Talk:Life coaching

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Looking to hear from psychologists and other non-coaches on the matter of credentialing of life coaches. Given that the International Coach Federation in its efforts to self-regulate _does_ offer credentialing for coaches (there is just no licensing requirement or anything of that nature to be credentialed or even certified to be able to call oneself a coach), would it be more appropriate to say "licensed (e.g. psychologists) and unlicensed practitioners" rather than "credentialed" as currently stands in the following sentence? "Life Coaching is used by a growing number of both credentialed (e.g. psychologists) and non-credentialed practitioners to aid clients with transitions in their personal life, and in the process of self-actualization." If you don't like "licensed", what other term or re-write would make more sense to you? I'm in the process of re-writing this section and want to be sensitive to others' views before I even get started.

Geekcoach 14:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 NPOV tag. 2 External Links 3 Removing NPOV tag 4 Coaching and ADHD 5 Coaching vs. therapy

[edit] NPOV tag.

This article is not just one sided, but completly eludes the basic question of the efficiency of coaching in general. Life coaching is considered a manipulative use of lonely people's needing freinds and support ,creates a dependency on the coach, that usually does nothing more than utters the client's own words in a charismatic authortative way. This is nothing more than the basic appeal to authority that happened so many times in the human history timetable. I'd hate to put these thoughts here, but this new evolution of the social phenomena that began with "paying for your sins" to the church and channeling spirit guides and such deserve a better informed Wikipedia article. --Procrastinating@^talk2me 12:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Life coaching is considered...

By whom?

Are you aware that "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy? I suspect, given the context of your comment, that you meant it differently. Why so vehemently opposed to coaching?

Septegram 21:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me this whole field was created to prey upon people's feelings of inadequacy much like the makeup and diet industries. The article currently reads like a promo piece giving it undue legitimacy. We really need a 'history' section to see where this field came from, an 'efficacy' section to see if there is any measurable improvement in the life of clients, and a 'methods' section since the whole article is devoid of any mention on how this coaching is done. One specific question I would like answered is: How is a coach any different from a therapist? Monkeyman^(talk) 15:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

How is he any different from a freind for that matter?

Maybe we should pu those section up with an {expand} request.--Procrastinating@^talk2me 17:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I think any salvagable info should be merged into Coaching and this article should be a redirect. Any thoughts on this? Monkeyman^(talk) 20:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Object. I do not think that the two activities are really the same. This article is sufficiently detailed and specific to stand alone at the moment; a reference should probably appear in Coaching, but this should remain as the main article. DWaterson 18:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The article on prostitution explains how it could be a potentially dangerous practice and mentions abuse so this article should do the same. -Iopq 18:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Almost anything is subject to abuse. Why conflate coaching with prostitution?

Septegram 21:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Boys and girls, let's remember the AIM, shall we? The definition of Life Coaching at the top of the article is inadequate at the moment, and we need to get to a concensus for the benefit of the readers. Please consider my proposed definition and the comments that follows:

Definition: Life Coaching is a process of facilitation, in which the coach provides mental and emotional control tools and assists the client(s) in their use, within the framework of achieving a set of goals.

The Coaching Process: We can also add a section about 'The Coaching Process'. This ranges from the more 'challenge'-oriented sessions to the goals-based, structured programs, but all share some common attributes.

• Coaching helps the client identify some positive things in life that they would like to achieve (most often called 'goals').
• Coaching helps the client uncover negative beliefs and replace them with positive, empowering ones, which serve their attainment of the goals.
• Coaching helps the client align the values (desirable emotional states) in their life.
• Coaching encourages the client to take responsibility for their own actions and emotions, rather than blaming others, the government, the world, their parents, etc.

Ethics: We can add a section about 'Coaching Ethics', which distinguishes ethical coaches from unethical ones. I suggest this distinction is derived from the motivation of the coach. Essentially, as long as the coach has been trained in a way aimed at maximizing the benefits of the coaching to the client as the client sees them and applies this training in the same way, then the coaching can be deemed ethical. On the other hand, if the coach manipulates the client toward the coach's own benefit, this is unethical. The ICF goes to great lengths to ensure that its accredited coaches are ethical and that accredited programs are ethical by using important guidelines.

Personal note: Most of the coaches I know (and I've met quite a few) are wonderful people, who want the best for the clients and the world. In fact, anybody who received coaching is encouraged by the coach to have a purpose in life and most coaches get coached first, so they have some positive, enlightened purpose. If the writers above have had any negative personal experience with coaches, I suggest they put it behind them and find a positive coach. No point spending life reliving negative parts of life. It's much better to learn from them and move on.

