ŠÊ˜·³ÇëŠ×ÓÍÆË]

We have both been involved in the worlds of therapy and coaching for many years: Trish, long-established as a coach but also therapy trained, and Andrew, long-established as a therapist, but now coach trained. Trish has been delivering her own programme – Therapist to Coach – training qualified psychotherapists, counsellors and psychologists to become professional coaches for many years, Andrew graduating from that programme in 2023. We both have a passion for excellence in ethical practice. From our different positions, we have been wrestling with the integration of therapy and coaching and what this means for the professions, in theory and practice and, ultimately, for those who use our services. This dialogue took place over several weeks and represents our perspectives and responses to each other as they were shared in the moment.

Andrew (AR): Similarities and differences 

I’ve been a therapist for a long time – nearly 35 years – and I was a social worker before that. As such, I think ‘coaching’ has always been part of my work, albeit informally, though I didn’t call it coaching then. I always had a sense that therapy had much to offer people, but something more active, forward-focused and directional naturally spoke to how I preferred to work with clients. It was only comparatively recently that I decided to really engage with the world of coaching and to bring it more consciously and ethically into my practice, supported by training and a qualification, through your ‘Therapist to Coach’ programme. 

What has struck me though, since becoming a dual-qualified practitioner, is both the similarity and difference that exists between the worlds of therapy and coaching: much that overlaps but also, so much that is different in terms of contracting, supervision, fees and who ‘walks through the door’ (literally and metaphorically). To be honest, in many ways, the two approaches feel complementary to me, but in other ways, it has been a steep learning curve in making sense of my own position in all this as a practitioner: who am I and what do I offer? 

Trish (TT): Emerging identities 

The question of identity is important. What is a therapeutic coach? How does a dual-qualified coach differ from a therapeutic coach? What do clients and commissioners think they are buying? What are they actually getting? 

After over 30 years of leadership and coaching, I noticed that I offered more psychological and therapeutic depth than most executive coaches. My approach made me curious about the overlap of coaching with therapy and I recognised the ethical need for proper training. I subsequently qualified as a UKCP-accredited integrative psychotherapeutic counsellor and a clinical supervisor.

For me, the key difference lies in the contract, expectations, energy and collaboration. My clients benefit from my blend of leadership knowledge, extensive training, and capacity to work at relational depth in an adult-to-adult, pluralistic partnership. My passion is to ensure therapists are offered a professional pathway into coaching – not as continuing professional development or an ‘add-on’, but as a qualification formally honouring and accrediting the unique expertise that therapists bring. 

Particularly since the days of the COVID-19 pandemic, coaching has shifted from a performance focus to a more holistic view of leaders as humans with a life outside work and a personal history. Demand for dual-skilled coaches has risen sharply as a result, evidenced by training programmes for coaches seeking to integrate therapeutic approaches. 

However, this growing trend brings risks. No amount of trauma-informed or trauma-responsive CPD can substitute for the depth of study and experience required to safely address therapeutic issues. 

AR: A new identity 

Those are interesting thoughts, Trish, about the impact of COVID-19 and that performance-to-holistic development shift you mention. I wonder what this means for the future of the two disciplines – psychotherapy and coaching – and whether this integration leads to a best of both worlds or, rather, we end up mixing up ingredients in a way that is insufficiently thought-through and balanced; where the outcome is not a better cake, but one that is dense, flat and over-worked? 

For me, I believe there is real potential here for something to develop that really does begin to move away from dogmatic positions around modalities. One thing I have struggled with in the therapy world is the ‘my approach is better than yours’ position that I think has held the profession back considerably over the decades. Coaching does not seem to fall into this trap and seems to take a more inclusive position around concepts and ideas. Therefore, maybe there is scope for integrated practice to contribute to an existing pluralistic position, acknowledging that different people need different things at different times; where therapy and coaching become a transdisciplinary integration where something new emerges, rather than simply a combination of what we already have. Wouldn’t that be exciting? 

If we position ourselves in collaboration with our clients, they can make an important contribution to how therapy and coaching either sit alongside each other and then, at a more macro level, the experiences of those people who have actually worked with a dual- or tri-qualified practitioner can further inform a new, emerging identity of practice. The integration becomes shaped by, and because of, client experience, rather than only by how practitioners think it should be shaped. Research will be vital here. 

