Keywords

Introduction

Traditionally, helping professions aimed to address psychopathology and deviance. Well-being was defined by the mere absence of distress and pathology, where no emphasis was placed on optimal development (Peterson and Seligman 2004). Focusing on and re-emphasising pathology reinforces low expectations, creates dependency on outside resources and discourages individuals to develop optimally (Seligman 2011). Professionals interested in promoting human potential need to move away from this disease model towards facilitating development through focusing on individual strengths (Park and Peterson 2006) since individuals present with an inherent tendency to develop and grow (Rogers 1961). One approach through which this can be done is coaching (Cilliers 2011).

Coaching refers to a short- to medium-term relationship between an individual and a professional with the purpose of improving an individual’s work performance through focusing on changing behaviour and addressing/preventing organisational issues (Feldman and Lankau 2005). Coaching is conceptualised as a practical goal-orientated form of personal and professional development which manifests in various models and approaches (see Biswas-Diener and Dean 2007), yet few are empirically validated (Kauffman 2006; Koortzen and Oosthuizen 2010). Cilliers (2011) argued that these approaches place too much emphasis on ‘correcting what is wrong’ rather than facilitating optimal development. As a result, the emphasis has moved away from the coachee and has become mechanistic in nature (Biswas-Diener 2010). Consequently, permanent and sustainable change in behaviour may not manifest, which could result in a reoccurrence of the manifested behaviour (Rogers 1951; Seligman 2011).

Rogers (1951) argued that the person (client, student, coachee) needs to be at the centre of the developmental process and not the process itself. In order to facilitate change, the facilitator (counsellor, educator, coach) should understand the reality of the individual from his/her perspective (Carkhuff 2000; Rogers 1951). Therefore, it is imperative that the coach approaches the process from within the coachee’s reality. This is a main theme in positive psychology (Seligman and Csikszentimihalyi 2000). Positive psychology, much like the PCA, assumes that each individual has the capacity for personal growth, to develop strengths, build on positive emotions and develop sustainable resilience which enable individuals. Unlike the PCA, however, positive psychology also considers ways how organisations can flourish (Biswas-Diener 2010; Seligman 2011). Positive psychological coaching refers to the identification, optimisation and application of individual strengths in order to facilitate development of individuals in organisational contexts. Limited research exists on positive psychological coaching within multicultural environments (Cilliers 2011).

Resultantly, the purpose of this chapter is to present a strengths-based coaching model that integrates the psycho-existential, positive psychology, and person-centred approach (PCA) to provide an ecosystemic view of human nature. The approach focuses on enhancing, predicting and utilising individual strengths and its various underlying constructs (e.g. happiness, resilience and meaning in work) in order to enhance individual performance and facilitate well-being. The coach is supposed to concentrate on basic PCA interpersonal attitudes of openness to experience, unconditional positive regard, quality, non-directivity and empathy. A meta-theoretical literature review was used in order to develop a ten-phase strengths-based model for workplace and executive coaching that aims to be applicable within a multicultural environment.

A Strengths-Based Coaching Model

One of the basic assumptions of positive psychology, the PCA and psycho-existentialism is that individuals have the capacity to enhance, sustain and actualise their potential (Rogers 1951; Seligman 2011). Individuals’ behaviour is the manifested result of this propensity to address this need. Thus, a central tendency of this model is the focus on individual strengths, rather than developmental areas (Smith 2006). Developing strengths buffers against the onset of psychopathology (Smith 2006). Drawing from both the PE and PCA, the model assumes that the development of strengths is based on internal and external forces which address various inherent psychological needs (Seligman 2011). A strength (Peterson and Seligman 2004) is the final outcome of internal struggle with adversity which manifests in (a) experienced meaning and (b) a search for meaning (Sheldon et al. 2011). Fronczak (2006) is of the opinion that integrating signature strengths in coaching interventions may contribute to the quality of happiness and facilitate the pursuit of a meaningful life.

According to So and Kauffman (2010), strengths are psychological traits that render the coachee more capable of identifying, implementing and accomplishing meaningful goals. Linley and Harrington (2006) defined strengths as ‘a natural capacity for behaving, thinking, or feeling in a way that allows optimal functioning and performance in the pursuit of valuable outcomes’ (p. 88). Gordon and Gucciardi (2011) summarise strengths as something that people are good at and passionate about. Rogers (1978) argued that uncovering, respecting and applying individual strengths manifests in the sustainable change and lasting happiness. The actualising tendency individuals present acts as the foundation through which strengths develop (Rogers 1978).

