International Coaching Psychology Revieworganisationalpsychology.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/...Editorial: Coaching psychology coming of age in the 21st century International Coaching

Special Group in Coaching Psychology

Interest Group in Coaching Psychology

ISSN: 1750-2764

International Coaching Psychology Review

Volume 7 No. 1 March 2012

Special Debate Issue onCoaching Psychology

Coming of Age

International Coaching Psychology ReviewEditorial Board

Co-ordinating EditorsUnited Kingdom: Stephen Palmer, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit, Department of Psychology, City University, London, UK.Australia: Michael Cavanagh, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit, School of Psychology, Sydney University, Australia.

Co-EditorsSandy Gordon, PhD, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia.Anthony M. Grant, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit, School of Psychology, Sydney University, Australia.Travis Kemp, PhD, International Graduate School of Business, University of South Australia, Australia.David Lane, PhD, Middlesex University, London, UK.Alex Linley, PhD, School of Psychology, University of Leicester, UK.Alison Whybrow, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit, City University London, UK.

SubscriptionsInternational Coaching Psychology Review (ICPR) is published in March and September. It is distributed free of charge to members ofthe British Psychological Society Special Group in Coaching Psychology and the Australian Psychological Society Interest Group inCoaching Psychology members. It is available to non-members (Individuals £50 per volume; Institutions £60 per volume; single copies£25) from: The British Psychological Society, SGCP, St. Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester LE1 7DR. UK.

Abstracting and indexing: The ICPR is abstracted in psycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts and Google Scholar. The ICPR is included Cabell's Directory of Publishing Opportunities in Educational Psychology and Administration and Cabell'sDirectory of Publishing Opportunities in Educational Curriculum and Methods.

Notes for ContributorsThe ICPR is an international publication with a focus on the theory, practice and research in the field of coaching psychology.Submission of academic articles, systematic reviews and other research reports which support evidence-based practice are welcomed.The ICPR may also publish conference reports and papers given at the British Psychological Society Special Group in CoachingPsychology (BPS SGCP) and Australian Psychological Society Interest Group in Coaching Psychology (APS IGCP) conferences, noticesand items of news relevant to the International Coaching Psychology Community.

Case studies and book reviews will be considered. The ICPR is published by the BPS SGCP in association with the APS IGCP.

1. CirculationThe circulation of the ICPR is worldwide. It is available in hardcopy and PDF format. Papers are invited and encouraged from authorsthroughout the world. It is available free in paper and PDF format to members of the BPS SGCP, and free in PDF format to APS IGCPmembers as a part of their annual membership.

2. LengthPapers should normally be no more than 6000 words, although the Co-Editors retain discretion to publish papers beyond this lengthin cases where the clear and concise expression of the scientific content requires greater length.

3. ReviewingThe publication operates a policy of anonymous peer review. Papers will normally be scrutinised and commented on by at least twoindependent expert referees (in addition to the relevant Co-Editor) although the Co-Editor may process a paper at his or herdiscretion. The referees will not be aware of the identity of the author. All information about authorship including personalacknowledgements and institutional affiliations should be confined to the title page (and the text should be free of such clues asidentifiable self-citations, e.g. ‘In our earlier work…’).

Continued on inside back cover.

International Editorial BoardHilary Armstrong, PhD, Institute of Executive Coaching,Sydney, Australia.Paul Atkins, PhD, Australian National University,Canberra, Australia.Tatiana Bachkirova, PhD, Oxford Brookes University, UK.Michael Carroll, PhD, University of Bristol, UK.Ian Cockerill, PhD, University of Birmingham, UK.Cary Cooper, PhD, Lancaster University, UK.Sarah Corrie, PhD, CNWL Foundation Trust, Royal Holloway University of London, UK.Paula Cruise, PhD, University of Cambridge, UK.Susan David, PhD, Melbourne University, Australia.Stephen Joseph, PhD, University of Warwick, UK.Carol Kauffman, PhD, Harvard Medical School, USA.

Roy Moodley, PhD, University of Toronto, Canada.Richard Nelson-Jones, PhD, Cognitive Humanistic Institute,Thailand.Lindsay Oades, PhD, University of Wollongong, Australia.Jonathan Passmore, PhD, Evora University, Portugal.James Pawelski, PhD, Positive Psychology Center,University of Pennsylvania, USA.Ernesto Spinelli, PhD, Regent’s College, UK.Catherine Steele PhD, University of Worcester, UK.Reinhard Stelter, PhD, Coaching Psychology Unit,University of Copenhagen, Denmark.Lewis R. Stern, PhD, Harvard University Medical School, USA.Dianne Stober, PhD, Fielding University, USA.Mary Watts, PhD, City University, London, UK.

The British Psychological SocietySpecial Group in Coaching Psychology

❋

The Australian Psychological Society LtdInterest Group in Coaching Psychology

❋

InternationalCoaching Psychology Review

❋

Volume 7 No. 1 March 2012

❋

Contents4 Editorial: Coaching psychology coming of age in the 21st century

Stephen Palmer & Michael Cavanagh

Papers6 Teaching coaching psychology to undergraduates – perceptions and experiences

Catherine Steele & Jane Arthur

14 When feedback is not enough: The impact of regulatory fit on motivation afterpositive feedbackAnn-Marie Jarzebowski, Josephine Palermo & Robert van de Berg

33 The long-term independently assessed benefits of coaching: A controlled 18-month follow-up study of two methodsJohn Franklin & Alicia Franklin

39 Line management involvement in coaching: Help or hindrance? A content analysis studyHelen Ogilvy & Vicky Ellam-Dyson

55 Moderating factors of the Van Egmond Coaching Model (VECM)Johan Bouwer & Jacoba van Egmond

64 The Managerial Gap and how coaching can helpChristine Porter & W. David Rees

Debate72 Editorial: Coaching Psychology Coming of Age

Alison Whybrow, Anthony M. Grant, Stephen Palmer & Travis Kemp

75 Coaching Psychology Coming of Age:The challenges we face in the messy world of complexity? Michael Cavanagh & David Lane

91 Comment on debate article:Coaching Psychology Coming of Age:The challenges we face in the messy world of complexity?Ralph Stacey

97 Coaching Psychology Coming of Age:The challenges we face in the messy world of complexity? A responseTatiana Bachkirova; Paul W.B. Atkins; David B. Drake; Bob Hodge; Lesley Kuhn; Julie Allan; Gordon B. Spence

127 Coaching Psychology Coming of Age: A response to our discussantsMichael Cavanagh & David Lane

Reports130 1st International Congress of Coaching Psychology – Sweden

Liv Hök & Jonas Mosskin

133 Special Group in Coaching Psychology News Mary Watts

135 Interest Group in Coaching Psychology News David Heap

International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 7 No. 1 March 2012 3© The British Psychological Society – ISSN: 1750-2764

Editorial: Coaching psychology coming ofage in the 21st centuryStephen Palmer & Michael Cavanagh

4 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 7 No. 1 March 2012© The British Psychological Society – ISSN: 1750-2764

COACHING PSYCHOLOGY during2010 to 2011 really did take off aroundthe world. In a space of under 12

months different psychology professionalbodies held five International Congresses ofCoaching Psychology from London, Dublin,Barcelona and Stockholm to Pretoria inSouth Africa. This year the first congressevent will be held in Sydney sponsored bythe APS Interest Group Coaching Psy-chology (see announcement on page 137 forfull details). Coaching psychology is certainlycoming of age.

This bumper issue of the InternationalCoaching Psychology Review covers a range oftopics and debates. In Europe more under-graduate programmes are including acoaching psychology module and this is anarea that needs further research. In the firstpaper Catherine Steele and Jane Arthur’sstudy explored undergraduates’ perceptionsand experiences of coaching psychologyduring a 12-week optional module. Theyfound that on completion of the modulemany students indicated that they had anunderstanding of how to apply psychologicaltheory developed a range of skills and feltbetter equipped to plan their future career.In the next paper Ann-Marie Jarzebowski,Josephine Palermo and Robert van de Bergnote that empirical findings are inconsistentregarding the motivational effect of feed-back. Their research starts to address this bylooking into the impact of regulatory fit onmotivation after positive feedback. Theyassert that their study is the first to examinethe effect of regulatory fit within feedbacksign on motivation. They found that feed-back framed to fit the regulatory focus ofcoachees is likely to increase the level ofmotivation. Therefore in some situations incoaching where it would be challenging to

frame feedback, the coach could induce aregulatory promotion focus that couldmatch the feedback to be provided. Theysuggest this could be achieved by asking thecoachee to describe their ideal goal or typeof aspirations they have and the strategies tosupport achievement of these ideal goals(promotion induction). Clearly moreresearch is needed in this area but the impli-cations are fascinating for coaching practiceand we look forward to receiving any follow-up study the Deakin University group mayundertake.

The third paper by John Franklin andAlicia Franklin reports on a controlled studyresearching into the long-term benefits ofcoaching. This paper follows up the partici-pants from an earlier study first published inthis journal (see Franklin & Doran, 2009)and reports on their academic performance12 and 18 months after the completion ofthe seven-week coaching programme. Thosein the Preparation, Action, AdaptiveLearning (PAAL) programme condition per-formed significantly better 12 and 18 monthsafter the completion of the brief coachingprogramme. In the next paper, Helen Ogilvyand Vicky Ellam-Dyson look at line manage-ment involvement in coaching and ask is it ahelp or hindrance? A cross-sectional designwas used to explore coachees’ and line man-agers’ perceptions of line managementinvolvement, as well as facilitators and bar-riers to their involvement. The different fac-tors are discussed and also the consequencesfor transfer of learning.

The fifth paper by Johan Bouwer andJacoba van Egmond focuses on the moder-ating factors of the Van Egmond CoachingModel (VECM). They found that the mostimportant moderating factors of the VECMappeared to be the coachee’s readiness to

Editorial: Coaching psychology coming of age in the 21st century

International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 7 No. 1 March 2012 5

change, the client-coach relationship, themanager’s role and the coach’s expertise.The authors recommend conducting follow-up studies. The final paper in the first sec-tion of the journal is about the managerialgap and how coaching can help. ChristinePorter and W. David Rees consider twomodels that may help clients identify theirorganisational roles and their willingnessand ability to carry out such roles. The firstmodel considered is that of the ManagerialEscalator which seeks to help individualemployees identify and cope with their likelyaccumulation of managerial responsibilities,particularly dealing with any ManagerialGap. The second, and linked, model is thatof Role Set Analysis.

After our popular debate issue last yearon developing an agenda for teachingcoaching psychology (see Grant, 2011;Cavanagh, Palmer et al., 2011) we decided topublish another special debate issue on atopical subject. After a brief introduction bythe special issue editors, Michael Cavanaghand David Lane launch the debate on:Coaching Psychology Coming of Age: The chal-lenges we face in the messy world of complexity.Some of us heard this stimulating paper pre-viously as it was based on a keynote deliveredat the 1st International Congress ofCoaching Psychology, London, in December2010. Then, in our debate section, eight dis-cussants give their feedback. As previously,the lead authors were given an opportunityto provide a brief response to the feedback.The debate issues were intended to producestimulating and thoughtful contributions onmatters of interest and importance incoaching psychology. They certainly seem tobe meeting that goal. If you have a positionon an important topic in coaching psy-chology and would like to provide a leadarticle for another debate issue, please con-tact one of us (Michael Cavanagh or StephenPalmer).

We finish this issue with an InternationalCongress report, and the news updates fromthe SGCP and IGCP provided by ProfessorMary Watts and David Heap whose task it isto lead both of our organisations. We wel-come new International Editorial Boardmembers, Sarah Corrie, Paula Cruise,Jonathan Passmore, Catherine Steele andLewis R. Stern who bring their knowledgeand experience to the journal. We are veryfortunate indeed to add these people to thealready strong panel of international editors,and we look forward to their contributionsinto the future.

CorrespondenceStephen PalmerCoaching Psychology Unit,Department of Psychology,City University,Northampton Square,London, UK.Email: [email protected]

Michael CavanaghCoaching Psychology Unit,Department of Psychology,Sydney University,Sydney,Australia.Email: [email protected]

ReferencesCavanagh, M., Palmer, S. et al. (2011). Educating

coaching psychologists: Responses from the field.International Coaching Psychology Review, 6(1),100–127.

Franklin, J. & Doran, J. (2009). Does all coachingenhance objective performance independentlyevaluated by blind assessors? The importance ofthe coaching model and content. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 4(2), 128–144.

Grant, A.M. (2011). Developing an agenda forteaching coaching psychology. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 6(1), 84–99.


COACHING PSYCHOLOGY is still a rel-atively new area of applied psychology.It has experienced rapid growth

among practitioners as evidenced by theincreasing membership of professionalgroups including the Special Group ofCoaching Psychology and the InternationalSociety for Coaching Psychology in the UK.Increasingly it is developing an internationalpresence, demonstrated by the 1st Interna-tional Coaching Psychology Conferenceheld in 2006 and the first International Con-gress in Coaching Psychology held 2010.Postgraduate courses in coaching psychologyare emerging and a wide variety of profes-sional training courses are available. How-ever, at the moment the coverage ofcoaching psychology in undergraduate pro-grammes in the UK seems to be limited(Grant, 2011). This paper aims to explorethe perceptions of coaching psychology heldby undergraduates and to consider theirexperiences of studying the subject. As Grant

(2011) suggests ‘if coaching psychology is togrow and develop, then some kind of educa-tion and teaching framework will eventuallyneed to be established’ (p.84). Consideringthe perspective of undergraduate studentsmay go some way to assisting the develop-ment of such a framework.

Coaching in higher educationMuch has been written about the benefits ofcoaching within a higher education contextfor both student well-being and for studentperformance (e.g. Cambell & Gardner, 2005;Green, Grant & Rynsaardt, 2007; Short,Kinman & Baker, 2010). However, little hasbeen written about how undergraduates canbe introduced to this area as a potentialfuture career. With the changing focus ofhigher education there is increasing pres-sure on universities to ensure their graduatesare employable and have a clear range ofskills to offer to employers. Looking toorganisations there is evidence to suggest

Teaching coaching psychology toundergraduates – perceptions andexperiencesCatherine Steele & Jane Arthur

Objectives: This exploratory study examines undergraduates’ perceptions and experiences of coachingpsychology during a 12-week optional module.Design: Qualitative data was gathered through short interviews with students at the start of the moduleand personal reflective statements at the end of the module.Method: Students conducted one-to-one semi-structured interviews at the start of the module. They were alsorequired to complete a reflective piece of writing outlining their experiences of the module as part of theirassessment. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.Results: Students had very little knowledge of coaching psychology prior to completing the module as theyhad not seen or heard any reference to it elsewhere in their studies. On completion of the module manyindicated that they had an understanding of how to apply psychological theory, developed a range of skillsand felt better equipped to plan their future career.Conclusions: As highlighted by Grant (2011) inclusion of coaching psychology on undergraduateprogrammes could aid the future of the discipline and, at the same time, provide students with a range oftransferrable skills. Keywords: Coaching Psychology; Teaching Coaching Psychology; Coach Training.

that an increasing number are training theirmanagers in a coaching approach,employing in-house coaches and usingcoaching more widely as part of their devel-opment programmes (Chartered Institute ofPersonnel and Development, 2009).Coaching in many organisations actuallyseems to be an area where expenditure hasbeen increased despite the financial crisis(Chartered Institute of Personnel and Devel-opment, 2011). Spaten and Hansen (2009)indicated that as the coaching professiongrows there is a need to ensure that psy-chology postgraduates obtain coaching skillsduring their studies. It is argued here thatteaching students about coaching psy-chology should also be integrated intoundergraduate programmes to enablestudents to develop these transferrable skillsthat are so desired by employers.

Peer coachingMany definitions of peer coaching exist andthese have been generated from various per-spectives. For example, Showers and Joyce(1996) define it as a relationship betweenteachers where learning takes place throughobservation and skills transfer based onshared experiences. They emphasise variousprinciples of peer coaching including theimportance of avoiding direct verbal feed-back. This is omitted to avoid supervisory orevaluative comments being made that wouldbe detrimental to the coaching process.Ladyshesky and Varey (2005) describe aneight-stage model of peer coaching basedaround management education. The modelprovides a framework for outlining how thepeer coaching relationship develops andoutlines the implications if the objectiveswithin a stage are not met.

Research evidence considering the effec-tiveness of peer coaching provides mixedresults. Peer coaches have been perceived tobe less credible than external coaches (Sue-Chan & Latham, 2004) and less effectivethan professional coaches in enhancing goalprogression and commitment (Spence &Grant, 2006). Despite this there are several

reported benefits from peer coachingincluding strengthened protection from psy-chological distress, knowledge frameworks,enhanced self-reflection and awareness(Ladyshewy & Varey, 2005; Short, Kinman &Baker, 2010). Within the research presentedhere peer coaching is used for practical rea-sons but also some researchers have shownthat this approach also benefits the coach bydeveloping their interpersonal skills(Ladyshewsky, 2006).

The study contextAt the university where this research wasbased, students are able to select coachingpsychology as one of their final year optionalmodules. The module is taught over a 12-week period and incorporates a numberof the core areas of study identified by Grant(2011). The module employs an evidence-based approach, introducing students to thescientist practitioner model. Ethical issuessuch as recording and storage of sessionnotes and client information are consideredalongside CPD, supervision and discussionof the distinctions and relationships betweencoaching and other therapeutic techniques.

Through lectures and practical sessions,students are introduced to theories of goalsetting, change and development and theuse of psychometrics in coaching. Studentsare taught behavioural and cognitivebehavioural techniques and given the oppor-tunity to use the GROW and SPACE modelsin peer coaching practice sessions. Over the12 weeks the students take part in eightsupervised peer coaching sessions as coachand eight sessions as coachee. Evidence sug-gests that learning coaching skills over anextended period of time leads to deeperlearning and understanding (Grant, 2007).It is hoped that scheduling the practical ses-sions throughout the semester will aid skilldevelopment. Due to the expertise of theteaching staff and the issues raised by thestudents the peer coaching sessions concen-trate on career and stress managementcoaching.


Teaching coaching psychology to undergraduates – perceptions and experiences

This study adopts an exploratory qualita-tive approach, using both interview data andpersonal reflective statements. The researchquestions to be addressed are:● What are the perceptions of coaching

psychology as a discipline within anundergraduate student sample?

● What are the perceived benefits ofundertaking a 12-week undergraduatecoaching psychology module?

MethodDesignQualitative data was gathered over two timeperiods; using semi-structured interviewsduring week 2 of the semester by examiningreflective statements written by the studentsin week 12 as part of their final assessment.

ParticipantsThe participants were all third-year psy-chology undergraduate students (N=27).The mean age of participants was 21(SD=2.25). The sample consisted of ninemales and 18 females.

MeasuresAt the start of the module students were pro-vided with a short semi-structured interviewtemplate containing two questions with anumber of suggested prompts. The ques-tions were designed to assess the students’prior knowledge of coaching psychology.

At the end of the semester, in week 12,students were required to submit a portfoliowhich included a reflective piece of writingoutlining their experiences of the module.Students were given guidance on reflectivewriting and asked to include reflection ontheir practical skills, academic knowledgeand overall experiences of the module.

ProcedureAt the start of the timetabled session in week2 of the semester, students worked in pairs toconduct a short semi-structured interviewusing a script provided to them by the tutor.The pairs were predefined by the moduletutor and allocated alphabetically. At this

stage the students had only received a one-hour introductory lecture which focused onthe timetable, assessments and generaladministrative issues relating to the module.The students were asked to transcribe theirinterviews and submit these anonymously tothe tutor. The interviews were conductedpeer to peer to enhance the free disclosureof participants’ perceptions. While the inter-views were taking place the module tutor wasnot in the same room as the students.

The participants then attended theoptional module in coaching psychology for12 weeks consisting of three hours per weektheory and practice. The module focused onbehavioural and cognitive behaviouralapproaches and students engaged in peercoaching. As well as coaching theory andpractical coaching skills, supervision, ethics,evidence-based practice and careers incoaching were also considered. At the end ofthe module students submitted their reflec-tive piece of writing as part of their finalassessment. In line with the university’spolicy this piece of writing was submittedusing student numbers not names to ensurethe students felt free to express their views.All students gave their permission for theirstatements to be analysed for research pur-poses.

ResultsStage 1: InterviewsThe interviews were designed to gatherstudents’ perceptions of the discipline ofcoaching psychology prior to commencingthe module. Thematic analysis was used toanalyse each of the questions and the themesidentified were first defined by a researcheroutside of the module teaching team. Thesethemes were then confirmed by a secondresearcher who was one of the moduletutors.

Question 1: Before you started the modulewhat did you think coaching psychology was?Four separate themes were identified in theanswer to this question: (1) Helping othersdevelop; (2) Sports performance; (3) Sim-

8 International Coaching Psychology Review ● Vol. 7 No. 1 March 2012


ilar, or the same as counselling; and (4) Noawareness of it. Three out of the four themesidentified suggest that some of the under-graduates in this group have some idea ofwhat coaching psychology is but the bound-aries are blurred with those of other disci-plines with which they are more familiar,specifically sport and counselling. Thefourth theme showed that some studentshave no awareness of coaching psychology asa discipline or profession.

(1) Helping others develop Many of the students knew that coaching wasabout supporting the development of others,within this theme statements showed thatstudents understood that coaching was relatedto improving well-being but lacked clarity overhow this would happen or with whom.

‘I had an initial understanding thatcoaching was a helping profession.’ ‘I’d heard of life coaching before as wellso I knew it was something to do withthat, but like I said using ‘erm stuff frompsychology to aid development and helppeople you know.’

(2) Sports performance Students felt coaching psychology was some-thing to do with sports performance and atechnique applied exclusively within asporting context.

‘I really didn’t know, I thought it wassomething to do with how you usepsychology to coach people in sport, toimprove their performance psycho-logically or as a team I guess. I justimmediately associated it with sport.’ ‘I thought it was something to do withsport, you see there are sports coaches, I knew that. Though I didn’t knowspecifically what they did. I mean look atfootball, the team I follow have a headcoach and not a manager ‘erm but I’venever knew how to distinguish between amanager and a head coach.’

This indicates a misunderstanding of theterms ‘coach’ and ‘coaching’ within thissample.

(3) Similar, or the same as counselling There is some overlap between this and theprevious theme as the quotes again indicatea misunderstanding or confusion over theboundaries between coaching and closelyrelated professions. Within this theme themisunderstanding related to the distinctionbetween coaching and counselling ratherthan sport.

‘I had some knowledge of coaching fromdoing counselling modules, I suppose it’sa more basic model of counsellingdealing with day to day standard issues asopposed to people who are ill.’‘I’d put coaching in the same league ascounselling therapy – it’s a similar area.’

(4) No awareness of it Finally, several students indicated that theyhad no awareness of coaching psychologyand did not know what to expect when theyselected the module.

‘In two years of studying psychology,coaching was never mentioned, not evenin the broadest of textbooks.’‘I knew it was relatively a new area, due tothe fact about A-levels and the first twoyears of the degree, you know, I neverheard it mentioned.’

Perhaps this indicates there is a need to con-sider how coaching psychology could beintegrated into the early parts of the psychology degree syllabus or even into A-level teaching.

Question 2: Before you started the modulewhy did you think people went to see a coach?Three separate themes were identifiedwithin the transcripts in relation to this ques-tion, similarly to the themes identified inQuestion 1, they indicate some confusionover the boundaries between coaching andrelated professions.

(1) Help, advice, direction, for a solution Many of the students felt someone would seea coach for help and advice in the same wayas you might approach a friend or familymember.



‘Successful people tend to see coaches asthere is no stigma, if they just needpushing in the right direction. It’sexpensive though, it’s not on the NHS,it’s like buying another friend.’

(2) Sports performance As indicated in the responses to questionone many of the students felt that coachingpsychology was linked to sport and this is thereason that someone would approach acoach.

‘to improve their current level, if they’renot performing very well.’

(3) Occupational issues Interestingly, several transcripts referred tosomeone seeing a coach for work or careerrelated issues.

‘umm… I suppose I thought it would bemostly used in organisations, you know toimprove targets, profits, that sort ofthing.’ ‘to help them in certain things forexample, at a workplace – to help themdevelop in their career for better jobs.’

However, this was not indicated in theanswers to Question 1 when asked aboutwhat coaching psychology is.

The answers to the interview questions givenat the start of the module indicate that themajority of students had limited or nounderstanding of the field of coaching psy-chology. From this, albeit small, sample itseems to suggest that more work needs to bedone to make undergraduates aware ofcoaching psychology as a discipline. Somestudents commented that they had not beenintroduced to coaching psychology untiltheir final year of studies. Perhaps this wouldbe a good place to start, looking to see howit can be integrated into earlier parts of thesyllabus to ensure students are aware ofcoaching as a career choice and as an evi-dence-based profession from the start of thestudies to allow them the opportunity todevelop skills and knowledge throughouttheir time at university.

Stage 2 – Reflective piecesThe reflective pieces were submitted byeach student after completion of a 12-weekcoaching psychology module. These state-ments were subjected to thematic analysisand four key themes were identified. As inStage 1, the themes identified were firstdefined by a researcher outside of themodule teaching team. These themes werethen confirmed by a second researcher whowas one of the module tutors.

(1) Application of psychological theoryA number of students stated that learningabout coaching psychology helped them todraw together and apply other aspects oftheir studies to real world situations.

‘It has been easier to see the applicationof theory, subsequently this has alsoincreased my understanding in otherareas of my studies.’

The students also recognised that manycoaching psychology techniques aregrounded in mainstream psychologicaltheory.

‘Coaching psychology is based verystrongly on theories and is influenced bybehaviourists such as Skinner and Watsonand humanistic psychologists such asCarl Rogers.’ ‘I was particularly struck by how coachingpsychology drew on so many otheraspects of psychology, such as the psycho-dynamic and humanistic approaches.’

It is encouraging to see that the students inthis sample where able to connect theirknowledge of coaching to mainstream psy-chological theories as this could be said toindicate an awareness of the evidence basefor the discipline.

(2) Goal setting and career focusMany of the statements referred to the useand application of goal setting in supportingtheir own career and study plans.

‘I have felt encouraged and motivated bythe theory of coaching to re-think myown career goals and to think about how



I could apply these principles in myfuture work.’‘Being involved in being coached isuseful, I came away with ability to settargets for myself, so gained ability tocoach myself.’‘Another skill I have learnt is how to setachievable goals.’

Many students also indicated that the skillslearnt within the module would be trans-ferrable to their future careers.

‘I will be taking some of the techniqueslearnt into my future career as it is likelythat I will use them at some point. I wouldthink the extra skills I could bring to thejob might impress an employer. I also thinkif I was in a job I could utilise the tech-niques to encourage other employees.’

(3) Practical skillsA number of practical skills were identifiedas being developed throughout the module,for example:

‘I have developed oral and writtencommunication skills, listening skills,goal directed and facilitation skills.’‘The coaching module has significantlyimproved my confidence and commu-nication skills from session one.’

With an increased focus on employabilitywithin higher education themes two andthree suggest that coaching psychologycould provide a platform for the develop-ment of transferrable skills within the under-graduate psychology degree.

(4) Self-developmentStatements relating to the students self devel-opment included:

‘I have gained a deeper understanding ofmy own strengths and weaknesses.’‘By nature I am not an outgoing,gregarious individual and, therefore,having to work with individuals that I didnot know inevitably made me anxious butI am grateful that this was an integral partof the course because it meant that Icould push myself to gain results throughmy own personal development’

The final theme of self-development indi-cates a more personal benefit to the studentsfrom learning about and practicing aspectsof coaching psychology. Again this could belinked to employability skills but also to indi-vidual growth for the students.

DiscussionThe findings from the interviews conductedat the start of the module indicate that themajority of students did not have a clearunderstanding of what coaching psychologywas before they started their studies. Manyknew it was related to helping others but alarge number associated it with sportscoaching or counselling. It is not surprisingthat there was some confusion over theboundaries between coaching psychologyand related professions as this seems to besomething that even professional coachesstill grapple with (Grant & Cavanagh, 2007).Some students indicated that they really hadno awareness of what they were going tocover within the module. It should be notedthat these findings are from a small sample(N=27) within one cohort, at one universityin the UK. There is also an inherent biaswithin the sample as these students hadalready selected to undertake the module;however it would be useful to consider whatprompted the group to select this module astheir knowledge of the subject area was solimited at the outset. Despite these samplinglimitations these findings do suggest thatstudents can enter their third year of studywith little or no awareness of one of thefastest growing areas of applied psychology.It would be interesting to assess their aware-ness of other applied areas as it may be thatthe first two years of study are largely theo-retical and don’t address the application ofthese theories in any area. Or it might bethat the more popular areas amongst under-graduates such as clinical and forensic psy-chology dominate their thoughts at thatstage.

The themes identified from the students’reflective writing indicate that they haveidentified some real benefits to learning




about coaching psychology at an early stageof their careers. Some indicated that ithelped them to apply the theories they havelearned such as humanistic and behaviouralapproaches. The development of trans-ferrable skills was also noted, for example,communication skills, facilitation, listeningskills. Consideration of future career plan-ning using goal setting was also indentifiedby many as a benefit from completing themodule. Finally a number of studentsreported that the module had developedthem as individuals, enhancing confidenceand assertiveness. Again, it is important toconsider the potential bias that may havebeen introduced in the reflective statements.Students may have sought to present anoverly positive perspective of the module asit contributed to their final grade and wasbeing marked by module the tutors so theremay be an element of social desirability con-tained within them. However, these state-ments are also in line with other studies thatsuggest students feel there are benefits tostudying coaching psychology (Grant, 2003;Short & Baker, 2010).

The current paper set out two distinctaims. The first was to examine the percep-tions of coaching psychology as a disciplinewithin a sample of undergraduate students.The interview transcripts suggest thatstudents either have little awareness of the dis-cipline or their perceptions are a little dis-torted or inaccurate. Further research toreveal when and how undergraduatestudents’ form their perceptions of the disci-pline might benefit the development of thegrowing number of postgraduate courses onoffer. An examination of student or graduateperceptions of coaching versus coaching psy-chology might also be interesting and help toshape the future of the profession. Finally,making students aware of coaching psy-chology at early stages of their studies couldhelp to encourage more research interest andpractice in the area. The second aim of thispaper was to consider the perceived benefitsof teaching coaching psychology to under-

graduates. The findings from the reflectivestatements suggest that there are some tan-gible benefits in terms of skill developmentand enabling the application of theory.Spaten and Hansen (2009) have indicatedthat they see it as necessary to incorporate theteaching of coaching skills in postgraduateprogrammes to enhance employability. Thefindings from the reflective statements con-sidered here suggest that undergraduates mayalso benefit from this type of skills develop-ment. Grant (2011) outlined a suggestedframework for teaching coaching psychologyand the module used in this study incorpo-rated the majority of these suggestions. Basedon the findings from this study the authorssuggest that a framework should be createdthat either embeds coaching psychologytheory and techniques within the core psy-chology syllabus or sees it an additional sub-ject area within that syllabus.

In summary this exploratory paper indi-cates that there is a need to expose under-graduates to coaching psychology earlier intheir studies. The benefits of this early expo-sure include the opportunity for students togain transferrable skills thus enhancing theiremployability, and introducing them to thisarea earlier in their studies may aid thefuture of the profession.

The AuthorsDr Catherine SteelePsychological Sciences,University of Worcester,Henwick Grove,Worcester WR2 6AJ.Email: [email protected]

Jane ArthurCentre for People at Work,University of Worcester,Henwick Grove,Worcester WR2 4JG.

CorrespondenceDr Catherine SteeleEmail: [email protected]




Campbell, M.A. & Gardner, S. (2005). A pilot study toassess the effects of life coaching with year 12students. In M.J. Cavanagh, A.M. Grant & T. Kemp (Eds.), Evidence-based coaching(pp.159–169). Brisbane: Australian AcademicPress.

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development(2009). Taking the temperature of coaching. London.CIPD Reports.

Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development(2011). Coaching climate. London: CIPD Reports.

Grant, A.M. (2003). The impact of life coaching ongoal attainment, metacognition and mentalhealth. Social Behaviour and Personality, 31(3),253–264.

Grant, A.M. (2007). Enhancing coaching skills andemotional intelligence through training. Indus-trial and Commercial Training, 39(5), 257–266.


Grant, A.M. & Cavanagh, M.J. (2007). Coaching psychology: How did we get here and where arewe going? In Psych, 29, 6–9.

Green, S., Grant, A.M. & Rynsaardt, J. (2007). Evidence-based life coaching for senior highschool students: Building hardiness and hope.International Coaching Psychology Review, 2(1),24–32.

Ladyshewsky, R. & Varey, W. (2005). Peer coaching: A practical model to support constructivistlearning methods in the development of mana-gerial competency. In M.J. Cavanagh, A.M. Grant& T. Kemp (Eds.), Evidence-based coaching, Vol. 1.Theory, research and practice from the behaviouralsciences. Bowen Hills: Australian Academic Press.

Ladyshewsky, R.K. (2006). Peer coaching: A con-structivist methodology for enhancing criticalthinking in postgraduate business education.Higher Education Research and Development, 25(1),67–84.

Short, E. & Baker, S. (2010). Using peer coaching toenhance resilience: Promoting well-being and lifelonglearning in students. Presented at the First Inter-national Coaching Psychology Congress.London. December.

Short, E., Kinman, G. & Baker, S. (2010). Evaluatingthe impact of a peer coaching intervention onwell-being amongst students. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 5(1), 27–34.

Showers, B. & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peercoaching. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 12–16.

Spaten, O.M. & Hansen, T.G.B. (2009). Shouldlearning to coach be integrated in a graduate psychology programme? Denmark’s first try. The Coaching Psychologist, 5(2), 104–109.

Spence, G.B. & Grant, A.M. (2007). Professional andpeer life coaching and the enhancement of goalstriving and well-being: An exploratory study. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(3), 185–194.

Sue-Chan, C. & Latham, G.P. (2004). The relativeeffectiveness of external, peer and self-coachesApplied Psychology: An International Review, 53,260–278.

References

FEEDBACK, which is informationregarding individuals’ current levels ofperformance, has been shown to influ-

ence motivation, job satisfaction and per-formance (DeNisi & Kluger, 2000; Gregory,Levy & Jeffers, 2008). Feedback is particu-larly relevant in coaching practice where it isprovided to support self-awareness, learning,and to improve performance. This is the firststudy to test the relationship between feed-back and work motivation in a coaching con-text. Work motivation has been described as‘a set of energetic forces that originate bothwithin and or outside an individual, whichinitiates behaviour, directs its form, strengthand duration, thus influencing perform-ance’ (Pinder, 2008, p.11). Despite frequent

use of feedback in coaching, the empiricalfindings are inconsistent regarding the moti-vational direction (increase versus decreaseof motivation) of feedback. Whilst onewould expect that work motivation wouldincrease after positive feedback, researchfrom laboratory studies suggests that empir-ical findings are inconsistent regarding themotivational effect and direction of feed-back (Higgins, 2000, 2005). A meta-analysisof 131 studies by Kluger and DeNisi (1996)found that while feedback in generalimproved performance, performance alsodecreased in 38 per cent of studies and thiswas not contingent upon whether positive ornegative feedback had been received.


When feedback is not enough: The impact of regulatory fit onmotivation after positive feedbackAnn-Marie Jarzebowski, Josephine Palermo & Robert van de Berg

Objectives: Feedback is widely used in coaching practice, however, empirical findings are inconsistentregarding the motivational effect of feedback. Positive or negative feedback can be framed in a way thataligns with an individual’s preferred manner during goal pursuit, that is, their regulatory fit. This studyis the first to examine the effect of regulatory fit within feedback sign on motivation. This study aimed toinvestigate the impact of positive feedback framed to fit or not-fit individuals’ regulatory focus on level ofmotivation. Design: A repeated measures randomly controlled study design was utilised.Method: Participants comprised 29 coachees undertaking a five-session coaching programme. They wererandomly allocated to two treatment groups whereby positive non-authentic feedback, framed to either fit ornot-fit an individual’s induced regulatory promotion focus was provided on an online leadership skillsactivity. In addition, level of motivation was measured pre and post feedback.Results: A repeated measure anova analysis indicated that motivation was significantly higher afterpositive feedback in the regulatory fit condition than in the non-fit condition. There was no relationshipbetween level of mood and motivation after feedback. Conclusions: Findings suggest that feedback framed to fit the regulatory focus of coachees will increase levelof motivation. Implications for coaching practice include that when providing feedback in coaching,feedback effectiveness may be increased by framing feedback to the individuals’ regulatory (promotion)focus. Keywords: Motivation; Feedback; Regulatory fit; Regulatory focus; Coaching; Promotion focus; Induction;Australia.

Regulatory Focus (RF; Higgins, 1997,1998) theory may provide an explanation fordiffering effects of feedback by consideringthe impact of general motivational orienta-tions. RF theory has been found to predictmotivation, memory, task enjoyment, cre-ativity and emotion in non-coaching con-texts (see review by Förster et al., 2009). RF theory addresses the purposes of pur-suing a goal and considers two sources ofmotivation: the need for nurturance; andthe need for security. These needs give riseto two distinct motivational self-regulatoryorientations (foci), which are considered tobe both dispositional and situational states.Dispositional focus is developed from dif-ferent types of early child-caretaker experi-ences and is commonly measured byquestionnaires. Situational regulatory focusis temporarily induced from environmentalfactors, such as task instructions and goalframing. The need for nurturance creates apromotion focus, which is concerned withaspirations and accomplishment of ideals.The need for safety creates a preventionfocus, concerned with avoiding mistakes andfulfilling obligations and (Higgins, 1997).

When an individual’s motivational orien-tation is predominantly promotion focused(by either dispositional or situational influ-ences), referred to as in promotion focus, theaim of their goal directed behaviour is todecrease the distance between their currentstate and desired state (success). This entailsa sensitivity to the presence or absence ofpositive outcomes or gains (Higgins &Tykocinski, 1992). Accordingly, in promo-tion focus, success is represented as the pres-ence of positive outcomes (achieving goals),whilst failure is the absence of positive out-comes (not achieving goals). In contrast,when an individual’s motivational orienta-tion is predominantly prevention focused(by either dispositional or situational influ-ences), referred to as in prevention focus, theaim of their goal-directed behaviour is toincrease the distance between current andundesired states (failures). This entails sensi-tivity to the presence or absence of negative

outcomes. Accordingly, in prevention focus,success is represented as the absence of anegative outcome (not missing a goal) whilefailure is represented as presence of a nega-tive outcome (missing a goal). Consequently,adhering to negative feedback supports theavoidance of failure (the undesired state inprevention focus), whilst adhering to posi-tive feedback supports the achievement ofgoals (the desired state in promotion focus).Empirical studies found positive feedbackincreased outcomes, such as motivation, per-formance and/or effort for individuals inpromotion focus but not in preventionfocus, whilst negative feedback increased thesame outcomes in prevention focus but notin promotion focus (Förster et al., 2001;Förster, Higgins & Idson, 1998; Idson & Hig-gins, 2000; Idson, Liberman & Higgins,2000; Medvedeff, Gregory & Levy, 2008; Van-Dijk & Kluger, 2004; Werth & Förster, 2007).These studies predict when motivation islikely to increase following positive or nega-tive feedback, however, do not suggest how tomaintain or increase motivation whencertain feedback is given.

Regulatory fitMotivation can be sustained or increased viaregulatory fit (Higgins, 2000). For each regu-latory focus there is a preferred mannerduring goal pursuit (Shah, Higgins &Friedman, 1998). The nature of this prefer-ence is derived from the ability of a strategyto either support gains or prevent losses.Eagerness strategies such as activelyapproaching a goal (approach goals) arepreferred in promotion focus as these strate-gies support gains or advancements. Vigi-lance strategies such as carefully avoidingmistakes (avoidance goals) are preferred inprevention focus as these strategies preventlosses. For each preference, it is the ability tosustain the orientation that is important formotivation rather than attaining the endstate itself (Freitas & Higgins, 2002). Forexample, a student who has a promotionfocussed goal orientation will prefer eager-ness strategies (and goals for that matter)


When feedback is not enough

that ensure they will improve on past efforts(e.g. attaining an A grade after the attain-ment of B grades in the past). They will bemore likely to be motivated by feedback on adraft assignment that is framed in such a waythat emphasises how close they are toachieving the A grade (their ideal state, orstretch target). This might include feedbackabout the proportion of correct answersachieved as well as the proportion requiredto achieve the desired A grade. A studentwho has a prevention focussed goal orienta-tion will prefer vigilant strategies and goalsthat ensure the minimisation of errors, inthis case, strategies that ensure they will notfail on the assignment. They will be moti-vated by feedback that emphasises how closethey are to meeting a pass standard(achieving a standards target), or feedbackthat emphasises how they carefully avoidedincorrect answers on the assignment.

Regulatory fit occurs when an individualapplies their preferred strategy during goalpursuit. The effect of fit has been shown toincrease strength of commitment, engage-ment and motivation towards a goal (Hig-gins, 2005). Regulatory fit predicts thatindividuals will have a higher level of motiva-tion if they apply an eagerness approachwhen in promotion focus or apply a vigilantapproach when in prevention focus, com-pared to non-fit situations (promotion focuswith vigilance strategies or prevention focuswith eagerness strategies) (Freitas & Higgins,2002; Higgins et al., 2003).

Regulatory fit has been examined innumerous studies outside coaching,including areas of: policy and tax compli-ance (Cesario, Grant & Higgins, 2004;Holler et al., 2008; Leder et al., 2010); mar-keting (Florack & Scarbis, 2006); smokingcessation (Zhao & Pechman, 2007); andhealth outcomes (Latimer, et al., 2008;Spiegel, Grant-Pillow & Higgins, 2004).These studies support the proposition that amessage, information or instruction (spokenor written) is more effective in regulatory fitconditions (promotion/eagerness or pre-vention/vigilance) compared to non-fit con-

ditions (promotion/vigilance or preven-tion/eagerness).

Regulatory fit, in combination withinduction methods, was studied by Freitasand Higgins (2002), who induced partici-pants to a promotion focus by asking them toidentify and write down a hope or aspiration,and induced a prevention focus by askingthem to identify a duty or obligation. Theywere then instructed to list five strategiesthat would ensure achievement of their aspi-ration or avoidance of failing to meet theirobligations. Next, participants were given ascenario where they were to identify as manyhelpful or harmful four-sided objects as pos-sible, among different drawn objects. Half ofthe participants were instructed that ‘to dowell on the task they needed to be eager to find thehelpful four-sided objects’ (eagerness strategy).The other participants were instructed that‘to do well on the task they needed to be vigilant toeliminate the harmful four-sided objects’ (vigilantstrategy). Supporting the regulatory fithypothesis, the study found that inde-pendent of the actual outcome of the task(number of objects found), participants whowere assigned strategies that fit their regula-tory focus reported higher level of taskenjoyment than those in non-fit.

In a study by Spiegel, Grant and Higgins(2004) participants were assigned to developapproach related eagerness plans or avoidanceand vigilance related plans regarding when,how and where they would complete awritten report. For example, they wereinstructed to capture ‘as many details as pos-sible to make the report vivid and inter-esting’ (eagerness or approach strategy)versus ‘avoid forgetting detail and beingcareful not to make the report bland andboring’ (vigilance or avoidance strategy).Motivation was assessed by whether thereport was returned within four weeks. Par-ticipants in the regulatory fit condition were50 per cent more likely to hand in the reportthan participants in the non-fit condition.Where other studies used measures of inten-tions to infer motivation, Spiegel et al.’sstudy used an objective measure, the actual


Ann-Marie Jarzebowski, Josephine Palermo & Robert van de Berg

return of the completed report, as themeasure of motivation and effect of fit.Another study by Spiegel and colleagues(2004), examined the effect of a messagerecommending eating more fruit and veg-etables. Regulatory fit was created by goalframing (achieving health or avoiding ill-ness) and type of strategies presented(eagerness or vigilant). Participants in the fitcondition were found to eat 20 per centmore fruit and vegetables the following weekthan participants in the non-fit condition. Asimilar design was applied in an advertise-ment study for grape juice, with findingsagain supporting the motivational effect ofregulatory fit (Lee & Aaker, 2004).

To date regulatory fit has not yet beenexamined in relation to feedback framing.Based upon the consistent findings thatinstructional or persuasive messages framedaccording to individuals’ regulatory fitincrease motivation, it seems likely that asimilar effect would be found for feedbackmessages. Feedback and instructions or per-suasive messages share the common elementof providing information. That is, feedbackprovides an individual with informationabout performance whilst instructions pro-vide information about what will or shouldbe performed. This study aimed to extendour understanding of the effect of feedbackto feedback framing and regulatory fit onmotivation in a coaching context. Framingrefers to the instance when the structure,content and overall goal of a message is keptthe same but alternative versions of that mes-sage exist. In this study, feedback framinginvolved maintaining the overall outcomeinformation (success) but emphasising, apromotion goal with eagerness means (youachieved an ideal score by identifying cor-rect answers) or a prevention goal with vigi-lance means (you met standards by avoidingincorrect answers). These versions empha-sise different strategic means and goal pur-poses, modified to fit/not fit the recipients’regulatory focus

A measure of mood was included in thisstudy to test whether the effect of regulatory

fit on level of motivation is independent ofmood. Pre-existing feelings or mood,although irrelevant to the target of judge-ment has been found to influence percep-tion of that target. This suggests thatpeople’s ability to discriminate between dif-ferent sources of their mood may be inaccu-rate (Clore, et al., 2001) and thus couldinfluence the effect of regulatory fit. How-ever, previous research found mood to beindependent to the effect of regulatory fit inrelation to the persuasiveness of text(Cesario, et al., 2004) and monetary evalua-tion of objects (Avnet & Higgins, 2002; Hig-gins et al., 2003).

This study aimed to examine positivefeedback, framed to either fit or not fit arecipient’s promotion focus. We hypothe-sised that positive feedback framed in amanner that emphasises promotion goalsand eagerness means (fit), would lead toincreased levels of motivation compared tofeedback framed in a manner that considersprevention goals and vigilance means (non-fit). Secondly, we hypothesised that the dif-ference between groups would beattributable to regulatory focus that wasinduced rather than dispositional regulatoryfocus. Thirdly, we hypothesised that therewould be no relationship between level ofmood and level of motivation following feed-back.

MethodResearch designThis study used a repeated measuresbetween groups design where motivation wasmeasured pre- (T1) and post- (T2) positivefeedback provided on a leadership skillsactivity. The feedback was framed to fit ornon-fit (between-subject factor) the indi-vidual’s promotion focus.

Study settingParticipants were undertaking a Coachingfor Leadership and Motivation (CALM) programme offered by Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia, in 2010.



Description of the Coaching for Leadership andMotivation (CALM) programme The CALM programme aimed to delivercoaching for leadership development andutilised a framework based upon the FullRange Leadership Model (FRLM; Bass &Avolio, 2004). The programme consisted offive coaching sessions which occurred duringa period of five to 15 weeks dependent uponcoachee time availability. All coaches heldpsychology honours degrees and had under-taken a strength-based coaching training pro-gramme prepared by Deakin University staff.Participants were invited to participate in theCALM programme as coachees via informa-tion sessions, posters, emails directed tostudents and staff at three universities in Melbourne, Australia.

ParticipantsTwenty-nine coachee participants took partin this study. The majority were female (22female, seven male). Participants wereengaged in work or study, and were inter-ested in developing leadership within thesedomains (nine were employed full-time;nine part-time and seven casual; seven wereunemployed and studying full-time). Partici-pants were randomly allocated to experi-mental conditions. There were 17participants in the fit feedback conditionand 12 in the non-fit condition. Overall themean age group of participants was 25 tounder 35 years. The sample age rangedbetween 18 to 55 years; five participants wereover 35 years of age.

