What is the issue with the life coaching industry?

With increasing recognition that we should seek help with personal problems, we also observe increasing diversity of the professionals who provide it. We have a right to choose where we spend money and should not be forced to follow convention for its own sake. But simultaneously, we have the right to make decisions informed by honest information, and scrutinise what we receive. One phenomenon apparently increasing in popularity is life coaching. I once used the term "life coach" in relation to myself, but now avoid it all costs, for I have serious doubts about the industry's ethos. In this article, I will explain why. As with most topics, I must emphasise that these criticisms do not apply to all life coaches or bodies representing them. I have encountered ethical coaches before and have no reason to doubt their individual integrity. Rather, I have observed a large number of problems that must not be ignored when the purpose is to help people who could easily be harmed by ineffective practices. As such, I am only targeting the unethical practitioners here and raising possible concerns.

Are life coaches and therapists different?

A common question is of whether life coaching is actually different from psychotherapy. Most of the comparisons that people make between the two practices are examples of reification errors, meaning that they treat them as necessarily involving different psychological mechanics because they use different language and work from different philosophies. These philosophies are created by humans in an attempt to explain how the mind works; they are not realities created by nature and hence we can not consider them to be the objective truth of the mind. A summation of the differences that people posit is that a psychotherapist focusses on past causes of problems and the problems themselves, while a coach focusses on present solutions. This, alongside most of the other supposed differences I have read posited, is not an effective conceptualisation of how the process should actually work.

The nature of a person's problem is what it is. To solve it properly, one must understand why it occurred and how it operates, before deciding on actions to solve it and committing to those actions. If a therapist does not help a client develop solutions, it is not because therapy as a practice is ineffective or "too focussed on the past"; it is because the therapist themself is using an ineffective approach. If a coach does not help a person to understand causes and psychological mechanics, they are merely teaching the client to find a temporary solution, not empowering them to create their own solutions when other problems arise ― and by the same standard, that coaches may not have a suitable ethos or understanding of psychology does not negate that coaching is important.

Indeed, coaching can be considered an effective and independent practice in instances in which a person is not unusually vulnerable and requires practical guidance on executing existing goals ― for example, in sports and exercise, business operation, and personal organisation. It can also be beneficial on its own or integrated in to therapy to create a holistic approach to health ― for example, some coaches may operate training courses that use physical challenges as a means of building values and resilience. But if the approach is merely verbal instruction, then regardless of whether the term "coach" or "therapist" is used, any competent professional should be integrating the approaches claimed by both fields and addressing all relevant domains. If not, we have a serious problem with how we train helping professionals.

Another potential source of confusion is that professionals in this field often title themselves in ways which create an impression that their specialties are distinct phenomena, which is highly questionable. Consider titles such as "confidence coach", "happiness coach", "dating coach", "communication coach", "relationship coach", "breakup coach", "success coach", "motivational coach", "image coach", "minimalist coach", "transition coach", and "accountability coach". A problem that we appear to have is that we create theories in an attempt to understand the world, and in doing so create them with too many assumptions, to the extent that different aspects of our functioning are treated as different phenomena when in fact they are born of the same mechanics. Any helping professional with proper training in psychology who is actually competent will be able to analyse the situation of someone who has problems with happiness, confidence, a "breakup", motivation, life transitions, et al., recognise how they operate, and help them to develop solutions. If the industry has actually accepted that a person qualified to give guidance on happiness needs completely different skills to someone qualified to give guidance on motivation, the problem is not with the concept of a helping professional, but with how we teach the practice.

The need for standards

A major strength of the conventional therapy industry, although it is not always executed well, is that its representative bodies uphold codes of ethics designed to ensure that practices are for the benefit of the client. They work on the basis that certain actions are unacceptable because they may cause unforeseen harm, regardless of how "harmless" they may seem initially or the fact that the client gave informed consent. For example, I would never interview a client on my podcast and demonstrate therapy for my audience, and I could never be personally involved with a client. The danger of the client being harmed due to their vulnerability or other complications arising is too great to justify any possible benefits. I have, however, become aware of coaches who have taken similar actions. The fact that one does not call themselves "therapist" and does not have the same code of ethics does not change the fact that they are working with people whose psychological states may render them more vulnerable to harm than usual. Some may argue that these are just examples of how "therapy is too rigid" and laud that life coaches are able to do what therapists can not because they have fewer restrictions. I will concede that our professional conventions can be inflexible at times ― but both the best therapists and coaches will practice their professions with competence and integrity and ultimately do what their clients require.