Linley and Harrington (2006) conceptualised strengths-based coaching as harnessing inner potential to optimise performance and well-being, leading to increased engagement, energy, motivation and hope. Gordon and Gucciardi (2011) described strengths-based coaching as strengths-spotting, learning from successes, proactive, self-directed and collaborative.

The strengths-based coaching model integrates these ideas into a ten (10)-phase model (see Fig. 1). The process is cyclical and rooted in continuous evaluation and feedback. A key part of the model is minimal encouragement, since this act as an indication of complete positive regard. Here, encouragement refers to a process, whereby the coach (a) shows complete acceptance, (b) expresses empathy, (c) shows confidence, (d) focuses on the strengths and resources, (e) effort and improvement of the client and (f) facilitates the implementation of decisions that’s made throughout the process. This is essential to facilitate a change in behaviour (Charkhuff 2000; Rogers 1961, 1951). The challenge for the coach will be to facilitate the optimisation of the coachee’s resources that will lead to self-directed behaviour changes ensuring improved performance for the organisation and wellness for the individual. Strengths must be evoked to overcome obstacles. In the following sections, a brief explanation of each phase will be provided.

Fig. 1
figure 1

The strengths-based coaching model

Full size image

Phase 1: Clarifying Expectations and Establishing Rapport

The purpose of this phase is to clarify the expectations between the various stakeholders in the coaching process and to establish rapport. It is imperative to concentrate development on the needs of the individual within the position (Koortzen and Oosthuizen 2010), as well as within the organisation. Further, this phase aims to understand the utility of the coachee’s work-related reality, a concept which is central to the PCA (Rogers 1961). This phase is also central to the tendency of presence within the PCA (Rogers 1980). This first phase is divided into four (4) sub-phases:

  • Clarifying expectations with Senior Management (either with the Managing Director or with the two levels above coachee).

  • Clarifying expectations with the coachee’s direct manager.

  • Clarifying expectations between the direct manager and the coachee.

  • Clarifying expectations with the coachee and establish rapport.

Clarifying expectations and establishing rapport with the coachee is vital to the success of the coaching process (Biswas-Diener 2010). The goal of this phase is to understand the dynamics of the coachee’s position and his role within the department/organisation and to develop a foundation from which to approach the process.

In order to establish rapport or ‘contact’ (Rogers 1961), the coach needs to attend to any physical barriers which might impact or interrupt the process (e.g. switching off the cell phone). The coach should create a calm and trusting environment in order to establish the perception that the coach is providing his undivided attention to the coachee (Carkhuff 2000; Egan 2007; Rogers 1961). This may invoke commitment and involvement from the coachee (Egan 2007; Palmer and McDowall 2010). The coachee is approached in a non-directive manner in order to express trust in his or her constructive tendency and facilitating the establishment of rapport and personal development (Rogers 1951).

Egan (2007) developed a technique which could be used to establish rapport, named SOLER:

S:

facing the coachee Squarely (sitting in front of him)

O:

adopt an Open, non-defensive posture

L:

Leaning forward towards the coachee to show interest

E:

Make good Eye contact

R:

Stay Relaxed

Through adopting the SOLER approach, the coachee’s perception around the coach’s warmth and empathy is established (Egan 2007). Furthermore, the coach should interoperate the interaction from the coachee’s reality and therefore present genuine unconditional positive regard, free from judgement. This in turn establishes the perception that the coach is more attentive, empathic and caring. Further, a process of active listening needs to be invoked in order to show that the coach comprehends, retains and responds to what the coachee is presenting (Carkhuff 2000; Rogers 1951). For an outline of this process, see Carkhuff (2000).

In this phase, it is very important to understand the coachee’s frame of reference in terms of potential cultural, gender, generations, values, interactional preferences and belief differences (Bennett 1993; Rogers 1961). The coach needs to be sensitive to cultural nuances and needs to interoperate the coachee’s messages from his/her perspective (Bennett 1993). Cultural differences must be optimised as a strength within the coaching relationship (Bachkirova 2011). Open, honest communication will be crucial for the success of the coaching process (Rogers 1961). These differences must be discussed and clarified from time to time (van Zyl and Stander 2011).

