Coaching v therapy Reply Compilation

Peter MacKechnie
Experienced Business and Executive coach & mentor specialising in adapting business
behaviour.
THERAPY VERSUS COACHING – WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES?
I’ve been involved in a range of discussions as part of the research for my book on
coaching and a number of key points have arisen. One of them is the difference between
therapists and coaches. It’s clear that there are a wide range of views from people who
align themselves with therapists and those to coaches, there are a few who claim to be
both. However, I’d like a view from both sets of specialists as to why you think you are
what you call yourselves.
A couple of points to get the discussion going:
DEFINITIONS.
The range of definitions for both therapy and coaching is very wide. The lack of any one
accepted definition makes it difficult to be explicit in what you do. This is an area that is
being widely debated across both approaches and seems likely to continue. A flavour of
the definitions available includes:
COACHING
AC Grant-Coaching was defined as a collaborative, solution-focused, result-orientated
systematic process, used with normal, non-clinical populations, in which the coach
facilitates the self-directed learning, personal growth and goal attainment of the
coachee.
Stober-Coaching is a collaborative process that facilitates the client's ability to self-
directed learning and growth, and is evidenced by sustained changes in self-
understanding, self-concept, and behaviour.
THERAPY
Princeton University-the treatment of mental or emotional problems by psychological
means.
Merriam Webster-Psychotherapy any form of treatment for psychological, emotional, or
behavior disorders in which a trained person establishes a relationship with one or
several patients for the purpose of modifying or removing existing symptoms and
promoting personality growth.
INTENTION
I feel there the main unstated difference between the two is that of ‘intention’. I suggest
the following:

THERAPIST
The intention of the therapist is to heal, treat, fix, etc. problems (past/present) that the
client has. The focus of their intention is based on a medical/treatment model in that a
problem exists that is damaging, or restricting a person’s mental and/or physical health.
Therefore they will work with the client/patient to fully explore the problem, identify
the underlying cause and provide a medical, treatment based solution. This may, or may
not include movement toward a future learning and development goal.
COACH
The intention of a coach is to identify the clients future based point of development,
present position in relation to the area the client wants to develop, identify the gaps and
enable the client to take the necessary action. This focus is on learning and development
in that a problem does not, necessarily, have to exist for the client to want to develop.
Work may, or may not include solving a pre-existing problem (this is dependent on the
level of barrier it’s causing to the move toward the desired development goal).
PROBLEM AND OVERLAP
The issue of term ‘problem’ seems to sit in the overlap area on the continuum of therapy
and coaching. At one end sits therapy dealing with, and concentrating on, the
past/present problem. On the other end sits coaching with its focus on future solutions
and development. Each specialism will work comprehensively with clients within their
sphere. However, the overlap comes in the middle. Both therapist and coach can, and do
deal with problems but how far along the line can each other go before the intention
changes, and the role changes?
TOOLS
When does a tool become therapy or coaching? I’m thinking of the likes of CBT, NLP,
modeling, hypnosis, etc. all of which are used in both fields. Both therapists and coaches
have argued that whatever tool is used it is appropriate to them, a point I’d agree with
(dependent on their level of proficiency). Is then the argument of appropriateness of the
tools being discussed more to do with the area of ‘intention’ rather than specialism?
Peter Mackechnie
Simplicity Coaching
www.simplicitycoaching.co.uk
info@simplicitycoaching.co.uk
07881 598671
0845 458 2549

ASSOCIATION FOR COACHING.
1.
Fiona Adamson
Coaching&Coaching Supervision
I think intention matters on both the coach and the client's part. The other issue
is psychological readiness for a coaching approach.
My experience has been that where a person realises in conversation that the
past still haunts them and they are not responsive to a coaching approach, then I
suggest a number of ways they might do the more recovery type of work and
when they feel free enough of their past, return to me or at least to someone else
to use a coaching approach. Some people respond well to NLP and EFT for
example, others may wish to take a slower route perhaps. The key thing is choice
for a way that feels right.
Many people find that a current issue they are troubled by has resonance with a
past event and simply by acknowledging this they can, as it were, step back, see it
for what it was, an influence that was outside their awareness, and then move
forward. They then have a choice to do so. There are so many tools and ways of
facilitating such a process that part of the skill lies in choosing with clients what
will work for them. One of my psychotherapy trainings was in Gestalt and the
other Transpersonal. Both these approaches have tools and philosophies that are
useful in coaching. I think the key thing for me is what will work for my coaching
clients.
In many ways the richness of the trainings I have done prior to coaching means
that I am fortunate to have a range of tools and of ways of making sense of
experience, mine and the clients, and find I am not wedded to any particular
model or approach. I regard what I do as improvisational most of the time.
Fiona Adamson
2.
George Kelly
Life Coach at Paths from Crossroads
As a mature student of coaching with a background in counselling I am very
interested in this discussion. To me the difference seems to be centred on the
issue of a coaching client being 'whole', i.e. having the mental, emotional,
spiritual and physical strength or ability to understand, learn and develop as a
person. This I believe creates a state of psychological readiness as Fiona
mentions in her comments. Those clients who are haunted by their past and who
do not appear 'whole' might be best served by counselling/psychotherapy,
depending on the circumstances they could do this in tandem with coaching or
follow up with coaching if necessary.

I agree also with Fiona that many people can be assisted to overcome some of
their issues using NLP, Gestalt or one or a combination of other coaching tools in
a coaching environment.
Whatever the difference, your discussion gives me lots of food for thought.
3.
Becky Wright
Specialist Coach at Harely Street Coaching
Dear Peter
Thank you for generating this discussion. I initially trained to MSc level as a
counsellor and now as a coach. I see there are big differences between the two
professions. In therapy there is often an emphasis on the therapist to have
undertaken therapy themselves and therefore have emotional capacity to hold
and work with clients on an emotional / mental level. In coaching I have not
come across this requirement and it’s often left to the discretion of the individual
coach to how emotionally healthy they deem themselves to be. I have also
noticed that coaching training varies on the work on the, “self,".
In therapy we are required to have 1.5hours of supervision per month in order
that our work can be monitored and our ethical practice can be assessed. In
coaching this again seems like an individual choice and no specific ethical
requirement.
I’m not happy with your idea of a medical model in therapy and would need to
hear more about this. I don’t see as a counsellor that we fix problems. I feel in
many ways we help our clients to locate their own inner resources to resolve
their issues and depending on which model you practice with this process will
differ. Counselling is very much a weekly process where as coaching can be as
and when the client requires.
Both use the relationship as a focus but perhaps in counselling the counsellor
would develop the therapeutic relationship in a deeper way than perhaps a
coach would. I’m trying not to make sweeping statements here but instead talk
from experience.
In coaching there is often a focus on future vision, in therapy this is very much
present as an end goal but the connection with past events is often explored in
order to work in a forwards direction. Patterns and unconscious blocks can be
explored where as in coaching these tend to be explored I have found but only if
relevant to future change.
I hope these thoughts help.
With regards Becky Wright

CMI
1.
Natalie D Kershaw
Founder, Practitioner and Trainer
I'm lucky because I have the ability to do both but I can see that if you study one
area in particular you may believe that method to be the right one - it of course
also depends on the practitioner.
In addition, and I don't know if this will help but I thought about something that I
said a while ago - the title of the [coach / therapist] is important. I prefer
"practitioner" to be honest although my official title is adviser and my studies in
the holistic disciplines asked me to chose either from therapist, practitioner or
professional - interesting isn't it that I choose practitioner to cover all I do?
Does the title you give yourself reflect the role that you play and do with the
client and how that client perceives you? I think so. As a business counsellor I
end up with all sorts of issues from the clients despite the fact from the very first
meeting parameters are set - i.e. what role I play and yet because I had
"counsellor" in my title (I wasn't a qualified counsellor incidentally) I had ".....and
my son won't even get out of bed...!" and other such similar stories as though I
could do something about it - as a business adviser - that’s what I am and do - I
advise in business and that’s that - more clear cut and defined.

