Research purpose: The primary objective was to qualitatively explore the contemporary ethical challenges faced by coaching psychologists when coaching clients and organisations and develop an exploratory framework of ethical challenges.

Motivation for the study: There may not be sufficient practical guidance to resolving the ethical challenges coaching psychologists encounter when coaching clients within organisations. In addition, available codes of ethics may not fundamentally cover all important ethical challenges, particularly in the South African context.

Research approach, design and method: An interpretative paradigm with an explorative approach was applied. Semi-structured interviews and the Delphi technique were used to gather data from 16 participants who were purposively selected: six coaching psychologists were interviewed, whilst feedback from 10 expert panel members was obtained using the Delphi technique. The data was analysed using thematic analysis.

Main findings: The findings point to a number of common ethical challenges in coaching psychology, as well as the typical ethical principles used by psychologists who coach as a guide to best ethical practice. The exploratory framework represents the broad systemic outline of factors that contribute to the ethical challenges and articulates these from the coach’s, coachee’s and organisation’s perspective.

Practical/managerial implications: The framework can be applied by professionals and coaching clients and can be utilised proactively in identifying potential ethical challenges in the coaching relationship.

Contribution/value-add: The framework identifies ethical principles that could be used as the foundation for a code of ethics in coaching psychology.

Coaching psychology¹ as a recently emerging and applied sub-discipline of psychology, draws upon recognised psychological approaches and methods and also develops new ones (Green, Oades & Grant, 2006). Odendaal and Le Roux (2011) describe coaching psychology as the conversational process of creating enhanced functioning, optimising potential and effecting change in work and life domains. This process is action-orientated and measureable and uses established and positive psychological principles and theory at an individual, group, organisational and community level, within a multicultural context. As such, coaching psychology is of a non-clinical nature, whilst counselling entails the same process, but from a clinical perspective. In this regard, a definite line can be drawn between coaching psychology and counselling. Peltier (2010) indicates that the distinction between counselling and coaching relies on a focus on the primary value orientation of the two fields. Coaching typically takes place in the business context and the coach works with well-functioning clients; this differs from counselling or therapy, which places an emphasis on the ‘ethic of care’, and in which the client may be distressed or dysfunctional.

In this regard, Brennan and Wildflower (2010) indicate that coaching is run as a business and has to succeed in a competitive market place (Bennett, 2006); however, in conflict with the economic pressure to compete, there is the professional motivation to cooperate. Possible ethical challenges encountered by a psychologist when faced with this transition include: establishing who the client is, confidentiality, consent, boundaries, termination of the coaching relationship, as well as the duty to protect or warn. As such, coaching psychology deals fundamentally with the well-being and enhancement of individuals and organisations and is grounded in psychological principles. It is therefore important to explore the collaborative relationship between the coach and the coachee. Within this collaborative relationship, the identification of ethical challenges, as well as the supporting ethical principles, especially within a South African context, requires further exploration.

Ethical principles are the foundation of professional standards of practice (Grant, 2011) and may assist coaching psychologists in their work (Twain, 1995). However, within the field of coaching psychology, these principles of ethical conduct ‘may fail to offer practical guidance for coaching psychologists in resolving the everyday ethical dilemmas which practitioners face when working with individuals and clients’ (Duffy & Passmore, 2010, p. 141). Professional coaching bodies each have their own code of ethics, which may not necessarily cover all the significant ethical challenges. These codes are sometimes considered overly prescriptive and valid only in a limited number of situations and are, furthermore, considered to contain principles that are contradictory when applied to specific ethical challenges (Duffy & Passmore, 2010). In addition, Grant (2011) indicates that the codes of ethics appropriate for a psychologist who coaches may well differ from the codes that are made available to a non-psychologist who coaches.

Whilst the importance of ethics in coaching has been discussed widely in coaching literature, it becomes increasingly evident that, within the practice of coaching psychology, there may not be sufficient practical guidance to resolving the ethical challenges encountered by coaching psychologists when both dealing with organisations and coaching clients within those organisations (Duffy & Passmore, 2010). In addition, the available codes of ethics may not fundamentally cover all the important ethical challenges, particularly within the South African context.

As coaching psychology is multidisciplinary in nature, there may be a wide range of perspectives about what constitutes best ethical practice. Rossouw and Van Vuuren (2010) define ethics around three central concepts: the self, good and other. As such, ethical behaviour results when one does not merely consider what is good for oneself, but also what is good for others. Therefore, ethics seeks to serve one’s own interests whilst simultaneously caring about the interests of others, which ultimately results in behaviour that is self-interested whilst remaining ethical (Rossouw & Van Vuuren, 2010). Specific to this research study, the self and other may refer either to the coach, the coachee or the organisation, depending on the specific stakeholder viewpoint from which ethics is approached.