Furthermore, a psychological contract needs to be established between the coach and the coachee. This process should highlight the expectations of both the coach and the coachee to ensure a clear agreement is derived on both the approach and outcomes of the coaching process (Bachkirova 2011; McGovern et al. 2001). Additionally, during this phase, the process needs to be defined and the coach needs to establish the need to review the process and re-establish expectations on a quarterly basis. A coaching log may be helpful to direct the coaching process towards the stated end results. The coaching log incorporates details of the interaction and acts as a utility for the active listening processes through retaining information for future sessions.

Phase 2: Identifying and Marrying Conscious and Unconscious Strengths

The purpose of this phase is to uncover the coachee’s unconscious strengths and merge it with the coachee’s current competencies (Seligman 2011). This phase involves the identification of conscious and unconscious strengths through psychometric measurement and competency-based assessment. Both the psychometric evaluation and the competency-based assessment must be in line with the clarified expectations and measurable end results. The psychometric measures should provide the coach with subjective indicators of the coachee’s current mental position (Bachkirova 2011). Psychometric tests can include work preferences, personality and emotional intelligence. Furthermore, the authors suggest a continuous self-report measuring instrument such as the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener et al. 1985) to track the developmental process. Additionally, a competency profile needs to be developed (see previous phases), in line with his/her position within the organisation, as well as the identified measurable end results (Bachkirova 2011). A 360° evaluation may be conducted with the competency profile in order to determine the individual’s performance based on the developmental competencies. Finally, a strengths-based assessment such as the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS) (Peterson and Seligman 2004) needs to be conducted in order to provide an indication of the individual’s strengths. Some people use interviews or more creative ideas like strengths cards and storytelling to identify strengths. Another technique to identify possible strengths is Appreciative Inquiry (AI) (Sheldon et al. 2011; Whitney and Trosten-Bloom 2003). It is a method of personal and organisational development which emphasises what the individual does well (strengths) rather than focusing on the developmental areas (Whitney and Trosten-Bloom 2003). It is important to note that this is an intervention which is not in line with pure PCA principles of support and empathy, but provides the coach with core information regarding the processing and functioning of the coachee.

Phase 3: Identifying Coaching Themes

The purpose of this phase is to merge the data obtained from the previous phase and to identify possible developmental themes. The coach shouldn’t completely shun the developmental areas (Smith 2006). One has to develop a clear understanding regarding the current challenges in the coachee’s life. This is in full accord with a whole person approach focusing on person’s experience in the current situation (Rogers 1951). The focus should be on revealing what the coachee believes the problem(s) to be, why it exists, what attributed to the problem, what the consequences are and also what meaning he/she derived from the situation (Bachkirova 2011; Rogers 1951).

The individual’s strengths need to be identified and utilised in order to help develop the various competencies (Peterson and Seligman 2004). Strengths develop as a result of a struggle with one’s self or a struggle with the external environment (Rogers 1951; 1977). Individuals approach situations within the bounds of their awareness of their strengths (Seligman 2011). One’s unique combination of strengths should be utilised in order to develop a strategy to develop competencies (Bachkirova 2011; Seligman 2011). These ideals should then be manifested in a personal development plan (PDP) to facilitate the process (Bachkirova 2011).

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

The purpose of this phase is to encourage the coachee to utilise his/her strengths and to facilitate the development of meaning, self-actualisation and the inherent potential of the individual. Encouraging a coachee acts as a form of positive reinforcement, whereby the coachee’s strengths are emphasised (Lyubomirsky 2011; Smith 2006). Encouragement is a process, whereby the coachee’s unconscious resources are developed in order to facilitate the formulation of positive choices (Rogers 1951). Encouragement serves as a vehicle through which the coach ‘supports’ the current behaviour of the coachee, whereby the coachee internalises it through identifying the behaviour as a strength (Goodyear et al. 2008; Lyubomirsky 2011). In this phase, the coachee experiences self-exploration and reinforcing the presented strengths used in a given situation (Peterson and Seligman 2004). The coach must ensure that the coachee is open to learning from different experiences. Focus should be on the individual’s strengths and how these strengths are used to address the developmental areas (Seligman 2011). The coach should reinforce the strengths and probe the coachee on strategies where the coachee can use his/her strengths to address the presented challenges (Sin et al. 2011). As a result, the coachee will discover alternative possibilities to use these strengths through the process of encouragement and probing (Sin et al. 2011). This phase is characterised through the exploration of the self and how it can be used to develop self-identity. This is done so that the coachee can develop his own worldview and to understand where he fits into the larger sub-system (Sheldon et al. 2011).

