How Do Positive Psychology-Informed Coaches Conceptualize and Work With Values in Their Coaching Practice? A Reflexive Thematic Analysis

Introduction

Stelter (2016) states: “Values are the implicit foundation for action and social-psychological resilience” (p. 1). Values are increasingly recognized as embedded in attitudes and behavior, providing an essential point of reference to orientate individuals throughout their lives (Sagiv et al., 2017). Facing more choices to understand personal motivations within today’s modern, hyper-complex societies (Maio, 2017), the need to understand what drives individuals to action is being echoed by developments within the field of coaching (Patel & van Nieuwerburgh, 2022).

Executive coaching initially emphasized professional goals in pursuit of performance maximization (Grant, 2006; Grant et al., 2010). As research has continued (Jones et al., 2016; Theeboom et al., 2014), moves towards a more holistic approach for longer-term, transformational change with a focus on individual motivation and aligned action have been made (Grant, 2017). Where wellbeing was once regarded as one possible outcome of successful goal-setting (Latham & Locke, 1991), it has now become an integral part of Coaching Psychology (CP). CP draws on a range of psychological theories alongside coaching behavioral science to promote individual wellbeing, performance, and personally meaningful goals (Green & Palmer, 2019; Passmore & Theeboom, T., 2016). Third-generation coaching (Stelter, 2014) offers a similar focus on wellbeing and development through the enhancement of sustainable, intrinsically meaningful living from both an individual and societal perspective (Di Fabio, 2017; Stelter, 2022).

There has been a similar, parallel evolution within psychology. From its traditional focus on overcoming psychological and clinical deficits, the advent of Positive Psychology (PP) has brought renewed attention to promoting wellbeing and optimal human functioning (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). As the academic investigation of conditions and processes of what makes life worth living (Peterson & Park, 2004), and as an applied field where the application of research through PP Interventions (PPIs) is put into practice (Green & Palmer, 2019), PP seeks to offer practitioners a scientific basis for available tools and techniques (Biswas-Diener, 2020).

Positive Psychology defines itself as the ‘science of wellbeing’ (Gable & Haidt, 2005; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). However, the specific empirical body of PP research suggests a lack of emphasis on the role or importance of values. A simple literature search within PsycInfo for this paper returned over 3000 articles for [“values” AND “wellbeing”]. Research includes the validation of a number of models that propose a set of basic human values and value types, while motivation, personality, and self-concept combine with philosophical aspects to consider the ethics and virtues of values-based behavior. Several hundred articles were returned for [“values” AND “coaching”]. The majority focus on executive coaching, where values are conceived in relation to goals, motivation, and life orientation. In comparison, there were 34 articles for [“values” AND “positive psychology”] and nine articles for [“values” AND “positive psychology coaching”].

All participants in this study acknowledged applying a conscious PP lens to their coaching practice. However, while the general development of Positive Psychology Coaching (PPC) is considered within the wider evolution of PP and coaching, this study was not looking to specifically add to the debate around the definition of PPC or to identify what distinguishes PPC from other coaching approaches. In seeking to address the perceived gap in the literature regarding values and PP, and the implications this may have within the coaching space, this study was formulated around two primary research questions: How do Positive Psychology-informed coaches conceptualize values? (RQ1) and How does this understanding influence their coaching practice? (RQ2). The paper reviews relevant literature, sets out the research methodology, and summarizes findings before discussing the implications for the role of values for coaches and clients and the potential enhancement of values within PP and coaching.

Literature Review

This section provides a brief overview of values within psychology. It examines relevant coaching literature with a specific focus on third-generation coaching and CP. Literature relating to PP and values is also considered, as is a brief analysis of the evolution of PPC.

Values: Psychology

Historically situated within philosophy, values have a traditional association with ethics, virtues and morality (Martela & Steger, 2016). Ethics are concerned with actions, while virtues indicate excellence of character (Walsh, 2015). Within psychology, values are conceived more in terms of what is important to individuals and as representations of personality (Cieciuch & Schwartz, 2017; Martin et al., 2018).

Vernon and Allport (1931) developed the first significant values test that measured six value types according to behavioral preferences – social, theoretical, economic, aesthetic, political and religious. Later, Allport (1961) argued that values influenced motivation, aspirational goals, and behavior, making them a core feature of personality. Rokeach’s Value Survey (1973) defined values as enduring stable beliefs that are accepted without question (Maio & Olson, 1998). Rokeach (1973) also recognized values could change in prioritization and identified 18 ‘states of existence’ and 18 ‘modes of conduct’. As cognitive representations of ‘metaphysical absolutes’ (Crisp, 2014), values are viewed as desirable abstract goals whose priority (rather than identification) is subjective (Maio, 2017).

Schwartz’s (1992) social psychology theory is the most extensively tested and widely adopted current model within values research (Belic et al., 2022). The theory proposes a more integrated system of 10 value types – power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity and security. These have been identified as cross-culturally applicable, reflecting both the commonality of the human condition and the individual differences of lived experience (Saroglou et al., 2004; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1990).

