Coaching Versus TherapyA Perspective

Vicki Hart Kaiser Permanente

John Blattner PAS International, Inc.

Staci Leipsic Manzanita Associates

This article reports a study of current perceptions

coaching. Whereas therapy and counseling havebeen traditional fields of study and practice,coaching is not as well developed. It is helpful toexamine the perceptions of practicing profession-

laps in these modalities. A set of 7 questions wasused to explore these viewpoints with a partici-pant pool of professional coaches—therapists. In-terview data and narrative summaries provide aperspective on the controversy of coaching ver-sus therapy.

Although the origins of coaching beganback in the 1940s, it wasn't until the 1980sthat the field really came into its own(Hudson, 1999; Tobias, 1996.) As the worldof work and organizations changed, so didthe needs of the individuals within them.Services—such as succession planning,leadership training, and outplacement, toname a few—became more common. Wealso witnessed societal changes, with manyaspects of our lives being more unpredict-able, turbulent, and fragile. Because of thesedynamics and the increasing frequency andspeed of associated transitions, coaching hasevolved as a methodology to fill a need forgrowth as well as continuity in our lives.

Counseling and therapy also assist indi-viduals in need and have their own rich tra-ditions of helping and social influence.Much overlap currently exists betweentherapy-counseling and coaching, includingthe fact that many former therapists haveswitched to coaching or practice both coach-ing and therapy concurrently. Both coach-ing and therapy are based in similar theo-

retical constructs, and similar practitioner-client issues may arise in each. Both profes-sions are based on an ongoing, confidential,one-to-one relationship between the thera-pist or coach and his or her client. "Cli-ents come to therapy or coaching wantingchange, and both professions assume thatsignificant change will occur over time"(Hayden & Whitworth, 1995, p. 1). Theseoverlapping characteristics betweentherapy-counseling and coaching raise is-sues and, in some cases, foster controversyamong professionals in both arenas.

In an effort to articulate, clarify, and fur-ther discern these issues, we conducted face-to-face and telephone interviews with 30geographically dispersed participants. Theparticipant pool was composed of profes-sional colleagues as well as random, self-selected respondents to an Internet-basedrequest for participants. All participants metthe criteria of (a) holding a clinical master'sor doctoral degree and (b) having either ac-tive or former practices in both coaching andtherapy. Participants' demographics are sum-marized in Table 1.

Vicki Hart is an organizational consultant withKaiser Permanente in San Francisco, California.

John Blattner is a psychologist-consultant-coach with PAS International, Inc.

Staci Leipsic is a coach-therapist for Manza-nita Associates in Santa Rosa, California.

Correspondence concerning this article shouldbe addressed to John Blattner, PAS International,Inc., 1000 Maple Avenue, 2nd Floor, DownersGrove, Illinois 60515. Electronic mail may be sentto DrBlatzl@aol.com.

Copyright 2001 by the Educational Publishing Foundation and the Society of Consulting Psychology, 1061^)087A)l/S5.00DOI 10.1037//1061-4087.53.4.229Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, Vol. 53, No. 4, 229-237

229

Table 1Demographic Data of Participants

Demographic dataEducational training

MA or MSWPhD or EdD

Type of coachingGeneric (i.e., personal)Executive

Description of practiceCurrently practicing

coaching and therapyHas practiced both, but

not concurrentlyDescription of clients

IndividualOrganizationIndividual and

organization

Male

69

87

8

7

726

Female

96

105

7

8

618

The experience and opinions drawn fromthese interviews provide the basis for ourinquiry and are categorized and summarizedbelow.

Question 1: FromYour Experience,What Do You Think Is the Critical

Difference Between Coachingand Therapy?

Participants identified between one to sixcritical differences between coaching andtherapy. Their comments emphasized the dis-tinction in focus of attention, time orientation,level of activity, and type of conversation be-tween themselves and their clients.