ProcedureBefore the first coaching session, partici-pants completed an online measure of dis-positional regulatory focus. Theexperimental study, which was conductedapproximately eight weeks later, involvedpriming participants into a promotional reg-ulatory focus, asking them to undertake aleadership skills assessment activity, and thenoffering non-authentic feedback which wasframed to fit or not fit that regulatory focus.This occurred towards the end of the

coaching programme, between coaching ses-sions four and five. After coaching sessionfour, participants were invited to completean online activity. This online activity com-prised: the promotion focus induction; aLeadership Assessment activity which was theevent about which feedback was subse-quently provided; feedback framed to fit ornot fit a promotion focus; and pre- and post-feedback tests for mood and motivation.They were informed that this was part oftheir coaching programme, and wouldinvolve answering questions around leader-ship goals and strategies, motivation andeffective leadership skills. Participants wereasked to complete the activity in one sitting,at a time and place convenient to them.There was no time limit with the estimatedaverage completion time being 25 minutes.

A thorough debrief of the activity wasconducted in the subsequent coaching ses-sion by their allocated coach. The coachesreceived a script to assist this debrief, whichincluded the purpose of the study, reason fordeceptive feedback and information on howto find available support if needed. Basedupon the positive nature of the deceptivefeedback provided, negative consequenceswere not anticipated and were not reported.

Regulatory Focus Induction. The experimentalRF induction procedure used by Freitas andHiggins (2002) was modified to fit thecoaching context. It has been used success-fully in numerous studies (for example,Cesario et al., 2004; Leder et al., 2010; Lock-wood, Jordan & Kunda, 2002) and waschosen based upon the similarities to typicalreflections undertaken in a coaching session.Promotion focus was experimentallyinduced in all participants.

Promotion induction:You have now spent a few weeks focusingon a particular goal relating to yourleadership style development. Now, youare asked to think about an additionalgoal. Please think about something youideally would like to do in relation to



your leadership development. In otherwords, please think about a hope oraspiration you currently have.

Participants were asked write down theirgoal (an aspiration or hope), along with thedescription of five strategies which wouldsupport achievement of that goal (approachstrategies). In alignment with previousstudies, participants were asked to spendapproximately 10 minutes on the goal andstrategy selection. A summary of goals andstrategies offered by participants as part ofthe promotion induction is displayed in theAppendix. Participants’ responses revealthat they were able to identify an additionalgoal and indicate strategies to achieve thatgoal. This may have been heightened by thefact that they had been working on leader-ship development goals in their coachingprogramme and so the activity was highly rel-evant and salient to them.

Leadership Skills Activity. A 15-item multiplechoice leadership skills activity1 was used torepresent the leadership factors included inthe FRLM (Bass & Avolio, 2004). Responseoptions ranged from 1 (not at all) to 4 (frequently, if not always). Actual performancewas not examined as the aim of the study wasmotivational effect following feedback,rather than level of leadership skills knowl-edge. Importantly, the leadership skillsactivity was chosen to address the lack of rel-evant performance tasks in existing RF liter-ature. The leadership skills activity wasconsidered relevant for two reasons: (a) par-

ticipants were likely to be interested in devel-oping their leadership skills as they had vol-unteered to undertake the CALMprogramme without remuneration and intheir spare time; and (b) the leadership skillsactivity contained statements which relatedto common leadership situations and experi-ences, thus likely to have been encounteredby participants in their leadership roles.

Feedback. Positive feedback refers to the infor-mation about an individual’s performancewhich is in the desired direction towards, orequal to, a goal (London, 2003). To test theprediction that regulatory fit increases moti-vational effect of feedback, two differentlyframed versions of the same non-authenticpositive feedback message were constructed.The structure, length and core content (ascore of 90 per cent2) of the text was heldconstant, whilst messages were tailored toemphasise the different foci using wordssourced from previously discussed RF litera-ture. Fit feedback emphasised promotionfocused goals (ideal score and accomplish-ment) and eagerness related means(finding, considering full range of options).Non-fit feedback emphasised preventionfocused goals (meeting standards) and vigi-lance strategies (carefully avoiding). Consis-tent with the characteristics of effectivefeedback (McShane & Travaglione, 2008)the feedback message and delivery was devel-oped to be specific, timely, credible and rel-evant. The two types of feedback arepresented below.



1 Used with permission from Ray Elliott, Director, MLQ International Pty Ltd.2 A challenge in the present study was to determine the specific score that would be believable to the partici-

pant. The risks of setting the score too high or too low would result in lack of credibility for the preventionand promotion framed version, respectively. Individuals tend to set different levels of goals dependent uponfocus (Higgins & Tykocinski, 1992). Maximal or ideal goals are preferred in promotion focus, while minimalor ‘meeting standards’ goals are preferred in prevention focus. As the purpose of this study was to examinethe motivational effect of positive feedback, the performance score had to be identical in both framing con-ditions to allow assessment of level of motivation based on different framing and not on different scores. A qualitative pilot study (N=10) was conducted to examine the two versions of the feedback message. Findingsindicated that the initial use of 80 per cent to indicate level of performance on the leadership skills activity wasset too low to be considered an ‘ideal’ score, particularly as the sample was to be drawn primarily from a uni-versity population, where performance may be higher than amongst the general population. Based on thepilot study the score to be provided was raised to 90 per cent, thereby replicating the success criterion used byFörster et al. (1998).

Fit feedbackCongratulations, you have achieved anideal score on the Leadership Skills testby successfully finding the majority ofcorrect answers. You have achieved 90per cent of the correct answers.

Your score indicates that you areconsidering the full range of leadershipbehaviours in order to achieve anoptimal match between your skills and aparticular situation.

Non-Fit feedbackCongratulations, you have met theperformance standard set by the testproducers and successfully avoided mostof the incorrect answers. You avoided 90 per cent of incorrect answers.

Your score indicates that you arecarefully considering which type ofleadership behaviour is appropriate for aparticular situation in order to avoidsubstandard performance.

Both feedback versions were provided as textas well as a visual scale indicating the band inwhich participants’ achieved performance.

MeasuresMotivation. Motivation was measured beforeand after feedback. Two items were adaptedto fit the coaching context from studies byVan-Dijk and Kluger (2004) and Freitas andHiggins (2002): ‘How much effort have youinvested in your leadership development sofar?’; and ‘Would you like to continue thiscoaching for leadership programme foranother five sessions?’. An additional twoitems were also included: ‘How motivatedare you right now about your leadershipdevelopment?’; and ‘Would you like to haveyour leadership skills assessed?’ Consistentwith Van-Dijk and Kluger’s study, theresponse scales were 11-point Likert scales,ranging from –5 (i.e. not at all/definitely not) to+5 (i.e. very much/definitely).

The same questions were used post feed-back, but changed from present to futuretense. The pre-post measure of motivation

enabled reduction in error variance associ-ated with individual differences presentbefore the intervention. The pre-feedbackmotivation items and the post-feedback itemswere combined to a single scale of pre-moti-vation (α=.83) and post-motivation (α=.80).The scale had a high correlation with self-determined motivation (pre-motivation r=.78,post-motivation r=.62) from the Motivationand Work Scale (MAWS; Deci & Ryan, 1985).The MAWS measures type and degree ofmotivation (Forest et al., 2010) and wasincluded in the present study as a means toexamine concurrent validity of the four moti-vation questions. The MAWS was not includedin further analyses due to its inappropriate-ness as a measure of motivational strength inthis study. The MAWS measures the nature ofmotivation on a continuum from extrinsic tointrinsic motivation, whereas the motivationalmeasures used in feedback studies in the pastand replicated in this study (Freitas & Hig-gins, 2002; Van-Dijk & Kluger, 2004) measurethe strength of motivation.

Mood. Four items previously used by Idson etal. (2000) were used to assess mood pre- andpost-feedback. The response scale rangedfrom 1 (not at all) to 9 (extremely). Two items(happy; relaxed) related to the degree partici-pants experienced positive mood (i.e. Howhappy do you feel right now?). These were com-bined to a single scale (pre-feedback α=.81;post-feedback α=.81). Two items (tense; dis-couraged) related to the degree participantsexperienced negative mood (i.e. How dis-couraged do you feel right now?). These werecombined to a single scale (pre-feedback;α=.75; post-feedback α=.76).

Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ). The 11-item RFQ (Higgins et al., 2001) is ameasure of individuals dispositional regula-tory focus. It assesses participants subjectivepast success with using either promotion-related eagerness or prevention-related vigi-lance and was completed prior to thecommencement of the coaching pro-gramme. The response scale ranged from 1



(never or seldom/certainly false) to 5 (veryoften/certainly true). Five items contributed tothe prevention scale, i.e. ‘Not being carefulenough has gotten me into trouble at times’(α=.79). Six items contributed to the pre-vention scale i.e. “I feel like I have madeprogress toward being successful in my life”(α=.59). The RFQ was included to assesswhether there were any differences in regu-latory focus between groups prior to theinduction procedure. The Cronbach alphain this study was somewhat lower than in Hig-gins et al.’s (2001) study (promotion α=.73,prevention α=. 80). Therefore, item number11 was excluded to increase the reliability ofthe promotion scale (α=.66). The exclusionwas deemed justifiable based upon the itembeing different to other items, relating tobehaviour in a defined area (hobbies) com-pared to behaviour in general. The RFQ isscored by subtracting the prevention scorefrom the promotion scores. Zero or a nega-tive score indicates prevention focus and apositive score, a promotion focus.

ResultsInitial data screening revealed that the Kol-mogorov-Smirnov test of normality for thefour items of motivation before and afterfeedback was met (p<.001) and there wereno univariate, multivariate outliers ormissing data. Mean and standard deviationsfor the measures of mood and motivationbefore and after feedback for the two feed-back conditions are presented in Table 1.

Preliminary One-way Analyses of Vari-ance (ANOVA) were conducted to examinepotential group differences prior to theintroduction of the independent variable.No significant differences were foundbetween groups in any of the following vari-ables: motivation (T1) (F(1,27)=2.55,MSE=11.23, p=.12) or positive mood (T1)(F(1,27)=.96, MSE=3.46, p=.34) or negativemood (T1) (F(1,27)=.89, MSE= 3.20, p=.35).

Pearson correlation analyses were con-ducted to examine if mood was related tolevel of motivation. No significant correla-tions were found between mood (positive ornegative) and motivation feedback (beforeor after) in either feedback conditions (fit ornon-fit), neither between mood and motiva-tion scores when the groups were combined.The Fischer’s transformation revealed no sig-nificant correlations across time (T1 andT2). In line with previous findings (i.e. Hig-gins et al., 2003), this indicates that meanscores of motivation after feedback wereindependent of individuals’ level of moodand that any differences would be due torandom fluctuations.

Pearson correlation analyses were con-ducted to examine the relationship betweendispositional regulatory focus (prevention orpromotion) and level of motivation. No sig-nificant correlations were found betweendispositional promotion focus, (r=–.01,N=29, p=.94) or prevention focus, (r=–.06,N=29, p=.74) and motivation scores afterfeedback. Based on the lack of significant



Table 1: Mean and Standard Deviations for motivation and mood scoresbefore and after feedback.

Fit (N=17) Non-fit (N=12)

T1 T2 T1 T2

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Motivation 7.63 2.41 8.43 2.25 8.90 1.53 8.90 1.52

Positive mood 6.12 1.93 6.33 1.90 5.42 1.84 5.71 1.67

Negative mood 3.89 2.09 3.24 1.86 3.21 1.59 3.21 1.79

Note: T1=before feedback; T2=after feedback.

correlations with the dependent variable,mood and dispositional regulatory focuswere not included as covariates in the pri-mary analysis.

To test the main hypothesis, a repeatedmeasures ANOVA was conducted to assessthe effect of positive feedback (fit and non-fit) on level of motivation (Time 1 and Time2). Preliminary analyses were conducted toensure there was no violation to the assump-tion of normality, linearity, homogeneity ofvariances and covariance. The ANOVAresults showed that there was a significantinteraction between time and type of feed-back, (Wilks Lambda=.79, F(1,27)=7.14,p<.05), with a small effect size of partial etasquared=.21, observed power=.73. There wasa significant main effect for time, (WilksLambda=.79, F(1,27)=7.14, p<.05), with asmall effect size of partial eta squared=.21,observed power=.73. There was no maineffect for type of feedback, (F(1, 27)=1.32,p=.26, partial eta squared=.05). This findingsuggests that mean motivation scores

increased in the feedback fit condition butnot in the non-fit condition at Time 2 com-pared to Time 1 (see Figure 1).

A paired sample t-test revealed a signifi-cant increase in motivation scores in the fit-condition between T1 and T2 (refer back toTable 1 for descriptive data), (t(16)=–3.56,p<.01 (two-tailed)). The mean increase inmotivation scores was .79 with a 95 per centconfidence interval ranging from .32 to 1.27.The eta square statistics indicated a largeeffect size (.48). There was no increase inmotivation scores in the non-fit condition,from T1 to T2, (t(11)=.00, p=1.00).

To explore whether the effect of feed-back and time on strength of motivationwould be present if individuals were groupedaccording to their dispositional regulatoryfocus (promotion or prevention), a mixeddesign ANOVA was conducted. It comprisedone between group factor (Disposition) andone within group factor (Time), each withtwo levels. Means and standard deviationsare presented in Table 2.



Figure 1: Mean scores of motivation level for Fit (N=17) and Non-Fit (N=12) conditionsbefore and after feedback.

There was no significant interactionbetween dispositional RF and time (WilksLambda=.97, F(1,27)=.88, p=.37, partial etasquared=.03). There was a main effect oftime (Wilks Lambda=.75, F(1,27)=9.14,p<.01, partial eta squared=.25). There was no main effect of dispositional regulatoryfocus (F(1,27)=2.21, p<.15, partial etasquared=.08). This suggests that there wasno difference in the increase in mean scoreson motivation between the dispositional pro-motion and prevention focused groups.

DiscussionThis study aimed to examine the motiva-tional effect of positive feedback, framed toeither fit or non-fit an individual’s inducedregulatory promotion focus in a coachingcontext. The results supported thehypotheses that regulatory fit increases themotivational effect of feedback. As pre-dicted, the level of motivation increased fol-lowing feedback that contained promotiongoals and eagerness means (fit) compared tofeedback that contained prevention goalsand vigilance means (non-fit). In addition,the effect of fit was unrelated to the level ofmood experienced after feedback. That is,level of motivation was not higher in individ-uals that reported higher level of positivemood.

Regulatory fit occurs when an individualapplies their preferred goal pursuit strategyand a subjective sense of ‘feeling right’ aboutthe goal-directed behaviour is experienced,observed as an increase in motivation, enjoy-ment or commitment (Higgins, 2000, 2005).The findings of this study suggest that

framing the content of a feedback messageaccording to individuals’ preferred goal pur-suit strategy (eager) and preferred type ofgoal (achieving ideals) may increase thevalue of the feedback, consistent withincreased motivation.

Regulatory fit within feedback sign hasnot previously been examined, however, theresults from this study are consistent withpersuasion, instruction and marketingstudies (for example, Florack & Scarbis,2006; Holler et al., 2008; Leder et al., 2010;Spiegel et al., 2004). Specifically, Freitas andHiggins’ (2002) findings indicated that indi-viduals who received instructions framed tofit their induced regulatory focus evaluated asearch task as more enjoyable and were morelikely to repeat the task than those whoreceived non-fit instructions. This study pro-vided feedback whereby the overall messageof a positive performance of 90 per cent waskept constant between conditions. However,the message was framed to fit either preven-tion type goals and pursuit strategies or pro-motion goals and pursuit strategies. Whilethe current study focused on motivation, ascompared to level of enjoyment in Freitasand Higgins’ study, both studies examinedwhether an individual would undertake theactivity again as assessed by the question‘would you like to take the leadership skillstest/search task again’?

It would be expected that receiving posi-tive feedback, particularly when it describeshigh achievement, may increase the recip-ient’s level of positive mood, and thusincrease level of motivation. However, nopositive correlation was found between



Table 2: Means and Standard Deviations for motivation scores before and after feedbackaccording to Dispositional Focus.

Dispositional Focus Motivation MotivationT1 T2

Mean SD Mean SD

Promotion (N=19) 8.60 1.92 8.97 1.67

Prevention (N=10) 7.30 2.40 7.98 2.41

mood and motivation, That is, level of moti-vation was not higher in individuals whoreported higher level of positive mood,regardless of whether they received fit ornon-fit feedback. This supports the hypoth-esis that the effect on motivation was due tofeedback framing and not due to theachievement of a score of 90 per centleading to an increase of positive mood. Thisis consistent with previous research whereeffects of regulatory fit on motivation werefound to be independent of mood in rela-tion to persuasiveness of text (Cesario et al.,2004) and monetary evaluation of objects(Avnet & Higgins, 2002; Higgins et al.,2003).

Another interesting finding in this studywas that a regulatory fit effect was foundwhen level of motivation was assessedaccording to individuals’ induced but not dispositional regulatory focus. This finding isconsistent with RFT literature wherebyinduction methods have been used toinduce a predominate focus (for example,Cesario et al., 2004; Leder et al., 2010; Lock-wood et al., 2002). The finding supports thevalidity of the induction method and sug-gests that an individuals’ motivational orien-tation is relatively easily influenced byexternal influences. The induction methodby Freitas and Higgins (2002) was adapted inthe current study by focusing on leadershipgoals and goal attainment strategies asopposed to general goals and strategies. A promotion focus was induced by askingparticipants about their aspirations andstrategies to achieve these. The use of thisinduction method can be applied in organi-sational and coaching settings as it can beconducted in a relative short time period (10minutes), is easily adapted to a particularcontext, and is aligned to common questionsand considerations in daily work practices.

Some features of this study differ fromprevious studies. Firstly, previous studies onthe motivational effect of feedback from aRF theory perspective have examined theeffect of positive versus negative feedback inrelation to individuals’ regulatory focus (for

example, Förster et al., 2001; Idson et al.,2000). This study is unique in that no pre-vious feedback studies have examined feed-back framing, that is, the motivational effectof feedback considering the concept of reg-ulatory fit within type of feedback.

Secondly, previous feedback studies com-monly used outcome feedback, such as ashort statement of ‘you succeeded’ or ‘youfailed’ (for example, Van-Dijk & Kluger,2004). This type of outcome feedback isinsufficient according to the general feed-back literature (McShane & Travaglione,2008). The present study aimed to ensurethe feedback provided was specific and rele-vant by providing participants with their spe-cific performance data and commentsrelating to their strategies used. The inclu-sion of comments on strategies also ensuredthat the regulatory framing was achieved.

Thirdly, the current study used a moreencompassing measure of motivation thanprevious feedback studies. For example, inthe study by Van-Dijk and Kluger (2004) onlyone item ‘How motivated do you feel rightnow’ was included to assess motivation. Tobe consistent with previous research thisitem was included in the present study, alongwith Freitas and Higgins’ (2002) item refer-ring to whether individuals would like torepeat the task with an additional two items.The motivation measure used had goodinternal consistency and correlated highlywith self-determined motivation (Forest etal., 2010), which suggests the measure andcurrent findings are valid.

Finally, compared to numerous previousstudies involving RF theory, this study pro-vided feedback on a highly relevant per-formance task in an authentic context.Previous studies have, for example, providedfeedback on anagram performance (Försteret al., 2001, 1998; Idson & Higgins, 2000) orprovided instructions for the search of four-sided objects (Freitas & Higgins, 2002) inlaboratory settings. It can be argued thatthese tasks have little relevance to the indi-vidual, and bear little resemblance to tasks inorganisational settings. In contrast, the lead-



ership skills task used in this study is likely tobe highly relevant as participants chose totake part in the coaching for leadership pro-gramme and had, with support of theircoaches, been engaging in their own leader-ship development. Therefore, it is suggestedthat the regulatory fit findings may be rele-vant to coaching contexts in general and inparticularly those related to coaching forleadership development.

LimitationsFindings need to be interpreted in light of anumber of limitations. Firstly, the lack of anobjective motivation measure may havereduced the validity of this study. While thecurrent study comprised a valid task (leader-ship skills activity) on which feedback wasprovided, the motivational measure wasbased upon participants’ subjectiveresponses. Since motivation is linked to per-formance (Pinder, 2008), an objectivemeasure could have involved observed per-formance data, for example the amount ofadditional leadership training undertakenby participants or whether they actuallyattempted the leadership skills test again.This may have illuminated the link betweenmotivation and performance. However, itshould be noted that performance isaffected by many factors other than motiva-tion (i.e. current level of knowledge or timerestraints) and thus the use of a perform-ance measure may also have confounded theprimary research aim, to investigate themotivational effect of regulatory fit.

The applicability of the inductionmethod for regulatory fit needs to be con-sidered when generalising the findings inthis study to situations where feedback maybe given as part of coaching or managingperformance. Due to the nature of thetightly controlled experimental design usedin this study, feedback framing was wordedspecifically to, in the fit condition, empha-sise an approach goal with eagerness strate-gies, and in the non-fit condition, tospecifically emphasise an avoidance goal andvigilance strategies (meeting standards and

carefully avoiding mistakes). Positive feed-back framed in a way that emphasises vigi-lance and avoidance goals may in particularseem at odds with common parlance used ina coaching or managing performance set-ting. Therefore, it may be difficult to applyfeedback framing whilst also appearingauthentic in the coaching relationship. How-ever the following section offers some impli-cations for coaching practice that coachesmay find useful when giving feedback orcoaching others on the utility of feedback.We recommend that further research inapplied settings could also test alternativetypes of framing to suit different feedbacksituations and organisational settings.

Similar limitations arise about the gener-alisability of results to applied settings out-side of the CALM coaching programmeutilised in this study. The coaching pro-gramme was conducted within a universitycommunity (although did not necessarilyinvolve only students). Nevertheless, thefindings of this study may not be generalis-able to workplace coaching programmes,which tend to be characterised by organisa-tional goals, rather than personal goals.

Finally, whilst this study found that fitfeedback increased level of motivation com-pared to non-fit feedback, the lack of controlgroup limits our ability to determine if theimpact of fit feedback was above, lesser than,or equal to the impact of no feedback onmotivation.

Directions for researchThis study found a regulatory fit effect fol-lowing positive feedback in individuals inpromotion focus. It would also be interestingto explore whether this effect occurs in pre-vention focus, and whether it is present fol-lowing negative feedback. Based upon thecurrent findings and the general RF litera-ture, it is expected that both positive andnegative feedback framed to fit an indi-vidual’s regulatory focus would lead toincreased motivation compared to non-fitframed feedback. If the effect of regulatoryfit in relation to feedback framing is con-



firmed, this would provide an understandingof how both negative and positive feedbackmay be framed to ensure optimal impact onmotivation.

Implications for coaching practicesThere are important implications of thisstudy for coaching practice. Findings suggestthat feedback effectiveness may be increasedby framing feedback to the individuals’ regu-latory (promotion) focus. When providingfeedback, with no change to feedback signor actual performance score, a coach mayemphasise a certain aspect of the perform-ance goal and a certain type of goal pursuitstrategy to provide a match to the individ-uals’ present regulatory focus.

In situations where it would be difficult orimpossible to frame feedback, the coach mayinduce a regulatory promotion focus thatwould match the feedback to be provided.This could be achieved by asking the partici-pant to describe their ideal goal or type ofaspirations they have and the strategies tosupport achievement of these ideal goals(promotion induction). Importantly, as evi-denced in the study, promotion focus can beprimed prior to providing eagerness strate-gies related to a goal, and this only need totake 10 minutes of the coachees’ time.

Understanding that regulatory focus iseasily induced by contextual influences mayassist the coach to better understand thecoachee in terms of their goal orientation. Itis likely that organisational policies, proce-dures, leadership, communication and cul-ture that the coachee is exposed to willinduce a certain motivational focus. Forexample, a prominent safety culture in anaviation context and an innovative designculture in a marketing context may induceprevention and promotion focus, respec-tively. The organisational context may pro-vide cues for the coach about the coachee’sgoal orientation and how to frame feedbackto increase motivation accordingly. This mayultimately lead to increased motivation topursue a goal, and subsequently increasedeffectiveness of coaching practice.

The AuthorsAnn-Marie Jarzebowski, Josephine Palermo& Robert van de BergDeakin University.

CorrespondenceJosephine PalermoDeakin University,221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Victoria 3125,AustraliaEmail: [email protected]





Avnet, T., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Locomotion,assessment and regulatory fit: Value transferfrom ‘how’ to ‘what’. Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 525–530.

Bass, B., & Avolio, B. (2004). Multifactor LeadershipQuestionnaire (MLQ) manual (3rd ed.). US: MindGarden Inc.

Cesario, J., Grant, H. & Higgins, E.T. (2004). Regula-tory fit and persuasion: Transfer from ‘FeelingRight’. Personality & Social Psychology, 86,388–404.

Clore, G.L., Wyer, R.S., Diens, B., Gasper, K., Gohm,C. & Isbell, L. (2001). Affective feelings as feed-back: Some cognitive consequences. In L.L.Martin & G.L. Clore (Eds.), Theories of mood andcognitition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

DeNisi, A.S. & Kluger, A.N. (2000). Feedback effec-tiveness: Can 360-degree appraisals be improved?Academy of Management Executive, 14(1), 129–139.

Florack, A. & Scarbis, M. (2006). How advertisingclaims affect brand preferences and category-brands associations: The role of regulatory fit.Psychology & Marketing, 23, 741–755.

Forest, J., Gagne, M., Vansteenkiste, M., Van denBroeck, A., Crevier-Braud, L., Bergeron, E. et al.(2010). International validation of the ‘Revised Moti-vation at Work Scale’: Validation evidence in five dif-ferent languages (French, English, Italian, Spanish andDutch). Paper presented at the 4th InternationalConference on Self-Determination Theory.

Förster, J., Grant, H., Idson, L.C. & Higgins, E.T.(2001). Success/failure feedback, expectancies,and approach/avoidance motivation: How regu-latory focus moderates classic relations. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 37(3), 253–260.

Förster, J., Higgins, E.T. & Idson, L.C. (1998).Approach and avoidance strength during goalattainment: Regulatory focus and the ‘goal loomslarger’ effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 75(5), 1115–1131.

Förster, J., Werth, L., Moskowitz, G.B. & Grant, H.(2009). Regulatory focus: Classic findings and newdirections The psychology of goals. New York: Guilford Press.

Freitas, A.L. & Higgins, E.T. (2002). Enjoying goaldirected action: The role of regulatory fit. Psycho-logical Science, 13, 1–6.

Gregory, B.J., Levy, P.E. & Jeffers, M. (2008). Devel-opment of a model of the feedback processwithin executive coaching. Consulting PsychologyJournal: Practice and Research, 60(1), 42–56.

Higgins, E.T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain.American Psychologist, 52, 1280–1300.

Higgins, E.T. (1998). Promotion and prevention:Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimentalsocial psychology (Vol. 30). New York: AcademicPress.

Higgins, E.T. (2000). Making a good decision: Valuefrom fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217–1230.

Higgins, E.T. (2005). Value from regulatory fit. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14,209–213.

Higgins, E.T., Friedman, R.S., Harlow, R.E., Idson,L.C., Ayduk, O.N. & Taylor, A. (2001). Achieve-ment orientations from subjective histories ofsucess: Promotion pride versus prevention pride.European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 3–23.

Higgins, E.T., Idson, L.C., Freitas, A.L., Spiegel, S. &Molden, D.C. (2003). Transfer of value from fit.Personality & Social Psychology, 84, 1140–1153.

Higgins, E.T. & Tykocinski, O. (1992). Self-discrepan-cies and bibliographical memory: Personalityand cognition and the level of the psychologicalsituation. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin,18, 527–535.

Holler, M., Hoelzl, E., Kirchler, E., Leder, S. & Man-netti, L. (2008). Framing of information on theuse of public finances, regulatory fit of recipientsand tax compliance. Economic Psychology, 29,597–611.

Idson, L.C. & Higgins, E.T. (2000). How current feed-back and chronic effectiveness influence motiva-tion: Everything to gain versus everything to lose.European Journal of Social Psychology, 30, 583–592.

Idson, L.C., Liberman, N. & Higgins, E.T. (2000).Distinguishing gains from non-losses and lossesfrom non-gains: A regulatory focus perspectiveon hedonic intensity. Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 252–274.

Kluger, A.N. & DeNisi, A.S. (1996). The effects offeedback interventions on performance: Histor-ical review, a meta-analysis and a preliminaryfeedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254–284.

Latimer, A.E., Rivers, S.E., Rench, T.A., Kataluk, N.A.,Hicks, A., Hodorwski, K.J. et al. (2008). A fieldexperiment testing the utility of regulatory fitmessages for promoting physical activity. Experi-mental Social Psychology, 44, 826–832.

Leder, S., Mannetti, L., Hoelzl, E. & Kirchler, E.(2010). Regulatory fit effects on percived fiscalexchange and tax compliance. Socio-Economics,39, 271–277.

Lee, A.Y. & Aaker, J.L. (2004). Bringing the frameinto focus: The influence of regulatory fit on pro-cessing fluency and persuasion. Personality &Social Psychology, 78, 1122–1134.

References

Lockwood, P., Jordan, C.H. & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models:Regulatory focus determines who will best inspireus. Personality & Social Psychology, 83, 854–864.

London, M. (2003). How and why feedback works Job feedback: Giving, seeking and using feedback for performance improvement. Hoboken, NJ: Psychology Press.

McShane, S. & Travaglione, T. (Eds.). (2008). Organisational behaviour on the Pacific rim (3rd ed.). North Ryde, NSW: McGraw–Hill.

Medvedeff, M., Gregory, B.J. & Levy, P.E. (2008). Howattributes of the feedback message affect subse-quent feedback seeking: The interactive effectsof feedback sign and type. Psychologica Belgica,48(2–3), 109–125.

Pinder, C.C. (Ed.). (2008). Work motivation in organi-sational behaviour (2nd ed.). New York: Psychology Press.

Shah, J., Higgins, E.T. & Friedman, R. (1998). Performance incentives and means: How regula-tory focus influences goal attinment. Personality& Social Psychology, 74, 285–293.

Spiegel, S., Grant-Pillow, H. & Higgins, E.T. (2004).How regulatory fit enhances motivationalstrength during goal pursuit. European Journal ofSocial Psychology, 34, 39–54.

Van-Dijk, D. & Kluger, A.N. (2004). Feedback signeffect on motivation: Is it moderated by regula-tory focus? Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview, 53(1), 113–135.

Werth, L. & Förster, J. (2007). The effects of regula-tory focus on breaking speed. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, 37(12), 2764–2787.

Zhao, G. & Pechman, C. (2007). Impact of regulatoryfocus on adolescents’ response to antismokingadvertising campaigns. Marketing Research, 44,671–687.





Appe

ndix

: Res

pons

es t

o th

e pr

omot

ion

indu

ctio

n ac

tivi

ty.

PAd

diti

onal

hop

e or

aspi

rati

onSt

rate

gy 1

Stra

tegy

2St

rate

gy 3

Stra

tegy

4St

rate

gy 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Incr

ease

net

wor

king

skill

s.Gi

ving

and

rece

ivin

gfe

edba

ck.

To e

arn

the

trus

t and

resp

ect o

f oth

ers i

n m

yne

w jo

b.

Teac

h ot

hers

wha

t Iha

ve le

arnt

.I w

ant t

o le

ad in

a w

ayth

at in

spire

s res

pect

,an

d to

be

a ro

le m

odel

.

To b

e a

qual

ified

lead

er.

I wan

t to

beco

me

ate

ache

r/bus

ines

sow

ner/m

anag

er.

Wor

king

in a

n in

spiri

ngor

gani

satio

n w

ithin

tere

stin

g le

ader

ship

role

mod

els t

o le

arn

and

be in

spire

d.M

ove

to a

man

agem

ent

leve

l pos

ition

as t

hene

xt st

ep in

my

care

er.

Mak

e co

ntac

t with

key

stak

ehol

ders

.Ve

rbal

ising

my

thou

ghts

and

feel

ings

.

Alw

ays d

o w

hat I

say

Iam

goi

ng to

do.

Defin

e iss

ue to

add

ress

.

Talk

abo

ut m

y va

lues

and

how

they

cor

rela

tew

ith th

e co

mpa

ny's

valu

es.

Fini

sh th

e Ba

chel

orde

gree

.Re

sear

ch –

get i

nfo

onpa

thw

ays.

Look

ing

out f

oror

gani

satio

n w

ith a

stro

ng a

nd in

spiri

ngco

mpa

ny c

limat

e.

Proa

ctiv

ely

look

for

oppo

rtun

ities

to d

evel

ople

ader

ship

are

as li

ke

Initi

ate

mee

tings

.

Don’

t ass

ume

peop

leca

n se

e/fe

el th

e'o

bvio

us'.

Follo

w u

p w

ith p

eopl

eso

that

they

kno

w I

have

del

iver

ed o

n m

ypr

omise

.De

velo

p Sy

stem

atic

Solu

tion

note

s.Ac

t out

my

valu

es.

Join

ing

coac

hing

prog

ram

me.

Stud

y –

lear

n al

l I c

anab

out i

t.

Look

ing

out f

or p

eopl

ew

ho a

re p

assio

nate

abou

t the

ir w

ork/

insp

ireot

hers

.

Proa

ctiv

ely

look

for

oppo

rtun

ities

in m

ycu

rren

t wor

k pl

ace

Prop

ose

poss

ible

colla

bora

tions

.M

ake

it a

habi

t.

Chec

k w

heth

er o

ther

sar

e sa

tisfie

d w

ith th

ew

ork

I hav

e do

ne fo

rth

em.

Deve

lop

pres

enta

tion

skill

s.Be

han

ds-o

n an

din

volv

ed.

Desig

n m

y ow

nle

ader

ship

trai

ning

pla

n.Su

ppor

t –ha

ve g

ood

frie

nd/fa

mily

bas

e of

enco

urag

emen

t.

Look

ing

out f

or ta

sks

and

indu

strie

s whi

chat

trac

t ext

raor

dina

rype

ople

.

Seek

feed

back

from

man

ager

s and

men

tors

abou

t add

ition

al sk

ills

Set d

eadl

ines

for

colla

bora

tive

proj

ects

.As

k pe

ople

abo

utfe

edba

ck im

med

iate

ly.

Ask

for f

eedb

ack

onw

hat I

cou

ld d

o be

tter

.

Deve

lop

voca

bula

ry a

ndim

prov

e pu

blic

spea

king

.M

odel

the

kind

of

beha

viou

r I w

ant t

o se

ein

my

asso

ciat

es.

Set g

oals

and

follo

w th

epl

ans.

Rest

–ne

ed to

mak

esu

re n

ot d

row

ned

by it

all,

but t

ake

time

out t

ore

focu

s.Re

adin

g ab

out

extr

aord

inar

yor

gani

satio

ns a

ndpe

ople

to g

etin

spira

tion.

Proa

ctiv

ely

look

for

appr

opria

teop

port

uniti

es a

t the

Iden

tify

key

stak

ehol

ders

.Li

sten

. List

enin

g he

lps

give

bet

ter f

eedb

ack.

Acce

pt a

ll fe

edba

ckpo

sitiv

ely.

Add

hum

our a

ndat

trac

tive

pres

enta

tion.

Act w

ith in

tegr

ity.

Appl

y fo

r a p

art-

time

job.

Prac

tice

–ge

t as m

uch

expe

rienc

e as

poss

ible

/han

ds-o

ntr

aini

ng.

Tryi

ng o

ut d

iffer

ent

envi

ronm

ent a

nd fi

elds

to fi

nd d

iver

sein

spira

tion.

Appl

y fo

r app

ropr

iate

job

oppo

rtun

ities

and

ifun

succ

essf

ul u

se a

ny

Not

e: P

= P

arti

cipa

nt N

umbe

r



PAd

diti

onal

hop

e or

aspi

rati

onSt

rate

gy 1

Stra

tegy

2St

rate

gy 3

Stra

tegy

4St

rate

gy 5

10 11 12 13 14 15

To im

prov

e up

on m

yab

ilitie

s as a

pub

licsp

eake

r.To

be

an e

ffec

tive,

mot

ivat

iona

l lea

der w

hole

ads w

ith in

tegr

ity.

Take

on

boar

d th

esu

gges

tions

of o

ther

s in

the

team

.

To b

e an

eff

ectiv

e an

dsu

ppor

tive

lead

er th

atot

hers

enj

oy w

orki

ngw

ith.

Lead

the

team

to th

ego

al.

My

aspi

ratio

n is

to b

e a

wel

l res

pect

ed le

ader

inm

y fu

ture

pos

ition

.

coac

hing

, inf

luen

cing

and

artic

ulat

ing

a cl

ear

visio

n to

roun

d ou

t my

expe

rienc

e.Se

ek a

dvic

e fr

om a

goo

dpu

blic

spea

ker.

Unde

rsta

nd a

prob

lem

/situ

atio

n fr

omal

l ang

les.

Give

lots

of t

ime

for

answ

ers w

hen

aski

ng a

ques

tion.

Cont

inue

to se

ektr

aini

ng o

ppor

tuni

ties i

nle

ader

ship

or c

oach

ing

in le

ader

ship

.

Mot

ivat

e te

amm

embe

rs.

Unde

rsta

ndin

g th

ene

eds o

f the

pro

ject

and

the

team

to e

nsur

eob

ject

ives

are

met

.

whi

ch w

ill b

uild

my

man

agem

ent s

kills

and

expe

rienc

e.

Put m

ysel

f int

osit

uatio

ns w

here

I am

forc

ed to

spea

k pu

blic

ly.Gr

oup

cons

ulta

tion

for

solu

tions

to g

roup

prob

lem

s.Re

alise

that

eve

ryon

eha

s a d

iffer

ent p

oint

of

view

and

all

are

to a

cert

ain

resp

ect v

alua

ble,

even

if I

don'

t agr

eew

ith th

em.

Cont

inue

wor

king

on

my

seco

nd g

oal:

Deal

ing

with

agg

ress

ive/

push

ype

ople

in a

wor

kpla

ce;

to d

o th

is, I'

d lik

e to

lear

n as

sert

iven

ess s

kills

and

how

to im

plem

ent

them

app

ropr

iate

ly.

Focu

s on

goal

.

Prov

ide

stra

tegi

cdi

rect

ion

to e

nsur

e th

atth

e pr

ojec

t's a

im is

alw

ays a

ddre

ssed

.

that

may

be

requ

ired

orva

lued

in m

anag

emen

tpo

sitio

ns.

Prep

are

bett

er fo

r the

situa

tions

whe

re I

will

have

to sp

eak

in p

ublic

.Ga

in re

spec

t fro

m th

egr

oup.

Be o

pen

to th

e ne

eds o

fot

hers

.

Cont

inue

bui

ldin

g on

my

first

goa

l of b

uild

ing

my

conf

iden

ce a

s ale

ader

; to

do th

is I'd

cont

inue

em

ploy

ing

ques

tioni

ng st

yle,

liste

ning

and

obs

ervi

ngpa

rtic

ipan

ts re

spon

ses t

om

e an

d ho

w I

feel

aft

ergr

oup

wor

k.Le

ad te

am.

Bein

g op

en to

sugg

estio

ns a

nd id

eas b

yco

lleag

ues.

next

leve

l of

man

agem

ent.

Lear

n fr

om m

y m

istak

es.

Be o

pen

to o

ther

peop

le’s

expe

rienc

es a

ndop

inio

ns.

Be p

rese

nt in

the

mom

ent w

hen

talk

ing

to p

eopl

e, u

nder

stan

dw

hat t

hey

wan

t, ra

ther

than

focu

ssin

g on

my

need

s.Sp

eak

with

my

men

tors

/insp

iratio

nal

lead

ers r

egar

ding

thei

rle

ader

ship

styl

e an

d ho

wth

ey fe

el th

ey e

xhib

itgo

od le

ader

ship

.

Be p

ositi

ve.

List

enin

g an

d le

arni

ngto

oth

ers w

ho a

reex

pert

s in

the

field

and

usin

g th

is to

feed

back

to re

fine

my

pers

onal

/ pro

fess

iona

lde

velo

pmen

t str

ateg

y.

Prac

tice,

pra

ctic

e,pr

actic

e.

Chal

leng

e cu

rren

tpr

actic

es (w

hen,

if

requ

ired)

.As

k ot

hers

for t

heir

opin

ion.

Obse

rve

good

lead

ers i

nm

y lif

e an

d th

ink

abou

tw

hy I

feel

they

are

goo

dle

ader

s and

see

if I c

anut

ilise

som

e of

the

tech

niqu

es/s

kills

th

ey u

se.

Co-o

rdin

ate

wor

k.

Ensu

re th

at I

prio

ritise

and

do n

ot b

ecom

eem

otio

nally

wra

pped

up

on th

e sm

all d

etai

ls.



PAd

diti

onal

hop

e or

aspi

rati

onSt

rate

gy 1

Stra

tegy

2St

rate

gy 3

Stra

tegy

4St

rate

gy 5

16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Bein

g ab

le to

insp

ireen

thus

iasm

for a

ny ta

sk.

To d

evel

op st

rate

gies

tom

ore

effe

ctiv

ely

com

mun

icat

e w

hen

barr

iers

are

pre

vent

ing

an e

asy

tran

sfer

of

info

rmat

ion.

Mot

ivat

ing

peer

s.

Be a

bet

ter

com

mun

icat

or.

Find

a c

aree

r tha

ten

gage

s me

but s

till

pays

wel

l.

I wou

ld li

ke to

feel

mor

eco

nfid

ent i

n gr

oup

situa

tions

(e.g

. with

publ

ic sp

eaki

ng, e

tc.).

Be th

e be

st le

ader

I can

be.

Mai

ntai

ning

a p

ositi

veat

titud

e m

ysel

f.

List

som

e st

rate

gies

invo

lvin

g pe

ers

Invo

lvin

g pe

ers.

Prep

are

for m

eetin

gs.

Iden

tify

exac

tly w

hat

inte

rest

s me

as a

per

son.

Focu

s on

the

task

and

not t

he a

udie

nce.

Read

mor

e ab

out

tran

sfor

mat

iona

lle

ader

ship

styl

es.

Prov

idin

g a

fram

ewor

kfo

r com

plet

ing

a ta

sk.

Prac

tice

them

whe

niss

ues a

re n

ot so

impo

rtan

t.

Effe

ctiv

eco

mm

unic

atio

n.Do

n’t b

ecom

e de

fens

ive

whe

n pe

ople

disa

gree

.

Find

a se

ries o

f job

s tha

tm

atch

thos

e in

tere

sts.

Conc

entr

ate

onde

liver

ing

the

info

rmat

ion,

not

on

how

othe

rs p

erce

ive

how

Ide

liver

the

info

rmat

ion.

Impl

emen

ttr

ansf

orm

atio

nal s

kills

mor

e.

Prov

idin

g a

rew

ardi

ngen

viro

nmen

t.

Unde

rsta

nd h

ow I

influ

ence

the

situa

tion.

Sett

ing

goal

s.

Be w

illin

g to

par

ticip

ate

in d

iscus

sion.

Iden

tify

whe

ther

my

curr

ent s

kill

set

tran

slate

s int

o an

y of

thos

e jo

bs.

Focu

s on

tryi

ng to

rela

xto

redu

ce in

tern

alan

xiet

y.

Ackn

owle

dge

setb

acks

and

lear

n fr

om th

em.

cont

inuo

usly

impr

ove

my

abili

ties a

nd sk

ills.

Prov

idin

g po

sitiv

efe

edba

ck.

Eval

uate

the

effe

ctiv

enes

s aft

er u

sing

a st

rate

gy.

Disc

ussin

g su

cces

ses

and

failu

res.

Be w

illin

g to

exp

ress

an

unpo

pula

r opi

nion

.

Iden

tify

whe

ther

follo

win

g su

ch a

car

eer

wou

ld p

ay a

satis

fact

ory

amou

nt.

Try

to e

ngag

e th

eau

dien

ce m

ore

to h

elp

relie

ve st

age

frig

ht.

Lear

n m

ore

abou

tdi

ffer

ent p

erso

nalit

ies.

Allo

win

g in

put a

ndow

ners

hip

with

how

ata

sk is

com

plet

ed.

Eval

uate

the

nece

ssity

of th

e sit

uatio

n to

hav

eha

d a

say.

Adap

ting

met

hodo

logy

to m

eet c

halle

nges

.Ta

ke n

otes

dur

ing

mee

tings

to h

elp

gath

erth

ough

ts.

Esta

blish

the

min

imum

wag

e th

at I

need

toea

rn in

ord

er to

hav

eth

e st

anda

rd o

f liv

ing

that

I w

ant.

Smile

mor

e an

d w

orry

less

.

Prac

tice

until

skill

s are

seco

nd n

atur

e to

me.



PAd

diti

onal

hop

e or

aspi

rati

onSt

rate

gy 1

Stra

tegy

2St

rate

gy 3

Stra

tegy

4St

rate

gy 5

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

I wou

ld li

ke th

eco

nfid

ence

to le

ad a

smal

l tea

m in

my

wor

kpla

ce to

est

ablis

hcr

oss-

skill

ing

prac

tices

and

othe

r pro

fess

iona

lde

velo

pmen

t.Em

pow

erin

g pe

ople

tode

velo

p th

eir s

kill

set

and

deliv

er in

thei

rw

ork.

Thi

s will

ent

ail

bein

g vi

siona

ry, t

rust

edan

d pr

ovid

ing

adeq

uate

supp

ort t

o st

aff.

Rew

ard

achi

evem

ent.

Influ

ence

mor

e on

peop

le a

nd tr

y to

be

asse

rtiv

e.I h

ope

to b

e m

ore

prof

essio

nal.

Pass

my

univ

ersit

yde

gree

.

Incr

ease

soci

al a

ctiv

ities

.

Begi

n co

achi

ng st

aff

mem

bers

to e

xpan

dth

eir w

ork

skill

s.

Iden

tify

and

prov

ide

oppo

rtun

ities

for

deve

lopm

ent o

f sta

ffm

embe

rs.

Reco

gnise

whe

nso

meo

ne h

as a

chie

ved

som

ethi

ng o

fsig

nific

ance

to th

em.

Appr

oach

ing

to n

ewpe

ople

.

Plan

the

sess

ion

befo

reha

nd.

Atte

nd a

ll tu

toria

ls an

d le

ctur

es.

Sear

ch w

hat s

ocia

lac

tiviti

es it

was

pro

vide

dar

ound

.

Insp

ire o

ther

s to

wan

tto

lear

n m

ore.

Prov

idin

g en

ough

supp

ort t

hrou

gh re

gula

rca

tch

ups w

ith st

aff t

opr

ovid

e gu

idan

ce a

ndfe

edba

ck o

n th

eir

prog

ress

.

Find

out

wha

t typ

e of

prai

se p

eopl

e en

joy.

Clar

ify w

hen

don'

tun

ders

tand

som

ethi

ng.

Take

tim

e to

wor

k ou

tw

hat I

wan

t to

say.

Man

age

my

time

so I

can

com

plet

e m

yas

signm

ents

to th

e be

stof

my

abili

ty.

Wha

t kin

ds o

f act

iviti

esyo

u ar

e in

tere

sted

in?

Dem

onst

rate

how

we

can

lear

n fr

om a

ndte

ach

each

oth

er.

Trus

t my

intu

ition

and

know

ledg

e to

mak

ede

cisio

ns in

all

elem

ents

of m

y w

ork.

Com

mun

icat

em

otiv

atio

nal m

essa

ges

to p

eopl

e.

Mak

e ot

her p

eopl

eaw

aren

ess w

hen

they

are

not b

een

polit

e.W

ork

out h

ow lo

ng e

ach

activ

ity w

ill g

o fo

r.

Seek

hel

p an

dcl

arifi

catio

n w

hen

need

ed.

Wha

t tim

e is

suita

ble

to y

ou?

Enco

urag

e st

aff t

odi

scov

er th

eir k

ey sk

ills

and

uniq

ue a

ttrib

utes

.

Focu

ssin

g on

oppo

rtun

ities

rath

erth

an n

egat

ives

and

thin

king

of s

olut

ions

rath

er th

an b

eing

bloc

ked.

Unde

rsta

nd w

hy p

eopl

ese

ek to

be

rew

arde

d.

