Coaching and Therapy:

Similarities and divergences*

Ernesto Spinelli

This paper considers critically the major similarities and differences between
coaching and therapy as presented by previous authors. In particular,
it considers Jopling’s contribution of the idea of a ‘fuzzy space’ between the
professions and argues that coaching psychology is particularly well placed to inhabit this ‘fuzzy space’.
Finally, the paper considers three major issues that provide pathways to both convergence and divergence
between the professions: contracting; the quality and type of relationship being engendered; and the inter-
relational stance.

Keywords: ‘fuzzy space’; contracting; relationship; inter-relational perspective.

HEN I FIRST BEGAN to explore many different conceptualisations of the

W the topic of the similarities and

differences between coaching and
therapy I did so almost entirely naive to the
term (Grant, 2006; Jackson, 2005; Lee, 2003;
Palmer & Whybrow, 2006; Peltier, 2001;
Vaughan-Smith, 2007). This situation reveals
great deal of work that had already been a set of circumstances all too similar to those
undertaken on this subject. So, in particular, with which therapy (a term which I will
I would like to acknowledge the writings of employ somewhat generically throughout
Peter Bluckert (2006); Tatiana Bachkirova this paper so as to include the related profes-
and Elaine Cox (Bachkirova & Cox, 2005; sions of psychotherapy, counselling and
Bachkirova, 2007); and Patrick Williams and counselling psychology) currently finds itself
Deborah Davis (2007). I also want to (Spinelli, 2001, 2006).
acknowledge the innovative research rele- Relevant to this point, it is of value to
vant to the debate that has been carried out note that, according to Evered and Selman,
by Angela Jopling, for her MSc dissertation the originally Hungarian ‘root meaning of
at the New School of Psychotherapy and verb ‘to coach’: [is] to convey a valued
Counselling, London (Jopling, 2007). When person from where (s)he is to where (s)he
considering all the points that these, and wanted to be’ (Evered & Selman, 1989, p.16
numerous other, authors have already raised as quoted in Van Kessel, 2006, p.393). This,
regarding the title topic it should be evident too, is not so different from the root
to one and all that my own contributions to meaning of therapy – therapeia – which refers
the debate will, at best, serve as extensions to the attempt to stand beside, or to be with
and elaborations of their work. another, in his or her endeavour (Evans,
As many authors and practitioners have 1981).
noted, although coaching is booming it Faced with such difficulties, various
remains unclear as to what kind of activities authors have avoided defining coaching in
the term refers (Van Kessel, 2006). No agree- terms of what it is, and instead have focused
ment on its definition has, as yet, been upon its overall aims (Downey, 1999; Grant,
arrived at. Indeed, there currently exist 2006; Jackson, 2005) For example, Timothy

* This paper is based on a keynote address given at the BPS Special Group in Coaching Psychology Annual
Conference on the 17th December 2007.

International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 3 No. 3 November 2008 241