The Functional Theory of Human Values (Gouveia et al., 2014) is another social psychology model that assumes values can be distinguished by the psychological function they serve. In the same way needs are said to motivate action (Maslow, 1943), values in this model are regarded as the expression of needs (Gouveia et al., 2014). Unlike Schwarz’s model (1992), motivational conflict between personal and social goals is not assumed. Instead, basic values are seen as maturing, which results in a more integrated values system with age and experience (Caspi et al., 2005). However, both values models affirm psychological differences between self-interest and social-focused values (Maio, 2017).

Schwartz (2012) also identified six general characteristics applicable to all values: 1) beliefs inextricably linked to emotions; 2) desirable goals that motivate action; 3) trans-situationality; 4) standards or criteria; 5) ordered by importance relative to one another; and 6) having relative importance in guiding action (Belic et al., 2022; Cieciuch & Schwartz, 2017; Schwartz et al., 2012). While there appears to be a wide body of literature within which to identify these common attributes, Gould et al. (2023) suggest a comprehensive understanding of values crosses multidisciplinary and multi-dimensional boundaries. Pincus (2024) has more recently warned of “concept proliferation” (p. 1), arguing the link between research and practice is weakened by the absence of a solid theoretical values framework. In addition, the reliability of cross-cultural applications has been challenged, and a full consensus of specific value types within ‘universal’ models appears to be lacking (Boer & Fischer, 2013; Hitlin & Piliavin, 2004).

The literature on values provides different, although interconnected, psychological paradigms, illustrating a fundamental debate surrounding the conceptualization of values. Value preferences, identified as a significant feature of personality (Bilsky & Schwartz, 1994; Cieciuch & Schwartz, 2017), underpin attitudes and beliefs (Gecas, 1982). This implies a more fixed and constant view of values. In comparison, social psychology focuses on contexts and situations that encompass the possibility of change (Maio, 2017). The complex nature of the construct of values is important in the context of this study as it raises the issue of the paradigms coaches are using and the implications for coherence within practice.

Values: Coaching

Professional coaching initially applied behavioral science approaches to support goal-setting and goal-striving (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Grant, 2006). Reflecting this within the coaching literature, values are currently considered mainly in relation to goals, motivation, and performance within specific contexts such as education (Wigfield & Cambria, 2010), the health sector (James et al., 2021), and sports coaching (Cassidy et al., 2023). Leadership and values are also commonly associated (Grojean et al., 2004; Kaiser & Overfield, 2010), emphasizing social responsibility, authenticity and values-based leadership (Copeland, 2014; W. L. Gardner et al., 2011). The impact of values at the broader organizational level is identified, with values seen as guiding the actions of both leaders and employees (Arieli et al., 2020; Bourne & Jenkins, 2013). The Self-Concordance Model (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999) proposed that goals that align with underlying personal values result in greater and sustained effort. As well as increasing the likelihood of success, the achievement of self-concordant goals brings wellbeing benefits. With the growing evidence-base for the efficacy of coaching (Jones et al., 2016; Theeboom et al., 2014), alongside increasing research into the impact of wellbeing on performance (Krekel et al., 2019), third generation coaching and CP reflect a similar focus (Green & Palmer, 2019; Passmore & Evans-Krimme, 2021).

Stelter (2014) states that third-generation coaching “has a less goal-oriented agenda but a more profound and sustainable focus on values and identity work” (p. 51). Sustainability links values to meaning-making, identity, and self-concept. Attention shifts from context-defined coaching to a greater emphasis on individuals and how they operate in multiple and co-existing social contexts and systems (Grant, 2017). Aligned with this approach, narrative coaching explores personal stories to reveal values and goals, providing a practical way to explore the meaning of actions to make future aspirations and behavior more tangible (Drake, 2020; Stelter, 2016, 2022). Acceptance and Commitment Coaching (ACC; Skews & Palmer, 2016) places a primary focus on values, both in terms of personal qualities and motivators (Green & Palmer, 2019). ACC developed from Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT; Hayes, 2004), an evidence-based approach to psychotherapy that has been shown to increase psychological flexibility, support individuals to accept the full human experience (both positive and negative), and commit to living a values-based life (Hayes et al., 2011; Öst, 2014). Similarly, ACC seeks to support coaching clients to live more authentically through raising awareness of values and creating a sense of life’s meaning and purpose (Reilly et al., 2019).

The common centrality of values within all these individual approaches stems from an understanding of the inherent relevance of values to all human beings (Maio, 2017; Stelter, 2014). Nevertheless, accompanying empirical research focused on exploring the impact of values work with coaching clients is currently still limited (Patel & van Nieuwerburgh, 2022).

Values: Positive Psychology

Positive Psychology incorporates the scientific study and applied practice of PPIs to support and enhance optimal functioning (Ciarrochi et al., 2022; Gable & Haidt, 2005). Often referred to as an umbrella term, PP encompasses theories, ideas and concepts relating to wellbeing, happiness and flourishing, both for individuals and groups (Seligman et al., 2005; Wong, 2011). However, four core areas can be identified in the literature as specifically characterizing PP: strengths (Linley et al., 2010), positive emotions (Fredrickson, 2001), Self Determination Theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2017), and wellbeing theory (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000).