In therapy, the focus is often on interper-sonal health and an identifiable issue, such asacute depression or relational discord, that in-terferes with the client's level of functioningand current psychodynamic or psychosocialadjustment. The focus is typically retrospec-tive, dealing with unconscious issues and re-pair of damage from earlier experiences, ac-cording to numerous interviewees. Itmay eveninvolve medication, adjunct therapies, andcoordination of services. Discerning and treat-ing pathology and relieving symptoms throughbehavioral, cognitive, or analytic interventionis the domain of the psychotherapist.

The coach's orientation is prospective,focusing on goals, untapped potential, and

critical success factors in a whole person whoseeks to maximize his or her fulfillment inlife and work. Although both approaches in-volve developmental issues and focus onawareness, therapy encourages awareness ofpast injuries in order to promote insight andhealing, whereas coaching focuses on un-tapped present possibilities in order to linkawareness to action.

Regarding level of activity and types ofconversation, coaches are more likely to ini-tiate topics for discussion and to step into asession with ideas and suggestions. They por-tray their coaching interactions as more ac-tive, informal, and self-disclosing, often per-ceiving their coaching clients as experts intheir own right. According to most inter-viewees, conversations in coaching are tiedto business and work objectives. Whereastherapy may be an undefined, wandering pro-cess of uncovering and discovery, coachinginteractions were described by participantsas more structured and task focused, ofteninvolving concrete action plans designed tomove clients toward their defined goals.Therapeutic dialogue is seen as more ofteninvolving the expression of feelings and em o-tional processing. The exploration of depthissues is perceived as outside the boundariesof coaching for nonclinically trained coaches.

Participants also articulated the overlapbetween coaching and therapy. In particular,they highlighted the similar methods of in-quiry, propensity for advice giving, bound-ary issues, and potential power differentialsthat exist in both. Several participants statedthat the grayness between these two ap-proaches to social influence and the currentlack of regulatory standards of practice forcoaching create critical issues for bothprofessions.

Question 2: How Do You Relate toCoaching Clients Versus

Therapy Clients?

Overall, there is a profound difference inrelating while conducting coaching versus

230Fall 2001

therapy with clients. All of the participantsagreed that coaching is more goal directed,action based, and outwardly defined. Whencoaching clients, participantsreportedthem-selves as "self-revelatory," "having a skilledfriendship," and "in partnership." Othercommon themes were having looser bound-aries, being more relaxed, using the self as avehicle for change, and not addressing trans-ference issues. Participants reported usingmore humor, being more actively engaged,and having greater flexibility within thecoaching relationship. There is not the sameneed to "protect" the relationship, and as amarriage and family therapist from Montanaput it, "You can admit that you know themin the grocery store." Almost all of the par-ticipants interviewed for this study admit-ted that they expect more from their coach-ing clients. They indicated that they canadopt less of a caretaking role with theircoaching clients and are not responsible foremotional fragility and looking out for them.A master's-level therapist from British Co-lumbia who is now practicing only coach-ing stated that "coaching is not such a ten-der zone as therapy is."

Most of the participants interviewed forthis article relate to therapy clients in a tra-ditional psychotherapist-client manner. Aclinical psychologist in New Jersey who ispracticing both therapy and coaching stated,

In coaching, once the coach opens the door,the client walks through with little, if any, dif-ficulty. In therapy, the client is more likely tobe reticent, not "seeing the door" or feelingafraid to find out what is on the other side.

In therapy, the emphasis is on past rela-tionships, problems, and behavioral patterns.Participants reported that they are "distant"and "protective" and do not develop friend-ships with their therapy clients. Self-disclo-sure is minimal unless it is considered ben-eficial to the therapeutic process. There isan assumption that the therapy client is dam-aged, lower functioning, or in crisis. Bound-aries are usually rigid and impermeable in

therapy relationships. Another major differ-ence is the use of transference issues intherapy, which is virtually ignored in thecoaching relationship. In therapy, the thera-pist is viewed as the "healer" in the relation-ship, whereas coaching implies more col-laboration between coach and client. Theextensive clinical training and education thatthe therapist has experienced compounds thisposition, primarily because for some timepsychotherapy has aligned itself with themedical model. When a client comes totherapy, he or she has the expectation thatthe therapist is the so-called expert whoknows more about the diagnosis or problemthan he or she (the client) does. This is differ-ent than when a client comes to the coach withthe expectation of a more collaborative model.