© The British Psychological Society – ISSN: 1750-2764
Ernesto Spinelli

Gallwey has argued that coaching can best predominantly, if not exclusively, focused on
be defined as a way of working that contains positive aspects of personal growth and
within it ‘the art of creating an environment, development as opposed to therapy, whose
through conversation and a way of being, predominant, if not exclusive, focus rests on
that facilitates the process by which a person the disturbances and arrests in growth and
can move toward desired goals in a fulfilling development; therapy is usually cheaper (far
manner’ (Gallwey, 2002, p.177). Once again, cheaper!) than coaching; coaching, unlike
this is not so far from a decent definition of therapy, is not about fixing things but,
what therapy might be attempting to foster. rather, is concerned with enhancing what
In spite of such definition-based points already works reasonably well; coaching
which suggest at least some partial conver- concentrates its attention upon that part of
gence – however uneasy – between the two the population that would be categorised as
professional arenas, all manner of distinc- ‘normal’ as opposed to therapy’s focus upon
tions have been made by various authors and issues and questions related to ‘abnormal,
thinkers from both coaching and therapy deviant or pathological’ populations;
regarding the differences between the two coaching addresses and serves that part of
professions (Parsloe & Wray, 2000; Vaughan- society which might not make use of therapy
Smith, 2007). These include a variety of or which would regard the use of such
views which have been neatly summarised by services as a stigma; therapy concentrates on
Tatiana Bachkirova and Elaine Cox. They the client’s past whereas coaching is focused
write that these broad distinctions have on his or her future.
emphasised therapy’s focus as: While any or, indeed, all of these diverse
‘a remedial activity, working on problems views might at first seem attractive and useful
in the client’s personal and working life foci for distinguishing the two professions
(Carroll, 2003). Parsloe and Wray, for from one another, on reflection it becomes
example, distinguish the purpose of evident that all are problematic and open to
therapy as ‘problem or crisis-centred with any number of counter-examples and argu-
the emphasis on diagnosis, analysis and ment. For instance, let us consider the last
healing’ and which ‘might include point made above regarding the view that
testing, prescribed drugs, a focus on early therapy’s focus is primarily on the past,
life experience, involvement with other whereas coaching’s focus is principally upon
family members.’ (2000, p.12). They the future. My personal view, which I suspect
claim that therapy is theory driven. would be shared by many therapists regard-
Conversely, they describe coaching as less of the model or approach they espouse,
typically result or performance oriented is that it is a huge error to view therapy as
with the emphasis on taking action and as being predominantly past-oriented. More
sustaining changes over time and that it is correctly, I believe, therapy is concerned
used to improve performance in a with the living or presenting past – and, as
specific area, is more practice driven and such, is much more present attuned than
relies strongly on interpersonal skills.’ coaches usually understand it to be (Cohn,
(Bachkirova & Cox, 2005, p.2) 2002; Spinelli, 2007, Stern, 2004). And, in
In keeping with such stances, I recently addition, it seems to me that for coaches,
asked a group of coaching supervisees from too, a future-focus without any sufficient
the i-coach Academy for their perspective on present-attunement is likely to deeply
this issue. As well as rephrase a number of diminish both the value and the impact of
points summarised above, they added the their enterprise.
following: Therapy is currently more regu- In a general response to these attempts at
lated than coaching; therapy’s ethical clear-cut distinctions between the profes-
boundaries are more specific; coaching is sions, Bachkirova and Cox have highlighted

242 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 3 No. 3 November 2008

 Coaching and Therapy: Similarities and divergences

that one critical weakness in such an differences between coaching and therapy?
approach arises precisely because the diver- Possibly. But let us bracket such a conclusion
gences being proposed rest on the implicit for the moment.
assumption of a unified, if imaginary, type of Addressing this very dilemma in their
coaching as well as a unified, if imaginary, type paper entitled ‘A bridge over troubled water:
of therapy. In doing so, each profession is Bringing together coaching and coun-
attributed with some assumed general and selling’, Bachkirova and Cox (2005) focus on
uniformly acknowledged set of features what lies beyond or beneath the more super-
which can, with relative ease, be contrasted ficial, unresolved, or imaginary differences
with the competing profession’s uniformly between coaching and therapy. Instead, they
acknowledged features (Bachkirova & Cox, focus initially on that which might unite
2005). The weaknesses in this dubious coaching and therapy rather than upon
strategy are, I think, best summarised as those aspects which would substantially
expressions of what the existential philo- distinguish each profession. Paradoxically,
sopher, Paul Tillich, referred to as unreal ‘as this line of enquiry succeeds in extracting a
if’ assumptions that will always lead to false, number of significant and far less superficial
and experientially-limiting choices (Tillich, potential points of diversion.
1980). Put simply, if we accept that, rather Primary among these, they argue, is the
than uniformity, it is the themes of range and predominantly organisational context and
diversity that currently dominate both thera- focus of coaching which typically brings with
peutic and coaching models and approaches, it a double accountability required of
then it becomes particularly difficult to talk coaches – to the particular client and to the
in terms of a single arena or to propose organisation with which the client is associ-
unified set of similarities and differences. ated and which, as well, is likely to be
Related to this last point, it can be argued funding the coaching enterprise. This dual
that the dilemma being presented by this accountability is likely to create ethical
debate reveals difficulties that are not complications for coaches and coaching,
entirely dissimilar to those which arise when with which therapists are unlikely to contend
attempts are made to distinguish categories since therapy’s accountability, being more
such as, for example, ‘works of art’ from typically individualistically focused, is
‘non-art’ (or ‘rubbish’). The philosopher, commonly to the client alone. This is,
Nelson Goodman, addressing this very issue, I think, a relevant argument and I will return
proposed that, given the limitations of all to it below, albeit from a different stand-
previous attempts to arrive at a clear-cut point. Nonetheless, as a brief point of
distinction, it might be more constructive caution, it seems important to acknowledge
and revealing to ask the question ‘When is that the great many – and growing – number
art?’ as opposed to the more common ‘What of therapists who work in public services
is art?’ (Goodman, 1977). I will discuss below such as NHS must also deal with all too
why there may be some value in a similar similar organisationally-derived complica-
refocusing of the question with regard to the tions arising from dual accountability.
topic of our concern. However, it is critical to A second argument raised by Bachkirova
understand that in restating the issue from and Cox reminds us that therapy is built on
this alternate point of focus, it becomes various comprehensive, if competing, theo-
increasingly difficult, if not impossible, to ries regarding the mental, behavioural and
provide those who might wish for such with emotional life of human beings. Coaching,
fixed and secure definitional lines of demar- as a new profession, does not at present hold
cation between the contrasting categories. any elaborate theories about its practises and
Does this then imply that there is nothing the assumptions underlying them. Moreover,
at all that can be said about clearly-definable there is an argument made by some

