Keywords

1 Introduction

Coaching psychology is a relatively new practice domain within the meta-contextual boundaries of general psychology (Palmer and Whybrow 2014) with the aim to actualize human potential, enhance well-being and facilitate personal/professional development (Coetzee and Van Zyl 2014; Van Zyl and Stander 2013) in both uni- and multi-cultural contexts (Passmore 2013). Any developing practice domain, such as coaching psychology, needs to demarcate its professional territory and develop domain specific theories/approaches/models (Joseph 2006). These domain specific theories/approaches/models are usually rooted in previously researched or validated theorems in its ‘mother domain’, whereby the application value is amended to the needs of the new practice domain. Practically, coaching psychology draws from various psychological and related approaches, applied in the context of personal/professional development as opposed to the traditional ‘disease alleviation’ approach.

Two popular paradigmsFootnote 1 in general psychology, positive psychology and the person centred approach, have emerged as dominant paradigm perspectives utilised within multi-cultural coaching contexts owing to ‘cultural neutrality’ (Van Zyl and Stander 2013). These paradigms are widely accepted within traditional psychological practice domains (such as therapy) because of their short to medium term effectiveness (Passmore 2013; Van Zyl and Stander 2013). Because, coaching psychology is a short to medium term, goal directed process (Grant 2006), focused on positive growth (Van Zyl and Rothmann 2014), these approaches naturally resonate within the coaching psychology domain. However, the inter-relationship between positive psychology and the person centred approaches have been marked by contention, tension and ambivalence amongst practitioners, researchers and theorists in various applied psychological contexts such as therapy, counselling and coaching (Waterman 2013).

Innumerable attempts in the literature have been made to reconcile these two paradigms (c.f. Froh 2004; Joseph and Linley 2004; Linley et al. 2006; Robbins and Friedman 2008; Schneider 2011; Waterman 2013). These attempts have not succeeded in reconciling the paradigms, rather they have raised yet more awareness about the incompatibilities of the paradigms despite the apparent similarities. As a consequence, more disagreements (Waterman 2013) and confusion (Schneider 2011) has been created. The confusion spills over from the discipline into the profession, which could have various adverse consequences for the coach, and the coachee.

From the literature it is apparent that two main arguments exist: (a) an eclectic and (b) purist approach to positive psychological and person centred coaching. Eclectic theorists within coaching psychology suggest that these perspectives are mutually related and complementary both in conceptualization and application (Joseph and Murphy 2013). Positive psychology positively contributes to the person centred approach as it provides more structure and proverbial ‘quick wins’ in the developmental process (Van Zyl and Stander 2013). Though, purists in both domains argue that each paradigm is mutually exclusive, unrelated and conceptually dissimilar (Robbins 2008; Waterman 2013). Person centred coaches tend to believe that humanistic psychology was the forerunner of positive psychology and the most important contributor to the paradigm which focuses on many of the same concerns (Robbins 2008; Waterman 2013). In contrast, positive psychological coaches are inclined to see the person centred approach as one (amongst many) psychological foundations of positive psychology and not the most important as stipulated by purists in the person centred approach (Joseph and Murphy 2013). According to Waterman (2013), purists in the person centred approach are not pleased with the direction in which the positive psychology discipline is developing in relation to human potential development and well-being. Similarly, purist positive psychological coaches have not found it important to capitalize on all the insights and contributions of the person centred approach because they are deemed insignificant or in effective (Waterman 2013). Waterman (2013, p. 124) indicates that the main differences between the paradigms lies in its “(a) ontology, including the ways in which human nature is conceptualized regarding human potential and well-being; (b) epistemology, specifically, the choice of research strategies for the empirical study of these concepts; and (c) practical philosophy, particularly the goals and strategies adopted when conducting [coaching] interventions”.

As such, this chapter is aimed at stepping out of the tight discourse between eclectic and purist theorising through taking a fresh view on similarities and differences between positive psychology and the person-centred approach as dominant paradigm perspectives within multi-cultural coaching. Banicki (2011) suggest clarification regarding complex subject matter needs to be presented against a practical problem or approach. As such, each paradigm will be presented against an eclectic multi-cultural strengths-based coaching model founded in both paradigms (cf. Van Zyl and Stander 2013) in order to conceptualize the core differences in each. Through the use of connective conceptual analysis (Banicki 2011), each phase of the proposed eclectic coaching model will be explored from a positive psychological and person-centred orientation to develop a clear understanding of the essential commonalities and dissimilarities of the paradigms. Further, this chapter aims to reveal conceptual implications and limitations of both paradigms within multi-cultural coaching. The chapter concludes by suggesting in which ways the two related paradigms are mutually beneficial, non-exclusive and applicable within multi-cultural coaching contexts.

Intriguingly, the insights we want to share through this chapter precisely match our experience as co-authors working together and coming from the realm of positive psychology on the one hand and the person centred approach on the other. While the objectives we endeavour to achieve through proposing the multi-cultural coaching model are exactly the same, the paths to get there differ significantly, based on the respective philosophical underpinning or paradigm we draw from.

2 Orientation to the Person Centred and Positive Psychology Approaches in Coaching

There is accumulating evidence that professionals aiming to promote human potential need to move away from the “medical”-, disease-oriented model towards facilitating psychological growth (Seligman 2011) and optimal development (Cilliers 2011). As individuals present with an inherent tendency to become the best they can under given circumstances (Rogers 1961), growth can happen through focusing on individual strengths, as argued, for example, by the positive psychologists Park and Peterson (2006). Complementarily, growth can happen by providing persons with a psychological climate in which their inherent tendency towards actualization can unfold optimally (Rogers 1951). In such a climate persons are provided opportunities to discover their potentials and to utilize them, for example in the organization that employs them.

One area through which personal and professional enhancement can be furthered is coaching (Cilliers 2011). Fledman and Lankau (2005) describe coaching as a professional goal directed relationship between a coach and coachee with the intent to improve the work performance of the coachee through concentrating on altering behaviour and addressing/preventing organizational problems. Coaching is conceptualized as a practical, short to medium term, goal-orientated form of personal- and professional development (Van Zyl and Stander 2013) which is in contrast to the classical or traditional medical/disease model approaches.

Cilliers (2011) argued that these “classical” or “traditional” over emphasises “correcting what is wrong” rather than facilitating optimal development, resulting in rather mechanistic approaches, leaving the coachee as human being behind (Biswas-Diener 2010). Consequently, sustainable, inherently motivated change might not happen and the manifested behaviour would be likely to reoccur (Rogers 1951; Seligman 2011). Therefore, to promote sustainable change, the coaching relationship and approach urgently need to focus on the realities and potentials of the coachee in their work environment.

According to Rogers (1951), the father of the person-centred approach, the individual (client/coachee) should be at the centre of the personal development process, and not be dictated by the process or the counsellor (coach, therapist, etc.). From this perspective, the central function of the person centred coach is to act as a facilitator for the growth-process and to aim to uncover and understand the subjective reality of the coachee (from his/her own perspective) (Carkhuff 2000; Rogers 1951). This calls for the coach to approach the process from within the coachee’s reality. Since this is also a main theme in positive psychology (Seligman and Csikszentimihalyi 2000), person-centred coaching practitioners characterize their approach to coaching as being coachee-centred. Further, the person centred approach focuses on providing those qualities of interpersonal relationships that, if perceived, contribute to empowerment, constructive change, and creative problem solving. Strongly simplified, according to Rogers (1959, 1961) a person needs to perceive the “core conditions” of congruence, unconditional positive regard, and empathic understanding, at least to some degree, for constructive personality change to occur.

Positive psychology assumes that each individual has the capacity for personal growth, to develop strengths, build on positive emotions, and to develop sustainable resilience (Van Zyl and Stander 2013). Further, positive psychology, unlike the person centred approach, is also concerned with how individuals within organizational contexts can develop in order to enhance organizational flourishing (Biswas-Diener 2010; Seligman 2011) through various positive psychological intervention strategies (such as positive psychological coaching) targeting different levels within the organisational context (Van Zyl and Rothmann 2014). Positive psychological coaching, in particular, refers to a structured approach relating to the identification, optimization and application of individual strengths, positive behaviours/attitudes and positive emotions in order to facilitate development of individuals in organizational contexts (Van Zyl and Stander 2013). However, limited research exists on positive psychological coaching within multi-cultural environments (Cilliers 2011) as well as the boundaries between the person-centred and positive psychological paradigms within coaching psychology (Van Zyl and Stander 2013).

Both these approaches focus or rely on identifying, employing, and enhancing individual strengths and qualities (e.g. authenticity, autonomy etc.) in order to facilitate personal and professional development (Van Zyl and Stander 2013). Further, both paradigms intend to facilitate the development of interpersonal attitudes of openness to experience, unconditional positive regard, non-directivity and empathic understanding within a personal development process (Van Zyl and Stander 2013).

In order to illuminate the positive psychology and person-centred approaches to multi-cultural coaching, we briefly re-introduce the ten-phase strengths based coaching model developed by Van Zyl and Stander (2013) which is founded in the principles of both the positive psychological-, and person centred approaches. The proposed model provides the ideal context to contrast the positive psychological and person centred approaches due to its eclectic stance in the use and application of core principles of each paradigm. We proceed by presenting a brief overview of the ten-phase model as well as its components, whereby it will be attempted to contrast the positive psychological and person centred principles and consequent practices underpinning each phase. On this basis we are able to explore in which ways the positive psychological- and person-centred schools of thought relate, differ, and can potentially complement each other within the multi-cultural coaching environment.

