Integral Coaching, Coaching, and Therapy - What's the Difference?

Integral Coaching®, Coaching, and Therapy: What’s the Difference?

Coaching is gaining in popularity, and confusion exists as to how it differs from therapy and how Integral Coaching® differs from both. Many factors contribute to this confusion. In reality, a plethora of approaches to coaching and therapy exist. Ample similarities and differences are apparent not only between these professions, but also within them. Furthermore, Integral Coaching® is unlike other forms of coaching and therapy. Taken as a whole, they represent a legacy intent on alleviating suffering and facilitating change. This article provides a more comprehensive overview of therapy and coaching so as to dispel misunderstanding and honor Integral Coaching Canada’s unique contribution to both human development and consciousness evolution.

Both the coaching and therapy professions emerged in the West. In the 1940s when the therapy profession took root, significant social and economic changes created an opportunity and demand for mentoring outside the extended family network. Therapists not only came to assume the function of sages in Western culture, but they were pivotal in helping an Amber culture navigate the transition into an Orange way of being. Modernist therapeutic approaches such as psychoanalytic, cognitive behavioral, experiential, and systemic marriage and family therapy theories predominated. They focused on cataloguing, diagnosing, and remediating pathology, as specified in the burgeoning Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. This stance mirrored the culture’s Amber, Judeo-Christian ethos and its Orange business/ medical model of disease.

The social revolution of the 1960s represented a shift from Orange consciousness to Green, which was marked by piqued interest in Eastern collectivist philosophy and meditative practices. Consequently, Humanistic, Existential, and Transpersonal psychologies appeared, both mirroring and facilitating society’s novel inquiry. In particular, Abraham Maslow’s Humanistic psychology movement prepared the ground for coaching to take root (Williams, 2004). By suggesting that humans have an innate capacity to self-actualize, he challenged the therapy field’s Amber-Orange orthodoxy that humans are damaged and must be fixed, which implied the field believed it had codified ‘universal normalcy’.

Similarly, beginning in the 1980s and 1990s, advances in communications technology and gobalization necessitated that the post-industrial world metabolize diversity and change at an accelerated rate (Kegan, 1998; Williams, 2004). This trend accompanied another large-scale societal shift from Amber-Orange to Green, as well as from 1st to the 2nd tier consciousness. New sages were needed to midwife civilization through this developmental leap, and the human potential movement was born. An Orange-Green coaching industry blossomed, catering to both individuals and businesses. At the same time, the postmodern revolution rocked the foundation of modernist psychotherapy. Constructivist therapy approaches (e.g., Narrative, Solution Focused) resemble many coaching modalities in that they are strengths-based and future-focused. Cultural psychology and neuroscience are adding to this mix, which is effectively debunking many prized assumptions about ‘pathology’ and ‘healthy’ human development. In true, “either/ or” 1st tier fashion, it became vogue for Green coaches and therapists to champion empowerment, resilience, and self-actualization while declaring an end to the Amber-Orange hunt for pathology. Unfortunately, the fledgling 1st tier coaching industry attempts to distinguish itself from the field of therapy by inaccurately branding the latter as being exclusively fixated with pathology and the past, yet the same philosophical war is being waged within the therapy profession itself.

 In an unprecedented move during this period, Integral Coaching Canada (ICC) developed a novel, robust 2nd tier method of coaching that includes and transcends pre-existing therapy and coaching frameworks. Rather than espousing an exclusive focus on pathology or possibility, Integral Coaching® addresses both shadow and potential. Similarly, it acknowledges the relevance of the past, present, and future with respect to any change endeavor. It has also been successful in perceiving and leveraging change from the perspective of all four quadrants.

 A major distinction between first and second tier approaches to coaching and therapy is that the former generally perceives change from the perspective of only one or two quadrants (Hunt, 2009; Wilber, 2000). In contrast, authentic 2nd tier approaches utilize all four quadrants in an “interconnected fashion rather than as separate segments in a non-integrated way” (Hunt, 2009, p. 6). Wilber (2000) maps the most common therapy theories according to their quadrant vantage points. Similarly, in “An Introduction to Integral Coaching®”, Joanne Hunt, co-founder of ICC, uses the quadrants lens to distinguish between the ICC method and other coaching models. She states:

An investigation of the underlying beliefs of these coaching approaches show that they are all right and they are all partial. The view that we hold for our Integral Coaching® approach is that for change to occur in a way that is embodied and sustained, the focus and attention needs to embrace and include all four perspectives of how change occurs…. Our Integral Coaching® approach employs a methodology that includes and enables the deep and penetrating insights that come to light through conversation, intimacy, and shared meaning (LL). Clients’ ways of seeing and understanding greatly expand (UL) and systemic impact is readily examined and effectively worked with over time (LR). Muscle-building actions (UR) are on behalf of developing underlying capabilities needed to fully and skillfully function in this wider, broader landscape across all quadrants. (p. 6-7)

 In other words, many aspiring integral therapists and coaches have more or less created an “integrative” approach to change as opposed to an integral one [add they don’t have an integral LR; the focus on states without having an adequate container; content and process over time]. The Integral Institute recognized ICC’s approach as the most comprehensive and rigorous application of the AQAL framework. The entire Spring ’09 edition of the Journal of Integral Theory and Practice is dedicated to Integral Coaching®.

 Given this overview on coaching, therapy, and the ICC approach to Integral Coaching®, it is little wonder that confusion reigns about their distinctness. Clearly, they share important similarities. They emerged within the same Western cultural context at poignant moments marked by significant societal upheaval. They aspire to facilitate change, and their theories co-evolved with advances (another word?) in philosophy, science, technology, and business. Their differences are also significant. Within the discipline of 1st tier therapy, clinicians tend to either focus on pathology or on strengths and potential, while the 1st tier coaching discipline focuses exclusively on possibility. First tier therapies and coaching methods focus on the past or the present or the future, and they typically perceive change from the perspective of only one or two quadrants. ICC’s method of Integral Coaching® includes and transcends this “either/ or”, partial view. It exemplifies the 2nd tier paradigm, in which the perspective of “both/ and” infuses the full AQAL lens (all quadrants, lines, types, states, and stages). Its application is equally effective in the personal and professional domains, with clients ranging from individuals/ executives, to partners, to teams, to organizations. Hence, to date, Integral Coaching® is potentially the most powerful mechanism by which clients embody transformation across the AQAL terrain.

References

Hunt, J. (2009, Spring). Transcending and including our current way of being: An introduction to Integral Coaching®. Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, 4(1), 1-19.

Kegan, R. (1998). In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wilber, K. (2000). Integral psychology: Consciousness, spirit, psychology, therapy. Boston, MA: Shambhala.

Williams, P. (2004). Coaching vs. psychotherapy: The great debate. Choice, 2(1), 38-39. Retrieved June 1, 2006 from http://www.choice-online.com/tocv2i1.html.