International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 3 No. 3 November 2008 243

Ernesto Spinelli

coaching authors that exactly because of its if undesirable, convergence between thera-
practical focus, coaching does not require pists and coaches in general: namely, their
theories. Such views serve to remind us that shared tendency to be disinterested in both
‘[w]hilst there has been an exponential the doing of and the reading about research.
growth in practical coaching, the conceptual As has been noted by many before me, the
ground that coaching is built upon could be attitude adopted toward research by both
viewed as, at best, multi-disciplinary, and at counselling psychology and coaching
worst as atheoretical or even anti-theoretical’ psychology may be a crucial identifying
(Bachkirova & Cox, 2005, p.6). feature of both professions in relation to
At the same time, it needs to be acknow- their more broadly-termed counterparts.
ledged that all current attempts at coaching But, what is for me perhaps the most
theories are substantially indebted to a wide significant argument initially raised by
range of therapeutic models and discourse Bachkirova and Cox and subsequently
such that it is not too unlikely that whatever further elaborated by Bachkirova in a later
theories of coaching eventually evolve they paper (Bachkirova, 2007), stresses the need
will at the very least be partially founded to be clear about what type of coaching it is
upon existing models of therapy. Along that is being contrasted to therapy. ‘Develop-
similar lines to this last point, my own mental coaching, for instance, in contrast to
personal experience leads me to accept the performance coaching, is less focused on the
view that even within the currently all too specific performance-related behaviours. It is
evident paucity of theory in coaching, what more open to long-term and emerging needs
theories there are seem mainly derived from and aspirations of the client and so may
an (albeit all too often somewhat superficial) justify interventions that in performance
allegiance to, and understanding of, thera- coaching would be considered too open-
peutic or broader personality theories. ended and/or unnecessarily psychologically-
In like fashion, although coaches may deep’ (Bachkirova, 2007, pp.359–360).
not currently be able (or remain unwilling) The implications of this argument are
to call forth fully developed theories, they do clear: the more coaching moves toward the
maintain many assumptions regarding all developmental or transformational direction
manner of concepts such as growth, change, of its professional continuum, the less it can
development, and so forth which are signifi- be distinguished from therapy. Likewise, the
cantly beholden to therapeutic discourse. In more a coach works developmentally or
this, as with therapy, coaching may have transformationally, the more knowledgeable
inherited a predisposition toward what he or she ought to be of therapeutic
Jerome Kagan has labelled as ‘seductive discourse and practice – including the
ideas’ that rest upon insufficiently examined holding of sufficient understanding related
and often evidentially dubious but nonethe- to areas of psychological disorder and
less professionally pleasing biases (Kagan, disruption.
2000). More recently, the work of Alvin Such arguments remind us of
Mahrer examining the many questionable Goodman’s proposal regarding the re-
biases, assumptions and ‘pleasing’ notions framing of these questions away from a focus
maintained by therapists both with regard to on ‘what’ and toward an understanding of
their profession as a whole and to the ‘when’. But, in doing so, it would seem to me
specific issues regarding their research that this re-orientation forces us to enter
strategies has highlighted various critical what might best be termed as a ‘fuzzy space’
concerns to which coaches, and coaching- between coaching and therapy.
focused research, is also all too likely to fall The notion of ‘fuzzy space’ has been put
prey (Mahrer, 2000, 2004, 2006). Indeed, forward by Angela Jopling, a trained existen-
mention of research exposes another likely, tial therapist and an executive coach whose