Significant research exists to support the role of strengths within overall flourishing (Ghielen et al., 2018; Linley et al., 2010; Lopez et al., 2018). In particular, character strengths are seen as having positive implications for wellbeing (Schutte & Malouff, 2019). Within the Value in Actions survey (VIA; Peterson & Park, 2004), character strengths are positive traits or capacities that are personally fulfilling and result in positive outcomes. Virtues are described as underpinning these individual character strengths (Crossan et al., 2013). Despite the nominal association, clarity and definition of values within strengths literature is notably absent (i.e. Niemiec, 2018; Stichter & Saunders, 2019). Strengths language adds further complexity, with the notion of character strengths being aspects of personality that are ‘morally valued’ (Peterson & Park, 2004).

Broaden and Build Theory proposes that positive emotions can broaden present thought-action and build personal resources (Fredrickson, 2001). The conceptual linking of emotions and values is acknowledged within appraisal theories of emotions (Moors et al., 2013). Both act as psychological markers of personal prioritization (Lazarus, 1991). Emotions are felt when there is a concern for values, while a value that is perceived to be under threat, or being supported, elicits emotions. There has been some research on the correlation of positive and negative emotions with motivation and emotional responses indicating levels of value alignment and life satisfaction (Bastian et al., 2014; Løvoll et al., 2017). However, Conte et al. (2023) still note a lack of broader empirical research in this area.

In the social psychology theory of SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2017), values are considered part of human nature and universal. Values underpin key concepts of autonomy through the assimilation of personal values and intrinsic motivation in relation to the social systems of an individual’s lived experience (Chirkov et al., 2003). The process of internalization through which values become integrated into the self is a central focus of the theory (Ryan et al., 2008). Despite potential limitations of Western-centric research populations (R. B. King et al., 2018), over 60 meta-analyses mark SDT as one of the most researched and applied psychological theories (Ryan et al., 2022), providing an extensive body of research for the conceptual importance of values and wellbeing.

Linked to hedonic concepts of wellbeing (Deci & Ryan, 2008), subjective wellbeing (Diener, 1984) implicitly calls on values in terms of what an individual deems important to experience life satisfaction and positive affect (Schwartz & Sortheix, 2018; Tang et al., 2020). Within eudaimonic (Deci & Ryan, 2008) or psychological wellbeing (Ryff, 1989), autonomy and meaning in life can also relate to values but, again, there is no explicit focus (Martela & Steger, 2016). Seligman’s (2011) PERMA model identified five ‘pillars’ of wellbeing incorporating both hedonic and eudaimonic elements – positive emotion, engagement, relationships, meaning and accomplishment. Psychological conceptualizations of values relating to personality, emotions, beliefs, motivation, and needs can be made. However, values are not specifically referred to as an individual construct within PERMA or other wellbeing theories (Goodman et al., 2018).

Values: Positive Psychology Coaching

Positive Psychology Coaching (PPC) has been defined as “a scientifically-rooted approach to helping clients increase well-being, enhance and apply strengths, improve performance, and achieve valued goals” (Boniwell et al., 2010, p. 158). In the first PPC practitioner text, Biswas-Diener (2010) stated: “[i]dentifying personal values has long been a mainstay technique of coaching” (p. 49) and includes Schwartz’s Values Survey (Schwartz, 1992) as part of a general PPC toolkit. More recently, PPC has been described as a general conceptual framework integrating individual components from PP, CP and coaching (Biswas-Diener & van Nieuwerburgh, 2021). This multi-theoretical foundation reflects a holistic approach to coaching with a PP-scientific basis (Green & Palmer, 2019). At the same time, a number of models seek to illustrate a clear distinction between PPC and other coaching approaches (van Zyl et al., 2020). Despite areas of commonality, there is no standardized approach to values; values are not mentioned at all (Burke, 2018), briefly referred to within ACT or associated with meaning and motivation (Ciarrochi et al., 2022), or listed as a component of strengths/personality profiling but with no accompanying description (van Zyl et al., 2020).

Research Aims

Based on the review of literature, conceptual fragmentation and a lack of specific values research suggests a potential issue within the scholar-practitioner paradigm for Positive Psychology-informed coaches. This research has three overall aims:

1. To explore how Positive Psychology-informed coaches conceptualize values;

2. To understand their process of conceptualization; and

3. To consider the impact this understanding has on coaching practice.

Methodology

This study is intentionally aligned with Reflexive Thematic Analysis as proposed and developed by Braun and Clarke (2006, 2019, 2022). Qualitative researchers recognize multiple realities grounded in real-world contexts and aim to understand and interpret findings instead of proving a priori theoretical assumptions (Thanh & Thanh, 2015). Reflexive Thematic Analysis aims to generate themes that function as conceptual symbols or ideas across a dataset, allowing the researcher to interpret the participants’ experiences and the contexts in which these experiences arise. Braun and Clarke (2022) clearly distinguish Reflexive Thematic Analysis from other forms of Thematic Analysis, such as codebook analysis (N. King, 2012) and coding reliability (Boyatzis, 1998), asserting that themes in Reflexive Thematic Analysis are not intended to represent participants’ statements directly. Additionally, themes do not ‘emerge’ from the data but are actively constructed through the researcher’s personal interaction with it (Braun et al., 2022).

