formalized prohibitions about romantic or sexual interaction with patients and clients. Psychotherapists since about 2000 have taken a more sophisticated and variegated point of view as clinicians realized that some dual relationships produce more good than harm, whereas others are unavoidable. That said, mental health clinicians generally avoid mixing therapeutic relationships with social or other kinds of additional relationships. In therapeutic settings, prudent practitioners generally avoid all other kinds of contact. You do not have dinner with clients, you do not play golf with them, you do not sell things to them or buy things from them, you do not ask them for stock tips, and you do not go to cocktail parties or receptions with them. There are legitimate theoretical and practical reasons for this policy. The therapeutic relationship and the process, as well as clients themselves, are often hurt when boundaries are crossed. The exemplary International Coach Federation code (2009) states the following (p. 3):

Nonetheless, things are different in business consulting and executive coaching. Consultants and coaches are expected to attend business or social events with clients and their companies. To miss these events would seem odd to businesspeople, and would isolate a coach from the company’s culture and from other opportunities to observe the client in action. When a group of executives invites a coach to an event sponsored by the company, that coach needs to think twice about declining the offer. A no-show might be seen as unsupportive of the organization or unenthusiastic about the work. Plus, you might miss out on an excellent opportunity to assess your client in an important working situation. In other words, executive coaches must, after careful consideration, attend social events with clients and other important players in the organization. There are valid coaching and business reasons to do so.

This different set of expectations does not, however, indemnify the coach or client from some of the difficulties that can arise in such “dual-relationship” situations. They simply must be managed with sound judgment and a commitment to avoid any role exploitation. A coach must also learn to think on his or her feet when difficult or uncomfortable situations arise, as they surely will. Again, when things get weird, stall for time and get a consultation from someone you trust.

A preemptory discussion about these matters is generally a good idea. Psychotherapists bring a special expertise to this situation, as they have usually given more thought to the pitfalls of mixing one’s settings. They have seen, firsthand, how problems of dual relationships can evolve, and many therapists have engaged in frank and open discussions with clients about them. They have learned about the potential for misunderstanding, resentment, and embarrassment. Most businesspeople do not have this experience and have no idea that problems can occur. Although consultants are generally welcome at corporate outings, it is certainly possible that a client may wish that his or her coach stay away. Check with your client. Ask for his or her preference, discuss what it means, and honor it.

It must be noted that executive clients are not as vulnerable as psychotherapy clients. They are not in the same position with respect to the coach as a patient is to a therapist, and hopefully not hurting or overwhelmed or depressed or paranoid. Their self-esteem is usually (but not always) intact and high. When tricky social events occur, they are in a better position to interpret things in a healthy way or to let something roll off their back or to even ignore a small embarrassment. Therapy patients are often uncomfortable when confronted with their therapist in settings outside of the consulting room, whereas executives are unlikely to feel the same way.

Beware, however, of letting your guard completely down. Remember—as businesspeople learn to do—that a social outing with the company is still work. It is not purely a social event, even if people act like it is, and mistakes can be made that can ruin a perfectly good business relationship. Consider the following example: You join your client at a golf outing. You are not a good golfer, although you enjoy the game from time to time. You and your client play a friendly match, and he sets up a wager with the other team. On the last hole, you play terribly, and you and your client lose a substantial amount of money. Conversely, imagine the same scenario in reverse. You are an excellent golfer, and your client plays poorly, causing your team to lose the wager. These events complicate your relationship. They might damage it, or they might deepen it or even create a learning experience.

Other Areas in Question

There are numerous other areas where psychotherapy guidelines might help, but do not neatly apply. Coaches must sort out the following areas in the future.

Record Keeping

What kind of records should executive coaches keep, and how should they be managed and protected? Certainly, notes can be important and useful to the coach, especially when a coach works with multiple clients simultaneously, or when an ex-client calls for additional coaching after a few years away. It is probably a good idea to apply the basic rules that therapists use for record keeping, although there is certainly no mandate for process notes, as there is in the practice of psychotherapy. Accurate financial records are essential, and assessment data, goals, and notes about observations should be maintained and safeguarded. Periodic reports will have to be rendered to sponsors. It is hoped that the need for notes and records will be driven by a coach’s interest in his or her client, rather than a perceived need to protect oneself from criticism or future harm, as is sometimes the case in the healthcare arena. The usual questions of whether such information is subject to subpoena will have to be sorted out by the lawyers. Coaches who come from the world of psychotherapy know that they must be extremely careful when writing something in records that would embarrass them or their clients. Some coaching codes now recommend maintenance of records in ways that protect confidentiality and comply with local laws.

