BPS Wiley presents a comprehensive and authoritative series covering everything a student needs in order to obtain an academic qualification in psychology. Refreshingly written to consider more than North American research, this series is the first to give a truly international perspective. Written by the very best names in the field, the series offers an extensive range of titles suited to undergraduate through to postgraduate and doctoral programmes, and every text fully complies with the BPS syllabus on the topic. No other series bears the BPS seal of approval.
Many of the books are supported by a companion website, featuring additional resource materials for both instructors and students, designed to encourage critical thinking, and providing for all your course lecturing and testing needs.
For other titles in this series, please go to http://psychsource.bps.org.uk
EDITED BY
This edition first published 2022
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of David Tee and Jonathan Passmore to be identified as the authors of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered Offices
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial Office
The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty
While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Passmore, Jonathan, editor. | Tee, David, editor.
Title: Coaching practiced / edited by Jonathan Passmore, David Tee.
Description: First Edition. | Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons, [2022] | Series: BPS Textbooks in Psychology | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Contents: The Psychology of Coaching: Coaching Psychology - Eclectic Approaches and Diversity in Practice -- Coaching Frameworks: The Role of Frameworks, Models and Approaches in Coaching -- Reflective Practice and Professional Development: Introduction -- Well-being Coaching: Introduction--Workplace Coaching: Introduction--Cognitive Approaches -- Motivational Interviewing: Introduction -- Solution-Focused Coaching: Introduction -- Mindfulness: Introduction -- Narrative Coaching: Introduction -- Positive Psychology: Introduction -- Part 4. Narrative Coaching - Redesigning the GROW Model as the Fourth-Generation Coaching for People and the Planet.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021043982 (print) | LCCN 2021043983 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119835691 (Paperback) | ISBN 9781119835707 (ePub) | ISBN 9781119835714 (eBook)
Subjects: LCSH: Personal coaching. | Counseling.
Classification: LCC BF637.P36 C6345 2022 (print) | LCC BF637.P36 (ebook) | DDC 158.3--dc23/eng/20211207
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021043982
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021043983
Cover image: © Rajeev Sreedharan/Getty Images
Cover design by Wiley
Set in 10/12 and DanteMTStd-Regular by Integra Software Services, Pondicherry, India
All of the royalty proceeds from this title have been gifted to the British Psychological Society by the contributors, authors and editors.
This book is dedicated to Sir John Whitmore, a true pioneer of contemporary coaching, whose teachings exalted the importance of awareness, responsibility and self-belief and who encouraged us – individually and collectively – to embrace our higher values and human potential.
David Tee
David is the editor of The Coaching Psychologist, published by BPS. He is a chartered psychologist and practising coach and coach supervisor. David is the Global Director of Science at CoachHuB, a visiting lecturer for University of Worcester and programme director of coaching at the University of South Wales, where he is a visiting fellow. He has published widely, including papers in International Journal of Evidence-Based Coaching and Mentoring, International Coaching Psychology Review and Action Learning: Research and Practice.
Jonathan Passmore
Jonathan is editor-in-chief of the International Coaching Psychology Review and chair of the BPS Division of Coaching Psychology (2021–2022). He is senior vice president at CoachHub, and professor of coaching and behavioural change at Henley Business School. He has published widely, with over 100 scientific papers and 30 books. His latest titles include The Coaches Handbook, Becoming a Coach: The Essential ICF Guide and CoachMe: My Personal Board of Directors. He is one of the most cited coaching researchers worldwide, has won multiple awards for his work and is listed in the Coaching Global Gurus Top 20 Coaches (2021).
