Julia Bueno’s article in Therapy Today¹ saw coaching as being one of the fastest growing industries in the world. Her exploration into how coaching differs from therapy stimulated interest in many counsellors and psychotherapists. We too see coaching as an area of growth – and an area that does have a lot of similarities to counselling, such as underpinning skills, processes and psychological roots. At the most basic level, both practices involve someone in a client role talking to someone in a practitioner or helping role. What also seems clear is that a lot of therapists are coaches too and there is a growing body of people who practise both.

Bueno also acknowledged a blurred boundary and interface between the two disciplines and claimed that there was interest from some camps to clearly demarcate these two disciplines. We agree that it is possible to have counselling and psychotherapy on the one hand and coaching on the other, but we think that there is also a place for a one-to-one talking practice that integrates the two ways of working.

Many people have got issues, problems and difficulties they want to address whilst also wanting to work towards realising their aspirations and goals, maximising their potential, and improving performance. Would it not make sense for them to work through all of this with one practitioner? After all, who can say where counselling ends and where coaching starts in any individual case? Wherever a client is on the spectrum from ‘remedial’ to ‘aspirational’, it is likely that during the course of the work it would be beneficial for the client to visit the other end. Even if it is possible to separate the two disciplines, is it ever really possible to separate the two parts of the client? So, in this article, we would like to explore the possibility of offering, at least in some cases, an integrated service for which, at the moment, we are using the term ‘personal consultancy’.

We both champion the notion of being able to offer an integrated service provided the practitioner has the necessary competencies to be working in that way. One of us (Popovic) designed the model of personal consultancy.² The other (Jinks) researched coaches’ opinions about personal consultancy and the concept of integration, for her master’s dissertation. Popovic came to this with a certain amount of frustration from the limitations imposed by the way he’d been trained to do therapy (existential). Jinks’ therapy training was from an integrative/Egan approach. When she did her coach training there seemed such a large area of overlap that it seemed artificial to create too rigid a distinction.

Personal consultancy model
This model offers a coherent framework that combines elements from both disciplines, and more importantly provides guidance as to how to manage the boundary. We recognise that it is not always appropriate or necessary to go into depth (the inner world of a client), but it is often futile to work only on the ‘surface’ (behavioural change). We think that practitioners need to be comfortable with both.

The name ‘personal consultancy’ is proposed as ‘consultancy’ refers to a meeting with a purpose to discuss something and decide what to do about it, and ‘personal’ indicates the focus on the person and personal matters. We have struggled with the terms counselling, psychotherapy and coaching because these words do not adequately convey the activities they describe: counsellors do not counsel, psychotherapy implies deficiency and coaching can be confusing because of its association with sports coaching, which is highly directive.

In an attempt to minimise ideological bias, the model starts from the basic elements that are necessary beyond doubt. It is proposed that there are three such elements: the client, the consultant, and the interaction (relationship) between them. These three elements can provide the three dimensions of the process, which can be graphically presented in the following way (note that the model is three-dimensional, so the relationship axis is not in between the client and consultant axes, but is the third, ‘in depth’, dimension):

Figure one:
Relationship (diagonal axis)
Client (horizontal axis)
Consultant (vertical axis)

Each dimension has its polar properties that are shown in the diagram below:

Figure two:
Doing with the client < > Being with the client (diagonal axis)
Existing pattern < > Emerging pattern (horizontal axis)
Depth < > Surface (vertical axis)

The vertical axis relates to the consultant and encompasses two basic modes: a) Being with the client – a non-directive, reactive, defused mode; b) Doing with the client – a more directive, proactive, focused mode. The horizontal axis relates to the client and encompasses two basic domains: a) The domain of existing emotional, cognitive and behavioural patterns (which can include the present and the past); b) The domain of desired, strived-for patterns (which can include the present and the future).

The depth axis refers to the level of interaction: a) The depth focuses on the intra psychic, inner world of the client, emphasised in the psychoanalytic approach, for example; b) The surface focuses on the client’s reality (the external manifestations and events) and behaviour, emphasised, for instance, in the cognitive-behavioural approach.

The model provides a framework where practitioner and client can keep track of the process and can move from the depth associated with therapy to more focused, goal-oriented work connected with coaching. It therefore allows practitioners to combine the practices of coaching and therapy in a way that preserves the boundaries between these two ways of working. This perhaps addresses some of the arguments against integration, in particular the potential lack of clarity and therefore confusion for the client.