The researcher’s epistemological position in this study is exemplified in both research questions (RQ1 & RQ2), recognizing multiple realities (Alharahsheh & Pius, 2020). Application of Reflexive Thematic Analysis enabled the researcher to interpret both the participant’s experiences and the context in which experiences arose, as well as inductively develop themes from the researcher’s perspective, which facilitated identification through a bottom-up approach (Braun & Clarke, 2022). Integrating latent and semantic coding provided a comprehensive analysis, capturing explicit and underlying meanings while leveraging the researcher’s subjectivity (Braun et al., 2022).

Participants

Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants through online social media posts, professional and personal networks, and volunteer interest. Participants were required to meet two inclusion requirements: (1) hold a UK Master’s degree in Positive Psychology and (2) possess a minimum of 100 hours of coaching experience. As coaching is a non-regulated profession, this double inclusion criteria sought to provide two quality benchmarks: one academic (ensuring all participants had experience of the same level of PP education), and one professional.^[1] Twelve coaches (female = 11, male = 1) responded to the advertisement and met both inclusion criteria. Two had completed additional PP certifications, and five held psychology degrees (3 UG and 3 PG). Two participants had completed additional coaching qualifications. Seven participants had 100-250 coaching hours experience, and five recorded 250-500 hours. All participants identified their coaching as primarily private one-to-one work.

Twelve 60-minute interviews were conducted by one researcher over a 3-week period using MS Teams. Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data on participants’ understanding of values (RQ1) and how they work with values in coaching (RQ2). This approach provided a flexible framework that allowed each participant to speak openly and reflectively, as well as the opportunity to develop and revisit ideas. It also enabled the researcher to react and respond to the unique narrative being presented (DiCicco-Bloom & Crabtree, 2006).

All participants were sent an Information Sheet prior to the interview, a Consent Form providing agreement to use interview data collected, and a brief Pre-Interview Questionnaire to confirm they met the study’s inclusion criteria. An Interview Debrief Sheet was sent out within 24 hours of each interview, and all data was anonymized using randomly allocated pseudonyms immediately following transcription. The study was conducted with full approval from the School of Psychology’s Code of Practice for Research Ethics (UEL) and the British Psychological Society’s Code of Ethics and Conduct.

Findings

Three themes and associated subthemes were generated to address both research questions directly. Themes 1 and 2 relate to (RQ1), where ‘conceptualization’ is considered in terms of definitions and characteristics (T1) and the processes underpinning conceptual formulation (T2). Theme 3 (T3) explores how values conceptualization impacted participants’ approaches to values work within their coaching (RQ2).

Theme 1: The Universal Subjectivity of Values

Commonality in conceptualizations of values was expressed both in terms of individual definitional elements and metaphors. All participants saw values as being strongly identifiable through emotional and physical states. Participants were also clear that values were personally constructed, defined, and prioritized within each individual’s lived experience. However, understanding values as a construct that encompasses both trait and state elements was less defined.

1.1. A bespoke life GPS with inbuilt sensors

All 12 participants reflected a multidimensional construct of values that incorporated both motivational and personality facets: “What is important to you, what do you value, who are you?” (Chloe). A second shared conceptualization was illustrated through a range of similar journey / navigation metaphors, with values referred to as an “anchor” (Alex, Tilly), “compass” (Ava, Charlie, Chloe, Nicky), “lines in the sand” (Mia), “signposts” (Olivia), “guiding principles” (Ava, Chloe, Emma, Tilly, Sophie), “discovery” (Sian) and a person’s “true North” (Sam). Most participants also saw values acting as moral or ethical reference points against which to check behavior: “It’s those boundaries around – ‘this is acceptable for me; this isn’t acceptable for me’ – so understanding your own boundaries [and] to set the boundaries” (Mia). The third way in which all participants described values was as a reflection of an individual’s inner core: “Values are the core of the things that are important to you because when you boil something down, what’s left? That’s your values” (Sian).

1.2. The physical / emotional articulation of values

All participants stated that clients were usually not very aware of values: “A lot of people say, ‘I have no idea what my values are!’ But they still have them and they still navigate their life through their values” (Olivia). Lack of awareness was perceived to be compounded by a lack of language: “[p]eople don’t have that language and can’t articulate themselves” (Sam). Participants were also united in identifying the emotional or physical effect of values. Mia reflected: “I think values show up when I listen to my body”. Nicky said they show “in an embodied way, with the sense of real discomfort of, something’s not right here”. For Sophie, “If you don’t feel it, it’s not your value”.