David Tee & Jonathan Passmore
The first two decades of the third millennium have witnessed a proliferation of coaching psychology approaches. These approaches have extended the original modules developed in the 1980s and 1990s such as GROW and co-active coaching into new territories. Many of these new approaches have been drawn from the therapeutic and counselling domain; these initially included cognitive-behavioural coaching, solution-focused coaching and psychodynamic coaching during the 2000–2010 period. This was followed by a more diverse range of models including motivational interviewing, acceptance and commitment coaching, compassion-based coaching and Gestalt, which have each been developed for use in coaching. In the period post-2020, other models are also now being considered as possible frameworks for use with coaching clients in non-clinical relationships, such as dialectical behavioural therapy and meta-cognitive therapy (for a wider discussion of third wave cognitive-behavioural coaching (CBC), see Passmore & Leach, 2022). In addition to the influences from therapy, psychological models have also been translated for use in coaching psychology practice, such as positive psychology and mindfulness. This flow of models from therapy and psychology contrasts with the relative sparse influence from change management and organisational development, with appreciative coaching being a rare exception drawing on appreciative inquiry as a structure to frame positive-focused conversations.
This multiplicity of available frameworks can be confusing for the coach. Some have responded by focusing on a single model or framework as a way to structure all conversations. However, the evidence suggests the majority of coaches have adopted a more eclectic approach and have sought to integrate a range of different models into their work with clients. This follows suggestions from writers in the emerging years of coaching, such as Alison Hardingham (2006) and Jonathan Passmore (2006), who advocated for a more eclectic approach, by which the coach should draw from a number of different streams and, in doing so, would be best able to respond to the unique individual and their specific presenting issue, as opposed to forcing each client to become the round peg required to fit the shape and size of ‘hole’ offered by the coach. These ideas of eclectic approaches have been further developed (Hardingham, 2021; Passmore, 2021), with an emphasis on each coach developing their own distinctive evidence-based approach informed by the cultural context, types of clients and their own personal style to build an approach which is informed by science but which can also be flexed and adapted to meet the client where they are.
Where does this leave coaching? Are coaching and coaching psychology essentially the same, or are there differences? For many clients, and even for practitioners, this is an academic debate. But it matters for three reasons: Firstly, it is important to define something to be able to provide it. If the label on the tin says ‘tomato soup’, but it is crab soup when you open it, you may well be disappointed. A failure to clearly define and manage boundaries can also lead the coach into difficulties and risk causing harm to the client if the coach is not qualified and trained to work with an issue. Secondly, definitions matter for research. If we have not clearly defined our intervention, it is hard to measure the effect. We might be assessing if lunch poisoned the individual; however, if we cannot differentiate between the wholemeal bread and the crab soup, we do not know if the problem is a wheat intolerance or shellfish poisoning. Finally, and possibly most important for practitioners, if it is not clearly defined, we cannot teach it. Knowing the crucial ingredients – and the boundaries – allows for a syllabus and criteria for assessment to be developed: definitions matter.
This is not the place for a deep discussion of definitions, but practitioners should know what they are doing and be able to define, with precision, their intervention. In doing so they may reference one of the many definitions available: John Whitmore’s classic definition of coaching: ‘unlocking a person’s potential to maximise their own performance. It is helping them to learn rather than teaching them – a facilitation approach’ (Whitmore, 1992, p. 8), Laura Whitworth’s definition of co-active coaching, ‘a relationship of possibilities … based on trust, confidentiality’ (Kimsey-House et al., 2011, p. 19), Passmore and Fillery-Travis’s (2011) more process-focused definition ‘… a Socratic-based dialogue between a facilitator (coach) and a participant (client) where the majority of interventions used by the facilitator are open questions which are aimed at stimulating the self-awareness and personal responsibility of the participant’, or one of the professional bodies’ definitions, such as that of the International Coaching Federation.
