Person-centred coaching psychology: A meta-theoretical perspective

Person-centred coaching psychology:A meta-theoretical perspectiveStephen JosephCoaching psychology provides a new professional arena for thinking about psychological practice. Manywill recognise the ethos of coaching psychology as different from the medical model and many coachingpsychologists would not recognise a description of the profession as grounded in the medical model. It willbe argued, however, that because coaching psychology has emerged in relation to other professional branchesof psychology which do adopt the medical model, it has as a consequence implicitly adopted the values ofthe medical model. The implication of the medical model is the view that we ourselves are the expert on ourclient’s life. This stands in contrast to the person-centred model view which is that our client is their ownbest expert. It will be argued that coaching psychology should reject the medical model and instead adoptthe person-centred meta-theoretical perspective.THE PROFESSION OF COACHINGpsychology provides a new professionalarena for thinking about psychologicalpractice and the facilitation of well-beingand optimal functioning in various lifedomains. It is in the interest of any newlyemergedprofessional group to demarcate itsterritory and many commentators in the newfield of coaching psychology have distinguishedthe practice of coaching psychologyfrom that of clinical and counsellingpsychology. The argument that advocates ofcoaching psychology make is that whereasclinical and counselling psychologists workwith people at the lower end of the psychologicalfunctioning spectrum, coachingpsychologists work with people at the higherend of the spectrum (Grant, 2001). Thus,instead of working to alleviate distress anddysfunction, coaches work to facilitate wellbeingand optimal functioning. But thisdistinction in practice belies a more complicatedconceptualisation. In this paper, whichis an elaboration of a previous discussion onthis topic (Joseph, 2005), it will be arguedthat because counselling and clinicalpsychology have adopted the medical modelas their underlying meta-theory, coachingpsychology in defining itself in relation tocounselling and clinical psychology, hasinadvertently also adopted the medicalmodel. It will be argued that the meta-theoreticalperspective of the person-centredapproach (i.e. that people are intrinsicallymotivated towards well-being and optimalfunctioning) is more congruent with theethos of coaching psychology. Finally, thepractical implications of the person-centredmodel for coaching psychology and howthese differ to those of the medical modelwill be discussed.Person-centred approachThe idea that we should focus on developingpotential is not a new one. In psychology, itis an idea that can be traced back to theperson-centred approach originally developedby the psychologist Carl Rogers (1951,1961). But although Rogers was concernedwith the facilitation of optimal functioning,he is rarely acknowledged in the context ofcoaching because he did not use the termcoaching. Rogers adopted the term counselling,but he might equally well have usedthe term coaching, because in personcentredpractice, the terms are interchangeable.Unlike other therapeutic approaches,person-centred practice was neverconcerned with ‘repairing’ or ‘curing’dysfunctionality, and never adopted the‘diagnostic’ stance of the medical model inwhich the therapist is the expert. This is notInternational Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 1 No. 1 April 2006 47© The British Psychological Society 2006 – ISSN: 1750-2764

Stephen Josephto say that person-centred practitionersdon’t work with distressed and dysfunctionalpeople. They do, but their focus, no matterwhere the client lies on the spectrum ofpsychological functioning is to facilitate theself-determination of the client so that theycan move toward more optimal functioning.The person-centred approach is a metatheoreticalapproach to working withpeople, be they in one to one settings, insmall groups, in community settings, or asapplied to social policy. It is not a set of therapeutictechniques but an attitude based onthe theoretical stance that people are theirown best experts (Joseph, 2003).In brief, Carl Rogers proposed the metatheoreticalperspective that human beingshave an inherent tendency toward growth,development, and optimal functioning,which he termed the actualising tendency (see,Rogers, 1959, 1963). But these do nothappen automatically. For people to selfactualisetheir inherent optimal nature theyrequire the right social environment. Rogersproposed that the right social environmentwas one in which the person feels understood,valued, and accepted for who they are.In such an environment, Rogers reasoned,people are inclined to self-actualise in a waythat is congruent with their intrinsic actualisingtendency, resulting in well-being andoptimal functioning. But when people don’tfeel understood, valued, or accepted for