COACH SUPERVISION
1.
Edna Murdoch
Director: Coaching Supervision Academy
Peter, one area that you have not mentioned is that of relationship. The nature
and use of the relationship can be quite different in these two practices.
In coaching, I would suggest that the relationship is more likely to be adult-to-
adult and robust from the outset. In many forms of psychotherapy, since the
child-in-the-adult is the one who needs healing, quite often it is only in the later
stages of the work that true adult-to-adult relationship occurs. The 'technology'
of many psychotherapies includes using and magnifying transference so that
unhealed material from the past becomes a here-and-now relational event in the
consulting room. So the robustness comes later in the work. Coaching works
much more in the here-and-now and uses the relationship to enhance focus and
outcome, rather than as a means to ensure healing.
It is so difficult to speak of psychotherapy as if it were one practice. Some
therapies are very similar in theory and practice to coaching; indeed, coaching
has happily co-opted some of them, almost without noticing. Certainly without
much acknowledgment. Solution focussed coaching is one of them.
I also know that many psychotherapists would strongly disagree with you that
therapy works with a medical/treatment model; indeed much of the professional
disagreements between psychotherapy and the government's attempts to define
and control it, centre on this very principle.
As an ex-psychotherapist and a practising coach/coach supervisor, I think that it
is easy to classify too neatly and miss some important aspects of 'intention',
theory and practice in both areas.
I wish you well with a very difficult task!
Edna
2.
Alison Fletcher
Principal at The Coach Within
There was a great quote from Michael Cavanagh in Tatiana Bachkirova's
fascinating interview with him in the AC research journal: Michael says as a

psychotherapist he often found himself comforting the distressed whereas when
working as a coach he is more often distressing the comfortable!

COACHING AT WORK
1. Jens Boris Larsen
Chair at Society of Evidence-based Coaching of the Danish Psychological
Association
Thank you, Peter, for starting this subject. It is not easy to formulate an answer
but I will try anyway to share some perspectives with references if possible.
First of all, Michael Cavanagh from Sydney, argues that the differences between
coaching and therapy are not absolute. They are more like differences in degree.
Furthermore, the two practices have more to do with whom we are dealing with
than what we are doing. Anthony Grants' definition - coaching is for non-clinical
populations - is in alignment with this view.
At first glance, this might not seem a satifsfying answer, but it certainly points to
an important aspect of it. The Tools part, where you refer to CBT, NLP and others
that are used in both fields, is explained, in part, by looking at the "who" and how
the tools are adapted to suit the needs of different client populations. Solutions-
focused approaches are another case in point. One of my coaching coleagues has
a wife that works at a place where they do Solutions-focused therapy and to him,
as a coach, it looked indistinguishable from a coaching manual! In other words,
the "who" is what makes the difference.
When the "who" changes during therapy and gets better, many psychology
colleagues report that they adapt their approach to a more "coaching like"
approach. That is, when the client changes from belonging to a therapeutic
population the approach is adapted to accomodate this.
Michael Cavanagh illustrates this further by saying that therapy is about
"bringing peace to the disturbed" whereas coaching is more about "disturbing
the peace". Described more formally in the magnificent chapter "Coaching from a
Systemic Perspective: A Complex Adapative Conversation" (Cavanagh 2006 - in
the Handbook of EBC (Stober & Grant (eds.)), he writes the following:
"The development of internal tension is important in coaching. One of the
differenttiation points between therapy and coaching is that in therapy, the level
of instability, anxiety, or tension is to high as to be destructive of the person's
ability to function effectively in his systems. They have slipped from the edge of
chaos into chaos intself. Hence often one of the proximal goals of therapy is to
help the person reduce distress so as to enable the emergence of new order. In
other words, therap seeks to comfort the afflicted.
"In coaching, however, the coach is often called upon to afflict the comfortable!
We often see to increase information flow, energy, and diversity to a level that
helps the person move out of stable mind-sets and behaviors so as to create new

insigths, understandings, and actions." (p. 320).
Other distinctions I have learned from Michael Cavanagh when he visited
Denmark in september 2007 is the difference in "the holding environment" in
therapy and coaching that needs to be of such depth and intensity in therapy to
allow healing and alleviate suffering and improve functioning so that the
proximal goal of "comforting the afflicted" can be achieved. The tempo is slowed
down to facilite this. The holding environment in coaching is different as the
focus is different - it needs to adapt to an environment where coach and client
can "disturb the peace" or "afflict the comfortable". He compared the tempo in
coaching to a train, saying that it is more like a train moving forward at a higher
speed. I think this metaphor make sense.
Recently, Stephen Palmer and Alanna O'Broin wrote two chapters on the
coaching relationship that I highly recommend. "Introducing an interpersonal
perspective on the coaching relationship" and "Building on an interpersonal
perspective on the coaching relationsip", both found in the highly recommended
book "The Coaching Relationship - Putting People first" (Palmer & McDowall
2009 (eds.)). In these two chapters they seek to differentiate between different
types of helping relationships as well as providing a detailed meso-level
description on the various aspects of the coaching relationship. (Cont.)
2. Jens Boris Larsen
Chair at Society of Evidence-based Coaching of the Danish Psychological
Association
Distinctions useful for our discussion to keep it relatively brief between
coaching and counselling (which seems to be appropriate for therapy as
well) are as follows:
Initial motivation. Coaching: Enhancing life, improve performance.
Counselling: Eliminating psychological problems and dysfunctions.
Context of interventions. Coaching: Specified by the contract according to
the client's goal, the coach's area of expertise and the assignment of a
sponsor (if involved). Counselling: Open to any and potentially all areas of
client's life.
Expectations for change. Coaching: From relative satisfcation to much
higher satisfaction. Counselling: From high dissatisfaction to reasonable
satisfaction.
Possible outcome. Coaching: Attainment of goals, increased well-being and
productivity. Counselling: Increased well-being, unexpected positive
changes in various areas of life.
Theoretical foundation. Coaching: May include psychology, education,
sociology, philosophy, management, health and social care, etc.

Counselling: Psychology and philosophy.
Source: O'Broin & Palmer (op. cit. p. 18f), a table adapted and extended
from an earlier source by Tatiana Bachkirowa.
One of their points behind making this table is to point out that at a global
level of description, the differences are virtually non-existing. It is only by
probing deeper and describing the different relationships at the meso-level
that minor but significant differences become visible.
As a general point, the challenge of defining coaching and therapy is only
resolved when we can describe the different qualities of the relationships -
and hold all of them constant in our own mind. Only then does the full
picture emerge. For instance, both coaching and therapy have the increase
of well-being as possible goals but what this mean and how it is achieved
and for what purpose is different. The meso-level of describing well-being
as an outcome thus reveals subtle but important nuances.
The work-potentiating bond in coaching and counselling is listed in the
table as being descriptive of both coaching, counselling and sports
psychology in terms of "level and type of affect", whereas friendship, the
fourth category in the table is described as "liking, broad affective bond". I
agree that there exist a work-potentiating bond in both coaching and
counselling. However, if we think about the other qualities mentioned in
these two posts - for instance, the difference between bringing peace to the
disturbed and the fact that the client has crossed the line into chaos vs.
disturbing the peace and increasing flow, creativity and information, we
can argue that the work-potentiating bond will have to have different
qualities. In existential-phenomenological psychotherapy, the emotional
relationship is key to therapy and thus the affective, work-potentiating
bond will have a much stronger emotional component, resulting in a
deeper emotion enabling connection. This view is in alignment with all of
the above even though it might be an expression of this particular
approach to therapy. It is certainly also useful for coaches to be able to
create a strong emotional bond to their clients in order to enable emotions
to be expressed and understood with their own content without reducing
them to be an epiphenomenon of thinking errors. When I do this in my own
coaching, emotional healing invariably takes place so it has a therapeutic
effect.
At the 3rd National Coaching Psychology Conference, Ernesto Spinelli did a
very detailed and thoughtful analysis of the intricacies of distinguishing
between coaching and therapy. The key note was rewritten as an article
and published in The International Coaching Psychology Review. See
http://www.bps.org.uk/sgcp/publications/international-coaching-
psychology-review/coaching-and-therapy-similarities-and-
divergences$.cfm