Mak

e aw

are

of m

ore

spec

ific

issue

s whe

ndo

n't g

et th

e po

int.

Com

e ac

ross

as

prof

essio

nal f

rom

initi

alm

eetin

g.Li

ve in

acc

omm

odat

ion

that

enh

ance

s my

oppo

rtun

ity fo

raf

fect

ive

stud

y.Ho

w m

uch

it co

st?

Deve

lop

a pl

an fo

r apr

ofes

siona

lde

velo

pmen

t ses

sion.

Cele

brat

ing

the

succ

ess

of th

e te

am fo

r litt

lean

d bi

g th

ings

and

ackn

owle

dgin

g th

ebi

gger

pic

ture

impa

ct o

nw

hat w

e ar

e tr

ying

toac

hiev

e.Gi

ve p

ositi

vere

info

rcem

ent.

Have

a fr

iend

ly a

ttitu

dew

ith n

ew p

eopl

e.

Neve

r be

late

.

Keep

mot

ivat

ed a

ndde

term

ined

.

Wha

t it w

ill b

e ac

hiev

edfr

om th

at?


The long-term effects of coaching

IN THE SPACE OF little more than adecade coaching has gained a significantfoothold in many areas of change man-

agement. Numerous journals have beenfounded and university courses establishedon the basis of a growing evaluative litera-ture. Despite this impressive growth, to dateonly six studies have been published whichinvolve random assignment to one or morecoaching conditions (Franklin & Doran,

2009, Greif, 2007). Regrettably, only thestudies by Willms (2004), Green, Oades andGrant (2005), Spence and Grant (2005),Finn, Mason and Griffin (2006), andFranklin and Doran (2009) have incorpo-rated non-treatment control conditions.Only the studies of Sue-Chan and Latham(2004) and Franklin and Doran (2009) haveutilised independent assessors, and in onlythe latter study were the assessors blind tothe participants being involved in coaching.

The long-term independently assessedbenefits of coaching: A controlled 18-month follow-up study of two methodsJohn Franklin & Alicia Franklin

Objectives: An earlier study by Franklin and Doran (2009) provided the first evidence that coachingbenefits objective performance as assessed by evaluators’ blind to participation in coaching. This studyexamines the efficacy of two coaching programmes on independently evaluated academic performance 12 and 18 months after the completion of coaching.Design: A double-blind controlled trial in which participants were randomly allocated to either aPreparation, Action, Adaptive Learning (PAAL), or a Self-regulation co-coaching programme with blindassessment of subsequent academic performance. A third no-treatment condition was used for additionalcomparison and control of expectancy effects.Methods: Two structurally identical seven-week co-coaching programmes were run. The Self-regulationcondition focused on the development of study and coping skills, whilst the PAAL condition additionallyfocused on preparation for change and adaptive learning. Fifty-two volunteer first-year university students wererandomly assigned to either a PAAL (N=27) or Self-regulation (N=25) co-coaching programme. Academicresults 12 and 18 months after completing the brief coaching programme are compared with a control group ofstudents (N=2183 at 12 months, 2063 at 18 months.) who did not participate in the programme. Results: Relative to the no treatment control group, PAAL participants consistently performed some 10 percent better in independently assessed academic performance at both the 12-month follow-up (71.04 per centvs. 61.29 per cent) (p=<.001, d=.60), and the 18-month follow-up (70.97 per cent vs. 60.48 per cent)(p=<.001, d=.66). The Self-regulation coaching participants performed some two per cent better than thecontrols at both the 12-month follow-up (62.98 per cent vs. 61.29 per cent) (p=NS, d=.10) and the 18-month follow-up (62.11 per cent vs. 60.48 per cent) (p=NS, d=.11).Conclusion: Both co-coaching conditions were associated with increases in blindly assessed academicperformance, however, only those in the PAAL condition performed significantly better 12 and 18 monthsafter the completion of the brief coaching programme. The effects of the PAAL coaching method need to beevaluated in other areas where outcomes may be objectively and blindly assessed.Keywords: Coaching; maintenance; follow-up; RCT; Double Blind Randomized Control Trial; academicperformance.

The value of such designs cannot be over-estimated as they form the bedrock of anypractice seeking to demonstrate its evidence-based credentials.

In a recent review of the evidence baseunderpinning coaching, Grant andCavanagh (2007) emphasised the need forlonger follow-ups in order to determine thedurability of its effects. This paper reports onthe 12- and 18-month follow-up of twocoaching programmes, which utilised dif-ferent coaching methods in the hope of pro-moting independently assessed academicperformance. The full details of the study atthe six-month follow-up period were given inFranklin and Doran (2009). The studyinvolved an evaluation of the effects of twobrief seven-week co-coaching programmestitled Preparation, Action, AdaptiveLearning (PAAL) and Self-regulation. Bothmethods were found to be associated withsignificant increases in self-assessed self-effi-cacy and resilience, but only those in thePAAL condition experienced significantincreases in decisional balance, hope, self-compassion and belief in the incrementaltheory of change. Compared with the Self-regulation condition, participants in thePAAL condition experienced significantlygreater increases in six of the sevendependent variables. With respect to blindlyassessed academic performance, PAAL par-ticipants performed some 10 per cent betterin independently assessed academic per-formance (71.45 per cent vs. 61.59 per cent)(p=.0003, d=.61). The academic perform-ance of those in the Self-regulation coachingcondition was not significantly better thanthat of controls (63.32 per cent vs. 61.59 percent) (p=NS, d=.11). Across the sevendependent variables the average effect sizefor the PAAL condition was d=.93, while theSelf-regulation condition averaged d=.43.

This paper follows up the participants inthe above study and reports on their aca-demic performance 12 and 18 months afterthe completion of the seven-week coachingprogramme. Data relating to the self-reportmeasures was not collected. Full details of

the original study and evaluation can befound in Franklin and Doran (2009).

MethodParticipantsParticipants were 52 first-year universitystudents (21 male and 31 female) from ametropolitan university in Sydney, Australia.Participants were recruited on a voluntarilybasis though lecture announcements andpamphlets to participate in a free co-coaching programme titled ‘Successology101’. The participants were aged between 17and 56 years (M=24.44, SD=8.90). Seventy-one per cent of the participants reportedEnglish as their first language.

All of the original 52 first-year universitystudents (PAAL=27, Self-regulation=25)were available at the 12-month follow-up, butonly 49 were enrolled and thus available foranalysis at the 18-month follow-up(PAAL=25, Self-regulation=24). The controlcondition consisted of 2183 first-yearstudents at 12-month time point, and 2063second-year students at the 18-month timepoint. There were no differences betweenthe experimental and control subjects in thepattern of their enrolment, their age, orgender balance.

MeasuresThe average mark was selected as the bestmeasure of academic performance as itoffered results on a 0 to 100 scale as opposedto reliance on less sensitive grade point aver-ages (GPA). Each participant’s academicperformance was measured by calculatingthe sum of their total grades for each subject,and then dividing this total by the number ofsubjects they completed, to produce anaverage mark. All academic markers wereblind to whether or not the students had par-ticipated in any programme designed toboost their academic performance.

In the earlier report on the study(Franklin & Doran, 2009), results were pro-vided of a number of additional outcomeand process measures. These measures ofSelf-Efficacy, Resilience, Hope, Self-Compas-


Author nameJohn Franklin & Alicia Franklin

sion, Growth Mind Set and Decisional Bal-ance were not collected at the 12- and 18-month follow-ups and are thus notreported here. This follow-up study wasexpressly designed to determine if the long-term academic performance of participantswas differentially affected by inclusion in thetwo coaching and the no treatment controlcondition.

Materials Participants in both coaching conditionswere provided with co-coaching study andcoping skills workbooks. This workbook setthe coaching within a self-regulation frame-work and covered the following areas:Making the transition to university, goal set-ting, time management, study skills, notetaking, reading and comprehension, exampreparation and managing stress and anx-iety. The workbook included a wide range ofquizzes and assessment devices to identifystrengths and weaknesses, together withplanning and self-monitoring forms. Thecontent of the programme drew on the workof Cottrell (2003) and Paulk and Owens(2005). Participants were asked to form intopairs and meet together at least once eachweek for the seven weeks leading up to theexam period. Drawing upon the workbooks,participants were each encouraged to setthree goals and focus on coaching eachother to develop, implement and monitorthe plans necessary to achieve these masterygoals within a self-regulatory coachingframework. Participants in both conditionswere provided with clear instructions on howto coach each other over the seven weeksduring which they meet. Co-coaching wasmodelled in a series of three training ses-sions.

Participants in the PAAL condition wereprovided with additional material derivedfrom the PAAL model of change motivationand adaptive learning. The PAAL Modelassisted participants to clarify their currentstudy skill set, identify their ultimate objec-tive, undertake a cost-benefit analysis con-cerning the achievement of this objective,

identify and remove any barriers to change(including establishing a growth mindsetand developing self-compassion), identifythe skills necessary for success, and finallyunderstand how these skills translated intogoals which could be progressively devel-oped via adaptive learning within a co-coaching self-regulatory framework.Identical training was provided on theprocess of co-coaching within a self-regula-tory framework to participants in bothcoaching conditions. Only the focus differedbetween conditions.

Design and procedureThe initial participants (N=52) were ran-domly assigned to either the Self-regulationcondition (N=25) or the PAAL condition(N=27). The slightly unequal numbers arosefrom participants not necessarily being ableto attend on the day in which the other con-dition was run. A no treatment control con-dition was formed from students attendinguniversity for the first time who did not par-ticipate in either of the coaching pro-grammes (N=2183 at 12 months, 2063 at 18months.). Analysis of academic marks wasinitially conducted on the full sample of 52,with analysis being restricted to those whoattended all sessions and completed all preand post measures. Unfortunately only 49 ofthe original 52 were enrolled and thus avail-able for analysis at the 18-month follow-up(PAAL=25, Self-regulation=24).

Participants were advised that there weretwo coaching conditions, but were blind tothe condition to which they were assigned,and the differences between conditions. A questionnaire seeking demographic infor-mation and the above scales was emailed toall participants to be completed beforeattending the first session. The first two ses-sions were conducted as training workshops(total contact time equalled nine hours) andcommenced in week 7 of the 13-week firstsemester. During weeks 9 to 13 of thesemester participants were requested tomeet weekly in pairs to coach each other inthe development of the skills necessary to


TitleAn 18-month follow-up of coaching


Author name

achieve the three goals they had identifiedfor themselves. At the conclusion of the pro-gramme, participants completed the samebattery of measures completed at the com-mencement of the programme. The pro-gramme was approved by the UniversityHuman Ethics Committee.

ResultsAnalysis of the academic results of partici-pants in the three conditions at the threetime points are contained in Table 1, andpresented graphically in Figure 1.

An initial two-way between subjectsANOVA with condition and time as thebetween subjects variables and average markas the dependent variable was run. Asexpected, a significant main effect was foundfor condition (F[2,2232]3.808, p=.022) butno significant effect was found for time.

Subsequent pairwise analysis revealed that atthe 12-month follow-up, the PAAL conditionachieved a significantly higher average markthan the no treatment control group(t[2208]=4.87, p<0.001, d=.60) and the Self-regulation condition (t[50]=2.73, p<0.01,d=.76). At the 18-month follow-up, partici-pants in the PAAL condition achieved ahigher average mark than participants in thecontrol condition (t[2086]=5.04, p<0.001,d=.66) and participants in the Self-regulationcondition (t[47]=3.04, p<.01, d=.81). Consis-tent with the previously reported results atthe six-month point, participants in the Self-regulation condition did not achieve ahigher average mark than those in the notreatment control group at either the 12-month follow-up point (t[2258]=0.76,p=NS, d=.10) or 18-month follow-up point(t[2085]=0.78, p=NS, d=.11).

John Franklin & Alicia Franklin

Table 1: Changes in academic marks over time by coaching condition.

12-month Significance Effect size follow-up (2 tailed) (d)

Mean SD

CONDITION

PAAL 71.04 10.52 (1) p<.001 (1) .60(2) p<.01 (2) .76

Self-regulation 62.98 10.99 (3) p=.76 NS (3) .10

No treatment control 61.29 16.34

18-month Significance Effect size follow-up (2 tailed) (d)

Mean SD

PAAL 70.97 10.26 (1) p<.001 (1) .66(2) p<.01 (2) .81

Self-regulation 62.11 10.14 (3) p=.78 NS (3) .11

No treatment control 60.48 16.07

PAAL=Preparation, Action and Adaptive Learning condition(1) PAAL vs. No treatment control; (2) PAAL vs. Self-regulation; (3) Self-regulation vs. No treatment controlEffect sizes: Small=.2; Medium=.5; Large=.8


Title

DiscussionThis study was undertaken in response to acall by Grant and Cavanagh (2007) for morelongitudinal studies of the effects of variouscoaching interventions. Consistent with theearlier reported findings at the six-monthfollow-up, participants in the PAAL coachingcondition maintained their 10 mark advan-tage in academic performance at the 12- and18-month follow-up points. The fact that thealternative Self-regulation condition resultedin a consistent but non-significant two markperformance advantage emphasises that notall coaching methodologies are equal, andthat the content and process of coaching areworthy of closer attention. These long-termbenefits are even more impressive when it isconsidered that the participants received nobooster sessions following the cessation ofthe original brief seven session coaching pro-gramme. All participants were provided witha detailed coaching resource manual, butbeyond their meeting on a weekly basis theprecise use they made of this material is notknown. As Grant and Cavanagh (2007) pre-dicted, further long-term follow-ups utilisingrandom allocation and blind assessment willgreatly enhance the rigor and thus reputa-tion of coaching research.

The enduring long-term results of thisstudy have many implications for futureresearch and practice. The results providefurther evidence that a relatively simple low-cost coaching intervention can have very significant effects on the academic perform-ance of students. This is consistent with theearlier well-controlled coaching research byGreen, Oades and Grant (2005), Spence andGrant (2005), Sue-Chan and Latham (2004)and Willms (2004), and indicates the returnon investment which may be derived fromcoaching. Encouraging as these long-termresults are, it is important to recognise thatthis is just one study and that the numbersinvolved were small. Clearly these resultsneed to be replicated in other settings,which allow for the independent assessmentof behaviour and performance change. Particular attention needs to be focused onthe processes and context within coachingwhich are predictive of lasting behaviourchange. The possibility of creatively deliv-ering coaching to larger numbers in a morecost effective manner also needs to be inves-tigated as it would be difficult to utilise con-ventional methods to reach the manythousands of students who enrol in tertiarystudies on an annual basis.

An 18-month follow-up of coaching

Figure 1: Changes in academic marks over time by coaching condition.

Six-monthfollow-up

12-monthfollow-up

18-monthfollow-up

74

72

70

68

66

64

62

60

58

56

54

● ● ●

● ●●

●

●

●●

PAAL

● Self-regulation

● No treatment control


Author name

Notwithstanding these caveats, the strongeffect size found in this study adds to agrowing body of well designed studies sup-portive of the enduring benefits of coaching.It would appear that appropriate contentdelivered within a theoretically soundcoaching framework is able to materiallyassist students by having a significant andlasting effect on their academic perform-ance, and hopefully their life prospects. A 10 per cent point difference in perform-ance can probably open many doors, bothacademically and professionally and materi-ally enhance the life prospects of partici-pants.

The AuthorsJohn Franklin & Alicia Franklin Department of Psychology, Macquarie UniversitySydney, NSW, 2109, Australia.

CorrespondenceJohn FranklinDepartment of Psychology, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, 2109, Australia.Email: [email protected]: +61 2 9850 8031

John Franklin & Alicia Franklin

Finn, F., Mason, C. & Griffin, M. (2006). Investigatingchange over time – the effects of executive coaching onleaders’ psychological states and behaviour. Paper pre-sented at the 26th International Congress ofApplied Psychology, 16–21 July, Athens, Greece.

Franklin, J. & Doran, J. (2009). Does all coachingenhance objective performance independentlyevaluated by blind assessors? The importance ofthe coaching model and content. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 4, 126-142.

Grant, A.M. & Cavanagh, M.J. (2007). Evidence-based coaching: Flourishing or languishing? Australian Psychologist, 42, 239–254.

Green, S., Oades, L.G. & Grant, A.M. (2005). An eval-uation of a life-coaching group programme: Initial findings from a waitlist control study. In M.J. Cavanagh, A.M. Grant & T. Kemp (Eds.),Evidence-based coaching Vol 1: Theory, research andpractice from the behavioural sciences (pp.127–141).Bowen Hills, QLD: Australian Academic Press.

Grief, S. (2007). Advances in research on coachingoutcomes. International Coaching PsychologyReview, 2(3), 222–249.

Spence, G.B. & Grant, A.M. (2005). Individual andgroup life coaching: Initial findings from a ran-domised, controlled trial. In M.J. Cavanagh, A.M.Grant & T. Kemp (Eds.), Evidence-based coachingVol 1: Theory, research and practice from thebehavioural sciences (pp.143–158). Bowen Hills,QLD: Australian Academic Press.

Sue-Chan, C. & Latham, G.P. (2004). The relativeeffectiveness of external, peer and self-coaches.Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53,260–278.

Thalheimer, W. & Cook, S. (2002). How to calculateeffect sizes from published research articles: A simplified mythology. Retrieved 16 June 2009,from:http://work_learning.com/effect_sizes.htm

Willms, J.-F. (2004). Coaching zur Umsetzung person-licher Ziele. Entwicklung, Durchfuhrung und Evalua-tion. Univesitat Osnabruck: Biplomarbeit imFachgebiet Arbeits und Organisationspsy-chologie, Germany.

References


THE USE OF executive and internalcoaches by organisations to improveemployee performance is increasing

(Sherman & Freas, 2004). This increased pop-ularity has made coaching an accessible andwidely used development option (Williams &Offley, 2005). However, few studies have inves-tigated what makes the coaching processeffective (Bacon & Spear, 2003; Stewart et al.,2008). There are still unanswered questionsabout how to ensure coaching is successfullydelivered and what role organisational stake-holders such as line managers should play inthe coaching process.

The role of line managers in thegoal setting stage of coachingLine managers are considered to be one ofthe key stakeholders in the coaching process,with the support they provide suggested to

be critical to the success of coaching (Joo,2005). However, research has paid littleattention to understanding exactly how linemanagers can or should support coachingwithin the workplace. A small amount ofresearch has focused on the role of line man-agers in the goal setting stage of coaching.Two NHS evaluation studies by Sinclair et al.(2008) found that objectives were set bycoachees with some facilitation from theircoach, but that line managers had noinvolvement during this stage. The coachingobjectives set centred on improving personalcapability, which coachees believed wouldlead to the achievement of business benefits.The lack of accountability at an organisa-tional level regarding the objective settingstage of the coaching programme may haveresulted in personal capability taking prece-dence over business objectives. An Institute

Line management involvement incoaching: Help or hindrance? A content analysis studyHelen Ogilvy & Vicky Ellam-Dyson

Objectives: This study investigated the involvement that line managers have when their direct reports arereceiving coaching from either an internal or external coach; what line managers and coachees reporthinders and facilitates line management involvement; and in what ways does line managementinvolvement affect the outcome of coaching. Design: A cross-sectional design was used to explore coachees’ and line managers’ perceptions of linemanagement involvement, as well as facilitators and barriers to their involvement. Content analysis wasused to code the data.Method: 18 coachees and 12 line managers participated in semi-structured interviews. Content analysisrevealed that the involvement of line managers varied.Results: Factors reported to inhibit involvement included cognitions that it was a personal process, andmanagement involvement was not necessary. Factors reported to facilitate involvement included managers’beliefs that coaching was valuable and their understanding of how coaching worked within theirorganisations. Line management behaviours found to facilitate coaching comprised five clusters:supporting, collaborating, informing, management style and challenging. Behaviours found to hindercoaching comprised two clusters: restrictive and passive. Conclusions: This study provides a useful insight into factors that influence line managementinvolvement, the type of management behaviours that facilitate and hinder coaching outcomes, and theconsequences for transfer of learning. Keywords: Line manager involvement; coaching outcomes; learning transfer.

of Employment Studies (IES) evaluation of apublic sector coaching programme identi-fied similar issues with the focus of coachinggoals. It found that, of the 88 coachee actionplans it analysed, only 17 per cent containedobjectives that were aligned to organisa-tional outcomes. Again, line managers hadlittle or no involvement in the objective set-ting stage of the coaching process (Carter,2004). Neither this study nor the one by Sin-clair et al. (2008) investigated why managershad such a low level of involvement.

Where there is a lack of evidence from aca-demic research, coaching practice relies ondeveloping processes based on the experi-ences of practitioners. It has been suggestedby some practitioners that coaching is mosteffective when line managers are activelyengaged in the process (Boanas, 2006) andthat adopting a three-way contracting approachwill ensure the organisational perspective isreflected in the coaching relationship (Pop-pleton, 2008). Three-way contracting involvesthe line manager, coach and coachee agreeingthe overarching goals for the coaching beforethe coaching begins. The coachee’s manageris expected to represent the organisation’sinterests. As such, they have a role to play inensuring that the coaching focuses onimproving the coachees work-related per-formance, and that this is aligned to organisa-tional effectiveness and business needs.Three-way contracting has been proposed asan antecedent to effective coaching and manyorganisations are adopting these practices(Hay, 1995). However, initial research has sug-gested that even when a three-way contractingapproach is adopted managers of coacheesrarely play an active role (Carter & Miller,2009). The reasons for this lack of involve-ment are not understood and the factors thatmay facilitate or inhibit line manager involve-ment have not been investigated.

Influence of line manager involvementon learning transfer and coachingoutcomes The coaching literature has started to look atthe influence of manager support beyond

the initial goal setting stage of coaching. So far manager support has been linked tohigher coachee satisfaction with outcomes(Carter & Connage, 2007) and shown to pos-itively influence coaching success(McGovern et al., 2001; Olivero, Bane &Kopelman, 1997; Wasylyshyn, 2003). In asmall-scale study of public sector workersOlivero et al. (1997) identified managerialsupport as one of seven facets of a coachingprocess that had a positive impact oncoaching outcomes. The overall coachingprocess was found to increase productivity ofcoachees by 88 per cent. However, the levelto which line manager support contributedto this was not calculated. The study was alsonot able to identify which specific aspects ofmanagerial support were important. In amuch larger scale study by McGovern et al.(2001) coachees identified line managersupport as enhancing the effectiveness oftheir coaching. Managers’ endorsement ofthe coaching was identified as important, aswas their encouragement to make time for it.

The research discussed thus far hasfound managerial support to positively influ-ence coaching outcomes and transfer oflearning. However, it has told us little aboutthe type of managerial involvement that isimportant, nor about the behaviours thatfacilitate and hinder successful coaching out-comes. Stewart et al. (2008) developed andtested a model of coaching transfer to lookat if and how learning from coaching wassubsequently used in the workplace. Theirfindings replicated and extended the find-ings of other studies that had exploredcoaching outcomes (Olivero et al., 1997;McGovern et al., 2001; Wasylyshyn, 2003).They found psychosocial support from man-agers, coachee motivation and organisa-tional factors to influence coaching transfer.Effective managers assisted coachees inimplementing their development, inte-grating coaching objectives with work priori-ties and providing feedback on progress.The absence of the line manager posed themain barrier to transfer, and a lack of posi-tive psychosocial support was also found to


Author nameHelen Ogilvy & Vicky Ellam-Dyson

inhibit transfer. When the model was testeda positive correlation between manager sup-port and application of learning was found.However, a relationship was not foundbetween this and maintenance of learning. It was suggested that once development hadbeen implemented coachees either requiredno further support from their managers ormanagers ceased to provide support.

Learning from training researchTheoretical knowledge and research fromthe training field can inform coachingresearch (Stewart et al., 2008). The trainingliterature has identified a number of man-ager behaviours that can facilitate andhinder training transfer. When managersbuild strong relationships with traineesbefore, during and after training this facili-tates positive learning transfer (Brinkerhoff& Montesino, 1995). Transfer is increased bypre-course discussions between trainees andmanagers, being encouraged to applylearning (Huczynski & Lewis, 1980), rein-forcing the value of learning (Rouiller andGoldstein, 1993) and providing positivefeedback (Martocchio & Webster, 1992).Barriers to transfer include lack of reinforce-ment (Clarke, 2002) and negative feedbackor absence of feedback (Martocchio andWebster, 1992; Clarke, 2002). Previousresearch has not tested whether the manage-ment behaviours identified by trainingresearch as facilitators and barriers are appli-cable to coaching transfer.

Learning from wider employeedevelopment researchAnother area of research literature whichmay inform coaching research and, in par-ticular, the search for managerial behavioursthat facilitate and inhibit coaching transfer,is that of employee development. Thisresearch base has recognised the pivotal rolemanagers play in supporting learning(Salaman, 1995) and consideration has beengiven to the barriers that prevent managerialsupport of learning. For example, barriersthat have been identified include managers’

perceptions that staff will gain little fromengaging in developmental activities, con-flict between operational and developmentalduties, and cultures where mistakes are nottolerated (Hyman & Cunningham, 1998;Skruber, 1987; Storey, 1992).

Recently research attention has turned tolook more specifically at the managerialbehaviours that facilitate and inhibit staffdevelopment (Beattie, 2002; 2006; Hamlin,2004; Hirsh et al., 2004; Ellinger, 1997). In aqualitative study by Beattie (2002) a criticalincident technique was used to identify man-agerial behaviours that either inhibited orfacilitated staff development. Facilitativebehaviours identified included beingapproachable, providing constructive feed-back, empowering, challenging, advisingand assessing. Inhibitory behavioursincluded being controlling and task-orien-tated, unassertive, withholding informationand being dogmatic. Hamlin, Ellinger andBeattie (2006) carried out a comparativeanalysis of research in this area and found ahigh degree of congruence between thebehavioural categories identified by studies.Their analysis suggests that managers thathave embedded coaching style behavioursinto their management practices are particu-larly effective at supporting learning. Acoaching style was said to include advisingand guiding staff, creating and promoting alearning environment, providing feedbackand identifying development needs. Thestudy is one of the first cross-cultural com-parisons to be done and as such its findingssupport the generalisability of the researchin this area. Previous research has not testedwhether the behaviours identified to facili-tate and inhibit wider employee develop-ment are applicable to coaching transfer.

Current studyThe research review demonstrates that theliterature concerning the role of line man-agers as a stakeholder of the coachingprocess is limited. Much of the literature thatdoes exist is practice-based and a-theoretical.Although the influence of line managers


TitleLine management involvement in coaching: Help or hindrance? A content analysis study

forms a small part of the coaching transfermodel developed by Stewart et al. (2008) notheories or models have focused specificallyon the role of line managers throughout thecoaching process, nor have they been devel-oped to explain what factors influence man-agerial involvement.

The aim of the current study was to inves-tigate the line manager’s role in their directreports coaching and examine the impact ofthis on coaching effectiveness. The experi-ences of line managers and coachees wereexplored to gain a better understanding ofhow line managers can support coaching,and the factors reported to hinder and facil-itate their involvement. The impact of theirinvolvement on coaching outcomes, in par-ticular transfer of learning to the workplacewas also investigated. The following researchquestions were explored: (1) What involve-ment do line managers have when theirdirect reports are receiving coaching fromeither an internal or external coach? (2) What do line managers and coacheesreport hinders/facilitates line managementinvolvement in their direct report’scoaching? (3) In what ways does line man-agement involvement affect the outcome ofcoaching?

DesignA cross-sectional design was used to explorethe nature and impact of line managementinvolvement in coaching. Semi-structuredinterviews were conducted to investigate theinvolvement of line managers in thecoaching of their direct reports by thirdparty coaches. Participants had eitherreceived coaching within the last year, or hadmanaged someone who had been coachedduring that time. The study was conductedin five central UK Government departments.Content analysis was used to code the datafrom the interview transcripts.

ParticipantsThe sample consisted of 12 line managers (7 male, 5 female) and 18 coachees (8 male,10 female). All 12 of the line managers inter-

viewed had one report involved in the study.Six coachees had no line manager involve-ment in the study.

ProcedureThe line manager and coachee interviewschedules were designed to elicit informa-tion relating to two themes: the involvementthat line managers had when their directreports were receiving coaching from eitheran internal or external coach, and the effectthe line manager’s involvement had oncoaching outcomes.

Conventional content analysis, alsodescribed as inductive content analysis(Mayring, 2000), was used to analyse theinterview transcripts. This approach waschosen because the existing theory and cur-rent research literature regarding line man-ager involvement in coaching is limited(Hsieh & Shannon, 2005). The length ofcoding units varied between a single wordand a paragraph in length. Each coding unitcontained a single piece of information orone idea (Tesch, 1990). Codes were added asnew insights emerged and some codesrevised because they did not work for thetext. When new categories emerged theywere given a formal definition when theycontained between six and 12 data frag-ments (Locke, 2002). These categories werereviewed in detail to ensure that they weremutually exclusive, exhaustive and an appro-priate level of measurement to fit the data(Neuendorf, 2002). Inter-rater reliability wasassessed by checking agreement with asecond researcher. Reliability was found tobe 85 per cent, again this is considered anappropriate level of agreement (Miles &Huberman, 1994). The researchers dis-cussed anomalies arising out of the test forinter-rater reliability with overlapping cate-gories or cases of doubt and resolved any dif-ferences.

ResultsType of involvement by line managersLine managers were involved in their directreports coaching in a number of ways. The



majority of line managers reported dis-cussing the coaching with their direct report(N=10). Fifty-five per cent of coachees(N=10) reported that their line managerswere involved in their decision to havecoaching, as did 58 percent of line managers(N=7). Managers who had recommendedcoaching had done so because they thoughtcoaching would be beneficial. All the man-agers in question had either been coachedor worked as internal coaches and this expe-rience had positively influenced their beliefsabout coaching and its value.

When line managers were involved ingoal setting this involvement took two forms;direct and indirect. A third of line managers(N=4) and just over a tenth of coachees(N=2) reported that line managers had adirect involvement. This involved an explicitdiscussion about areas for development andwhat the coaching should focus on. Thesediscussions took place prior to coaching andnot as part of a three-way contractingprocess. When asked how the formalcoaching process had involved the line man-ager none of the participants identified man-ager involvement in contracting. Indirectinvolvement was more common (N=10). Thisoccurred when the line manager discussedwith the coachee areas for general develop-ment and/or gave them feedback on theirperformance. This information was used bythe coachee to inform their coaching goals.An example is given below:

‘I picked my goals for the coaching myself. Butlike I said, it was a longer term developmentwant that I’ve got, so we’d actually discusseddeveloping those sorts of skills before.’(Coachee 21, lines 79–81)

Table 1 outlines the frequencies of differenttypes of line manager involvement. Partici-pants were not directly asked about linemanagement involvement in the decision toend coaching or in its evaluation. It is notablethat these two aspects of the coachingprocess were hardly mentioned during theinterviews. This suggests that they wereaspects of coaching that were given little con-sideration by participants.

Barriers to line managementinvolvementA number of factors were reported to hinderline management involvement in coachingas shown in Table 2. Cognitions andbehaviours of both coachees and line man-agers played a key role. Inhibitory cognitionsappear particularly influential. The majorityof line managers (N=11) felt that coaching isa personal process, something between thecoach and coachee. They considered thatline managers should not intrude in the rela-tionship, and their doing so could be detri-mental. A number of coachees (N=9) saidthat given the personal nature of theircoaching they would have found it unhelpfulif their line manager had insisted on beinginvolved. Although this confirms some linemanagers’ fears about intruding, half ofcoachees did not identify coaching as a personal process, indicating that perhapsline managers were more concerned withthis than they needed to be.

‘It’s not something I would have feltcomfortable discussing with her (line manager)at that sort of personal level. We have a goodworking relationship, but for me, coaching isgoing down to a quite introspective level.’(Coachee 4, lines 33–35)

The findings showed that line managementinvolvement in the process as a whole wasconsidered unnecessary by the majority ofcoachees (N=16) and by just under half ofline managers (N=5). Coachees cited anumber of reasons for this. Some felt theirline managers were set in their ways andwould not be open to the things they wereworking on in coaching. Others enjoyedhaving the autonomy to work with the coachby themselves and felt nothing would begained from involving their manager, as thefollowing extract illustrates:

‘I found the coaching enough… I found thecoach supportive and there when I needed them,just what I needed. Yes, if it had been, then Ialso have to talk to my line manager, I also haveto do all this other stuff, it would have been like,for God’s sake, when am I actually going to getmy job done.’ (Coachee 8, lines 107–111)




Author name

A smaller number of coachees (N=3) andline managers (N=3) cited their poor rela-tionship with the other (coachee/line managerrelationship) as a barrier to the managersinvolvement. All three coachees soughtcoaching because of this poor relationship,either to work on improving the relationshipor to identify ways they could be effectivedespite their poor relationship.

Of the inhibitory behaviours identifiedthe two that were most influential were didnot seek involvement and brought coaching up forinformation only. Over two-thirds of partici-pants (N=21) identified both the coacheeand line manager not seeking the involve-ment of the line manager in the coaching asan important inhibitory behaviour. In addi-tion to this inhibitory behaviour, often when

coaching was raised by coachees it wasbrought up for information purposes only(N=10). Both behaviours were closely linkedto cognitions about the personal nature ofcoaching and the involvement of line man-agers being unnecessary.

Facilitators of line managementinvolvement Less than half of participants referred to cog-nitions that facilitated line managementinvolvement in coaching (Table 3). Of thecognitions identified, line manager’s under-standing of how coaching worked (N=5) withintheir organisation and valuing it as a develop-ment tool (N=8) were reported to be factorsthat facilitated their involvement. Under-standing how the coaching system worked

Category/code Total frequency Frequency of Frequency of of code line manager coachee

interviews interviewscontaining containingcode (%) code (%)

Type of involvement

No involvement 32 2 (16.6) 7 (38.8)

Decision to have coachingInvolved 31 7 (58.3) 10 (55.6)Not involved 36 5 (41.6) 8 (44.4)

Recommended a coach 10 3 (25) 2 (11.1)

In goal settingInvolved 31 8 (66.6) 8 (44.4)

Direct 14 4 (33.3) 2 (11.1)Indirect 17 4 (33.3) 6 (33.3)

Not involved 27 4 (33.3) 10 (55.5)

DiscussionInformal discussion 52 10 (83.3) 8 (44.4)Formal discussion 46 9 (75) 10 (55.5)

Decision to end coachingInvolved 2 2 (16.6) 0 (0)Not involved 2 0 (0) 2 (11.1)

Evaluation of the coachingInvolved 1 1 (8.3) 0 (0)Not involved 2 2 (16.6) 0 (0)

Helen Ogilvy & Vicky Ellam-Dyson

Table 1: Type and frequency of line management involvement in coaching.


Title

enabled managers to suggest coaching as adevelopmental tool and to identify peoplewho could coach their direct report. Man-agers who understood the coaching processand valued it as a development tool oftenhad previous coaching experience, eitherworking as internal coaches or having beencoached themselves.

A key behaviour reported to facilitate linemanagement involvement was that of initiatingconversations about the coaching (N=17). Some-times coaching came up naturally in conversa-tion when line managers and coachees werediscussing day-to-day work activities. On otheroccasions it was specifically raised by partici-pants. When raised by coachees this was oftenbecause they wanted their managers to knowhow it was going, how the coaching process

felt for them, that they were working onaddressing particular development needs incoaching. When raised by line managers thiswas often done informally to check how thecoaching was going, how the coachee feltabout it, were they finding it useful.

‘Between my coaching sessions there was nopoint at which he (line manager) and I werekind of meeting up and saying, ‘How’s itgoing?’ Informally he was just sort of checking,‘Is it going ok? Are you finding it useful?’(Coachee 6, lines 81–83)

When coachees and line managers discussedgeneral development (N=13) this facilitated linemanagement involvement. For example, par-ticipants talked about raising coaching as atopic for discussion in formal one-to-one andappraisal meetings.

Line management involvement in coaching: Help or hindrance? A content analysis study



Barriers to line management involvement

Cognitions – inhibitoryPersonal process 72 11 (91.6) 9 (50)Involvement not useful 36 5 (41.6) 16 (88.8)or necessaryUnsure how manager 18 7 (58.3) 6 (33.3)should be involvedWilling to help if asked 7 4 (33.3) 0 (0)Coachee/Line manager 12 3 (25) 3 (16.6)relationship

Behaviours – inhibitoryDid not seek involvement 49 9 (75) 12 (66.6)Task-orientated 5 0 (0) 1 (5.5)Brought coaching up for 22 2 (16.6) 8 (44.4)information only

Inhibitors – otherLack of time 14 4 (33.3) 5 (27.7)Logistics 5 3 (25) 0 (0)Manager for only part 17 3 (25) 4 (22.2)of the coachingCoaching process 1 1 (8.3) 0 (0)

Table 2: Barriers to line management involvement in coaching.


Author name

These behaviours were often linked tothe facilitative cognitions. For example,coachees wanted to involve their manager (cog-nition) so initiated conversations about thecoaching (behaviour). Line managers valuedcoaching as a development tool (cognition)so were supportive of their direct reports coaching(behaviour).

Line manager impact on coaching goalsFifty coaching goals were identified duringthe interviews (Table 4). Of the 50 goals, it isnotable that none were directly aligned toorganisational outcomes, such as improvingorganisational efficiency. Forty-eight wereindirectly related to business needs (N=29) andtwo were personal goals (N=2). Goals wereclassified as indirect when an implicitassumption that they would lead to

improved performance against businessobjectives could be made. These goalsincluded improving time management,building confidence, developing betterworking relationships with colleagues andstakeholders.

Line management involvement in goalsetting varied. No matter what level ofinvolvement managers had, the majority ofgoals set were indirectly related to businessneeds. Line managers direct involvement ingoal setting did not result in goals that weredirectly aligned to organisational objectives.

Direct and indirect management involve-ment provided coachees with valuable per-formance information which helped shapetheir goals. However, these goals werefocused on personal effectiveness and careerprogression, not business objectives.




Facilitators of line management involvement

Cognitions – facilitativeWanted to involve 9 2 (16.6) 5 (27.7)managerUnderstand how coaching 8 4 (33.3) 1 (5.5)system worksValue coaching as 13 5 (41.6) 3 (16.6)development toolCoachee/Line manager 9 4 (33.3) 2 (11.1)relationship

Behaviours – facilitativeInitiated conversations 30 7 (58.3) 10 (55.5)about the coachingDiscussed coaching when 5 4 (33.3) 0 (0)raised by the other partySupportive of coaching 20 6 (50) 7 (38.8)Discussed general 18 8 (66.6) 5 (27.7)development

Table 3: Facilitators of line management involvement in coaching.


Title

Management behaviours that facilitatedcoaching A number of management behaviours wereidentified by participants as facilitating theircoaching. These behaviours will be dis-cussed, along with the affects highlighted byparticipants.

Facilitative behaviours comprised fiveclusters: supporting, collaborating,informing, management style and chal-lenging. Supporting was the most frequentlycited cluster (Table 5). Over three-quartersof participants (N=24) talked about encour-agement from line managers positively influ-encing the coachee’s decision to havecoaching and to continue to use it for as longas they needed. The following example illus-trates this:

‘When he (line manager) spoke about it, andhe was so enthusiastic about it, and explainedit to me, what it would involve, and I kind ofthought well maybe it can help me.’ (Coachee20, lines 144–146)

Other supportive behaviours identifiedincluded being approachable (N=5), providingreassurance (N=9), and actively listening (N=8)to coachees. Being approachable meantcoachees felt able to discuss their coachingwith their managers. Providing reassurancehelped encourage coachees lacking in confi-dence to put into practice the new skills theywere learning.

Informing was another cluster ofbehaviours identified by many participants

as important. Providing feedback (N=15) wasthe most frequently cited behaviour in thiscluster. This behaviour provided coacheeswith valuable information which they used toinform their coaching. As previously men-tioned feedback on performance was usedby coachees when setting their coachinggoals. It was also used during the coachingprocess as a source of confirmation that thecoaching was working and as a way ofrefining its focus.

Three behaviours fell under the clustermanagement style: coaching (N=9), giving thecoachee space (N=5) and being open (N=5).Adopting a coaching style provided coacheeswith a second source of coaching. This rein-forced the coaching and helped coachees tothink through and identify solutions toissues arising during learning transfer. Forsome coachees it was important they weregiven space by their managers to workthrough their coaching alone. For others itwas important that their line managers wereopen to new ideas and let them try new waysof working. They identified this openness assupporting their learning transfer.

The final behaviour identified was pro-viding challenge (N=7). This involved chal-lenging coachees’ limiting beliefs,encouraging them to experiment and takerisks and applying gentle pressure to moti-vate coachees to stretch themselves. Thisbehaviour also helped coachees to transfertheir learning.




Type of goals set

Business goals indirect 48 12 (100) 17 (94.4)Career development 14 5 (41.6) 8 (44.4)Personal effectiveness 34 7 (58.3) 14 (77.7)

Personal goals 2 0 (0) 2 (11.1)

Table 4: Line management involvement in setting coaching goals.


Author name

Management behaviours that hinderedcoaching Two clusters of behaviours, restrictive and pas-sive, were identified as barriers to effectivecoaching outcomes (Table 6). Restrictivebehaviours included managers not using acoaching management style (N=2), being critical(N=3) or unwilling to accept new ideas andin one case not allowing time (N=1) for thecoachee to undertake coaching actions.These behaviours stopped coachees dis-cussing their coaching with managers, whichin turn hindered or slowed learning transfer.Although these behaviours did not make thecoaching less effective, coachees had to bemore resilient or resourceful to achieve pos-itive coaching outcomes. No line managersidentified these behaviours as barriers.

The passive cluster of behavioursinvolved line managers not taking an activeinterest in coaching, not giving regular oreffective feedback, and/or taking anunstructured approach to the coaching. Themajority of line managers (N=10) identifiedtaking an unstructured approach, forexample, not agreeing a time commitment,nor outlining what the line managers roleshould be, as a barrier to effective coachingoutcomes.

Just under a quarter of coachees (N=4)talked about their line managers disinterest intheir coaching. This perceived disinterestresulted in the coachee not discussing theircoaching and being less diligent when itcame to transferring their learning. The following example illustrates this:




Management behaviours that facilitated coaching

SupportingAllowing time to have 31 7 (58.3) 12 (66.6)the coachingEncouragement 73 11 (91.6) 13 (72.2)Approachable 7 4 (33.3) 1 (5.5)Reassuring 15 3 (25) 6 (33.3)Listening 13 5 (41.6) 3 (16.6)

CollaboratingTalking through things 32 9 (75) 4 (22.2)together

InformingProviding feedback 33 7 (58.3) 8 (44.4)Providing guidance 17 6 (50) 4 (22.2)Modelling 7 2 (16.6) 1 (5.5)

Management StyleCoaching 18 5 (41.6) 4 (22.2)Giving the coachee space 11 1 (8.3) 4 (22.2)Open 10 3 (25) 2 (11.1)

ChallengingProviding challenge 25 4 (33.3) 3 (16.6)

Table 5: Management behaviours that facilitated coaching.


Title

‘I don’t feel, as I said, that she’s interested inthe overall development, ongoing developmentthroughout the year, so, therefore, I don’t feel Ishould or need to update her… If she hadshown a more active interest then I would havedone, and we could have talked about theissues that I’d discussed with my coach andhow they feed back into work… I haven’ttransferred as much as I could have done fromthe coaching to the real world, as it were.’(Coachee 10, lines 64–72)

Four coachees perceived their managers tobe disinterested. Of this group, three of theirmanagers were also interviewed. All threemanagers reported being interested in thecoaching and willing to help the coachee ifthey wanted this (a cognition identified asinhibitory under factors affecting involve-ment). They all hoped the coachee wouldknow they could ask for help, but did notoffer it because they did not want to intrudeon something that may be personal. It istherefore interesting to note that on occa-sions where a manager has been respecting acoachee’s privacy, this has sometimes beenperceived by the coachee as disinterest andhas negatively impacted learning transfer.

Discussion

Factors influencing line managementinvolvement in coachingPrevious research has investigated factors thatprevent managerial support of learning buthas not specifically focused on coaching. Tothe researcher’s (HO) knowledge this is thefirst study that identified factors that influ-ence line management involvement incoaching. Some of the inhibitory factors iden-tified by this study correspond to the findingsobtained by research investigating support oflearning (Salaman, 1995; Hyman & Cun-ningham, 1998; Skruker, 1987). Chiefly, thesewere identified as: (1) conflict between oper-ational and developmental duties/lack oftime/logistics; and (2) managers perceptionsthat staff would gain little from engaging indevelopmental activities/task-orientated man-agement behaviour. The factors applicable toboth general learning and coaching were notfactors with the greatest influence on mana-gerial involvement in coaching.

Barriers to involvement fell predomi-nantly into two categories; cognitions andbehaviour. Three key inhibitory cognitions




Management behaviours that hindered coaching

RestrictiveCritical/closed 12 0 (0) 3 (16.6)Non-coaching style 5 0 (0) 2 (11.1)Time not allowed 1 0 (0) 1 (5.5)

PassiveLaissez-faire 3 1 (8.3) 0 (0)Disinterested 10 0 (0) 4 (22.2)Did not formalise 19 10 (83.3) 3 (16.6)coaching/unstructured

Inadequate feedback 4 0 (0) 3 (16.6)

Table 6: Management behaviours that hindered coaching.

identified were: (1) coaching is a personalprocess; (2) manager involvement is not nec-essary; (3) uncertainty about how managersshould be involved. The data indicate thatthese cognitions heavily influenced theinhibitory behaviours. For example, thebehaviours of ‘not seeking involvement’ and‘bringing coaching up for information only’were both linked to cognitions that coachingwas a personal process and involvement fromline managers was not necessary. The cogni-tion ‘willing to help if asked’ was also closelyrelated to cognitions about coaching being apersonal process. A third of managers werehappy to support the coaching, but, becausethey perceived it to be personal, did not wantto offer support for fear of encroaching onthe coachee’s personal space.

Recommendation 1: To reduce or removethe personal process barrier, it is recom-mended that coaches encourage line man-agers and coachees to discuss and agree acoaching psychological contract before thecoaching begins. This contract should setout how the line manager will be involvedand what support they will provide.

Being unsure of the role that managersshould play in the coaching process was abarrier to line management involvement,resulting in both coachees and managers notseeking managerial involvement. The uncer-tainty about the role of the manager wasoften due to the lack of knowledge and prac-tical coaching experience of the coacheesand/or line managers.

Recommendation 2: To reduce or removethis lack of understanding it is recom-mended that coaches either provide linemanagers and coachees with guidance whichexplains the role line managers can play tosupport coaching or discuss this with thembefore the coaching starts.

In addition to identifying a number ofinhibitors this is the first research toexamine factors facilitating line manage-ment involvement. The initiation of conver-sations about the coaching, by either the

coachee and / or the line manager, was abehaviour central to the involvement of linemanagers. Understanding how the coachingsystem worked, valuing coaching as a devel-opment tool and wanting managementinvolvement were all cognitions that sup-ported the initiation of coaching relatedconversations. For example, understandingthe coaching system enabled line managersto initiate conversations about its use as adevelopment tool and to recommend acoach to their direct report. Valuingcoaching as a development tool enabled linemanagers to initiate conversations wherethey encouraged and supported coacheeswith their coaching.

Recommendation 3: When possible internalcoaches are recommended to meet with theline manager and coachee before thecoaching begins to outline the benefits ofmanagement involvement and to explainhow coaching is managed within the organi-sation. It is recommended that externalcoaches meet with the coachee and linemanager at the start of coaching to explainhow the coaching process works and thebenefits of line managers being involved.

The impact of line managers on thegoal setting stage of coachingPast research has indicated that issues existat the goal setting stage of coaching. Forexample, line managers have been found tohave little or no involvement in goal settingand the percentage of business objectives setin these studies was very low (Sinclair et al.,2008; Carter, 2004). The current study foundthat even when line managers were directlyinvolved in goal setting this did not result inbusiness objectives being set. One of the fiveorganisations that took part in the studyadvocate a three-way contracting process isadopted. This approach appears to have hadno impact on the involvement of managersin the goal setting stage of coaching or thetype of goals set. However, it would be wrongto assume that there are no benefits to linemanagement involvement at the goal setting



stage of coaching. Where line managers canand do add value is in providing coacheeswith performance feedback which they canthen use to set appropriate coaching goals.