For us, coaching psychology has a distinctive role to play. “Coaching psychology is ‘the well’ which refreshes the wider coaching profession” (Passmore & Yi-Ling, 2019, p. 79). Coaching psychologists draw on their deeper understanding of research to actively contribute new theories, models, frameworks and, most importantly, evidence, to take forward evidence-based practice. While their practices may be consistent with many other evidence-based practitioners, their understanding of the wider psychological frameworks and the evidence underpinning their approach mark them out as distinctive. The client may witness little of this deeper knowledge in an individual session, but the wider body of coaching will benefit from their contribution, as they challenge and push the boundaries of practice through scientific-led enquiry, engaging in research and sharing their work through journals and other publications. In essence, the coaching psychologist is a scholar-practitioner, constantly crossing and re-crossing the bridge between practice and academia.
The British Psychological Society defines coaching psychology as “the scientific study and application of behaviour, cognition and emotion to deepen our understanding of individuals’ and groups’ performance, achievement and wellbeing, and to enhance practice within coaching” (BPS, 2021).
As we continue to move forward, the definition of coaching and the areas of work in which coaching psychologists engage is likely to continue to change. It is twenty years since this journey of encouraging a focus on evidence-based coaching practice started, marked by the formation of the ‘Coaching Psychology Network’ within the British Psychological Society. Two decades on, that group has evolved into the Division of Coaching Psychology with pathways for accredited training and the pace of change for coaching is quickening. While evidence will continue to grow in importance, digital platforms, artificial intelligence (AI) coaching apps and the blurring of the boundaries between coaching and counselling are likely to continue. The world of coaching in 2050 will be a fascinating place but, whatever changes, psychology, understanding human behaviour, emotion and cognition will be at its heart.
David Tee & Jonathan Passmore
While coaching is similar to other helping-by-talking interventions such as counselling and therapy in the range of ‘approaches’ available (many of these coaching approaches indeed having their conceptual roots within therapy), the ever-growing number of ‘models’ is something that sets coaching apart from related practices. Given this, it is of interest that the term ‘model’ is rarely defined and variously applied in the coaching literature.
Within the context of counselling supervision, Reeves (2013) uses the term ‘models’ to refer to frameworks which bring “…a particular perspective to how the supervisory process might be negotiated and understood” (p. 387). Within the coaching practitioner literature, ‘models’ can be used to refer to any theory, theoretical framework or tool deemed of potential use to coaches in their client work (Bates, 2015). More commonly, however, the term applies to frameworks or structures, often producing acronyms, which suggest a sequence of linear stages to follow within a coaching conversation. As an example, the RADAR model has the steps Rapport, Analyse, Demonstrate, Activity, Review (Giangregorio, 2016) or alternatively Relationship, Awareness, Dream, Action, Results/Review (Hilliard, 2012).
A general point can be made before specific models are considered. Coaching models are often positioned as how coaching practitioners cut their teeth, whether it be through introductory training programmes or texts (e.g., Gilbert & Whittleworth, 2009; van Niewerburgh, 2014) or as a dominant framework for practice: The Work Foundation (2002, as cited in Dembkowski & Eldridge, 2003) found over a third of respondent coaches reported a reliance on the GROW model, while a survey of practitioners within England suggests almost 70% use goal-focused models such as GROW in their work (Tee et al., 2019).
Such coaching models do provide benefits. As Adams (2016) explains, they act as an aide-memoire to the coach using them, as well as providing structure and momentum to the conversation itself. In addition, they can provide a reassurance to neophyte practitioners that they are ‘doing it right’: that, by using a published framework that is providing a route map through a conversation, stating the function of each step and, often, helpfully providing a set of questions to use at each stage, the coach is providing something of value to the client.
However, there are risks and limitations, too. A practitioner using a structured model, such as COACH (Webb, 2019), may take false reassurance that the structure is all-encompassing, covering every element and consideration required of an ethical and effective coach. A coach may also adhere to the model or technique too rigidly, rather than using it as a baseline from which to improvise or deviate (Clutterbuck, 2010). Finally, even if used lightly, the overlaying of one or two familiar models onto a coach’s work with their clients may become repetitive and mechanistic, diminishing the opportunity to maximise insight and learning.
