By: Azad Halavi
Introduction
In the evolving field of professional coaching, language may quietly shape both perception and practice.
Words create worlds.
Words such as “coaching tools,” “coaching techniques,” or even the metaphor of the “coaching hat” are often used to describe what coaches do. Yet, such expressions might subtly suggest that coaching is something we wear for a time — a function that can be put on or taken off depending on context. In this view, coaching becomes one role among many, interchangeable with consulting, mentoring, or advising.
However, the 2025 ICF Core Competencies bring a meaningful nuance. For the first time, Competency 3.01 explicitly uses the word philosophy:
“Describes one’s coaching philosophy and clearly defines what coaching is and is not for potential clients and stakeholders.”
This gentle yet powerful shift reminds us that coaching is not only about methods; it is grounded in one’s own philosophy of being with others. This philosophy arises from the coach’s lived values, cultural context, and understanding of what it means to accompany another human being.
At the same time, Competency 7.07 notes that a coach “adjusts the coaching approach in response to the client’s needs.” While this may sound like the “changing hats” metaphor, perhaps it actually points to something subtler: a movement within the coaching stance — a responsiveness that remains faithful to one’s values and philosophy, rather than a departure from them.
If coaching is indeed a philosophy of being, then it cannot simply be worn or removed at will. It may instead be something we inhabit — an orientation toward humanity, growth, and dialogue that infuses all our interactions. This article explores how understanding coaching as a philosophy rather than an approach may help us honor diversity among coaches while remaining anchored in shared ICF values.
1. Coaching as a Living Philosophy
To speak of “one’s coaching philosophy” is to acknowledge both common ground and plurality. According to the ICF Core Values — Professionalism, Equity, Collaboration, and Humanity — all coaches are guided by an ethical and humanistic compass. Within that shared ground, however, each coach may develop their own lived philosophy.
A coach in Tokyo might draw from Zen and phenomenology; another in Oslo from existentialism and systems thinking; another in Nairobi from communal Ubuntu ethics. Each philosophy, though distinct, still arises from the same soil: a belief that human beings are creative, resourceful, and whole.
This plurality does not weaken the profession’s coherence — it enriches it. Coaching philosophy, in this sense, may not be a single doctrine but a phenomenological stance: an ongoing inquiry into how we meet the Other. Each coach’s philosophy becomes the expression of how they perceive human potential, responsibility, and relationship.
The 2025 ICF Code of Ethics (Appendix) defines Coaching Philosophy as:
“The underlying theory, beliefs and principles that guide a coach’s practice and interactions with clients.”
It could be said that this definition invites us to reflect: what is the lived experience of my philosophy in practice? How does it appear in my tone, silence, or curiosity? Philosophy here is not abstraction — it might be the invisible atmosphere of the coaching relationship itself.
2. The Fragility of the “Coaching Hat” Metaphor
The familiar expression “wearing the coaching hat” often arises in organizational or hybrid roles where professionals shift between functions — manager, mentor, consultant, advisor, coach. On the surface, the metaphor may seem harmless, perhaps even useful, in teaching boundary awareness. Competency 1.06 rightly asks us to “maintain distinctions between coaching, consulting, psychotherapy, and other support professions.”
Yet, phenomenologically speaking, the metaphor might conceal more than it reveals. A “hat” is something external — it covers but does not transform. When we imagine coaching as a hat, we may unconsciously reduce it to a temporary behavior, detached from one’s deeper philosophy or humanity.
We might then ask:
- What happens to the ICF core values when a coach “changes hats”?
- Can professionalism, equity, collaboration, and humanity be suspended and then reactivated at will?
- How can one shift between professional roles without fragmenting one’s ethical and philosophical coherence?
When a coach “changes hats,” they might risk walking through different value systems and boundaries without full awareness. A consulting mindset may unconsciously reintroduce hierarchy; a therapeutic stance may emphasize healing rather than partnership. Each carries its own philosophy and ethics. Without reflection, the coach may oscillate between incompatible worldviews, leaving both self and client uncertain about the ground beneath them.