--Galbaras 08:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

I think that choice magazine should be on the list as it is the only coaching magazine available on the market. Quackgrassacrez^(talk) 6:47, 20 Oct, 2006 (MST)

[edit] Removing NPOV tag

I've removed the NPOV tag, as it seems to me that the article currently reads sufficiently clearly and factually to avoid bias or the lending of undue credence to the subject. Whether or not other editors disagree conceptually with the subject, the article as it presently stands seems reasonable. I agree with Monkeyman above that it would be beneficial to expand the history and provide some sort of guidance as to methods and any acceptable measure of effectiveness, but I know little about the subject myself, so am unable to help. However, an attempt to answer the question of whether it is any different to therapy, or depends on dangerous manipulation of authority, is going to be dangerously close to original research and be infested with POV unless handled very carefully. DWaterson 18:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Coaches (and therapists, too) are quick to point out that coaching and therapy are distinctly different fields (although there are states where one need no special training to put out a shingle saying "Therapist," too). Where therapy generally assumes the client has some sort of problem that requires "fixing," a coach assumes that the person is healthy and whole, and needs assistance more with the client's external life. This may include teaching habits, but there is no assumption or indication that a coach can help with issues of personal health.

I agree that putting something like this in "Life Coaching" without verification would be approaching original research. I'll see if I can come up with something relevant and a good source for it.

Septegram 17:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coaching and ADHD

At the risk of stirring up trouble by linking one debate-drawing topic with another ... Life coaching has been growing over the last several years as one of many approaches for dealing with ADHD in adults. A few articles to illustrate (many are from commercial or promotional sites - please note I'm not promoting these nor recommending these specific links be added to the article):

• http://www.addresources.org/article_coaching_rayburn.php
• http://www.addcoaching.com/what_is_coaching.htm
• http://www.addconsults.com/articles/excerpt.php3?cat=1023
• http://add.about.com/od/coaching/a/addcoaching.htm
• http://www.add.org/articles/what_add_coaching.html
• http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0966036670/sr=1-1/qid=1156020337/ref=sr_1_1/103-4024918-4285461?ie=UTF8&s=books

The last is an Amazon link for a 2000 book on coaching of college students with learning differences and/or ADHD. So at the very least, it seems that this area should be added as a common application of life coaching.Lawikitejana 20:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coaching vs. therapy

I'm not sure that today's latest version of the "coaching vs. therapy" section doesn't go too far the other way. For one, it presently discusses therapy almost to the exclusion of coaching — which is, after all, the article's topic — and the comment about malpractice insurance does not have a source to support that most life coaches don't have that. I'll concede it's likely true, but since the remarks seem pretty clearly intended to turn that part of the coaching article into an anti-coaching message rather than a plain discussion of differences, it needs a source. Also, there needs to be more material in that section as to why some people would choose coaching over therapy (not as an ad in favor of coaching, just supplying sources given that some people DO choose it). Last, not that I have time to fix it right now, but the person misspells "therapeutic" throughout the new addition.

I don't favor one over the other - to me, they each have distinct advantages - and I understand why some people reject both. However, the article is to be informative, not pro or con. Lawikitejana 17:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed the text about therapists having Masters or Doctorates, since that is not required in all localities. Psychotherapists may be required to have advanced degrees, but there are places where one can style oneself a "therapist" with no formal training whatsoever.

Septegram 18:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm led to believe that the second paragraph in this section is simply an ad. Any feedback?

Quackgrassacrez 15:51, 3 November 2006 (MST)

I think it's a legitimate piece of information, just like any other self-regulating accrediting agency. The APA or the Bar, for example, would be legitimate subjects in an article on psychiatry or law. I'd be inclined to leave it. If you want to rework it so it's less ad-like, then be bold.

Septegram 08:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I do beleive that the ICF should do everything possible to become recognized as the legitimate, helpful profession that it can be with the correct training of its practitioners. Those who do not make it a habit of practising self awareness and consicous living, drawing from the experience, success and wisdom that comes along with it and therefore have something of value to offer to others in distress choosing to live on autopilote (which make up about 90% of the population!) need not apply for Life Coaching certification. In my opinion, Life Coaching practise can be very similar to certain forms of psychotherapy, espcially CBT,neural path therapy and the likes. I do think that soon Life Coaches will all be eventually required to be trained in appropriate forms of "psychotherapy", "emotional intelligence" theories and various other studies in consciousness. Any time that anyone practises the art of challenging and replacing certain thinking patterns (cognitive restructuring) they are participating in psychotherapy, wether they want to admit it or not. For that matter, an optimistic and successful mother, father or friend can serve as a psychotherapist! My intention is not to take a crack at psychologists here but many people's problems not including psychological abnormalities (as determined in the DSM IV) actually pay a psychologist for someone to talk to (like a friend) for general self-created anxiety and depression problems. In some cases they'd have been better off talking to a optimistic, successful friend at no cost to get them to reflect on and challenge their patterns of thinking (with the continued help of a pillar of accountability-i.e. their optimistic friend) without the stigma that an imposed label can carry given by a psychologist. This is where Life Coaching comes in. If people can't figure out that in many cases they create their own problems, a Life Coach would serve as an excellent and affordable "therapist" and pillar of accountability. Its amazing what happens when a person shifts his perception of life (paradigm shift) The outlook of Life Coaching, if it continues to evolve in the right direction, has the opportunity to participate in the change of the face of this earth because in more aspects than not it is based in spirituality. The U.S. as well as other countries are experiencing a deficit in true spirituality. I think that the emergence of eastern philsophy, in particular Buddhism, has a lot to do with the recognition and popularization of this relatively new profession of Life Coaching.