1.3. Whose values are they anyway?

Most participants recognized a strong trait foundation, where values expressed an individual’s innate self: “I feel it’s an integral part of me. I think it’s a firm part of my identity” (Chloe). Values were described variously as reflecting an individual’s “core” (Charlie, Emma, Sian), “grounded true values” (Alex), and “authentic self” (Mia, Sam). However, the impact of social and cultural environments was also highlighted. Charlie saw values as being “quite tied to your life experience and also to your family”, while Ava felt “your maturity will drive values”. Participant reflections led to greater awareness as to the complexity of the construct. Values came to be best viewed as a combination of trait and state, where values change in priority but, as part of an individual’s core, are largely stable across life domains: “I think the things that we value when we’re 20 are not the same as the things we value when we’re 60. Or, rather, not that they’re not the same but the priorities perhaps shift” (Nicky).

Theme 2: Who is Minding the Gap?

Other than character strengths (Peterson & Park, 2004), only a few participants identified a direct theoretical connection between values and PP. Individual values-awareness, coaching experience, previous psychological education, and ongoing personal and professional development seemed to provide more of a basis for conceptualization processes.

2.1. Theoretical processing: strengths and values

The strongest theoretical link between values and PP was through character strengths: “for positive psychology, I think about values in the context of strengths and VIA” (Chloe). However, understanding of the differences between values and strengths varied. Ava commented: “I would say strengths are what you have to deliver your values”. For Sam, “it’s a little bit of a challenge because sometimes I think these things do overlap conceptually”. Nicky said: “Some of the words are even the same for strengths and values - it can be confusing!”

Participants demonstrated greater theoretical knowledge and engagement with strengths, which translated into much more conscious application compared to values: “[values work] I would say not consciously but I work with strengths very consciously” (Emma). When asked if values featured in their PP Master’s program, Alex said: “It did, but I don’t think I called it values”, while Sian reflected: “I can’t really remember specifically studying values or reading anything that’s genuinely stuck with me about values”. Indeed, most participants expressed a lack within their PP training, which was particularly noted in comparison to strengths: “Strengths is definitely in the positive psychology box […] values, I’ve come across less in the positive psychology box, but I think it should be there too” (Ava).

2.2. Personal processing

While definitions of values were broadly similar, processes by which each participant arrived at their understanding were based on individual experiences. A few participants referred to ACT: “My understanding of values comes from my ACT training because I think that’s the place where I’ve had the clearest teaching and direction” (Nicky). Other participants referenced previous psychology education and coaching experience. It was interesting to note personal recognition of the importance of values was mentioned by all participants. Sophie reflected: “How do I want to show up in the world? And when I do something that is not in alignment with that, it doesn’t feel right”. While Sian commented: “I know that if I prioritize them [values], I’m a whole world happier”.

Theme 3: Values in ‘Coaching’ Action

Differences in conceptualizations of values were reflected in the various tools and techniques utilized by participants. Belief in the transformational impact of values awareness brought a corresponding awareness of the potential negative impact of such work. Participants’ final reflections indicated a perceived need for more research into the relationship between values, PP and coaching to provide a clearer theoretically-based practitioner framework.

3.1. Reinventing their own wheels

Mia noted, “a challenge for people is coming up with the vocabulary of values”. Providing a language was seen as a necessary first step by nearly all participants, either through providing a set list of values or asking clients to create their own. Activities to prioritize values (e.g. a peak moment, writing your own obituary, asking the five ‘whys’) were also common. Participants who showed awareness of the external influence of values within their personal conceptualization reported using external evaluations of behavior to highlight personal client values (e.g. 360 questionnaires, team value spotting exercises, an 80^th birthday speech from a loved one). For example, Sophie noted her “own experience of internalizing my parents values”. Within her coaching, she invited clients to ask their family/friends to list values they saw in them. She then asked the clients to reflect on this external perception against what they considered their own values to be.

There was no overall standardization in approaches to values work. Only one participant mentioned a formal tool, “life value’s inventory” (Charlie), which contrasted significantly with all participants mentioning VIA. However, it is interesting to note how participants appeared to have adopted a ‘strengths approach’ in their adaptation of identified strengths activities for their values work: “I provide values vocabulary to be discussed, in the same way that I could write strengths vocabulary to be discussed” (Mia).

3.2. Values not positive enough for PP?

When asked about working without values in coaching, Tilly’s reaction illustrated the strong views shared by most participants: “It would seem so surface level stuff. I just wouldn’t be able to work as a coach. I wouldn’t!” Alex agreed: “I wouldn’t have questions to ask, or I wouldn’t know where to start with the person”. At the same time, associations with deeper, transformational work informed decisions to explicitly work with values or not: “Some people can be quite overwhelmed… it’s not that I would choose to do that [work with values] with everybody, it’s really dependent on the client” (Sam). Awareness of coaching boundaries and assessing client needs was important to all participants but reflected an additional area of complexity for practitioners compared to strengths. This was highlighted by Mia: “Strengths is an easy aim because people get them – it’s really positive [but] when you introduce values conversations, you’re judging the explicit reaction or the implicit reaction, and you’re pulling back or going forward”.