Question 3: What Would You Do orNot Do With a Coaching Client

Versus a Therapy Client?

Perhaps the biggest difference betweenexecuting coaching versus therapy for theparticipants we interviewed is the emphasis(or lack thereof) on the client's past. A psy-chologist from Washington State who nolonger practices therapy reported, "Coacheshave to stay in the here and now; they do notgo into the past to try and figure out why aperson is behaving in the way that they are."A PhD psychologist from Massachusettswho practices both coaching and therapydelineated between the two by "not takingup issues pertaining to one's family, not deal-ing with depression and referring out ifsymptoms of pathology are present" whilehe is doing coaching.

Flexibility and duality appear to be over-riding differences between maintainingcoaching versus therapy relations. An EdDwho is the president of a national coachingtraining program for therapists stated, "Thecoaching client can also be in other relation-ships with you [golf, social, etc.] if bound-aries are respected. Dual relationships aretaboo in therapy relationships." Coaching

Fall 2001231

does not carry the same stigma that therapyhas in the past. People are even inclined topublicize the fact that they are receivingcoaching. "I would meet a coaching cli-ent in Starbucks for a session while Iwould never meet a therapy client in apublic place," exclaimed a clinical socialworker from California.

Looser boundaries allow the coach muchmore latitude than the therapist. An exampleof this difference was elucidated by a li-censed clinical social worker in Florida whopractices both therapy and relationshipcoaching:

If a coaching client asks me my birthday, I'lltell them, and even accept a card. If my therapyclient asks me the same question, I'll ask themwhy they want to know or what do they wantto hear.

Participants reported much greater flex-ibility in the delivery of coaching methodsbut tended to rely on the traditional meansof conducting psychotherapy. Participantsinterviewed for this article reported relatingto coaching clients by means of tele sessions(over the phone), the Internet, video con-ferencing, and in-person meetings. Therapyrelations existed largely on a face-to-face ba-sis, relying on telesessions for an em ergencybasis only.

Participants reported a greater feeling ofdependency from their therapy clients. Theexpectation is that the coaching relationshipwill not foster the same level of dependencyand that there will be a more egalitarian re-lationship. A master's-level therapist fromCalifornia reported, "A lot of therapy canbe coaching but not vice-versa." A psycholo-gist from Indiana stated, "Coaching can beused by a therapist as a situational applica-tion when the circumstance requires him toact as a coach, as an adjunct approach. Acoach, on the other hand, is not equipped toact as a therapist."

Among participants there was a strongconsensus that when providing therapy, re-

maining distant is always a concern. How-ever, this concern is not there in coachingrelationships. One therapist-coach fromMaryland reported that he "talks more" incoaching: "I am more likely to offer some-thing that might catapult them in somedirection."

Question 4: What Do You Consider"Red Flags" for Coaches Who Are

Not Trained Therapists?

Responses to this question clusteredaround two areas of concern: (a) the spe-cific client characteristics and issues that acoach needs to be able to recognize as dan-ger signals requiring referral and (b) the is-sues surrounding people acting as coacheswho are not professionally trained clinicians.Starting with the first, the red flags mostoften mentioned as indicators of deeper cli-ent issues include signs of depression, anxi-ety attacks, alcohol or drug addictions,personality disorders, and paranoia. A psy-chologist who trains therapists to becoaches feels that "if the client is stuck in avictim role or emotional drama, not show-ing up, not following through, has seriousemotions in more than one session, or [is]expressing that they cannot go on," a coachshould beware. He stated, "A tight feelingin your gut is a red flag, and don't dancearound it."

