OTHER MODELS OR PROCESSES AS MENTIONED IN THE LITERATURE

Besides the aforementioned models, there are several other, less well-known, processes and frameworks that are used in coaching.

ACHIEVE Coaching Model:  This is a seven-step model developed by Dembkowski and Eldridge (2003). It includes the following steps: (a) Assess current situation, (b) Creative brainstorming of alterna-tives to current situation, (c) Hone goals (i.e., helping the client to formu-late goals), (d) Initiate options (i.e., helping the client to initiate a wide range of behavioural options to achieve the desired goal), (e) Evaluate options, (f)  Valid action programme design (i.e., collaboration of the coach and the coachee to develop an action plan), (g) Encourage momen-tum (i.e., ongoing process of providing encouragement and helping the client to keep on track with the plans).

POSITIVE model by Libri (2004), is a model developed from the GROW and ACHIEVE models. It aims at producing an ‘optimum coaching

relationship’ and includes asking key questions around: (a) The Purpose of the coachee, (b) Observations (e.g., of efforts up-to-date), (c) Strategy, (d) Insight (e.g., on commitment to a goal), (e) Team (e.g., with whom the coachee will share his/her goal), (f) Initiate (e.g., when the coachee will start to act towards achieving a goal), (g) Value (e.g., question how the coachee would celebrate his/her success), and (h) Encourage (e.g., asking about the coachee’s progress on the pursuit of his/her goals) (as cited in Edgerton and Palmer, 2005).

LASER process. This is a coaching process developed by Lee (2003) (cited in Edgerton and Palmer, 2005), which includes five (not rigidly linear) stages: Learning, Assessing, Story-making, Enabling, and Reframing.

Traditional problem-solving models, such as Wasik’s (1984) seven-step problem-solving sequence and accompanying questions that practition-ers and particularly coachees can ask themselves. These include (as cited in Edgerton and Palmer, 2005):

1. Problem identification: What is the concern?

2. Goal selection: What do I want?

3. Generation of alternatives: What can I do?

4. Consideration of consequences: What might happen?

5. Decision making: What is my decision?

6. Implementation: Now do it!

7. Evaluation: Did it work?

SPACE model (Edgerton and Palmer, 2005) is used in the cognitive behav-ioural approaches to coaching and is the acronym for the following elements: Social context, Physiology, Action, Cognition, and Emotion.

SPACE can be used in parallel with GROW and POSITIVE to help coa-chees overcome psychological blocks associated with particular prob-lems or issues (including performance-related issues).

The Three Principles Psychology (TPP) is another leadership devel-opment approach used in EC and executive training (Polsfuss and Ardichvili, 2008). TPP is a ‘a psycho-educational approach that is based on the assumptions that (1) people have an innate wellspring of psychological well-being from which to draw, and (2) anyone can realize that and live from a healthy, wise, balanced state of mind, regardless of the “stressors” and external circumstances encountered over time’ (Sedgeman, 2005:  48, quoted in Polsfuss and Ardichvili, 2008: 672). TPP is based on three constructs:  mind (‘acknowledged as the foundational source of experience and of Consciousness and Thought’), consciousness (i.e., ‘the ability of Mind to know experience and know how experience is created’), and thought (i.e., ‘the ability of Mind to originate specific experiences’) (Polsfuss and Ardichvili, 2008: 672).

According to Mills and Spittle (2001; see Polsfuss and Ardichvili, 2008: 673), the TPP approach suggests that by understanding the way in which experience is created, people can be helped to live in a state of peace of mind, well-being, love, and wisdom. As a result of this understanding, ‘one finds oneself living at a new, more functional level and more optimal state of mind’ (Polsfuss and Ardichvili, 2008: 673). The application of TPP in coaching includes: con-ceptual information, reflection, learning experiences, homework, small and large group discussions, and ample break time for absorbing the material (see Polsfuss and Ardichvili, 2008).

The adventure-based approach is another method proposed by Kemp (2006) as appropriate to coaching, since ‘both seek to press the bounda-ries and explore new frontiers and horizons’ (Ives, 2008: 102) and both are guided by the same logic of analysing the present state, setting out a desired destination, and developing the means to reach the destination (ibid.). Kemp (2006) argued that this approach includes some risk and uncertainty, that of psychological injury, since it requires from coachees to move ‘to the edge of their physical or psychological comfort zone’ and ‘it is out of this risk that personal growth occurs’ (Ives, 2008: 102). Kemp’s (2006) adventure-based coaching approach requires that the participant tests his cognitive, behav-ioural, and emotional competence and effects change through the subject’s formulation of new behavioural responses to situations (Ives, 2008: 102).