CREATIVE BUSINESS STRATEGY
1.
Ro Gorell
Owner, Ascent2Change
Hi Peter, interesting discussion.
The term therapy suggests some sort of healing process i.e. an expert provides
help that 'makes you better' whereas coaching is about sitting alongside the
client to work with them on finding their own solutions. Ultimately they can both
use the same tools and I agree intention is helpful in defining the two.
If I were to be cynical, I might say that this is really a strategic question about
how the two 'industries' define their market. Both potentially can offer things to
the same market so need to find a USP to help prospects decide who to buy from.
Coaches do need to be aware that they are usually not qualified to help clients
with deeper rooted issues and must be careful about how they use the tools. The
first rule of any coach or therapist is always "First, do no harm".
Ro

EDINBURGH COACHING HUB
1.
Jackie Cameron
Getting you talking - online and out loud
Thanks for such a thought provoking post Pete.
I wonder if my simplistic view helps at all?
I consider coaching to be a "looking forward" exercise albeit referencing past
experiences.
And I agree that coaching is not necessarily a "remedial" intervention...
But there is definitely potential for overlaps ( just to sit on the fence a bit here!)
2.
malcolm mcgregor
Owner, Broadreach Retail consultancy
Hi Peter and Jackie,
You've absolutely hit the nail on the head. This is a key debate in the coaching
territory, and one that I have contemplated for some time.
I personally think that the fact that we cant agree on a definition for coaching (as
you rightly point out) makes the question you posted almost impossible to
debate.
I frequently find the psychologists who are in the coaching business, use their
history of academic research to occupy the moral high ground, suggesting that it
is an essential background for any coach, which it might well be. However, I have
compiled some independent research that suggests business users appreciate a
coach with a pragmatic base, and not necessarily a therapist.
Personally I believe that one third of the coaching I do is 'therapeutic' by nature,
and by nature focuses on the client's past.
Look forward to bringing this to the hub if we get the chance.
In the meantime, all the best, Malcolm.

3.
Ann Astell
Owner, The St. Andrews Consultancy Ltd
Hi
It is a good debate to have in terms of definition of ones own practice and I
admire your bravery in putting it into a book! It is a question clients ask and I am
not sure I always answer it the same!
I am a business psychologist with three years training in psychotherapy but
would not position myself as a psychotherapist. The interesting bit on this is that,
from my experience, there is a a paradigm difference between psychology and
psychotherapy as fields of study and practice.
The debate in therapy circles is between what is counseling in relation to
therapy. Some see as a continuum of depth of intervention and the extent to
which models of
On your definitions, these both make sense and I agree that there is a present to
forward versus present to backward dimension. I also like the idea of intention
and think there is something about intrusion. Certainly for me, one differentiator
is that psychotherapy works in the unconscious, with transference being a key
concept and tool. my understanding is that most coaches do not engage their
analysis at that level. Also, am not sure that all therapeutic modalities would see
themselves as working within a medical model
could say lots more but enough for now.
And Malcolm, am trying to not take your comment personally....!
4.
Chris Donegan
Partner, The Change Navigators - Organisation Change and Management
Consultants
Is this not a similar to the debate between behavioural psychology and
psychotherapy, where the paradigm is indeed very different and the depth of
intervention is deliberately different i.e looking at what changes in behaviour can
help acheive personal goals vs deep analysis of underlying issues that are
inhibiting, blocking or causing current disfunctional behaviour. I think the
behaviourists expression is "It is easier to behave your way into a new way of
thinking than it is to think your way into a new way of behaving"

As I have used coaching as a method of working with clients on a business front
and also been trained in areas such a co-counselling and group therapeutic
techniques I would say that it is very much up to the client to determine how
deeply they want the coaching to go and the honesty of the coach not to go into
places where they can't get the client back from.
From a practitioner's point of view the definitiions are helpful but need to be
explicit for a client. I believe that you can come at coaching from a variety of
places but you should really know your limits and be clear with the client about
what these are and how and what you can do to help them. Not all coaching is
therapy and vice versa, being clear about this up front is vital.
However what I observe in larger organisations is the purchasing of a style of
coaching, be it behavioural or more in depth therapy based and then managers
being told to use the "prefered supplier" no matter if the methods used do not
suit the issues that they have. So perhaps we need to be a lot clearer about
defining what it is that we are about.

EDINBURGH ENTREPRENEURS
1.
Kirsty McWilliam
Owner, Coaching Direct
Hi Peter - really interesting discussion and all the best with your book. A quick
response for you:
I am coming at it from a coaches point - I would call myself a professional coach
as it spans all the coaching that I do.
So you asked for how I would describe it (hopefully succinctly!) - ' I support
change in individuals/businesses by helping them imagine and define powerful,
motivating goals and then through a structured process to achieve those goals'
Differences?:
I think there are a few difference when discussing say the difference between
coaching and counselling (these can be gray areas depending on what type of
counselling but as a guide for coachees so they know what to expect)
I would say the main ones are-
1. Coaching is solely future focused and altho reference can be made in the past,
it is not dwelt on.
2. The coach does not give advice, opinion or judgement
3. The expert in the coach/client relationship is the client as it is their life.
4. Coaching is not about healing, it is about identifying the way forward. There
may be barriers/obstacles to overcome in coaching but not actual healing.
I also think a relevant point is that it it the coaches responsibility to their client
that, if they think the client is not moving forward, to have an open discussion
with the client and ask them if they think another support would be relevant.
Very interesting comment about CBT and NLP - I am away to think about this
one. Thanks for triggering the thought.

EXECUTIVE COACHING AC SUB GROUP
1.
Lorraine Maddams
at LMCoaching
Therapy impies that someone has an aspect of themselves that is 'not working'
and requires 'healing' whereas 'coaching' implies that the client has a talent(s)
that requires developing.In coaching I believe that 'therapy' sometimes happens
- but that is not the 'intention'. I do not assume that my clients are 'broken'. If I
were to go to a therapist I think that I would assume that something in me was
'broken' or maladjusted and that I was seeking professional help to 'put myself
together' again.
Lorraine Maddams
2.
Martin Eldon
Management Trainer, Consultant, Facilitator & Psychotherapist
Jokingly, I might say that the difference between coaching and therapy is about
£1,000 per day!
More seriously, as a Registered Psychotherapist as well as a Trainer and Coach, I
always take the view that we are all doing the best we can. I do not consider
people to be broken but rather looking to build on what they already have and
move towards more of what they want, in order to be even better. Taking
Lorraines point, therapists cannot heal people (only the medical professionals
are allowed to do that!). Hence solution focussed therapies have very much in
common with goal setting based coaching.
The issues people bring are sometimes different but often similar and the two
approaches may, at times, seem interchangable. i. e. a person has a present state
(problem) and therefore has not achieved their desired state (outcome). Both the
therapist and coach will help people establish what these are and provide
strategies for getting from one to the other.
Some clients don't know what they want, therapists/coaches help them establish
that. Some clients don't know how to get what they want, therapists/coaches
help them by providing strategies. Sometimes clients feel constrained by past
events which may have set up limiting beliefs. Therapists and coaches work with
this also.