3 The Strengths Based Coaching Model: Contrasting Paradigms

Van Zyl and Stander (2013) proposed a strengths based coaching model built upon the assumption that individuals have a capacity to grow, develop and actualize their inherent, ‘untapped’ potential. The model assumes that individuals have a natural inclination to engage in behaviours associated with this inherent propensity to develop and grow (Rogers 1951; Seligman 2011). Thus, human behaviour is naturally directed towards the maintenance and enhancement of their organisms (Rogers 1951). Hence, a central orientation in this model is on persons and the provision of an atmosphere or context in which enhancement rather than just maintenance is the choice. This tends to be the case when individuals feel safe and accepted rather than threatened by some external demand to change their behaviour, thinking, personal attitudes and preferences.

At its core, the model focuses on the development and application of individual strengths in order to satisfy the inherent human need for self-actualization (Van Zyl and Stander 2013). According to Peterson and Seligman (2004), personal or ‘signature’ strengths – from the positive psychology stance – can be defined as a universally valued set of core characteristics that attributes to good character which manifests as individual differences/traits which are relatively stable overtime and shaped by the contextual environment. The focus on the development of strengths, within the coaching environment may contribute to the development of life satisfaction and facilitate the pursuit of a meaningful life or career (Fronczak 2006; Sheldon et al. 2011; Van Zyl and Rothmann 2014).

Similarly, Van Zyl and Stander (2013) argues that the pursuit of meaningful life and career goals is brought on by a need of the coachee to execute tasks and engage in activities which are more in line with his/her strengths. Their model draws from the positive psychological assumption that individuals have a natural capacity to engage in behaviours, initiate cognitive evaluations and activate certain emotions which allows for the optimal functioning and performance in pursuit of the aforementioned goals (Linley and Harrington 2006). This appears to be in line with the person-centred perspective assuming an individual’s actualizing tendency that forms the foundation through which a person has the inherent potential to become the best he/she can under given circumstances or in their environment. This potential can best be tapped when respecting the natural, biological tendency toward unfolding inherent capacities rather than imposing some external direction of development (Rogers 2008a) through the coaching process.

Flowing from these conceptual frameworks for strengths, Van Zyl and Stander (2013) states that strengths-based coaching is a short to medium term strengths focused developmental process aimed at harnessing the inner potential of a coachee in order to optimize his/her performance and to actualize his/her potential. The strengths-based approach focuses on altering the way in which the coachee thinks, feels and acts through building on his/her signature strengths in order to optimize performance, enhance personal well-being and to achieve live/work goals (Van Zyl and Rothmann 2014; Van Zyl and Stander 2013). These fundamental ideals are core to both the person centred and the positive psychological paradigms (Waterman 2013), even though different terminologies may be used as descriptors, such as ‘strengths’ (positive psychology) versus ‘capacities/potentials’ (person-centred) or ‘natural capacity’ (positive psychology) versus ‘actualizing tendency’ (person-centred).

Flowing from these core principles, Van Zyl and Stander (2013) developed the ten phase strengths-based coaching model (see Fig. 1). Van Zyl and Stander (2013) as well as Stander (in this book) argue this strengths-based coaching process is cyclical and rooted in the principles of continuous feedback and evaluation. As with the person-centred approach, minimal encouragement sits at the core of this model, since this acts as an indication of unconditional positive regard (Carkhuff 2000; Rogers 1978; Van Zyl and Rothmann 2014). Drawing from these, this model implies that an empowering, encouraging relationship between the coach and coachee aids the coach in order to (a) express unconditional acceptance, (b) communicate empathy, (c) project confidence, (d) reinforce the identification and utilization of strengths and inner-resources, (e) acknowledge the effort and improvement of the coachee, and (f) facilitate the successful completion of mutually identified goals during the process (Van Zyl and Stander 2013).

Fig. 1
figure 1

The strengths based coaching model

Full size image

A key part of the model is unconditional positive regard resulting in the unhindered unfolding of the coachee’s actualizing tendency and thus setting free vast resources of motivational energy to participate and engage in the growth process. Practically, this is a process in which the coach:

  • feels and expresses acceptance,

  • endeavours to empathically understand the coachee, their manager(s), and their environment,

  • has confidence as to positive results,

  • acknowledges, in particular, the strengths and resources of all persons participating in the coaching process,

  • appreciates the effort and improvement of the client and attends, in particular, to the transfer of competencies acquired in the self-directed process to the work-environment,

  • facilitates the implementation of decisions that are made throughout the process,

  • works at empowering the coachee to remove structural/organizational barriers that hinder the process,

  • knows and does not feel any resistance – optimally feels at ease and supportive of – the goals of the organization and the manager. In other words, the coach feels congruent and in no way conflicted with regard to his/her feelings toward the organization’s aspired direction and coachee-centred coaching job. This entails clarity about what would happen if – as a result of coaching – the coachee would find out that it is better for them to leave the job or change to a different department or any other consequence that might be at cross with what the manager aspires.

These inherent drivers are essential to facilitate a change in the coachee’s behaviour (Carkhuff 2000) which is aligned to the person-centred approach (Rogers 1951, 1961). Drawing from the positive psychological paradigm, Van Zyl and Stander (2013) argued that strengths must be evoked to aid in the sustainable change in behaviour and to overcome obstacles. As such, the pivotal challenge for the coach is to facilitate the unfolding of the coachee’s inherent psychological resources that will lead to self-directed behaviour changes ensuring improved performance for the organisation and wellness for the individual (Moore and McBride 2014).

In summation, the model aims to support an effective coaching process in a manner that:

  • Is strength-based – focusing on the coachee’s strengths and his/her developmental potential,

  • Is coachee-centred – acknowledging the coachee as part of an organization to be in the center of the coaching process. This entails a non-directive stance in which it is the coachee who drives the direction of his/her development and change,

  • Provides a process structure as a tool to consider essential aspects in the coaching process,

  • Considers the organizational context and a multicultural environment.

In the following sections extracts from each phase of the Van Zyl and Stander (2013) model will be provided followed by a positive psychological and person-centred interpretation.

3.1 Phase 1: Clarifying Expectations and Establishing Rapport

3.1.1 Central Goals and Tasks

According to Van Zyl and Stander (2013) the purpose of this phase is to clarify the expectations between (a) the coach/coachee, (b) coach/senior management, (c) coach/direct manager and (d) coachee and his/her direct manager, in order to establish rapport, transparency of expectations and to include the organizational context (e.g. vision/mission/strategy) into the coaching process. Importantly, this clarification process is targeted at developing the individual within his/her current role or position (Koortzen and Oosthuizen 2010), as well as within the broader organisational context (Van Zyl and Stander 2013). As such, the objective of this phase is to develop an understanding of the associative dynamics of the coachee’s current work-related reality, the nature and extent of his/her role within the contextual department/organization boundary and to establish a foundation from which to approach the developmental process (Van Zyl and Stander 2013).

Consequently, Van Zyl and Stander (2013) supports Bennett (1993) and Rogers (1961) through highlighting the importance of understanding the coachee’s work-related reality and interpretative framework in terms of potential gender-, generations-, values-, interactional preferences-, belief and cultural differences as well as its associative impact. As such, the coach needs to be culturally sensitivity and interoperate the coachee’s messages from his/her own perspective (Bennett 1993; Van Zyl and Stander 2013). These cultural differences are optimally appreciated as opportunities which could have the potential to enrich the coaching relationship (Bachkirova 2011). Through focusing the developmental process in line with the coachee’s current work-related reality and interpretive framework, the coach could capitalize on cultural specific nuances and support mechanisms emanating from cultural specific heritage. For example, Western cultures are described as being individualistic and places a high value on autonomy as a signature strength, where as in African (collectivistic) cultures social competence and relatedness strengths are valued (Smith 2006). Therefore, within multi-cultural contexts, authentic and respectful interactions are crucial to the success of the coaching process (Rogers 1961; Van Zyl and Stander 2013). Similarly, potential differences and hindrances should be expressed and clarified between the coach and coachee (van Zyl and Stander 2011), such as conflicting views on religion.

3.1.2 A Positive Psychology Approach to Phase 1

From a positive psychological perspective, this phase involves discovering the potential (mis)alignment between individual strengths of character (Peterson and Seligman 2004), managerial demands and organizational expectations (Van Zyl and Stander 2011) in order to develop an understanding of the coachee’s current work-related reality. The function of this phase is to advocate a collective strengths-based inquiry into (a) the best of the current reality encompassing the coachee/manager/organizational interface, (b) to imagine the reality which could be, and (c) to collectively construct a compelling future where incentives, persuasion, or coercion is not needed (Lewis et al. 2008; Whitney and Trosten-Bloom 2010). The focus here is to frame questions in a positive, constructive and imaginative manner in order to stimulate thinking around what is ‘right’ (i.e. currently working well) rather than focusing what is ‘wrong’ (i.e. distracting from performance or the ‘deficiency model’) (Lewis et al. 2008). In this phase, the use of positively infused language is imperative, as it sets the proverbial scene and intention of the process that is to follow (Cannell 2015). Further, positively infused language communicates empathy, positive regard and authenticity which results in a stronger rapport, creating a psychologically safe environment and facilitates the coachee towards self-acceptance (Scheel et al. 2013).

3.1.3 A Person-Centred Approach to Phase 1

From the person-centred approach, the coachee’s and their manager’s intrinsic motivation to engage in the coaching process is crucial (Rogers 1961). To achieve this, the participants in the coaching process must sense that the process will be of genuine value to them. The pivotal factor for evoking motivation and engagement is the quality of the interpersonal relationships between the participants throughout the process (Rogers 1951). Therefore it is essential to allow time for establishing constructive, interpersonal relationships that will energize all involved for maximum possible psychological growth (Rogers 1959, 1961) and collaboration (Cain 2010; Motschnig-Pitrik 2014). Furthermore, if the coachee perceives the coach as a resourceful person (Barrett-Lennard 2013), having resources that extend their own, this can strengthen the motivation to engage in the coaching process.

