Carol Kauffman

Finding and Fostering the Positive in Relationships Positive Interventions in Couples Therapy

Research of positive psychology interventions (PPIs) has expanded dramatically in recent years, and many novel PPIs may be useful in couples therapy. The present work identifies, summarizes, and suggests adaptations of PPIs that may improve couples therapy outcomes. Each intervention is presented as part of a larger organizational framework that may help couples therapists determine how and when each intervention can be effectively applied. Finally, a case illustration demonstrates how these methods can complement traditional therapeutic approaches.

Many ways of knowing: how to make sense of different research perspectives in studies of coaching

In this editorial we want to address potential difficulties that you as a reader may encounter when presented with papers that come from very different disciplinary traditions or researched from ve...

Promoting Success: A Professional Development Coaching Program for Interns in Medicine

BACKGROUND Residency is an intense period. Challenges, including burnout, arise as new physicians develop their professional identities. Residency programs provide remediation, but emotional support for interns is often limited. Professional development coaching of interns, regardless of their performance, has not been reported. OBJECTIVE Design, implement, and evaluate a program to support intern professional development through positive psychology coaching. METHODS We implemented a professional development coaching program in a large residency program. The program included curriculum development, coach-intern interactions, and evaluative metrics. A total of 72 internal medicine interns and 26 internal medicine faculty participated in the first year. Interns and coaches were expected to meet quarterly; expected time commitments per year were 9 hours (per individual coached) for coaches, 5 1/2 hours for each individual coachee, and 70 hours for the director of the coaching program. Coaches and interns were asked to complete 2 surveys in the first year and to participate in qualitative interviews. RESULTS Eighty-two percent of interns met with their coaches 3 or more times. Coaches and their interns assessed the program in multiple dimensions (participation, program and professional activities, burnout, coping, and coach-intern communication). Most of the interns (94%) rated the coaching program as good or excellent, and 96% would recommend this program to other residency programs. The experience of burnout was lower in this cohort compared with a prior cohort. CONCLUSIONS There is early evidence that a coaching program of interactions with faculty trained in positive psychology may advance intern development and partially address burnout.

The last word: how to move from good to great coaching by drawing on the full range of what you know

Through the years we have all attended numerous training events and have many interventions in our toolkits. But, when we’re with a coachee, are we able to harness everything we know in order to be of service to our client? More importantly, can we tap into the full fund of knowledge quickly during a high-stakes coaching encounter? To our coachees, the nimble way we can leap to an alternative perspective may look like intuition. To the informed coach, however, it’s simply a surfacing of the stored knowledge base we have accrued that’s been percolating, waiting for the moment it can be applied. But can we pull that information out of our mind at the snap of our fingers? The good news is that as Ebbinhouse, the ‘father of memory research’ suggested we all retain much more information than we think the challenge is accessing it. There are now multiple models of coaching that pull from neuroscience and medical or systems theory. Other approaches tap into social psychology, attribution theory and cultural relational theory. On another level there are the areas of emotion regulation and intelligence, cognitive theory, constructive development, psychoanalytic theory, self-determination theory and positive psychology. These are but a few of the knowledge bases out there that coaches are tapping into and translating into effective interventions. What theories and models do you tend to pull from in your work as a coach? What kinds of information to you think to notice and collect about your clients and their circumstances? Do you know how to organise all the models, tools and techniques you use into some kind of coherent whole? If you say you are ‘integrative’ or ‘eclectic’ or ‘holistic’ what does that mean? If you’re not sure, you’re both honest and not alone. Many of us have a hard time articulating our theoretical perspectives and an even harder time describing how we integrate them. The current state of knowledge does not yet allow us to fully integrate and synthesise our multiple theories and practices. We have no perfect overarching or unifying theory to address the contradictions inherent various approaches. Simply imagine a psychoanalyst, cognitive coach and positive psychology coach talking about what is the core nature of how people change we can’t yet weave the warp and woof of different approaches into one fabric. We are, however, at a stage in our development where we can describe what we do as ‘technical eclecticism.’ This is simply a fancy way of saying we can pull interventions from a bunch of different buckets and see what works and have some understanding of the worldviews and theoretical schools of thought that inform those techniques. How many buckets do you pull from in your day-to-day practice? Do you have a default perspective that you fall back on? Does your worldview allow you to shift if your preferred style doesn’t seem to be working in a specific situation? How wide or narrow a repertoire do you believe in having? Opinions on this differ and they all Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice Vol. 3, No. 2, September 2010, 87 98

The evolution of coaching: an Interview with Sir John Whitmore

Abstract Dear John You are probably the best-known person amongst coaches all over the world. Your book Coaching for Performance has been one of the first from which most newcomers in this field are most likely to start their professional journey. At the same time, since this book was published, the field has changed significantly. One of the aspects of this change is signified by this journal that has a specific purpose to involve international community of coaches in further development of this field. We would like to know your thoughts on the agenda of coaching nowadays and its theory, research and practice. So we want to build our interview around the title of our journal.

Spinning order from chaos: how do we know what to study in coaching research and use it for self-reflective practice?

Welcome to the first issue of the second year of Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research & Practice. We now continue in our tradition of addressing important questions about the role of theory and research for the practice of coaching in our editorials. One of our priorities has been to explore ‘why’ and ‘how’ coaching research relates to the larger picture of practice. In our first year we have explored issues on why research matters what having sound theory, research and practice means for the emerging profession of coaching (Kauffman & Bachkirova, 2008a). In the second issue of volume one, we described that there are many ways of knowing that inform different approaches to research. For instance, there are highly technical quantitative designs and alternatively highly rigorous qualitative methods that allow deep exploration of the content and processes of coaching (Kauffman & Bachkirova, 2008b). Now, in our third issue we explore ‘the what’ of coaching research to advance the field what exactly should we study? In this editorial we look at a simple overview of various areas of study. But first, we address a more controversial issue what factors influence what researchers choose to study and if that process should be influenced.