whothey are, but only feel valued for being theperson they perceive someone else wantsthem to be, then they self-actualise in a waythat is incongruent with their intrinsic actualisingtendency, resulting in distress anddysfunction.The person-centred meta-theoreticalperspective is an established psychologicaltradition supported by over 50 years ofresearch and theory (see, Barrett-Lennard,1998), as well as recent developments inpositive psychology (see, e.g. Joseph &Linley, 2004, 2005, in press). This assumptionthat human beings have an inherenttendency toward growth, development, andoptimal functioning provides the theoreticalfoundation that it is the client and not thetherapist who knows best. This serves as theguiding principle for client-centred practice,which in essence, is simply the principledstance of respecting the self-determinationof others (B. Grant, 2004).Applications of the person-centredapproach have been not only to therapy, butto education, parenting, group learning,conflict resolution, and peace processes (see,Barrett-Lennard, 1998), all based on the samephilosophical stance that people are theirown best experts, and have within themselvesthe potential to develop, and to grow. Whenthis inner potential is released the personmoves toward becoming more autonomousand socially constructive. These ideas havetaken root in many contexts, but often thework of Carl Rogers goes unrecognised andunacknowledged. But they are ideas whichwill be easily recognisable to coachingpsychologists (e.g. Whitmore, 1996).What might be less familiar is that theperson-centred way of working does notmake a distinction between people in termsof their level of psychological functioning,because the process of alleviating distressand dysfunction is the same as that for facilitatingwell-being and optimal functioning.Both ends of the spectrum of functioningare defined in relation to the extent to whichself-actualisation is congruent with the actualisingtendency (Ford, 1991). When there isgreater congruence, greater well-being andmore optimal functioning results. But whenthere is less congruence, greater distress anddysfunction results (see Wilkins, 2005).Thus, the person-centred approachoffers a genuinely positive psychologicalperspective on mental health because of itsunified and holistic focus on both the negativeand the positive aspects of human functioning(Joseph & Worsley, 2005). Coachingpsychology would be the same activityrequiring the same theoretical base, and thesame practical skills, as required for workingwith people who are distressed and dysfunctional.A person-centred coachingpsychology, in contrast to one underpinned48 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 1 No. 1 April 2006

Person-centred coaching psychologyby the medical model, would view understandingand enhancing optimal functioningand the alleviation of maladaptivefunctioning as a unitary task, as opposed totwo separate tasks as is the case when viewedthrough the lens of the medical model.The medical modelMaddux, Snyder and Lopez (2004) haveargued that the adoption of the medicalmodel in psychology can be traced back to theorigins of the discipline and the influence ofpsychoanalytic theory, and the fact that practitionertraining typically occurred in psychiatrichospitals and clinics, where clinicalpsychologists worked primarily as psychodiagnosticiansunder the direction of psychiatriststrained in medicine and psychoanalysis.This led clinical psychologists to adopt themethods and assumptions of their psychiatristcounterparts, who were themselves trainedspecifically in the medical model.There were three implication of this.First, psychologists began to think in termsof dichotomies between normal andabnormal behaviours, between clinical andnon-clinical problems, and between clinicalpopulations and non-clinical populations.Second, it locates human maladjustmentinside the person, rather than in theperson’s interactions with the environmentand their encounters with socioculturalvalues and social institutions. Third, itportrays people who seek help as victims ofintrapsychic and biological forces beyondtheir control, and thus leaves them as passiverecipients of an expert’s care. These threeimplications stand in contrast to the personcentredmodel which views well-being ascontinuous, emphasises the role of the socialenvironment, and the self-determination ofthe person.Thus, the medical model refers to thepremise that there is discontinuity betweenpsychopathological functioning and optimalfunctioning so that understanding and alleviatingdistress and dysfunction is a separatetask from facilitating well-being and optimalfunctioning. Thus, a medical modelcoaching psychology would be a differentactivity requiring a different knowledge baseand different skills than required forworking with people who are distressed anddysfunctional.Person-centred versus the medicalmodelIt should be clear from the above, that theperson-centred model and the medicalmodel are mutually exclusive. The