V OLUME 3, ISSUE 1
P A GE 3
The Coaching Alliance as a universal concept
spanning conceptual approaches
Alanna O’Broin and Prof Stephen Palmer
Coaching Psychology Unit, City University London, UK
Abstract
This article proposes that regardless of the conceptual coaching approach, the coaching alliance is a
universal concept related to positive coaching outcome. Drawing from coaching and coaching psychology research, counselling and psychotherapy outcome research and applications across allied domains,
the Coaching Alliance is defined and an argument for addressing the alliance by coaches working from
any conceptual approach is made.
Keywords: Coaching Alliance, working alliance, coaching psychology
Introduction
This article begins by posing a salutary question for us as coaching psychologists. “To what extent do we take the time to address the coaching alliance with our coachees, particularly if our
conceptual framework de-emphasises the importance of the
coaching relationship?”. In response to this question and drawing
upon sources from coaching and coaching psychology research,
psychotherapy outcome research and their applications across
allied domains, a case is argued for the value and appropriateness of addressing the Coaching Alliance (as defined) as a property of the components of coaching in any conceptual approach.
well as in the integrative goal-focused (Grant, 2006) and
the psychodynamic (Allcorn, 2006) approaches, the
coaching relationship is viewed as essential for constructive change. In other approaches (see Figure 1 below)
the working relationship (or working alliance) between
coachee and coach is considered important.
The role of relationship in conceptual approaches
As coaches and coaching psychologists, we recognize that our
conceptual coaching approaches incorporate a role for the
coaching relationship in the coaching process. For instance, in
coaching approaches within the humanistic perspective (see
Stober, 2006), including the existential (Spinelli and Horner,
2007), gestalt (Allan and Whybrow, 2007) and person-centred
approach (Hedman, 2001; Joseph and Bryant-Jeffries, 2007), as
Complex processes in change-inducing relationships
Developments in recent years in the counselling and psychotherapy outcome research literature can further inform
this discussion of the Coaching Alliance. These developments are first, the increasing realisation that a consideration of participant, relational, technique and contextual
factors is required in the complex process of change,
rather than the previously prevailing assumption that
Coaching Psychology International. © Society for Coaching Psychology, 2010.
Regardless of whether the conceptual approach places
an emphasis or de-emphasis on the role of the relationship in the coaching process, all approaches recognize
the requirement for a good working relationship between
coachee and coach.
The Coaching Alliance as a universal concept
The Coaching Alliance is thus conceptualized as a pantheoretic concept that is universally applicable across conceptual
approaches. It is also expressed through an interactive and
dynamic relationship between coach and coachee. The
Coaching Alliance provides a framework for assessing the
degree, level and kind of collaborative, purposive work of the
coach and coachee. Here there is a recognition that the kind
of collaborativeness and purposiveness of the work negotiated
and taking place will differ depending on the conceptual approach. Bordin identified three associated core features of the
alliance, those of goals, tasks and bonds. In respect of the
goals, mutual agreement needs to be reached on the goals
and the desired coaching outcomes; on tasks, mutual understanding of the tasks of coachee and coach and how the
coaching work will take place are required; finally, on bonds,
mutual empathy and respect need to be extended by coach
and coachee. Bordin’s less well-known narrower work supCommon factors across approaches and change-inducing
porting bond supports the goals and tasks of the coaching and
relationships
links its relationship features to the core alliance issue of purThirdly, as part of the broader movement towards integrative
posive, collaborative work.
psychotherapy (see Palmer and Woolfe, 2000) and as a contributor to the development of a more inclusive examination of Conclusion
the factors of change in psychotherapy, the common factors
Findings in the early-stage coaching relationship literature atapproach (Frank and Frank, 1991; Greencavage and Nortest to the importance of the coaching relationship to coaching
cross, 1990) seeks to identify and define those elements,
process and outcome (Luebbe, 2005; Gyllensten and Palmer,
crossing all conceptual approaches, that contribute to thera2007; Baron and Morin, 2009), paralleling findings over the
peutic change. The common factors approach has been apdecades in the counselling and psychotherapy research literaplied across several other change-inducing, helping relationture. The alliance too is being researched in the coaching
ships, including coaching of all kinds (Lampropoulos, 2001).
literature, with findings of a correlation between the quality of
The most consensual common factor, found to be one of the
the Coaching Alliance and outcome for coachees (Duckworth
most robust predictors of outcome (Martin et al., 2000; Wam- and De Haan, 2009) and that the Coaching Alliance plays a
pold, 2001) is the working alliance (Bordin, 1979; 1994). The mediating role between the number of sessions of coaching
working alliance has also been applied across several other
and the coachee’s self-efficacy (Baron and Morin, 2009). Furdomains including sport and exercise psychology (Katz and
ther discussion and research of this topic seems timely and a
Hemming, 2009) and coaching psychology (Joo, 2005; Kemp, priority. Further confirmatory studies and findings of any simi2008; 2009; O’Broin and Palmer, 2009; 2010; Palmer and
larities and differences from the working alliance in other doMcDowall, 2010).