244 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 3 No. 3 November 2008

 Coaching and Therapy: Similarities and divergences

work is mainly with middle- to senior-level coaching contracts are open and clear and
managers presenting a wide range of issues much more explicit than those typically
and concerns that fall into the develop- presented in therapeutic arrangements.
mental or transformational sub-categories of Jopling summarises the view that coaches
executive coaching. place more emphasis than do therapists
The idea of ‘fuzzy space’ being advocated upon the contract and are more likely to
by Jopling alludes to the notion of ‘fuzzy utilise it as a means of stating their preferred
logic’ which is concerned with the develop- methods; expectations of both of themselves
ment of a way of reasoning that emphasises and their clients; how the relationship is
approximations of distinction rather than structured; the roles and responsibilities that
fixed and precise differences between the coach and client will take on; and their
comparative sets of categories or criteria. flexibility and limitations as to when and how
From a linguistic standpoint, ‘fuzzy logic’ contact between coach and client will take
concerns itself with imprecise terms and place. In contrast, therapeutic contracts are
concepts and so addresses points of category more likely to concern themselves with the
resemblance and proximity. Perhaps most logistical and functional aspects of the thera-
significantly for this discussion, ‘fuzzy logic’ peutic relationship – matters of payment,
addresses the uncertainties inherent in many arrangements regarding absences and holi-
aspects of comparison and verification days, and so forth.
(Kosko, 1994). From the standpoint of the In my view, the issues surrounding
similarities and differences between contracting as expressed by Jopling’s co-
coaching and therapy, ‘fuzzy logic’ high- researchers raise a critical point of compar-
lights those demarcations that while impre- ison between therapy and coaching. This
cise, incomplete, unfixed or uncertain, comparison rests upon the degree of flexi-
nonetheless serve as the best means with bility within and between particular models
which to compare and contrast the two of therapy with regard to the necessary
professions. conditions under which therapy can occur.
In her MSc Dissertation, entitled ‘The This flexibility is concerned with any thera-
fuzzy space between psychotherapy and peutic model’s openness toward and ability
executive coaching’ (Jopling, 2007), Jopling to address and respond to such matters as
analysed a series of structured interviews variations in general ‘frame’ issues, amend-
carried out within a phenomenological ments to contracts and alterations in
research paradigm. Her co-researchers were meeting times, venue, and duration of
12 executive coaches, six of whom also prac- sessions as well as with issues related to the
tised as therapists. The focus of her investi- degree to which the meeting and alliance
gation rested upon the clarification of her established between therapist and client is
co-researchers’ experience and under- open to non face-to-face discourse such as
standing of instances of ‘fuzziness’ or ‘a fuzzy telephone or e-mail dialogues and so forth.
space’ between therapy and coaching while In addition, what this idea of flexibility also
engaged in the coaching process. The addresses is both the therapist’s and the ther-
analysis of Jopling’s interviews highlighted apeutic model’s openness toward and ability
various significant themes of distinction and to face directly, various relational issues such
divergence between the professions among as the client’s challenges to the therapist’s
which I want to emphasise two in particular (relative) anonymity, the possibility of dual
since these seem to me to be the most imme- or even multiple relationships and the
diately relevant to this discussion. degree to which the therapist will address
The first theme for our consideration matters of personal disclosure.
falls under the broad category of contracting. I would propose that those therapies that
Jopling’s co-researchers argued that are particularly rigid or inflexible with

International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 3 No. 3 November 2008 245