3.3. Naming the elephant in everyone’s room

Participants saw the relevance to values and wellbeing: “Wellbeing is when they feel comfortable with themselves and they are content and they are living in alignment with their values” (Sophie). Participants also recognized values as being part of all coaching in some capacity: “When humans are coaching humans, I don’t think there is such a thing as leaving values at the door” (Mia). Differences were found, though, in how explicitly participants articulated their understanding and use of values with clients. Sophie and Sam made it clear to clients at the start of the coaching relationship that values were a fundamental part of their coaching approach. In comparison, Alex said they had “never thought about saying the word values”.

A number of participants also used different terms that conceptually referred to values (e.g. “needs”, “beliefs”, “principles”) but did not express clear understanding of the differences between terms. Neither did they identify themselves as explicitly working with values: “I expect that it’s part and parcel of a lot of coaching work, my coaching work, anybody’s coaching work. But I wouldn’t break it down and think it is sort of specific or different” (Sian).

Finally, participants reflected on how values could show up more explicitly in future work: “It’s a definite that they’re there! It’s just whether it’s implicit, explicit, and what drives that” (Emma). Charlie reflected: “I could do better at defining with my clients up front the distinctions between values, strengths, beliefs”. Alex said: “I think you’ve helped me identify that maybe I do use values. I just maybe call them something else”. The need for a more conscious and articulated link between PP and values was also identified: “I think values are there implicitly in a lot of positive psychology. But I don’t think there is as much study of them as there could be” (Nicky).

Discussion

This study had three overall aims: 1) to explore how Positive Psychology-informed coaches conceptualize values; 2) to understand their process of conceptualization; and 3) to consider how understandings of values impacted coaching practice. The three main themes are now considered in relation to the literature to add to the understanding of the current scholar-practitioner relationship of PP and values as experienced by Positive Psychology-informed coaches.

Theme 1: The Universal Subjectivity of Values

Findings illustrated strong commonality in individual elements of the conceptualization of values. These discrete concepts reflected different psychological constructions of values in relation to motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017), personality (Bilsky & Schwartz, 1994), and philosophy (Walsh, 2015). Construct complexity was both explicitly and implicitly acknowledged through a number of co-existing dualities: universal and subjective, personal and societal, states of being and motivators of doing (Cieciuch & Schwartz, 2017). Participants also seemed to broadly reflect the six elements identified by Schwartz (2012). However, there were no specific references to values theories or value models. Neither was there any perceived tension between constructs rooted in differing psychological paradigms.

This raises potential issues with regards claims of evidence-based coaching (Snyder et al., 2015; Theeboom et al., 2014) and the empirical grounding of PP as an applied science (Green & Palmer, 2019). It also appears to support Pincus’s (2024) conclusion that the absence of a clear theoretically based values framework weakens the scholar-practitioner link. The risk of conceptual ambiguity impacting how coaches work with values increases through lack of a broad theoretical understanding of values as a multifaceted and multi-dimensional construct (Gould et al., 2023).

The body has been described as “the vessel of the individual’s sense of self” (H. Gardner, 1993, p. 235). Lazarus (1991) contended: “We don’t become emotional about unimportant things” (p. 819). Within social psychology, the concept of embodiment assumes bodily interactions act as a means of grounding thoughts, feeling and behaviors (Meier et al., 2012). All participants recognized the emotional and physical manifestation of values. In seeking to provide a vocabulary for individuals to articulate and explore ideas, participants also echoed Rokeach (1973), who regarded cognition as the central modality within psychological theory. As ‘cognitive conceptualizations’ of needs and desires, values are treated as consciously accessible constructs (Conte et al., 2023). A language and conversational framework sufficient to enable a cognitive verbal exploration is implicitly assumed (Oades et al., 2021). Despite being identified by the study participants, exploration of physical and emotional expression of values was not highlighted as an area of focus within their current coaching practice. This finding suggests the need for further exploration within this area (Hefferon, 2013).

Biswas-Diener (2010) stated values are: “a product of our genetics, our family upbringing, the culture in which we were raised, and our unique experiences as we go through life” (p. 95). Although expressing the idea of the theoretical co-existence of state and trait elements, participants acknowledged that this was an area of values they had not considered in much detail previously. This raises a more general question about coaches and the paradigms they are applying within their coaching practice; whether there is coherence or not, and on what theoretical or empirical basis practitioner choices are being made. Deeper exploration of this duality could provide further understanding as to how these different elements interact, as well as provide more clarity in working with each individual aspect (Humphreys, 2018).

Theme 2: Who is Minding the Gap?

Strengths, specifically character strengths, was the core area of PP in which values were located by all participants. However, levels of conceptual understanding of the terms ‘strengths’ and ‘values’ were diverse, as was the articulation of the relationship between them. This appeared to reflect the lack of clarification previously identified (i.e. Niemiec, 2018).

Existing empirical research focuses mainly on the effects of character strengths on wellbeing rather than the effect on individual strengths themselves (Ruch et al., 2020). As representing aspects of personality, character strengths are assumed to be relatively stable over time (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). Yet, there is also an implicit belief underpinning strengths-based interventions that individuals can increase strength-concordant behavior and, therefore, change individual strengths (Gander et al., 2020). This complexity and multi-dimensional construct of strengths reflects a similar complexity of values, representing personality traits that also encompass an element of malleability. However, participants had much more clarity and understanding of this in their conceptualization of strengths. Experiential Learning Theory states that learning and understanding is gained through experience (Kolb & Kolb, 2005). Given the clarity, resonance, and understanding of strengths and VIA demonstrated by all participants, it is worth considering how a similar impact could be gained with values through providing a clearer theoretical basis and more formal exploration of values within PP.