Recommendation 4: It is recommended thatcoaches advise coachees to seek feedback ontheir performance and areas for develop-ment from their manager before their firstcoaching session.

The impact of line managers oncoaching outcomesThe type of line management involvement tofacilitate and hinder successful coaching out-comes was investigated. The findings echothose of other studies that have found mana-gerial support to positively influencecoaching transfer (Olivero et al., 1997;McGovern et al., 2001; Wasylyshyn, 2003;Stewart et al., 2008). Line managementbehaviours found to facilitate coaching com-prised five clusters: supporting, collabo-rating, informing, management style andchallenging. Behaviours found to hindercoaching comprised two clusters: restrictiveand passive.

Many of the managerial behavioursfound to support coaching have been identi-fied in past employee development research.Encouragement from line managers was keywhen coachees were deciding whether tohave coaching and in continuing with theircoaching once started. This behaviour is sim-ilar to the management endorsement ofcoaching identified as important byMcGovern et al. (2001) and managersneeding to be explicit about what coachingis and its value, identified by Wasylyshyn(2003). Here there is also a cross-overbetween coaching and training, whereresearch has found managers who reinforcethe value and importance of learning have apositive impact on training outcomes(Rouiller & Goldstein, 1993).

Providing feedback was another facilita-tive behaviour identified. The current studyfound coachees used management feedbackto monitor their progress during coaching

and refine the focus of future coaching ses-sions. The need for managers to providefeedback on progress has been identified byother coaching research (Stewart et al.,2008; Wasylyshyn, 2003).

Creating an environment wherecoachees are able to put into practice theskills they are developing is important. A number of behaviours were identified bythis study as playing a role here. Beingapproachable, listening and reassuring wereall behaviours that helped coachees toimplement their development. Talkingthings through together, providing coacheeswith challenge and being open to new waysof working were also important. Similarbehaviours have been identified by othercoaching studies. For example, Stewart et al.(2008) found managers who assistedcoachees to implement their developmenthad a positive impact on coaching transfer.

There is crossover between many of thebehaviours identified by this study to supportcoaching transfer and the behaviours identi-fied as facilitating wider employee develop-ment (Beattie, 2002; Hamlin et al., 2006).Chiefly these behaviours are: (1) beingapproachable; (2) providing challenge; (3)coaching and (4) advising. This suggests thatmanagers who are good at supporting wideremployee development should also be goodat supporting employees having coaching.

Recommendation 5: It is recommended thatif coaches are able to meet with managersbefore the coaching starts they explain thatmanagement engagement in the process canfacilitate positive coaching outcomes. In par-ticular explaining that managers can helpcoachees to make time for their coaching;continue to provide feedback to coacheesafter they have started their coaching; andprovide coachees with opportunities to putthe new skills they are learning into practice,where possible allowing coachees to practicenew ways of working. If coaches cannot meetwith the manager it is recommended thatthey encourage the coachee to involve theirmanager where appropriate.



One behaviour identified as unique tothis study is that of giving the coachee space.For some coachees it was important theywere able to work through their coachingalone, with no management involvement.Again this highlights the importance ofagreeing a coaching psychological contract.

In addition to facilitative managementbehaviours this study also identified anumber of management behaviours thatinhibited coaching transfer. To theresearcher’s knowledge only one previousstudy has investigated the negative impactline managers can have on coaching out-comes. Stewart et al. (2008) found that theabsence of line managers was a barrier totransfer. Ineffective managers did not pro-vide opportunities for coachees to practicethe skills they were developing and blockeddevelopment plans. The restrictive and pas-sive behaviours identified by the currentresearch are comparable to those found byStewart et al. (2008). Here ineffective man-agers were seen to be critical of new ideas orways of doing things; did not allow coacheesthe time to work on coaching actions; didnot have a coaching management style.These behaviours made it harder forcoachees to achieve successful coaching out-comes.

Inadequate feedback and managers notformalising coaching are behaviours compa-rable to the lack of psychosocial support,which included a lack of partnership fordevelopment action between managers andcoachees and lack of feedback, identified byStewart et al. (2008). The disinterest identi-fied by the current study is comparable tothe lack of development champion identi-fied by Stewart et al. (2008). However, thislack of development champion appears to bedue to actual disinterest in the coaching,whereas the current research found that insome cases what coachees perceived to bedisinterest was instead linked to the personalprocess and ‘willing to help if asked’ barriersto involvement, with line managers notwanting to intrude on something that theyperceived could be personal.

Recommendation 6: If the coach is able tomeet with the line manager before coachingbegins it is recommended that they explainthe kind of manager behaviours that canhave a negative impact on coaching out-comes.

Strengths and limitationsThis research study had some methodolog-ical limitations. It was based on a conven-ience sample. This type of sample is morelikely to suffer sampling bias than a randomsample (Loewenthal, 2001). It is possiblethat the less involvement a line manager hadin their direct reports coaching the less likelythey were to respond to the request for par-ticipants, perhaps feeling they would havelittle to contribute to the study. This possibleresponse bias may have distorted the results,making line management involvementappear greater than it actually was.

Multiple sources of data, line managerand coachee’s perspectives, were collectedand participants came from different func-tional areas, organisational levels and fiveUK Government departments. Whilst thesefactors will increase the transferability of thefindings, it should be noted that the majorityof participants were White/British and allworked in central Government. Althoughthere are differences in the organisationalcultures of the five Government depart-ments, these differences are unlikely to be aswide as those between Government depart-ments and voluntary and private sectororganisations. As a result the findings arelimited in generalisability.

Recommendations for future researchThis study highlights a number of interestingareas for future research. First, this researchshould be replicated in different sectors andindustries to test the transferability of the find-ings. Second, further research is needed touncover why line management involvement incoaching was considered unnecessary. Was itlinked to the personal nature of goals or werethere other reasons for this? Third, the rea-sons coachees engaged with coaching should




Title

be investigated. This may highlight motiva-tions of a higher order than goals, informingour understanding of manager involvementand the lack of an overt relationship betweengoals and business outcomes.

ConclusionIn conclusion, this study extended coachingresearch by providing a valuable new insightinto the factors that facilitate and hinder linemanagement involvement in coaching. Italso provided robust evidence to supportprior studies that have identified managersas a factor to influence coaching transferand highlighted alternative variables ofinterest to be explored by future research.

The study has implications for organisa-tional practice and coaching research. In particular it highlights the need for guid-

ance for managers and coachees about therole of managers in the coaching processand the management behaviours that canfacilitate and hinder successful coaching out-comes.

The AuthorsHelen Ogilvy & Vicky Ellam-DysonCoaching Psychology Unit,Department of Psychology,City University,London EC1V 0HB.

CorrespondenceHelen OgilvyEmail: [email protected]

Vicky Ellam-DysonEmail: [email protected]


ReferencesBacon, T. & Spear, K. (2003). Adaptive Coaching:

The art and practice of a client-centred approach to performance improvement. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.

Beattie, R.S. (2002). Line managers, HRD, values andrthics: Evidence from the voluntary sectors. Universityof Edinburgh.

Beattie, R.S. (2006). Line managers and workplacelearning: Learning from the voluntary sector.Human Resource Development International, 9(1),99–119.

Boanas, K (2006). ‘Mutual benefit’ in coaching atwork – special report on internal coaches. CIPD, 1(3), March/April.

Brinkerhoff, R.O. & Montesino, M.U. (1995). Part-nerships for training transfer: Lessons from acorporate study. Human Resource DevelopmentQuarterly, 6(3), 263–274.

Carter, A. (2004). Practical methods for evaluatingcoaching. Training journal. Fenman.

Carter, A. & Connage, T. (2007). A case study in evaluating behavioural change from a coachingprogramme. International Journal of Mentoring andCoaching, 5(1).

Carter, A. & Miller, L. (2009). Increasing business benefits from in-house coaching schemes. IES ResearchNetworks Paper. Brighton: IES.

Clarke, N. (2002). Job/Work environment factorsinfluencing training transfer within a humanservice agency: Some indicative support forBaldwin and Ford’s transfer climate construct.International Journal of Training and Development,6(3), 146–162.

Ellinger, A.M. (1997). Managers as facilitators oflearning in learning organisations. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of Georgia,Athens.

Hamlin, R.G. (2004). Toward evidence-based HRDthrough HRD professional partnership research. Inaugural Professorial Lecture, University ofWolverhampton.

Hamlin, R., Ellinger, A. & Beattie, R. (2006).Coaching at the heart of managerial effective-ness: A cross-cultural study of managerialbehaviours. Human Resource Development Interna-tional, 9(3), 305–351.

Hay, J. (1995). Transformational mentoring. London:Sherwood Publishing.

Hsieh, H.F. & Shannon, S.E. (2005). Threeapproaches to content analysis. Qualitative HealthResearch, 15, 1277–1288.

Huczynski, A.A. & Lewis, J.W. (1980). An empiricalstudy into the learning transfer process in man-agement training. Journal of Management Studies,17, 227–240.


Author name

Hyman, J. & Cunningham, A. (1998). Managers asdevelopers: Some reflections on the contributionof empowerment in Britain. International Journalof Training and Development, 2(2), 91–107.

Joo, B. (2005). Executive Coaching: A conceptualframework from an integrative review of practiceand research. Human Resource Development Review,4(4), 462–488.

Locke, K. (2002). The grounded theory approach toqualitative research. In F. Drasgow & N. Schmitt(Eds.), Measuring and analysing behaviour in organ-isations. Advances in measuring and data analysis(pp.17–43). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Loewenthal, K.M. (2001). An introduction to psycholog-ical tests and scales (2nd ed.). Hove & New York:Psychology Press.

Martocchio, J.J. & Webster, J. (1992). Effects of feed-back and cognitive playfulness on performanceof microcomputer software training. PersonnelPsychology, 45, 553–578.

Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis.Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2). Retrieved12 April 2010, from:www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1089/2386

McGovern, J., Lindemann, M., Vergara, M., Murphy,S., Baker, L. & Warrenfeltz, R. (2001). Max-imising the impact of executive coaching:behavioural change, organisational outcomes,and return on investment. The Manchester Review,6(1), 1–9.

Neuendorf, K.A. (2002). The Content Analysis Guide-book. Thousand Oaks & London: Sage.

Olivero, G., Bane, K.D. & Kopelman, R.E. (1997).Executive coaching as a transfer of training tool:Effects on productivity in a public agency. PublicPersonnel Management, 26(4), 461–469.

Poppleton, A (2008). Coaching in organisations. Presentation to coaches in Government Network. Home Office, 9 June 2009.

Rouiller, J.Z. & Goldstein, I.L. (1993). The relation-ship between organisational transfer climate andpositive transfer of training. Human ResourceDevelopment Quarterly, 4(4), 377–390.

Salaman, G. (1995). Managing. Buckingham: OpenUniversity Press

Sherman, S. & Freas, A. (2004). The wild west ofexecutive coaching. Harvard Business Review, 82(11), 82–89.

Sinclair, A., Fairhurst, P., Carter, A. & Miller, L.(2008). Managing coaching in the NHS: Report No.455. NHS Institute for Innovation and Improve-ment.

Skruber, R. (1987). Organisation as clarifyinglearning environments. In V.J. Marsick (Ed.),Learning in the workplace (pp.55–76). London:Croon Helm.

Stewart, L.J., Palmer, S., Wilkin, H. & Kerrin, M.(2008). Towards a model of coaching transfer:Operationalising coaching success and the facili-tators and barriers to transfer, InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 3(2), 87–109.

Storey, J. (1992). Management of human resources.Oxford: Blackwell.

Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types andsoftware tools. New York: Farmer Press.

Williams, S. & Offley, N. (2005). Research and reality:Innovations in coaching. London: NHS LeadershipCentre.

Wasylyshyn, K.M. (2003). Executive coaching: An outcome study. Consulting Psychology Journal:Practice and Research, 55(2), 94–106.



COACHING can increasingly be consid-ered a profession because of its socialrecognition, registration systems and

professional associations prescribing profes-sional and ethical codes for their members.However, there are signs that coaches increas-ingly feel the need to build their practice in asolid theoretical basis and empirically vali-dated models (Grant & Cavanagh, 2004).Apparently, the demands of organisationsregarding the trustworthiness of coaches andtheir services force them to expand theboundaries of their professionalism. Conse-quently, coaching has entered a post-profes-sional phase, according to Drake (2008).

Whereas in the professional phase thefocus was placed predominantly onresearching the role and identity ofcoaching, the (application of) coachinginterventions, the underlying theories ofthese interventions and the conditions for –and development of – self-steering, in thepost-professional phase the focus is placedon questions such as ‘What works when and

how well for whom?’ and ‘How and why doesit work?’ and ‘Is there any room for improve-ment?’ (Drake, 2008). Coaches are chal-lenged to start working evidence based. Theunclearness about the different rolescoaches could play in actual practice and therelated urge to specialise have increasinglyprompted coaches to provide all stake-holders with ‘proof’ of the effectiveness oftheir interventions and to account for thechoices they have made with regard to theirinterventions. In addition, coaches appar-ently need not only to reflect about theirwork (focusing on theory and practice oftheir profession), but also to reflectively askthemselves ‘Why do I do what I do?’, ‘Whatcould I do more effectively?’ and ‘How dotheory and practice affect me?’

These reflections require coaches to beprepared to account for the foundation oftheir professionalism and, consequently, totake steps that go beyond the available know-how, which is based on what is termed ‘pop psychology’ regarding personal devel-

Moderating factors of theVan Egmond Coaching Model (VECM)Johan Bouwer & Jacoba van Egmond

Objectives: Identifying those (moderating) factors that are instrumental in the successful completion of acoaching trajectory that is based on the Van Egmond Coaching Model (VECM). Design: Qualitative.Methods: Data were collected by means of three questionnaires: a semi-structured questionnaire for theclients; a semi-structured questionnaire for the clients’ managers; and a regular evaluation form for thecoach. The authors of this paper analysed the data manually, first independently from each other and thenagain, in a joint session.Results: The most important moderating factors of the VECM appeared to be the client’s readiness to change(will), the client-coach relationship, the manager’s role and the coach’s expertise. Conclusions: Most of the outcomes of this study were (structurally) congruous to those of earlier studies.Remarkably, ‘relationship’ and ‘will’ were valued higher in this study, and managers assumed their ownroles in the success of coaching to be more significant than was perceived by clients. Follow-up studies,particularly into the role of managers, the precise nature and role of the will of clients, the assessment of theclient-coach relationship in various contexts, the effects and role of the coach’s gender and the extent towhich familiarity with the theoretical building blocks of the VECM has an influence on interpreting thecoaching effects are recommended.Keywords: Moderating factors; Evidence-based coaching; Triangle model; Relationship; Will.

Johan Bouwer & Jacoba van Egmond

opment (Grant & Stober, 2006, p.5). Know-how based on empirical studies (e.g. theeffectiveness of their coaching interven-tions) and the coach’s scientific ‘minded-ness’ will have to further broaden theprofessional expertise, explore the princi-ples of coaching as a discipline, mark theboundaries with related disciplines, such ascounselling, mentoring and supervision, andreinforce and increase their credibility formanagers.

In order to meet these challenges, empir-ical and scientific studies in the field ofcoaching have boomed over the past years.In this context, the focal points were firstand foremost internal coaching by man-agers, external coaching by professionals,coaching as an instrument for determiningpsychological mechanisms and processes ofchange in individuals and organisations, andthe results, and/or effects and outcomes, ofcoaching, particularly with an eye to deter-mining return on investment (ROI) (seearticles by Evers & Brouwers (2006), Greif(2007), Gyllensten & Palmer (2007), Mackie(2007) and Paige (2002), for example). Fol-lowing that, it becomes necessary to focus onthe moderating factors of coaching (or a spe-cific coaching model) to complement andbroaden the (stakeholders’ and profes-sional) demands pertaining to effectivenessand outcomes of coaching.

To make a contribution – within theDutch-speaking region – to the developmentof a theory on evidence-based work incoaching, a study was conducted by Bouwerand Van Egmond (2009) with regard to theassessment of various aspects of the VanEgmond Coaching Model (VECM). Thisstudy primarily aimed to identify the instru-mental factors for realising a successfulcoaching trajectory. The VECM has beendeveloped by Van Egmond (self-employedcoach) and has been used (to the apprecia-tion of clients) in coaching trajectoriesbetween 2004 and 2009. This paper will firstprovide a brief introduction to the VECM.Subsequently, it will discuss the set-up,results (limited to the effects and moder-

ating factors of the model), major subjects ofdiscussion and conclusions of this study.

The Van Egmond Coaching Model(VECM)This section discusses the theoreticalbuilding blocks and methodology of theVECM.

Theoretical building blocksView on coaching. In the VECM, coaching isviewed as a learning process that comprisesthe ‘whole’ individual (his/her values, stan-dards and convictions). The overall purposeof coaching is to facilitate people inbecoming active which, in turn, leads themto change in such a way that they becomemore effective in solving their problems. Thesubstantive purpose of coaching is that: (a) the client’s goals are achieved; and (b)the client functions in a happier and moreeffective way, both as a person and as anemployee. In this context, the client isresponsible for his own learning process,while the coach performs the role of partnerin dialogue, assists in identifying appropriategoals and suitable solutions, bolsters confi-dence and promotes personal development.

View on learning. Learning is understood tomean a process with more or less permanentresults and, subsequently, creating new – orchanging old – behavioural patterns in theclient (Van Parreren, 1971). Learning, there-fore, means learning new behaviour andunlearning old behaviour.

Dilts’ psychological levels. According to Dilts(1990), six levels serve as a structuring prin-ciple for learning, (personal) change, com-munication and solving problems. Theseare: environment; behaviour; ability; convic-tion; identity; and spirituality (see alsoO’Connor & Seymour, 1993). The VCEMfocuses predominantly on the first four levelsbecause of its focus on improvement andchange. Major questions in this contextinclude: What plan provides the most effec-tive support? How can actual results be


achieved? What are the obstructing or facili-tating convictions that stand in the way ofpositive results?

Transactional Analysis (TA). TA is based onthe philosophy that people determine theirown fate by taking decisions that can bechanged again (Stewart & Joines, 1987).Working with contracts and open communi-cation (transparency) are major principlesin this approach. The TA learning processtakes place within a triangle contract, inwhich the coach, client and manager partici-pate. Each triangle contract has three layers,i.e. the procedural layer (frequency, dura-tion of sessions, investment, payment andmeeting place), the professional layer(agreements on goals, results, and roles ofthe three participants) and the psychologicallayer (underlying dynamics in the contractbetween the three parties on the basis ofwhich the hidden agendas can be madeexplicit). Within the VECM, the managers’roles are not limited to the contractingphase, but expanded to two or three evalua-tion moments during the trajectory. Theobjective is to make explicit the implicitexpectations of the three parties and to har-monise them with eachother. The success ofa coaching trajectory is tested first and fore-most against the progress and developmentof set objectives and results.

The GROW model. In each session, theworking method of the VECM is determinedon the basis of four basic principles ofGROW (Goal, Reality, Options and Wrap-ping up; Whitmore, 2002). In addition, goalsare formulated as the desired result inbehavioural terms.

Maslow’s learning cycle. Maslow introducedfour phases in his learning model, i.e.unconscious incompetence, consciousincompetence, conscious competence andunconscious competence (Maslow, 1954).The VECM aims to increase the client’s con-sciousness by, for example, identifyingobstructing convictions or letting the client

collect his own feedback on his own per-formance. Key elements are ‘becoming con-scious’ (of survival mechanisms) and‘unlearning and learning’ (of old and newbehaviour). The phenomenon of ‘reflection’also deserves attention. This is understood tomean reflecting on one’s actions and steps tobe taken as well as on one’s own presupposi-tions, expectations and intentions. Therelated reflection reports enable the client toobserve, steer and understand (obtaininginsight). It is essential that the client makes alink between understanding and takingaction.

Mobilising the will. The will is one of the mostcrucial factors for a coaching trajectory to besuccessful. This understanding is derivedfrom the range of thoughts of psychosyn-thesis, founded by Roberto Assagioli (Fer-ruci, 1991). Mobilising the will stimulates theclient’s own responsibility and self-steering.During the entire coaching trajectory, theVECM checks and mobilises the client’s willby repeatedly determining – in consultationwith the client – what the next step will be,explaining the method to be used and alwaysletting the client make choices with regardto intended actions.

MethodologyThe methodical structure of the VECM is asfollows.

The client: (a) Intake; (b) recurring elementsin each session include determining goals,becoming conscious and translating thesegoals into reality, which results in proposeddecisions with regard to new behaviour; and(c) evaluation. The evaluation, in its turn,consists of three elements:● Intake and the client’s related individual

plan;● Reflection and action report (on lessons

learned and proposed decisions on newbehaviour);

● Evaluation of coaching results (checkingthe development process and achieve-ment of goals), the process (the coach’s


Moderating factors of the Van Egmond Coaching Model (VECM)


contribution and other factors, such asduration and number of sessions) andthe need for further development.

The client’s manager: (a) Intake; (b) interimevaluation; and (c) evaluation after comple-tion of the coaching trajectory.

The coach: After each session, the coachwrites evaluation reports and sends these tothe clients for reasons of comparison andstimulation of their learning process.

A coaching session lasts two hours onaverage. A coaching trajectory takes six ses-sions on average, with an intervening periodof at least one month. This period is usuallyrequired to put lessons learned into practice.

Study designWe describe the study design by reviewingobjectives and questions, the nature of themethod, respondents, instruments, proce-dure and analysis.

Objectives and questionsThe study objective was to identify the moder-ating factors of the VECM. The related ques-tions and subquestions were as follows.

Main question: What factors contribute to asuccessful completion of a coaching trajec-tory which is based on the VECM?

Subquestions: What are the theoreticalbuilding blocks of the VECM? According towhich method does the VECM work? Howdo clients, managers (i.e. the client’s super-visors) and coach assess the coaching trajec-tory? Which aspects of the model can beconsidered moderating factors?

Method Our study was conducted by sending semi-structured questionnaires to respondentsand their managers after completion of acoaching trajectory. The trajectories weremonitored in the period from September2008 to October 2009.

Respondents We asked four clients and their managers tocomplete the questionnaires. One duoworked for the municipality of a medium-sized town, one with an internationalaccountancy firm, and the other two for aregional training centre (ROC) in theNetherlands.

The clients were two men and twowomen. Their average age was 43.25 years.The managers were also two men and twowomen.

InstrumentsAs stated above, the data were collected bymeans of three questionnaires: a semi-struc-tured questionnaire for the clients; a semi-structured questionnaire for the clients’managers; and a regular evaluation form forthe coach.

The developed questionnaires for clientsand supervisors were based on the regularevaluations of the VECM, the interview listused by Gyllensten and Palmer (2007, p.177)in their study of client-coaching relationship,and Mackie’s (2007, p.317) evaluationmethodology of the coaching process.

Questionnaires characteristicsClient’s questionnaire: This questionnaire con-sisted of 94 items, 14 of which were assess-ments on the Lickert-type scale and theremainder of which were open questions.The questionnaire was divided into the fol-lowing main categories: biographical infor-mation, reason to participate in a coachingtrajectory, client, coach, manager, character-istics of coaching, coaching process,coaching method, results, overall evaluationand assessment of the coaching trajectoryand major factors that led to the achieve-ment of the formulated goals.

Manager’s questionnaire: This questionnaireconsisted of 14 items with the following maincategories: evaluation of the coachingprocess, coach, reason to participate in acoaching trajectory and factors that led to asuccessful completion of the coaching trajec-


tory. Two questions were assessments on theLickert-type scale and the remainder wereopen questions.

Coach’s evaluation form: The questionnaireused by the coach to evaluate the trajectoriesconsisted of 16 questions with the followingmain categories: general information, resultof the coaching trajectory, coaching processand the client’s further personal develop-ment.

Procedure After completion of the coaching trajectories(i.e. during the coach’s end evaluation, inwhich it became apparent that the coachingtrajectories were completed with a high levelof appreciation, so we can speak of successfultrajectories), clients and their supervisorswere asked whether they were prepared toparticipate in this study. Upon receivingagreement from the clients and their super-visors, we sent the questionnaires to therespondents by email, one week after com-pletion of the coaching trajectory. The com-pleted lists were returned by email as well.

Analysis The authors of this paper analysed the datamanually, first independently from eachother and then again, in a joint session.Answers to open ended questions – espe-cially with regard to the perceived moder-ating factors – were analysed on the basis ofthe ranking (in importance) allocated tothem by the respondents.

ResultsAs stated above, the results portrayed here,are limited to assessments of the perceivedpositive effects of the coaching trajectory andthe related moderating factors. Only scoresand ratings with an 80 per cent+ value arerepresented below. The views of each of thethree parties in the VECM (client, managerand coach) will be discussed next.

The client From the data, we abstracted the followinginformation on the effects and moderatingfactors of the coaching trajectory.

Effects of the coaching trajectory(a) The respondents gave themselves an 83

per cent chance that they will not revertto their old, unlearned, behaviour. Theyindicated they could better deal withproblems, had more self-confidence anda greater understanding of theirbehavioural patterns. Feedback from the(working) environment confirmedchanges in various areas (e.g. improvedcommunication, more efficientbehaviour, more assertive in contacts andsetting limits).

(b)100 per cent felt they had grown as aperson (autonomy).

(c) 100 per cent felt their stress levels haddecreased. Some experienced physicalchanges (fewer headaches). Othersexperienced less stress and were muchmore relaxed and at ease than before.This was also the case in their homeenvironment.

(d)100 per cent perceived that set goals hadbeen achieved.

(e)Negative effects were not given. Onerespondent, however, stated there was arisk of dependency on the coach.

Moderating factorsAccording to the clients, the most important(generic) moderating factors were as follows(average valuation in brackets).(a) The client’s personal commitment

(working hard) (91 per cent)*.(b)The client-coach relationship (90 per

cent).(c) The readiness to change (will) (88 per

cent)*.(d)The coach’s skills (85 per cent).

*One could argue that the readiness tochange (c) forms an integral part of theclient’s personal commitment (a). In otherwords, the will is the motivation to work hard




so as to achieve set goals. When combiningthe two, the client-coach relationship wouldbe considered the most important moder-ating factor and personal commitmentwould follow in second place, with only avery small difference (0.5 per cent).

On a methodical level, the clients stated severalfactors as important interventions forachieving their goals. These were as follows.● The direct way in which the problem is

confronted.● Learning to formulate questions and

solutions independently.● Taking time to recognise one’s own

instruments and lessons to be learned. ● Practical exercises (interventions) used

by the coach when discussing the effectsof the interventions.

The clients’ managerEffects of the coaching trajectory According to the managers, the coachingtrajectory had the following effects.(a) The client is more relaxed as a person,

has more control over his own emotions,is more at ease and more cheerful.

(b)With regard to work, the client showsmore initiative, has more self-confidence,has more problem-solving abilities and ismore conscious when dealing with the‘warm’ side of others.

In addition, the managers estimate thechance that clients would not revert to theirold and ineffective behaviour 73 per cent.

Moderating factors According to the managers, the major mod-erating factors are as follows.(a) The client’s readiness to change.(b)A supporting supervisor.(c) The client-coach relationship*.(d)An expert coach*.

In this context, it should be noted that themanagers valued the impact of their owninvolvement and/or role in a successfulcoaching trajectory of their employees withan 82 per cent score. The clients, however,

valued the impact of their managers’ rolewith a 60 per cent score.

*Please note in this context that one of themajor tasks of an (expert) coach is to buildup a good relationship with clients. If thesetwo aspects (c) and (d) were combined, therelationship may have ranked second place.

The coachEffects of the coaching trajectory A high degree of congruity to the study datacan be seen when comparing the evaluationforms the clients completed at the coach’srequest after completion of the coaching tra-jectory. This applies particularly to theeffects on a personal and functional level,the importance of personal commitmentand the perception that the coaching trajec-tory meets the learning needs.

Moderating factorsThe coach finds the following factors essen-tial for an effective or successful coachingtrajectory.(a) The client’s readiness (will) to change.(b)The relationship.(c) The coach’s own expertise and

professionalism.(d)Linked to (c), monitoring the process.

Target-oriented working is essential inthis context.

DiscussionA striking element in this study is that eachof the three parties considered the majorsuccess factors for achieving the set goals tobe the client’s readiness (will) to change andhis full commitment, the client-coach rela-tionship and the coach’s expertise. Theclients’ managers added a fourth factor (andvalued it very highly), i.e. their own role in asuccessful coaching trajectory.

The manager’s role. This aspect has neverbefore been explicitly included in a study inthe Netherlands. However, due to the extentto which the clients themselves valued thisfactor, it cannot be ranked in the top five of


moderating factors of coaching trajectories.In studies conducted in English-speakingcountries, however, this aspect has beenidentified as a major item with regard to eval-uating professional development. Guskey(1991) has stated that ‘organisational sup-port’ is an essential element of professionaldevelopment (see also Paige, 2002, p.66).The reason for the low valuation of theirsupervisions’ roles in the success of clients’professional development may be the spe-cific authority structures in Dutch organisa-tions (egalitarian), the labour laws of thiscountry (high level of employee protection)and its culture of individualism (autonomyand responsibility). At any rate, contrary toGuskey’s (1991) study, Dutch clients do notindicate that they do not feel supported bytheir organisations or supervisors. Theyapparently experience support, but the valu-ation of their managers’ specific roles isrationalised.

The will. This aspect is congruous to, forexample, Greif’s analysis (2007, p.243). Heregards clients’ ‘change readiness’ and ‘per-sistence’ as two important factors forachieving their goals. This will have to be dis-cussed explicitly in future studies for manystudies on coaching results aim predomi-nantly to generate information on overalloutcomes such as the extent to which setgoals have been achieved. Some studies,however, also focus on measuring changes inaffect, subjective well-being and happinesswith life. In addition, researchers also focuson specific outcomes such as understandingand self-reflection, individual, social andfunctional characteristics, and the valuationof effects on an individual level (Greif, 2007,pp.224–226). So far, however, they havesomewhat neglected the conative aspect (thewill). The present study into the VECM cor-relates with Greif’s analysis and shows thatthe clients’ will and readiness to change areregarded as essential by all respondents.

On all sides, the relationship is regarded asan essential moderating factor in anycoaching trajectory. In this context, trust and

transparency are considered key coordinates(Gyllensten & Palmer, 2007, p.174). In thearea of psychotherapy, the relationship incoaching situations has been studied to alarge extent. One of the findings was that thetherapist’s qualities, facilitating conditions(e.g. empathy) and the relationship aremajor factors that influence the outcomes oftherapies (O’Brion & Palmer, 2006). Mackieis of the opinion that the study of psy-chotherapy outcomes cannot be applied tocoaching uncritically. He refers particularlyto the methodology used to determine theoutcomes (randomised, controlled trialsversus case studies) (2007, pp.316–317).Coaching will have to build up its own bodyof knowledge. However, the few studies thathave been conducted within the domain ofcoaching still show that an open, supporting,and healthy coach relationship is a majorsuccess factor (Schmidt, 2003). This has alsobeen confirmed in the present study, therelationship being linked mostly to trustingthe coach and having a ‘click’ with thecoach.

The coach. In the literature, the personal andprofessional characteristics of an effectivecoach are mostly linked to the skill of estab-lishing a strong connection between clientand coach, the coach’s professionalism andthe use of an unambiguous method(Wasylyshyn, 2003). Greif adds to this thatthe coach’s professional credibility and thecoach’s ability to make the client’s goals andexpectations explicit are key aspects for aneventual coaching success (2007, p.243). Inthe present study, the coach was praised par-ticularly for her empathy and genuineinterest, ability to listen, methodicalapproach (having clients do exercises), goodtiming and professionalism. Seventy-five percent felt that gender also played an impor-tant part in the success of coaching. Withregard to the coach’s role as a moderatingfactor, earlier studies are, therefore, con-gruous to the present study.




Conclusions and recommendationsDue to the size of the cohort of respondents,the results cannot be generalised. However,attempts to optimise reliability were made byfirst conducting two analyses independentlyfrom each other, followed by a joint analysis.Various aspects of the analyses are consistentwith earlier studies. For example, the client’sreadiness to change, the client-coach rela-tionship and the coach’s professionalism asimportant moderating factors of coaching. A striking aspect of the current study is thatreadiness to change is valued higher than inany other study. Another striking aspect isthe way in which managers rank their ownrole in a successful coaching trajectory. Thisis not congruous to earlier studies. At anyrate, it is not entirely clear what exactly theywish to communicate by that.

We recommend conducting furtherstudies into the following.(a) A substantiation of the perceived role of

managers (c.q. supervisors) as amoderating factor of the VECM.

(b)The precise nature and role of the will ofclients with regard to achieving set goalsin a coaching trajectory.

(c) The causes and effects of the fact that theclient-coach relationship as a successfactor was valued higher in this studythan in, for example, the Wasylyshynstudy (90 per cent and 83 per cent,respectively).

(d)The effects and role of the coach’s genderin successful coaching trajectories.

(e)The fact that each of the three partiesdrew virtually the same conclusions withregard to the nature of coaching, thecoach’s characteristics and methodology.There is a strikingly high level ofconsistency between these conclusionsand the theoretical building blocks of theVECM (which in itself may be interpretedpositively, but it may also be an indicationthat desirable answers were given).

To concludeAgainst a background of increasing pressureon coaches to work evidence based, thispaper discussed results of a study that wasconducted into identifying the moderatingfactors of the Van Egmond Coaching Model(VECM). Coaches are increasingly promptedto provide managers with proof of the effectsof their coaching model. First, the paperexplained the seven building blocks andmethodology of the VECM. The buildingblocks comprise views on coaching andlearning, the ranges of thoughts of Dilts,Stewart and Joines, Whitmore, Maslow, andAssagioli. The methodology shows a clearlydemarcated structure in which the standardis to work with reflection and evaluationreports. Subsequently, the design of the study(objectives and questions, method, respon-dents, procedure, results of analysis and con-clusions) was discussed. As stated above, thisstudy aimed to identify the most importantmoderating factors of the VECM. For thispurpose, the three parties of this model(client, manager and coach) completedsemi-structured questionnaires after comple-tion of four coaching trajectories. The mostimportant moderating factors of the VECMwere the client’s readiness to change (thewill), the client-coach relationship, the man-ager’s role and the coach’s expertise. Whendiscussing the results, we established thatmost of the outcomes were (structurally) con-gruous to those of earlier studies. The will asa key factor was particularly evident in thisstudy, more so than in any other study. Werecommend conducting follow-up studies,particularly into the role of managers, theprecise nature and role of the will of clients,the assessment of the client-coach relation-ship in various contexts, the effects and roleof the coach’s gender and the extent towhich familiarity with the theoreticalbuilding blocks of the VECM has an influ-ence on interpreting the coaching effects.



Bouwer, J. & Van Egmond, J.A. (2009). Empirical studyinto the moderators of the Van Egmond CoachingModel (VECM). Unpublished.

Dilts, R. (1990). Changing belief systems with NLP.Capitola, CA: Meta Publications.

Drake, D.B. (2008). Finding our way home:Coaching’s search for identity in a new era.Coaching: An International Journal for Theory,Research and Practice, 1(1), 15–26.

Evers, W.J.G., Brouwers, A. & Tomic, W. (2006). A quasi-experimental study on managementcoaching effectiveness. Consulting PsychologyJournal: Practice and Research, 58(3), 174–182.

Ferruci, P. (1991). Heel je leven: Een nieuwe oriëntatiedoor psychosynthese (Psychosynthesis). Haarlem: De Toorts.

Grant, A.M. & Cavanagh, M.J. (2004). Toward a pro-fession of coaching: 65 years of progress andchallenges for the future. International Journal ofEvidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 2(2), 1–15.

Grant, A.M., & Stober, D.R. (2006). Introduction. In A.R. Stober & A.M. Grant (Eds.), Evidence basedcoaching handbook. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Greif, S. (2007). Advances in research on coachingoutcomes. International Coaching PsychologyReview, 2(3), 222–249.

Guskey, T.R. (1991). Enhancing the effectiveness ofprofessional development programmes. Journalof Educational and Psychological Consultation, 2(3),239–247.

Gyllensten, K. & Palmer, S. (2007). The coachingrelationship: An interpretative phenomeno-logical analysis. International Coaching PsychologyReview, 2(2), 168–177.

Mackie, D. (2007). Evaluating the effectiveness ofexecutive coaching: Where are we now andwhere do we need to be? Australian Psychologist,42(4), 310–318.

Maslow, A.H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Brothers.

O’Broin, A. & Palmer, S. (2006). The coach-clientrelationship and contributions made by the coach in improving coaching outcome. The Coaching Psychologist, 2(2), 16–20.

O’Connor, J. & Seymour, J. (1993). Introducing Neuro-Linguistic Programming: Psychological skills for under-standing and influencing people. London: ThorsonsPublishers.

Paige, H. (2002). Examining the effectiveness ofexecutive coaching on executives. InternationalEducation Journal, 3(2), 61 –70.

Parreren van, C.F. (1971). De psychologie van het leren I:Verloop en resultaten van leerprocessen (The psychologyof learning I: Process and results of learning processes).Deventer: Van Loghum Slaterus.

Schmidt, T (2003). Cited in S. Dembrowski & F.Eldridge (2004), The nine critical success factorsin individual coaching. The International Journal ofMentoring and Coaching, 2(2).

Stewart, I. & Joines, V. (1987). TA today: A new intro-duction to Transactional Analysis. Chapel Hill, NC:Life Space Publishing.

Wasylyshyn, K.M. (2003). Executive coaching: Anoutcome study. Consulting Psychology Journal:Practice and Research, 55, 94–106.

Whitmore, J (2002). Coaching for performance: Growingpeople, performance and purposes. London/Boston:Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

CorrespondenceJohan Bouwer, PhD, Director of ResearchNHTV Breda University of Applied Science(Netherlands),P.O. Box 3917,4800 DX Breda,The Netherlands.Email: [email protected]

Jacoba van EgmondCore Lecturer and Supervisor,Alba Academy for Coaching (Netherlands).Email: [email protected]

References



FOR MUCH of the past decade or morethere has been an emphasis on leader-ship development which has sometimes

led to the neglect of the key area of manage-ment training and development (Rees &Porter, 2008b). The development of mana-gerial expertise is a crucial area that enablesmanagers to cope with evolving critical man-agerial responsibilities. Often they accumu-late such responsibilities with little or nopreparation. Such acquisition is normallybecause of their specialist rather than mana-gerial expertise (Rees & Porter, 2005). Thisarticle explains two models related to mana-gerial activity in organisations: that of theManagerial Escalator, and the related one ofRole Set Analysis. The models of the Mana-gerial Escalator and the technique of RoleSet Analysis are potentially useful tools tobring to the attention of both coaching psy-chologists and their clients wishing toanalyse routes into management and effec-tive behaviour in managerial roles. Theimplications of these concepts for thoseinvolved in management and coaching arealso discussed. Both frameworks are poten-tially useful in helping the individual and thecoaching psychologist identify the skills andcapabilities that are within the would-bemanager, enabling them to use their mana-gerial skills more effectively. By this means,both organisational and individual effective-ness are increased, as well as hopefully the

ability of clients to cope with their manage-rial responsibilities. A range of core manage-ment skills is also identified in this article.

Routes into managementWith the current emphasis on leadershipdevelopment, the key area of managerialtraining can be given insufficient attentionin organisations or even ignored, unless it issubsumed under the title leadership devel-opment. Neglect of the need to developmanagerial expertise can be particularlyunfortunate given the likelihood of therebeing a significant Managerial Gap in organ-isations. The Managerial Gap is the differ-ence between the amount of time that thosewith managerial responsibilities should bespending on appropriate managerial activi-ties and time actually spent which is oftenconsiderably less than is needed, resulting inneglect and organisational ineffectiveness.Even when the gap is recognised it may notbe dealt with effectively. The existence of thisgap may be partly due to the way mostpeople with managerial responsibilityacquire such responsibility. Managers arelikely to have started off as specialists andthen to have proceeded in an escalator typeprogression up the organisation hierarchy.This may mean that managers move awayfrom their, often cherished, specialisationinto less congenial but often more importantmanagerial work. Most management work is

The Managerial Gap and how coachingcan helpChristine Porter & W. David Rees

This article considers two models that could potentially be useful to coaching psychologists as they seek tohelp clients identify their organisational roles and their willingness and ability to carry out such roles. Thefirst model considered is that of the Managerial Escalator which seeks to help individual employees identifyand cope with their likely accumulation of managerial responsibilities, particularly dealing with anyManagerial Gap. The second, and linked, model is that of Role Set Analysis. This is a particularly effectivetechnique to help clients identify their evolving role and priorities. Keywords: Managerial Gap; Coaching; Supervisory; Managerial Escalator; Hybrid managers;Leadership; Role models; Role Set Analysis; Evaluation.

likely to be undertaken by ‘hybrids’ who nec-essarily have to combine specialist and man-agerial work. Ironically staff may even rise tovery senior positions with little or no effec-tive management training and development.

The reason that the area of managementdevelopment activity requires continuedattention is that most people who have mana-gerial responsibility are likely to have workedas specialists first. Their entry into manage-ment is likely to have been gradual and mostmay not have had any prior managementtraining. The need for training and develop-ment in this area may not even be recognised,especially for ‘hybrid managers’ who mayalready have had many years of specialisttraining. Staff may first acquire supervisoryresponsibility over other specialists and thenthe overlapping designation as ‘manager’.Coaching, both informal and formal, may bean important way in which the managementtraining and development needs created bythis type of progression can be effectively met.

Because of the way in which individualsbecome managers, those with managerialresponsibility may need to improve theirskills in this area. Even those in very seniorpositions may lack some key managerialskills. However, it can be particularly impor-tant that those who are given managerialresponsibilities not only have the aptitudebut are also prepared to undertake such arole as opposed to expecting the benefits ofpromotion whilst clinging on to most oftheir previous job. The technique of Role SetAnalysis can be a very effective way ofshowing disparities between what those withmanagerial responsibilities actually aredoing and what they should be doing.

The Managerial Escalator In a survey conducted in 2004 (Rees &Porter, 2005), it was found that most peoplewith managerial responsibility have acquiredit as a result of their specialist expertise,which they may well have developed over anumber of years. This will have enabledthem to assume managerial or supervisoryresponsibility in their specialist area. It is

usually impractical for people without therelevant specialist experience to assume suchresponsibility. The concept of the Manage-rial Escalator was developed by Rees in the1970s (Rees, 1984) initially in the context ofnurse training for the Royal College ofNursing. Sadly, surprisingly little attentionhas been given to this phenomenon subse-quently, despite the fact that it affects mostorganisations. Subsequent to the SalmonReport (Report of the committee on SeniorNursing Staff Structures, 1966) drasticchanges were made to nursing career struc-tures. Previously nurses had clinical careerstructures but, as a result of Salmon, jobdescriptions were issued giving nurses abovea certain grade almost exclusively manage-rial responsibilities. Nurses are typical there-fore of the hybrid nature of most managers’backgrounds. They usually go into their spe-cialist training with a vocation for clinicalactivities. They then find that in order toprogress up the hierarchy they need tolargely relinquish these responsibilities andconcentrate on managing others. Howeverthe switch from carrying out clinical tasksthemselves to ensuring that others carry outthese tasks can be difficult to accept from anemotional perspective. A coaching psycholo-gist may be able to help staff to identify thenew demands that are made of them andadapt to these in order that they can carryout their managerial tasks effectively.

Although the initial circumstances inwhich this model was developed occurredmany years ago, this phenomenon ofemployees being promoted untrained andinexperienced into management on thebasis of their specialist expertise has con-tinued. The findings of research carried outby Rees and Porter (2005) showed 47 out of50 people with management or supervisoryresponsibility surveyed had previously beenspecialists. Their involvement in manage-ment is likely to have been gradual – peopledo not normally go straight into a full-timemanagement job but have an escalator-typeprogression as shown in Figure 1 (Rees &Porter, 2008a, p.5).


The Managerial Gap and how coaching can help

The exact way in which people acquiremanagerial responsibilities will vary fromperson to person. Figure 1 should not, there-fore, be seen as a rigid template but as a sim-plified illustration of the progression intomanagement that most people are likely tohave had. The amount of time spent on man-agerial activity is shown on the vertical scaleon the left-hand side of the diagram. The bal-ance of activity, likely to be mainly specialistactivity, is calculated by subtracting the man-agerial activity from 100 per cent. The Mana-gerial Gap is calculated by comparing theamount of time that should be spent on man-agerial activity with the amount of time that isactually spent. In most cases it is found thatnot enough time is being spent on manage-rial activities, though sometimes it can be theother way around because of ‘over-manage-ment’ (Rees & Porter, 2005). Individualsand/or those responsible for succession plan-ning may also find it useful to speculatewhere they or others are likely to be on theescalator in future years, and the preparationneeded to be effective in those new positions.

Many of those on the escalator will neverbecome full-time managers but will stay, andwant to remain, as hybrid managers com-bining specialist and managerial work. Evenwith hybrid managers there may a reluctance

to get involved in management and a desire,as one IT specialist put it, to remain as ‘thoroughbreds’. However, the needs of theorganisation are likely to be as explainedbelow:

Everyone is crying out for projectmanagers, desktop service managers – tokeep the system up and running and totalk through problems – and call centremanagers… They are looking for thehybrid manager: someone who has morethan just technical skills, but knows howto create a customer-orientated culturewithin an organisation. (Coles, 1997)

The organisational dilemma is usually thatcompetent specialists are needed to manageother specialists. The reward structure is usu-ally such that those with the responsibility formanaging other specialists receive a betterreward package. Therefore, if employeeswant promotion they need to move awayfrom their area of expertise and their ‘com-fort-zone’ into, for them, the relativelyuncharted areas of management. Given thisit is not surprising that many specialists withmanagerial responsibility are reluctant man-agers and do more specialist work than isnecessary and do not spend enough timedoing managerial work.


Christine Porter & W. David Rees

Figure 1: The Managerial Escalator – the relationship between managerial andspecialist activity over time (Rees, 1984).

100

75

50

25

0

TOTA

L AC

TIVI

TY (%

)

5 10 15 20 25

SPECIALIST ACTIVITY

MANAGERIAL ACTIVITY

The need for management training anddevelopmentThis escalator process demonstrates how akey management training and developmentneed arises. Most people with managementresponsibility may have had little priorformal management training and that whichhas been received may not have been veryeffective (only 12 out of 50 in the survey,Rees & Porter 2005). Despite the passage oftime this unfortunately fits with the followingobservation:

Management after all, was held by theBritish to be akin to parenting, a role ofgreat importance, for which no training,preparation or qualification wasrequired: the implication being thatexperience is the only possible teacherand character the only possiblequalification. (Handy, 1991, p.122)

There are a number of ways in which man-agement training and development canoccur – which are not necessarily mutuallyexclusive. It is acknowledged that thosewithout prior formal management trainingmay have acquired management expertise bymeans such as on the job coaching. Animportant method can be by coaching by theimmediate boss. Another can be by coachingby a person, if necessary from outside theorganisation, and a trained coaching psy-chologist could obviously have an importantand useful role to play here.

The role of coaching in managementtraining and developmentManagement coaching is, we believe, a morespecific activity than leadership developmentwhere so much can depend on what is meantby the term ‘leadership’. In any case muchleadership development may need to involvea considerable amount of managementdevelopment, (Rees & Porter, 2008b). Keyfactors which will affect whether or notcoaching can be effective and how it may beundertaken include organisation andnational culture, career pathways and theextent to which existing managers can actboth as suitable role models and coaches.

