Neurosocial Dynamics: Toward a Unique and Cohesive Discipline

for Organizational Coaching

Linda J. Page

This article first appeared in the International Journal of Coaching in Organizations, 2009 7(1), 104-127. It can only be reprinted and distributed with prior written permission from Professional Coaching

Publications, Inc. (PCPI). Email John Lazar at john@ijco.info for such permission.

ISSN 1553-3735

2009

© Copyright 2009 PCPI. All rights reserved worldwide.

Journal information:

www.ijco.info

Purchases:www.pcpionline.com

10� | IJCO Issue 1 2009

1Material for this article draws upon David Rock and Linda J. Page, Coaching with the Brain in Mind: Foundations for Practice. San Francisco: John Wiley & Sons, 2009.

neurosocial dynamics: toward a unique and cohesive discipline for organizational coaching1

LINDAJ.PAGE

Coaching in general and organizational coaching in particular face two related challenges. First, in order to develop beyond a temporary fad or a technique that is absorbed by other fields, coaching must draw on a substantial enough knowledge base to justify its development as a discipline, in the sense of a body of knowledge taught in an academic setting. If this first challenge can be met, there remains a second: the knowledge base must be sufficiently distinct and coherent so that coaching can be considered its own discipline rather than a branch of philosophy, medicine, psychology, psychotherapy, counseling, communications, management theory, or any other. The purpose of this article is to contribute to a dialogue about how to meet those challenges.

AnthonyGrant (2003)citesanarticlebyC.B.Gorbypublishedin1937asthefirstuseof theword“coaching”inthecontextof businessandorganizations.TheconceptisrelatedtoEltonMayo’s“nondirectiveinterview”(1933)andhumanrelationsapproachestomanagement.Theterm“coaching”wasexpandedbeyonditsuseinathleticsundertheinfluenceof TimothyGallwey(2001).Anumberof practices,trainingprograms,andassociationsconvergedinthe1990’stobecometheInternationalCoachFederation(ICF,www.coachfederation.org). At this time, many change agentssuch as self-help gurus, educators, consultants, organizationaldevelopmentpractitioners,industrial/organizationalpsychologists,human relations advisers, psychotherapists and counselors (seeBrock,2008)tookonthedesignation“coaches.”

Manycoaches,especiallythosewithabackgroundinacademia,wondered about the theory and research base for coaching. Agroup of scholar-coaches including Irene Stein issued a callfor papers (Stein & Belsten, 2004) and organized a CoachingResearch Symposium prior to the ICF Conference in 2003. Intheintroductiontotheproceedings,Steinsuggestedthemetaphorof atreerepresentingcontributionstoafieldof coachingstudies.Its theoretical roots consisted of education, psychotherapy,communication studies, self-help movement, social systemstheory,athleticmotivation,adultdevelopmenttheories,holisticmovement,andmanagementandleadership(Stein,2004,p.ix).VikkiBrock (2008) interviewedscoresof coaches to identify thetheories and scholars that had influenced them. Recent years

© C

opyr

ight

200

9 PC

PI.

All r

ight

s re

serv

ed w

orld

wid

e.

IJCO Issue 1 2009 | 10�

haveseenanincreaseinresearchinitiatives(seeforexample,TheFoundationof Coaching,www.thefoundationofcoaching.organdits successor, the Coaching Institute, www.instituteofcoaching.org) andacademicprograms that teachorutilize coaching (seeresearchbytheGraduateSchoolAllianceforExecutiveCoaching,www.gsaec.org).This journaland the InternationalConsortiumforCoachinginOrganizations(www.coachingconsortium.org)areexamplesthatapplydirectlytoorganizationalcoaching.

WHat Is orGanIZatIonal coacHInG?Inorder to answerquestions about the theoretical foundationsof coaching, it is necessary to define the field in general andspecifically with regard to its applications in an organizationalsetting.Ithasbeeneasiertosaywhatcoachingisnotthantosayprecisely what it is — not athletic coaching (although it drawsonthewisdomof thebestsportscoaching),notconsulting,notmentoring,notpsychotherapy,notcounseling,notadvising....

Coachesarechangeagentswhoservetheinterestsof theirclients.Thedefinitionof coachingbytheInternationalCoachFederation(2009)recognizesthisfocusontheclient’sinterests,or“agenda”bydefiningcoachingas“…partneringwithclientsinathought-provoking and creative process that inspires them to maximizetheirpersonalandprofessionalpotential.”Manysimilardefinitionsexistacrosscoachingandcoachtrainingorganizations.

David Orlinsky brought his experience as a professor in themultidisciplinary Department of Human Development at theUniversityof Chicagotobearonthequestionof wherecoachingfitsamongotherpracticesthatusepsychologicalorsocialmeansto inducechange.Orlinskycombined thevariousdefinitionsof coachingwithhisknowledgeof otherhelpingprofessions.Table1onthefollowingpagepresentsthepreliminaryconclusionsthatOrlinsky(2007)drew.

Clients come to coaches because they want help in effectingchanges.Thesearenotphysicalchanges,forwhichwemightgotoahairdresserorcosmeticsurgeon.Coachesfitintothegeneralcategory of “psychosocial change agents.” Other nonphysicalchangeagents, suchas salespeople,wantus toalterourbuyingbehavior,andlawyersoraccountantsadviseushowtodothingsdifferently, but coaches are not in the “commercial/expert”categorylikethesechangeagents.Therearechangeagentssuchasnegotiators,propagandists,andpoliceormilitaryinterrogatorswhouse“coercive/manipulative”means to inducechange,alsounlike coaches. Coaches, suggests Orlinsky, are “constructive/facilitative”changeagentsliketherapists,counselors,socialworkers,clergy,andpoliticalreformers.

Orlinskydescribeseachof thethreebroadcategoriesof changeagents in termsof itsgoverningnorm, limitingcondition,and

Like other constructive/facilitative change agents, coaches operate under the norm of a commitment “to serving the positive interests and well-being of their clients (defined jointly by the client, the profession, society-at-large, & the change-agent’s own informed expert judgment)”.

10� | IJCO Issue 1 2009

counterfeit forms. Like other constructive/facilitative changeagents,coachesoperateunder thenormof acommitment“toserving the positive interests and well-being of their clients(defined jointlyby theclient, theprofession, society-at-large,&the change-agent’s own informedexpert judgment)” (Orlinsky,2007,p.3).Governmentcertificationandethicalcodesaredesignedtoprotectclientsfromcounterfeitagentsinthiscategory,suchasquacksandconfidenceartists.Thequestionof whetherandhowthepubliccanbeprotectedfromuntrainedcoacheshasnotyetbeendetermined,other thanbyvoluntarycertificationwith professional associations such as the International CoachFederation,EuropeanMentoringandCoachingCouncil,ortheWorldwideAssociationof BusinessCoaches.

table 1. Provisional typology of generic psychosocial change agents

Copyright©2007DavidE.Orlinsky.Allrightsreserved.Reproducedwithpermission.

IJCO Issue 1 2009 | 10�

If indeedcoachescanbeconsideredpsychosocialchangeagentsinthesameconstructive/facilitativecategoryastherapistsandcounselors,how do these change agents differ amongst themselves? Orlinskyattempted to answer that question by comparing the practices of thesethreeprofessionalactivities,assummarizedinTable2.

AccordingtoOrlinsky’ssurveyof coachingliteratureascomparedwithhisknowledgeof psychotherapyandcounseling,coachingisapsychosocialchangeinterventionthatoptimizes“unrealizedpotentialthrough development of talent & refinement of effective skillsfromunsatisfying, limited (‘average’)performance toenhancedor‘outstanding’effectiveness”(Orlinsky,2007,p.5).Thisisadefinitionthattellsuswhatcoachesdo.However,questionsremainabouttheextentof overlapamongthesethreeprofessions.Inpractice,manytherapistsandcounselorstakeadevelopmentalapproachandseekto draw out and draw on client's strengths. Many coaches haveto navigate "pathological" elements in their clients, even thoughcoaching ethics and often government regulation prohibit themfromtreatingtheseelementsdirectly.

Turningnowtoorganizationalcoaching inparticular, thisfield,alongwithleadershipandworkplacecoaching,isincludedinthedefinitionof executivecoachingadoptedbytheGraduateSchoolAllianceforExecutiveCoaching(GSAEC,seewww.gsaec.org).Inthisbranchof coaching,thereissomeconfusionaboutpurpose,scope, responsibilities, and uniqueness. Is it primarily aimed atcoaching individualswithinorganizations?Towhatextentmustorganizational coaches have a background in or knowledge of the industry within which the organization operates? How cancoaching be differentiated from consulting, or need it be? Canmanagersserveascoachestotheirdirectreports?Towhomisthecoach responsible and forwhat?To thepersonbeing coached?To theorganization that foots thebill?Does coachingapply toan individual, a team, or the whole organization? How doescoaching differ from consulting or organizational developmentor leadership or training or project management or any otherpsychosocialchangeinitiativewithinanorganization?Theseand

Copyright©2007DavidE.Orlinsky.Allrightsreserved.Reproducedwithpermission.

table 2. differentiation of psychosocial practices in psychotherapy, counseling, and coaching

10� | IJCO Issue 1 2009

manyotherquestionsareguidingthematurationof thepracticeof organizationalandexecutivecoaching.

Asacontributiontothatmaturation,GSAECmemberinstitutionshaveadoptedthefollowingdefinition:

ExecutiveandOrganizationalCoachingisadevelopmentprocess that builds a leader's capabilities to achieveprofessional and organizational goals. A leader is anindividualwhohasthepotentialof makingasignificantcontribution to the mission and purpose of theorganization. This coaching is conducted through one-on-oneandgroupinteractions,drivenbyevidence/datafrommultipleperspectives,andisbasedonmutualtrustandrespect.Thecoach, individualsbeingcoached,andtheir organizations work in partnership to help achievethe agreed upon goals of the coaching. Retrieved.23.May.2009 http://www.gsaec.org

In summary, coaching in general is a psychosocial changeprocessaimedatidentifyingandachievingclientgoals,includingdevelopment of the client’s potential, based on a collaborativerelationshipbetweencoachandclient.Organizational coachinglikewiseaimsatachievinggoals,buttheseincludesystem-wideaswell as individual goals, and collaboration includes individuals,teams,andtheorganizationalsystemasawhole.Thepracticeisbasedon “evidence/data frommultipleperspectives.” What arethose multiple perspectives and do they provide a theoreticalfoundationforthistypeof psychosocialchangeprocess?Thatistheessenceof thefirstchallenge.

cHallEnGEs to coacHInGChallenge 1: Coaching must draw on a substantial knowledge baseSupportformeetingthefirstchallengedrawsonseveraltypesof evidence, including the concepts and theories from existingdisciplinesaspresentedinCoaching with the Brain in Mind: Foundations for PracticebyDavidRockandtheauthor.Thissectionisorganizedunderfivebroadcategoriesof questionsthatcharacterizecoachingissues:Whoarewe?Howcanwebetrulyhealthy?Whydowedowhatwedo?Howcanwedevelopourpotential?Andhowcanwegetalongbetter?