According to the theory of the person-centred approach, an interpersonal relationship between the facilitator/coach and the client/coachee will be growth promoting under the condition that the coach succeeds in establishing and cultivating a specified but unspecific interpersonal climate based on genuineness, acceptance and empathic understanding. This climate is interchangeably referred to as person-centred, facilitative, growth-promoting or constructive. More precisely, it arises if the coach communicates his/her congruence, acceptance and empathic understanding of the coachee in such a way that the coachee can perceive these attitudes at least to some degree (Rogers 1961).

A helpful practice for gaining thorough and empathic understanding of the coachee is active listening (Rogers and Farson 1987). This way to listen is particularly important in multicultural settings, where persons can’t rely on mutually identical cultural patterns, habits, norms, and expressions (Lago 2013). Hence, understanding needs to be confirmed explicitly while listening, e.g. by paraphrasing or asking questions more often than in culturally homogenous situations. In any environment, however, it is vital that the coach’s understanding of the coachee (and optimally also the other participants in the coaching process) is a complex, thorough, and empathic one, including the inner world of the coachee along with his/her current work-related environment and relationships.

In the course of establishing contact and initial, constructive, collaborative relationships, it is essential to share expectations and to determine, whether all involved are moving into coherent directions. Optimally, all stakeholders involved are facilitated to develop a shared vision of the coaching intervention that includes the participants’ expectations and intended outcomes of the process. This can happen either in a series of individual- and manager-coachee-coach sessions, or in facilitated small group settings, depending on the particular situation/atmosphere in the organization and on the coach’s competencies of working with groups. As a result, participants’ expectations and goals would best be formulated to provide a reference point to return to whenever needed.

Finally, the coaching process and the means of documentation and re-evaluation need to be agreed upon. Typically, for the latter two aspects, the coach and coachee (and potentially all participants) would provide free-text-style reflection journals in which they’d share for example significant experiences, thoughts, changes, and questions from or between the sessions (Rogers 1983; Motschnig and Nykl 2014). In a democratic environment, these could be shared and used to inform follow up sessions for increased continuity of the process. Optimally, the reaction journals would be complemented by participative designed, semi-structured questionnaires to keep track of special aspects of the coaching process, such as cultural sensitivity and competence, person-centred attitudes of the coach, or changes in the coachee’s self-concept. In this way data for participatory action research could be supplied, enabling systematic, open, and continuous learning throughout the process.

3.2 Phase 2: Identifying Conscious and Unconscious Strengths

3.2.1 Central Goals and Tasks

According to Van Zyl and Stander (2013), the purpose of this phase is to initiate a process whereby the coachee’s unconscious capacities/strengths are determined and merged with (a) his/her current competencies (Seligman 2011), and (b) aligned to the clarified expectations and measurable outcomes determined in Phase 1. An evaluative methodological framework such as a competency profile needs to be developed in line with the coachee’s current (and future) role within the organization, which highlights the crucial performance areas associated with the position as well as the aspired outcomes (Bachkirova 2011). Finally, the coachee’s individual- and team related competencies should be explored in order to draw attention to his/her currently manifested signature strengths and raise awareness of the developmental areas or potential deraillers (Van Zyl and Stander 2013).

3.2.2 A Positive Psychology Approach to Phase 2

Within the positive psychological paradigm, strength identification, -awareness and -utilization is key to human potential development as well as individual- (Seligman 2011) and organizational performance (Bayramoğlu and Şahin 2015). However, most individuals are not completely aware of their manifested (‘know’) or unconscious (‘unknown’) strengths (Peterson and Seligman 2004). It is therefore imperative in this phase to make the coachee aware of his/her strengths through either (a) strengths based psychometric assessments, (b) strengths based inquiry and (c) strengths based identification initiatives.

First, various self-report strengths-based psychometric instruments exists such as the VIA signature strengths inventory (VIA: Peterson and Seligman 2004) or the Strengths Finder 2.0 (SFF2.0: Rath 2007). These instruments provide a cross-culturally validated platform through which to aid the coachee in the identification and ‘ranking’ of personal (VIA) or professional (SF2.0) strengths. Both instruments rank self-report strengths in order of frequency of use as well as provide a classification of prevalence. The five most prevalent and highly used strengths should be used by the coach to highlight their occurrence in the life story of the coachee as well as employed as part of the personal/professional development strategies (Van Zyl and Stander 2013; Welch et al. 2014). The coachee could be presented with questions similar to ‘How would you use the combination of your leadership strength and social intelligence to approach the presented problem?’ in order to cognitively develop strength-based strategies aimed at personal/professional grow and/or to approach problems (Scheel et al. 2013; Welch et al. 2014).

Second, in some circumstances the results of the strengths-based psychometric assessment measures may not be readily available. As such, alternative strengths-based identification methods, such as strengths-based inquiry, need to be employed (Welch et al. 2014). Strength-based inquiry pertains to the identification of a coachee’s signature strengths through conversations whereby the coachee’s strength use are highlighted and accentuated (Peterson and Seligman 2004; Scheel et al. 2013). Coachees may be requested to share stories where they were at their best, where they were in a state of flow (absolute engagement) or where they felt that they were in complete control of their proverbial destiny (Scheel et al. 2013; Van Zyl and Rothmann 2014). These stories tend to highlight virtuous abilities, characteristics or talents which the coachee employed at their ‘self-report proverbial best’ (Scheel et al. 2013; Seligman 2011). However, strengths may also manifest as part of the coachee’s personal deficits or challenges (e.g. humour employed as a mechanism to manage conflict or to ease emotional pain) (Scheel et al. 2013). Therefore, the coach needs to be fully competent in strengths-based inquiry in order to identify, highlight and re-inforce the coachee’s strengths in both ‘successful’ and ‘unsuccessful/challenging’ scenarios (Coetzer et al. 2014; Peterson and Seligman 2004; Scheel et al. 2013).

According to Peterson and Seligman (2004), the coach needs to be fully aware of the diagnostic criteria of a signature strength in order to easily identify the use of a particular strength in various contexts. Specifically, the coach needs to identify the following characteristics in the coachee’s story to determine whether or not a presented ability is a strength:

  1. 1.

    There is a sense of ownership and authenticity when presenting with a strength

  2. 2.

    Feelings of excitement when displaying a strength

  3. 3.

    Seeking new ways to enact strengths

  4. 4.

    Yearning to act in accordance with the strength

  5. 5.

    Feeling of inevitability in using the strength

  6. 6.

    Feelings of invigoration rather than exhaustion when acting it

  7. 7.

    Creating and seeking projects which endorses these strengths

  8. 8.

    Intrinsically motivated to use the strength

Finally, strengths-based identification initiatives could be employed to determine strengths. These initiatives refer to objective attempts by the coach/coachee to initiate processes whereby strengths could be identified and/or exposed. These initiatives relates to aspects such as 360° Strengths Evaluations or a 360° competency assessment, whereby peers, supervisors, direct reports, friends, family and the like are requested to rate or rank the coachee’s strengths. Similarly, peer strengths-based story telling could be employed whereby significant others in the coachee’s life are requested to pose stories whereby they perceived the coachee to be at his/her best. These strengths-based identification initiatives aids the coach to obtain either (a) an indication of the coachee’s manifest strengths or (b) relatively ‘objective’ evidence of the coachee’s strength use as perceived by others. This may also highlight and reinforce strength use in the coachee.

Through the use of the aforementioned strengths-based identification strategies, the positive psychological coach should also aim to (a) identify strengths explicitly present in the coachee, (b) gain an understanding of the coachee’s perceptions of his/her strengths, (c) raise awareness of the coachee’s strengths, (d) aid coachees to overcome their focus on problems/weaknesses, and (e) emphasize culturally specific strengths, in order to subtly amplify the coachee’s strengths through cognitive restructuring (Scheel et al. 2012).

3.2.3 A Person-Centred Approach to Phase 2

In a person-centred atmosphere, the coachee will tend to feel safe to explore his/her capacities and thus become more aware of both their strengths and weaknesses. By recognizing the coachee’s talents and strengths, the coach can empathically accompany the coachee towards strengthened self-awareness and differentiation of their strong sides. This “selective empathy” builds trust and tends to motivate the coachee to stay with their strong sides and give more weight to them, in particular in the context of the coachee’s work-related activities. To stay focused on the work setting, the coach may furthermore “guide his/her empathic understanding” to work-related issues. This will help to keep the coachee’s exploration to relate to work situations rather than diverse other directions (that at times may be worth following, though).

If, however, the coachee comes to a point where he/she explicitly wants to explore a weakness too, an empathic coach would respect that. He/she would offer their relationship to allow the coachee to move forward in their unfoldment along the coachee’s sense of what matters to him/her at the moment. In brief, the focus on strengths is considered as a helpful guideline but not an exclusive imperative.

If the coach feels that the self-exploration process could be made more effective by employing psychometric measurement and/or self-assessments by the coachee, he/she can suggest such instruments to be introduced. For example, the coach can invite the coachee to learn more about his/her strengths by suggesting to complete the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS) (Peterson and Seligman 2004). Given the coachee is interested in some testing, the test results need to be discussed with him/her and their view on the results need to be received empathically and taken into account. One example of a test that tends to be worthwhile for heightening awareness of the coachee’s preferred role(s) when working in teams is the Belbin teamwork test (Belbin 2010). It allows one to find out which team role(s) and functions one tends to manifest (Belbin 2010). An attractive feature of Belbin’s teamwork test is that each team type is described appreciatively with strong and weak sides appearing like two sides of one coin. Instruments like Belbin’s test can, in the authors view, extend the coachee’s complex understanding of work-related issues that might not come up in pure active listening endeavours that lie at the core of the person-centred approach.