The coaching psychology process places emphasis on the dyadic relationships that exist between a coach and the other stakeholders in the coaching relationship (Duffy & Passmore, 2010; Gregory & Levy, 2012). Dual relationships (Brennan & Wildflower, 2010) and multiple relationships (Duffy & Passmore, 2010) include the coach and the coachee, director, senior manager, supervisor and/or the organisation as a whole. Brennan and Wildflower (2010), Duffy and Passmore (2010), Law (2005) and Stout-Rostron (2009) are of the opinion that the common ethical challenges that the coach may be faced with as a result of these dyadic and multiple relationships include the need to establish (1) who the clients are, (2) which stakeholders have priority, (3) whose interests the coach should be serving, (4) ethical duties, (5) how a variety of values and interests may be managed, (6) issues of confidentiality, (7) potential for the abuse of power and (8) the implications of indirect accountability.

Cavanagh and Lane (2012) indicate that coaching psychologists are continually faced with a variety of complex relationships that further intensify the ethical challenges that they may encounter when working in collaboration with coaching clients and organisations. When considering the variety of relationships between the coach and stakeholders in an organisation, ethical decision-making within the field of coaching psychology can be described as complicated (Duffy & Passmore, 2010).

The first area includes the key categories of coaching, emphasising the context, the content, the core consequences of the coaching engagement and the client (Cavanagh & Grant, 2006). These four categories classify the source of ethical challenges that arise in the coaching process. Since the context differs across situations, the content may be dependent on the coach’s scope of practice (Law, 2005; Stern & Stout-Rostron, 2013); the coach is responsible for any consequences as a result of the coaching. Also, there are multiple clients involved in the coaching relationship (Stout-Rostron, 2009). When considering all these factors, it becomes evident that the psychologist as coach may be faced with a variety of ethical challenges, which were further explored in this study. The second area refers to the broad nature and multiple perspectives evident within the field of coaching (Duffy & Passmore, 2010; Palmer & Whybrow, 2007), which means that there may be a wide range of perspectives regarding what constitutes best ethical practice. The need for role awareness in the different categories of coaching (Brennan & Wildflower, 2010; Duffy & Passmore, 2010; Law, 2005; Lane & Corrie, 2009; Palmer & Whybrow, 2005), which each has a direct impact on the ethical challenges, is thus fundamental to the coaching relationship.

The third area of concern relates to the core themes relating to the purpose (Brennan & Wildflower, 2010; Lane & Corrie, 2009; Stout-Rostron, 2009), perspective (Lane & Corrie, 2009; Palmer & Whybrow, 2005; Stern & Stout-Rostron, 2013) and process (Lane & Corrie, 2009) of the coaching intervention. These three themes are aimed at providing a format that will enable coaching psychologists, whatever their theoretical orientation may be, to use the concept of case formulation to assist client change. According to Lane and Corrie (2009), the purpose seeks to establish the fundamental purpose of the encounter and the reason for working with a particular client, whilst the perspective entails gaining an understanding of those factors that influence the expectations of and inform the coaching process for both the coach and coachee. Once the purpose and the perspective have been successfully established, it is possible to structure the coaching process and the subsequent contracting (Duffy & Passmore, 2010; Hazen & Steckler, 2010; Spinelli, 2008; Stout-Rostron, 2009) that will be entered into by the coach and coachee.

The fourth area encompasses coaching psychology as a recently emerging and applied sub-discipline of psychology that draws upon recognised psychological approaches and methods and also develops new ones (Green et al., 2006). Whilst coaching is currently unlikely to achieve the status of a profession (Grant et al., 2010), it is moving towards the professional standards and practices of psychology (Gray, 2011), thereby creating a strong link between coaching and psychology. Grant (2006; 2010), Lane, Stelter and Stout-Rostron (2010) and Palmer and Whybrow (2005) make a strong case for both the suitability of psychologists to coach, as well as their credibility as professional coaches. As such, psychologists who coach in South Africa currently make use of the ethical guidelines provided by the Health Professions Council of South Africa’s (HPCSA, 2004) Code of Ethics to ensure good ethical practice. Other standards of ethical conduct utilised by coaching psychologists include those provided by the International Coach Federation (ICF, 2011), the European Mentoring and Coaching Council, International Society for Coaching Psychology (ISCP, 2011), Coaches and Mentors of South Africa (COMENSA, 2006), as well as the Society for Industrial and Organisational Psychology of South Africa.