formerviews understanding and enhancing optimalfunctioning and the alleviation of maladaptivefunctioning as a unitary task. The latterviews understanding and enhancing optimalfunctioning as two separate tasks. Insofar ascoaching psychologists have viewed the alleviationof distress and dysfunction and thefacilitation of well-being and optimal functioningas two separate tasks, therefore, theyhave implicitly adopted the medical model.It will be argued that coaching psychologyshould take a stance of opposition to themedical model.The alternative is the person-centredmodel. Terms like coaching, counselling,and psychotherapy are interchangeable inperson-centred practice because they allrefer to the practice of respecting the selfdeterminationof others. Thus it would bepossible to talk of any arena of professionalpsychology as person-centred, if it adoptedthe meta-theoretical perspective that humanbeings have an inherent tendency towardgrowth, development, and optimal functioning.We could equally well talk of personcentredcounselling psychology orperson-centred clinical psychology. However,these arenas of professional psychology havenot adopted the person-centred model, butrather the medical model. If clinical andcounselling psychology had adopted theperson-centred meta-theory as opposed tothe medical model, there would now be noneed for coaching psychology, because clinicaland counselling psychology wouldalready be concerned with the full spectrumof human functioning!International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 1 No. 1 April 2006 49

Stephen JosephThe fact that clinical and counsellingpsychology have chosen to ground theirpractice in the medical model as opposed tothe person-centred model does not meanthat this is also the best way for coachingpsychologists to view human nature. Indeed,the medical model in psychology is nowsubject to so much criticism (see, Albee,1998; Bentall, 2004; Maddux, 2002; Maddux,Snyder & Lopez, 2004; Sanders, 2005) that itwould seem questionable to also adopt themedical model for coaching psychology.I would argue that historically, clinicalpsychology adopted the medical model inthe first instance for reasons of securingpower and status in a professional arenadominated by psychiatry (see also, Proctor,2005). Ironically, counselling psychology hascome to adopt the medical model (albeit notto the extent of clinical psychology) becausethe professional arena when it was first developingwas dominated by clinical psychology.Counselling psychology began to emergeas a distinct profession from clinicalpsychology in the late 1980s, with an explicitemphasis on the therapeutic relationshipand the full spectrum of functioning,elements largely lacking in clinicalpsychology at the time. But, over the past twodecades, counselling psychology has movedcloser towards the values of traditionalclinical psychology with its emphasis onunderstanding psychological problems as ifthey were discrete medical conditionsrequiring specific treatments. Thus, counsellingpsychology has become more abouttherapeutic technique (at the expense of therelationship), and about psychopathology(at the expense of understanding the fullspectrum of human functioning). This hasbeen the result of market forces in an arenadominated by the values of clinicalpsychology. The very emergence of coachingpsychology at the beginning of the 21stcentury can in some ways be seen as theresult of the failure of counsellingpsychology to stand its ground and maintainits principles as an alternative way ofthinking to that of clinical psychology.Vision and missionBut, times are changing and with the adventof the positive psychology movement ourfundamental meta-theoretical assumptionsare once again the topic of reflection (see,Joseph & Linley, 2004, 2005; in press; Linley& Joseph, 2004). In discussing the future forclinical psychology, Maddux et al. (2004,p.332) conclude: ‘The major change forclinical psychology, however, is not a matterof strategy and tactic, but a matter of visionand mission.’Coaching psychology can be at the forefrontof these changes. As already indicated,how we define the territory of coachingpsychology is bound up in our meta-theoreticalassumptions. We are now in a position totake stock of the history of psychology, thecriticisms of the medical model, and toreflect on the person-centred perspective asan alternative meta-theoretical underpinningfor the profession of coachingpsychology.The medical model disempowers peopleas it is the coach who is the expert, whereascoaching psychology, Palmer and Whybrow(2005) say, is ‘grounded in values that aim toempower those who use their services’ (p.8).As individual practitioners we may indeedhold true to the values of empowerment, butthe profession of coaching psychology is notyet well grounded in these values sufficiently,because it has emerged out of medicalmodel thinking applied to psychologicalpractice.Most coaching psychologists are probablyin agreement that the medical model is notthe path they want to pursue. Various alternativemodels (e.g. Greene & Grant, 2003;Whitworth, Kimsey-House & Sandahl, 1998)which embrace the idea that the coachee isan equal partner who has the answers withinthemselves have been proposed as alternativesto the medical model (see, Kauffman &Scoular, 2004), without always recognisingthat this is in essence the person-centredmeta-theoretical perspective, as developedby Rogers (1959).50 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 1 No. 1 April 2006