Amaster's-trained therapist from Mary-land said,

Watch out for low affect, high degrees ofchaos, and the inability to take action and moveforward on a path. If you feel you have to beoverly responsible, this is not a good sign fora coaching situation.

A clinician trained in organizational be-havior warned that when the "mood of theclient is a prominent feature of the inter-action" and "it takes on the character ofan overarching belief system that youknow may not have anything to do withthe reality of the present-day situation,"

232Fall 2001

the coach should beware. When the clienttells the coach, "You are the only one whocares about me," there is cause for con-cern. Other red flags suggesting the needfor referral include persistent anger oraggression, suicidal ideation, self-destruc-tive impulses or behaviors, and extremedependency.

These issues lead into the second areaof concern held by many participants,starting with whether nonclinicians areable to identify a mental or emotionalproblem that lies beyond the realm ofcoaching. "You must know how to iden-tify, how to ask the right question to as-sess, and how to manage the problem,"stated a psychologist from the San Fran-cisco Bay area. A blind spot for coacheswho are not trained therapists is that "theirparadigm keeps them ignorant and myo-pic in that they approach everyone as ifthey are whole and complete. They do notrecognize pathology, nor have a skill setto manage or treat it," according to a psy-chologist in Oklahoma who is authoring abook on the subject. "They themselvesmay demonstrate their own pathology orunresolved issues within the context of thecoaching relationship without recognizingit."

Boundary issues comprise another areaof concern related to coaching withoutclinical training. As the psychologist fromOklahoma stated, "Coaches may surfacepowerful pockets of transference andcounter transference through establishinghighly intimate dialogues that create apower differential, without any clear pa-rameters or articulation of that process.""One of the advantages of coming from atherapy background is knowing the dis-tinctions, knowing where not to go, buthelping people find a good clinician," saidan executive coach practicing with multi-national corporate clients. A number ofinterviewees raised yet a third concern in-volving ethical behavior and issues of con-fidentiality in coaching given there are

currently no licensing or governingboards. As one participant pointed out,"Protecting confidentiality and keepingagreements are important in coaching butare legally required in therapy."

Question 5: Alternatively, What DoYou Think Is Unique About Coaching

That a Trained "Therapist-Turned-Coach" Needs to Be Aware of While

Coaching?

Perhaps the biggest obstacle that the thera-pist-turned-coach needs to be aware of is thatcoaching is not for every therapist. Coach-ing models seem best suited to goal-orientedtherapists who prefer to enable clients to takeresponsibility for their own process and out-comes, rather than to "fix" the problem(Steele, 2000). Participants strongly statedthe need to stay away from psychodynamicissues. The coach's intention is to keep theprocess moving forward, and discussion ofthe past should be avoided: "You may wantto 'visit' the past, but don't spend time ana-lyzing it." In coaching, one does not focuson symptoms or draw conclusions. As oneparticipant stated simply, "Don't do therapy."

In therapy, one "works to achieve well-ness," whereas in coaching one focuses moreon increasing capacity and reaching goals.The coach is there to help the client achieveresults. As one participant stated, "Peoplewant you to help them, and just listening isnot enough." This often translates into a ne-cessity for the coach to demonstrate businesssavvy and achieve business results. Coachesmust understand how business organizationsfunction and have a grasp of different indus-tries and their particular needs. Having abusiness mindset is important when makingthe transition to coaching.

Participants raised other distinctions be-tween coaching and therapy that therapistsshould be aware of related to timing, sched-uling, and setting an agenda. In coaching thetime frames are not as rigid as in therapy. Asession m ay be broken up into half-hour time

Fall 2001233

blocks and may be weekly or monthly, de-pending on the contract between the coachand the client. So coaching would vary fromthe traditional 50-min hour. The coach needsto guide the process and not direct it. Theclient, not the coach, should establish theagenda for the coaching. Also, many partici-pants agreed that the client is in charge ofthe process as opposed to therapy, where thetherapist is often in charge.