The aspiration to act ethically cannot be separated from the individual coach’s understanding of what could possibly influence ethical decision-making. Through the review of the literature, it became evident that there may be a complexity of ethical challenges embedded in the multiple relationships within a coaching process, which means that there may be a wide range of perspectives about what constitutes best ethical practice. It was further expected that there may be some interaction between the different areas of ethical concern. The ethical codes currently utilised by psychologists who coach, though they attempt to define a set of behaviours, are limited in that they may not offer practical guidelines in resolving everyday ethical dilemmas that are faced by coaching psychologists, especially those specific to the South African context. To address these issues, the current study explored the following research question: What are the contemporary ethical challenges facing coaching psychologists in South Africa? As a result, the purpose of this study was to explore the contemporary ethical challenges that coaching psychologists in South Africa experience when working with coaching clients and organisations and, from this, develop an exploratory framework of ethical challenges.

Exploratory research is an approach to qualitative research in which the primary motivation is to discover and explore new phenomena (Myers, 2009) and gain a greater understanding of a concept (McKenzie & Danforth, 2009). An exploratory approach allowed the researchers to explore the contemporary ethical challenges encountered by coaching psychologists when both dealing with organisations and coaching clients within that organisation.

Typical questions that were addressed in the semi-structured interviews included: (1) the participant’s background in psychology and the influence this has on the style of coaching, (2) the ethical challenges experienced when coaching, (3) the ethical challenges that stem from the coach, the coachee, as well as their collaborative relationship, (4) best ethical practice, (5) the ethical challenges that result from boundary issues, (6) the ethical challenges that stem from multiple relationships, (7) the ethical principles that support coaching psychology, (8) the key components involved in making ethical decisions and (9) the impact that the development of an ethical code may have on coaching psychology.

In order to ensure that the data gathered from the semi-structured interviews was documented in an accurate and factual manner, and having gained informed consent from the participants, the researchers voice-recorded each interview. In addition, the researchers kept notes in order to capture their responses in detail. Having recorded the data as such, the researchers were able to transcribe the interviews.

The questions asked in the semi-structured interviews, coupled with a comprehensive literature review, guided the researchers in the development of an exploratory framework of ethical challenges. This framework was based on the central ethical challenges identified and experienced by coaching psychologists that could, in turn, inform the development of ethical principles in the field of coaching psychology in South Africa. Thereafter, the framework of ethical challenges was validated, utilising the Delphi technique, which constituted the second phase of the data collection process. Before applying the Delphi technique, a peer review was undertaken to clarify the framework and questions to be utilised in the Delphi technique. Three registered psychologists who met the minimum requirement for participation were used. Once this stage was completed, the next phase was implemented.

In the second phase of the study, the exploratory framework was presented to a panel of knowledgeable experts (Walmsley, Rivett & Osmotherly, 2009), utilising the Delphi technique. The Delphi technique was considered appropriate as it is typically used to address complexity and uncertainty in an area where knowledge is imperfect or unknown and where some agreement is required (Donohoe & Needham, 2009). Different versions of the Delphi technique emerged based on variations in the application of consensus, namely the numeric version producing quantitative responses and the policy and historic versions that produce more qualitative responses (Amos & Pearse 2008). The policy Delphi focuses specifically on the exploration, generation and definition and description of several alternatives, whereas the historic Delphi has a strong retrospective perspective.

For the purpose of this study a policy Delphi was appropriate, as the collective opinions and perspectives (De Villiers, De Villiers & Kent, 2005) of the experts, on ethical challenges in the field of coaching psychology, were used as the source of information. An important characteristic of the Delphi technique is that not every opinion is accepted at face value, but through an iterative process must stand up to the scrutiny of the experts in the panel (Amos & Pearse, 2008). Two rounds of the Delphi technique were used, and a number of important steps were taken, which are discussed below.

Firstly, the researchers formulated and expanded on a set of questions in order to gain a set of assumptions, opinions and perspectives with regard to the exploratory framework informed from the data that was gathered from the semi-structured interviews. Typical questions used in the first round of the Delphi technique related to the following: (1) general opinion of the framework, (2) flow of the framework, (3) accuracy of the ethical challenges, as outlined in the framework, (4) accuracy of the ethical principles, as outlined in the framework, (5) accuracy of the ethical outcomes, as outlined in the framework, and (6) components added to the framework. The information obtained from the first round was incorporated into the framework and an adapted framework (see Figure 1), supported by a detailed description of each element therein, was presented to the same panel members. Central to the Delphi technique is the iteration process and providing controlled feedback to panel members of the opinion of their anonymous counterparts (Hallowell & Gambatese, 2010).