Another person-centred way to strengthen one’s awareness of (inter)personal capacities and at the same time provide for personal growth is the participation in encounter groups, intensive, often unstructured self-experience groups (Rogers 1970; O’Hara 2013). For work- related contexts, these encounter groups could be theme-based and devoted to tackling relevant, timely themes in an organization or even across organizations while discovering interpersonal capacities. Examples of such themes are: Organizational change, collaboration in multicultural teams, managing family and work, or collaboratively exploring team’s and individual’s strengths.

The competence profile would typically be co-developed as a collaborative endeavour between the coach and the coachee (Cain 2010) after the coachee had sufficient opportunity to become more aware of his/her capacities as well as goals for personal and work-related development. The process would be open to be creatively complemented by whatever aspect the coachee considers important.

3.3 Phase 3: Identifying Coaching Themes

3.3.1 Central Goals and Tasks

The purpose of this phase is to develop a clear understanding regarding the current challenges in the coachee’s life and to develop a strategy to build competencies (Bachkirova 2011; Seligman 2011) through integrating the information gathered in Phases 1 and 2 (Van Zyl and Stander 2013). The focus is to determine the coachee’s areas of development through understanding the current challenges in his/her current work-related reality (Van Zyl and Stander 2013). As such, a deliberate attempt needs to be employed in order to reveal the coachee’s (a) perceptions associated with current difficulties/challenges, (b) reasons why these exists, (c) the factors attributable to the challenges, (d) the possible consequences if these are unresolved and (e) the meaning derived from the given challenging context (Bachkirova 2011; Palmer and Whybrow 2014; Rogers 1951). Through understanding the presented problem/challenges, aligned to the coachee’s strengths, a personal development strategy aligned to a personal growth or development plan could be co-developed and implemented (Van Zyl and Stander 2013).

3.3.2 A Positive Psychology Approach to Phase 3

Much of the criticizm relating to positive psychology pertains to the fallacy that the paradigm ignores the proverbial ‘negative’ conditions of the human psyche (Lopez et al. 2014). However, positive psychology doesn’t shun these negative conditions (Smith 2006; Tugade and Fredrickson 2004; Van Zyl and Rothmann 2014; Van Zyl and Stander 2013), but rather suggests that these conditions need to be (a) interpreted from and (b) addressed through the use of individual signature strengths (Peterson and Seligman 2014) or competencies.

First, problems/challenges of the coachee need to be interpreted from a positive psychological perspective. Although research suggests the importance and value of strengths use (Grant and Schwartz 2011; Seligman 2011; Van Zyl and Rothmann 2014; Niemiec (2014) argues that strengths could be over/under utilized which may result in an in balance within the coachee or in relation to important relationships. Practically, presented challenges in the coachee’s reality relates to the over-use of a signature strength which might have been appropriate in previous contexts (Niemiec 2014). Grant and Schwartz (2011) found the strength use may reach an inflection point whereby the experience and resultant effects turn negative.

Each character strength lies on a continuum in relation to expression (or use) ranging from over/under utilization to optimal expression (Grant and Schwartz 2011) whereby an ideal point of balance is sought between these extremes (Niemiec 2014). This argument suggests that desirable attributes, such as a coachee’s signature strengths, should be cultivated in moderation. Practically speaking, when a strength is under/over utilized it is no longer considered a strength because it distracts the attainment, utilization and expression of other more appropriate strengths and counter-acts the outcomes it is intended to promote (Grant and Schwartz 2011). For example, within academic literature the well-being benefits of the signature strength ‘Kindness and Generosity’ (giving of one’s self unconditionally, and more than one would receive) has been greatly documented (c.f. Lyubomirsky 2011; Lyubomirsky et al. 2005; Seligman 2011), however Flynn (2003) found an inverted U relationship between generosity and the quality, quantity and efficiency of completed work (productivity) relative to manager’s expectations. As such, the coachee’s presented problems/developmental areas/negative conditions should be interpreted against the strengths over/under/optimal use principle (Niemiec 2014).

Second, these problems/challenges should be addressed through capitalizing on the coachee’s optimally used signature strengths. Because, individuals approach, interpret and manage situations within the bounds of their contextual strengths awareness, strength utilization should form a key part of the developmental strategy. The developmental strategy should be co-developed with the coachee highlighting (a) the competencies which need to develop in order to effectively manage the presented challenges, or highlighting the personal/professional goal the coachee wants to achieve, (b) developing an action plan for addressing presented challenge/achieving professional goal, (c) determine the desired outcome, (d) methods used to evaluate (measure) the progress (or success) of the initiative, (e) the internal (psychological strengths) and external resources required, (f) a mutually agreed deadline for completion and (g) ensure that the unique multi-cultural strengths and capabilities of the coachee is incorporated and capitalized on throughout the strategy (Van Zyl and Stander 2011).

3.3.3 A Person-Centred Approach to Phase 3

Based on a thorough and complex understanding of the coachee’s current challenges and on the information as well as, importantly, the interpersonal relationship(s) that unfolded in the previous phases, a strategy to strengthen work-related competencies (Bachkirova 2011; Seligman 2011) is developed. Thereby the coach relies, first of all, on the coachee’s actualizing tendency towards enhancement of their potentialities by trusting their sense of the situation and choice of paths to move forward. The resulting directions and goals are summarized in a personal development plan (PDP) to accompany the process as a reference (Bachkirova 2011). The PDP is viewed as a working document to be revisited and evolved on demand. Time and atmosphere permitting, the PDP is shared with the manager and he or she is kept informed about any major changes, accomplishments or burdens popping up on the way.

3.4 Phase 4: Encouraging, Deriving Meaning, Developing Self-Efficacy and Instilling Hope

3.4.1 Central Goals and Tasks

The purpose of this phase is to facilitate the development of the coachee’s inherent potential through encouragement, the use of strengths-based meaning crafting activities and capitalising on his/her self-actualising tendency in order to enhance hope (Van Zyl and Stander 2013). From this perspective, encouragement serves as a mechanism to positively reinforce desired behaviour and to emphasize strengths use (Lyubomirsky 2011; Smith 2006). As such, encouragement is employed as a means through which the coachee’s psychological resources are highlighted, and developed in order to facilitate the formulation of positive decisions and approaches (Rogers 1951). The coach could utilize encouragement in order to ‘support’ the manifestation of desired behaviour (e.g. strength utilisation) in order for the coachee to reframe this behaviour as a strength (Lyubomirsky 2011). The intent is to facilitate self-exploration and the reinforcement of strength use in a presented scenario through probing the coachee on strategies where he/she used the signature strengths to address the presented challenges (Niemiec 2014; Seligman 2011). The coach invites the coachee to learn from different experiences. As a result the coachee will discover alternative possibilities to use these capacities, motivating the exploration of the self and the development of self-identity. Further, the coach should initiate own self-reflective processes and practices in order to effectively process his/her own understanding of the context, the coachee and the incorporated approach.

In a nutshell, while the coach may offer instruments or interpretations addressing the over- and underutilization of strengths, his/her primary resource remains to be the interpersonal relationship with coachee and his/her genuine interest in accompanying the coachee to meet presented challenges in his/her reality. Like in the positive psychology approach, the PDP needs to be developed as a collaborative endeavour between coach and coachee (Cain 2010).

3.4.2 A Positive Psychology Approach to Phase 4

One of the central tendencies in applied positive psychology is to facilitate the development of self-identity through the use of strengths-based initiatives aimed at self-exploration in order to establish self-awareness (Seligman 2011). Self-awareness, in itself, should also be considered a psychological strength (Niemiec 2014) as it aids in building ego strength, manages anxiety, activates self-appreciation and promotes further engagements in obtaining self-knowledge (Scheel et al. 2012).

From a purist positive psychological perspective, the aim of this phase would be to make the coachee aware of the manifestation of strength utilization within a presented problem and to aid in reinforcing strength use in problematic situations through the use of positive reinforcement (Scheel et al. 2012). This can, however, only be achieved if the coach aims to intentionally and deliberately highlight and honours (validates) the coachee’s efforts and struggles in his/her attempts to deal with the negative conditions or presenting issues (Smith 2006). Research suggests that the coachee of practitioners whom engage with validation (encouragement) and strengths-confirming initiatives achieve their coaching/therapy/counselling goals at a higher rate than those who do not engage in the practice (Niemiec 2014; Seligman 2011; Smith 2006; Weick and Chamberlain 2002).

Therefore, the aim of this phase is to systematically alter the way in which the coachee interoperates negative conditions through the use of positive reinforcement in order to aid the development of inner resources and courage to engage in positive decision making practices (Palmer and Whybrow 2014; Smith 2006). One way in which this could be achieved is for the positive psychological coach to utilize narrative psychological practices through encouraging coachees to retell their stories as survivors, rather than victims. This aids in altering the coachee’s perspectives of the presented problem and establishes a sense that numerous possibilities exists to understanding the problem (Smith 2006; Van Zyl and Rothmann 2014; Van Zyl and Stander 2013) as it aids the coachee to shed the victim mentality (Desetta and Wolin 2000). This results in the establishment of hope and optimism as different perspectives to the presented problem is highlighted (Van Zyl and Stander 2013). As hope and optimism buffers against the onset of psychopathology (Peterson and Seligman 2004; Seligman 2011; Smith 2006), the positive psychological coach should aim to rekindle these positive psychological states through purposeful reflection and/or exploring other scenarios where the coachee may have felt hopeful/optimistic (Palmer and Whybrow 2014; Smith 2006).