The identification of who needs coachingand how it is to be undertaken may not bestraightforward. There may, for example, belittle point in management coaching if theorganisational climate is hostile, or if theperson who ostensibly needs coaching is notmotivated to take it seriously or can signifi-cantly benefit from it. A related issue is who isto provide the coaching: the boss, anotherinternal provider, an external provider or acombination of these? This also needs also tobe integrated with other developmentalstrategies. The coaching psychologist couldhave a particular role to play here in that theywill have the skills to help the manager toconfront the tensions that he or she is expe-riencing in their role. This would be particu-larly the case where the manager feelsreluctant to relinquish some of their spe-cialist expertise or where they feel ill-pre-pared for the role they have taken on.

Likely substantive managerial training needsOnce there has been an appropriatematching of coach (or coaches) and theperson to be coached, a key need is likely tobe the identification of the managerial con-tent of the job a person needs to be doing.An advantage of coaching is that develop-ment can be tailored to fit individual needs.A problem with previous training and devel-opment can be that it has not been targetedand if only for that reason may not havebeen very useful. Whilst needs will vary fromindividual to individual, the activities thatthose with managerial responsibility arelikely to be involved in include the following: ● Role identification;● Prioritisation;● Delegation;● Motivation of employees;● Communication;● Staff selection;● Counselling;● Disciplinary handling;● Negotiation;● Chairing meetings;● Budgeting;● Client-customer relations.



Individuals may not need coaching in all ofthe above, be it because they are competentin the area, the issue is not a high priority, orit is not practical in current circumstances.However, the fact that staff may have seniormanagerial positions is by no means a guar-antee that they are proficient in key man-agement skills. This can easily arise if aperson has been promoted just because oftheir specialist expertise, without their man-agerial aptitude and potential being takeninto account. The potential gain on invest-ment is likely to be higher, the more seniorthe manager is because of their likelyincreased impact on organisational perform-ance. With some senior people, one-to-onecoaching may be the only practical way ofremedying managerial deficiencies, particu-larly because it can be handled with discre-tion and in confidence. Some of the skillsmay need developing in group situations butevaluation of performance may be possiblethough by the coach being an observer inlive situations and/or by post-event evalua-tion. The range of skills that need devel-oping may be such that more than one coachneeds to be used. Coaches need though tohave an aptitude for coaching, the inclina-tion to do it and expertise in the area orareas that need developing. There is notmuch point in being given a coach who doesnot have relevant substantive knowledge.

Role Set AnalysisThe second technique to be considered isthat of Role Set Analysis. The concept of arole set was established by Merton in 1957(Merton, 1957) and the idea that a manageris part of a social network that constrains hisor her behaviour was discussed at least 10 years prior to this (Newcomb, 1943).Unlike an organisation chart, a role set willreflect external stakeholders with whom therole holder has to interact. Such interactionsmay be more crucial to managerial effective-ness than interactions with internal con-stituencies. Tsui (1984) utilised the conceptof Role Set Analysis to explore managerialeffectiveness from the point of view of mana-

gerial reputation. She proposed that man-agers gain the reputation of being effectiveby meeting the self-interested expectationsof role set members. Reputationally effectivemanagers were found to be more successfulin their careers than the least reputationallyeffective managers.

It can be particularly important for thosewith managerial responsibility to identifytheir role and priorities correctly. It can alsobe important for those involved in theirrecruitment and selection to identify theseissues accurately. There is a particulardanger in organisations with a strong spe-cialist culture (for example, in banking) thatthe need for managerial expertise is ignoredat the managerial appointment stage. RoleSet Analysis – which can be undertaken onan individual or group basis – is a potentiallyuseful technique for prioritising work forthose who already have management respon-sibility. However, this can be a particularlysensitive area for discussion because of theinner conflicts a person may have about whatthey do and what needs doing.

A relatively straightforward example of aRole Set Analysis is shown in Figure 2 forease of explanation. In practice it is likelythat the role set will be more complicatedwith bigger differences between what work isdone and what needs to be done.

The key activities and groups or individ-uals with whom the job holder has to interactare identified. In this case the analysis hasbeen carried out by the job holder himselfbut there is an argument for the job holderseeking out the views of the other people fea-turing in the role set to see what their expec-tations (realistic or otherwise) are of them.

The Role Set Analysis in Figure 2 is drawnshowing actual percentage times spent witheach significant activity or individual or indi-viduals, with the figures in brackets being themodel time allocations to be aimed for. In this case the total time actually spent addsup to 100 per cent. However, the actual jobholder in the case study to which this relatesrealised that he needed to have somethinking time for himself and planned to allo-



cate four per cent of his time for that in thefuture after carrying out the Role Set Analysisexercise. The other model times that he setfor the future were primarily to spend moretime with the line managers in the organisa-tion (25 per cent instead of 16 per cent) withcompensating reductions elsewhere.

Role Set Analysis can be a very effectiveway of thinking strategically about a job. Theconcept of Role Set Analysis can be of par-ticular use in helping a person with manage-rial responsibilities consciously think abouttheir priorities. That is why in Figure 2 themembers of the role set are also identifiednumerically – according to their priorityorder. Further emphasis can be given in adiagram by having the length of the linebetween the job holder shorter or longeraccording to the role set member’s impor-tance. Importance can be crudely defined ashow much damage can be done to the jobholder if the needs of an activity or indi-vidual are neglected. This way a conscious

prioritisation can be achieved rather than,for example, a random one. Managers arelikely to be asked to do significantly morethan there is time for, especially in an era ofvalue for money, budget cuts and increasingcompetition. It is better to ensure that whereeconomies have to be made they are in lowpriority rather than high priority areas. How-ever, it is also important to recognise that pri-orities can change, both long term and inemergency situations. Consequently aperson’s role set time allocations may needto be regularly reviewed. It may be particu-larly useful when a person starts a new job. Afurther application is to check on thestrategic allocation of resources within a unitor the whole of an organisation. An exampleof this is the resources allocated to healthcure compared with health care within ahealth service. Another example is the allo-cation of resources in a police service tocrime prevention compared with crimedetection.



Figure 2: Role Set Analysis: Head of Human Resources of a professional organisation(Rees, 1996).

Head of HumanResources 0 (4)

DirectorGeneral

6 (6)

FinanceDirector

6 (6)

Recruitment13 (11)

LineManagers16 (25)

Own staff23 (20)

Other staff20 (15)

Staff training16 (13)

7 1 2

6 3

5 4

On the job coachingOpportunities may arise quite naturally onthe job for coaching to be given in a rela-tively informal way.

An example is that of a supervisor whobrought a potential but, on the face of it,relatively minor disciplinary situation tothe attention of their manager. Themanager needed to avoid the temptationof taking responsibility for handling theissue himself but instead coach thesupervisor in how to handle the situationfor themselves. This may have been allthe help that the supervisor wantedanyway.

The recommended approach in the aboveexample avoids the twin traps of reducingthe supervisor’s responsibility and encour-aging them to take such issues to the man-ager for resolution in the future. The samelogic applies when senior managers haveissues brought to their attention by man-agers who report to them.

Another set of circumstances in whichcoaching may be given on the job may bewhen the job incumbent may be occupyingsuch a crucial role that they cannot bereleased from the job – even for relativelyshort periods of time.

The Director of Education in a LondonBorough was parachuted into his job at aparticularly crucial time and had relativelylittle managerial experience. The solution tothis problem was to have an external coachshadow him and discuss managerial issuessoon after ‘ live’ situations. In practice thisalso involved an element of mentoring.Coaching and mentoring may be conceptu-ally different but in practice the distinctionmay be and may need to be sometimesblurred. (Rees, 1992, Local GovernmentManagement.)

Coaching evaluationThe final stage in the management coachingprocess will normally need to be evaluation.This could be undertaken by the individual,with or without the coach, or with the sub-ject’s boss. Ideally this will be accompanied

by a follow-up process to see if any change inbehaviour has lasted, or if significant newneeds have emerged. This also gives anopportunity to review how effective thecoaching arrangements have been. Ideallythis will include a cost-benefit analysis, evenif the data cannot easily be quantified. Com-parison may also be necessary of alternativeways of meeting such needs in the future andwhether the role of coaching should beamended, reduced or expanded.

ConclusionsLack of managerial expertise and/or incli-nation to do such work even if it is part ofone’s job can easily cause both individualsand organisations to seriously under-per-form. Even very senior managers may bedeficient in key skills. The way in which man-agers tend to gradually acquire their respon-sibilities is likely to be an important factorcausing under-investment in this area andthe emergence of a major Managerial Gap.For specialist jobs the career entry is likely tobe much more clearly defined and under-stood. It may come as a great surprise tomany specialists that after having acquiredspecialist skills, often after years of study,they are increasingly absorbed in managerialactivities, for which they may have had littleor no effective training and development.They may also have little aptitude or appetitefor such work, however crucial it may be.The notion of the Managerial Escalatorseeks to encapsulate this phenomenon.

Management coaching is one way ofreducing the scale of the above problem.However, it is unlikely to be effective ifpeople are given managerial responsibilitiesthat they are unwilling or unable to under-take. Where coaching is appropriate somemay need to be undertaken by the bosses ofthose with managerial responsibility andmuch may be undertaken informally as theneed arises. Advantages of this are likely tobe effective targeting of needs and low cost.Ideally, organisations should have a culturewhere this is the norm and not the excep-tion. The skills that need developing are



often not sophisticated but can neverthelessbe crucial. A key skill is often effective pri-oritisation so managers do what is needed, asopposed to what is easiest or most enjoyable.Role Set Analysis can be a way of achievingthis. Some coaching may best be done infor-mally but there will be occasions whencoaching is best done ‘off’ the job by aninternal or external provider or providers.This can be particularly appropriate withsenior managers, where not only may the‘pay-off’ be greatest but where confidenceand discretion are essential. The coachingpsychologist will have an important role toplay in helping managers to reflect on theproblems they are facing using the Manage-rial Escalator and Role Set Analysis tools asframeworks.

Possession of even a senior managerialjob is no guarantee that the incumbent pos-sesses key managerial skills – especially ifthey have been appointed primarily or eventotally because of their professional reputa-tion. This may increase the need (and poten-tial pay-off) for individual coaching. As withany other training initiative there needs tobe an evaluation of how effective the processhas been. It is unlikely, for example, that

those with managerial responsibility will ben-efit from coaching if they have little aptitudeor desire for managerial work. The tech-niques explained here could be useful how-ever in helping coaching psychologists andtheir clients to work out how managers canoptimise their effectiveness in the organisa-tional situation should they so desire.

The AuthorsChristine PorterHead of Department,Human Resource Management, Westminster Business School.

W. David ReesIndependent Consultant and formerPrincipal Lecturer, Westminster Business School.

CorrespondenceDr Christine PorterWestminster Business School,University of Westminster,35 Marylebone Road,London NW1 5LS.Email: [email protected]



Coles, M. (1997). IT shortage stumps recruiters.Report of a survey by Theaker, Monro &Newman, Sunday Times Appointments Section, 16 November, 1997.

Handy, C. (1991). The age of unreason (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Merton, R. (1957). Social theory and social structure(2nd ed.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.

Newcomb, R.M. (1943). Personality and social change.New York: Dryden.

Rees, W.D. (1984). Skills of Management (1st ed.).London: Croom Helm.

Rees, W.D. (1992). Someone to watch over me, in LocalGovernment Management. London: Local Govern-ment Management Board.

Rees, W.D. (1996). Skills of management (4th ed.).London: Thomson Business Press.

Rees, W.D. & Porter, C. (2005). Results of a surveyinto how people become managers and the man-agement development implications. Industrialand Commercial Training, 37(5) 252–258.

Rees, W.D. & Porter, C. (2008a). Skills of management(6th ed.). London: South Western CengageLearning.

Rees, W.D. & Porter, C. (2008b). The re-branding ofmanagement development as leadership devel-opment – and its dangers. Industrial and Commer-cial Training, 40(5), 242–247.

Report of the Committee on Senior Nursing StaffStructures (the Salmon Report) (1966). London:HMSO.

Tsui, A. (1984). A Role Set Analysis of managerialreputation. Organisational Behaviour and HumanImportance, 34(1), 64–96.

References

THE STUDY AND APPLICATION ofcomplexity as a theoretical and practicalconstruct that may assist in developing

our understanding of our world, our contextand our practice is an established area ofenquiry. There are many theoretical andphilosophical underpinnings to coachingpsychology practice that can be easilymapped across to concepts and debateswithin complexity science. For example,existentialist approaches, approaches andideas rooted in personal construct psy-chology, solution focused approaches,systems theory to name a few. Coaching psychologists have actively used theseapproaches in their practice for a number ofyears (e.g. Palmer & Whybrow, 2006; Palmer,O’Riordan & Whybrow, 2011).

The zeitgeist of complexity theory con-tinues to manifest as the world as a livingsystem is evident at macro and micro levels,old concepts of power and control are dissi-pating in areas where they seemed solid andreassuring only a few months ago. The needto understand how to work with what isemerging for the client, the coach and as ourpractise develops is clear. To the experiencedcoaching psychology and coaching practi-tioner this has always been the case.

The broad aim in putting this issuetogether was to enable and encourage acritical debate, exploring many diverse per-spectives and views concerning complexitytheory and its’ application to coaching psy-chology that would make a contribution tothe underpinning, expanding knowledgebase and which also offered insight tocoaching and coaching psychology practice.

Surprisingly, complexity theories andmodels of complexity have received scantattention in the Coaching Psychology litera-ture, despite a wealth of practice-basedapproaches that are conceptually aligned, atleast in part. The lead article, by MichaelCavanagh and David Lane, suggests there ishope that Coaching Psychology will emergeas a new discipline that can embrace rigourand the chaotic. The paper draws on thework of Stacey and particularly an adapta-tion of his Certainty/Agreement Matrix(Stacey, 1999). This application of Stacey’smodel rather paradoxically suggests the pos-sibility of a rational construction of com-plexity. One of the core suggestions in thearticle, that we don’t live in a simple,rational, predictable and controllable worldin the way that these terms often imply, islikely to be met with agreement from thecoaching and coaching psychology commu-nity. Cavanagh and Lane argue strongly thatcoaching psychology is well positioned toembrace concepts of complexity, albeit, stillbehind other fields of enquiry and research.

It would be curious to explore howCoaching Psychology theory and practise hasalready extended into the space of grapplingwith complexity, embracing new forms of evi-dence and integrating learning across disci-plines. In their paper, Cavanagh and Laneencourage Coaching Psychology to look atdevelopments in other fields for insight intonon linear and emergent models of practice,this creative approach is likely to bring freshperspectives. Taking these two ideastogether, we have invited comment on thislead article from experts in the field of com-


Debate

Editorial:Coaching Psychology Coming of AgeAlison Whybrow, Anthony M. Grant, Stephen Palmer & Travis Kemp

plexity and experts from within the field ofCoaching Psychology with the express inten-tion of developing the theoretical underpin-nings and pragmatic learning that we mighttake forward.

Professor Ralph Stacey is an eminentfigure in the field of complexity, well knownfor his work exploring how the complexitysciences might provide a new way of under-standing stability and change in organisa-tions. In his paper he takes the readerstraight to local interaction as the point atwhich things happen, removing any notionof omnipotence on the part of the coach. Hearticulates the need for the coach to havedeveloped to a level that they are reflectingin action, that is, reflecting on how they arethinking and how they are thinking togetherwith their client. Stacey no longer uses theCertainty/Agreement Matrix to avoid itsapplication as a rational tool. Stacey presentsthe concept of self organisation as a processthat exists independently of any externalnotion of control. From his perspective, theco-created, emergent nature of all humaninteraction is evident. Stacey’s analysis andconceptual insight deepens the under-standing of this field of debate. Critical ofthe lead paper at a conceptual level, Staceyaffirms that the task of the coach is to holdmultiple possibilities in mind and take actionthat maximises the ability to respond flexiblyas outcomes emerge.

Each subsequent paper amplifies a par-ticular area of the debate, together offeringa rich volume. Dr Tatiana Bachkirova pointsto the body of underpinning evidence thatpersonalised coaching designed to elicit aprofound reflection on personal values andbehaviours works for individual clients,teams and organisations. She reinforces theimportance of the tailored one-to-one inter-vention. Bachkirova urges Cavanagh andLane to be clearer in the position that theyare alluding to and make strident points inrelation to the development of the profes-sion of coaching psychology. Her perspectivegoes beyond the suggestions in the leadpaper pushing for the view that allows a

potential learning space as a whole profes-sion rather than an inherent assumptionthat actually the professional frameworkitself is ‘complete’ and ‘OK’.

Paul Atkins teases apart the ‘lumpingtogether’ of rationality and linearity, arguingfor their different purposes in this debate –whilst we may agree things are not linear, wemay strongly argue against the idea thatreason and sound judgement are not in evi-dence. This paper asks us to consider someof the implicit assumptions upon which ourthinking (and, therefore, practice) is based.Atkins argues against the value of elementalrealism, and instead for pragmatic contextu-alism as a very rational (not linear) way ofworking as a coach that is a shift in emphasisrecognised by the experienced practitioner.A pragmatic and philosophical challenge ispresented.

David Drake introduces the term post-professional to the debate, and brings a freshcritique that argues for a clearer definitionof story and reminds the reader of the wealthof narrative coaching literatures, and thework on the structure and function thereof.Further, Drake reminds us of the seminalwork by Winnecott (1971) and the nature ofthe ‘holding environment’ that the coachmight provide. A thoughtful challenge ispresented in the form of how a coaching psy-chology/coaching practitioner might drawfrom the debate housed in Cavanagh andLane’s paper in their practise.

Professor Bob Hodge, with a strong pro-file covering a wide interdisciplinary rangeof fields including cultural theory, and chaostheory brings fresh perspective and conceptsfrom the world of complexity and chaos thatmight be usefully considered, for example,that of fractals. Hodge notes that one of thebenefits of the style of Cavanagh and Lane’sarticle is to introduce some complex con-cepts in a way that is more accessible to thoseunfamiliar with them. As a newcomer to thefield of Coaching Psychology, ProfessorHodge notes that the rapid emergence ofCoaching Psychology as a subfield may bechaos theory in action.


Editorial: Coaching Psychology Coming of Age

Describing herself as ‘always interested inthe human condition’, Lesley Kuhn offers aphilosophically rich and enticing paper.From a practice perspective, Dr Kuhn sug-gests that there are some habits to learn thatcan help us develop complexity thinkingrather than linear thinking. This paperoffers five critical insights in to the paper byCavanagh and Lane that resonate in partwith those presented in Stacey’s work. Kuhnreminds of a quote from Ball (1995), wheretheory itself functions as a catalytic agent ofchange.

Julie Allan picks up on the concepts ofprofessionalism, empiricism and appropriatefrom the lead article. Professionalism it isargued, goes beyond idea of protectedknowledge, to issues of judgement andpraxis, linking with the article offered byAtkins. Questioning the idea that psychologyhas only been informed by linear models,Allan refers to her enquiry into wisdom as anemergent property of a complex system.Introducing the work of Clarkson (1995)and connecting with our full ways ofknowing, there is a resonance shared withthe lead article on what constitutes evidencebased practice.

The last paper in this Special Issue isauthored by Gordon Spence, which buildson the themes of interdisciplinary working.Spence invites us to consider both the bene-fits and embedded challenges in working ina multidisciplinary environment. The paperbrings to mind how we construe success.Working and learning from an interdiscipli-nary perspective is likely to bring freshinsight and influence the future develop-ment of the coaching and coaching psy-chology field.

The authors of the lead article are givenan additional 1500 words if they wish torespond to the discussants, given the rich-ness of the debate sparked, this invitationhas been taken up by Cavanagh and Laneand their response is included in this issue.

In closing, we would like to thank theEditorial Board for supporting this partic-ular Special Issue, and each of the authorsfor their valuable contribution. Takentogether, the articles open up importantquestions and numerous possibilities. Wehope readers find this issue does indeedapproach the topic of complexity from arange of original perspectives, and offersnew insight and learning. We would welcomecomments and feedback.

Alison Whybrow, Anthony M. Grant,Stephen Palmer & Travis Kemp

ReferencesBall, S. (1995). Intellectuals or technicians? The

urgent role of theory in educational studies.British Journal of Educational Studies, 43(3),255–271.

Clarkson P (1995). The therapeutic relationship.London Whurr.

Stacey, R.D. (1999). Strategic management and organisa-tional dynamics: The challenge of complexity(3rd ed.). London: Financial Times.

Winnicott, D.W. (1971). Playing and reality. New York:Basic Books.

Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (2006). The coaching psy-chology movement and its development withinthe British Psychological Society. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 1(1), 5–11.

Palmer, S., O’Riordan, S. & Whybrow, A. (2011).Coaching Psychology Past, Coaching PsychologyPresent, Coaching Psychology Future. Keynote pres-entation at the 3rd European Coaching Psychology Conference, London.



WE LIVE in a complex and compli-cated world. We are continuallyreminded of the increasingly rapid

rate of change. We experience the growingdemand to do more with less. Electronicmedia means that many of us are on call or‘at work’ for a much greater percentage ofour waking hours than was the case 10 or 20years ago. We are buffeted with informationoverload, just in time delivery, marketdemands, and what appears to be theincreasing bureaucratisation of our publicand organisational interactions. The peoplewe coach make decisions, act, and react inthe face of multiple competing agendas, rap-idly changing circumstances, and the emer-gence of new and unpredictable problemsand issues. It is indeed and complex andcomplicated world – and if we add issuessuch as global climate change, peak oil, thewar on terror or the Global Financial Crisis –it starts to look positively chaotic!

So how do we as coaching psychologistsmanage in this increasingly messy andunpredictable world of complexity – andmore to the point, how do we help ourclients to manage in this world? What doescoming of age, or ‘growing up’ in this worldlook like for us as practitioners, researchersand as a profession?

In order to answer these questions, it isfirst helpful to define some of our key terms– in particular, the difference between threetypes of systems: simple, complex and chaoticsystems. In complexity theories these termshave particular meanings that differ some-what from their common meaning.

A simple system is a system that is know-able or understandable. A hot air balloon,for example, is a simple system involving aballoon, basket and heat source and associ-ated ropes and weights. Their functions andinterrelationships are understandable andpredicable – i.e. heat the air in the balloon


Debate

Coaching Psychology Coming of Age:The challenges we face in the messyworld of complexityMichael Cavanagh & David Lane

Coaching is a rapidly emerging discipline in a world in constant change. Many of the issues facing coachesand their clients fit within the rational linear models that have served psychology well in the past. However,coaches and clients are also called upon to deal with novel complex and even chaotic challenges for whichlinear frameworks offer little value. Between the linear and the chaotic, the space on the edge of chaos createspossibilities for emergent creativity. Each of these spaces, the simple, complex and chaotic, has implicationsfor us as practitioners, researchers and as a profession. This paper explores each of these. If coachingpsychology is to come of age we need to find a way to create a discipline that can build on our foundationsyet work comfortably with cross disciplinary ideas and colleagues. It may be that coaching psychology willemerge as a new kind of discipline one that can embraces rigour and the chaotic in the service of its clients,science and the profession.Keywords: Complexity, Coaching Psychology, Chaos, Profession, Research, Creativity.

This paper is based on a keynote delivered at the 1st International Congress of CoachingPsychology, London, December 2010.

and it rises, cool it and it descends. Simplesystems can be very complicated (this is dif-ferent from being complex). For example, a jet aircraft is a complicated system. However,the functions of each of the aircrafts compo-nents and their inter-relationships are know-able and predictable. For most practicalpurposes, both simple and complicatedsystems can be thought of as governed bylinear causation.

A complex system, on the other hand, mayhave few parts or subsystems, or it may havemany. Regardless of how complicated it is,complex systems do not function in the sameway simple systems function. In simplesystems each part has its function (or set offunctions) and they operate in standard andpredictable ways. Complex systems are recur-sive, not linear. Responses and outcomes arenot fixed, but change depending on whathas gone before. This is most easily seen incomplex adaptive systems. Complex adaptivesystems are systems in which the systemmembers are agents in their own right, thusallowing them to adapt to system inputs inunpredictable and novel ways. For example,while a jet aircraft is a complicated system –it operates in knowable and predictable ways– the flight crew of that plane form a com-plex adaptive system. Each crew member isable to adapt their behaviour according totheir own goals, desires, personal character-istics, and predispositions stemming fromtheir personal histories, DNA and the func-tioning of their own biological subsystems.

This capacity to adapt means the causalstructure of complex adaptive systems is non-linear. Responses are not simply mechani-cally repeated, but chosen, altered andadapted based on what has gone before andwhat is expected to happen in the future. Inother words, they are governed by recursivefeedback and feedforward loops. This makesbehaviour in complex systems iterativerather than repetitive. Unlike the workingsof a machine, a complex adaptive systemmay respond to a given set of circumstancesin one way at one time, and very differentlyto those same circumstances at another time.

For example, a co-pilot might challenge adecision made by the captain on one flight,but not do so in similar circumstances onanother flight. A flight crew may chose tobelieve the accuracy of the cockpit instru-ments on one day, and ignore or disbelievethem on another. Importantly, theseresponses are not completely predictablenor the conditions that govern them fullyknowable. The difference that makes the dif-ference in these choices may only be guessedat (and then often only in hindsight).Attempts to deal with this through training(Cockpit Resource Management) has a longhistory (Weiner, Kanko & Helmreich, 1993).Most air accidents have more than one con-tributing factor. As a Bureau of Air SafetyInvestigation (BASI) study has shown whileover 70 per cent of the accidents involvedpilot factors they frequently have their ori-gins in systemic or organisational failings(Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, 1996).We similarly see this complexity in a range ofdisasters (Taylor & Lane, 1991).

Chaotic systems are a type of complexsystem – or rather, chaos is a phase that com-plex systems often go through. Contrary tothe common understanding of the termchaos, chaotic systems are not without order.Rather, they are systems in which changeappears to be so unpredictable and unstableas to be almost random. Examples of suchsystems include the weather, the turbulenceof rivers, economies, and markets. Whilethese systems do show ordered patterns ofbehaviour when viewed from a distance (e.g.the regularity of the seasons, general move-ments in bull markets and bear markets) thelevel of stability and predictability of thesesystems is low when viewed in a fine grainedway. For example, while we might be reason-ably guess that midsummer’s day is likely tobe warmer than midwinter’s day, we cannotaccurately predict what the temperature,wind or cloud cover will be like on those daysnext year. (Neither can we predict the occur-rence of extreme weather events, like storms,floods or snow in summer. In fact, with allour records and supercomputers, we cannot


Michael Cavanagh & David Lane

accurately predict weather more than a fewdays in advance!)

Ralph Stacey (1999) presented a matrixthat can help us understand the differentphases, or space a complex system and itssubsystems may occupy, using the dimen-sions of certainty of prediction and level ofagreement (see Figure 1). The matrix iden-tifies a range of spaces delineated by thelevel of agreement about what should orcould be done, and the degree of pre-dictability of outcome should that course ofaction be followed. A system can be said tobe chaotic when there is little or no agree-ment about how to act, and little or no pre-dictability about what might happen shouldthat action be taken. However, under condi-tions where there is high agreement andhigh predictability, then management usingrational decision making, or decisionmaking based on linear models of cause andeffect, is most appropriate.

Between the rational and chaotic spacesis a complex adaptive space – sometimescalled the edge of chaos – where the systemrequires self-organisation and adaptation inorder to meet the challenges of organisa-tional life. Human systems, and indeed most

natural systems tend to function within thisspace, and are characterised by self-organisa-tion and emergence (to which we will returnshortly).

In recent years Stacey and colleagueshave revised their support for the certainty-agreement matrix, eschewing the languageof complex adaptive systems. Stacey and col-leagues hold that conceiving organisationsand people as systems that can be charac-terised as simple, complex or chaotic is ulti-mately unhelpful in that it reifies a dynamicongoing process. Instead they hold thathuman organisations and the creation ofknowledge are best thought of as complexresponsive processes – a ongoing conversa-tion that is best thought of, not as a thing,but as an ever unfolding process of respon-siveness to an ever-changing context (Stacey2001, 2007).

While we agree with the thrust of Stacey’sargument, we nevertheless see some value inusing an adapted version of Stacey’s earliermatrix as a way highlighting certain featuresof the dynamic nature of organisational con-texts – namely self organisation and emer-gence – and their implications for coaching.


Coaching Psychology Coming of Age

Figure 1: Simple, complex and chaotic spaces:An adaptation of the Stacey Certainty/Agreement Matrix.

Emergence, self-organisation, diversityand anxietySystems are not the sum of their parts, norare their characteristics merely a reflectionof the characteristics of the system member.Emergence is a term used to denote theprocess by which the characteristics of asystem emerge from the interaction of thesystem parts, and not from those parts them-selves. A useful analogy here is water. Theconstituent elements of water are hydrogenand oxygen. Both are explosive gases. How-ever, when combined together in the rightway, they form water – a substance whichdoes not burn, and may be used to quellfires. The properties of water emerge fromthe interaction of hydrogen and oxygen atoms(and the subsequent interaction of the watermolecules formed by them – not from thefeatures of those atoms or molecules them-selves).

The same is true of human systems. Theproperties of a human system are not simplydue to the characteristics of its members – achampion team is more than a team ofchampions! Rather, they emerge as a resultof the interaction of the parts of the system.This is an important point that is rarelyrecognised or incorporated into leadershipand change theories. Most theories of lead-ership and change focus on the members ofthe group as individuals. Systemicapproaches are less interested in the individ-uals and more in the pattern of interactionbetween them.

Emergence is itself a process charac-terised by increasing connectivity, net-working and feedback (e.g. Stacey et al.,2000). As Morrison (2006, p.3) eloquentlyexplains:

Connectedness requires a distributedknowledge system; knowledge is notcentrally located in a command andcontrol centre (e.g. a principal’s office ora central government department).Rather it circulates throughout thesystem, and communication andcollaboration are key elements ofcomplexity theory (Cilliers, 1998). Self-

organisation emerges and is internallygenerated … rather than being theproduct of external control. Order is notimposed; it emerges spontaneously, ofitself, whether we like it or not; it iscontrol that is imposed.

We experience emergence all the time. Forexample, we have all been involved in groupsthat seem to bring the best out in us, andothers that seem to bring the worst out in us.We have been involved in groups that havehigh energy and where creativity abounds,and others in which even the simplest tasksseem impossible and creativity is but a dis-tant memory. The difference is not simplydown to the characteristics of the members.Rather it is a function of all the forcesshaping behaviour, both within the groupand outside the group.

In human systems, an enormous range ofproperties emerge from the interactionwithin the system. These include:● Behaviour;● Roles;● Processes;● Outcomes (both intended and unin-

tended, physical and emotional).Self-organisation refers to the way in whichsystem members co-ordinate their behaviourwithout overt control or management bycentral leadership. Examples of self-organi-sation abound in our world. They includethe way markets respond to events, orworkers respond to novel circumstances, orthe way traffic responds to the changing con-ditions.

In contexts marked by unpredictablechange, self-organisation is a critical compo-nent of adaptation to the environment. Evenin a relatively stable environment, self organ-isation is the grease which keeps the organi-sation moving. Workers must continuallyadapt to the vagaries of the working environ-ment in order to meet organisational goals.A failure to adapt quickly disables an organi-sation. This is vividly seen in industrial dis-putes where workers deliberately stop takinginitiative and ‘work to rule’. Complexsystems require ongoing adaptation.



The features of complex adaptive systemsThere are few, if any, genuinely simple, oreven simply complicated, organisations inour world. For example, once we add thehuman element to a jet aircraft (a compli-cated but simple system), the whole systemnow becomes a complex one. At the level ofthe whole system, human systems are alwayscomplex adaptive systems. This is easy to seeif we consider the adaptive behaviour of aflight crew maintaining normal flight acrossa range of weather conditions, or whenresponding to emergencies for which theirtraining and experience has equipped them.At particular points in time, human systemsmay enter into chaotic phases marked byinstability, confusion or even breakdown(e.g. a flight crew when required to respondto multiple overwhelming emergencies orsituations outside the scope of their trainingor experience.) However, it should be notedthat at these times, the process of adaptationor responsiveness continues, albeit withhighly unpredictable outcomes. At still othertimes, the system as a whole may appear tooperate as a very stable, linear simple system(e.g. flight while on autopilot). Even herethe whole system remains a complex adap-tive system, because at any time circum-stances may arise that require adaptiveresponses.

While all human systems are complexadaptive systems, it is nevertheless sometimesuseful to distinguish between systems thatare functioning in straight forward, pre-dictable ways, displaying complex self organ-ising patterns, or occupy a more chaoticspace.

Understanding human systems in thisway poses three difficulties for us as practi-tioners, researchers and professionals.Firstly, most of the models of leadership andchange we use as practitioners are built onthe assumption that our clients and the con-texts in which they work, can be treated as ifthey are linear systems – governed by simple(or complicated) linear chains of cause andeffect – and hence are only really useful insystems that are functioning in straight for-

ward, predictable ways. Secondly, most of themethods we employ as researchers,(including our statistical approaches)require us to assume the objects of ourresearch behave in ways that are stable pre-dictable and linear – and that they live in astable predictable linear world. Finally, afoundational assumption of all professions,including psychology, is that the members ofa profession have privileged access to knowl-edge which enables prediction and practice,and which can be developed and controlledwithin the profession. In a world governedby complexity, these assumptions do notalways hold true.

We would like to suggest that, rather thanliving in a simple, rational, predictable andcontrollable world, we live and work in aworld characterised by a dynamic mix ofsimple, complex, and chaotic spaces. Someaspects of our world are amenable to simplerational understanding and intervention.Others require a view and process thatenables emergence and self-organisation.Still other aspects of our world require us towork with chaotic and radically unpre-dictable dynamics. The non-linear nature ofthe systems in which we work has implica-tions for how we should think about what wedo, and how we should go about doing whatwe do. Each of these spaces require differentmodels and skills. As the rate of changeincreases, our ability to recognise andrespond appropriately to the systemdynamics at play will become ever morecritical to our success and the success of ourclients.

Implications for coaching practiceUnderstanding the world as a complex adap-tive system has far reaching implications forthe practice of coaching psychology. We donot have space here to list them all, and willfocus on the implications for the applicationof theory and our relationship to evidence.

Theories and models typically seek todescribe and explain some aspect of theworld. Our theories and models are storieswe hold about the world and the way it



works. They are maps that guide action andshape expectations and understanding. Likeall stories, they open us to some possibilitiesand close down others. (Corrie & Lane,2010) For example, the language of linearrationality promotes a focus on clarity, cer-tainty and control, while at the same timetacitly (or explicitly) invalidating otherapproaches as woolly, irrational and uncer-tain.

Seeing the world as a complex dynamicmatrix of different spaces also has implica-tions for our approach to evidence incoaching practice. Coaching psychology hasled the charge for evidence based practice incoaching. However, as currently conceived,evidence based practice refers to empiricallytested models of practice, and is most athome in the linear rational space.

Coaching in rational space – evidence-basedcoachingEvidence-based practice seeks to build up areliable and common stock of stories (i.e.theories and models) that can be used (atleast at a functional level) as exemplars ofthe individual and unique client stories weencounter in the real world. Their functionis to guide prediction and action. For

example, Trevor approaches a coach com-plaining of anxiety over presenting to mem-bers of the board of his company. Thecognitive behavioural approach has a modelof social anxiety that can be used to explainand make sense of Trevor’s experience. Thisunderstanding, in turn, guides both thecoach and Trevor in selecting some actionsor interventions and rejecting others.

The intervention selected is evidencebased to the extent that the exemplar story,and the indicated treatment, have been sub-ject to validation via empirical testing withmany other clients who also demonstratepresentation anxiety. To the extent that anindividual client’s story conforms to thisempirically validated story, it is useful. To theextent that the client story is not captured bythis common or stock exemplar, it can bemisleading, or even unhelpful.

A fundamental unstated assumption inthe above approach to practice, and in mostpsychological theories is assumptions thatthere is a chain of cause and effect that is rel-atively stable, can be known and can be usedto predict and control outcomes. Such anapproach fits most closely with the rational,linear space indicated in Figure 2.



Figure 2: Coaching practice in simple, complex and chaotic spaces.

In those aspects of our world wherestable, identifiable and testable relationshipsgenerally hold true, this rational empiricalapproach is functional and indeed may beenormously useful. Great advances in thetreatment of mental health conditions,methodologies for education and training,goal setting and performance enhancementhave been made precisely using the rationalempirical approach and these are of greatutility in coaching (Cavanagh, 2005). Donewell, it is a valid and rigourous approach topractice, and should not be lightly disre-garded.

However, when we are faced with newand unique situations, or where chains ofcause and effect are ambiguous, unknow-able, or unstable, then evidence-basedpractice becomes problematic or evenimpossible to maintain.

Coaching practice on the edge of chaosWhen faced with complex, non-lineardynamics we need models that enable us tofunction in the space on the edge of chaos.This space is characterised by ambiguity andanxiety due to the lack of predictability andagreement. It is a space in which behaviourtends toward self-organisation (unless other-wise constrained) and where the ongoing,self-organised interaction between actorsleads to the emergence of new and oftenunexpected outcomes.

In such spaces we need models or storiesthat take seriously the notions of non-linearcausation and radical unpredictability, andthe ‘ground up’ nature of emergentprocesses. Such emergent models enable usto engage with the diversity present in thesystem. In the linear empirical approach,multiple irresolvable pathways of causationare unwanted. Linear models seek to reducethese sources of ‘noise’ – they seek what iscommon, not what is different. However, onthe edge of chaos, it is precisely the tensioncreated by the diverse responses in thesystem that stimulates emergence of creative,innovative responses.

Emergent models of practice see theissues and challenges faced on the edge ofchaos as unique and irreducible. They donot seek to reduce or resolve difference andambiguity. Rather, emergent models seek toengage diversity in order to create multiple,new and unique solutions commensuratewith the irreducible uniqueness of the issuebeing faced. In coaching, the solutions-focused approach and strength-based andmindfulness-based approaches have devel-oped in an attempt to partially meet thisneed (see Cavanagh & Grant, 2010; Grant &Cavanagh, 2011; Spence, Cavanagh & Grant,2008).

Nevertheless, psychology is not repletewith such emergent models. Our theoriestend toward empirical reductionism. At theirheart, they seek prediction and control,rather than engagement with ongoing,unpredictable emergent processes. Whereprediction and control are possible, this isappropriate and useful. However, in theambiguous space on the edge of chaos,attempts to constrain possible solutions toonly those underpinned by linear empiricalstories are likely to lead to inferior and unsat-isfactory outcomes. In practice this is recog-nised by competent practitioners, whoattempt to adapt their behaviour and modelsto the unique circumstances of the moment.However, these adaptations vary in theireffectiveness and always sit uneasily with thecertainty seeking of the empirical linearapproach. The preference in psychologytowards propositional rather than implica-tional knowledge (Teasdale, 1996) or asBruner (2002) defines it, the paradigmaticrather than the narrative is part of thisuneasy relationship. (See also Corrie &Lane, 2010.)

Non-linear and emergent models ofpractice are being developed in other fieldssuch as diverse as chemistry (Prigogine,1997), management (Stacey, 2007), sys-temics (Watson, 2005), and education(Davis, Sumara & Luce-Kapler, 2008). Tech-niques and processes such as Theory U(Scharmer, 2009) World Café (Brown &



Isaacs, 2005) and dialogue (Kahane, 2007)are being developed and used outside of thefield of psychology to address the complexproblems and issues faced by individuals andgroups in today’s world. A range of decisionmaking aides and processes for complexproblems are also available These includescenario planning, (Sunter, 1992), robust-ness analysis (Rosenhead, 1989b), groupdecision support systems (GDSS) (Huxham1996), and a range of problem structuringmethods (Rosenhead 1989a, 1996).

Techniques such as these, and manyothers can be used to promote the climate orconditions for emergence-through-self-organisation. They do this by fostering dia-logue, creativity, ensuring openness todiversity, the development of connectivityand feedback, and by recognising that adap-tive order can emerge in the absence of cen-tralised control. Adaptive order emerges viaongoing, iterative, bottom-up development.

While ahead of other areas of psycholog-ical practice in taking up such models,coaching psychology remains well behindother fields in addressing the difficulties ofpractice posed by complexity.

Coaching practice in the chaotic space– developing structured stories thatenable emergenceThe chaotic space is characterised byextremes of unpredictability and little or noagreement about what might be done.Unlike the stable zone of rational linearity,which tends to resist disturbance and returnto normal functioning quickly, even smalldisturbances in the chaotic space can lead tomovement away from the normal function,and this movement can in turn generate fur-ther unpredictable divergence. Hence, thisspace is often characterised by confusion,overwhelming anxiety, and/or a lack of trustin other agents within this space.

What is the task of the coaching psychol-ogist in this space? We would suggest that theprimary task of the coach here is to helpcreate the conditions in which the systemcan move toward more adaptive self-organ-

ising functioning. In order to do this, effec-tive meaning must be created amidst confu-sion. Overwhelming anxiety must becontained, and brought back to manageablelevels, and a platform of trust built to sup-port the dialogue and connectivity neededfor self-organising activity.

By the creation of effective meaningamidst confusion, we mean that the clientmust find meaning that is capable of helpingthem to structure their experience in waysthat open up pathways to adaptive change.In other words, they must be assisted indeveloping structured stories that enable theprocess of collaborative understanding anddecision making to occur.

Amidst the anxiety and confusion ofchaotic spaces, there is a tendency to grasp atany story that holds potential to amelioratethe discomfort and pain being experienced.This is true for the client and the coach.Clients are vulnerable to suggestion in suchplaces – witness the myriad of quack curesfor cancer that attract otherwise sensiblepeople. Amidst the confusion of notknowing, it is also easy for coaches to seek toretreat to the comfort of what is known, andoffer, or impose understandings drawn fromtheir own stock of standard stories. In therush to resolution of ambiguity, importantfeatures of the client’s situation may gounnoticed, or ignored.

The process of creating structured storiesin the chaotic space requires mindful, reflec-tive responsiveness rather than reactivity.The task here is for the coach and client tonotice and reflect on the qualitative themespresent in the client’s situation, and to thinkthrough together the possible trajectories ofoutcome that any action might precipitate.This is not to suggest that the coach or clientshould seek to predict with any degree ofcertainty, what might unfold. Rather, the taskis to hold those multiple possibilities in mindand design actions that maximise the abilityto respond flexibly as outcomes emerge.

Under conditions of ambiguity and confu-sion, inflexible responding or unreflectiveadherence to a single understanding or course



of action, can lead to disaster. For example, in2001, the flight crew of Air Transat Flight 236,enroute from Toronto to Lisbon, noticed animbalance in fuel loads between the starboardand port wings. Following a well-rehearsedprotocol for such events, they attempted toremedy this by transferring fuel betweentanks. They continued this course of actiondespite instrument readings that showed fuelloss, which they interpreted as due to faultyinstrumentation. Unknown to the crew, a fuelline to the starboard engine was leaking, andthe transferred fuel was in fact being ventedoutside. The crew’s failure to adequately con-sider alternative scenarios eventually led tocomplete loss of fuel in the mid-Atlantic, andrequired the crew to glide for 120 kms, crashlanding in the Azores. Sixteen people onboard were injured, two seriously (Ladkin,2004).

The challenge for coaching psychologyin the chaotic space is to continue to developmodels of practice that assist clients to makesense of unpredictable and ambiguous chal-lenges without seeking to oversimplify, orcontrol via the imposition of past solutionsand standardised models that assume thedynamics and trajectory of the present willbe the same as those of past challenges.

In this endeavour psychologists shouldrecognise that they are not alone. Opennessto, and application of, cross-disciplinaryknowledge is critical to solving the complexproblems that beset our clients. Self organi-sation within systems requires collaborativeconnectivity. Innovation emerges from thetension created by diverse and distributedperspectives and knowledge. Hence, part ofthe challenge facing us as practitioners is toremain open to, and genuinely engage with,other perspectives – particularly those thatseem furthest from our own. Innovationoccurs in the synthesis of this dialectic, andnot in the repetition of past understandings.This is a fundamental challenge for a newarea such as coaching psychology as it tries tobuild its place within psychology. To be at itsmost useful to clients, coaching must reachout beyond psychology rather than codify its

practice solely within traditional features ofthe discipline.

Implications for research Research in the rational spaceAs might be guessed from the preceding dis-cussion, acceptance of complexity has arange of implications for research. We wouldlike to start by strongly asserting that linear,reductive research, such as used by mostquantitative psychological research methods,is an important source of knowledge and evi-dence and should be continued (see Grant& Cavanagh, 2007). Much of our world isstable, with patterns of causation and predic-tion quite possible. The statistical methodsused in quantitative research both assumeand reflect this linear stability. Standardempirical research remains a key foundationstone of the psychological enterprise andprovides coaches with a critically importantevidence base for dealing with those aspectsof client experience that demonstrate sta-bility of cause and effect.

Even at the edge of chaos, and in chaoticspaces, order is to be found. Unpredictabilitydoes not mean utter randomness. Instabilityis not absolute. Complexity theory recog-nises this through the concept of boundedinstability. Events my play out in a range ofunpredictable ways, but these trajectories arenot entirely random. They tend to fall withina bounded set of possible trajectories, whichmay be wider or narrower depending onhow far from equilibrium the system is, andhow extreme the adjustments of the systemmembers. Hence, while outcomes may beunpredictable, they are nevertheless likely tofall within a range of possible outcomes, andhence probabilistic models of research havea place here also.

Difficulties arise when we start to thinkthat the only valid form of evidence is thatgained from linear quantitative method.When we limit the definition of evidencebased practice to practice which is supportedby randomised controlled trials, we drasti-cally reduce our ability to engage with thecomplex problems faced by our clients.



When we are dealing with the edge of chaos,the utility of statistics becomes the tyranny ofthe p-value!

Rather than linear reductive models ofresearch, researching phenomena that playsout on the edge of chaos requires anapproach to research that is emergent andintegrative (see Figure 3). In other words, itrequires an approach which is able to adaptto the emergent outcomes and follow theseover time. It also requires methodologiesthat are capable of integrating multiple out-comes and perspective.

There is a paucity of research method-ologies in psychology able to deal with non-linear systems. Outside of psychology,methods for analysing systems have beenused and developed for some decades.These include social network analysis(Freeman, 2006), with its strange metricssuch as Betweenness, Centrality, Cohesion andReach. Other forms of analysis used insystems research include Soft SystemsMethodology (SSM; Checkland, 2001).

Qualitative methods are also useful indeveloping an evidence base for coaching inthe non-linear space. However, this wouldrequire us as researchers and practitioners tothink of evidence in ways which incorporatesanalogy and anecdote, rather than excludesthem. Similarly, practice-based evidence isimportant in dealing with non-linear phe-nomena. However, this would require thedevelopment of models of practice-basedresearch, and practitioner training in them,in order to ensure appropriate rigour ofinterpretation.

There is also a paucity of models in psy-chology for investigating chaotic phe-nomena. The research methods available tous seek to reduce sources of variance, so as todiscover the underlying causal structure of aphenomena. They assume that ‘any variationabout predicted values results from as yetunexplained causal factors, and as we under-stand more about what is going on theresidual random element will be progres-sively reduced (Rosenbaum, 1998). However,in chaotic spaces, and on the edge of chaos,

it is the complex of tiny differences thatmakes the difference, most of which areunknowable in advance. Probablistic, crosssectional models of research are unable tocapture this. Rather, what is needed aremodels of research based on ongoing anditerative engagement in reflective andexploratory analysis (see Figure 3). In thisway we are engaged in a process of doubleloop learning. Indeed we learn to learn fromchaos.

As traditional models of research andknowledge transmission are found wantingfor understanding the complex and chaoticproblems, other models of learning andsupervision have emerged. For example,communities of practice are one way inwhich groups of stakeholders engage witheach other in order to understand their owncontext, and to maintain rigour of under-standing and practice. Cross-disciplinary dia-logues also appears to be growing. PracticeResearch Networks (Goldfried & Eubanks-Carter, 2004) and other methods for‘learning for tomorrow’ (Lane & Corrie,2006) are possibilities. These are welcomedevelopments as they help us to engage withcomplexity in ongoing dialogical ways.