FIGURE 1: Outputs of the first and second round of the Delphi technique: Adapted Exploratory Framework of Ethical Challenges informed by coaching psychologists.

In the second round, the panel of experts recorded their opinions, views and experiences with regard to the revised framework of identified ethical challenges, for further clarification and confirmation, as well as further recommendations to refine the framework (Donohoe & Needham,  2009). At this stage, optimal data saturation and expert opinion stability or collective agreement (Turoff, 1975) was achieved and a third round was considered unnecessary.

Since the panel members were geographically dispersed, the Delphi technique was conducted electronically and the data was captured per question pertaining to the exploratory framework, as provided by each participant. Anonymity was maintained at all times.

Since the success of the Delphi technique depends primarily on the careful selection of the panel (Donohoe & Needham, 2009), purposive sampling was best suited, as it sought to purposefully select a panel of expert coaching psychologists with the most information-rich opinions, views and experiences with regard to the ethical challenges that are evident in the field of coaching psychology in South Africa (Amos & Pearse, 2008; Clayton, 1997). To address the possibility of attrition, a total of 15 coaching psychologist experts were selected for the Delphi technique. In this regard, the original six interviewees, plus nine additional registered psychologists who had coached for a minimum of two years, were invited to participate as the panel of experts for the purpose of the Delphi technique. Feedback was obtained from 10 of the 15 invited panel members, six men and four women, all of whom were geographically dispersed within South Africa.

The results from both phases of data gathering, namely the semi-structured interviews and the Delphi technique, are considered and presented. Each phase is discussed below.

‘I think, what has happened with the explosion of people going into coaching ... you get people who think that they can be life coaches because they have had certain experiences. … So, I think it really has complicated it’. (P3)

Although they had different approaches to providing feedback, all the participants (P1–P6) were in agreement with regard to the clear statement, from the beginning, of what sort of feedback the organisation can expect, provided the coaching client agrees to it:

‘The key [to providing feedback], or one of the most important aspects, is to clarify and manage expectations upfront and possibly reinforce that at every coaching session, if not every couple of coaching sessions’. (P4)

‘The way that I like to do it is to do very comprehensive assessments at the beginning of a coaching process, and we reassess also at the end, so that we can show the return on investment or the improvement or the change in behaviour, which I think is where we are ahead of the pack’. (P2)

‘I think, contracting, which most people would do, is very important. How are we going to work? How are we going to meet? Issues around confidentiality, cancellation of appointments, just so that, upfront, we both understand how this relationship is going to work’. (P3)

‘Diversity is something we must look at: cultural diversity and the ethical issues from cultural diversity and diversity in general, not just colour and language, but religion and all of that’. (P1)

‘This is more a monitoring process for me to see how the coach is doing and to monitor the progress that the coach is making, but also to evaluate the performance of the coach’. (P2)

Another participant (P5) asserted that, as a result of the potential earnings of coaching and the unregulated nature of the industry, many individuals, some with very little awareness of best ethical practices, are encouraged to enter the market. This, the participant believed, is one of the greatest challenges in the field of coaching: ‘One central thing, one of the biggest problems with coaching, is that it is lucrative’ (P5).

In addition, participants P2 and P5 were of the opinion that, although a number of codes are available that can be utilised by coaches as guidelines to best ethical practice and provide the scope of practice for psychologists, there are a number of gaps in these codes with regard to the field of coaching:

‘It [HPCSA code of ethics] describes the scope of practice for psychologists, but there are clear gaps and reasons why we need a code of ethics for coaches, because you also need to understand what is your scope of practice depending on as a coach, what your previous training was and what your coaching training was’. (P2)

As a subsequent step, the information obtained from the six semi-structured interviews, which was supported by the literature review, was utilised to develop an exploratory framework of ethical challenges. This framework was based on the central ethical challenges identified and experienced by the participants and was subjected to the Delphi technique.

From the results obtained from the semi-structured interviews, it became increasingly evident to the researchers that there are a number of ethical principles that coaching psychologists rely on when making ethical decisions. For this reason, these ethical principles were included in the framework. Furthermore, when faced with an ethical challenge and utilising these ethical principles as a guideline to best practice, the participants made it clear that the result should be an ethical outcome and, hence, this concept was incorporated into the framework. The external influences that surround the triangular relationship were deemed important and therefore included, as these have an indirect influence on the ethical challenges, ethical principles and ethical outcomes.