Ernesto Spinelli

regard to these concerns, in that their This may well be so, and may also high-
rigidity is itself a pivotal defining feature of light significant relationally-derived differ-
the therapeutic model or approach itself, are ences between the two professions. At the
unlikely to translate well within a coaching same time, my experience of working with
context. For instance, if it is a key defining coaches leads me to the view that coaches
characteristic of the model that therapy must are less at ease than are the majority of ther-
take place within the confines of a specified apists in addressing and working with the
space and location that is in no way coach-client relationship in its immediacy –
connected to the client and which is not whether in terms of impact upon the client
interchangeable with any other space or or with regard to its experiential relevance to
location, then such demands, no matter how the client’s presenting concerns. While
relevant they may be to the practice of coaches are usually quite capable in
therapy as understood by that particular addressing their client’s relationship to self
model are not likely to be maintainable and to external others such as members of
within a coaching context. Likewise, many the client’s organisation or family, the value
therapists (and professional therapeutic in exploring the impact upon the client of
organisations) would baulk at the idea of the coach’s own presence as an ‘other’
engaging in a therapeutic relationship with a (however different and similar he or she may
client whom they know personally or with be to the client’s broader experience of
whom they maintain a working relationship. others) often passes coaches by or is actively
In contrast, such instances of dual or minimised by them. Indeed, for many
multiple relationships between coaches and coaches this focus provokes deep unease and
clients are not uncommon nor typically is often perceived as being too close to, or
perceived as being problematic. As far as I entering into, the terrain of therapy.
am aware, a therapeutic model’s relative flex- Nonetheless, such views are beginning to be
ibility in translating itself to a coaching challenged by a growing number of coaches
framework – whether with regard to issues and coaching trainers. For example, in
relevant to its framework or in its assump- addressing this point, the coaching theorist,
tions and restrictions regarding matters of Peter Bluckert, has written: ‘the very
relationship – raises a potentially significant dynamics occurring in the coaching rela-
difference and divergence that has not been tionship may be a mirror image of clients’
sufficiently examined by either coaches or experiences in their workplace relationships
therapists. and they may be completely unaware of it’
Which leads us to the second theme (Bluckert, 2006, p.48).
which concerns itself with broader issues I would suggest that there is another,
relevant to distinctions between the equally pertinent, issue being raised here
coaching and therapeutic relationship. that, perhaps surprisingly, was first raised by
Jopling’s co-researchers tended to take the the existential philosopher, Martin
view that the coaching relationship, as a Heidegger, in his series of seminars with
whole, is much more balanced and egali- psychiatrists and psychotherapists
tarian than is its therapeutic counterpart. (Heidegger, 2001). Addressing the issue of
Once again, the question of disclosure of the therapeutic relationship, Heidegger gave
personal views and experiences by the coach central importance to the question: ‘Where
was raised as one instance of this attempt at and what am I when I am with you?’ and
developing a professional relationship of argued that its focus concern and implica-
equals as opposed to the more power-imbal- tions should be examined from the perspec-
anced, and at times infantilising, relation- tive of both client and therapist. As I
ship generated within a therapeutic setting. understand it, Heidegger’s query alerts us to
the understanding the ‘I’ who enters the

246 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 3 No. 3 November 2008

 Coaching and Therapy: Similarities and divergences

relationship – whether that ‘I’ refers to the Interestingly, while numerous therapists
client or to the therapist, or, indeed, the have grasped this point, and its significance to
coach - is already experientially different to the illumination of the client’s worldview in
the ‘I’ who inhabits the wider world. general and its currently dominant aspirations
Heidegger’s challenge proposes that it is and discontents in particular (Cohn, 2002;
useful to address this shift in one’s experi- Yalom, 1980; Spinelli, 2007; Stern, 2004),
ence of being first, in terms of ‘who am I coaches have tended to be somewhat reluc-
being when I am being here?’ and second, in tant, if not unwilling, to bring explicitly this
terms of ‘what is different about the I who is aspect of the coaching relationship into their
here rather than there?’ discourse and interventions with their clients.
In my own work as an existential thera- This reluctance in focusing upon those factors
pist, I have proposed that there may be that highlight the immediacy of the coaching
substantial value in considering the thera- relationship as being in itself as a crucial
peutic process as a co-creation by therapist means with which to address the client’s
and client of a unique and distinct ‘world’ presenting life-issues highlights, for me, a key,
(the therapy world) which they co-habit and if ultimately unnecessary, difference between
within which both the therapist’s and the the current practice of coaching and therapy.
client’s way of being and relating to self and More to the point, in avoiding or being naive
other can be distinguished, compared and to the significance of their own presence in
contrasted to their way of being and relating the coaching relationship, coaches, I believe,
to self and others in the ‘wider world’. bestow significant weaknesses and limitations
Further, I have suggested that much of what upon their enterprise.
emerges as therapeutically beneficial to On the other hand, I would also argue
persons can be directly related to the explicit that coaching offers a critical insight upon
and experientially-focused investigation of the relationship that much of therapy has
the similarities and contrasts in being and failed to grasp. As was discussed above,
relating gleaned from the direct experience coaching is intimately connected to organi-
of co-creating and co-habiting the ‘therapy sational structures, practises and concerns.
world’ (Spinelli, 2007). I would like to Just about every form and expression of
propose that a parallel process of clarifica- coaching requires some degree of under-
tion and illumination occurs in coaching standing of organisational discourse and
through the co-creation by client and coach ‘culture’. This, in itself, is likely to be pretty
of a co-habited ‘coaching world’. In this way, alien terrain to a lot of therapists. Similarly,
I suggest, Heidegger’s challenging question as was also raised above, this alignment to an
reveals its experiential pertinence for thera- organisational arena provokes questions of
pist and coach alike. dual accountability which for many thera-
Further, through this direct focus upon pists is also foreign territory.
the client’s experience of being in the current Without wishing to dismiss or diminish
relationship with either coach or therapist, such points, I would like to propose that
the aspirations or conflicts that have brought their critical significance rests upon a
the client to either the coaching or thera- broader implication raised by them. For, in
peutic relationship in the first place are likely placing coaching within a predominantly
to stand revealed precisely through the organisational context, coaching is also
client’s experience of ‘being with’ the coach adopting an inter-relational perspective that lies
or therapist. In this way, while still potentially at the heart of its primary discourse. In like
egalitarian in emphasis, the coaching rela- fashion, coaches and coaching trainers such
tionship, as with the therapeutic relationship, as Alan Sieler have sought to demonstrate
itself can become the primary instrument and that it is this very same inter-relational
focus of enquiry. perspective that provides a baseline

