Introduction
Modern coaching is often mistaken for a simple set of performance-enhancing techniques. In reality, it is a complex practice that should be grounded in rigorous scientific and ethical foundations.
The reader will discover why transitioning from an instrumental psychotechnique of efficiency toward supporting genuine agency is crucial. Drawing on the author's book, this analysis presents coaching as a tool for emancipation rather than merely the optimization of human resources.
Coaching as an Interdisciplinary Practice Supporting Agency
Jonathan Passmore defines professional coaching as a form of organized support for reflection, learning, and intentional change. It is not a closed method, but rather an interdisciplinary field that integrates psychology, the philosophy of action, sociology, and neuroscience.
The author emphasizes the distinction between coaching as a technology of adaptation and coaching as a practice supporting agency. In the latter model, success is not defined by the achievement of a goal alone, but by the client's awareness regarding the validity of that goal. An example would be a situation where a coach helps a client question expectations imposed by an organization, rather than simply teaching them how to fulfill those expectations more efficiently.
The Contextual and Interdisciplinary Origins of Coaching
Coaching derives from various traditions: from Socratic dialogue and Carl Rogers' humanistic psychology to sports training and management sciences. Passmore notes that these models emerged primarily within Anglo-Saxon cultures, which shapes a specific understanding of success and autonomy.
For this reason, the same frameworks cannot be applied uniformly across every cultural context. In Poland, the professionalization of coaching requires accounting for local patterns of social trust and the experiences of systemic political transformation. The author advocates for a contextual model that integrates universal psychological mechanisms with an analysis of the institutional conditions affecting human agency.
The Tension Between Resource Optimization and Supporting Agency
Two conflicting logics clash within coaching: treating the human being as a resource to be optimized (reminiscent of Taylorism) versus treating them as an autonomous subject. Passmore warns that relying solely on procedures, such as the GROW model, does not make coaching a science, as procedure alone does not explain the causes of human behavior.
To genuinely support agency, self-reflection must be combined with an analysis of social context and theories such as Self-Determination Theory. True motivation stems from the satisfaction of needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Without considering systemic constraints, coaching risks becoming a tool for manipulation that shifts the responsibility for organizational failures onto the individual.
Summary
Jonathan Passmore suggests that the maturity of coaching is measured by its capacity to critically examine the processes through which goals are created. True development does not consist of an unreflective sprint in a predetermined direction, but in the courage to question the meaning of the journey itself.
Ultimately, the line between supporting agency and professional manipulation is drawn where technique ends and ethics begin. Coaching must therefore evolve from a tool for efficiency into a science of freedom and the conscious shaping of one's own life story.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is professional coaching in essence, and within what scientific frameworks should it be considered?
Professional coaching is a specific form of organized support for reflection, learning, self-regulation, and intentional change. Due to its subject of impact, it should be considered within an interdisciplinary framework, drawing on human and social sciences such as psychology, the philosophy of action, sociology, pedagogy, or neuroscience.
Where does coaching originate from and why cannot it be applied in the same way across every cultural context?
Coaching originates from many traditions, including educational practices, sports training, humanistic and cognitive psychology, and management sciences; its models were primarily developed in Anglo-Saxon societies. It cannot be applied everywhere in the same way because, outside the Anglo-Saxon context, one must distinguish universal psychological mechanisms from culturally and institutionally conditioned norms and values.
What conflicting trends and traditions have shaped the modern approach to coaching?
The modern approach to coaching was formed at the intersection of organizational rationality, which strives for performance optimization and measurable results, and humanistic psychology, which focuses on autonomy, self-actualization, and empathy. Additionally, management theories and sports experiences influenced it by introducing practical models for conducting developmental conversations.
Does the use of proven coaching models make this practice a scientific discipline?
The mere application of coaching models, such as GROW, does not make this practice a scientific discipline because they serve to organize the conversation rather than explain the causes of human behavior. Scientific value emerges only when the procedure is linked to a justified concept of the mechanism of change and the possibility of a critical evaluation of results.
How can one distinguish actual coaching ineffectiveness from wrongly attributing blame to the client, and what does research say about this?
To distinguish coaching ineffectiveness from the client's fault, one should critically analyze whether the failure results from a flawed theory, incorrect technique, low coach competence, or structural conditions, rather than attributing it solely to the client's lack of motivation. Meta-analysis research (including Theebooma et al. 2014 and Jones et al. 2016) confirms the general utility of coaching in areas such as well-being or competencies, while noting that effectiveness is not identical across all methods and contexts.
Does research confirm the effectiveness of coaching, and what does this mean for the professionalization of this service?
Research shows a positive average effect of organizational coaching; however, it does not constitute a certificate of effectiveness for all services on the market. For professionalization, this means the necessity of basing practice on a critical assessment of knowledge, verification of results, and recognition of competence limits instead of relying solely on declarations.
How to move from simply increasing efficiency to scientifically supporting human agency while taking into account the individual's constraints?
This requires considering factors such as experience history, institutional culture, dependency relationships, and resource distribution. It is necessary to simultaneously examine the validity of an individual's personal beliefs and the actual conditions and objective limitations within which they attempt to operate.
Which cognitive mechanisms and errors in interpreting reality affect the effectiveness of human action?
Effectiveness is influenced by how successes and failures are explained (attribution theory), where attributing failure to stable factors can lead to resignation, while attributing it to modifiable factors can increase readiness for action. Bounded rationality and decision heuristics also play a significant role, as they can cause individuals to stick to ineffective strategies or avoid change due to fear of loss, although in certain environments, these simple strategies may be effective tools.
Why might self-reflection and work on cognitive competencies alone be insufficient in the coaching process?
Self-reflection and cognitive competencies may be insufficient because introspection is not always a reliable source of knowledge regarding the actual causes of behavior. Furthermore, human agency is relational and situational, meaning that the development process must include an analysis of context as well as external material and institutional constraints.
How does the colloquial understanding of motivation differ from a scientific approach based on self-determination theory, and what significance does this have for coaching?
The colloquial understanding of motivation equates it with willpower, whereas self-determination theory focuses on the quality of action regulation and the satisfaction of needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. In coaching, this is crucial because it allows one to distinguish authentic engagement from external coercion, which prevents the deterioration of psychological well-being while simultaneously increasing efficiency.
How can coaching support a client's real agency, taking into account both their psychological resources and systemic constraints?
Coaching supports agency by developing thinking oriented toward finding paths to a goal and strengthening the belief in one's own ability to act. This process includes identifying alternative strategies and competencies while simultaneously considering systemic constraints, such as lack of material resources or institutional pressure, which may require reflection on changing the operating environment.