mains could also be of value across the specialisms. Taken
together, these points argue for the Coaching Alliance as a
The Coaching Alliance defined
universal concept potentially beneficial to outcome in the
In discussing the Coaching Alliance, first there is a requirecoaching process. As such, regardless of our conceptual apment to define what exactly we mean by the term. In the coun- proach to coaching, and in response to the question posed at
selling and psychotherapy research literature the term alliance the start of this article, if we are not taking the trouble to adhas sometimes been used as a proxy for the broader theradress the coaching alliance with our coachees perhaps we,
peutic relationship (see Horvath, 2001). However, in this arti- and in particular our coachees, may benefit by us doing so.
cle the alliance is referred to in a more specific sense using the
definition by Bordin, (1979;1994, as extended by Hatcher and
References
Barends, 2006). A working definition of the Coaching Alliance
Allan, J. and Whybrow, A. (2007). Gestalt coaching. In S. Palmer
deriving from this definition is:
and A. Whybrow (Eds.) Handbook of Coaching Psychology: A
Guide for Practitioners. Hove: Routledge.
The Coaching Alliance reflects the quality of the
Allcorn, S. (2006) Psychoanalytically Informed Executive Coachcoachee’s and coach’s engagement in collaboing. In D. R. Stober and A. M. Grant (Eds.) Evidence-based
rative, purposive work within the coaching relaCoaching Handbook: Putting Best Practices to work for your clitionship, and is jointly negotiated, and renegotients. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
ated throughout the coaching process over time.
Baron, L. and Morin, L. (2009). The coach-coachee relationship in
(Adapted O’Broin and Palmer, 2007: 305) executive coaching: A field study. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 20(1), 85-106.
either the relationship or technique factors were key to outcome (Castonquay and Beutler, 2006). This development
resonates with the development in coaching and coaching
psychology of evidence-informed models of coaching
(Cavanagh and Grant, 2006; Drake, 2009; Stober and Grant,
2006; Stober et al., 2006) drawing upon evidence from multiple
and wide sources including research and practice from allied
professions. Second, and partially reflecting these developments, conceptual approaches previously placing less emphasis on working with interpersonal relationship dynamics than
on techniques, such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy
(Leahy, 2008) have garnered greater interest in relationship
processes (Gilbert and Leahy, 2007; Bennett-Levy and
Thwaites, 2007). Cognitive Behavioural Coaching (Palmer and
Szymanska, 2007), adapted from its counterpart in cognitive
and cognitive-behavioural therapy is anticipated to reflect this
development (O’Broin and Palmer, 2009).
Coaching Psychology International. © Society for Coaching Psychology, 2010.
Bennett-Levy, J. and Thwaites, R. (2007). Self and self-reflection in
the therapeutic relationship: A conceptual map and practical strategies for the training, supervision and self-supervision of interpersonal
skills. In P. Gilbert and R. L. Leahy (eds.) The Therapeutic Relationship in the Cognitive-Behavioural Psychotherapies. London:
Routledge.
Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and
Practice, 16, 252-260.
Sport Psychologist. Leicester: The British Psychological Society.
Kemp, T. (2008). Self-management and the coaching relationship.
International Coaching Psychology Review, 3(1), 32-42.
Kemp, T. (2009). Is coaching an evolved form of leadership? Building
a transdisciplinary framework for exploring the coaching alliance.
International Coaching Psychology Review, 4(1), 105-110.
Lampropoulos, G. K. (2001). Common processes of change in psychotherapy and seven other social interactions. British Journal of
Guidance & Counselling, 29(1), 21-33.
Bordin, E. S. (1994). Theory and research on the therapeutic working
alliance: New directions. In A. O. Horvath and L. S. Greenberg (Eds.) Leahy, R. L. (2008). The therapeutic relationship in cognitive behavThe Working Alliance: Theory, Research and Practice. New York:
ioural therapy. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 36, 769Wiley.
777.
Castonguay, L. G. and Beutler, L. E. (2006). Common and unique
principles of therapeutic change: What do we know and what do we
need to know? . In L. G. Castonguay and L. E. Beutler (Eds.) Principles of Therapeutic Change that work. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Luebbe, D. M. (2005). The Three-way mirror of Executive Coaching.
Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The Sciences and
Engineering, 66(3)B 1771. Ann Arbour, MI: Proquest.
Martin, D. J., Garske, J. P. and Davis, M. K. (2000). Relation of the
therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: A metaanalytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68,
438-450.
Cavanagh, M. J. and Grant, A. M. (2006). Coaching psychology and
the scientist-practitioner model. In D. A. Lane and S. Corrie (Eds.)
The Modern Scientist-Practitioner: A Guide to Practice in Psychology.
O’Broin, A. and Palmer, S. (2007). Reappraising the coach-client
Hove: Routledge.
relationship. In S. Palmer and A. Whybrow (Eds.) Handbook of
Drake, D. B. (2009). Evidences is a verb: A relational approach to
Coaching Psychology: A Guide for Practitioners. London: Routledge.
knowledge and mastery in coaching. International Journal of EviO’Broin, A. and Palmer, S. (2009). Co-creating an optimal coaching
dence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 7(1), 1-12.
alliance. International Coaching Psychology Review, 4(2), 184-194.