Termination of the Coaching Relationship

What is the best way to wrap things up when goals have not been met or when corporate money runs out? The Harvard survey indicated that the vast majority of coaching projects last from 2 to 18 months (Kauffman & Coutu, 2009, p. 10). Often companies are not willing to finance coaching that goes on and on without timely and demonstrable results. What do you do when progress stalls or is nonexistent? What happens when a coach or a client is reassigned or relocated? Sometimes nearly random events cause premature termination. Does a coach have any obligation to continue the coaching relationship after a client leaves the company? Is there ever an obligation to continue coaching at a reduced fee (if the client is struggling and must personally assume payment)? Certainly, a clear discussion of how and when coaching will end is appropriate material for initial discussions in the relationship.

Conflicts of Interest

Coaching codes discuss possible conflicts that psychotherapists encounter only occasionally. Some are related to the problem of client identification (who is the real client) and loyalty, and some do not. The International Coach Federation’s 2009 code states the following (2009):

Assessment

What level of psychological testing skills must a coach possess before using instruments with coaching clients? Are the rules the same as for psychologists or master’s-level counselors? There are hundreds of proprietary assessment instruments to be found on the Internet. At the same time, there are really no legal constraints because coaches typically use instruments that do not require the user to hold a clinical license. Some providers of testing tools may ask if the purchaser has a bachelor’s or master’s degree, but even that is unlikely. The general rule for clinicians is helpful here. Use an instrument only under the following circumstances:

1. The instrument has been shown to be valid, reliable, and appropriate for the purpose intended. Coaches must be wary, as there are many unvalidated instruments available to business consultants, and testing companies are only too willing to recommend them. Business clients are typically naive about issues of test validity and reliability, and they are often willing to accept whatever feedback they are given by a consultant.
2. The coach/user possesses adequate skills and experience (including supervision, when appropriate) to administer and interpret the specific instrument.
3. The testee is properly informed about the instrument ahead of time, and the results are provided in language that he or she comprehends. Results are tailored specifically for each client.
4. Norms are appropriate for the client being tested. This means that if your client’s responses are to be compared to norms, the people in those norm groups are known and reasonably similar to that client. For example, if you are using a formal instrument to test a woman, were women included in the norm group when percentiles were established? Are you comparing a woman’s scores to the scores of men? Under the circumstances, does that make a difference in how you would interpret the results?

Duty to Protect or Warn

Do coaches face the same obligations as clinicians when clients become a danger to self or others? Is there a duty to safeguard an executive from harm to himself or a duty to warn others to prevent danger? Some executive clients can become quite depressed when major downturns occur in their industry or personal career. Executives who are caught cheating can become humiliated and extremely irrational. Are there other duties in business coaching that clinicians cannot anticipate? Is it fair to hold coaches to the same legal standards to which clinicians are held, given that coaches often are not privy to the same depth of interpersonal information that therapists possess about their patients? None of the currently available coaching codes appear to address these questions in a specific or helpful way.

The guidelines used by clinicians in this area can be extremely useful in the very rare circumstance when a client is psychologically troubled. Such clients are lucky to be in the hands of a coach who has clinical training and experience. Generally accepted principles for clients who are a danger to self or others ought to be applied. Examples of workers who have exploded or assaulted someone after being terminated or slighted cannot be ignored. Sometimes business organizations specifically hire business coaches to help with difficult employees or disgruntled managers, and coaches must evaluate such clients for impulse control, emotional range, substance abuse, perception, and attribution.

Pro Bono Services

Shouldn’t coaches, who command higher fees than clinicians, have an obligation to give back to the community? What community? Should coaches provide some services to nonprofit organizations at a reduced fee? Should they give back to the profession from whence they came?

Many ethical aspects of executive coaching are not clear, and the ethical principles and methods used by clinicians might be extremely useful, if not universally applicable. Significant areas for thoughtful discussion exist, and as coaching continues to become more widely accepted, professional standards must continue to be developed and disseminated. As professional coaching organizations evolve, it will become increasingly important that they revise and expand explicit standards and guidelines to express aspirations and to limit problem behavior or damage. These standards will enhance the prospect of long-term success and survival for coaches and the field of coaching. Current codes of ethics for coaching represent a good start, but they must be enhanced. In the meantime, coaches should use good judgment, consult with a trusted colleague or mentor, and take care.