In reference to executive coaching, it wassuggested that the concept of and training inleadership roles is helpful. A coach shouldbe familiar with different styles of manag-ing others. Coaches need to appreciate therole of the individual in the context of theorganization. Overall, the executive coachshould maintain a focus on achieving resultsfor both the client and the organization.

Finally, participants indicated that thera-pists desiring to become coaches wouldgreatly benefit from a formal coaching pro-gram. One study participant suggested that"therapists may need to 'unlearn' therapeu-tic techniques" in which they were previouslytrained and instead learn what is required tobe an effective coach. This may also necessi-tate that therapists-turned-coaches "let go ofthe ego of their title." One participant offeredthis comment: "Being a therapist does not[by definition] make you a good coach."

Question 6: Who Would You Say Is"in Control" in Coaching

and in Therapy?

The participants responded in a varietyof ways to this question. A few participantsindicated that in therapy the therapist is incontrol of the process. This may be attribut-able to the therapist's experience in dealingwith mental health issues or the perceptionthat the particular therapist has of a client.Also, the influence of professional trainingand orientation may play a role in how theprocess is managed. One participant stated,"The issue of control is about 80% of thetherapy."

Another group of participants classifiedcontrol for coaching as a comutual orcocreative process. Coaching is seen as amore collaborative process and morestraightforward than therapy. It appears to bean activity that is shared by both parties andnot controlled by the coach. The coach willguide the person being coached but will notdirectly assume responsibility for the out-come. These participants indicated that incoaching, the person being coached wouldknow that he or she is in charge.

Other participants suggested that the is-sue of control rests with the client. Whetherit is coaching or therapy, they m aintained thatcontrol is always in the hands of the client.One participant stated, "The client is alwaysin charge; in coaching the client knows this,and in therapy, it is something that has to betaught."

Question 7: How Are Contractingand Confidentiality Handled in

Coaching Versus Therapy?

Participants reported mixed responses tothis question. Contracting in coaching ap-pears to be more formal than in therapy. APhD from California confided that

in coaching, there is a clear contract—it isexplicit: "Where are we going, where do youwant to be?" In executive coaching, the orga-nization comes to the coach and says, "we havethis guy who is really messed up."

Other aspects that seem to make coachingcontracts more formal than therapy contractsare quarterly reviews, fixed time lines, opendiscussions of clients' expectations, out-comes, payment made up front, and require-ments to demonstrate targeted results.

According to some participants, contract-ing in therapy appears to be looser and lessdefined. A clinical psychologist from Cali-fornia stated that he does not do much con-tracting in therapy and that he "may use itvery loosely around what it is we need towork on, but do not ratchet it down to spe-

234Fall 2001

cific behaviors or goals." Contracts in therapyappear to be verbal or left to the insurancecompanies. At the opposite end of the spec-trum, a psychologist from Oklahoma statedthat "in therapy, the implied contract is rootedin national standards for ethical practice towhich therapists are held accountable, are re-viewed, monitored, and can be sued."

Approximately one third of the partici-pants interviewed for this study reported nodifference in contracting. A master's-levelclinician from Illinois who is concurrentlypracticing both therapy and coaching seescontracting in both "as the same process—dealing with fees, goal setting, logistics, timeand place." Another psychologist from Indi-ana reported "no real difference—differentpsychologists use different contract models.It depends on the individual."

Confidentiality is a critical aspect of anyhelping relationship. An EdD from Coloradoreported, "Confidentiality is a little looser incoaching, although I do not share who myclient is or any details without their permis-sion. Coaching clients, however, love to tellpeople who their coach is!" Others reportedthat there is a lack of monitoring in coach-ing and that there are not any actual rulespertaining to confidentiality. A PhD fromGeorgia confided, "In coaching, there is notlegal protection. In coaching you could 'blab'to anyone, whereas you are not able to dothat in therapy." Obstacles to confidentialityin coaching include instances when you areworking as an external consultant for a com-pany and when the company is your client.