Thissectionpresentsvarioustypesof evidencefortheexistenceof acoachingknowledgebaseinresponsetothefirstchallenge.Itthenprovidesanoverviewof conceptsandtheoriesthatmakeupthatbase.Theseconceptsandtheories,drawnfromamultiplicityof scholarlyandprofessionalfields,areorganizedaccordingtoaseriesof broadquestionsthatsummarizeissuestypicalof coaching.Takentogether,theseconceptsandtheoriesconstituteasubstantialknowledgebasethatanswersthefirstchallenge.Thiswilllaythe

IJCO Issue 1 2009 | 109

groundworkforaconsiderationof thesecondchallengeregardingthecohesionof thesevariouscontributions.

Evidence for the existence of a knowledge base for coachingin general and organizational coaching in particular can be of several types. The first type is external validation achieved bycomparingstandardsforacoachingprofessionwiththoseexpectedof other internationally-recognized professional credentials. Forcoaching in general, the International Coach Federation (www.coachfederation.org) is presently engaged in a process guided bytheInternationalOrganizationforStandardization’s (ISO)17024Standardforcredentialingpersons.Meetingthisstandardrequiresevaluatingpotentialcoachingpractitionersontheirfamiliaritywithaknowledgebase,inadditiontotheirpracticalcompetencies.Asacomparison,physiciansmustdeveloprequisiteknowledgein“hard”sciencessuchasbiologyandchemistryaswellasthepracticalabilitytodiagnoseandtoapplytechniques.Likewise,coachesmustdrawonknowledgefromanumberof fieldstocomplementtheirpracticalabilitiessuchaslisteningandquestioning.

GSAECprovidesanexampleof howthisfirsttypeof evidenceforabodyof knowledgeappliesspecificallytoorganizationalcoaching.GSAEC conducted an international research project supportedbytheFoundationof Coaching(www.foundationofcoaching.org)to identify coaching offerings in graduate schools (see http://pennsurveys.org/coaching).AlthoughtheresearchwaslimitedtoEnglish-speakinginstitutions,over200universitieswereidentifiedin2008thatoffereddegrees,for-creditcertificates,not-for-creditcertificates, courses, or coaching services at the graduate level.Sixty-threemaster’sordoctoraldegreeswereidentified,including17thatincludedcoachinginthenameof thedegree.Adisciplineisdefinedasabodyof knowledgetaughtinacademicinstitutions.GSAEChassinceitsinceptionsoughttoidentifytheelementsof thatknowledgebase thatarebeingormaybecomerelieduponbythesegraduateprograms.Apreliminaryresultwaspresentedin August, 2009, at the Academy of Management in Chicago:“CurriculumforanAcademicCoachingProgram”(Starr,Maltbia, Orenstein, Page, & Brock, 2009). Thus, in the worldsof credentialingandacademicsettings,thereisgrowingevidencethatcoachingisindeedbasedonabodyof knowledgethatmeetsinternationalandscholarlystandards.

Asecondtypeof evidencefortheexistenceof abodyof knowledgeinvolvesresearch.Theoreticalknowledgerequiresresearchtotestitsvalidityandapplicabilitytothequestionsarisingfrompractice.Researchissurelyanecessarysignof theexistenceof abodyof knowledge.Eachof theabovedegreeprogramscanbeexpectedto require its students to engage in various forms of researchto supported theses and dissertations. Coaching research hasbeen promotedby theResearchSymposia,ResearchRepository,andResearchSpecial InterestGroupof theInternationalCoach

Thus, in the worlds of credentialing and academic settings, there is growing evidence that coaching is indeed based on a body of knowledge that meets international and scholarly standards.

110 | IJCO Issue 1 2009

Federation.TheFoundationof CoachingsponsoredanInternationalResearch Forum and Coaching Commons, and its successor, theInstituteof Coaching(www.instituteofcoaching.org/)atHarvardUniversityMedicalSchool andMcLeanHospital is dedicated to“building the scientific foundation of coaching.” Peer-reviewedjournalsthatpublishresearcharticlesareincludedinalistingattheendof thispaper.Therefore,evidenceexiststhatresearchsupportingthedevelopmentof coachingtheoryisinprogress.

A third typeof evidence includesbooks thatattempt tooutlinecoaching theory and its evidence base and that can be used asreferencesortextsinuniversitycourses.RockandPage(2009)isanexample,asareDrake,Brennan&Gørtz,(2008),Cavanaugh,Grant & Kemp (2005), Orenstein (2007), and Stober & Grant(2006).Moretextbooksaretobeexpectedbecauseof theincreasingnumbersof universitycoursesincoaching.

This paper takes a fourth approach that is similar to GSAEC’seffortstoidentifytheoryandknowledgerequiredforanacademiccurriculum for organizational coaching (see www.gsaec.org/curriculum.html). In essence, this involves asking what theoryand knowledge is necessary to do coaching, that is to respondto the issuesandquestions that clientsbring tocoaching.Exactidentification of those issues and questions awaits empiricalresearch. However, it is possible to deduce broad categoriesof questions from the definitions of coaching given above. Forexample,theICFdefinitionof coachingasaprocessthatfocusesontheclient’sagendatoinspiredevelopmentof one’s“personaland professional potential” begs the question of what humanpotential is. Coaching definitions that involve reaching goalsimply change. What theories explain change? The inclusion of termssuchas“collaboration”and“leadership”arousesocialandbehavioralquestions.Ahigh-levellistof suchquestionsfollows:

• Who are we? Coachingisconductedbyandwithhuman beings. What are human capabilities,characteristics,limitations,variations?Howdoesoneindividualhumanbeingcomparewithothers?Whatistheessenceof each?

• How can we be truly healthy? Eventhoughcoachesmaynotworkdirectlywithhealthissues,surelywhetherornotaclientiscapableof achievinggoalsisrelatedtohisorherstateof physical,social,emotional,andmentalwellbeing.Howdowechangethatstate?

• Why do we do what we do?Asmeaning-makingorganisms, human beings rely on explanationsto guide their plans. The ability to understandhuman behavior is crucial to designing actionsthatwillachievedesiredgoals.

IJCO Issue 1 2009 | 111

• How can we develop our potential?Presumably,coaching is sought because that potential has notbeenreached.Whattechniquesfordevelopmentaresupportedbyevidence?

• How can we get along better? Especially in thecontext of work, people need to communicate andknowhowtomotivateoneanotherif theyaretofulfillwhatevermissionandpurposebroughtthemtogether.

Various existing disciplines have responded to these or similarquestions.Theoriesfromthesedisciplines,then,arecandidatesforprovidingafoundationforcoaching.Thequestionsandrepresentativeresponsesfromvariousdisciplinesarepresentedbelow.Who are we?Philosophical inquiry intothisquestion iscalled“ontology.” Under the influence of Newtonian mechanicsand logicalpositivism,understandingphenomena requiredreductionism,or reducinganalysis to constituentpartsuntil theelemental or essential level was reached. Where “being” wasconcerned in the Western world at the time of 18th centurydemands for liberty, this basic level was assumed to be that of theindividual.Theemergingideologyof capitalismaffirmedthefocusontheindividualbyassumingthatone’sownself-interestistheprimaryrouteforthepromotionof wellbeing.PsychologycriticIsaacPrilleltensky(1994)describesthisassumptionasitappearedin20th centurypsychologyas follows:“The self is conceivedof as a supreme entity with magnificent powers” (p.17). Ultimateexplanations,evenof socialphenomena,weresoughtatthelevelof the individual self, with the consequence of excluding fromscrutinysocialstructuresorexistingpowerarrangements.

This individualistorientationbuildson theSocraticprincipleof discovering one’s own answers to questions and supportself-awareness and the search for self-fulfillment in coaching.Following his experience in Nazi concentration camps, ViktorFrankl (1984) described how people’s ability to create meaningmaylendthemstrengthtowithstandadversity.Explorationof themeaningof existencebyFranklandotherexistentialphilosophersisasubstantialcontributiontocoaching.

However, philosophers such as Martin Buber (1970) andsocial sciences of the early 20th century, such as sociology andanthropology, investigated“whoarewe?”byapproachingsocialinteraction, groups, societies, and cultures not as aggregates of individualsbutasexhibitingemergentpropertiesthatcannotbefullyunderstoodthroughalensthatseesonlytheindividualself asprimary.Anthropologistsdevelopedmethodsthatrequiredthemto participate in the societies they were studying. SociologistsPeterBergerandThomasLuckmann (1966) showedhowsocialinteraction influences what individuals think of and react to asreality.NewAgephilosophy,whichgained influenceduring the

112 | IJCO Issue 1 2009

socialupheavalsof the1960’s, renewed interest innon-Westernandmorecommunity-orientedtraditions.

Social psychologistRichardNisbett (2003) investigateddifferentpatterns of thinking between Westerners and Asians anddescribedhowglobalizationwasallowingthegroupstoexchangeworldviews.Easterntraditionsof Buddhism,Hinduism,Taoism,andConfucianismthatrestonassumptionsof socialanduniversalembeddedness have become more known and accepted in theWest, including among coaches. Travel, communications, andcommercehaveputpeoplearoundtheworld in touchwithoneanother, have accelerated access to the resources provided bydifferentperspectives,andhavemadeitmoredifficulttoassumethesuperiorityof oneoveranother.Thus,individualismwasbroughtintoquestionbyrecognitionof theimportanceof relatedness.