In summation, the intention of this phase from a positive psychological perspective is to (a) encourage the continuation of change, (b) to ensure that the coachee feels part of the process or ‘heard’ through ensuring compliance to multi-cultural facets, (c) to advocate for a positive ‘voice’ in the coachee’s reality evaluation framework, (d) to show appreciation for the effort the coachee is exerting in the process, (e) to validate the coachee’s experiences, (f) to positively affirm the coachee’s successes and to (g) positively reframe negative experiences.

3.4.3 A Person-Centred Approach to Phase 4

While, interestingly, the intention of this phase largely coincides with the one described in the positive-psychology approach to this phase, the description/wording of the person-centred approach to phase 4 differs substantially. Rather than “aiming to systematically alter the way in which the coachee interoperates negative conditions” or “utilizing psychological practices” the person-centred coach would stay non-directive, unconditionally accepting the coachee, and refraining from seeking to change. This is because, philosophically, the coachee is considered his or her own expert and any explicit effort to change him or her could be perceived as threat that may invoke defence mechanisms in the coachee that make his/her self-concept more rigid than flexible or changeable (Rogers 1959; Rogers and Farson 1987).

Consequently, like in the previous phases, the coach offers his/her person-centred attitudes and thus supports the coachee to accept him-/herself in their way of being. This unconditional acceptance is – paradoxically – the first step towards constructive change that is inherently motivated and self-directed (Rogers 1961). Through perceiving the safe, confirming climate in the coaching relationship, the coachee feels secure enough to open up towards any experience he/she encounters, to process it in and outside the coaching relationship and to grow from it. This free exploration of own experience and reliance on their feelings as well as rational thought will tend to render the coachee more creative to deal with new situations. Supported by a genuinely accepting and empathic coach, he/she is trusted and facilitated to find situation-specific, often unorthodox solutions to complex problems (Rogers 1961). Furthermore, the coachee will tend to reciprocate the acceptance and respect he or she is enjoying to receive from the coach and try to grant it to their environment (Rogers 1951, proposition18). This will benefit, in particular, relationships with culturally diverse colleagues whose being different will be accepted rather than combatted or devalued. All in all, the coachee will become more open-minded and up to following their personal goals and the shared vision specified in earlier phases.

To support this development, the coachee can be offered to try the experiential technique of focusing (Gendlin 1982). This entails an explicit offering to sense e.g. a problem in one’s body and to find and name a referent expression or feeling. Focusing may speed up the coachee’s capacity to get in touch with their feelings, to clear (inner) space for more openness, and to reduce stress and tension. In this way the whole organism including cognitions, feelings, meanings, and the body is mobilized to deal with upcoming challenges in a coordinated and united way.

3.5 Phase 5: Framing Solutions and Action Plans

3.5.1 Central Goals and Tasks

This phase involves developing or framing solutions and action plans to current challenges and developmental areas (Van Zyl and Stander 2013). This is done through solution-building conversations (Smith 2006), whereby the coachee is made aware of Justice and Jamieson’s (2002) “accept, change or leave principle”. Justice and Jamieson (2002) postulates that there are three high-level responses to most given stressors, challenges and problems, namely: (a) accepting the status quo, (b) changing oneself or changing the environment, or (c) leaving the problem situation. Solutions need to be built around one of these ideals as different developmental strategies are associated with the various outcomes. Through simplifying the available choices, the coachee might feel more in control of the process whereby the extent problem area may be minimalized in his/her mind (Van Zyl and Stander 2013). Both the coachee and the coach should collaboratively identify the current working mechanisms in the coachee’s life through a process of systematic probing (Smith 2006; Stelter 2014; Yalom 1980). Through collaboration the coach and coachee generate solutions, develops strategies and commits to the change (Smith 2006). Van Zyl and Stander (2013) notes that the emphasis through this process is on coachee-coach collaboration which can be seen as an expression of mutual positive regard as well as interpersonal transparency of goals and intents.

3.5.2 A Positive Psychology Approach to Phase 5

In this phase, the positive psychological coach engages in solution-building conversations whereby the coachee is enlisted to aid in determining practical solutions to presenting issues (Deane et al. 2014; Smith 2006), whereby the focus is on ‘how’ a coachee is addressing presenting problems, rather than the actual problem (Berg and De Jong 1996; Stelter 2014). Smith (2006) argues that the positive psychological coach and coachee works collaboratively to determine strength-based strategies which aided the coachee to cope with or manage similar problems in the past and to identify available psychological and social resources to confront current challenges. The purist positive psychological coach will aim to highlight the strengths used in the past coaching experiences and reinforce the positive components thereof (Scheel et al. 2012) through structured positive psychological solutions framing interventions.

A popular positive psychological approach to frame solutions and develop action plans is to utilize an Appreciative Inquiry (AI) (Sheldon et al. 2011; Whitney and Trosten-Bloom 2003). AI is a method of personal- and organizational development which emphasizes what the individual does well (strengths) rather than addressing difficulties through a greater understanding of the derailing mechanisms (Whitney and Trosten-Bloom 2003). Appreciative inquiry is a four phase cyclical change model (called the 4D cycle) which refers to a collaborative ‘inquiry’ into what currently is working well/optimally (Phase 1 -Discovery), in order to envisage what could work well in the future (Phase 2 – Dream), followed by collective planning and prioritizing process that would work well (Phase 2 – Design) and ended off with the execution of the proposed designed strategy to achieve the preferred future state (Phase 1 – Destiny) (Lewis et al. 2008). According to Gordon (2008) the model assumes that:

  • There are somethings that works well within and without the coachee;

  • Where the coachee focuses attention will become his/her reality;

  • Multiple realities exists as they are constructed in relation to others;

  • Realities are constructed within the moment;

  • Presenting questions to the coachee influences the way in which he/she thinks, feels or behaves

  • Individuals are more confident in working towards a positive future, if they transpose learning which worked well in the past;

  • Individual, group, organizational and cultural differences should be valued

  • The language people employ, structures their collective realities.

Applied to this phase of the coaching model, the coach and coachee co-constructs an action plan for the current challenges through applying the 4D model. Here ‘problems’ or ‘areas of development’ are reframed as ‘desired outcomes’ (Phase 1 and 2) and ‘Dreams’ (Phases 3 and 4). Table 1 highlights the process involved in structuring an action plan or solutions in each phase:

Table 1 Appreciative Inquiry focused solution generation
Full size table

As mentioned in Phase 1, the implementation strategy of the action plan needs to be documented and should form part of the PDP.

Further, Scheel et al. (2012) indicates that the positive psychological coach should be cognisant of (a) barriers to the use of coachee’s strengths, (b) coachee personal characteristics and (c) matching the coachee‘s context to strengths when framing solutions and determining action plans. Table 2 above presents a summary of Scheel et al.’s (2012) findings:

Table 2 Contextual considerations when framing strengths-based solutions
Full size table

3.5.3 A Person-Centred Approach to Phase 5

Once the coachee feels safe and received in the coaching relationship and furthermore is more aware, open and sensitized, he or she can focus effort on addressing individual areas from their personal development plan. The coach will accompany the coachee in finding quite concrete action plans on how to put intentions into practice, such that outcomes can be perceived and reflected in coaching sessions and/or the reflection journals and future actions adapted in a deliberate, reflected way. Occasionally, clearing space and focusing on challenging situations can help the coachee in finding a solution path in which he/she feels united as a whole person including their personal, social and cultural feelings and thought. While in general the coachee will choose the order in which he/she wants to address areas from their PDP. In case of indifference or difficulties the coach may suggest areas to tackle first, based on his/her empathy for the coachee and the environment, and/or borrowing from the technique of appreciative inquire as described above. The process of collaborative decision making can be reflected later as a referent process: How did we proceed to make a decision? What was helpful in the process?

3.6 Phase 6: Building Strengths and Competencies

3.6.1 Central Goals and Tasks

The main function of this phase is to develop the coachee’s competence through strengths identification, building and utilization activities. The coachee is encouraged to identify working mechanisms in his/her current work-related reality (Lyubomirsky 2011). These working mechanisms are usually exhibited, but supressed signature strengths (Lyubomirsky 2011; Sheldon et al. 2011). Through supporting the self-exploration process, the coach aids the coachee to highlight these suppressed strengths and encourages its use in new and challenging environments (Sheldon et al. 2011) in order to enhance personal and work-related well-being (Niemiec 2014). Further, the coachee should also focus on enhancing his/her manifested strengths and seek opportunities to apply newly developed strengths in line with the personal development strategy (Peterson and Seligman 2004) in order to develop the desired/identified work-related competencies (Van Zyl and Stander 2013).

In addition, the coachee should also be acquainted with the Lyubomirsky (2011) the 10 %, 40 %, 50 % principle. From this perspective, well-being is determined by a biological set point, the coachee’s current environment, and intentional activities aimed at developing positive affect (Lyubomirsky et al. 2005). Each one of these factors declares a fairly large amount of variance in the overall experience of positive affect (Van Zyl and Stander 2013). Lyubomirsky (2011) argues that biological set point declares 50 % of the aforementioned variance, where the current environment declares 10 % and intentional activities declares 40 %. The implication is that coachee’s intentional activities has a larger effect on sustainable well-being than his/her current environment has on the experience of positive affect. Therefore establishing that the person is in control of how they feel, think and act.

