Further development of evidence-based coaching: Lessons from the rise and fall of the human potential movement

Abstract

Although several authors have argued for the development of an evidence-based approach to coaching practice, few attempts have been made to draw support for these arguments by examining events of the recent past. This paper seeks to learn some lessons from history by exploring events surrounding the rise and fall of the human potential movement (HPM), which occurred between the 1940s and 1970s. The demise of the HPM is of relevance to the coaching industry because it powerfully illustrates how the promise and potential of innovative practices can be easily lost when its practitioners become disconnected from theoretically sound rationales and solid research. It is argued that the longevity of the coaching industry will be dependent upon the degree to which it embraces the evidence-based practice ethos, and concludes by outlining recent contributions made by psychologists to the advance of evidence-based coaching practice.Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Quo Vadis? A study of the state and development of coaching in Portugal

“…As stated by Bennett () and Spence (), when assessed against the traditional criteria defining a ‘profession’ it becomes clear that coaching has yet to achieve this status, as it fails to meet many of the basic criteria. Following Grant and Cavanagh (), coaching practitioners in Portugal currently operate within an industry in which: (1) coaches do not have an obligation to complete any formal training, nor possess any specific academic qualifications to call themselves a coach; thus they face no barriers to entry into the industry; (2) coaches are not subject to any form of state or industry regulation; (3) they are not bound by any particular code of ethics; (4) there is no established community of practitioners, despite the proliferation of associations, such as the ICF (the first professional body specifically related to coaching); (5) there is currently no general set of accepted, identifiable and distinct skills for coaches; (6) the broader society does not recognize coaching as a profession or recognize its relevance and credibility; and last but not least, as it touches on several other factors above mentioned, (7) coaches have no unique and defined theoretical position that serves as a basis for their practice.…”

“…Coaching grew rapidly in several geographies due to the absence of industry regulation. Without barriers to entry, practitioners established themselves relatively quickly and easily (Spence, ). In Portugal, the appearance of coaching was registered in 2007, by the ICF, corresponding to the creation of the Portuguese unit of this association (Barosa‐Pereira, ).…”

“…Moreover, their study, conducted in the USA and including American and international participants, compared psychologists and non‐psychologists. We, on the other hand, have explored the background of Portuguese coaches to derive insights into whether, to what extent and with which features coaching is being taken up by specific professionals, such as psychologists, as has happened in other countries (Spence, ). Second, we did not sample coaches belonging to any specific association, unlike the surveys regularly conducted by the International Coaching Federation (ICF, ; ) that involve their affiliates and six other specific associations.…”

Contextualist-coaching for complex times

“…Chapter 2, using the analytical lens of Pepper's (1942) world hypotheses, confirmed Dagley (2006), Spence (2007) and Grant's (2008) assertions that there is a lack of explicit theoretical perspectives upon which coaching and its research is based and also positioned coaching within the context of the current changing environment. Many of the assumptions underlying current coaching practices were identified as aligning with mechanism and its closed system view of the world.…”

“…In another example of distinguishing between types of coaching definitions, Barner and Higgins (2005) conclude that, whether coaches are aware of it or not, they tend to centre their coaching craft on one of four prevailing coaching models: clinical, behavioural, systems and the social constructionist model. Dagley (2006), Grant (2008) and Spence (2007) recognise that the broad array of coaching definitions that can be found are not linked to underlying theory. The differing positions and their lack of explicit theoretical underpinnings indicate that the problems are likely to be far more complex than those able to be resolved by reaching a consensus on a definition of coaching.…”