Mindful of these limitations, Clutterbuck (2010) states more experienced practitioners move beyond this mechanistic approach towards a more eclectic drawing upon a range of techniques, and from this to operating within a specific theoretical framework, such as ‘Gestalt’, before finally reaching a stage of ‘liberation’. At this point in the practitioner’s role maturity, their craft is typified more by a way of being than a way of doing. If this is accurate, then it echoes the distinction that the professional body EMCC (2015) makes between foundation and master practitioners, with the latter expected to formulate their own tools, adapt from moment to moment in response to client information and to have a unique approach based upon their own critical evaluation of existing models.
We argue here that there may be a distinction between coaching models and coaching psychology models. While many of the caveats indicated above apply in the use of either category of model, coaching psychology models have a theoretical and conceptual rooting within a psychological approach, drawing upon its associated body of theory and research evidence. While there may be some coaching models for which this is also the case, Passmore (2007) argues that such roots are typically not made overt – or possibly even known – by the authors of such models.
Coaching psychology models, such as those detailed in this volume, explicitly embed specific aspects of evidence-based practice from their respective approaches within their stages. The ENABLE model (Adams, 2016), for example, incorporates the solution-focused practices of scaling questions, working with exceptions and the building of client self-efficacy. The SPACE model includes the cognitive-behavioural focus on cognitions, emotions and behaviours (or ‘A’ctions in the model’s acronym). It could be argued that the transparency of the theoretical roots of coaching psychology models allows a coach to make an informed decision as to whether to integrate it into their way of being with clients and the extent to which it fits in with their own values, preferences and assumptions about what constitutes ‘good’ practice.
This section opens with three coaching psychology models. The first is Nick Edgerton and Stephen Palmer’s (2005) cognitive-behavioural SPACE model. Initially developed in 2002, this model is intended to raise client awareness of the interactions involved in their own or other people’s psychological processes. As such, SPACE is less linear than many other models, with the ACE and PACE variants offered within the paper as options for the coaching psychologist, dependent on the needs of the client at that time.
Garret O’Moore (2012) details the integrative model PEAK, intended for performance coaching and designed to focus coaching session attention on three key performance factors: ability, effort and difficulty. Anthony M. Grant (2011) then offers a variation on GROW: the RE-GROW model. Grant identifies the risk of coaching, as a series of structured conversations, becoming disjointed. This would reduce the focus, momentum and progress towards goal attainment that the client (and their sponsor organisation) may desire. By building in an initial Review and Evaluate (the ‘RE’ in ‘RE-GROW’) at the opening of each session, Grant suggests goal-directed self-regulation should increase.
The section finishes with Zsófia Anna Utry and colleagues (2015) offering a coaching psychology variant of pluralistic counselling and psychotherapy. The paper offers a number of practical steps that coaching psychologists may take in building up the collaborative capacity of their clients, as well as checking their own capacity and alignment to pluralistic principles.
Nick Edgerton & Stephen Palmer
Abstract
This paper introduces ‘SPACE’, a comprehensive psychological model that can be used within cognitive behavioural coaching, therapy and stress management to aid assessment, explain the cognitive model to the client, and assist in the development of a coaching, therapeutic or training programme. Other models, coaching processes and acronyms will be briefly covered to put ‘SPACE’ into a coaching context. For illustrative purposes this paper will focus on coaching.
Over the past couple of decades a number of different coaching models, processes and associated acronyms have been developed by coaching practitioners to enhance and inform their practice, and provide a useful framework. These models are usually shared with the client in a transparent manner and help to facilitate the change and goal-focused process. The next section will highlight a number of the different models including the cognitive model. Then the SPACE model will be illustrated.
Original publication details: Edgerton, N., & Palmer, S. (2005, November). SPACE: A psychological model for use within cognitive behavioural coaching, therapy and stress management. The Coaching Psychologist, 2(2), 25–31. Reproduced with permission of The British Psychological Society.