Practice informed by empirically grounded theory and research supports better understanding of key concepts and offers validity to decision-making (Lai & Palmer, 2018). In this study, findings indicate values conceptualizations were personally constructed. Despite all participants holding a PP Master’s degree and similar levels of coaching experience, the absence of clear theoretical frameworks and models did not provide any basis for measurable development and growth of knowledge, skills, and competencies within participants’ values work (Biswas-Diener, 2020). As the fields of PP and coaching mature (Green & Palmer, 2019), a more conscious locating of values seems to be a natural progression for the field of PP, as well as for coaches who are informed by PP.

Theme 3: Values in ‘Coaching’ Action

Individual processes of conceptualization by participants appeared to be replicated in the subjective engagement with values in their coaching. Understandings were clearly aligned with tools and techniques applied with coaching clients. However, as largely personally constructed conceptualizations, there was no standardization in practice. While tools appeared to be internally coherent, as they were not based on empirical research or aligned with general theories this could have further added to the subjectivity of approaches (Pincus, 2024).

Despite its rapid growth in popularity, coaching is still a relatively new field and coaches are conscious of the need to demonstrate evidence-based efficacy and underpin professional practice credentials (Grant et al., 2010; Jones et al., 2016; Passmore & Evans-Krimme, 2021). Similarly, PP and PPC seek to validate approaches through empirical research into the impact of PPIs (Carr et al., 2021; Ciarrochi et al., 2022). Participants did not express knowledge of specific values PPIs. At the same time, they saw strengths work being much clearer and easier, with accessible established frameworks and models (Ghielen et al., 2018). This further confirms the current lack of available PP research into values and working with values in coaching. It also brings into focus the significant difference in relation to current strengths research identified previously in the literature.

The potential impact of values work for long-term, transformational change was recognized by all participants, as was the potential challenge inherent in values work that is reflective of the evolution of PP (Lomas et al., 2021). The advent of PP in 1998 marked a shift from psychology’s traditional focus on overcoming psychological deficit in pursuit of optimal functioning (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). However, this was seen as promoting overly simplistic notions of positivity (Lomas & Ivtzan, 2016). With the rise of a ‘second wave’, the need to consider the whole human condition was emphasized (Wong, 2011). This was mirrored in corresponding research that showed even highly validated PPIs do not always produce positive affect (Pawelski, 2020). Similar to third generation coaching (Grant, 2017), a ‘third wave’ of PP suggests values could have a more specific focus as part of the wider consideration of individuals within groups and systems (Lomas et al., 2021; van Zyl & Salanova, 2022).

Participants expressed a clear distinction between ‘traditional’ performance coaching (Grant et al., 2010) and coaching through a ‘PP lens’ (Biswas-Diener, 2020). However, all coaching aims to facilitate positive change through deeper understanding of individuals’ motivations and aspirational goals (Grant et al., 2010). As predominantly ‘secondary fields’ accessed by scholars and practitioners from different academic or career backgrounds, there is rich diversity in both professional and personal experience within PP and coaching. There is also, potentially, fewer common foundations of knowledge and theoretical frameworks (Webb & Leeder, 2022). For values, there is an additional risk, highlighted by Biswas-Deiner (2010): “Occasionally we need to be reminded of these basic techniques [identifying personal values] because they are deceptively easy to overlook and pass by” (p. 49). Despite a perceived absence of specific values tools, what is perhaps most significant in the findings from this study is that participants appear to have individually applied their wider knowledge of PPIs and strengths frameworks, adapting them to fit their own conceptualizations of values (Pawelski, 2020).

Bluckert (2006) argued that self-awareness is the only way for individuals to self-regulate and make intentional choices. Effective coaching has been said to require practitioners who are committed to ongoing development, both professionally and personally (Carden et al., 2022). Identification by participants for the need for more research and a developed understanding of values reflects the disjointed nature of the current literature on wellbeing and values, as well as the relative absence of a values focus within PP. Final participant reflections also provide further support for reflective practice and ongoing professional development, both of which are increasingly highlighted by coaching bodies (e.g. EMCC, 2015) and within the academic and practitioner literature (Cushion, 2018; Rolfe et al., 2011).

Maintaining current knowledge is regarded as key to developing as a coach and a PP practitioner (Biswas-Diener, 2020). While coaching remains a non-regulated profession, the professionalization of coaches can at least be maximized through a clearer theoretical foundation, enabling more conscious and intentional coaching practice (Biswas-Diener & van Nieuwerburgh, 2021; Green & Palmer, 2019).

