Introduction
Modern coaching often erroneously focuses exclusively on a client's internal willpower. In The Coaching Psychology Handbook, Jonathan Passmore proposes a shift toward a relational and systemic perspective.
Readers will discover that agency is not an autonomous resource, but rather the result of biology, social structures, and power dynamics. This text analyzes how institutional contexts can mask systemic problems as personal deficiencies of the client.
The Human Being as a Relational and Systemic Entity
Jonathan Passmore argues that focusing solely on internal motivation is insufficient. An individual is not a closed system, but a participant in a network of dependencies that co-create their capacity for action.
Agency depends on the quality of bonds and the availability of recognition. For example, an employee may possess high competencies but function within an organization that systemically prevents them from being utilized.
In this view, personal development is not an isolated event. The change in one person modifies the relational structure of the entire team, which can trigger both positive effects and conflicts resulting from the disruption of existing power asymmetries.
Secure Base and Mentalization as Foundations of Relational Agency
According to Passmore, John Bowlby's attachment theory explains why a stable relationship with a coach fosters exploration. The concept of a secure base allows the client to take risks, knowing that failure does not mean a loss of support.
Mentalization—the ability to interpret mental states—is also key. A coach should treat their conclusions as hypotheses rather than objective diagnoses to avoid limiting the client's cognitive openness.
The safe application of these tools requires a transparent contract and clear boundaries. The relationship should strengthen autonomy, not lead to a dependency where the client's decisions rely on the professional's approval.
Group Identity and Social Pressure Shape Individual Behavior
Jonathan Passmore points out that human identity is defined by membership in social categories. This influences the perception of norms and the choice of behaviors consistent with the pattern of a "good group member."
Normative pressure can lead to conformity, where an individual hides accurate observations for fear of losing acceptance. This makes the development of communication skills alone insufficient within a toxic culture.
Coaching may unconsciously perpetuate inequalities if it promotes only corporate patterns of professionalism. True change therefore requires an analysis of psychological safety as a property of the entire system, rather than just a trait of the individual.
Summary
Jonathan Passmore redefines coaching success as supporting autonomy embedded in biological and social realities. Genuine development cannot occur at the expense of human health or dignity.
Has the cult of permanent resilience become a form of symbolic violence, forcing us to adapt to unacceptable conditions? The greatest act of growth may be the courage to recognize one's own limits and the ability to say "stop" in the name of protecting one's humanity.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why might focusing solely on a client's internal motivation in coaching be insufficient?
Focusing solely on internal motivation is insufficient because humans are relational beings, and their capacity for action is co-created by social experiences and systemic determinants. The implementation of personal decisions is embedded in a structure of norms, dependencies, and environmental expectations, which can limit or modify the effects of individual change.
How can psychological concepts such as attachment theory and mentalization be safely and effectively applied in the coaching process?
In coaching, attachment theory should be used as an explanatory framework, building a professional relationship based on predictability and a secure base that supports the client's autonomy without playing the role of a caregiver. Mentalization, on the other hand, should be used to develop the ability to tolerate ambiguity, treating interpretations of mental states merely as hypotheses for verification rather than objective diagnoses.
How do group membership and the influence of the social environment affect how a person behaves and perceives themselves?
Membership in groups shapes a person's identity and behaviors, which may be regulated by collective norms and the desire to be recognized as a good member of the group. The influence of the social environment manifests through mechanisms of conformity, obedience to authority, and a tendency toward stereotyping and intergroup comparisons.
Why might the development of an individual's communication competencies alone be insufficient in the face of a dysfunctional organizational culture?
The individual development of communication competencies may be insufficient when the relationship structure and sanction system within an organization reward compliance with the dominant position. Under such conditions, a person may rationally refrain from expressing dissent toward a supervisor who has the freedom to apply informal sanctions.
Why might individual training be insufficient to improve team communication, and how should a coach recognize the organization's influence on the client?
Individual training may be insufficient because psychological safety is a team and relational property, not the sum of individual competencies; developing a client's skills does not guarantee a constructive response from the organization. A coach should recognize the organizational influence by distinguishing between the client's skill gaps and problems resulting from conflicting institutional expectations, as well as analyzing management styles and team norms.
How can coaching unconsciously perpetuate social inequalities and systems of control within an organization?
Coaching can perpetuate inequalities by promoting corporate behavioral patterns as universal signs of professionalism, which favors individuals with a specific cultural capital. Furthermore, it can serve as a tool for normalization and self-control, imposing economic requirements as criteria for personal value while ignoring the systemic causes of an employee's problems.
What unconscious group processes may affect team effectiveness and how should a coach interpret them?
Team effectiveness is influenced by unconscious defense mechanisms, projections, and basic emotional assumptions, such as dependence on the leader or fight-or-flight reactions. The coach should treat these processes as hypotheses that help identify discrepancies between declared goals and actual relational dynamics, while avoiding the arbitrary attribution of hidden intentions to participants.
How can a coach distinguish a client's personal problems from limitations resulting from the system, and how should agency be defined in such a context?