The framework was presented to the panel of experts in the first round of the Delphi technique, together with an in-depth explanation of each related component. It was sent to 15 expert panel members with the intention of gaining their collective opinions and perspectives with regard to the framework. Feedback from 10 expert panel members was obtained. Utilising the suggestions and comments provided by the panel of experts in the first round of the Delphi technique, the framework of ethical challenges, along with an in-depth explanation of each component, was adapted accordingly.

In the second round of the Delphi, the panel of experts recorded their opinions, views and experiences with regard to the revised framework of identified ethical challenges for further clarification and confirmation, as well as further recommendations for refining the framework. Figure 1 presents the integrated outputs of the first and second round of the Delphi technique. At this stage, optimal expert opinion stability or collective agreement (Turoff, 1975) was achieved and it was not deemed necessary to undertake a third round of the Delphi technique (De Villiers et al., 2005; Vernon, 2008).²

This research study recognises those areas in which there are no clear ethical guidelines, through the identification of ethical challenges, ethical principles and ethical outcomes. This, in turn, may serve to raise awareness amongst coaching psychologists regarding the complexity of ethical challenges evident in the field of coaching psychology. Overall, the framework raises awareness and understanding of ethical challenges in order to promote sustainable ethical behaviour.

The field of coaching psychology is characterised by a complexity of ethical challenges that have multiple influences on one another. This is evident in the findings, which indicated a broad, systemic outline of the factors that contribute to these ethical challenges, as well as the non-linear, multiple interactions between these factors.

The framework of ethical challenges addresses and articulates all ethical challenges, as perceived by the coaching psychologists, and each fundamental factor will be discussed in some detail, below.

The organisational context is an important influential factor, as the link between the goals of the organisation and the personal goals of the coachee must be considered, so as to ensure a successful coaching relationship. Brennan and Wildflower (2010), Lane and Corrie (2009), as well as Stout-Rostron (2009), are in agreement with this notion and suggest that the need for coaching and an understanding of the expectations of the key stakeholders are fundamental to the purpose of the encounter and the reason for working with the particular client.

The regulatory context refers to the regulatory bodies and relevant legislation and regulations that pertain to, guide and inform the profession. The findings suggested that, since coaching psychology is emerging as an applied field of psychology, coaching psychologists in South Africa currently make use of the ethical guidelines provided by the HPCSA to ensure good ethical practice. The HPCSA is guided by a regulatory framework, including the Health Professions Act (Act No. 56 of 1974) and the subsequent Health Professions Amendment Act (Act No. 29 of 2007). The acts govern all activities, clearly define the scope of practice of each health profession and set clear processes to be followed (HPCSA, 2004).

The research participants, however, indicated that these ethical guidelines may not necessarily cover all important aspects specific to the field of coaching psychology. This belief is similar to that of Twain (1995), who suggests that the ethical principles on which these codes of ethics are based may well assist the coaching psychologist when working with an individual, team or organisation, but are not infallible and may not cover all important ethical challenges. Peltier (2010), who is in alignment with this idea, suggests that, when psychologists make the transition from counselling to coaching, there exists a variety of unclear ethical challenges, including establishing who the client is, issues around confidentiality, informed consent, boundaries, termination of the coaching relationship, as well as the duty to protect or warn.

Whilst the regulatory context emphasises compliance, the professional context focuses more specifically on professional practice, ethics and standards. The participants in this study were all registered psychologists of a particular registration category, and were enjoying the status of a profession that is based on a unique body of theory or knowledge, with its members possessing specific skills or techniques based on this knowledge. The results therefore suggest growing awareness of the potential benefits of a professional status to the coaching industry. Moreover, the findings, in alignment with Gray (2011), show that the field of coaching is moving towards the professional standards and practice of psychology, implying the importance of the professional context as an influential factor.

This is validated by research conducted by Grant (2006), Grant et al. (2010), Lane et al. (2010), as well as Palmer and Whybrow (2007), who make a strong case for both the suitability and credibility of psychologists as coaches, especially due to their training as scientist-practitioners, their understanding of validated change methodologies, their ability to develop coaching interventions based on theoretically grounded case conceptualisations utilising evidence-based procedures and techniques, the enforceable codes of ethics governing the profession and barriers to entry related to the profession.

