International Coaching Psychology...

Special Group in Coaching Psychology

Interest Group in Coaching Psychology

ISSN: 1750-2764

International Coaching Psychology Review

Volume 6 No. 1 March 2011

International Coaching Psychology ReviewEditorial Board

Co-ordinating EditorsUnited Kingdom: Stephen Palmer, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit, Department of Psychology, City University, London, UK.Australia: Michael Cavanagh, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit, School of Psychology, Sydney University, Australia.

Co-EditorsSandy Gordon, PhD, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.Anthony M. Grant, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit, School of Psychology, Sydney University, Australia.Travis Kemp, PhD, International Graduate School of Business, University of South Australia, Australia.David Lane, PhD, Middlesex University, London, UK.Alex Linley, PhD, School of Psychology, University of Leicester, UK.Alison Whybrow, PhD, Manchester University, UK.

International Editorial BoardHilary Armstrong, PhD, Institute of Executive Coaching, Roy Moodley, PhD, University of Toronto, Canada.Sydney, Australia. Richard Nelson-Jones, PhD, Cognitive Humanistic Institute,Paul Atkins, PhD, Australian National University, Thailand.Canberra, Australia. Lindsay Oades, PhD, University of Wollongong, Australia.Tatiana Bachkirova, PhD, Oxford Brookes University, UK. James Pawelski, PhD, Positive Psychology Center,Michael Carroll, PhD, University of Bristol, UK. University of Pennsylvania, USA.Ian Cockerill, PhD, University of Birmingham, UK. Ernesto Spinelli, PhD, Regent’s College, UK.Cary Cooper, PhD, Lancaster University, UK. Reinhard Stelter, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit,Susan David, PhD, Melbourne University, Australia. University of Copenhagen, Denmark.Stephen Joseph, PhD, University of Warwick, UK. Dianne Stober, PhD, Fielding University, USA.Carol Kauffman, PhD, Harvard Medical School, USA. Mary Watts, PhD, City University, London, UK.

SubscriptionsInternational Coaching Psychology Review (ICPR) is published in March and September. It is distributed free of charge to members ofthe British Psychological Society Special Group in Coaching Psychology and the Australian Psychological Society Interest Group inCoaching Psychology members. It is available to non-members (Individuals £50 per volume; Institutions £60 per volume; single copies£25) from: The British Psychological Society, SGCP, St. Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester LE1 7DR. UK.

Abstracting and indexing: The ICPR is abstracted in psycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts and Google Scholar. The ICPR is included Cabell's Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Educational Psychology and Administration and Cabell'sDirectory of Publishing Opportunities in Educational Curriculum and Methods.

Notes for ContributorsThe ICPR is an international publication with a focus on the theory, practice and research in the field of coaching psychology.Submission of academic articles, systematic reviews and other research reports which support evidence-based practice are welcomed.The ICPR may also publish conference reports and papers given at the British Psychological Society Special Group in CoachingPsychology (BPS SGCP) and Australian Psychological Society Interest Group in Coaching Psychology (APS IGCP) conferences, noticesand items of news relevant to the International Coaching Psychology Community.

Case studies and book reviews will be considered.

The ICPR is published by the BPS SGCP in association with the APS IGCP.

1. CirculationThe circulation of the ICPR is worldwide. It is available in hardcopy and PDF format. Papers are invited and encouraged from authorsthroughout the world. It is available free in paper and PDF format to members of the BPS SGCP, and free in PDF format to APS IGCPmembers as a part of their annual membership.

2. LengthPapers should normally be no more than 6000 words, although the Co-Editors retain discretion to publish papers beyond this lengthin cases where the clear and concise expression of the scientific content requires greater length.

3. ReviewingThe publication operates a policy of anonymous peer review. Papers will normally be scrutinised and commented on by at least twoindependent expert referees (in addition to the relevant Co-Editor) although the Co-Editor may process a paper at his or herdiscretion. The referees will not be aware of the identity of the author. All information about authorship including personalacknowledgements and institutional affiliations should be confined to the title page (and the text should be free of such clues asidentifiable self-citations, e.g. ‘In our earlier work…’).

Continued on inside back cover.

The British Psychological SocietySpecial Group in Coaching Psychology

❋

The Australian Psychological Society LtdInterest Group in Coaching Psychology

❋

InternationalCoaching Psychology Review

❋

Volume 6 No. 1 March 2011

❋

Contents

4 Editorial: Coaching psychology: quantitative, qualitative, and theoretical perspectivesMichael Cavanagh & Stephen Palmer

6 The strengths of the strengthspotter: Individual characteristics associated with theidentification of strengths in othersP. Alex Linley & Gurpal Minhas

16 A grounded theory study of the value derived by women in financial services througha coaching intervention to help them identify their strengths and practise using themin the workplaceFrancesca Elston & Dr Ilona Boniwell

33 The experience of using coaching as a learning technique in learner driverdevelopment: An IPA study of adult learningJonathan Passmore & Lance Mortimer

46 Utilising evidence-based leadership theories in coaching for leadership development:Towards a comprehensive integrating conceptual framework Ray Elliott

71 A pilot study evaluating strengths-based coaching for primary school students:Enhancing engagement and hopeWendy Madden, Suzy Green & Anthony M. Grant

Debate

84 Developing an agenda for teaching coaching psychologyAnthony M. Grant

100 Educating coaching psychologists: Responses from the fieldMichael Cavanagh, Stephen Palmer et al.

128 Responses to international commentary on the development of teaching coaching psychologyAnthony M. Grant

Book Review

131 Constructing Stories, Telling Tales: A Guide to Formulation in Applied PsychologyReviewed by Carmel O’Neill

Reports

135 Ist International Congress of Coaching Psychology: UK EventJennifer Liston-Smith, Haley Lancaster & Yvonne McAdam

138 SGCP & IGCP News UpdateAngela Hetherington & Peter Zarris

International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 6 No. 1 March 2011 3© The British Psychological Society – ISSN: 1750-2764

Editorial: Coaching psychology:quantitative, qualitative, and theoreticalperspectivesMichael Cavanagh & Stephen Palmer

4 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 6 No. 1 March 2011© The British Psychological Society – ISSN: 1750-2764

E HAVE a bumper issue of the International Coaching PsychologyReview (ICPR) to start 2011. Both

the number and strength of submissions isencouraging, and suggests that some goodresearch is happening in the field ofcoaching and coaching psychology. It isparticularly encouraging to have received abalance of quantitative, qualitative and theo-retical papers. In this issue, we are alsoproud to introduce a new section to the ICPR– the Debate. It is our hope that, wherepossible, each issue will have paper raisingissues of concern in our developing field,along with invited reactions to that paper.We hope that this section will stimulate widerdiscussion and responses from you. But weare getting ahead of ourselves….

Leading us off in a positive direction isAlex Linley and Gurpal Minhas, who reporton a quantitative study into the strengths ofthose who report they are strong spottingstrengths in others. Their findings are inter-esting for coaching psychology in that theysuggest people who are good at spottingstrengths in others are strong in makingconnections, enabling others and givingfeedback – all core tasks in coaching.

Francesca Elston and Ilona Boniwellfollow with an equally interesting qualitativestudy of the effects of using strengths in theworkplace following strength basedcoaching. Participants in this study were sixfemale executives and a grounded theoryapproach revealed that each experiencedvirtuous cycles that enabled them to over-come factors that had previously blockedtheir use of strengths.

Our second qualitative study wasconducted by Jonathan Passmore and Lance

Mortimer. They used Interpretive Phenome-nological Analysis to explore the experienceof 15 driving instructors who were learningcoaching as a pedagogical tool in drivertraining. They found that coaching was expe-rienced as a useful tool in teaching learnerdrivers.

Ray Elliot presents us with a theoreticalpaper exploring a framework for leadershipcoaching. His framework seeks to ensurethat evidence based knowledge in the fieldof leadership is central to coaching efforts inthis domain.

Wendy Madden, Suzy Green and TonyGrant report on a coaching interventionamong primary school male students. Thisstudy looked into the impact of strengths-based coaching on the students’ reportedengagement and hope. They found thatcoaching improved wellbeing, and they spec-ulate that this may indicate coaching may bea useful tool in the prevention of mentalhealth problems.

Our Debate article this issue wascontributed by Tony Grant. He focuses ondeveloping an agenda for teaching CoachingPsychology. Responses to this article weresought from representatives of the majorcoaching psychology stakeholders in thisdebate – coaching psychologists, coaches,coach educators, professional bodies andindustry representatives. They provide someinteresting perspectives on this issue. If thisarticle or the responses stimulate somethinking in you, we invite you to contribute250 to 1000 words for the next issue.

To whet your appetites for the next issue,the Debate article will be based on Cavanaghand Lane’s keynote at the 1st InternationalCongress of Coaching Psychology held in

W

Editorial

International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 6 No. 1 March 2011 5

London last December. They discuss thechanging nature of our world and theimpact this has on practice, research and thestatus of coaching psychology as field ofprofessional practice. Expect some contro-versial conclusions!

Finally, in this issue we have a Congressreport plus a news update from the leadersof the SGCP and IGCP – there is much goingon in the field of coaching psychology, butwe will let you read this for yourself.

We commend this issue to you and look forward to a great 2011 for coachingpsychology.

CorrespondenceMichael CavanaghCoaching Psychology Unit,Department of Psychology,Sydney University,Sydney, Australia.Email: [email protected]

Stephen PalmerCoaching Psychology Unit,Department of Psychology,City University,Northampton Square,London, UK.Email: [email protected]

The strengths of the strengthspotter:Individual characteristics associated withthe identification of strengths in othersP. Alex Linley & Gurpal Minhas


Objectives: The identification of a client’s personal strengths within the coaching environment is becominga growing focus for coaching psychologists, driven in part by the continued growth of the positive psychologymovement and in part by the evidence for the benefits of strengths use. This study set out to examine thestrengths that may be found in more effective strengthspotters, that is, people who are skilled in theidentification and development of strengths in others.Design: An online survey was used to collect data on the Strengthspotting Scale, together with anassessment of 60 different strengths using the Realise2 model (www.realise2.com). Method: Data were collected from 528 respondents. Analyses used included correlation analysis with the60 strengths of Realise2 and the five subscales of the Strengthspotting Scale. Multiple regression analyseswere used to identify the unique contribution of significantly correlated strengths on the fivestrengthspotting domains. Results: The four strengths of Connector, Enabler, Esteem Builder and Feedback were found across all fivesubscales of the Strengthspotting Scale, through the correlation analyses. Using multiple regression, thestrengths of Connector, Enabler and Feedback were significant predictors for each strengthspotting domain,suggesting that these may be the essence of the personal characteristics of an effective strengthspotter. Conclusions: These data are the first to identify the potential key strengths of the strengthspotter. The dataprovide insights for coaching psychologists and other practitioners who wish to focus on developing theirown ability to coach strengths in others, through indicating which may be the key strengths that enable thecapability of effective strengthspotting.Keywords: Strengths; strengthspotting; coaching; coaching psychology.

OACHES and coaching psychologistsare increasingly using the lessons andtools of positive psychology in their

practice (Biswas-Diener, 2010). Notableamongst this ‘positive psychology tool kit’ areapproaches to the identification, assessmentand development of individual strengths.There are a number of ways in whichstrengths may be identified, using both open-ended and psychometric methods. Moreopen-ended approaches include the Depend-able Strengths Articulation Process devel-oped by Bernard Haldane (1947; see alsoDuttro, 2003), the identification of A-gradeactivities described by Pegg and Moore(2005), the conversational strengths articula-tion process described by Forster (2009), andthe Individual Strengths Assessmentdescribed by Linley (2008a, ch. 4).

These approaches are considered to beopen-ended because they do not have adefined outcome within a pre-defined set ofparameters, as psychometric approaches tothe identification of strengths do. Forexample, each of the psychometricapproaches described below assess strengthsagainst a pre-determined range of strengths.In contrast, the open-ended approachesdescribed above employ a more explicitlysocial-constructivist approach, whereby theidentification of strengths emerges from,and is labelled within, the dialogue betweenfacilitator and client. All of these approachestend to use a ‘funnel’ approach, whereby theprocess begins by asking a series of broadquestions about the person, their experi-ences, the activities they enjoy, and the areaswhere they excel. These areas are then

C

refined through co-construction betweenclient and facilitator, in order to define,agree and potentially label a core set ofstrengths for the individual.

A key distinction between the open-ended approaches and the psychometricapproaches are that the language used in theopen-ended approach will be shaped andagreed by the client and the facilitatortogether. In contrast, in the psychometricapproach, the language is pre-determined asthe language of the assessment tool itself.This lends itself to greater efficacy increating and building a shared language ofstrengths, but is not necessarily as effective ingrounding the individual strengths conceptsin the lived experience of the individualclient.

Psychometric approaches to the identifi-cation of strengths include the use of one ofa number of available strengths tools,including StrengthsFinder (Buckingham &Clifton, 2001) or its recent revision,StrengthsFinder 2.0 (Rath, 2007;www.strengthsfinder.com), the VIA Inven-tory of Strengths (Peterson & Seligman,2004; www.viastrengths.org), Realise2(Linley, Willars & Biswas-Diener, 2010;www.realise2.com), or the InspirationalLeadership Tool (Morris & Garrett, 2010;www.inspiredleadership.org.uk).

Advantages of the more open-endedstrengths identification approaches includetheir flexibility and adaptability to clientneed and client language, and the clientexperience of the results being moregrounded in and emerging from thedialogue with their coach. The disadvantagesinclude the greater requirement forexpertise in strengths identification anddevelopment on the part of the coach, andthe fact that any language developed maynot be a shared language of strengths, butmore limited to the coach and the client.These advantages and disadvantages aremirrored in the opposite direction bypsychometric strengths assessments.

Psychometric strengths assessments aremore easily and quickly administered, and

depend less on the strengthspottingexpertise of the coach. They provide animmediate shared language of strengths thathas proven helpful in broader organisationaland social contexts. Their disadvantage isthat the strengths identified have notemerged through the coaching dialogue,and so may not sit as naturally with eitherclient or coach. This limitation, however, canbe quickly overcome by the coach workingwith the client to identify areas where thisstrength may have helped or hindered them,since providing the evidence of experiencefor strengths identification can also serve asa powerful grounding experience for theclient.

Whichever approach may be adopted bya coach in working with their client to iden-tify strengths, some of the effectiveness ofthe coaching intervention will be deter-mined by the coach’s skills as astrengthspotter, that is, their ability andmotivation to identify and develop strengthsin their clients. The Strengthspotting Scale wasdeveloped by Linley, Garcea et al. (2010) toprovide a ready self-assessment tool forcoaches to assess their own strengthspottingskills, as well as, of course, to inform futureresearch inquiry and developments in thisarea.

Linley, Garcea et al. (2010) identifiedand concurrently validated five dimensionsof strengthspotting, namely: (1) Ability as astrengthspotter – how good you are at doingit; (2) Emotional reaction to strengthspotting,since people who do this well naturally get abuzz from doing it; (3) Motivation to identifystrengths in others, and why we might thinkthat it is important to do so; (4) Application ofstrengthspotting – what people do when theyhave actually identified a strength insomeone; and (5) Frequency of use – howoften they get to practice strengthspotting.The Strengthspotting Scale was shown to haveconvergent validity with extraversion, agree-ableness, openness to experience, optimism,positive affect and strengths knowledge,discriminant validity with negative affect,and no association with conscientiousness or


The strengths of the strengthspotter

P. Alex Linley & Gurpal Minhas

8 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 6 No. 1 March 2011

neuroticism (Linley, Garcea et al., 2010).Convergent validity demonstrates that ameasure is associated positively with otherestablished measures as would be expectedand predicted by theory. Discriminantvalidity demonstrates that a measure is asso-ciated negatively, or not at all, with otherestablished measures, as would be expectedand predicted by theory.

In their consideration of future researchdirections in relation to the StrengthspottingScale, Linley, Garcea et al. (2010) raised thequestion of whether different strengthswould be differentially related tostrengthspotting capability. This researchquestion forms the focus of the currentpaper. Given that this is the first investigationof its type, we did not specify directionalhypotheses or predict specific strengthswhich may associate more strongly withstrengthspotting capability. Instead, we treatthis as an exploratory study that is focusedon providing a first answer to the question ofwhich individual characteristics (strengths)may lend themselves to greater strengthspot-ting capability.

Answering this question has implicationsfor coaches and other practitioners (e.g.L&D consultants, HR Business Partners,therapists, social workers) who may befocused on the assessment and developmentof strengths in their clients. If we know moreabout the personal strengths that enablestrengthspotting, there is then the possibilityto recruit for these strengths at the selectionstage, or to focus on the development ofthese strengths through continuing profes-sional and personal development.

MethodParticipantsParticipants were 528 people recruitedfollowing their completion of Realise2,Capp’s online strengths assessment anddevelopment tool (www.realise2.com). Thisincluded 190 males and 330 females, witheight who did not disclose their demo-graphic data. Participants had a mean age of41.4 years (SD=10.48 years) and a range of

15 to 68 years. They were primarily of aWhite ethnic background (89.8 per cent),with other significant ethnic backgroundsbeing Indian (2.1 per cent) and ‘other’ (1.5per cent).

Measures Realise2 is an online strengths assessmentand development tool that assesses 60different attributes. Participants were askedto respond using a one to seven fully-anchored Likert scale response format.Ratings were provided for each attributeacross three independent dimensions ofenergy (how energising they found some-thing), performance (how good they were atdoing something), and use (how often theywere able to do something). These responseswere then classified, using a proprietaryscoring technology, as Realised or Unre-alised Strengths, Learned Behaviours, orWeaknesses. The 60 attributes included inRealise2 have been described at length byLinley, Willars and Biswas-Diener (2010),while the statistical properties of the tool arereported extensively by Linley (2009),including data on internal consistency relia-bility, test-retest reliability and multipleconcurrent and discriminant validity studies.

The Strengthspotting Scale is a 20-item scaledeveloped by Linley, Garcea et al. (2010). Itincludes five subscales of four items each for:(1) Ability as a strengthspotter – how goodyou are at doing it; (2) Emotional reaction tostrengthspotting, since people who do thiswell naturally get a buzz from doing it,feeling a sense of positive energy andengagement; (3) Motivation to identifystrengths in others, and why we might thinkthat it is important to do so; (4) Application ofstrengthspotting – what people do when theyhave actually identified a strength insomeone; and (5) Frequency of use – howoften they get to practice strengthspotting.Participants responded using a one (stronglyagree) through seven (strongly disagree)fully-anchored Likert scale response format.Internal consistency reliability for thecurrent study was α=.91 for Ability, α=.89 for



Emotional, α=.83 for Motivation, α=.80 forApplication and α= .87 for Frequency.

Design and ProcedureData were collected online, using thesecurely hosted online strengths assessmenttool, Realise2. Participants logged in to thesite using a secure access and password, andthen completed the Realise2 strengths assess-ment tool first, followed by the Strengthspot-ting Scale second. In all cases, it was madeclear that this additional completion of theStrengthspotting Scale was entirely optionaland was to support our ongoing researchprogramme. Data were collected over a four-week period for all participants, with concur-rent completion of both Realise2 and theStrengthspotting Scale in all cases (i.e., therewas no delay between the completion ofthese two measures).

Data AnalysisFirst, we correlated the performance datafrom Realise2 with the five subscales of theStrengthspotting Scale. We opted to focus onthe performance dimension of strengths,because our interest here was in how whatthe best strengthspotters did that enabledthem to be effective in their identificationand development of strengths. Second,having reviewed the pattern of correlationsacross the 60 strengths, we regressed allstrengths with r>.30 on the appropriatesubscale of the Strengthspotting Scale, in orderto determine which of those strengths moststrongly correlated with the subscale indeedpredicted the most unique variance. For thismultiple regression analysis, we used theenter method, given that there was no theo-retical or logical rationale as to differentstrengths preceding one another in theirinfluence on strengthspotting.

ResultsTable 1 presents the correlations betweenthe performance dimensions of the 60strengths of Realise2 and the five subscales ofthe Strengthspotting Scale. The most significantassociations (r>.30 when rounded) with the

Ability subscale were with the eight strengthsof Catalyst, Connector, Emotional Aware-ness, Enabler, Esteem Builder, Feedback,Personalisation and Rapport Builder.

The most significant associations (r>.30when rounded) with the Emotional subscalewere with the five strengths of Connector,Empathic Connection, Enabler, EsteemBuilder, and Feedback.

The most significant associations (r>.30when rounded) with the Frequency subscalewere with the eight strengths of Catalyst,Connector, Emotional Awareness, EmpathicConnection, Enabler, Esteem Builder, Feed-back, and Personalisation.

The most significant associations (r>.30when rounded) with the Motivation subscalewere with the five strengths of Catalyst,Connector, Enabler, Esteem Builder, andFeedback.

The most significant associations (r>.30when rounded) with the Application subscalewere with the 11 strengths of Catalyst,Connector, Counterpoint, Creativity,Enabler, Esteem Builder, Feedback, Growth,Innovation, Legacy and Persuasion. Notably,significant correlations with the fivestrengths of Connector, Enabler, EsteemBuilder, and Feedback were found across allfive subscales of the Strengthspotting Scale,suggesting that these may be consistent corestrengths of an effective strengthspotter.

To investigate these associations further,we conducted multiple regression analysesusing the enter method, regressing thestrengths identified on the appropriatesubscale of the Strengthspotting Scale. Theresults are presented in Table 2. In summary,the significant predictors for the Abilitysubscale were Connector, Emotional Aware-ness, Enabler, Feedback and Personalisation.The significant predictors for the Emotionalsubscale were Connector, Empathic Connec-tion, Enabler, Esteem Builder and Feedback.The significant predictors for the Frequencysubscale were Connector, Empathic Connec-tion, Enabler and Feedback. The significantpredictors for the Motivation subscale wereConnector, Enabler and Feedback. The

Table 1: Strengthspotting Scale Subscale Correlations with Realise2Dimensions of Performance.

Ability Emotional Frequency Motivation Application

Action .174 .167 .156 .158 .275Adherence –.010 –.013 –.040 –.044 –.083Adventure .133 .161 .158 .191 .209Authenticity .149 .176 .132 .149 .161Bounceback .106 .124 .139 .153 .183Catalyst .347 .280 .329 .321 .456Centred .201 .190 .233 .189 .230Change Agent .182 .143 .194 .188 .286Compassion .252 .282 .274 .198 .245Competitive .122 .047 .065 .039 .122Connector .330 .407 .428 .364 .373Counterpoint .236 .203 .234 .203 .298Courage .127 .130 .135 .123 .205Creativity .243 .219 .236 .235 .320Curiosity .150 .167 .175 .152 .135Detail .026 –.033 .010 –.019 –.038Drive .123 .199 .152 .153 .215Efficacy .180 .115 .136 .096 .231Emotional Awareness .388 .264 .324 .151 .250Empathic Connection .290 .343 .361 .215 .268Enabler .370 .374 .365 .454 .506Equality .184 .191 .206 .216 .171Esteem Builder .439 .422 .435 .366 .437Explainer .214 .188 .210 .173 .23Feedback .416 .396 .418 .373 .442Gratitude .128 .191 .224 .196 .161Growth .187 .275 .256 .226 .317Humility .195 .247 .228 .222 .223Humour .173 .131 .186 .098 .135Improver .209 .180 .187 .196 .293Incubator .093 .080 .107 .082 .038Innovation .237 .194 .232 .212 .343Judgement .181 .181 .149 .192 .160Legacy .254 .277 .281 .256 .336Listener .200 .226 .247 .188 .153Mission .148 .236 .207 .206 .195Moral Compass .231 .248 .217 .232 .214Narrator .266 .232 .293 .218 .238Optimism .126 .178 .154 .196 .210Order .049 .103 .052 .083 .088Persistence .020 .062 .047 .105 .029Personal Responsibility .091 .079 .058 .066 .086Personalisation .328 .255 .309 .249 .195Persuasion .270 .269 .251 .281 .340



Ability Emotional Frequency Motivation Application

Planful .017 .074 .057 .080 .057Prevention .133 .109 .143 .124 .175Pride .178 .170 .123 .117 .163Rapport Builder .295 .222 .283 .197 .226Reconfiguration .093 .095 .121 .093 .204Relationship Deepener .245 .203 .245 .155 .202Resilience .118 .083 .127 .110 .146Resolver .114 .067 .084 .085 .161Scribe .244 .123 .163 .081 .160Self-awareness .232 .181 .212 .127 .224Service .177 .253 .231 .247 .204Spotlight .220 .201 .198 .219 .278Strategic Awareness .243 .221 .269 .263 .249Time Optimiser .103 .150 .191 .158 .196Unconditionality .195 .231 .205 .190 .131Work Ethic .017 .160 .092 .147 .116

Note: Correlations are reported for performance. Values of <.085 are non-significant. Values of .086 to .110 aresignificant at p<.05. Values of .114 to .136 are significant at p<.01. Values of .139 to .506 are significant at p<.001.

significant predictors for the Applicationsubscale were Catalyst, Connector, Enabler,Feedback and Growth.

Across all five multiple regressions thatwere conducted, the strengths of Connector,Enabler and Feedback were significantpredictors for each subscale of theStrengthspotting Scale, thereby suggesting thatthese three strengths may be at the heart ofwhat it takes to be an effectivestrengthspotter, even when controlling forother strengths associated with differentstrengthspotting domains.

DiscussionThis study provides the first data of which weare aware that explores the strengths of thestrengthspotter, and in so doing answers oneof the fundamental research questionsraised by Linley, Garcea et al. (2010). Ourfindings show that there are a number ofstrengths associated with the differentdomains of strengthspotting capability, but

the five strengths of Connector, Enabler,Esteem Builder and Feedback were foundacross all five subscales of the StrengthspottingScale, suggesting that these may be consistentcore strengths of an effective strength-spotter. When the analysis was taken to thesecond stage, using multiple regression tocancel out the shared variance betweenstrengths, the strengths of Connector,Enabler and Feedback were significantpredictors for each strengthspottingdomain, suggesting that these may be theessence of the personal characteristics of aneffective strengthspotter.

On this basis, we might expect expertstrengthspotters to be people who are able to make connections between things(Connector), who are focused on helpingothers to achieve the things of which they arecapable (Enabler), and who are well-versedin giving people positive or negative feedbackon their own performance (Feedback). Theinclusion of Connector here is perhaps least



B SE (B) β t R R2

Ability: .578 .334Catalyst .300 .166 .082 1.810Connector .282 .134 .088 2.106*Emotional Awareness .809 .162 .208 4.998***Enabler .434 .153 .129 2.834**Esteem Builder .405 .210 .096 1.925Feedback .547 .171 .148 3.201***Personalisation .377 .168 .094 2.246*Rapport Builder .159 .142 .047 1.122Emotional: .555 .309Connector .739 .137 .222 5.397***Empathic Connection .588 .162 .150 3.643***Enabler .501 .154 .143 3.247***Esteem Builder .533 .212 .122 2.513*Feedback .604 .179 .156 3.373***Frequency: .586 .343Catalyst .198 .182 .048 1.088Connector .831 .148 .229 5.631***Emotional Awareness .362 .201 .082 1.799Empathic Connection .435 .200 .102 2.176*Enabler .400 .172 .105 2.323*Esteem Builder .371 .240 .078 1.547Feedback .712 .192 .170 3.703***Personalisation .330 .189 .072 1.743Motivation: .533 .284Catalyst .083 .170 .022 .487Connector .648 .135 .199 4.795***Enabler .949 .161 .277 5.897***Esteem Builder .370 .207 .086 1.783Feedback .476 .178 .126 2.667**Application: .640 .410Catalyst .405 .182 .098 2.226*Connector .471 .139 .130 3.381***Counterpoint .110 .201 .025 .547Creativity .159 .234 .037 .677Enabler .722 .172 .189 4.192***Esteem Builder .417 .214 .087 1.947Feedback .654 .182 .156 3.600***Growth .570 .184 .114 3.105**Innovation .336 .228 .081 1.472Legacy .099 .174 .023 .571Persuasion .313 .178 .069 1.760



Table 2: Multiple Regression of Most Strongly Correlated Strengths by Performance onStrengthspotting Scale Subscales.

Note: Multiple regressions conducted using the enter method, with all predictor variables regressed simultaneously.*p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

intuitive, and may reflect the necessity for theeffective strengthspotter to be able to makeconnections between different strengths,situations, strategies and opportunities inorder to be most effective in their develop-ment of others. We note explicitly that thisresearch was exploratory, and so the findingshere should be taken as such. We did nothave theory-driven hypotheses that informedour analytic strategy, but rather sought toexplore the associations that existed, giventhat there is no prior data or evidence in thisarea of research. As such, we note that ourexplanations and interpretations are by defi-nition post hoc, rather than a priori, andshould be interpreted as such.

Of course, this data is all based on self-report, so we do not know if participants whorated themselves as more capablestrengthspotters are actually more capablestrengthspotters in practice. Further, theparticipants were drawn from a generalpopulation of people completing Realise2,and while this almost certainly includes somecoaches and other development practi-tioners, they did not comprise the entiresample from which our data are drawn. Assuch, there are future research opportunitiesto address these questions both with partic-ular population groups who are focused onthe identification and development ofstrengths in others (e.g. coaches, socialworkers, therapists) and to do so in a waythat also involves the client perspective orother objective data on the effectiveness ofthe practitioner’s strengthspotting capability.

To address these questions, futureresearch should seek to address four keyquestions. First, qualitative investigation andanalysis of what is actually happening in theexperiential world of the strengthspottermay help us better understand the corepsychological processes that underpin effec-tive strengthspotting. Examining thephenomenological experience of thestrengthspotter, as they are engaged in theirstrengthspotting, would likely provide anumber of fruitful research avenues thatwould serve to deepen our nascent under-

standing of this individual capability andsocio-psychological process.

Second, while the Strengthspotting Scalealready includes an ‘Ability’ subscale, this isby definition self-report, and so onlyprovides data on a person’s perceptions oftheir own strengthspotting abilities. It wouldbe instructive to look to the development ofa more robust assessment of strengthspot-ting ability, for example, through the scoringof vignettes that allow for the potential iden-tification of strengths, through interviewassessment designed to elicit strengthspot-ting capability, or through a peer- or client-rated multi-rater assessment, therebyallowing the strengthspotters own abilityratings to be correlated with those abilities asthey are perceived by others significant tothe context (e.g. colleagues and/or clients).

Third, establishment of a more robustassessment of strengthspotting ability wouldthen lend itself to experimental comparisonsof strengthspotting ability across differentgroups. Comparison groups of interest mayinclude, for example, male relative to female(with females predicted to demonstratehigher levels of relational strengths,according to evolutionary theory); coachingpsychologists relative to coaches (withcoaching psychologists having a greaterpsychological training, and so being poten-tially more equipped for the psychologicalprocess of strengthspotting), and coachingpsychologists relative to therapists or socialworkers (with therapists and social workersexplicitly working with strengths – see Linley& Burns, 2010; Saleebey, 2006).

Fourth, we did not examine explicitly therole played by personality factors in the rela-tionship between individual strengths andthe strengthspotting domains. Interpretablecorrelations between the Realise2 strengthsand Big Five personality measures have beenreported, typically being in the low-mediumeffect size range (Linley, 2009). Similarly,correlations between Big Five personalitymeasures and the Strengthspotting Scale havealso been reported (Linley, Garcea et al.,2010). As such, the question remains as to





whether the associations between Realise2strengths and strengthspotting are simplystatistical artefacts of latent associationsacross personality dimensions. This can beaddresses in future research by includingpersonality measures in any data collectionand analysis.

The question of whether strengths can bedeveloped remains an open one, with twobroad camps. First, there are those whowould argue that strengths are innatetalents, and as such, we are essentially bornwith what we have. Second, there are those –specifically including the authors – whobelieve that far from this being the case,strengths can be developed. It is certainlytrue that we may have predispositionstowards some areas rather than others, yet itis equally the case that through effort, atten-tion and practice we can improve ourperformance in different areas of ourchoosing. This dynamic development ofstrengths is the underlying philosophicalprinciple on which the Realise2 model wasconstructed, and which was used in thisresearch.

Importantly, broader research fromeducation and other fields shows quiteclearly the limitations of having what isdescribed as a ‘fixed mindset’ relative to a‘growth mindset’ (Dweck, 2006). The effec-tive deployment, development and realisa-tion of strengths depends on adopting aperspective that sees strengths as capable ofdevelopment, rather than as more innate,fixed qualities. While this article does notspeak specifically to the question of strengthsdevelopment, the role of the strengthspotteris at least half redundant if this premise isrejected.

Coaching psychologists and practitionersin other helping professions are shiftingtheir focus more towards understanding thestrengths of their clients, and how usingthese strengths can help enable their clientsto achieve their goals (cf. Linley, Nielsen etal., 2010). Hence, understanding thestrengths of the strengthspotter may enableand equip us to select and develop coachingpsychologists and other practitioners for thisskill set. In doing so, we will understandmore about the strengths that will enable usto strengthen others.

AcknowledgementsWe thank our participants for being willingto complete the Strengthspotting Scale insupport of our research programme,following their completion of Realise2,Capp’s online strengths assessment anddevelopment tool.

P. Alex Linley & Gurpal MinhasCentre of Applied Positive Psychology.www.cappeu.com

CorrespondenceP. Alex Linley, PhDCentre of Applied Positive Psychology, The Venture Centre, University of Warwick Science Park,Coventry, CV4 7EZ, UK.Email: [email protected]

Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). Practicing positive psychologycoaching: Assessment, diagnosis and intervention.Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Buckingham, M. & Clifton, D. (2001). Now, discoveryour strengths. New York: Free Press.

Duttro, K. (Ed.) (2003). Special issue: The influenceof Bernard Haldane. Career Planning and AdultDevelopment Journal, 19(3), 1–128.

Dweck, C.S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology ofsuccess. New York: Random House.

Forster, J.R. (2009). Articulating strengths together: An interactive process to enhance positivity. New York:Booksurge.

Haldane, B. (1947). A pattern for executive place-ment. Harvard Business Review, 25(4a), 652–663.

Linley, P.A. (2008). Average to A+: Realising strengths inyourself and others. Coventry, UK: CAPP Press.

Linley, P.A. (2009). Technical manual and statisticalproperties of Realise2. Coventry, UK: Centre ofApplied Positive Psychology. Available fromwww.cappeu.com/realise2.htm

Linley, P.A. & Burns, G.W. (2010). Strengthspotting:Finding and developing client resources in themanagement of intense anger. In G.W. Burns(Ed.), Happiness, healing, enhancement: Your case-book collection for applying positive psychotherapy(pp.3–14). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Linley, P.A., Garcea, N., Hill, J., Minhas, G., Trenier,E. & Willars, J. (2010). Strengthspotting incoaching: Conceptualisation and development ofthe Strengthspotting Scale. International CoachingPsychology Review, 5(2), 165–176.

Linley, P.A., Nielsen, K.M., Wood, A.M., Gillett, R. &Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). Using signaturestrengths in pursuit of goals: Effects on goalprogress, need satisfaction, and wellbeing, andimplications for coaching psychologists. Inter-national Coaching Psychology Review, 5(1), 8–17.

Linley, P.A., Willars, J. & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010). TheStrengths Book: Be confident, be successful, and enjoybetter relationships by realising the best of you.Coventry, UK: CAPP Press.

Minhas, G. (2010). Developing realised and unre-alised strengths: Implications for engagement,self-esteem, life satisfaction and wellbeing. Assessment and Development Matters, 2(1), 12–16.

Morris, D. & Garrett, J. (2010). Strengths: Yourleading edge. In P.A. Linley, S. Harrington & N.J.Garcea (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positivepsychology and work. New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

Pegg, M. & Moore, S. (2005). Strengths coaching in 90minutes. Cirencester, England: ManagementBooks 2000.

Peterson, C. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2004). Characterstrengths and virtues: A handbook and classification.New York: Oxford University Press.

Rath, T. (2007). StrengthsFinder 2.0. New York: GallupPress.

Saleebey, D. (Ed.) (2006). The strengths perspective insocial work practice (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &Bacon.

References



A grounded theory study of the valuederived by women in financial servicesthrough a coaching intervention to helpthem identify their strengths and practiseusing them in the workplaceFrancesca Elston & Dr Ilona Boniwell

Objectives: There are several definitions of strengths within psychology, united by a common theme:strengths are what people do best and most easily. Research shows that actively using strengths provides arange of benefits, and suggests that strengths-based coaching is a valuable approach. This study’s purposewas to investigate strengths-based coaching using qualitative methods, concentrating on the experience ofthe coachee.Design: The study explored what happened when six women in financial services practised using theirstrengths at work, through a coaching intervention and the VIA strengths inventory. Through three semi-structured interviews centred around a coaching intervention, participants described their experience usingstrengths, and the effects of greater awareness and practice of strengths. Methods: The data was analysed using grounded theory. The value of strengths emerged as the centralphenomenon, consisting of eight sub-themes: positive emotion, inspiring action, attention to the positive,feeling authentic, awareness of own value, valuing difference, sense of achievement and positive reflectionsfrom others.Results: The study found that all participants derived value from using strengths. This appeared to leadto a ‘virtuous circle’: this positive benefit reduced the intervening factors that previously impeded usingstrengths. The virtuous circle was not identical for each participant, but all experienced it. Conclusions: The study finds ways in which women may use strengths and gain value from using strengthsin the workplace. This has practical implications for those wishing to improve their workplace experienceand increase engagement with work, and for those who coach and employ them.


THE USE of strengths in coaching isbecoming increasingly popular, andthere is a growing body of research in

this area. This provides valuable informationabout how coaches can best work withstrengths to help their clients achieve results.

However, this is still a relatively recent fieldof study. One area that is not well researchedis the experience people have when they areusing their strengths. Understanding thiscould be valuable to coaches in usingstrengths with clients. This qualitative study ofa strengths coaching intervention hopes toprovide some insight into that question.

Review of literatureLinley, Willars and Biswas-Diener (2010c)point out the need for a clear definition ofstrengths. The canonical classification is theVIA-IS (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), wherevirtues are defined as ‘the core characteris-tics valued by moral philosophers and reli-gious thinkers’, and strengths as ‘thepsychological ingredients…that define thevirtues’ (Peterson & Seligman, 2004, p.13).

Buckingham and Clifton (2002) definestrengths as ‘the ability to consistentlyprovide near-perfect performance’. Linley(2008) defines a strength as ‘a pre-existingcapacity for a particular way of behaving,

A grounded theory study of the value derived by women in financial services…


thinking, or feeling that is authentic andenergising to the user, and enables optimalfunctioning, development and perform-ance’ (p.9). Definitions are broader stillwithin counselling, vocational psychologyand social work, suggesting that strengths liein both knowledge and skills, and that theyare situated in relationships and communi-ties as well as individuals (Smith, 2006a;Saleebey, 2001). This study uses Linley’s(2008) definition, which allows a flexibledefinition of strengths, but places themwithin the individual. This fits with the focuson coaching.

Many strengths are known to be benefi-cial. Peterson, Park and Seligman (2006)and Peterson et al. (2007) associate certaincharacter strengths with wellbeing. Lopez,Snyder and Rasmussen (2003) summariselinks between strengths and a range ofphysical, psychological and social benefits.There is evidence that strengths are valuablein counselling and social work, and thatstrengths-based methods bring benefits forclients. (e.g. Brun & Rapp, 2001; Saleebey,1996; Smith, 2006a).

There is growing evidence to support thebenefits of strengths use. Linley et al.(2010b) find that strengths use is associatedwith goal progress, which is associated withgreater need satisfaction, and both these areassociated with increased wellbeing. Proctor,Maltby and Linley (2009) find that strengthsuse uniquely predicts subjective wellbeing.Minhas (2010) finds that using strengthscould lead to an increase in self-esteem,psychological wellbeing and satisfaction withlife. Linley et al. (2010a) provide a conciseoverview of the benefits of strengths use.

The use of strengths might improve expe-rience in the workplace. Harter, Schmidtand Hayes (2002) find that strengths useincreases employee engagement. Strengthsmight be valuable in providing a positivelanguage for differences from organisationalnorms, and enabling greater authenticityand engagement (Peterson & Seligman,2004). Minhas (2010) finds that strengthsuse led to significantly increased engage-

ment. Linley, Woolston and Biswas-Diener(2009) find that people who use theirstrengths perform better at work.

There is also evidence that strengths areof value in coaching. Linley et al. (2010c)provide several case studies of successfulstrengths coaching. Oades, Crowe andNguyen (2009) describe how a strengths-based coaching model in a hospital led tomore powerful and affirmative frames formental health patients. They credit themodel with changing individual mindsetsand cultures. Although Minhas’s (2010)work does not involve a coach, the actionplanning facility of the Realise2 strengths tool(Linley et al., 2010c) is used as part of theintervention.

Linley et al. (2010b) observe that it isimportant not just to know that strengths areuseful but to understand how they work.They propose a model that links strength towellbeing through the achievement of self-concordant goals. However, whilst providingan explanation for how strengths lead tobenefits, this model does not address whathappens to people when they use theirstrengths. It is focused on the externaloutcomes of strengths use rather than theaccompanying internal processes.

The literature on strengths suggestseveral possibilities for how strengths workwithin us. For example, strengths may belinked to a positive self-concept. Roberts et al.(2005) invoke the ‘reflected best self – envi-sioning the self at one’s best, and then actingon this vision to translate possibilities for theextraordinary into reality’ (p.712). Theirtheory is among the most detailed accountsof how strengths might develop, but they donot adduce evidence to support it.

Snyder et al. (2006) find that therapists’assessment of strengths leads to greaterawareness and flexibility for the client indetermining routes to desired outcomes (seealso Sheridan et al., 2004; Smith, 2006b).Robitschek and Woodson (2006) claim thatpositive self-exploration is an essentialcomponent of strengths.

Francesca Elston & Dr Ilona Boniwell


However, Seligman et al. (2005) find thatfocusing on ‘you at your best’ alone does notincrease wellbeing. Also, strengths usepredicts wellbeing even after controlling forself-efficacy (Govindji & Linley, 2007), butstrengths knowledge does not. This is consis-tent with Linley et al.’s (2010b) model of thestrengths use leading to goal achievement,and with Pritchard’s (2009) findings that it isnot simply sufficient to identify one’sstrengths – a development component iscrucial too.

It has been theorised that strengthsmight link to self-efficacy. Pritchard (2009)shows that academic self-efficacy increasedin students as a result of a strengths inter-vention. Govindji and Linley (2007) findthat strengths knowledge and strengths useare significantly associated with self-efficacy.Harris, Thoresen and Lopez (2007) proposethat strengths-based approaches act cogni-tively, leading people to reframe problemsmore constructively, and cite evidencesupporting this.

However, Smith (2006b) describes‘countless stories about people who evidencelow perceived self-efficacy but displaysurprising strength in dealing with chal-lenging situations’ (p.135). Also strengthsuse predicts SWB and psychological well-being even after controlling for self-efficacy(Govindji & Linley, 2007). So this alone isinsufficient to explain strengths,

There is evidence that strengths mayrelate not just to individual character butalso to the environment. Biswas-Diener(2006) finds ‘differences between and withincultures in terms of…cultural institutionsthat promote each strength’ (p.293) and,interestingly, the students interviewed bySteen, Kachorek and Peterson (2003)suggested that ‘school actually hindered thedevelopment of certain character strengths’(p.10). There is evidence that case-workers’ability to regard the client positively is criticalto successful development of strength (e.g.Noble, Perkins & Fatout, 2000; Saleebey,1996; Snyder et al., 2006; Wong, 2006).

Relationships may also affect strengthsuse. Peterson and Seligman (2003) speculatethat ‘people behaved differently by turningto others, which in turn changed their socialworlds so that the relevant behaviours wererewarded and thus maintained’ (p.383).Losada and Heaphy (2004) show that inter-personal connections build durable psycho-logical resources. Researchers in counsellingand social work situate strengths beyond theself, in relationships, communities and theenvironment (e.g. Noble et al., 2000;Saleebey, 1996; Smith, 2006a).

Aims of the studyThe body of literature reviewed abovesuggests that there is growing evidence forthe value of strengths in coaching. However,the question of how strengths work has notyet been answered satisfactorily.

This ‘pilot’ study aimed to provide someinsight into the question: what is happeningto people when they use their strengths? Itwas hoped that this might be a valuable addi-tion to the growing body of work on thebenefits of strengths use, for two reasons:,because it focuses primarily on the indi-vidual experience of strengths and becauseof the use of qualitative research methods.

The study was centred round a coachingintervention in which each of the partici-pants identified their strengths and thenactively practised using their strengths in theworkplace. A qualitative grounded theorymethodology (Glaser & Strauss, 1967) isused. Bartunek and Seo (2002) show howqualitative research can increase under-standing of local perceptions. Boniwell andHenry (2007) explain how qualitativemethods can lead to identification ofconstructs and models that can be investi-gated using scientific methods. Gyllensten etal. (2010) use qualitative methods to elicitbenefits of cognitive coaching.

MethodThe research used a grounded theoryapproach. Grounded theory can be said tohold elements of both a positivist and an



interpretivist research paradigm (Smith,2008). It is often considered to be the most‘scientific’ qualitative research methodology(e.g. Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Payne, 2007).Grounded theory is becoming morecommon in studies of coaching (e.g. Pass-more & McGoldrick, 2009; Passmore, 2010).

This study uses Strauss and Corbin’s(1998) methodology for grounded theory,for two reasons. Firstly, the transcribed dataset is over 300 pages long, and this struc-tured method provides rigour in ensuringthat a theory is drawn from it systematically.Secondly, the only other study of strengthsusing grounded theory (Pritchard, 2009)uses Strauss and Corbin’s methodology.

Glaser and Strauss (1967) and Smith(2008) suggest grounded theory can be usedto interpret any data set, so the inclusion ofthe coaching intervention is not unconven-tional for the design of a grounded theorystudy. Strauss and Corbin (1997) describegrounded theory studies which collect a widerange of data from different sources.

Research designThere were six participants. Two were in their20s, two in their 30s and two in their 40s. Thisis not a demographically diverse population,but there is value in this similarity, because itadds more weight to the participants’ experi-ence when it is consistent.

In addition, although not necessarilydissatisfied with their work situation, all butone of the participants had stated that theydesired more engagement at work. Somebelieved that they were not valued and foundthis problematic.

Data collection took place through threesemi-structured interviews with each partici-pant. In the first, the inquiry explored twomain themes: (a) what do the participantsbelieve that their strengths are; and (b) whathappens when participants use theirstrengths.

Second interviews took place after theparticipants took the VIA strengths inventory(Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Linley et al.(2010b) describe the survey as ‘the most

widely used strengths assessment specificallyassociated with the positive psychology move-ment to date’ (p.7). The classification wasused as a starting point for participants todefine their strengths; after reviewing theirtop five ‘signature’ strengths, they reviewedthe full list of strengths alphabetically toidentify other strengths that resonated forthem. They subsequently added their ownpersonal list of strengths.

Linley et al. (2010a) analyse the pros andcons of using strengths scales; this studyhoped to combine the advantages of both byusing a well-known strengths scale but alsoallowing participants to supplement it withstrengths that they had identified themselves.

The primary focus of the second inter-view was a coaching intervention around thestrengths that had been identified. Throughopen questioning and support from thecoach, each participant explored ways to useeach strength at work and created a list ofactions. During these interviews, theresearcher also asked questions about theparticipants’ experiences of using theirstrengths since the first interviews.

The final interviews focused on theoutcomes of the strengths practice and whathappened as a result.

In grounded theory, data analysis andtheory generation are inextricably inter-twined. Initial analysis gives rise to a theorythat can be tested and refined throughfurther rounds of analysis. Data analysis takesplace through assigning codes to the data,then using axial coding to aggregate codesinto categories and establish relationshipsbetween them. This enables creation of atheory that shows the relationships betweenoverarching themes (Strauss & Corbin,1998). Table 1 shows the code statistics forthe axial coding, comprising the frequencieswith which they occurred and the number ofparticipants who referred to them.

Figure 1 shows the axial coding modelfor this study. This used the componentsoutlined in Creswell’s (2005) description ofthe requirements for an axial coding para-digm, as used in Pritchard (2009).

Table 1: Coding statistics from the middle round of coding (Axial).

Category Frequency/ Category Frequency/no. of participants no. of participants

Other-focus 274/6 Collaboration 59/5

Positive self-management 258/6 Positive feedback 56/6

Positive self-concept 218/6 Negative emotion from 55/6using strengths

Positive emotions when 180/6 Positive view of own 53/6using strengths difference

Attention focused on 170/6 Creativity and different 51/4negative approach

Valuing strengths 162/6 Identification with VIA 49/6approach strengths

Engaging others 155/6 Positive organisational fit 48/5

Integrity and authenticity 132/6 Lack of authenticity 45/6

High engagement 131/6 Believing she can make 43/4a difference

Attention focused on 113/6 Low engagement 43/6positive

Conscious use of 110/5 Lack of identification 39/6strengths with VIA strengths

Negative self-concept 105/6 Self-focus 32/6

Desire for achievement 101/6 Positive relationships 31/6with authority figures

Negative organisational 101/6 Negative relationships 29/5fit with authority figures

Getting things done 98/6 What is a strength 24/6

Using strengths 93/6 Negative view of own 20/6automatically difference

Sense of achievement 80/6 Negative feedback 19/5

Problem solving 78/6 VIA strengths useful 19/6

Wanting to make a 73/6 VIA strengths not useful 14/3difference

Want to help others 70/6 Valuing difference 12/3

Negative 64/6 Believing she can't 8/2self-management make a difference



Figure 1.