Person-centred coaching psychologyImplications for training and practiceBut what are the practical implications ofcoaching psychology adopting the personcentredmeta-theory as opposed to themedical model? There are four key areas todiscuss: who we work with, what we train to do,what we do in practice, and who we work for.1. Client groupWhat we call ourselves professionally determineswho we work with, and to that extentcoaches and therapists work with differentpopulations (Grant, 2001). But, to definethe profession in this way is to belie a morecomplicated picture and to implicitlycondone the medical model view. As alreadyemphasised, the person-centred perspectiveprovides a unitary way of working with clientsalong the spectrum of functioning. Theoretically,a person-centred coaching psychologyis applicable to the range of clinical andhealth care settings, constrained only by thedepth and duration of experience andtraining of the practitioner, rather than anyarbitrary discontinuity between well-beingand psychopathology.If coaching psychology adopts the metatheoreticalperspective of person-centredtheory it may come into conflict with otherdivisions of professional psychology who viewmaladaptive functioning as their domain.But the possibility of conflict should notstand in the way of developing a theory ledprofession if the dichotomous thinking ofthe medical model is simply incorrect andunhelpful. Certainly, coaching is not aboutthe alleviation of distress and dysfunction perse, but it is about the facilitation of well-beingand optimal functioning. However, the questionis whether these are in reality a unitarytask rather than two separate tasks?Within the person-centred perspective, itdoes not matter where the person starts,coaching can be valuable to all. As Shlien, oneof the founders of person-centred psychology,said in a talk originally given in 1956:‘…if the skills developed in psychologicalcounselling can release the constructivecapacities of malfunctioning people sothat they become healthier, this samehelp should be available to healthypeople who are less than fullyfunctioning. If we ever turn towardspositive goals of health, we will care lessabout where the person begins, andmore about how to achieve the desiredendpoint of the positive goals’ (Shlien,2003, p.26).Depth and duration of training and experienceare the only issues, therefore, in determiningwhere on the spectrum ofpsychological functioning a person-centredcoaching psychologist is able to work. Thereare also other practical issues, such as theassessment of self-harm, which a competentpractitioner must be aware of. But the theoreticalprinciple that coaching psychology isapplicable across the spectrum of psychologicalfunctioning stands in contrast to themedical model view that coachingpsychology would only be applicable to nonclinical and relatively highly functioningpopulations.2. TrainingThere are implications for training. Trainingprogrammes that are influenced by themedical model will emphasise the developmentof intellectual knowledge so that thecoach can take on the role of expert.Training programmes that are influenced byperson-centred principles will emphasise thedevelopment of the self-awareness of thecoaching psychologist and their interpersonaland emotional literacy skills, and inlearning how to facilitate self-determinationin others. Training in person-centredpractice is very different to what mostpsychologists learn in their training. Groom(2005) in writing about how his practice hasdeveloped, says:‘Most of my coaching time is spenttripping over myself. I can hardly wait toexplore the coachee’s issues before I amrushing in to get them ready to set goals,or to analyse their lifestyle imbalance, doa cognitive checklist or evaluate their ownself-care strategies. I am learning to slowInternational Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 1 No. 1 April 2006 51