TT: Professional developments 

Should we advocate for collaboration across the coaching and therapy professional standards bodies, rather than separation? It has taken three decades for the two main international professional coaching standards bodies, European Mentoring and Coaching Council (EMCC) Global and International Coach Federation (ICF), to fully establish themselves. Today, their standards serve as benchmarks for commissioners, particularly organisations, when purchasing coaching services from reputable providers and practitioners. 

EMCC Global, for instance, has an evidence-based coaching and mentoring competency framework¹ presented across four indicative levels of skills for each of its eight core standards, from ‘foundation’ capability to ‘master practitioner’ capability. On the other hand, ŠÊ˜·³ÇëŠ×ÓÍÆË]’s coaching competence framework² includes minimum expected coaching competences for (a) trained therapists seeking to include coaching into their practice; and (b) practitioners trained separately in therapy and coaching and wishing to integrate both into a single form of practice. Both frameworks are underpinned by a rigorously developed evidence base. My course participants and I have discussed similarities between the more nuanced EMCC competency framework and the Scope of Practice and Education (SCoPEd) framework, and I wonder if there is value there worth considering. 

ŠÊ˜·³ÇëŠ×ÓÍÆË] has also introduced its own coach training curriculum. Its value to therapists seeking training to become dual-qualified professional coaches is yet to be seen in terms of industry competition, particularly when looking to work in corporate settings where organisations usually commission coaches qualified and accredited with the two main professional standards bodies, EMCC Global or ICF (at level 7 or above: Senior/Master Practitioner with EMCC Global or Professional/Master Certified Coach with ICF); even more so if looking to work beyond the UK. 

Given my past experience of six years as an EMCC Global accreditation assessor of coach training providers around the world, structurally, it resembles the EMCC Global criteria for accredited coach training providers, but I’d argue it operates more at a level 5 standard, with less nuance. Having said that, through the knowledge I gained from my EMCC Global work, I know participants are predominantly leaders and managers rather than therapists, and needing to learn deep listening skills and self-reflection – something in which qualified therapists already have significant training and experience. I often hear them say they do not want to be told ‘how to suck eggs’. 

Instead of developing independent pathways, I wonder if ŠÊ˜·³ÇëŠ×ÓÍÆË] could potentially work with EMCC Global and ICF to adapt their well-established qualification and accreditation routes to support dual- and multi-skilled practitioners? Without such collaboration, therapists pursuing ŠÊ˜·³ÇëŠ×ÓÍÆË]accredited coaching qualifications may find themselves at a disadvantage in the broader coaching market. 

Compounding this challenge is the proliferation of ‘therapeutic coaching’ programmes, which often create confusion. These programmes may imply a therapy qualification, but are for non-therapists wanting to learn aspects of therapy, such as transactional analysis or ‘trauma-informed’ practices. For therapists who are also professional coaches, this raises critical questions about professional identity. Can they call themselves ‘therapeutic coaches’ with clarity and confidence? Furthermore, what does this mean for the availability of suitably credentialed, dual-qualified supervisors to support their practice? 

We must then consider, is the risk of harm equal or different in coaching versus therapy? 

In therapy ethical frameworks, there’s both an explicit and implicit message about risk of harm to clients such as ‘alleviating symptoms of distress and suffering’, ‘protecting the safety of clients’, and ‘protecting clients or others from harm.’ There’s an intimation that therapy clients are more fragile and vulnerable and that by working with them on that, we have the potential to harm them. These are less obvious in coaching ethical frameworks (though both are clear on not having sexual relationships with clients). 

So, with the blurring of therapeutic coaching, trauma-informed and trauma-responsive coaching etc., do the codes of ethics for coaches need an overhaul? Are they still fit for purpose? 

