Coaching under scrutiny

I've just finished reading 'Smile or Die' by Barbara Ehrenreich, a damning indictment of the growth of the 'positive thinking' movement in the USA.  In her analysis she includes criticisms of positive psychology and also of coaching.  Some of her book made uncomfortable reading, some of it I disagree with and some of it I thought was long overdue in being said.  Obviously, I work in the coaching industry, so I've already got a view (and a vested interest), but nevertheless, it is a good discipline to read books like this, if only to hone your skills or to enhance your reflective practice.  Ehrenreich is matter-of-fact and to the point.  I like her directness.  I would love to meet her and talk with her because I think she would 'tell it like it is' and  in doing so, thoroughly test your own thinking.  Some of her criticisms are levelled at the industry, its overblown claims and its lack of evidence base.  Other criticisms are more about the potential harmful effects it can have on individuals, such as creating unrealistic hopes and expectations, developing motivation without capability and a failure to address the impact of an individual's circumstances on their opportunities.

Coincidentally, two papers covering the same topic were published in OP Matters (BPS, No 17, November 2012).  Rob Briner's paper ('Does coaching work and does anyone really care?') shows up a number of potential weaknesses in the coaching profession.  It has a relatively low 'entry point' (anyone can call themselves a coach), there is a lack of regulation in the industry and even a failure to agree what coaching is/is not.  There are serious ethical implications due to this lack or regulation and it also highlights his main point, that of efficacy.  There is a lack of rigorous studies based on sound methodologies (eg randomised controlled trials) and the evidence for the positive effects of coaching is, therefore, open to criticism.  Vicky Ellam-Dyson's paper ('Coaching psychology research:  Building the evidence, developing awareness') is an attempt to balance some of these criticisms, for example, highlighting the difficulties of carrying out 'robust' research in applied settings.  I can also hear the humanists start to respond with 'To submit coaching to empirical research methods is to miss the point that coaching is experiential, subjective and it is the study of meaning that is important').  I have some sympathy with this view but I also support the idea that if coaching (or one-to-one work in general) is to be seen to be credible, we need to establish a much firmer evidence base, which goes beyond self-reports of either coach or coachee.  'Do what works' is no longer enough of a rationale.  We also need to be ready to subject ourselves to tougher, industry-wide standards, a code of ethics and regulation.  Coaching is about to get tougher and I don't mean for the coachee.