The individual context, which, in this study, refers both to the coach and the coaching client (coachee), was characterised differently for the two parties. This infers that there are particular standpoints subscribed to by the coach and the coachee that are important to consider and that have an influence on the coaching relationship. Gregory and Levy (2012) show that the coaching relationship lays the foundation from which effective coaching may ensue and is dependent on the role of the coach and coachee. Knowledge and experience, level of competence and continuous professional development are fundamental to the efficacy of the coach, especially when working with heterogeneous clients (Palmer & Whybrow, 2005). Stern and Stout-Rostron (2013) are in support of this notion and suggest that the competencies, characteristics and practices of the coach have a profound impact on the outcome of the coaching relationship. Moreover, Law (2005) proposes the idea of embedding ethical principles as part of the core competence and continuous development within the profession. Lane and Corrie (2009) suggest that of equal significance are the perspectives that the coachee brings to the relationship, which the findings of the current study identified as the expectations, rights and responsibilities, as well as the personal morals and values of the individual.

Finally, the community or societal context refers to the professionals’ endeavour to contribute to the betterment of society in accordance with their professional abilities and standing in the community. In this regard, the findings of the current study can be linked to those of Brennan and Wildflower (2010), who suggest that coaches have a responsibility to engage as professionals and to recognise their responsibility and contributions to their clients, colleagues and to society as a whole. Stern and Stout-Rostron (2013) indicate that, of late, coaching has been moving out into the broader community and thus has a positive impact on society. The ability of coaches to create and maintain an ethical community of coaches is as critical as ethical behaviour within a coaching relationship. Recognising diversity and cultural differences are key characteristics of ethical behaviour, particularly within a multicultural context.

The findings of the current study further suggest that the concept of professional boundaries also relates to the boundaryless entry that characterises the field of coaching, but with slightly less emphasis than is placed on scope of practice. It can be suggested that by this it is meant that the field of coaching is an unregulated market that is open to a multitude of disciplines (Grant & Zackon,  2004; Palmer & Whybrow, 2005), with individuals entering with various backgrounds and training. This is closely linked to the suggestion by Grant et al. (2010) that there are no boundaries to entry, no minimal or requisite educational process or specified training routes and no binding ethical or practice standards within the field of coaching.

As a result of the broad variety of perspectives and approaches in coaching, many ethical challenges may arise, thereby intensifying the depth and extent of ethical challenges experienced and the complexity thereof. The findings of the current study are therefore similar to those of Duffy and Passmore (2010), who emphasise the importance of recognising that coaching is a multidisciplinary industry, characterised by its own ethical challenges and complexities, all of which have a profound impact on the triangular relationship between the coach, the coachee and the organisation.

Brennan and Wildflower (2010), Duffy and Passmore (2010), Law (2005) and Stout-Rostron (2009) state that the kinds of ethical challenges that coaching psychologists may be faced with as a result of this triangular relationship include: the need, as well as the importance thereof, to determine who the clients are, which stakeholders have priority (the primary client) and whose interests the coach should be serving, ethical obligations as a psychologist, how diverse values and interests may be managed, issues of confidentiality and the amount of feedback provided to the organisation, the potential for client manipulation or dependency and consequences of indirect responsibility.

The findings of the current study suggest that the ethical challenges, as identified and confirmed by the participants, are informed by contextual influences, the triangular relationship, as well as professional boundaries. The result of these influential factors is complex ethical challenges. The most common ethical challenges that were identified are summarised in Table 3.

In identifying both the contemporary ethical challenges faced by coaching psychologists and the typical ethical principles used as a guide to best ethical practice, the findings showed a number of ethical outcomes present in a typical coaching relationship.

Based on the rich and in-depth data obtained through the use of semi-structured interviews, an exploratory framework of ethical challenges was established. This, in turn, allowed the validation of the exploratory framework that encompasses the ethical components observed to be integral in the coaching relationship. The framework facilitates the establishment and understanding of the typical ethical challenges encountered by coaching psychologists and thus a greater appreciation and understanding thereof was achieved. Through integrating the findings of this study with relevant literature, it became increasingly evident that this study recognises those areas in which there are no distinct ethical guidelines, through the identification of ethical challenges, ethical principles and ethical outcomes.

Thirdly, owing to the coaching psychology industry in South Africa being in its formative years, it was difficult to find registered psychologists who had sufficient experience and expertise in the field, resulting in a limited number of panel members in the Delphi technique. Lastly, on account of utilising purposive sampling as a means of participant selection, different participants will in all likelihood take part in future follow-up studies and, as a result, other themes may emerge, as they may share diverse perspectives in terms of the ethical challenges they experience.