AR: Opportunities for change 

Wow, you’ve set some real challenges there, Trish. I love how you unpack the different directions and approaches professional bodies are involved in as they find their way through this uncertain ground. For the coaching bodies, it seems to me that coach-only trained professionals are seeing a greater mental health profile in their work, even in traditional ‘leadership-focused’ coaching. I was part of a recent conference by the Association of Coaching (AC) on mental health and wellbeing, which raised some important areas for discussion. It included discussion about a compelling need for supervision for coaches; of course, the therapy world has had this embedded into ethical practice for several decades. Also, how coaches navigate that continuum where ‘mental health’ (and what does that mean anyway?) emerges more into focus: when do we refer on, how do we refer and, to whom? 

On the other hand, therapy professional bodies, such as ŠÊ˜·³ÇëŠ×ÓÍÆË], are walking a bit of a dichotomous pathway: as you say, on one hand producing training curricula and a competency framework but, on the other, allowing anyone to simply tick a box for an entry onto their directory saying they offer coaching without having to demonstrate any qualification or training at all in coaching – this latter point worries me a great deal. After all, we rightly have to jump through important hoops to demonstrate competency as a therapist to get onto the PSA-accredited register but there is currently no corresponding requirement for coaches. This is something that ŠÊ˜·³ÇëŠ×ÓÍÆË] Coaching has been actively campaigning for for many years and hopefully this will change soon. 

But the core question you raise that really set the hares running in my mind, and links back to my earlier thoughts, is the extent to which we integrate two allied disciplines, or what opportunities exist to create something new of the two; still retaining the disciplines of ‘therapy’ and ‘coaching’, but instead shifting some paradigms in the process. 

What I am really struck by is your question about professional bodies working together, as opposed to separately, in trying to figure this out. This is possible and very doable with the will, but it demands that any notions of ‘land grab’ are set aside for the greater good. There was a time when ŠÊ˜·³ÇëŠ×ÓÍÆË], UK Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP) and British Psychological Society (BPS) for example, struggled to find common ground to work together. When I was Chair of ŠÊ˜·³ÇëŠ×ÓÍÆË], we created a ‘Chairs’ Forum’ where the three Chairs and CEOs of those bodies began to meet to look at synergies; this is now of course much broader in the context of initiatives such as SCoPEd. Not everyone might like what emerges from such collaborative discussion, but it demonstrates an important principle: where there’s a will there’s a way... 

TT: Supervision 

Absolutely, Andrew. I think the coaching bodies have also found it hard to work together when they’re potentially competing for membership and associated fees. 

A natural progression from this discussion is the role of supervision. Within the therapeutic profession, it’s standard practice for therapists to have a trusted supervisor overseeing their clinical work. Similarly, maintaining coaching accreditation with EMCC Global (renewable every five years) requires supervision from an accredited coach supervisor. However, this raises important questions: does this mean practitioners will need two separate supervisors? Could this double requirement make supervision prohibitively expensive – not only due to twice the number of sessions but also because coaching and coaching supervision often command significantly higher fees than their therapy counterparts? 

This situation creates a growing demand for dualqualified supervisors who can provide comprehensive oversight across both domains. Reflecting on my own experience, I completed a rigorous 12-month coach supervision training programme (with Professor Peter Hawkins). Surprisingly, it wasn’t recognised by therapy bodies. By contrast, my accredited clinical supervision course – despite being far shorter at just four weekends over three months – met the standards required in the therapy field. This disparity raises questions about the quality, depth, and expectations of supervision training across disciplines. Could this be another area where coaching and therapy bodies could collaborate to align standards? 

In the meantime, I’m encouraging dual qualifying, and my teachings – as you know – have a focus on ethics, boundaries and contracting. One of the strengths of coaching lies in its collaborative, adult-to-adult framework. When in doubt, I encourage coaches to share the dilemma with their client and trust in their joint ability to navigate their way through this. 

Executive coaching 

Unlike therapists, coaches often identify themselves by their target audience rather than their modality. So rather than a gestalt or person-centred coach, they might be an executive coach, life, career, leadership, menopause or performance coach, for example. It’s the competences and capabilities that unite the coach, regardless of theoretical underpinning. 

Despite this, when therapists join my programme, they often shy away from the idea of doing ‘executive coaching’. This is coaching very senior leaders at board level with responsibility for setting the direction of their company, making strategic decisions and directing their action. This begs the question for therapists: do you need to have done their job to be an executive coach? 