Overall, most of the therapists who arealso practicing coaching appear to take con-fidentiality very seriously and are skepticalthat other coaches without the clinical train-ing are doing the same. Most therapists whoare doing coaching seem to adhere to thetherapist guidelines and to practice undertheir oath as a psychotherapist. A psycholo-gist from Illinois stated, "Confidentiality incoaching must be cleared with the client first.In therapy, there are laws governing what canbe said and how. You must follow the law."

Managed care has caused the notion ofconfidentiality in therapy to take an inter-esting turn. One m aster's-level therapist fromArizona stated,

There is actually more confidentiality incoaching. People do not realize that when theysubmit their bills to their insurance company[for therapy], their information is publicknowledge. They can access that informationat any time. There are also clearinghouses thata savvy person can call to get the addresses ofpeople with a certain diagnoses from their in-surance companies. Most people don't knowthis.

Summary

This article documents some of thethoughts and concerns expressed by 30 pro-fessionals who practice coaching, therapy, orboth. In summary, participants identifiedseveral distinct differences between coach-ing and therapy, including the focus of at-tention, time orientation, level of activity, andtypes of conversations between themselvesand their clients. They also articulated theoverlap between coaching and therapy; inparticular, they highlighted the sim ilar m eth-ods of inquiry, propensity for advice giving,boundary issues, and potential for power dif-ferentials that exist in both. Second, partici-pants reported that they relate to coachingand therapy clients differently and describedcoaching as more goal directed, action based,and outwardly defined. By contrast, there isan assumption that in therapy the client isoften "damaged," lower functioning, or incrisis. Third, participants reported overrid-ing differences in flexibility and duality be-tween coaching and therapy relations: Dualrelationships are taboo in therapy, whereaslooser boundaries allow the coach muchmore latitude than the therapist. Participantsreported that they have much greater flex-ibility in their coaching relationships and thatthey tend to rely on a more traditional ex-pert-subject relationship with clients whileconducting psychotherapy. In addition, they

Fall 2001235

reported a tendency to stay in the here andnow rather than delving into the past in or-der to determine why a person is behavingas he or she is.

A fourth area of response clustered aroundthe specific client characteristics that a coachneeds to recognize as danger signals requir-ing referral, with coaches who are not pro-fessionally trained clinicians often failing torecognize these red flags. Hallmarks of dan-ger include signs of depression, anxiety at-tacks, alcohol or drug addictions, personal-ity disorders, and paranoia. At the same time,participants also identified that a therapist-turned-coach must have business knowledgein addition to clinical experience (i.e., a busi-ness mindset) and be able to achieve busi-ness results. Therapists may need to avoidusing certain therapy techniques or, more tothe point, realize that being a good therapistdoes not necessarily m ake one a good coach.

Some participants reported that the thera-pist is in control of the therapy process; an-other group classified control in coaching asa comutual or cocreative process. There werealso mixedresponses to questions about con-tracting and confidentiality in coaching ver-sus therapy. In general, contracting in coach-ing appears to be m ore form al than in therapy,where it appears to many to be looser andless defined. However, approximately onethird of the participants reported no differ-ence in contracting. Confidentiality was alsoreported by some to be a little looser incoaching. However, most of the therapistswho are practicing coaching appear to takeconfidentiality very seriously and were skep-tical as to whether nonclinically trainedcoaches are doing the same.

Issues for Future Consideration

The experience and opinions summarizedabove give rise to issues that warrant furtherexploration. Key categories of inquiry sug-gested here include concerns about legalityand accountability, the importance of ad-equate training, and the need for supervision.

