What is “Coaching”?

There is an even more disturbing evidence-based challenge to take into account. What exactly is “coaching”? How do we know if coaching has had an impact when we are not even sure what coaching is (and is not)? Even if we have a fairly clear idea of what professional coaching is and is not (for instance, using the ICF definitions) at another level we must ask: what are the different types of coaching and how do we know when one kind is operating—either because the coach is espoused this specific type or because we can observe this type being enacted? (Argyris and Schön, 1974)

I would propose that a coaching taxonomy is one of the building blocks needed for the foundation of evidence-based coaching. This taxonomy must include not only a set of distinctions between different types of coaching, but also a consistent way of framing these distinctions. The taxonomy can’t simply be an assemblage of coaching schools and philosophies that seem to differ in some important way from one another (or at least purport to differ from one another). It must be based on some underlying model of human behavior that brings coherence to the field.

I worked with several of my colleagues (Suzi Pomerantz and John Lazar) on a taxonomy several years ago that was based on the traditional psychological framework of affect (emotions), cognition (thoughts) and connation (behavior). (see copy of taxonomy in Appendix A) While this taxonomy inadequately addresses all of the many forms of coaching now operating, it does offer some coherence. Furthermore, in this taxonomy we tried to identify the kind of coaching issues most often effectively addressed by each type of coaching. This taxonomy – or one that vastly improves on this one – could provide the blueprint in building a foundation for evidence-based coaching practices. At the very least, assessments could be done to determine in a preliminary manner if each type of coaching really is most effective in working with a specific set of coaching issues—provided, of course, that we recognize the challenge of conducting assessment in a messy environment.