19) I will respect the client’s right to terminate the coaching relationship at any point during the process, subject to the provisions of the agreement or contract. I will be alert to indications that the client is no longer benefitting from our coaching relationship.
20) I will encourage the client or sponsor to make a change if I believe the client or sponsor would be better served by another coach or by another resource.
The ICF Code of Ethics is instructive for the coach engaged in a dual or multiple relationship with a client. The contemplation of a dual or multiple relationship between coach and client is evident in Paragraph 11, which addresses the topic of bartering. The coach is responsible for recognizing even the potential for a conflict of interest, and is charged with the responsibility of resolving same.
Paragraph 20 calls for a coach to encourage a change in coach or resource where a situation warrants. In certain instances, a change could be warranted based upon a dual or multiple relationship between coach and client that no longer allows for productive coaching to continue. In other instances, a coach may need to suggest an alternate resource in the form of a therapist, particularly if the client is evidencing emotional or mental instability to the point where he or she is prohibited from his or her own goal setting and/or strategic planning.
Life Coaching and Therapy
In “Distinctions Between Coaching and Therapy” (International Association of Personal & Professional Coaches Newsletter, Oct. 1995), C.J. Hayden & Laura Whitworth, CPPC, cite several characteristics shared by the therapy and professional coaching professions, including the on-going, confidential, one-on-one relationship between the professional and his or her client; a desire for change on the part of the client; and the assumption by the professionals that significant change will require time. Hayden and Whitworth also deftly identify fundamental differences between the two professions in
the context of the relationship, condition of the client, and content of the sessions.
A pertinent partial summary from the article follows in chart form:
Coaching |
Therapy |
|
Models or Paradigms |
Sports training and coaching;Business skills training and performance development coaching;Personal growth seminars;Self-mastery disciplines and practices | Medicine and healing |
Works with people who are |
Eager to move to a higher level of functioning;Seeking focus, strategy, and motivation;Asking how to questions; Designing their future, learning new skills, and seeking more balance in their lives | Psychologically dysfunctional in a quantifiable way;Seeking self-understanding;Asking why questions;Dealing with old issues, emotional pain, or traumas;Seeking resolution and healing |
Approach |
Begins with the premise that the client is whole;Refers individuals with prolonged depression, severe anxiety, phobias, harmful addictions, and destructive or abusive behavior patterns to mental health professionals;Primary focus on actions and the future;Oriented toward solving problems through action;Works mainly with the conscious mind; |
Typically directs the client to return to actionBegins with the premise that the client needs healing;Treats individuals with prolonged depression, severe anxiety phobias, harmful addictions, and destructive or abuse behavior patterns, as well as other conditions; Primary focus on feelings and history;Oriented toward exploring the psychic roots of problems;Works to bring the unconscious into consciousness;Often directs the client to go deeper into feelings
Process
Focused on learning and developing potential;Main tools include accountability, inquiry, requesting, goal-setting, and strategic planning;Deals mainly with external issues; Looks for external solutions to internal blocksFocused on healing and restoring function;Main tools include listening, reflecting, confrontation and interpretation;Deals mainly with internal issues; looks for internal resolution
Relationship & Structure
Alliance designed jointly by coach and clientNature of alliance largely designed by therapist
The American Counseling Association (“ACA”) states in its Code of Ethics that nonprofessional relationships between counselors and their clients are to be avoided, the exception being when the interaction is potentially beneficial to the client. This applies not only to clients, but to former clients; the romantic partners of former clients; and the family members of former clients. Examples of potentially beneficial interactions include attending a formal ceremony; a hospital visit to an ill family member; and mutual membership in a professional organization.
To the extent that a counselor recognizes a potential benefit to a client in the nonprofessional interaction between the counselor and that client, the counselor is advised to first obtain the client’s consent. The counselor must then
document in case records, prior to the interaction (when feasible), the rational for such an interaction, the potential benefit, and anticipated consequences for the client or former client and other individuals significantly involved with the client or former client.
In cases where unintentional harm results from the nonprofessional interaction, the counselor is required to show evidence of any attempt to remedy said harm.
Despite the sharing of certain characteristics between therapists and coaches as outlined in the chart above, the position on nonprofessional interactions taken by the ACA as depicted in its Code of Ethics serves to highlight the differences in the two professions. The avoidance of nonprofessional relationships between therapists and their clients ostensibly has at its root the quantifiable psychological dysfunction of a client who needs healing, and the potential threat of unintentional harm by a nonprofessional interaction between therapist and client. Where a typical coaching client is whole and reasonably free from dysfunction and the alliance between coach and client is a co-creative relationship focused on the self-propelled movement forward by the client (as opposed to the focus on healing and restoration of function), nonprofessional relationships between coach and client ought not to be prohibited.
The risk of harm or exploitation is far greater in the relationship between therapist and client than in the relationship between coach and client. The imbalance of power between a therapist who designs the healing process when working with a client who is psychologically dysfunctional in a quantifiable way differs greatly from the coach involved in a co-creative process with the client who is in generally good mental health.
Although the risk for exploitation of a client is far less for a coach than for a therapist, a coach must remain diligent in the balance of dual relationships with clients and remain accountable for any potential harm to the clients.
Experiences Shared by ICA Colleagues
Madeline C., [2] a student from ICA, shared an experience about her concurrent relationship with a friend whom she coached for a while. Madeline cited her greatest challenge to be when, once the coaching sessions had stopped, the friend continued to seek out Madeline’s professional coaching services for free under the umbrella of their friendship. Madeline reported that the situation ultimately hurt both the friendship and the coaching relationship.
Tim K. was involved in a concurrent dual relationship with the sister of a good friend, for whom he provided coaching services over the telephone. When asked to name his greatest challenge during the concurrent dual relationship, Tim replied:
Because there was such familiarity already there were some personal things exchanged that may not have happened in a different coaching relationship. I had some big things going on in my life and though I shared very little with her she would ask about them. My challenge was to be personal without it interfering with the coaching process or taking time from our calls.
Tim did add that the fact that his client had known him for some years, and saw the transformation he made in his own life in areas in which she sought specific help, was a benefit.
Roberta R., who needed some experience coaching an external client, offered the wife of her husband’s friend twelve complimentary one-hour sessions. The external client was committed to the process, as was evidenced by her regular attendance and full engagement during the sessions. After the twelve free sessions, the external client, pleased with the progress she had made with Roberta, felt she still had some work to do, and purchased three additional sessions as a reduced rate. One year later, coach and client continue to exchange pleasant communication on occasion. They intend to make plans to get together with their husbands for dinner sometime, and share the understanding that should the client ever need additional coaching, Roberta will be there for her in the dual and professional capacity of coach.