The GROW model of coaching has been popularised by Sir John Whitmore (e.g. 1996) although according to the literature (see Boyle et al., 2005) it was developed by Graham Alexander. It is probably one of the most well used models of coaching.
Whitmore (2004, p.54) describes the sequence for GROW as follows:
The last stage is also known as WRAP-UP by some practitioners. The GROW model appears to be taught by many coaching training centres throughout the UK. It is relatively straight forward and would be at the behavioural end of the coaching spectrum.
The ACHIEVE model was developed by Sabine Dembkowski and Fiona Elridge (2003). They believe that it is a logical progression from the GROW model and follows the development of a coaching relationship in a systematic manner:
Graham Lee (2003) describes LASER, a five-stage coaching process which provides a frame of reference for moving a manager through the journey of leadership coaching. According to Lee it is a flexible framework that indicates the core activities. The five stages are:
Unlike some of the other coaching models Lee does not conceive LASER as a rigid linear journey.
Vincenzo Libri (2004) suggested the POSITIVE model developed from the GROW and ACHIEVE and influenced by psychological contributions that produce ‘an optimum coaching relationship’. Examples of key questions in each phase are provided below:
Libri (2004) provides a useful list of key questions at each stage.
Wasik (1984) proposed a seven-step problem-solving sequence and accompanying questions that practitioners and more importantly their clients can ask themselves at each step of the process as below.
| Steps | Questions/Actions |
| 1. Problem identification | What is the concern? |
| 2. Goal selection | What do I want? |
| 3. Generation of alternatives | What can I do? |
| 4. Consideration of consequences | What might happen? |
| 5. Decision making | What is my decision? |
| 6. Implementation | Now do it! |
| 7. Evaluation | Did it work? |
Even though it does not have a convenient acronym, this seven-step model has been adapted to coaching, therapy, training and stress management (Palmer $ Burton, 1996; Palmer, 1997a, b; Neenan $ Palmer, 2001a, b). Once the client becomes adept at using the seven-step model, Neenan and Palmer (2001a, b) suggest that the client may want to use a shorter model to quicken the problem-solving process. For example, STIR and PIE:
Select a problem
Target a solution
Implement a solution
Review outcome
Problem definition
Implement a solution
Evaluate outcome
They assert that shorter models of problem-solving are usually used for rapid processing of a problem in order to deal with a crisis or make a quick decision. However, with these shorter models, deliberation is exchanged for speed, so a less satisfactory outcome may be experienced by the client.
The problem-solving models or frameworks described above form an integrated part of the cognitive or cognitive behavioural coaching approach. If the issue or problem can be addressed by focusing on the practical aspects of the problem then the problem solving models are sufficient. However, if the client experiences a psychological or emotional block largely caused by unhelpful, goal-blocking or performance interfering thoughts (PITs), then the practitioner uses the well known ABCDE model (Ellis et al., 1997). Often this need becomes apparent when the client cannot successfully complete Step 5 of the seven-step problem-solving model:
A – Activating event – stops working on the solution chosen at step 5.
B – Beliefs or PITs, e.g. ‘I can’t stand all this hard work. I’ll never reach the deadline.’
C – Consequences: emotion – anxiety; behaviour – procrastinates; physiological palpitations.
D – Disputing – ‘I don’t like it but in reality I can stand it. If I start work NOW then I’m more likely to reach the deadline.
E – Effective new approach – reduction in of anxiety. Starts to focus on the tasks involved which would assist in reaching the project deadline with the proposed solution at step 5. Cognitive Coaching or Cognitive Behavioural Coaching or Rational Emotive Behavioural Coaching can all be considered as dual systems approaches focusing on the practical and/or psychological aspects of a client’s problem or issue as and when required. Palmer (1997a, b) described the integration of the ABCDE and problem-solving models as ‘an intrinsically brief integrative approach’.