A point has been made in the past that personal consultancy provides nothing which is not available elsewhere. This we accept. Personal consultancy is not yet another approach or platform for introducing some new techniques or skills. On the contrary, it is an attempt to organise validated and accepted approaches, attitudes, skills and techniques; in other words, an attempt to map existing practices in order to provide orientation to coach practitioners who choose to work in an integrative way.

Managing appropriate boundaries
In practice, coaching and counselling can have different boundaries and an integrative approach needs to manage the shift in boundaries that can occur as the work moves along the ‘being with’ and ‘doing with’ dimension. Rather than boundaries being established and fixed at the outset, there is recognition that there may be different boundaries depending on the type of work engaged in at any given time. An example would be Susan, a client who approached Jinks some time ago because she was aware of her background in both counselling and coaching. Her presenting issues were unresolved childhood trauma, the effect of this upon her life in the present and her desire to make very specific career changes. She chose to work with a single practitioner because she was aware that the need for therapeutic work was holding her back from tackling her career aspirations. She found it hard to develop trust and was aware that the two issues were interconnected and therefore had a strong preference to work on both with one practitioner. Jinks explained to her client that she worked in a way that would move into different modes that might feel very different depending upon the content of the work. She explained that she would always be clear when moving into a different mode (therapeutic/restorative and coaching/proactive).

After Susan had spent some time exploring the impact of her past trauma she moved into a phase where she felt more confident and assertive, and was ready and motivated to work on the change of employment. This involved a clear and explicit shift into more of a ‘coaching’ modality for a number of sessions. During that time it felt appropriate to recognise a change in the boundaries specifically in relation to contact between sessions such as email of CV, job applications etc. When the work later moved back into the ‘being with’ and ‘depth’ sector of the framework, the more formal counselling type boundaries were re-applied without any awkwardness or incongruity. During the course of the work this movement back and forth occurred several times as progress with both aspects of the work was to an extent dependent on movement in the other. A phase of work that was very much goal orientated and focused upon developing a comprehensive and detailed action plan for career change was planned almost like a military campaign and was extremely dynamic. This led to Susan experiencing a dramatic increase of self efficacy which enabled her to return to the therapeutic dimension of the work with a strong sense that she now had the resources to be able to work with and confront the deep-rooted feelings of blame and shame that had hampered her development most of her life. The personal consultancy approach enabled the interrelationship of Susan’s career issues with other aspects of her experience to be worked with explicitly and in depth in a way that would have been difficult with a ‘pure’ counsellor or coach.

The issue of differentiation
In relation to the issue of differentiation, we accept that it is important for a practitioner to have clarity about how they are working, and the client needs to know what they are buying. Nevertheless, it seems to us that the differentiation between counselling/therapy and coaching is somewhat arbitrary. After all, there is probably a wider gulf between psychodynamic therapy and solution-focused therapy (for example) than there is between solution-focused therapy and coaching. Most coaches use at least some counselling skills already, and counsellors increasingly use coaching techniques in their practice.

Price’s efforts to achieve greater definition between the two disciplines uncovered some interesting results.³ He discovered that despite coaches stating they were able to differentiate between counselling and coaching, many of the coaches involved in his study were actually engaged in practice which was seemingly therapeutic. This strongly suggests that while it might be possible to construct a theoretical distinction between the two disciplines, it is much harder to put into practice. What is really important in this respect is not some arbitrary demarcation, but timing. In other words, being clear when particular attitudes and skills are appropriate and most effective (eg being more reactive or being more proactive, dealing with the past or dealing with future goals, focusing on behavioural change or internal conflicts etc).

So, instead of using the terms counselling and coaching to describe the activities, we prefer to describe certain aspects of the work as ‘working in depth’ and others as ‘working proactively or practically’. In order to help a client understand the sort of work we do, we might explain that working in depth is similar to what is offered by counsellors, and constructive, practical, goal-oriented change is often associated with coaching. This way we avoid the unnecessary and sometimes politically motivated arguments around the issue of differentiation and are still able to be very clear about what we are offering and what we do with our clients.

Coaches’ opinions
We have both seen a marked change in audience responses to the concept of integration. Popovic in particular has noticed a shift. Feedback from the members of recent network groups/conference workshops has been very positive and many interesting and thought-provoking discussions have taken place that looked at issues like language and communication, how to negotiate the approach, and applicability to different contexts and sectors. For example, some practitioners are less confident about ‘selling’ an approach with a therapeutic element to the corporate sector whilst other practitioners found the therapeutic element appreciated and valued. There was a suggestion that businesses may respond differently depending on their leadership values and culture and level of sophistication of HR commissioners.

