Evidence Based Coaching Handbook

Putting Best Practices to Work for Your Clients

Dianne R. Stober, Anthony M. Grant, Dianne R. Stober, Anthony M. Grant

• Editorial: Wiley
• Año: 2010
• ISBN:
  9780470893630
• Edición: 1
• Categoría: Business
• Categoría: Human Resource Management

The first reference to bring scientifically proven approaches to the practice of personal and executive coaching

The Evidence Based Coaching Handbook applies recent behavioral science research to executive and personal coaching, bringing multiple disciplines to bear on why and how coaching works. A groundbreaking resource for this burgeoning profession, this text presents several different coaching approaches along with the empirical and theoretical knowledge base supporting each.

Recognizing the special character of coaching-that the coaching process is non-medical, collaborative, and highly contextual-the authors lay out an evidence-based coaching model that allows practitioners to integrate their own expertise and the needs of their individual clients with the best current knowledge. This gives coaches the ability to better understand and optimize their own coaching interventions, while not having to conform to a single, rigidly defined practice standard.

The Evidence Based Coaching Handbook looks at various approaches and applies each to the same two case studies, demonstrating through this practical comparison the methods, assumptions, and concepts at work in the different approaches.

The coverage includes:

• An overview: a contextual model of coaching approaches
• Systems and complexity theory
• The behavioral perspective
• The humanistic perspective
• Cognitive coaching
• Adult development theory
• An integrative, goal-focused approach
• Psychoanalytically informed coaching
• Positive psychology
• An adult learning approach
• An adventure-based framework
• Culture and coaching

PART I

Single-Theory Perspectives

CHAPTER 1

Coaching from the Humanistic Perspective

DIANNE R. STOBER

COACHING IS ABOVE all about human growth and change. And in recognizing its roots in traditions and disciplines that strive for supporting growth, coaching would miss a substantial source of knowledge if we overlooked the contributions of humanistic psychology. In this chapter, I propose that this perspective is a philosophical foundation for coaching in terms of values and assumptions. As Hedman (2001) notes after drawing parallels between Carl Rogers’ humanistic, person-centered approach and literature on the ingredients of executive coaching, “it should be obvious that Rogerian principles are central to the success of an executive coaching program” (p. 73).

The person-centered model is but one of a number of approaches, mainly to psychotherapy, that fall under the humanistic label. Others include Gestalt therapy, experiential therapies, and existential therapies. There are many books detailing the intricacies of concepts and techniques contained in these approaches, and the interested reader may choose to seek these out. I limit the discussion in this chapter to the general concepts and assumptions in humanistic approaches that directly apply to coaching.

Translation is necessary, however, in applying these therapeutic theories and practices to coaching. Where much of therapy is focused on resolving deficits and weaknesses in the direction of restoring a person to functioning, coaching is a process focused on working with a person’s needs, wants, goals, or vision for where they want to go, and then designing steps for getting there. What humanistic therapies and coaching share is the idea that positive change is a driving force for clients in either modality. I would argue that both share some basic philosophical assumptions. In particular, the humanistic theory of self-actualization is a foundational assumption for coaching with its focus on enhancing growth rather than ameliorating dysfunction. In fact, the assumption of self-actualization is a significant influence in placing coaching into the realm of a growth process compared to general encouragement and advice giving. Whether coaches are engaged in personal development, performance, or executive coaching with their clients, the belief in the potential for positive growth as a driving force is required. I would also like to take this opportunity to note that the term growth in this discussion is not limited to a grand, overarching view of actualizing one’s potential (which encompasses the whole journey of one’s life) but rather runs the gamut from self-actualization to small positive changes that are individual steps in our daily lives.