Systems theory (von Bertalanffy, 1969) began as an attempttomodel relatedness inbiology, buthasbeenwidely applied toecology,cybernetics,education,history,philosophy,psychotherapy,psychology, sociology, and neuroscience. Generally, a system isdefined as a set of elements and the relationships among thoseelements (Weinberg, 1975), so it is a direct expression of anemphasisonrelatedness.By theendof the20thcentury, lessonsfromsystems theory,alongwithwork in theareasof chaosandcomplexity were being applied to human beings and humansystems(Wheatley,1992).Eachof usasanindividualisacomplexsystem embedded in other complex systems — relationships,families,groups,organizations,societies,andthehumanspecies.

Ateachof theselevels,changesemergethatcouldnothavebeenpredictedevenfromknowingeverythingabouttheelementsinthelevelbeneath.Thus,betweenthebeginningandendof the20th

century,therewasashiftinhowweunderstandwhoweare—fromassumptions of individualism through relatedness to complexity. Thefields that have participated in this shift and contributed to theresultingemergenceof coachingincludetheinfluenceof EasternandNewAgephilosophyonWesternphilosophy;anthropology;sociology;andsystemstheory,includingchaosandcomplexity.

However else we answer the question “who are we?” we arecertainlyphysicalbeingsinamaterialworld.Noneof usescapesthechallengesof accidents,disease,aging,anddeath.Humanbeingsthroughouttheageshavewonderedhowtomaintainandimprovephysicalandmentalfunctionsinthefaceof thesechallenges.Thisalsoprovidespartof thefoundationof coaching.

How can we be truly healthy?ClassicalmedicalpracticesinGreeceandtheMiddleEastwerewhatwetodaywouldcallholistic.They included body-mind health promotion and rehabilitationas well as prevention and treatment of disease. This sectiondocuments how reductionism limited that broad emphasis and

There was a shift in how we understand who we are — from assumptions of individualism through relatedness to complexity. The fields that have participated in this shift include Eastern and New Age philosophy; anthropology; sociology; and systems theory, including chaos and complexity.

IJCO Issue 1 2009 | 113

thenhowthedevelopmentof 20thcenturymedicinehasbeguntoreestablishthatbreadth.

Descartes’separationof physicalfromnonmaterialrealitywasaparticularapplicationof reductionism,calleddualism,thatallowedmedicalsciencetofocusonpracticingphysicalmedicinewithoutincurringthewrathof theologians.Bythestartof the20thcentury,secularizationhadmadeitlessnecessaryformedicalsciencetoavoidtherealmof thesoulorpsyche;however,mentalhealthandhealthpromotion had already been assigned to ancillary professionalsand to public and governmental agencies. The separation of mindandbody continued.Even strictlymedical practicesweredividedamongdifferentprofessions,eachwithitsfocusonapartorpartsof thewholehumanbeing,itsownspecializedlanguageandassumptions,itsencapsulatedtheoryandresearchbase,anditsexclusivesetof practices.Suchdivisionsmadeitmoredifficulttoresolvedualisticclaimsof environmentversusheredity,natureversusnurture,externalversusinternal,andsoforth.

Despite the limitations of these dualistic elements, medicaldiscoveries in physiology and stress have applications to healthin general and thus contribute to coaching. Understanding“homeostasis,”orthecapacityof alivingorganismtomaintainaninternalstateof equilibrium,suchastoadjusttodifferentexternaltemperatures,remindscoachestoinquireaboutconsequencesof beingoutof balance.Forexample,poornutrition,dehydration,lackof exercise,orinadequatesleepcanbebothconsequenceandcauseof physicalandmentalillness.Theharmfuleffectsof stresshavebecomemorewidelyrecognizedsinceHansSelye’sstudies(1956, 1974). Of particular interest to organizational coaches,RichardBoyatzisandcolleagues(Boyatzis,Smith,&Blaize,2006)found thatorganizational leaders suffer stressparticularlywhentheyareseenbyothers,havetoworkinconditionsof ambiguity,and must perform under pressure. They suggest that coachingothersengagesthecompassionof leadersandactuallymitigatestheharmfuleffectsof stress.

Wellnesstheoryisabroadtermthatencompassesmanyalternativeandnontraditionalhealthpracticesthatrejectdualism.Thesehavemetwithmorewidespreadacceptanceduringthelatterhalf of the20thcentury.BolsteredbyglobalizationandNewAgephilosophy,massage therapy, acupuncture, and naturopathy have becomeregulated professions in some jurisdictions. Herbal remediesare being taken seriously by pharmaceutical researchers and byregulators. Along with research showing connections betweenphysical and mental health, these trends have made dualism, orseparationof mindandbody,lesshegemonic.Theancientconceptof holismhasbeenreintroducedtomedicalandrelatedpractices.

Even when people and their coaches understand the mind-body connection and identify the changes that must be made

11� | IJCO Issue 1 2009

tomaintainorrestorehealth,theproblemremains:howdoyouput those changes into action? Solving this problem is mademore difficult by a mechanistic bias that sees change as relatedtoa singleexternalcause thathasaone-wayeffect.Fortunatelyinsomefields,suchasathletics, thedrivetoperformbetterandbetterhasledtotechniquesforintegratingmind-bodydynamics.Thesuccessof goal-setting,visualization,andfindinga“zone”orstateof mindforpeakperformancehavebeenverifiedbyresearch(Csikszentmihalyi,1991)andtheexperienceof athletes(Gallwey,1981,1987,1997).

Attemptingtohelppeoplechangetheirphysicalandmentalhealthhabits and to improve performance has also contributed moregenerallytounderstandingwhatpreventsandaccelerateschangeforindividualsandorganizations.Thisfollowsthedictumof KurtLewin(1974)thatweunderstandasystemwhenwetrytochangeit.Whatkindof changeisvaluedandwhatisseenasthreateningshiftedduringthesecondhalf of the20thcentury.Gradual,step-by-step change that minimized conflict or disruption was thepreferred model until the political upheavals of the 1960’s, thepostmodernchallengestopowerstructuresof the1970’s,andthe1980’sdiscoveries of systemswhoseappearanceof chaosbeliesunderlyingorder.Newermodelsof change(Prochaska,Norcross&DiClemente,1994;Senge,1990)assumethatconflictisinevitableanddisruptionissometimesunavoidable.Understandingholismasanaspectof systemshelpsustodefinepositivechangenotasmovementtowardanimmutabletarget,butasdynamic stability,ortheabilitytomovewithinparametersof chaosandrigiditytowardgoals that are continually informed and reformed by feedback(Siegel,1999).

Thus,Westernmedicine,physiology,wellness theory, stressresearch, sports psychology, and change theory, in addition toapplications of systems theory to human beings, all providedtheories and research to help coaching answer the question“Howcanwebetrulyhealthy?”Eachof thesefieldscontributedto coaching through shifts during the 20th century from dualismthroughholismtodynamic stability.

As part of a whole mind/body/system process of change, it isnaturaltowonderaboutandattempttoexplainhumanbehavior.Wenowturntothisquestion.

Why do we do what we do?Duringthe20thcenturyinNorthAmerica, people who wanted to understand human behaviortypicallylookedtopsychology,whichbecamewhatonehistoriandescribedas“the‘master’scienceof humanaffairs”(Prilleltensky,1994,p.28).Thepricepsychologypaidforitspositionrequirednot only elevating the individual above systemic influences, butalso limiting itself to a mechanistic definition of scientists asobjectiveonlookerswhoignoretheinputof thosewhoarebeing

Understanding holism as an aspect of systems helps us to define positive change not as movement toward an immutable target, but as dynamic stability, or the ability to move within parameters of chaos and rigidity toward goals that are continually informed and reformed by feedback .

IJCO Issue 1 2009 | 11�

studied.Thus,JohnWatson(1913)inducedwhatappearedtobeaneuroticfearof fuzzyanimalsbysoundingaloudbelltofrightenatoddlerknownasLittleAlbert.AfterlosinghispositionatJohnsHopkinsMedicalSchool(notbecauseof whathappenedtoLittleAlbertbutasaresultof hisinfidelity),Watsonwentontoapplypsychology to advertising and marketing, pioneering many of the techniques still taught tocoaches inpractice-buildingbooksandseminars.Behaviorismwasalsoappliedtowarpropaganda,politicalcampaigns,andeventortureandintimidation.

Watson’s interest in behaviorism also influenced B. F. Skinner(1938),whobecameoneof thebest-knownpsychologistsinNorthAmerica. Skinner’s radical behaviorism carried the mechanisticparadigm to an extreme by disregarding anything that cannotbeseenandmeasured.Thoughts,hopes,goals,emotions,values,meaning were all relegated to an impenetrable mental “blackbox” of no interest to science of the day. Despite its exclusionof muchof whatpeopleconsidercrucial to theirexperienceof life,behaviorismestablishedsomeveryclearanswerstowhywebehaveaswedo.Wearepartof anaturalworldof otherlivingorganisms,andlikemanyothers,welearnfromconsequences.Thisassociationof stimuluswith responsehappensquite apart fromourintentionsorbeliefsorothernon-directly-observablethoughtsorfeelings.Thiskindof learningoccursovertimebyincrementalpracticeinaprocessthatissimilartohowneuralconnectionsarestrengthenedbypractice.Coachesrelyonbehavioristprincipleswhentheysuggestacknowledgingsmallwinsandtakingonestepatatime.

However, Gestalt psychologists had for some time investigatedperceptionsthatcouldnotbeexplainedbyspecifyingeveryoneof theirconstituentqualities.Peopleseethetypographicalcharactersof acolon,dash,andcloseparenthesisasa“smileyface”:-).Howeverobjectively and in whatever detail we analyze the charactersfromtheoutside,if weignorethephenomenologicalexperienceof the person doing the perceiving, we cannot understand therelationship between the characters and the meaning given tothem. Wolfgang Köhler (1959), a psychologist who had studiedwithMaxPlanckandwhodiscoveredinsightlearningamongtheapeshestudiedduringWorldWarII,calledtheextremedemandof objectivity “methodological behaviorism.” Because of it, heclaimed,psychologicalresearchers

…refrain fromobserving,oreven fromreferring to, thephenomenal scene.Andyet, this is the sceneonwhich,sofarastheactorsareconcerned,thedramaof ordinaryhumanlivingisbeingplayedallthetime.If weneverstudythisscene,butinsistonmethodsandconceptsdevelopedinresearch‘fromtheoutside,’ourresultsarelikelytolookstrangetothosewhointenselylive‘inside’.(p.732)

11� | IJCO Issue 1 2009

Psychometricsisanotherfieldthatattemptstomeasureexperience“from the outside”. It concerns the practice of assessingpsychologicaltraitsandstatesandwasaccordedacceptanceasasciencebecauseof itsanchoringinstatistics.Fromthebeginning,psychometrics was assumed to shed light on concepts on theinsideof theblackbox,suchasintelligenceandpersonality.Manycoachesrelyonassessmentstoguidetheircoaching.Bymid-20th

century,nonparametricstatisticaltechniquesthatallowresearcherstoworkwithcategoriesandconcepts rather thanonlynumbersmadestudyingphenomenologicaldatamoreacceptable.

