The Great Coaching Mirage: Why 2026 Must Favour Capability over Competency

As the final days of 2025 flicker out, the coaching industry finds itself at a curious juncture. We have witnessed a decade of aggressive "professionalisation", yet the market is arguably more saturated with "competitive labour" than ever before. For the discerning client or the aspiring practitioner, a fundamental question remains: does a collection of digital badges and "Master" titles truly equate to transformative expertise?

I argue that we have been seduced by a modernist illusion—the idea that coaching can be reduced to a checklist of observable tasks. To move forward, we must look beyond the marketed "competencies" and embrace the far more rigorous concept of capability.

The Fallacy of the Checklist

The current accreditation systems championed by global professional bodies are built on "competency frameworks". These frameworks assume that if a coach can demonstrate specific behaviours—such as "establishing the coaching agreement" or "powerful questioning"—they are, by definition, effective. However, this reductionist philosophy often stultifies the very thing it aims to protect.

Academic critics such as Garvey (2011) and Ferrar (2006) have argued that these systems oversimplify the task, disregarding the immense complexity of the human interaction. When we deconstruct excellence into observable components, we often find that we cannot reconstruct that same excellence simply by following the list. Excellence in coaching is an emergent property, not a cumulative one.

Coaching as a Complex Adaptive System (CAS)

A significant shift in the academic circle—led by thinkers such as Stacey (2003) and Cavanagh and Lane (2012)—proposes that a coaching engagement is more accurately viewed as a Complex Adaptive System (CAS). In a CAS, the participants, their relationship, and the context are regarded as being in a state of flux. Outcomes are determined not by a rigid adherence to rules, but by the "conversational, reflexive narrative inquiry" that occurs in the moment.

By adopting a CAS lens, we realise that a coach who relies solely on competencies is essentially trying to apply a linear map to a shifting, organic terrain. Richardson (2008) suggests that complexity thinking puts the emphasis on how we think about our work, rather than just the task itself. For a coach to be truly effective, they must accept their limits regarding what can be planned, moving instead toward a state of fluid responsiveness.

The Competency-Capability Divide

The distinction between these two concepts is profound. Competencies are "externally demand-oriented"; they are designed to solve problems defined by the market and provide a sense of security that may prove ill-founded. They identify behaviours successful in the past but may bear little relation to the decision-making processes required for the future.

Capabilities, in contrast, are guided by the exercise of individual freedom to choose an action according to values and an evaluation of the wider external situation. A capability approach goes beyond predetermined lists. It focuses on what the coach chooses to do, rather than just what they are forced to do by a syllabus. As Lozano et al. (2012) argue, the fact that a capability is not observed in a single session does not mean it is absent; a capable coach may have consciously chosen not to put it into action because the context did not warrant it.

The "Self" as the Primary Instrument

If we accept that coaching is a CAS, then the most important tool in the room is the Self of the Coach. Wang (2013) describes effective coaching as a profound coherence between what a coach says, believes, and who they are. This internal consistency—this authenticity—is what truly influences the outcome.

The Oxford Brookes Model reflects this by assessing "Quality of Awareness and Flexibility" and "Applying Psychological Mindedness". These are not skills that can be taught in a weekend workshop. They require personal and relational maturation. Drake (2011) famously noted that while novices learn rules, masters eventually transcend or change them. If our current accreditation systems only test for the rules, we are inadvertently populating the market with eternal novices.

Visualising Capability: Psychological Mindedness

This dimension of capability focuses on the coach's ability to "tune in" to the client and build a robust working alliance. It involves critical self-reflection and the ability to understand the psychological nuances and dilemmas of the relationship. This is a capability—the internal process taking place within the coach as an instrument of coaching, rather than an external checkbox.

The Problem with "Competitive Labour" and Short Courses

The "polarisation" between academic qualification and professional accreditation has left many newcomers confused. Because professional bodies often operate as commercial entities, they have a "vested interest" in maintaining systems that rely on individuals paying fees for short-term, skills-focused training.

In established professions such as law or medicine, an initial university qualification is a prerequisite. In coaching, we have allowed the "right of passage" to become a matter of "skills and hours" rather than "critical thinking and understanding". This has led to a lack of challenge to professional bodies from independent parties interested in quality and research.

Conclusion: A Call for Depth in 2026

To the organisations buying coaching: stop looking for the "Master" badge and start looking for the Conceptual Thinking. Ask your prospective coach why they do what they do, and listen for a coherent model of practice that integrates relevant knowledge with the person they are.

To the practitioners: your future competitiveness lies not in how many hours you log, but in your ability to develop your "Self" as a reflexive, critical instrument. We must move from being technicians of conversation to being artisans of human change.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note to readers: Beginning from this blog, all references will be created in APA format as all the other articles in the past were in Harvard format.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References

Bachkirova, T., & Lawton Smith, C. (2015). From competencies to capabilities in the assessment and accreditation of coaches. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 13(2), 123-140.

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.

Drake, D. (2011). What do coaches need to know? Using the Mastery Window to assess and develop expertise. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 4(2), 138-155.

Stacey, R. D. (2012). Comment on debate article: Coaching psychology coming of age: The challenges we face in the messy world of complexity. International Coaching Psychology Review, 7(1), 91-95.

Wang, Q. (2013). Structure and characteristics of effective coaching practice. The Coaching Psychologist, 9(1), 7-17.