Classification of the nature of the problem is also tricky. For example how might
we classify an extreme fear (phobia?) of giving presentations?
I feel there is a difference when it vast difference when it comes to regulation
and training. At present there are no legal minimum standards which prevent
anyone calling themselves a therapist. However, the lead body for Psychotherapy
in the UK (UKCP) has standards requiring their members to:
* adhere to their code of ethics
* have regular Supervision/Continuous Professional Development
* have professional indemnity insurance
To become UKCP registered, Psychotherapists need to have undertaken a
programme of training of at least 4 years covering topics such as human
development, sexuality, ethics, psycho-pharmacology, and much more. All of
which serves us well as coaches too if we want to be the best we can be for our
clients!

MHS EMOTIONAL ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENTS
1.
Mike Fiszer
Director of Leadership Development & Programmes at Edinburgh Napier
University Business School
It is neatly summed up in the frame of the Positive Psychology Field by Alex
Linley - see: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Average-Realising-Strengths-Yourself-
Others/dp/1906366039/ref=sr_1_1?
ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268772961&sr=8-1
and: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Positive-Psychology-Practice-Alex-
Linley/dp/0471459062/ref=sr_1_2?
ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268772961&sr=8-2
moving folk from the lower (disorder) end of the distribution toward average
and wellness is the claimed domain of therapists, coaches work in the average to
A+ (high sanity?) range of the norml distribution, however there is gathering
evidence that a strengths based solutions orientation works best in both
domains, hence intentionality apart they could end up using the same tools at
differing levels of intervention and, one would suspect, skill?
After all solutions focused brief coaching had its roots in the Milwaukee family
therapy work,,,,,
,,,,,,to be endlessly debated,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
evidence and outcomes are what is needed.
Mike Fiszer
2.
Deirdre Quiery
Leading with Emotional Intelligence
I found Pete's summary wonderful in terms of clarity of the issue. I agree with
Mike that it still stays fuzzy. However, intentionality and goals seem to at least
help with clarity in the overlap. It is interesting to note that attending a
Conference on Pyschology and Spirituality in New Delhi 2009, it was explained
that 70% of western therapy uses "mindfulness based techniques". The aim of
the therapist here may not be to "explore the problem or to identify underlying
cause" but rather to cultivate clarity of sensory experience with equanimity
rather than entering into an exploration of causes.
If we take a Transpersonal Perspective to Coaching, it may be appropriate to
consider any ego-based identity as being "insane" - limited with potential to use

ego defence strategies in relationship with others such as projection, denial and
repression. Coaching in this area may look to explore even within a corporate
context the limitation of ego-based identity asserting itself, how the leader can
expand perspectives, drop limiting beliefs and help others release creativity,
authenticity and find meaning within a corporate context. You might be
interested in looking at Sir John Whitmore's work in this area with Performance
Consulting.
It's really helpful to have this discussion. Thank you.
3. Dana Ackley
Owner, EQ Leader, Inc.
As a "recovering clinician" I have a history of "doing" psychotherapy for 20+
years before transitioning to business applications of psychology, i.e., coaching,
culture change etc. In part, my transition was prompted by the corruption of
clinical psychology by the medical model, from where the concept of emotional
disorders, of course, arises. The model and its assumptions are deeply flawed.
Among other things, approximately 100% of people have psychological
problems. (For anyone who wants to read my whole discussion of the flaws in
the medical model, it can be found in my 1997 book Breaking Free of Managed
Care (Ackley, published by Guildford Publications). For this discussion, the
implication is that the seemingly convenient distinction between therapy and
coaching that rests on therapy speaking to emotional disorders may rest on
flawed assumptions that are more convenient than accurate.
Dana C. Ackley, Ph.D.

SMALL BUSINESS CLUB
1. anna patfield
Owner-Pawsability Pet Behaviour + Pet Shop
wow peter, what a question!!
and ha ha.... your perhaps weren't thinking of my line of work whilst writing
this.....
my tuppenceworth....
I call myself a dog behaviour therapist - i deal with the emotional problems that a
dog is having in coping with particular situations and help to change those
emotions.
Part of the process includes focusing on the end goals - where the dog needs to
get to - focussing on the future - and dealing with the steps in between. This is
generally termed training - but it could be presented in the form of coaching.
I have had some coaching training - or should it be coaching coaching ha ha - in
my previous life, and discussions with colleagues on whether (dog) training
works best as "training / teaching" or "coaching" (when done on a 1-1 basis).
I guess i tend to train specific actions, but try to coach improvement. Hmm- and
heres a thought tho' - I think part of the dog's training development is actually
coaching too.
NLP also comes into the mix to some extent, having again had some beginners
training on that. Indeed, one expert colleague of mine is a Master NLP
Practitioner.
So, my answer is "all of the above".....
A different slant on where you're coming from, but thought i'd just share my
thoughts on the matter with you, and it was interesting to think this through.
Thanks.
All the best
Anna
2.
Maxine Dodds
Transition Coach at Maxine Dodds Coaching
Hi Peter,

I like the question.
I think from the client's view point, they are making a journey in self
development or growth. I don't think there is anyone who does not have some
baggage/history which has left some impact. What is different is where someone
is on their personal journey.
Some seem unable or unwilling to look ahead and keep turning back to issues
from the past. While they are in this state, in the present they will continue to
repeat the mistakes from the past. I believe this is where therapy comes in.
Other clients are very focused on the present and the future. They are mentally
and emotionally ready to commit to making major changes in their lives. A coach
is more appropriate for these individuals.
But life tends to have shades of grey, so there will always be individuals who sit
somewhere between these 2 definitions. Which is why we need to have some
understanding of the other profession and why both should make use of the tools
at their disposal. We build up a bag of tricks (range of available tools) which we
can draw on at the appropriate time. However we should be fully competent in
them before using them with a client.
My final comment, is that we should know our limitations and when to step back
and recommend a client to find a professional better matched to their needs.
Cheers,
Maxine Dodds
3.
Ruth McKay
Owner at Unique Marketing Solutions
In my experience coaching is focused on the future and therapy on the past.
However, to decide on your future naturally involves you looking at the past too.
I would have thought the training was very different for the two roles too.
4.
Mark Lister
Consultant, Coach and Partner at Lister Mcdonald
One definition of coaching I like is "Professionally assisted self-change."
My favourite though is "Coaching is when you ask dumb questions and the client

comes up with brilliant answers."
Another perspective - starting points.
Coaching assumes the client has what they need and is perfectly well, while
therapy assumes the client needs healing to restore wellness.
Put another way, wellness and wholeness is the end goal for therapy and the
starting point for coaching.
I'd suggest the overlap is actually pretty small - more like a point of contact.
I think to a large extent the confusion between the two arises because both are
about listening. This is something that, in our culture, is WEIRD. If you want
someone to listen to you, there most be something wrong. This tends to obscure
the fact that coaching is about standing in the present and creating a new future.
There are plenty of very clear differences though. A therapist has a controlling
role, and the discussion is directive and based on analytical thinking. The coach-
client relationship is much more one of equality, collaboration and partnership;
discussion is inquisitive, based on intuition.

BUSINESS MATTERS MAGAZINE
1. karen gould
Owner, connect consultancy organisation
I am an experienced Coach and Mentor and years ago was involved in
Counselling in Education. I now prefer Mentoring - because boundaries are more
visable and when boundaries are crossed - I can stop the sesssions without
offending or explanation.
2.
Penny Ling
Hypnotherapy & psychotherapy at Oakspring Clinic, Birdwell Clinic and
Bedminster Family Practice
As a hypnotherapist I am putting someone in the right place for them to do the
changing, I don't heal, it's all with the client. I'm a guide. There is an overlap
because I use not only hypnosis, but CBT, Solutions focused brief therapy and
NLP. My own training though has had a lot of emphasis about how the brain
works, not just psychology but from a physiological point of view. Showing
someone how their body and mind work together can help someone to
understand why they are experiencing the problems they are. Using the SFBT
we're looking very much towards the future and using the clients resources to
overcome their issues. So although I am a therapist much of the work is coaching.
3. karen gould
Owner, connect consultancy organisation
Though - I am about to try hypnotherapy to aid loosing weight - had my first
session and will continue.