Developmentalpsychologywas influencedbyJeanPiaget (1928),whoobservedpatternsof maturation inhisownchildren.BeingfromFrance,PiagetwasnotlimitedbyNorthAmericandemandsformethodologicalbehaviorism,allowinghimtodrawconclusionsaboutthedevelopmentof intellectthatlaterbecamemoregenerallyimportantincognitivepsychology.ErikErikson(1950,1968,1975)extended developmental theory to adults. His recognition of “identitycrisis”andlateradultchallenges(suchas“generativity”)arerelevanttoallcoaches.However,theideathateveryonegoesthrough the same life cycle stages was brought into question byglobalization and differences in the experience of aging amongdiverse communities and individuals. Thus, reliance by earlybehaviorismon objectivebehavioralobservationsbegantoshiftbymid-20thcenturytoincludingpeople’sinternalexperiences—thatis,whatpeoplethink,feel,believe,imagine,andhopefor.

AccordingtoHowardGardner(1985),1956istheyearthata“cognitiverevolution”beganinpsychologyandeducation,basedon the realization that even when mental processes cannot bedirectlyobserved, rigorous inquirycan lead to solidconclusionsabout them. George A. Miller (1956) pointed out that people(observably)havetroublekeepingmorethansevendigitsinmindandposited(unobservable)limitstoshort-termmemoryandtheresultant “chunking” of remembered content into seven or lessunits.NoamChomsky (1957) argued thatbehaviorist principleswere simply inadequate to account for human language andtherefore there must be internal mental structures that enablepeople to learn and use it. Thinking became a legitimate topicforscientificinquiry,andthisledlearningtheoristsonaquesttofind processes that activate mind. They no longer just observebehavioralresultsof themind’s(unknowable)responsestostimuli.Adult education could no longer assume an empty vessel intowhich an instructor poured predetermined content. It did nottake long for the empty vessel assumption to be questioned foralllearningatanyage.Cognitivepsychologyandlearningtheoryshiftedtoinquiringaboutexperiencetoinformusaboutwhywedowhatwedoandhowwelearntodoit.

The idea that everyone goes through the same life cycle stages was brought into question by globalization and differences in the experience of aging among diverse communities and individuals.

IJCO Issue 1 2009 | 11�

Further eroding mechanistic assumptions, the very possibilityof anobjectiveobserverwasbroughtintoquestionbyquantumdiscoveries (Stapp, 2007). Although quantum theory was firstdiscovered by Max Planck in 1900, its implications are so far-reachingthatmanyyearsandscoresof experimentsconfirmingitspredictionswererequiredforitsacceptance.Inessence,quantummechanics is the general theory that applies in all instances,whether the phenomena being studied are extremely small orextremely large. Quantum theory overturns an assumption of universalitythathadheldforthreecenturies.Newtoniantheory,orclassicalmechanics,appliesonlytolargeobjects—soisaspecialcaseof quantumtheory.Atthequantumlevelatwhichthebrainoperates,theveryquestionsthatpeopleaskmakeadifferenceastotheresponsesthatnaturegives.Wecannotunderstandobjectiveobservationswithoutalsoaskingaboutsubjectiveexperiences.

From behaviorism and psychometrics through developmentalpsychologytocognitivepsychologyandlearningtheory,scientificattempts to explain behavior shifted during the 20th centuryfrom demanding pure objectivity through allowing experience torequiringsubjectivity.

In understanding contributions to coaching, it is important todistinguish between psychology as scientific inquiry, on the onehand,andtheapplicationontheotherhandof psychologyalongwithmedicine,philosophy,andotherfieldstopsychotherapyandcounseling. Psychology is not psychotherapy. Psychotherapy hasits own history, research traditions, and theoretical roots. Manypsychologists practice psychotherapy and counseling, but so domany psychiatrists, other medical doctors, psychiatric nurses,clinicalsocialworkers,andclerics.Withintheseprofessions, it isunderstoodthatknowingwhywedowhatwedoisnotthesameasfeelingsatisfiedandhappywithourlives.

How can we fulfill our potential?Becauseitisalsoapracticethat uses psychosocial means to elicit change, psychotherapy hasmuchtooffercoaching.Earlyinthe20thcentury,ViennesepsychiatristAlfredAdler’sprescientnotionof socialinterestasanindicationof healthandhappinesswasbasedonassumptionsof phenomenology,social embeddedness, uniqueness and creativity, goal-orientation,and holism (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1956). His approach couldhavebeenaprescriptionforcoaching,butitdidnotfitwithwhatwasconsideredacceptablescienceatthetimeandwasthusrejectedasbeingtoovalue-laden.Asthe19thturnedtothe20thcentury,thequestionwaswhatdeterminedmentalillness:heredityorenvironment?Deep-seated drives or rewards and punishment? Internal conflictor external reinforcement? Battles between various schools of psychotherapyraged throughoutmuchof the20thcentury.Thesewereamelioratedonlywhensophisticatedresearchmethodsrevealedthattheoreticalorientationmadearelativelysmallcontributiontopsychotherapyoutcome(Hubble,Duncan,&Miller,1999).

At the quantum level at which the brain operates, the very questions that people ask make a difference as to the responses that nature gives. We cannot understand objective observations without also asking about subjective experiences.

11� | IJCO Issue 1 2009

Athirdalternativetotheeither/orbattles,thatis,bothandneither,hadbeensuggestedbyAdler’sholismandinsistenceonpeople’s“…styledcreativepower”(Ansbacher&Ansbacher,1956,p.xxiv).Thisperspectivewasreintroducedbythehumanisticmovementatthemiddleof the20thcentury.Relatedtothehierarchyof needspyramidofferedbyAbrahamMaslow(1943,1968),CarlRogers(1951)insistedthatpeoplehaveresourceswithinthemselvesthatneedonlybenurturedinordertoberevealed.Thisisoneof themostimportantcontributionsof psychotherapytocoaching.

Cognitive therapy techniques developed by Albert Ellis (1974)and Aaron Beck (1976) further provided coaches with practicaltechniques and evidence to back up the claim that people canreleasethemselvesfromdebilitatingemotionaldistressbychanginghowtheyinterpretwhatishappeningtothem.Thatis,peoplecandeterminetheirownfuturesratherthanbeingdeterminedbytheirinheritedorexperiencedpast.

SocialpsychologistKurtLewin(1975)wasinstrumentalinstartingsmalltraininggroups,orT-Groups,runbytheNationalTrainingLaboratories forGroupDynamics (NTL) inorganizationson theEastCoastof Americainthemid-20thcentury.In1964,FritzPerlsandhiswifeLauratookupresidenceatEsalenInstitute,wheretheyconductedgroupssimilartothoserunbyNTL.WernerErhardwasinfluencedbyhisexperienceatEsalen to startamovement,nowcalledLandmarkEducation(http://www.landmarkeducation.com/landmark_forum.jsp)thatreliesongroupdynamicstoeffectpersonalchange.ErhardandLandmarkwerecitedintheresearchdonebyVikkiBrock(2007)asbeingveryinfluentialinthedevelopmentof coaching.Manyself-helpbooksandgroupsbasedontheassumptionof self-determinationflourishedinthelate20thcentury.

Astrongtheoreticalbaseforthecapacityof humanbeingstoself-determinewasintroducedtopsychotherapyinthelate20thcenturywiththedevelopmentof narrative(White&Epston,1990),metaphor(Kopp,1995), andquestion-centered (Goldberg,1997) therapies.Allof theseapproachesdrawonsociology(Berger&Luckmann,1966;Foucault,2001),discourseanalysis (Jaworsky&Coupland,1999), hermeneutics (Seebohm, 2004), literary theory (Culler,1997),andsystems(Bateson,2000;Maturana&Varela,1980)andfamilysystems(Bowen,1978)theorytosupporttheideathatpeoplearemeaning-makers.Theseinfluencesonpsychotherapyprovidedtheoretical foundationsandpracticalapplications thathavebeeninheritedbycoaching.Theyrepresentashiftfromtheassumptionthatpeople’spersonalitiesandbehaviorsaredeterminedbyobjectiveforces(eitherheredityorenvironment),totheassumptionthattheyareconstructed throughactive,unique,meaning-makingprocesses.

The general belief among coaches is that clients to come tothem rather than to psychotherapists because “I’m not sick— I just feel there’s something more to my life.” Yet to be fair,

From behaviorism and psychometrics through developmental psychology to cognitive psychology and learning theory, scientific attempts to explain behavior shifted during the 20th century from demanding pure objectivity through allowing experience to requiring subjectivity.

IJCO Issue 1 2009 | 119

many psychotherapists see their practice as helping people livetheir lives more fully, and solution-focused therapy (Berg, 1994)helpspeopleapplyprevious solutions tonewproblems.Takingabroader perspective, in North America, coaching emerged alongwith increased restrictions by health maintenance organizationsonreimbursementforpsychologistsandpsychiatrists.Insomecases,humanistically-orientedpsychotherapists saw coachingas amoreappropriaterubricunderwhichtopursuetheirdevelopmentalandstrengths-orientedpractices(Williams&Davis,2002).Furthermore,some clients may seek coaching rather than psychotherapy notbecausetheirpresentingissueisdifferentbutbecauseof thesocialstigma that associates therapy with mental illness. Nonetheless,coachingisseenprimarilyasanexpressionof adesiretoaccentuatethepositive.Nowhereisthisdesirepursuedmorevigorouslythaninthenewfieldof positivepsychology.