Stephen Josephdown…I am arguing here for a fuller,deeper kind of listening ….nowadays Ifollow more and lead less…that we bringourselves fully into the relationship’(Groom, 2005, pp.21–22).This quote from Groom (2005) exemplifiesthe shift in thinking that comes with a moveaway from the medical model toward theperson-centred model. Training wouldinvolve learning to slow down, to listen, andto be able to follow the client’s direction andnot one’s own. This shift in emphasis doesnot exclude more traditional aspects oftraining. There are a variety of ways ofworking that may be classified as personcentred(see, Sanders, 2004). Person-centredwork does not rule out setting goals,checking strategies, and so on, but it emphasisesthe client’s role in taking the lead andthe coach’s ability to follow, whereas themedical model emphasises the coach’s rolein taking the lead and the client’s ability tofollow.3. PracticeIn terms of person-centred coachingpsychology practice, the task of the coach isto nurture a social relationship which isexperienced as authentic by the coachee andone in which they feel accepted and understood.But although the therapeutic processis the same as that in counselling, the factthat we have developed these differentprofessional arenas based on the medicalmodel creates difference in content. Whatterms we use will determine what clients wework with. The public understanding is thatcounselling is about looking back in life atwhat has gone wrong, whereas coaching isabout looking forward to what can go right.If we offer counselling we will get clients whowant to look back, and if we offer coachingwe will get clients who want to look forward.The task of the person-centred therapist orcoach is the same in either case, to stay withthe person and to facilitate the person’s selfdetermination. Thus, at a theoretical processlevel, the person-centred psychologist’s taskis always the same, be they employed as acoaching, counselling, or clinical psychologist,but at the practical level of content thesessions would be different, simply becauseclients will bring different material to counsellingcompared to coaching.The person-centred approach does notprescribe techniques of practice, but allowsfor a diversity of practice methods, insofar aspractice is securely grounded in the metatheoreticalassumption that people have aninherent tendency toward growth, development,and optimal functioning, and that thistendency is facilitated by the right social environment(Rogers, 1959, 1963). Thus, theperson-centred coaching psychologist candraw on various cognitive-behavioural, multimodel,solution-focused and systems theoryapproaches (see Kauffman & Scoular, 2004).There is no prohibition of the use of techniquesper se. What is different about theperson-centred way of working is that thetechniques become an expression of themeta-theoretical assumptions of personcentredtheory rather than an expression ofthe meta-theoretical assumptions of themedical model. It is not the fact that thecoach uses a particular technique or assessmenttool that is the issue, but how they use it.Cognitive-behavioural psychology, forexample, offers a wealth of techniques thatcan be helpful to people in learning aboutthemselves and in exploring the relationshipbetween our thoughts and our feelings, howwe make sense of reality, and what we say toourselves which can hold us back fromachieving our goals (Neenan & Palmer,2001). But two different therapists, or twodifferent coaches, can employ the same techniquesin very different ways, one taking thelead as expert, the other assuming that theclient is the expert and following their lead.4. Clients’ agendaThis takes me to the final and most importantimplication of the person-centredmodel, and that is the question of whoseagenda the coaching psychology is workingto. In person-centred psychology, the task isalways to facilitate more optimal functioning52 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 1 No. 1 April 2006

Person-centred coaching psychologyin the sense that the person moves towardsgreater self-determination. Often this is atodds with the needs of the wider social environment(Joseph & Linley, 2004, 2005, inpress; Linley & Joseph, 2004). The medicalmodel with the coach as expert who takesthe lead can direct the coachee in a variety ofdirections, not all of which may be facilitativeof the client’s self-determination. It might besaid that clinical and counselling psychologistshave already sold themselves to theagenda of the National Health Service at theexpense of the self-determination of theirclients (Proctor, 2005). If coachingpsychology adopts the medical model it toois in danger of becoming a force for controllingpeople rather than for facilitating theirself-direction.ReferencesAlbee, G.W. (1998). Fifty years of clinical psychology:Selling our soul to the devil. Applied and PreventivePsychology, 7, 189–194.Barrett-Lennard, G.T. (1998). Carl Rogers’ helpingsystem: Journey and substance. London: Sage.Bentall, R. (2003). Madness explained: Psychosis andhuman nature. London: Allen Lane.Ford, J.G. (1991). Rogerian self-actualisation: A clarificationof meaning. Journal of HumanisticPsychology, 31, 101–111.Grant, A.M. (2001). Towards a psychology of coaching.Sydney: Coaching Psychology Unit, University ofSydney.Grant, B. (2004). The imperative of ethical justificationin psychotherapy: The special case of clientcenteredtherapy. Person-Centered and ExperientialPsychotherapies, 3, 152–165.Greene, J. & Grant, A. (2003). Solution focusedcoaching. Essex, UK: Pearson Education.Groom, J. (2005). Effective