COACHING - a subgroup of WACCM TOO group on LinkedIn
1.
Pasquale Scopelliti (pasquale@theconsigliori.com)
The Consigliori at TheConsigliori.com Newsletter
Hi Peter, thank you for the stimulating question, and all your effort to lay out an
intelligent basis to dive in. I must confess that I'll have to do a bit of study to
catch up with your many very specific terms and areas listed above, and I will do
so. I didn't want to wait, though, to offer you an initial response just to the
question itself. I hope you don't mind...
From my point of view the difference is profound, and significant. I'm a coach,
not a therapist. Yet, I employ all kinds of therapeutic techniques in my coaching.
How do we parse out the line?
For me, it really does come down to just this one, most important parameter. As
a coach, I'm invested into the outcome of the game itself, together with my client.
Were I to perform therapy, I'd be there as an aid to, but not participant in the
game at hand.
Perhaps an example or two will help. When my clients ask me for my thoughts
about ROI, I take it upon myself to rise to their question, and search very hard for
such justification, together with them. If I were a therapist, I'd reject the
question. Therapy is undertaken to find and adapt to the truth, and is a cost. If
there is economic gain, wonderful, but that's not the driver.
Another example is this. When my clients ask me where I stand, or what my story
is, or who I am, or what any of this means to me, I give them direct answers. In
fact, I let all clients know that I am the opposite of values free, as would be a
therapist. I express my values, often quite boldly. In our work, we seek to find
values fits, where our mutual values compound excellence on the mission to win
the game at hand!
Ach, I'm droning on already. Thanks for asking the question. I will read up on
your terms above and get back to you with some more specific replies to your lay
out.
Pasquale
The Consigliori
2.
John W. Countz [LION - Top Linked]

Consultant, Inventor, Patent Holder, Product Developer, Mfg Support, QC, Due
Diligence, Asset Reliability Expert - CMRP
Hi Pete,
I agree with your assertion about intention but feel that the overlap is indeed the
major sticking point.
Yes the intent of the coach is to allow the client to reach a future goal however
cannot the same be said of the therapist?
If I am afraid to go out of my house because of some victimization in my past and
I have a goal of wanting to conquer that fear then I go to a therapist. Or they
come to me…. (inside joke) ;)
If I have a fear of asserting myself at work because I was a highly disciplined
child taught to never question authority or talk back and I want to conquer that
fear of assertiveness then do I go to a Life Coach?
Both are fears and both are because of past issues. They are not apples and
oranges here... They only vary in degree of what we consider to be social norms.
The problems are the same and the process to deal with this would presumably
be the same. I.E. a form of thought provolking psychotherapy to out the fear and
deal with it etc...
I guess my point is, where do we, draw the line between the quest for social
normality and the quest for high performance and where is it, that coaches want
to operate?
Clearly victimization is trauma and that is in the realm of therapy and but is not
the child who was raised in a strict “don't talk back” home who has problems
asserting themselves at work, also a case of systematic trauma?
Are they not just hiding behind their desks at work rather than hiding inside
their houses? One we call agoraphobia the other a lack of leadership but in fact
they are practically identical except for the degree of social impact.
The same person that is afraid to be assertive at work is also afraid to be
assertive in all facets of their life. They are the ones who will not take that gallon
of spoiled milk they purchased yesterday back to the store for a refund or the
ones that allow salesmen bully them into buying things they neither want or
need. We simply refer to these people as timid or call them passive but in fact
they are dysfunctional due to past trauma. Their dysfunctions are simply lesser
in degree and they can function in daily life without getting into serious trouble
so it is ok...
If you want to call yourself a Coach that is fine but if you are going to use
psychotherapy to help people deal with past issues in order to help them grow in
the future, I would then assert that, you need to be a licensed therapist as well...

It is my opinion that there is too much room for error and mischeif for letting
untrained people monkey about in the heads of potentially already dysfunctional
people...
3.
Pasquale, what a delight you are! Thanks for expanding the commentary.
The defining difference being ROI is interesting to say the least. But one wonders
if it is particularly safe to be expressing your own values and opionions while
employing psychtherapudic methods...
It could be observed that your clients have the at least the presence of mind to
expect an ROI and that says something for sure... However we have also seen
some Life Coaches specializing in Victimisation and ADHD which are clearly
traditionally clinical therapudic issues... These are also deviod of business
processes and therefore have no clear hard dollar ROI...
ROI in personal peace and quality of life yes! What we in the business world
might call a soft dollar ROI or a Cost Avoidance ROI...;)
Clearly not all coaching has an ROI in hard dollars... What would Mikkel's ROI be
if he were paying for Diana's coaching? Nothing in dollars but potentially a
wealth in happiness. There is no difference in a successful therapy session that
helps a patient gain a happier life so I must reject the ROI argument as one that
can be applied across the industry as a defining factor. I do however respect your
using it to define and limit your own personal practice.
If all coaches were as responsible then i think this discussion might not have
grown legs...:)
Cheers,
John
the problem;)
4.
Diana Baker
Personal Performance Coach Student

I am sorry we may have different meaning for things on this side of the ditch but
what is meant by ROI?
5.
Mikkel Madsen
Partner at ROHDE CONTEMPORARY, Owner WACCM TOO group on LinkedIn and
Independent social media advisor
Diana, its return on investment I believe.
My very best wishes
Mikkel
6.
Hey Gang,
I have just a few minutes to share (invest ;-). Yes, Mikkel, that's what I'm
referring to, return on investment. Of course, this can be a shallow concept, even
a foolish one. But, my new problem friend John ABSOLUTELY understands the
concept in its layers and richness, I promise you. He really gets it. Most capitalists
don't...
Mikkel, if I may, I'd like to propose that I could see you approaching the moment
of positive ROI in the transcript and the moment when you went past it, from this
morning's session. Of course, to my eye, your real ROI won't come if you fail to
live up to your commitment to do the written assignment. Then, as you progress,
gaining real ownership over the problem, benefiting from Diana's hard work and
wonderful skills, and build the team work toward your goal, you'll find that the
return surpasses anything you could have imagined. What's more, you'll find
you're not able to reduce the return to simple formulas or numbers, at all. I
believe, Mikkel, that this is invariably true when get our work right, no matter
how hard the hard number lines we draw may be. So, dollar ROI for me is, well,
anything but a necessary evil, maybe I can say its a necessary good! But, dollar
ROI is virtually always the most meager, weakest, most boring and least
meaninful of the ROIs we fight for and win.
Now, for problem John, I'll crack open another comment box...