The issue is not about having multiple competencies — many coaches are also consultants or therapists — but about whether these roles coexist within a continuous philosophy of being. The moment a coach sees coaching merely as a function, rather than a lived value, integrity becomes vulnerable.
3. Adjusting the Approach, Not Abandoning the Philosophy
Competency 7.07 reminds us that a coach “adjusts the coaching approach in response to the client’s needs.” This might be understood as phenomenological flexibility — a movement within the coaching space that arises from empathy and presence.
Adjusting approach may mean slowing down when a client hesitates, or using visualization when imagination might open new awareness. It does not mean leaving the coaching stance. The difference lies in intention: when we adjust within coaching, our values remain constant; when we “change hats,” we risk departing from those values.
A coach may draw from different coaching orientations — Cognitive Behavioral, Gestalt, Existential, Somatic — yet the deeper philosophy remains stable: honoring autonomy, respecting wholeness, and holding the relationship as partnership. The flexibility of form never overrides the constancy of values.
4. Coaching as Phenomenological Presence
Coaching, viewed phenomenologically, might be less about what we do and more about how we are present. Presence itself may be the method.
It could be said that in true coaching presence:
- Listening becomes an act of witnessing rather than analyzing.
- Curiosity replaces certainty.
- Observation arises without judgment.
- Dialogue flows without the need for control.
Such qualities reflect not technique but being — an ontological stance that embodies the ICF’s value of Humanity. From a Nonviolent Communication (NVC) perspective, this presence may emerge when the coach suspends the impulse to fix, diagnose, or persuade, and instead meets the client’s world with compassionate curiosity. It is less a transaction and more a shared exploration of meaning.
5. The Ethical Fragility of Instrumentalism
When coaching is treated as a “hat” or merely an “approach,” it may gradually become instrumentalized.Organizations might see it as a performance tool.Managers might use “coaching questions” to steer behavior.Even coaches might unconsciously treat it as a skill to be deployed rather than a way of being.
In such moments, the ICF values may quietly erode. Professionalism becomes technique, Equity becomes rhetoric, Collaboration becomes management, and Humanity becomes productivity. What remains may resemble coaching linguistically but lack its ethical heart.
A phenomenological stance, however, invites the coach to return to experience — to sense when the space feels authentic and when it becomes instrumental. Such awareness, simple yet radical, may be the true guardian of coaching integrity.
6. Reclaiming Coaching as a Way of Being
To reclaim coaching as a philosophy — and not just an approach — we might begin with a few reflections:
- Articulate one’s own philosophy: Each coach may ask, “From what worldview do I meet my clients?” This awareness transforms technique into ethical expression.
- Embody the shared values: Professionalism, Equity, Collaboration, Humanity — not as rules, but as lived qualities that infuse tone, timing, and empathy.
- Practice nonviolence in communication: Speak and listen in ways that nurture presence rather than persuade.
- Hold integrity across roles: When moving between functions (consulting, mentoring, therapy), bring the same philosophical core — the same respect for human wholeness.
- See coaching as an invitation, not an intervention: Coaching may not aim to produce change, but to create the conditions where change might naturally arise.
Conclusion
The metaphor of the “coaching hat” may offer convenience, but perhaps it hides a deeper truth: coaching is not something we put on; it is something we become. It is not a tool to serve external goals but a way of meeting the human condition with openness, empathy, and ethical clarity.
While the ICF provides shared values and competencies, the expression of “one’s coaching philosophy” will always be plural — shaped by culture, language, and lived experience. This diversity is not a threat but a testament to coaching as a global human dialogue.
In the end, coaching may not be what we do for others, but how we are with them — in presence, curiosity, and humility. It is not a hat to be worn but a home to be lived in.