Duckworth, A. and De Haan, E. (2009). What clients say about our
O’Broin, A. and Palmer, S. (2010). Building on an interpersonal percoaching. Training Journal Online, August, 64-67.
spective on the coaching relationship. In S. Palmer and A. McDowall
Frank, J. D. and Frank, J. B. (1991). Persuasion and Healing, (3rd
(Eds.) The Coaching Relationship: Putting People First. Hove:
ed.). Balimore: John Hopkins University Press
Routledge.
Gilbert, P and Leahy, R. L.. (2007). (Eds.) The Therapeutic Relation- Palmer, S. and Woolfe, R. (2000). Integrative and eclectic counselship in the Cognitive Behavioural Psychotherapies. London:
ling and psychotherapy. London: Sage.
Routledge.
Palmer, S. and Szymanska, K. (2007). Cognitive behavioural coachGrant, A. M. (2006). An Integrative Goal-Focused Approach to Exing: An integrative approach. In S. Palmer and A. Whybrow (Eds.)
ecutive Coaching. In D. R. Stober and A. M. Grant (Eds.) Evidence- Handbook of Coaching Psychology: A Guide for Practitioners. Hove:
based Coaching Handbook: Putting Best Practices to work for your
Routledge.
clients. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Palmer, S. and McDowall, A. (2010). The Coaching Relationship:
Greencavage, L. M. and Norcross, J. C. (1990). Where are the com- Putting People First. Hove: Routledge.
monalities amond the therapeutic common factors? Professional
Spinelli, E. and Horner, C. (2007). An existential approach to coachPsychology: Research and Practice, 21(5), 372-378.
ing psychology. In S. Palmer and A. Whybrow (Eds.) Handbook of
Gyllensten, K. and Palmer, S. (2007). The coaching relationship: An Coaching Psychology: A Guide for Practitioners. Hove: Routledge.
interpretative phenomenological analysis. International Coaching
Stober, D. R. (2006). Coaching from the Humanistic Perspective. In
Psychology Review, 2(2), 168-177.
D. R. Stober and A. M. Grant (Eds.) Evidence-based Coaching HandHedman, A. (2001). The Person-Centred Approach. In B. Peltier
book: Putting Best Practices to work for your clients. Hoboken, NJ:
(Ed.) The Psychology of Executive Coaching: Theory and ApplicaWiley.
tion. Ann Arbour, MI: Sheridan Books.
Stober, D. R. and Grant, A. M. (2006). Toward a contextual approach
Horvath, A. O. (2001). The Alliance. Psychotherapy, 38(4), 365-372 to coaching models. In D.R. Stober and A. M. Grant (Eds.) Evidencebased Coaching Handbook: Putting Best Practices to work for your
Joo, B-K. (2005). Executive coaching: A conceptual framework from
clients. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
an integrative review of practice and research. Human Resource
Stober, D. R., Wildflower, L. and Drake, D. (2006). Evidence-based
Development Review, 4(4), 462-488.
practice: A potential approach for effective coaching. International
Joseph, S. and Bryant-Jeffries, R. (2007). Person-centred coaching
Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 4(1), 1-8.
psychology. In S. Palmer and A. Whybrow (Eds.) Handbook of
Wampold, B. E. (2001). The great psychotherapy debate. Mahwah,
Coaching Psychology: A Guide for Practitioners. Hove: Routledge.
NJ: Erlbaum.
Katz, J. and Hemmings, B. (2009). The Professional Relationship. In
J. Katz and B. Hemmings (Eds.) Counselling Skills Handbook for the © O‘Broin & Palmer, 2010
Coaching Psychology International. © Society for Coaching Psychology, 2010.
Biographies
Alanna O’Broin C.Psychol is a MSCP Accredited Coaching Psychologist working primarily with executives in achieving excellence, performance and developmental goals. She is currently undertaking Doctorate research on the coaching relationship and its relation to coaching outcome at the Coaching Psychology Unit, City University, London, UK and has published
co-authored articles and several co-authored chapters on this topic. Alanna is a Consulting Editor of The Coaching Psychologist and reviews articles for several peer-reviewed academic publications.
Email: [email protected]
URL: www.productiveliving.co.uk
Professor Stephen Palmer C.Psychol PhD is Director of the Centre for Coaching and the Coaching Psychology Unit, City
University London, UK. He is an APECS Accredited Executive Coach Supervisor and a MSCP Accredited Coaching Psychologist. He is co-editor of the Handbook of Coaching Psychology (with Whybrow) and he is Hon President of the Society
for Coaching Psychology.
Email: [email protected]
URL: www.centreforcoaching.com
www.city.ac.uk/psychology/research/CoachPsych/CoachPsych.html
Correspondence
Alanna O’Broin, Coaching Psychology Unit, City University London, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB.
Prof Stephen Palmer, Coaching Psychology Unit, City University London, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB.
Coaching Psychology International. © Society for Coaching Psychology, 2010.