7.
Yes Return On Investment... Usually expressed in hard dollars...However cost
avoidance can be considered a soft ROI meaning ther was no profit to install
safety barriers but you likely avoided a wrongful death suit ie soft dollars etc.
8.
I need a moniker. Nope, I'm surely not allowed the Walton's famous John-boy, my
new friend might feel demeaned as opposed to endeared. Problem John worked,
but I'm not sure it can stick. I'll try out QJ for Quality John...no, QMJ, Quality Man
John. Hey, I kind of like it!
Okay, let me know if you hate it, but for now you're QMJ...okay?
QMJ, first off, thank you so very kindly for the prop to my "responsibility." Do
understand, however, that I guarantee you there are blind spots, gaps in MY
reasoning, and I'm dependent on brilliant analysts like you to find them. So, no
free passes here, man, not for a second (please?)! Yes, I am quite responsible.
But, I still might be wrong, maybe even dead wrong. I beg your readiness to be, if
not purely devil's ongoing advocate, at least a royal pain. What could be more
righteous, eh?
That protocol covered, I have a couple of messy links to offer. Here they are, and
then I'll try to pull some pieces together before I light out of here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lay_analysis
http://www.amazon.com/Question-Lay-Analysis-Standard/dp/0393005038
I'm actually unhappy with both links. The widipedia article, sorry, simply sucks.
The book itself is a glory. But, I hate offering an amazon link to reference a book.
So...
I'll just blather a bit. Freud came out, as strong as strong can be, on the side of
lay, that is NON-medical analysis. Do not, however, confuse "lay" with "non-
professional". He actually didn't care, whether one was a pro or not, and believed
that the anaylsts contribution came, not from education or professiona

dedicationl, but rather directly from personal experience. Ah, but consider him
no modern egalitarian, he was anything but! He wanted you to have been
analyzed, by a great analyst yourself, first. Thus, what he really believed in was
lineage.
Forgive me, I have about 13 different strains SHOUTING in my mind to share, and
have to run, maybe because I might surrender if I don't!
Tie it down, Scopelliti...
Ahem, can I have this, John? In the end, people are just people. In the end, we
either help or hurt people. The Dr.s, with their Hypocratic "do no harm," they're
onto something. If you going to help, or try to help, you should have some idea of
what help is, and what harm might be. If not, danger is too weak a word.
Still, Dr., therapist, coach or...oh my...how about being a parent?...in no case do we
ever have the full preparation we require for the following painful reason. We
really only learn from our mistakes. If we can repeat our victories, we're lords
upon the land. But, the victories come from learning from mistakes.
Okay, I'd better hightail it out of here now! Have it at, QMJ, and do your worst.
That's the only way I can access my best.
Oh, for conversation times, do take a glance at my self-introduction discussion,
where I'll post some timing info, next. For now, I look forward to seeing you all
next week, and learning more. I will also get in a bit of GROW research between
now and then as well.
The best to you and thank you for having given me more than you can know
you've given!
Coach P
9.
Mikkel Madsen
Partner at ROHDE CONTEMPORARY, Owner WACCM TOO group on LinkedIn and
Independent social media advisor
Hi Pasquale,
This week in WACCM TOO group has been special, also because you entered our
group and began to touch my own and I’m sure other members thoughts and
lives, with your passionate and intelligent contributions. Thank you and I look
forward to more inspiring discussions.
From your intro I understood you’re fairly new to social media’s. I found this on

youtube.com about how to behave. http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=DIyr5TXqe8Y . Hope you enjoy it, only a bit of fun and not to offend anyone.
Maybe it can spice up your weekend studies of coaching models.
Until next week, I wish you a good long and relaxing weekend.
My very best wishes,
Mikkel
10.
From what I gathered from the Wiki the term Lay meant having no formal
medical training. Remember however back then Freud was referencing medical
training to be something completely separate from psychology, which really was
not yet an accepted medical art. I.E. his intent was not to say it was ok not to have
any training, just that it was ok that you were not an MD because that brought
little or nothing to the table in psychoanalysis... One could argue that some
training is required to safely administer psychoactive drugs that might interact
with other drug therapies ongoing by an MD etc. However, at the time I think he
was referencing the process of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy without the
employment of psychotropic drugs, which were developed later.
I think at its root, he was simply saying, that this was an entirely new area in
which traditional medicine had no dominion, claim nor advantage in practice.
As to lineage i feel it was more in respect to following the industry pioneers that
had been doing the groundwork so as to become an expert yourself built on their
work. All sciences have a lineage in this way during their early stages.
I am not really a fan of Freud myself more a fan of Carl Jung...;)
Freud concentrated on the negative baser instinctive or animal mind while Jung
focused on the associative, creative and positive mind of man...
Or if you will the Animal side vs the Spiritual side of man...
Clearly both are important to total healing and wellbeing as well as being an
important part of a true understanding oneself...
These men have handed those of us who have the capacity to understand, the
keys to manipulating he human mind. To me that infers a degree of responsibility
on those that would practice in those techniques.

To understand hypnosis is to understand subconscious programming... To
understand ritual is to understand brainwashing etc.
In this day and age people are manipulated subconsciously all day long, exposed
to a constant barrage of marketing techniques and advertising that employs
every allowable technique under the sun to program people to want and buy...
No wonder we are becoming a society on Prozac! Just using the drug to take a
respite from all the crap being shot at us daily…
No, I am not a user, I prefer to live with my psychosis’s and blog them out
“mu aha ha ha ha…” (Evil Grin)
11.
Quality Man John, so, you're a Jungian, eh? Some people I love to hate, Watson
and Skinner are perfect examples. Some people, I hate to love. Your man Jung
heads up the pack there! There was so much he was just so irritatingly right
about. But, if you ever come over to the right side of this debate, and truly give
Freud his honorable chance, you'll see that the father was superior to the son,
and yes, it truly was Papa Sigmund and Prodigal Son Karl.
If you want my best shot, let me know and I'll attempt it. If not, I truly do not
wish to bore anyone, and yes, I am that true believer so you obviously have to
watch out for me. I will offer this on Father Freud's account. He was not a true
believer, himself. He continued to adapt and move throughout his entire career.
It was his followers who settled on their own version of Psycho-analysis from
Freud's earlier stages. Have you ever heard of the Thanatos force? Most likely
not, since it does not show up in Freud's early work.
In his later work, Freud sought to balance this against Eros. He considered these
two to be the most basic questions of the human soul. (By the way, how often do
you hear any Freudians talk about the "soul"? That single word was the single
most common term in his corpus of writing, but it got translated into "Psyche," in
virtually every instance!)
I just share that much in hopes of inviting your interest. To that end, though, let
me turn this into my own question back.
What is Jung's great power for you, John? What is it, in Jung's work, that so
inspires you? And, how does his work inform your consulting?
P

12.
Hi Peter,
No, I'm really not caught up to your defintions, yet, and I'm sorry. But, I do keep
reading over them, and meditating. And, I have to say, you've laid out a truly
important set of questions for us to tackle.
What's more, even while I have some real study and meditation I must yet
engage via your terms as laid out, I think I need to add another term into the mix
here, and that is "cure." I'll explain.
First, we know that in the final analysis, Freud did not believe in a cure for the
neuroses, just amelioration. For my part, I've always been deeply moved by the
humility of that. In serving humans, we do not seek perfection, rather progress.
But, the ideal of cure cannot so easily be put aside.
As we delve the term, the very medical model from which Freud came, as a
physician, rises back into question. Can the psyche be treated the same way any
other diseased organ can be? I doubt we have an absolute answer in, even yet.
But surely, the definition of therapy, and the line separating it from coaching,
would have to have some significant tie to the medical model and its ultimate
goal, cure.
But, can we say that in coaching we do not cure; or that we do not need the
medical model? Should coaches be taught the same model as therapists, as
physicians?
Few would argue, I suspect, that we should. But, what do we coaches do when a
"sick" person arives in our training room, willing to pay our fees? Do coaches
have an ethical obligation to draw a tight, strong, clean line about what they'll
tackle and what they'll refer on to a therapeutic or even a medical professional?
It's tempting to consider an athletic coach, splinting his performer's broken or
sprained leg. When is that service, and when is it malpractice? When should an
atheletic coach refer to a doctor, paramedic, or just call 911? When shouldn't he?
But sadly, the lines cannot be brought over cleanly, and that takes us right back
to the question of the psyche as an organ, or the soul as a spirit. Endless loop?
Maybe. But, maybe practice and pragmatism can help...a little anyway! In
practice, coaches do actually tend toward a positive mission of improved
performance, even victory. Sure, there are always problems to be solved, even
nightmares and demons to battle. But the goal of the trophy is something every