Causal conditionsHigh engagement

Positive relationship with workDesire for achievement

Wanting to make a differenceWanting to help others

Using strengths automatically

Intervening conditionsLow engagement

Negative relationship with workNegative self-concept

Other-focusNot feeling valued

Core phenomenonUsing personal strengths

Using skillsDeriving value from strengths

Virtuous circle

StrategiesPracticing strengths

Awareness of strengthsPositive reframing of self

and othersAwareness of difference

ConsequencesPositive emotion

Sense of achievementRenewed engagement

Attention to the positiveSelf-focus

Positive self-concept



This led to a final round of theoreticalcoding. Table 2 shows the statistics for thecodes that formed the basis of the finaltheory, comprising the frequencies withwhich they occurred and the number ofparticipants who referred to them.

Finally, the relationships between thecategories were re-examined to produce andtest the final theory, represented in Figure 2.

The study used several methods to ensurevalidity. In particular, the grounded theorymethodology’s rigorous structure for coding,analysis and theory generation contributedto this (e.g. Strauss & Corbin, 1998).

The study was made more reliable bytriangulation of data over time, and theconsistency of the participants’ experienceslends credibility. Payne (2007) suggests that

another measure of validity is the soundnessof fit between theory and data, which is againsupported here.

Each participant was asked to review herinterview summary and provide feedback, toensure that the researcher’s interpretationof the data was consistent with the partici-pants’ own experience. They were eithervery minor comments or none at all.

Critiques could include that only oneresearcher has been involved and the data isdrawn from one source type, semi-structuredinterviews. Also, the researcher has noprevious experience in grounded theory. Tomitigate this, two research supervisors alsoprovided input to the study design and oneof them also agreed the design of the inter-view protocols.

Any qualitative study highlights the roleof the researcher (Willig, 2001). Riley,Schouten and Cahill (2003) point out thepower dynamics of the researcher’s role,particularly relevant here because of thecoaching intervention. Specifically, partici-pants might have regarded the researcher asan ‘expert’ because the second interviewinvolved the researcher coaching the partici-pants, which can feel like an ‘expert’ role.Therefore, participants might not have feltable to be honest if they were not finding thestudy useful.

Three strategies were selected to managethis. The first was discussing the powerdynamic with participants in order tominimise its effect (McArdle, 2004). Thesecond was designing the interviews tominimise the voice of the researcher andmaximise the voice of participants, throughusing open questions that focused on theparticipants’ experience in their own words.Finally, the analytic process includedreturning to the data repeatedly to ensurethat the theory was genuinely grounded inthe participants’ voices, making conscious



Table 2: Coding statistics from the final round of coding (Theory).

Category Frequency/ Category Frequency/no. of participants no. of participants

Towards a positive goal 286/6 Valuing difference 86/6

Other-focus 267/6 Sense of achievement 82/6

Positive self-concept 225/6 Problem solving 69/6

Positive emotion 177/6 Lack of commitment 55/6

Commitment 164/6 Positive reflections from 54/6from others

Positive attitude 162/6 Not inspiring action 53/6

Inspiring action 158/6 Creativity and different 51/5approach

Attention to the negative 148/6 Negative emotion 48/6

Engaging others 144/6 Positive organisational fit 47/6

Feeling authentic 122/6 Not feeling authentic 46/6

Awareness of own value 116/6 Positive relationships with 29/6authority figures

Attention to the positive 115/6 Self-focus 29/6

Negative self-concept 105/6 Negative relationships 29/5with authority figures

Negative organisational fit 102/6 Not valuing difference 21/5

Getting things done 94/6 Negative reflections 18/5from others

Negative attitude 94/6 Lack of awareness 6/3of own value

Invoked automatically 89/6 Lack of sense of 2/2achievement

Integrity 88/6



Figure 2.

choices to excise the responses of theresearcher so they interfered as little aspossible with interpreting participants’stories (Riley et al., 2003).

The study was conducted in accordancewith University of East London ethical guide-lines (UEL, 2010) and Willig’s (2001)overview of ethical standards for qualitativeresearch. Each participant has been given apseudonym, which is used throughout thispaper.

ResultsThe study showed that participants derivedvalue from discussing, learning about andusing their strengths, and that this value wasexperienced in several ways. It identifiedintermediating factors affecting how partici-pants viewed their strengths and deployedthem at work. Finally, it found that the use of

strengths had some impact on the interme-diating factors, creating ‘virtuous circles’ formany participants. Each theme is reviewed inturn.

(1) Using strengthsThe study showed how participants made aconscious effort to use their strengths. Theydiscussed both the act itself, using words like‘trying’, ‘preparing’ or ‘taking the time to’,and the intention behind it, with indicatorssuch as ‘making a point of’, or ‘making aneffort’. Strengths were used deliberately inpursuit of a personal goal – almost everyconscious act had a purpose that the partici-pant considered important.

In addition to using strengths deliber-ately, participants also experienced strengthsas authentic parts of themselves, enactedwithout effort and often without conscious

Using strengthsTowards a positive goalInvoked automatically

Strength as doingStrength as being

The value of strengths(central phenomenon)

Positive emotionSense of achievement

Inspiring actionAttention to the positive

Feeling authenticAwareness of own value

Valuing differenceSense of achievement

Positive reflections from others

Mediating factorsBalance of self-focus/other focus

Self-conceptCommitment

Positive attitudeOrganisational fitRelationship with authority figures



awareness. All participants frequentlyreferred to this, using words and phrases like‘natural’, ‘comfortable’, ‘easy’, ‘subcon-scious’ or ‘unconscious’ and ‘that’s [just]who I am’. Additionally, participants statedthat these strengths are constantly present,and a few suggested that they are presentboth in work and home life.

Bella suggested that ‘I do that all the timeunconsciously; it just comes very naturally’,and Eliza, describing her strength ofcreativity, said ‘…it’s because it’s the only wayI know how.’

(2) The value of strengthsThe central phenomenon that emergedfrom the data was ‘The value of strengths’.This theme highlighted that all participantsfound it valuable to learn more about anduse their strengths.

The theme subdivided into eight cate-gories: Positive emotion; Inspiring action;Attention to the positive; Awareness of ownvalue; Feeling authentic; Valuing difference;Sense of achievement; and Positive reflec-tions from others.

The experience of using strengths wasenjoyable. Eliza said ‘When I use mystrengths, I’m much, much happier’, andBella suggested that ‘The things that makeyou feel good are the things that are morelikely to be your strengths’.

Beyond that, using strengths led to posi-tive emotions about work. After usingstrengths, Daisy commented that ‘I justdidn’t want to go into work…I’m not experi-encing that any more’, and Alyssa said that ‘I suppose when you feel like you’re doing abetter job…you feel better about doing thejob’

Participants also referred to positiveemotion inherent in activities they felt goodat. Eliza said ‘I feel yes, just kind of joyous, I meant it’s a remarkable word to use in thecontext of work but it does, it brings you joywhen you do the things that you love mostand that you’re best at.’

Participants also experienced negativeemotion using strengths, although signifi-

cantly less than positive emotion. Of this,fear was most cited, and all but one referredto this at least once. Frustration whenstrengths were not valued and tiredness fromover-use of strengths were also mentioned.Linley et al. (2010c) refer to the risks of theover-use of strengths.

The participants described how usingstrengths inspired them towards action.Chloe observed that ‘When you are usingyour strengths, life is easier and you’re morelikely to kind of get into the flow.’

Several participants came to the realisa-tion that small interventions can lead to valu-able changes (Linley, 2008). Alyssa said,‘When you use [strengths] it doesn’t have tobe in any earth shattering way, it could bejust recognising that you’re doing certainsmall things that play to your strengths.’

Towards the beginning of the study, mostof the participants observed more negativethan positive phenomena, and this code is infact more prevalent over the course of thestudy. However, the balance shifted duringthe interviews: there were 50 codes for‘Attention to the negative’ across all the firstinterviews and 28 across all the final inter-views; the corresponding figures for ‘Atten-tion to the positive’ are 14 and 68respectively.

All but one reported that using theirstrengths made their focus more positive,and they found this valuable. Daisy felt that‘I probably am more positive at work and if itgets to the point that I begin to be a bit morenegative at work, I’ve now got the armoury tosee my way through that’, and suggested that‘…thinking about your strengths and whatyou’re actually good at…maybe helps younot be so negative.’

Several participants found this increasedtheir commitment at work. Alyssacommented that ‘I’m feeling much, muchmore positive…there will be challenges butthat I’ll be able to cope with them.’ Chloefound that… ‘I might have lost the battle butI’m still heading along looking like I mightwin the war.’



For Alyssa, Bella and Daisy, paying atten-tion to the positive led to a ‘virtuous circle’where they experienced more and more ofit. Bella suggested that ‘When you focus onthe negative you get the negative; focussingon the positive you really unlock a lot ofreally positive energy.’ Flora experienced ashift from only noticing negatives aboutcolleagues to observing their strengths: ‘It actually gave me…a new vision, you knowseeing the world in a different way.’

Every participant reported that usingstrengths led to a feeling of authenticity,often using phrases like ‘being myself’. Asthe project progressed, Eliza reported that‘When you use your strengths you give backmuch more of yourself and that in turnmakes you happy.’ She was then put up forpromotion, and she attributed this at least inpart to her increased willingness to beherself in the workplace.

Daisy found ‘It was good to know that youcould be yourself, using those strengths.’Through awareness of her strengths, shereframed ‘being herself at work’ as career-enhancing rather than problematic. Florareported that by the end of the project, shewas ‘less of a machine and…more of an inde-pendent risk taking, autonomous person.’

Five participants benefited from greaterunderstanding of the value that theirstrengths can bring. They valued thediscovery that character strengths such asintegrity, humour and love can be consid-ered strengths even when not directlyrelated to work achievement, and reportedthat knowing their personal strengths led toa greater perception of their professionalvalue. Alyssa found that ‘Maybe what I do isdifferent but different in a good way.’ Daisyconcluded that ‘I can be myself and I haveunique selling points.’

Five of the six spoke of a new under-standing of difference. This insight intoothers’ difference brought Alyssa a newperspective on her own: ‘…it’s recognisingthat you have something to contribute andthat it’s not the same as other people, andthat just because you are doing something

differently, doesn’t mean you’re doing itwrong.’ Daisy intentionally used her strengthof appreciating beauty and excellence tonotice difference positively.

All participants found that using theirstrengths led to a sense of achievement. Elizawas aware that some of this derived from herknowledge that she was bringing her creativestrengths into an environment that lackedthem.

Five participants reported that usingstrengths led to positive feedback, which waspersonally rewarding and which led toprofessional advantage in some cases. Thisengendered positive emotion and higherengagement.

(3) Mediating factorsAll participants found that certain factorsaffected how much they used their strengths,although the importance of these varied.These divided into six categories: Balance ofself-focus/other-focus; Self-concept; Commit-ment; Positive attitude; Organisational fit;and Relationship with authority figures.

Each participant revealed a blend ofnegative and positive intervening factors,some of which shifted during the project.For everyone, one or more of these factorsimproved, potentially at least in part as aresult of using their strengths, thus creatinga ‘virtuous circle’.

All but one participants repeatedlyreferred to the importance of others’ opin-ions, and their impact on engagement. Theword ‘valued’ was used repeatedly. Eliza said,‘I think recognition is a big thing for me’,and Bella discussed the difficulties of usingher counter-cultural strengths because ofnegative feedback.

By the end, several participants hadshifted attention away from others’ views.Daisy observed, ‘I think that once you’restarting to use your strengths and feelingquite buoyant and positive, you do become abit impervious to others’ comments.’

All but one reported negative aspects oftheir self-concept at work. Daisy observedthat ‘I’ll sort of forget what I’m good at, and



think more about what’s been said that I’mnot so good at.’ Alyssa said ‘I think that’s themain thing that holds me back.’

Most participants reported greater self-belief by the end. Daisy described the expe-rience as ‘I just think you knew you weredoing really well, you could just tell that youwere at your best’, and Flora said ‘Yes I’mmore self confident, and yes I accept myselfmore.’

By the end, several participants expressedrenewed engagement with work. Alyssatalked about increased confidence that shecan be successful, and hence greater desireto invest in her career. Bella describedgreater readiness to ‘speak my truth’ andbelieve her viewpoint is a valuable strengthrather than an undesirable difference.

Some participants expressed negativebias in their attitude to themselves. Florasuggested that ‘It’s more about what are yourweaknesses rather than what are yourstrengths.’ Eliza thought she had more weak-nesses than strengths, despite her record ofachievement.

Participants also showed evidence of posi-tive attitudes. Chloe expressed a preferencefor focusing on successes rather than fail-ures. Bella reported that ‘I always describemyself as a glass half full type of person,always choose to see the best in people.’ Shelisted positivity as a strength.

By the end, several participants foundtheir awareness had shifted towards noticingmore positives about themselves and theirwork. Chloe used her strength of optimismand her intellectual strengths to reframe herdefinition of hope and find new positives toinspire her, even within the bleak landscapeof climate change. Alyssa reported that ‘It’s made me more conscious of the aspects,or the attributes that are positive and mademe more proud of those, I suppose.’

All participants talked about the organi-sations they work for. Positive topicsincluded feeling valued, feeling suited to therole, believing that her strengths are usefuland believing that she makes a difference.Negative topics included not feeling valued,

not finding opportunities to use strengthsand not feeling suited to the work, culture orindustry.

Bella commented: ‘I think it’s a bit like arelationship, I’m attracted to those organisa-tions that value those strengths.’ Chloe expe-rienced a good fit with colleagues: ‘…as mycareer has drifted in that kind of biggerpicture kind of direction, people I’mworking with tend to be, kind of, big picturetype of people, which I like.’

Negative organisational fit appeared toaffect how strengths were invoked. Alyssanoted, ‘I do have strengths and it’s a shamesometimes that you feel you have to kind ofmimic other people’s strengths rather thanusing your own.’ Bella suggested that ‘I’mnot sure that it’s the right environment touse my strengths.’

Five participants reported that relation-ships with authority figures influenced theirengagement with work and their strengths.Alyssa described her disappointment withmanagers’ lack of interest, and, later, thatshe was now using her strengths in a positivecollaboration with her new boss and thisstimulated and motivated her. Eliza talkedabout the profoundly demotivating effect ofnot feeling valued, and Chloe reported that‘I think the most important thing thatpeople have helped [in using her strengths]is allowing me to be me.’

Discussion(1) Using strengthsIn the category ‘Towards a positive goal’, partic-ipants invoked strengths deliberately inpursuit of something they valued. This wasthe most popular category. This is interestingwhen considered alongside self-determina-tion theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 1985; Ryan& Deci, 2000). In SDT, three psychologicalneeds comprise self-determination: auto-nomy, competence and relatedness. Theidea, supported by this study, that strengthsare invoked consciously in the pursuit ofpositive goals, is consistent with the conceptof autonomy in SDT and is supported byLinley et al. (2010b), who draw on SDT to



find evidence for a model that linksstrengths to wellbeing through the achieve-ment of self-concordant goals (Sheldon &Eliot, 1999; Sheldon & Houser-Marko,2001). From a practical angle, this offerssuggestions to individuals wishing to developtheir strengths, as well as coaches andemployers: getting in touch with a personalreason for achievement might provide agateway to using strengths. The participants’consistent experience that strengths werefrequently Invoked automatically suggests thatsome strengths are specific to the individual,regardless of environment. It also givescredence to the idea that strengths aresomehow part of the identity.

(2) The value of strengthsIt is unsurprising that all the participantsconsistently experienced Positive emotion as aresult of using strengths. Strengths areknown to link to wellbeing (Govindji &Linley, 2007; Park & Peterson, 2007;Peterson et al., 2007) and positive emotion isa component of this. Seligman et al. (2005)found that using strengths in a new contextincreases wellbeing, and this is what partici-pants have been doing. Proctor et al. (2010)find that strengths use is a unique predictorof subjective wellbeing.

The benefits of positive emotion areconsiderable for employers and employees.Positive emotions broaden thought-actionrepertoires (Fredrickson, 2001; Isen, 2003)and build durable resources (Fredrickson,2001). They improve coping with adversity,support resilience and buffer against depres-sion (Fredrickson et al., 2003). Positiveemotions can lead to an ‘upward spiral’where they support adaptive behaviours thatlead to more positive emotions (Fredrickson& Joiner, 2003). Luthans (2002) finds thatorganisations derive benefit from positiveemotions among employees.

Evidence suggests that action is essentialto realise value from strengths (Govindji &Linley, 2007; Pritchard, 2009; Seligman et al.,2005) and this study’s category of Inspiringaction supports this. All participants reported

that actively using strengths brought positivevalue.

Clifton and Harter (2003) suggest thatstrengths-based development should focuson two areas: identifying strengths and inte-grating them into work through practice.Minhas (2010) reports a range of benefitsfrom using strengths. Linley et al. (2010b)suggest a range of strategies that can be usedto make the most of strengths use.

Feeling authentic was a key theme, with allparticipants reporting that they ‘feel like I’mbeing myself’ when using strengths andrepeatedly suggesting that strengths ‘comenaturally’. For several, using strengths led toan attitude shift from feeling that they mustact a part at work to believing that they couldbe authentic and still successful. Minhas(2010) found that use of strengths led toincreased self-esteem. Proctor et al. (2010)theorise that ‘strengths use is energising andauthentic’ (p.4).

Linley (2006) and Peterson andSeligman (2004) suggest that strengths areintrinsic and accompanied by authenticityand fulfilment. Use of strengths might be an‘organismic valuing process’ in whichpeople, as active agents, move towards theirmost authentic selves and realise adaptivebenefits as a result (Joseph & Linley, 2005).This might be thought-provoking foremployers. Arakawa and Greenberg (2007),Luthans and Youssef (2004) and Petersonand Park (2006) all find evidence ofemployer benefit from strengths-basedapproaches. Linley et al. (2010c) provide alist of 10 positive outcomes from strengths-based coaching.

The categories of Awareness of own valueand Sense of achievement might link to self-effi-cacy (Bandura, 1994). In particular, self-effi-cacy is primarily built through masteryexperiences, which could equate to thesuccessful use of strengths. Self-efficacy islinked to a range of adaptive benefitsincluding perseverance, less distress, innova-tion and overcoming rejection (Bandura,1994), all of which were shown by partici-pants in this study. Govindji and Linley



(2007) find links between self-efficacy andstrengths knowledge and use, andPritchard’s (2009) grounded theory studyshowed that a strengths interventionincreased academic self-efficacy in the partic-ipants. In addition, Minhas (2010) foundthat using unrealised strengths leads to anincrease in environmental mastery and self-acceptance, which might relate to these twothemes.

This might be useful because there isconsiderable research suggesting that self-efficacy can be built, including throughintentional practice of ‘mastery experiences’(Bandura, 1994). Pritchard (2009) suggeststhat positive self-belief among students maylead to increased resilience.

Self-efficacy might also contribute to thevalue of Positive reflections from others. Bandura(1994) suggests that social persuasion is afactor in building self-efficacy – people aremore likely to remain actively engaged withgoals if given positive feedback on their capa-bility. Oades et al. (2009) found thatstrengths-based coaching led to improvedcollaboration. This is consistent with partici-pants’ experience.

Roberts et al.’s (2005) ‘reflected best self’may contribute to positive development –five participants reported that positive feed-back encouraged strengths use. Snyder etal.’s (2006) finding that therapists’ positiveviews supported clients’ adaptive behaviouralso supports this, and is relevant for coachesusing a strengths-based approach.

(3) Mediating factorsThe factor of self-concept supports potentiallinks between self-concept and strengths use.Some participants initially found that a nega-tive self-concept inhibited them from usingtheir strengths; by the end of the study allreported a more positive self-concept, andmany felt that using strengths had a directimpact on this. Pritchard (2009) provides adetailed review of the potential benefits of astrengths-based approach to the self-concept. Ryan and Deci (2000) suggest thatexercising competence leads to increased

motivation and wellbeing; perhaps success-fully using strengths led participants togreater appreciation of themselves?

This increased tendency towards intrinsicmotivation might also provide insight intothe category of Commitment. Linley et al.(2010b) suggest that strengths may be linkedto intrinsic motivation. Self-efficacy mightcontribute here also; Maddux (2002)suggests that self-efficacy is a key determi-nant of how much people persevere whenfaced with challenge. An agency-basedmodel is a valuable way to regard this study;four of the participants (Bella, Chloe, Daisyand Eliza) found direct links between theirregulation of their behaviour and the valuethat they realised from their strengths (e.g.Baumeister, 2003). Many of Pritchard’s(2009) research participants ‘exhibited aclear progressive sense of agency…as a resultof becoming aware of their strengths’(p.147). Pritchard’s work also suggests thatuse of strengths might lead to greater energyand an accompanying commitment to work.Oades et al. (2009) found that a strengths-based coaching model led to increasedempowerment and self-direction.

The theory of Appreciative Inquiry(Cooperrider & Whitney, 2001) might alsobe relevant. Cooperrider and Sekerka(2003) suggest that inquiry in a positivedirection leads to positive emotion and theexperience of relatedness, which opens up ‘aworld of strengths’ (p.237) and producesenergy for change. This mirrors the experi-ence of several participants.

The final constituent of SDT is related-ness, which might be reflected in the cate-gory of Organisational fit. Dutton and Heaphy(2004) suggest that high-quality connectionsat work lead to greater energy, engagement,meaning and organisational strengths.Fredrickson and Losada (2005) suggest thatpositive environments generates higherteam performance. Spreitzer, Sutcliffe,Dutton, Sonenstein and Grant (2005)propose that a climate of trust and respectstimulates self-motivated behaviour; thismight relate to the autonomy desired by the



participants as well as the valued positivefeedback.

ConclusionThe study found several ways in which usingstrengths may be beneficial at work. This wasmediated by intervening factors affecting theextent to which strengths were used. In addi-tion, the positive benefits of learning aboutand using strengths affected the interveningfactors themselves, thus creating a ‘virtuouscircle’.

This has practical implications for thosewishing to improve their workplace experi-ence and increase their engagement withwork, and for those who coach and employcoaches:● Learning about and using strengths is

valuable. Benefits include positiveemotion, feeling more valued at work, amore positive focus, greater sense ofauthenticity and renewed willingness totake action.

● In particular, identifying characterstrengths may be valuable becauseunderstanding personal strengths isuseful in the workplace. It is notsufficient to learn one’s strengths; use isnecessary.

● The benefits of using strengths in theworkplace may vary for different people.This practice may lead to a ‘virtuouscircle’ wherein it becomes progressivelyeasier and more rewarding.

● Interventions that engage with themediating factors directly might also beuseful in supporting the use of strengths.These include developing greaterpositivity about oneself and the workingenvironment, cultivating action-focusand an internal locus of control, andusing strengths to improve relationshipswith managers.

Study limitationsThe study has limitations. The results wouldhave to be tested further and with differentpopulations to gain validity. Also, the studyproduced a considerable volume of data –

over 300 pages. The data supports thetheory, but might hold more informationthat would give a richer and more sophisti-cated picture.

The interview questions focused prima-rily on inquiry into positive aspects ofstrengths. Although they were crafted withthe aim of avoiding bias towards positiveanswers, nonetheless there were no ques-tions that paid specific attention to any costsof using strengths in the workplace. Thisinformation would have been valuable forfurther testing and refining of the model.

The study’s findings might be compro-mised by the inclusion of a coaching inter-vention. Is the value experienced byparticipants genuinely derived from usingstrengths, or might it be from beingcoached? However, this is mitigated by thefact that the benefits of strengths were iden-tified by participants in the first two inter-views, before the coaching intervention.

Although the study gains reliabilitythrough its triangulation of data over time,there are still only three interviews, and onlysix participants, all female. It was notpossible to gauge and control for the effectof mood and other external factors such asthe economic downturn, and generalisabilityis clearly limited.

The literature reviewed here is mostlydrawn from the canon of positivepsychology. Other areas of psychology,including theories of identity, motivation,development and interaction, might providerelevant insight into the study but are notexplored here.

It would be useful to test the results ofthis study further. In particular, it wouldsupport the current study to continue to teststrengths interventions experimentally (e.g.Minhas, 2010), considering measures ofpositive emotion, self-efficacy, self-determi-nation, engagement, authenticity and/orself-esteem.

Repeated testing with the same subjects,similar to the ‘upward spiral’ experiments,might be used to test the ‘virtuous circle’.Linley et al. (2010) posit that strengths use

Arakawa, D. & Greenberg, M. (2007). Optimisticmanagers and their influence on productivityand employee engagement in a technologyorganisation: Implications for coaching psychol-ogists. International Coaching Psychology Review,2(1), 78–89.

Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S. Ramachau-dran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behaviour(Vol. 4, pp.71–81). New York: Academic Press.

Bartunek, J. & Seo, M-G. (2002). Qualitative researchcan add new meanings to quantitative research.Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 23(2),237–242.

Baumeister, R.F. (2003). Ego depletion and self-regu-lation failure: A resource model of self-control.Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 27,281–284.

Biswas-Diener, R. (2006). From the equator to theNorth Pole – a study of character strengths.Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 293–310.

Boniwell, I. & Henry, J. (2007). Developing concep-tions of wellbeing: Advancing subjective, hedonicand eudaimonic theories. Social Psychology Review,9, 3–19.

Brun, C. & Rapp, R.C. (2001). Strengths-based casemanagement: Individuals’ perspectives onstrengths and the case manager relationship.Social Work, 46(3), 278–288.

Buckingham, M. & Clifton, D.O. (2002). Now, discoveryour strengths. London: Simon & Schuster.

Clifton, D.O. & Harter, J.K. (2003). Investing instrengths. In K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton & R.E.Quinn (Eds.), Positive organisational scholarship:Foundations of a new discipline (pp.111–121). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler,.

Cooperrider, D. & Whitney, D., (2001). AppreciativeInquiry Handbook: A constructive approach to organi-zation development and change. Cleveland, OH:Lakeshore Publishers.

Cooperrider, D. L., & Sekerka, L. E. (2003). Towarda theory of positive organizational change. In K.S. Cameron, J.E. Dutton & R.E. Quinn(Eds.), Positive organisational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp.225–240). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler

Creswell, J.W. (2005). Educational research: Planning,conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualita-tive research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson Education.

Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M.(1985). Intrinsic motivationand self-determination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum.

Dutton, J.E. & Heaphy, E.D. (2003). The power ofhigh-quality connections. In K.S. Cameron, J.E.Dutton & R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organisa-tional scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline(pp.263–279). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler,.

Fredrickson, B.L. & Joiner, T. (2003) Positiveemotions trigger upward spirals towardemotional wellbeing. Psychological Science, 13,172–175.

Fredrickson, B.L. (2001), The role of positiveemotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions, AmericanPsychologist, 56(3), 218–226.

Fredrickson, B.L. & Losada, M.F. (2005). Positiveaffect and the complex dynamics of human flour-ishing. American Psychologist, 60(7), 678–686.

Fredrickson, B.L., Tugade, M.M., Waugh, C.E. &Larkin G.R. (2003). What good are positiveemotions in crises? A prospective study ofresilience and emotions following the terroristattacks on the United States on September 11th,2001. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84,365–376.

Gyllensten, K., Palmer, S., Nilsson, E.-K., MelandRegnér & Frodi, A. (2010). Experiences of cogni-tive coaching: A qualitative study. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 5(2), 98–108.

References



might be part of an ‘affective learning loop’(p.13) which could link to the virtuous circledescribed here. It would be interesting tofind ways to compare this study’s model ofinternal change with their outcome-basedmodel of strengths.

In conclusion, the study suggested thatthe experience of strengths use may be bene-ficial and these benefits in themselves lead tofurther reward. More research, and qualita-tive research in particular, is required here.

Francesca Elston & Dr Ilona BoniwellUniversity of East London.

CorrespondenceFrancesca ElstonSchool of Psychology, Stratford Campus, Water Lane, London E15 4LZ, UK.Email: [email protected]



Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery ofgrounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Govindji, R. & Linley, P.A. (2007). Strengths use, self-concordance and wellbeing – implications forstrengths coaching and coaching psychologists.International Coaching Psychology Review, 2(2),143–153.

Harris, A.H.S., Thoresen, C.E. & Lopez, S.J. (2007).Integrating positive psychology into counselling:Why and (when appropriate) how. Journal ofCounselling & Development, 85, 3–14.

Harter, J.K., Schmidt, F.L. & Hayes, T.L. (2002).Business-unit-level relationship betweenemployee satisfaction, employee engagement,and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journalof Applied Psychology, 87, 268–279.

Isen, A. (2003). Positive affect as a source of humanstrength. In L. Aspinwall & U. Staudinger, A psychology of human strengths: fundamental ques-tions and future directions for a positive psychology.Washington, DC: American Psychological Associ-ation.

Joseph, S. & Linley, P.A. (2005). Positive adjustmentto threatening events: An organismic valuingtheory of growth through adversity. Review ofGeneral Psychology, 9, 262–280.

Linley, P.A. (2006). Counselling psychology’s positivepsychological agenda: A model for integrationand inspiration. The Counselling Psychologist,34(2), 313–322.

Linley, P.A. (2008). Average to A+. Realising strengths inyourself and others. Coventry, UK: CAPP Press.

Linley, P.A., Garcea, N., Hill, J., Minhas, G., Trenier,E. & Willars, J. (2010a). Strengthspotting incoaching: Conceptualisation and development ofthe Strengthspotting Scale. International CoachingPsychology Review, 5(2), 165–176.

Linley, P.A., Nielsen, K.M., Wood, A.M., Gillett, R. &Biswas-Diener, R., (2010b). Using signaturestrengths in pursuit of goals: Effects on goalprogress, need satisfaction, and wellbeing, andimplications for coaching psychologists. Interna-tional Coaching Psychology Review, 5(1), 8–17.

Linley, P.A., Willars, J. & Biswas-Diener, R. (2010c). The Strengths Book. Coventry, UK: CAPP Press.

Linley, P.A., Woolston, L. & Biswas-Diener, R. (2009).Strengths coaching with leaders. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 4(1), 37–48.

Lopez, S.J., Snyder, C.R. & Rasmussen, H.N. (2003).Striking a vital balance: Developing a comple-mentary focus on human weakness and strengththrough positive psychological assessment. In S.J. Lopez & C.R. Snyder (Eds.), Positive psycholog-ical assessment (pp.3–20). Washington, DC: Amer-ican Psychological Association.

Losada, M. & Heaphy, E. (2004). The role of posi-tivity and connectivity in the performance ofbusiness teams. The American Behavioural Scientist,47(6), 740–765.

Luthans, F. & Youssef, C.M. (2004). Human, social,and now positive psychological capital manage-ment: Investing in people for competitive advan-tage. Organisational Dynamics, 33(2).

Luthans, F. (2002a). The need for and meaning ofpositive organisational behaviour. Journal ofOrganisational Behaviour, 23, 695–706.

Maddux, J.R. (2002). Self-efficacy: The power ofbelieving you can. In C.R. Snyder & S.J. Lopez(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology(pp.277–287). New York: Oxford UniversityPress.

McArdle, K.L. (2004). In-powering spaces: A co-operativeinquiry with young women in management. Doctoralthesis.

Minhas, G. (2010). Developing realised and unre-alised strengths: Implications for engagement,self-esteem, life satisfaction and wellbeing. Assess-ment and Development Matters, in press.

Noble, D.N., Perkins, K. & Fatout, M. (2000). Onbeing a strength coach: Child welfare and thestrengths model. Child and Adolescent Social WorkJournal, 17, 141–153.

Oades, L.G., Crowe, T.P. & Nguyen, M. (2009). Lead-ership coaching transforming mental healthsystems from the inside out: The CollaborativeRecovery Model as person-centred strengths-based coaching psychology. International CoachingPsychology Review, 4(1), 25–36.

Park, N. & Peterson, C. (2007). Methodologicalissues in positive psychology and the assessmentof character strengths. In A.D. Ong & M.H.M.van Dulmen (Eds.), Oxford handbook of methods inpositive psychology (pp.292–305). New York:Oxford University Press.

Payne, S. (2007). Grounded theory. In E. Lyons & A. Coyle (Eds.), Analysing qualitative data inpsychology. London: Sage.

Passmore, J. (2010). A grounded theory study of thecoachee experience: The implications fortraining and practice in coaching psychology.International Coaching Psychology Review, 5(1),48–62.

Passmore, J. & McGoldrick, S. (2009) . Super-vision,extra-vision or blind faith? A grounded theorystudy of the efficacy of coaching supervision.International Coaching Psychology Review, 4(2),145–161.

Peterson, C. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2003). Characterstrengths before and after September 11th.Psychological Science, 14, 381–384.

Peterson, C. & Park, N. (2006). Character strengthsin organisations. Journal of OrganisationalBehaviour, 27(8), 1149–1154.

Peterson, C. & Seligman, M.E. P.(2004). Characterstrengths and virtues: A handbook and classification.Washington, DC: APA Press.

Peterson, C., Park, N. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2006).Greater strengths of character and recovery fromillness. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 17–26.

Peterson, C., Park, N. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2005).Orientations to happiness and life satisfaction:The full life versus the empty life. Journal ofHappiness Studies, 6, 25–41.

Peterson, C., Ruch, W., Beerman, U., Park, N. &Seligman, M.E.P. (2007). Strengths of character,orientations to happiness, and life satisfaction.Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(3), 149–159.

Pritchard, G.M. (2009). A grounded theory of the factorsthat mediate the effect of a strengths-based educationalintervention over a four-month period. PhD thesis,Azusa Pacific University.

Proctor, C.L., Maltby, J. & Linley, P.A. (2010).Strengths use as a predictor of wellbeing andhealth-related quality of life. Journal of HappinessStudies. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10902-009-9181-2..

Riley, S., Schouten, W. & Cahill, S. (2003). Exploringthe dynamics of subjectivity and power betweenresearcher and researched. Forum: QualitativeSocial Research, 4(2).

Roberts, L.M., Dutton, J.E., Spreitzer, G.M., Heaphy,E.D. & Quinn, R.E. (2005). Composing thereflected best-self portrait: Building pathways forbecoming extraordinary in work organisations.Academy of Management Review, 30(4), 712–736.

Robitschek. C. & Woodson, S.J. (2006). Vocationalpsychology: Using one of counselling psycho-logy’s strengths to foster human strength. The Counselling Psychologist, 34, 260–275.

Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2000). Self-determinationtheory and the facilitation of intrinsic motiva-tion, social development, and wellbeing. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.

Saleebey, D. (1996). The strengths perspective insocial work practice: Extensions and cautions.Social Work, 41(3), 296–306.

Saleebey, D. (2001). The diagnostic strengthsmanual? Social Work, 46(2), 183–187.

Salovey, P., Mayer, J.D., Caruso, D. & Lopes, P.N.(2003). Measuring emotional intelligence as a setof abilities with the Mayer-Salovey-Carusoemotional intelligence test. In S.J. Lopez & C.R.Snyder (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment(pp.251–266). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychological Association.

Seligman, M.E.P., Steen, T.A., Park, N. & Peterson, C.(2005). Positive psychology progress – empiricalvalidations of interventions. American Psychologist,60, 410–421.

Sheldon, K.M. & Eliot, A.J. (1999). Goal striving,need satisfaction, and longitudinal wellbeing:The Self-Concordance Model. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 482–497.

Sheldon, K.M. & Houser-Marko, L. (2001). Self-concordance, goal attainment, and the pursuit ofhappiness: Can there be an upward spiral?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(1),152–165.

Sheldon, K.M., Arndt, J. & Houser-Marko, L. (2003).In search of the organismic valuing process: Thehuman tendency to move towards beneficial goalchoices. Journal of Personality, 71(5), 835–871.

Sheridan, S.M., Warnes, E.D., Cowan, R.J., Schemm,A.V. & Clarke, B.L. (2004). Family-centred posi-tive psychology: Focusing on strengths to buildstudent success. Psychology in the Schools, 41(1),7–18.

Smith, E.J. (2006a). The Strengths-Based CounsellingModel. The Counselling Psychologist, 34, 13–79.

Smith, E.J. (2006b). The Strength-Based CounsellingModel: A paradigm shift in psychology. The Counselling Psychologist, 34, 134–144.

Smith, J.A. (2008). Qualitative psychology: A practicalguide to research methods. London: Sage.

Snyder, C.R., Ritschel, L.A., Rand, K.L. & Berg, C.J.(2006). Balancing psychological assessments:Including strengths and hope in client reports.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 62(1), 33–46.

Spreitzer, G., Sutcliffe, K., Dutton, J., Sonenshein, A.& Grant A. (2005). A socially embedded modelof thriving at work. Organisational Science, 16(5),537–549.

Steen, T.A., Kachorek, L.V. & Peterson, C. (2003).Character strengths among youth. Journal ofYouth and Adolescence, 32(1), 5–16.

Steger, M.F., Kashdan, T.B. & Oishi, S. (2008). Beinggood by doing good: Daily eudaimonic activityand wellbeing. Journal of Research in Personality,42, 22–42.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (Eds.) (1997). Grounded theoryin practice. London: Sage.

Strauss, A. & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitativeresearch: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

UEL (2010). Code of Good Practice in Research.www.uel.ac.uk/qa/manual/codeofpractice.htm

Willig, C. (2001). Introducing qualitative research inpsychology. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Wong, Y. J. (2006). Strength-centered therapy –a social constructionist, virtues-based psycho-therapy. Psychotherapy-Theory, Research, Practice,Training, 43(2), 133–146.



DUCATION AND LEARNING has amajor role to play in ensuring thatpeople become and remain safe and

responsible drivers. In the past threedecades changes in policy have been intro-duced to improve road safety including theuse of speed cameras, traffic calmingmeasures like humps and changes to theroad architecture. However, practices indriver training used by Approved DrivingInstructors (ADIs) have remained compara-tively unchanged, with a traditionalinstructor lead approach the dominantmethod used by ADIs.

In 1935 the UK Government introduceda driving test which when passed alloweddrivers to drive a car (now know in the UKlicence classification as a category B licence)

without supervision. The test itself hasprogressively changed since its introductionin the 1930s, for example, with the introduc-tion of the theory test in 1996. The standardsfor driving are regulated in Great Britain(England, Wales & Scotland) through aGovernment agency – the Driving StandardsAgency (DSA). The agency regulates ADIsthrough a testing and periodic inspectionregime.

Driving a motor vehicle requires not onlymastery of the mechanical aspects of thevehicle, but also interaction with the envi-ronment and other road users. Researchsuggests that individual differences andhuman factors are significant factors in acci-dents and dangerous driving (Dorn, 2005).However, the current instructional method


The experience of using coaching as alearning technique in learner driverdevelopment: An IPA study of adultlearningJonathan Passmore & Lance Mortimer

Objectives: This preliminary study sought to explore the experiences of UK Approved Driving Instructors(ADIs) in using coaching as a method for novice driver learning, as part of a wider research agenda intothe use of coaching in driver instruction. Design: The qualitative method of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis was used to explore theexperiences of ADIs when employing a new learning technique with learner drivers.Methods: The study took place in the UK with 15 ADIs who had attended a five-day coaching skills courseat the University of East London designed specifically for driving instructors and based on the University’spostgraduate programme for coaching psychology. Results: The study found seven main themes emerged with respect to the use of coaching. These were:understanding the nature of coaching; building an integrated approach; developing new skills; thelearner’s acceptance of responsibility for their learning; helping learners’ change their attitude; performance;and achieving wider adoption within the industry. Conclusions: The study suggests that coaching has a role to play in driver learning. The perception of ADIparticipants was that, when combined with instruction, it is experienced by ADIs as a useful pedagogy.Further research is required to assess the impact of coaching on learning effectiveness and its post-testaccident rates of learners.Keywords: Coaching with learner drivers; coaching as pedagogy; GDE Matrix, HERMES project; coachingwith novice learners; adult learning; ADI coaching; Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.

E

Jonathan Passmore & Lance Mortimer


of learning used by most ADIs pays limitedattention to these individual differences andfavours a focus towards mechanical aspectsdeveloped through an instructor ledapproach.

This paper explores the current demandsfacing ADIs, as well as a number of thepsychological issues facing learners. It willthen explore some of the issues beingdebated in driver safety and how improve-ments can be made to the training andfuture development of driving instructors inGreat Britain, but with wider implications fordriving throughout the European Union.The paper will then discuss the nature ofcoaching and its application in driving.Finally, the paper will consider the resultsfrom this study of ADIs and the implicationsfor future practice and research.

Becoming an ADITo become an ADI in Great Britain, it isnecessary to undertake training, and a three-part assessment process. On successfulcompletion of this individuals are eligible tojoin a register held by the DSA. Once regis-tered most individuals gain employmentwithin a driving school or become an inde-pendent driving instructor on a self-employed basis.

All ADIs are expected to work withincertain guidelines, which include:● Having a high regard for all aspects of

road safety.● Possessing a high standard of driving

ability.● Being able to teach to a competent high

standard.● Having a professional approach to

customer care.● Imparting a responsible attitude to

learners and the profession.● Being a ‘fit and proper person’.The programme for training driving instruc-tors is predominantly based on their knowl-edge and understanding and their ability toidentify and correct common faults. This haslead to the use by ADIs of a directive style,with the learner responding to detailed

instructions of where to go, what to do andhow to do it. The approach requires thelearner to follow instructions and demon-strate car control without risk to other roadusers. Walklin (2000) has suggested that thisteaching style is simply a method of teachingby rote, without taking into account the indi-vidual’s motivations for learning, such astheir extrinsic and intrinsic rewards forundertaking learning in the first place.Limited attention is paid, for example, to theindividual attributes of the learner or thelearner’s values.

According to Brown (1982) 95 per centof accidents are a result of human error.Reason (1990) has suggested that humanerror can be subdivided into two key areas;the person approach and the systemapproach. Each has its own cause and eachgives rise to quite different philosophies oferror management. Being able to under-stand these differences has important prac-tical implications for coping with the everpresent risk of accidents. Based on thisapproach it might be argued that becomingmore self aware will lead to a greater under-standing of the risks facing the driver andthus help reduce road traffic incidents.

There have been improvements over thepast 12 years with average road incidents inthe UK falling. However, risk of deathremains a cause for concern. This is particu-larly so for young drivers (17 to 25 years)where death by road traffic accidents is thebiggest single cause of death in the UK andacross the developed world (WHO, 2007).The risk for young men is particularly highwith nearly one-third of young men aged 17to 25 dying as a result of road traffic acci-dents in Great Britain.

The developing agenda in the EUA range of initiatives have contributed to thereduction in road traffic accidents, a numberof which have been initiated by the EU andadopted within Great Britain. One suchinitiative is Goals for Driver Education(GDE) matrix (Hatakka et al., 2002) whichwas highlighted by the EU MERIT project

Table 1: GDE matrix: Goals for Driver Education.

4. Personalcharacteristics,ambitions andcompetencies

3. Trip-relatedcontext andconsiderations

2. Mastery of trafficsituations

1. Basic vehiclecontrol

LifestylePeer group normsPersonal values andnormsEtc.

Choice of routeEstimated drivingtimeEstimated urgencyof the trip

Application oftraffic rulesObservation and useof signalsAnticipation ofevents

Control of directionand position of carTechnical aspects ofthe vehicle

Sensation seekingAdapting to socialpressure

Physiologicalcondition of driverSocial context andcompany in vehicle

Vulnerable roadusersBreaking trafficrules/ unpredictablebehaviorInformationoverloadDifficult (road)conditions

Improper use ofseatbelt, headrest,sitting positionUnder-pressure tyres

Impulse controlRisky tendenciesPersonal riskycharacteristics

Personal skills withregard to planningTypical risky motiveswhen driving

Strengths andweaknessesregarding drivingskills in trafficPersonal drivingstyle

Strengths andweaknesses of basicvehicle control

Essential elements of driver training

Knowledge and skills Risk-increasing Self-evaluationfactors

Hie

rarc

hica

l lev

els

of d

river

beh

avio

ur

Adapted from Hatakka et al., 2002.

The experience of using coaching as a learning technique in learner driver development


(2004). The GDE matrix focused on keygoals for driving including; context, drivingin traffic, control of the vehicle and howthese relate to knowledge, skills and risksawareness (Table 1).

The GDE encourages driving instructorsto extend their training beyond a focus onbasic car control, to consider other roadusers (an aspect of the current driving test),as well as trip-related conditions, such astime of day, weather and the state of thedriver, plus personality aspects of the driverand passengers, and how these factorsimpact on their driving and decisionmaking.

In response to encouraging greaterpersonal responsibility the DSA introducedin October 2010 an independent drivingelement to the driving test. This is a 10-minute section of the test whereby thecandidate is asked to drive without detailedguidance from the examiner. They are stillaccompanied in the car by the examiner, butare free to follow the best route, according tothe road signs and road conditions. This‘independent driving’ section of the test isdesigned to enable the learner to make theirdecisions during the assessed drive. Earlytrials of this change of testing model haveshown to be well received and beneficial to

Table 2: Higher order driving skills.

1. Information processing

2. Hazard or risk perception

3. Self calibration (the ability to moderate task demands according to one’s own capabilities)

4. Attentional control (ability to prioritise attention)

5. Time sharing

6. Situation awareness (how one represents the dynamic environment)

Adapted from Senserrick and Haworth, 2005.



the learner, as they feel that they have hadthe opportunity to experience decisionmaking to a degree, whilst still under theinstructional model (Independent Driving,2010). This, on the face of it, appears to be asmall step in the direction to the adoption ofa less directive style within learner driverlearning and assessment. Further, the DSAare developing an agenda to further developthe driver learning agenda.

While the subject of driver training anddriver safety is one that is high on the agendathroughout EU States, including the UK,and a number of policy reports have beenpublished, these have focused on the theoryof a more learner centred approach. To dateno empirical research has been publishedwhich have explored the potential of acoaching/learner-centred approach or theimpact of the approach on learning periods,pass rates and accident rates.

Psychological aspects of driverdevelopmentDriving a motor vehicle cannot be achievedwithout physical mastery of the car and itscontrols. This requires elements of mechan-ical understanding; knowing what happenswhen certain parts of the vehicle are pressed,pulled and turned. However, there is ahigher order processing requirement that isalso required as well as the physical mastery,as noted by MERIT (2004). Driving requires,amongst other things, information pro-cessing, perception, thought, judgement,decision making, awareness, attention and

attitude. According to Philippe et al. (2009)having an obsessive passion for driving canpredispose people towards aggressive atti-tude behind the wheel. Senserrick andHaworth (2005) suggested that the tradi-tional method of teaching driving does notaddress the higher order demands in drivingwhich we have summarised in Table 2.

Tversky and Kahneman (1973) suggestthat we psychologically misrepresent infor-mation in our minds at the expense of thetrue probability of something happening.According to Tversky and Kahneman (1973)individuals have tendency to over-estimatethe probability of something happening,based on an amount of data that is madeavailable. In driving, the theory may beturned on its head. In a driving environ-ment, drivers appear to under-estimate theprobability of an incident happening due tothe extended feeling of safety experiencedin today’s vehicles (for example; EU Five-starcar safety ratings, collision crumple zones,air bags and seat belts) and road design(central crash barriers, hard shoulder onmotorways and road signage), therebyaffecting judgement. Judgements can beseen as the result of a recall of learning,taking into account the situation presentedand previous experiences. According toLogan’s instance theory (1992), the morewe, as humans, do something, the moreautomated the process becomes. This canlead to potential problems in as much thatautomaticity may also be viewed as a memoryphenomenon. According to this view,



novices solve problems using a general algo-rithm and analysing each step, whereasexperts simply retrieve solutions. Statedanother way, novices attend to the individualsteps of the algorithm, whereas expertsattend to the solutions stored in memory.This makes experts faster at solving prob-lems. Wright, Loftus and Hall (2001)witnessed the breakdown and influence ofmemory processes, to show those people thatare informed of information are more likelyto confuse memory-based learning and,therefore, more likely to make mistakenrecall judgements as opposed to those thatwere allowed to encode their own version oflearning and reality, where recall was moreaccurate.

Attention, similarly, also needs to beconsidered as a factor affecting learnerdriver behaviour. Attention is the ability tofocus on a task, the ability to concentrateand to allocate sufficient mental processingresources to deal with the situation at hand.In the early stages of learning to drive, thelearner experiences a lot of new informationwhich they need to take into account, such asthe mastery of the car’s controls, the roadconditions, emotions such as fears, precon-ceptions, pre-social conditioning, attitudesand, of course, the instructions being givenby the instructor. According to attentiontheory, humans can only process a limitedamount of information at any one time.

Treisman (1964) suggested in his attenu-ation theory, that information is selectedearly based on a hierarchical need for infor-mation. Once the processing capacity of theindividual has been exceeded, informationbegins to be omitted, based on the perceivedimportance. Deutsche and Deutsche (1963)offered an alternative perspective to explainhuman responses to information processing.They proposed that all messages make itthrough and are analysed, but only oneresponse can be made.

In a typical learner driving session, whereattentional thresholds are hit or exceeded,the learner is likely to take the advice of theinstructor as being the most important

aspect to focus on. This is possibly at theexpense of greater awareness of the environ-ment and self-discovery learning that can beapplied once the instructor is no longer inthe car (i.e. when the learner driver haspassed their driving test).

CoachingCoaching as a profession has seen anincrease in its popularity over the pastdecade.