3.6.2 A Positive Psychology Approach to Phase 6

A basic assumption of positive psychology is that people have the capacity for developing strengths in order to grow and change (Peterson and Seligman 2004; Seligman 2011) due to their self-correcting (or self-righting) tendencies (Smith 2006). Strengths develop as a result of individuals’ attempts to adapt to challenging environments based on the inherent and genetically imprinted need to survive (Cilliers 2011; Peterson and Seligman 2004). As the survival instinct is genetically imprinted, it is assumed that strength development would be a life-long process as the struggle for survival is ever-present (Smith 2006). Further, Smith (2006) suggests individuals have a reservoir of manifested (known) and unexplored/unrecognized (unknown) strengths which develops as a result of an internal struggle with the self or an external struggle with the environment. As such, the role of the positive psychological coach is to support the coachee’s natural strengths-development capacity and to encourage engagement in challenging scenarios to develop new or enhance known strengths (Niemiec 2014; Roarty and Toogood 2014). Further, as strengths are not contextually bound (Niemiec 2014; Seligman 2011), the coachee is also encouraged to seek opportunities outside of the work-related and coaching session whereby he/she could seek to apply these strengths. As such, an action learning approach is initiated and controlled for.

Character strengths can also be taught and affected through the engagement in deliberate interventions (Lyubomirsky 2011; Niemiec 2014; Peterson and Seligman 2004; Seligman 2011). Niemiec (2014) states that coachees could be taught how to be more courageous, gracious, open-mined, creative and prudent through various interventions such as strengths journaling, goal orientated planning, or gratitude visits. The positive psychological coach should facilitate the implementation of these interventions through creating opportunities for discovery and providing the necessary skills to practice these newly developed signature strengths (Lyubomirsky 2011; Van Zyl and Rothmann 2014).

3.6.3 A Person-Centred Approach to Phase 6

The central goals and tasks of this phase, namely to build strengths and competencies or in other words to unleash and the coachee’s inherent constructive potential and let him or her unfold it in real-world situations are in high accord with the person-centred approach. A specific feature of the “building strengths and competencies” phase in the strengths based coaching model (Van Zyl and Stander 2013), however, is that there exist particular goals behind the coachee’s self-exploration such as:

  • to heighten awareness of personal strengths and competencies

  • to find new ways of employing and enhancing strengths in line with the PDP

  • to increase the awareness of the coachee that his/her intentional activities have a significant effect on their well-being.

It is essential that these goals are communicated such that there is transparency in the process and the coachee can better understand the selective listening for the issues named above. To clarify, selective empathic listening means that the coach selectively attends to those feelings and meanings in the coachee’s utterances that are related to some focus such as emphasizing strengths. Importantly, the coachee must not feel that any goals are imposed from an external perspective and has to stay in ultimate control of the direction of their personal development (Rogers 1959). Only in being transparent regarding specific goals, the coach can stay congruent in the relationship despite having goals/strategies that exceed his/her offering of a person-centred relationship and climate for self-exploration (Rogers 1959). In any case, the coach’s hidden goals or goals that conflict with the coachee’s inherent direction would interfere with the coachee’s inherent, directional actualizing tendency and thus with the principles of the person-centred approach.

3.7 Phase 7: Empowerment

3.7.1 Central Goals and Tasks

According to Van Zyl and Stander (2013), the purpose of this phase is to instil psychological empowerment within the coachee through activating existing internal and external resources and to promote collaboration during the coaching process. Smith (2006) indicates that empowerment is a process whereby the coach identifies, promotes and validates a coachee’s competent functioning during the coaching process. Through establishing empowerment, the coachee adopts a self-guided mindset of personal responsibility and self- assurance (Kidman and Davis 2007). As such, empowerment facilitates the client from a dependence to independence stance through exploring the social origins of the coachee’s behaviour and focus on the context in which it resides (Smith 2006).

For psychological empowerment to manifest, the coachee must experience a higher level of personal meaning, self-perceived competence and feel that he/she is in control the environment (Spreitzer 1995) in order to feel confident in applying strengths in new and innovative ways to overcome adversity, challenges and problems (Peterson and Seligman 2004).

3.7.2 A Positive Psychology Approach to Phase 7

From a positive psychological perspective, psychological empowerment refers to an intrinsic multi-dimensional motivational construct which manifests in experiences of meaningfulness, professional competence, self-determination and personal impact (Spreitzer 1995). As such the coach would need to ensure that the coachee (a) feels connected to the proverbial ‘bigger picture’ (meaningfulness), (b) exerts confidence in their abilities to successfully perform in a task (competence), (c) experiences a sense of control over initiating and regulating own work (self-determination) and (d) feels he/she is making a difference within the context in which he/she functions, in order to establish a sense of psychological empowerment.

3.7.3 A Person-Centred Approach to Phase 7

As in the previous phase, the goals as to what shall be achieved need to be transparent such as to avoid any sense of some “hidden agenda” and to include the coachee in the intended change process and let him/her co-decide on the paths how to move forward in accomplishing the PDP. This inclusion, based on the attitude of respect and empathic understanding of the coachee in his/her work environment is essential. Being trusted and met at eye-level, per se will empower the coachee and set him/her free to experiment with new behaviours. These will tend to be in part behaviours and attitudes that the coachee is receiving in the relationship and work with the coach and in part his/her own expressions of person-centred attitudes that the coachee perceives as constructive and wants to “reciprocate” in their relationships Rogers 1951). In brief, the major “force” towards empowerment will come from experiencing the genuine, real person-centred relationship with the coach in which the coachee will feel deeply understood, accepted and prized for who they are (Rogers 1978), regardless of their culture or social status.

A further aspect of empowerment might reside in “paving the path” towards constructive change by putting away hindrances that the coachee might encounter. For example, over critical or sarcastic or ironical, etc. colleagues or managers might be confronted with the effects of their behaviour or just pointed to the fact that the coachee is working hard at a better fit in the work context and that their support could be decisive for sustained benefit.

3.8 Phase 8: Reframing

3.8.1 Central Goals and Tasks

Van Zyl and Stander (2013) states that purpose of this phase is to alter behaviour through physically, psychologically or emotionally reframe work/life activities in order for them to be perceived as subjectively meaningful. Further, in this phase the coach aids the coachee to deconstruct and reframe the meaning they have attached to and derive from specific life/work events (Smith 2006). Here, the personal capacities and signature strengths of the coachee are viewed as the foundation from which constructive change is facilitated (Van Zyl and Stander 2013). Further, Van Zyl and Stander (2013) indicates that the coach should accompany the coachee by recognizing the efforts exerted and accomplishments achieved in the pursuit of achieving the associative goals as part of the personal development strategy. In addition, the coachee might be asked to reflect on the lessons learned from practice, as well as how these lessons affect the meaning attached to certain events (Seligman 2011).

Van Zyl and Stander (2013) further suggests that the coach may find it helpful to utilize Smith’s (2006) theoretical framework on cognitive reframing, stating seven steps in which reframing tends to occur: (a) recognition, (b) acceptance, (c) understanding, (d) learning there is always choice for how to view adversity, (e) changing the meaning ascribed to an event, (f) deriving lessons from the painful event, (g) redefining ourselves around our strengths and multiple talents, and (h) taking constructive action around the new strength-based identities and perseverance.

3.8.2 A Positive Psychology Approach to Phase 8

The process highlighted above is completely aligned to the purist positive psychological perspective. Further, the concept of reframing is strongly associated with the concept of subjective meaningfulness as defined by Seligman (2011) and Van Zyl (2012). Seligman (2011) defines meaning as the ability of an individual to utilize and apply signature strengths in the service of a larger/greater purpose. Van Zyl (2012) defines psychological meaning as the extent towards which an individual feels connected to the larger socially constructed reality or to the proverbial ‘bigger picture’. It further refers to experience of gaining a return on investment in the energy which one exerts in the pursuit of personal of professional goals (Seligman 2011). The practices associated with the search for and experience of meaning manifests differently for individuals, whereby meaning crafting or recrafting activities will differ from person-to-person (Van Zyl and Stander 2014).

Reframing refers to an intentional effort by an individual to positively alter, amend or change the meaning attached to and derived from traumatic events, negative conditions or unfulfilling work (Niemiec 2014; Van Zyl and Stander 2014). Coachees may engage in reframing activities to either: (a) take control over certain aspects of their lives to avoid negative consequences later, or (b) alter aspects relating to work/life in order to receive more positive expressions from others, or (c) to fulfil the basic human need for connectedness and acceptance by others (Kooij et al. 2015; Rogers 1959).

As noted above, the mechanisms employed to do so would differ based on the presented strengths of the coachee, the type of scenario and the availability of personal and professional resources. However, Kahn (1990) suggests three cross-culturally appropriate activities which coaches could engage in to aid the client to experience meaning: (a) increasing the challenge of activities and/or work related tasks, introducing variety and providing autonomy, (b) increasing the fit between the individual and the current role he performs within the organization, and (c) establishing rewarding and purposeful interpersonal reactions which results in experiences of self-appreciation and worthwhileness.

3.8.3 A Person-Centred Approach to Phase 8

In a person-centred climate in which the coach respects the actualizing tendency inherent in the coachee, changes in attitude, values, and behaviour tend to be a sign and expression of a person’s development toward their optimal functioning. Such changes would typically actualize and enhance the coachee’s organism, making the coachee’s experience more congruent or in tune with their awareness resulting in the coachee feeling more in control of their life. The changes would not be confined to the cognitive level but affect deeper levels of the coachee’s self-structure. Using person-centred terminology, the self-initiated change process is called “reorganization” of the self-structure (Rogers 1959) and is directed toward increased congruence (match) between self and experience and thus increased sense of unity and psychological well-being.