PositivepsychologywasinitiatedbyMartinSeligman(2002),duringhistermasPresidentof theAmericanPsychologicalAssociation,toinvestigatewhatitmeanstobetruly,authenticallyhappyandfulfilledasahumanbeinganywhere—notjustinNorthAmericaor Europe. Seligman gathered a team of researchers includingMihali Csikszentmihalyi (1991), Ed Diener and Robert Biswas-Diener (2008), Barbara Fredrickson (2001), and Chris Peterson(2006). The team searched without success to find a body of research on happiness in existing psychological literature andendedwithcreatingitsown,basedonthreetypesof happiness:thepleasant lifebasedonhedonic satiation; thegood lifebasedondevelopingandutilizingone’sabilitiesand interests;andthemeaningful life based on connecting to values beyond oneself (Peterson,2006).PositivepsychologyresearchonthemeaningfullifehearkensbacktoAdler’s“socialinterest,”orhavinganinterestintheinterestsof others.

Research conducted by positive psychologists has providedevidence to support coaching assumptions. Just as importantly,positivepsychologistshaveappliedtheirtheoriestothebenefitof coaching,suchasinBiswas-DienerandBenDean’s(2007)bookonpositivepsychologyandcoaching.Further,researchintoresilienceprovides techniques for coaches to help people bounce back inthe face of disaster, trauma, threat, or long-term stress (Stoltz,1997).Thefindingsof emotionalresearchersreportedbyDanielGoleman (1995) have corrected an over-emphasis on cognitionandrationalityinhelpingpeopleachievemoreof theirpotential.

Butif weapplytheunderstandingof systemstothequestionof how to fulfill ourpotential,we recognize thatpotential isnotastabletarget.Complexsystemsmovetowardgoalsdefinedwithinaparticularsetof circumstances,butthosecircumstanceschangepartlybecauseof theeffectsof thesystem’smovements.This iscalled “co-evolution” in complexity theory. For an individual,when we move toward a goal we believe we are capable of

These influences on psychotherapy provided theoretical foundations and practical applications inherited by coaching. They represent a shift from the assumption that people’s personalities and behaviors are determined by objective forces to the assumption that they are constructed through active, unique, meaning-making processes.

120 | IJCO Issue 1 2009

achieving,wechangeourverycapacity.Physically,whenweuseamusclewithoutdamagingit,itbecomesstronger.Themoreoftenneuronsinourbrainsconnect,thestrongerandmoreautomatictheirconnection.Aswestrivetowardwhatisnowthelimitof ourcapacityforfulfillment,thatcapacityincreases.Asanorganizationachievesitssalestargets,thischangesthemarketforitsgoodsorservices. How can we take this into account in our desire for agoodormeaningfullifeoraprofitablebusiness?

NeuroscientistStevenRose(2005)worriesthatwearestilltosomeextenttrappedina“mechanisticreductionistmind-set”thatmakesit difficult to understand and integrate the complexities of thequestionsweareasking.“Imprisonedasweare,”hesays,“wecan’tfindwaystothinkcoherentlyinmultiplelevelsanddimensions,toincorporate the time line anddynamicsof livingprocesses intoour understanding of molecules and cells and systems” (Rose,2005, p. 215). A solution may be to recognize the tendency, atleastinEnglish,tomakestatic,thing-likenounsoutof dynamic,ever-changingprocesses.Forexample,we say“fulfillment”as if itmeanscheckingoff itemsonagrocery list.When itcomes tostrivingforgoals,weareratherengaginginaprocessof “fulfilling.”Insteadof expectingtoachieveastatic“potential,”wearealways“potentiating.” Although it may seem awkward to substitute“potentiating”for“fulfillmentof potential,”theeffortremindsusthatweareengagedinaprocess,notathing.

Thus,therehasbeenashiftinfieldsthatpromotehumanstriving,includingthehumanisticmovement,cognitivetherapy,experientialand solution-focused approaches, narrative therapy, metaphortherapy, and question thinking. Research in and techniquesdrawnfrompositivepsychology,resiliencetheory,andemotionalintelligence have added to this shift from determinism that seeksto identifyandremoveexternalcauses forunhappiness throughconstructivism that recognizes our capacity to create meaning topotentiation that holds the promise of the ongoing expansion of fulfillingprocesses.

Wedonotneed scientific research to tell us thatotherpeople’sfeelings and behavior influence our own. All of the precedingquestionshaveasocialaspect:Whoweareisrelatedtowhetherandhowwefitinwithothersonwhomwedependforsurvival.Staying healthy is a matter of accessing physical resourcesprovidedbyothersandof managingbothpositiveandnegativestressof relationships.Understandingwhywedowhatwedoisatleastpartlydependentonourassessmentof whyothersdowhattheydo.Andfeelingfulfilledisoftenafunctionof howothersfeelandbehave.Wenowturn toaskinghowwecangetalongwithothers,acrucialquestionthatintrudesonallothers,especiallyinanorganizationalsetting.

If we apply the understanding of systems to the question of how to fulfill our potential, we recognize that potential is not a stable target. Complex systems move toward goals defined within a particular set of circumstances, but those circumstances change partly because of the effects of the system’s movements.

IJCO Issue 1 2009 | 121

How can we get along better?Wearea social species.Theimportanceof ourconnectionwithothersisevidencedbyauniversalneedforbelonging(Wever-Rabehl,2006).NeuropsychiatristLeslieBrothers (2001) insists that the human brain is made for socialparticipation.Attunedrelationshipsareoneof thethreeirreduciblerequirements for true mental health and wellness, according toDaniel Siegel (2007), the others being a reflective mind and anintegratedbrain.RoyBaumeisterandMarkLeary(1995)claimthattheneedtobelongisafundamentalmotivationforhumanbeings.

For most of humanity’s half-million years, getting along was amatterof small-groupdynamicsandpersonalrelationships.Theaccumulationof technologicaladvances some tencenturiesagoresulted in agriculture, the accumulation of wealth, cities, andclassstructure.Managementinthesenseof planning,controlling,coordinating, and organizing resources for the work of groupsof people became a valued activity of a chosen few, both forcontrolling existing wealth and for waging war to accumulatemoreof it.Knowledgeabouthowtoorganizewaspasseddowninformally from generation to generation for most of humanexistence.Withtheadventof classsociety,managementbecameamoreconsciousactivity,withthemilitarymodelof command-and-controlpredominating.Managementtheorywasformalizedduringtheindustrialrevolutionof the18thand19thcenturies,anduniversitiesbegangivingrelateddegreesinNorthAmericaintheearly20thcentury.Becausemostpeopletodayspendmostof theirwakinghoursworkinginorganizations, thequestionof howweget alongwithoneanother is strongly influencedbyhow thoseorganizationsaremanaged.

In 1911, in an attempt to trade on the legitimacy of science,Frederick Taylor (1964) devised a set of scientific principles formanagement. These principles provided a rationale for theassembly line, breaking complex processes into small tasks thatcan be performed repeatedly to increase productivity. Eachtask requires little or no skill so that workers can be replacedlikecogs inamachine.This isclearlya functionof atop-downhierarchicalassignmentof dutiesandexpressionof amechanisticdevaluation of the experience of the worker. Yet Taylor addedtothese“hard”results-orientedtechniquesthehopethatsciencewouldpromote theeducationanddevelopmentof workersandbetter relations between workers and management. This “soft”sideof managementwas supported in researchbyEltonMayo(1933)thatshowedtheimportanceof groupcohesionandworkermoraletoproductivityandthatbeganthehumanrelationsschoolof management.Mayopromotedwhathecalleda“nondirectiveinterview”toallowemployeestotalkthroughworkplaceissues,asuggestionthathasmorethanapassingsimilaritytoorganizationalcoachingtoday.

122 | IJCO Issue 1 2009

Thesubdisciplineof industrial/organizationalpsychologydevelopedtoprovideexpertisein(soft)programssuchasemployeeassistanceinorganizations,butalsotosuggestandadminister(hard)assessmentsforhiringandpromotions.Socialpsychologicalresearchconductedby Kurt Lewin (1947) and Muzafer Sherif and his colleagues(1961)questionedtheefficacyof top-down,command-and-control,competitive management techniques. This combined with globaldemocratizationmovements followingWorldWar II tobring thesuperiorityof hierarchy intoquestion.

This shift accompanied increased emphasis on leadership as anecessaryqualityinorganizations.Currentleadershiptheory(see,forexample,Cashman,2001;Goleman,Boyatzis,&McKee,2004;Sandstrom&Smith,2008;Wheatley,1992)reflectsmanyof theshiftsthathavecontributedtocoaching:distributionof leadership;greateremphasisonrelatedness,context,andcommunity;systemsthinking; belief in the capacity of groups to construct reality;encouragementof self-activitybasedonsharedvaluesandgoals;bottom-up contributions to planning and decision-making; andappreciationof strengthsandskills.Theintroductionof theseideasintoorganizationallifeduringthesecondhalf of the20thcenturyinNorthAmericacamewithacostthathasbeenchronicledbyArtKleiner(2008).Thepioneerswhoproposedtheseideasweretreatedas“heretics.”Yetwhatwasthenconsideredhereticalhasbecomeorthodoxyintheworldof organizationalcoaching.ChrisPeterson (2006) characterizes today’s positive organizations asdisplaying purpose, safety, fairness, humanity, and dignity. Thereturnon investment in this shift is supportedbyevidence fromfield theory (Lewin, 1975); social network theories (Freeman,2004);familysystemstherapy(Kerr&Bowen,1988);appreciativeinquiry (Cooperrider&Whitney, 1999); and thehuman capitalmovement(Cameron,Dutton,&Quinn,2003;Luthans,Youssef,&Avolio,2007).