While much of the research intocoaching practice has focused on organisa-tional studies (Grant et al., 2010) there is agrowing body of research examiningcoaching’s potential in other domains suchas life and wellbeing (see, for example,Newnham-Kanas et al., 2009). This research,however, remains at a general level and todate there has been no detailed explorationof whether coaching it better suited as anapproach for some types of individuals. Thiscontrasts with counselling where there hasbeen considerable research into individualdifferences (for example, Tinsley & Tinsley,1987).

Coaching, as opposed to instructionallearning, allows the individual to exploreand make decisions based on their construc-tion of the environment they find themselvesin including their own awareness of the levelof attention saturation being experienced.In a dynamic and potentially dangerous envi-ronment such as the public highway, usingjust one or the other method may not besuitable or acceptable. The use of a purelyinstructional model may lead to instantaction to overcome an incident, but thelearner may not be aware of the other vitalinformation around them. Whitmore (2010)has argued that coaching needs to be thedominant approach for driver learning, withinstruction being restricted to all but thesafety critical situations. However, othershave argued that coaching has no role andthat the current situation works and shouldnot be changed. These views lead us tohypothesis that a blended approach, whichwas learner-centred, may be the most effec-



tive way forward, but with a focus on raisinglearner self awareness and enhancinglearner personal responsibility through thelearning journey, with the instructoradapting their intervention to meet theneeds of the situation and the unique needsof their learner at that moment (Passmore,2010)

Adult learning The way in which individuals learn is alsoimportant to take into account. There is nolonger is there an absolute belief that welearn through stimulus-response. In the pastthree decades the work of writers, such asTinklepaugh (1928), Chomsky (1959) andKolb (1984), have become more influentialin shaping our view of adult learning. Kolb’sExperiential Learning Theory (ELT)suggests that knowledge is created throughthe transformation of experience and resultsfrom a combination of grasping and trans-forming experience.

These aspects informed the subsequentdesign of the intervention with ADIs todevelop new methods for use with learnerdrivers based on a less directive and moreexperiential modes of learning, while recog-nising that instruction still had some role toplay within a safety critical environment.

DesignThis is the first of a planned series ofresearch studies into coaching as a potentialtool for driver development. In this first oftwo preliminary studies, two groups of 12ADIs undertook a five-day coaching skillscourse at the University of East London. Thecourse included core skills in listening, ques-tions and summary alongside technicalaspects such as the application of the GDEmatrix and use of four coaching models,humanistic, behavioural (GROW), cognitivebehavioural and motivational interviewing,with associated tools and techniques adaptedfor use in a driver context. The material wasdrawn from postgraduate coaching psycho-logy programmes delivered at the Universityof East London. It also contained some basic

elements about individual differences, suchas learning styles and theories about adultlearning. The training was provided by a mixof trained coaching psychologists and expe-rienced ADIs. Each of the participants wasrequired to complete assessed work,including a reflective log and a video of theircoaching practice. After completion of theprogramme a sample of participants wereselected at random for interview by an inde-pendent researcher. The aim of the inter-view was to understand the experiences ofusing coaching methods with learnersduring the three months since completingthe course and assessed work.

A semi-structured interview-based pheno-menological approach was used to enable aflexible exploration of the deeper meaningof the participant’s evaluation of helpingnovice drivers.

Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA)The study used IPA as the method ofanalysis. IPA is a qualitative researchapproach committed to the examination ofhow people make sense of their major lifeexperiences (Smith, Flowers & Larkin 2009;Smith, 2008). Its aim is to explore lived expe-rience and how participants themselvesmake sense of these events. It does not aimto fix the experiences into pre-defined cate-gories.

The analysis involves ‘the close, line byline analysis of the experiential claims,concerns and understandings of each partic-ipant’ (Larkin, Watts & Clifton, 2006). It isalso important for the researcher to be awareof their own influence and to ‘bracket’ orput to one side their own views as much aspossible in order to concentrate on thedetailed examination of the particularparticipant’s account. However, the processacknowledges the influence of theresearcher on the process, ‘qualitativeanalysis is inevitably a personal process, andthe analysis itself is the interpretative workwhich the investigator does at each of thestages’ (Smith, 2008).



This study used IPA to enable an under-standing of the individual experiences of theparticipants. A further reason to use IPA hasbeen suggested by Smith and Osborn (2004)who state that IPA is a useful approach totake if the area being studied is underresearched or new. For these reasons, as apreliminary study, IPA was deemed a suitabletool to explore the potential value ofcoaching as a pedagogy for novice driverdevelopment.

Interview methodsData was collected from 15 semi-structuredindividual telephone interviews with ADIswho had completed the five-day programme.Interviews were conducted one-on-one withthe participant. Semi-structured interviewswere used in an attempt to gain a more fluidand in depth narrative from the participant(Smith, 2008).

ParticipantsOf the 15 participants, 12 were male andthree female with age ranges between 32 and63 years (m=47.66). The ADIs ranged fromDSA rating of Grade 6 to Grade 4, with askew towards Grade 6 instructors. DriverInstructor experience of participants rangedfrom one year to 26 years (m=8.6). Participa-tion was voluntary and contact was madethree months after individuals had receivedtheir results from the programme. This wasfour to five months after the last trainingintervention, allowing sufficient time forADIs to experiment with the new approach.

AnalysisAnalysis was carried out on the data usingIPA procedures suggested by Smith (2008),and further refined by Smith, Flowers andLarkin (2009). The transcribed telephoneinterviews were read several times. Fromthese readings, initial themes and keyphrases were extracted and coded. Thesecodes were consolidation into themes.

The process followed the following six stages:

● Step 1: Reading and re-reading.● Step 2: Initial noting of emerging

concepts.● Step 3: Identify and develop emerging

themes.● Step 4: Look for connection across

themes.● Step 5: Repeat with next interview.● Step 6: Look for patterns across

interviews.

Ethical considerationsThe personal data collected was amendedwith all reference to real name andgeographical locality amended. All partici-pants were given the right to withdraw at anytime and also to have the data withdrawn ata later date.

ReflexivityThe nature of qualitative research dictatesthat there is a great deal of subjectivity bothon the part of the participant and theresearcher. According to Parker (2005), thisenables a more personal phenomenologicalapproach to investigation over quantitativeresearch. Therefore, the findings of thisresearch reflect the interpretation of thedata by the authors.

ResultsThe results of this evaluation researchsuggest a positive impression is held by ADIsin this study of the potential effectiveness ofcoaching on novice drivers. Although it istoo early to determine the longer termimpact that using coaching with novicedrivers, the initial experiences of the ADIswas encouraging.

Seven super-ordinate themes emergedfrom participating ADIs regarding the expe-rience of training in coaching skills andapplying this approach with learner drivers.

Theme 1: Understanding the nature ofcoachingPrior to the coaching course, participants(ADIs) appeared to have a common misun-derstanding about the nature of coaching.



They noted that the general view held bymost ADIs was that coaching did form part oftheir learner teaching skills and was presentin what was described by ADIs as ‘the Q & A’session. However, after completion of thecourse most recognised that their previouspractice was very different from the‘coaching’ which they had been taught. Thenew approach reflected a greater emphasison building personal responsibility throughhelping learners understand the reasons fortheir actions or possibility different coursesof action.

‘I now know that coaching is much more thanjust asking questions of someone.’ (ADI 9)

ADIs recognised following the training thatcoaching was a sophisticated skill and onewhich took considerable time and practiceto master.

‘I was surprised how different what we weretaught was from what I was doing and howhard it was to use with pupils.’ (ADI 12)

Theme 2: Building an integrated approach –combining coaching and instruction There was a view that coaching worked wellas a blended approach. Learners were ableto adjust to a mix of instruction andcoaching as the topic and road conditionsdemanded.

‘I feel I can mix coaching with instruction.’(ADI 1)

ADIs held the view that instruction had arole to play for some individuals in under-standing the basic controls of the car, for example, ‘Where is the indicator switch?’Or ‘Where are the window-screen wipers?’ It specially had a key role to play in safetycritical situations.

‘Sometimes, for safety reasons, you just have totell someone what to do.’ (ADI 5)

For some the instruction approached alsohelped when individuals got stuck.

‘On occasions, giving the pupil the answer canhelp to overcome blockages.’ (ADI 7)

Theme 3: Developing new ‘teaching’ skills There was a strong agreement that usingcoaching with learners was helpful. Withmany of the ADIs adopting the new skills aseffective methods for helping their learnersto move forward.

‘…it has had a massive impact on the way I teach.’ (ADI 12)

Theme 4: Learners ability to accept responsibility for their learningThe main features that emerged were thatparticipants believed their learners weremore aware, willing and able to take on moreresponsibility after adopting a coaching stylefor their learning. ADIs reported thatlearners were better able to set the pace fortheir lessons and were able to give betterfeedback. As a result overall they feltlearning was both quicker and more enjoy-able for the novice learners.

The majority of participants had seenlearners as passive recipients of the learningprocess. A widely held view was that theywere individuals who required considerablesupport to make progress. However, theexperience of using coaching with learnershelped contribute to a change in perspectiveby participants, with a belief emerging thatmany learners were able to accept moreresponsibility for their learning and takegreater control over the process.

‘The main features that emerged were thatpupils are more aware, are willing and able totake on more responsibility, setting the pace forthe lessons and learning…were able to givebetter feedback and that learning within thelessons was both quicker and more enjoyable.’(ADI 4)‘I had been doing some manoeuvres with apupil and said let’s move on. The pupil askedif they could practice this a bit more to get morecomfortable with it. To me they seemed fine andnormally I wouldn’t have known they wantedto do more on it, because I would have been inthe habit of telling them what to do. But, thispupil knew it wasn’t quite right and wanted topractice some more, which surprised me andpleased me too.’ (ADI 11)



Another interesting issue that arose was thatwhen using a coaching approach in lessons,participants’ felt learners were more likely toexplore more and less afraid to makemistakes.

Theme 5: Helping learners change theirattitude towards learning to driveParticipants also felt an element of confu-sion amongst some learners. They felt thatsome learners expected to be told what to dowithin a lesson, rather than challenged tothink about their learning and the impact oftheir actions behind the wheel. A number ofparticipants found that it was important toidentify those that don’t want to be coached,so a more traditional approach could beused with them. This was outlined by oneparticipant in particular, who attributed thisengagement down to levels of intelligenceand cultural differences.

‘The more intelligent pupils get it quicker. Lessintelligent pupils prefer to be told. Also, some ofmy pupils come from a background where theyare always told what to do. These have to betaught by instruction and not coaching.’(ADI 6)

Theme 6: The impact of learning on driverperformance Participants’ felt that the coaching approachwas overall a quicker way to learn.

‘…learning was more likely to stick, as it istheir own answers, not something that hasbeen fed to them.’ (ADI 1)‘..pupils were more able to evaluate, andquicker too.’ (ADI 7)

ADIs also felt that it would have a lastingeffect on them once they have become qual-ified drivers, with an impact beyondbehaviour into individuals values and beliefsabout driving and interacting with otherroad users.

‘...coaching had an impact on how they thinkabout driving.’ (ADI 3)

One ADI, however, was ‘sceptical’ about theimpact coaching technique only would haveafter the test has been passed. They believethat many of the problems experienced in

road traffic incidents were due to driverpersonality and that coaching needed toaddress this facet as well as basic techniques.

Theme 7: Achieving wider change in theindustryParticipants were sceptical about widerchange in the industry. They suggestedcoaching had some way to travel until it wasunderstood and adopted more widely. Thisview is enforced by the comments of twoparticipants who said:

‘A lot of ADIs are not interested in developingthemselves. A lot of them are very negative.’(ADI 4)

Another ADI noted about the drivingindustry:

‘…coaching is a solution…(for a)…problem(the industry) is not aware of.’ (ADI 7)

Overwhelmingly, ADIs felt that the mainstumbling block was the DSA, who needed topublicly embrace coaching as part of the waythat ADIs teach learners to drive and the waythey assess ADIs.

‘The DSA need to change their opinion. Thesystem is against coaching at the moment.’(ADI 6)

Among a number of participants there was afear that as an ADI, they will be downgradedon their regular evaluations by their DSAassessor (described in the industry as ‘thecheck test’), simply because they are usingcoaching rather than an instructionalmodel.

‘We need to live without fear of beingdowngraded in the check test.’ (ADI 4)

There was also a shared view about coachingand how it is currently perceived by manyADIs and DSA assessors. ADIs believed therewas a feeling that coaching currently had abad reputation in many quarters because offour main reasons. Firstly, there are a lot ofADIs who claim to be coaching, but are onlyused ‘old style Q & A’. Secondly, they are agrowing number of coaching drivingcourses, but the quality of training variedwidely.

‘The current quality of coaching training ishorrendous.’ (ADI 8)



Thirdly, too much emphasis had been placedon the steering debate in contrast to anemphasis on encouraging greater personalresponsibility. This has skewed the debateaway from the central issue of coaching anda learner centred approach.

‘We are wasting our time talking about push-pull – it’s a side issue.’ (ADI 14)

Lastly the driving press has been dominatedby people that are not experienced incoaching claiming that it was a waste of time,but with no evidence to draw on. Or bywriters who were aware of theory but had nopractical experience of using coaching.

‘…the industry is full of ex-police drivers whothink they know best, but they are talking aboutdriving in the 1980s not 2010…it’s all opinionwith no evidence to back it up.’ (ADI 7)‘These diehards need to be weeded out.’(ADI 1)‘Too many ADIs are set in their ways andreluctant to change.’ (ADI 4)

The clear message from participants was thatthe DSA needed to actively encourage achange in practice including greater use ofcoaching and base driver training onevidenced-based practice.

DiscussionThis study aimed to explore the experienceof ADIs in teaching novice drivers how todrive a car (category B) and their experienceof using a new method of development,coaching, with novice drivers. The nature ofIPA research means these views reflect theviews of this group of individuals and thuscannot be generalised to the wider ADIcommunity as a whole.

The wider psychological literature hassuggested accidents are largely the result ofhuman error and that human factors such aspersonality and values are strong influenceson human performance and decisionmaking (for example, Philippe et al., 2009).More recent policy work on driver develop-ment within the EU, has suggested that thereis more to safe driving than simple masteryof the vehicles mechanical controls and thatdriver development should take this into

account (EU MERIT, 2004). Further EUreports (HERMES, 2010) have advocated agreater use of coaching. To date, however,there has been no primary research toexplore the application of coaching tolearner driver environments.

For those who have trained in coachingmethods, coaching appears to offer a prac-tical solution for driver training. The resultsof this preliminary study into the experi-ences of using coaching with novice learnersappear to confirm this. However, how dothese results fit with the literature of decisionmaking and learning theory?

It has been widely suggested thatcoaching can facilitate coachees to assumegreater responsibility for their own actions(Whitmore, 2002). Similar claims are madeabout the role of coaching in learner driving(Whitmore, 2010). Psychological theory toosuggests that instructional-based learningcan interfere with learning in contrast withSocratic approach which encourages thelearner to form their own sense of thematerial (Wright, Loftus & Hall, 2001). TheADI participants’ suggested in this study thatlearners benefited from the coachingapproach, when contrasted with an instruc-tional approach. It was suggested thatlearners were able to learner faster and withmore enjoyment.

What this study, as a qualitative explo-ration, has not be able to evidence, iswhether this perception of ADIs is supportedby shorter learning times or higher passrates. Further, this study offers no evidenceon whether coaching improves subsequentdecision making through enhanced respon-sibility and thus reduces road traffic inci-dents. These three aspects are worthy offurther research. Specifically does coachingas an additional pedagogy for use withlearner drivers reduce learning time,improve standards (measured by pass rates)or reduce subsequent accident rates.

A second factor highlighted within theliterature is the lack of focus within driverdevelopment on higher order skills (Senser-rick & Haworth, 2005). The participants in



the study supported this view and noted thata coaching approach offered an opportunityto explore these areas in more detail andwith lasting affect.

Once again these were participating ADIsperceptions of learners and no statisticalevidence is able to drawn on to support theview that coaching-based learners were morelikely to experience an attitude change thaninstruction-based learners. This too is worthyof further research.

A third theme which emerged and which isworthy of discussion was ADI participants’concern about the quality of ADI coachtraining in the driving sector. This was viewedas a limiting factor to individuals acquiring theskills they need. A short review conducted byone of the authors of this paper suggests thatmost of the coaching courses available forADIs in the UK are short courses of five to sixhours duration. Further, almost all of theproviders are ADIs originally trained by theUniversity of East London and are offeringcut-down versions of materials acquired fromtheir own training. The survey of these indi-viduals suggests that the market is concernedabout the costs of purchasing longer andformal training (Passmore, 2011; Passmore, InPress) which is the reason for a predominanceof one-day courses in the market. A secondfactor is cost, with ADIs unable or unwilling toinvest in their on-going development, due tothe low profit margins in the sector.

Despite the enthusiasm of the partici-pants of this study for the potential value indriver coaching, without further modernisa-tion by the DSA, coaching may remain asupplementary technique for those keen toadopt new ways of working, leaving manydriving instructors behind. This suggests thatthe Government itself needs to continue totake a more active role in encouraging theuse of coaching and learner centredapproaches. We would also argue that toachieve this, this will include the need tomove from a voluntary approach to CPD to acompulsory requirement for CPDs for allADIs and an expectation that a learner-centred/coaching approach is vital for

achieving the minimum standard in theindustry’s check test.

A fourth factor highlighted by someparticipants was the limitation of coaching asa tool for more intelligent (although thiscould be interpreted as more articulate)learners. It was noted that to date thecoaching literature has not explored theissue of fit between coaching and personalityor intelligence. However, as was noted above,this argument has previously been made inrelation to counselling. Future researchwithin coaching about coaching’s efficacywith different groups and different individ-uals is much needed.

With respect to this study, a number oflimitations have already been discussed. A number of further limitations should alsobe noted. The study was related to trainingoffered by a single provider. The training wasover a three-month period, with 36 hours ofinput and further reading, study and assess-ment at a postgraduate level. A shortercourse, or other forms of training, mayproduce different results. Secondly, as anIPA study, the focus was on the experience ofthe ADIs in applying the techniques withlearners. While common themes emerged,these are perspectives as opposed to an inde-pendent assessment of the impact ofcoaching techniques. This is useful ascoaching in driver development is a new areaof research and this paper was one of severalpreliminary studies to begin to understandthe issues. Further research is required toexplore learning in different learner drivercontents. In addition research is needed tounderstand whether coaching is more effec-tive or efficient for learning to drive. Thismay be measured in terms of the hours takento pass the test and the pass rate. Also impor-tant, is to establish whether those who passthe test using a coaching method are saferdrivers than those taught using traditionalmethods. At present no evidence exists onhow coaching affects long-term driverperformance, in respect of road traffic inci-dents.

Alexander, G. & Renshaw, B. (2005). Supercoaching.London: Business Books.

Brown, I.D. (1982). Exposure and experience are aconfounded nuisance in research on driverbehaviour. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 14(5).

Chomsky, N. (1959). Review of Verbal Behaviour, byB.F. Skinner. Language, 35, 26–57.

Cunningham, L. & McNally, K. (2003). Improvingorganisational and individual performancethrough coaching: A case study. Nurse Leader,46–99.

Deutsch, J.A. & Deutsch, D. (1963). Attention: Sometheoretical considerations. Psychological Review,70, 80–90.

Dorn, L. (2005). Driver coaching: Driving standardshigher. In L. Dorn (Ed.), Driver behaviour andtraining (Vol. 2). Surrey: Ashgate Publishing.

Fillery-Travis, A. & Lane, D. (2006). Does coachingwork or are we asking the wrong question? International Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1),23–36.

Gallwey, T. (2005). The inner game of work. Overcomingmental obstacles for maximum performance.New York: Random House.

Grant, A.M., Passmore, J. Cavanagh, M. & Parker, H.(2010). The state of play in coaching. Interna-tional Review of Industrial & OrganisationalPsychology. 25, 125–168.

Hatakka, M., Keskinen, E.. Glad, E.. Gregersen, N. &Hernetkoski, C. (2002). Goals for driver develop-ment, published in EU MERIT Project (2004).Driving instructors’ education in Europe: A long-termvision, Working Paper for Workshop 1, (21 January, 2005).

HERMES (2010). EU Hermes project Final report – Highimpact approach for enhancing road safety throughmore effective communication skills in the context ofcategory B driver training. Retrieved 10 March2010, from:http://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/pdf/projects/hermes_final_report_en.pdf

Independent Driving (2010). Retrieved 22 June2010, from:www.dsa.gov.uk/News.asp?id=SXC579-A7835A58

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1973). On thepsychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80,237–251.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience asthe source of learning and development. New Jersey:Prentice Hall.

Larkin, M., Watts, S. & Clifton, E. (2006). Givingvoice and making sense in interpretativephenomenological analysis. Qualitative Research inPsychology, 3, 102–120.

Logan, G.D. (1992). Attention and pre-attention intheories of automaticity. American Journal ofPsychology, 105, 317–339.

MERIT Project (2004). Driving instructors’ education inEurope: A long-term vision. Final Report (30 June2005). Retrieved 15 March 2010, from:www.cieca.be/download/MERITFinaReportEn.pdf

Newnham-Kanas, C., Gorczynski, P., Morrow, D.Irwin, J. (2009). Annotated bibliography of lifecoaching and health research. InternationalJournal of Evidence-Based Coaching and Mentoring,7(1) 39–103.

Parker, I. (2005). Qualitative psychology: Introducingradical research. Maidenhead: Open UniversityPress.

Passmore, J. (2010). International coaching anddriver development conference (30 July).University of East London, London. Keynote:Coaching and driver development.

Passmore, J. (2011). A review of coaching skills trainingfor ADIs in the UK. Unpublished study – availablefrom the Coaching Psychology Unit, Universityof East London, London.

Passmore, J. (In Press). Coaching training for ADIs.ADI News. March.

References



ConclusionsThis study looked at the physical and psycho-logical demands of learning to drive a cate-gory B motor vehicle for novice drivers andthe experiences of ADIs in applyingcoaching as a new method for driverlearning. The study suggests that coachingcan be a useful tool for use with novicedrivers improving the learning experience.Further research is needed to build on theinsights gained from this preliminary study.

Correspondence: Dr Jonathan PassmoreCoaching Psychology Unit,University of East London,Stratford, London, UK.Email: [email protected]



Philippe, F.L., Vallerand, R.J., Richer, I., Vallieres, E.& Bergeron, J. (2009). Passion for driving andaggressive behaviour: A look at their relation-ship. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39.

Reason, J. (1990). Human error. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Senserrick, T. & Haworth, N. (2005). Review of litera-ture regarding national and international young drivertraining, licensing and regulatory systems. MonashUniversity Accident Research Centre, Report239. Retrieved 22 June 2010, from:www.monash.edu.au/muarc/projects/youngdrivers.html

Smith, J.A. (Ed.) (2008). Qualitative psychology: A prac-tical guide to research methods. London: Sage.

Smith, J.A., Flowers, P. & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpre-tative phenomenological analysis theory, method andresearch. London, UK: Sage.

Smith, J.A. & Osborn, M. (2004). Interpretativephenomenological analysis. In G.M. Breakwell(Ed.), Doing social psychology research. Oxford:BPS Blackwell.

Tinklepaugh, O.L. (1928). An experimental study ofrepresentative factors in monkeys. Journal ofComparative Psychology, 8, 197–236.

Tinsley, H.E. & Tinsley, D.J. (1987). Uses of factoranalysis in counselling psychology research.Journal of Counselling Psychology, 34(4), 414–424.

Treisman, A.M. (1969). Strategies and models ofselective attention. Psychological Review, 76,282–299.

Walklin, L. (1990). Teaching and learning in further andadult education. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes.

Wright, D.B., Loftus, E.F. & Hall, M. (2001). Now yousee it; now you don’t: Inhibiting recall and recog-nition of scenes. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15,471–482.

Whitmore, J. (2002). Coaching for performance.London: Nicholas Brealey.

Whitmore, J. (2010). International coaching anddriver development conference. 30 July, Univer-sity of East London, London. Keynote: Coaching’srole in driving.

World Health Organisation (2007). Youth and roadsafety. Geneva: WHO.

Utilising evidence-based leadershiptheories in coaching for leadershipdevelopment: Towards a comprehensiveintegrating conceptual framework Ray Elliott1, 2, 3

Purpose: Examination of the coaching psychology literature shows that discussion about leadershipcoaching is disconnected from the scientific literature about leadership. Similarly, the latter has only recentlybegun to consider how leadership is developed. This lack of cross-engagement between two relevant evidence-based literatures is brought into sharp focus through leadership development coaching practice. This reviewfrom the perspective of external professional practice seeks to close the relevant knowledge gap throughutilisation of a conceptual framework. Methods: Lane and Corrie (2009) proposed three criteria which needed to be satisfied for effective coacheeformation through coaching. Elliott (2007a) developed a framework from client case studies andnaturalistic participant-observer reflections on coaching practice for leadership development intentionallyinformed by a range of evidence-based leadership theories. This framework satisfies the criteria proposed byLane and Corrie. It is here applied and extended to provide an evaluation of current limiting assumptionsin both the evidence-based coaching psychology and scholarly leadership literatures. Results: The extended framework prompts systematic utilisation of salient knowledge domains, informationinputs and processes for intentional coaching for leadership development. It demonstrates the necessaryrelevance of evidence-based leadership theories to coachee goal definition. It describes and contextualisescoach-managed processes to establish, maintain and bound the coaching reflective space and demonstratesthe relevance of other related literatures to inform coaching in organisations.Conclusions: The required parameters in coaching for leadership development proposed by Elliott (2005)are further refined by proposing a more comprehensive model for leadership coaching to guide responsibleprofessional practice and future research.

1 Disclosure of interests and roles: the author is a practicing organisational psychologist and executive coach inhis role as a Director of OEC: Organisation Enhancement Consultancy (www.oecy.com.au). He is also a Directorof MLQ International (www.mlq.com.au) and a Visiting Fellow of the International Centre for Corporate Gover-nance Research, Victoria University, Australia. 2 The antecedent of this paper was a presentation in a symposium entitled ‘Best practices in testing and feedbacktraining for development in a diverse global world’ at the International Congress of Applied Psychology,Melbourne, July, 2010.3 The author was founding National Convener of the Interest Group in Coaching Psychology of the AustralianPsychological Society (2002-2003) and again served as Co-National Convener in 2007.


THE ANNOUNCED PURPOSE of muchcoaching in organisations is about lead-ership development, whether this also

be presented as executive, management,business or performance coaching. Whileconsiderable progress has been made in theexploration of the nature and dynamics ofthe coach – coachee relationship for the

achievement of coachee goals, surprisinglylittle attention has been given in theevidence-based coaching psychology litera-ture to the considerable empirical researchabout leadership in organisations. It isproposed that the time is now ripe, andindeed overdue, for some of the foundingassumptions of coaching psychology to be

Theory in leadership coaching


revisited so that this rich literature aboutleadership can be accessed and appropri-ately applied in coaching.

As a contribution to advance this project,this paper utilises a conceptual frameworkabout professional coaching for leadershipdevelopment (Elliott, 2007a) to identify therelevance to the coaching relationship of twobodies of evidence-based literature – schol-arly leadership research and coaching psychology.It is argued that both these areas of knowl-edge, skill and practice are essential forcompetent leadership coaching practice.

The vantage point from which to under-take this necessary integration is that ofexternal professional coaching practice. Laneand Corrie (2009) highlighted the necessityfor conceptual frameworks to guide practicefor formative coaching and advanced threecriteria which such frameworks need to satisfy.Elliott (2007a) described a conceptual frame-work for leadership coaching which satisfiesthose criteria. This paper applies and extendsthat leadership coaching conceptual frame-work through a discussion of empirical lead-ership theories which, it is asserted, shouldform part of the repertoire of professionalcoaches engaged in any form of leadershipdevelopment for their coachees. It exploreshow such leadership theories or ‘lenses’ canand should be used to validly interpretcoachee experiences in their organisationalsettings as necessary applications of relevantknowledge for developmental coaching.These theories are of similar importance forcoaching psychology as are other areas ofapplied knowledge from the broad field ofpsychology. Finally, the framework for leader-ship coaching is extended through sevenareas of discussion to highlight its nature andfunctioning as a guide not only for profes-sional practice but for future research aboutthe development of leadership in organisa-tions.

Leadership in organisations and theemergence of coaching psychologyExternal professional coaching for develop-ment is a relatively new area of practice in

and alongside organisations. In Australia,the UK and Europe, universities now offercourses and postgraduate certifications incoaching which foster increasingly rigorousevidence-based research about the nature ofcoaching and its outcomes. Since 2002,professional bodies such as the British andAustralian Psychological Societies haveestablished robust interest groups incoaching psychology which, in turn, havefostered this important publication – theInternational Coaching Psychology Review(ICPR). Noting the special positioning of thisemerging body of knowledge aboutevidence-based coaching, this paper seeks torespectfully address this professionalconstituency by inviting it to revisit somefounding assumptions in coachingpsychology which may impede its evolutionto a more comprehensive and inclusiveknowledge-base and practice in organisa-tional contexts.

Grant and Cavanagh (2007) provide anintroduction to coaching psychology in thefollowing terms:

‘Coaching psychologists use a wide rangeof theoretical frameworks, includingpsychodynamic, systemic, cognitivebehavioural, solution-focused and positivepsychology in their work. It is this focus onthe systematic application of evidence-based behavioural science thatdistinguishes coaching psychology fromthe atheoretical proprietary approaches tocoaching commonly seen in the market.In general terms, contemporary coachingpsychology can be seen to sit at theintersection of clinical, counselling, sport,organisational and health psycho-logy.’(p.6)

In the emergent evidence-based literature ofcoaching psychology (for example, Palmer &Whybrow, 2006; Passmore, 2008; Grant,2001, 2006; Whybrow & Palmer, 2006)coaching is differentiated from counselling,training, education, and consulting.Coaching is typically understood as a system-atic engagement between two individuals(referred to as coach and coachee) for the

Ray Elliott


purpose of improving the realisation of thecoachee’s personal goals and enhancedperformance outcomes (for example, Grant& Cavanagh, 2002; Grant, Cavanagh & Kemp(Eds.), 2005; Green & Grant, 2003; Whit-more, 1992; Zeus & Skiffington, 2000). It isconcerned with current realities and presentpersonal functioning with a view to achievinga future preferred state of acts and being bythe coachee.

Coaching and coaching psychologists arenow extensively used for management andexecutive development in organisations.However, while ‘leadership’ is an importantaspect of what executives, managers andteam leaders are expected to provide, inter-pretations of what leadership means vary.Until recently little attention has been givento the overall organisational context of thecoachee in coaching psychology journalliterature, even though the purpose ofcoaching may be about coachee perform-ance as leaders and managers in organisa-tions. On the other hand considerableattention has been given to enablingcoachees achieve their higher personalpotentials through the character, skills andmethods of the coaching relationship (forexample, Joseph, 2006; Nelson & Hogan,2009; Linley & Harrington, 2006; Linley,Woolston & Biswas-Diener, 2009; Linley etal., 2010; Palmer & McDowell, 2010; Maxwell& Bachkirova, 2010).

Coaching for leadership development iscommonly defined within coachingpsychology research and actual practice asmerely the coaching of already identified leadersor potential leaders and managers in organisa-tions. No attempt is made to first theoreti-cally, and then operationally, define exactlywhat leadership and effective leadership is inmeasureable terms, along with theirantecedents and then assessing their impactson individual, group and organisationaloutcomes.

It is striking that the extensive inde-pendent tradition of empirical literatureconcerning leaders and leadership (for areview, Bass & Bass, 2008) has not yet been

engaged and appropriately utilised bycoaching psychology and coaching generally.While one might expect the broad, atheoret-ical and often opportunistic coaching industryto disregard accumulated research knowl-edge about leadership it is surprising that tothis point very little use has been made ofthis research literature by coaching psychologygiven its strong commitment to multi-disci-plinary enquiry and to evidence-basedmethodologies. When one reviews thecoaching literature – including coachingpsychology journals as represented by theICPR – one cannot find systematic attempts todefine leadership or effective leadership, ormeasures of these that are empirically opera-tionalisable.

The development of leaders andleadership trainingAt the same time, leadership researchershave not yet engaged with the emergentcoaching psychology literature. Rather, lead-ership and organisational researchers havebeen concerned with the antecedents ofindividual leaders and leadership – such aspersonality, locus of control, hardiness,multiple intelligences – cognitive, social andemotional, situations and leadership, organ-isational analysis, follower expectations, roletheory and power, inter-relationshipsbetween recognised empirical leadershiptheories, and the recent interest in authenticleadership. (For some reviews: Antonakis,Cianciolo & Sternberg, 2004; Avolio, 2007;Avolio & Chan, 2008; Avolio et al., 2010; Bass& Bass, 2008; Bass & Riggio, 2006; Conger &Pearce, 2003.) Recent authentic leadership(see Table 1) reviews have, however, re-focused attention on the development ofgenuine leadership.

A reported meta-analysis drew attentionto interventions which changed leadershipand concluded that ‘the context one growsup in and later works in is more importantthan heritability to leadership emergence’(Avolio et al., 2010, p.40). Research con-cerning the Pygmalion effect of self-fullingprophecy regarding leader self-expectations,



or the Galatea effect of heightened expecta-tions of others, found the latter made nodifference to outcome performance whilstthe former did. This line of empiricalresearch is interesting in that simultaneously,but apparently independently, muchcoaching psychology research has focusedon developing heigthened leader self effi-cacy, personal strengths optimisation andextension, increased confidence throughimproved personal belief self-regulation.While as yet there are few studies in coachingpsychology which link such developmentinterventions with improved outcomeperformance, empirical leadership researchhas found that leaders who are high in suchcore positive psychological resourcespromote higher satisfaction and commit-ment in followers (Luthans et al., 2006;Luthans et al., 2005).

The emergent authentic leadershiptheory, which augments and seeks to extendtransformational leadership theory, regardspsychological resource theory as a founda-tion for developmental interventionsthrough identifying developmental readi-ness and positive psychological resourcessuch as confidence, optimism, hope,resilience, positive emotions and motivationas malleable state-like qualities (as distinctfrom more enduring trait-like characteris-tics) which result in higher follower satisfac-tion and commitment (Avolio et al., 2010,pp.43–44).

Notwithstanding these parallel develop-ments in research, coaching psychology andleadership research approach the issue ofleadership development from differentperspectives: the former from the profes-sional practice of dyadic coaching relation-ships usually external to the organisationalcontext, and the latter from consideration ofinternal relationships and processes withinorganisations – which relationships arecommonly hierarchical in nature. As hasbeen observed, coaching psychology isconcerned with systematic processes in thereflective space of an enduring coachingrelationship, while leadership research has

been concerned to detect important butrandom trigger points which provide oppor-tunities for leadership development. Bothare avenues to heightened self-awarenesswhich each research tradition regards asfundamental to leadership development.

Apart from these recent developments inemergent authentic leadership theory, leader-ship researchers have given little theoreticalattention to the actual development of lead-ership (Day, 2001; Murphy & Riggio, 2003;Avolio & Chan, 2008; Avolio et al. 2010).Moreover, when leadership researchers havebeen concerned with the development ofleaders, the focus of attention has been theleader – follower relationship dyad (forexample, Dvir & Shamir, 2003). More gener-ally in the actual organisational context,Avolio and Chan (2008) comment:

‘…when we put (the) core elements ofleader, influence, and impact of situationtogether, the development of leadershipas a process reflects the endeavour ofleadership research on the whole’(p.210).

Given these research assumptions, leadershipresearch consequently has given little atten-tion to the actual development of leaders andleadership beyond the leader-follower dyadand situational foci (Avolio & Chan, 2008);Bass & Riggio, 2008). Moreover, Day (2001)in particular drew attention to the significantgap between research about leadership devel-opment and the practice of leadership devel-opment, and that ‘the practice of leadershipdevelopment was far ahead of its scientificunderstanding’ (p.206).

Reviewing the concept of leadership itself,the extensive evidence-based leadershipliterature contains a number of salienttheories about leadership which havefrequent citations and references in highimpact leadership, organisation andmanagement journals. For the benefit of thisaudience, a number of these are brieflysummarised in Table 1.

No doubt there may be differences ofopinion concerning such lists, the coresummary interpretations of such theories

Ray Elliott


Table 1: Salient empirical leadership theories of relevance for coaching forleadership development. 3, 4

Leadership theories/Authors and key references

Full Range LeadershipModel/Theory (FRLM)Antonakis, et al. (2003);Avolio (1999); Bass(1985, 1997, 1998);Bass & Bass (2008); Bass & Riggio (2006);Judge & Piccolo (2004);Sosik & Jung (2010).

Leader-MemberExchange (LMX)Graen & Uhl-Bien (1995).

Autocratic-DemocraticTheoryTannenbaum & Schmidt(1958).

Path-Goal TheoryHouse & Mitchell(1974).

CharismaticLeadership TheoryConger & Kanungo(1988).

NormativeContingency – TaskComplexity ModelVroom & Yetton (1973);Vroom & Jago (1988).

Brief summary

Leadership is a process optimally spanning, over time, a full range of ninecross-culturally and multi-contextually validated behavioural influencingstyles from transformational, transactional to passive-avoidant. Thetransformational – transactional – passive-avoidant dimensions areassociated with differential outcomes at individual, group and organisationallevels of analysis, with transformational influencing being change orientedand augmenting transactional influencing. The FLRM is concerned withoptimising leadership profiles over time and not merely with the level oftransformational influencing displayed. The theory is ‘outcomes driven’,meaning optimal FRLM profiles maximise leader impacts on followers andassociates over time.

Leadership comprises the dyadic exchanges between leaders and theirindividual followers associated with an inner and an outer group. The innergroup is trusted with more information and experience higher levels ofconsultation with the leader than the outer group. This leadership patternresults in strong differentials in motivation, conflict and performanceoutcomes by members of the group.

Leadership decision-making is on a continuum from being highly directivethrough to highly participative. Participation levels can derive fromdelegation or abdication of responsibility by a designated leader. The decisionto enable participation can depend on the situation, task or mission, and theopportunity for consultation in decision-making; it can also be determinedby personality characteristics such as narcissism or intolerance of anxiety orambiguity.

This is an exchange theory of leadership. Followers perceive high productivityto be an easy path to attain personal goals: when they regard theirimmediate leader and organisational situation as a pathway to their ownpersonal future are powerfully motivated to perform at higher levels ofmotivation and deeper levels of commitment. According to this theory,leaders only need to complement what is missing in a situation to enhanceperformance, motivation and task completion by followers.

Charismatic leadership taps into deep psychological identification andattachment processes of ‘the self’ in followers resulting in extraordinarylevels of engagement and followership beyond personal self-interest. Suchleaders are visionary, take significant risks, and can be unconventional.

Leadership style depends on the demands of the situation and the quality ofoutcomes required. Leader-managers become both more directive and moreparticipative depending whether followers were affected by the missionoutcome or not. The theory proposes a hierarchical decision-tree approachdepending on task complexity and the need for follower-alignment.

3 Short list as proposed by Elliott (2007a, 2007b).4 For a comprehensive review and discussion of these and other leadership theories, see Bass and Bass (2008).

Leadership theories/Authors and keyreferences

Power-Distance theoryHollander (1992);Hollander & Offerman(1990); Hofstede &Hofstede (2005).

Strategic LeadershipTheoryFor example, Avolio (2007); Schein(1992); Senge (1990).

Follower Impactson LeadershipDvir & Shamir (2003).

Authentic LeadershipAvolio & Luthans(2006); Avolio, Griffith,Wernsing & Walumbwa(2010); Avolio &Wernsing (2008);Garner, Avolio, Luthans,May & Walumba(2005); Walumbwa,Avolio, Gardner,Wernsing & Peterson(2008).

Situational LeadershipTheoryHersey & Blanchard(1976); Hersey,Blanchard & Natemeyer(1979).

Least Preferred Co-worker TheoryFiedler (1967).

Brief summary

The impact of leadership is related to perceptions of power which aremotivational for followers and associates and can exhibit either dependencyor counter-dependency response patterns. How power is perceived to bedistributed varies depending on the size of the group or organisation.However, the power – distance ratio varies significantly in a normativefashion from culture to culture, and this shapes expectations about effectiveleadership

Strategic leadership provides meaning and purpose for an organisation. Itdiffers from operational and managerial leadership in the degree to whichsystems thinking is required to produce value greater than the sum ofindividual parts and to determine organisational direction and its responsesto contextual and environmental issues, challenges and opportunities:strategic changes involve rethinking current values and re-orienting anorganisation. A variety in executive roles and different forms of corporategovernance exist. The strategic leadership required by chief executive officers(CEOs) varies depending on an organisation’s life cycle stage (founding,maintenance and either rejuvenation or decline).

The developmental readiness and capacity of followers can enable and alsolimit or disable the exercise of transformational leadership by leaders.

Authentic Leadership (AL) is an emergent theory comprising four componentsof leadership conceptualised as a leader’s self awareness, their transparency,their ethical/moral conduct and their balanced processing. At this early stageof scale validation of the Authentic Leadership Questionnaire (ALQ) it isthought that AL may be distinguished from ethical and transformationalleadership. The basic factor structure of the ALQ has been reported to holdup across several cultures (America, Kenyan and Chinese); however it doesnot account for contextual influences on leadership (Walumbwa, Avolio,Gardner, Wernsing, & Peterson (2008, p.118).

This contingency theory regards leadership as differentially taking intoaccount the developmental stages and needs of followers in projects andorganisational units. The leader responds according to four typicallydifferentiated styles.

This contingency theory regards leadership as prioritising between task-focusand people-focus. Relationships, power and task structure are the three keyfactors that drive effective styles.



Ray Elliott


which are necessary for coaching practice,and their worthiness and indeed relevanceto the identification and development ofleadership. If so, let the discussion begin! Itmay be that in time theories about effectiveleadership generated by coaching psychologyresearch may supplement this list.

For instance, the research by Cerni,Curtis and Colmar (2008, 2010a, 2010b)provides an important bridge between theestablished transformational – transactionalmodel and the intra-psychic analytic-rationaland intuitive-experiential coachee domainwhich can be the object of coachingprocesses. However, it is suggested that,given the evident tendencies in the coachingpsychology literature about leadership,caution needs to be exercised about thepremature elevation of non-systematicimplicit assumptions about what constituteseffective leadership derived from the coachingrelationship per se.

From the perspective of observed organi-sational behaviour, enhancing leadership inorganisations is commonly reduced inpractice to finding a person with the ‘right’characteristics. However, from the extensivescholarly leadership research undertaken,and despite popular beliefs and expectationsto the contrary, no such personal universaltraits have been found which can predicteffective leadership in all situations.

Interestingly, Barrick and Mount (1996)reported that traits tend to do a better job ofpredicting the appearance of leadership ratherthan distinguishing between effective andineffective leaders. One wonders then howmany Human Resource Managers allow theirjudgements to be shaped by such surfacelevel phenomena. For an excellent reviewand summary discussion of traits and leader-ship refer to Bass and Bass (2008; chapters 4and 5).

For the purposes of this paper, and byway of illustration, attention to the develop-ment of leaders and leadership viewed from

the scholarly leadership literature will beconfined to a discussion of the transforma-tional-transactional empirical research base.This limitation seems to be justified giventhe prominence in leadership research ofthe Full Range Leadership Theory5, theextensive training in leadership developmentwhich has been reported (Barling, Webber &Kelloway, 1996; Bass & Bass, 2008; Bass &Riggio, 2006; Howell & Avolio, 1989; Parry &Sinha, 2005; Sosik & Jung, 2010) includingcontrolled pre-/post-field studies, and asignificant body of research linking the reli-able measures of leadership with elevatedperformance outcomes at individual, groupand organisational levels (see Table 2).

Bass and Riggio (2006) describe FullRange Leadership (FRL) training in somedetail (chapter 10) and cite studies demon-strating the efficaciousness of such trainingin relation both to improved transforma-tional – transactional profiles (for example,the quasi-experimental pre- and post-evalua-tion of community leaders, pp.159–160).They also cite independent studiesconcerning a range of outcome measureswhich are related to performance improve-ment. Even so, they conclude:

‘although significant work has been donein transformational leadership trainingmuch more is needed.’ (p.234)

It is noteworthy that coaching psychologyfrom its earliest days (Grant, 2001) distin-guished coaching from training, and Bass inhis account of coaching refers only to earlyforms of internal line management coachingand mentoring (Bass & Bass, 2008,pp.1091–1092). However, the time has comefor this boundary of differentiation betweencoaching and training to be re-examined(Elliott, 2010a, 2010b; Elliott & Palermo,2008). As recently observed (Franklin &Doran, 2009; Gyllensten et al., 2010;Leonard-Cross, 2010) the number ofcoaching psychology objective outcomestudies is small: it pales into insignificance

5 For instance, Judge and Piccolo (2004) in their meta-analytic study reported that more studies had beenpublished on the transformational-transactional theory than on any other leadership theory.



when compared to the voluminous transfor-mational leadership out-comes literature.

There is a tendency among coachingpractitioners and possibly coaching researchcircles to assume that what is ‘most recent’ isbetter or best. Some of the leadershiptheories cited may, therefore, be dismissed aspassé. However these postmodern philo-sophical assumptions in contemporaryculture need to be resisted. Responsibleresearch builds on what has been demon-strated to be true: yet how much research isactually the quest for the ‘novel’ or ‘new’without any regard for significant researchtraditions which establish domains and fieldsof knowledge. To establish a universally validtheory of leadership may take upwards of 30years or more of replication, challenge,modification, situational and cultural refine-ments, leading to seminal break-throughstudies which establish the new territory.Such is the history of FRL research: yet it isnot uncommon for new theories to beproclaimed in coaching after only a fewpreliminary studies.

Coaching for leadership development isclearly interested in outcomes: about that

coaching psychology and leadership researchshare a common concern. Scholarly highimpact journal articles which measure theimpact of transformational leadership on arange of individual, group and organisationaloutcomes are presented in Table 2.

FRL training has frequently taken place inorganisation-wide interventions involvingthree-day workshop group processes – oftenstarting at or near the top of organisations.Sometimes such training has been abridgedto two-day workshops in combination withvarious booster sessions (for example, Parry &Sinha, 2005). Moreover, FRL training was that– training in knowledge about the Full RangeLeadership Model combined with facilitativegroup processes about how to incorporatethis research in both personal behaviouraland personal reflection processes. TheMLQ360 assessment has been typically usedfor assessment and developmental feedbackpurposes in these interventions. Additionally,use was made of peer learning circles wherevarious disclosures were made by participantsand indeed encouraged.

Sosik and Jung (2010) elaborated thisFLR training by examining in detail and

Table 2: A selection of empirical research findings about the outcome impacts oftransformational leadership.

Research on outcomes of transformational leadership. Selected references

Transformational leaders make a difference to outcomes. Keller (1995).

Transformational leadership is positively related to business unit Barling, Weber, & Kellowayperformance and financial outcomes. (1996); Howell & Avolio

(1993).

Positive relationships exist between safety-specific Barling, Loughlin & Kellowaytransformational leadership and occupational safety. (2002).

Top manager (CEO) high transformational leaders are associated Jung, Wu & Chow (2008).with organisational innovation in the IT industry in Taiwan.

Transformational and Transactional correlates of effectiveness Dumdum, Lowe & Avolio,and satisfaction. 2003; Lowe, Kroeck &

Sivasubramanian (1996).

The MLQ assessment of the transformational – transactional Bass, Avolio, Jung & Bersontheory validly predicted individual and group performance of a (2003).large longitudinal field experiment within a military context.

Ray Elliott


explicating the components of Full RangeLeadership Development Theory. They write‘our experience in teaching and researchingleadership has taught us that the best way tobecome skilled in FRLD (Full Range Leader-ship Development), or any leadership topicfor that matter, is ‘learning by deeply under-standing and then doing’ ’(p.32). Critical ques-tioning is an important feature of thistraining – questioning often led or facilitatedby the trainer.

Such FRL approaches to leadershipdevelopment are naturally suited to work-shop or classroom-type situations…indeedone might also conjecture that they reflector are indeed driven by paradigms of anacademic enterprise model as befits itsorigins. Day (2001) commented that suchclassroom programmes were still widely usedby organisations as one type of develop-mental practice, citing a 1995 AmericanSociety for Training and Development surveyfinding that 85 per cent of companies thatengaged in leadership development usedformal classroom programmes. However,even in 2001, Day observed that ‘manyorganisations are realising that suchprogrammes are not enough’ (p.586).

Coaching and/or Training: Drivers for leadership development?Now in the foundations of the coachingpsychology movement as has beenmentioned, coaching was clearly delineatedfrom training. Coaching is starting from adifferent place, namely the coach-coacheedyadic relationship and the individual’sperspectives, their experiences, their issues,their personality, and what assists them tounlock their potentials, for example, theeditorial themes of Kemp (2009a) in thespecial edition of the ICPR ‘Coaching andLeadership’. This perspective perpetuatesthe early definitions and theoretical formu-lations of what ‘coaching is’ in so far ascoaching is carved out explicitly in contra-distinction from training (Grant, 2001,2006): training and advising have been eval-uated as the extraneous importation of

‘expert knowledge’ (so ‘not coaching’). Sowhereas FRL training as often practiced inthe US and elsewhere starts from engage-ment with whole organisations – and usesgroup as well as individual interventions –coaching starts from a pair of individualswho can be in organisational contexts.

Thomas Kuhn (1970) maintained thatadvances in science necessarily involve a‘Gestalt switch’ which draws upon psycholog-ical and sociological (and one might addeconomic and business) dimensions (for adiscussion see Chalmers, 2007, pp.116–117,122–128). What is the Gestalt switch whichwill enable coaching and training for leader-ship development to re-engage?

