I don’t find this surprising. Many of the theories in the field of coaching build on the work of Psychologists, Behavioural Scientists, Psychotherapists and Psychiatrists. Freud, Jung, Adler, Rogers, Maslow, Herzberg, Bowlby and far too many others to mention, built the foundation for current practice. This applies equally for Psychology, Psychotherapy, Coaching and indeed any profession where we are exploring how we think, feel and behave. Even with advancements in theory and practice, much of the work is still rooted in the 20th Century.

If we look a little closer at therapeutic practices, we can see that some disciplines are closely aligned with coaching practice. Solutions Focussed Therapy, CBT, Brief Therapy, DBT, ACT, Mentalisation, and even Mindfulness all share common aspects such as: use of goals, being time-limited, reframing thinking, working towards a future state. Whilst termed Therapeutic approaches, could we argue they are also Coaching approaches?

Many practitioners are starting to see the value in an integrated approach and descriptors used by practitioners suggest an increase in combined practice.

Descriptions in the coaching field such as ‘trauma informed’, ‘trauma aware’, ‘burnout coach’, ‘coaching for depression’, ‘grief coaching’ are all examples of coaches who are moving closer towards the traditional work of therapists.

This hasn’t always been met with open arms by those in the therapeutic professions. Concerns are openly expressed about whether coaches are competent, knowledgeable, aware of the underpinning theory and ethics of therapeutic work. In some instances, these concerns are well founded.

I have seen coaches offering to cure people of a lifetime of trauma using a programme of support which is applied to all clients regardless of their specific history and circumstances. Sometimes at great financial cost. All my training and experience as a psychotherapist tells me this is unethical and high risk.

To offer a different perspective I have many more examples of coaches who are well trained, competent and work within an ethical framework and philosophy which is no different to many therapists.

If I am balanced in my perspective, there is also evidence of therapists who work beyond their competence and do not adhere to current standards and good practice. As with all professions, there is a varied mix of practitioners.

So how do we address the concerns to enable this growing approach to be accepted as a valid method of working with clients?

In my view we start by looking at our similarities. What qualities, standards and ethics bring us closer? My belief is that if we start here, we may see that the divide isn’t as great as we imagine it to be.

Starting with what we share generates a dialogue, creates the space to be more open about what’s different and how to resolve this. From my experience as a dual-practitioner, the line in the sand is generally about competence, training and requirements for practice. Given the wealth of information currently available and the Codes of Conduct and Ethical Guidelines of the many membership bodies, it must be possible to reach a consensus on a minimum standard. If coaches and therapists can’t listen, understand and reach agreement with each other how can we possibly offer that to our clients.

From the client’s perspective their needs are often quite simple, they need support to change something in their life and they want that change to be as sustainable as possible. They want someone to help them who knows what they are doing and who they feel safe to work with. Clients want to be assured of Competence and Safety. A client might have pre-conceived ideas about what type of work they want to do and that will influence their decision about who they work with but their aspiration is broadly the same: they want change.

My aim in writing this isn’t to give answers but to encourage further thinking. Are you working across the divide? Are you offering competence and safety to your clients? Do you have a set of ethics and a philosophy which underpins your work? Do you have a theoretical foundation for your work? Are you working for the benefit of your clients?

If the answer to those questions is anything but a resounding YES then you might need to undertake some further exploration and development. This might be additional training, supervision or it might be a mentoring programme such as ‘The Blended Approach’.

I’ll close with a reflection on my own practice.

As a dual-qualified practitioner I spent many years maintaining the divide. I had my coaching practice and my therapy practice. Even now I still have separate websites and maintain a very small private therapy practice for people who can’t afford my standard rate. In all honesty there is no difference in my work and hasn’t been for many years. When I work with a client, they are leading the way and I support them where they are. I try not to get hung up on whether we are working therapeutically or coaching. The client doesn’t care and my intention is to bring the most helpful approach in the moment.

My focus is on the client as a whole human being. The context and content is the frame within which I work but my client is firmly in the centre of the picture.

Tracey Hartshorn is a Therapeutic Coach, Supervisor, Mentor and Author. Tracey uses the term ‘Therapeutic Coach’ to describe her work. It’s as close as she can get with a range of skills including: Executive Coaching, Mediation, Supervision, Conflict Management, Psychotherapy, Counselling, Leadership, Strategic Thinking, Writing, and the list goes on!