International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 3 No. 3 November 2008 247

Ernesto Spinelli

grounding in the clarification, challenge and this foundational assumption of relatedness

attempted resolution of the issues being that makes coaching so interesting and
brought by the client (Sieler, 2003). At the which perhaps highlights a key divergence
same time, it is important to note that this with not all, but certainly the majority, of
very relational foundation may prove to be therapeutic assumptions and practices.
problematic for a great many therapists So… what to make of this somewhat
whose competing foundational assumptions circuitous journey? Acknowledging its ‘fuzzy’
rest upon views of the individual as a qualities, let me nonetheless offer something
coherent, singular being understandable of what emerges for me: As Angela Jopling’s
from a set of intrapsychic processes and phenomenological study reveals, at least
functions (Spinelli, 2001, 2006). some coaches and therapists both experience
It is, I believe, this difference in emphasis and are able to identify a ‘fuzzy space’ which
between the inter-relational and the intrapsy- is neither pure coaching nor pure therapy. As
chic that reveals what may be the most signif- this paper has proposed, closer examination
icant general divergences between coaching of the various suggested differences between
and therapy. Of course, there is a ‘fuzziness’ therapy and coaching reveals that such differ-
here, too. Some therapists, and some models ences also largely inhabit a ‘fuzzy’ space
or approaches within therapy, have clearly rather than reveal clear-cut points of lasting
aligned themselves to inter-relational contrast and comparison. Indeed, my
perspectives. At the same time, many personal view is that, if anything, further
coaches do not, as yet, seem to have grasped developments in both professions will exac-
the potentially revolutionary implications of erbate or intensify that ‘fuzziness’ rather than
this relational foundation within their provide much clearer lines of demarcation.
approaches. This lack of understanding is My sense is that something that bridges
revealed by coaches in many different ways, therapy and coaching will evolve, indeed, has
not least by the still prevailing tendency on already begun to evolve. Whether it will still
their part to place a lot more significance be labelled as coaching or whether some new
and worth upon their skills and interven- term emerges, I don’t know, though I suspect
tions rather than upon the quality and explo- the latter in the long run.
ration of the relationship being fostered. My concluding proposal for you is that
Peter Bluckert alludes to this concern when coaching psychology both inhabits and
he states: ‘many of our trainee coaches begin expresses this ‘fuzzy space’. Indeed, this
with a strong tendency to look for the solu- fuzzy space and its exploration may perhaps
tion to the client’s problem in the external be the distinguishing feature of coaching
reality - the outer game. They eagerly race psychology. If so, it may place coaching
towards a practical set of actions before fully psychology at the forefront of what is to
understanding the complexities of the issue come.
in the first place’ (Bluckert, 2006, p.48).
Viewed in this light, coaching can Correspondence
perhaps be best distinguished from therapy Professor Ernesto Spinelli
in that it offers the potential for a significant ES Associates,
shift from the therapeutic (and broadly 69 Oglander Road,
cultural) tendency toward ‘the tyranny of the London SE15 4DD.
individual’. For me, personally, it is precisely E-mail: [email protected]

