BIROn - Birkbeck Institutional Research Online

    The development of a coaching psychologist competency framework (CPCF) to enhance effective coaching relationships

    Lai, Yi-Ling and McDowall, Almuth (2014) The development of a coaching psychologist competency framework (CPCF) to enhance effective coaching relationships. In: Division of Occupational Psychology Annual Conference, 2014, Brighton. (Unpublished)

    Full text not available from this repository.


    Coaching has been increasingly applied in leadership and organisational development and also in work with individual coachees. Although the number of coaches (47,500) world-wide (ICF, 2012) has considerably increased and coaching is also rated as the most effective element of Talent Management programmes in the U.K. (CIPD, 2012); coaching is not a standardised accredited profession due to the diversity of coaches' professional backgrounds (Bennett, 2006) . Psychologists have more publicly become involved in the coaching in recent years given that the ultimate objective of 235 coaching is sustained behavioural, cognitive and emotional change (Douglas & MacCauley, 1999) which those with psychological training are well placed to deliver. Nevertheless, more robust evidence is required to ascertain whether psychology plays an essential role in the field of coaching. In parallel, the research focus has been shifted to the development of coaching relationship and process. Traditionally, focus in the field of coaching are on specific models, approaches and techniques, directed towards ultimate goals for people's overall learning and development (de Haan & Sills, 2012). However, some studies (e.g. de Haan, 2008) indicated there is no significant difference in effectiveness between different coaching techniques. The quality of the coaching relationship as well as the coach and the coachee's role in the process were identified as the most effective active ingredient for a positive coaching result. A number of quantitative studies have also examined a positive correlation between a good coaching relationship and coaching results, such as coachees' self-efficacy. (Baron & Morin, 2009; Jackson, Boyce & Neal, 2010; de Haan & Duckworth, 2012). Thus, people and interpersonal interactions play a key role in the coaching process (Palmer & McDowall, 2010 and O'Broin, 2010). Nevertheless, the existing evidence does not provide clear guidance on which specific personal attributes are associated with effective coaching relationships (de Haan, 2008 and Passmore & Fillery-Travis, 2011). For instance, rigorous studies to investigate whether a background in psychology for a professional coach benefits the establishment of an effective coaching relationship are required. Prior to any primary research, it would be helpful to review the evidence in Coaching Psychology systematically to determine how any new research can address existing knowledge gaps through a transparent and systematic process. Taking stock of this growing body of evidence, a previous Systematic Review (SR) on Coaching Psychology (submitted for publication) indicated that a well-designed study on the development and validation of a Coaching Psychologist Competency Framework is needed. This SR summarised key attributes a Coaching Psychologist should acquire to enhance the coaching relationship and results, which were elements, attributes and common factors for an effective coaching relationship. These were then integrated into an initial Coaching Psychologist Competency Framework (including psychological knowledge and concepts, personality/attributes and behaviours/skills); this draft framework could be a foundation for further Coaching Psychology research. Whilst many governing professional associations world-wide, such as BPS, ICF, AC and EMCC have developed frameworks coaching standard in consultation with members to outline the benchmark required for people who would like to practice as a professional coach. However, such frameworks do not necessarily meet standard criteria for competency analysis (Woodruffe, 2007; Bartram, 2012), which include a clear evidence-based development process, focusing on the future, visible dimensions, simple and brief, user-friendly and the level of analysis. The existing competency frameworks (BPS, ICF, AC and EMCC) relevant to coaching and Coaching Psychology, appear to lack a rigid development and validation process, as no detail is available on whether these are actually based on any data and analysis. They also lack differentiated levels for the rating of competence; and appear akin to a list of behaviour definitions rather than an articulated set of components / dimensions. The researcher searched the official websites and papers of these coaching relevant associations, there was no detailed development information of ICF's competency framework. The frameworks from BPS, AC and EMCC were all developed and defined through in consultation with the coaching experts in their societies or integrated the research results from coaching literature studies. In addition, a welldeveloped competency framework needs to identify relevant competencies that differentiate high performers from others at the same job level (Woodruffe, 2007). Merely ICF and EMCC developed levels for the behavioural indicators in their competency frameworks for rating. However, the process to define these differentiated levels for the behavioural indicators was also based on their coaching experts' personal experiences in the societies. Thus, the aim of the present study was to investigate and examine the precise behavioural indicators for a professional coach to facilitate an effective coaching relationship through a rigorous role analysis process.


    Item Type: Conference or Workshop Item (Paper)
    School: Birkbeck Faculties and Schools > Faculty of Science > School of Psychological Sciences
    Depositing User: Sarah Hall
    Date Deposited: 09 Feb 2016 17:14
    Last Modified: 07 Aug 2023 16:10


    Activity Overview
    6 month trend
    6 month trend

    Additional statistics are available via IRStats2.

    Archive Staff Only (login required)

    Edit/View Item Edit/View Item