The blind men and the elephant: using criteria of universality and uniqueness in evaluating our attempts to define coaching

In our previous editorials we have examined a range of issues that are relevant to coaches, academics and researchers on coaching. We have welcomed wholeheartedly a wide variety of perspectives on coaching in our journal believing that the richness of perspectives contributes to the development of this field. But underneath the diversity of approaches the assumption was made that we all meant reasonably the same thing when we use the word ‘coaching’. In this issue of Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research & Practice, however, we would like to engage you in the conversation what exactly do we all mean by coaching? Do we have something similar in mind when we use the word? We believe that whether we are involved in theory, research or practice, it will serve us to examine the definition of what we do and how our explicit or implicit ideas about identity of coaching affect us. A scan of the literature and websites of professional bodies reveals that very different definitions of coaching are suggested (see examples in this text and Table 1). Initially presented definitions seem to be evolving, and new ones surface regularly. We imagine that each coach has some internal working definition of what he or she offers. Sometimes this definition is clearly articulated; other times it still informs the interventions we make, how we describe our sessions, and how we sell our services. Most of us can probably recall an experience of frustration when trying to explain to someone who does not know much about coaching, what it is and what we actually do. What we explore in this editorial is that the challenge is not just semantic or the proper definitions are just difficult to convey. The struggle to describe what we do goes much deeper in the difficulty to establish a clear identity of coaching in principle as a practice or process. Various authors openly suggest that confusion on the definition of coaching impacts on our professionalism. ‘ . . . there is a lack of clarity as to what professional coaching really is and what makes for an effective or reputable coach’ (Sherman, & Freas, 2004, p. 84). Others suggest that worrying about definitions is not a significant problem; it is the results that count. Cavanagh (interview in this issue) even suggests that ‘blurriness’ may even foster the development and evolution of coaching as our profession grapples with the crises that the world is facing in economy and the environment. In this editorial we will try to make issues regarding the process of defining coaching more explicit. Several articles in this issue of the journal are also devoted to this topic offering new research findings and suggesting new ways of identifying coaching. By participating in this conversation we will hopefully increase our understanding of one another and of our experiences thus helping to accumulate knowledge about coaching. We hope this will help to foster the process by which each new professional practice refines its conceptual apparatus which is necessary for

An International Journal of Theory, Research & Practice: why does it matter?

The purpose and intention of this journal is to equip coaches with an overview of current knowledge in the field of coaching. Why does it matter? Coaching is now becoming a more mature profession. As a two billion dollar a year industry with deep market penetration, we no longer have to defend our services from scratch or patiently explain how we are different from sport coaches. However, these advances have led directly to new challenges. Potential clients are now more informed and demanding. They have much higher expectations. In response, coaches need to be able to frame their services with ever increasing clarity. They need to have more information at their fingertips including the ability to be transparent about the theoretical underpinnings and empirical bases of their coaching; being cognizant of research on coaching and having greater awareness of best practices. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice is created in order to consolidate the collective knowledge and experience from the world-wide coaching community and to make it available to our readership. Our goal is for practicing coaches to feel supported by a stronger and broader knowledge base and for academics and researchers to be informed by the needs, interests and experiences of those working in the field. We hope that collectively we will enhance understanding of the core issues of coaching and at the same time increase capacities to market and deliver our services. Each semi-annual issue will offer conceptual and research papers to advance understanding of these areas and also case presentations, reflections and interviews with well-known leaders in the coaching field. Another important issue that needs to be addressed in this journal is considering how we can participate in the overall development of this field. What are our primary challenges, responsibilities and opportunities? In this respect, the purpose of the journal is to provide a forum for high-level dialogue about current and future directions of the profession. We hope to attract the main thought and practice leaders from around the world to participate by publishing articles focusing on central topics of concern for coaches. Each issue will have articles about the current state and future development of the profession including reports of how coaching is evolving in specific countries. However, without hearing from our readers, the discussion is hollow. We hope that in this journal practitioners will have an opportunity to discuss what is important to them. As editors we would like you to be active in the process. What areas would you like us to explore? Are there particular theories, research or areas of practice that you would like to learn more about? If so, we can draw on the global

Coaching is the ultimate customizable solution: an interview with David Peterson

Abstract Dear David You have been a true pioneer in the coaching field from 1990 to the point of being Senior Vice President at Personnel Decisions International. Your substantial contribution to this field includes many articles and best-selling books on coaching such as Development FIRST and Leader as Coach. We also know about your valuable PhD study in which nearly four hundred business leaders were rated by bosses, self, and coach before coaching, after coaching, and 1-2 years later. Amongst many other important features this outcome-study included experimental controls (people were rating non-coaching items about the person). We know how committed you are to making coaching as efficient as possible and we believe that our readers would love to know more about your thoughts on this.

Coaching as a method for joining up the dots: an interview with Michael Cavanagh

Abstract Dear Michael You have been an important part in the development of the degree in coaching psychology at Sydney University working in close partnership with Tony Grant. Although apparently you made a full commitment to coaching, your background in clinical psychology seems to be useful in the coaching field. In this interview we would like to explore your thoughts on the identity of coaching and on some overlaps with the area of knowledge of your original interest.