coach signs on for, regardless of context. I suspect therapists love trophies as
much as anyone, but that really is not their measure of success.
So, what does therapeutic cure look like, impossible though it may be in the
absolute? Why, low and behold, it looks like normality. Mabye we should call it
good normality since so many people find horrible lives their truly normal
condition. But, perhaps we can assign to therapy the pragmatic leaning of "fixing"
lives that have fallen out of their normal path.
In law, divorce law to be specific, the phrase, "lifestyle to which they've become
accustomed" is a very real, tangible and not particularly difficult one to establish
intellectually. Perhaps in therapy and coaching we can import some of that
clarity.
Perhaps a therapist's challenge is to help re-establish or gain normality, in a good
way, when its been lost or when failure to thrive, in that low level normal sense,
has occured. Perhaps the lifestyle to which we coaches can attach is that of the
battle for the next level of thrilling victory.
Yes, I'm certain a therapist is thrilled when he sees any gain, of any kind. I truly
don't mean to diminish the sister art. Yet, as an avowed coach, the lifestyle I'm
accustomed to enjoys a set of new victories that, no, do not equal a cure, but they
do, I suspect, differentiate my art.
What do you think?
Pasquale
13.
Hi Pasquale,
Would that all coaches would restrict their activities to lending high performance
to normal people then I think we would all be in agreement that there was a clear
line in the sand anf that Coaching and Therapy were clearly definable. I think you
have forestated the noble position that should be assumed by the title Coach...
However I can't see that happening if we are Coaching robbery and rape victims
who have clearly been deeply traumatized and have, due to that trauma, fallen
off the normal wagon so to speak.
We also have Coaches specializing in ADHD cases which are clearly not normal
behaviors but rather a mental illness...hence the term "Disorder" in the

acronym.........
This only makes the case for the need for some regulation along the lines of what
Coaching should be allowed to encompass before considering malpractice.
As I said before this will likely be settled in court and by insurance companies in
the end...
What I would suggest to all life coaches, until the industry is regulated that you
regulate yourselves and put clear verbage in your coaching contracts that
expressly states your intent and scope of improving performance rather that
treating the ill or dysfunctional...
If you leave yourselves open then when the first lawsuit happens you can expect
a chain reaction of investigations and lawsuits to ensue so my advice is to cover
thy backside past, present and future...
14.
Oh yes Pasquale,
Yes Jung was heavily influenced by the work of Freud as he was befriended and
mentored by him for many years.
However where Papa Sigmund got stuck focusing everything on sex and animal
nature, Karl went on to explore all of the other realms of human existence like
art, religions, cultures, mysticism, occult, the effects of ritual and symbols on the
psyche etc. He had an extremely open and inquisitive mind… I feel that is what is
required to find real truth…
I consider Karl Jung the Albert Einstein of the mind if you will as he applied a
theory of relativity across the human experience rather than across physics…;)
Sure sex is a primal force in all procreative beings but we are so much more than
that as human beings. Can you see sex I our art and religion and rituals? Of
course but is that all you see? Certainly not…
One could argue that if you have no air that breathing is the overriding sub-
conscious concern or if you have no food then eating becomes the king! If you
have plenty of sex it is the same as plenty of air or food… No doubt it’s a craving
but not the only one and certainly not in older men/women who are no longer
functional or hormonally inclined so to speak.

They still have loads of creativity and drive to do other things… Jung saw that
and saw the value in humanity’s creative and positive traits as well, not just their
animal or reptilian brain functions…
Freud was a brilliant man and his research no doubt has contributed to the
human existance in endless ways but Jung opened more doors to whar we are
evolving into and not just where we have been as animals...
And yes you are right, lets not bore everyone else with aour banter haha.
Cheers,
John ;)
15.
Hi John, I'm not sure how Freud and Jung seem to have taken over the
conversation here, but I can't say I'm sad they have! And, in my next posting, I'll
be talking about Freud yet again. He truly is a hero to me, of the very highest
order. Let me share a bit of information about his practice.
He met with clients, Monday - Saturday, 11 months out of the year. He had little
trouble after his first successes, in filling his caledar, and could only work with 8
clients at a time. Why? They met at the same time, every day, six days per week.
Imagine that. At first, he tried to take notes during sessions, but discovered that
it simply did not work. So, at the end of his 8 sessions, he invested an hour or two
in belated note taking every day, trusting most of the information to his
subconscious. He met with his circle once per week, in the evenning, but the
other evennings were when he did most of his writing. We know all this because
he reported it to us, himself. Awesome, no?
In fact, in his inner circle of analysts, they had a running joke about the Monday
"crust". Meeting six days per week, taking Sunday off, the patients would return
on Monday with greater resistance and regression than on any other day. The
phenomenon was so obvious to the analysts that they couldn't help but joke
about it.
I have to conclude, John, simply sharing that I do, lovingly, disagree with you
about the categories of Freud for the base instincts and Jung for the spirit. I know
this is commonly accepted, but to me acceptance and truth are, well, not always
correlated.
Thanks again for the great romp here. I repeat, no man's work has inspired my
own coaching practice more that Papa Sigmund, and for my part, I say honor to

him for what he created. I believe that just as Jacob and Esau descend from Isaac,
so also both therapists and professional coaches, in one way or another, descend
from Freud...including of course, Jung!
Pasquale
16.
I’ll begin my comments here, Peter, in response to two levels problem. This
posting will focus on the first, and next posting on the second.
The first problem level I found was that over the question of research-vs.-
analysis. The first several times I studied your definitions, my thought was that I
needed to go research the elements I did not know. Specifically, AC Grant-
Coaching, Stober-Coaching, and the source materials from Princeton and even
the Merriam Webster Dictionary. On that last tome, I was thinking that there
have to be many entities and texts that have struggled with these definitions, and
thus, the research project of dealing with these sources. But, upon my last (most
recent) reading, it dawned upon me that I carry definitions inside myself that I’ve
simply never analyzed before. To that end, I’ll go ahead and offer my own,
somewhat long-winded definitions right now. Sadly, I have to credit your work
above as having poisoned my definitions with your influence. Thus, you’ll find
your own themes repeated and I am, thereby, disallowed the slightest claim of
creativity or originality. Alas.
I do not propose them for technical value, nor for general acceptance. Rather, I’ve
simply come to believe that the important definition is the one we sign on for, as
opposed to the general or group definition, let alone a social or legal one. At least
for now. I’ll come back to the second level of problem after my two so-Peter-
influenced definitions here offered:
Pasquale’s candidates:
1. Therapy: a medical model based intervention, by trained and certified
professionals, to establish or re-establish psychological normality. The easy case
is where the abnormality has a medically definable basis, and the intervention
includes modification of physiological factors. The tough case is the “talking
therapy” dating back to Freud. It must be accepted that terms such as
“normality,” “treatment,” “cure” and even “therapy” will always be plagued by
fuzzy borders in the domain of “talking treatments.” Therefore, the boundary
separating therapy from such sister arts as coaching can never be made into a
thick (as opposed to a thin) line, or absolutely black and white.
2. Coaching: a training and mentoring art form built on the objective of attaining