This self-identity and ideals culminate in the generation of hope (Seligman 2011). According to Peterson and Seligman (2004), hope is the central ‘buffering mechanism’ which affects the onset of psychopathology. The coach should therefore structure questions in such a manner as to encourage individuals to relive past events where they felt hopeful in order to cultivate optimism (Seligman 2011).

In this phase, both forgiveness and gratitude play an important part. Forgiveness encourages the coachee to release negative energy tied to the past (Smith 2006). Gratitude on the other hand is used to instil lasting happiness within the coachee (Peterson and Seligman 2004). Forgiveness illuminates negative emotions, whereas gratitude strives towards instilling positive emotions about the past and the future (Lyubomirsky 2011).

Phase 5: Framing Solutions and Action Plans

This phase involves developing or framing solutions to current developmental areas. The coachee needs to be facilitated to develop his own strategies aimed at developmental needs (Smith 2006). This is done through solution-building conversations (Smith 2006), whereby he needs to be made aware of the ‘accept, change or leave principle’. According to Justice and Jamieson (2002), there are three high-level responses to most given stressors, namely (a) accepting the status quo or changing the self, (b) changing what one can or (c) leaving the problem situation. Solutions need to be built around these ideals. The coach should try and identify the current working mechanisms in the coachee’s life through a process of probing (Smith 2006; Yalom 1980). Through collaboration, the coach and coachee generate solutions to the situation (based on his/her inherent character strengths), whereby the coachee develops and commits to a strategy of change (Smith 2006). One approach would be to identify S.M.A.R.T goals. Doran (1981) explains goals need to be specific, measurable, attainable, realistic and time bound.

Note, in this phase and throughout the whole process, the emphasis on coachee–coach collaboration which can be seen as an expression of mutual positive regard as well as interpersonal transparency of goals and intents (Kirschenbaum and Henderson 1989; Rogers 1951).

Phase 6: Building Strengths and Competencies

This phase has a strong link to PCA and a multicultural approach in terms of unconditional positive regard towards the coachee. The coach engages in a non-judgemental approach towards coachee’s experiences, background and preferences. This step is vital for psychological health (Seligman 2011). The coachee needs to identify working mechanisms in himself/herself (Lyubomirsky 2011). These working mechanisms are usually manifested, but repressed strengths (Lyubomirsky 2011; Sheldon et al. 2011). The coach should illuminate these strengths and competencies through a process of self-exploration and encouragement (Sheldon et al. 2011). The coachee must be made aware of the 10, 40, 50 % principle (Lyubomirsky et al. 2005). From this perspective, well-being is determined by a biological set point, the conditions of your current life position (environment) and intentional activities aimed at developing happiness. Each one of these factors declares a fairly large amount of variance in the overall experience of happiness. Research has found that the biological set point declares 50 % of the aforementioned variance, where the current life position declares 10 % and intentional activities 40 % (Lyubomirsky 2011). This means that intentional activities of an individual aimed at increasing well-being has a larger effect than one’s current environment on the experience. The coachee should therefore build on his current strengths and apply newly developed strengths in order to identify new ways of utilising them (Peterson and Seligman 2004). This will result in a greater fit between the person and the environment (Lyubomirsky 2011; Seligman 2011). The greater the person–environment fit, the more meaning the individual derives from work (Van Zyl et al. 2010). This results in more engagement and higher levels of performance (Seligman 2011).

Phase 7: Empowerment

The process of empowerment focuses on activating existing internal and external resources of the coachee in such a manner as to promote the coachee’s competent functioning through collaboration during the coaching process (Cilliers 2011; Spreitzer 1995). This systemic perspective can be seen as broadening the view of the PCA that emphasises internal resources (Kirschenbaum and Henderson 1989). Psychologically empowering the coachee refers to increasing his intrinsic level of motivational self-efficacy (Spreitzer 1995; Smith 2006). The coach should explore the social origins of the coachee’s behaviours and focus on the context in which it resides (Smith 2006). The coachee should be facilitated to try out new ways in which to utilise his/her strengths to attempt a solution to the problem (Peterson and Seligman 2004). The approach depends on both the needs of the coachee and the circumstantial environment in which the coachee resides (Seligman 2011). To be psychologically empowered, the coachee must experience a higher level of meaning, competence and control of his/her environment (Spreitzer 1995).