Main Contributions of Study

Through developing a deeper understanding of how Positive Psychology-informed coaches conceptualize and work with values, this study seeks to add to the research on current coaching practices and open up a wider debate on values within PP. Study participants confirmed that PP and wellbeing, as well as values and wellbeing, are conceptually linked and that values work is currently ongoing in the coaching space. However, explicit identification and understanding of values in relation to PP other than through a strengths association is missing. This has led to a subjective approach to values work that potentially impacts the advantages of using values in coaching. This study suggests that a more conscious scholarly linking of values to wellbeing and performance could offer potential in developing the work of both PP and coaching practitioners, as well as further enhance the impact of values work for coaching clients.

Limitations

This was a small-scale study with 12 participants who can all be identified as Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD; Hendriks et al., 2019). It is also acknowledged that most of the values literature and theories have been developed through Western theory and practice (Barkema et al., 2015; Patel & van Nieuwerburgh, 2022). Widening inclusion criteria to international PP Master’s programs would provide a broader cultural range of participants to offer more comprehensive insights. Setting a minimum level of coaching hours rather than specifying a minimum / maximum range meant that participants’ coaching experience was potentially quite varied. Previous psychological education was also varied. A greater degree of specificity in inclusion criteria would have been potentially beneficial.

Future Research

There is significant scope for further research into the impact of values in the coaching space and in situating values more explicitly within the fields of PP and CP. A comparison of graduates from different coaching programs and the application of values within different coaching contexts would be useful. A greater understanding of the impact of values within and across life domains could add further insight into how individuals can utilize values awareness positively. Understanding the impact of coach awareness of personal values would widen research on ‘coach as self’ and further inform ethical reflective best practices (Bachkirova, 2016; Carden et al., 2022).

Implications for Practice

This study is relevant for PP practitioners, professional coaches, students, educators and researchers. This study calls for a more explicit focus on values within PP education in service of a more reflective and intentional professional practice. This would provide future practitioners with a more structured and clearer framework within which to understand values, as well as opportunities to engage and reflect on different types of values work as part of their overall ‘toolkit’. Rather than having to navigate the scholar-practitioner path individually, providing a strong foundation of theoretical and evidence-based knowledge would enable PP practitioners and coaches to make informed choices about how, and if, they work with values in service of their clients.

Conclusion

The development of third-generation coaching, third-wave PP, and the increasing needs of modern society all suggest that the importance of values awareness is growing. Findings from this study provide further support to the literature and research that identify values as inherent and active in everyone. Values work, therefore, can be seen as being relevant to all coaching practitioners. The increasing evidence base for PP and wellbeing, as well as the link between values and wellbeing, also appear to be conceptually established. Through greater understanding and awareness, Positive Psychology-informed coaches can work to enhance and promote client wellbeing.

The first research question explored how Positive Psychology-informed coaches conceptualized values. Values were said to be what are important to individuals, acting as guiding principles and reflecting core personality traits. Values were also seen as being impacted by social environment and lived experience, implying an ability to change. Participant reflections indicated an intuitive awareness of the complexity of the construct of values. However, there was also acknowledgment of not having previously considered the issue or realized the potential impact on their coaching practice. All participants agreed on the physical and emotional manifestation of values. Again, though, this was reported as being largely based on personal values work rather than on any specific research or general PP theories.

The main link between values and PP was made by participants through strengths, more specifically character strengths. However, clarity in understanding the relationship and differences between values and strengths varied significantly. This further highlighted the concern participants faced through the lack of a clear theoretical model, language, and framework when working with values. Individual processes underpinning conceptualization were reflected in the different approaches to values work. Lack of a standard framework or approach raises potential quality assurance issues, as well as questions as to how coaches can develop understanding and skills further. The findings in this study confirm the benefits of value awareness, as identified in the literature, which are linked to wellbeing, goal achievement, motivation, and psychological wellbeing. This suggests that Positive Psychology-informed coaches could benefit from increased awareness of their own understanding of values to enable greater intentionality and choice within their values work.

Participants in this study appeared to face similar challenges to those faced by their coaching clients – a lack of common language and a formal conversational framework. By providing stronger theoretical and empirical foundations, this study seeks to highlight the opportunity to develop the role of values within PP, contribute to the professionalization of the coaching field, and invite practitioners to apply a more conscious and explicit emphasis on values to enhance the impact of values work for future coaching clients.

Authors

Dr. Anna Marie Gilliland is a coach, mentor, supervisor and researcher. She has extensive experience in higher education, holding a range of senior management posts centering on quality assurance in teaching, learning, and research. As a professional development coach, she works with clients across the public, private and not-for-profit sectors. Anna’s research interests strongly align with her academic work and her work as an applied coaching practitioner. Her early interest in values and motivation is reflected in her doctoral research, which considered social values and civic identity in ancient societies. Interest in the role and impact of the coach within the coaching process has developed from her quality assurance work and recognition of the impact of continuing personal and professional development. Anna is a Panel Tutor and Research Supervisor for the MSt in Coaching at the University of Cambridge.

Dr. Ana Paula Nacif is an experienced executive and group coach, consultant, and facilitator with extensive experience working across the private, public, and not-for-profit sectors. She is also a senior lecturer in the Master of Positive Psychology and Coaching Psychology at the University of East London.