The field of coaching psychology may benefit from this research study, as it has opened a conversation regarding the role of ethics in coaching psychology in South Africa and addressed a variety of specific ethical challenges prominent in a multicultural context. Furthermore, the development of the framework of ethical challenges, which identifies both ethical principles and ethical outcomes, can be used as a guideline to best ethical practice, as well as ethical decision-making, particularly regarding the triangular relationship evident within the coaching relationship. Finally, the framework can be used by coaching psychologists when contracting, to inform and promote ethical behaviour and encourage coaching psychologists to act in a professional and ethical manner.

The coaching clients, which refers to all those stakeholders involved in the coaching process, may benefit from this study for a number of reasons. The framework raises an awareness of the ethical expectations for both the coachee and the organisation. Specific to the coachee, the framework may be utilised in identifying those ethical principles and standards of practice that influence the coach’s conduct. The organisation, on the other hand, may make use of the framework to align their governance, requirements, policies and code of ethics with those ethical challenges, ethical principles and ethical outcomes typically evident in a coaching relationship.

In clearly addressing the need to identify ethical principles, the framework can be utilised as the foundation for a global code of ethics in coaching psychology. Moreover, as a result of the non-linear, systemic nature of the framework and the ethical components therein, it can be utilised across multicultural organisations, as well as amongst heterogeneous clients, particularly within the South African context, as a means of raising awareness and gaining an in-depth understanding of ethical principles in the field of coaching psychology. This awareness and thorough understanding of the ethical challenges, along with the identification of the ethical principles and ethical outcomes, serve to inform and promote ethical behaviour and encourage coaching psychologists to practise the maximum level of professionalism and ethical conduct.

Bennett, J.L. (2006). An agenda for coaching-related research: A challenge for researchers. Coaching Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 58(4), 240–249.

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 , 77–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Brennan, D., & Wildflower, L. (2010). Ethics in coaching. In E. Cox, T. Bachkirova, & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The complete handbook of coaching (pp. 369–380). London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Byrne, M.M. (2001). Understanding life experiences through a phenomenological approach to research. AORN Journal, 1, 1–5.

Cavanagh, M., & Grant, A.M. (2006). The personal is the professional. Sydney, Australia: Coaching Psychology Unit.

Cavanagh, M., & Lane, D. (2012). Coaching psychology coming of age: The challenges we face in the messy world of complexity. International Coaching Psychology Review, 7(1), 75–90.

Clayton, M.J. (1997). Delphi: A technique to harness expert opinion for critical decision-making tasks in education. Educational Psychology, 17 (4), 373–386. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0144341970170401

COMENSA. (2006). COMENSA code of ethics and standards of professional competence . Retrieved 2011, from http://www.comensa.co.za

De Villiers, M.R., De Villiers, P.J.T., & Kent, A.P. (2005). The Delphi technique in health sciences education research. Medical Teacher, 27 (7), 639–643. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13611260500069947

Donohoe, H.M., & Needham, R.D. (2009). Moving best practice forward: Delphi characteristics, advantages, potential problems, and solutions. International Journal of Tourism Research, 11, 415–437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jtr.709

Duffy, M., & Passmore, J. (2010). Ethics in coaching: An ethical decision making framework for coaching psychologists. International Coaching Psychology Review, 5(2), 140–151.

Eriksson, P., & Kovalainen, A. (2008). Qualitative methods in business research . London, UK: SAGE Publications, Ltd. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9780857028044

Grant, A.M. (2006). A personal perspective on professional coaching and the development of coaching psychology. International Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1), 12–22.

Grant, A.M. (2011). Developing an agenda for teaching coaching psychology. International Coaching Psychology Review, 6(1), 84–99.

Grant, A.M., & Zackon, R. (2004). Executive, workplace and life coaching: Findings from a large-scale survey of International Coach Federation members. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 2(2), 1–15.

Grant, A.M., Passmore, J., Cavanagh, M.J., & Parker, H. (2010). A state of play in coaching today: A comprehensive review of the field. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 25(1), 125–167.

Gray, D.E. (2011). Journeys towards the professionalisation of coaching: Dilemmas, dialogues and decisions along the global pathway. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 4(1), 4–19.

Green, L.S., Oades, L.G., & Grant, A.M. (2006). Cognitive-behavioural, solution-focused life coaching: Enhancing goal striving, well-being, and hope. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1 (3), 142–149. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760600619849

Gregory, J.B., & Levy, P.E. (2012). Employee feedback orientation: Implications for effective coaching relationships. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 5(2), 86–99.

Hallowell, M.R., & Gambatese, J.A. (2010). Qualitative research: Application of the Delphi method to CEM research. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136 (1), 99–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000137

Hazen, B., & Steckler, N. A. (2010). Career coaching. In E. Cox, T. Bachkirova, & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The complete handbook of coaching (pp. 311–323). London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.