Considering the possible sociologicaldimensions in leadership developmentresearch, three orientations are apparent.Firstly, academic university-driven researchinto individual, group and organisationalbehaviour driven by transparent andsuccinct publication in journals subject tocritical blind peer review. Secondly, coachingpractice ultimately driven by economicadvantage which, for proprietary reasonsand commercial confidentiality limit theappetite for practitioners to publish resultsand methods of ‘what works’ in leadershipdevelopment and which necessarily results inthe selective reporting only of positive resultsto avoid commercial disadvantage. Thirdly,professional practice presentations and peerreview through high quality professionalassociation-sponsored seminars and confer-ences, such as those hosted according to theprofessional codes of practice of establishedpsychological societies. While there are over-laps between these three orientations inleadership research, it is nevertheless imper-ative for the advancement of science, asKuhn has proposed, that the particular soci-ological and economic constraints relevantto each orientation are recognised and prop-erly evaluated. The emergent field ofcoaching psychology has an important partin strengthening the third orientation and infacilitating exchange between the first twoorientations. It is suggested that the first may



well often undervalue the third as a source ofinnovation and new knowledge about whatworks in coaching for leadership develop-ment.

Extending such Kuhnian analysis toinclude possible cross-cultural/countrypatterns in research and practice about lead-ership development, one may observe that inthe US – where most FRL training hasoccurred – it has often been in associationwith the university orientation and posi-tioning. By contrast, the evidence-basedcoaching psychology movement – nowstrongly developed in the UK and Australia –has been relatively poorly developed in theUS where the proprietary coaching theoriesand models of the second orientationabound and are strongly marketed andexported: but any transparently reportedresearch base underpinning them has oftenbeen slight or indeed absent. One might,therefore, conjecture that the social,economic, cultural and institutional differ-ences in positioning in these countries maybe one reason why the gap betweenevidence-based coaching (strongly driven inthe UK and Australia) and leadershipresearch (strongly driven within the US) hasnot started to be addressed until recently.Whatever the reasons, there continues to belittle engagement by coaching psychologyliterature of the empirical leadership litera-ture, as evidenced by issues 1 to 5 of the ICPR(2006–2010).

Coaching for Leadership DevelopmentPracticeAs has been observed, on the one hand,university-based research can sometimesdrive practice; on the other hand profes-sional practice can sometimes drive univer-sity research. Serious self-critical andreflective practitioners who engage incoaching for leadership development try totake account of scholarly research and emer-gent theory from coaching psychology. Atthe same time they also seek to utilise thesystematic evidence-based research andtheory about leadership in organisations.

Pathways and methods are required to ‘getthe balance right’ between the insights fromboth coaching psychology about the devel-opment of human potentials, and leadershipresearch – particularly which shed light diag-nostically on what constitutes effective andineffective leadership and how this might beassessed and indeed reliably measured. Suchpathways need to be not naive about theeconomic imperatives which drive any partic-ular research or practice orientation; thisincludes university research which canuncritically be held ipso facto to be moreobjective, valid, reliable, authoritative, andthe source of most true advances in coachingskills and knowledge.

An important issue for coaching and itsfounding assumptions, is whether coach andcoachee contain within themselves thenecessary knowledge and skills to projectwhat effective leadership is or could be in anorganisational situation? If a body of knowl-edge exists external to the coach-coacheerelationship, then how might the latter be re-defined to utilise such knowledge withoutlosing the gains and insights made bycoaching psychology? It would seem that thisquest is not too dissimilar to the applicationto coaching of diagnostics about humanpathology from, say, mental health psycho-logical perspectives. If such areas of clinicaland counselling psychological knowledgeand practice from the broad field ofpsychology be admitted, then why not alsofoster research and practice engagementbetween coaching psychology with theknowledge and practice of industrial andorganisational psychology?

The urgency of the quest for a more inte-grated and comprehensive approach tocoaching for leadership development ishighlighted by the comparative absence ofengagement with the empirical leadershipliterature as reviewed here in the recentspecial edition of ICPR ‘Coaching and Lead-ership’ (Vol. 5(1), 2009). ‘Coacheestrengths-based coaching’, ‘solution-focusedcoaching’, and ‘coachee directed goal attain-ment coaching’ has dominated the current

Ray Elliott


paradigms for evidence-based coaching,including excursions into coaching for lead-ership development. Moreover, it has beenrecently proposed in that the coaching rela-tionship itself, and indeed the coach them-selves, should constitute ‘the futuredirection’ for research and practice aboutleadership in coaching psychology practice(Kemp, 2009b). Such a programme wouldseem to lead coaching research and practiceabout leadership development to the logicalendpoint of the current limiting tendenciesin coaching psychology to which this paperhas drawn attention. Now the time is reallyright to explore scientific leadership theoriesand their necessary use in coaching. Onemight ask, therefore, for a later discussion,‘What might be relevant Kuhnian perspec-tives on this evident bias?’

The utility of conceptual frameworks for leader-ship coaching practice and researchTo advance some answers to questions aboutfundamental perspectives regardingcoaching for leadership development it ishere proposed that this journey will beassisted by the articulation of more inclusiveand appropriate conceptual frameworks forcoaching, following the suggestions of Laneand Corrie (2009). They pursued the needfor clear frameworks in formative coachingpsychology practice, and advance threecriteria if such conceptual frameworks forcoaching are to be ‘fit for purpose’ – namelya model or framework: 1. that is consistent with a client partnership

framework in which it is possible toincorporate a variety of stakeholderpositions;

2. that can take account of a broader rangeof factors than the individual andinternal’ (by the ‘zeitgeist of internalcausation’);

3. of formulation that has relevance to allcontexts, regardless of the goals chosen,theoretical position adopted ortechniques for change used (that is…it must be replicable across time, placeand contract.’ (p.199)

Lane and Corrie (2009) add, ‘in generalterms, formulation can be understood as anexplanatory account of the issues with whicha client is presenting (including predis-posing, precipitating and maintainingfactors) that can form the basis of a sharedframework of understanding and which hasimplications for change’ (p.199).

This author agrees that such frameworksare crucial in working with clients at thelevels of performance and developmentalcoaching, as well as work involving anydegree of complexity; and that formulationcan serve many functions ranging from theidentification of relevant issues and goals, toenhancing coach empathy and collaboration.

In 2006, Fillery-Travis and Lane also drewattention to the need for clear frameworksfor the various modalities of coaching –internal and external provider contexts, andmanager provided – if any empirical evalua-tion of the effectiveness of coaching was tobe demonstrated. An example of the externalcoaching modality was presented by Elliott,(2007a, 2007b). Later Franklin and Doran(2009) advanced considerations of the effec-tiveness of different coaching frameworksand models in a double blind randomcontrol study of alternative coaching frame-works related to effective academic perform-ance.

Specifically concerning coaching forleadership development, Leonard (2003)highlighted the need for coaching to takeleadership research seriously and provided areview of some relevant leadership theories;and Elliott (2003) presented at SydneyUniversity on the need for a comprehensiveapproach, and drew attention to the ques-tion of the absence of such evidence-basedinterpretative theories and knowledge abouteffective and ineffective leadership in thecoaching literature and coaching psychologypresentations. He advanced seven proposi-tions for professional coaching about leader-ship development, which included the needfor a proper utilisation of scientifically estab-lished leadership theories (Elliott, 2005).



Through a methodological process ofcase studies, professional presentations andcritical peer review, naturalistic methodswith attention to accurate phenomenolog-ical description and objective analysis ofactual professional practice, Elliott thendeveloped and presented two comprehen-sive posters at the Australian and NewZealand Academy of Management Confer-ence in Sydney entitled: ‘Coaching for lead-ership development: The zone ofprofessional practice’ (2007a) and acompanion ‘Critique of coaching and lead-ership research literature from the zone ofprofessional practice’ (2007b). The syner-gies between the conceptual analysis,purpose, role and function of Elliott’sproposal and the formative frameworkconceptuality as proposed by Lane andCorrie are striking. Extracts of this frame-work are presented in Figures 1 to 7.

So in the practice of ‘being in the reflec-tive space in the zone of coaching’, partiallyrepresented in Figure 1, it is necessary tobring to the fore and represent necessaryengagement with the fruits of empirical lead-ership research in the reflective space on theone hand, and engagement with the coreaspects of coaching and coaching processeson the other. The total framework Elliott(2007a, summarised in Figure 4), identifiesand maps key contributing realities andprocesses considered to contribute to estab-lishing and maintaining a comprehensiveand integrated reflective space in leadershipcoaching. Although schematic it highlightsthe opportunity of ‘getting the balance right’in the reflective space of coaching for lead-ership development. It invites enquiry andchallenges common assumptions about whatknowledge, skill and processes are necessaryand relevant. Moreover, it provides a

Figure 1: Implicit theories and the coach and coachee. Extract from Elliott (2007a).

Ray Elliott


manageable number of salient and highlyrelevant reference points for active system-atic monitoring in coaching conversationsand by researchers of leadership coaching.

Leadership theory in the reflective space ofcoaching for leadership developmentSuch conceptual frameworks focus attentionabout salient matters for leadership develop-ment. They imply the question: From whencecome the authorities upon which any theories aboutleadership may be based? In search for answersthe reader is invited into the coaching rela-tionship – into the safe ‘private room’ of thecoaching encounter between two people.This situation is not about classroom orworkshop training as traditionally under-stood.

What does this reflective space in timelook like from both the perspectives ofthe coach and coachee, and what is its

relationship to: (a) the organisationalcontext; and (b) realms of expertknowledge about leadership (which ispredictive of individual and organisa-tional outcomes)?

Considering Figures 1 and 2, key referencepoints include the complexities of the organ-isational context and ‘lenses’ from leader-ship theory. It is the coach’s responsibility toensure that the overall balance the frame-work system suggests is achieved over time.The framework prompts the strategic system-atic scanning or monitoring of the relevantcontent and processes involved.

The framework representation of lensesfrom leadership theory requires the identifi-cation of such theories deemed suitable forutilisation in the reflective space of coachingfor leadership development. Appropriateexamples from the extensive scientific litera-ture about effective leadership models are

Figure 2: Interpretative lenses from theory: scientific leadership research.Extract from Elliott (2007a).



considered to be those listed in Table 1.These theories become potential lenses forinterpretation in the reflective space of thecontent presented by organisational contextand coachee. These theories expand and‘tune up’ the implicit theories about leader-ship which the coach and coachee bring tothe purposeful relationship. They inform‘what counts’ (what is authoritative)regarding effective outcomes for leadershipstyles given related situational and contex-tual organisational realities relevant to lead-ership, and theories which sharpenawareness and operational performance ofthe coachee in the organisation.

The zone of professional practice in lead-ership coaching (Elliott, 2007a) seems to satisfythe three criteria advanced by Lane andCorrie (2009) to be ‘fit for purpose’.

Elaboration of a Balanced ConceptualFramework for LeadershipDevelopmentIn view of the preceding analysis of leader-ship development from the zone of profes-sional practice seven extension areas are nowbriefly proposed and discussed ascontributing towards best practice.

1: The need for conceptual frameworks to guideprofessional leadership coaching. The conceptual framework for leadershipcoaching at the individual level (Figure 2)gives salience to the utilisation of specialist‘interpretative lenses from leadership’ andrelevant ‘group and organisational theories’in the coaching reflective space. Extendingon the necessary processes required, it isproposed that the coach needs to systemati-

Figure 3: The reflective space in the coaching relationship.Extract from Elliott (2007a).

Ray Elliott


cally monitor the range of possible interpre-tative lenses and, as appropriate introducethem as part of the meaning-makingprocesses in the reflective space. Thisrequires the coach to bracket or hold incheck his/her own implicit beliefs andtheories about leadership and organisationsand indeed moderate these through theirown engagement with the interpretativelenses as part of their own on-going profes-sional development.

An additional implication for coachingpsychology from the scholarly leadershipliterature is the recognition that leadershiptakes place at the group and organisationallevels in addition to the individual level(Avolio et al., 1996; Avolio et al., 2003;Pearce & Conger, 2003; Schein, 1992; Tosi,1991; Sivasubramaniam et al., 2002). Addi-tionally, the leadership literature emphasisesthat the organisational context of the coacheeis crucial for interpreting the interactionsbetween leaders and organisations (forexample, Avolio, 2007; Elliott, 2005, 2007)and as many of the leadership theories inTable 1 hold. Consequently, to treat the lead-ership development coachee in isolationfrom these phenomena is a serious defi-ciency in coaching following an individualistparadigm. The interpretative lens proposedin the framework (Figure 2), therefore,opens up a necessary corrective to muchcoaching for leadership development.

2: Lessons from curriculum theory for coachingin leadership development. The conceptual framework proposed byElliott (2007a) enables an overall systemperspective of what may otherwise be seen ascompeting system elements. This is similar tocurriculum theory in education which alsoseeks to orchestrate a number of diversecomponents of the educative process: forexample, persons as learners, knowledgeand skill domains, the purposes of thecurriculum, the role of the teacher/facili-tator, resources available and the mediumsfor information presentation, learning activ-ities and theories, developmental theories

and their appropriate application, assess-ment practices (whether formative orsummative, for example), system evaluationassumptions and the total set of assumptionsabout the contexts in which the embeddedlearning occurs. Coaching psychology couldprofit from more engagement withcurriculum theory from the field of educa-tion which is also dedicated to human devel-opment. The total conceptual frameworkproposed by Elliott (2007a, Figure 4) illus-trates how the various elements are orches-trated to form and frame the reflectivespace.

3: The psychodynamics of the coaching reflectivespace: boundary maintenance and processdrivers. The conceptual framework (Elliott, 2007a)proposes process micro-drivers which estab-lish and drive the coaching reflective space:(i) the appropriate utilisation by the coach ofa range of both facilitative skill and expertknowledge modalities; (ii) the facilitation bythe coach of the coachee exploration of ‘self-other beliefs’ within a developmental perspec-tive (for example, as envisaged by Kegan,1982); and (iii) the application of ethicalprinciples to achieve and maintain coacheeinformed consent. The total relationalcontext is established through both formaland informal contracting agreements whichdefine its purpose and scope of coaching, andwhich involve all the stakeholders (see Figure5): the coach and/or coach organisation, thesponsoring organisation for the coacheeclient(s) and each coachee.

The interpersonal nature of each coach-coachee relationship is of great importance(Gyllensten, & Palmer, 2007; O’Broin &Palmer, 2010; Palmer & McDowall, 2010).The relationship is essentially characterisedby mutuality. In a related analysis, Welmanand Bachkirova (2010) have helpfullyexplored the use and meaning of ‘power’ incoaching relationships. However, theconceptual framework (Elliott, 2007a)invites considerations relating to power to beviewed from the perspective of an analysis of



Figure 4: Coaching for leadership development: The zone of professional practice.Full conceptual framework. Extract from Elliott (2007a).

Figure 5: Purpose and the reflective space: Contracting and evaluation in organisations.Extract from Elliott (2007a).

Ray Elliott


assumptions and attributions concerningauthority – whether about persons, organisa-tional context, knowledge, belief systems orscientific theory (Elliott, 2010c). So under-stood, relationship, power, context, andauthority are all important aspects of thereflective space in the creation of meaningfor personal development.

4: Selection criteria for 360 feedback psycho-metric assessments and their implementation inpractice. While anybody can ask a question which theybelieve to be useful and importantconcerning leadership, some questions arebetter than others. 360 assessment platformstoday readily enable custom designercontent which may be generated by surveypurveyors, client organisations, coaches andclients. While these may be high on facevalidity through tapping into shared implicittheories about leadership for instance, theymay in fact be of little or no value inpromoting effective leadership developmentand its associated outcomes. As has beendiscussed, the widespread utilisation of indi-viduals’ and organisations’ implicit leadershiptheories does not confer on such beliefsusefulness in providing feedback forcoachee development, other than possiblyincreasing awareness between self- andother- perception differences.

Some questions are better than others inreliably measuring leadership as this maydifferentially relate to a range of outcomeseffects…some desirable and others undesir-able. Good questions capture content whichhas relatively sharp boundaries, resulting inconsiderable agreement among any rateraudience about what information is beingcaptured on the leadership stage and by that‘spotlight’. Poor questions appear to be fuzzyand lack consensus with regard to theirmeaning. Well-designed psychometricsurveys have a structure which can be likenedto clusters of illuminating spot lights whichoverlap each other on the leadership stage.

The MLQ360 is an example of a goodpsychometrically valid survey which has beenshown to function validly in many contexts(Antonakis, Avolio & Sivasubramaniam,2003). Data collected which is predictive of arange of desired outcomes is preferable tomere norm comparisons which simplyrequire the coachee to consider where theyare in relation to others and may indeedhave no relation with desired leadershipperformance outcomes.

5: External and internal goal definition: Gettingthe balance right through relevant resource selec-tion and process. On the one hand valid 360 psychometricfeedback can propose goals for leadershipdevelopment which are informed andshaped by scientific theory and knowledgeabout effective leadership (McDowall & Mill-ward, 2010). On the other hand coachingfocuses on assisting the coachee towardstheir own identification of goals, motivationsand desired future states which are attractorsfor them (and may be their sponsoringorganisation). Integrating the inner goalaspirations of the coachee with objectives forbehavioural change as proposed by leader-ship research is a critical new area forresearch and practice in coachingpsychology for leadership development.Strategies and methods exist which aim toaccomplish this6: however, an account ofthese is beyond the scope of this paper.

What is vitally important in terms ofbalancing the internal – externalgeneration of goals for development is thecoach facilitating the coachee takingpersonal ownership of the scientificallyinformed 360 objectives for leadershipdevelopment through a selection andvisualisation process involving theirrelationships and organisational context.Such processes assist the translation of‘external/scientifically objective’ research-based assessment data which proposesgoals for leadership development into an

6 For example, the MILDERS 360 roll-out system of MLQ International.



internal ‘owned personal developmentplan’ with follow-through supportrelationships and mechanisms to enablecoachee transition from ‘application andpractice’ to ‘personal adoption’.

6: Coaching processes which enhance transfor-mational leadershipThe ground-breaking research by Cerni,Curtis and Colmar (2008, 2010a, 2010b)provides amongst the first empirical evidencethat behavioural demonstrations of coacheetransformational leadership itself can beincreased by coaching methods focusing onchanges to the coachee’s analytical-rationalsystem and constructive thinking of the intu-itive constructive system. The intuitive-experien-tial system can be both constructive anddestructive. This field study was with adultleaders in educational organisations andused a pre-test, post-test control-groupresearch design which spanned a 10-weekcoaching programme. All staff in each organ-isation independently rated their leader andthere was no difference in the control group.

The study utilised aspects of the plan roll-out system referred to in ‘Extension Area 5’.FRL was assessed using multi-rater data withthe MLQ5x scale.

7: Necessary ethical principles and skills incoaching processesThese principles and core values for profes-sional conduct can be applied to providegeneral guidance for the utilisation of scien-tific knowledge about leadership incoaching. When these ethical principles arepracticed in the conceptual frameworkprocesses maintaining the reflective spacefor leadership development, the coachee isdrawn into key process decision-makingconcerning their own journey in coachingand is required to take responsibility forthem. This extension commentary will belimited to only several key points.

The professional ethical principles ofcompetence and propriety require attention toscientific knowledge about leadership incoaching for leadership development. Ifcoaches promote themselves and indeed actas ‘leadership coaches’ it is ethically incum-bent on them to be acquainted with coreresearch about leadership and how this canbe utilised in practice.

With regard to the introduction and useof leadership theories, the principles of disclo-sure and informed consent require that thecoach explain to the coachee, usually inadvance, the shifts in methodology from

Table 3: Common Ethical Principles in Codes of Professional Practice.

Appropriate The need for appropriate disclosure of purpose and any related interests. disclosure:

Informed Securing the voluntary informed consent of the client for any programmeconsent: or procedure.

Competence: Accurately representing claimed competence and the limits to competence.

Avoidance of The responsibility to resolve conflicts of interest arising from competing valuesconflicts of and commitments.interest:

Confidentiality: Maintaining appropriate levels of confidentiality regarding the sharing of any classes of information with other persons or institutions.

Propriety: Acceptance of the need for personal responsibility for decisions and their consequences along with the maintenance of personal autonomy and accountability.

Elliott & Tuohy, Melbourne, 2006.

Ray Elliott


facilitative to expert modes and vice-versa(disclosure) and then seek agreement(informed consent) to these moves bychecking with the coachee. Such proceduresare educative and empowering for thecoachee. They also enable avoidance ofcoachee dependence on the coach as incounselling.

These ethical practices are part of thenecessary facilitative and expert modality reper-toire required of the coach (Elliott, 2005).This ethical repertoire is necessary for thetransitions to be made in the reflective spacewhich utilise expert knowledge if the essen-tial developmental purposes of coaching arenot to be violated. It is proposed that thecapacity of the coach to know and be able toapply all these ethical principles in theirpractice is required by the principles ofcompetence and propriety for professionalconduct.

ConclusionIn conclusion, this paper has reviewed currentemphases and limitations of the currentcoaching industry and literature. To achievecomprehensiveness and required professionalpractice relevance, it is proposed thatapproaches such as the conceptual framework forleadership coaching (Elliott, 2007a) should beutilised which systematically monitor andprompt for a number of salient but necessarilyrelevant inputs. This framework includes theuse of lenses from leadership theory which, indistinction from much writing in the coachingand coaching psychology literatureapproaches, have been established independ-ently from the coach – coachee or organisa-tional implicit theories held and assumed aboutwhat is considered to be effective leadership.

Ethical principles commonly found inprofessional practice codes have beenapplied to provide guidance for the handling

Figure 6a: Key coaching processes within the coaching reflective space.Extracts from Elliott (2007a).



Figure 6b: Key coaching processes within the coaching reflective space.Extracts from Elliott (2007a).

Figure 6b: Key coaching processes within the coaching reflective space.Extracts from Elliott (2007a).

Ray Elliott


of such scientific leadership theories in thereflective space, contracting, and boundarymanagement for the coaching reflectivespace itself. This guidance, together with acomprehensive understanding of thecoaching relationship, enables responsibletransitions in coaching for leadership devel-opment through coaching (coach andcoachee) being appropriately informed byscientific and scholarly leadership researchusing interpretative ‘lenses’ from theory toilluminate the leadership stage of a particularcoachee and their organisational context.

The scientific leadership literature hasonly recently commenced serious enquiryabout how leaders and leadership are devel-oped from a psychological perspective. Inthis regard it needs to pay attention to thestrengths of coaching psychology and itsgrowing research evidence-base.

Some reasons for the continuing discon-nect between the evidence-based leadershipand coaching literatures have beencanvassed. It is proposed that the conceptual

framework for leadership developmententails a necessary correction to muchcoaching psychology practice and writingabout leadership development if trulyevidence-based scientific attributions are tobe used to describe these activities.

Suggestions for further research andpractice reviewGiven the extensive reported activity incoaching for leadership development as afrequent purpose of coaching on the onehand, and the recent interest in the develop-ment of leaders and leadership by leadershipscholars on the other hand, there is need forfurther critical analysis of the assumptionsbeing entertained. Additionally, given agreedsystematic definitions and measures of lead-ership, there is an urgent need for fieldresearch which investigates the effectivenessof different kinds of coaching frameworksand models for leadership development.

In particular, as reviewed here there havebeen a number of studies of the effectiveness

Figure 7: Overview: Coaching processes within the coaching reflective space.Extract from Elliott (2007a).



of Full Range Leadership training for thedevelopment of people to elevated individual,group and organisational performanceoutcomes. How do these outcome effectscompare with the individual dyadic coachingeffects of leadership development approachesthrough coaching psychology methods? Howcan coaching psychology utilise the findingsconcerning the antecedents and processes ofleadership development found in the leader-ship literature? How can further progress bemade about the role and importance of thecognitive ‘inner side’ of developing effective

leadership in terms of outcome effects. Theseand many other questions seem both urgentand important if the new field of coaching forleadership development is to be sought out andclaimed.

CorrespondenceRay Elliott, MAPS, FAHRI, AIMMOrganisational Psychologist andExecutive Coach,Victoria University, Australia.Email: [email protected]

Antonakis, J.A., Avolio, B.J. & Sivasubramaniam, N.(2003). Context and leadership: An examinationof the nine-factor full-range leadership theoryusing the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire.The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 261–295.

Antonakis, J.A., Cianciolo, A.T. & Sternberg, R.J.(2004). The nature of leadership. California: Sage.

Avolio, B.J. (1999). Full leadership development: Buildingthe vital forces in organisations. California: Sage.

Avolio, B.J. (2007). Promoting more integrativestrategies for leadership theory-building. American Psychologist, 62(1).

Avolio, B.J. & Chan, A. (2008). The dawning of a newera for genuine leadership development. Inter-national Review of Industrial and OrganisationalPsychology, 23, 197.

Avolio, B.J., Griffith, J., Wernsing, T.S. & Walumbwa,F.O. (2010). What is authentic leadership develop-ment? In P.A. Linley, S. Harrington & N. Garcea(Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology and work(pp.39–52). New York: Oxford University Press.

Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I., Murry, W.D. & Sivasubra-manian, N. (1996). Building highly developedteams: Focusing on shared leadership processes,efficacy, trust, and performance. In M.M. Beyer-lein, D.A. Johnson & S.T. Beyerlein (Eds.),Advances in interdisciplinary studies of work teams(pp.173–209). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Avolio, B.J. & Luthans, F. (2006). The high impactleader: Moments that matter in authentic leadershipdevelopment. New York: McGraw Hill.

Avolio, B.J., Sivasubramanian, N., Murry, W.D., Jung,D.I. & Garger, J.W. (2003). Assessing shared lead-ership: Development and preliminary validationof a team multi–factor leadership questionnaire.In C.L. Pearce & J.A. Conger (Eds.), Shared lead-ership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership.California: Sage.

Avolio, B.J. & Wernsing, T.S. (2008). Practicingauthentic leadership. In S.J. Lopez (Ed.), Positivepsychology: Exploring the best in people (pp.147–165).Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Company.

Barling, J., Loughlin, C. & Kelloway, E.K. (2002).Development and test of a model linking safety-specific transformational leadership and occupa-tional safety. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3),488–496.

Barling, J., Weber, T. & Kelloway, E.K. (1996). Effectsof transformational leadership training on attitu-dinal and financial outcomes: A field experi-ment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(6),827–832.

Barrick, R. & Mount, M.K. (1996). Effects of impres-sion management and self-deception on thepredictive validity of personality constructs.Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 261–272.

Bass, B.M. (1985). Performance beyond expectations. NewYork: The Free Press.

Bass, B.M. (1997). Does the transactional-transforma-tional leadership paradigm transcend organisa-tional and national boundaries? AmericanPsychologist, 52(2),130–139.

Bass, B.M. (1998). Transformational leadership:Industry, military and educational impact. Mahway,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Bass, B.M. & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of lead-ership (4th ed.). New York: Free Press

Bass, B.M., Avolio, B.J., Jung, D.I. & Berson, Y.(2003). Predicting unit performance by assessingtransformational and transactional leadership.Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(2), 207–218.

Bass, B.M. & Riggio, R.E. (2006). Transformationalleadership (2nd ed,). Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Cerni, T., Curtis, G.J. & Colmar, S.H. (2008). Infor-mation processing and leadership styles:Constructive thinking and transformational lead-ership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 2(1), 60–73.

References

Ray Elliott


Cerni, T., Curtis, G.J. & Colmar, S.H. (2010a). Execu-tive coaching can enhance transformational lead-ership. International Coaching Psychology Review,5(1), 81–85.

Cerni, T., Curtis, G.J. & Colmar, S.H. (2010b). Cognitive-experiential self-theory and transformationalleadership: Information-processing, educational leader-ship, conflict-handling styles. Saarbrucken,Germany: VDM Publishing House.

Chalmers, A.F. (2007). What is this thing called science?St. Lucia, QLD: University of Queensland Press.

Conger, J.A. & Kanungo, R.N. (1988). Charismaticleadership: The elusive factor in organisational effec-tiveness. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Day, D.V. (2001). Leadership development: A reviewin context. Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 581–613.

Dumdum, U.R., Lowe K.B., & Avolio, B.J. (2003). AMeta-analysis of transformational and transac-tional leadership correlates of effectiveness andsatisfaction: An update and extension. In B.J.Avolio & F.J. Yammarino (Eds.), Transformationalleadership: The road ahead. Oxford: Elseveir Press.

Dvir, T. & Shamir, B. (2003). Follower developmentalcharacteristics as predicting transformationalleadership: A longitudinal field study. The Leader-ship Quarterly, 14(3), 327–344.

Elliott, R.H. (2003, July). Parameters of specialist leader-ship coaching: Professionalism, ethics and appliedpsychology. First Australian Evidence-BasedCoaching Conference. Coaching PsychologyUnit, School of Psychology, University of Sydney.Sydney.

Elliott, R.H. (2004). Building the theory of coaching frompractice. Symposium at the First National Confer-ence Symposium of the APS Interest Group onCoaching Psychology (IGCP): Melbourne, July.

Elliott, R.H. (2005). The parameters of specialistprofessional leadership coaching. In A.M. Grant,M. Cavanagh & T. Kemp (Eds.), Evidence-basedcoaching: Contributions from the Behavioural Sciences(Vol. 1). Bowen Hills QLD: Australian AcademicPress.

Elliott, R.H. (2007a). Coaching for leadership Develop-ment: The zone of professional practice. Australianand New Zealand Academy of Management,Sydney. National Conference Poster Presenta-tion.

Elliott, R.H. (2007b). Critique of coaching and leadershipresearch literature from the zone of professional practice.Australian and New Zealand Academy ofManagement, Sydney. National ConferencePoster Presentation.

Elliott R.H. (2007) Optimising ‘leadership’: Theory,practice and professionalism. The OrganisationalPsychologist (March). Official Quarterly Newsletterof the College of Organisational Psychologists,Australian Psychological Society.

Elliott, R.H. (2010a). Getting the balance right: Utilisingpsychometric assessment inputs and evidence basedtheories in the coaching ‘reflective space’ for leadershipdevelopment. Symposium presentation and paper,International Congress of Applied Psychology,Melbourne.

Elliott, R.H. (2010b). The MLQ transformational –transactional scale and cross–cultural assessment: A research-driven platform for global leadership devel-opment’. Symposium presentation and paper,International Test Commission Biennial Confer-ence, Hong Kong.

Elliott, R.H. (2010c). Religion, spirituality andcoaching for leadership development. Journal ofSpirituality, Leadership and Management, 4(1).

Elliott, R.H. & Palermo, J. (2008). The practice ofcoaching for executive leadership development: A micro-level analysis and examination, using case study audioreplay techniques and peer review, of enacted profes-sional knowledge and skills. Workshop, InterestGroup in Coaching Psychology, National Sympo-sium. Darling Harbour, Sydney.

Elliott, R.H. & Tuohy, M. (2006). Ethics and morality ina multicultural society. Melbourne: ThomsonLearning – Nelsons.

Feidler, F.E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness.New York: McGraw Hill.

Fillery-Travis & Lane, D. (2006). Does coaching workor are we asking the wrong question? Inter-national Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1), 23–36.

Franklin, J. & Doran, J. (2009). Does all coachingenhance objective performance independentlyevaluated by blind assessors? The importance ofthe coaching model and content. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 4(2), 126–144.

Gardner, W.L., Avolio, B.J., Luthans, F., May, D.R &Walumba, F. (2005). Can you see the real me? A self-based model of authentic leadership devel-opment. Leadership Quarterly, 16(3), 343–372.

Graen, G.B. & Uhl-Bien, M. (1995). Development ofleader-member exchange (LMX) theory of lead-ership over 25 years: Applying a multi-leveldomain perspective? The Leadership Quarterly,6(2), 219–247.

Grant, A.M. (2001). Towards a psychology of coaching:The impact of coaching on metacognition, mentalhealth and goal attainment. Unpublished doctoraldissertation. Macquarie University, Sydney,Australia.

Grant, A.M. (2006). A personal perspective onprofessional coaching and the development ofcoaching psychology. International CoachingPsychology Review, 1(1), 12–20.

Grant A.M. & Cavanagh M. (2002) Coachingpsychology: A solution-focused, cognitive-behaviouralapproach. Coaching Psychology Unit, School ofPsychology, University of Sydney. AustralianPsychological Society National Conference, GoldCoast, Queensland.



Grant A.M., Cavanagh M. & Kemp, T. (Eds.) (2005).Evidence-based coaching: Contributions from theBehavioural Sciences (Vol. 1). Bowen Hills, QLD:Australian Academic Press.

Grant A.M. & Cavanagh, M. (2007). Coachingpsychology: How did we get here and where arewe going? InPsych Magazine. Australian Psycho-logical Society.

Green, J. & Grant A.M. (2003). Solution-focusedcoaching: Managing people in a complex world.Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.

Gyllensten, K. & Palmer, S. (2007). The coachingrelationship: An interpretative phenomenolog-ical analysis. International Coaching PsychologyReview, 2(2), 1750–2764.

Gyllensten, K., Palmer, S., Nilsson, E., Regnér, A.M. &Frodi, A. (2010). Experiences of cognitivecoaching: A qualitative study. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 5(2), 98–108.

Hofstede, G. & Hofstede, G.J. (2005). Cultures andorganisations: Software of the mind. California andSydney: McGraw-Hill.

Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K.H. (1976). Situational Lead-ership (Research Report). Escondido, CA: Centre forLeadership Studies.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H. & Natemeyer, WE. (1979)Situational leadership, perception, and theimpact of power. Group & Organisation Manage-ment, 4(4), 418–428.

Hollander, E.P. (1992). Leadership, followership,self, and others. Leadership Quarterly, 3(1), 43–54.

Hollander, E.P. & Offermann, L.R. (1990). Powerand leadership in organisations. American Psychol-ogist, 45(2), 179–189.

House, R.J. & Mitchell, T.R. (1974). Path-goal theoryof leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business. 3,81–97.

Howell, J.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1989). Transformational VStransactional leaders: How they impart innovation, risk-taking, organisational structure and performance.Paper, Washington, DC: Academy of Management.

Howell, J.M. & Avolio, B.J. (1993). Transformationalleadership, transactional leadership, locus ofcontrol, and support for innovation: Key predic-tors of consolidated-business-unit performance.Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(6), 891–902.

Joseph, S. (2006). Person-centred coaching psycho-logy: A meta-theoretical perspective. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 1(1), 47–55.

Judge, T.A. & Piccolo, R.F. (2004). Transformationaland transactional leadership: A meta-analytic testof their relative validity. American Psychologist,89(5), 755–768.

Jung, D. Wu, A. & Chow, C.W. (2008). Towardsunderstanding the direct and indirect effects ofCEOs’ transformational leadership on firm inno-vation. The Leadership Quarterly, 19(5), 582–594.

Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and processin human development. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Keller, R.T. (1995). Transformational leaders make adifference. Research Technology Management,38(3), 41–45.

Kemp, T.J. (2009a). Guest editorial: Coaching andLeadership: Practice, perspectives and directionsfrom the field. International Coaching PsychologyReview, 4(1), 6–8. Special Issue: Coaching andLeadership.

Kemp, T.J. (2009b). Is coaching an evolved form ofleadership? Building a transdisciplinary frame-work for exploring the coaching alliance. International Coaching Psychology Review, 4(1),105–110. Special Issue: Coaching and Leadership.

Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lane, D.A. & Corrie, S. (2009). Does coachingpsychology need the concept of formulation? International Coaching Psychology Review, 4(2),195–208.

Leonard, H.S. (2003). Leadership development forthe post-industrial, postmodern information age.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,55(1), 3–14.

Leonard-Cross, E. (2010). Developmental coaching:Business benefit – fact or fad? An evaluative studyto explore the impact of coaching in the work-place. International Coaching Psychology Review,5(1), 36–47.

Linley, P.A. & Harrington, S. (2006). Strengthscoaching: A potential-guided approach tocoaching psychology. International CoachingPsychology Review, 1(1), 37–46.

Linley, P.A., Woolston, L. & Biswas-Diener, R. (2009).Strengths coaching with leaders. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 4(1), 37–48.

Linley, P.A., Nielsen, K.N., Wood, A.M., Gillett, R. &Biswar-Diener.R. (2010). Using signaturestrengths in pursuit of goals: Effects on goalprogress, need satisfaction, and wellbeing, andimplications for coaching psychologists. Interna-tional Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1), 6–15.

Lowe, K., Kroeck, K.G. & Sivasubramanian, N.(1996). Effectiveness correlates of transforma-tional and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic review. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3),385–425.

Luthans, F., Avery, J.B., Avolio, B.J., Norman, S. &Combs, G. (2006). Psychological capital develop-ment: Toward a micro-intervention. Journal ofOrganisational Behaviour, 27, 387–393.

Luthans, F., Avolio, B.J., Walumba, F. & Li, W. (2005).The psychological capital of Chinese workers:Exploring the relationship with performance.Management and Organisation Review, 1, 247–269.

McDowall, A. & Millward, L. (2010). Feeding back,feeding forward and setting goals. In S. Palmer &A. McDowall (Eds.), The coaching relationship:Putting people first. Hove, UK: Routledge.

Maxwell, A. & Bachkirova, T. (2010). Applyingpsychological theories of self-esteem in coachingpractice. International Coaching Psychology Review,5(1), 16–26.

Murphy, S.E. & Riggio, R.E. (Eds.) (2003). The futureof leadership development. Mahwah, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Nelson, E. & Hogan, R. (2009). Coaching on thedark side. International Coaching Psychology Review,4(1), 9–21.

O’Broin, A. & Palmer, S. (2010). Introducing apersonal perspective on the coaching relation-ship. In S. Palmer & A. McDowall (Eds.), The coaching relationship: Putting people first. Hove, UK: Routledge.

Palmer, S. & McDowall, A. (Eds.) (2010). The coachingrelationship: Putting people first. Hove, UK: Routledge.

Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (2006). The coachingpsychology movement and its developmentwithin the British Psychological Society. Interna-tional Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1), 5–11.

Parry, K.W. & Sinha, P.N. (2005). Researching thetrainability of transformational organisationalleadership. Human Resources Development Interna-tional, 8(2), 165–183.

Pearce, C.L. & Conger, J.A. (2003). Shared leadership:Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Passmore, J. (Ed.) (2008). Psychometrics in coaching:Using psychological and psychometric tools for develop-ment. London: Kogan Page.

Schein, E.H. (1992). Organisational culture and leader-ship (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Senge, P.M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art andpractice of a learning organisation. New York:Doubleday.

Sivasubramaniam, N., Jung, D.I., Avolio, B.J. &Murry, W.D. (2002). A longitudinal model of theeffects of team leadership and group potency ongroup performance. Group and OrganisationManagement, 27, 66–96.

Sosik, J.J. & Jung, D.I. (2010). Full range leadershipdevelopment: Pathways for people, profit and planet.New York: Taylor Francis Group.

Tannenbaum, R. & Schmidt, W.H. (1958). How tochoose a leadership pattern. Harvard BusinessReview, March-April, 95–101.

Tosi, H.L. (1991). The organisation as a context forleadership theory: A multilevel approach. Leader-ship Quarterly, 2(3), 205–228.

Vroom, V.H. & Jago, A.G. (1978). On the validity ofthe Vroom Yetton model. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 63(2), 151–162.

Vroom, V.H. & Jago, A.G. (1988). The new leadership:Managing participation in organisations. Engle-wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Vroom, V.H. & Yetton, P.W. (1973). Leadership anddecision making. Pittsburgh: University of Pitts-burgh Press.

Walumbwa, F.O., Avolio, B.J., Gardner, W.L.,Wernsing, T.S. & Peterson, S.J. (2008). Authenticleadership: Development and validation of atheory-based measure. Journal of Management,34(1), 89–126.

Welman, P. & Bachkirova, T. (2010). The issue ofpower in the coaching relationship. In S. Palmer& A. McDowall (Eds.), The coaching relationship:Putting people first. Hove, UK: Routledge

Whitmore, J. (1992). Coaching for performance.London: Nicholas Brealy.

Whybrow, A. & Palmer, S. (2006). Taking stock: A survey of coaching Ppsychologists’ practicesand perspectives. International Coaching PsychologyReview, 1(1), 56–70.

Zeus, P. & Skiffington, S. (2000). The complete guide tocoaching at work. Roseville, NSW, Australia:McGraw Hill.


Ray Elliott

OSITIVE PSYCHOLOGY can be under-stood as being a strengths-basedpsychology, founded on the humanistic

assumption that people want to lead mean-ingful and fulfilling lives (Seligman, 2002).Positive psychology has also been defined asthe study of optimal functioning (Gable &Haidt, 2005). There are an increasingnumber of positive psychology interventions(PPIs) that are being developed for thepurposes of mental health prevention andpromotion, with generally promising out-comes (for a recent meta-analysis, see Sin &Lyubormirsky, 2009).

Positive psychology’s complementarypartner, Coaching psychology, can be under-stood as being an ‘applied positivepsychology’ – a collaborative, solution-focused, systematic methodology designedto enhance wellbeing, facilitate goal attain-ment and foster purposeful, positive change.There are several research studies that

provide support for coaching as a means ofincreasing aspects of wellbeing includinghope and hardiness (see, for example,Grant, Green & Rynsaardt, 2010; Green,Grant & Rynsaardt, 2007; Green, Oades &Grant, 2006; Spence & Grant, 2005) andthere is a growing evidence-base for solution-focused, cognitive behavioural approachesto coaching in a wide range of differentsettings (Grant et al., 2010).

Coaching methodologies can provide theopportunity for the application of positivepsychology research in areas such as theidentification and use of personal characterstrengths (see, for example, Linley et al.,2010). Whilst the role of positive psychologyin coaching has been discussed previously inthe literature, further research in regard toits specific applications is much needed(Linley & Harrington, 2006; Kaufmann,2006; Biswas-Diener & Dean, 2007).


A pilot study evaluating strengths-basedcoaching for primary school students:Enhancing engagement and hopeWendy Madden, Suzy Green & Anthony M. Grant

Objective: This pilot study examines the impact of an evidence-based strengths coaching programme onmale primary school students’ levels of engagement and hope.Design: In a within-subject design study, 38 Year Five male students (mean age 10.7 years) participatedin a strengths-based coaching programme as part of their Personal Development/Health programme at anindependent, private primary school in Sydney, Australia.Method: Participants were randomly allocated to groups of four or five with each group receiving eightcoaching sessions over two school terms. The Youth Values in Action survey was used to highlightparticipant’s character strengths, and the participants were coached in identifying personally meaningfulgoals, and in being persistent in their goal-striving, as well as finding novel ways to use their signaturestrengths. They also completed a ‘Letter from the future’ that involved writing about themselves at their best.Results: The strengths-based coaching pilot programme was associated with significant increases in thestudents’ self-reported levels of engagement and hope.Conclusions: Strengths-based coaching programmes may be considered as potential mental healthprevention and promotion intervention in a primary school setting to increase students’ wellbeing and mayalso form an important part of an overall Positive Education Programme.Keywords: Evidence-based coaching; strengths-coaching; hope; positive psychology.

P

Positive psychology in educationIt might well be said there have been appli-cations of positive psychology in educationfor years. This includes programmes such asthose aimed at enhancing Social andEmotional Learning (SEL), which them-selves largely evolved from research onprevention and resilience (see Consortiumon the School-Based Promotion of SocialCompetence, 1994). However, there hasbeen a significant increase in research andinterest over the last five years occurringspecifically within the field of positivepsychology.

In 2009, Professor Martin Seligman,formalised the field of ‘Positive Education’in part emerging from his own work ondepression prevention in schools and thepioneering work at Geelong Grammar inVictoria, Australia. In 2008, Seligman and ateam of scholars from the University ofPennsylvania worked with one of Australia’smost elite private schools, GeelongGrammar, to implement a programme of‘teaching positive education’, ‘embeddingpositive education’ and ‘living positiveeducation’. This programme sought toinfuse positive psychology throughout theentire school, and with encouragingoutcomes (Seligman et al., 2009). Whilst theprogrammes and approach were based onscientifically informed programmes andpractices, unfortunately it appears that thislarge-scale programme was not itself evalu-ated using scientifically validated measures;to the best of the present authors’ knowl-edge no outcome studies of the GeelongGrammar programme have been reported inthe peer-reviewed press.

There has, however, been significantresearch conducted on the Penn ResiliencyProgramme (PRP), which formed part of theGeelong Positive Education Programme.The PRP is a school-based interventiondesigned to teach students how to thinkmore realistically and flexibly about theproblems they encounter (Horowitz &Garber, 2006). Results from studies of over2000 individuals in the US have shown

improvements in student wellbeing fromparticipation in the programme (Seligmanet al., 2009). The US Department of Educa-tion also recently spent $2.8 million toimplement a randomised controlled evalua-tion of the Strath Haven Positive Psychologyfor Youth (PPY) project. The programme,targeting adolescents in high school, wasshown to increase students’ reports of enjoy-ment and engagement in school (Seligmanet al., 2009).

In the UK, Jenny Fox-Eades, is consid-ered to be a pioneer in strengths-basedapproaches in education, and is currentlyconducting multiple longitudinal researchstudies, examining the impact of the‘Strengths Gym’ programme on adolescentwellbeing, including life satisfaction, positiveaffect, and self-esteem. The ‘Strengths Gym’programme is designed to help individualsidentify and use their strengths through acycle of festivals and storytelling. Positivepsychology is woven into the curriculum byusing traditional teaching methods of oralstorytelling and community celebrations(Eades, 2005).

In Australia, the Coaching PsychologyUnit at the University of Sydney hosted the‘First Positive Psychology in EducationSymposium’ in 2009. This provided a forumfor a range of applied positive psychologyinterventions being conducted in bothprivate and public schools in Australia. Oneof the programmes presented included‘BOUNCE BACK’, a resilience programmecurrently taught in several schools acrossAustralia which integrates positivepsychology principles within the literacycurriculum (Noble & McGrath, 2008).

Evidence is building for suchapproaches. For example, a study of solu-tion-focused cognitive behavioural lifecoaching for Senior High School studentsconducted by Green, Grant and Rynsaardt(2007) showed significant increases infemale senior high school students’ levels ofcognitive hardiness (a measure of resilience)and hope. This line of research has sincebeen extended to developmental coaching


Wendy Madden, Suzy Green & Anthony M Grant

for teachers, again providing evidence forthe use of coaching in educational settings toenhance hope, hardiness and workplace-wellbeing (Grant, Green & Rynsaardt, 2010).The use of solution-focused cognitive-behavioural coaching in educational settingsappears to be an area worthy of furtherstudy, given preliminary evidence that indi-cates it may have the potential to buildresilience and wellbeing in young peoplewithin educational settings.

Applied positive psychology ineducation as mental health promotionMental health problems are reportedly onthe increase among young people, possiblyreflecting greater awareness of disorders andalso resulting from the frequency and inten-sity of stressors on young people in the 21stcentury (Broderick & Metz, 2009). Today’syouth are exposed to a multitude of threatsto their personal wellbeing (McLoughlin &Kubick, 2004). In a national survey investi-gating a range of mental health issues in astratified, random sample of 4500 Australianyouths (aged 4 to 17), 14.0 per cent of thosesurveyed were found to have mental healthproblems (Sawyer et al., 2000). Amongadolescents, there are also high rates ofboredom, alienation, and disconnectionfrom meaningful challenges (Larson, 2000).Efforts to reduce mental health issues andproblem behaviours may need to begin inchildhood, with special attention to awindow of escalating risk in the transition toadolescence (Masten et al., 2008).

Knowledge and skills that increaseresilience, positive emotion, and engage-ment can be taught. According to Piaget(1977) pre-adolescent children are enteringthe formal operations phase of cognitivedevelopment and have the cognitive matu-rity necessary to understand and apply theskills taught. The present study sought toexpand on current findings by focusing onprimary school students and examining theefficacy of a strengths-based coachingprogramme within this particular age group.

The mission of schools remains one ofpreparing students academically for theworld of higher education, work, and goodcitizenship. However, increasingly, schoolsare also responsible for managing students’social and emotional wellbeing (Broderick &Metz, 2009).

This current study examined aprogramme designed to be easily integratedwithin the traditional school curriculum,whilst at the same time addressing a numberof the personal development and healthoutcomes identified on the New South WalesBoard of Studies syllabus document (NSWBoard of Studies, 2007). Embedding theteaching of strengths identification, goalsetting, and metacognitive skills within thecurriculum provides naturalistic opportuni-ties for students to develop important social-emotional competencies (Noble & McGrath,2008). Meaningful participation in thesekinds of activities also encourages students totake control and responsibility of their ownlives (Oliver et al., 2006).

Aims of the studyThe study sought to investigate the impact ofan evidence-based strengths coaching pilotprogramme in a primary educational setting.It was anticipated that participation in thestrengths-based coaching programme wouldbe associated with increases in male primaryschool student’s levels of engagement andhope.

EngagementThe discipline of positive psychology definesengagement as one of three importantrealms of happiness; the engaged life, themeaningful life and the pleasant life(Seligman et al., 2009). The state of ‘flow’, aterm coined by Csikszentmihalyi (1993), is amajor part of living the ‘engaged life’. Itconsists of a loss of self-consciousness anddeep engagement in the task at hand, andcan occur when people deploy their higheststrengths to meet the challenges that cometheir way. There is a growing evidence tosupport the concept of engagement as a


Strengths-based coaching for primary school students

state which is valuable in its own right as wellas bringing about higher levels of life satis-faction (Seligman et al., 2009).