The SPACE model was developed in 2002 and is an attempt to portray the interactions involved in psychological process in a manner that is more graphical than the two or five column worksheets that are commonly used in cognitive behavioural approaches. It is also an easy to remember acronym:
Social context
Physiology
Action
Cognition
Emotion
The model has two further components which are also referred to when in use with clients:
| Action | Physiology |
| Cognition | Action |
| Emotion | Cognition |
| Emotion |
The literature relating to cognitive behaviour coaching and therapy deals largely with the importance of the Cognitions as determinates of Emotional states and the resultant Behaviours or Actions (see Beck, 1995; Ellis et al., 1997; Neenan & Palmer, 2001a, b). The ‘ABCDE’ model is one of the most widely used in cognitive behavioural approaches. Implicit in the model is the belief that Cognitions largely determine Emotions.
This can be depicted as:
As cognitions can lead to an emotional response, a person with anger provoking thoughts is likely to experience anger as an emotion. Cognitions include images or pictures a person may also experiences in their mind’s eye. An example is provided below of a teacher in a specific situation:
However, if someone is already in an angry mood, a mood being a longer lasting emotional state, then the mood is likely to result in a tendency to have further angry cognitions in the next situation.
Since the angry cognitions will again result in anger as an emotion we could depict it better:
There is clearly an interaction between cognitions and emotions and this is indicated by the two-way arrow.
In the example above, the thought, ‘I’ve got to stop him’ clearly relates to potential Actions. Adding an A to the diagram would give us:
This ACE model can be seen as a basic psychological model depicting a three way interaction between Actions Cognitions and Emotions. A similar model ACE has also been described by Lee (2003). Taking our example a step further we can see that a person in this Emotional state with these Cognitions and Action tendencies would also experience sensations in their bodies relating to Physiological arousal.
Adding a ‘P’ for Physiological would give us a PACE model that (see below) would depict Biological/Psychological interactions for an individual.
To further understand a person’s reaction to a situation it is often helpful to understand the Social Context that the person is operating in. This can be displayed as a circle surrounding the PACE model.
With the addition of the Social Context to our model it becomes a Bio – Psycho – Social model that will help practitioners and their clients to understand a person’s reaction in a Social Context. The Social Context can include sets of beliefs about social roles, customs and rules.
In the first or later session with a client, a particular situation, problem or mood can be analysed using the ACE, PACE and finally the SPACE models. This helps provide a quick assessment, illustrates to the client the interaction between the five key modalities, and provides an opening for possible interventions. For example, a client who experiences presentation nerves could consider modifying cognitions such as, ‘I must perform well. It will be awful if I make a mistake’, replacing catastrophic imagery with helpful coping imagery (C), stopping procrastinating behaviour and learning new presentation behavioural skills (A), using techniques such as relaxation to reduce stress and anxiety (P), feeling identification to help the client identify anxiety (E), and increase the awareness of the social context and others’ expectations of the client’s performance e.g. they may want an acceptable performance, not ‘perfect’ performance (S). These possible interventions can also be inserted onto the SPACE diagram using a different colour ink. (Or a new SPACE diagram can be used instead.) Thus the SPACE diagram shifts from assessment tool into the coaching programme. SPACE is used in a similar way in counselling, psychotherapy and training settings.
Some clients experience difficulties remembering the very nature of cognitions. When using cognitive models including SPACE it is important that clients can recall what the ‘C’ stands for. Another aide memoire, TIME, can assist:
Thoughts
Images
Memories
Expectations
This helps clients complete the ‘C’ part of the SPACE diagram outside of the coaching session.
This article highlighted a number of different coaching models and introduced the comprehensive SPACE model that can be used within cognitive behavioural approaches. SPACE can also be used in parallel the other models such as GROW or POSITIVE described above, to aid clients understand how to overcome the psychological blocks that are sometimes associated with their problems or issues. So often with performance-related issues, cognitions, imagery, emotions and physiological reactions need to be addressed in coaching and SPACE provides the framework for both assessment and the subsequent development of an individual coaching programme.