The foregoing brief discussion ofresearch and practice in complex settingshighlights the importance of our notions ofwhat constitutes valid evidence upon whichto build theory and practice. Our models ofevidence will enable some forms of practiceand research, and disable others. We believethat reflecting on the models of evidence weuse in the light of understandings aboutcomplex systems is important for the devel-opment of the field of coaching psychology.Although difficult, such a discussion maylead to a broader understanding of evidence-based practice, and open up new and usefulavenues to help our clients.

Implications for coaching psychology asprofessionTraditionally, professions are seen as desig-nated carriers of rational knowledge in theirfield. They are the keepers (and owners of)



a common knowledge base in their field andthe reliable source of knowledge creation inthat field. The other markers of traditionalprofessions include the requirement formembers to have formal academic qualifica-tions; adherence to an enforceable, self reg-ulated, code of ethics; practice licensed onlyto qualified members (and achieved throughhours served and accreditation); compliancewith applicable state-sanctioned regulation;(Spence, 2007, p.261). In the helping pro-fessions, service to client, narrowly definedas the individual receiving services, consti-tutes the primary professional relationshipof interest. (This section is also discussed inLane, 2011.)

While the traditional model of profes-sions in society is long established, it is nowunder increasing challenge. A number offactors are seen as undermining this tradi-tional position. The challenge to the ideathat professionals in training need to com-plete a certain number of hours to beaccredited has been under assault from themove to competence models. If someonecan show that they are competent whyshould they have to serve an artificialnumber of hours in an apprenticeshipmodel? The speed of change of knowledge

has directed professions to consider theimplications of the position that once quali-fied you can be seen as forever competent –hence the need for a serious evaluatedapproach to CPD (rather than merely a logof hours completed) and renewal of licenceto practice through reaccreditation everyfive years as suggested in some fields such asmedicine and psychology at the Europeanlevel. The demand for consumer voice andclient autonomy has changed the basis forcommissioning of services. The state andinsurers are demanding a say in standardsand service model rather than this being amatter of professional control. The move ofprofessionals from partnerships and self-employment to employee relationships (e.g.in-house lawyers), has also altered the factorsinfluencing professional service standardsand the definition of the client relationship.(Corrie & Lane, 2010)

This is affecting many professions. A recent review of 50 professions (Lane etal., 2010) across several countries found thatmany seeking to renew their license topractice based on:● Position of client;● Autonomy of client;● Profession as social contributor.



Figure 3: Matching research models to context.

So what has happened to professions to causethis? Increasingly the challenges we facerequire rapid, cross-disciplinary responses.The concept of the profession has itselfbecome fragile. Professionals have beenlosing their monopoly of knowledge. Knowl-edge has become something that evolves inspecific communities of practice. Knowledgeis no longer a list of facts that is stable, but itis contextualised and relational. The body ofknowledge is growing and knowledge isdemocratised by being accessible throughchannels open to everybody, mainly throughthe internet. In that sense there is no profes-sion that has exclusive ownership over theknowledge base in specific areas of expertise.So the professions of the future may look verydifferent from those of the past.

What does this mean for coachingpsychology?Recently Cavanagh and Lane (2010) haveargued that different models of professionalpractice are likely to emerge in response tothe challenges of an increasingly complexworld. Drawing on Stacey’s work on com-plexity (1996) they present three possible sto-ries for professional practice (see Figure 4).

Professions in the rational space:the Traditional ProfessionIn a world in which there are high levels oragreement about what to do and high pre-dictability that we can achieve defined out-comes, we can, perhaps, work within thetraditional rational models of the profes-sions. It assumes we can agree its basis andconform to our own professional body orstate regulated codes. It assumes a clear rela-tionship with the client that works for theclients benefit. Sanctions for breeches forthat client relationship can be defined interms of a prescribed code because practicecan be codified accordingly to rational cri-teria that are stable and predictable. Ouridentity as professionals is generated bymembership of a defined body. We are, forexample, psychologists because the BritishPsychological Society or the Health Profes-sions Council says so. This is also the frame-work that has informed much of the debateabout the role of supervision in developingfuture practitioners – the expert/apprenticemodel. Hence, to supervise psychologystudents in training you must be registeredas a qualified practitioner by the HPC if yourstudent is to be eligible for registration once



Figure 4: Matching professional stance to context.

they qualify. It is all codified, predictable andrational and proceeds through a linearprocess. In coaching, the ICF adopt a similarposition – students need to be supervised byan ICF recognised practitioner in order toattain ICF accreditation.

Professions in the emergent space:Post-professional and cross-disciplinary In our current complex world, we often faceissues that, due to their uniqueness and com-plexity, require cross-disciplinary knowledgeor an unusual synthesis of ideas andapproaches. We are often unable to rely oncodified knowledge from within one profes-sional sphere alone and are confronted withlimited levels of agreement about what to do,and limited predictability of outcome. Pro-fessionals faced with these complex prob-lems are increasingly required to enter intoiterative, responsive dialogue with multiplestakeholders, co-creating new interventionsthat may depart from the traditionalapproach of their profession. In complexworlds we are required to surf the edge ofchaos.

Our traditional orthodoxies struggle tomeet the challenges of such fluid spaces.Our traditional body of knowledge oftendoes not tell us what to do, nor does theresearch base help us predict with anydegree of certainty what outcomes mightemerge from our new interventions. Thisleaves us looking more and more towarddiverse communities of practice to exploreboth standards and quality and to generatecreative and practical solutions.

Our relationship to the client and to our-selves as professionals also changes in thisspace. We are faced with multiple complexpatterns of client relationships. We mightindeed be negotiating the relationship clientby client (Lo, 2006) rather than relying onthe traditionally defined professional clientrelationship. Our own identity is likely tobecome more diffuse and fluid – an ‘identitygenerated in practice’ (Lo, 2006) ratherthan an identity generated by membershipof a professional group. This more emergent

framework has been called post-professional(Drake, 2010) and is marked by its cross dis-ciplinary nature.

Professions in a chaotic space:Multiple disconnected stakeholders What about the chaotic space – this is wherepathways to effective agreement about howto respond to challenges appear lost, andpredictability of outcome is equally low. Sucha space may be populated by diverse and dis-connected stakeholders each operating fortheir own ends, often highly anxious andwithout trust in the predictability of otherstakeholder’s responses. In such a world it isdifficult to proscribe any frameworks – all iscontestable and dialogue has broken down.

In some ways this is reminiscent of theworld of professional coaching from whichwe are slowly starting to emerge. There were(and remain) many organisations contestingthe space – seeking power to definecoaching and the profession (sometimesimposing their definition on the whole pro-fession, and sometimes seeking only todefine themselves). This space has beenmarked by overwhelming diversity ofpractice, a lack of dialogue, anxiety and dis-trust.

What might a professional stance looklike in the context of a chaotic space, andhow might a professional identity emergefrom amidst the chaos? At the very least, pro-fessional practice requires us to engage indialogue in a way that helps hold (not con-trol) anxiety about practice in order to workwith diversity and move to a self-organisingstance. Dialogue enables stakeholders to usethis diversity to map and discuss the bound-aries of emerging frameworks of practice soas to enable the process of ongoing respon-sive action. Attempts to solidify practice intotraditional models of practice (or to createnew ‘traditions’) are likely to lead to pooroutcomes in a rapidly changing and complexworld.



ConclusionsWe have argued that in a rapidly changingworld coaching psychology needs to be ableto deal with the complexities that face ourclients. This requires us to go beyond the tra-ditional linear models which have informedour discipline so far. It is not our positionthat these models have no value. It is in thenature of the world in which we operate thatperiods of chaos and periods of order inter-play creating space in which it is both pos-sible and valuable to work with our clients toexplore short term cause and effect relation-ships so that effective programmes of changecan be designed. However, these representmoments in a fluid environment that is indynamic interaction. Hence, we must bealert to the ambiguity and sense ofunknowing that can prevail. This meansdeveloping ways of working with clients thatdeal with the rational linear space, thechaotic space and the intriguing spaceknown as the edge of chaos where creativityand innovation can flourish.

This has implications for our practiceand the research we undertake. As a profes-sion this creates an interesting paradox.Coaching psychology is increasingly seekingto find its place within the discipline of psy-chology. We do this through seeking recog-nition. Yet that comes at the price of trying tocodify the competencies and knowledge basewe use. We have to show that this is indeedpsychology yet different enough from oursister psychologies to represent a field in itsown right. Many have passed that waybefore – for example, counselling, health,organisational and forensic psychology.However, to operate successfully with ourclients we need to both draw upon our foun-dation within the discipline and look toothers who are operating in similarly com-plex space for inspiration and methodolo-gies. Hence, we may need to be a new type ofpsychologist, one who embraces cross disci-pliniarity and who is prepared to collaborateoutside of traditional boundaries. This creates as somewhat paradoxical reality inwhich we seek the comfort of our place

within psychology yet experience the ambi-guity of being without it. This is likely to leadto some interesting times for us! Neverthe-less we believe we are, as coaching psycholo-gists, on a journey worth making.

So if coaching psychology is to come ofage some interesting questions emerge forus as practitioners, researchers and as a pro-fession. We leave you with some these:● Is coaching psychology to be a new sort of

psychology that embraces crossdisciplinary engagement?

● How far are we prepared to go to developapproaches to research that have rigourbut that fall outside of the linearhypothesis testing frame in which wetrained as psychologists?

● How should coaching psychologists betrained and developed to be comfortableand competent working within theambiguity and unknowing of complexsystems?

● Can we manage to organise as aprofession in a way which honours thecomplex and chaotic contexts withinwhich we work, rather than seek to codifythe knowledge base so that it conforms toa traditional linear structure?

The AuthorsProfessor Michael J. CavanaghCoaching Psychology Unit,Sydney University, andInstitute of Work Based Learning,Middlesex University.Email: [email protected]/coach/

Professor David A. LaneProfessional Development Foundation, andInstitute of Work Based Learning,Middlesex University.Email: [email protected]



Bureau of Air Safety Investigation (1996). Human fac-tors in fatal aircraft accident. Accessed 25 January2011, from:www.narcap.org/articles/HumanFactorsinFatalAircraftaccidents.pdf

Bruner, J.S. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Cavanagh, M.J. (2006). Coaching from a systemicperspective: A complex adaptive conversation. In D. Stober & A.M. Grant (Eds.), Evidence basedcoaching handbook (pp.313–354). New York: Wiley.

Cavanagh, M.J. (2005). Mental health issues and chal-lenging clients in executive coaching. In M.Cavanagh, A.M. Grant, & T. Kemp (Eds.), Evidence-based coaching: Contributions from thebehavioral sciences (Vol. 1, pp.21–35). Bowen Hills,QLD: Australian Academic Press.

Cavanagh, M.J. & Grant, A.M. (2010). The solution-focused coaching approach to coaching. In E. Cox, T. Bachkirova & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.),Sage handbook of coaching (pp.34–47). London:Sage.

Checkland, P.B. (2001). Soft systems methodology. In J. Rosenhead & J. Mingers (Eds.), Rationalanalysis for a problematic world revisited. Chichester:Wiley.

Corrie, S. & Lane, S.A. (2010). Constructing stories,telling tales – a guide to formulation in applied psychology. London: Karnac Books.

Davis, B., Sumara, D. & Luce-Kapler, R. (2008).Engaging minds: Changing teaching in complex times(2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Drake, D.B. (2010). What story are you in? Four ele-ments of a narrative approach to formulation incoaching. In D. Corrie & D.A. Lane, Constructingstories, telling tales: Case formulation in psychology.London. Karnac Books.

Freeman, L. (2006). The development of social networkanalysis. Vancouver: Empirical Press.

Goldfried, M.R., & Eubanks-Carter, C. (2004). On theneed for a new psychotherapy research para-digm: Comment on Westen, Novotny &Thompson-Brenner. Psychological Bulletin, 130,669–673.

Grant, A.M. & Cavanagh, M.J. (2007). Evidence-based coaching: Flourishing or languishing? Australian Psychologist, 42(4), 239–254.

Grant, A.M. & Cavanagh, M.J. (2011). Coaching andpositive psychology. In K.M. Sheldon, T.B.Kashdan & M.F. Steger (Eds.), Designing the futureof positive psychology. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Kahane, A. (2007). Solving tough problems: An open wayof listening and creating new realities. San Francisco:Berrett-Koehler.

Kauffman, S.A. (1995). At home in the universe: Thesearch for the laws of self-organisation and complexity.Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Ladkin, P.B. (2004). Air Transat Flight 236: The AzoresGlider. Accessed 27 January 2011, from: www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/compendium/incidents_and_accidents/Ladkin–AirTransat.pdf

Lane, D.A. & Corrie, S. (2006). Modern scientist-practi-tioner: A guide to practice in psychology. London:Routledge.

Lane, D.A. (2011). Ethics and professional standards insupervision (forthcoming).

Lane, D.A., Hurton, N., Stelter, R. & Stout-Rostron, S.(2010). An inquiry into professional standards forbusiness coaching. British Colombia: WorldwideAssociation of Business Coaches.

Lewin, R. (1993). Complexity: Life on the edge. London:Phoenix.

Lewin, R. & Regine, B. (2000). The soul at work: Listen,respond, let go: Embracing complexity science forbusiness success. New York: Simon & Shuster.

Lo, M-C.M. (2005). The professions: Prodigal daugh-ters of modernity. In J. Adams, E.S. Clemens &A.S. Orloff (Eds.), Remaking modernity. Politics, history and sociology (pp.381–406). Durham, NC:Duke University Press.

Marion, R. (1999). The edge of organisation: Chaos andcomplexity theories of formal social systems. London:Sage.

Morrison, K.R.B. (2006). Complexity Theory andEducation APERA Conference 2006. HongKong, 28–30 November. Accessed 23 December2010, from:http://edisdat.ied.edu.hk/pubarch/b15907314/full_paper/SYMPO-000004_Keith%20Mor-rison.pdf

Morrison, K.R.B. (2002). School leadership and com-plexity theory. London: Routledge Falmer.

Prigogine, I. (1997). End of certainty. The Free Press.Prigogine, L. & Stengers, I. (1985). Order out of chaos.

London: Flamingo.Rosenhead, J. (1998). Complexity theory and manage-

ment practice. Science as culture. Accessed 15 January 2011, from:w w w. h u m a n - n a t u r e . c o m / s c i e n c e - a s -culture/rosenhead.html#C%20Sunter%20%281992%29

Scharmer, C.O. (2009). Theory U leading from the futureas it emerges. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler,

Spence, G.B., Cavanagh, M.J. & Grant, A.M. (2008).The integration of mindfulness training andhealth coaching: an exploratory study. Coaching:An International Journal of Theory, Research andPractice, 1(2), 145–163.

Stacey, R.D. (1992). Managing the unknowable.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.



References

Stacey, R.D. (1996). Complexity and creativity in organi-sations. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Stacey, R.D. (1999). Strategic management and organisa-tional dynamics: The challenge of complexity(3rd ed.). London: Financial Times.

Stacey, R.D. (2001). Complex responsive processes inorganisations: Learning and knowledge creation.London: Routledge

Stacey, R.D. (2007). Strategic management and organisa-tional dynamics: The challenge of complexity(5th ed.). London: Financial Times.

Stacey, R.D., Griffin, D. & Shaw, P. (2000). Complexityand management: Fad or radical challenge to systemsthinking? London: Routledge.

Taylor, A.J.W. & Lane, D.A. (1991). Psychologicalaspects of disaster: Issues for the 1990s. BritishJournal of Guidance & Counselling, Special Issue,19(1).

Teasdale, J.D. (1997). The relationship between cog-nition and emotion: The mind-in-place in mooddisorders. In D.M. Clark & C.G. Fairburn (Eds.),The science and practice of cognitive behaviour therapy(pp.67–93). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Waldrop, M.M. (1992). Complexity: The emerging scienceat the edge of order and chaos. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Wheatley, M. (1999). Leadership and the new science:Discovering order in a chaotic world (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Weiner, E.L. Kanki, B.G. & Helmreich, R.L. (1993).Cockpit resource management. London: AcademicPress.

Youngblood, M. (1997). Life at the edge of chaos. Dallas,TX: Perceval Publishing.

Zohar, D. (1997). Rewiring the corporate brain.San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.



THIS PAPER sets out to explore how exec-utive coaches help their clients in situa-tions in which the usual rational linear

models offer little value. The authors conducttheir analysis within a framework adaptedfrom a diagram that was included in thesecond edition of my textbook, Strategic Man-agement and Organisational Dynamics, whichwas published in 1996. This diagram had ahorizontal axis which ranked types of organi-sational change, or contexts within whichmanagers have to make decisions and exer-cise control, in terms of how close or how faraway those contexts were from certainty. Thevertical axis ranked the same contexts

according to how close or how far away theywere from agreement between the agentsinvolved in decision-making and control.

The purpose of the diagram was to visu-ally display and classify the range of decision-making and control techniques presented inthe literature on organisations and theirmanagement. Some of this literature pres-ents technically rational methods of decision-making and monitoring forms of control.Since these methods are based on theassumption that it is possible to predict theoutcomes of decisions these methods canonly work in contexts close to certainty andagreement. Other literature presents polit-


Debate

Comment on debate article:Coaching Psychology Coming of Age:The challenges we face in the messyworld of complexityRalph Stacey

The authors of the paper, ‘Coaching Psychology Coming of Age’, conduct their analysis in terms of adiagram which I included in the second edition of my textbook, Strategic Management and OrganisationalDynamics, published in 1996. This presented a number of contexts within which decisions have to be madeand control exerted: conditions close to certainty and agreement produce the stability which makes it possibleto uses technically rational decision-making techniques and control forms; conditions very far fromcertainty and agreement make people anxious and they either ignore what is going on or engage in anarchicactivity producing instability; the border between stability and instability has the properties of ‘the edge ofchaos’ found in complex systems and here people have no choice but to rely on unprogrammed decision-making and political activity. My comment sets out my reasons for no longer using this diagram and whyI think it is highly limiting to try to do so. It leads to conclusions about managers and coaches being ableto decide in advance what context they are operating in and so choose appropriate methods. This misses acentral point about complex systems, namely, the property of escalating small differences to unpredictable,novel outcomes. This makes it extremely difficult if not impossible to decide in advance what the context isbecause we can never know which small differences might escalate. Furthermore, it is striking how people,their conversations and power plays, their ideologies and choices, totally disappear from the theorisingfollowing from the diagram. A central aspect of the role of coaching is to explore how coach and client aretogether thinking about how they are thinking. In other words, I would argue for a reflexive exploration asthe most useful way that a coach can work to sustain and develop the capacity for practical judgment whichis the hallmark of the expert practitioner.Keywords: Complexity; certainty; agreement; decision-making; control; self-organisation; emergence.

ical forms of decision-making and controltaking the form of power. Political forms ofdecision-making are required when agentsfind that they are some way away from agree-ment with each other, although the outcomesof decisions once they have been politicallychosen may still be close to certainty. Otherliterature describes forms of decision-makingwhich involve the exercise of judgment,rather than rational analysis, because the sit-uation is too far away from certainty to maketechnical rationality feasible. This is accom-panied by ideological forms of control. Theseforms were, therefore, placed in a space inthe diagram some way away from certaintybut still close to agreement. All of the abovedecision-making techniques are only pos-sible, in contexts of considerable stability.When the context is very far from both agree-ment and certainty, behaviour is likely to becharacterised by anarchy and mass avoid-ance, a dynamic of great instability.

However, there was another possibilitysuggested by the complexity sciences,namely, a border area between stability andinstability which is called ‘the edge of chaos’. Inthis border area, the dynamic, that is, thepattern of movement over time, is paradoxi-cally stable and unstable at the same time. It is inthis dynamic that nonlinear models produceunpredictable, emergent novelty. I made ajump from this dynamic in the naturalscience modelling to present in the diagrama border area between stability and insta-bility and I then classified a number of deci-sion-making techniques and control forms inthe literature as fitting into this area. Thesetechniques were: garbage can decisionmaking; brainstorming; intuition; muddlingthrough; unprogrammed decision-making;search for error; and agenda building.

I argued that the nature of the changesthat managers have to deal with is very rarelyanarchic instability but does range fromthose close to certainty and agreement, sta-bility, to those far from certainty and agree-ment in the border area of stable-instability.I also argued that this spectrum is present inevery time frame, although the balance shifts

according to whether it is the short or thelong term that is being considered. Thismeans that managers will find that they aredeploying the whole range of decision-making and control techniques in every timeframe. I argued that it was only possible touse technically rational procedures in rela-tion to aspects of the situations which wereclose to certainty and agreement but in rela-tion to other aspects they would find thatthey had no option other than to deploy theother decision-making and control proce-dures and that it is quite common for themnot to acknowledge this and continuetalking as if they were using only technicallyrational procedures.

Although I did not make it clear enoughat the time, managers will find it very diffi-cult, if not impossible, to choose in advancewhich techniques to apply in contexts thatare both close to and far from certainty atthe same time. Consequently, I was not pre-senting the diagram as a kind of tool of con-tingency theory which could be used bymanagers to identify in advance what changecontext they are in and then select theappropriate techniques. Instead, I was pre-senting the diagram as a device for classi-fying different decision-making and controlprocedures presented in the literature onthe basis of the assumptions about contextthat they implied and in so doing placingthem into some kind of relationship to eachother. The purpose was to understand moreclearly the nature of different prescriptionsresearchers had made. I was not suggesting itas a depiction of contingency theory whichmanagers could use to rationally identify thecontext and then choose the most appro-priate procedure. Furthermore, I specificallystressed the paradoxical nature of manage-ment which calls for the use of planningmodes and the opposite of planning modesat the same time leading to tension and con-flict. Later it also became clear how contextswhich were paradoxically close to and farfrom uncertainty made the rational identifi-cation of contexts and the rational choice ofmethods highly problematic.


Ralph Stacey

I often used this diagram in my presenta-tions to workshops, seminars and confer-ences and it was usually well received by mostaudiences in the various countries that Iworked in. However, it was almost alwaysunderstood in a way I did not intend and forsome time found quite confusing. It wasimmediately used as a contingency frame-work in the belief that managers could iden-tify in advance what kind of context theywould be dealing with and then rationallychoose the most appropriate decision-making and control procedures. Those I wasaddressing usually found the diagram a reliefbecause they usually concluded that theymostly operated in the safe zone close to cer-tainty and agreement, although it wouldunfortunately be necessary, only very occa-sionally, to venture forth into the unsafeborder zone where modes of decision-making and control are rather messy, uncer-tain and anxiety provoking. This responsecontinued no matter how much I contestedit. My colleague and co-author, Doug Griffin,used to listen to me presenting this diagramand he noticed the response it evoked. Hewas highly critical of the diagram andpointed out how people immediately took itup in an unhelpful way which ignored theparadox that it was trying so unsuccessfullyto get at and in so doing blocked furtherthought. It took a while but I did eventuallycome to agree with him, which is why the dia-gram has only ever featured in the second,edition of Strategic Management and Organisa-tional Dynamics published in 1996.

The reason for dropping the diagram isclear: it is taken up as a rational tool for iden-tifying when contexts are close to certaintyand when contexts are far from certaintywhich is completely inconsistent with a keyproperty of non-linear relationships, namely,that they escalate tiny differences into unpre-dictable emergent patterns. It is impossiblefor any human to identify all the tiny differ-ences that may be escalated and this meansthat we are incapable of identifying just hownear or how far we are from certainty inadvance of acting. We only find out with the

benefit of hindsight and even hindsight isopen to many interpretations. We see this allaround us. Financiers claimed that they weremaking financial markets more stable withsophisticated financial products that providea hedge against risk. Only later, in 2008, didwe all realise that in fact they were makingthe financial markets more and moreunstable. Only a few months ago, I imaginethe rulers of Arab states were pretty confi-dent that they had control of situations closeto certainty and agreement until a tiny event,the self-immolation of one harassed, poormarket trader, escalated across the Arabworld toppling governments as it escalated.Although less visibly, the same featureapplies to organisational life.

However, the diagram took on a life of itsown and has been used quite frequently inan adapted form as a ‘map’ of change con-texts and appropriate techniques whichmanagers can rationally identify and choosein advance. This, of course, defeats thewhole point that I am trying to get at and thisis why I dropped it. In its adapted forms thediagram represents, for me, a highly prob-lematic way of thinking. It is a spatialmetaphor which distracts from our seeingthe responsive processes of actual bodilyhuman interaction. It reflects systemsthinking with its extremely abstract notionsof the nature of an organisation whichrender invisible actual human persons andwhat they do together. Such thinking rapidlyloses the ‘as if’ nature of the systems hypoth-esis and both reifies and anthropomorphiseswhat are unreflectively taken to be realsystems.

Returning to the paper on ‘Coaching Psy-chology Coming of Age’, I would argue thatits reliance on the diagram discussed aboverenders its analysis and conclusions ratherdubious. The author’s claim that the use ofthis diagram highlights self-organisation andemergence is difficult to sustain. They talkabout emergence ‘as a term used to denotethe process by which the characteristics of asystem emerge from the interaction of thesystem parts’ (p.78) but they do not mention


Comment on target article

that the key element of the definition ofemergence is that it is the arising of globalpattern in the complete absence of a pro-gramme, blueprint or plan and that the pat-tern emerging is thus unpredictable. Theythen talk about self-organisation as emerginginternally and it is not at all clear what theymean by self-organisation, although theyseem to be linking it to the spontaneousemergence of order which is not imposed.They also talk about a system requiring self-organisation. This is rather puzzling since, inthe models of the natural sciences, thesystem emerges in processes of self-organisa-tion; this is not a requirement but simply theprocess being what it is. Then, the authorsdefine self-organisation as ‘the way in whichsystem members co-ordinate their behaviourwithout overt control or management bycentral leadership’ (p.78). This presents adualism with central control at one pole andself-organisation at the other. However, ifone clearly understands that the term self-organisation simply means local interactionthen there is no dichotomy because anyattempt to exert central control only has aneffect if it is taken up in local interaction.Self-organisation is referred to as the ‘greasewhich keeps the organisation moving’(p.78). Later the authors identify the needfor ‘a view and process that enables emer-gence and self-organisation’ (p.79) in con-texts where simple rationality cannot work.This amounts to claiming that there arespecial processes of self-organisation andemergence, as opposed to rational decision-making and central control, which it is pos-sible for managers and coaches to enablewhen they choose to. However, if we under-stand that self-organisation is simply localinteraction then it is always going onwhether anyone is trying to enable it or not– it is simply what human bodies do.

Furthermore, emergence is not somemysterious process that is present sometimesand absent at others – patterns in humaninteraction are always emerging whetheranyone thinks they are enabling them ornot. This whole discussion somewhat mysti-

fies self-organisation when what it actuallymeans, in complex adaptive system termsanyway, is simply local interactions in whichglobal order emerges without plan, pro-gramme or blueprint. In human terms,forms of control imposed by the powerfularise in local interactions and those forms ofcontrol also emerge. The effect they thenhave depends on the responses to them inmany local interactions.

The paper then comes to the implica-tions for coaching practice. Sharp distinc-tions are made between appropriatepractices in the different spaces of theadapted diagram. In the rational space,existing practices based on evidence are notseen as at all problematic because of thedevice of splitting one ‘space’ from anotherrather than trying to understand thedynamic process in which there can be nosuch splits. If there are no splits then theconcept of evidence is questionable in thedynamic as a whole not just at the ‘edge ofchaos’. Coaching at ‘the edge of chaos’ hasto do with behaviour which tends to be self-organising unless otherwise constrained.However, self-organisation as local interac-tion is always constrained in the sense thatagents impose constraints on each other andself-organisation does not always lead to theemergence of the new but also to stucknessand destruction. They list a number ofexisting techniques which they claim ‘can beused to promote the climate or conditionsfor emergence-through-self-organisation’(p.82). This implies some outside observer‘controlling’ self-organisation and emer-gence. This is said to be a bottom up processbut in fact the patterns in human activityemerge from both bottom up and top downdevelopment. The primary task of the coachis to ‘help create the conditions in which thesystem can move forward toward more adap-tive self-organising functioning’ (p.82).There is something quite omnipotent aboutthis kind of view and it is striking howpeople, their conversations and power plays,their ideologies and choices, have totally dis-appeared from the theorising.


Ralph Stacey

I think I have written enough to indicatehow much I disagree with the analysis pre-sented in this paper and how unhelpful Ifind it – particularly because in placinghuman persons behind the scenes very littleis actually said about psychology. However,strangely enough, the authors do reach oneconclusion with which I agree once refer-ences to ‘spaces’ and ‘structures’ aredropped:

The process of creating structured [I would cutout creating structured and simply sayexploring] stories in the chaotic space [I woulddrop this chaotic space reference and replace itwith ‘in all situations’] requires mindful,reflective responsiveness rather than reactivity.The task here is for the coach and the client tonotice and reflect on the qualitative themespresent in the client’s situation, and to thinkthrough together the possible trajectories ofoutcome that any action might precipitate.This is not to suggest that the coach or clientshould seek to predict with any degree ofcertainty, what might unfold. Rather, the tasksis to hold those multiple possibilities in mindand design [I would drop design and say take]action that maximises the ability to respondflexibly as outcomes emerge (p.82).

To this I would add that I think it is a centralaspect of the role of coach to explore howcoach and client are together thinking abouthow they are thinking. In other words, I would argue for a reflexive exploration asthe most useful way that a coach can work to

sustain and develop the capacity for practicaljudgment which is the hallmark of theexpert practitioner. I would also add that Ido not think that this approach is appro-priate for some ‘spaces’ and not others.Organisations are patterns of interactionbetween human bodies engaged in localinteraction from which population-wide pat-terns emerge in the interplay of the inten-tions, plans, dreams and desires of allinvolved. Local interaction takes the form ofconversation, patterning of power relations,ideologies and constrained choices and it isin the interplay of all these responsivehuman processes, not at all apparent in thispaper, that patterns of life emerge. All of thiscannot be split into bits but we do know howto engage in what we are together creating.If this is the case then a conversational,reflexive narrative inquiry is appropriate forall forms of coaching as an alternative torestrictive rules and procedures.

CorrespondenceProfessor Ralph StaceyComplexity Research Group,Business School,University of Hertfordhire,Hatfield, UK.Email: [email protected]://complexityandmanagement.wordpress.com/


Comment on target article

SGCP Annual Coaching Psychology Conference

Winter 2012

Putting coaching psychology into practice: an evidence based approach

The SGCP will be hosting its Annual Coaching Psychology Conference to enable sharing and learning from and within coaching psychology.

CALL FOR PAPERSWe invite you to submit abstracts for papers and posters to present at the

conference for the opportunity to discuss your work and research with peers.

We welcome evidence based papers from

Academic Research & Practitioner Experiencein all areas of coaching psychology

(e.g. business, professional, executive, sports, health, personal, educational)

Deadline for submissions is Monday 11th June 2012For the submission forms and guidelines visit the SGCP website:

www.sgcp.org.uk

All abstracts will be subject to review by the Scientific Board and are not guaranteed to be accepted.



Debate

Coaching Psychology Coming of Age:The challenges we face in the messyworld of complexity: A collection ofcommentaries on Cavanagh and Lane

Tatiana Bachkirova, Paul W.B. Atkins, David B Drake,

Bob Hodge, Lesley Kuhn, Julie Allan & Gordon B. Spence

Keywords: Complexity; Coaching Psychology; Chaos; Profession; Research; Creativity.

THE AUTHORS of the article suggestthat complexity theories are bettersuited for describing the world in which

we serve our clients as coaching psycholo-gists. If we agree with them they invite us toconsider a number of implications in thearea of professional practice, research andregulation of the profession. Although I fullysupport the main intention of the paper andsee the process that it stimulates as progres-sive, a small word of caution is necessary. I believe that we should not lose sight of thefocus on the individual in our practice andthe first person perspectives in under-standing and researching coaching.

Complexity and systems theories are notnew, but are recently becoming more promi-nent in various disciplines. In relation tocoaching and coaching psychology theauthors made an excellent job in giving aclear and balanced exposition of this tradi-tion. The theories themselves represent amoderate and inclusive stance without aggra-vating old tensions between the naturalsciences and the humanities as well asbetween ‘orderly’ modernist social scienceand ‘disorderly’ postmodern social science.The authors are also careful not to dismisstraditional values of the knowledge base incoaching psychology. At the same time amessage that is coming through is about theneed to look beyond our dominant tradi-tions and to embrace a different picture ofthe world. This picture does not describenew forms of human behaviour. It does, how-ever, describe ‘a different way of under-standing how people have always behaved’(Stacey, 2003, p.278).

The paper is clearly addressed to practi-tioners and deals with complex ideas in aconsistent, well structured way with good

examples to illustrate the authors’ logic. Atthe same time, this is probably the reasonwhy they have chosen to describe their posi-tion rather than to argue for it in compar-ison to others. For example, in relation tothe modernist stance it appears from furtherdescription that they assume the empirical‘cause and effect’ story to be a sub-model oftheir more inclusive model of the world.However, in relation to the postmoderniststance, I believe that their position is weaker.Although they recognise, as in all complexitytheories, the role of interaction within thesystem and the emerging properties ofsystem as the result of this, these systems andproperties are still treated ‘as given’. Thismodel of the world is presented from thethird person perspective without explicitattention to the subjective and intersubjec-tive nature of the phenomena that weengage with in coaching. In this sense,although seemingly most inclusive, thesetheories are still a subtle form of reduc-tionism.

The authors do not see this as a problemfor the discussion they initiate. They wish todraw our attention to the implications ofseeing our professional world and the worldof our clients as more complex than somesimple linear models imply. They certainlysucceed in this. However, noticing a growingacceptance and interest in systems theoriesamongst coaches I wish at the same time toexpress a concern. As this is clearly a thirdperson perspective on the world, one poten-tial implication could be marginalising thefocus on the individual and their world aspersonally and socially constructed. Forexample, it seems counterintuitive forcoaching that systemic approaches ‘are lessinterested in the individuals and more in the


Let us not throw out the individual babywith the non-systemic bath waterTatiana Bachkirova

patterns of interaction between them’ (p.6).However important these patterns are wenow have a great deal of evidence that per-sonalised coaching designed to elicit a pro-found reflection on personal values andbehaviours works not only for individualclients but consequently – for teams andorganisations. I have also noticed that withthe growing enthusiasm in team coachingand systems theories as recent trends, theyare sometimes contrasted to the individual-centred traditions of one-to-one coaching(Hawkins, 2011). Without minimising thevalues of these new developments I believethat contrasting in this case is not justified.An extensive range of coaching approachestailor-made for individual needs are clearlyone of the strengths of coaching that wouldbe foolish of us to undermine. I have to saythat the authors of this paper, while advo-cating systems approaches, are careful intheir propositions and certainly do notcommit this ‘crime’ of cutting the branch onwhich the whole field of coaching is sitting.However, less careful system oriented move-ments might do just that.

In defending individual approaches incoaching, I also believe that it is possible torise to the challenge of complexity theorieseven in our individual-focused work. I agreewith the authors that there should be‘models of practice that assist clients to makesense of unpredictable and ambiguous chal-lenges without seeking to oversimplify, orcontrol via imposition of past solutions andstandardised models’ (p.14). Moreover,these models should also help coaches andtheir clients to make sense of the unique andemerging contributions that the clientsthemselves bring into their complex situa-tions. These contributions are made possiblebecause of the uniqueness of their organismsas wholes and the way they make sense oftheir world. It is also important not to under-estimate that all perceptions of coaches andclients are at the same time perspectives thatare embedded in bodies and in cultures andnot just in economic and social systems(Wilber, 2006).

In fact, a theory of developmentalcoaching and a framework for practice that Irecently developed is an attempt to addressall of the above without oversimplifying indi-vidual coaching (Bachkirova, 2011a, 2012).In terms of the theoretical platform it isbased on cross-disciplinary knowledge andsuggests a potential way to integrate manydifferent theories of working with individ-uals on the basis of the three conceptualisa-tions of the self. In terms of the frameworkfor practice, it invites the coach ‘to noticeand reflect on the qualitative themes presentin the client’s situation’ (p.13) with somedegree of predictability of what mightunfold. This predictability is based on theindividual developmental trajectory and alsoon discourses of the systems to which theclient belongs to and shapes.

The strength of the paper under review isin the attention that the authors draw topotential implications of taking a stance ofcomplexity theories on the many aspects ofcoaching as a developing field. Good ques-tions are asked in relation to coachingpractice, research and quality assurance. Itwould be good, however, to see what theauthors themselves believe to be examples ofextant theories, research and practice reso-nant with this stance in coaching rather thanin other fields and most importantly – why?For example, the authors suggest that ‘asolution-focused approach and strength-based and mindfulness-based approacheshave developed in an attempt to partiallymeet this need’ (p.11) which seem to be con-trasted to other unnamed theories that ‘tendtowards empirical reductionism’ and ‘seekprediction and control’. It is not clearthough what these other models are andhow the authors came to this conclusion.

I strongly agree with the authors abouttheir inclusive stance for research methodolo-gies. Particularly important is the need toaddress the challenge of integrating multipleoutcomes and perspectives when experi-menting with more bold methods anddesigns. I wished, however, at times that theauthors were less tentative in relation to some


The challenges we face in the messy world of complexity: A response

other issues. For example, their strong mes-sage about the changing nature of professionscould lead to more radical suggestions interms of training and accreditations. It couldbe acknowledged that accreditations as amethod of ensuring the quality of our profes-sional work is static, past-oriented andinevitably oversimplifies the complexity ofcoaching practice (Bachkirova, 2011b,Bachkirova, Jackson & Clutterbuck, 2011). Itcould be substituted by a more dynamic andresponsive system of professional supervisionwhich is live, continuous and truly interactive.

On the whole, I am glad to see this paperbeing a focus of an open review processwhich should stimulate an interesting anduseful discussion about many importantquestions for coaching and coaching psy-chology. The authors are obviously model-ling the message that they wish the coachingcommunity to hear and engage with. I amlooking forward to the dialogue.

CorrespondenceTatiana BachkirovaReader in Coaching Psychology,Faculty of Business,Oxford Brookes University,Wheatley Campus,Oxford OX33 1HX.Email: [email protected]

ReferencesAckoff, R.L. (2006). Why few organisations adopt

systems thinking. Systems Research & BehavioralScience, 23(5), 705–708.

Bachkirova, T. (2011a). Developmental coaching:Working with the self. Maidenhead: Open Univer-sity Press.

Bachkirova, T. (2011b). Guiding light? CoachingSupervision, Coaching at Work, 6(5), 46–49.

Bachkirova, T. (2012, forthcoming). Developmentalcoaching: A new theory and framework forpractice. In J. Passmore, D. Peterson & T. Freire(Eds.), Wiley-Blackwell handbook of the psychology ofcoaching and mentoring. London: Wiley-Blackwell.

Bachkirova, T., Jackson P. & Clutterbuck, D. (Eds.)(2011). Coaching and mentoring supervision: Theoryand practice. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Hawkins, P. (2011). Leadership team coaching: Devel-oping collective transformational leaders. London:Kogan Page.

Stacey, R.D. (2003). Strategic management and organisa-tional dynamics: The challenge of complexity. Harlow:Prentice-Hall.

Wilber, K. (2006). Integral spirituality. London: Integral Books.


Tatiana Bachkirova


THERE ARE many ways in which I agreewith the target article: The world is com-plex, approaches to coaching based on

simplistic ideas of cause and effect are inad-equate, we need to learn to be comfortablewith uncertainty in the face of complexity,and be open to the unpredictability ofunfolding dialogue and multiple perspec-tives. Complexity science and its associatedmetaphors such as feedback loops have con-tributed to changing the way we view bothnatural and human systems. For example,the idea that small changes can have big,reinforcing effects and big changes can havesmall, dampening effects has prompteduseful questioning of assumptions in areas asdiverse as business (Pascale, 1999), climatechange (Sterman, 2008), family dynamics(Pincus, 2001) and social policy (Tenner,1996).

But while I am in broad agreement withthe thrust of the article, I was left wonderingwhether applying metaphors from com-plexity science to coaching psychology willever change what coaches actually do. My aimin this commentary is to try to clarify assump-tions that might be impeding the applicationof complexity science to psychologicalresearch and practice. I begin by distin-guishing between rationality and linearity,before exploring the implicit epistemologyof the target article and pointing to a stancethat I think might be rational, non-linear,and helpful for improving coaching practice.

Rationality and linearity are differentIn building upon Stacey’s early work (e.g.Stacey, 1999), the target article repeatedlydiscusses ‘rational linear models’ and ‘linear

rationality’. I wish to differentiate betweenthese terms: In my view, coaching psychologyneeds to retain rationality while questioninglinearity. To be rational is to ‘have or exer-cise reason, sound judgment or good sense’(rational, n.d.). To be irrational is to actwithout reason. To reason is ‘to think orargue in a logical manner’, ‘to form conclu-sions, judgments or inferences from facts orpremises’ and ‘to urge reasons which shoulddetermine belief or action’ (reason, n.d.).Science is built on rationality and reasoning.By lumping together rationality with lin-earity in the target article, and by contrastingthe ‘rational space’ with the ‘self-organisingspace’, the target article obscures the natureof the changes needed in epistemology. Weneed to examine and change the coreassumptions of what we do in psychologicalresearch, as I discuss below, but the problemisn’t rationality, it is the purposes towardswhich rationality is directed.

This might seem like a small terminolog-ical issue but, like a reinforcing feedbackloop, it can have a big effect. To implicitlydisparage rationality as the old, or simplistic,way of doing things is to create an unneces-sary schism with all the other disciplinesbuilt upon rationality. This in turn is likely toimpair the very inter-disciplinarity for whichthe article is arguing. Rationality is an impor-tant part of the scientific process of publicagreement regarding observations. We needto be very careful we don’t throw the babyout with the bathwater because it increasesthe likelihood that new ways of under-standing the world will be rejected.

While it is difficult to imagine a version ofscience that is irrational or even a-rational,

Elemental realism and pragmatism incoaching psychology: Making ourassumptions clearPaul W.B. Atkins


Author namePaul W.B. Atkins

it is easy to imagine one that is not linear inthe sense used in this article. Although nosingle definition is offered in the article, thearticle appears to equate the linear view witha particular model of causation, wheresystems are ‘governed by simple (or compli-cated) linear chains of cause and effect’. Bycontrast with linear systems, non-linearsystems involve feedback loops which makethem more difficult or impossible to predict(Atkins, Wood & Rutgers, 2002; Targetarticle, p.3). It is now abundantly clear thatattempts to theorise about the world basedon linear assumptions are limited inaddressing most of the issues that we need toaddress in our modern world (e.g. Sterman &Sweeney, 2002). We do need to develop alter-natives, and the target article does a good jobof exploring ways in which we might relate toclients holding our stories about the worldmore lightly and living with uncertainty.

In the next section I explore the questionof how useful it is to think about coachingpsychology in terms of complexity science.Essentially I argue that complexity sciencecan be useful for coaching psychologyresearch and practice, but that it will bemore useful if it is understood through thelens of a pragmatic rather than realist episte-mology.

Coaching psychology through apragmatic rather than a realist lensArticles applying complexity science to psy-chology have been around for at least fourdecades (e.g. Simon, 1973) and have prolif-erated in recent years (e.g. Uhl-Bien, Marion& McKelvey, 2007). Yet it is difficult to iden-tify any psychological or management prac-tices that have directly evolved from this wayof thinking. Why does the metaphor of‘social life as a complex system’ seem to havehad so little impact on actual practice? I believe it is because we are stuck in assump-tions about the purpose of science that aresometimes unhelpful.

Pepper (1942) distinguished betweenalternate worldviews that can helpfully beapplied to understanding the assumptionsand aims underpinning differentapproaches to science. For brevity, I willfocus on just two of these worldviews: ele-mental realism (Hayes, Strosahl & Wilson,2011)1 and contextualism. The elementalrealist worldview is based on the ‘rootmetaphor’ (Pepper, 1942) of the world as amachine with isolable parts that causebehavior. The truth criterion for the ele-mental realist is correspondence, such that thepurpose of science is to attain closer andcloser correspondence between the predic-tions of science and actual events unfoldingin the world. Theories are true to the degreethat they successfully predict what is actuallyobserved in the world. Much of naturalscience is built upon elemental realistassumptions, and much of psychology hastacitly or explicitly imported these assump-tions. All psychological theories that postu-late causal linkages between hypotheticalmental constructs, frequently illustratedusing ‘box and arrow’ diagrams, are ele-mental realist in the sense that they empha-sise causal relations between hypothesisedparts and are directed towards obtaininggreater and greater correspondence withwhat is ‘real’.

The root metaphor for contextualism is,by contrast, the action of the whole organismin context (Pepper, 1942). To understandthe act, we must understand the context,including the historical and current systemicinfluences upon the organism. From a con-textualist standpoint, the world is under-stood to be an undifferentiated process, andthe divisions and dichotomies that weimpose upon the flow of experience arepurely functional; we divide up the world inways that help us to achieve our ends. Thetruth criterion for contextualists isn’t corre-spondence between model predictions andactual outcomes, but effective action – does

1 Pepper (1942) called this worldview ‘mechanism’ but along with Hayes et al. (2011) I have used the term elemental realism as it is more descriptive of the reductive, realist stance of this worldview.


TitleThe challenges we face in the messy world of complexity: A response

this particular way of viewing the world helpus to achieve our ends (Gifford & Hayes,1999)2? Consider, for example, how wemight theorise about an effective coachingsession. We might say the success of thecoaching was caused by the capabilities ormotivation of the coach, or of the client, orperhaps it was caused by the organisation’sefforts to bring about change, the conge-niality of the room in which the coachingoccurred, the trust built between the coachand client, a shared language or purpose, ora culture of coaching within the organisa-tion, the economic system that supportscoaching, and on and on. Our choice ofexplanatory mechanism is fundamentallyguided by our goals in conducting theanalysis. From a functional contextualiststance, explanations that help us to improvecoaching are more ‘true’ than explanationsthat have little impact.

It is important to realise that elementalrealist and contextualistic assumptions arejust that, they are pre-analytic assumptionsthat we bring to understanding the world.Elemental realism pre-analytically assumesthat if we just keep working away, we willeventually get closer and closer to the truth,a complete ontological model of the world.Contextualism assumes that it would bemore helpful to direct attention to what canbe shown to improve workability. In thissense, contextualism is a-ontological andfundamentally pragmatic. Such pragmatismis of course not new. In 1878, Charles Pierceargued that ‘only practical distinctions havea meaning’ (Pierce, 1982) in psychology.William James argued that ideas ‘becometrue just in so far as they help us to get intosatisfactory relation with other parts of ourexperience… This is the ‘instrumental’ viewof truth… the view that truth in our ideasmeans their power to ‘work’’ (1983,pp.164–165). But neither elemental realismnor contextualism can be ultimately justi-

fied, they are a set of assumptions aboutknowing that are chosen according to ourvalues.

Why is this important for the targetarticle? Complexity science can be under-stood either in an elemental realist way (as amodel of the way the world really is, wherethe aim is correspondence); or in a prag-matic, contextualist way (as a call for mul-tiple perspectives where the aim is impact,what works?) The target article goes someway towards this latter perspective but, in myview, is insufficiently clear about its episte-mological and ontological assumptions andthis reduces its impact.

As an illustrative example, we might saythat dialogue is a prime example of feedbackloops in action. A small decision to listeninstead of defend oneself in the midst of anargument might lead to a positive feedbackloop of increased listening and, ultimately,more effective outcomes. The metaphor ofthe ‘causal loop’ certainly seems plausiblehere. But what then do we do with thisinsight? We have an elemental realist expla-nation that feels coherent and plausible butdoesn’t really inform practice. An alternativeway of arriving at a solution of listening morewould be to ask something like ‘given thiscontext, what behaviors in the past havemoved us towards what we value?’ Such aquestion entirely sidesteps debates aimed atdiscovering the particular qualities of thepeople involved or the situation (e.g.‘rational linear’, self-organising or chaotic)and instead goes right to the heart of whatworks for what we want to achieve. In myview, coaching psychology research andpractice will be better served by pragmatismin the sense outlined by Charles Pierce(1982) and William James (1983).