Oneformerheresywasthesuggestionthatworkersshouldhaveavoice inplanning theirwork.Management’s formerapproachof ignoringbottom-upinformationandtellingpeoplewhattodoandhowtodoitisbeingreplacedbyleadershipskillsof listeningtoworkers’ownideasinordertopromoteengagementratherthanhierarchy. Clearly, not all organizations have embraced this shift.Often,theyexperimentwithflatteningthehierarchyandallowingworkers to make more decisions, only to return to a verticalstructure in a crisis. One can hardly imagine a more “hard”demand forabsolute control thanwhendisaster is imminentorpossible.YetmanagementresearchersKarlWeickandKathleenSutcliffe (2001) studied organizations with a high demand forreliability,suchasnuclearpowerplantsandaircraftcarriers.Theyfound that encouraging participation in decision-making by allconcerned,whatevertheirformalposition,wasmoreeffectiveinavoiding disaster than directing all activity from the uppermosttipof ahierarchicalpyramid,howeverskilledorexperiencedthe

IJCO Issue 1 2009 | 123

top personnel were. Jim Collins (2001) found that phenomenalbusinessperformancedidnotcomefromcompanieswhoseCEOwasaflamboyantdictator.Instead,headsof companiesthatputthegoodof theorganizationfirstandknewhowtobuildcollaborativeteams were more likely to lead their firms to greatness. It willbe instructive to observe what kinds of management structurescorrelatewithsurvivalratesfollowingtheeconomiccrisisof 2008and2009.

Thus, reliance on hierarchy as a guide to getting along in theworkplace is beginning to shift through employee engagementtoencouragementof collaborationinmoretransparentmanagerialdecision-making,andorganizationalcoachingisemergingfromthisshift.Contributingfieldsincludemanagementtheory;industrial/organizational psychology; social psychology; field and socialnetworktheories;familysystemstherapy;appreciativeinquiry;andhumancapitalresearch.

If indeed,asMayo (1933) insisted, themajor factor inbusinesssuccess is the quality of relationships in the workplace, thenbusinesssuccessisitself ameasureof howwellpeoplegetalong.If hardmeasuresof successsupportthesoftassumptionsof coaching,thenwecanperhapsspreadmorewidelythelessonsof relatednessratherthancompetitiveself-interest,of takingsubjectivevaluesandfeelingsintoaccount,of allowingpeopletoparticipateindecisionmaking,of recognizinguniquenessandcreativity,of appreciatingcontributionstothecommongood,andof sharingleadership.Alltheseresultfromtheseriesof shiftschronicledinthissection,andallcharacterizeorganizationalcoachingtoagreatextent.

Thefivequestionsconsideredabovearerelated to issuesclientsbring tocoaching.Foreachquestion,disciplines thatcontributetheoriesand research tocoachinghavebeenprovided.This listmaynotbeexhaustive,but it isan indicationthat theoriesexistascandidatesformeetingthefirstchallenge,thatof providingasubstantialknowledgebasefororganizationalcoaching.However,therearemanypracticesthatdrawonvariousacademicdisciplinesbutarenotconsideredcohesiveenoughtoformaspecificdisciplinerelatedtothatpractice.Hobbiessuchascaving(orspelunking)orgardeningprovideexamples.Theymaydrawondisciplinessuchasbiologyorgeology,orbotanyinthecaseof gardening,buttheyarenotdisciplinesinthemselves.Thisconsiderationleadstothesecondchallenge.

Challenge 2: Coaching (whatever it is called) must be shown to be a unique and coherent disciplineThe second challenge of providing coherence for a possiblecoachingdisciplineisdiscussedinthecontextof amajorshiftduringthe20thcenturythataffectswhatisconsideredlegitimatescientificandscholarlyinquiry.RockandPage(2009)refertothisasashiftfromamechanistictoasystemicparadigmandexaminecoaching

12� | IJCO Issue 1 2009

asaproductof thatshift.Inthisarticle,Ifurtherproposethatthesystemic paradigm provides assumptions that support a cohesivedisciplineforcoaching,onethatbuildsuponotherdisciplinesyetisnotlimitedtoanyoneof them.Thename“NeurosocialDynamics”isproposedforthisnewdiscipline.Neuroscience,itself aninheritorof andcontributortothesystemicshift,issuggestedasanimportantsourceforfutureevidencetosupportthenewdiscipline.

Meeting this second challenge requires identifying some frameor principle that both unites the disparate theories that supportcoaching practice and differentiates it sufficiently from existingdisciplines.Onepossible frame is revealedby the shifts thathaveoccurredacrossthevariousdisciplinesdescribedabove.Letuslookmorecloselyattheseshifts.

Duringthe17thcentury,IsaacNewtondiscoveredtheprinciplesof motion and gravity that were then thought to explain all naturalevents. The success of his methods, combined with affirmationby Renée Descartes of the dualistic view that divided reality into“physical”and“spiritual,”hadprofoundeffectsonintellectualinquiryin theWesternworld fromthe18th through20thcenturies.Undertheinfluenceof logicalpositivisminphilosophy,scientificevidencewas limited to what was objectively observable; ethics and valueswere rejectedas topicsof interestbecause theywereunverifiable;and scientific statementscouldonlybe true, false,ormeaningless.Scholars in thefieldsof medicine,psychology,psychotherapy,andmanagementstrovetobecomemorescientificintheseways.

David Rock and Linda Page (2009) proposed that the fieldscontributing to coaching each have undergone an internal shifttowardanewperspective,asreferredto indescribingresponsestothefivequestionsabove.Scholarsfrommanyotherfieldshavenotedsimilarshifts.OttoScharmersurveyedphilosophy,systemstheory,andthesocialsciencesandconcluded“…thatthereisaninvisibleshiftgoingonintheworld.It’sasif wewerestandingonathreshold,abouttocrossthroughanewdoorwayintoroomswecouldneverbeforeaccess.”(2009,p.111)Thefactthattheseshiftshaveoccurredispartof ananswertoJulioOlalla’a(2004)questions“Whycoaching?Whynow?”Here,Iamclaimingthatcoachingemergedfromthatshiftitself.Otherfieldswereborninapreviousera — enlightenment, rationalist, empiricist, logical positivist,modernist—andarestrugglingwithhowtoincorporateoradjusttoormakeroomforpost-mechanistic perspectivessuchas thosepresentedbypostmodernism,neo-phenomenology, andquantumtheory.But,despiteborrowingmanyapproachesandconceptsfromolderfields,coaching itself developedalongwithandinresponsetoshiftsacrossthesciences,socialsciences,philosophy,andsociety.Onemight say these shiftsandcoachingco-evolved.Coaching isauniqueandcohesiveembodimentof shifts thathavecoalescedinto a new paradigm. Rock and Page refer to this paradigm as“systemic,”replacingits“mechanistic”predecessor.

IJCO Issue 1 2009 | 12�

ParadIGMsTable3summarizesthemechanistic-to-systemicshiftsdescribedabove.If wetakethe“from…”characteristicsatthebeginningof the20thcenturytogether,theyemphasizeasetof ideasthathavebeenwidelyacceptedsincethe17thcentury:

• Supremacyof the individualover relatedness,community,orcontext

• Dualism and attention to constituent parts ratherthanholismandunderstandingof systems

• Objectivityasmoreprivilegedthansubjectivity• Thesearchforcausalone-waydeterminantswithno

place for co-construction of reality or self-directedstrivingforpotential

• Hierarchicalcontrol,punishment,andcorrectionastheonlywaytomanage;littleacknowledgementof thepossibilityorvalueof engagementandcollaboration

Rock and Page (2009) called this set of ideas the “mechanisticparadigm.” It took its name from discoveries in physics. RockandPagedrawonthestudyof systemsforthenameof thenewparadigm:“systemic.”

Applicationof theterm“paradigm”tomodernscientificthoughtiscreditedtoThomasKuhn(1962).AccordingtoKuhn,aparadigmisamentalmodelorasetof beliefsthroughwhichweviewtheworld.Theparadigmreferredtoas“mechanistic”wasemployedinWesternEuropeanandlaterinNorthAmericanthinkingfrom

table 3. Mechanistic to systemic paradigm shift

12� | IJCO Issue 1 2009

the time of Isaac Newton in the 17th century to the mid-20thcentury,although ithasgone throughvarious stagesduring thattime This paradigm is referred to in many other ways: classicalor Newtonian mechanics, modern, rational, logical positivist,industrial,capitalist.Ingeneral,mechanismassumesthatobjectivetruthisthegoalof inquiry,thatunderstandingresultsfromstudyingthebitsandpiecesthatconstitutephenomena,andthatcausesleadinonlyonedirectiontodetermineeffects.Mechanismalsoassumesauniversethatisratherlikeaclock.Theexistenceandbehaviorof allitselementscanbeperfectlyunderstoodif onlywecanidentifythecausesthathappenedjustbeforethemomentwearetryingtounderstand.Wecanunderstandthosepriorcausesbyidentifyingwhatdeterminedthem—andonandonbacktothebeginningof time.Asdiscussedabove,thehegemonyof thisparadigmhasbeenerodedoverthe20thcenturyinallthefieldsthathavecontributedtocoaching,aswellasinmanyothers.

Kuhn (1962) defined a paradigm shift as a discontinuous andsometimes radical change in assumptions. Before his bookappeared, scientific progress was commonly thought to consistof smalldiscoveriesaccumulatingtoformlarger,moresignificantexplanatorytheories.Kuhndisagreedthatthiswastheonlywayprogress happened in science. He argued that some discoveriesare revolutionary and cause giant leaps forward. For example,Galileo’sclaimthattheearthwasroundshooktheveryfoundationof howquestionsareformulatedandanswered.Thiswasamajorparadigmshiftinhumanhistory.

Whenwhole societiesbegin to seewithneweyes, existingassumptionscomeintoquestion,theoldequilibriumbreaksdown,andtheresultingchaosprovidesfertilegroundfornewfieldsandpractices.Suchashiftisnoteasytoseewhilewearestillinitandrequirespatternrecognitionoverabroadrangeof developments.Fromthisperspective,thesystemicshiftcanbeseenasthestoryof howcoachingcameintobeing.Thisstoryistoldinthisarticleasasetof shiftsinaseriesof responsestoquestionsabouthumanidentity,behavior,andrelationships.

Thenewparadigmdoesnotcompletelyreplacetheold.Aswehavepointedoutthroughoutthispaper,fieldsthatarethoroughlysteepedinmechanisticassumptions,suchasbehaviorism,nonethelesshavemadesignificantcontributionstocoaching.Yetif mechanisticmodesof inquiryandpracticehadbeenadequateattheendof the20thcentury,therewouldhavebeennoneedforcoaching.Medicalandpsychologicalchangeagentstendedtoapproachhumanproblemsseparate from their social context. Individuals are divided intophysicalandmental,workandpersonal,spiritualandmaterial,eachwithdifferentprofessionalattendants.Incontrast,coachesaretrainedfundamentallytothinkdifferently—tothinksystemically.If welookatthecolumnonthesystemicsideof themechanistictosystemicshift in Table 1, we see the following characteristics: complexity,

When whole societies begin to see with new eyes, existing assumptions come into question, the old equilibrium breaks down, and the resulting chaos provides fertile ground for new fields and practices. Such a shift is not easy to see while we are still in it and requires pattern recognition over a broad range of developments.

