Positive psychology and coaching psychology: Perspectives on integration

P. Alex Linley & Susan Harrington

Superficially, at least, positive psychology and coaching psychology would seem to have a lot in common. They have both captured the popular psychological imagination, and are both concerned with the improvement of performance and well-being. In this short article, we will try and identify what we see as some of the deeper convergences between positive psychology and coaching psychology, and briefly explore their implications for coaching psychology practice.

Positive psychology was christened in Martin Seligman’s 1998 Presidential Address to the American Psychological Association, and a seminal issue of the flagship American Psychologist (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) swiftly followed. In the UK, a special edition of The Psychologist (Linley, Joseph & Boniwell, 2003) was devoted to the topic, and the First European Positive Psychology Conference was held in Winchester in June 2002. Positive psychology may be defined as the scientific study of optimal functioning, focusing on aspects of the human condition that lead to happiness, fulfilment, and flourishing, with core positive psychology research topics including happiness, wisdom, creativity, and human strengths. More recently, interest has begun to emerge in what has become known as applied positive psychology (‘the application of positive psychology research to the facilitation of optimal functioning,’ Linley & Joseph, 2004a, p.4), and coaching is increasingly being understood from the positive psychological perspective (Kauffman & Scoular, 2004; Linley, 2004). Why is it that these two approaches seem to have dovetailed so neatly? We suggest there are three primary reasons for this powerful integration, which we elucidate below.

First, both positive psychology and coaching psychology are explicitly concerned with the enhancement of performance and wellbeing , beginning at the level of the individual. Arguably, one may suggest that this definition applies to the whole of psychology. In practice, however, most psychologists may have traditionally considered their job to be done when the ‘client’ was free of psychological problems and difficulties. To the positive psychologist and the coaching psychologist, that is to stop at only half way. Psychology has as much, if not more, to offer in facilitating people to achieve higher levels of performance and well-being, and it sells itself short in focusing only on the alleviation of psychopathology. Positive psychology and coaching psychology recognise this, and strive ‘to promote optimal functioning across the full range of human functioning, from disorder and distress to health and fulfilment’ (Linley & Joseph, 2004a, p.4).

Second, in focusing on the plus side of human nature rather than only on its failings and weaknesses, both positive psychology and coaching psychology have implicitly challenged practitioners to question the fundamental assumptions which they hold about human nature (Linley & Joseph, 2004b). In a nutshell, there are three possible assumptions: we may believe that people are by nature destructive, and thus need to be controlled. Or we may believe that people have the propensity for both good and evil, and thus we need to keep down the evil and promote the good. Or we may believe that people are motivated by socially constructive directional forces, and that we need therefore to provide the right environmental conditions to allow them to flourish. It has been argued elsewhere (Joseph & Linley, 2004) that positive psychology has implicitly adopted this third fundamental assumption about human nature. Here, we would argue that coaching psychology raises these same questions, and that by considering their own fundamental assumptions, coaching psychologists may gain a greater insight on how these assumptions impact on their practice.

Third, positive psychology has infused an interest in the psychology of human strengths, and we argue that this is an area that provides significant potential for development and benefit to coaching psychologists Traditionally, psychological research into human strengths has been fragmented and disparate: Psychologists have studied individual strengths (e.g. creativity, hope, optimism, gratitude), but have not developed classification systems or taxonomies to provide a framework for understanding the family of psychological strengths as a whole: Indeed, it is likely that not all psychological strengths have yet been empirically identified.

However, a major enterprise within positive psychology has been the development of the VIA Classification of Strengths (Peterson & Seligman, 2004), which attempts, for the first time, to provide a way of understanding human strengths at a meta-level of analysis. In our own work, we have proposed a more integrative definition of a strength as ‘a natural capacity for behaving, thinking, or feeling in a way that allows optimal functioning and performance in the pursuit of valued outcomes’ (Linley & Harrington, in press), and we are currently working to validate new measures of a range of psychological strengths that our research has identified (see www.personalitystrengths.com). While still in its infancy, these approaches represent a major advance in the psychological understanding of strengths, and one that has many implications for the practice of coaching psychologists.

Overall, then, we argue that positive psychology and coaching psychology are natural partners in applied psychology. Both are concerned with the facilitation and promotion of optimal human functioning, and both challenge traditional fundamental assumptions about human nature. However, the most exciting potential for their further integration may lie in the application of strengths within coaching psychology, and we look forward eagerly to what the future may hold.

Address for correspondence
P. Alex Linley, PhD, School of Psychology,
Henry Wellcome Building, University of Leicester, Lancaster Road, Leicester LE1 9HN.
E-mail: [email protected]

References

Joseph, S. & Linley, P.A. (2004). Positive therapy: A positive psychological theory of therapeutic practice. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.) Positive psychology in practice (pp.354-368). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Kauffman, C. & Scoular, A. (2004). Toward a positive psychology of executive coaching. In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.) Positive psychology in practice (pp.287-302). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Linley, P.A. (2004, October). Coaching psychology: The positive psychological foundations. Paper presented at the International Positive Psychology Summit, Washington, DC.

Linley, P.A. & Harrington, S. (in press). Strengths psychology: Academic and applied perspectives. The Psychologist.

Linley, P.A. & Joseph, S. (2004a). Applied positive psychology: A new perspective for professional practice. In P.A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.) Positive psychology in practice (pp.3-12). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Linley, P. A., & Joseph, S. (2004b). Toward a theoretical foundation for positive psychology in practice. In P.A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.) Positive psychology in practice (pp.713-731). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Linley, P.A., Joseph, S. & Boniwell, I. (Eds.) (2003). In a positive light. [Special Issue on Positive Psychology]. The Psychologist, 16(3).

Peterson, C. & Seligman, M.E.P. (2004). Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Seligman, M.E.P. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (Eds.). (2000). Special issue on happiness, excellence, and optimal human functioning. American Psychologist, 55 (1).