The Hidden Agendas of Person-Centred Coaching

Photo by Jonathan Gallegos on Unsplash

Person-centred coaching is, arguably, one of the pillars of the industry. It’s non-directive, non-judgemental, it’s empathetic and safe. It’s essentially the moral high ground, favouring acceptance and presence over intervention. If the client is trusted, growth will emerge organically. Sounds perfect…in theory. In practice the success of the method may be in the level of psychological maturity, something than many adults have never had the support to develop. And for a coach, what if unconditional acceptance is less an act of respect, but a quiet refusal to engage with complexity?

Research by Bachkirova and colleagues approach this topic through Adult Development Theory, that all adults develop psychologically differently, having unique personality types, preferences and learning styles and this poses the question: can one coaching philosophy be applied to any client ethically? From this stance, person-centred coaching starts to look less inclusive and more selective. Humanity suffers from individual differences, people’s ability to make meaning fundamentally differs from person to person; so it cannot face a one size fits all solution.

Development is not democratic; we do not all experience reality in the same way. Some people organise their lives through belonging and approval, other around achievement and others around ongoing transformation…and some all of those at once. A person-centred approach assumes the client can reflect on their own assumptions, take responsibility for their own meaning-making and generate insight from inquiry. Unfortunately, these capacities are not evenly distributed. A coach offering indirect practices to a client who is engaged in societal norms, structure and expectation may be left feeling confused or in a state of stagnation, not empowered. Freedom without developmental capacity can feel like abandonment.

The risk posed for coaches is the lack of engagement produced by over-empathising. Less challenge, honouring the client’s worldview and never disturbing it, forgetting that imposing and intervening are not synonymous. Development does not happen in comfort, but at the edge of what someone can make sense of.

In some instances, person-centred coaching will be incredibly successful, but this is the case for clients who already know how to reflect. Others need supplements, structure, challenge, or even gentle direction. Successful coaching is not necessarily dependent on one technique, but the ability to adapt to different levels of requirement.

The uncomfortable truth, and maybe why this technique is so often used, is that a non-direct approach protects the coach as much as it does the client. It allows them to remain ethically sound, professionally safe and unexposed. In the event a client’s growth appears to stall, the answer can simply be ‘they weren’t ready’, or when tensions arise, a coach can retreat into empathy instead. It allows lack of transformation to be blamed on the system, not the coach.

The beneficial application of person-centred coaching actually lies in the coach’s ability to diagnose without labelling, to challenge without inserting a hierarchy and to meet the client exactly where they are instead of assuming otherwise because the system says so. Coaching is a developmental relationship, not a facilitative one. When a coach operates from a different stage of meaning-making to the client, asymmetry is created, and that must be adjusted between clients. This does not mean that coaching must be transformed into therapy, teaching or management, but that the work of a coach must be adaptable to each client.

This research extends beyond coaches, to leaders, parents, into friendships or partnerships. Demanding more autonomy from those without the scaffolding to hold it will not encourage growth, but stagnate it. How often do we hide behind respect in the avoidance of discomfort? When everyone experiences reality differently, how can one approach be the most suitable?

The person-centred approach is very effective, but it needs readdressing; it’s ethical but insufficient on its own. Growth requires friction and care can sometimes require direction. Respect may look like a conflict in a person’s best interest.

What Adult Development Theory maps cognitively, depth psychology approaches symbolically; many client behaviours are not accessible through conscious reflection. Articulated goals and narratives mask the unconscious defences and inherited patterns. A purely person-centred stance assumes that insight will arise through awareness alone, but in actuality, when the unconscious is unchallenged it remains silent, and resists emergence. The psyche protects itself, disguising fear and conviction and wounds as values. It rebrands stagnation as authenticity. The shadow does not dissolve through empathy, it waits. Growth does not only occur from being seen but by being disrupted, when the unconscious is subtly mirrored or symbolised so it can loosen its grip. Empathy opens the door but it does not guarantee movement, individuation, the connection and acceptance of all parts, is what allows someone to move forward.

For the full article published in the Philosophy of Coaching: An International Journal, Vol. 3,  2018, follow this link: (PDF) The Limits and Possibilities of a Person-Centered Approach In Coaching Through the Lens of Adult Development Theories

Follow The Heretic for conversations surrounding coaching approaches and the ‘one size fits all’ mentality