StrengthsA ‘strength’ can be defined as a naturalcapacity for behaving, thinking and feelingin a way that promotes successful goalachievement (Linley & Harrington, 2006).‘Signature strengths’ refer to the top fivecharacter strengths and virtues of a partic-ular individual (Peterson & Seligman, 2004).

Signature strengths can convey a sense ofownership and authenticity, and individualsoften experience a powerful intrinsic moti-vation to put them into practice (Linley &Harrington, 2006). Strength-based coachinghelps people to identify their strengths andthen better direct their talents and abilitiesinto meaningful and engaging behaviours(Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Playing to anindividual’s strengths has the potential toenhance wellbeing because people are thenable to do what they naturally do best, thusincreasing the chances of meeting their basicpsychological needs for autonomy, compe-tence, and confidence (Linley & Harrington,2006). Finding original ways to use strengthsalso reflects the importance of ongoingpersonal effort in producing a flourishinglife (Park & Peterson, 2006).

Hope Hope is defined as ‘a positive motivational statethat is based on an interactively derived sense ofsuccessful agency and pathways’ (Snyder, 2000;p.287). The construct of hope is central tosuccessful goal attainment. In order to pursuegoals people need (a) a number of pathwaysor alternative routes to achieve their goalsbecause otherwise it is likely that they will giveup if the first pathway fails. They also need (b)agency or confidence, in their capacity andability to reach their goals, so once again ifthey face setbacks they will persevere in thebelief that they can be successful (Snyder,Michael & Cheavens, 1999).

Hope as a cross-situational construct hasbeen shown to correlate positively with self-

efficacy, perceived problem-solving capabili-ties, perceptions of control, optimism, positiveaffectivity, and positive outcome expectations(Snyder et al., 1999). In educational settings,higher levels of hope have also correlated posi-tively with perceived scholastic competence(Onwuegbuzie & Daley, 1999) and greateracademic satisfaction (Chang, 1998). Higherlevels of hope also predict better academicperformance whilst controlling for studentintelligence (Snyder et al., 2003).

Consistent with hope theory, anevidence-based approach to coaching canprovide the support necessary for individualsto pursue goals, to see oneself as able togenerate alternative routes to goals and ashaving the perceived capacity to utilise theseroutes to reach the desired goal/s (Green etal., 2006). Hope can be engendered inyoung people by engaging them in solution-focused conversations and activities. Forexample, children can be asked to set smallgoals, guided over the hurdles theyencounter, and encouraged to persevereuntil they have succeeded (Snyder, 2000).These are key features of the present study.

MethodParticipantsThirty-eight males aged between 10 and 11years (mean age 10.7 years) from an inde-pendent, private primary school in Sydney,NSW, Australia.

ProcedureThe strengths-coaching programme formedpart of the school’s Personal Developmentand Health curriculum. Prior tocommencing the programme participantswere screened by the school psychologistusing the Beck Youth Inventory (Beck et al.,2005). As a result of completing the BeckYouth Inventory (Beck et al., 2005) sevenindividuals were identified as having higherthan expected scores on the Beck YouthInventory (Beck et al., 2005) and werereferred to the school psychologist.

Before commencing the programme, anote was also sent home to parents outlining



full details of the programme. In line withthe International Coach Federation (ICF)Code of Ethics (ICF, 2005), the informationclarified that the programme did not involveany counselling or therapy for mental illness.

Participants completed self-reportmeasures at Time 1 (pre-intervention) andTime 2 (post-intervention) to assess levels ofengagement and hope. Participants alsocompleted the Values in Action StrengthsInventory for Youth (Peterson & Seligman,2004) and were provided with a copy of theirresults to share with their family. The partic-ipants were then randomly assigned to smallgroups of four or five individuals, with whomthey would complete eight group coachingsessions.

The teacher-coach was a qualifiedprimary teacher who, in addition to herteacher training and teaching qualificationshad also completed coach-specific training,holding a Masters degree in CoachingPsychology from Sydney University and hadpast experience in coaching both child andadult populations.

The coaching programmeThe coaching programme consisted of eightgroup face-to-face coaching sessions with theteacher-coach. Each coaching session was 45minutes in length and was conducted on afortnightly basis over a period of two schoolterms (equating to approximately sixmonths). Because this programme was runin a school setting in which directive orinstructional modalities are commonplace,great care was taken to differentiate thiscoaching programme from general directiveor teaching processes by basing thisprogramme on a solution-focused cognitive-behavioural framework that had beendemonstrated as being effective in twoprevious randomised, controlled studies onevidence-based life coaching (for details seeGreen, Oades & Grant, 2006; Spence &Grant, 2005).

There were three key parts to theprogramme. Part One of the programmefocused on raising the participant’s self-

awareness, including the identification ofpersonal character strengths. Using theYouth Values in Action survey results, theparticipants were provided with a usefulvocabulary to both identify and talk abouttheir own character strengths. The partici-pants created ‘strength shields’ representinghow they were already using their top five‘signature strengths’. These shields wereopenly displayed in the classroom andreferred to on a regular basis.

In Part Two of the programme, theparticipants were coached to identifypersonal resources and utilise these inworking toward individual goals. Utilisingthe SMART (Specific, Measurable, Attrac-tive, Realistic and Timeframed) goal-settingcriteria (for rationale for SMART, see Locke& Latham, 2002) the participants werecoached in identifying personally mean-ingful goals and to be persistent in theirgoal-striving. The participants applied thisknowledge and skills within an ongoingassignment focused on finding novel ways touse one of their signature strengths.

Part Three of the programme wasfocused on coaching the participants inworking through the self-regulation cycle(see Figure 1) of setting goals, developingaction plans, monitoring and evaluatingprogress. Participants were individuallycoached to identify personal resources thatcould be utilised in moving towards theirgoals, and to develop self-generated solu-tions and specific action steps, and in thisway systematically working through the self-regulation cycle.

In addition to the individual coachingprocess detailed above, group processes wereutilised in that participants were also giventhe opportunity to share their results withthe group and jointly reflect on what theylearnt. Finally, the students completed a‘Letter from the future’ that involved writingabout themselves at their very best, focusingon how their needs and values were beingmet, and finding solutions to allow for all thethings they would like to have happen.



MeasuresThe Beck Youth Inventory (Beck et al., 2005)was used as a measure of psychopathology. Itassesses current levels of Anxiety, Depressionand Anger. It also gives an overall indicationof a young person’s self-concept. The inven-tory is designed to assess according to thediagnostic criteria listed in the DSM-IV-TR(American Psychiatric Association), however,it only assesses current status and does notoffer a diagnosis (Beck et al., 2005). It views

the differences between normal and clinicalpopulations as differences of degree, henceis a useful tool for the present study to screenparticipants for mental health issues thatrequire referral.

To identify character strengths, theparticipants completed the Values in ActionStrengths Inventory for Youth Survey (Park& Peterson, 2006). The VIA measure is a self-report survey allowing the comparison ofcharacter strengths across individuals and



Figure 1: A generic cycle of self-regulation.

also identifies an individual’s ‘signaturestrengths’ relative to his or her otherstrengths (Park & Peterson, 2008). The VIAYouth is designed for people aged 10 to 17(Park & Peterson, 2006). It reflects each ofthe character strengths in the VIA Classifica-tion (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), and it isadapted specifically for use with youth as theitems are phrased in simple language andrefer to settings and situations familiar toyoung people (Park & Peterson, 2006). Thesurvey is available online at no cost fromwww.viacharacter.org (Peterson & Seligman,2007). It contains 198 multiple choice itemsand takes about 45 minutes on average tocomplete. The survey has good reliability (allitem alphas are greater than .70) and goodreported construct validity (Park & Peterson,2008).

To measure the results of theprogramme, participants completed a self-report questionnaire at Time 1 and Time 2.The questionnaire was modified fromSnyder’s Children’s Hope Scale (Snyder,2000), and the California Healthy KidsSurvey (Bernard, 2008). The questionnaireutilised a seven-point Likert scale rangingfrom Strongly Agree (7) to Strongly Disagree(1). The Children’s Hope Scale is a self-report measure that is based on the premisethat children are goal-directed and that theirgoal directed thoughts can be understoodaccording to agency and pathways. The scaleis validated for use with children aged 7 to 16years and demonstrates both internal andtemporal reliability, convergent and discrim-inant validity (for details, see Snyder, 2000).The California Healthy Kids Survey (CHKS)is sponsored by the California Departmentof Education as a comprehensive data collec-tion service on youth mental health andresilience (Bernard, 2008). Assisting in itsdevelopment was an advisory committeeconsisting of researchers, education practi-tioners from schools across the state, andrepresentatives from federal and state agen-cies involved in assessing youth health-related behaviours (Bernard, 2008).

At the completion of the strengthcoaching programme, an informal question-naire was also used to elicit the student’sfeedback and opinions about their involve-ment.

ResultsQuantitative findingsIt was hypothesised that participation in thecoaching programme would be associatedwith increased engagement and hope. Theresults for all measures are shown in Table 1.

Paired t-tests found significant increasesin students’ self-reported measures of hope,t(37)=3.39, p=< 0.01 and significant increasesin students’ self-reported measures ofengagement, t(37)=3.30, p=< 0.001. Effectsizes were calculated using Cohen’s d. Forhope an effect size of d=2.70 was observed.This is considered to be a large effect size(Cohen, 1992). For engagement a mediumeffect size of d=.98 was observed (Cohen,1992)

Values in Action Strengths Inventory for Youthresults: Class tallyWe recorded the top strengths of the classand the number of students who rated eachstrength as being their highest strength:These strengths, in order of frequency were;Vitality (nine students); Creativity (eightstudents); Love (five students); Teamwork(three students); Love of learning (threestudents); Perseverance (three students);Humour (two students); Curiosity (onestudent); Leadership (one student); Bravery(one student); Gratitude (one student); andKindness (one student).

Qualitative findingsTo augment the quantitative data reportedabove, and to further assess the impact ofthis pilot study qualitative teacher observa-tions are now reported. These personalobservations are made by the teacher-coachwho conducted the strengths-basedcoaching programme.



Teacher-coach personal observations‘Overall, I felt that the programme was a successfulway for a teacher to further develop positive rela-tionships with students. I found that under-standing the students’ top strengths was veryhelpful in getting to know the students better, andalso in understanding what engages and moti-vates them. Learning about character strengthsalso provided students with a useful dialogue torecognise strengths not only in themselves, but inothers too. For example, when a new boy joined theschool, the students welcomed him into the schoolcommunity and were quick to point out hisstrengths, such as bravery and social intelligence,during his first weeks. The students were also verykeen to share and discuss their results with theirfamilies. The positive feedback from the parentswas overwhelming and many of them also did thesurvey to find out their own character strengths.

Recording the top strengths of the class groupprovided an interesting insight in to the classroomdynamics. Vitality was the top strength of the class.Viewing this as a strength for a class of Year 6boys, rather than a problem, was both humorousand refreshing.

I found that the students were highly engagedduring the goal-setting sessions. They were enthu-siastic and excited about their projects and wouldoften stop me in the playground to give updates ontheir progress. Sharing their successes with theirpeers was invaluable as they were provided withboth positive feedback and recognition. For somestudents in particular, this was a very special expe-rience, made very clear by their big, beaming grins.The students were also able to transfer their goal-setting skills to their learning in the classroom.Overall, the impact of the programme has beenprofound, with a far more positive, encouragingand supportive classroom climate.’

Examples of student goalsParticipants set personal goals as part of thecoaching programme. These goals werelinked with their specific signature strengths.Examples are given below:

Love of learning Signature Strength: Goalwas to: ‘read 15 pages of a non-fiction book oncars every night over the next two weeks. HaveMum sign off when I do it. Show (my teacher)Mum’s note in our next session and tell her onefact that I learnt about cars.’

Leadership Signature Strength: Goal was to:‘Organise a jelly bean competition with two friendsto raise money for the school. Get approval from theprincipal and my parents. Set up the store outsidethe canteen every lunch time. Aim to raise at least$100. Bring the money raised to our next session.’

Kindness Signature Strength: Goal was to:‘Help Mum out at home by making both mine andmy little brother’s beds every morning before school.Ask Dad to sign off that I do it, but don’t tell MumI am doing it for an assignment. Show (myteacher) the note in our next session.’

DiscussionThe present study was a small-scale pilotstudy designed to be a preliminary investiga-tion of the effect of a strengths-basedcoaching programme within a schoolsetting. The strengths-based coaching pilotprogramme was associated with significantincreases in the students’ self-reported levelsof engagement and hope. Although theresorts are promising, it is important not toover-generalise from these findings. Never-theless, as we argue below such strengths-



Table 1: Results for Measures of Engagement and Hope.

N=38 Time 1 Time 2

M SD M SD t p dHope 23.79 3.16 24.87 2.76 3.38 <.001 2.70Engagement 23.26 4.26 24.98 2.51 3.29 <.01 .98

Note: p values are two-tailed; Cohen’s d is given as a measure of effect size.

based coaching programmes may well havepotential as a mental health prevention andpromotion intervention in a primary schoolsetting to increase students’ wellbeing andadditionally be utilised as an important partof an overall Positive Education Programme.

Schools already are a major provider ofmental health services (Seligman et al.,2009). However, the predominant approachis reactive rather than proactive in thateducational psychology services are availableonly after students demonstrate difficulties(Noble & McGrath, 2008). A significantproportion of available educationalresources is directed toward attempts toremediate young people’s problems. This isnot surprising, given extra support isprovided on the basis of documentation ofan individual’s assessed problem (Noble &McGrath, 2008). The challenge is to shift thedirection and mindset of both educationalsystems and school personnel from a deficitmodel to a preventative wellbeing model(Noble & McGrath, 2008). Problem-focusedapproaches can be useful in reducing andtreating specific targeted problems, but theydo not necessarily prepare young people tohave healthy, fulfilling, productive lives(Park & Peterson, 2008).

There is growing recognition that effec-tive interventions need to focus onpromoting competence and strengths inaddition to the prevention and treatment ofproblems (Masten et al., 2008). We arguethat positive psychology offers new direc-tions for working with individual studentsand for working collaboratively with schoolsand teachers in designing and implementingschool-wide preventative programmes(Noble & McGrath, 2008). For example,schools could be adopting more holisticapproaches with missions that address theneeds of the whole child (McLoughlin &Kubick, 2004). A narrow focus only on cogni-tive development ignores other critical areasof youth development (Bernard, 2008).

The present pilot study is a very smallstep in that direction by showing that astrengths-based coaching programme can

quite easily be integrated within the tradi-tional school curriculum, and can be associ-ated with increased engagement and hope.It should be noted that even though thepresent pilot programme was part of theschool curriculum, and in that sense wascompulsory, the student feedback was over-whelmingly positive. Such positively-framedprogrammes, without the stigma often asso-ciated with remedial counselling, mayprovide an effective means of promotingstudent wellbeing (Park & Peterson, 2008).

It would appear there are many otherpotential benefits of strengths-basedcoaching programmes for students, teachersand schools. For example, when studentswork with their strengths, they tend to bemore motivated and perform at a higherlevel (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Similarly,increases in wellbeing are likely to produceincreases in learning, with positive moodproducing broader attention, more creativethinking, and more holistic thinking(Seligman et al., 2009). In addition, studentswho have positive attitudes toward theirteachers and school are more likely todisplay more appropriate behaviour(Huebner et al., 2004). Indeed, we contendthat an evidence-based strengths coachingprogramme, such as the one utilised in thisstudy, could form an important part of anoverall Positive Education Programme.

Whilst the importance of happiness andwellbeing cannot be contested, there isdebate about how best to enhance theseimportant aspects of human experiencewithin the traditional educational context(Park & Peterson, 2008). Researchers areconcerned by the lack of empirical evidencefor most programmes (Arthur, 2005, cited inSeligman et al., 2009). Educators and politi-cians are also concerned such PositiveEducational Programmes will waste moneyor even lower achievement by diverting timeand money away from academic subjects(Benninga et al., 2006).



Limitations Future research is needed to explore thepotential of a range of approaches to PositiveEducation. The present study was a small-scale pilot study designed to be a preliminaryinvestigation of the effect of a strengths-based coaching programme within a schoolsetting. As such there are a number of limi-tations that must be taken into account whenconsidering these findings. Firstly, thepresent study utilised a straightforwardwithin subject, pre-/post-design. The lack ofa control group means that the effects couldhave occurred naturalistically, rather thanbeing caused by the intervention. Secondly,no longitudinal measures were taken so it isnot known if the reported effects would bemaintained over time. However, it should benoted a longitudinal study (Green et al.,2006) found that gains in a similar coachingprogramme were maintained at a 30-weekfollow-up. Thirdly, the present study is alsolimited by the exclusive use of self-reportmeasures. It would be extremely valuable tomove beyond self-report measures and docu-ment the effects on observable behavioursfrom a broader range of outcomes,including students’ behaviour and academicperformance. The findings would also needto be replicated to determine if theprogramme is effective with students from avariety of social-economic and cultural back-grounds. Finally, it should be noted that theteacher-coach was acting in a role as a desig-nated teacher. This could have influencedoutcomes by inducing a demand effect; thatis, the participants may have felt that theyhad to report making progress andenhanced wellbeing in order to please theexperimenter.

Future directionsDespite some clear limitations, the results ofthe present pilot study provide promisinginitial support for this kind of interventionin a school setting, and future researchshould be conducted in this area. Furtherstudies that compared interventions witheducational tutoring or positive parent

involvement would provide additional infor-mation about the effectiveness of lifecoaching for students, and the use ofrandomised controlled designs wouldfurther extend the current research..

Recent research has found that peercoaching was not as effective as a profession-ally-trained coach (Spence & Grant, 2007)and this finding emphasises the importanceof expertise in facilitating purposeful, posi-tive change in others. Teaching children toemploy hopeful thinking requires an inter-ested person who guides the process of goalsetting and problem solving with encourage-ment (Snyder, 2000). For teachers or parentsinterested in nurturing hope in children, thefirst step must be to attend to their ownhopeful thinking (Snyder, 2000). The‘Teacher as Coach’ training programme asutilised in the research of Green, Grant andRynsaardt (2007) could be used to developteachers in the evidence-based coachingtheories and techniques, which do notcurrently form part of teacher-training.Through such evidence-based coachingprogrammes, teachers may learn to betteridentity what motivates and inspires each oftheir students. They could then use thisinformation to design more the supportive,positively-orientated teacher-student rela-tionships which are a defining feature ofpositive school cultures (Noble & McGrath,2008).

Of course, there is much more to positiveeducation than a simple stand-alone course(Seligman et al., 2009). There is a need forcomprehensive and integrative positiveeducation programmes, such as the onerecently trialled at Geelong Grammar(Seligman et al., 2009). Rather than runninga number of independent initiatives that arenot integrated, it may be better to strategi-cally implement an overall Positive Educa-tion policy that is aligned with the overallschool climate (Noble & McGrath, 2008).

Clearly there is a need for furtherresearch and for external coaching consult-ants and educators to work collaborativelywith schools in order to create programmes



with a consistent approach and similarlanguage embedded throughout.

Similarly, there is a need for furtherresearch in developing measurement tools toassess the culture and climate of individualschools. With any programme or interventionthat can be used in schools, a key element isthe overall culture and climate that existswithin the school environment (Snyder,2000). Administrators have an important rolein educating the school personnel, teachersand parents about their role in creating apositive school climate. Ultimately, the focusshould be on creating a curriculum forstudents that has genuine relevance, meaningand connectedness to their lives (Noble &McGrath, 2008). We argue that coaching inschool settings has potential to both shift theculture of the broader educational system andto better enrich the overall individual studentexperience.

ConclusionThis pilot study has examined the impact ofan evidence-based strengths coachingprogramme on male primary schoolstudents’ levels of engagement and hope. Itprovides preliminary evidence that evidence-based strengths coaching programmes maybe useful in the primary school setting. Thestudy also illustrates how evidence-basedcoaching methodologies can be integratedin an educational setting, adding to our

collective understanding about what mightbe included in learning programmesdesigned to enhance wellbeing. We believethat evidence-based strengths coachingprogrammes can be designed to fit intoseveral existing aspects of the curriculumwith relative ease and can address outcomesspecified in school syllabus documentation(Noble & McGrath, 2008). This pilot study,whilst targeting Year Five students, could alsobe adapted to form part of a school-wideinitiative, with a strong practical focus oninfusing positive psychology in to the wholeschool curriculum.

With future research in this area,evidence-based coaching may in timebecome a crucial methodology for the appli-cation of positive psychology in educationalsettings. We look forward to future develop-ments with interest.

Wendy Madden, Suzy Green & Anthony M. GrantCoaching Psychology Unit,University of Sydney,Sydney, NSW, 2006,Australia.

CorrespondenceDr Suzy GreenEmail:[email protected]





American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diagnosticand statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.,text revision). Washington, DC: Author.

Beck, J.S., Beck, A.T., Jolly, J. & Steer, R. (2005). BeckYouth Inventories of Emotional and Social Impairment(2nd ed.; BYI–II). Sydney: Persons.

Benninga, J.S., Berkowitz, M.W., Kuehn, P. & Smith,K. (2006). Character and academics: What goodschools hate. Phi Delta Kappan, 87, 448–452.

Bernard, B. (2008). West Ed Website. California HealthyKids Survey. Questionnaires retrieved 11 December2008, from:www.wested.org/cs/chks/view/chks_s/17?x–layout=surveys].

Biswas-Diener, R. & Dean, B. (2007). Positivepsychology coaching: Putting the science of happiness towork for your clients. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Broderick, P.C & Metz, S. (2009) Learning toBREATHE: A pilot trial of a mindfulnesscurriculum for adolescents. Advances in SchoolMental Health Promotion, 2(1), 35–46.

Chang, E.C. (1998). Hope problem-solving abilityand copping in a college student population:Some implications for theory and practice.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54, 953–962.

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. PsychologicalBulletin, 112(1), 155–159.

Consortium on the School-Based Promotion ofSocial Competence (1994). The promotion ofsocial competence: Theory, research, practice,and policy. In R.J. Haggerty, L. Sherrod, N.Garmezy & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, risk, resiliencein children and adolescents: Processes, mechanisms,and interaction (pp.268–316). New York:Cambridge University Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., Rathunde, K. & Whalen, S.(1993). Talented teenagers. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

Eades, J.M.F. (2005). Classroom tales: Using storytellingto build emotional, social and academic skills across theprimary curriculum. London, Jessica Kingsley.

Gable, S. & Haidt, J. (2005). Positive psychology.Review of General Psychology, 1089–2680.

Grant, A.M., Green, L.S. & Rynsaardt, J. (2010).Developmental coaching for high schoolteachers: Executive coaching goes to school.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research,62(3), 151–168.

Grant, A.M., Passmore, J., Cavanagh, M.J. & Parker,H. (2010). The state of play in coaching today: A comprehensive review of the field. InternationalReview of Industrial and Organisational Psychology,25, 125–168.

Green, L.S., Grant, A.M. & Rynsaardt, J. (2007).Evidence-based coaching for senior high schoolstudents: Building hardiness and hope. Interna-tional Coaching Psychology Review, 2(1), 24–31.

Green, L.S., Oades, L.G. & Grant, A.M. (2006).Cognitive-behavioural, solution-focused lifecoaching: Enhancing goal-striving, wellbeing andhope. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(3), 142–149.

Horowitz, J.L. & Garber, J. (2006). The prevention ofdepressive symptoms in children and adoles-cents: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology, 74, 401–415.

Huebner, E.S., Suldo, S.M., Smith, L.C. & McKnight,C.G. (2004). Life satisfaction in children andyouth: Empirical foundations and implicationsfor school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools,41(1), 81–93.

International Coaching Federation (2005). Profes-sional coaching core competencies and code of ethics.Place and publisher unknown. Retrieved on 19 April2009, from: www.coachfederation.org/Downloads/DOCS/Ethics/ICF_Code_of_ethics_01_22_05.pdf.

Kauffman, C. (2006). Positive psychology: Thescience at the heart of coaching. In D. Stober &A.M. Grant (Eds.), Evidence-based coaching hand-book (pp.219–254). New Jersey: John Wiley &Sons Inc.

Larson, R.W. (2000). Towards a psychology of posi-tive youth development. American Psychologist,55(1), 170–183.

Layard, R. (2005). Happiness: Lessons from a newscience. London, UK: Penguin

Linley, P.A. & Harrington, S. (2006). Strengthscoaching: A potential-guided approach tocoaching psychology. International CoachingPsychology Review, 1(1), 37–46.

Linley, P.A., Nielsen, A.M., Gillett, R. & Biswas-Diener,R. (2010). Using signature strengths in pursuit ofgoals: Effects on goal progress, need satisfaction,and wellbeing, and implications for coachingpsychologists. International Coaching PsychologyReview, 5(1), 8–17.

Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (2002). Building a prac-tically useful theory of goal setting and task moti-vation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.

Masten, A., Herbers, J., Cutuli, J. & Lafavor, T.(2008). Promoting competence and resilience inthe school context. Professional School Counselling,12(2), 21–34.

Mcloughlin, C.S. & Kubick, R.J. (2004). Wellnesspromotion as a lifelong endeavour: Promotingand developing life competencies from child-hood. Psychology in the Schools, 41(1), 131 – 141.

Noble, T. & McGrath, H. (2008). The positive educa-tional practices framework: A tool for facilitatingthe work of educational psychologists inpromoting pupil wellbeing. Educational & ChildPsychology, 25(2), 119–134.

References

NSW Board of Studies (2007). Personal Development,Health and Physical Education K-6 Syllabus.Australia: NSW Board of Studies.

Oliver, K., Collins, P., Burns, J. & Nicholas, J. (2006).Resilience in young people through meaningfulparticipation. Australian e-journal for the Advance-ment of Mental Health, 5(1).

Onwuegbuzie, A.J. & Daley, C.E. (1999). Perfec-tionism and statistics anxiety. Personal and Indi-vidual Differences, 26, 1089–1102.

Park, N. & Peterson, C. (2008). Positive psychologyand character strengths: Application tostrengths-based school counselling. ProfessionalSchool Counselling, 12(2), 11–20.

Park, N. & Peterson, C. (2006). Moral competenceand character strengths among adolescents: Thedevelopment and validation of the Values inAction Inventory of Strengths for Youth. Journalof Adolescence, 29(6), 891–909.

Peterson, C. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2004). Characterstrengths andvirtues: A handbook and classification.New York: Oxford University Press.

Peterson, C. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2007). Values inAction Institute Website. Manuel, D. & RhodaMayerson Foundation. OH, Cincinatti. Informa-tion retrieved on 22 April 2009, from:www.viastrengths.org

Piaget, J. (1977). The grasp of consciousness. London:Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Sawyer, M.G., Arney, F.M., Baghurst, P.A., Clark, J.J.,Graetz, B.W. & Kosky, R.J. (2000). Mental health ofyoung people in Australia: Child and adolescentcomponent of the National Survey of Mental Healthand Wellbeing. Canberra: Commonwealth Depart-ment of Health and Aged Care.

Seligman, M.E.P., Ernst, R. Gillham, K. & Linkins, M.(2009). Positive education: Positive psychologyand classroom interventions. Oxford Review ofEducation, 35(3), 293–311.

Seligman, M.E.P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using thenew positive psychology to realise your potential forlasting fulfilment. New York: Free Press.

Sin, N.L. & Lyubormirsky, S. (2009). Enhancing well-being and alleviating depressive symptoms withpositive psychology interventions: A practice-friendly meta-analysis. Journal of ClinicalPsychology: In Session, 65,4 67–487.

Snyder, C.R. (2000). Handbook of hope: Theory, measuresand applications. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Snyder, C.R., Michael, S.T. & Cheavens, J. (1999).Hope as a psychotherapeutic foundation ofcommon factors, placebos and expectancies. InM.A. Hubble, B. Duncan & S. Miller (Eds.), Heartand soul of change (pp.179–200). Washington, DC:APA.

Snyder, C.R., Lopez, S.J., Shorey, H.S., Rand, K.L. &Feldman, D.B. (2003). Hope theory, measure-ments, and applications to school psychology.School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 122–139.

Spence, G.B. & Grant, A.M. (2007). Professional andpeer life coaching and the enhancement of goalstriving and wellbeing: An exploratory study.Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(3), 185–194.

Spence, G.B. & Grant A.M. (2005). Individual andgroup life-coaching: Initial findings from arandomised controlled trial. In M. Cavanagh,A.M. Grant & T. Kemp (Eds.), Evidence-basedcoaching Vol. 1: Theory, research and practice from thebehavioural sciences (pp.143–158). Bowen Hills,QLD: Australian Academic Press.




THE ACADEMIC sub-discipline ofcoaching psychology as an applied posi-tive psychology has come along way

since it was first taught at postgraduate levelin 2000 at the University of Sydney. TheBritish Psychological Society’s (BPS) SpecialGroup in Coaching Psychology (SGCP) wasformed in December 2004 following theformation of the Australian PsychologicalSociety’s (APS) Interest Group in CoachingPsychology (IGCP) in August 2002, and thereare now several professional coachingpsychology groups worldwide includingthose in Denmark, Ireland, Israel, NewZealand, South Africa, and Sweden. Most ofthese are associated with their nationalprofessional psychological society (for detailsof the background to the formation of theBPS SGCP see Palmer & Whybrow, 2006).

However, if coaching psychology is tocontinue to grow and develop, then somekind of educational and teaching framework

will eventually need to be established, andthis topic has not as yet been widely discussedin the literature. This paper presents someideas based on my involvement in designing,establishing and teaching postgraduateprogrammes in coaching psychology toMaster’s level since 1999. The aim of thispaper is to stimulate discussion about theteaching of coaching psychology and to startthe process of developing a teaching agenda,including delineating some of the conceptsand theories that can be seen to lie at thecore of coaching psychology.

It should be noted that the ideaspresented in this paper are the author’spersonal views and not should not be takento be indicative in any way of the APS IGCPor the BPS SGCP policy or opinion, norshould these ideas be taken to represent thepolicy or opinion of the university at whichthe author is employed. It should also benoted that although there is clearly an

Developing an agenda for teachingcoaching psychologyAnthony M. Grant

The research and practice of coaching psychology has developed considerably over the past 10 years.However, if coaching psychology is to continue to grow and develop, an educational and teachingframework needs to be established. Very little attention has been paid in the published literature to theteaching of coaching psychology. The aim of this paper is to stimulate discussion about the teaching ofcoaching psychology and to start the process of developing a teaching agenda, including delineating someof the concepts, theories and skills that can be seen to lie at the core of coaching psychology. Drawing on theAustralian Psychological Society and the British Psychological Society definitions of coaching psychology itis proposed that the following areas should form the core of an education in coaching psychology; anevidence-based approach to practice; ethical principles; professional models of practice; mental health issuesin coaching; cognitive-behavioural theory as applied to coaching; goal theory; change theory; systemictheory as applied to coaching (including group process and organisational applications); core appliedcoaching skills and their application to skills, performance, developmental and remedial coaching; andapplications of coaching psychology to specialised areas of practice such as executive coaching, workplacecoaching, health coaching, life coaching, and peak performance coaching, in addition to non-core specialistareas of theory such as applied positive psychology, solution-focused approaches, cognitive-developmental,narrative, psychodynamic and Gestalt approaches. Coaching psychology as a psychological sub-disciplineis well on the way to developing a coherent area of research and practice. It now needs to develop andformalise a body of teachable knowledge that can sustain and advance this new area of behavioural science.Keywords: Coaching psychology; teaching coaching psychology; coach training; evidence-based coaching.

overlap between the coach education andtraining of a non-psychological nature andthe teaching of coaching psychology, thisarticle solely addresses education issuesrelated to coaching psychology.

Overview of the coaching psychologyliteratureThe research and practice of coachingpsychology has developed considerably overthe past 10 years. An overview of the litera-ture cited in PsycINFO conducted inDecember 2010 using the keywords‘coaching psychology’ found a total of 290citations. Between 1927 and 1996 there wereonly eight citations listed. The first citationusing the keywords ‘coaching psychology’was Miller’s (1927) review of Coleman Grif-fith’s (1926) book on the psychology ofathletic coaching. It is not until 1951 that thenext citation is listed – another book on thepsychology of athletic coaching (Lawther,1951). No further citations are listed untilLeonard’s (1995) editorial in ConsultingPsychology Journal announcing the 1996special edition on executive coaching, inwhich the term ‘coaching psychology’ is usedas a keyword but not referred to in the textitself, as was also the case for other editorials(Kilburg, 1996a; Leonard, 1996a, 1996b,1996c).

According to the citations in PsycINFO,the literature on coaching psychology comesto the fore in 2003 (Grant, 2003), and it is atthis point in time that we can see articleswhose primary focus is coaching psychologybeing published in increasing numbers. Wecan say that this period is the real start ofpsychological academic literature associatedwith the contemporary coaching psychologymovement. Between 2003 and 2005 thereare a total of 14 citations, with nine citationsin 2006, 54 citations in 2007, 87 citations in2008, 85 citations in 2009, and 34 citations in2010. (Note: there is often a time delaybetween journal publication and the listingof citations on PsycINFO and this may wellaccount for the lower number of citationsfor 2010; for example, articles in the

December 2010 issue of the BPS SGCP publi-cation The Coaching Psychologist are not listed;also note that this brief overview does notinclude the substantial amount of publishedliterature on coaching that is not specificallypsychology-related which could neverthelesscontribute to the teaching of coachingpsychology.)

Of course, quantity is not necessarilyquality, and some of these citations refer toshort articles, notices in relation to profes-sional societies, social commentaries and thelike, rather than academic research, theorypapers or scholarly professional opinion orpractice papers. Nevertheless, it is clear thata body of coaching psychology-specific litera-ture is emerging. At the same time thenumbers of coaching psychology practi-tioners in established national psychologicalsocieties has grown considerably. Forexample, the APS IGCP has 590 members,approximately 3.5 per cent of the total APSmembership, and the BPS SGCP has 2332members, approximately 5 per cent of thetotal BPS membership.

The development of coachingpsychology has been very much an interna-tional endeavour with global cross-fertilisa-tion of ideas and actions. Without a doubt,one of the key practical drivers of thecoaching psychology movement has beenthe development of coaching psychologyinterest groups in a number of establishednational psychological societies and the jointpublication of peer-reviewed coachingpsychology journals associated with suchsocieties. The stewardship of dedicated indi-viduals such as Prof. Michael Cavanagh andProf. Stephen Palmer and the work of manydifferent people has been vital here. Suchpioneering work provides a solid foundationfor the new discipline of coachingpsychology. But to extend this work, toensure that coaching psychology continuesto grow we need to be providing training andeducation for those who come after us. Weneed to be able to teach coachingpsychology in a rigorous, coherent andprofessional fashion.


Teaching coaching psychology

Teaching coaching psychology:The next developmental stepDespite the aforementioned growth in bothliterature and practice, very little attentionhas been paid in the published literature tothe teaching of coaching psychology. Thereare few published books explicitly focusingon coaching psychology (rather thancoaching per se) that can be used as textbooks for teaching coaching psychology(e.g. Palmer & Whybrow, 2007; Peltier,2010), and only a small number of articleshave discussed issues related to the actualteaching of coaching psychology.

Palmer’s (2008) article argued for theinclusion of coaching psychology in under-graduate psychology degrees, and someuniversities are now indeed including shortunits on coaching psychology in their under-graduate curricula – a welcome develop-ment. Spaten and Hansen (2009) presenteddetails of the benefits of embedding acoaching psychology programme into a post-graduate psychology programme in a Danishuniversity. Passmore (2010) suggested thattraining in coaching and coaching psycho-logy should focus on both behavioural(skills) development and the developmentof personal attributes and qualities, and hiswork with McGoldrick (i.e. Passmore &McGoldrick, 2009) has emphasised the needfor models of supervision to be incorporatedinto coaching psychology education.

In relation to models of practice, whichnaturally inform the teaching and training ofpractitioners, Corrie and Lane (2009)discussed a range of interpretations of thescientist-practitioner model concluding thatwe need to harness the strengths of the scien-tist-practitioner model; rigorous thinking;the ability to weave data from differentsources into a coherent case conceptualisa-tion; the ability to devise and implementspecific interventions strategies on a case bycase basis; and the skills to evaluate andcritique our work – whilst discarding its weak-ness. These include the over-reliance onpreviously conducted research and the rigidapplication of such, which may not be appro-

priate for the emergent, iterative nature ofcoaching, particularly at this point in timewhen there is still somewhat limitedcoaching-specific research.

Issues related to the education andtraining of coaching psychologists were alsodiscussed in an excellent and comprehensiveBPS Discussion Paper on Subject Bench-marks for Coaching Psychology (BPS,2006a), a document which incorporatedmany of the points overviewed above. TheBPS Discussion Paper focused specifically onthe education and training of coachingpsychologists and discussed possible educa-tional benchmarks for the development of adesignated specialised area of practice in theform of an advanced practice register or asan area of ‘Chartered’ practice.

Teaching coaching psychology to non-psychologists?Although a detailed document, and one thatmay serve as a useful model for other psycho-logical societies, the BPS Discussion Paperdid not address a key thorny question:Should the study of postgraduate coachingpsychology be restricted to those with a priorundergraduate degree in psychology orthose who are registered psychologists? Thisis an important question that touches onmatters of regulation and professional statusand has clear implications for the develop-ment of an agenda for teaching coachingpsychology.

I argue that the postgraduate study ofcoaching psychology should be open to allwho have the ability, attributes and intellectto complete such studies successfully. This isnot to diminish the value of registration orchartered status as a psychologist. Registra-tion or chartered status as a psychologist inthe UK and Australia entails an undergrad-uate degree in psychology, and then a post-graduate degree encompassing a lengthyand sophisticated training in the scientist-practitioner model, supervised internshipsand entry to a genuine profession with itsattendant enforceable ethical codes andstandards of practice, although it is inter-


Anthony M. Grant

esting to note that entry to many PsyDdegrees and subsequent licensing as apsychologist in the US does not require anundergraduate degree in psychology.Indeed, I personally believe that we shouldbe developing a recognised specialised areaof practice, be it BPS Chartered status as a‘Coaching Psychologist’ or an APS Collegeof Coaching Psychology, entry to whichwould be restricted to those who are, or arebecoming registered psychologists, as well ascourse accreditation processes from estab-lished national psychological societies suchas the APS and BPS. This paper will notaddress issues related to accreditation ofcourses in coaching psychology – that is acomplex topic worthy of a separate andfocused discussion (see Carr, 2005; Grant &O’Hara, 2006).

However, it should be noted that theissues of designated professional practice asa ‘Coaching Psychologist’, accreditation, andthe provision of an education in coachingpsychology are logically independent issues:it is possible to learn coaching psychologywithout becoming a psychologist. Thus anagenda for the teaching of coachingpsychology should deal with the process ofteaching, accreditation and the process ofprofessional status as a coaching psychologistas separate issues.

Furthermore, it must be recognised thatcoaching is a growing cross-disciplinary areaof professional practice. Many excellentprofessional coaches do not have an under-graduate degree in psychology, and do nothave the time or desire to sit through threeor four years of full-time study of undergrad-uate psychology. They do not want tobecome psychologists. But they do want tolearn about the psychology of coaching.There is a significant thirst amongst coachesfor information about empirically validatedways to work with people and how to helpthem set and reach goals in their personaland business lives (for discusion, see Grant &Cavanagh, 2007). Academic psychology hasfor too long not engaged with non-psycholo-gists’ thirst for such knowledge, leaving the

door open for other, arguably less qualifiedpeople to meet the demands of this market.Finally, existing postgraduate courses incoaching psychology worldwide alreadyadmit non-psychologists. Thus, rather thanattempt to lock the stable door, we should bethinking about how to design a better stable.

Definitions before teaching agendasHowever, before we can begin to design anddevelop a meaningful agenda for theteaching of coaching psychology, we need aclear definition of what coaching psychologyis and what it aims to do – it is difficult toteach what is not defined. This is particularlyimportant given that non-psychologists studycoaching psychology, and that many of thosestudents will not have a background inmental health.

Various definitions of coaching psycho-logy have emerged since the original delin-eations (Grant, 1999, 2000). Early work inestablishing coaching psychology was aimedat helping develop coaching psychology asan applied psychology that was specificallydistinguished from the foci of counsellingand clinical psychologists (e.g. Grant, 2000).Whereas counselling, clinical and coachingpsychology are all focused on helping peoplemake purposeful change, they differ in thatthe primary focus of counselling and clinicalpsychology is defined by the APS as theamelioration of distress to ‘manage stressand conflict at home and work, deal withgrief, loss and trauma, [and] overcome feel-ings of anxiety and fear’ (definition of thefocus of counselling psychology; APS,2007a), or the ‘assessment, diagnosis andtreatment of psychological problems andmental illness’ (definition of the focus onclinical psychology; APS, 2007b). Clearly,whilst both counselling and clinicalpsychology are important and valuable disci-plines, their primary foci is on remediatingdysfunction or distress.



APS definition of coaching psychology:Issues related to mental healthIt was in recognition of the importance ofdistinguishing coaching psychology fromcounselling and clinical work, that initialAPS definitions of coaching psychologyincluded references to non-clinical popula-tions. For example, the IGCP’s 2002 defini-tion of coaching psychology emphasised thatcoaching psychology was focused on non-clinical populations and the ‘…enhance-ment of life experience, work performanceand wellbeing for individuals, groups andorganisations who do not have clinically signifi-cant mental heath issues or abnormal levels ofdistress’ (italics added; IGCP, 2002).

In contrast, the original BPS workingdefinition of coaching psychology does notmake explicit reference to issues related tomental illness and defines coachingpsychology as follows: ‘Coaching psychologyis for enhancing well-being and perform-ance in personal life and work domains,underpinned by models of coachinggrounded in established adult learning orpsychological approaches’ (adapted fromGrant & Palmer, 2005, and cited in Palmer &Whybrow, 2006). However, the non-clinicalnature of coaching psychology is madeexplicit in the BPS SGCP Discussion Paperon Subject Benchmarks for CoachingPsychology (2006; note: see BPS DiscussionPaper for further background on the BPSSGCP position on the treatment of mentalillness and coaching psychology).

Nevertheless, there is now increasingevidence that many coaching clients do infact have clinically-significant mental healthissues and abnormal levels of distress. Earlyresearch into this issue found that between25 and 50 per cent of individuals presentingfor life coaching had clinical levels ofpsychopathology (Green, Oades & Grant,2006; Spence & Grant, 2005), and higher-than-normal levels of mental illnessincluding personality disorders have recentlybeen reported in executive coaching popu-lations (Kemp & Green, 2010). Yet thecoaching literature repeatedly states that

coaching does not aim to treat psychologicalproblems (e.g. Whitmore, 2009; Williams &Thomas, 2004). There is an important gaphere between the reality of practice and therhetoric of theory, and we need to addressthis tension if we are to develop a teachingagenda for coaching psychology that clearlydifferentiates it from the counselling orclinical psychologies whose foci is primarilyon the treatment of distress.

One way to do this is to use definitions ofcoaching psychology that recognise both: (a) the primary focus of coachingpsychology (as being about the facilitation ofgoal attainment, personal or professionaldevelopment and the enhancement of well-being, rather than the treatment of mentalillness); and (b) the notion that, althoughsome coaching clients may indeed havemental health problems (and in this regardmany not be from a ‘non-clinical’ popula-tion), it is not the aim of coaching psycho-logy to directly treat such problems. Ofcourse, such problems may become allevi-ated as a result of coaching; the pursuit andattainment of personally-valued goals isfrequently associated with increased well-being (Sheldon et al., 2004). Further, manycoaching psychologists who are also appro-priately qualified to deal with mental illnessmay conduct psychotherapeutic interven-tions with their coaching clients and explic-itly treat issues such as depression, anxietydisorders and the like. But such interven-tions are not coaching interventions – theyare more accurately delineated as coun-selling or clinical work and should not bepresented as ‘coaching’. Indeed both theBPS (2006b) and APS Codes of Practice(APS, 2007) explicitly warn against themisrepresentation of psychological services.

A working definition of coachingpsychology that draws on past APS and BPSdefinitions and makes such distinctions clearis as follows:

Coaching psychology is a branch ofpsychology that is concerned with thesystematic application of the behaviouralscience of psychology to the enhance-


Anthony M. Grant

ment of life experience, workperformance and wellbeing forindividuals, groups and organisations.Coaching psychology focuses onfacilitating goal attainment, and onenhancing the personal and professionalgrowth and development of clients inpersonal life and in work domains. It isnot aimed at directly treating clinicallysignificant mental illness issues orabnormal levels of distress.

The inclusion of a short statement in theabove working definition that explicitlyexcludes the direct treatment of mentalillness or abnormal levels of distress clearlydistinguishes the primary role of coachingpsychology from that of counselling andclinical psychology and thus provides auseful platform from which to explore anagenda for teaching coaching psychology Itis to this issue we now turn.

An agenda for teaching coachingpsychologyAs the BPS Discussion Paper (2006a) details,coaching psychology emphasises a commit-ment to goal setting and the pursuit of specif-ically defined outcomes as agreed withclients. It is also concerned with the explo-ration of the meaning of events and experi-ences, the mental representations of events,the identification of both internal andexternal factors of influence and the partic-ular significance of these for relationshipswith coaching clients themselves and withothers. Such an understanding of coachingpsychology is compatible with a wide range ofphilosophical, psychological and theoreticaltraditions including cognitive-behavioural,humanistic, adult learning and systemicperspectives, amongst others (BPS, 2006a).

However, whilst a broad church of theo-retical underpinnings to coachingpsychology can serve to enrich the field, it isessential that an education in coachingpsychology fosters the critical thinking skillsnecessary for graduates to critically evaluatevarious philosophical, psychological andtheoretical traditions and to construct

conceptually coherent models of theory andpractice. Thus an education in coachingpsychology should be far more than a ‘how-to-coach training’ programme based on aspecific coaching methodology – we mustaim to produce informed practitioners whoare able to enact the key aims of coachingpsychology.

Drawing on the above discussion the aimsof coaching psychology include: Providingone-to-one or group-based support to facili-tate people in achieving their life and/orwork goals; facilitating the achievement ofgroup goals; recognising and appropriatelyresponding to client’s mental health prob-lems including making referrals for treat-ment; supporting the development ofeffective coaching programmes in organisa-tions; accessing and utilising current bestknowledge in the design, enactment andevaluation of coaching interventions; under-taking research into the effectiveness ofcoaching; being able to use a psychologicalframework for the theory, practice andresearch of professional coaching in anethical and professional fashion, whilstdrawing on and developing existing psycho-logical theory and knowledge for use incoaching contexts (for discusions on thesepoints see, for example, Palmer & Whybrow,2006; Stober & Grant, 2006). It is these issuesthat an agenda for teaching coachingpsychology needs to address.

Core areas of studyGiven the above points, I suggest that theteaching of coaching psychology shouldinclude the following core areas of study. (In addition to these proposed core areas ofstudy listed below, the teaching of coachingpsychology should also include a range ofother non-core areas which may varydepending of the interests of students orspeciality of the teaching institution; seeTable 1.)1. Foundations for an evidence-based

approach to practice.2. Ethical principles.3. Professional models of practice.




4. Mental health issues in coaching.5. Cognitive-behavioural theory as applied

to coaching.6. Goal theory.7. Change theory.8. Systemic theory as applied to coaching

(including group process andorganisational applications).

9. Core applied coaching skills and theirapplication to skills, performance,developmental and remedial coaching.

10. Applications of coaching psychology tospecialised areas of practice including(but not limited to); executive coaching,workplace coaching, health coaching, lifecoaching, and peak performancecoaching.

It should be noted that the exact composi-tion of any whole graduate programme incoaching psychology will be, of course, deter-mined by the theoretical preferences andvalues of the course director, teachingfaculty and the institution at which the

course is offered. The above listings are inline with what I would consider to be thecore areas for a graduate programme incoaching psychology that reflects the keybodies of psychological knowledge as relatedto coaching as previously defined in thispaper.

There are a wide range of other areas ofstudy that could also be included (see Table1). The above areas of study fall into threebroad categories. Areas one to four encom-pass core professional and ethical issues;areas five to eight encompass core psycho-logical knowledge as applied to coaching;and areas nine and 10 relate to applied skillsand coaching practice. Each of these areascould be taught either as a stand-alonesubject, or combined with other areas tomake a coherent unit of study (or module).For example, areas one to three combinedwould make a coherent unit of study, aswould areas five, six and seven.

Table 1: Examples of areas of study that could also be included in teaching of coaching psychology.

1. Positive psychology approaches to coaching

2. Adult cognitive-developmental approaches to coaching

3. Psychodynamic approaches to coaching

4. Narrative approaches to coaching

5. Gestalt approaches to coaching

6. Solution-focused approaches to coaching

7. Socio-cognitive constructs such as emotional intelligence and mindfulness

8. Motivation including self-regulation theory

9. Measurement in coaching including issues related to multi-rater feedback

10. Applications of adult learning models to coaching

11. Leadership and management topics

12. Issues related to health and wellbeing

13. Research methods in coaching

Anthony M. Grant

1. Foundations for an evidence-based approachto practiceThis area of study should aim to impart theknowledge and skills necessary for anevidence-based approach to coachingpractice that is grounded in the behaviouralscience of psychology. In this context theterm ‘evidence-based’ means much morethan simply producing evidence that aspecific coaching intervention is effective, ordiscounting any data that is not drawn fromdouble-blind, randomised controlled trials.Because coaching engagements are notmedical interventions that follow prescribedtreatment regimes, much coaching does notlend itself to evaluation within a medicalmodel. Indeed, given the non-clinical, non-medical context of coaching, the medicalmodel may be an entirely inappropriateframework from which to understand, teach,and evaluate coaching (Stober & Grant,2006).