248 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 3 No. 3 November 2008

 Coaching and Therapy: Similarities and divergences

References
Bachkirova, T. (2007). Role of coaching psychology Kagan, J. (2000). Three seductive ideas. Cambridge,
in defining boundaries between counselling and MA: Harvard University Press.
coaching. In S. Palmer & A Whybrow (Eds.), Kosko, B. (1994). Fuzzy Thinking: the New Science of
Handbook of coaching psychology: A guide for Fuzzy Logic. London: Flamingo Books.
practitioners (pp.351–366). London: Routledge. Lee, G. (2003). Leadership coaching. London: CIPD.
Bachkirova, T. & Cox, E., (2005). A bridge over Mahrer, A.R. (2000). Philosophy of science and the
troubled water: Bringing together coaching and foundations of psychotherapy. American
counselling. Counselling at Work, 48, 2–9. Psychologist, 55(10), 117–125.
Bluckert, P. (2006). Psychological dimensions of executive Mahrer, A.R. (2004). Theories of truth, models of
coaching. Berkshire: Open University Press. usefulness. London: Whurr.
Cohn, H.W. (2002). Heidegger and the roots of existential Mahrer, A.R. (2006). The creation of new ideas: A guide
therapy. London: Continuum. book. Hay-on-Wye: PCCS Books.
Downey, M. (1999). Effective coaching. London: Orion. Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (2006). The coaching
Evans, R.I. (1981). Dialogue with R.D. Laing. psychology movement and its development
New York: Praeger. within the British Psychological Society.
Evered, R.D. & Selman, J.C. (1989). Coaching and International Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1),
the art of management. Organizational Dynamics, 5–10.
18(2), 16–32. Parsloe, E. & Wray, M. (2000). Coaching and mentoring:
Gallwey, W.T. (2002). The inner game of work: Practical methods to improve learning. London:
Overcoming mental obstacles for maximum Kagan Page.
performance. New York: Texere. Peltier, B. (2001). The psychology of executive coaching.
Goodman, N. (1977). When is art? In D. Perkins & New York: Brunner-Routledge.
B. Leondar (Eds.), The arts and cognition. Sieler, A. (2003). Coaching to the human soul:
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Ontological coaching and deep change. Newfield,
Grant, A. (2001). Toward a psychology of coaching. Australia: Newfield Books.
Accessed 7 Novemer, 2006, from: Spinelli, E. (2001). The mirror and the hammer:
www.psych.usyd.edu.au/psychcoach/ Challenges to therapeutic orthodoxy. London: Sage.
coaching_review_amg2001.pdf Spinelli, E. (2006). Demystifying therapy. Hay-on-Wye:
Grant, A. (2006). A personal perspective on PCCS Books.
professional coaching and the development of Spinelli, E. (2007). Practising existential psychotherapy:
coaching psychology. International Coaching The relational world. London: Sage.
Psychology Review, 1(1), 12–22. Stern, D.N. (2004). The present moment in psychotherapy
Heidegger, M. (2001). Zollikon Seminars: Protocols- and everyday life. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Conversations-Letters (trans: F. Mayr & R. Askay). Ltd.
Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Tillich, P. (1980). The courage to be (2nd ed.).
Jackson, P. (2005). How do we describe coaching? New Haven: Yale University Press.
An exploratory development of a typology of Van Kessel, L. (2006). Coaching, a field for
coaching based on the accounts of UK-based professional supervisors? Ljetopis SocijalnogRada,
practitioners. International Journal of Evidence 14(2), 387–342.
Based Coaching and Mentoring, 3(2), 45–60. Vaughan-Smith, J. (2007). Therapist into coach.
Jopling, A. (2007). The fuzzy space: Exploring the Berkshire: Open University Press.
experience of the space between psychotherapy and Williams, P. & Davis, D.C. (2007). Therapist as life coach
executive coaching. Unpublished MSc dissertation, (2nd ed.). London: W.W. Norton & Co Ltd.
New School of Psychotherapy and Counselling, Yalom, I. (1980). Existential psychotherapy. New York:
London, UK. Basic Books.

International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 3 No. 3 November 2008 249