listening. The CoachingPsychologist, 1, 21–22.Joseph, S. (2005). Person-centred coachingpsychology. The Coaching Psychologist, 1, 3–5.Joseph, S. (2003). Client-centred psychotherapy:Why the client knows best. The Psychologist, 16,304–307.Joseph, S. & Linley, P.A. (2004). Positive therapy:A positive psychological theory of therapeuticpractice. In P.A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.),Positive psychology in practice (pp.354–368).Hoboken: Wiley.Joseph, S. & Linley, P.A. (2005). Positive psychologicalapproaches to therapy. Counselling andPsychotherapy Research, 5, 5–10.ConclusionAt the meta-theoretical level, either we holdourselves as the expert on our client’s lifeand take the lead, or we hold our client astheir own best expert and it is they who takethe lead. As the new profession of coachingpsychology emerges it is appropriate that wereflect on the fundamental assumptions thatare shaping the direction of its development.CorrespondenceStephen JosephDepartment of Psychology,University of Warwick,Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK.Tel: +44 2476 528182Fax: +44 2476 524225E-mail: S.Joseph@warwick.ac.ukJoseph, S. & Linley, P.A. (in press). Positive therapy:A meta-theory for positive psychological practice.London: Routledge.Joseph, S. & Worsley, R. (2005). A positive psychologyof mental health: The person-centred perspective.In S. Joseph & R. Worsley, (Eds.), Personcentredpsychopathology: A positive psychology of mentalhealth (pp.348-357). Ross-on-Wye: PCCS Books.Kauffman, C. & Scoular, A. (2004). Toward a positivepsychology of executive coaching. In P.A. Linley& S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice(pp.287–302). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Linley, P.A. & Joseph, S. (2004). Toward a theoreticalfoundation for positive psychology in practice.In P.A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positivepsychology in practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Maddux, J.E. (2002). Stopping the ‘madness’:Positive psychology and the deconstruction ofthe illness ideology and the DSM. In C.R. Snyder& S.J. Lopez (Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology(pp.13–25). New York: Oxford University Press.Maddux, J.E., Snyder, C.R. & Lopez, S.J. (2004).Toward a positive clinical psychology: Deconstructingthe illness ideology and constructing anideology of human strengths and potential. InP.A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychologyin practice (pp.320–334). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Neenan, M. & Palmer, S. (2001). Cognitive BehaviouralCoaching. Stress News, 13, 15–18.Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (2005). The proposal toestablish a special group in coaching psychology.The Coaching Psychologist, 1, 5–12.International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 1 No. 1 April 2006 53

Stephen JosephProctor, G. (2005). Clinical psychology and theperson-centred approach: An uncomfortable fit.In S. Joseph & R. Worsley (Eds.), Person-centredpsychopatholgy: A positive psychology of mental health(pp.276–292). Ross-on-Wye: PCCS Books.Rogers, C.R. (1951). Client-centred therapy: It’s currentpractice, implications and theory. Boston, MA:Houghton Mifflin.Rogers, C.R. (1959). A theory of therapy, personality,and interpersonal relationships as developed inthe client-centered framework. In S. Koch (Ed.),Psychology: A study of a science, Vol. 3: Formulationsof the person and the social context (pp.184–256).New York: McGraw-Hill.Rogers, C.R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston,MA: Houghton Mifflin.Rogers, C.R. (1963). The actualising tendency inrelation to ‘motives’ and to consciousness. InM.R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation,Vol. 11 (pp.1–24). Lincoln, NE: University ofNebraska Press.Sanders, P. (2004). The tribes of the person-centred nation:An introduction to the schools of therapy related to theperson-centred approach. Ross-on-Wye: PCCS Books.Sanders, P. (2005). Principled and strategic oppositionto the medicalisation of distress and all of itsapparatus. In S. Joseph & R. Worsley (Eds.),Person-centred psychopatholgy: A positive psychology ofmental health (pp.21–42). Ross-on-Wye: PCCSBooks.Shlien, J.M. (2003). Creativity and psychologicalhealth. In P. Sanders (Ed.), To lead an honourablelife: Invitations to think about client-centered therapyand the person-centered approach (pp.19–29). Rosson-Wye:PCCS Books.Whitmore, J. (1996). Coaching for performance(2nd ed.) London: Nicholas Brearley.Whitworth, L., Kimsey-House, H. & Sandahl, P.(1998). Co-active coaching: New skills for coachingpeople toward success in work and life. Palo Alto, CA:Davies-Black Publishing.Wilkins, P. (2005). Person-centred theory and‘mental illness’. In S. Joseph & R. Worsley (Eds.),Person-centred psychopatholgy: A positive psychology ofmental health (pp.43–59). Ross-on-Wye: PCCSBooks.54 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 1 No. 1 April 2006