In order to increase the coachee’s awareness in the reframing/reorganization process, the coachee may be invited to reflect on his/her process and the changes perceived in him-/herself and the environment. Subsequently, to increase transparency and participation, the coachee could reflect from his/her own perspective, how and whether at all, the learning relates to their personal goals and the PDP (see phase 3).

Thus, as in all phases, a primary goal is to provide a genuine, accepting, and empathically understanding climate, in which the coachee feels free to release his/her inner potential and unfold from inside towards perfection under current circumstances. More concretely, Rogers (1959, p. 218–219) describes the outcomes in personality and behaviour when, in simplified terms, perceiving a person-centred relationship. Some of the outcomes/changes are:

  • The client is more congruent, more open to his experience, less defensive.

  • He is consequently more effective in problem solving.

  • His psychological adjustment is improved, being closer to the optimum.

  • He feels more confident, more self-directing.

  • He experiences more acceptance of others.

  • His behaviour is more creative, more uniquely adaptive to each new situation, and each new problem, more fully expressive of his own purpose and values. (Rogers 1959, pp. 218)

3.9 Phase 9: Building Sustainable Resilience

3.9.1 Central Goals and Tasks

The purpose of this phase is to aid coachees in building resilience to buffer against the reoccurrence of similar problems in the future (Van Zyl and Stander 2013). Resilience is defined as an individual’s ability to proverbially bounce back to a ‘normal level of functioning’ after a traumatic or stressful event (Smith 2006). Resilience is developed through understanding and utilizing the internal psychological resources (e.g. signature strengths) and external support mechanisms (e.g. social support networks) to cope with and recover from negative conditions (Seligman 2011). Van Zyl and Stander (2013) does not provide structured guidelines on the development of resilience as they argue it is multi-facetted and depended on the types of complexes manifested in the coachee’s ego or through the coachee’s life philosophy as embodied in his/her value system.

3.9.2 A Positive Psychology Approach to Phase 9

Resilience is considered a non-traditional positive psychological construct as it has roots in the traditional deficit model (Maymin and Britton 2009). Resilience is defined as an individual’s capacity and ability to effectively and efficiently adapt to or recover from stressful events, adverse environments and negative conditions (Gonzales 2012). Resilience should be considered as a formative process rather than an individual personality trait (Gonzales 2012; Seligman 2011). Kuyken et al. (2009) argued that developing resilience in any psychological intervention should be an explicit goal. When resilience is established as a formative outcome of the coaching process, research suggests that both coach and coachee are expected to commit more readily to proactive strategies to use identified strengths to foster future resilience (Kuyken et al. 2009; Maymin and Britton 2009).

Although resilience building is client specific, Newman (2005), the American Psychological Association (2010) and Robertson (2012) suggests ten generic way for the coach to aid the coachee to build resilience which are:

  1. 1.

    to establish and maintain good interpersonal relationships with close friends/family;

  2. 2.

    to refrain from interpreting stressful life/work events as intolerable problems;

  3. 3.

    to accept things that cannot be changed;

  4. 4.

    to set specific, realistic and attainable goals and implement strategies for attainment;

  5. 5.

    to take vital decisions in adverse, negative or stressful situations;

  6. 6.

    to seek opportunities of self-discovery, personal-reflection and post-traumatic growth after negative conditions have expired;

  7. 7.

    to develop self-confidence;

  8. 8.

    to focus on the proverbial bigger picture in order to consider adverse work/life event or negative condition in the broader context;

  9. 9.

    to develop and maintain an optimistic and hopeful orientation through the experience of a negative condition through purposefully expecting positive outcomes and visualizing what is wished;

  10. 10.

    to take care of one’s mind (e.g. meditation) and body (e.g. exercise).

3.9.3 A Person-Centred Approach to Phase 9

Towards the end of a coachee-centred coaching process in a person-centred climate, the coachee will tend to have assimilated a higher level of person-centred attitudes (congruence, acceptance, empathic understanding) which will empower him/her to solve complex problems more effectively. According to Rogers (1961), “the other individual [in our context the coachee] in the relationship:

  • will experience and understand aspects of himself which previously he has repressed;

  • will find himself becoming better integrated, more able to function effectively;

  • will become more similar to the person he would like to be;

  • will be more self-directing and self-confident;

  • will become more of a person, more unique and more self-expressive;

  • will be more understanding, more acceptant of others;

  • will be able to cope with the problems of life more adequately and more comfortably.” (p. 37–38).

These appear to be highly relevant moves, in particular in multicultural contexts that require a high degree of respect of otherness. According to Rogers (1959, 1961) the changes are hypothesized as being relatively permanent. Nevertheless, in for these changes to sustain more fully, the coachee benefits from experiencing a person-centred climate (Motschnig and Nykl 2014; Rogers 1970). This is why it is essential that the coaching process goes far enough that the coachee (and optimally also his/her direct manager) can themselves offer a person-centred atmosphere to others and thus unfold more of it in the organization. Additionally, the coachee may attend person-centred encounter groups (e.g. twice a year 1.5 days) to refresh their attitudes and/or build support networks with like-minded colleagues within or across organizations to cultivate person-centred attitudes. No cross cultural view.

3.10 Phase 10: Evaluating and Re-contracting the Relationship

3.10.1 Central Goals and Tasks

The final phase of Van Zyl and Stander’s (2013) coaching model culminates in the evaluation of the coaching relationship and potential re-contracting. They argue that evaluation of the process should continue throughout the coaching intervention in order to ensure that the developmental strategy is on track. However, in the final phase of the coaching relationship, a formative evaluation process needs to be conducted to determine the effectiveness of the developmental strategy and either prepare the coachee for terminating the relationship or re-contracting for further development (Van Zyl and Stander 2013). They further argue that the evaluation process needs to be coupled with calculating the return on investment for the coaching process (Pedler et al. 2007).

Evaluated against the initial objectives set in Phase 1, both the coach and coachee needs to determine the success of the intervention (Van Zyl and Stander 2013). Further, the expectations of the other stakeholders (e.g. managing director, direct manager) needs to be evaluated against the process of the coaching intervention. In order to formally close off the coaching relationship a follow-up meeting between the coachee and his/her direct manager needs to take place in order to determine whether the expectations of the process were met (Pedler et al. 2007). In the scenarios where the expectations have not been met, or if the coachee presents a need for further intervention, a re-contracting process could be initiated (Van Zyl and Stander 2013).

3.10.2 A Positive Psychology Approach to Phase 10

With the exclusion of Smith (2006), no formal or informal positive psychological approach could be found relating to the evaluation and termination of a positive psychological intervention strategy, -therapeutic intervention or -coaching process. According to Smith (2006) during this phase all stakeholders honours the progress which has been made. The coach would determine whether the coachee has achieved his/her objectives, whether the changes that manifested was indeed as a result of the positive psychological coaching process and which signature strengths/environmental resources were most significant/effective in the process (Smith 2006).

3.10.3 A Person-Centred Approach to Phase 10

In a person-centred approach to evaluation (Rogers 1983; Standl et al. 2012), the coachee’s self-evaluation would come first and guide the feedback and evaluation process. The self-evaluation can happen either as an open, free-style (oral or written) task or one guided by questions that the coach and coachee determine beforehand and the coachee is asked to respond to. Optimally, this self-evaluation by the coachee is be followed by feedback of the coach and optionally also the direct manager in a transparent session allowing all parties to share their perceptions, feelings and potential further action. As a result, a follow up plan for further development is agreed upon, potentially including a process of re-contracting. In that case, the coach, coachee and manager would explore what is needed for the expectations to be met and how each can contribute to this aim. Also, each expectation would be reconsidered whether it still holds or should better be revised to reflect the new situation and insight from the first round. This is particularly important in a multicultural environment where, for example, expectations regarding punctuality, masculinity, or ambiguity avoidance may differ considerably between coachee and manager. A two sided move instead of putting all burdens on the coachee might prove to be a good way to resolve some ongoing issues.

Since the person-centred approach sees each person continually becoming the best they can (Rogers 1980), further opportunities of personal development for the coachee would be a valuable complement to any coaching process. Even though person-centred attitudes are resilient and once acquired don’t “get lost” (Rogers 1980), they need to be experienced and renewed not to get “buried under” careless, often hectic, superficial everyday conversations (Rogers 1970). Opportunities for renewal could be very simple and become part of the coaches work life, like regular open sharing session with colleagues and/or the manager. Alternatively, externally facilitated encounter groups could be offered as further means of life-long learning (Rogers 1983).

4 Reflecting on the Positive Psychological and Person-Centred Approach During the Coaching Process

4.1 Orientation

Through providing an interpretation of a paradigm specific approach to each phase of Van Zyl and Stander’s (2013) eclectic strengths-based coaching model, the similarities, and differences of the positive psychological and person-centred approaches within this context could be highlighted. Further, a number of conceptual implications and limitations of the differences/similarities between the paradigms for multi-cultural coaching could be derived. In the following sub-sections we will attempt to highlight and discuss these similarities, differences and implications.