improved performance, breaking previous boundaries and rising to new levels of
mastery in any performance field. Models for the practice come from every
endeavor, and root in the one-to-one relationship. Of course, there is group
coaching and training, but the coaching dyad is certainly the atomic unit of
coaching. The line separating teaching, instruction or training from coaching is
the fuzziest of all, as no good coaches do no teaching, and no good teachers do no
coaching. But, teaching may be generally considered to focus on the imparting of
new information and coaching may be generally considered to focus on the use
of accessible information, by way of improved efforts, to attain new performance
outcomes. Prime examples are the positive parent/child relationship, master
training of musicians, and the sensei/unsui relationship of Eastern Martial Arts.
Historical foundations may be found in the master/apprentice relationship in the
West, as well as in the Don system of British Higher Education and too many
other such examples to list. The group coaching model may be inspired by
virtually any and every team sport, as well as athletics instruction at all levels
from infancy forward.
In my next post, I'll discuss the problem and the gap you indicate.
17.
My two definitions offered above, we can now turn to your stated problem and
overlap. You bring up spectacular points. I wonder if the therapists would agree
with you that they focus on the past and present, not the future. If so, you’ve
offered one of the mightiest of lines possible. No coach would ever elect for the
past as his focus. Sure, we use the past, and we must. But, our focus is on the
future and the present. Again, if the therapists would sign off on this line, you
may have solved the problem as well as can be. I know I’d never thought of that
solution before, and I’m deeply impressed.
Muddying the waters back up, allow me to argue further in favor of the fuzziness
mentioned above, though. Let’s imagine that we coaches can box ourselves into
the present and future, and the therapists into the present and past. Ah, if we do
that (and I suspect we really should) I can promise you this. Therapy will be
improved by importing a greater coaching orientation toward the future, and we
coaches will be equally improved by better learning how to mine the past for its
present and future powers. Let me develop this point further.
If you ever ponder a picture of Freud’s consulting office (interesting term, no?),
such as you’ll observe in this link if you wish:
http://courses.washington.edu/freudlit/Freud.Office.JPG , you won’t be able to
miss the garden of objects and artifacts everywhere. They really were artifacts,
too. His avocation here reflected was to collect finds from archeological digs.
They were the hints and clues from the past that helped archeologists

(considered to be the most serious of true scientists, of course) in their mission
to literally unearth the past. Freud felt, as many would agree, that this is
mandatory if we are to understand the present. And, as such, they were his most
beloved metaphor for his art, which he of course thought of as a pure science. If
you’re interested further, this link shows the collection itself:
http://courses.washington.edu/freudlit/Antiquities.JPG .
I propose that we coaches will often find exactly the clues we need, in order to
explode present and future performance with our clients by a more historical
approach to understanding the entire story of our clients’ lives and work
histories.
Muddy waters being muddy, though, I ask, what coach would ever disavow the
term “dream” and for emphasis, dream for the future? Why, without it, we really
wouldn’t have a profession. I propose that T. H. White’s book title, of his famous
Arthur story (the inspiration for the Disney film called “The Sword in the Stone”)
is instructive. He terms Arthur “The Once and Future King.” Well, I propose that
our art is actually centered in exactly that. The dreams our clients share with us
and are driven by, truly are once and future dreams. They root into the past, but
of course, cover the future where they will be realized, or not, as a result of effort
in the ever-present moments, as they flow, of the continuous present.
Pasquale
18.
Don't think the therapists will sign off on that guys. You both look into the past to
identify issues and you both seek to modify future behavior.
The only line that can be defining here seems to be that of normality...
Does that excluse eccentricity? Wow that a tough one... Well If you were goint to
be honest about Coaching then you would have to say that you must start with a
"normal person" or if you will "a person that is able to function in society in a
normal and healthy way". That normal person would have to be seeking higher
performance in their profession or daily life or desirous of a more fufilling life
etc.
Of course this must then exclude ADHD folks as well a trauma victims whose
normality has been upset by a traumatic experience.
As to teaching and coaching... A coach teaches no matter what you say...
Subliminal teaching does count as teaching guys... If I show you how to balance a

ball on your finger I have taught you something. If I show you how to balance
your life or perspectives I have also taught you something. The Martial Arts
Master teaches repetative moves called Katas you learn by repetition... But
magically when you begin to spar you find yourself using those moves to block
and punch and kick your opponent... You have been taught at two levels without
realizing it as is the case with the teaching of all Masters oddly enough... I have
had things come to me years after being taught something by a master like a
flash of light everting becomes clear and it was because of a seed planted long
ago. Athletic coaches are much the same, they teach repetive exercises that will
develop inside athlete's as game skills, but the best ones also plant the seeds of
strategic critical thinking. Got Game?
19.
Carrie Nicolini
Founder/Certified Business Coach at CN Coaching, LLC
Coaching v's therapy?.... a coach is a coach....whether a business coach, a speech
coach, an acting coach or a sports coach....our goal, as a (effective) coach, is to
help the team (or individual) achieve the desired results/outcome they want. We
work with clients in a number of areas, in order to achieve this. In having said
that, it comes down to commitment, accountability, determination and
motivation.
A coach will acknowledge a client's past, in order to know how they got to where
they are today and identify areas where they may be stuck, perhaps due to past
circumstances, but we focus on the present and how to move them towards
creating, being, living the future they want for themselves/their business.
I think most will agree we all have our own unique way of accomplishing the
goals of our clients. They key is to keep the team in alignment with the results
they're working towards.
Just as there are various types of coaches, there are a variety of therapists who
also specialize in particular areas/fields, but I believe most will agree that a
therapist focuses on past circumstances, conditions or problems that may have
occurred and contributed to where a person is today. I would imagine, a
therapists primary goal is to help their client correct something that's gone
wrong (perhaps, only in their eyes) or acknowledge and cope with past
occurrances that may be preventing them from moving forward and living a
more fulfilling life.

WEST LOTHIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Comments (1)
1. Helen Campbell
Project Coordinator at Edinburgh University Settlement Homeopathy Project
Hi Pete,
The concept of therapy has as we know many different aspects but the success can well
founder on whether we separate the physical, mental and emotional aspects of the
individual when considering the individual. Talking of tools arises when a focussed
approach limits itself to particular approaches to the subject. Allopathic Medicine (eg GP
practice, chemotherapy, psychiatry) is therapy in its many sectors as also are the
alternatives (homeopathy, acupuncture, herbal medicine, osteopathy or chiropractic).
Within any subset there are further subdivisions - (eg CBT psychotherapy - you are
channeled there via the senior consultant)
Taken worldwide the range of therapies is vast. Currently there is raging an ongoing
battle between those who consider that only they are scientists as they isolate certain
symptoms in double blind trials (DBT) and those who would correlate all aspects of the
individual together. These scientists study separate factors to the nth degree and are
reluctant to acknowledge there are other possibilities. The alternatives are those who
consider we need to be holistic and observe the complete picture of an individual. Most
important element to my mind is whether mental, emotional and physical symptoms
are treated separately or together. Orthodox medicine so often separates these areas
whereas most of the alternatives take the whole picture. The fallacy of DBT is that it is
essential that everyone taking part starts from the same starting point - that is the
$64,000 question. I have treaed c 5,000 patients and they vary so much in their personal
history, their needs, their relationships that they need ,many different prescriptions.
Which brings us to coaching - which is usually focussed on the outcomes of business or
other enterprises or of very specific problems. The objective is to help us think more
effectively, deeply or help us be more at ease with ourselves and others and solve
problems perhaps change behaviours to interrelate with others
I am not aware of coaches medicating their clients as happens in the therapies of
orthodox and alternative medicine.
As a homeopath the most important function is to listen to what the individual
expresses is holding them back and give medication as part of the therapy in the
practice of homeopathic medicine. A homeopath sees a very close connection with
digestive problems or skin problems and when an individual is under stress - very
frequently caused by home relationships or perhaps the work environment.
Homeopathic medicine is a therapy but one which accepts that it is our energy balance
which is important and so often becomes critical when we are under stress.

Coaching v therapy Reply Compilation

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Coaching v therapy Reply Compilation

More from Peter Mackechnie

Coaching v therapy Reply Compilation