Thus this area of study should promote abroader view of evidence-based coaching, aview that values qualitative as well as quanti-tative data, is comfortable with both casestudy and randomised controlled trails, andrecognises that manualised assessment-ledcoaching can be as valuable as an emergentaction research methodology. The key pointhere is that the graduate should be able todetermine which methodology is the mostappropriate for the specific situation inhand, and know where to go to (e.g. elec-tronic databases, published coaching-specific and related literature) in order tofind the knowledge and evidence they needto conduct coaching in an ethical andprofessional fashion.

2. Ethical principlesEthical principles are the foundation ofprofessional practice. The teaching ofethical principles and their application in adiscipline-specific fashion is central to allareas of professional practice from law, medi-cine to psychology. There are a number ofchallenges in teaching ethics in coachingpsychology courses. Firstly, because coaching

per se is a cross-disciplinary endeavour,students will come from a wide range ofprior backgrounds and many will not havebeen have been schooled in the basic ethicalprinciples that permeate undergraduatepsychology courses. Because such ethicalframeworks are central to a psychologist’sprofessional sense of self, it may be moredifficult for mature-age students who havenot had such prior long-standing exposureto a psychology-specific ethical framework tosuddenly adopt and embody a new ethicalframework. Secondly, the ethical codesappropriate for a psychologist who coachesmay well differ from the codes that areappropriate for a non-psychologist coach,and this could require the teaching of two ormore specific ethical codes within onecourse. Key issues that come to mind includeethical issues rated to the use of psycho-metric data and psychological tests, issuesrelated to mandatory supervision andcontinuing professional development(CPD), and responsibilities regardingmental health issues. Thirdly, the myriad ofprofessional coaching associations each withtheir own ethical framework, makes it diffi-cult to determine which association code toinclude. Of course, none of these problemsare insurmountable. Nevertheless, they needto be addressed as an agenda for teachingcoaching psychology develops.

3. Professional models of practiceAs regards models of professional practice,the Australian and British PsychologicalSocieties are committed to the scientist-prac-titioner model (Kennedy & Llewelyn, 2001;Provost et al., 2010). Although the notion ofbecoming a scientist-practitioner may beintimidating to those who have not beenpreviously schooled in a scientific discipline(Cruz & Hervey, 2001), the basic principalsunderlying the scientist-practitioner modelare quite straightforward. In short, there arethree key characteristics of the scientist-prac-titioner model: Firstly, the scientist-practi-tioner holds a commitment to further theirprofessional understanding through



research, either through a traditionalacademic context, or through the examina-tion and reporting of data obtaining in one’sprofessional practice; secondly, the scientist-practitioner is a active consumer of researchand uses such research to improve theirpractice; and thirdly, the scientist-practi-tioner is an active evaluator of their prac-tices, programmes and interventions (Jones& Mehr, 2007).

The scientist-practitioner model hasattracted a wide range of criticisms since itsformulation in 1949, including difficulties intraining professionals to be scientists(O’Gorman, 2001), the fact that many prac-titioners do not have the time or the inclina-tion to conduct rigorous scientific research(Martin, 1989) and distaste in some quartersfor the medical model assumed by some tounderpin the scientist-practitioner approachin psychology (for an informed discussion ofthese and other issues related to the scientist-practitioner model, see Lane & Corrie,2006). Nevertheless, the three centraltenants of the scientist-practitioner modelcan provide an important foundation forprofessional coaching psychology practicealthough some adaptation for use inteaching coaching psychology is required.

An ‘informed-practitioner’ approach maybe a more appropriative stance for theteaching of coaching psychology. As discussedby Stober and Grant (2006) the informed-practitioner approach to professionalcoaching draws on, and further develops, thereflective-practitioner and the scientist-practi-tioner models. An informed-practitioner istrained in both the self-reflective processescentral to the reflective-practitioner modeland also in the understandings of evidence-gathering and evaluation central to the scien-tist-practitioner model. However, informed-practitioners are not expected to be signifi-cant producers of research (Parker &Detterman, 1988). Rather they are positionedas educated consumers of research who canutilise related research and critical thinkingskills to improve their practices and intellec-tual understanding of coaching – a more real-

istic approach than attempting to make fully-fledged research scientists from students ofcoaching psychology. It is interesting to notethat similar models of professional practiceare being proposed for use in marriage andfamily therapy training programs (Karam &Sprenkle, 2010), and that a number ofcommentators have called for greater flexi-bility in understandings of the scientist-practi-tioner model as applied to coachingpsychology (Corrie & Lane, 2009). Thus ascientist-practitioner model that draws on aninformed-practitioner approach may be auseful framework for a model of professionalpractice that can address the needs and attrib-utes of a diverse range of coaching psychologystudents.

4. Mental health issues in coachingGiven that some coaching clients will haveclinically-significant levels of psycho-pathology, and that such issues have the veryreal potential to derail the coaching process(Berglas, 2002) it is important that mentalhealth and mental illness issues in coachingbe a core area of the study of coachingpsychology. Of course, many coachingstudents who are already psychologists mayhave had prior training in recognising anddealing with mental health problems. Butmany students of coaching psychology willnot have had exposure to issues related tomental health.

I argue it is important to include informa-tion on mental heath problems in a coachingpsychology programme even for thosestudents who have prior mental healthtraining because the presentation of mentalhealth problems in coaching relationships isoften quite different to presentations inclinical or counselling settings. In a clinical orcounselling setting, the mental healthproblem is frequently overt, and is the veryreason the client is there – diagnosis and iden-tification of the problem may only occurduring or after the consultation session, buttypically the client contacts the clinician orcounsellor because he/she is distressed andhe/she know that something is not right.


Anthony M. Grant

In coaching contexts mental health problemsare often more difficult to identify. Thepresenting issue could be a need to havemore engagement in the workplace, or lead-ership development involving a shift from acommand and control style to a more human-istic, encouraging style, or a need to increasesales performance, rather than an overtdistress or mental health problem. Indeed, itmay be that coaches need better diagnosticskills than clinicians or counsellors.

For some clients mental health problemssuch as depression, anxiety, or personallydisorders will be significant barriers tochange. Some of the core skills that a coachneeds here include the ability to recognisecommon mental health problems in coachingclients, the ability to discuss these issues empa-thetically with the client, the ability to make areferral to a qualified mental health profes-sional – it is not the coach’s role to diagnoseor provide treatment.

This area raises a number of difficult andcomplex questions which need to beaddressed in coaching psychology pro-gramme. This include whether or not thecoach should continue coaching if the clientelects to have treatment with a mental healthprofessional; whether or not a coach who is apsychologist should treat mental illnesswhilst concurrently providing coachingservices; how to best work or liaise with amental health professional; whether or notthe coach should terminate the coachingrelationship if the client does not seek help;and how to deal with issues of confidentialityand duty of care – particularly in organisa-tional settings where the organisation ispaying for the coaching services, and suchissues need to be addressed in a graduateeducation in coaching psychology. These arechallenging issues that should be addressedin a graduate programme.

5. Cognitive Behavioural Theory as applied tocoachingCognitive Behavioural Theory (CBT) is themost common theoretical perspective under-pinning coaching practice in general, and

also the most empirically validated (Grant etal., 2010). Thus CBT should form a core areaof study in a graduate programme incoaching psychology.

CBT is grounded in the notion thatemotions and behaviours result (primarily,though not entirely) from cognitiveprocesses and that it is possible for humanbeings to purposefully modify such processesin order to achieve different ways of feelingand behaving. CBT does not exclusivelyfocus on cognitions, it is a comprehensivetheory of human behaviour that proposes a‘biopsychosocial’ explanation as to howhuman beings come to feel and act as theydo, that is a combination of biological,psychological, and social factors are involved(for discusion on these points, see Froggatt,2006). In this sense CBT is a generic termthat encompasses a great number ofapproaches and applications includingpsychotherapeutic applications such asRational Emotive Behaviour Therapy(REBT) and Cognitive Therapy (CT).

Applications of CBT have changed overtime. Originally used almost exclusively totreat mental health problems (Rachman,1997), CBT has now been adapted andempirically validated for use in a range ofareas including sports and performancepsychology, organisational psychology,health psychology and latterly coachingpsychology. Each of these different applica-tions requires a specialled adaptation of CBTfor optimal use in different populations whohave different linguistic nuances, frames ofreference and different goals. Just as thelanguage of a cognitive-behavioural organi-sational psychologist may not resonate forthe socially phobic client, the language ofcognitive-behavioural clinical or counsellingwork may not resonate for the coachingclient and may well alienate them.

Although there is a wealth of literatureassociated with cognitive-behaviouraltherapy in the treatment of anxiety, stress ordepression, more work needs to be done indeveloping positively-languaged coaching-specific adaptations of CBT. Some of the



literature on cognitive-behavioural coaching(CBC) draws heavily on cognitive-behavioural approaches to counselling forstress or perfectionism and defeatingdysfunctional thinking patterns and useslanguage more akin to counselling thancoaching (e.g. Neenan & Dryden, 2002) –rather than using the non-pathologicalorientation and language of goal attainmentand coaching. (For more recent work thatincorporates a more positively-languagedapproach to the use of CBC, see Neenan,2006; for an interesting example of the appli-cation of REBT to executive coaching, seeGrieger & Fralick, 2007; and for a usefulgeneral overview of CBC, see Williams,Edgerton & Palmer, 2010.) Whilst the CBCliterature to date has been an important startin this domain, we will need a greater depthand breath in this literature as an agenda forteaching coaching psychology develops.

6. Goal theoryA commitment to goal setting and thepursuit of specifically defined outcomes asagreed with clients is the core of coachingpsychology (BPS, 2006). Thus the study ofgoal theory should be a central part of theteaching of coaching psychology. Goaltheory is represented in a large and diversebody of literature (Locke & Latham, 2002)much of which has direct relevance for theteaching of coaching psychology.

Most commercial coach training organi-sations teach little in the way of goal theory,often simply focusing on the need to set so-called SMART goals. Yet there are well over20 different categories of goals that can beused in coaching including learning goals,performance goals, distal goals and self-concordant goals, with indications andcontraindications well documented in thegoal literature (for discussion of goal theoryand applications in executive coaching, seeGrant, 2006). In addition, the psychologicalgoal literature includes in-depth discussionsabout a range of controversies in goal setting(e.g. Locke & Latham, 2009; Ordóñez et al.,2009), knowledge of which should be an

essential part of a graduate coaching psycho-logy programme.

7. Change theoryCoaching is about creating purposeful, posi-tive change and so change theory has a vitalplace in the teaching of coaching psycho-logy. There is a substantial change theoryliterature ranging from models that focusalmost exclusively on the individual (intra-personal), to relational (inter-personal) andsystemic theories of change, and there are awide range of validated techniques drawnfrom such models (Abraham & Michie,2008). Most theories of change were notdeveloped for coaching purposes, ratherthey were developed in relation to the adop-tion of heath behaviours, organisationalchange or psychotherapy, and to date therehas been little work done adapting models ofchange for use in the coaching context(Grant 2010).

Some of the models of change that mayusefully inform the teaching of coachingpsychology include the TranstheoreticalModel of Change (Prochaska & DiClemente,1982), Intentional Change Theory (Boyatzis,2006), Transition Models of change (e.g.Bridges, 1986; Williams, 1999), SocialLearning/Social Cognitive Theory (Bandura,1977), Theories of Reasoned Action andPlanned Behaviour (e.g. Ajzen & Fishbein,1980) and a range of organisational changeapproaches including Kotter (1996) andLewin (1947), in addition to acceptance-based or paradoxical models of change (e.g.Quinn, Spreitzer & Brown, 2000).

8. Systemic theory as applied to coachingAlthough much coaching takes place on anindividualistic basis (Ward, 2008), systemictheory has long been influential in coachingpractice (e.g. Kilburg, 1996b; O’Neil, 2000).Indeed, whether it be a work situation,organisational context or family structure,coaching clients are always part of a system.The systems in which coaching clients liveand work have a significant impact on theirability to achieve their goals. To ignore


Anthony M. Grant

systemic issues in coaching is to ignorefactors that significantly effect the clientschances of success (for a comprehensiveview on systems theory in coaching, seeCavanagh, 2006).

In addition, there is a growing interest inusing group-based coaching in organisa-tional settings to help increase the flow ofinformation needed to solve complex prob-lems and complete complex tasks in the situ-ations of ambiguity and uncertainly thatcharacterise much contemporary organisa-tional life (e.g. Anderson, Anderson & Mayo,2008; Arrow & Henry, 2010; Clutterbuck,2007), and systemic theory can usefullyinform group coaching processes. Thus atheoretical understanding of the majorsystemic theories is a vital component of arounded coaching psychology programme.

The inclusion of approaches such asgeneral systems theory (e.g. Von Bertalanffy,1968) and complexity theory (Waldrop,1992) will help students of coachingpsychology develop their understanding ofgroups and complex human systems, partic-ularly in relation to group and teamdynamics (Tuckman & Jensen, 1977). Also ofparticular relevance for coaching aresystemic issues related to learning organisa-tions (Senge, 1990), self-organisation, lead-ership and control (Wheatley, 1999), andengaging with change in complex adaptivesystems (Stacey, 2000).

9. Core applied coaching skillsAlthough ‘there is nothing as practical as agood theory’ (Lewin, 1952, p.169), coachingpsychology is essentially an applied disci-pline, and thus applied coaching skillsshould be a core part of a coachingpsychology programme. Issues of relevancehere include active listening and attendingskills; questioning and communicating effec-tively; facilitating learning through helpingclients design actions that help them attainagreed-upon coaching goals; contracting;managing process and accountability; andappropriately challenging clients to keepthem on track. In addition it will be impor-

tant to include instruction in the use ofcoaching skills in relation to skills, perform-ance and developmental coaching as well asremedial coaching.

Applied skills are important, but practiceshould not be isolated from theory. Animportant part of a coaching psychologyeducation is the explicit linking of coachingpractice to theoretical frameworks through acase conceptualisation or case formulationprocess – and case conceptualisation shouldlie at the heart of applied coaching skillswithin a coaching psychology programme(for discussion, see Lane & Corrie, 2009). Inaddition, as part of their education incoaching psychology students should learn avariety of methodologies for structuringcoaching sessions and have opportunities todevelop their applied skills through super-vised role plays and case studies. Ideally,students would learn through supervisedrole that a good supervisor can bring fosterboth personal and professional insight, andthe importance of engaging in a supervisionprocess should be should be emphasisedthroughout the programme.

10. Applications of coaching psychology tospecialised areas of practiceCoaching is essentially a methodology forfacilitating positive change. Such change hasa specific focus including (but not limitedto): executive coaching, workplacecoaching, health coaching, sales coaching,life coaching, and peak performancecoaching, and many of these applications ofcoaching require some specialised knowl-edge. Further, coaching is utilised as achange methodology in a wide range ofcommercial, professional and organisationalcontexts. Many of these will have specificassociated knowledge domains with atten-dant jargon, assumptions and practiceswhich the coach needs to be aware of – forexample, coaching in the legal professionwithout being aware of the terminology usedto describe the different roles lawyers adoptmay significantly undermine the credibilityof one’s coaching services. Therefore, a



graduate programme in coaching psycho-logy should ideally prepare students by deliv-ering any specialised knowledge required towork in specific areas of practice.

A research agenda for scholarship intothe teaching of coaching psychologyThus far this paper has discussed broadissues related to the development of anagenda for teaching coaching psychology.But self-reflection should also be part of theagenda for teaching coaching psychology –scholarship into the teaching of coachingpsychology must also be an important part ofthe agenda. As yet there has been very littlework in this area.

Research questions that could informsuch scholarship could include: What are themost effective methods for teachingcoaching psychology? Are there differencesbetween those students who come to theirstudies of coaching psychology with a back-ground in psychology compared to thosewithout prior psychology in terms ofacademic performance and performance asa coach? How does learning coachingpsychology change or develop students?Given that coaching can be an effectivemethodology for personal change, andstudying psychology can facilitate personalinsight, does studying coaching psychologyenhance or accelerate students’ ownpersonal development? If so in what way?The limited research in this area suggeststhat studying coaching psychology canindeed have a positive impact on students’academic performance and personal insight(Grant, 2008). Further research and scholar-ship in these areas will be benefit both theteaching and professional practice ofcoaching psychology.

SummaryWhilst the research and practice of coachingpsychology has developed considerably overthe past 10 years, a formal framework for theteaching of coaching psychology has not asyet been widely discussed in the literature.Some of the core areas in the teaching ofcoaching psychology that are in clear align-ment with existing APS and BPS definitionsof coaching psychology and should form thecore of an education in coaching psychologyinclude; an evidence-based approach topractice; ethical principles; professionalmodels of practice; mental health issues incoaching; cognitive-behavioural theory asapplied to coaching; goal theory; changetheory; systemic theory; core appliedcoaching skills and their application to skills,performance, developmental and remedialcoaching; and applications of coachingpsychology to specialised areas of practice.These are in addition to specialist areas oftheory such as applied positive psychology,solution-focused approaches, cognitive-developmental, narrative, psychodynamicand Gestalt approaches. Coaching psycho-logy as a psychological sub-discipline is wellon the way to developing a coherent area ofresearch and practice. It now needs todevelop and formalise a body of teachableknowledge that can sustain and advance thisnew and vibrant area of behavioural science.

CorrespondenceAnthony M. GrantCoaching Psychology Unit,School of Psychology,University of Sydney,NSW 2006,Australia.Email: [email protected]


Anthony M. Grant



Abraham, C. & Michie, S. (2008). A taxonomy ofbehaviour change techniques used in interven-tions. Health Psychology, 27(3), 379–387.

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding atti-tudes and predicting social behaviour. New Jersey:Prentice-Hall.

Anderson, M.C., Anderson, D.L. & Mayo, W.D.(2008). Team coaching helps a leadership teamdrive cultural change at Caterpillar. GlobalBusiness and Organisational Excellence, May/June,40–50.

APS (2007). Code of Ethics. Retrieved 5 January 2011,from:www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/Code_Ethics_2007.pdf

APS (2010a). Counselling psychologists. Retrieved 29 December 2010, from:www.psychology.org.au/community/specialist/counselling/

APS (2010b). Clinical psychologists. Retrieved 29 December 2010, from:www.groups.psychology.org.au/cclin/

Arrow, H., & Henry, K.B. (2010). Using complexity topromote group learning in health care. Journal ofEvaluation in Clinical Practice, 16(4), 861–866.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifyingtheory of behavioural change. PsychologicalReview, 84(2), 191–215.

Berglas, S. (2002). The very real dangers of executivecoaching. Harvard Business Review (June), 87–92.

Boyatzis, R.E. (2006). An overview of intentionalchange from a complexity perspective. Journal ofManagement Development, 25(7), 607–623.

British Psychological Society (BPS) (2006a). Discus-sion Paper: Subject benchmarks for coachingpsychology. Retrieved 30 December 2010, from:www.bps.org.uk/downloadfile.cfm?file_uuid=71699DF7–1143–DFD0–7E8D–56B86B42197E&ext=pdf

British Psychological Society (BPS) (2006b). Code ofEthics and Conduct. Retrieved 5 January 2011,from:www.bps.org.uk/downloadfile.cfm?file_uuid=5084a882–1143–dfd0–7e6c–f1938a65c242&ext=pdf

Bridges, W. (1986). Managing organisational transi-tions. Organisational Dynamics, 15(1), 24–33.

Carr, R. (2005). A guide to credentials in coaching: Types,issues, and sources. Victoria, BC: Peer SystemsConsulting Group Inc. Retrieved 26 July 2006,from: www.peer.ca/credentialing05.doc

Cavanagh, M. (2006). Coaching from a systemicperspective: A complex adaptive conversation. In D. Stober & A.M. Grant (Eds.), Evidence-basedcoaching handbook (pp.313–354). New Jersey:Wiley.

Clutterbuck, D. (2007). Coaching the team at work.London: Nicholas Brealey.

Corrie, S. & Lane, D.A. (2009). The scientist-practi-tioner model as a framework for coachingpsychology. The Coaching Psychologist, 5(2), 61–67.

Cruz, R. & Hervey, L. (2001). The American DanceTherapy Association research survey. AmericanJournal of Dance Therapy, 23(2), 89–118.

Froggatt, W. (2006). A brief intoduction to cognitive-behaviour therapy. Retrieved 31 January 2008,from: www.rational.org.nz/.

Grant, A.M. (1999). Enhancing performance throughcoaching: The promise of CBT. Paper presented atthe First State Conference of the Australian Asso-ciation of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (NSW).

Grant, A.M. (2000). Coaching psychology comes ofage. PsychNews, 4(4), 12–14.

Grant, A.M. (2003). Towards a psychology ofcoaching: The impact of coaching on metacogni-tion, mental health and goal attainment. Disserta-tion Abstracts: 2003-95012-323.

Grant, A.M. (2006). An integrative goal-focusedapproach to executive coaching. In D. Stober &A.M. Grant (Eds.), Evidence-based coaching hand-book (pp.153–192). New York: Wiley.

Grant, A.M. (2008). Personal life coaching forcoaches-in-training enhances goal attainment,insight and learning. Coaching: An InternationalJournal of Theory, Research and Practice, 1(1),54–70.

Grant, A.M. (2010). It takes time: A stages of changeperspective on the adoption of workplacecoaching skills. Journal of Change Management,10(1), 61–77.

Grant, A.M. & Cavanagh, M. (2007). Evidence-basedcoaching: Flourishing or languishing? AustralianPsychologist, 42(4), 239–254.

Grant, A.M. & O’Hara, B. (2006). The self–presenta-tion of commercial Australian life coachingschools: Cause for concern? InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 1(2), 20–32.

Grant, A.M. & Palmer, S. (2002). Coaching Psychology.Workshop and meeting held at the AnnualConference of the Division of CounsellingPsychology, British Psychological Society,Torquay, 18 May.

Grant, A.M., Passmore, J., Cavanagh, M. & Parker, H.(2010). The state of play in coaching today: A comprehensive review of the field. InternationalReview of Industrial and Organisational Psychology,25, 125–168.

Green, L.S., Oades, L.G. & Grant, A.M. (2006).Cognitive-behavioural, solution-focused lifecoaching: Enhancing goal striving, wellbeing andhope. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1(3), 142–149.

References


Grieger, R. & Fralick, F. (2007). The use of rebt prin-ciples and practices in leadership training anddevelopment. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cogni-tive Behaviour Therapy, 25(2), 143–154.

Griffith, C. (1926). The psychology of coaching.New York: Scribner’s.

IGCP (2002). Definition of coaching psychology.Retrieved 29 December 2010, from:www.groups.psychology.org.au/igcp/

Jones, J.L. & Mehr, S.L. (2007). Foundations andassumptions of the scientist-practitioner model.American Behavioural Scientist, 50, 766–771.

Karam, E.A. & Sprenkle, D.H. (2010). The research-informed clinician: A guide to training the next-generation mft. Journal of Marital and FamilyTherapy, 36(3), 307–319.

Kemp, T. & Green, L.S. (2010). Executive coaching forthe normal ‘non-clinical’ population: Fact or fiction?Paper presented at the Fourth Evidence-basedCoaching Conference, University of Sydney,June.

Kennedy, P. & Llewelyn, S. (2001). Does the futurebelong to the scientist-practitioner? The Psycholo-gist, 14(2), 74–78.

Kilburg, R.R. (1996a). Foreword: Executive coachingas an emerging competency in the practice ofconsultation. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practiceand Research, 48(2), 59–60.

Kilburg, R.R. (1996b). Toward a conceptual under-standing and definition of executive coaching.Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research,48(2), 134–144.

Kotter, J.P. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA:Harvard Business School Press.

Lane, D.A. & Corrie, S. (Eds.) (2006). The modern scientist-practitioner. London: Routledge.

Lane, D.A. & Corrie, S. (2009). Does coachingpsychology need the concept of formulation?International Coaching Psychology Review, 4(2),195–208.

Lawther, J.D. (1951). Psychology of coaching. Harlow,UK: Prentice Hall.

Leonard, S. (1995). Editor’s column. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 47(4),256.

Leonard, S. (1996a). Editor’s column. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48(3),190.

Leonard, S. (1996b). Editor’s column. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48(2),146.

Leonard, S. (1996c). Editor’s column. ConsultingPsychology Journal: Practice and Research, 48(1), 52.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics.Human Relations, 1(1), 5–41.

Lewin, K. (1952). Field theory in social science: Selectedtheoretical papers by Kurt Lewin. London: Tavistock.

Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (2002). Building a prac-tically useful theory of goal setting and task moti-vation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717.

Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (2009). Has goal settinggone wild, or have its attackers abandoned goodscholarship? Academy of Management Perspectives,February, 17–23.

Martin, P.R. (1989). The scientist-practitioner modeland clinical psychology: Time for change?Australian Psychologist, 24(1), 71–92.

Miller, K.G. (1927). Review of the psychology ofcoaching. Psychological Bulletin, 24(10), 608–609.

Neenan, M. & Dryden, W. (2002). Life coaching: A cognitive behavioural approach. New York:Brunner-Routledge.

Neenan, M. (2006). Cognitive behavioural coaching.In J. Passmore (Ed.), Excellence in coaching(pp.91–105). London: Kogan-Page.

O’Gorman, J.G. (2001). The scientist-practionermodel and its critics. Australian Psychologist,36(2), 164–169.

O’Neil, M.B. (2000). Executive coaching with backboneand heart: A systems approach to engaging leaders withtheir challenges. San Francisco: Jossey–Bass.

Ordóñez, L.D., Schweitzer, M.E., Galinsky, A.D. &Bazerman, M.H. (2009). Goals gone wild: Thesystematic side effects of over-prescribing goalsetting. Academy of Management Perspectives,February, 6–16.

Palmer, S. (2008). A coaching psychology perspec-tive. Psychology Teaching Review, 14(2), 40–42.


Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (2007). Handbook ofcoaching psychology. London: Routledge

Parker, L.E. & Detterman, D.K. (1988). The balancebetween clinical and research interests amongBoulder Model graduate students. ProfessionalPsychology – Research & Practice, 19(3), 342–344.

Passmore, J. (2010). A grounded theory study of thecoachee experience: The implications fortraining and practice in coaching psychology.International Coaching Psychology Review, 5(1),48–62.

Passmore, J. & McGoldrick, S. (2009). Super-vision,extra-vision or blind faith? A grounded theorystudy of the efficacy of coaching supervision.International Coaching Psychology Review, 4(2),145–161.

Peltier, B. (2010). The psychology of executive coaching:Theory and application (2nd. ed.). New York:Brunner-Routledge.

Prochaska, J.O. & DiClemente, C.C. (1982). Trans-theoretical therapy: Toward a more integrativemodel of change. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research& Practice, 19(3), 276–288.

Anthony M. Grant



Provost, S.C., Hannan, G., Martin, F.H., Farrell, G.,Lipp, O.V., Terry, D.J. et al. (2010). Where shouldthe balance be between ‘scientist’ and ‘practi-tioner’ in Australian undergraduate psychology?Australian Psychologist, 45(4), 243–248.

Quinn, R.E., Spreitzer, G.M. & Brown, M.V. (2000).Changing others through changing ourselves:The transformation of human systems. Journal ofManagement Inquiry, 9(2), 147–164.

Rachman, S. (1997). The evolution of cognitivebehaviour therapy. In D.M. Clark & C.G. Fair-burn (Eds.), Science and practice of cognitivebehaviour therapy. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practiceof the learning organisation. New York: CurrencyDoubleday.

Sheldon, K.M., Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L. & Kasser, T.(2004). The independent effects of goal contentsand motives on wellbeing: It’s both what youpursue and why you pursue it. Personality & SocialPsychology Bulletin, 30(4), 475–486.

Spaten, O.M. & Hansen, T.G. (2009). Shouldlearning to coach be integrated in a graduatepsychology programme? Denmark’s first try. TheCoaching Psychologist, 5(2), 104–109.

Spence, G.B. & Grant, A.M. (2005). Individual andgroup life-coaching: Initial findings from arandomised, controlled trial. In M. Cavanagh,A.M. Grant & T. Kemp (Eds.), Evidence-basedcoaching: Theory, research and practice from thebehavioural sciences (Vol. 1, pp.143–158). BowenHills, QLD: Australian Academic Press.

Stacey, R.D. (2000). Strategic management and organisa-tional dynamics (3rd ed.). Harlow, UK: PearsonEducation.

Stober, D. & Grant, A.M. (Eds.) (2006). Evidence-basedcoaching handbook. New York: Wiley.

Tuckman, B.W. & Jensen, M.A.C. (1977). Stages ofsmall-group development revisited. Group &Organisation Studies, 2(4), 419–427.

Von Bertalanffy, L. (1968). General system theory.New York: George Braziller.

Waldrop, M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging science atthe edge of order and chaos. New York: Simon &Schuster.

Ward, G. (2008). Towards executive change: A psychodynamic group coaching model forshort executive programmes. International Journalof Evidence-Based Coaching and Mentoring, 6(1),67–78.

Wheatley, M. (1999). Leadership and new science:Discovering order in a chaotic world. San Francisco:Berrett-Koehler.

Whitmore, J. (2009). Coaching for performance(3rd ed.). London: Nicholas Brealey.

Williams, D. (1999). Human responses to change.Futures, 31, 609–616.

Williams, P. & Thomas, L.J. (2004). Total life coaching.New York: Norton & Co.

Williams, H., Edgerton, N. & Palmer, S. (2010).Cognitive behavioural coaching. In E. Cox, T. Bachkirova & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The complete handbook of coaching (pp.37–53).London: Sage.

The foregoing article by Grant entitled‘Developing an agenda for teachingcoaching psychology’, represents the first ina new series of articles where some of theunfinished questions in coaching psychologycan be discussed and debated. For this firstdiscussion, the international co-editors haveinvited members of the coaching psychologyworld to pen responses of between 250 to1000 words to the issues and ideas putforward in Grant’s article. We are pleased tosay that the response to our invitation wasoutstanding, and we present these now inthe following response article.

Before we begin to outline the morecontentious issues raised and responded toby our authors, we should state that theprimary response to Grant’s paper was oneof positive support. Perhaps it is not

surprising that one of the founders of educa-tion in coaching psychology should havegiven such thoughtful and coverage to themain issues in the field. The opportunity todiscuss and reflect on these issues was appre-ciated by the authors.

That being said, our invited authors didraise a number of issues and concerns toconsider in designing, populating and deliv-ering a coaching psychology curriculum.Table 1 summarises the main issues identi-fied for discussion by the commentators. Wehave listed these issues under four headings:1. Purpose/Agenda – What is the curricula

trying to achieve and for whom? 2. Contextual issues – Important considera-

tions beyond psychology that mightshape training in coaching psychologyeducation.


Educating coaching psychologists:Responses from the fieldMichael Cavanagh, Stephen Palmer et al.

This paper responds to Grant (this issue), Developing an agenda for teaching coaching psychology.Representatives of key stakeholder groups were asked to respond to the issues raised in Grant’s article. Thesegroups included practicing coaching psychologists, coaches, coach educators, Professional bodies incoaching psychology and corporate purchasers of coaching. An agenda for training is intimately bound upwith issues of identity for coaching psychology. It raises the questions of how we define ourselves and ourrelationship to the world. Our respondents also focused on four key questions.1. Purpose/Agenda – What is the curricula trying to achieve and for whom? 2. Contextual issues – important considerations beyond psychology that might shape training in coaching

psychology education. 3. Curriculum content – topic areas, theories, models, approaches and perspectives.4. Teaching process – Considerations about how the curriculum should be taught.A range of perspectives are brought to bear on these questions. The diversity of responses reflect the reality ofworking in a diverse world. This is not something to be overcome, but embraced by coaching psychology. Anydiscussion of the training of coaching psychologists should include multiple models of training, andmultiple curricula. In this way we reflect the adaptive quality of the coaching conversation, and its abilityto incorporate cross-disciplinary insights and understandings. This is what gives coaching its uniqueresponsiveness to the emerging needs of our clients. Keywords: Coaching psychology; teaching coaching psychology; coach training; evidence-based coaching;cross-disciplinary.

IntroductionMichael Cavanagh & Stephen Palmer(Co-ordinating editors, ICPR)


Developing an agenda for teaching coaching psychology – invited responses

3. Curriculum content – Topic areas,theories, models, approaches and pers-pectives

4. Teaching process – Considerations abouthow the curriculum should be taught.

Of course, there is a close association andoverlap between these categories, and someof the issues raised could easily be listedunder more than one heading. Nevertheless,the above four categories may be a usefulway of highlighting the main areas of agree-ment and tension in designing a coachingpsychology curricula.

As can be seen from Table 1, there areemerging areas for further discussion thatappear important in the development of a curriculum for coaching psychology. A number of authors have commented onthe need to be clear about what it is that weare trying to achieve in training coachingpsychologists – what purpose do we bring tothis undertaking? How we define coachingpsychology and its relationship to otherforms of coaching, and other specialties inpsychology remain unfinished questions inthe minds of many. For example, theboundary between coaching and therapyremains fuzzy (Cavanagh, 2005), in partic-ular life coaching.

The training of undergraduate psycho-logy students in coaching psychology as partof their first degree was also covered and hasbeen reported elsewhere (Palmer, 2008;Spaten & Hansen, 2009). What we teach

undergraduate students will differ from thepostgraduate training that is necessary toobtain a national Practitioner Psychologistregistration or accreditation. At City Univer-sity London, the psychology students areintroduced to coaching psychology in theirfinal year and it is usually the first time ontheir degree programme they experiencesome skills development in addition topsychological theory and research.

The possible lack of clarity about the defi-nition of coaching psychology is unsur-prising, given the historical context ofcoaching psychology although the profes-sional bodies do all publish a definition ordescription. As an area of professionalpractice for psychologists, coachingpsychology is young, and it is still emerging.A number of our contributors havecommented on this, and warned againstfixing in stone a coaching psychologycurriculum based on a premature closure onthe question of what is the theory base andpractice of coaching psychology.

To attempt to articulate an agenda fortraining in coaching psychology, is toembark on a journey of self-definition. Ourtraining expresses who we are, and who weaspire to be. It is formative of ourselves aspractitioners and as a profession. All of ourcontributors are in some way grappling withthis crucial question – who are we and whatdo we offer the world.

Dr Angela Hetherington (Chair, BPS SpecialGroup in Coaching Psychology)‘Teaching coaching psychology’ addresses akey issue in the development of psycho-logical coaching. Whilst the article focuseson the training and teaching of practi-tioners, it has significant implications on thefinal assessment of the competency andconduct of professional coaching psycholo-gists. The accreditation of coaching psychol-ogists is of major concern globally. Whilstmany coaching associations in general seekto define the core qualifying criteria of

recognised coaches, it is likely that ultimatelycoaching psychologists – as a distinct group –will have a set of requirements identified anddefined by the Health Professionals Council(HPC). Teaching organisations are likely toassume a pivotal role in influencing the qual-ifying criteria for coaching psychologists bydetermining the underlying teachingmaterial.

It can be expected that training andteaching courses may finally be accredited bythe HPC. Teaching institutions have awindow of opportunity to develop and


Michael Cavanagh, Stephen Palmer et al.

Tabl

e 1:

Mai

n ar

eas

of c

omm

ent

by o

ur in

vite

d re

view

ers.

Area

for

Iden

tifi

ed is

sue

disc

ussi

on

Purp

ose/

Nee

d fo

r cl

arit

y ab

out

the

purp

ose

of t

he t

each

ing

agen

da●

●●

●●

Agen

daD

efin

itio

n of

coa

chin

g ps

ycho

logy

●●

●●

●

The

emer

genc

e of

coa

chin

g ps

ycho

logi

sts

as a

ful

ly r

ecog

nise

d ar

ea o

f●

●

prof

essi

onal

pra

ctic

e is

cle

arly

nec

essa

ry

Nee

d to

cre

ate

stru

ctur

es t

hat

unde

rpin

pro

fess

iona

lisat

ion

of

●

coac

hing

psy

chol

ogy

Cros

s di

scip

linar

y na

ture

of

coac

hing

●●

●

Trai

ning

of

non-

psyc

holo

gist

s in

psy

chol

ogy

●●

●●

Cont

extu

alN

eed

to b

e cl

ear

abou

t th

e co

ntex

t in

whi

ch c

oach

ing

psyc

holo

gy●

●●

issu

esha

s ar

isen

Nee

d to

mai

ntai

n fl

exib

ility

and

dif

fere

nce

in e

duca

tion

/dan

ger

of

●●

●

prem

atur

e ru

sh t

o co

nten

t

Impl

icat

ions

for

ass

essm

ent

of c

ompe

tenc

ies

●

Legi

slat

ive

land

scap

e●

Uti

lity

for

purc

hase

rs●

Enga

gem

ent

wit

h w

ider

coa

chin

g co

mm

unit

y●

Chan

ging

nat

ure

of p

rofe

ssio

ns●

●

Role

of

the

teac

hing

org

anis

atio

ns in

infl

uenc

ing

the

●

Hea

lth

Prof

essi

ons

Coun

cil (

UK)

Role

of

orga

nisa

tion

al c

lient

s

Rela

tion

ship

bet

wee

n po

stgr

adua

te a

nd u

nder

grad

uate

cou

rses

●●

Rauan & Eversman

Odendaal

Zarris

Spaten

Passmore

O’Riordan

Lane & Corrie

Whydrow

Heatherington

Kemp

Stelter

Saiz & De la Osa Serna

Nicholson

Barbour



Tabl

e 1:

Mai

n ar

eas

of c

omm

ent

by o

ur in

vite

d re

view

ers

(con

tinu

ed).

Area

for

Iden

tifi

ed is

sue

disc

ussi

on

Curr

icul

umBo

unda

ry b

etw

een

coac

hing

and

men

tal h

ealt

h●

●

cont

ent

Nee

d to

dea

l wit

h co

mpl

exit

y an

d am

bigu

ity

●●

Nee

d fo

r co

achi

ng t

o be

evi

denc

e-ba

sed

●

Ethi

cal b

ehav

iour

●

Lead

ersh

ip a

nd p

osit

ive

orga

nisa

tion

al s

chol

arsh

ip●

Trai

ning

in p

sych

omet

rics

and

asse

ssm

ent

●●

Impo

rtan

ce o

f so

cial

psy

chol

ogy

●

Coac

hing

and

mea

ning

mak

ing

●

Wor

king

wit

h be

liefs

val

ues

and

atti

tude

s●

Team

coa

chin

g/or

gani

sati

onal

psy

chol

ogy

●

Gre

ater

em

phas

is o

n ap

plie

d sk

ills

need

ed.

●

Nee

d to

dev

elop

crit

ical

thi

nkin

g an

d pr

oble

m s

olvi

ng s

kills

●

Indu

stria

l exp

erie

nce

as a

n im

port

ant

part

of

trai

ning

●

Teac

hing

Impo

rtan

ce o

f re

flec

tive

pra

ctic

e●

●●

proc

ess

Qua

lific

atio

n an

d ex

perie

nce

of t

he t

each

er●

●●

Nee

d to

incl

ude

mul

tipl

e te

achi

ng m

odal

itie

s●

●●

●

Use

of

coac

h as

sess

men

t ev

iden

ce t

o su

ppor

t a

teac

hing

age

nda

●

Supe

rvis

ion

and

lifel

ong

lear

ning

●

Mul

ticu

ltur

ally

sen

siti

ve t

each

ing

●●

Rauan & Eversman

Odendaal

Zarris

Spaten

Passmore

O’Riordan

Lane & Corrie

Whydrow

Heatherington

Kemp

Stelter

Saiz & De la Osa Serna

Nicholson

Barbour

design course content that can be assured toequip practitioners with the knowledge,skills and experience to practice effectively.Scientific, evidence-based, ethical, theoret-ical and practical content will serve not onlyto train the coaching psychologist but willassist in differentiating and marketing theservice of coaching psychology in an increas-ingly harsh economic climate.

A major requirement of the training itselfmight be argued to be first hand industrialexperience, which could allow a route forother professionals to change career; thusaccommodating diversity of professional back-ground whilst creating measurable, coherentand validated training requirements.

A major concern for teaching institutionsand accrediting organisations is the protec-tion of the public from malpractice. Appro-priate postgraduate qualifications based onrigorous, stringent training requirementswill provide the public with a major means ofselection and delineation of competent prac-titioners who can evidence their training andexperience. Teaching institutions are alsowell placed to deliver continuing profes-sional development which can serve tocomplement prior training and to assure thepublic of coaching psychologists who areclearly committed to lifelong learning.

Peter Zarris (National Convenor, Australian Psychological Society InterestGroup in Coaching Psychology) As a practitioner for some 25 years now, oneof the interesting challenges I have hadbeyond independently maintaining profes-sional standards and ensuring my ownprofessional development is in definingmyself to my client base, which in my situa-tion is the corporate world.

Most commonly I describe myself as apsychologist. It is indeed the occupation Iput in my exit and entry documentationwhen I travel overseas. But is ‘psychologist’adequate? I often also call myself an organi-sational psychologist and more recently apsychologist who coaches.

Currently in this country I cannot as yetcall myself a coaching psychologist, althoughas an Honorary Vice President of the Societyfor Coaching Psychology I can do it in someplaces overseas.

Having now been in the role of the Chairof the Australian Psychological SocietyInterest Group of Coaching Psychology (APSIGCP) for some three-and-a-half years, I’vespent a vast majority of that time ponderingthe question of ‘who are we?’. It is a vexedquestion that challenges some of our moremilitant and active members, and also chal-lenges the broader coaching and psycholog-ical communities. For a long period of timeI’ve felt that our role was seen to be on theperiphery of mainstream psychology. Whilstour membership numbers have wanedrecently, we are still the second largestinterest group in the APS. Yet, as theNational Convener of the group, I often feltthat we were out of mind and out of sight,and to some degree distanced from the coreissues challenging the APS.

This view changed dramatically recentlywhen the APS became very interested (andindeed involved) in assisting us with aresponse to a draft Standards Australia hand-book outlining guidelines to coaching in theworkplace. The advent of this document(which was as a result of broad consultationwith a variety of stakeholders includingbusiness, government, academia and otherprofessional bodies) reignited the coredebate within the discipline of coachingpsychology.

In my view the core debate is alwaysabout identity and purpose. What is the roleof psychology in coaching? Is coachingpsychology an independent and discretediscipline within psychology or is it merely asubset of established disciplines (as repre-sented by colleges within the APS) such ascounselling psychology or organisationalpsychology?

I have personally reached the viewpointthat we need to make a decision aboutwhether coaching psychology is indeed aunique discipline. I personally feel, as a prac-



titioner of some 25 years (reinforced by mytime as the National Chair within the interestgroup), that it is a unique discipline.However, as an emerging discipline in itsinfancy we have yet to accurately define anddescribe it both within psychology, butimportantly also within the broadercoaching community. I base my views aboutthe uniqueness of coaching psychology onthe fact that I have conducted counselling, I have undertaken a variety of functionsunder the general discipline of organisa-tional psychology (including training, devel-opmental feedback, psychological testingand leadership development activities) andmy professional experience tells me that thisis both a different and unique activity, butalso a crucial, highly effective and importantone.

I believe that the main challenge is notthat coaching psychology is not unique andimportant, but that as yet we have not under-taken the requisite research and created therequired disciplines and structures to be anindependent discipline.

Let me tackle the second issue first.When I refer to the requisite disciplines andstructures I refer to the need to create thestructures that other established sub-disci-plines of psychology have. This wouldinclude a formally registered CoachingPsychology Masters; a College of CoachingPsychology; and an established reputableinternational peer-review journal, whichindeed we are well down the road of havingcreated. The International Coaching PsychologyReview is one such a journal that we co-editwith the BPS, although it is yet to reach theinternational distribution levels or indeedthe status we hope for it.

The main hurdles to creating therequired disciplines and structures are, I believe, two-fold. Firstly the confidence andthe conviction that coaching psychology is aunique discipline and to be able to not onlydefine this, but to describe it in a mannerthat makes sense to both psychological andnon-psychological communities. Secondlythe other challenge is the amount of work

required. As many of the practitioners in thisspace are already giving an increasingamount of time voluntarily to run interestgroups and other activities then finding theresources (both people and time) to be ableto create a college, an international commu-nity of coaching psychologists, encouragegreater research (via liaison with the requi-site universities), and support a tertiary insti-tution to create a Masters in CoachingPsychology is a major challenge. Without thiswork the concept that coaching psychologyis an independent discipline will not becomea reality.

This now returns me to my first point,and that is the ability of coaching psycholo-gists to clearly define and describe what it isthat we do and how that makes us differentfrom other branches of psychology andmainstream coaching. Of course, this wouldbe much simpler if we achieved the profes-sional disciplines required to be a profes-sion. Another important point to make hereis that once we have clearly defined ourselvesand what coaching psychology does andcoaching psychologists do then we can take amore active and perhaps a leadership rolewithin the industry, which I think isabsolutely crucial.

This brings us back to the original ques-tion that the article raises. What is requiredto develop and formalise a body of teachableknowledge that can sustain and advance thisnew area of behavioural science? I fullyendorse the framework presented by theauthor as a wonderful starting point in thisprocess. If one believes that coachingpsychology will march towards becoming anindependent profession that can make adifference in both the corporate world andin the lives of individuals, it is a fundamentalstep forward. As a practitioner primarily inthe corporate space I have watched withgreat dismay and concern regarding theeffects of poorly thought out strategies, poorethics in business and an elementary lack ofunderstanding of how to achieve and sustainhigh performance in organisations. We as adiscipline (by ‘we’ I mean psychology) have



blatantly lost the argument on the best wayto run an organisation. We do not have avoice at the table despite, in my opinion,having as much and probably more to offerthan any other discipline in making organi-sations more effective and a healthier placeto work.

Now another wonderful opportunitypresents itself. Coaching has taken a greatfoothold in organisations. People haveaccepted coaching very widely, andmanagers and leaders seek out a coach toassist them in sustaining high performanceand improving their organisational effective-ness. Coaches are increasingly having a priv-ileged place as trusted advisors fororganisational leaders. But do all coacheshave the requisite training, skill, knowledgeand capability to be able to provide soundfactual evidence to support the advice theyare giving?

The professional standards thatpsychology sets itself are in my opinionsecond to none. The converging opportuni-ties to both have a seat at the table as trustedadvisors for organisations and individuals,but also to set the standards in coaching tothe level required for it to become a profes-sion, have arrived. Rather than spending ourtime looking down our noses at the profes-sional capabilities and indeed the standardsnon-psychologists set themselves, ourresponsibility is to role model and demon-strate those standards. One of the steps inthis is the creation of learning institutions; aplace where we can teach coachingpsychology and contribute towards creatinga profession of coaching psychology. Oncethis is achieved we can lead the way and assistcoaching more broadly to become profes-sionalised and to have interventions andmethodologies that are evidence-based,supported by research and reflect thehighest levels of professional standards.

Across the entire psychological profes-sion it is crucial that we accept coachingpsychology for what in my opinion it is, andthat is as a crucial independent branch ofpsychology. Once we have done this we must

then turn our attention to supporting thevarious structures such as academic research,academic programmes and peer review jour-nals that mean we will create the professionand meet the converging opportunity tomake the professional difference that ourprofession really offers.

It is after all what we do best.

Dr Jonathan Passmore (Coaching PsychologyUnit, University of East London, UK)IntroductionThe paper by Grant raises a number ofimportant questions for those who teachcoaching psychology. The authors are rightthat for continued progress those who areresponsible for developing programmes,their validation and teaching should beginto look at what is being taught and cometogether with a view to sharing and learningbetween institutions. This short paper aimsto respond to some of the issues and themesraised in the paper by Grant in his paper oncoaching psychology teaching. Rather thanrespond point by point to the issues raised byGrant, this paper takes a Socratic approachto the teaching of coaching psychology. Itasks who, what, where, when and whycoaching psychology?

Reflexivity In positioning this paper it is worthexplaining briefly the position of the author.The author originally trained as an occupa-tional psychologist and is at the time ofwriting the director of a UK universitycoaching psychology unit based within alarge UK school of psychology. The schooloffers a comprehensive range of BPS-accred-ited programmes.

Who?The first question we believe should beconsidered is who is coaching psychologyfor? In writing our masters programme atthe University of East London we adopted amodel drawn from other UK BPS-accreditedprogrammes which led to chartership.



Specifically we looked at the model for occu-pational psychology as a comparable frame-work. Under this model students with aBPS-recognised undergraduate degree inpsychology are eligible to apply for an occu-pational psychology postgraduate qualifica-tion. This programme is accredited by theBPS and is the first stage in the route to occu-pational psychology chartership. For thosewithout a BPS-recognised degree, manyuniversities offer a parallel (but different)award. The teaching content and assessmentare the same but students secure a differentaward and one which is not recognised bythe BPS.

While we recognised there was on-goingdebate about whether this was fair and equi-table, we took the view that the BPS positionhad been adopted and applied to otherdomains. If our ultimate aim was to gainchartered recognition status for coachingpsychologists’, our best hope as a professionin the UK was to follow the model set inother areas of practice.

We saw the chartership model devel-oping through a one-year full-time degree(or two-years’ part-time). This first year offormal study and assessment would befollowed (as in occupational psychology)through two years’ of reflective coachingpractice, assessed by a supervisor and BPSassessor. On completion of both stages oftraining the practitioner could apply forBPS-recognised chartership status as a char-tered coaching psychologist.

