Week on week I see posts and comments around the preference for pure coaching vs blending coaching with other interventions. My personal opinion is that both of these can be useful as long as we're clear in our contracting and conversations what people are getting and it meets their needs. I've noticed, as someone who does both, that often my relationships get more "pure" as they evolve which I think is about that recognition that people have more answers than they think they do.
In the pure coaching camp we have the ICF competencies and approach to coaching: this is something I personally love and spend a lot of time in (and train people in via OPTIMUS COACH ACADEMY). When we're in pure coaching we are there to partner with our clients to support them to get new insights which help change the way they think, feel and act. Neuroplasticity and neuroscience are at the heart of these relationships as we support our clients to re-wire their neural pathways.
Even within this definition and the ICF competencies there is flexibility and my belief is that pure coaching can take many forms which personalisation and support being key.
On the other side there are blended approaches: we often see these in organisations where managers and leaders use coaching skills or we see coaching skills work well alongside mentoring, consulting, facilitation and training.
The question I always come back to is : what is the purpose of this intervention? If you're line managing someone a coaching approach has been shown to be motivating and empowering for many yet it doesn't work for every relationship and every context.
Pure coaching is in itself a fantastic intervention: there is a growing body of research which shows that it supports change and that effect size is significant. At it's best you're honouring clients autonomy and resourcefulness and creating a space where people can build self awareness, strengthen confidence, make decisions and commit to action. This space is often called a "thinking partnership" and I would say it goes beyond this.
The space of being truly present with someone and focused on them and what they want is in itself transformational allowing the coach to recognise patterns, use their intuition, pick up on non verbal cues and evoke awareness. By creating this non judgemental client-centred space coaching allows clients to find their own solutions and commit to change.
Many argue that coaching alone is not enough often as there may be a "knowledge gap" or because they are working in an organisation where coaching approaches aren't always congruent with their role or the systems they operate within.
Sometimes coaching may be adapted to meet clients needs for example in the case of neurodivergent clients which often still fits within the ICF description.
At other times the blend may be due to the creation of a program that's in part training / facilitation, in part mentorship and in part coaching. These blends are popular within organisations especially in the leadership space as well as when working for individuals for example supporting new parents or helping people to build businesses or navigate retirement.
The benefits of a blended approach is there can be part education, part advise / mentorship and then coaching to work with individuals (or groups). This can be effective where people have knowledge gaps or they want to be part of a community of learning. Coaching approaches can benefit the other interventions and support personalisation.
Outside of programs you may see coaching blends offered by one individual : for example they may be a Coaching Psychologist sharing the models and approaches from this field as well as working with the individual in front of them or maybe they're blending mentorship / advisory and coaching. These can be hugely beneficial to clients if they're correctly positioned.
Often when we see coaching blends attacked it's because people are adding in advice / mentoring and may not be explicit about this (or why they are doing it) or we see people who are trained as pure coaches believing they can't share knowledge if it will serve the client in that moment. It's why I often talk about coaching skills as I believe these skills can be used across domains.
Perhaps the real question isn’t which is better, but how conscious are we about our approach? Whether you coach purely or blend intentionally, what matters most is:
Ultimately, great coaching isn’t about purity or eclecticism it’s about integrity, intention, and impact and this stays the same whether you are coaching in it's purest form or blending different approaches.
Where do you sit in this debate? Are you a “pure coaching purist,” a “blend believer,” or somewhere in between? I’d love to hear how you navigate this in your own practice.
At Optimus Coach Academy we train you in pure coaching approaches congruent with the ICF competencies. We believe in these approaches and as a team we all offer pure coaching as a stand alone intervention (as I mentioned before it's one of my favourite things to do) many of us also offer blended approaches for different clients and in different contexts.