Phase 8: Reframing

This phase is characterised by changing current behavioural patterns. The focus is on reframing work and life activities in order for them to become more meaningful. The coach should understand that change is a continuous process and doesn’t function in isolation (Rogers 1951). The coachee’s strengths are seen as the foundation from which decisions are made (Seligman 2011). These strengths also serve as the catalyst for the need to change (Seligman 2008).

The coachee comes to view mistakes as opportunities to learn and grow which is much in the sense of the primacy of experience as a core idea in the PCA (Rogers 1980; Smith 2006). The emphasis should therefore be on what the coachee does right, rather than focusing on what he/she is doing wrong (LeBon 2001). The primary function of this phase is to facilitate the coachee into understanding and desiring the need for change (Seligman 2011; Smith 2006). This need for change should manifest in a series of small attainable goals, each goal should be slightly more difficult/stretching than the last (Yalom 1980). The coach should encourage the individual through recognising his efforts, improvements and accomplishments even if they aren’t fully attained (Smith 2006). These goals should be in line with the goals presented in the previous sections, where the focus should be on the establishment of meaning.

The coachee should change the meaning which he attaches to life circumstances in order to gain clarity (Smith 2006). Through moving away from the negative aspects of the situation, the coachee might be asked what lessons he learned from the situation and how it affected the meaning in his/her life (Seligman 2011).

The coachee should utilise his character strengths in order to reframe the situation and interoperate the events from these strengths (Seligman 2011). Therefore, the life circumstances of the individual have a better chance to change. Smith (2006) conceptualised a theoretical framework for reframing, stating that it comprises eight main steps: (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. This serves as the foundation for building resilience.

Phase 9: Building Sustainable Resilience

It is important to understand that building resilience is a multidimensional approach. It is developed through understanding and utilising the internal and external resources available to the coachee. The main goal of this phase is to build a level of resilience which will fortify the internal psychological barriers which buffer against reoccurrences in the future (Steger 2013). The type of approach to instil resilience would be based on the type of complex which is manifested in the coachee’s Ego (Jung 1942) or through the coachee’s life philosophy as embodied in his/her value system (Rogers 1980).

One possible way of developing resilience is to help the coachee to optimise every incident (successes and mishaps) as a learning opportunity and to identify how he/she can use his/her strengths in a similar situation (Seligman 2011).

Phase 10: Evaluating and Re-contracting the Relationship

Although evaluation is a continuous process, the final phase is to evaluate the coaching process and to prepare the coachee for terminating the relationship. This phase is also coupled with calculating a Return on Investment for the coaching process (Pedler et al. 2007).

During this phase, both the coachee and the coach should determine whether the initial expectations (as set out in the first phase) were met and whether the coachee has accomplished what he set out to do. The focus should be on determining whether full individuation took place and to which extent the expectations of the direct manager have been met (Van Zyl and Stander 2011). During this phase, a follow-up meeting with the coachee and the direct manager needs to take place in order to determine whether the expectations of the process were met (Pedler et al. 2007). Progress should be measured based on the coachee’s expectations and not on what the coach perceived as being right (Rogers 1951).

If the expectations have not been met, or if there is a need for further development, a process of re-contracting could be initiated.

Conclusion

This model was developed in an attempt to provide practitioners with a practical model for coaching. The model is rooted in the PCA and drawing from positive psychology and psycho-existentialism. The model is comprised out of ten phases. Each phase is followed by an evaluation process to determine the effectiveness of thereof. This model is presumed to be a unique approach towards coaching in that the coachee is the centre of the process. Development takes place centred on the strengths and competencies of the individuals. The coachee’s unique cultural position is optimised as a strength in order to ensure sustainable development. This model is not only practical, but also provides specific criteria against which the success of the coaching intervention can be measured.

As much as being strengths based and coachee centred, this model is context sensitive and systemic since it explicitly deals with the coachee’s work situation, managers’ expectations and evaluation procedures. The full freedom of a counselling or psychotherapy relationship is streamlined to focus on the work context. While numerous tools and instruments are employed to accelerate the growth process, the basic philosophy highlights personal strengths, the person’s potential and tendency to develop his or her potentialities, and the importance of a collaborative climate based on transparency, positive regard and sensitivity to the individual as well as context. Hence, the ‘bridge’ built through this chapter can be seen to connect core values of the PCA with a special purpose, work-related process for developing persons’ work-related strengths.