ByOnlinecourses55
History of coaching: from greek philosophy to the modern enterprise - coach professional
When we think about accompaniment to develop human potential, we are not facing a recent trend, but a historical thread that spans millennia. What we now call coaching has taken shape from questioning, guided learning and deliberate practice in different contexts. Understanding that trajectory is not just general knowledge: it helps to use the discipline better in professional and personal life.
In classical Greece, conversation was a tool for seeking the truth. Socrates, through the maieutic method, posed questions that helped the interlocutor examine their beliefs and find their own answers. More than teaching content, the philosopher facilitated a process of discovery. This dialogical basis anticipates the heart of coaching: the belief that the person possesses resources and that good accompaniment brings them out.
Ethics was also central. Knowing oneself and acting with virtue mattered as much as reaching a conclusion. That balance between reflection and action remains relevant: it is not enough to 'think it better'; change is consolidated when it becomes observable behavior sustained over time.
The figure of Mentor in the Odyssey inspired the idea of an experienced advisor who accompanies someone beginning their path. Over time, medieval guilds replicated a similar scheme: masters who passed on their trade to apprentices through practice, feedback and progressive responsibility. Although today we clearly distinguish mentoring and coaching, they share the principle of learning in relationship, focused on competencies and personal judgment.
The modern use of “coach” became popular in the Anglo-Saxon sporting sphere. Coaches helped athletes combine technique, mindset and competitive focus. It soon became clear that managing pressure, setting goals and sustaining habits were transferable skills. The metaphor traveled from the playing field to the classrooms and, finally, to the world of work, where results and performance depend on people and teams.
In the 20th century, psychology provided decisive foundations. Carl Rogers' humanistic perspective placed the helping relationship at the center: empathic listening, authenticity and unconditional positive regard. Abraham Maslow emphasized self-actualization as a human drive. At the same time, research on behavior change, social learning, goals and feedback (from Lewin to Locke) provided tools for designing effective processes. The convergence of respect for the person and evidence-based methods nourished the modern practice.
In the 1970s, Timothy Gallwey showed that the main adversary of performance is often 'inside': beliefs and internal dialogue. His approach made attention and non-judgmental observation pillars of progress. Shortly after, John Whitmore articulated the GROW model (Goal, Reality, Options, Will), which would become a simple and powerful structure for leading result-oriented conversations. In parallel, contributions from communication and language studies emerged that reinforced the importance of questions and fine distinctions in the way problems are seen. The discipline began to differentiate itself from consulting and therapy, with its own identity and purpose.
Since the nineties, companies and executives adopted the approach to accelerate learning, manage change and develop leadership. 'Executive coaching' emerged as a confidential space to clarify goals, broaden perspectives and translate strategies into behaviors. In teams, accompaniment helped improve coordination, decision-making and shared accountability. The impact became visible when coaching stopped being a remedy for problems and became a practice of continuous development integrated into culture.
Over time, some practices consolidated because of their cross-cutting usefulness:
Growth brought standards and associations that promote competencies, codes of conduct and supervision. Distinguishing coaching from therapy is vital: one is oriented toward performance and the future, the other toward alleviating suffering and mental health. Confidentiality, clarity of agreements and evaluation of progress also matter. Solid training and supervised practice help sustain quality in a heterogeneous market, where easy promises coexist with serious work.
There are valid criticisms: the absence of uniform regulation, disparate methodologies and difficulties in measuring impact in complex contexts. The mature response is not defensive but integrative: more applied research, evaluation of results aligned with the client's objectives and transparency in processes. When what matters is measured (critical behaviors, team indicators, transfer to day-to-day practice), the added value and the process's reasonable limits become clearer.
Today face-to-face and virtual formats coexist, platforms that expand access and approaches that integrate data without losing the human touch. Team coaching, support for agile leaders and attention to wellbeing as the basis of sustainable performance are growing. A systemic awareness also emerges: changing individual habits is more effective when harmonized with practices, incentives and culture. The future will likely combine rigor, sensitivity and technology, with a clear aim: enabling people and organizations to think better, choose better and act better, with integrity and continuous learning.
