Coaching and Positive Psychology, Part III

In this third and final installemnt of a series on coaching and positive psychology, I take a look at the future of the two professions. As mentioned in the first installment, I feel it is safe to say that in the New Normal era in which we are living, there will be an increasing amount of people seeking coaches as they pursue and navigate their changed worlds.




(The material in this post is copyrighted material excerpted from my academic work, with all rights reserved by me and there is no permission to reprint it in any form)

Barrett

---

Coaching and Positive Psychology, Part III: Future Perspectives

by L. Barrett Powell

There are several aspects of coaching and psychology that have future implications and aspects, including 1) the theoretical relationship between coaching and psychology, 2) the professional relationship between the fields of coaching and psychology and 3) the development of coaching as a profession

Although psychology, like coaching, was initially viewed with suspicion and considered to lack credibility in its first few decades of existence as a profession, it is now a recognized profession which has established itself through the establishment of academic credentials and rigorous training, internal ethical codes and barriers to entry, and in some cases has external government- sanctioned organizations which can “police” the profession.

Psychologists are not uniquely competent and qualified coaches. People without academic degrees in psychology are able to be competent and qualified coaches. Some of these coaches are nationally or internationally known, and have no academic qualifications in psychology – Anthony Robbins, Martha Beck, Jack Canfield, Lisa Nichols, and John Asaraf. The great majority of coaches, of course, are not “famous”. Over the last few decades people have become more attuned to a need and “right” to be pursue happiness and live happy, fulfilling lives. They are turning to coaches, rather than to psychologists, psychiatrists and therapists for this accomplishment. Psychologists, psychiatrists and therapists are viewed as professionals whose services you need if you are mentally ill or diseased and need to become healthy. In fact, the psychologist, psychiatrist or therapist is required to view the person as a patient, and diagnose them with a mental disorder in accordance with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) in order in order to receive insurance payments and for record-keeping purposes. Coaches are viewed as professionals whose services you engage when you are already healthy but want to achieve more or certain goals in your life. In terms of a future trend, I think we will see an increasing number of people hire coaches to achieve their life goals, rather than going to a psychologist, because people recognize they are not mentally ill; rather they desire help in having a more satisfying life.

However, there is clearly likely to be an increased alignment between coaching and positive psychology as this subcategory of psychology addresses the purpose and process of coaching. Other branches of psychology such as cognitive are more likely to be used in terms of guiding how some coaches may conduct individual sessions. However, a psychology which has as its base the assumption that the client is mentally ill, unhealthy, diseased and/or in need of a cure, will not appeal to basically healthy individuals who want more life satisfaction.

Where is the profession of coaching heading in terms of certification? A certification organization is able to provide initial and ongoing professional training, as well as ethical codes, but is certification necessary or valid? Who will determine the validity? Individual coaches may make independent choices on whether or not to join a coaching organization and which one to join. Membership is not mandatory in order to be a competent and qualified coach. Membership is also questionable in credibility. Take the case of the American Medical Association (AMA). A medical doctor in the USA may join the American Medical Association (AMA) but it is considered natural for all doctors to do so, but is not a requirement in order to practice medicine nor is it proof of competency and qualification. This is exhibited by the fact that by the end of the 19th century, US physicians had formed two national associations: the National Medical Association (NMA) and the American Medical Association (AMA). This peculiar duplication reflected a profession segregated by race. The AMA was almost entirely white and discriminated against qualified non-white physicians; the NMA was predominantly black and founded in reaction to the exclusion of black physicians by many state and local medical societies and the AMA's refusal to recognize several racially integrated societies. This professional segregation endured from 1846-1968, well into the civil rights era. Thus, how valid was the AMA while it was excluding qualified potential members based on the color of their skin? Such discrimination in some form could theoretically happen in the coaching profession if the psychology profession takes over certification of the coaching profession. Using this example, it is clear certification is not an automatic panacea for those in the psychology field who want to regulate coaches and coaching.

Coaching will be difficult to regulate in the next 5-10 years (I will not speculate much beyond that time frame). With very well-known individuals (such as those named herein) being recognized as coaches, in addition to thousands of lesser known individuals, it will take a significant effort to shrink the number of coaches and regulate the field. However the nature of the profession may accomplish adequate self-regulation as ineffective coaches will not be successful in the field because clients are clearly able to tell if they have achieved goals or not.

© L. Barrett Powell, All Rights Reserved