If we haven’t held a senior executive role ourselves, do we lack credibility as executive coaches? I wonder if coaching has evolved beyond that definition. Modern executive coaching isn’t just about business acumen – it’s about developing the whole person. To suggest that only those who’ve been in the club can coach at this level risks sounding a bit ‘old boys’ network.’ Besides, even if we were executives, doesn’t our own experience eventually become outdated? The challenges that today’s leaders face are evolving rapidly, and past experience doesn’t always translate to present-day relevance. 

When I coach executives, they bring human challenges. A conflict with the CEO or Chair often comes down to communication and relational dynamics. Strategy discussions frequently revolve around confidence, resilience, and decision making, not just technical expertise. 

Luckily, I’ve got the executive T-shirt. But I’m not convinced it’s a prerequisite. 

AR: Building on the ‘executive T-shirt’ 

That’s a great point, Trish, and I quite fancy an executive T-shirt myself; I wonder if I would suit it? I have sat on various boards and so had line management responsibility for CEOs and senior leadership teams, yet I still wonder if I would ‘have what it takes’ to step into that world as a coach. I suspect I am one of those people from your training programme who questions what they might have to bring. 

That said, I think you make an excellent point too: as dual-trained practitioners, we have a huge amount to bring. I am currently supervising executive coaches because they are looking for that dual training, mental health-confident perspective. There is also a recognition, having worked with many big financial institutions around mental health, that the development of the person – or the leader – is as much about their own capacity for reflexivity and personal growth as it is for leadership theory and concepts. In that sense therefore, executive coaching has much to gain from the input of dual-trained practitioners, as do senior leaders likewise. 

TT: Three-way contracting 

Executive coaching – or any coaching within a business, does need specific skills in managing three-way contracting. These contracting meetings are a powerful process for encouraging transparency and open communication. It often requires the skills of mediation between our client and their boss, and sometimes even a fourth stakeholder from the company. 

They can be delicate, requiring us to navigate power dynamics, unspoken expectations, and sometimes even conflicting agendas. Our role is to create a space where both parties feel heard, surfacing hidden tensions, clarifying assumptions, and aligning on goals. When done well, these conversations strengthen trust and a shared commitment to the coaching process. 

But how much should we step into the role of mediator? Do we simply facilitate the dialogue, or do we take a more active role in managing dynamics and resolving conflict? 

And when tensions run high, how do we ensure we remain neutral while still being impactful? These need to be addressed in coach training. 

AR: Working with systems 

This reminds me of working with couples, or with groups, in therapy: while we rightly focus on the internal and relational dynamics of those involved, we also need to think systemically. We have to think ‘outside the room’ if you like. In my personal opinion, I am not entirely sure that some of the UK therapy training actually enables their trainees to do that. That is, I often suspect that, because so much time is spent thinking about intra- and interpersonal processes in the room, less attention is given to the context, or system, in which the work is taking place. 

This strikes me as sitting at the very heart of your point: three-way, or multi-level contracting demands a systemic way of thinking to ensure that all stakeholders in the process are appropriately included, accounted for and boundaries set. Adding coaching into the qualification portfolio of a therapist can often help them achieve this, or build confidence in doing it successfully. Likewise, coaching can learn much from how therapists contract routinely with their clients and the importance of where supervision sits in that whole process. 

TT: Supervision – again! 

…and this brings us back to supervision and ensuring that dual-qualified coaches have a supervisor who can suitably support them through all the complexities of both therapy and coaching. This work is so exciting, and I’m passionate about ensuring that therapists and coaches are properly equipped to support our clients. 

Bringing it together: a time of change 

We’ve so enjoyed this dialogue and, while raising lots of thoughts and areas for consideration, we perhaps leave it at this stage with just as many unanswered questions. This is certainly an exciting time in coaching, with an exponential growth in interest and training, together with different perspectives on how therapy and coaching can complement, or integrate with, each other. 

There are key points here though: that professional bodies have a critically important role in ensuring good practice and that might be achieved by them working in collaboration, instead of independently reinventing the wheel (while mindful of differing member services’ priorities); the importance of supervision; the importance of the highest standards in training; and that there is perhaps an opportunity to not simply bolt two things together, but instead craft something new, drawing on the power and potency of each.