IJCO Issue 1 2009 | 12�

dynamicstability,subjectivity,potentiating,andcollaboration.Thisinfactprovidesagooddescriptionof coaching.Coachesarecomfortablewiththepropertiesof emergenceandembeddednessthatcharacterizecomplexitytheory.Theytakeaholisticperspective,attendtothesubjectiveexperienceof clients,assumetheircapacityto potentiate, and use an egalitarian, collaborative rather than adirectiveapproach.

Notonlydoesthesystemicparadigmapplytowhatcoachesdoandhowtheydoit,itappliestohowwedeterminetheevidencebaseforthatpractice.Mostof uslooktoscientificevidencetoconfirmwhatweacceptastrue,butacrossalldisciplines,scientificinquiryhasundergoneashift.Scienceisstillasrigorousasever,butnowwelistentopeople’ssubjectiveexperience;wearemorelikelytotakecontextintoaccount,ratherthanlimitingourviewtotheindividual;werecognizethatpeopleactivelycreatemeaningintheirlives;andwefocusonstrengthsandvaluesasthecrucialresourcesforchange.Systematic inquiry arising from this shift is beginning to provideevidencethatconfirmsthevalueof coaching.

Coaching has arisen as a unique embodiment of the systemicparadigm, inheriting aspects of but basically unencumbered bymechanism. As coaching research and theories accumulate, thedisciplineof coachingwilltakeshapeasacontributiontoanewway of understanding and behaving in the world. Specifically,organizationalcoachinghasthepotentialtohelpus“learnfromthe future as it emerges.” Scharmer (2009) suggests that this isnecessary if organizations are to meet the leadership challengeof inventing not just new solutions to complex problems, butnew approaches to problem-solving itself. “How,” he asks, “dowereinventourinstitutionsasthegroundunderourfeetisbeingpulledaway?”(p.112)Becauseitislessburdenedbymechanisticassumptions, coaching may also help society navigate the threeglobalrevolutionsthatScharmercites:economicinterconnection,communications networking, and “…the development of newformsof individualandcollectiveconsciousness”(ibid.).

However, thechallengeremains toactuallyestablish inpracticeatheoreticalandevidencebaseforcoachingthat isdistinctandcoherentenoughtojustifycallingitanewdisciplineratherthanrelyingonexistingdisciplinestomakeroomforcoaching.Whatwill propel coaches in general and organizational coaches inparticulartomeetthischallenge?

What are we doing here? It is my contention that no oneexistingdisciplineissufficienttoprovideanacademicortheoreticalhome for coaching, although many have and will continue tocontributetoit.Howmightwedifferentiatesuchadisciplinefromothers,andwhatmightbindittogether?Ratherthanbeginningthat consideration by examining external fields of study, I askhigh-level questions that, in my experience, represent categories

Coaches are comfortable with the properties of emergence and embeddedness that characterize complexity theory. They take a holistic perspective, attend to the subjective experience of clients, assume their capacity to potentiate, and use an egalitarian, collaborative rather than a directive approach.

12� | IJCO Issue 1 2009

of issuesthatclientsandorganizationsbringtocoaches.Whetherthesecategoriesareexhaustiveortrulyrepresentativeof coachingissuesworldwideisanempiricalquestion.Ithasbeenmyintentionin the discussion above to illustrate how starting with issues thatcharacterizecoachingcanguideamultidisciplinarycurriculumforcoaching that draws on a multitude of scholarly disciplines. It ismyhopethatfurtherresearchwillclarifywhatcategoriesandwhatspecificdisciplinesarebestsuitedtothatcurriculum.

Ihavealsoarguedabovethattheassumptionsof thesystemicparadigmare fundamental tocoaching,andthat theemergenceof coachingalongwithandinresponsetotheshiftacrossmanydisciplinestoasystemicparadigm,lendscoachingbothuniquenessandcoherence.

Theanswertoonefurtherquestionrelatestoenactingadisciplineof coaching: what are we doing here? This is a question aboutpurpose.Inthemechanisticparadigm,itmighthavebeenansweredby referring todrives:Wearehere topursuephysiologicalneedsordeep-seatedpsychologicalcathexis.Outsideof scientificinquiry,the answer might be sought from faith or religion. A systemicapproachassumesadialecticrelationshipamongheredity(brain/body), environment (especially social relationships), and our ownself-creative,mutuallyconstructivepowers.Weformulateasenseof whatitmeanstobetruly,authenticallyourselves.Movingtowardandachievinggoalsconsistentwiththatsenseisimmenselyfulfilling— as Alfred Adler (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1956) proposed atthebeginningof thelastcenturyandpositivepsychologyresearchonthemeaningful life (Peterson,2006) is indicatingnow.Makingconsciousdecisions that keepourselvesmoving toward that idealof ourhighestpurposeistheessenceof potentiating.Connectingour every decision with that highest purpose is what lends ourlivescoherence.Applyingcoachingtheorytoourconsiderationof coachingasadiscipline,wethereforeneedtodeterminethepurposeof coachinginordertomotivatethecreationof adiscipline.

Meeting the challenges of establishing a coaching disciplineWhat is thepurposeof coaching?What is thepurposeof organizationalcoaching?Whatisthepurposeof adisciplinethatsupportscoaching,individualandorganizational?Iproposethatpursuingthisquestionisanimportantstepinthedevelopmentof acoachingdiscipline.Ialsoproposethreeother,lessglobalsteps:

1. Establishmentof thepurposeof coaching,oratleastidentification of the dimensions along which thequestionof purposemaybepursued.Thisdiscussionhas been implicit since the beginning of coaching,but is only recently being consciously discussed(see Global Convention on Coaching http://www.coachingcommons.org/guest-contributors/reporting-from-dublin-global-convention-on-coaching/and

It is my contention that no one existing discipline is sufficient to provide an academic or theoretical home for coaching, although many have and will continue to contribute to it. How might we differentiate such a discipline from others, and what might bind it together?

IJCO Issue 1 2009 | 129

2006 Evolving the Conversation: http://www.coachfederation.org/articles/index.cfm?action=view&articleID=190&sectionID=18). How might thisquestionrelatetoScharmer’s(2009)challengeto“learnfromthefutureasitemerges”?

2. Recognition of systemic assumptions as the core of coaching: complexity, dynamic stability, subjectivity,potentiating, collaboration, and the importanceof purpose. This core has been established by theemergence of coaching as an expression of thesystemicparadigm.

3. Identification of a set of questions or categoriesof questions that represent the issues dealt with bycoaches.Thesequestionsprovideaguideforselectingtheoriesandresearchfromotherfieldsthatrespondto these questions, as long as they are consistentwith systemic assumptions. This element awaitsempiricalresearchthatdeterminestheissuestypicalof coaching,butanexampleof usingquestionsinthiswayisillustratedabove.

4. Devisinganacademicnameforthenewdisciplinethatavoidsconfusionwithathleticcoaching.IproposethenameNeurosocialDynamics.Neuroforthereasonsoutlineinthesectionbelowonthefutureof coaching.Social because of the importance of social systemstocoachingand,indeed,humanlife.Anddynamicsbecausecoachingisaboutchangeandthenecessitytounderstandit.

These considerations are presented as a contribution to thepotentiationof theprofessionanddisciplineof organizationalcoaching.

IMPlIcatIons For tHE FuturE oF orGanIZatIonal coacHInG

A major implication of meeting the challenges associated withdeveloping a discipline of coaching is that organizationalcoachingwouldhaveafuture.

Steppingoutsideacoaching-centricview,anewdisciplinecouldhelp to integrate theory and research from existing disciplines.Often,differentresearch“silos”studythesamephenomenabutbecausetheyhavedifferentterminologyandpublishindifferentjournals,theydonotsharetheirfindings.Acoachingdisciplinemayhelptocross-fertilizeheretoforeseparateresearchcommunities.

Organizational coaching can also support a dialectic betweentheory and practice that has been so fruitful in psychotherapyresearch. We can shift our focus “…to the ontological and

The question of whether to continue calling coaching by that name is one that deserves further discussion. The advantage of such a common name is that it is common and avoids the stigma of more academic or specialized titles. On the other hand, its very commonness continues to cause confusion with sports coaching.

130 | IJCO Issue 1 2009

epistemologicalgroundingof thesituationweareoperatingin(oursourcesforbothactionandthought”(Scharmer,2009,p.112).

The question of whether to continue calling coaching by thatname isone thatdeserves furtherdiscussion.Theadvantageof suchacommonnameisthatitiscommonandavoidsthestigmaof moreacademicorspecializedtitles.Ontheotherhand,itsverycommonnesscontinuestocauseconfusionwithsportscoaching.

RockandPage(2009)emphasizetheusefulnessof neurosciencetocoachingtheoryandresearch,asindicatedbymysuggestionof “NeurosocialDynamics”asthenameforadisciplineof coaching.Thissuggestionismadewiththerecognitionthattheusefulnessof neuroscienceoranyotherpotentialcontributiontotheproposeddisciplinewillbedeterminedbythefieldof coachingitself.Therichness of dialogue within that field will help to determine itsviability.Itisoutof thisdialoguethatthefoundationforadisciplineof NeurosocialDynamics(orwhateveritendsupbeingcalled)willemergetoprovideatheoreticalfoundationandevidenceforthevalueof coaching.

JournalsCoaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research, and Practice www.InformaWorld.com/coaching/

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research www.apa.org/journals/cpb/description.html

Harvard Business Review www.harvardbusinessreview.com

International Coaching Psychology Review www.psychology.org.au/units/interest_groups/coaching/

International Journal of Coaching in Organizations www.ijco.info/

International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoringwww.brookes.ac.uk/schools/education/ijebcm/

International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching www.emccouncil.org/uk/journal.ntm/

The richness of dialogue within that field will help to determine its viability. It is out of this dialogue that the foundation for a discipline of Neurosocial Dynamics (or whatever it ends up being called) will emerge to provide a theoretical foundation and evidence for the value of coaching.