The sort of shift in emphasis I am arguingfor is subtle but profound; and any experi-enced coach will have a feel for what I mean.We have all had the experience of a client

2 There are actually at least two varieties of contextualism. Descriptive contextualism is content with exhaustivedescriptions of experience, as in some branches of history. Here I am concerned with functional contextualismthat is inherently pragmatic in nature.


Author namePaul W.B. Atkins

fruitlessly trying to determine the ‘reality’ ofa situation by asking questions such as ‘am Icompetent enough’, ‘does my boss like me’or ‘is this the optimal course of action thatsomeone at my level could take in this situa-tion?’ And we have all also witnessed thepower of the simplest question to cutthrough such ‘elemental realist’ delibera-tions: ‘What do you really want for this situa-tion and what might you do to move towardsthat?’ The solutions-focused approach(Grant, 2006; Jackson & McKergow, 2002)evaluates possible action plans not bywhether they are right in some absolute sensebut by whether they are likely to be workablein context.

Interpreted from a realist perspective,complexity science can distract coaching psy-chologists from doing work that matters,into fruitless debates about whether a situa-tion is linear-rational, self-organising orchaotic. But complexity science can also beinterpreted as a useful pointer to the impor-tance of the whole act in context, with anemphasis on purpose and workability.Although the solutions-focused approach tocoaching is an example of the contextualistapproach in action, coaching psychologyresearchers do not appear to have exploredits epistemological or ontological assump-tions. In this regard, coaching psychologycan learn from such approaches as Accept-ance and Commitment Therapy, whichmakes its roots in pragmatic contextualismvery clear (Gifford & Hayes, 1999; Hayes etal., 2011). The contextualist theory under-pinning Acceptance and CommitmentTherapy has now been applied to areas as

diverse as human suffering (Hayes et al.,2011), education (Strand, Barnes-Holmes &Barnes-Holmes, 2003), spirituality (Hayes,1984), compassion (Atkins & Parker, inpress) and, more recently, coaching(Blonna, 2011). Pragmatic contextualism isentirely rational, but it is rationality directedtowards a different purpose.

I am suggesting that the solution to theproblems of linearity lies not just in thinkingabout the world as more complex, but in adeep re-examination of the usefulness of ele-mental realism. For all the reasons outlinedin the target article, social systems thatinvolve multiple perspectives and varied waysof constructing reality do not just requiremore complex models of the way the worldreally is, they also require a shift in focustowards the functions of behavior in context.I am not arguing that a pragmatic, contextu-alist epistemology is truer than a realist one, I am arguing that it is likely to be more usefulin the context of coaching psychology. If, asJames (1983) argued, ‘ideas become truejust in so far as they help us to get into satis-factory relation with other parts of our expe-rience,’ then there is a challenge to thoseadvocating the worth of complexity scienceto coaching to show how their ideas mightactually influence practice.

CorrespondencePaul W.B. AtkinsCrawford School of Economicsand Government,The Australian National University,Canberra ACT 0200.Email: [email protected]



Atkins, P.W.B. & Parker, S.K. (in press). Under-standing individual compassion in organisations:The role of appraisals and psychological flexi-bility. Academy of Management Review.

Atkins, P.W.B., Wood, R.E. & Rutgers, P.J. (2002). Theeffects of feedback format on dynamic decisionmaking. Organisational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 88(2), 587–604.

Blonna, R. (2011). Maximise your coaching effectivenesswith acceptance and commitment therapy. Oakland,CA: New Harbinger Publications.

Gifford, E.V. & Hayes, S.C. (1999). Functional con-textualism: A pragmatic philosophy for behav-ioral science. In W. O’Donohue & R. Kitchener(Eds.), Handbook of behaviorism (pp.285–327). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Grant, A.M. (2006). An integrative goal-focusedapproach to executive coaching. In D.R. Stober& A.M. Grant (Eds.), Evidence based coaching hand-book. Chichester: Wiley.

Hayes, S.C. (1984). Making sense of spirituality.Behaviorism, 12(2), 99–110.

Hayes, S.C., Strosahl, K.D. & Wilson, K.G. (2011).Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: The process andpractice of mindful change (2nd ed.): New York:Guilford Press.

Jackson, P.Z. & McKergow, M. (2002). The solutionsfocus. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

James, W. (1983). What pragmatism means. In M.White (Ed.), The age of analysis: 20th centuryphilosophers (pp.160–173). New York: Meridian.

Pascale, R.T. (1999). Surfing the edge of chaos. SloanManagement Review, 40, 83–94.

Pepper, S. (1942). World hypotheses. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Pierce, C.S. (1982). How to make our ideas clear. In H.S. Thayer (Ed.), Pragmatism: The classic writings (pp.79–100). Cambridge: Hackett.

Pincus, D. (2001). A framework and methodology forthe study of non-linear, self-organising familydynamics. Non-linear Dynamics, Psychology, and LifeSciences, 5(2), 139–173.

rational (n.d.). Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrievedfrom:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational

reason (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved from:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational

Simon, H.A. (1973). The architecture of complexity.Readings in Managerial Psychology.

Stacey, R.D. (1999). Strategic management and organisa-tional dynamics: The challenge of complexity. Trans-Atlantic Publications.

Sterman, J.D. (2008). Economics – risk communica-tion on climate: Mental models and mass bal-ance. Science, 322(5901), 532–533.

Sterman, J.D. & Sweeney, L.B. (2002). Cloudy skies:Assessing public understanding of globalwarming. System Dynamics Review, 18(2), 207–240.

Strand, P.S., Barnes-Holmes, Y. & Barnes-Holmes, D.(2003). Educating the whole child: Implicationsof behaviorism as a science of meaning. Journal ofBehavioral Education, 12(2), 105–117.

Tenner, E. (1996). Why things bite back: Technology andthe revenge of unintended consequences. New York:Random House.

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R. & McKelvey, B. (2007).Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leader-ship from the industrial age to the knowledgeera. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298–318.

References


THE TITLE for this paper brings to mindDonald Schön’s observation that, ‘Prob-lems are abstractions extracted from

messes by analysis… Managers do not solveproblems; they manage messes’ (pp.15–16).However, the title ends up being a bit mis-leading in that the generic form of the word‘complexity’ is used by the authors,obscuring some of the important distinc-tions made in the paper itself. Even so, Icommend the authors for bringing this bodyof work to bear on deliberations on thefuture of coaching as a potential profession.As one who developed the term ‘postprofes-sional’ (Drake, 2008a) as a frame forcoaching and its evolution and who hasadvocated for an artisan’s view of evidenceand mastery (see Drake, 2011), I welcomethis contribution to the conversation aboutthe future of coaching psychology. I wouldoffer four primary reflections on the paper.

At the conclusion of a useful introductionto some of the key terms, the authors note thatStacey and his colleagues have moved beyondtheir original construct to talk about organisa-tions as ‘Complex Responsive Processes’. How-ever, there is no explanation as to why this newterminology was dropped by the authors infavour of returning to a modified version ofthe original ‘Complex Adaptive Systems’ lan-guage. I would have liked to see a fuller dis-cussion of this distinction, the process bywhich the decision was reached and therationale for it, and the implications of thechoice for coaching, i.e. the relative emphasison individuals versus environments. I am alsocurious about the role of ‘agency’ in bothmodels given the emphasis in coaching ondeveloping greater accountability, new

meaning-making and more productiveactions. Karl Weick’s (1995) work on leader-ship and decision-making in complex environ-ments would have been useful here.

A second issue relates to the role of anx-iety in complex and chaotic environments. Iwas concerned when I read in the abstract,‘In chaotic space we seek to hold our clientsanxiety to enable them to act.’ Given thework of Donald Winnicott (1971) on creating ‘holding environments’ and thenature of coaching as a ‘decentered’ engage-ment, it seems precarious to place thisresponsibility on coaches. Instead, I see therole of coaches as noticing or fostering real-time experiences – within a strong ‘con-tainer’ or ‘eco-system’ – in which bothparties can notice the points of heightenedanxiety and begin to use them to increasewhat attachment theorists describe as their‘windows of tolerance’ and to create moreadaptive responses. Ultimately it is aboutincreasing clients’ capacity to self-regulate,self-express and self-author such that theycan harness their anxiety in service of theirrelations and aspirations.

The authors provide some additional anduseful insights on what is missing in howcoaching is often conceived and delivered inself-organising and chaotic contexts. Inmany ways, it appears the authors have takentheir own ‘narrative turn’. However, I seethree significant gaps in what has been out-lined. One, there is frequent mention of var-ious types of stories without any realreference to the narrative coaching litera-tures (see Drake, 2008b) and its work on thestructure and function of narratives, thetypologies of stories, and the critical issues of

Anxiety and complexity in apostprofessional era: The challenge ofpractising what we preachDavid B. Drake

discourse and power which shape bothpeople and systems. As such, the paper endsup using the term ‘stories’ without any realdefinitions or distinctions. It also misses awonderful opportunity to show how narra-tive frames would help coaches to makebetter sense of what is happening with theirclients as agents in larger systems.

Two, the authors struggle to model thevery approaches that are being advocated.Instead, many of the propositions are quitelinear and rational in nature. The authorswould have been well served in this regard todraw on the works of people like PatriciaShaw (2002) who has written in an almostethnographic fashion what it is like to applyCAS principles in practice as well as the nar-rative coaching community who have writtenabout the importance of the contextual fieldin conversations (see Stelter, 2007). In doingso, the authors could have written about howcoaches can think and conceptualise differ-ently in chaotic and complex spaces. Other-wise, as the authors point out, both clientsand coaches will continue to apply mecha-nistic frames to coaching and ‘grasp at anystory that holds potential to ameliorate thediscomfort and pain being experienced.’

Three, I would have liked to see morepractical insights on what all this means forcoaches when they are sitting in front of aclient. For example, how would one applythe following in coaching, ‘Complex adap-tive systems are driven by three controlparameters: the rate of information flowthrough the systems, the richness of connec-tivity between agents in the system, and thelevel of diversity within and between theschemas of the agents’ (Barger & Kirby,1995, p.99)? In addition, what are some ofthe corollaries within the theories that sup-port coaching that would enable coaches toaccess this work in their practice? I am alsocurious about what a CAS approach has tosay about research given the observationthat, ‘Complex adaptation is characterisednot only by a high degree of interactionamong component parts but also by the way

that the particular nature of this interaction… generates outcomes not linearly related toinitial conditions’ (Mihata, 1997, p.31).What are the implications for coaches’ con-ceptualisations and applications of evidence?

I appreciated the use of Cavanagh andLane’s (2010) typology of professionalpractice and Lo’s (2006) work on professionsin looking at how coaching could evolve as aprofession capable of working across all threetypes of systems. It would have been great tooffer a concurrent set of reflections on howchaos and complexity are unfolding inclients’ and coaches’ environments – andhow this impacts the issues clients face andthe approaches coaches take. As it is, thepaper is coach-centric and, therefore, morelimited in its applicability. However, theinsights about professions are used well bythe authors as a springboard for a robust setof conclusions and an invitation for coachingpsychologists (and coaches more broadly) toengage in new yet profound conversationsabout their future. In particular, I appreciatethat the authors wrestled with the question ofidentity for coaching psychology as it seeks toevolve in a postprofessional world.

The application of the three primaryframes (types of spaces, types of stories, andtypes of research) to the same model acrossthe article provided helpful signposts for fol-lowing the line of thinking and surfacingsome important issues. I thought that theconclusion – often a weak point in coachingpapers – was excellent and provided goodfood for thought for both those who coachand those who seek to influence the trajec-tory of the broader enterprise. At the sametime, I would have liked to see a greater util-isation of the relevant literature, more link-ages across the three uses of the model,more modelling of the approaches beingchampioned, and more space devoted to thepractical implications for coaches and thosewho help them develop. In doing so,coaching professionals would learn moreabout how to "manage" the messes and thetypes of systems in which they work.




Author nameDavid B. Drake

CorrespondenceDavid B. DrakeManaging Director,Center for Narrative Coaching,San Francisco, USA.Global Advisor for Coaching Research &Practice, Channel Group,Sydney, Australia.Email: [email protected]

Barger, N.J. & Kirby, L.K. (1995). The challenge ofchange in organisations. Palo Alto, CA: Davies-Black Publishing.

Drake, D.B. (2008a). Finding our way home:Coaching’s search for identity in a new era.Coaching: An International Journal of Theory,Research and Practice, 1(1), 15–26.

Drake, D.B. (2008b). Thrice upon a time: Narrativestructure and psychology as a platform forcoaching. In D.B. Drake, D. Brennan & K. Gørtz(Eds.), The philosophy and practice of coaching: Issuesand insights for a new era (pp.51–71). San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Drake, D.B. (2011). What do coaches need to know?Using the Mastery Window to assess and developexpertise. Coaching: An International Journal ofTheory, Research & Practice, 4(2), 138–155.

Mihata, K. (1997). The persistence of ‘emergence’.In R.A. Eve, S. Horsfall & M.E. Lee (Eds.), Chaos,complexity, and sociology: Myths, models, and theories(pp.30–38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schön, D.A. (1983). The reflective practitioner. NewYork: Basic Books.

Shaw, P. (2002). Changing conversations in organisa-tions: A complexity approach to change. London:Routledge.

Stelter, R. (2007). Coaching: A process of personaland social meaning making. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 2(2), 191–201.

Weick, K.E. (1995). Sensemaking in organisations.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Winnicott, D.W. (1971). Playing and reality. New York:Basic Books.

References

IWAS DELIGHTED to be asked to write aresponse to this article. First I need tomake some disclaimers. I am biased about

the topic. I have spent 18 years thinkingabout these theories and trying to applythem to problems in the social sciences, so Iapplaud the attempt in this case. I am alsolargely ignorant about coaching psychology,so I cannot judge whether this articledemonstrates the case in a way that will beuseful to coaching psychology professionals.

I began in a state of ignorance about thisfield. I have now read enough to be excitedby it. I also see many lines of connection withideas in chaos and complexity. For instance,chaos theorist Ilya Prigogine has the conceptof autocatalytic feedback loops. This takesthe cybernetic idea of positive feedbackloops as catalysts which enhance tendencies.Negative feedback loops damp them down.They are anti-catalysts. Prigogine (Prigogine& Stengers, 1984) identified many basic bio-logical processes which use the output ofone positive loop as input into another posi-tive loop. Together they form an ‘autocat-alytic’ (‘self-catalytic’) loop. Biologistspreviously emphasised homeostatic loops,which maintain equilibrium. Prigoginepointed out that life processes are made pos-sible by positive feedback. These may be reg-ulated through negative loops, but eventhese loops may be driven by positive chains.

I use this idea to explain why I do notwant to ‘criticise’ this article, as many aca-demics, myself included, are trained to do.Criticism tends to be negative feedback. Itrestores the status quo. This is true even ofso-called ‘radical’ criticism, which oftenachieves disappointingly less change than itsproponents expected. Negative feedbackloops have a place, but only as part of asystem. I feel my position, derived fromchaos and complexity theories, has affinities

with strengths coaching according to Linleyand Harrington. They capture two orienta-tions in coaching: fixing problems versusharnessing strengths (2006, p.39). Fromchaos and complexity theories I come to asimilar conclusion. It is often better to affirmand channel strengths rather than imposedirections on a supposedly defective system.

The authors’ opening sentence has beensaid so often that it needs to be rescued fromthe weight of that repetition: ‘We live in acomplex and complicated world’. If thisarticle only made this cliché live again andinspired coaching psychology practice itwould have done a worthwhile job. Ittouches especially on the world of the newkind of client that feeds the new practice:not anguished dysfunctional patientsneeding treatment, but highly functional butstill struggling citizens.

Such citizens are highly aware of theauthors’ statement as a key fact of their land-scape. In a recent IBM survey of executives(2010), the increasing complexity of theworld was the top-rated concern. Yet almostexactly half these high-achievers did notbelieve they personally could manage thechallenge of this complexity. High com-plexity is very relevant to many clients whowant coaching. Theories of chaos and com-plexity arguably should be part of the basictoolkit in the field, as comprehensivelyargued by Peter Webb, under the evocativetitle ‘inspirational chaos’ (2005).

I admire the authors’ unobtrusively com-plex and ambitious question: ‘What doescoming of age, or ‘growing up’ in this worldlook like for us as practitioners, researchersand as a profession?’ (p.75). It is complexbecause the authors see the division withinthe therapist’s self as practitioner andresearcher, and set this complex object in alayered structure with at least three tiers: the


Coaching for a complex worldBob Hodge

personal world of individual clients, theworld of the therapist, and the professionitself, the sub-field of coaching set in thelarger field of psychology. The authorsexplore all these levels, applying ideas ofcomplexity to them all.

The authors do not use the terms ‘multi-scalar’ or ‘fractal’ to frame this analysis, but Irecommend them to them. ‘Fractals’, a termcoined by Mandelbrot (1993), hasdeservedly become an icon of chaos theorybecause it grabs imaginations and has suchheuristic value. The word ‘heuristic’ cap-tures what chaos and complexity researchdoes best: not proving universal laws or pre-dicting future behaviours, but leading flex-ible empirical enquiries of the kind thatprofessional do best.

The concept of fractals, irregular self-sim-ilar but not identical patterns found acrossdifferent scales, encourages analysts to askwhether any pattern they see at any one levelmay not have similar but not identical ver-sions at level after level, in a potentially infi-nite series. The authors achieve thismovement by using a metaphor, ‘coming ofage’. Metaphors are productive aids tothought, in similar ways to fractal theory.Fractal analysis has the merit that it is moresystematic, and can move carefully and muchfurther in both directions, up and down,continually asking whether there is a simi-larity or not and why. Fractal theory asheuristic method is like metaphors on speed.

The authors’ key complexity theorist isRalph Stacey. Stacey has been influential inmanagement circles, which is useful for thisarticle given the management contexts fromwhich many clients come. The authors useStacey’s ideas creatively, using the same modelthree times for three different contents, con-texts and levels. This makes it a kind of fractaltheory without the label, able to generatecomplexity in a simple framework.

The authors’ use of Stacey may seemproblematic according to some commonideas of what complexity theory should be.Stacey’s diagram offered a simplified, staticmap of core ideas developed by Prigogine

(Prigogine & Stengers, 1984). As the authorspoint out, even Stacey later proposed a moredynamic process. So the authors, it seems,have simplified Prigogine back to an earlier,simpler Stacey.

However, this move back from com-plexity to greater simplicity is justified inpractical terms for someone seeking to com-municate these ideas to those unfamiliarwith them. It is also a move in a dialecticbetween simplicity and complexity that ischaracteristic of good complexity thinkers.Chaos theorists like Lorenz (1993) and Man-delbrot (1993) propose minimal determi-nate systems which still generate complexity.

The crucial point is that the authors usethis model to think with, to understand mat-ters Stacey did not specifically have in mind.I am continuing the process, using this gridas a static map on which to trace the com-plex dynamic movement of the multiplepositions taken up in empirical practice. I show these (see Figure 1) as a form of whatLorenz called a ‘strange attractor’ (1993). Inlinear science, a ‘point attractor’ is the singlepoint systems always and predictably con-verge on. A ‘strange attractor’ is the signa-ture of the irreducible unpredictability ofchaos. The trajectories form a pattern, yetthey never settle down at a single point.

The authors use Stacey’s map to makeseveral points. The authors most importantpoint is that these three states all exist in asingle framework of reality, yet they have dis-tinct properties. The rational, linear modelremains true of the processes and laws thatdescribe it, often seen as equivalent toscience. Yet it is important to insist, as Prigogine influentially has done, that whathappens in the space of self-organisationalso exists as science, obeying laws that onlyapply in this space. Complex AdaptiveSystems, for instance, characterise biologicaland social life, yet cannot be deduced fromlinear science. They do not cancel the laws oflinearity. They coexist with them. By aban-doning the aims of certainty and pre-dictability they greatly expand the scope ofwhat science can explain.


Author nameBob Hodge


Title

Complex Adaptive Systems also haveintrinsic connections with chaos. Chaos iswhat they adapt to, as well as they can. Theydo so by recognising and harnessing kinds oforder in chaos. I note parenthetically herethat some complexologists imply that thisintermediate territory always produces posi-tive adaptations. It must be emphasised thatthis is a zone of unpredictability, where someadaptations to their chaotic environmentmay be dysfunctional from other points ofview. Complex environments always containa potentially infinite number of competingagents, combinations and outcomes.

I want to suggest how productive thissimple model, in the authors’ version and inmy modified version, is in thinking about thetwo main problems the authors address. Thefirst is the problem for practice, of theapparent lack of fit for these theories and a

dominant motif in practice, the role of ‘evidence-based counselling’. The other is theproblem of the ambiguous foundations of thenew sub-discipline. I admire the authors’ hon-esty in dealing with these so directly, sinceboth might seem to go against their case forcomplexity thinking. In this part of my com-mentary I suggest a way of clarifying these twoproblems within a complexity framework.

The authors associate evidence-basedcoaching with linear thinking. On the onehand they insists that this approach is notjust legitimate, but good: ‘Done well, it is avalid and rigorous approach to practice, andshould not be lightly disregarded’ (p.81).They contain the problem by assigning it aspace in their adaptation of Stacey’s map,but that is only containing it.

They explore its dimensions by looking atthe case of ‘Trevor’, who has anxiety over


Figure 1: Lacey’s model plus Lorenz’s ‘strange attractor’.

presenting to the board of his company.From this description I guess that Trevor isthe boss of this (‘his’) company, so the anx-iety sounds as though it might have differentsources and effects than if it came from amore lowly ranked person. I am supposingthat the point of this story is that this mightbe the tip of a different iceberg, suggesting adifferent analysis and recommendation,more unique to Trevor and more enablingacross a whole range of his behaviours. Theproblem, as the authors diagnose it, is thetendency in this form of coaching to assimi-late individual stories to a single, well-sup-ported exemplar story.

However, one way of resolving this oppo-sition would be to use the whole Stacey spaceas a map for empirical instances, whichwould be assigned a place across the threetypes of process, with the same individualpossibly occupying more than one place.Trevor’s presentation anxiety may indeed bea linear effect of a simple cause, but it mayalso be embedded in a complex adaptivesystem that needs adjusting for him to be amore effective boss and happier person. Hiscase file might include ‘strange attractor’ tra-jectories, all evidence based, that illuminatehis own case and make his coach more flex-ible and effective. On this interpretation theapparent opposition between these theoriesand ‘evidence-based coaching’ is an artefactof the current dominance of linear modelsin psychology.

The authors also confront problems ofthis emerging sub-field. In the conclusionthey note ‘an interesting paradox’ (p.88):the tension between increasing attempts tofind a place within psychology, ‘and look toothers who are operating in similarly com-plex space for inspiration and methodolo-gies’ (p.88). This is the same tension asunderlies the debate about evidence basedcoaching. The fact that they use the Staceymodel to explore both at their differentlevels shows the potential explanatory powerof a fractal model, even when it is implicit.

The authors do not discuss the extraordi-nary success story of coaching psychology,

but it is relevant to this issue. Stephen Palmerand Alison Whybrow (2006) report theremarkably rapid emergence of this sub-field,from initial negotiations in 2002 to an explo-sion of memberships, from 1600 in March2005 to nearly 2000 by December 2005.Exponential growth like that is a sign of thepositive feedback loops of chaos, yet theresult is a stable complex adaptive system.Whatever theories or practices it espouses, itis a product of chaos which continually con-nects with the body of largely linear practicesof the British Psychological Society.

This can be mapped using the Staceygrid, modified to include a strange attractor,integrating the three modes, linearity, com-plexity and chaos. Using this model as aheuristic device, I am led to ask whether thenext fractal level up, the British Psycholog-ical Society, may not also be structured acrossthe three domains. For instance, I wasintrigued by Stephen Joseph’s discussion, inthe inaugural issue of the journal (2006), oftwo models in psychology, the medical andperson-centred. He sees the medical modelas dominant, but the person-centred tradi-tion which he tracks back to Carl Rogers stillflourishes, a main premise in coaching psy-chology. Joseph’s summary of Rogers ‘actual-ising tendency’ (2006; p.48) is remarkablyclose to the authors’ complexity-orientedcoach, whose primary task is ‘to help createthe conditions in which the system can movetoward more adaptive self-organising func-tion’ (p.81).

The authors lament that ‘psychology isnot replete with such emergent models’(p.81). Given the example of Rogers fromthe 1960s, I wonder how far this is the case.To me Rogers seems a complexity theoristbefore the name existed, and I suspect theremay be many more, underground currentswaiting for a catalytic event which revealsthem to each other, as a once hidden forcein psychology. The spectacular success ofcoaching psychology suggests to me thatthere may be some underlying scenario likethis. If so, a coaching psychology organisedaround a soft version of complexity theory


Author nameBob Hodge


Title

might be something psychology itself reallyneeds, on behalf of the many clients whoselives will become better because they havethis option.

For me the merit of the authors’ exposi-tion is that they doe not introduce a newGrand Theory designed to replace all pre-vious theories, or provoke ideological battlesthat have proved so divisive on other occa-sions. They are respectful and inclusive, cre-ating a space where linearity, complexity andchaos can co-exist and interact till they forma stable complex adaptive system. The imme-diate outcome is tension, contradiction anduncertainty, but those are signs of com-plexity at work.

At this point in the life of coaching psychology I feel the authors’ version ofcomplexity is an optimal framework, encour-aging multiple connections, creative diver-sity and flexible coherence. It does not settlerelationships and boundaries once and forall with linearity or chaos, but inaugurates anongoing interaction, from which psychologyand coaching psychology alike should ben-efit. Practitioners of coaching psychologywill judge whether he has persuaded them. I am happy to record that they convinced methat if I was a psychologist I would like to bea coaching psychologist in a complexityframework.

CorrespondenceProfessor Bob HodgeInstitute for Culture and Society,University of Western Sydney,New South Wales 2751,Australia.Email: [email protected]

ReferencesIBM Corporation (2010). Capitalising on complexity:

Insights from the Global Chief Executive Officer Study.Somers, NY: IBM Global Business Services.

Joseph, S (2006). Person-centred coaching psy-chology: A meta-theoretical perspective. Inter-national Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1), 47–55.

Linley, P.A. & Harrington, S. (2006). A potential-guided approach to coaching psychology. Inter-national Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1), 37–46.

Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (2006). The coaching psy-chology movement and its development withinthe British Psychological Society. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 1(1), 5–11.

Prigogine, I. & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos.London: Flamingo.

Webb, P. (2005). Inspirational chaos: Executivecoaching and tolerance of complexity. In M.J.Cavanagh, A.M. Grant & T. Kemp (Eds.), EvidenceBased Coaching Handbook. Bowen Hills, QLD: Aus-tralian Academic Press.


RGUABLY, the major contribution ofthe complexity sciences is that they

provide a different set of organisingprinciples to those offered by the classical scientific paradigm (Kuhn 2007). Over thepast century, mechanistic and linearthinking, with roots in classical science –rationalism and empiricism – has dominatedsense making across many discipline areasincluding those associated with study of allmatters relating to humans and humansociety (psychology, philosophy, sociology,biology, etc., Bateson, 1979; Jung, 1995;Tarnas, 2007). However, it is important tonote that simultaneously, various philoso-phers, psychologists and sociologists havechallenged the efficacy and appropriatenessof linear and mechanistic thinking for studyof humans and human society (Eenwyk,1997; Flaherty & Fine, 2001; Heidegger, 1956;Jung, 1995; Letiche, 2000;). The organisingprinciples identified by the complexitysciences resonate well with the impetus ofthese challenges and may be proposed asgoing further in enabling a ‘complexificationof our very mode of perceiving/conceivingthe phenomenal world’ (Morin, 1992,p.379). Interestingly, Jung’s conception ofhuman consciousness, though predating thedevelopment of the complexity sciences,embodies such a complexification of per-ceiving/conceiving. This is indicated, forexample, when he states:

Our psyche is set up in accord with thestructure of the universe, and what happens inthe macrocosm, likewise happens in theinfinitesimal and most subjective reaches of thepsyche. (Jung, 1995, p.368)

It is exciting then to see in ‘Coaching Psychology Coming of Age: The challengeswe face in the messy world of complexity’ thata complexity approach is explored in relationto how it may contribute to the developmentof the research and practice of coaching psy-chology. The paper sets out a particular inter-pretation of a complexity approach tomaking sense of the social world and arguesthat ‘if coaching psychology is to come ofage’ it needs to go beyond being informed bytraditional linear models to incorporatingcomplex styles of thinking and modelling.While I am enthusiastic about how a com-plexity approach could inform coaching psy-chology, from my perspective, some of thediscussion of complexity and the implicationsof taking a complexity perspective tocoaching psychology as discussed in thepaper are misleading.

Over the past 14 years I have beenthinking and writing about implications andapplications of complexity science for under-standing social and cultural life and I con-tinue to find explanatory value in complexityas an interpretive framework. So, while I amnot a coaching psychologist, I am interestedin the ways by which the authors engagecomplexity concepts.

In this response, in the spirit of contin-uing the process of setting a foundation forcritical reflection on utilising complexity incoaching psychology, I begin by offering abrief conceptual introduction to complexitythat elaborates upon that given in ‘CoachingPsychology Coming of Age’. The appropri-ateness of a complexity approach forcoaching psychology and some implicationsof taking a complexity perspective to


Epistemological reflections on thecomplexity sciences and how they mayinform coaching psychologyLesley Kuhn

A

coaching psychology are then discussed. Following this I raise my concerns aboutsome of the ways that complexity is broughtto coaching psychology in the paper. I con-clude my response with a brief discussion ofissues to consider in utilising complexity incoaching psychology.

Complexity Developed principally in the fields ofphysics, biology, chemistry, mathematics andcomputing, the complexity sciences functionas an intellectual successor of other previ-ously favoured theories for explaining hownovelty, order and evolution are present inthe world (Kuhn, 2007, 2009; Mason, 2008).Complexity takes a radical relational view(Dillon, 2000) of the nature and organisa-tion of organic phenomena (or the naturalworld), seeing ‘things’ as thoroughly rela-tionally organised, as ‘contingent assem-blages that are a function of a mode ofrelating’ (Dillon, 2000, p.9). Complexitythus construes ‘relationships as a constitutivepart of the phenomena we want to under-stand’ (Montuori & Purser, 1997, p.9). Froma complexity perspective, it is through localconnections or relationships that macrobehaviour emerges. In describing somethingof the nature of these of relationships, theontological explanation of complexity is that‘reality’ (organic phenomena) is self-organ-ising, dynamic and emergent (Lewin, 1999;Morin, 2008; Prigogine & Stengers, 1984).

To take a complexity perspective then, isto conceive of individuals, organisations,populations and environments as interre-lating, self-organising, dynamic and emer-gent, as not reducible to component partsand forever influencing and being influ-enced. This perspective has important impli-cations for how human sense making isunderstood. Epistemologically, complexitycan be understood as construing sensemaking as likewise being self-organising,dynamic and emergent.

Thus a complexity perspective, in consid-ering the world and human sense making asself-organising, dynamic and emergent,

signals an epistemologically ambiguous orientation.

In response to such ambiguity, Morin(2008) and others (Alhadeff-Jones, 2008;Kuhn, 2007), advocate thinking in a complexway where we remain aware of the biological,physical and anthropological foundations ofour sense making. This view resonates wellwith a number of philosophical, psycholog-ical and sociological orientations (Heidegger,1965; Jung, 1976; Maturana, 1998) whichsimilarly argue for recognising the interpre-tive, ambiguous and uncertain character ofhuman sense making. I am reminded of thewisdom of Von Bertalanffy:

Each interpretation of reality is an audaciousadventure of reason, to use Kant’s expression.There is only the alternative: Either werenounce any interpretation of the ‘essence’ ofthings – which is the well-founded opinion ofscience – or, if we venture upon such aninterpretation which is only possible ifpatterned after ourselves, we must remainconscious of its merely metaphorical character.For we have not the faintest proof that the ‘real’world is of the same nature as the minutecorner given to us in our own internalexperience. Such an interpretation, therefore,can have no other value than that of analogy,an As-If … (Bertalanffy, 1975, pp. 70-71)

Coaching psychology and complexityA link may be made between coaching psy-chology and complexity because, in the lan-guage of complexity, human cultural settingsare always self-organising, dynamic andemergent. The evolutionary trajectory ofcoaching psychology as a sub-discipline ofpsychology attests to this. Coaching psy-chology did not develop as a planned andconstrained research programme that hasprogressed in a linear manner. Rather, itdepicts a trajectory of self-organisation (forexample, as individuals and groups decideeducational priorities or focus), dynamism(for example, in relation to contestation ofdiscourse) and emergence (coaching psy-chology at one time did not exist). Further,coaching psychology continues to dynami-



cally emerge as those engaged in the fieldcontinue to interact, to critically evaluate thevarious philosophical, psychological and the-oretical traditions that have so far informedthe field, to critically reflect upon practiceand to suggest new theoretical orientationsand practices.

The practice of coaching psychologyexplicitly implicates relationships, be thesebetween a coach and a person or personsbeing coached, or between a person beingcoached, the coach and an organisation.Coaching psychology deals with self-organi-sation, dynamism and emergence of not onlythe person being coached, but also of thecoach and the organisation. The workingdefinition of coaching psychology offered byGrant (2011, p.89) gives some indications ofthis in stating that:

Coaching psychology is concerned with thesystematic application of the behavioural scienceof psychology to the enhancement of lifeexperience, work performance and well-being forindividuals, groups and organisations.Coaching psychology focuses on facilitating goalattainment, and on enhancing the personaland professional growth and development ofclients in personal life and in work domains.

Concerns While recognising the need for humility inrelation to our knowledge claims, includingthose for complexity, I believe we still mustbe careful in how we engage with the organ-ising principles and explanatory concepts(such as the edge of chaos) as identified bythe complexity sciences.

In this regard I have some concerns withthe perspective taken in the paper. Firstly, asa complexity approach describes the normalfunctioning of the world as complex, messyand unpredictable, I cannot agree with theauthors’ view that the world is now becoming‘increasingly messy and unpredictable’.

Secondly, I am confused about theauthor’s depiction and delineation of‘simple, complex and chaotic spaces’ (asshown in their Figure 1 and discussed in theintroductory section of the paper). In the

1980s Chris Langdon and Norman Packard(Kuhn, 2009) each separately discoveredthat complex adaptive systems naturallymove towards a region between fixedbehaviour and chaotic behaviour. The term,‘the edge of chaos’ has since caught on asthe descriptor of this far-from-equilibriumzone that exists between order and disorder.That all organic unities, including people,are characterised in complexity by the organ-ising principles of self-organisation,dynamism and emergence, would suggestthat a complexity perspective would notplace people into a ‘Simple/complicatedspace’, because according to complexity,people are inherently complex (i.e. notreducible to component parts and forever ina process of influencing and being influ-enced). So even if people were placed into a‘simple/complicated space’ (this could onlybe a mechanically organised space of somekind) they would remain complex – self-organising, dynamic and emergent.

Further I do not understand the authors’point that ‘under conditions where there ishigh agreement and high predictability, thenmanagement using rational decisionmaking, or decision making based on linearmodels of cause and effect, is most appro-priate’. I cannot see what the link is that theauthors make between situations (condi-tions) characterised as having ‘high agree-ment and high predictability’ andmanagement utilising ‘rational’ or ‘linearmodels of cause and effect’. According tocomplexity, living entities are characterisedby non-linearity, so are the author’s referringto engaging with mechanical phenomena?The link between ‘high agreement’ and‘high predictability’ I find similarly curious.A group of complexity theorists may well bein agreement about the non-predictability ofcertain dynamics.

Thirdly, I am not convinced of the pointthe author’s make about their concerns withadopting evidence based coaching practicesin ‘complex and chaotic spaces’. They arguethat the adoption of evidence-based practiceis predicated on the ‘assumption that there


Author nameLesley Kuhn

is a chain of cause and effect that is relativelystable, and can be known and can be used topredict and control outcomes’. There are atleast two issues within their discussion that Iwish to separate out. The first is that in myview, there are many possible ways to gen-erate the ‘evidence’ for evidence-basedpractice (including qualitative complexitybased methods, such as vortical postmodernethnography (Kuhn & Woog, 2005)), albeitthat, as they argue, psychology has histori-cally favoured ‘empirical reductionism’. Sec-ondly, they appear to assume that use ofevidence-based practice would lock practi-tioners into a situation where they wereunable to draw on their own experience orcritical thinking, or to relate to the unique-ness of the individual. However, I wouldexpect practitioners to thoughtfully and crit-ically engage with ‘evidence’ and not to feelthey must deny either their own uniquenessor the uniqueness of their client. Thissecond issue then relates more generally toattitudes brought to use of theory withincertain practice domains and not to the useor otherwise of a complexity approach.

Critical issues to consider in utilisingcomplexity in coaching psychologyIn utilising complexity in social and culturalsettings there is a range of applications thatmay be made. In broad terms, these rangefrom philosophical (concerning the reasonof things) through to mathematical applica-tions. Clearly my own experience has been inutilising complexity in a philosophical sense.Having said that, it can be anticipated thatthose who subscribe to the other end of thespectrum will find such use of complexityirritatingly inadequate.

For me, utilising complexity or any otherframework must be done thoughtfully. Tothis end I offer here five critical issues to con-sider when utilising complexity in coachingpsychology.

1. Do not substitute complexity for thoughtfulnessComplexity presents preferred ways of con-struing the organisation of the world while

simultaneously demonstrating that wecannot actually ever ‘know’ with certainty.This epistemological ambiguity means thatrather than offer ‘recipes’, complexity func-tions as a catalyst to creative thoughtfulnessby requiring us to generate our own carefullyconsidered approaches.2. Develop complexity habits of thoughtRather than merely familiarise oneself withthe principles and metaphors of complexity,there is a need to work at developing com-plexity habits of thought. This is necessarybecause, as pointed out in the debate paper,most of us have been immersed in linearstyles of thinking and as in any new learning,old habits can be difficult to replace as theycan be so taken for granted and invisible.

3. Be careful of confusion between ‘is’ and ‘ought’In describing a set of organising principles,complexity is in essence, descriptive ratherthan prescriptive. It purports to describe‘how things are’ rather than ‘how they oughtto be’. Often there is a tendency to transposecomplexity’s description into an injunction,as for example, when it is suggested that wecan ‘enable self-organisation’.

4. Recognise that complexity and coaching psy-chology are differently disposedAs a human activity, coaching is imbued withvalues and ethical considerations. Further,whereas complexity is descriptive, coachingis goal oriented.

5. Value humilityThroughout history we see time and againwhere the certainties of one generation havebecome displaced by another. As C.S. Lewisso insightfully reminds us, a theory or modelrepresents ‘a serious attempt to get in all thephenomena known at a given period’ whilealso reflecting ‘the prevalent psychology ofan age almost as much as it reflects the stateof that age’s knowledge’ (Lewis, 1964, p.222).It is through critical consideration of howcomplexity (or any other theory) may informcoaching psychology that those involved con-tribute to the ongoing evolution of the field.



Concluding commentsWhile it is clear that more scholarly discus-sion and exploration is needed, the authorsare to be congratulated for their discussionof complexity theorising in the field ofcoaching psychology. As Ball (1995, p.266)reminds us, theory itself functions as a cat-alytic agent of change:

Theory is a vehicle for ‘thinking otherwise’; itis a platform for ‘outrageous hypotheses’ andfor ‘unleashing criticism’… It offers alanguage for challenge and modes of thought,other than those articulated for us bydominant others … The purpose of such theoryis to defamiliarise present practices andcategories, to make them seem less self evidentand necessary, and to open up spaces forinvention of new forms of experience.

CorrespondenceDr Lesley KuhnOrganization Studies, School of Business, University of Western Sydney,Locked Bag 1797,Penrith South DC,New South Wales 1797,Australia.Email: [email protected]: 02 9685 9689


Author nameLesley Kuhn

Alhadeff-Jones, M. (2008). Three generations ofcomplexity theories: Nuances and ambiguities.In M. Mason (Ed.), Complexity theory and the philosophy of education (pp.62–78). Chichester:Wiley-Blackwell.

Ball, S. (1995). Intellectuals or technicians? Theurgent role of theory in educational studies.British Journal of Educational Studies, 43(3),255–271.

Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature. London:Fontana Paperbacks.

Bertalanffy, L. Von (1975). Perspectives on generalsystems theory. New York: Braziller.

Dillon, M. (2000). Poststructuralism, complexity andpoetics. Theory, Culture & Society, 17(5), 1–26.

Eenwyk, J.R. Van (1997). Archetypes and strange attrac-tors. Toronto: Inner City Books.

Flaherty, M.G. & Fine, G.A. (2001). Present, past, andfuture. Conjugating George Herbert Mead’s perspective on time. Time & Society, 10(2–3),147–161.


Heidegger, M. (1956). Existence and being. London:Vision Press.

Jung, C. (1995). Memories, dreams, reflections (Trans.Richard & Clara Winston). London: FontanaPress.

Jung, C. (1976). The Portable Jung (Ed. Joseph Camp-bell; Trans. R.F.C. Hull). New York: PenguinBooks.

Kuhn, L. (2009). Adventures in complexity. Axminster:Triarchy Press.

Kuhn, L. (2007). Why utilise complexity principles insocial inquiry? World Futures: The Journal of GeneralEvolution, 63(3-4), 156–175.

Kuhn, L. & R. Woog (2005). Vortical postmodernethnography: Bringing complexity science topostmodern ethnography. Systems Research andBehavioural Science, 22, 139–150.

Letiche, H. (2000). Phenomenal complexity theoryas informed by Bergson. Journal of OrganisationalChange Management, 13(6), 545–557.

Lewin, R. (1999). Complexity. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Lewis, C.S. (1964). The discarded image. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Mason, M. (2008). Complexity theory and the philosophyof education. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

Maturana, H. & Varela, F. (1987). The tree of knowledge.Massachusetts: Shamhala Pubs.

Montuori, A. & Purser, R.E. (1997). Le dimensionisociali della creativita. Pluriverso, 1(2), 78–88.

Morin, E. (2008). On complexity. New Jersey: HamptonPress.

Morin, E. (1992). From the concept of system to theparadigm of complexity. Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems, 15(4), 371–385.

Prigogine, I. & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos.New York: Bantam Books.

Stengers, I. (2004). The challenge of complexity:Unfolding the ethics of science. In memoriamIlya Prigogine. Emergence: CO Special Double Issue,6(1–2), 92–99.

Tarnas, R. (2007). Cosmos and psyche. London: Penguin Books.

References

PROFESSIONALISM, empiricism andthe notion of ‘appropriate’ have caughtmy attention. They are certainly linked

with each other and they link with com-plexity, as their presence together in thetarget article indicates. I’m also interested bythe links with wisdom, which is a focus for myown enquiry and practice. I’ll elaborate onthe connections I’m making between them.

Professionalism first. It is indeed a pur-suit through which a variety of paradoxescome to the fore. I should declare responsi-bility for some involvement here, throughthe British Psychological Society’s SGCP andEthics Committees, as coaching psychologyemerges as a profession within and/oralongside the profession of psychology ingeneral. The Professional AssociationsResearch Network currently holds that thereare three pillars of a profession. These are:entry standards; complaints and disciplineprocesses; and CPD, including positive sup-ports for ethical competence. It’s good to seethat third one, which includes ethics in a waythat relates it to, and differentiates it from,matters of fact or law. That said, the demon-stration of ‘ethical competence’ and how itcan be developed is not a simple matter. A profession goes beyond the protectedknowledge to which the article alludes toencompass behaviour, so while it’s good tohave knowledge about this area, it is also anissue of judgment and praxis. What will bethe differentiators of the profession ofcoaching psychology? The conclusion to thetarget article forwards a view that we need togo beyond the traditional linear modelswhich have informed our profession so farand I agree in that I’ve long favoured multi-disciplinary approaches, or at least explo-rations into overlaps and edge-places. Plus, Ithink it’s hard to remove the psychologyfrom any endeavour that involves human

beings, no matter which discipline is hostingthe viewing lens. So, while I’m not dis-agreeing that a multiplicity of ways ofworking is useful and probably necessary,I’m just not sure that the profession of psy-chology has only been informed by linearmodels, or if it has, that such linear modelswould be traditional. Tradition can seemquite modern when it only ‘officially’ goesback to 1870 or so.

Possibly all of which serves to support theidentity paradox highlighted in this article.To build on their Stacey referencing, theworld could be held to contain (at least) thethree areas mentioned (simple, compli-cated, complex), so we have a choice toattend to those characteristics. Or not. Towhom will it matter if coaching psychologistsdo or don’t attend to them, or claim they canor can’t, and the grounds on which they taketheir position? I’ll choose to pass on this one.And yet psychology is coursing througheverything that has a human face or involve-ment, and the ‘quacks’ alluded to in thearticle will keep annoying professionals andlay folk alike by ducking whatever systemswe’ve decided to set up. Furthermore, therewill be non-professional (or other-profes-sioned) non-quacks available.

To link this back in with complexity, andwith an involvement in years gone past withthe complexity programme at the LondonSchool of Economics, I like the move fromCAS to CES (adaptive to evolving) and evenmore CCES (e.g. Mitleton-Kelly 2003), com-plex co-evolving systems. This attempts toacknowledge in the use of the language thatparticularly where the interacting compo-nents in a complex system are people, theyall have the ability to reflect and learn, andso co-evolve in a social ecosystem. Of course,many coachees will appear before coachingpsychologists certain in the knowledge that


Wisdom needed – reward offeredJulie Allan

some of their colleagues have no ability toreflect or learn, which may or may not beanother story. How will coaching psycholo-gists and coaching and psychology co-evolveusefully?

Which brings me to wisdom, includingempiricism and appropriateness. When Ispoke in London and Stockholm as part ofthe 1st International Congress of CoachingPsychology I found my fellow professionalsreally had considerable energy to engage withthese areas. I view wisdom as an emergentproperty of a complex system and I also viewit as coachable. In the psychological literatureon wisdom (and many many other literatureson wisdom are available, all of which I’mslowly but gladly embracing), considerationhas been given to what produces wisdom andwhat it is for. The well-established Berlin Par-adigm (e.g. Kunzmann & Baltes, 2005, othermodels are available) holds that five areasneed to be present for wisdom to be judged asthere, these being two basic knowledge ones(of content and of process) and three furtherones concerning understanding of lifestages/contexts/relationships, knowledgeabout the presence of different values and pri-orities, and acknowledgement of life havingmany uncertainties (i.e. tolerance of ambi-guity). This paradigm links with complexity,in my view anyway, in that its authors highlightwisdom as being what’s needed where mattersare ‘important but uncertain’. The dynamicsof this particular framework, being empiri-cally based through research, I have seeninduce several quick steps backwards inpeople as they have reacted to juxtaposing‘wisdom’ with ‘empirical’. These folks havemy sympathy and I don’t disagree.

Yet I think evidence-based practice is agood thing. I agree that where we can showthat A causes B, then it’s useful to use thatknowledge every time we want B as an out-come (other things being equal). My diffi-culties – possibly shared with the articleauthor if I’ve understood correctly – areabout what counts as evidence. Our empir-ical methods, quantitative and qualitative,are often used in ways that privilege certain

types of knowledge over others. We makechoices about this and sometimes thechoices have been hidden or perhaps havebeen unconsciously made. For the most part,and some would argue for an entirety, wecan’t take an objective lens on the world. So what to do with this? Well, for example,Clarkson’s seven discourses (e.g. Clarkson1995) is a framework that isn’t factuallydemonstrated, but if you’re a psychologistyou’ll be able to spot where some consis-tently observed psychological phenomenafit. It articulates, and when applied it asks forconsideration of, seven ways of speakingabout our experience. To be taken as multi-stranded rather than hierarchical, the sevendiscourses are: physiological; emotional;nominative, i.e. labeling/language; norma-tive, for example, constructions of in- andout-group; factual; theoretical; transper-sonal. Whatever you think of this set of areas,it seems reasonable to say that where we priv-ilege certain types of knowing over others,there will be consequences. If we do thisunreflexively then some of the surprises maynot be pleasant. What do coaching psycholo-gists allow through the door in research andin practice? Physiology, for example – does itonly count if you measured it with a bit ofkit? Emotion – is it only in if used intelli-gently in accordance with the metrics?Transpersonal – well, what’s the meaning ofthis, I hear you cry?