We really started to feel that the concept of integration was on the agenda when Linda Aspey, Chair of the BACP Coaching division, flagged up the similarities between the two disciplines and the fact that perhaps clients might appreciate an intervention that ‘combines the best from both’ during her opening speech of the division’s inaugural conference in June 2011. Since then, we have been encouraged and inspired to see that other practitioners are starting to explore how an integrative approach might be successfully applied in different contexts. For example, Carolyn Mumby – whose specialty is children and young people and training those who work in this sector – has thoughtfully adapted the personal consultancy model to better fit a young client group. She says: ‘I have come to the view that it is possible to work not only at the boundary but also effectively on the bridge between counselling and coaching, and even in the river beneath, swimming, not drowning!’⁴

All of these points build on the material that emerged from Jinks’ research which explored the thoughts and perceptions of coaches around the concept of personal consultancy. At that time (early 2010) despite some strong feelings of interest, curiosity and excitement expressed from participants, they also felt cautious – and to a certain extent in the case of one participant – real fear. In the initial exploration there were specific reservations strongly expressed by some practitioners. Something shared by all the participants in the final study was a recognition that they already worked in a way that to some extent integrated the two disciplines. However, some felt this wasn’t a problem whilst others felt that they were ‘under the radar’ and had concerns and worries about it.

Concerns expressed were whether this was acceptable and ethical practice. Specific worries were around what their supervisor might say or how professional bodies such as BACP might respond if there was a complaint. All of the participants felt that there needed to be an infrastructure to support them working in this way, which might include a clear ethical framework, clarity around training pathways, and appropriate professional indemnity insurance. Finally, another strong theme was around the risk that some coaches may operate beyond their levels of competence and the chance of this might be increased if personal consultancy or some similar integrative approach became an accepted and established practice. These worries fed into an overriding concern about the credibility of the coaching profession.

Thoughts for the future
It is apparent from Jinks’ data, current literature^{3, 5} and recent discussions, that not only are practitioners interested in integration but many are also already working in this way, though perhaps without a clear integrating framework or structure. This would suggest that there is a need for professional bodies and training providers to recognise the implications of this and explore ways of monitoring and providing support. An early dialogue between professional bodies and training providers could thus establish roles and responsibilities in developing pathways that could reflect current practitioner experience. It would seem sensible to consider what might be a realistic pathway for those who are already dually trained, those who are trained in either coaching or counselling, and those who are currently untrained in either discipline but might be looking for training in personal consultancy. We believe that the BACP Coaching division, created to meet the needs of members who are also coaches, is well placed to work alongside training providers as a sound infrastructure to monitor and support therapeutic work and safeguard client interests.

Conclusion
We certainly do not want to imply that personal consultancy or any other integrative model should replace or fuse counselling and coaching. There will always be a need for practitioners who prefer to do one or the other, and clients who will seek their services. However, we also believe that there is a strong argument for an integrative option alongside. It seems that there is already momentum in this direction from practitioners and clients. We are very aware though that it needs to be practised in a way that ensures clarity about what is being offered, or at least what is available at the outset. A client needs to know that this might entail moving between two disciplines and that the practitioner is appropriately qualified and experienced to do that.

We also think it is fundamental to be clear when moving between or integrating the disciplines, so that the client knows what type of activity they are engaged in. This may not necessarily require explicitly differentiating coaching and counselling but could involve an ongoing dialogue with the client around issues like depth, focus, past/present/future orientation, internal conflicts, behavioural change, and goal orientation. Those who practise personal consultancy find this framework useful for helping to negotiate the boundaries yet preserve a way of working that is informative, collaborative and responsive to clients’ needs.

What remains a challenge is the development of an appropriate and clear ethical framework to support working in this way. As it stands, BACP/BACP Coaching are aware that practitioners who are dually qualified may benefit from some additional guidance and are exploring the possibility of developing guidelines or information sheets. This seems like an evolving area that is likely to involve much exploration and discussion. In the meantime, we look forward with anticipation to developments and welcome further research, commentaries and constructive debate. Exciting and interesting times lie in front of us!

1. Bueno J. Coaching: one of the fastest growing industries in the world. Therapy Today. 2010; 21(7):10-15.
2. Popovic N, Boniwell I. Personal consultancy: an integrative approach to one-to-one talking practices. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring. 2007; 5:24-29.
3. Price J. The coaching/therapy boundary in organisational coaching. Coaching: an International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice. 2009; 2(2):135-148.
4. Mumby C. Working at the boundary. CCYP. December 2011:14-19.
5. Maxwell A. The co-created boundary: negotiating the limits of coaching. International Journal of Evidenced Based Coaching and Mentoring. 2009; 3:82-94.