A second question of who, was whoshould be eligible to teach coachingpsychology? We held the view that theteaching team should be predominately char-tered psychologists, who are registered withthe BPS and Health Professions Council(HPC). Again in deciding this aspect we drewfrom the BPS model of what was expected ofother chartered programmes in the UK.

Given the previous adoption of thismodel in other areas of UK accretedpsychology training, we still believe this is theright route to move forward for the SGCP forcoaching psychology in the UK.

What? The ‘what’ question considers the content ofthe programme. What should coachingpsychology consist of in teaching terms?More fundamentally, what is coachingpsychology? In defining coachingpsychology we again reflected on how othershad defined their disciplines of psychology.While coaching psychology appears to havetaken its own pathway. Grant and Palmer(2002) originally defined coaching psycho-logy as:

‘Coaching psychology is for enhancingperformance in work and personal life domainswith normal, non-clinical populations, under-pinned by models of coaching grounded inestablished therapeutic approaches.’

This was subsequently revised to:‘Coaching psychology is for enhancing well-being and performance in personal life andwork domains, underpinned by models ofcoaching grounded in established adultlearning or psychological approaches.’(Adapted Grant & Palmer, 2002.)

Both definitions imply that coachingpsychology practice is different from othercoaching practice. This view was true in2002, when coaching psychology champi-oned evidence-based practice, and coachingconferences still offered sessions on ‘crystalhealing coaching’. However, in 2011 thisargument has largely been won. Mostrespected coaches would acknowledge thevalue of an evidence-based approach. Thusin 2011, I favour a different definition, onewhich is more akin to those in otherbranches of psychology such as the defini-tions of occupational or health psychologywhich focus on the study of the domain asopposed to a unique way of practice. Analternative definition is:

‘Coaching psychology is the scientific study ofbehaviour, cognitive and emotion withincoaching practice to deepen our understandingand enhance our practice within coaching.’

I believe all coaching should be evidencedbased and all good coach training shouldteach evidenced-based practice. Coachesneed to learn key skills and know why these



skills are useful. They need to learn a numberof alternative models, so they are able toselect an approach, model or tool to meettheir client’s needs, as opposed to doing whatthey always do. Further all coaches need tolearn about ethics, ethical decision making,mental health and psychological conditionsas well as how to refer appropriate to otherprofessionals. All coaches should also have abasic understanding of the domain in whichthey are working – so for organisationalcoaches this means an understanding oforganisations, leadership and strategy, forhealth coaches this would mean an under-standing of the health system and commonpresenting issues. All coaches should alsohave a basic understanding of humanpsychology, specific adult learning, behaviourchange models and how individuals makesense of the self.

What is distinctive about psychologicallyfocused coaching programmes is theemphasis they place on the science behindcoaching practice. This may includeexploring how coaches make sense of thepsychological dimensions of their client,understand the research which underpinstheir practice as well as contributing throughpsychological methods to that research base.

WhenThe ‘when’ question concerns when shouldindividuals learn about coaching. I thinkthere is a role for coach training at level 3 or4, as well as at level 5 (graduate) and level 7to 9 (postgraduate. However, for those of uswho support chartership we should not sellcoaching psychology short. Coaching is askill, but is also has (and is developing) aunique science base. The study of this scienceis the opportunity for coaching psychology tomove from level 3 to 5 to level 7 to 9. In termsof the progress to chartership we wouldsuggest a foundation level of study (Mastersdegree) follow by a period of reflectivepractice to acquire and apply high level skills,which mirror the developmental journey ofoccupational psychologists and takes practi-tioners to a doctoral level of practice; a level

of practice which is underpinned by adetailed scientific knowledge of the domain.

Where?While coaching is a valuable skill and canclearly be taught by many at various levels,for the development of coaching psychologyas a chartered profession in the UK, thestudy of the discipline should be at accred-ited centres (mainly universities) who areable to offer an academic psychological envi-ronment suitable for doctoral level study.

However, learning should not either startor stop at this point. Coaching psychologyshould aim to be a high level profession,akin to clinical psychology or medicine.High quality professions such as doctors,surgeons and others look to specialistproviders to continue their ongoing devel-opment through short and long courses andareas of advanced technical knowledge.Continuous Professional Development isthus a key component of practice for a char-tered practitioner, with reflection andlearning continuing through their career.

Why?The last question is why coaching psycho-logy? The research evidence suggests thatacquiring and deploying coaching skills canbe useful for managers in developing theirstaff. There is also evidence that the help ofan internal or external trained coach alsohelps managers in improving their ownperformance. Good coaches are welltrained, but for coaching to become aprofession, coaching needs a science(evidence) base. The role of coachingpsychologists is the study of the science ofcoaching and the sharing of this knowledgetheir research papers and other publica-tions. Coaching psychology courses shouldbe both training great coaches and equip-ping their students with the knowledge andskills to understand and contribute thedevelopment of this evidence base, whichinforms the wider profession. Coachingpsychology’s role is thus to dig the well ofevidence-based knowledge and to continue



to replenish this well, through research, awell from which other practitioners can drawduring their own training.

ConclusionsThis short paper has set out thoughts on fivethemes; who, what, where, when and why.The paper may be contentious. It has delib-erately set out to follow an existing pathwaywhich has been established in the UK forchartered status in other domains. For manyof us who set out at the start of this journeyin the UK in 2002 and who attended the firstUK-based coaching psychology conferencehosted at IBM, London, chartership was ourholy grail. For those of us in the UK, let usnot let that dream of an equal, but separate,chartered status and a division slip from ourhand, just because it is difficult to attain.

Prof. David A. Lane (Professional Develop-ment Foundation and Middlesex UniversityInstitute of Work Based Learning) and Dr Sarah Corrie (Professional DevelopmentFoundation and Royal Holloway Universityof London We welcome Tony’s article on developing anagenda for teaching coaching psychology asa timely debate for our emergent profession.We share the view that if coachingpsychology is to establish itself as a credibleprofession, then it must be underpinned bya robust educational framework. In this briefresponse, we aim to contribute to the debateby highlighting what we see as a centralconsideration for developing a systematictraining strategy.

Before there can be any collective agree-ment on what form the training of coachingpsychologists should take, it is first necessaryto be clear about what the teaching agenda isaiming to achieve. Without agreement onthe purpose, or purposes, of such trainingthe debate cannot proceed in any systematicfashion.

Clarity around core areas of study isimportant and we would agree with Tonythat the 10 areas identified represent a

potentially fruitful foundation for coachtraining programmes. However, there is acontext in which the call for an educationalframework is occurring. As this context willultimately shape decisions about content, itis important to understand its influence.

Coaching psychology has emergedduring an era in which practitioners of alldisciplines are affected by the same rapidchanges and rising uncertainties as theclients whom they are attempting to guideand support. The nature of knowledge,evidence, and what it means to be a profes-sional are increasingly open to negotiationand coaches face the challenge of having tobe flexible, adaptive and adept at managingchange, whilst simultaneously coping withdemands for greater co-ordination, consis-tency and control (Corrie, Drake & Lane,2010). Our clients face similar issues and ascoaches we frequently find ourselves oper-ating outside of performance, develop-mental and remedial coaching. We findourselves in unknown areas of transforma-tion that call for a degree of comfort inworking with ambiguous spaces, with thetensions that arise and seeing in these ideasthat emerge out of the conversations in waysthat could not have been predicted.

In such a climate, it makes sense toconsider the agenda for training at the levelof over-arching (higher order) competencesbefore focusing on specific methods ofpractice. This would organise the debatearound matters such as the professionalidentity of coaching psychologists; how bestto equip them for challenges that we cannotyet predict; how individuals should go aboutdeveloping a robust knowledge managementstrategy in the face of rapidly increasingamounts of information; how to make senseof clients’ needs in ways that are accurateand effective (see Corrie & Lane, 2010) andhow to make effective, localised decisionswith increasingly decentralised, globalisedand unpredictable information.

In previous work (Lane & Corrie, 2006;Corrie & Lane, 2009) we looked at what it



means to be a professional practitioner inthe context of psychologists’ identities asscientist-practitioners and made the case thatfour over-arching or meta-competences arecritical for effective practice in the currentclimate. These are: rigorous thinking, caseconceptualisation, creativity and critical eval-uation of our practice. The notion of the‘informed-practitioner’ (Stober & Grant,2006) would appear to represent a similarspirit of enquiry and one which offers apotentially useful framework for identifyingthose meta-competences that coachingpsychologists will increasingly need to effec-tively negotiate the work place.

In a professional, social and economicclimate that tends to privilege clearly opera-tionalised goals and tangible results overjourneys of discovery, it would be under-standable but regrettable if the debatebecame prematurely organised aroundcontent (theories, models and techniques)at the expense of broader questions relatingto professional identity, and the meta-competences needed to equip coachingpsychologists for a rapidly changing world.

As a growing inter-disciplinary arena it isunlikely that the field can devise a singleeducational framework capable of meetingthe needs of all those who seek to becomecoaching psychologists. On one level, thisposes a significant challenge to those seekingto develop a systematic approach to training.However, viewed from another perspective,it presents us with a unique opportunity toseek fresh ideas, engage in inter-disciplinarydialogue and explore innovative approachesto teaching and learning. We hope thatcollectively, coaching psychologists mightprove willing to engage in the debate at thislevel before attempting to define contentbased on theory and skills.

Dr Aletta Odendaal (University of Johannes-burg, South Africa)The coaching industry in South Africa hasgrown exponentially and the coachingmarketplace is becoming increasingly

complex with growing numbers of availablecoaches, who are inexperienced, trained inproprietary coaching models with little or nofoundation in psychological theory and lackthe appropriate knowledge and skills. Part ofthe problem lies in the fact that the coachingindustry in South Africa is highly fragmentedand diverse with no single professional bodyor sets of standards and qualifications toguide buyers of coaching services. Theproposed agenda for the teaching ofcoaching psychology, therefore, comes at acrucial time in the development of coachingpsychology in South Africa. The commentsmade in this response are, therefore, from aSouth African perspective based on personalinterpretation of regulatory documents andis not a reflection of the policy or opinion ofthe university at which the author isemployed or the professional body sherepresents.

The development of coachingpsychology in South Africa has followedglobal trends with a key driver the establish-ment of a Special Group in CoachingPsychology in 2007 within the Society forIndustrial and Organisational Psychology ofSouth Africa (SIOPSA) Interest Group ofConsulting Psychology, with a subsequentname change in 2010 to the Interest Groupin Coaching and Consulting Psychology(IGCCP). The IGCCP has been instrumentalin obtaining a dedicated coachingpsychology track in the Annual SIOPSAconference and has since engaged instrategic partnerships with similar interestgroups internationally to promote the developmentof coaching psychology as an emerging theoret-ical and applied sub-discipline of psychology.

The IGCCP is currently engaging withprominent stakeholders to debate theboundaries between coaching, the study ofthe psychology of coaching and the profes-sionalisation of coaching psychology. Key tothe debate is the acceptance of the defini-tion of coaching psychology of the APS andBPS as a working definition. An internalstakeholder analysis conducted in November2010 revealed the necessity to develop a



working definition or description that is rele-vant to the regulatory and practice frame-works in South Africa (Odendaal & Le Roux,2010). The working definition proposed bythe authors is especially relevant to theSouth African context in that a clear distinc-tion is made between coaching psychologyand counselling and clinical work. The inclu-sion of the short statement that excludes thedirect treatment of mental illness orabnormal levels of distress further supportsstatutory requirements in South Africa inthat ‘the evaluation of behaviour…the use ofpsychological methods or practice aimed ataiding persons or groups in the adjustmentof personality, emotional or behaviouralproblems or at the promotion of positivepersonality change, growth and develop-ment, and the identification and evaluationof personality dynamics and personalityfunctioning according to scientific psycho-logical methods…’ are seen as a psycholog-ical act and can only be performed by aregistered psychologist (Regulation 993 inGovernment Gazette No. 31433, 2 (a) – (i), 16 September 2008).

The regulation, defining the scope ofpractice of the profession of psychology, hasfurther huge implication for the teaching ofcoaching psychology to non-psychologists inthat ‘psychology means the profession of aperson registered under the Act as a psycholo-gist, psychometrist, registered counsellor,psychotechnician or in any other category ofregistration as may be established by theHealth Professions Council of South Africa –HPCSA’ (Health Professions Act 56 of 1974, asamended by Act No. 29 of 2007). The HPCSAare the Standard Generating Body (SGB) forPsychology and mandated to set the minimumstandards of education and training for regis-tration to ensure that the interests of thepublic are protected. Against this backgroundthe study of postgraduate coaching psychologywith the aim of registering as a CoachingPsychologist is, therefore, restricted to anappropriate undergraduate and Honoursdegree in psychology or those who are regis-tered as a psychologist.

An additional factor that complicates thedebate regarding the teaching of thepsychology of coaching is the Higher Educa-tion Qualifications Framework (HEQF,2007) that requires a major on undergrad-uate level in either psychology orbehavioural sciences depending the desig-nator or qualifier of the postgraduatecourse. It is for this reason that severalcourses in the psychology of coaching areincluded as separate modules within a quali-fication or presented as extra-curricularcourses that are not credit bearing towards aformal qualification – this is, however, acomplex debate that is indeed worthy of aseparate discussion and not the focus of thispaper. I am, therefore, in full support of thestatement made by the authors that thepsychology of coaching should be seen asdistinct from the development of the profes-sion of coaching psychology.

Towards an agenda for teaching coaching psychology1. The inclusion of cross-cultural coachingThe previous discussion alluded to thecontextual issues influencing the agenda forcoaching psychology in South Africa andagainst that background I am in strongsupport of the core areas and electives asproposed by the authors of the article. Thediscussion in the article highlights thebreadth and depth of knowledge and skillrequired in the teaching of coachingpsychology. Furthermore, the higher educa-tion legislative landscape in South Africasupports the fostering of critical thinkingskills and the inclusion of applied skillswithin a qualification.

In addition to the regulatory context is italso important to acknowledge the richmulti-cultural context of South Africa. SouthAfrica is a nation of over 47 million people ofdiverse origins, cultures, languages andbeliefs. According to Statistics South Africa(2006) Africans are in the majority at 37.7million, making up 79.5 per cent of the totalpopulation. The White population is esti-mated at 4.4 million (9.2 per cent), the



Coloured1 population at 4.2 million (8.9 percent) and the Indian/Asian population at1.2 million (2.5 per cent). While more thanthree-quarters of South Africa’s populationis Black African, this category is, however,not culturally nor linguistically homogenous.This has huge implication for teachingcoaching psychology as specific competen-cies may be required to coach acrosscultures. Here I wish to highlight thosecompetencies which are particularly relevantand necessary to work with heterogeneousclients, where the coachee has a differentbackground to the coach.

Culture plays an enormous role inshaping human behaviour and findings ofmany studies in cross-cultural psychologyhave challenged traditionally held viewsabout psychological processes makingculture a major topic of relevance in theteaching of coaching psychology (for adetailed discussion on the development ofcross-cultural psychology and the influenceon psychology in general see Matsumoto,2001, and Segall et al., 1999). The inclusionof cultural orientation frameworks into theagenda for the teaching of coachingpsychology (e.g. GLOBE study – House etal., 2004; Hofstede, 1980, 2001; Rosinski,2003; Trompenaars, 1994) will provide asystematic approach to clarify the nature ofcultural differences as well as similarities.Also of particular relevance for coaching areethnocentric and ethnorelative behavioursas related to the dynamics of cross-culturalinteractions as well as the development ofintercultural competence (Bennett, 2004;Hammer, Bennett & Wiseman, 2003).

2. Psychometrics in coaching as core area of studyGiven the regulatory and multiculturalsetting in South Africa as well as theexpanding range of psychological assess-ment tools available to coaches is it impor-tant to also include within a curriculum oncoaching psychology the use of psychomet-

rics and psychological tools in coaching.This is indeed covered within the article byreferring to examples of additional areas ofstudy, specifically ‘measurement in coachingincluding issues related to multi-rater feed-back’. The argument is that given the factthat we focus on coaching psychology andthe possible development of a recognisedspecialised area of practice, psychologicalassessment are often cited as a core differen-tiator and should, therefore, form part of thecore curriculum and not an elective. In thisregard reference can be made to differentaccreditation and certification requirementsaround the world that provide guidelines onappropriate standards to have requiredknowledge and practical skills in administra-tion, interpretation and feedback to useassessments responsibly and ethically (referto the British Psychological Society (2006),International Test Commission (2000) andthe Society for Industrial and OrganisationalPsychology of South Africa (2006) guidelineson psychological testing).

This in this area of study the onus is notonly on test users to be familiar with thespecific instrument in use but also to beexposed to various kinds of instruments andmeasuring devices available to coaches, howto choose which instrument to use, what theymeasure and their role in the coachingcontext, the psychometric properties of thetest and the standards that are required forreliability and validity as well as the equiva-lence of an instrument in order for it to beapplied cross-culturally (for discussions onthese points see, for example, Palmer &Whybrow, 2007; Passmore, 2008; Peltier,2010; Van de Vijver & Rothman, 2004).

To conclude, the proposed core areas ofstudy as well as the electives based onspecialist areas of practice can be seen as thefirst step towards the formalisation of a bodyof teachable knowledge that can sustain andadvance the professional development ofcoaching psychology. The proposed agenda



1 The term Coloured is used to refer to people of mixed racial descent and is used by the South African govern-ment as part of its official racial categorisation scheme.

for the teaching of coaching psychologyshould, therefore, be considered as a bench-mark against which local qualifications canbe compared for content and internationalconsistency and possibly even accreditation.

Reinhard Stelter (Coaching PsychologyUnit, University of Copenhagen)Unlike the Anglo-Saxon curriculum tradi-tion that takes a pragmatic focus on the howof teaching, the German-based approach ofBildung and didactics (Westbury, Hopmann& Riquarts, 2000) puts a foundational focuson the what and why of teaching. From thisperspective the pedagogical enterprise willtake its starting point from a normative posi-tion. This didactical foundation for teachingcoaching psychology is the main objective ofmy response to this systematic and excitingarticle. The two following questions stimu-late my further reflections here:1. What might be the central point of

departure when teaching coachingpsychology?

2. Why should we take this as an appro-priate point of departure?

In answering these questions from a norma-tive didactical position I will take the societalpre-requisites of coaching and coaching psychologyas the central point of departure for thecurriculum. The justification for this posi-tion is socio-historically oriented: namelythat over the last two decades coaching andcoaching psychology has become a promi-nent phenomenon in our societies. In thatsense the societal changes that have givenrise to the importance of coaching can beconsidered as the foundational prerequisiteof a coaching psychology curriculum.

This raises the following question: Whathas happened in our societies that seem tomake coaching and coaching psychologyindispensible? I have the following answers:● We live in a time of complexity in all

segments of our society, both in relationto economics and in relation to our civilsociety. Every individual has to adapt torapid changes. Shifting social and

personal challenges demand flexibilityand adjustment to new and everchanging situations.

● In our societies with a post-traditionalorder, self-identity is reflexive. FollowingGiddens (1991) identity, self-reflexivityand self-development are central issuesfor every individual in our society.

● The complexity of these societal changesand challenges asks for a new definitionof knowledge, a knowledge that is nowformed in concrete contexts and inrelation to the specific precondition ofthe situation.

● The contextual understanding ofknowledge calls for new forms oflearning and development. Withreference to Wenger (1998) learning hasthe best conditions in a community ofpractice, in an environment where agroup of people or professionals share acommon interest and are able to co-operate by developing knowledge that isrelevant and useful in the context theylive or work in.

From this societal perspective, coachingpsychologists seek to support people in theirprocesses of self-reflection and in handlingchallenging work and life situations bysearching for meaning, by developing newknowledge, and finally by working towardsrenewed action strategies. This objectivedescribes the didactical basis or the what andwhy for teaching coaching psychology. In myunderstanding a coaching psychologycurriculum should be organised around thisobjective. To be able to encourage andsupport the coachee’s process of self-reflec-tion the concept of meaning-making appearsto be very central (Stelter, 2007). Coachingpsychology students should develop an in-depth understanding of how clients makemeaning in their life and/or work. Meaning-making is understood as an individual andexperiential process of making sense of theworld on the one hand and as a social, inter-active and joint process in specific communi-ties of practice on the other.



From that point of departure many pathscan be taken, and many interventiontheories can be included. The selection ofcurriculum content is dependent on whatcan help future coaching psychologists bestin providing services for clients that have tohandle challenges typical for organisationsor societal contexts that often are complexand that do not invite for simple andstraight-forward answers.

Dr Ole Michael Spaten (CoachingPsychology Research Unit, Aalborg Univer-sity Denmark)This paper will comment on some of thecore areas presented by Developing anAgenda for Teaching Coaching Psychology(DATCP), and discuss a further expansiontaking off from the Danish trainingprogramme (Spaten et al., 2009). The 10core areas of study, creates a remarkableframework for future research and teachingof coaching psychology. Nevertheless, withinthe framework of the 10 core areas, appliedskills are only prominent in two of the coreideas, whereas number nine would benefitfrom some elaboration. In our graduateprogramme active participation and practiceis much more imperial, and on this basis,following headings will be stretched:Learning by teaching, Learning by experi-ence, Learning by doing, and Learning bythe zone. They need to be further developedin order to continue the development of theteaching agenda in coaching psychology.

The Agenda for Teaching Coaching Psychology The focus of this commentary will begrounded in teaching experiences. Denmarkfirst embedded coaching psychology in grad-uate training from 2007 at the University ofAalborg, CPU as the requirement to obtainthe Masters degree in psychology, (Spaten etal., 2008). We are credited in this publica-tion’s article (DATCP) as the review pinpointsthe present state of worldwide agenda forteaching coaching psychology growing fastsince early 2000 (Cavanagh & Palmer, 2006).

Our approach at Aalborg University is ingeneral aligned by its pragmatic, multi-theo-retical integrative approach (Passmore,2007), but has a strong foundation in cogni-tive behavioural theory (DATCP, Core area 5).Some important constituents in our Danishprogramme might be included in otherprogrammes worldwide, and add to a generaldiscussion about the teaching of coachingpsychology. Four of them follow below.

Learning by teaching Alongside theoretical lectures done byfaculty our students are individually assignedto present parts of the theoretical examina-tion requirements to peer students andfaculty. During teaching of coachingpsychology knowledge is accumulated in theform of lectures and reading. This highlyactive and involving process of learning byteaching (Tang, Hernandez & Adams, 2004)has been shown to increase learning in otherdomains, and is continued during work-shops over three semesters.

Learning by experienceOur coaching psychology modules are basedon the application of ‘Action-Reflection-Learning’ principles (Kolb, 1984; Schön,1987). Sessions include students experienceand plenary reflections about the perspec-tive as a coach as well as understood from the‘client perspective’, prompting tacit knowl-edge (Polanyi, 1983) to the foreground ofthe learning. A systematic employment of a‘coaching checklist’ (Spaten, 2008) providesadditionally the coaches with an under-standing and awareness of the importance ofcontinuous improvement of coaching skillsand personal development as a coach.

Learning by doingDuring the beginning phase, master coachespractice coaching with the newcomers asaudience, and the apprenticeship continuesas the novice students become more andmore experienced members engaging like ina ‘community of practice’, (Lave et al.,1991). Learning progresses with the



student’s weekly role-playing ‘learning-by-doing’ sessions, which are individually super-vised and understood as the cornerstone ofstudents training. These sessions providesthe students with opportunities to practisethe role of coach and coachee. The form ofthe sessions constitutes the basis for personaldevelopment and the necessary work withthe students own skills (Dreyfus et al., 1987)which is considered as a condition for subse-quent successful practice. In the article(DATCP, ICPR) research about how learningto coach might develop students personallyis suggested. Earlier coaching research indi-cated that students social and emotionalskills were enhanced alongside their clinicalskills by participating in the coachingpsychology programme at Aalborg Univer-sity (Spaten & Hansen, 2009), which will beexpanded in the future.

Learning by the zoneThe supervised role plays and case studieswhich (DATCP, ICPR) describes in detail(p.24) account for an essential part of theCoaching Psychology programme inDenmark (Spaten & Hansen, 2009). Therole plays serve different aspects of learning:

The role plays endeavour their theoreticalcomprehension in a practical frame; forexample, the coaches develop their under-standing of coaching from a practical andtheoretical point of view. The role playsprovide a ‘secure zone’ for the students topractice and develop their coaching skills,since they are among peers and in a safe envi-ronment. The role plays are being supervised,and the learning environment is appreciative,future oriented (AI) and performanceenhancing (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2009),not ‘error focused’. We learned that itprovides the students with an appetite forlearning more and improvement of theircoaching skills (Spaten, 2010).

The Agenda for Teaching Coaching Psychology atAalborg UniversityThe modules of coaching psychology atAalborg University are a comprehensive

course over 18 months. In relation to the 10core areas in (DATCP) the content of thefirst and fundamental semester will beshortly outlined below.

1. Fundamental coaching skills – ethics,empathy and awareness. This first module gives a historical sketch,and defines coaching psychology (as wehold on to BPS definition cited in Palmer& Whybrow, 2006). Additionally basiccoaching skills and ethics, empathy andawareness (Rogers, 1995) in relation tothe practice of coaching psychology willbe delineated. This module covers corearea one and two in (DATCP) (Core 1, 2)plus more.

2. Coaching Psychology: Structure, roles,expectations and feedback. The structure of a coaching session fromthe beginning to the end is outlined andtrained. Roles and expectations for coachand coachee are clarified (Core 5, 9).The use of a checklist is introduced as afeedback instrument designed for thepeer-learning groups (Spaten et al.,2008).

3. Methods and models in psychologicalcoaching Discussion of several coachingpsychology traditions, such as psycho-dynamic coaching, systemic coaching,solution-focused coaching, etc. (Core 6,7, 8), and of the Scientist-PractitionerModel (Lane & Corrie, 2006) which westay behind (Core 3). Training ofdifferent methods and models, forexample, SPACE, etc. (Palmer &Gyllensten, 2008).

4. Client sessions I: Problem definition We gather information to obtain a detailedand specific description of the client’sproblem using essential questions ofwhere, who, what and how. It is an action-reflection-learning module with trainingindividually and in pairs to conceptualise



and distinguish between thoughts,emotions, body and behaviour (Core 5).

5. Client sessions II: Problem analysis Students practice in using client data forproblem identification and analysis. Theyare trained to analyse thoughts andemotions and to measure strength andbelief (Core 5). The module includesalso role-playing and checklist assessmentof student’s coaching skills.

6. Client sessions III: Goals and coping. This module focuses on how to use thecollected client data to establish realisticgoals for the client and train her problemsolving skills. Furthermore, we educatethe students in making good homeworkdesign (Core 5). Finally we use ourchecklist to assess the students coachingskills in small groups.

7. Final session: How to maintain new skills. To preserve new gained skills we providework for cognitive reframing, applylessons from positive psychology,optimistic explanatory style, and theweighting of benefits. Finally the moduleis supplied by integration of homeworkexercises and how to sum up experiencesand make prospective evaluation.

Final remarks – Core area 4 is coveredduring a psychology student’s Bachelordegree and BA Psych, and is the one and onlyentry to Denmark’s graduate psychologyprogrammes. So there will be no teachingcoaching psychology to non-psychologists atuniversity. Core area 10 is covered at the next(8th) semester. Moreover, the students atgraduate level appear to be more scientifi-cally and personally grounded and preparedfor the coaching psychology training(Spaten, 2010).

ConclusionThe important discussion of the develop-ment of teaching coaching psychology hasnow taken its onset and this comment on

(DATCP, ICPR) could be viewed as a very firstDanish contribution in relation to the 10core areas of teaching. Four headings hasbeen stretched out: Learning by teaching,Learning by experience, Learning by doing,and Learning by the zone, as well as theagenda for teaching coaching psychology atAalborg University, Denmark. Viewing howthe discussion will develop will be interestingand the knowledge contributing to the bestfuture way of teaching coaching psychology.

Dr Alison Whybrow (i-coach Academy Ltd)The paper, ‘Developing an Agenda forTeaching Coaching Psychology’, presents auseful discussion that articulates onepossible educational pathway that would suitthose wishing to understand the practice ofcoaching from psychological perspective. Ascareer pathways for coaching psychologistsare carved within the respective nationalprofessional psychology bodies, the develop-ment of a curriculum that supports theemergence of coaching psychologists as afully recognised area of professional practiceis clearly necessary. A revised definition ofcoaching psychology is offered which definesa mental health boundary for coachingpsychologists to be mindful of in their work.This definition firmly places coachingpsychology in a non-clinical mould, furtherremoving the medical model from the frameof relevance for practicing coaching psycho-logists.

The principles presented within thispaper are worth a closer look.

First, that the development of coachingpsychology has in reality, been an emerginginternational project. There is muchevidence pointing to the internationalnature of this development. This paper doesseem to suggest that greater drawingtogether around a common definition and acommon core curriculum for teachingcoaching psychology would be useful. Myown view is that maintaining flexibility andallowing diversity is important. Creatingsomething that is too tightly defined is less



likely to be relevant across diverse nationalcontexts. Thus, the definition of coachingpsychology offered is incredibly useful, itwould be likely to be counterproductive ifthose involved with developing the profes-sion of coaching psychology felt it importantthat one definition be adopted by all. A corecoaching psychology curriculum is likely tobe useful, although, once again, there is astrong argument for local flexibility. Whilstthere are perhaps more research papers thatoutline the efficacy of Cognitive BehaviouralCoaching (CBC) as an intervention, I wouldsuggest that we need to proceed withcaution. I find it hard to imagine a coachingpsychology programme that would notincluded CBC, however the current researchbase may not necessarily be due to the effi-cacy of CBC in comparison to interventionsunderpinned by other psychologicalapproaches.

Second, that it is appropriate to educateall-comers on postgraduate psychologyprogrammes is again welcomed. There is noreason why people without an undergrad-uate degree in psychology that qualifiesthem, for example, for full APS or BPSmembership cannot participate fully ineducation programmes that are designed togive a grounding at a postgraduate level incoaching psychological theory and practice.Separating the educational programmefrom the qualification route is common inthe UK for organisational/occupationalpsychology programmes. However, the ques-tion of what a non-psychologist would thenbe able to lay claim to would come intofocus. National requirements for the regula-tion and registration of practicing psycholo-gists would clearly be paramount.

Third, that attention is paid to devel-oping the critical thinking skills of coachingpsychology practitioners, rather than a‘simple how to’ is refreshing. I would buildon this further. In my view the application oftheory in practice is particularly relevant inorder to understand the theory-in-action.Reflective practice, or the informed practi-

tioner approach described in this paperwould be a crucial core component.A programme that supports deconstructionand integration so that coaching psycholo-gists with diverse experience can build theskills of reflective practice and life-longlearning as part of their developmenttowards professional competence as apsychologist would strengthen both the qual-ification and the profession.

This is not the end of the debate!

Bob Barbour (Director, People & Culture,Lion Nathan National Foods)Grant’s article calling for discussion on thedevelopment of an agenda for teachingcoaching psychology provides a welcome stim-ulus to the development and professionalisa-tion of coaching psychology. As anorganisational purchaser of coaching servicesfor over 10 years it has often been chal-lenging, given the plethora of individuals(with very diverse experience, training andeducational qualifications) offering theirservices as coaches, to be confident that thepotential coach will do a good job for boththe coachees and for the organisation. Someof the prospective coaches often seem to havemore in common with the quackery andsnake oil salesmen who seemed to abound inthe medical field in the 18th and 19thcenturies than the professional and ethical‘informed practitioner’ which Grant suggestsshould be the model for coaching psychology.

Our goals as an organisation in seeking acoach to work with one or more of ourpeople are quite simple: we are interested inchange and in the achievement of goals. Weneed coaches who can help individuals toachieve their desired goals, goals which alsohelp organisations to achieve sustainablesuccess.

We ideally look for coaches who candemonstrate that they have successfullyapplied a researched model in theircoaching practice over a number of years,who can support their approach by articu-lating the related theories and the sources of



evidence, and who appear to embody theconstructive and ethical behaviours whichincrease the likelihood of them beingsuccessful change agents. Few meet thesecriteria but the numbers are slowlyincreasing. We increasingly seek coacheswho have relevant educational qualifica-tions, such as the Masters in CoachingPsychology from Sydney University. Unfortu-nately this all too often means that we turn tothe same small field of qualified people whomeet the criteria.

As a result I strongly welcome the estab-lishment and expansion of an educationalframework for coaching psychology andsupport the core concepts, theory and skillsapproach suggested by Grant. This will notonly advance the practice of coachingpsychology as Grant suggests, it will also enablepurchasers of coaching services to makeinformed decisions about which coaches toengage and how best to work with them.

I would suggest that in applying coachingpsychology to executive and workplacecoaching the agenda should be expanded toencompass the work of researchers such asLuthans, Youssef, Avolio, Gardiner andWalumbwa in the field of positive organisa-tional scholarship/positive organisationalbehaviours, including authentic leadership(Gardiner, Avolio & Walumbwa (2005);Luthans, Youssef and Avolio (2007)).Insights from this research are beginning toinfluence the strategies employed by organi-sations to develop behaviours and capabili-ties which they believe add value. Anunderstanding of this field would helpcoaches to gain important contextualinsights on the role of executive and work-place coaching from an organisationalstrategy perspective.

I would also recommend that the role oforganisational clients and related issues ofaligned goals and confidentiality also beincluded in the agenda. The approachsuggested by Sherman and Freas (2004) oftriangular meetings to kick-off and close outcoaching engagements has been used, forexample, by my organisation for a number of

years. These meetings ensure that thecoach, coachee and organisational client(usually the coachee’s leader and a memberof the People & Culture (HR) team) have acommon understanding of the coachingprocess and of the developmental goals.They also enable the coach to gain somefurther insight into potential systemic issueswithin the workplace which may impact thecoachee’s development goals.

Christopher Rauen (Chairman of the Boardof the German Federal Association CoachingAssociation) and Dr Julia Eversmann(Department of Psychology, University ofOsnabrück, Germany)Coaching is cross-disciplinary and it ispossible to learn coaching psychologywithout becoming a psychologist. Weabsolutely agree with these statements andwith the majority of statement proposed bythe main paper. Just as well we do considerpostgraduate studies in coaching psychologyas necessary and reasonable, since they adaptto the diversity in the coaching field.Notwithstanding it is unquestionable fromour perspective as coaches, lecturer andchair of the German Federal Association ofExecutive Coaching (DBVC) that thereshould be a standard teaching agenda incoaching psychology to guarantee a highquality in the professional field. However,prior to designing such a teaching agendafor coaching psychology it is certainly morethan required to define several key issues weare going to highlight below.

Accurate definition of coaching psychologyCoaching psychology is applied to differentareas such as athletic coaching, lifecoaching, health coaching, businesscoaching or executive coaching. Before westart discussing a full range agenda it isnecessary to discuss whether or not it wouldmake sense to incorporate all areas ofapplied coaching. In accordance with theauthor we suggest that the first step shouldbe to further define the already existing defi-



nition of coaching psychology and its targetareas. As the author mentioned, early defini-tions were aimed at distinguishing coachingpsychology from the work of counseling andclinical psychologists. This is necessaryconsidering the fact that mental healthissues are exposed in coaching processesquite often. Concerning the development ofa teaching agenda the focus on delineationwould be to narrow. Moreover a workingdefinition of coaching psychology shouldencircle and refine the aims and principlesof Coaching Psychology.

Coaching psychologist or psychological coach?Coaching psychology is cross-disciplinary andnot directed solely towards psychologists. Thisraises the question of the job title whichshould be gained at the end of the postgrad-uate course in coaching psychology. Coachingpsychologist or psychological coach? Besidessemantic problems this might also entailprofessional challenge. Can a non-psycholo-gist become a coaching psychologist? Whatdoes it imply for a teaching agenda?Concerning their professional and scientificknowledge should a coaching psychologist beon a par with a clinical or a personnel psychol-ogist? From our point of view it would be anillusion to assume that psychologists could layexclusive claim to authority in the coachingdiscipline. It would also be absurd in light ofthe cross disciplinary understanding ofcoaching psychology. A pragmatic conse-quence for a teaching agenda would be, forexample, a common trunk where psycholog-ical and scientific basics are taught.

Individual learningConceptualising coaching psychology ascross disciplinary postgraduate studies indi-vidual learning should be one of theteaching methods. Coaching itself is consid-ered to be a tool which focuses on individuallearning and processes of insight gained bychanges of perspectives. In coherence withits self-conception a teaching agenda ofcoaching psychology on the one handshould include individualised modules due

to its cross disciplinary character. Individu-alised modules might compensate differentlevels of entry requirements the students willbring with them. MBA alumni might have adifferent precognition than psychologistsdo. Therefore, a modular nature wouldcome up to the individual interests, knowl-edge and professional background. In addi-tion individual learning means that thestudents should experience the process ofcoaching themselves from the perspective ascoaches as well as clients. One way to realisethis could be for instance an obligatorysupervision which accompanies the learningprocess. However, supervision is not suffi-cient to ensure an individualised learning ofcoaching psychology.

Finally we would recommend to theoverall nature of such a teaching agenda. We suggest a cross-disciplinary postgraduatecourse in coaching psychology with an accu-rately defined range of application. Differentlevels of entry requirements should beaccommodated by providing a commontrunk of basic psychological and scientificknowledge. After passing through thecommon trunk the possibility to specialise ina specific application area as executivecoaching, health coaching or life coachingshould be offered. This could be realised bya modular nature of the teaching agenda,which should include teaching methods asindividual learning and supervision.

However, before rushing into detailseveral questions have to be answeredconcerning aims, principles and bench-marks of coaching psychology. A teachingagenda of coaching psychology has to meetthe challenge of incorporating both theadvantages of a postgraduate course and theadvantages of its praxis.

Travis J. Kemp, PhD (Managing Director,The Teleran Group Pty. Ltd and AdjunctSenior Lecturer, Coaching Psychology Unit,University of Sydney)As the discipline of coaching psychologycontinues to develop, the author has further



stimulated this development with whatarguably may be a pivotal and definingdiscourse for this emerging field of practice.

To date, as the author rightfully high-lights, there has been little attentioncommitted to expanding our understandingof the teaching of coaching psychology.Aside from the commendable curriculumdesign and delivery efforts of a selectedgroup of practicing academics and coachingpsychologists, little understanding has beengleaned about the Androgogy (the scienceof adult learning; Knowles, 1984), or thecontingent phenomenology necessary forthe development of efficacious, ethical andprofessional practitioners of coaching.

Indeed, the author hints at the many andcomplex challenges associated with teachingcoaching psychology to a diverse populationof non-psychologists, generalist psychologistsand specialist-psychologists. However, ofparticular interest to me are the broaderissues of curriculum and faculty. As a regis-tered secondary school and adult Educator,in addition to being a registered andendorsed Organisational, Counselling andSport and Exercise Psychologist, I see thepotential absence of expert input from thefields of education, teaching and androgog-ical science within this emergent dialogue.Indeed, the common assumption that one’sextensive knowledge of and experiencewithin, a specialised field of research consti-tutes adequate credentials to endorse one’sability to teach novice or developing practi-tioners is, to many professional educators,nonsensical at best.

Specifically, three core challenges facethose who teach coaching psychology.

What should we teach?Within the potential for a crowded anddemanding curriculum, what subject mattermust be taught, in what proportion and forwhat purpose within coaching psychologyprogrammes? Are we producing competentbeginning practitioners with a ‘basic tech-nique’ of coaching delivery or are we estab-lishing a contextual foundation of

knowledge on which to build practical skillswithin supervised practice ‘on the job’? Or, are we indeed attempting to provide ablend of these? If we are creating a ‘learninglaboratory’ within the curriculum, how is thisbeing purposefully managed to ascertainand meet the level of learner?

Like all curricula, this will continue toevolve and develop and our best intentionswill continue to stretch the boundaries ofwhat ‘must’ be learnt versus what ‘could’ belearnt. In the present paper under review,the author has argued for core subjectmatter including evidence-based approachesand mental health issues in coaching.However, the emergent and parallel processof personal insight and growth and profes-sional development as a practitioner is alsovitally important. The importance of intro-spection and self-understanding in thepractice of coaching has been highlightedpreviously (Kemp, 2006) and would appearof primary importance to achieving anappropriately rounded coaching psychologycurriculum. Simply, coaching psychologyeducators must continue to strive to achievebalance within the curriculum betweencontent and process, knowledge andmastery, experience and understanding.

How should it be taught and by whom?Clearly, the extensive body of evidence-basedknowledge that underpins the field of educa-tion and educational psychology must beapplied to the teaching of coachingpsychology. The extent of this knowledgenecessitates teachers of coaching psychologyto not only familiarise themselves with thediverse range of teaching and learningmethods and processes that exist, but by alsoprogressively developing their formal knowl-edge, teaching expertise and curriculumdesign capability to provide the most effec-tive learning environments for theirstudents. For those amongst us who areresearchers and practitioners, we must askourselves if we have the requisite under-standing of androgogical methodologies andcurriculum design to effectively facilitate



progressive and effective learning experi-ences for our students. Whilst this questionmay be confronting for some, it should notbe seen as an affront to our existing faculty,rather a call for our own reflective and intro-spective practice to take a new develop-mental turn.

The incorporation of scientist-practi-tioner and metacognitive (Flavell, 1976)frameworks within existing teachingmethods is vital to delivering introspective,ethical and reflective beginning practi-tioners of coaching psychology.

To whom should it be taught?What is taught, how and by whom must befollowed by a robust dialogue and examina-tion of the final question, to whom?Curriculum structure and design may bemarkedly different for those completing apost-psychologist registration sequence thana student completing a postgraduate special-isation following a generalist or alternateprofession undergraduate programme.What is achievable from learning, develop-ment, skill acquisition and mastery may besignificantly different as may be the level ofcompetence of practitioners to work atvarious levels across the mental healthcontinuum from floundering to flourishing.

Indeed, as a core element of this dialogue,the opportunity to explore the creation of a‘para-professional’ in coaching psychologymay add rich opportunities and insights intothe characteristics that distinguish coachingpsychologists from non-psychologist coaches.Whilst Stober and Grant’s (2006) eloquentargument for an informed-practitionerapproach to professional coaching mayadmirably meet the needs of the non-psychol-ogist coach, is this adequate for the practice ofcoaching psychology by registered psycholo-gists? By actively embracing and engagingwith this dialogue we also serve to enrich thephilosophical foundations of our emergingdiscipline.

Coaching psychology is uniquely posi-tioned to lead the development of bothresearch and practice in the broader

coaching industry. By building on ourprofessional foundations and expertise inhuman growth, learning, development andchange, we find ourselves in a position ofprivileged responsibility to continue to raisethe quality, standards and practice of allcoaching practitioners, regardless of theirprofessional foundations. By deepening andextending our emerging body of knowledgeand our methods of imparting and sharingthis knowledge to beginning practitioners,we will also continue to build on theevidence-based foundations that guide ourprofession as psychologists.

Miguel García Sáiz (Social Psychology Dept,Complutense University of Madrid, Spain)and Juan Carlos de la Osa Serna (GeneralManager, Leading Change)Coaching processes involve brief personalencounters between a coach and hisclients/coachees, as individuals or as a team.The way these relationships progress haveimplications for both of them, for the closeenvironment of the clients and, of course,for the overall coaching process, whatever itis the kind of coaching we’re talking about(executive coaching, corporate coaching,life coaching, and so on). So, every goodcoach should be conscious of, and able tooptimise, the psychosocial variables affectingthe whole coaching process. In this sense,social psychology offers a well-groundedbody of knowledge, both from the theo-retical and the empirical perspectives (e.g.Aronson, Wilson & Akert, 2010; Baron,Branscombe & Byrne, 2009; DeLamater &Myers, 2011; Hogg & Vaughan, 2008; Myers,2010).

The coach has to identify and manage ina proper way the personal and cultural diver-sity of his/her clients, and must be able towork with his/her own and clients’ beliefs,values and attitudes.

From an interpersonal point of view,processes like social perception and socialcognition (implications of non-verbal commu-nication, attribution or the development of



personal impressions; the use of categories,schemas, stereotypes or heuristics) may conditionin a decisive way social interactions (andcoaching is one of them). Thus, the coachshould master the competencies required tomanage them through the coaching sessionsregarding the goals. Not to mention theneed to cope with those factors and charac-teristics that bring about prejudice and discrim-ination from diversity in race, gender, age,sexual orientation, physical attractive-ness…of the coachees.

It’s also important for the coach and forthe coaching situation to consider differentfactors associated with social influence. Someof them are related to the ‘social structure’of coaching situation: coach and clients’ roles(prescribed, perceived and performed by both ofthem), the status assigned to those roles andthe established norms, as well as conformityprocesses. Other ones refer to differentkinds of persuasion or even variables involvedin interpersonal attraction processes which canfacilitate or alter the coaching relation.

At a different level, team coachingdemands the coach the mastering of knowl-edge and skills from Group Psychology. Thus,there are several key processes derived fromgroup dynamics, specially important in teams’performance and outputs: group compositioneffects; group structure; group motivation (socialfacilitation and social loafing) performanceoriented; group polarisation and group thinkingin group decision making; normalisation,conformity and innovation in intragroup influ-ence; leadership; intergroup relations.

Talking about executive or corporativecoaching, knowledge and skills from Organi-sational Psychology are essential: organisationalculture and climate; organisational socialisation;power, management and leadership; internaland external communication; decision making;conflict management (e.g. Drake, 2008;Furnham, 2005).

Undoubtedly, all of these areas fromSocial Psychology enrich coaches’ educationand training. They provide them an impor-tant theoretical and empirical base devel-oped through decades of research, which

can substantially improve coachingprocesses. We considered this view when weproposed a postgraduate coaching pro-gramme at the Faculty of Psychology ofComplutense University of Madrid (Spain),together with consulting firm LeadingChange, and so we gave them an appropriatespace between the contents of the course.

Dr Siobhain O’Riordan (CoachingPsychology Unit, City University London,UK; Chair, Society for Coaching Psychology)To further establish and underpin theprofessional pathway and routes towardsbecoming a coaching psychologist an appro-priate educational and teaching frameworkis needed. Currently there is an abundanceof providers offering courses related tocoaching, coaching psychology and/or thepsychology of coaching. This can oftencreate confusion for the potential buyer orstudent attempting to select the best wayforward to meet their individual or organisa-tional learning and development require-ments. Also it is important not to overlookthe needs of the coachee in this debate.

The key issue for me in this discussion iswhether or not the postgraduate study ofcoaching psychology should be open to all.Two key questions this perhaps raises are:how important is having a psychology degree forthose wishing to work within the practice and/orscience of coaching psychology? And taken a stepfurther does this proposition diminish the impor-tance of a psychology degree in relation to otherspecialisms within psychology such as health orsports and exercise? The second question is, ofcourse, outside of the scope of this response.

As highlighted in the article by Grantsome university programmes are nowincluding a coaching psychology module orcomponent at undergraduate level. Havinghad the opportunity to lecture on psycho-logy and coaching psychology moduleswithin a university context (as well as delivertraining at a graduate and postgraduate levelon coaching, coaching psychology andpsychological coaching programmes) my



view is that the main psychologicalapproaches, methods, issues and debatestaught at an undergraduate level are bothrelevant to and inform the field of coachingpsychology. Indeed it would at face valueappear to be difficult to make a decision onhow we might cherry pick content from anundergraduate psychology programme todevelop an offering that adequately coversthe principles, key skills and learningoutcomes if the route for coaching psycholo-gists commenced at a postgraduate onlylevel. In a nutshell perhaps this is where thedifferentiation for me takes place betweencoaching psychology and psychologicalcoaching, in that the latter is thoseembarking upon their studies and training ata postgraduate level.

Molly Nicholson (Psychologist and coachingconsultant to a major Australian bank)More than the transfer of knowledgeThe value of the teaching agenda proposed inthis paper is the emphasis placed on the culti-vation of skills not typically encountered inroutine ‘how to coach’ training programmes.While coaches need to have an array oftheories, tools and techniques they can drawon, it is more important that they can criti-cally evaluate, and thoughtfully apply, thesetheories, tools and techniques. Accordingly,in creating an agenda for teaching coachingpsychology, we must be mindful to developpractitioners who are skilled in problemsolving and critical thinking, and who canevaluate and utilise research to meet theneeds of their clients. I propose that what isneeded is an education that is not solely aboutthe transfer of knowledge, but one which alsodevelops in students the ability to think criti-cally about knowledge. Accordingly, I stronglysupport the inclusion of ‘foundations of anevidence-based approach to practice’ and‘professional models of practice’ as core areasof study in coaching psychology. I amsupportive of the ‘informed practitioner’model proposed in this article, however, notethat the coaching industry must still ensure

that there is a sufficient research base fromwhich practitioners can draw.

Think beyond the initial qualificationThe following two questions are key for mewhen meeting with a potential coachingprovider: (1) How does the coach continueto learn and develop?; and (2) What kind ofsupervision is the coach engaged in?

It is crucial for coaches (psychologistsand non-psychologists) to take a lifelongapproach to their learning and develop-ment. Beyond the initial qualification,coaches must be committed to continuing todevelop themselves through reading widely,attending professional development activi-ties such as workshops and conferences, andengaging in supervision. Accordingly, aneducation in coaching psychology must aimto encourage in students a belief in theimportance of lifelong learning. This repre-sents a challenge for educators as thisrequires the cultivation of a specific mindset.