Concerns About Legality andAccountability

Issues of ambiguity that arise for thera-pists who are transitioning to coaching in-clude licensing accountability for practicingas a therapist while coaching, governinglaws, and future legislation. As of now, coach-ing is an unregulated field. There are somewho think this may change in the future, andthey are waiting for the first coach to be suedin court. An example of this uncertaintyexists in the state of Washington, where acoach must be registered as a counselor.The law includes the following definition,which has been interpreted by some asincluding coaching:

(5) "Counseling" means employing any thera-peutic techniques, including but not limitedto social work, mental health counseling, mar-riage and family therapy, and hypnotherapy,for a fee that offer, assist or attempt to assistan individual or individuals in the ameliora-tion or adjustment of mental, emotional or be-havioral problems, and includes therapeutictechniques to achieve sensitivity and aware-ness of the self and others and the develop-ment of human potential. (Revised Code ofWashington, 1987)

Many coaches practicing in Washingtonhave interpreted this definition to includetheir profession and have registered in orderto be safe. The likelihood of other states fol-lowing Washington's lead is unknown at thistime.

Importance of Adequate Training

A second issue for future considerationrelates to the need for nonclinicians to re-ceive training to address red-flag issues. Anumber of our participants offered advice inthis arena. In the words of an Olympic coachwho became an executive coach and authoreda coaching book: "A coach is not a therapistand should focus on the issues that the clientbrings. If he (she) is aware of anything that

236Fall 2001

interferes with these issues, that could be acue for a referral." Another psychologist rec-ommended that coaches have a statementthey make for themselves and others as towhat their limits are and that they verbalizeit with examples of what they do and whatthey do not do in coaching:

Elucidating their coaching processes—such asdefining the issues, the goal, the plan of ac-tion, and the deliverables—gives the clientsome perimeter or a container to put her/him-self into. Then the assumption is that [if thecoach] does these things and the client doesnot change, there may be a clinical issue go-ing on.

Weed for Supervision

A third issue and recommendation thatseveral participants voiced is that a coachshould have a coach in addition to adequatetraining. One reason is to ensure that thecoach understands the coachee or client ex-perience. Our participants suggested thatongoing supervision for coaching is impor-tant for professional development, just as apracticum or internship is usually requiredin clinical training. Another purpose of thismentoring relationship is to provide a con-text for working through issues that cross theboundary between coaching and therapy asthey surface in one's coaching practice. Afinal reason relates to the variety and com-plexity of organizations. Although ideally acoach has experience with various organiza-tions and industries, "it is clearly impossible

to have proficiency and expertise with re-gard to all issues" (Laske, 1999, p. 151) thatmay arise with clients. A coach's aptitude isinherently limited by his or her prior expo-sure to specific cultures and professionalexperiences. Peer supervision can enablecoaches to develop "a proficient methodol-ogy, theory and personal ability to work in avariety of environments inhabited by cultur-ally diverse people" (Haber, 1996, p. 34).

If the field of coaching continues to ex-pand, as its current popularity suggests, fu-ture research will no doubt find these andother issues worthy of further inquiry. It islikely that, as more scientifically validatedcoaching practices and their applications areidentified, "professional standards for coach-ing will also emerge" (Laske, 1999, p. 158).

References

Haber, R. (1996). Dimensions of psychotherapysupervision. New York: Norton.

Hayden, C. J., & Whitworth, L. (1995). Distinc-tions between coaching & therapy. TheCoaches Agenda, 1, 1-2.

Hudson, F. M. (1999). The handbook of coach-ing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Laske, O. E. (1999). An integrated model of de-velopmental coaching. Consulting Psychol-ogy Journal: Practice andResearch, 51, 139—159.

Revised Code of Washington c 183 §1 (1995); c3 §27 (1991); c 512 §13.(1987).

Steele, D. (2000, March/April). Professionalcoaching and the marriage and family thera-pist. The California Therapist, pp. 54-55.

Tobias, L. L. (1996). Coaching executives. Con-vulfif? o P ̂ v/'W/i/ziov TniivHni • Pvno ftOP nun

Research, 48, 87-95.

Fall 2001237