Eye movement desensitization reprocessing (EMDR) has been devel-oped by Shapiro (1989; 1995) and initially was introduced as a method of rapid treatment for anxiety and traumatic stress. In Shapiro’s (1989) study it was observed that after an initial EMDR session, participants experi-enced a decrease in distressing symptoms and over time they described a perceptual shift (‘reprocessing’) and were able to stop blaming themselves for traumatic incidents, come to terms with them, and move on with their lives (Foster and Lendl, 1996: 155). It has been suggested that EMDR can enhance performance in the workplace. According to Foster and Lendl (1996), the authors have pioneered the use of EMDR in coaching and found that it can help individuals to reach optimal performance within the busi-ness context. See Foster and Lendl (1996) for a discussion of four case stud-ies of participants who had coaching interventions with EMDR. EMDR is based on the following mechanism: eye movements trigger a neurological mechanism that activates accelerated information processing (Foster and Lendl, 1996: 156). It produces a shift of a person’s view and unusual access to memories (ibid.). EMDR is able, on the one hand, to activate rapid infor-mation processing through a dual focus on past events and present stimuli, and, on the other hand, sets in motion a desensitization process (by pairing a relaxation response with the upsetting stimuli). Although eye movements are its ‘hallmark’, EMDR, as a clinical method, includes the following eight

stages (Shapiro, 1995, in Foster and Lendl, 1996: 156–7): (a) client history and case formulation; (b) preparation of the client, (c) assessing and delin-eating the components for reprocessing, (d)  desensitization of upsetting material, (e) ‘installation’ of the new positive cognition, (f) assessing the client’s physiological state after the processing, (g)  closure of the EMDR session, and (h)  re-evaluation of intersession emotions, cognitions, and behaviours. From the case studies presented by Foster and Lendl (1996) it appears that positive results can be achieved within a very short period of using the EMDR method (e.g., in one case it only took a 120-minute session to produce change).

According to Foster and Lendl (1996), since it is a physiologically-based coaching process, EMDR is more independent of the time constraints that verbal interventions such as traditional psychotherapy or consultative coach-ing have. However, other than the article by Foster and Lendl (1996), there appears to be no other EC study that refers to the use of this technique in EC, neither any further well-grounded, in-depth empirical research that tests its impact.

As a summary of Chapters 2 and 3 (3.4 in particular), it should be noted that the EC theoretical approaches and the EC frameworks presented here are not competing, but rather complementary. They can be used in differ-ent combinations depending on each coach’s style, each coachee’s needs, and the contextual idiosyncrasies of the EC intervention. The following examples drawn from the literature review indicate this:

• Kilburg (1995 and 1996) presented a complex seventeen-factor model of systems and psychodynamics.

• Laske (1999b: 139) notes that although many coaches follow a cognitive–

behavioural approach, at times this is also extended to include psychody-namic assumptions.

• Peel (2005) suggests the integration of a behavioural approach and learn-ing theories into a behavioural learnPeel (2005) suggests the integration of a behavioural approach and learn-ing theory for the development of effective coaching practice.

• Ennis et al. (2008a) use a systems-oriented EC approach, but also com-bine this with the competency model and note particularly the impor-tant role that emotional intelligence competencies play in how effective an executive coach can be (Ennis et al., 2008b: 71).

• Passmore (2007b: 68) proposes an ‘integrative coaching’ which entails work at multiple levels with coaches (behavioural, cognitive, and uncon-scious), having as a central premise the building of a coaching partner-ship and the use of emotional intelligence theories.

• Visser (2010) suggested combining the systems framework with the behavioural perspective into one behavioural systems approach.

3.5 Key Learning

• Coaching in organizations can be conducted either by external professional coaches or by internal coaching services. Each method has its pros and cons. Issues relating to trust and confidentiality are more at risk in the case of internal coaching.

• EC is a tripartite agreement between the coach, the sponsoring organization, and the coachee.

• Behavioural contracting is an important part of the EC intervention since it is the stage in which all three parties agree on expectations and outcomes.

• EC is a process that involves a set of steps, which appear in some variations across the EC literature, yet follow the logic of: introduction (contracting, setting the foun- dation of the intervention, etc.), assessment of the individual, developmental plan-ning, implementation, and (ideally) follow-up after the implementation.

• The duration of the EC intervention and frequency of sessions vary. Typically the intervention runs for at least six months, however, there are EC interventions that may take place within a few consecutive days (e.g., as part of an executive educa-tion programme).

• There are numerous coaching frameworks and tools which are complemen-tary, rather than competing, and are being combined along with the coaching approaches presented in Chapter 2 and applied accordingly by the coach depend-ing on the client’s needs and the coach’s preference and expertise.

Executive Coaching