Key to the selection of ongoing develop-ment activities is a coach’s honest, realisticand critical reflection upon their currentskills, experience, and expertise. As noted inthe article, coaching is cross-disciplinary, andI encourage coaches to think broadly aboutthe different bodies of knowledge (e.g.education, business, philosophy) that couldinform their practice.

Understanding context is crucialIt is imperative that we recognise the impor-tance of the coachee’s context. I concur withthe author that specialised areas of coachingpractice (e.g. executive coaching) requirespecialised knowledge. I encourage those whowish to work within specialised areas ofpractice to reflect on what knowledge theyneed to acquire to effectively meet the needsof their clients. With executive coaching, whatcomes to mind for me is organisational knowl-edge (e.g. organisational structures, systemsand processes, organisational power and poli-tics), business acumen (e.g. current businesstrends, issues and events) and leadership.



Is coaching the right intervention?In this article it is proposed that we need todevelop in coaches the ability to determinewhich coaching methodology is most appro-priate for the specific situation at hand. I agree, but propose that there is an impor-tant step before this: determining whethercoaching is the right intervention for theclient. This has implications for an educa-tion in coaching psychology – students needto explore the similarities and differencesbetween coaching and other developmentalapproaches (e.g. mentoring and training).Coaches need to be able to work with theindividual (and the sponsoring organisationwhere appropriate) to determine the client’sneeds and explore whether coaching isindeed the right intervention. This issue alsotouches on ethical principles – as it impliesthat a coach needs to have the best interestsof the client in mind, and be willing topotentially put these needs before their ownfinancial interests.

Conclusions Michael Cavanagh & Stephen Palmer The question definition – who are we ascoaching psychologists and what is it that weoffer the world, is perhaps the crucial ques-tion to grapple with as we think of settingagendas for the training of coaching psychol-ogists. However, it is not an easy question,particularly when we place coachingpsychology in the context of an increasinglycomplex world.

One of the features that makes coachingsuch an important and popular interventionis its ability to work with emergent issues innew and innovative ways (Cavanagh, 2006,Grant & Cavanagh, 2010). The adaptivequality of the coaching conversation, and itsability to incorporate cross-discliplinaryinsights and understandings, is what givescoaching its unique responsiveness to theemerging needs of our clients (Cavanagh &Grant, 2010).

The coaching engagement is itself acomplex adaptive system, and is ideally

suited to work in situations where ongoing,iterative processes are needed to meet theneeds of clients as they unfold in unpre-dictable and novel ways (Cavanagh, 2006).The challenge for coaching psychology ishow to remain flexible, and responsive,while integrating understandings drawnfrom a range of disciplines and practices,and all the while retaining the rigour ofpractice and reflection we hold to be impor-tant as psychologists. This is no small chal-lenge, and one for which there are few rolemodels.

This challenge raises questions about thestatus and applicability of an evidence basein coaching (Cavanagh & Grant, 2006).What does evidence-based practice mean aswe work with clients on new and uniqueissues? What does professional practice looklike as we adapt what we know to on-off inter-ventions? The common understanding ofevidence-based practice, with its assumptionsof predictability and linear causality, strug-gles in the context of modern systems under-standings. This has significant impacts forour understanding of what coachingpsychology brings to the world, and for thenature of professional practice.

Similarly, as can be seen in the contribu-tions of several of our commentators, themodel of education we chose will be inti-mately related to the way that we understandourselves and our relation to this complexworld. What place do top-down informationtransfer models of education have in amodern coaching curriculum? Is develop-ment about knowing more, knowing how, ora knowing that is able to encompass and inte-grate more of the world (making meaning).The value we place on experience, and thetypes of pedagogical processes we employwill depend on our answers to the questionsof who are we and what is the nature of ouroffering to the world.

It is hard to discuss the teaching ofcoaching psychology in isolation from thedeveloping profession, accreditation ofpsychology programmes, state registration ofpsychologists and the service end-users. Any



profession, whether its accountancy, nursing,psychotherapy or psychology, is legally andpossibly culturally bound or constrained (orliberated) by the country or state in which itis practised. The commentators highlightedsome of the issues involved. For example, inSouth Africa Industrial and OrganisationalPsychology is recognised as an independentregistration category whereas in the UK theHealth Professions Council (HPC) has regis-tration for Occupational Psychologists. Andthe other titles such as Industrial Psycholo-gist are not protected in the UK. (Currentlyanybody can call themselves a coachingpsychologist or psychologist in the UKincluding non-psychologists as long as theydo not use a protected title or imply that theyqualified to use a protected title.) Therefore,the development within a country of aprofession or in this case a sub-discipline ordomain of an existing profession such aspsychology and coaching psychology respec-tively will be influenced by the existingsystems that are often very resistant tochange. Unlike coaching, psychology inmany countries is already a licensed or aregistered profession and this is very likely toimpact upon how coaching psychology as aprofessional area of practice will develop inany particular country. In the UK this is likelyto mean that non-psychologists will beunable to receive a ‘coaching psychology’qualification award from attending BPS orHPC accredited coaching psychologycourses as historical structure and regula-tions impact upon the present even ifstudents attend the same trainingprogramme. Like the other psychologicalsub-disciplines, coaching psychology may bedefined differently in different countriestoo, adapting to the local societal needs,culture and legal requirements. Coachingpsychology will need to address similar, yetdifferent challenges, that counsellingpsychology has faced with many accreditingprofessional bodies and training pro-grammes in counselling/psychotherapy inexistence and a totally independent accred-ited route for the training of psychologists.

We can take the coaching out of coachingpsychology but not the psychology out of theregistration of coaching psychologists andthis may impact upon what is taught onaccredited training programmes.

Thankfully, one trap we can avoid, as weattempt to answer or ponder these ques-tions, is the trap that says we have to haveone answer to this question that holds truenow and ever after. If we live in a dynamicand unfolding world, the question of who weare can be dynamic and unfolding. Withoutdoubt this raises tensions and ambiguitiesthat we do not have to face with a staticorthodox definition of coaching psychology.However, as history and science tell us – thegreatest discoveries are made when we turntoward the tension, dilemma and paradox. Ifwe can stand within this ambiguity, we willdiscover who we are in the unfolding conver-sation.

How to cite this workContributor’s name(s), as cited in Cavanagh,Palmer et al., (2011).

CorrespondenceMichael CavanaghCoaching Psychology Unit,Department of Psychology,Sydney University,Sydney, Australia.Email: [email protected]

Stephen PalmerCoaching Psychology Unit,Department of Psychology,City University,Northampton Square,London, UK.Email: [email protected]



Aronson, E., Wilson, T.D. & Akert, R.M. (2010). Socialpsychology (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Prentice Hall.

Baron, R.A., Branscombe, N.R. & Byrne, D. (2009).Social psychology (12th ed.). Boston, MA:Pearson/Allyn & Bacon.

Bennett, M.J. (2004) Becoming interculturallycompetent. In J. Wurzel, (Ed.) (2004). Towardmulticulturalism: A reader in multicultural education(2nd ed., pp.62–77). Newton, MA: InterculturalResource Corporation.

British Psychological Society (2006). Psychologicaltesting: A user’s guide. Leicester: BPS PsychologicalTesting Centre.

Cavanagh, M. (2005). Mental health issues and chal-lenging clients in executive coaching. In M.Cavanagh, A.M. Grant & T. Kemp (Eds.).Evidence-based coaching: Contributions from theBehavioural Sciences (Vol. 1, pp.21–35). BowenHills, QLD: Australian Academic Press.

Cavanagh, M. (2006). Coaching from a systemicperspective: A complex adaptive conversation. InD. Stober & A.M. Grant (Eds.), Evidence-basedcoaching handbook (pp.313–354). New York: Wiley.

Cavanagh, M. & Grant, A.M. (2010). The solution-focused coaching approach to coaching. In E.Cox, T. Bachkirova & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), Sagehandbook of coaching (pp.34–47). London: Sage.

Cavanagh, M. & Grant. A.M. (2006). Coachingpsychology and the scientist-practitioner model.In S. Corrie & D Lane (Eds.), The modern scientist-practitioner. London: Routledge.

Cavanagh, M. & Palmer, S. (2006). The theory,practice and research base of coachingpsychology is developing at a fast pace. Interna-tional Coaching Psychology Review, 1(2), 5–7.

Cooperrider, D. & Whitney, D. (2009). Appreciativeinquiry. San Francisco: Berrett-KoehlerPublishers Inc.

Corrie, S., Drake, D.B. & Lane, D.A. (2010). Creatingstories for complex times. In S. Corrie & D.A.Lane (Eds.), Constructing stories, telling tales: A guide to formulation in applied psychology(pp.321–343). London: Karnac.

Corrie, S. & Lane, D.A. (2010). Constructing stories,telling tales: A guide to formulation in appliedpsychology. London: Karnac.

Corrie, S. & Lane, D.A. (2009). The scientist-practi-tioner model as a framework for coachingpsychology. The Coaching Psychologist, 5(2), 61–67

DeLamater, J.D. & Myers, D.J. (2011). Social psychology(7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Drafke, M. (2008). The human side of organisations(10th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Dreyfus, H. & Dreyfus, S. (1987). Mind over machine:The power of human intuition and expertise in the eraof the computer. New York: Free Press.

Flavell, J.H. (1976) Metacognitive aspects of problemsolving. In L.B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intel-ligence (pp.231–236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Furnham, A. (2005). The psychology of behaviour atwork: The individual in the organisation (2nd ed.).New York: Psychology Press.

Gardiner, W.L., Avolio, B.J. & Walumbwa, F.O. (Eds.)(2005). Authentic leadership theory and practice:Origins, effects and development. Oxford: Elsevier.

Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self–identity. Self andsociety in the late modern age. Cambridge: Polity.

Grant, A.M. & Cavanagh, M. (2010). Coaching andpositive psychology. In K.M. Sheldon, T.B.Kashdan & M.F. Steger (Eds.), Designing the futureof positive psychology. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Grant, A.M. & Palmer, S. (2002). Coaching PsychologyWorkshop. Annual Conference of the CounsellingPsychology Division of the British PsychologicalSociety. Torquay, UK. 18 May.

Hogg, M., & Vaughan, G. (2008). Social psychology(3rd ed.). Essex: Pearson.

Hammer, M.R., Bennett, M.J. & Wiseman, R. (2003).Measuring intercultural sensitivity: The Intercul-tural Development Inventory. In R.M. Paige(Guest Ed.), Special issue on the InterculturalDevelopment. International Journal of InterculturalRelations, 27(4), 421–443.

Health Professions Act 56 of 1974, as amended by ActNo. 29 of 2007. South Africa.

Higher Education Qualification Framework (HEQF),Government Notice 528, 5 October 2007.

House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W.& Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organ-isations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. London:Sage.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures’s consequences: Inter-national differences in work-related values. BeverleyHills, CA: Sage.

Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultures’s consequences: Comparingvalues, behaviours, institutions and organisationsacross nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

International Test Commission (2000). Internationalguidelines for test use. Retrieved from:www.intestcom.org.

Kemp, T.J. (2008). Self-management and thecoaching relationship: Exploring coachingimpact beyond models and methods. Interna-tional Coaching Psychology Review, 3(1), 32–42.

Knowles, M. (1984). The adult learner: A neglectedspecies (3rd ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing.

Kolb, D.A. (1984). Experiential learning. Experience asthe source of learning and development. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lane, D.A. & Corrie, S. (2006). The modern scientist-practitioner. A guide to practice in psychology.London: Routledge.



References

Luthans, F.J., Youssef, C.M. & Avolio, B.J., (2007).Psychological capital: Developing the human competi-tive edge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Matsumoto, D. (Ed.) (2001). The handbook of cultureand psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Myers, D.G. (2010). Social psychology (10th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Odendaal, A. & Le Roux, A. (2010). Towards the devel-opment of coaching psychology in South Africa: A stake-holder analysis. Paper presented at the 1stInternational Congress of Coaching Psychology,14–15 December, City University, London.

Palmer, S. (2008). A coaching psychology perspec-tive. Psychology Teaching Review, 14(2), 40–42.

Palmer, S. & Gyllensten, K. (2008). How cognitivebehavioural, rational emotive behavioural ormultimodal coaching could prevent mentalhealth problems, enhance performance andreduce work-related stress. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive Behavior Therapy, 26(1),38–52.


Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (2007). Handbook ofcoaching psychology. London: Routledge.

Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (Eds.) (2009). The handbookof coaching psychology: A guide for practitioners.London: Routledge.

Passmore, J. (2007). An integrative model for execu-tive coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal:Practice and Research, 59(1), 68–78.

Passmore, J. (2008). Psychometrics in coaching.London: Association for Coaches.

Passmore, J. (2010). Leadership coaching. Keynotepaper presented at the 1st InternationalCongress of Coaching Psychology, 14–15December, City University, London.

Peltier, B. (2010). The psychology of executive coaching:Theory and application (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Polanyi, M. (1983). The tacit dimension. Gloucester,MA: Peter Smith.

Rogers, C. (1995). What understanding and accept-ance means to me. Journal of HumanisticPsychology, 35, 7–22.

Rosinski, P. (2003). Coaching across cultures: New toolsfor leveraging national, corporate and professionaldifferences. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practioner.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Segall, M.H., Dasen, P.R., Berry, J.W. & Poortinga,Y.H. (1999). Human behaviour in global perspective:An introduction to cross-cultural psychology. London:Allyn & Bacon.

Sherman, S. & Freas, A. (2004). The wild west ofexecutive coaching. Harvard Business Review,82(11), 82–90.

Society for Industrial and Organisational Psychologyof South Africa (2006). Code of practice for psycho-logical and other similar assessment in the workplace.In association with People Assessment in Industry(PAI). Retrieved from: www.siopsa.org.za.

Spaten, O.M. et al. (2008). Cognitive behaviour therapyand training: Cognitive coaching in a psychologystudent graduate programme. Poster presented atthe 6th International Congress of CognitivePsychotherapy, Rome.

Spaten, O.M. & Hansen, T.G.B. (2009). Shouldlearning to coach be integrated in a graduatepsychology programme? Denmark’s first try. The Coaching Psychologist, 5, 104–109.

Spaten, O.M. (2010). Evidence-based coaching research –central empirical studies through 20 years(1990–2010). Aalborg: Aalborg University Press.

Statistics South Africa (2006). The all-in-one officialguide and web portal to South Africa. Retrieved 10 April 2007, from: www.southafrica.info.

Stober, D. & Grant, A.M. (Eds) (2006). Evidence-basedcoaching handbook. New York: Wiley.

Tang, T.S., Hernandez, E.J. & Adams, B.S. (2004).Learning by teaching: A peer–teaching modelfor diversity training in medical school. Teachingand Learning in Medicine, 16(1), 60–63.

Triandis, H.C. (2004). The many dimensions ofculture. Academy of Management Executive, 18(1),88–93.

Trompenaars, F. (1994). Riding the waves of culture.New York: Irwin.

Van de Vijver, F.J.R. & Rothman, S. (2004). Assess-ment in multicultural groups: The South Africancase. South African Journal of Industrial Psychology,30, 1–7.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning,meaning, and identity. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Westbury, I., Hopmann, S. & Riquarts, K. (2000).Teaching as a reflective practice: The German Didaktiktradition. London: Routledge.




AM DELIGHTED that there is over-whelming international agreement on theneed to turn our collective attention to

the development of an agenda for theteaching of coaching psychology, and I thank the various authors for their positiveand thoughtful responses. As the interna-tional nature of the commentaries indicate,coaching psychology has travelled a long wayin the past 10 or 11 years. However, thepurposeful development of a teachingagenda may well raise more questions thananswers, and the respondents have high-lighted many of these. Such questions (and I have outlined a few below) will be chal-lenging. Some of these questions will striketo the heart of what it means to be a psychol-ogist in this day and age. Certainly, discus-sion about the teaching of coachingpsychology will occasion the internationalcoaching psychology community to reflectand possibly redefine itself, its boundariesand its relationship with the broadercoaching industry.

Definitions with flexibility andconsistencyI wholeheartedly agree with the idea that acertain flexibility in delineating the bound-aries and definition of coaching psychologyand the content of teaching programmes isimportant. But at the same time we do need

a measure of consistency so that we all havea broad common understanding at local andglobal levels of what we mean by ‘coachingpsychology’. I would suggest that definitionsdo not necessarily cast concepts in stone,rather they can provide a framework aroundwhich ongoing discussions can take place,and of course definitions provide an impor-tant platform for the operalisation ofconcepts. This is a vital touchstone in a disci-pline such as coaching that frequently oper-ates in complex ambiguous spaces wherecoaches need to be flexible and adaptive,and such a touchstone is also critical as wecontinue to develop the discipline ofcoaching psychology and continue tocontribute to the broader coaching industry.

However, if we are truly concerned withthe development of both the coachingindustry (i.e. coaches who are not psycholo-gists) and the development of coachingpsychology as a sub-discipline of psychologywe are faced here with a real dilemma.

The dilemma of developmentMany would argue that a level of personalmaturity and life/work experience is animportant part of the foundation on which acoaching career can be built. Indeed, theaverage student in the Masters of CoachingPsychology or Organisational Coachingprogrammes at the University of Sydney is a

Responses to international commentaryon the development of teaching coachingpsychologyAnthony M. Grant

The international coaching psychology community is turning its attention to the development of an agendafor teaching coaching psychology. Discussion about the teaching of coaching psychology will occasion theinternational coaching psychology community to reflect and possibly redefine itself, its boundaries and itsrelationship with the broader coaching industry as well as its and its relationship to the boarderpsychological enterprise. Such a process may be challenging, but essential as an agenda for the developmentof coaching psychology emerges.Keywords: Coaching psychology; teaching coaching psychology; coach training; evidence-based coaching.

I

mid-career professional (who is not a psycho-logist) with some considerable leadership ormanagement experience; with prior expo-sure to coaching either as a coach or acoachee; who is looking to further developtheir theoretical frameworks and practicalskills in coaching and coaching psychology,and this mature-age, mid-career non-psychologist professional demographic isrepresentative of the coaching industry ingeneral (Grant & Zackon, 2004).

This is not to say that those in their early20s who have just finished an undergraduatedegree in psychology cannot make goodcoaches or coaching psychologists. Rather asyet there is no clearly defined or common-place route by which young psychologyundergraduates can undergo the postgrad-uate training and the internship necessary forthem to develop the practical life/work expe-rience and development needed to operate asa professional coaching psychologist.

Further, at present, psychologists are notseen by some sections of the market ashaving a wide range of uniquely valuableskills within the coaching industry (Bono etal., 2009); non-psychologists tend to beprized just as highly, if not more highly insome arenas than psychologist coaches bythe purchasers of coaching services. How arewe going to deal with these issues?

This question then becomes a poignantone of how a coaching psychologist isdifferent from a coach who has completed amasters degree in the psychology of coachingor organisational coaching, but who is not apsychologist? What are the skills and compe-tencies that distinguish these two groups?These are difficult questions – but questionsthat must be addressed at some point.

Moving forwardWe also need to push further for formalrecognition of coaching psychology withinestablished professional bodies such as theAustralian Psychological Society (APS), theBritish Psychological Society (BPS) orgovernment bodies such as the HealthProfessions Council (HPC).

Given the convoluted politics of profes-sions, the conservatism of universitypsychology departments, the measuredbureaucracy of government and regulators,and the fact that most people involved in thedevelopment of coaching psychology do soby generously volunteering their personaltime, official recognition is probably someconsiderable distance away. However, I believe that APS, BPS and GovernmentHPC routes by which coaching psychologycan be formally recognised will be importantin the long term if coaching psychology is tocontinue its growth, and that the develop-ment of an agenda for teaching coachingpsychology needs to take this into account.The skills, knowledge and competenciesoutlined in the BPS Discussion Paper onSubject Benchmarks for CoachingPsychology (BPS, 2006) provide a goodstarting point. We will need to consider suchissues as we move forward in this debate.

Who teaches – and how?Some respondents raised issues related tothe teaching of coaching psychology and theneed to ensure solid teaching practices.Whilst I completely agree with the call toutilise androgogical methodologies toensure optimal learning, the issue ofteaching lecturers to be effective educatorsin university settings is not unique tocoaching psychology. It is astounding that inmost universities little or no attention is paidto training lecturers to teach. It is assumedthat the acquisition of a PhD is in itself suffi-cient preparation to teach. Indeed, manykindergarten staff have more training inteaching than university lecturers! I wouldlike to think that as coaches we can bringfresh perspectives to university teaching,incorporating coaching methodologies intoour teaching practice.

Interesting conversations aheadAs we jointly develop an agenda for teachingcoaching psychology we will necessarilydefine and then redefine the nature ofcoaching psychology, and those new under-


TitleInternational commentary on teaching coaching psychology


Author name

standings will in turn shape the teachingagenda and the way coaching psychology istaught, recognised and practiced. It is truethat coaching psychology is well on the wayto developing a coherent area of researchand practice. It is true that we now need todevelop and formalise a body of teachableknowledge that can sustain and advance thisnew and vibrant area of behavioural science.It is also true that in doing so we will need toexplore who we are, our place within theboarder psychological enterprise and ourrelationship to the coaching industry ingeneral.

In these uncertain but exciting times, asan agenda for teaching coaching psychologyemerges, one thing is clear – there will besome very interesting conversations on theroad ahead!

CorrespondenceAnthony M. GrantCoaching Psychology Unit,School of Psychology,University of Sydney,NSW 2006,Australia.Email: [email protected]

ReferencesBono, J.E., Purvanova, R.K., Towler, A.J. & Peterson,

D.B. (2009). A survey of executive coaching practices. Personnel Psychology, 62(2), 361–404.

BPS (2006) Discussion Paper: Subject Benchmarksfor Coaching Psychology. Retrieved 30 December2010, from:www.bps.org.uk/downloadfile.cfm?file_uuid=71699DF7-1143-DFD0-7E8D-56B86B42197E&ext=pdf

Grant, A.M. & Zackon, R. (2004). Executive, work-place and life coaching: Findings from a large-scale survey of international coach federationmembers. International Journal of Evidence-basedCoaching and Mentoring, 2(2), 1–15.

Anthony M. Grant


Constructing Stories, Telling Tales: A Guide to Formulation in Applied PsychologySarah Corrie & David LaneLondon: Karnac Books Ltd. (2010)ISBN: 978-1-85575-642-7402 pp; Paperback; £29.99.Reviewed by Carmel O’Neill

OACHING and coaching psychology’sfuture, to a certain extent, is related toother disciplines. Historically, it might

be said that coaching has been an interdisci-plinary eclectic field. It has been built fromtheory, research and practice in adult educa-tion, social psychology, sports psychology,therapy, clinical and other fields. Theconcept of formulation has a long history inclinical and therapeutic contexts. Corrie andLane’s premise here is that formulation has asignificant role to play across all forms ofpsychological practice including coaching.For practitioners who work with client’sstories, they position formulation as a co-constructed narrative between the client andthe practitioner. Clients’ stories are createdas a way of exploring and managing issues.Stories have a beginning (the situation), amiddle (decisions; options) and an end(actions; outcomes). Formulation is under-stood here as a way of generating possiblesolutions through creative and challengingthinking and rich and powerful questioning.

The challenge for the practitioner lies inhonouring the client’s stories whilesupporting and facilitating change throughpsychological insights. The shared frame-work for the client’s narrative and learningjourney is centred around establishing thepurpose (of the work) the perspectives(which informs it) and the process (used toensure effective outcomes).

Corrie and Lane’s book, ConstructingStories, Telling Tales: A Guide to Formulation inApplied Psychology, is a comprehensiveoverview of the concept of formulation in all

its complexities. The purpose of their bookis to serve as a guide to understanding thesystematic and appropriate use of formula-tion to applied psychological practices. Tofacilitate this purpose, the authors have builta formulation framework within which prac-titioners can consider tailoring to a partic-ular context.

The book is divided into four parts: (1)Formulation; An introduction to key debatesand a framework for developing a systematicapproach; (2) Working with purpose,perspective and process: elaborating theframework to enhance your approach; (3)The many facets of formulation: an interdis-ciplinary perspective; and (4) Implicationsfor the future.

Throughout the book there are discus-sion questions which could be used in avariety of contexts or just treated as impor-tant questions to reflect on. There are exer-cises, at the end of the Introduction and thefirst five chapters, which are designed tohelp practitioners to reflect on the relevantissues and concepts in both theoretical andpractical circumstances. Exercises seven andeight follow later chapters (Chapter 15 andthe Conclusion). These graded and thought-provoking questions may require practi-tioners to go beyond what is explicitlydescribed in the text to being able togenerate, for themselves, new purposes,perspectives and processes.

In Part 3 a number of professionals havecontributed to the discussion and explo-ration of formulation and what it has meantto each guest contributor to work withpurpose, perspective and process in theirown disciplines.

Chapter 1 is a chapter of Introductions –to the concept of formulation; to its histor-ical context and to some of the issues,debates and challenges inherent in thiscomplex task of formulation.

Book Review

C

Carmel O’Neill


Chapter 2 provides a rationale for usingformulation as a means for building a sharedframework within which rich, coherent,collaborative and accurate thinking providespossible solutions. The uniqueness of theclient’s narrative begins with the authors’distinction between a ‘story’ and ‘a tale’. Fortheir purposes here, a ‘story’ is described asa compilation of a number of tales interlacedto produce a central theme. In contrast, a‘tale’ is defined as a single explanatoryaccount (for example, a particular theory ora single morality tale that directs us toaction).

The first step in the co-construction ofthe client’s story begins with identifying thepurpose. According to Corrie and Lane(2010) there are four essential elementsunderpinning the purpose of the work: (1)Understanding the question you wish toexplore; (2) The expectations of stake-holders; (3) Clarifying stakeholders’s roles;and (4) Appreciating the wider context. Byclosely examining these elements, the readeris told that formulation thus becomes a‘particular type of story’ (p.21) with its ownspecific features qualified by the particularcontext from which it takes its meaning.Taken together, these elements are said tocreate the boundaries for the practitioner’swork. Consideration of such questions (Whoowns the formulation? Which formulationwill be more effective for the client?) under-pins the importance of recognising that thestory belongs to the client. The co-constructed journey begins by articulatingand recognising choices made. Althoughthis is not a ‘how-to’ book, Corrie and Lanehave provided pathways to effective formula-tions by illustrating how the Purpose,Perspectives, and Process model (Corrie &Lane, 2010) may be one useful frameworkfor this task.

Part 2 elaborates the framework(purpose, perspective and process) in greaterdetail. Chapter 3 highlights the importanceof acknowledging dominant prevailing levelsof influence that affect the practitioner’s defi-nition of purpose. These local, national and

global contexts are said to have far-reachingimplications for the professional practitionerand for the client’s needs (Corrie & Lane,2010). The chapter concludes with a usefulexercise that may orientate the reader to crit-ically reflect on defining the professionalpurpose of one’s work.

Perspectives (beliefs, models, meaning,values and ethics) and their role in theconstruction of the client’s stories aredescribed in considerable detail in Chapter4. The five perspectives in this chapter areclassed as ‘tales’ since it is asserted here thattheir inherent assumptions will have bothpositive and negative implications for theclient. Practitioners’ perspectives, theirprofessional backgrounds, and tacit knowl-edge and beliefs on human nature, all influ-ence the approach to the enquiry (Corrie &Lane, 2010). Clients too, bring their ownperspectives. Finally, some perspectives areprescribed by the context itself. Takentogether these perspectives will inform thejourney undertaken. What is important isrecognising ‘which’ perspective and ‘why’and acknowledging the consequences andimplications of using one particular perspec-tive. These five perspectives: (1) formulationderived from diagnostic classification; (2)the formulation of the scientist-practitioner;(3) formulation as a theoretically-drivenaccount; (4) strategic formulation; and (5)formulation and its role as a means of socialcontrol, and some of the dilemmas andimplications attributed to them, are laid outconcisely in this chapter.

Having identified the purpose andperspective, the process structures (How willwe get there?) are put in place. In Chapter 5,and following the formulation framework,the authors lay out three approaches whichthey assert will facilitate the process ofenquiry: Story Motif (conversational frame);DEFINE (scientist-practitioner frame); andCanonical story structure (narrative frame).The assertion is also made that client facili-tation begins with the practitioner’s under-standing of the very nature of stories. Whilecoaching from a narrative perspective is

Book Review


clearly described here (Drake, chapter 11) itwould have been useful to have read how thepractitioner might facilitate the client’sunderstanding of stories and their meaning-making. Notwithstanding the assumptionthat ‘human beings have an innate tendencyfor story schema’ (p133) some stories may bedifficult to share or articulate. A referencehere to potential pitfalls associated withdevelopmental coaching, from the perspec-tives of both the client and the practitioner(for example, Bachkirova, 2007; Laske,1999b) would also have been beneficial.Chapter 5 concludes with questionsdesigned to help the reader conduct apersonal audit across all three different storyprocesses.

Part 3: For the purpose of growing ourvocabulary of (and our perspectives on)formulation the authors invited guest contri-butions from different professions andperspectives. In Chapter 6, the authors notonly introduce these different approaches toformulation but identify a number of recur-ring themes which they ask the reader toconsider in their own reading of the chap-ters. These are said to underpin ‘a coherent“thread” between the different approachesto formulation’ (p148). These (themes) are:(1) the theme that the story and the contextare inseparable; (2) the theme that theresponsibility lies with the practitioner inundertaking formulation with the client; andquestions of; (3) what makes a good story;(4) who owns the story; (5) what functiondoes the story serve; and (6) being able andwilling to accept the uncertainty that humanendeavours bring. These themes arediscussed at length in Chapter 15 andprovide a useful review to the complexitiessurrounding formulation.

Michael Sheath (Chapter 7) highlightsthe dilemmas facing the practitioner whenworking with ‘individuals who may be diffi-cult to like’ (p.172). In his work with childsex offenders, Sheath argues that formula-tion, if it has to have any value, must begrounded in scientific rigour but coupledwith humanistic engagement. In the case of

children at risk of exclusion, Peggy Gosling(Chapter 8) explores formulation in thelight of her work and describes how formu-lation and the Common Assessment Frame-work have succeeded in highlighting theanalytic process where evidence was linkedto both purpose and perspective.

Formulation is explored from a cogni-tive-behaviour therapy perspective by DavidLeigh-Smith (Chapter 9). Here, Leigh-Smithdraws attention to the apparent elusivenessof the concept of formulation within a cogni-tive-behaviour therapy approach. Some ofthese reasons already resonate with Corrieand Lane’s (2010) treatment of this issue(for example, see Chapter 1). Leigh-Smithdescribes the role supervisors might play byusing formulation as a monitor of progress.

Existential formulations are discussed inChapter 10 by Michael Worrell. Theapproach to formulation here is one which isremoved from descriptive and explanatoryaccounts to one of ‘nuanced descriptiveunderstanding’ (p.223) (existential thera-peutic approach). This approach placesformulation as an aspect of the total client-therapist relationship. Worrell offers anumber of possibilities for existential formu-lations.

From a coaching perspective, DavidDrake (Chapter 11) stresses the importanceengaging with coachees from a narrativeapproach to formulation. Working from thisnarrative base and with ‘a mindful way ofbeing’ (p.243) the coaching engagementbecomes a dynamic and co-created discoveryprocess. The coachee discovers new possibil-ities and new stories.

In Chapter 12, and as a writer, BryanRostron focuses on the scope of fiction – andthe importance of acknowledging that thereis ‘no one way to tell a story’ (p.262). Thestory’s perspective will have implications forthe story’s characters, the kind of informa-tion provided, the very nature of the storyand the story’s readers. Formulation, in thiscontext, should not be defined by the preci-sion, the formality or methodologicalconstraints of the professional practitioners.

Book Review

Simon Callow (Chapter 13) describes thetask facing actors when formulating char-acter (s) for their performances. The actorlooks through the available evidence forlogic and meaning and a sense of coherencerelated to the character to be portrayed. It isfrom this formulation that the story of thecharacter is constructed and played out onthe stage.

The subject of successful character inter-pretation is one of several topics discussed inChapter 14. The authors, in conversationwith the actors Prunella Scales and TimothyWest, discuss the issues which allow the actorto act with confidence, belief, integrity andin service to the writer and the audience.Callow (Chapter 13), Scales and West, asactors, describe how issues such as formaland informal research, textual and contex-tual boundaries and audience perceptionsrequire considerable navigational skills if thestory’s integrity is to be maintained. Corrieand Lane (2010) have pointed to similardilemmas in the practitioner’s work with theclient’s stories.

Creating stories for complex times(Chapter 15) highlights the importance ofbeing able to balance the professional needsof the practitioner while allowing for theemergent and transformative story of theclient to develop. Formulation is also an iter-ative process in which the practitioner’s ownstory can be created through learninggreater reflective skills (Alan Durrant,Epilogue).

There is a limited amount of literatureavailable dealing with the concept of formu-lation. This book covering formulation andits practical application is, therefore, verywelcome.

For this reader a single ‘tale’ emerges: ‘to mindfully and artfully work with whatemerges – within the practitioner, the clientand the field – as the client’s stories arenarrated’ (Drake, 2008b, in Corrie & Lane,2010, p.342).

This book will be a valuable addition to areflective thinking tool kit.

CorrespondenceCarmel O’NeillRegistered Work & Organisation Psychologist,Executive and Business Coach.Email: [email protected]

ReferencesBachkirova, T. (2007). Role of coaching psychology

in defining boundaries between counselling andcoaching. In S. Palmer & A. Whybrow (Eds.),Handbook of coaching psychology. A guide for practi-tioners. London: Routledge.

Drake, D.B. (2008b). Thrice upon a time: Narrativestructure and psychology as a platform forcoaching. In S. Corrie & D.A. Lane (Eds.),Constructing stories, telling tales: A guide to formula-tion in applied psychology. London: Karnac.

Laske, O. (1999b). An integrated model of develop-mental coaching. Consulting Psychology Journal51(3), 139–159.


THE British Psychological Society SpecialGroup in Coaching Psychology hosted280 delegates in London in December,

to launch the 1st International Congress ofCoaching Psychology, which continuesaround the world during 2011 and 2012.

The congress developedas a consequence of collabo-rations between globalcoaching psychology bodiesin: UK, Australia, Denmark,Ireland, Israel, New Zealand,South Africa, Spain, Sweden

and Switzerland.The UK event covered

wide-ranging themes incoaching psychology,including working withcomplexity and change;wisdom; adult development;leadership; health, well-being, happiness and motiva-tion; diversity and sustainability; coachingpsychology models and psychometrics;supervision and corporate case studies.

An award for Distin-guished Contribution toCoaching Psychology waspresented to Dr SiobhainO’Riordan, with specialcommendations to DrTatiana Bachkirova and Dr

Jonathan Passmore. Keynotespeakers included Julie Allan,

Prof. Michael Cavanagh, Dr David Drake,Prof. David Lane, Dr Ho Law, Prof. AlexLinley, Dr Siobhain O’Riordan, Prof.Stephen Palmer, Dr Jonathan Passmore, Dr Alison Whybrow and Peter Zarris.

Delegate feedbacksuggests participants particu-larly valued the blend ofrigorous evidence-basedpractice and research withan upbeat, accessible, open-minded atmosphere.

A world café event duringthe closing stages enabledface-to-face internationaldialogue to round off the event. Conversa-tions explored taking coaching psychologyforward in the global context with topicssuch as professional standards, visibility of

psychology in thefield of coaching,and defining thestrengths ofcoaching psycho-logy. Giving sym-bolic shape to the

intention to ‘thinkglobally, act locally’, the café summary washanded to Swedish delegates to continue theconversation around the world.

Further planned eventsin 2011 are: SouthAfrica/Southern Hemi-sphere event, May; Ireland,June; Sweden, September;and Spain, October. Dates tobe confirmed in 2012 are:Netherlands, January;Australia and New Zealand, February; andItaly, May. Israel and also the Nordic coun-tries are planning events with dates to beconfirmed.


1st International Congress of CoachingPsychology: UK Event Jennifer Liston-Smith, Haley Lancaster & Yvonne McAdam

Hosted by the British Psychological Society Special Group in Coaching Psychology (SGCP) and held atCity University, London, 14–15 December, 2010.

Dr David Drake,USA/Australia

Prof. Alex Linley,UK

Vicky Ellam-Dyson,UK; Congress Chair

for UK Event

Prof. StephenPalmer, UK; Co-chair of

Congress ScientificCommittee

Anders Myszak,Denmark

Prof. David Lane, UK; Dr Michael Cavanagh, Australia

Prof. Stephen Palmerand Prof. Michael Cavanagh,the UK and Australian Co-ordinating Editors of theInternational CoachingPsychology Review, called formore research and knowl-

edge sharing through thepublication

which is published by theBritish Psychological Societywith an InternationalEditorial Advisory Board.

Details of events hostedby the Special Group inCoaching Psychology, anddetails of SGCP publications,can be found at: www.sgcp.org.uk

Details of on-going international eventsof the 1st International Coaching PsychologyCongress can be found at:www.coachingpsychologycongress.org

CorrespondenceJennifer Liston-Smith, Co-Chair of Publications and Communica-tions, BPS SGCP.Email: [email protected]

Haley LancasterCongress Committee.Email: [email protected]

Yvonne McAdam,Congress Committee.Email: [email protected]


Jennifer Liston-Smith, Haley Lancaster & Yvonne McAdam

Dr Kristina Gyllensten, Sweden

Prof. Dr ReinhardStelter, Denmark


AM PLEASED to assume the role of Chairof the SGCP for 2011 and wish ourmembership a successful, healthy and,

of course, prosperous new year.The highlight of the year for the SGCP

was the launch of the 1st InternationalCongress of Coaching Psychology, held atCity University, London. The SGCP wasdelighted to host the congress and to workall the more collaboratively with the IGCP asa strategic partner. The congress attractednearly 300 delegates from around the worldand will continue on an international basisin 2011 and 2012. You will see more detailabout the UK event in the separate report inthis issue of ICPR.

During the UK Congress event, an awardfor Distinguished Contribution to CoachingPsychology was presented to Dr SiobhainO’Riordan, with special commendations toDr Tatiana Bachkirova and Dr Jonathan Pass-more.

The Congress’s success in the UK wasachieved through the leadership of theCongress Chair, Vicky Ellam-Dyson and theCongress Committee. Haley Lancaster andYvonne McAdam were also pivotal inpromoting and marketing the congress toachieve such successful attendance andmedia visibility.

The SGCP sub-committees have workedtirelessly to develop a new revised SGCPwebsite which offers an informative commu-nication medium, supported by Facebook,Linkedin and Twitter. It markets the SGCPthrough a range of core activities including:● An online list of SGCP members of

chartered psychologist status, linked tothe Directory of Chartered Psychologists.

● Access to CPD, training courses andconferences.

● Workshop webinars.● A coaching psycho-

logy forum.● A network of regional

peer practice groups.SGCP’s two peer-reviewed publications,the International CoachingPsychology Review and The Coaching Psychologist,continue to grow both in terms of contribu-tions and readership. Both are abstracted inleading databases and remain the main sitesfor publishing coaching psychology papers.

The SGCP continues to negotiate withthe Society and the HPC to gain accredita-tion for coaching psychologists. It is in theprocess of formulating a ‘Register forPsychologists’ with the Society. The Registerwill pave the way for recognition by the HPC.Accreditation will continue to be a coreobjective of 2011. The SGCP draws on theresources of the Society to support its activityin respect of publications, communications,training and development – providingmembers with added benefits.

The SGCP, through the RepresentativeCouncil and the PPB, has over the yearworked to influence policy and practice inthe broader field of psychology, bothproviding expert opinion on consultationdocuments and communicating Society poli-cies and opportunities through to the SGCPmembership.

Dr Ho Law, Past Chair, has worked withthe SGCP to develop a comprehensivebusiness strategy which reflects the broadergoals of the Society and the currenteconomic and political climate. In particular,this year has seen increased emphasis placedon the market for coaching. There has beenincreased activity aimed at engaging the

SGCP & IGCP News Update

Special Group in Coaching Psychology NewsAngela Hetherington

I


consumer and creating a more commerciallysensitive orientation within the SGCP. It isintended this focus will continue over 2011,with an increased application of media tech-nology and PR.

Given the relatively transient membershipof the committees, the continuity of theSGCP is dependant on the supportive, colle-giate and team orientation of the executivecommittee, the main committee, sub-committees and the Society team. A signifi-cant amount of effort, expertise and skills hasbeen applied by the SGCP membership and,in particular, the sub-committee Chairs andhas been crucial to its success over the year.

Details of events hosted by the SGCP, anddetails of SGCP publications, can be foundat: www.sgcp.org.uk

Details of on-going international eventsof the 1st International Coaching PsychologyCongress can be found at: www.coaching-psychologycongress.org

Dr Angela HetheringtonChair, British Psychological SocietySpecial Group in Coaching Psychology.Email: [email protected]


Prof. Stephen Palmer presenting Dr Siobhain O’Riordan with her award.

Photograph by Ofer Atad.

T HAS BEEN a very eventful three monthsfor the IGCP and a very exciting time forcoaching psychology globally. In what will be my last year in the role as

National Convener I can look back at the lastthree years with great satisfaction aboutwhere the group is and what we’ve achieved,but also noting that there is much work to bedone moving forward.

Nonetheless it is a great time for reflec-tion and a great opportunity to review wherethe group and the broader profession is at.

The International Congress ofCoaching PsychologyThe first ICCP conference was conducted inLondon in December and can only bedescribed as a resounding success.

There is now an international commu-nity of coaching psychologists and there willbe a series of events being conducted overthe next 12 months which I stronglyencourage you to attend if you can.

This, however, is our first opportunity tocreate an international alliance and clearlymoves us one step closer to the possibility ofa coaching psychology profession.

For those of you who see their future incoaching it is a great opportunity for you tobecome involved in the latest internationally.From my own perspective we owe a greatdebt of gratitude to Stephen Palmer, VickiEllam-Dyson and the SGCP team for organ-ising the first ICCP event in London inDecember 2010; and to Aletta Odenaal andAnna Rosa le Roux for organising theSouthern Hemisphere event in Johannes-burg.

We owe them oursupport and I hope youcan attend in May. If youare interested pleasesee: www.siopsa.org.za/

Standards AustraliaWe have continued to be a stakeholder inthe Standards Australia and we are very closeto having the first draft of the Handbook ofCoaching at Work published some time in thenext few months. We have been engagingwith the various colleges and with the APSon this initiative, and I must give my thanksto both Michael Cavanaugh and to the APSsubcommittee on psychological testing fortheir work.

My own belief is that the publishing ofAustralian Standards will strengthen theprofession and provide great career oppor-tunities for us all.

Australian ICCP EventWhilst I will not be in the role of Chair at thetime, I do believe that there is strongcommittee support for an internationalcongress event in Australia around Februaryto March next year. This will be run as aconcurrent event with our 2012 symposiumand provides an outstanding opportunity foryou all to meet our international colleagues.

I think the transformation of the groupfrom running symposiums to being involvedin truly international events is anoutstanding step forward and holds us all ingood stead.


Interest Group in Coaching Psychology NewsPeter Zarris

Greetings IGCP & SGCP Members.


I



Professional DevelopmentAs many of you will know there are changesto professional development requirements,particularly with the Australian PsychologicalRegistration Board.

We have examined these new require-ments and are currently reviewing ourapproach to professional development andhope to adjust our future developmentevents to reflect these changing require-ments.

Research GrantsI’m happy to be able to announce that wewill be providing research grants to the bestarticle published in each InternationalCoaching Psychology Review publication.

This is a great opportunity not only to beable to undertake research, but potentiallyto be able to receive a $500 reward forhaving ‘the best’ article published.

We strongly encourage you to considerundertaking research in this area and areproud to be able to provide these awards to‘incentivise’ you to do so.

FutureIt’s going to be another fantastic year movingforward as we become part of the interna-tional community of coaching psychologywith the rollout of Standards Australia andwith our continuing commitment to yourprofessional development.

We strongly need your continuingsupport and encouragement to continue toprovide these events.

Best wishes.

Peter ZarrisNational Convenor, IGCP.E-mail: [email protected]

4. Online submission process(1) All manuscripts must be submitted to a Co-ordinating Editor by e-mail to:

Stephen Palmer (UK): [email protected] Cavanagh (Australia): [email protected]

(2) The submission must include the following as separate files:● Title page consisting of manuscript title, authors’ full names and affiliations, name and address for corresponding author.● Abstract.● Full manuscript omitting authors’ names and affiliations. Figures and tables can be attached separately if necessary.

5. Manuscript requirements● Contributions must be typed in double spacing with wide margins. All sheets must be numbered.● Tables should be typed in double spacing, each on a separate page with a self-explanatory title. Tables should be comprehensible

without reference to the text. They should be placed at the end of the manuscript with their approximate locations indicated inthe text.

● Figures can be included at the end of the document or attached as separate files, carefully labelled in initial capital/lower caselettering with symbols in a form consistent with text use. Unnecessary background patterns, lines and shading should be avoided.Captions should be listed on a separate page. The resolution of digital images must be at least 300 dpi.

● For articles containing original scientific research, a structured abstract of up to 250 words should be included with theheadings: Objectives, Design, Methods, Results, Conclusions. Review articles should use these headings: Purpose, Methods, Results,Conclusions.

● Overall, the presentation of papers should conform to the British Psychological Society’s Style Guide (available at www.bps.org.uk/publications/publications_home.cfm in PDF format). Non-discriminatory language should be used throughout. Spelling should beAnglicised when appropriate. Text should be concise and written for an international readership of applied psychologists.Sensationalist and unsubstantiated views are discouraged. Abbreviations, acronyms and unfamiliar specialist terms should beexplained in the text on first use.

● Particular care should be taken to ensure that references are accurate and complete. Give all journal titles in full. Referencingshould follow BPS formats. For example:Billington, T. (2000). Separating, losing and excluding children: Narratives of difference. London: Routledge/Falmer.Elliott, J.G. (2000). Dynamic assessment in educational contexts: Purpose and promise. In C. Lidz & J.G. Elliott (Eds.), Dynamic

assessment: Prevailing models and applications (pp.713–740). New York: J.A.I. Press.Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (2006). The coaching psychology movement and its development within the British Psychological

Society. International Coaching Psychology Review 1(1), 5–11.● SI units must be used for all measurements, rounded off to practical values if appropriate, with the Imperial equivalent in

parentheses.● In normal circumstances, effect size should be incorporated.● Authors are requested to avoid the use of sexist language.● Authors are responsible for acquiring written permission to publish lengthy quotations, illustrations, etc. for which they do not

own copyright.

6. Brief reportsThese should be limited to 1000 words and may include research studies and theoretical, critical or review comments whose essentialcontribution can be made briefly. A summary of not more than 50 words should be provided.

7. Publication ethicsBPS Code of Conduct – Code of Conduct, Ethical Principles and Guidelines.Principles of Publishing – Principle of Publishing.

8. Supplementary dataSupplementary data too extensive for publication may be deposited with the British Library Document Supply Centre. Such materialincludes numerical data, computer programs, fuller details of case studies and experimental techniques. The material should besubmitted to the Editor together with the article, for simultaneous refereeing.

9. Post acceptancePDF page proofs are sent to authors via e-mail for correction of print but not for rewriting or the introduction of new material.

10. CopyrightTo protect authors and publications against unauthorised reproduction of articles, The British Psychological Society requires copyrightto be assigned to itself as publisher, on the express condition that authors may use their own material at any time withoutpermission. On acceptance of a paper, authors will be requested to sign an appropriate assignment of copyright form.

11. Checklist of requirements● Abstract (100–200 words).● Title page (include title, authors’ names, affiliations, full contact details).● Full article text (double-spaced with numbered pages and anonymised).● References (see above). Authors are responsible for bibliographic accuracy and must check every reference in the manuscript and

proofread again in the page proofs.● Tables, figures, captions placed at the end of the article or attached as separate files.

Contents

4 Editorial: Coaching psychology: quantitative, qualitative, and theoretical perspectivesMichael Cavanagh & Stephen Palmer

6 The strengths of the strengthspotter: Individual characteristics associated with theidentification of strengths in othersP. Alex Linley & Gurpal Minhas

16 A grounded theory study of the value derived by women in financial services througha coaching intervention to help them identify their strengths and practise using themin the workplaceFrancesca Elston & Dr Ilona Boniwell

33 The experience of using coaching as a learning technique in learner driverdevelopment: An IPA study of adult learningJonathan Passmore & Lance Mortimer

46 Utilising evidence-based leadership theories in coaching for leadership development:Towards a comprehensive integrating conceptual framework Ray Elliott

71 A pilot study evaluating strengths-based coaching for primary school students:Enhancing engagement and hopeWendy Madden, Suzy Green & Anthony M. Grant

Debate

84 Developing an agenda for teaching coaching psychologyAnthony M. Grant

100 Educating coaching psychologists: Responses from the fieldMichael Cavanagh, Stephen Palmer et al.

128 Responses to international commentary on the development of teaching coaching psychologyAnthony M. Grant

Book Review

131 Constructing Stories, Telling Tales: A Guide to Formulation in Applied PsychologyReviewed by Carmel O’Neill

Reports

135 Ist International Congress of Coaching Psychology: UK EventJennifer Liston-Smith, Haley Lancaster & Yvonne McAdam

138 SGCP & IGCP News UpdateAngela Hetherington & Peter Zarris

St Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester LE1 7DR, UKTel 0116 254 9568 Fax 0116 227 1314 E-mail [email protected] www.bps.org.uk

© The British Psychological Society 2011Incorporated by Royal Charter Registered Charity No 229642

International Coaching Psychology...

Documents

Transcript of International Coaching Psychology...