A further question is of qualification and regulation. There are professional bodies that represent coaches, but in many jurisdictions (and certainly in Australia at the time of writing) the title of life coach is not protected, meaning that the law does not require a person to hole credentials to use it. This is admittedly also the case for counsellors in Australia, although this may change with recent developments. The training to become a certified coach often takes less time than the training that many therapists undergo. Perhaps I am biased, but I must question how much fundamental psychology is actually included in these courses. A major problem is that we often teach processes without linking them to core explanatory knowledge. Knowledge of psychological mechanics allows professionals to think flexibly in solving problems, but knowing only the coaching process is useful only so long as the situations they encounter fit within the format of those which they are taught ― and how often does this actually happen in real life?

Spiritual methods

The approaches used by some coaches often do not meet the standards of scientific rigour of the best therapeutic approaches. They are often of a spiritual nature, but also are sometimes touted as "evidence-based" when they are not, or are overly simplified imitations of real therapeutic modalities. I am not judging spiritual or religious individuals; indeed, I often help religious clients integrate their faith in to the change process. Simultaneously, the label "scientific" can be used to mislead, and scientifically conventional processes have their own flaws. The fact that we can not test spiritual phenomena does not mean that they do not exist, and the fact that a method does not fit the Western definition of "scientifically validated" does not in itself mean that it is ineffective or invalid. It simply means that we can not verify them to the same extent. For all we know, there may be phenomena in existence which science can not explain.

But we must understand why scientifically validated methods are considered the standard. They are developed and tested in a way that demonstrates that outcomes are consistently achieved across people and contexts, and in a way that works as objectively as possible with the mechanics of psychology. Without this validation, it is all too possible that results are spontaneous, or based on feelings or suggestion. One would often be surprised at how powerfully the mind influences us and how we may sincerely believe that we are observing helpful results when in fact there were other factors that caused that outcome. Spirituality can have an important and healthy influence in a person's life, and if they wish to purchase services that work with this influence, then they are within their rights to do so. But one must see the ethical problems with selling a service to a vulnerable person without a firm basis for its merit ― especially considering the force with which some of these practitioners market their services.

I have previously asked to interview similar practitioners who use these approaches, addressing deep questions about the nature and workings. They have often apparently evaded the questions or even stated outright that they do not want to debate with others who "do not understand". Are they confidence tricksters? Do they actually experience what they claim to and simply do not communicate it well? Are they hallucinating or delusional but genuinely believe that their methods work? It is difficult to evaluate without making unfair accusations. In any case, we are helping vulnerable people, and this type of uncertainty is a problem.

Wellbeing professionals or businessmen?

Elsewhere, the methods, ethos and content of coaches often have a startling focus on wealth accumulation, while claiming to be for "wellbeing". Many coaches were former businessmen, and conduct apparent pyramid schemes in which their business is selling courses and frameworks. They often even specifically help other coaches obtain more clients, proposing "proven frameworks" that help people "make money when they are not even seeing clients". I would often receive impersonal messages on social media from such people. One even asked if I wanted to hire professional actors to make videos to sell my services. Some imply the attitude that traditional therapy is ineffective because "it constantly tries to re-invent the wheel", but that their "secret" methods involve the use of one framework that is "proven" to work with all clients, and makes the practitioners who use it millionaires. Tellingly, at least some (and I willingly predict many) of these secret methods are protected by intellectual property laws and incur licensing fees for other coaches to use them. Even to consumer clients, they may state upfront that their services cost thousands of dollars in advance and require the purchasing of a minimum "package" that includes consultations and materials. Some sell courses and even retreats to people who have suffered trauma, in order to "heal" them. This often explains how some practitioners apparently fulfil such a specific niche, but are able to sustain a whole business: they sell courses and service packages that cost substantial amounts of money rather than maintaining large caseloads of clients. Coaches will even admit to this.

