Entrevista a Rafael Gustavo Parra Perea Sofía Ropón

How, then, can you develop these proficiencies if you wish to make this journey? Do you need to go off and train as a clinical or occupational psy- chologist? Should you sign up for a diploma programme in counselling or therapy? Will attendance on some weekend workshops supplemented by some focused reading do the job? Will accreditation courses to deliver psy- chometric processes or a training to assess emotional intelligence be enough? At present many coaches, both experienced and novice, are searching around to find developmental experiences to fill gaps of which they are acutely aware in their knowledge, practice and personal development. The proficiencies outlined in this chapter can take a lifetime to develop to a high level. There is no quick fix or wonder course that can equip people to work professionally in the psychological domain of coaching. Nor should there be. The journey to deeper self-knowledge and psychological competence takes a long time. Slowing down and savouring the journey is probably the wisest and ultimately most satisfying approach.

In the next chapter I look at the whole question of developing as a coach across all the higher level competency categories. As part of this exploration I will present a number of vehicles through which you might develop your psychological competency for coaching and address your own personal and professional development issues.

Introduction

As a provider of advanced coach training I am regularly contacted by new and experienced coaches alike who are looking for appropriate coaching devel- opment for themselves. They often use the word ‘minefield’ to describe what they perceive to be the coach training marketplace. Those who have taken their research seriously report their utter confusion and frustration with what appears to be an anarchic state of affairs. There are some providers claiming to train world-class coaches in 3 to 5 days, others suggest that postgraduate programmes of one to three years are the real thing, and everything else in between. Some programmes are workshop based. Others are delivered as distance-learning packages through electronic communication. The struc- ture, content and approach of programmes vary enormously as does the background of those delivering them, ranging from internationally known academics to management development trainers.

This, of course, is one of the products of an unregulated field with, as yet, no commonly agreed professional competency frameworks, standards, theory or positions on good practice. The field is rapidly moving towards this but still has some way to go. In the meantime those looking for bona fide coach training will continue to go round the same maze.

There are four aspects to a training and development framework for professional coaching: 1 Theoretical development 2 Practice/skill development 3 Personal development 4 Professional development

1 Theoretical development

Having spent many years training and developing coaches and consultants it is crystal clear that people have different reactions to theory. Some love it and eagerly arrive at training sessions hoping to glean that new insight or con- nection. Others see it as a necessary evil and give far greater weight to practice and skill development. Coach trainers, however, cannot afford to dilute the

theoretical side of coach development if coaching is to present itself to the world as a valid professional activity. Good practice needs to be founded on solid thinking as well as proven training methods.

So where does coaching look for its theory? In the past the main sources have been psychology – organisational and consulting psychology on the one hand and sports psychology on the other. More recently it has borrowed concepts from psychotherapy and counselling. Other important sources have been theories of adult learning, organisational development, and manage- ment and leadership theory. Ideas and concepts emerging from personal success literature, the self-help books on how to change your life in easy steps, have also found their way into coaching, particularly life coaching.

Coaching theory could be said to be an amalgam of thinking from other disciplines. But does coaching have any of its own? I believe it does and that we are likely to see a growing body of theory emerging from the coaching field as it matures. Historically, Gallwey’s inner and outer game coaching is a prime example of landmark thinking that has had a significant influence on the way coaching is understood and practised.

Best fit psychological framework?

The question of whether one particular psychological framework is the best fit for coaching already occupies the minds of a number of practitioners and academics, and coaching approaches are emerging based on many of the most recognised schools such as psychodynamic, cognitive behavioural, Gestalt and constructive-developmental psychology. If coaching reflects a similar trend to psychotherapy and counselling then it is likely that a strong claim will be made that cognitive-behavioural psychology is the psychology of preference for coaching. This would not be to everyone’s liking, nor would everyone agree with it, and we can expect to hear practitioners from psy- chodynamic, person-centred, Gestalt and constructive-developmental back- grounds all making their own powerful cases.

The arguments will increasingly be framed in academic terms and sci- entific research will be used to justify the propositions being made. This will inevitably produce an uneven playing field as some of the psychological frameworks mentioned above have been slow or even reluctant to investigate their own outcomes using traditional academic methods. They therefore have little to offer up when the academic debates occupy centre stage.

However I think there is a completely different question that precedes the schoolism arguments. That question relates to the critical factors outlined in Part 1 concerning coaching principles, process, the coach’s competence, the relationship and the client. It is quite possible that these will turn out to be every bit as important to successful coaching outcomes as the specific model, psychological or not, the coach works from.

In time we will have research to tell us, but in the meantime I think a useful way of viewing psychological frameworks is that the coach is probably better off with one than without one. Secondly, your practice is likely to improve if you become genuinely knowledgeable and skilled in that frame- work. This is not, however, an argument for a ‘one-framework-only’ approach. Many coaches are eclectic and prefer to draw on concepts from several psychological models.

The coach-training business may become increasingly differentiated in the future, with providers specialising in programmes with a psychodynamic, Gestalt or cognitive-behavioural focus. There would be some value in this but personally I hope that we see a more integrative approach where coaches-in- training are exposed to ideas and concepts from a wide range of psychological traditions. A move to a more prescriptive situation could stifle creativity and polarise the field.