HPCSA. (2004). Health Professions Council of South Africa. Retrieved 2011, from http://www.hpcsa.co.za.

ICF. (2011). ICF code of ethics . Retrieved 2011, from http://www.coachfederation.org/includes/media/docs/Ethics-2009.pdf.

ISCP. (2011). International Society for Coaching Psychology code of ethics. Retrieved 2011, from http://www.isfcp.net/ethics.htm.

Lane, D.A., & Corrie, S. (2009). Does coaching psychology need the concept of formulation? International Coaching Psychology Review, 4(2), 195–208.

Lane, D.A., Stelter, R., & Stout-Rostron, S. (2010). The future of coaching as a profession. In E. Cox, T. Bachkirova, & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The complete handbook of coaching (pp. 357–368). London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Law, H. (2005). The new code of ethics, human rights and its implications in relation to coaching psychology practice. The Coaching Psychologist, 2(2), 13–19.

Leedy, P.D., & Ormrod, J.E. (2010). Practical research: Planning and design. (9th edn.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

McKenzie, K., & Danforth, S. (2009). Problem definition, exploratory research, and the research. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Muchinsky, P.M., Kriek, H.J., & Schreuder, A.M.G. (2005). Personnel psychology. Cape Town, South Africa: Oxford University Press Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd.

Myers, M.D. (2009). Qualitative research in business and management. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Odendaal, A., & Le Roux, A. (2011). Emerging trends and challenges in the professionalization of the coaching industry: A South African coaching psychology perspective. Paper presented at the 1st International Congress of Coaching Psychology, 12 October, Barcelona, Spain.

Palmer, S., & Whybrow, A. (2005). The coaching psychology movement and its development within the British Psychological Society. International Coaching Review, 1(1), 5–10.

Palmer, S., & Whybrow, A. (2007). Coaching psychology: An introduction. In S. Palmer, & A. Whybrow (Eds.), Handbook of coaching: A guide for practitioners (pp. 1–20). New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Peltier, B. (2010). The psychology of executive coaching: Theory and application. (2nd edn.). New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Polkinghorne, D.E. (2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52 , 137–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.52.2.137

Rossouw, D., & Van Vuuren, L.J. (2010). Business ethics. (4th edn.). Cape Town, South Africa: Oxford University Press.

Ryan, F., Coughlan, M., & Cronin, P. (2009). Interviewing in qualitative research: The one-to-one interview. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 16 (6), 309–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.12968/ijtr.2009.16.6.42433

Schurink, W., & Schurink, E. (2011). Interviews. Masters 2011: Qualitative Research. Industrial Psychology class notes. Bloemfontein, South Africa: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Sherman, S., & Frees, A. (2004). The Wild West of executive coaching, Harvard Business Review, 82(1), 82–90.

Smith, J.A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretive phenomenological analysis: Theory, method and research. London, UK: SAGE Publications Ltd.

Spence, G.B., & Grant, A.M. (2007). Professional and peer life coaching and the enhancement of goal striving and well-being: An exploratory study. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2, 185–194. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17439760701228896

Spinelli, E. (2008). Coaching and therapy: Similarities and divergences. International Coaching Psychology Review, 3(3), 241–249.

Stern, L., & Stout-Rostron, S.S. (2013). What progress has been made in coaching research in relation to 16 ICRF focus areas from 2008 to 2012? Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 2(1), 76–85.

Stout-Rostron, S.S. (2009). Business coaching: Wisdom and practice. Randburg, South Africa: Knowres Publishing (Pty) Ltd.

Turoff, M. (1975). The design of a policy Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2 (2), 149–171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0099-3964(70)90004-9

Twain, M. (1995). Codes, controls, and ethical decision making. In P. Keith-Spiegel, & G.P. Koocher (Eds.), Ethics in psychology: Professional standards and cases (p. 494). New Jersey, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, D. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing and Health Sciences, 15 , 398–405. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048

Vernon, W. (2008). The Delphi technique: A review. International Journal of Therapy and Rehabilitation, 16 (2), 69–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.12968/ijtr.2009.16.2.38892

Walmsley, A., Rivett, D.A., & Osmotherly, P.G. (2009). Adhesive capsulitis: Establishing consensus on clinical identifiers for Stage 1 using the Delphi technique. Physical Therapy, 89 (9), 906–917. http://dx.doi.org/10.2522/ptj.20080341

2.Information that is presented in italics in Figure 1 represents inputs gained through Round 1 of the Delphi technique.