While some might argue that a large portion, if not majority, of coaching is less about general growth and more about the small steps of finding solutions, developing specific skills, or goal attainment, holding a broader framework of helping people make positive change, such as the humanistic view, can enable the coach to handle the full range of initial matters of interest that clients bring to coaching. This humanistic approach to coaching implies that whether the client comes requesting help with getting more organized, improving interpersonal interactions at work, finding a new career, or starting a business, the client is coming to engage in a process of moving forward and making positive changes, and thus is using a process of self-growth, even if that’s not “what they came for.” And the humanistic approach provides a context and the ingredients necessary to make those positive changes, whether clients keep a narrow, specific focus or move to a broader view of their potential for growth.

In differentiating humanistic therapeutic approaches from a humanistic approach to coaching, there are several key distinctions. An important one is the difference in the goal of the process: Humanistic therapy is aimed at helping clients gain a more functional life while coaching usually seeks to help clients move a generally functional life to a more full life, whether that is related to a particular issue or area, like being a better leader or changing one’s career, or is more broadly defined by the client. Another distinction is between the general focus of the process: Humanistic therapy is often tilted toward working with the client’s feelings (as they are often less processed compared to thinking functions), whereas coaching often focuses more specifically on actions the client can take to meet their overall goals for the coaching. Both humanistic therapy and coaching aim to increase clients’ awareness of their experience; however, what purpose the awareness serves differs. For therapy, the purpose of awareness is seen as an end in itself; that is, by processing one’s full experience, one becomes more whole. It is assumed that the main result, awareness, will produce changes in behavior. For coaching, the purpose of gaining clarity and fuller awareness (of thoughts, feelings, and sensations in addition to what is in the client’s environment) is an initial step toward the desired result of action. So the assumption is that awareness is an ingredient for successful action and that the coaching process will harness that in the service of actively making change. These distinctions will show up in how the shared assumptions between coaching and therapy translate to different ways of working with clients.

Returning to these philosophical assumptions shared by coaching and humanistic psychology, Cain (2002) calls the view of the person as self-actualizing “the foundational premise on which humanistic therapies are built” (p. 6). There are several other defining characteristics in humanistic approaches that can be extended to coaching: (1) a relational emphasis as the fundamental source of change, (2) a holistic view of the person as a unique being, and (3) a belief in the possibility of freedom of choice with accompanying responsibility (Cain, 2002). The following section discusses these characteristics, the concepts and theories associated with them, and how they can be applied to our understanding of coaching.

KEY CONCEPTS FROM HUMANISTIC APPROACHES

As we explore the application of humanistic perspectives to the practice of coaching, there are a number of key concepts that bear further elaboration and discussion. Some cut across the different humanistic approaches, and some are more heavily concentrated in one particular system. While these concepts were originally developed for therapists’ use in psychotherapy, they are easily extrapolated for relationships such as coaching. I describe each concept as it exists in humanistic therapy and then discuss how it is translated into coaching practice.

GROWTH-ORIENTED VIEW OF THE PERSON

The humanistic approach is founded on an optimistic view of the person. This is not to say that humanistic therapists deny that dysfunction exists; rather, it is a belief that individuals have the capacity to use their experiences and resources to move forward and grow. Within this view, it is assumed that given the right environment (more on this later), people have an internal mechanism, called the self-actualizing tendency, by which growth can occur.

Self-Actualization

Probably the most fundamental proposition of the humanistic view of personality and behavior is the underlying tendency of organisms to self-actualize (Combs, 1999; Maslow, 1970; Rogers, 1951, 1959). Rogers (1951) proposed that human development is directional (forward) and that within the individual framework of the person, people have a basic striving to reach their full capacity. This was a radical notion compared to the formulations given by the psychodynamic and behavioral theorists of the day. Maslow (1970) furthered humanistic theory by studying self-actualizing individuals and describing their achievements and evolution. Both stated that when the context allows, people will choose what is good for them because they then experience satisfaction or pleasure, which results in continuing efforts to evolve and grow. So for humanistic practitioners, developing a contextual climate that supports and nurtures self-actualization is the linchpin for helping clients grow into their potential. This assumption also has a direct implication for how to work with clients: Practitioners are there to facilitate the client’s own natural potential for growth. This view is aptly stated by Cain (2002): “Their faith in the client’s potential results in humanistic therapists’ disinclination to be directive, but rather to act in ways that free clients to find their own directions, solve their own problems, and evolve in ways that are congruent to them” (p. 6).