Examination of their websites and media reveals tactics to present themselves as extravagant and exclusive but simultaneously overly familiar. Too seldom do they state in succinct terms what they actually do and why their methods are effective. Rather, they write and speak at length about their life stories and the wishes that many people have, fraught with extravagant language and "relatable" expressions. They post stylised images of themselves living what seem to be luxurious lives. They flatter their audience: "You're totally boss!", "You're worth it!", "Be kind to yourself!", "I'm your best friend!" They often use words and concepts such as "trauma", "triggers", "empowerment", "burnout", "recognise your self-worth", "thought leader", "soulpreneur", and "mindset" because they have trendy affiliations rather than because they actually honour the significance of them.

This is, in fact, excellent business psychology. Promising to help people get rich and live glamorous lifestyles, and using "short and sharp" catchphrases that prompt excitement or relatability in people, are all appeals to our tendency to respond to desire and emotion, and not what is realistic. It appeals to the vulnerable, who through no fault of their own may be desperately seeking to ease their suffering, and to the greedy. This "high-level wisdom" consists of nothing more than empty slogans. It does not tell a person any more than they could have discerned themselves, nor does it actually propose the value of what the coach does. The reality of existence is that while some choices are better than others, we can never guarantee outcomes. Helping methods, including therapies, take considerable time to develop and test to ensure that they are safe and that professionals can justify charging clients for them because they consistently produce results. Even then, we can never guarantee that they will work for everyone. And most psychotherapists will never try to justify asking clients to commit to spending thousands of dollars in advance to purchase a framework less versatile than proper therapy. Even among the best minds, there is still much that we do not know about psychology, so someone is not going to be inventing some new method that provides the secret to all success. Helping requires gradual education on how to change habits, not "short sharp shocks" of "wisdom". And while the ethos that "we all have intrinsic virtue" and that society should be fairer to "the little person" sounds very socially conscious, presenting one's self in such an exclusive fashion (along with other gestures such as not being easily contactable by the public) gives a very different impression of someone's true values.

Finally, let us not ignore the most significant irony. This culture we have developed of seeking more money, possessions, luxury, false security, and baseless affirmation is problematic. We are being taught and reinforcing the idea that pleasure, obtained via these means, is inevitably good ― we call this hedonism. What we are not taught is that hedonism is often the mind's unconscious means of distracting us from the anxieties of life. When we distract ourselves from rather than engage with problems, they become worse. Even when engaging with rather than avoiding life feels painful, it is the only means of actually solving problems and developing resilience. So if someone truly cares about your wellbeing, why would they be selling you the excess that detracts from it?

Do we need more regulation?

The issue of whether coaching practices should be more legally regulated is complicated. It is reasonable to argue that people should be free to choose how they receive help, and that professionals should be able to charge for their services in a way sustainable for them. But we must also be willing to promote ethics stridently. In particular, it is reasonable to argue that one only has a moral claim to money when they have earned it without deception and for providing a product or service of value in proportion to the price. When our clients are vulnerable and especially sensitive to our actions, we must amplify our responsibility; apart from it being unethical to make unreasonable sums of money from people's problems, it is quite possible for us to not be as aware of sales caveats when we are psychologically compromised. I encourage people when they are seeking help to ask questions and obtain alternative perspectives before committing to any service. I implore all of us helping professionals, be we therapists or coaches, to be honest with ourselves about our motives for our profession and ensure that we are striving for high standards of practice. And although wishful thinking, I implore academia to shed its dogma and begin teaching psychology properly so that all of us can benefit from proper understanding of helping and set an expectation of quality therapy. This way, more people get the help that they need and become independent rather than being repelled from therapy and in to the clutches of "coaches" promising the miracles that they have always wanted. As in any industry, if a proposition appears too good to be true, it likely is.

---

Thought of the month

People often misinterpret art as condoning what people do to cause problems, rather than recognising that it is intended to make people aware of problems.