Summary

1. Executive coaching is in a nascent stage of professionalism. Enhanced professional organization and structure are needed. This includes more serious credentialing processes, standardization of training, strengthened professional groups, enhanced written codes of conduct, and supervision. Charlatans currently threaten the credibility of the field.
2. Coaches and clinicians live in different ethical cultures, and this requires modest but significant adaptations by clinicians.
3. Codes, standards, and guidelines now exist for executive coaches, but they are in early stages of development and are relatively vague. Coaches must adapt existing standards as they go, applying some as-is and adjusting others to fit.
4. Clear initial agreements between coaches, clients, and the sponsoring organization are essential, and such agreements help to avoid many ethical problems.
5. Coach–client confidentiality, although not absolute, must be respected, discussed, and managed.
6. Boundary expectations are quite different in the corporate world, as executives often expect consultants to join them on company outings and social events. Coaching clients are typically less vulnerable than counseling clients.
7. Psychotherapists possess useful skills when it comes to record keeping and record management. Although clinical standards are more extensive and restrictive than might be necessary in the coaching world, it would be a good idea to keep them in mind when managing coaching notes and records.
8. Most of the assessment instruments used by coaches are less complex than those used by psychologists, but the same practical requirements apply. Coaches should only use instruments that they understand to be appropriate, valid, and reliable. There are many questionable questionnaires out there in the world of business consulting.
9. Psychotherapists possess sophisticated and useful skills for the rare occasion when an executive becomes a danger to self or to others. These skills should be applied in much the same way as they are in a clinical situation. Be careful about the potential embarrassment and weigh it against the potential danger.

References

American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists. (2001). AAMFT Code of ethics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from: http://www.aamft.org/resources/lrm_plan/ethics/ethicscode2001.asp.

American Counseling Association. (2005). Code of ethics and standards of practice. Alexandria, VA: Author. Available online at: http://www.counseling.org/.

American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.pdf.

Carroll, M. (2008). Coaching psychology supervision: Luxury or necessity? In S. Palmer & A. Whybrow (Eds.), Handbook of coaching psychology (pp. 431–448). London: Routledge.

Holtz, H. (1997). The complete guide to consulting contracts (2nd ed.). Chicago: Dearborn Financial Books.

Institute of Management Consultants. (2008). Code of ethics. New York: Author. Available online at: http://www.imc.org.au/.

International Coach Federation (2009). Code of ethics. Retrieved June 13, 2009, from: http://www.coachfederation.org/about-icf/ethics-&-regulation/icf-code-of-ethics/.

Kauffman, C., & Coutu, D. (2009). HBR research report: The realities of executive coaching. Available online at coachingreport.hbr.org.

Lowman, R. (Ed.). (1998). The ethical practice of psychology in organizations. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Macmillan, C. (1999). The role of the organizational consultant: A model for clinicians. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology, Boston.

Palmer, S., & Whybrow, A. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of coaching psychology. London: Routledge.

Peltier, B. (2001). The ethical responsibility of professional autonomy. Journal of the California Dental Association, 29(7), 522–525.

Solomon, R. (1997). It’s good business: Ethics and free enterprise for the new millennium. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Stevens, J. H. (2005). Executive coaching from the executive’s perspective. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 57(4), 274–285.

UK Coaching Round Table. (2008, February) Major breakthrough—UK coaching bodies roundtable produce the first UK agreed statement of shared professional values. Retrieved January 17, 2009, from: http://www.associationforcoaching.com/news/M80221.pdf.

Recommended Readings

Bersoff, D. (Ed.). (1999). Ethical conflicts in psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Brotman, L., Liberi, W., & Wasylyshyn, K. (1998). Executive coaching: The need for standards of competence. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 50(1), 40–46.

Corey, G., Corey, M., & Callahan, P. (2006). Issues and ethics in the helping professions (7th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Devine, G. (1996). Responses to 101 questions on business ethics. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press.

Gorlin, R. (1999). Codes of professional responsibility: Ethics standards in business, health, and law (4th ed). Washington, DC: BNA Books (Bureau of National Affairs).

Keith-Spiegel, P., & Koocher, G. (2008). Ethics in psychology and the mental health professions: Professional standards and cases (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Messick, D., & Tenbrunsel, A. (1997) Codes of conduct: Behavioral research into business ethics. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Nagy, T. (2000). Ethics in plain English: An illustrative casebook for psychologists. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Nash, D. (1994). A tension between two cultures … dentistry as a profession and dentistry as proprietary. Journal of Dental Education, 58(4), 301–306.

Peltier, B., & Dugoni, A. (1994). A four-part model to energize ethical conversation. Journal of the California Dental Association, 22(10), 23–26.

Rest, J., & Narvaez, D. (Eds.). (1994). Moral development in the professions: Psychology and applied ethics. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Snoeyenbos, M., Humber, J., & Almeder, R. (Eds.). (1992). Business ethics: Corporate values and society. New York: Prometheus Books.

Solomon, R. (1993). Ethics and excellence: Cooperation and integrity in business. New York: Oxford University Press.