TRANSLATION TO COACHING For coaches, then, this foundational assumption of self-actualization and its implications guides a major distinction between coaching and related activities such as consulting or mentoring: The coach’s role is that of facilitator, rather than subject matter expert or more experienced guide. Coaches need to be experts at the process of coaching but recognize their clients are the experts on the content of their own experience. This is not to say that coaches do not provide any information, but rather that by assuming that individuals have an innate capacity for growth, any information provided by the coach should be in the service of the client’s unique potential.

PRACTITIONER-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP

Humanistic approaches were on the forefront of describing the fundamental importance of the relationship between practitioner and client as a source of change in psychotherapy. It is through the relationship and the environment set by the practitioner that clients are able to explore their own experience and choose directions for the future. There are several key qualities to building a productive relationship from the humanistic perspective: collaboration between client and practitioner, and empathy, unconditional positive regard, and authenticity on the part of the practitioner. We will discuss each of these as they relate to a process of growth for the client.

Collaboration in the Practitioner-Client Relationship

Consistent with premises of the self-actualizing tendency, humanistic theorists see collaboration between practitioner and client as a required aspect of a helping relationship. When practitioners approach their clients with the belief that they are inherently capable of positive growth, a natural implication arises of working with the client, rather than working on the client. This requires an active engagement of the practitioner in facilitating the client’s own awareness of how they experience themselves, their situation, what it means, and where they want to go with it. It is a fundamental value in humanistic therapy to approach this engagement by honoring the client’s direction (Combs, 1989; Elliott & Greenberg, 2002; Greenberg & Paivio, 1997). So the relationship becomes one of approaching the client as someone to work with in tapping into the client’s own sense of unfolding growth and potential.

TRANSLATION TO COACHING The humanistic therapy approach of a collaborative stance with the client translates very directly to coaching. Whether a client is seeking coaching for improved performance in the workplace, work-life balance, or other reasons, a hallmark of coaching is working with the client to construct meaningful choices and actions for the client’s specific situation.

Directiveness

As an outgrowth of the collaboration between practitioner and client, the question occurs regarding the degree to which the practitioner directs the process and content of interactions. As is discussed further later, because the client is seen as the expert on his or her own experience, directing content is generally not consistent with a humanistic approach. Rather, the practitioner can facilitate the client’s growth by engaging the client through the process of the interaction. In Gestalt therapy (Strümpfel & Goldman, 2002); process-experiential therapy (Elliott & Greenberg, 2002); client-centered therapy (Watson, 2002); and other humanistic approaches, the practitioner is highly involved in directing the client toward greater awareness of experience and choice by using particular techniques developed to help clients explore their “growing edges.”

TRANSLATION FOR COACHING For current coaching practice, there is generally an acceptance of the spirit of this concept of process directiveness as opposed to content directiveness from the humanistic tradition, although the balance may vary. In more personal coaching, the aim is often to help clients flesh out their vision of their ideal existence and then develop and enact steps toward that ideal. But it is not up to the coach to direct the content of that ideal; rather, the coach is there to help the client fully describe it and design steps to take them toward it. In executive, organizational, or performance coaching, the balance of directiveness may be somewhat different, depending on the structure of the coaching contract. There are times that the organizational needs or context require the coach to focus on a specific area with the client; however, coaches still will come down on the side of process directiveness in collaborating with the client about what particular actions are best suited for this particular client. When coaching for skills, the line between content and process directiveness may become a bit fuzzy, as often there is particular content the coach provides (e.g., information about listening skills) in the process of facilitating the client’s skills development.

The Practitioner’s Qualities

For Rogers (1980), it is through an optimal climate (empathy, positive regard, genuineness), in the relationship and provided by the practitioner, that the client’s capacity for self-growth is accessed. Likewise, Gestalt therapists have emphasized the importance of genuine contact and warmth between a therapist who does not claim a su...