What Is a Good Definition of Coaching?

For HR leaders evaluating coaching solutions, one of the most important questions is also the most basic: what exactly is coaching? The answer matters because how you define coaching shapes how you measure impact, select coaches, and integrate it into leadership and talent strategies.

Over the past three decades, leading thinkers in coaching psychology and practice have proposed influential definitions. While they share common ground, their differences highlight the evolving nature of the field and the importance of clarity for organisations investing in coaching.

John Whitmore – Coaching for Performance

Sir John Whitmore, one of the pioneers of the modern coaching movement, offered one of the most widely cited definitions in his seminal book Coaching for Performance (1992):

Whitmore’s definition is concise and aspirational. It emphasises self-directed learning and performance improvement, capturing why coaching became so attractive to organisations seeking to empower leaders rather than prescribe solutions. However, critics argue it is somewhat narrow: it highlights performance but says less about broader well-being, identity development, or organisational context.

Anthony Grant – Coaching Psychology

Professor Anthony Grant, often considered the founder of coaching psychology, broadened the field’s academic foundations. His influential definition (2003) states:

Grant deliberately positioned coaching as distinct from therapy, highlighting that it supports healthy individuals in achieving goals and personal development. His definition adds structure—solution-focused, result-oriented, systematic—and makes explicit the evidence-based, psychological underpinnings of coaching. For HR buyers, this rigor helps distinguish professional coaching from less structured mentoring or advice-giving.

Jonathan Passmore – Coaching as a Professional Relationship

Jonathan Passmore, a prolific researcher and thought leader in coaching, brings further nuance. In his work, he describes coaching as:

Passmore’s perspective acknowledges the relationship itself as central—the trust, collaboration, and dialogue that create the conditions for change. He also explicitly situates coaching within organisational and societal systems, recognising that coaching outcomes are not just individual but also collective.

Where the Definitions Differ

For HR buyers, the differences matter:

• Focus on performance vs. development
• Whitmore stresses performance and potential.
• Grant and Passmore incorporate personal growth and systemic awareness.
  
  
• Role of evidence and structure
• Grant makes coaching systematic and evidence-based, appealing to organisations that want measurable ROI.
• Whitmore’s version, while elegant, leaves methodology implicit.
  
  
• Contextualisation
• Passmore explicitly includes organisational context, useful when embedding coaching in talent strategies.
  
  
• Relationship vs. process
• Passmore highlights the relationship as the vehicle of change.
• Grant emphasises the process as structured and goal-driven.
  
  

Is There Contention?

While these definitions align on coaching being collaborative, client-centred, and developmental, there is ongoing debate about:

• How directive a coach should be – Should coaches strictly avoid giving advice (Whitmore’s stance), or can they offer expertise when appropriate (a more contemporary view)?
  
• How broad the scope should be – Is coaching primarily about workplace performance, or does it legitimately include identity, resilience, and personal life?
  
• What makes coaching distinct – The closer coaching moves toward consulting, mentoring, or therapy, the more organisations need clarity on boundaries.
  
  

Why This Matters for HR

For HR buyers, definitions are not just academic. They shape vendor selection, coach training standards, and ROI expectations. A good organisational definition should:

1. Balance performance and growth – measurable impact with human development.
2. Be evidence-informed – aligned with coaching psychology research.
3. Fit your context – integrating into organisational culture and strategy.
4. Be clear on scope – drawing boundaries between coaching and other interventions.
   

Final Thought

Coaching is both an art and a science. Whitmore, Grant, and Passmore all converge on coaching as a developmental partnership that empowers individuals—but they frame its purpose and mechanisms differently. For HR leaders, the task is to choose (and sometimes craft) a definition that reflects your culture, your strategy, and the outcomes you seek.

At BOLDLY, we work with organisations around the world to align their coaching initiatives with global best practices and professional standards. Whether you’re refining your leadership development strategy, embedding coaching into culture, or simply looking for clarity on what “good coaching” should mean for your business, our team can help. Reach out to us to start a conversation about how to define, measure, and scale coaching processes that deliver lasting impact for your people and your organisation.