4.2 Similarities Between Paradigms Within the Eclectic Multi-cultural Coaching Process

From our contrasting discussion it is clear that both positive psychology and the person-centred approach shares fundamental features even though the wording, labels or language employed may be different (Joseph and Murray 2013). As such, a brief overview of the core similarities highlighted in this chapter between the paradigms is presented:

  • Both approaches distances itself from the medical or deficit model (Joseph and Murray 2013)

  • Both approaches focuses on constructive human qualities or traits within the coaching process

  • Both assumes the coachee has the capacity for strength development, growth and change (Rogers 1961, 1964; Smith 2006)

  • The person-centred approach aims to aid in letting the fully functioning person/coachee unfold through developing an openness to experience, to value autonomy, to reduce defensiveness, and to function authentically. These core characteristics of the fully functioning coachee are characterized as the signature strengths which the positive psychological coach aims to develop in the coachee

  • Both subscribes to the self-actualizing tendency of the coachee, whereby development and growth is facilitated within the context in which he/she resides (Joseph and Murray 2013),

  • Even though in a positive psychological setting this happens more explicitly and strategically, in the person-centered approach the experience of a constructive interpersonal climate is pivotal

  • Within the coaching process, the coach honours/acknowledges the coachee’s efforts to engage to move forward and struggles to deal with presenting issues (Rogers 1961; Seligman 2011; Smith 2006)

  • Both approaches underpins the importance of understanding the coachee’s current work-related reality and interpretative framework (Smith 2006)

  • It is apparent that both paradigms within the multi-cultural coaching framework embodies an eudaimonic as opposed to hedonic philosophy (Robbins 2008)

  • Both paradigms strives towards developing constructive capacities and resilience, as opposed to reactive intervention methods (Joseph and Murray 2013)

  • Resilience is a key concept within both the positive psychological and person-centred approaches (Friedman and Robbins 2012), however it is approached from different angles in the coaching process.

4.3 Differences Between Paradigms Within the Eclectic Multi-cultural Coaching Process

In contrast to the previous section, our contrasting discussion highlights that the positive psychological and person centred approached differ fundamentally in various application areas within the eclectic multi-cultural coaching model. For simplification, the differences in paradigms are presented below.

4.3.1 Positive Psychology

Presented against the eclectic multi-cultural coaching model, positive psychology differs with the person-centred approach in this context in the following ways:

  • The person-centred approach over-estimates the importance of growth-promoting environments (Harter et al. 1996) where the positive psychological approach acknowledges the impact of the environment on personal development but to a limited extent (Lyubomirsky 2011).

  • Positive psychology places more reliance on instruments and evaluation by “external means” rather than on personal exploration.

  • The positive psychological approach tends to favour quantitative intervention methodologies whereas the person-centred approach shows a preference for the qualitative (Friedman 2008).

  • Coach is considered an expert in the interventions process and through the use of psychometric instruments, he/she guides/facilitates the process.

  • Focus in the coaching process is on strength awareness, -identification and -utilization where positive feelings or experiences are explicitly emphasized.

  • Coach excels in knowledge and competences about the effects of positive feelings and how these could be enacted.

  • Coach provides structured and organized guidance through the coaching process.

  • The positive psychological approach focuses more on the person-environment-fit awareness, while the person-centred approach focuses on the individual within the environment.

  • The positive psychological approach is about the coach concentrating on strengths utilization contrasted to a more accepting the self.

  • The positive psychological coach focusses on framing practical solutions while the person-centered approach focuses on the coachee as a whole person who is trusted to find his/her solution in a self-initiated way.

  • From the positive psychological perspective, strengths and virtues are considered logically independent, as opposed to the holistic and interdependent view the person-centered approach employs. Within the person-centered approach strengths relates to a single/master, multi-facetted virtue called phronesis.

  • The positive psychological coach employs a nomothetic approach towards human potential development.

  • The positive psychological coach attributes resilience as a virtue which transcends the environment in which the coachee functions.

  • Although the positive psychological coach does not shun or ignore the presence of negative conditions or emotions, he/she does however over accentuate the positive.

4.3.2 Person Centred Approach

Further, from our investigation it is evident that the person-centred approach differs significantly with positive psychology within the context of the coaching model in the following ways:

  • Coach is more like a facilitator, deeply listening to the coachee as well as the manager and providing – with highest priority – a facilitative person-centred relationship based on congruence, acceptance and empathic understanding. In this climate positive change is expected to happen as a consequence of the inherent actualizing tendency.

  • Coach acts as a resourceful person (Barrett-Lennard 2005) making suggestions and relying on the self-organizing potentials of the person (and organization).

  • Coach excels in active listening and deep understanding of the coachee in his/her environment, making the coachee feel safe and fully received, and passing on person-centred attitudes and relationships (Rogers 1978). Coach and coachee meet each other at eye level in dealing with each other; Whenever appropriate, the organizational environment is included to increase transparency of the process and decision making. The process (=10 step) model is used as a loose guideline that can be flexibly adapted if deemed beneficial. The ultimate goal is the work-related, personal development of the coachee.

  • There is more trust in the individual to sense and explore their capacities in the climate of a person centred relationship. Work with encounter groups for simultaneous discovery and growth can be a valuable complement increasing the self-experience of the coachee in a group of peers.

  • Instruments are not imposed, their usage will finally be the coachee’s choice. This will ensure better collaboration since there is inherent motivation to use the instrument, if the choice is self-determined. Furthermore, the coachee experiences a sense of control and co-design of his/her coaching session which lets them experience the empowerment they are actually receiving.

  • Effects of interpersonal relationship and own striving are more in the foreground than “engineered” and reinforced strategies that have been found to be effective through science and “applied upon” the coachee. This implies that the whole person approach with emphasis on work-related capacities is more important than a strict strength-based approach.

  • Hope, energy, unfolding and well-being tend to be released from experiencing a resourceful, enriching interpersonal relationship that confirms the coachee’s direction and capacity to grow from any experience and inspires him or her to proceed with this. Sustainability is increased through reflection (Motschnig and Nykl 2014).

  • When following explicit goals other that the general personal growth of the coachee, for example elaborating signature strengths, transparency is vital. The coachee must be included in knowing and co-determining the coaching agenda. In this way he/she can better understand why the coach’s empathic listening might focus on certain aspects of what the coachee is sharing while leaving others unattended.

  • There is more reliance on the actualizing tendency and the impact of the coaching relationship on change. The coachee is perceived as more self-determining, trusted, and participating as a collaborative partner. The coachee is left with more choices and self-direction already in the coaching process.

  • Self-evaluation precedes and is prioritized over evaluation by others (Rogers 1983). Feedback is appreciated as a resource to complement self-evaluation.

  • Further steps are co-decided rather that elaborated by the coach as an expert

  • Ongoing development is sought to ensure moving forward. Opportunities may be self-initiated and self-organized, since the coachee wants to continue the path towards more congruence and well-being and has been empowered to take action.

  • The person-centred coach adopts a non-reductive, whole person approach towards the developmental process

  • The person-centred coach accepts the coachee unconditionally, as opposed to the positive psychological stance which emphasizes a prescriptive valuation during coaching

  • The person-centred coach focuses on resilience in a more holistic manner in the coaching process through attributing its development to a combination of virtues, environmental and contextual factors

  • The person-centred coach embraces a holistic approach through embracing the value of both positive and negative conditions within the coachee’s reality. Neither the positive or negative processes nor experiences of the coachee are over or under emphasized.

4.3.3 Summary of Comparison

Based on the strong sides and research base of the two traditions of positive psychology and the person-centred approach, these two directions put different emphasis on certain aspects of the eclectic coaching model. In a nutshell:

  • The positive psychology approach emphasizes strength-identification, psychometric measurement and cognitive strategies to evoking positive emotions and enacting the coachee’s strengths.

  • The person-centred approach emphasizes the development/unfolding of inherent capacities of the coachee by experiencing a growth-promoting interpersonal relationship with the coach.

  • Both approaches promote the development to the coachee’s well-being in a coachee-centred way rather than adopting the medical model of removing deficiencies.

Intriguingly, much in line with a strengths-based model, each approach focuses on including and enacting their strong sides (“strengths”), without contradicting the other approach. This can be derived from the “more or less” nature of the comparative description above, such as: “more reliance on instruments and evaluation” versus “more trust in the individual to sense and explore their capacities”.

5 Concluding Remarks

The purpose of this chapter was to examine similarities and differences between positive psychology and the person-centred approach as dominant paradigm perspectives within multi-cultural coaching. Both paradigms were presented against an eclectic multi-cultural strengths-based coaching model founded in both paradigms (cf. Van Zyl and Stander 2013). Through the use of connective conceptual analysis (Banicki 2011), each phase of the proposed eclectic coaching model was explored from a positive psychological and person-centred orientation to develop a clear understanding of the essential commonalities and dissimilarities of the paradigms. The chapter concluded with revealing conceptual implications and limitations of this work in the multi-cultural coaching context.

In summation, both positive psychology and the person-centred approach were found to share fundamental goals, features, and the core attitude of respect, yet differ significantly in key functional areas where Positive psychology tends to focus more on the conscious level of the coachee as well as the coach. This manifests in relying more explicitly on both psychological and culturally specific strengths, their identification, measurement, and enactment as well as on explicit strategies of positive enforcement of positive (past) experience. The person-centred approach emphasizes the integration of conscious and unconscious levels of the coachee through relying primarily on the coachee’s experiencing a growth-promoting, genuine interpersonal relationship in which he/she feels unconditionally accepted, valued, and deeply understood at conscious and unconscious levels. There is apparently more trust and reliance on self-organization and the coachee’s inclusion into the whole process in person-centred coaching while positive psychology relies more strongly on the coach as an expert in personal development interventions including the thoughtful application of techniques, methods, instruments, etc. The chapter ends with hope for integration in the realm of coaching, which is considered to offer particular benefits for culturally diverse coachees, however will be challenging to achieve in practice. If this article has illustrated some basic differences in the practices and underlying philosophies and of the two psychological orientations in the context of coaching and also made clear that these are different paths to reach strongly resonant goals, it has fulfilled its purpose.