What empirical research often doesafford us is some element of discipline indefining what we’re referring to, as the rela-tionship between our understanding of theworld and the language we use to describe itcan be profound – as psychologists (linguis-tics or otherwise) have helped to illuminateand as Clarkson’s discourses refer to. But, oris it And, we also need to go a bit ‘meta’where, to draw on gestalt psychology (forexample) the whole is greater than the sumof the parts. We need some flexibility in ourunit of analysis. Psychology of a gestaltvariety has most certainly, I would say,embraced complexity. Complexity is alreadyin the discipline.


Author nameJulie Allan


Title

So, to turn to another challenge of ourtimes, also highlighted in the article, onappropriateness. My working proposition onwisdom is that it concerns how we re-incor-porate our full ways of knowing, individuallyand collectively, in service of what is needed.(Allan, 2010). This comes from my slightlygreater interest in the ‘why bother?’ questionthan in the ‘exactly what is it?’ question. Psy-chologists have explored many of the com-ponents that are associated with wisdom,such as the different sorts of intelligence,judgment and decision making, altruism andmoral reasoning, and protocols for thisexploration have been wide ranging andhave extended to the currently on-trendneuroscience. It is also the case that thememe of wisdom has been around for thou-sands of years and, depending on the lan-guage you choose (in Egypt around 4000years that can be traced) has included anotion of ‘good’.

The article includes an assertion:‘under conditions where there is highagreement and high predictability, thenmanagement using rational decision making,or decision making based on linear laws ofcause and effect, is most appropriate.’

I can have sympathy with where this comesfrom. But, given the times we live in, I’minclined to wonder about it. Agreed and pre-dictable it may be; appropriate is anotherquestion. How do we decide on what isappropriate? What is the role of thecoaching psychologist in working with theeconomic, social, even ecological challengesof our time? Somebody or other once saidthat if all you have is a hammer then everyproblem starts to look like a nail. Ascoaching psychology continues to be profes-sionalised, a few things will get nailed downbut will they be as compelling in a changingworld as the things that don’t?

I find the notion of appropriateness is agreat one to consider in the light of com-plexity, professionalism, evidence-basedpractice, ethics and wisdom. Even if we haveno shadow of doubt that A leads to B,whether to take such a route is appropriate ismore than a question of knowing the mostcertain, predicatable, effective way ofenabling it. I like to turn to a quote attrib-uted to an American who was many thingsincluding a ‘founding psychologist’ of thelate 1800s, William James: ‘Behave as if whatyou do matters,’ he said, as a result of his psy-chological and philosophical enquiry. ‘It does.’

CorrespondenceJulie AllanIrvingAllan, 44 Main Street, Sudborough, Northants NN14 3BX.Email: [email protected]

ReferencesAllan, J. (2010). Wisdom: (How) would we coach for it?

And (2011) Important but uncertain matters:Towards coaching for wisdom. Presented to the 1st International Congress of Coaching Psychology, London and Stockholm.

Clarkson, P. (1995). The therapeutic relationship.London: Whurr.

Kunzmann, U. & Baltes, P. (2005). The psychology ofwisdom: Theoretical and empirical challenges. In R.J. Sternberg & J. Jordan (Eds.), A handbook ofwisdom: Psychological perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Mitleton-Kelly, E. (2003). Ten principles of com-plexity and enabling infrastructures. In E.Mitleton-Kelly (Ed.), Complex systems and evolu-tionary perspectives of organisations: The applicationof complexity theory to Organisations. Amsterdam:Elsevier.


IN THE TARGET ARTICLE, the authorsargue that coaching psychologists (in gen-eral) are not well equipped for working

amid chaos and complexity because ourtheories have tended to be grounded inlinear empiricism and focused on ‘predic-tion and control, rather than engagementwith ongoing, unpredictable emergentprocesses’ (p.81). Part of the remedy, theysuggest, is the development of emergentmodels of practice that can help practi-tioners to make sense of ambiguity andunpredictability. For this to be accom-plished, we are urged to embrace ‘cross dis-cipliniarity’ and open ourselves up tolearning about the messy world of com-plexity via an array of different perspectives.

These observations are welcomed. Theassertion that psychological science has con-tributed valuable but incomplete models ofhuman experience is an important acknowl-edgement for coaching psychology. Ifnothing else it is a humbling reminder thatthe perspectives provided by our psycholog-ical training can both enable us and con-strain us. In simple terms, we may beconstrained by simply not knowing what todo next because our client’s story does not‘fit’ with the mental model(s) we use to tryand make sense of it. In situations like thisthe presence of alternative perspectives canbe enormously helpful, making the quest forsuch perspectives (beyond the boundaries ofpsychology) a worthwhile pursuit.

The author(s) also make the valid pointthat quantitative psychological researchmethods remain an important empiricalapproach for coaching psychology because‘much of our world is stable, with patterns ofcausation and prediction quite possible’(p.83). Evidence of this is not hard to find.

For example, Gersick (1991) has observedthat numerous change theories acrossdiverse literatures (e.g. history of science,adult and group development) reflect a viewthat change is a process characterised byperiods of stability and transition.

Learning from fossils One discipline that has heavily influencedthe adoption of such views is evolutionarybiology and the empirical work of naturalhistorians like Nils Eldredge and StephenGould, whose analysis of fossil records led tothe Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) model ofevolutionary change (Eldredge & Gould,1972). According to this paradigm, naturalsystems change through cycles of relative sta-bility (equilibrium) and rapid change (punc-tuations), rather than the gradualismproposed by traditional Darwinian accounts(Morris, 2001).

In a coaching context, understandingchange through a PE lens has importantimplications, primarily because it sits inopposition to the (widely accepted) organi-sational view that change is constant, gradualand best pursued via the pursuit of ‘contin-uous improvement’ (CI; Bolton & Heap,2002). Rather, PE proposes that periods ofequilibrium are associated with limitedchange because the system’s ‘deep structure’(i.e. the configuration of factors that help asystem function) remains relatively static(Gersick, 1991). In essence, this means thatorganisations in equilibrium are largely inertand unlikely to respond to any change initia-tives direct towards it.

Although the issue of precisely identifyingwhen an organisation is in equilibrium orpunctuation is practically difficult, the adop-tion of the PE viewpoint may lead a coach to


Coaching and cross disciplinarycollaboration: More complexity and chaos?Gordon B. Spence


Title

counsel their client away from change efforts,if they assess the organisation as being in aperiod of equilibrium (by whatever assess-ment criteria they might select, e.g. stabilityof share price, continuity of leadership, etc.).In so doing, a coach may help the organisa-tion to avoid the pitfalls of ‘initiative fatigue’(Bolton & Heap, 2002) that can flow from CIinitiatives and, instead, advocate for the con-solidation of past initiatives (‘lock in’) thatmay both save money and preserve employeeengagement (Bolton & Heap, 2002).

Simple cross-disciplinarity?When coaching practice is informed by per-spectives such as this (obtained beyond thetraditional boundaries of psychology), thequestion can be asked ‘to what extent is itreflective of cross-disciplinarity?’ In thesimple example cited above, it could beargued that the coach was employing a cross-disciplinary approach (at the local level)insofar as s/he used a related discipline –evolutionary biology – to guide thinking andaction. Indeed, this may be how mostcoaches currently engage in cross-discipli-narity, should they not be participants informal research projects or large scale organ-isational coaching assignments that bringdiverse groups of professionals together. Yet,the target article seems to be advocating forsomething far more substantial than coachessimply becoming the educated consumers ofresearch that various professional practicemodels promote (e.g. Local Clinical Sciencemodel; Stricker, 2002).

So, what exactly is meant by ‘cross-disci-plinarity’? How should this term be under-stood in the context of coaching amidcomplexity? If coaching psychology is indeedto become more cross-disciplinary, it will beimportant for some shared understanding tobe developed about precisely what thismeans. Whilst a comprehensive review ofcross-discipliniarity and its related terms iswell beyond the scope of this response, thefollowing sections will be devoted to brieflydefining some important terms, identifyingsome of its potential benefits and discussing

(with reference to empirical findings) someof its inherent challenges.

Cross-disciplinarity: How is it to beunderstood?Calls for the translation of knowledge acrossdisciplinary boundaries are ubiquitousacross diverse literatures (e.g. Choi & Pak,2006; Collin, 2009; Oborn & Dawson, 2010).Indeed, it has long been acknowledged that‘the real problems of society do not come indiscipline-shaped boxes’ (Kann, in Klein,1990, p.35) and assumed that service provi-sion within human systems can be enhancedby efforts that bring diverse people, con-cepts, theories and practices together for thepurpose of addressing a commonproblem(s) (Oborn & Dawson, 2010).

Various forms of cross disciplinarityThe three forms of between-discipline collaboration mentioned most often in theliterature are multidisciplinarity, interdisci-plinarity, and transdiscipliniarity (Choi &Pak, 2006). Despite their increasing use,these terms appear to mean different thingsto different people and are often used inter-changeably. For the sake of brevity, thispaper will adopt the definitions thatemerged from Choi and Pak’s (2006) litera-ture review of these terms (see Table 1).

In an attempt to simplify the distinctionbetween these terms, Choi and Pak (2006)use food examples to clarify their meanings.For example, multdisciplinary collaboration isdescribed as being additive (i.e. serving ortending to increase) and likened to a saladbowl, in which the ingredients remain intact(unchanged) and can be clearly seen. Incontrast, interdisciplinary collaboration isinteractive and involves a blurring of bound-aries between disciplines (in pursuit of newcommon methodologies, perspectives and/or knowledge), which is likened to the par-tial (but not complete) merging of ingredi-ents that occurs in a cooking pot. Finally, it isproposed that transdisciplinary collaborationis more holistic in nature and, like the production of a cake from its ingredients,



Author name

the final outcome has a reality that is otherand greater than the sum of its parts. Impor-tantly, Choi and Pak (2006) recommend thatthese terms be ‘used to describe multiple dis-ciplinary approaches to varying degrees onthe same continuum’ (p.359), with noapproach being better than another – justdifferent – and more or less suitable in dif-ferent contexts.

Using the disciplinary continuumWhen considered alongside Stacey’s (1999)Certainty/Agreement Matrix, understandingcross disciplinarity along a continuum mayhelp coaching psychologists to determinewhat degree is required in different contexts.For instance, within ‘rational spaces’, wherean environment is relatively stable and pre-dictable (or in ‘equilibrium’), the degree ofinteraction across disciplines may not becritical because the level of certainty and pre-diction is sufficient to allow each discipline tocontribute effectively using establishedtheories and models. In these situations, mul-tidisciplinary collaboration may be suitablesimply because the environment does notrequire greater interaction to produceacceptable outcomes or solve problems.

For example, a community-based organi-sation might wish to improve the health of aknown community by improving lifestyle factors and social interaction in public

spaces (using a multidisciplinary approach).Conditions that might reflect relative sta-bility...government that has confirmed itsfunding for three years, along with low levelsof unemployment and crime within thetarget community. In this instance, one canimagine that the efforts of a cross-discipli-nary team (which might include nutrition-ists, biostatisticians, exercise physiologists,community psychologists, general practi-tioners, horticulturists, demographers, townplanners and others) could produce desir-able results without its members needing todeviate greatly from theories, beliefs andpractices that characterise their respectivedisciplines. In other words, the contributorsare able to work towards a shared goal(improved community health) but do so rel-atively independently.

However, in situations where less cer-tainty and/or prediction exist (i.e. the com-plex adaptive or chaotic spaces, or duringperiods of ‘punctuation’), simple forms ofcross-disciplinary collaboration are likely tobe insufficient and require related disci-plines to interact more for the attainment ofdesirable outcomes (i.e. work in a more interor transdisciplinary way). However, as it willsoon be shown, it is a difficult enough job tobring together sub-disciplines within thesame discipline, let alone bring peopletogether across vastly different disciplines.

Gordon B. Spence

Table 1: Proposed definitions for cross disciplinary collaboration.

Term Definition Simple Fooddescriptor example

Multidisciplinarity Draws on knowledge from different disciplines Additive Salad bowlbut stays within the boundaries of those fields

Interdisciplinarity Analyses, synthesises and harmonises links Interactive Cooking potbetween disciplines into a co-ordinated andcoherent whole

Transdiscipliniarity Integrates the natural, social and health Holistic Cakesciences in a humanities context, and in sodoing transcends each of their traditionalboundaries

Source: Choi & Pak (2006).

The benefits and challenges of cross-disciplinary collaborationSeveral authors have written about the expe-rience of working along the cross-discipli-nary continuum (e.g. Choi & Pak, 2007;Collin, 2009) and some of its benefits andchallenges are worthy of mention.

Benefits of cross-disciplinary collaborationAccording to Collin (2009), the benefits asso-ciated with interacting across disciplinesinclude intellectual stimulation and creativity,the ability to address complex problems thattranscend disciplinary knowledge, the oppor-tunity to solve pressing problems that arevalued in academia, industry and professionalpractice, and the chance to learn and applynew research technologies and methodolo-gies. In addition, such collaborations can alsohelp with the development important career-related skills, increase networking opportuni-ties and potentially expand the fundingsources (as many funding bodies favour cross-disciplinary work).

Challenges of cross-disciplinary collaborationA considerable amount has been written onthe challenges and pitfalls of cross-disciplinarycollaboration (for a detailed discussion of bar-riers, see Choi & Pak, 2007) and will onlybriefly be covered here. According to Collin(2009), these challenges include the need forcollaborators to address basic differencesbetween themselves in terms of concepts, theirresearch questions and the perspectives theytake on them, their epistemology and relatedmethods, etc. It is also important that theyagree on project objectives and protocols, andcommunicate in a way that is clear, relativelyfree of jargon and via communication systemsthat are mutually suitable. Not surprisingly,the choice of a project leader, allocation ofteam roles and constant attention to relation-ships are other critical elements (Choi & Pak,2007; Collin, 2009).

A recent case study reported by Obornand Dawson (2010) provides a useful insightinto the intricacies of working across disci-plines and sub-disciplines. Using observa-

tional methods and semi-structured inter-views, the workings of a cross-disciplinaryteam (MDT) within a health context wereinvestigated (including surgeons, oncolo-gists, radiologists, nurses, and pathologistsamongst others). One of the key findingsfrom this study was that the presence of aformal, structured MDT did not preventprivileged knowledge from becomingembedded in the practices of the group.More specifically, it was observed that thegroup seemed to privilege the knowledge ofthe surgeons far more than other disciplines,resulting in non-representative participationacross the group. Paradoxically, rather thanproducing an inclusive and open approach,the MDT appeared to simply strengthen anexisting medical hierarchy, with the surgeonspossessing far more power than the otherdisciplines (particularly nurses). Althoughsome learning did appear to occur withinthe MDT, it was concluded that ‘the socialcontext of interpersonal relations, socialisedprofessional roles and asserted privilege ofcertain knowledge enables some ways ofknowing about a patient to be promotedwith little transformation resulting frommultidisciplinary activity’ (Oborn & Dawson,2010, p. 1854).

Cross-disciplinarity: More complexity and chaosFrom the preceding discussion it seems clearthat cross disciplinary teams carry all thehallmarks of being highly complex, andpotentially, chaotic environments themselves(due to the presence of different conceptualmodels, language, methodologies, and socialpressures). This is somewhat ironic giventhat such teams are usually assembled as away to allow professional people fromdiverse (but ultimately related) disciplines towork more effectively within highly complex,and often, chaotic environments.

ConclusionThe preceding discussion has responded tothe ideas contained in the target article byexploring what ‘cross-disciplinarity’ actuallymeans and drawing on Choi and Pak’s



(2006) continuum that differentiates threediffering degrees of cross-disciplinary collab-oration. It is hoped this will help readersbetter understand their own (past andpresent) collaborative efforts, whilst helpingto clarify the degree of cross-disciplinary col-laboration that might be desirable withinfuture environments where working acrossdisciplines is important.

Moving beyond a simple monolithicunderstanding of this term should also behelpful for assisting dialogue between col-laborators and for identifying what chal-lenges and struggles might lie in wait forindividuals and groups working along allpoints on this continuum. For example,there is an element of ‘letting go’ that isneeded in transdisciplinary collaboration,which is akin to a detachment from the per-spectives, beliefs, methods, etc., that consti-tute one’s professional identity. This is noeasy matter. Indeed, working in this waywould require one to be highly mindful andengage the process with acute awareness of

one’s ongoing reactions and an open, recep-tivity to wherever the process might lead(Cavanagh & Spence, in press).

Given the presentation of multidiscipli-nary collaboration as a relatively simple formof cross-disciplinarity, it seems safe to assumethat many coaching psychologists are alreadyengaging in cross-disciplinary work of someforms (and have done for some time). Assuch, the first question posed at the end ofthe target article might be better restated asfollows: ‘How will coaching psychologyembrace greater degrees of cross-discipli-nary engagement such that it emerges as anew sort of psychology?’

CorrespondenceGordon B. SpenceAustralian Institute of BusinessWellbeing, Sydney Business School, University of Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia. Email: [email protected]


Author nameGordon B. Spence

Bolton, M. & Heap, J. (2002). The myth of contin-uous improvement. Work Study, 51(6), 309–313.

Cavanagh, M.J. & Spence, G.B. (in press). Mindful-ness in coaching: Philosophy, psychology or just auseful skill? In J. Passmore, D. Peterson & T. Freire (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology ofcoaching and mentoring. West Sussex: Wiley-Black-well.

Choi, B.C.K. & Pak, A.W.P. (2006). Multidiscipli-narity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarityin health research, services, education andpolicy: 1. Definitions, ojectives, and evidence ofeffectiveness. Clinical & Investigative Medicine,29(6), 351–364.

Choi, B.C.K. & Pak, A.W.P. (2007). Multidiscipli-narity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarityin health research, services, education andpolicy: 2. Promotors, barriers, and strategies ofenhancement. Clinical & Investigative Medicine,30(6), 225–232.

Collin, A. (2009). Multidisciplinary collaboration:Implications for vocational psychology. Interna-tional Journal of Vocational Guidance, 9, 101–110.

Eldredge, N. & Gould, S. (1972). Punctuated equi-libria: An alternative to phyletic gradualism. In T.J. Schopf (Ed.), Models in paleobiology(pp.82–115). San Francisco: Freeman Cooper &Co.

Gersick, C.J.G. (1991). Revolutionary changetheories: A multilevel exploration of the punctu-ated equilibrium paradigm. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 16(1), 10–36.

Klein, J.T. (1990). Interdisciplinarity: History, theory, andpractice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.

Morris, R. (2001). The evolutionists: The struggle forDarwin’s soul. New York: Owl Books.

Oborn, E. & Dawson, S. (2010). Knowledge andpractice in multidisciplinary teams: Struggle,accomodation and privilege. Human Relations,63(12), 1835–1857.

Stacey, R.D. (1999). Strategic management and organisa-tional dynamics: The challenge of complexity (3rd ed.). London: Financial Times.

Stricker, G. (2002). What is a scientist-practitioneranyway? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58(10),1277–1283.

References

FIRST we would like to thank our discus-sants for the thoughtfulness and detailwith which they have both addressed

the issues we have raised, and the issues wehad left unexplored or underexplored, with1500 words available we have been able torespond to no more than a few of the pointsthey raised. In this response we will concen-trate on the key issues raised relating to pro-fessionalism, evidence, and models ofpractice.

We start by briefly reminding readers ofwhat we set out to accomplish. We were notarguing for the superiority of one approach(complexity theory) over another. Ratherour purpose was to open a debate on howour increasingly complex and messy worldchallenges professional practice, researchand the notion of a professional itself. Yes, asLesley Kuhn points out, the world has alwaysbeen complex – but we maintain the impactof this complexity on professional practice isbecoming more profound due to challengesthat did not exist a generation ago – therapid growth and dissemination of knowl-edge, new modes of communication, andgrowing environmental and social systemoverwhelm. All this leads to significantlygreater and more rapid impact of local inter-actions on wider systems.

We choose to use ideas from complexityto generate stories to inform this debate – inparticular, Stacey’s Certainty/AgreementMatrix. In doing so, the aim was not to createa contingency tool that implied you couldchoose in advance (a predict and controlmodel) the approach to take. We recogniseStacey’s concerns that his model has beenused in this way and would concur that it isinappropriate to do so. In our paper we

acknowledged that he has moved on fromthis model but our experience of using itsuggests it does enable colleagues to engagein thoughtful exploration of the issues theyface in practice. Rather than a contingencytool, our intention was that it be used toenable a wider range of conversations.

It is on this later point we would take issuewith Stacy’s view that you cannot influencelocal interactions and, therefore, there areno self-organising models that can beapplied. We believe agents can act in waysthat encourage (but not ensure) conversa-tions that include divergent views and mul-tiple solutions. Furthermore, ongoingiterative engagement in such conversations ismore likely to lead to (but again not deter-mine) creative outcomes. Our models andtheories guide action and shape expectationsand understanding. They, like all stories,open us to some possibilities and close downothers. Systems dynamics provides a rationalefor non-linear dialogical approaches, Deter-ministic models tend to lead to reliance onexperts, debate and singular solutions. Bothhave their place.

We turn to the comments by David Drakewho asks a fundamental question about ourresponsibility as coaches to hold the clients’anxiety in the chaotic space. He sees the aimultimately to increase the client’s capacity toself-regulate and that the concept of‘holding’ places a precarious responsibilityon the coach. We believe the coach, by virtueof the power they hold in the relationship,has a particular responsibility in noticingand shaping the capacity of the coachingrelationship to act the ‘strong container orecosystem’ that enables the client to ‘harnesstheir anxiety in service of their relations and


Debate

Coaching Psychology Coming of Age:A response to our discussantsMichael Cavanagh & David Lane

aspirations’ (Drake, this issue). This respon-sibility is commensurate with the expert, ref-erent and positional power attributed to,and/or inherent in, the coach’s role. Never-theless, the role of coach with a client inchaotic space remains an important debate –just as exploring the discourses on power iskey in the debate about professionalism (seeCorrie & Lane, 2010).

Turning to the contribution by JulieAllan, she agrees with our view that coachingpsychology needs to encompass multipleways of working. She argues that psychologyis not just linear, and we agree with her. Ourcontention is that traditionally psychologyhas favoured linear approaches to evidenceand this has marginalised other approaches –as dominant discourses are wont to do. (Thisargument also applies to Kuhn’s response.)Furthermore, pragmatically the concept ofevidence-based practice has often led to situ-ations in which practitioners are unable todraw upon their own experience or theuniqueness of the individual client. Psycholo-gists working in evidence based services arerequired to operate within a manual whichsets out what is and is not part of the process.(An example might include, ‘IncreasingAccess to Psychological Therapies’ in theUK.)

Allan also raises the important questionof appropriateness of practice. Day-by-day wehave to make decisions. We cannot know theoutcome of those decisions in advance evenwhen the situation appears predictable andagreed. Given the multiple pathwaysthrough which interactions may unfold wecannot be sure that our choices are alwaysappropriate or wise. We can however chooseto act ethically – even if at times the outcomeindicates we made the wrong choices.

We come to Paul Atkins paper. He takesissue with our linkage of rational and linear.His point is well made and in an attempt tobe brief we have not properly explored this.We commend this fuller exposition and wishwe had made more of this point ourselves.

Bob Hodge takes the way we use theStacey model and adapts it using the concept

of fractals. He recommends to us that thiswould have aided us in our aim. We agree itadds elegance and fluidity to the approachwe adopted. We do believe that the variety ofmodels and techniques that psychology hasdeveloped bring value. Our practice dealswith real issues impacting on peoples’ lives.We as coaches join with our clients in devel-oping actions that will make a difference. Wecannot just describe (or await the results of)local interactions. Sometimes we doencourage our clients to come to a prescrip-tive position and work to achieve agreed outcomes.

Had we adopted the position of Hodgesome of the issues raised by Lesley Kuhnwould have been addressed. Kuhn arguesthat, because humans are complex, thesystems in which they are involved are neces-sarily complex. In other words simple/com-plicated system spaces do not apply inhuman systems. Perhaps our point wouldhave been clearer saying that within theboundaries of a given complex humansystem, some of the issues facing people havefeatures that are simple, some complicated,some complex and some chaotic. Forexample, car ownership engages one in acomplex system. However, within this com-plex system, fueling the car is usually simple,fixing it is usually complicated, driving it isalways complex and being caught up insomeone’s road rage may be chaotic. Thepragmatic pathway of response to each ofthese issues needs to be different, even if theoutcome remains theoretically unpre-dictable.

Contrary to Kuhn, we take the view thatprofessional practice is increasingly messyand unpredictable for the reasons stated ear-lier. Professional practice has always beencomplex, however the context in which it ispracticed is pushing professional systems fur-ther from equilibrium due to increased con-nectivity, diversity and information flow (seeDrake’s comment on the control parametersof systems). Nevertheless we find her explo-ration a helpful reminder that all paradigmsare both built on previous learnings and dis-


Author nameMichael Cavanagh & David Lane


Title

continuous with them. Both need to beappropriately valued. This chimes withTatiana Bachkirova’s appeal to maintainattention on the subjective and intersubjec-tive in coaching practice. We would certainlynot wish our view to be seen as one pro-posing the superiority of complexity theoryover individualised accounts. Both are criti-cally important. Indeed when we teach thiswe specifically include a framework thatlooks at individual, interpersonal andsystems based perspectives on change. Wealso agree with her that past approaches toaccreditation oversimplify the complexity ofcoaching practice. This is part of therationale for our call for the field to engagewith the possibility of other routes to gener-ating professional practice. Currently muchof the debate in the field looks to mimic tra-ditional forms.

So finally to Gordon Spence who haschosen to engage with our conversation aboutthe value of cross-disciplinary approaches. Heengages with this through an exploration ofvariety of forms this can take. This expositionadds much to the dialogue and we certainlywould want to see this broader perspectiveincorporated in the conversations. He alsopoints to the real challenges of incorporatingcross-disciplinary work in teams and can point

to many examples where this has provedproblematic. This issue has been around forsome considerable time. Where differentialsof pay, power and conditions of service or the-oretical orientations separate professions it isdifficult to cross the divide. The Global Con-vention on Coaching to which many coachingpsychologists contributed is an example(2008) of collaboration.

So we welcome this Special Issue andthank all contributors for their willingness toengage in this dialogue and the thoughtfulmanner in which they have done so, it bodeswell for the emerging profession.

The AuthorsProfessor Michael J. CavanaghCoaching Psychology Unit,Sydney University, andInstitute of Work Based Learning,Middlesex University.Email: [email protected]/coach/

Professor David A. LaneProfessional Development Foundation, andInstitute of Work Based Learning,Middlesex University.Email: [email protected]

Coaching Psychology Coming of Age: A response to our discussants

THE Coaching Psychologists network inSweden in collaboration with theSwedish Psychological Association had

the honour of hosting the first conference of‘Coaching Psychology’ on 16 September2011 as part of the 1st International Con-gress of Coaching Psychology. Hundreds ofattendees filled Polhems Hall of the CityConference Centre, Stockholm on a beauti-fully sunny early autumn day. Coaching Psy-chologists’ P.O. Eriksson and the SwedishPsychological Association’s Lars Ahlinlaunched the days’ events by stressing theimportance of taking an offensive stance forpsychology’s place in world.

Stephen Palmer PhD, Honorary Professorof Psychology, City University London andDirector of the Coaching Psychology Unitand Co-Convenor of the InternationalSteering Committee for international con-gresses of psychology coaching events gave hispresentation, ‘The Developing Field ofCoaching Psychology in Europe and Interna-tionally’. He proceeded to describe howcoaching psychology has developed over thepast ten years to the point of being an evermore acceptable subject of study at universi-ties the world over. Palmer’s and Zarris’svision of a world congress for coaching psy-chology is being realised through many smallcongresses all around the world. This Swedishconference served as further confirmation ofthis coaching psychologist community takingshape. Palmer stressed the importance of psychologists contributing understandingand expertise regarding science and theory.


Reports

1st International Congress of CoachingPsychology – SwedenLiv Hök & Jonas Mosskin

1st International Congress of Coaching Psychology – an update by Liv Hök, Psychologist, Psychotherapist,Organisational Analyst and Executive Committee Member of Coachande Psykologer (CoachingPsychologists, Sweden) and Jonas Mosskin, Psychologist and Journalist.

Liv Hök

Jonas Mosskin

Jens-Boris Larsen, Copenhagen-basedpsychologist and Chair of the Society of Evidence-based Practice in Denmark, intro-duced hope as a factor in a coach’s work witha client. Our environment is very complex,and it requires that we see a client in his/hercontext.

Magnus Larsson PhD, Psychologist andSenior Lecturer at the Institute for Organiza-tion Copenhagen Business School, thenexpanded upon this complexity in his presen-tation titled ‘Playing Outside the Playbook:Advanced Strategies to Accentuate Hope inSimple and Complex Coaching Conversa-tions’. Larsson spoke of a system’s psychody-namic perspective where no client is isolatedbut always part of a system or an organisation.This theme strongly resonated with the audi-ence. He gave a brief introduction to roleanalysis based upon psychoanalysis and systemtheory. A coach’s primary task according toLarsson is to examine one’s ‘inner picture’ ofan organisation. As a coach, one works withthe clients ‘organisation-in-the-mind’ and howone relates to this inner picture. The desiredoutcome is higher organisational competenceand know-how; clarity and self-awareness; andincreased ability to structurally reflect on one’sown behaviour in role.

After a lunch break, Julie Allan, psychol-ogist, organisational consultant and coach,introduced us to her subject ‘Important butUncertain Matters: Towards Coaching forWisdom’. Allan is currently researching cor-porate wisdom, and her presentation wasabout identifying the different qualities of‘wisdom’ which she in turn considers themost sought after skills for top managers andexecutives. According to Allan, wisdom is‘expertise in the important but uncertainmatters of life’. It is through our experiencesand reflection upon them that our ability tomake wise decisions emerges. By integratingthoughts, feelings, motivations and relation-ships, the client can achieve greater insight.A lack of reflection prevents people fromhaving such experiencesand we all recog-nised this from our own experiences ofworking within both coaching and therapy.

Reinhard Stelter, Professor of Sport andCoaching Psychology at the University ofCopenhagen spoke about ‘NarrativeCoaching Towards Human and SocialMeaning-making and Collaborative Practice’.The dialogue between coach and client iscentral according to Stelter. He also spokefondly about coaching in groups whereclients can share experiences amongst them-selves and an opportunity exists for a peer-to-peer coaching process to take place. InStelter’s view, coaching is a reflective practice,and in his work with clients he focus onvalues, meaning-making and transformingimplicit knowledge to active experiences.Narrative is a way of organising episodes,actions and accounts of actions leading theclient to find personal meaning.

Paul O. Olson specialises in support andleadership for international and strategicchange and problem solving. Olsondescribed different leadership models andhow they relate to coaching. He stated thatthe key focus is sometimes on individual pro-ductivity, but it is always about balancing andleveraging resources in typically complexsystems and projects.

In the concluding panel discussionregarding challenges facing coaching psy-chology, Palmer expressed hope that interestfrom the academic community will lead tonew advances. Larson pointed out that it isimportant not to lose the connectionbetween coaching and organisational theory.He saw a danger in coaching just becomingpart of leadership research. Allan was con-cerned that the ICF (International CoachingFederation) is more concerned with certi-fying coaches who have business experienceconsequently overlooking the value of acoach being a psychologist. Olson arguedthat psychologists must relinquish therapy.Palmer responded to this by stressing thatcoaching is not therapy. Larson referred tothe organisation psychoanalyst David Arm-strong, who calls on the coaching psycholo-gist to always remain open to examining thecoaching process, whether it is about a clientor an entire organisation. Larsson under-


1st International Congress of Coaching Psychology – Sweden

scored once again the importance of contextand meaning. Finally, Reinhard Stelter madethe argument that psychologists need tolearn how to sell themselves. This final con-clusion brought us back full circle to LarsAhlin’s introductory words about psychologybeing more aggressive in its self-promotion.In short, we need to become coaching psy-chology entrepreneurs.

This congress gave a good overview ofcoaching psychology today. It ran on a tightschedule, so tight that we would have pre-ferred to have had a little less one-way com-munication and more room for reflectionand discussion. We would have also liked abetter balance between male and femalespeakers. The overall message received is thatthere still exists confusion over whatcoaching psychology is as well as whattheories and frameworks are adequate. Thisis not necessarily a bad thing as it indicates a

wide variety of possible approaches to choosefrom. We would have liked more discussionon individual coaching, purpose, meaningand value. What do we psychologists want toaccomplish in the role of coach and why?There is much focus on methods and theo-retical frameworks today, but less on theimportance of common approaches andobjectives. This, we fear, can lead to unneces-sary divisions. We believe it is important toconsider that coaching psychology finds itselfin an organisational and business context,and this defines its framework and mission.

Overall, the 1st Swedish Congress ofCoaching Psychology was a success and alsoserved as proof of a growing network ofcoaching psychologists in Sweden. We bothgot the impression that it will continue to bea vibrantly growing area for psychologists inthe years to come.



PANORAMA OF STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN.


Letter from the new Chair of the SGCPFEW DAYS AGO I learnt that I am thenew Chair of the British Psychological

Society’s Special Group in CoachingPsychology. I anticipate a challenging,exciting and interesting year ahead as I lookforward to working with colleagues in theSGCP and beyond. I’m not new to the SGCP. I chaired the first Conference Committee,hosted a couple of conference round tablediscussions and have remained a member ofthe Conference Scientific Affairs Board.However, I have watched with admirationand gratitude the huge amount of goodwork done by members of the SGCP, in par-ticular the Committee members and mem-bers of the various working groups.

The SGCP, like the Australian Psycholog-ical Society Interest Group in Coaching Psy-chology, is still in its infancy, yet these twogroups, both together and separately, havecreated a clear home for coaching psy-chology. What is great, however, is that thishome, whilst supportive and encouraging,has provided a platform from which mem-bers can move out and practice in a vastarray of settings that make a real differenceto the lives of individuals, families and organ-isations. The development of coaching psy-chology theory, research and practice hasgathered momentum and has impact asdemonstrated by this and other related pub-lications; the conferences, workshops andseminars being held and well subscribed to;the increasing numbers in the respectiveprofessional groups; and the increasingrange of settings in which coaching psychol-ogists are employed.

At the 2011 European Coaching Psy-chology Conference held at City UniversityLondon in December, I sensed a very posi-

tive feeling of purpose and direction and I feel very lucky and privileged to be Chair ofthe SGCP at this time. It is very good newsthat the new Society’s post-qualification reg-ister for SGCP members who are charteredpsychologists has now been launched but wemust continue to remember and address theneeds of those psychologists who practicecoaching but are not eligible to join this register.

To many of you I am still a stranger so I’lluse this opportunity to say a few words aboutmyself. I’m a recently retired ProfessorEmeritus of City University having formerlybeen in the roles of Professor of Psychology,Pro-Vice Chancellor Learning and Teachingand Dean of the Health School. I’m cur-rently an independent executive coach,coaching psychologist, supervisor and con-sultant. My grandchildren and my two young

Reports

Special Group in Coaching Psychology NewsMary Watts

A


labradoodles are my relaxation and I’m cur-rently devising a coaching and leadershipapproach to dog training – with an encour-aging degree of success!

I guess that many demands will be madeupon the SGCP Committee and its chairduring the year and I hope that my variouslife experiences and associated learning willstand me in good stead and assist me inworking constructively and effectively withcolleagues.

It is some time since I was chair of aSociety committee – formerly I was chair ofthe Division of Counselling Psychology andthe Psychotherapy Implementation Group. I still hold the work of these groups dear to

my heart, but my work during the last 12 yearshas moved me firmly into coaching psy-chology and without the way of thinking thatgoes with this I believe that I could not havebeen effective in my work. I believe passion-ately that coaching psychology can make areal difference to the well-being of individualsand society – a belief that I feel sure is sharedby all of us involved with and committed tothe development of coaching psychology.

I look forward to working closely with allof you and to identifying with you the priori-ties for the year ahead and working togethertowards their implementation.

Mary Watts

Mary Watts


Reports

Interest Group in Coaching Psychology NewsDavid Heap

IN 2012 the Coaching Psychology InterestGroup will be dominated by our hostingof the Second International Congress of

Coaching Psychology. This will also be ourbiannual Coaching Psychology Symposium.

After the very successful Congress eventsin London in 2010, South Africa and Spainin 2011, we have taken on the challenge tomeet and hopefully exceed the high stan-dards set at these events.

The theme of our Congress event will be‘The contribution of psychology tocoaching’. Our intent is to highlight the central role that psychology and psycholo-gists play in the intellectual foundations andpractice of coaching. We aim to emphasisethe leadership role psychologists play incoaching in terms of ethics, research and evidence-based practice.

The Congress will comprise a mixture ofkeynote presentations and practical work-shops. The keynotes will be from interna-tional thought leaders in coaching such asDr Lew Stern and Professor Stephen Palmeron their interpretation of the contributionof psychology to coaching.

These will be complemented by shortpractical workshops focused on developingskills and expertise in areas of coachingpractice such as leadership, coaching inorganisations, health and well being, sportsand performance, education and lifecoaching.

We are hoping to attract a diverse rangeof delegates including not only coaching psy-chologists but also organisational, sports andperformance, counselling, clinical, healthand developmental psychologists as well asnon-psychologist coaches, HR managers andeven coaching clients. Anyone with aninterest in the science and practice of

coaching should be able to find somethingof value and interest.

There are more details on workshoptopics and presenters, online registrationand accommodation options at:www.groups.psychology.org.au/events/CPIGconference2012

We are greatly looking forward to wel-coming delegates from all around the worldas well as our own members.

As well as hosting the Congress in thefirst half of 2012, we will also be launchingthe outcome of our work late last year on themarketing of coaching psychologists. We willbe publishing a Marketing Strategy Workbook forCoaching Psychologists which will include iden-tification of ideal customer profiles, sevencore marketing messages, building brandawareness and generating leads. We will beholding a webinar to help train members indeveloping their own marketing strategy andthis will also be the subject of a workshop atthe Congress.


David Heap

In the second half of 2012 we will refocusour attention on accreditation for coachingpsychologists. The British PsychologicalSociety Special Group in Coaching Psy-chology has recently introduced a post-qual-ification register for its members. TheInternational Society for Coaching Psy-chology has offered accreditation for itsmembers as a central value offer for someyears. Our hope is that in liaison with theseand other coaching psychology associationsfrom around the world, we are able todevelop consistent international standardsfor accrediting coaching psychologists.

We in the National Committee of the APSCoaching Psychology Interest Group lookforward to meeting many new colleaguesand friends in May and to working closelywith our members over the rest of the year.

Best regards.

David HeapConvenorAPS – Interest Group on Coaching Psychology.


International Congress of Coaching Psychology Sydney �May 2012

10 to 12 May 2012 Manly Beach

Sydney Australia

Helping us explore the Congress theme will be keynotes from global thought leaders in coaching psychology, together with practical, skill building workshops. �

Our presenters include:

Prof David Clutterbuck Dr David Drake Dr Tony Grant Dr Suzi Green Prof Stephen PalmerDr David PetersonDr Lew Stern Dr Patrick Williams

The APS Coaching Psychology Interest Group is delighted to announce 3 days exploring

“The contribution of psychology to coaching”

Join us at the Manly Pacific Novotel Hotel. www.manlypacificsydney.com.au

Coaching Psychology. The science of achieving your goals.

For all the latest information on the Congress and to register got to:www.groups.psychology.org.au/events/CPIGconference2012

The workshops will be streamed into themes of:

• Leadership • Coaching in organisations • Health and well-being • Sports and performance• Education and • Life coaching.


SGCP Annual Coaching Psychology Conference

Winter 2012

Putting coaching psychology into practice: an evidence based approach

The SGCP will be hosting its Annual Coaching Psychology Conference to enable sharing and learning from and within coaching psychology.

CALL FOR PAPERSWe invite you to submit abstracts for papers and posters to present at the

conference for the opportunity to discuss your work and research with peers.

We welcome evidence based papers from

Academic Research & Practitioner Experiencein all areas of coaching psychology

(e.g. business, professional, executive, sports, health, personal, educational)

Deadline for submissions is Monday 11th June 2012For the submission forms and guidelines visit the SGCP website:

www.sgcp.org.uk

All abstracts will be subject to review by the Scientific Board and are not guaranteed to be accepted.


Notes


Society CPD eventsFor a full list of Society CPD events, see www.bps.org.uk/findcpd

www.bps.org.uk/findcpd

The BritishPsychological SocietyLearning Centre

EVENT DATE

Experiential introduction to Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) (DCoP) 2 March

Creative approaches to clinical supervision (DCoP) 8 March

Media Training: Introduction to working with the media 12 March

Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) in Research: What, Why, When and How(DHP)

16 March

Coaching Through Life Transitions: A Particular Opportunity for DevelopingCoaching? (SGCP)

16 March

Introduction to Ethics and Professional Practice: Ethical Decision MakingWorkshop (DFP)

28 March

Victim Impact Assessment – Promoting Mental Health Recovery While TacklingCrime (DFP)

29 March

Using Hypnosis to enhance personal or group confidence (DSEP) 17 April

Use and abuse of IQ (DFP) 25 April

Men on the mend: Developing and maintaining empathy with male clients (DCP) 30 April

Media Training: Broadcast interview skills 30 April

Advancing Practices: Outcomes, Clusters and Pathways - What you need to know(DCP)

1 May

Advancing Practice: Neuropsychological assessment of people who haveintellectual disabilities (DCP)

2 May

Formulation in professional practice – What is the story? (DCoP) 3 May

Doing (and using) practitioner based research (DCoP) 9 May

Thinking Under Fire: Understanding Self Destructive Clients and their Impact onStaff Teams(DCP)

10 May

Doing Dialogue: How to create change in organisations through conversation(DOP)

14 May

The Psychology of Sexual Violence (DFP) 15 May

4. Online submission process(1) All manuscripts must be submitted to a Co-ordinating Editor by e-mail to:

Stephen Palmer (UK): [email protected] Cavanagh (Australia): [email protected]

(2) The submission must include the following as separate files:● Title page consisting of manuscript title, authors’ full names and affiliations, name and address for corresponding author.● Abstract.● Full manuscript omitting authors’ names and affiliations. Figures and tables can be attached separately if necessary.

5. Manuscript requirements● Contributions must be typed in double spacing with wide margins. All sheets must be numbered.● Tables should be typed in double spacing, each on a separate page with a self-explanatory title. Tables should be comprehensible

without reference to the text. They should be placed at the end of the manuscript with their approximate locations indicated inthe text.

● Figures can be included at the end of the document or attached as separate files, carefully labelled in initial capital/lower caselettering with symbols in a form consistent with text use. Unnecessary background patterns, lines and shading should be avoided.Captions should be listed on a separate page. The resolution of digital images must be at least 300 dpi.

● For articles containing original scientific research, a structured abstract of up to 250 words should be included with theheadings: Objectives, Design, Methods, Results, Conclusions. Review articles should use these headings: Purpose, Methods, Results,Conclusions.

● Overall, the presentation of papers should conform to the British Psychological Society’s Style Guide (available at www.bps.org.uk/publications/publications_home.cfm in PDF format). Non-discriminatory language should be used throughout. Spelling should beAnglicised when appropriate. Text should be concise and written for an international readership of applied psychologists.Sensationalist and unsubstantiated views are discouraged. Abbreviations, acronyms and unfamiliar specialist terms should beexplained in the text on first use.

● Particular care should be taken to ensure that references are accurate and complete. Give all journal titles in full. Referencingshould follow BPS formats. For example:Billington, T. (2000). Separating, losing and excluding children: Narratives of difference. London: Routledge/Falmer.Elliott, J.G. (2000). Dynamic assessment in educational contexts: Purpose and promise. In C. Lidz & J.G. Elliott (Eds.), Dynamic

assessment: Prevailing models and applications (pp.713–740). New York: J.A.I. Press.Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (2006). The coaching psychology movement and its development within the British Psychological

Society. International Coaching Psychology Review 1(1), 5–11.● SI units must be used for all measurements, rounded off to practical values if appropriate, with the Imperial equivalent in

parentheses.● In normal circumstances, effect size should be incorporated.● Authors are requested to avoid the use of sexist language.● Authors are responsible for acquiring written permission to publish lengthy quotations, illustrations, etc. for which they do not

own copyright.

6. Brief reportsThese should be limited to 1000 words and may include research studies and theoretical, critical or review comments whose essentialcontribution can be made briefly. A summary of not more than 50 words should be provided.

7. Publication ethicsBPS Code of Conduct – Code of Conduct, Ethical Principles and Guidelines.Principles of Publishing – Principle of Publishing.

8. Supplementary dataSupplementary data too extensive for publication may be deposited with the British Library Document Supply Centre. Such materialincludes numerical data, computer programs, fuller details of case studies and experimental techniques. The material should besubmitted to the Editor together with the article, for simultaneous refereeing.

9. Post acceptancePDF page proofs are sent to authors via e-mail for correction of print but not for rewriting or the introduction of new material.

10. CopyrightTo protect authors and publications against unauthorised reproduction of articles, The British Psychological Society requires copyrightto be assigned to itself as publisher, on the express condition that authors may use their own material at any time withoutpermission. On acceptance of a paper, authors will be requested to sign an appropriate assignment of copyright form.

11. Checklist of requirements● Abstract (100–200 words).● Title page (include title, authors’ names, affiliations, full contact details).● Full article text (double-spaced with numbered pages and anonymised).● References (see above). Authors are responsible for bibliographic accuracy and must check every reference in the manuscript and

proofread again in the page proofs.● Tables, figures, captions placed at the end of the article or attached as separate files.

St Andrews House, 48 Princess Road East, Leicester LE1 7DR, UKTel 0116 254 9568 Fax 0116 227 1314 E-mail [email protected] www.bps.org.uk

© The British Psychological Society 2012Incorporated by Royal Charter Registered Charity No 229642

Contents4 Editorial: Coaching psychology coming of age in the 21st century

Stephen Palmer & Michael Cavanagh

Papers6 Teaching coaching psychology to undergraduates – perceptions and experiences


14 When feedback is not enough: The impact of regulatory fit on motivation afterpositive feedbackAnn-Marie Jarzebowski, Josephine Palermo & Robert van de Berg

33 The long-term independently assessed benefits of coaching: A controlled 18-month follow-up study of two methodsJohn Franklin & Alicia Franklin

39 Line management involvement in coaching: Help or hindrance? A content analysis studyHelen Ogilvy & Vicky Ellam-Dyson

55 Moderating factors of the Van Egmond Coaching Model (VECM)Johan Bouwer & Jacoba van Egmond

64 The Managerial Gap and how coaching can helpChristine Porter & W. David Rees

Debate72 Editorial: Coaching Psychology Coming of Age


75 Coaching Psychology Coming of Age:The challenges we face in the messy world of complexity? Michael Cavanagh & David Lane

91 Comment on debate article:Coaching Psychology Coming of Age:The challenges we face in the messy world of complexity?Ralph Stacey

97 Coaching Psychology Coming of Age:The challenges we face in the messy world of complexity? A responseTatiana Bachkirova; Paul W.B. Atkins; David B. Drake; Bob Hodge; Lesley Kuhn; Julie Allan; Gordon B. Spence

127 Coaching Psychology Coming of Age: A response to our discussantsMichael Cavanagh & David Lane

Reports130 1st International Congress of Coaching Psychology – Sweden


133 Special Group in Coaching Psychology News Mary Watts

135 Interest Group in Coaching Psychology News David Heap

International Coaching Psychology Revieworganisationalpsychology.nz/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/...Editorial: Coaching psychology coming of age in the 21st century International Coaching

Documents