A coach can distinguish personal problems from systemic ones through regular supervision, critical self-evaluation, and the application of the Seven-Eyes Model, which allows interpretations to be confronted with the organizational and social context. Agency in this approach is defined as situated—meaning the ability to act within socially shaped possibilities while simultaneously influencing their change.
How do external and social conditions affect the real possibility of a client's development and autonomy in the coaching process?
The possibilities for a client's development and autonomy depend on the legal environment, infrastructure, access to capital, and institutional stability. Real agency is shaped by the level of economic dependence and social experiences, such as the recognition of value and entitlements in relationships with others.
How should the effectiveness of coaching be measured, and what biological limitations affect a client's agency?
The effectiveness of coaching should be assessed on multiple levels, taking into account changes in competencies and behavior, the quality of relationships, the sustainability of results, and the impact on the social environment. A client's agency is influenced by the organism's biological limitations, such as homeostatic and regulatory processes, as well as psychophysical condition depending on sleep, nutrition, physical activity, and stress.
How to distinguish a client's actual development and well-being from momentary satisfaction or apparent effectiveness?
Distinguishing real development from apparent effectiveness requires the application of a multidimensional model that encompasses cognitive, emotional, bodily, and social functioning. One should evaluate not only immediate results and declared satisfaction, but above all, the sustainability of changes as well as their costs and side effects.
Can building a client's mental resilience in coaching become a trap that, instead of helping, reinforces their dependence on a toxic environment?
Yes; if the developmental process leads only to better endurance of unfair treatment, it may provide short-term relief but weaken the readiness to change unfavorable conditions. The problem arises particularly when adaptation is presented as the only correct response, ignoring the possibility of changing one's surroundings or fighting for justice.
What is resilience from a scientific perspective and why should it not be treated solely as a personal trait?
From a scientific perspective, resilience is an adaptation process resulting from the operation of ordinary systems, such as self-regulatory competencies, bonds with caregivers, and social support. It should not be treated solely as a personal trait because successful adaptation often results from environmental resources and the proper functioning of social mechanisms, rather than extraordinary individual properties.
Does mental resilience depend exclusively on the client's personality traits or on external factors?
Mental resilience does not depend exclusively on personality traits; it is a dynamic process resulting from the relationship between an individual's resources and environmental demands. The ability to cope with stress is influenced by both cognitive competencies and external factors, such as stable social relationships, financial resources, or the possibility of modifying responsibilities.
What is the difference between healthy resilience and psychological rigidity, and what biological mechanisms underlie the body's ability to adapt under stress?
Healthy resilience consists of flexibly adjusting strategies and goal hierarchies to changing conditions, whereas psychological rigidity is the persistent continuation of actions despite increasing costs. The biological mechanism of adaptation is allostasis—achieving stability through the dynamic adjustment of regulatory processes (including the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis and the autonomic nervous system) to current and predicted demands.
Why does a client's high professional efficiency not always signify their biological well-being, and what are the pitfalls in applying stress management techniques?
High professional efficiency does not guarantee biological well-being because the body can maintain performance despite increasing regulatory costs and physiological burdens. A pitfall in stress management is treating individual techniques as universal methods for normalizing the nervous system and relying on simplified, scientifically unverified interpretations of neuroscience.
Is changing one's mindset enough to neutralize the negative impact of difficult external conditions?
No, changing the interpretation of events is not enough to neutralize the actual consequences of difficult external conditions, such as health or economic problems. Effective stress management must take into account not only a subjective attitude but also the real possibility of influencing the situation.
Why might a client's problems with efficiency and discipline result from biology and living conditions rather than a lack of willpower?
These problems may result from a mismatch between responsibilities and biological rhythm and chronotype, insufficient recovery, and a lack of access to conditions that allow for proper sleep hygiene. Difficulties with consistency are often the result of shift work, professional and family role conflicts, or social barriers, rather than a deficit of discipline.
How do the body and physical environment affect a client's cognitive processes, and how should a coach account for this in their work?
Cognitive processes are shaped by perception, movement, sensorimotor interactions, and the properties of the physical environment. A coach can incorporate this into their work by expanding the client's self-reflection to include bodily experiences (e.g., tension, fatigue) and by using forms of work outside the office, such as walking meetings.
Where do a coach's competencies end in the face of biological and psychological determinants, and what ethical standards should guide their practice?
A coach's competencies end where clinical symptoms appear, diagnostics become necessary, or safety is threatened; in such cases, coaching cannot replace psychotherapy or medical treatment. This practice should be based on an ethics of care and responsibility, a critical evaluation of scientific evidence, and strict adherence to the boundaries of one's own competence.
What should modern, ethical coaching practice look like in the context of real limitations and the diversity of human functioning?
Modern coaching practice should take into account the client's actual biological, social, and economic limitations, moving away from a model based solely on individual motivation. An ethical approach assumes supporting development in a way that does not pit efficiency against health, and adapts methods to neurodiversity as well as diverse life and professional circumstances.