IJCO Issue 1 2009 | 131

rEFErEncEsAnsbacher, H., & Ansbacher, R. (Eds.). (1956). The

individual psychology of Alfred Adler. New York: BasicBooks.

Bateson, G. (2000). Steps to an ecology of mind: Collected essays in anthropology, psychiatry, evolution, and epistemology.Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need tobelong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as afundamentalhumanmotivation.Psychological Bulletin, 117,497–529.

Beck,A.T.(1976).Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders.NewYork:InternationalUniversitiesPress.

Begley,S. (2007).Train your mind, change your brain: How a new science reveals our extraordinary potential to transform ourselves.NewYork:BallantineBooks.

Berg, I. K. (1994). Family based services: A solution-focused approach.NewYork:Norton.

Berger,P.L.,&Luckmann,T.(1966).The social construction of reality: A treatise on the sociology of knowledge. GardenCity,NY:AnchorBooks.

Biswas-Diener, R., & Dean, B. (2007). Positive psychology coaching: Putting the science of happiness to work for your clients.Hoboken,NJ:JohnWiley&Sons.

Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. NewYork:JasonAronson.

Boyatzis, R. E., Smith, M. L., & Blaize, N. (2006).Developing sustainable leaders through coachingandcompassion.Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5(1),8–24.

Brock, V. (2008). A perspective on the history of coaching.http://www.coachingcommons.org/category/museum/(RetrievedJanuary10,2009)

Brothers,L.(2001).Mistaken identity: The mind-brain problem reconsidered. Albany, NY: State University of NewYorkPress.

132 | IJCO Issue 1 2009

Buber,M. (1970). I and thou. (WalterKaufman,Trans.).NewYork:CharlesScribner’sSons.

Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (Eds.).(2003).Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline. SanFrancisco:Berrett-Koehler.

Cashman, K. (2001). Leadership from the inside out:Becoming a leader for life. Provo, UT: ExecutiveExcellencePress.

Cavanagh, A., Grant, A., & Kemp, T. (Eds.). (2005).Evidence-based coaching: Contributions from the behavioural sciences (Vol.1).BowenHills,Queensland,Australia:AustralianAcademicPress.

Chomsky,N.(1957).Syntactic structures.TheHague:Mouton.

Cooperrider, D. L, & Whitney, D. (1999). Appreciative inquiry.SanFrancisco:Berrett-Koehler,2005.

Creswell, J.D.,Welch,W.T.,Taylor,S.E.,Sherman,D.K., Gruenewald, T. L., & Mann, T. (2005). Affir-mationof personalvaluesbuffersneuroendocrineandpsychological stress responses. Psychological Science, 16,841–920.

Csikszentmihalyi,M.(1991).Flow: The psychology of optimal experience.NewYork:HarperCollins.

Culler, J. (1997) Literary theory: A very short introduction.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Diener,E.,&Biswas-Diener,R.(2008).Happiness: A brief history.Hoboken,NJ:Wiley-Blackwell.

Drake,D.B.,Brennan,D.,&Gørtz,K. (Eds.). (2008).The philosophy and practice of coaching: Insights and issues for a new era.SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Eisenberger,N.I.,Lieberman,M.D.,&Williams,K.D.(2003).Doesrejectionhurt?AnfMRIstudyof socialexclusion.Science, 302,290–292.

Ellis,A.(1974).Humanistic psychotherapy: The rational-emotive approach.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.

Erikson,E.H.(1950).Childhood and society.NewYork:Norton.

Erikson,E.H.(1968).Identity: Youth and crisis.NewYork:Norton.

IJCO Issue 1 2009 | 133

Erikson,E.H. (1975).Life history and the historical moment.NewYork:Norton.

Foucault,M.(2001).Madness and civilization(2nded.).London:Routledge.

Frankl, V. E. (1984). Man’s search for meaning. New York:WashingtonSquare.

Fredrickson,B. (2001).Theroleof positiveemotions inpositive psychology: The broaden-and-build theoryof positiveemotions.American Psychologist Special Issue, 56,218–226.

Freeman,L.C.(2004).The development of social network analysis: A study in the sociolog y of science. NorthCharleston,SC:BookSurge,LLC.

Gallwey,T.(1981).The inner game of golf(Rev.ed.).NewYork:RandomHouse.

Gallwey,T.(1987).The inner game of tennis(Rev.ed.).NewYork:RandomHouse.

Gallwey,T.(1997).The inner game of skiing(Rev.ed.).NewYork:RandomHouse.

Gallwey, T. (2001). The inner game of work: Focus, learning, pleasure and mobility in the workplace. NewYork:RandomHouse.

Gardner,H. (1985).The mind’s new science: A history of the cognitive revolution.NewYork:BasicBooks.

Goldberg,M.C. (1998).The art of the question: A guide to short-term question-centered therapy. NewYork:JohnWiley&Sons.

Goleman,D.(1995).Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ.NewYork:BantamBooks.

Goleman,D.,Boyatzis,R.E.,&McKee,A.(2004).Primal leadership: Learning to lead with emotional intelligence. Cambridge,MA:HarvardBusinessPress.

Grant,A.(2004).Keepingupwiththecheese!Researchas a foundation for professional coaching of thefuture. In I.F. Stein & L.A. Belsten (Eds.), First ICF Coaching Research Symposium (pp. 1-19). Mooresville,NC:PawPrintPress.

13� | IJCO Issue 1 2009

Hubble,M.A.,Duncan,B.L.,&Miller,S.D.(1999).The heart & soul of change: What works in therapy. Washington,DC:AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.

InternationalCoachFederation (2009)Learnaboutcoaching during the 10th Annual InternationalCoaching Week. http://www.coachfederation.org/articles/index.cfm?action=view&articleID=13&menuID=10Retrieved3May2009.

Jaworski,A.,&Coupland,N.(Eds.).(1999).The discourse reader.London:Routledge

Jay,M. (1999).Coach 2 the bottom line: An executive guide to coaching performance, change, and transformation.Victoria,BC:Trafford.

Kerr, M. E., & Bowen, M. (1988). Family evaluation: An approach based on Bowen theory. New York: W. W.Norton.

Kleiner,A.(2008).The age of heretics: A history of the radical thinkers who reinvented corporate management (2nded.). (AWarrenBennisbook.)Hoboken,NJ:Jossey-Bass.

Köhler,W.(1959).Gestaltpsychologytoday.Addressof thePresident at the sixty-seventh Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Cincinnati,Ohio,September6,1959.AmericanPsychologist,14,727-734.

Kopp,R.R. (1995).Metaphor therapy: Using client-generated metaphors in psychotherapy. NewYork:Bruner/Mazel.

Lewin,K.(1947).Groupdecisionandsocialchange.InT.M.Newcomb&E.L.Hartley(Eds.),Readings in social psychology(pp.340–344).NewYork:HenryHolt.

Lewin,K.(1975).Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers.Westport,CN:GreenwoodPress.

Lieberman, M. D., Eisenberger, N. I., Crockett, M.J.,Tom,S.M.,Pfeifer, J.H.,&Way,B.M. (2007).Putting feelings into words: Affect labeling disruptsamygdala activity to affective stimuli. Psychological Science, 18, 421–428.

Luthans, F., Youssef, C. M., & Avolio, B. J. (2007).Psychological capital: Developing the human competitive edge. NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

IJCO Issue 1 2009 | 13�

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation.Psychological Review, 50,370-396.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. NewYork:VanNostrand.

Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoesis and cognition: The realization of the living. NewYork:Springer.

Mayo,E.(1933).The human problems of an industrial civilization.NewYork:Macmillan.

Miller, G. A. (1956). The magic number seven, plus orminustwo:Somelimitsonourcapacityforprocessinginformation.Psychological Review, 63,81–93.

Nisbett,R.E.(2003).The geography of thought: How Asians and Westerners think differently … and why. New York:FreePress.

Olalla, J. (2004). From knowledge to wisdom: Essays on the crisis in contemporary learning. Boulder, CO: NewfieldNetwork.

Orenstein, R. (2007). Multidimensional executive coaching.NewYork:Springer.

Orlinsky,D.E.(2007,November). Collaborative research: How different are coaches and therapists?Paperpresentedat 11th Annual International Coach FederationConference,LongBeach,California.

Perls,F.S,Hefferline,R.F., &Goodman,P.(1969) Gestalt therapy: Excitement and growth in the human personality.NewYork:JulianPress.

Peterson,C. (2006).A primer in positive psychology.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Piaget,J.(1928).The child’s conception of the world.London:RoutledgeandKeganPaul.

Prochaska, J. O., Norcross, J. C., & DiClemente, C. C.(1994).Changing for good: A revolutionary six-stage program for overcoming bad habits and moving your life positively forward. NewYork:WilliamMorrow.

Rizzolatti,G.,&Sinigaglia,C.(2008).Mirrors in the brain: How our minds share actions, emotions, and experience (F.Anderson,Trans.).NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

13� | IJCO Issue 1 2009

Rock, D. (2006). Quiet leadership: Six steps to transforming performance at work.NewYork:Collins.

Rock,D.(2008).SCARF:abrain-basedmodelforcollab-orating with and influencing others. NeuroLeadership Journal, 1,44–52.

Rock, D., & Page, L. J. (2009). Coaching with the brain in mind: Foundations for practice.Hoboken,NJ:JohnWiley&Sons.

Rogers,C.R.(1951).Client-centered therapy: Its current practice, implications and theory.London:Constable.

Rose,S.(2005).The future of the brain: The promise and perils of tomorrow’s neuroscience.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Seebohm,T.M.(2004).Hermeneutic: Method and methodology,(Vol.50inSeries:ContributionstoPhenomenology).NewYork:Springer.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment.NewYork:FreePress.

Selye,H.(1956).The stress of life.NewYork:McGraw-Hill.

Selye,H. (1974).Stress without distress. Philadelphia: J.B.Lippincott.

Senge,P.(1990)The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.NewYork:CurrencyDoubleday.

Sherif,M.,Harvey,O. J.,White,B. J.,Hood,W.R.,&Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robber’s cave experiment. Norman, OK: Universityof OklahomaInstituteof GroupRelations.

Siegel,D.J.(2007). The mindful brain: Reflection and attunement in the cultivation of well-being. NewYork:Norton.

Skinner,B.F.(1938).The behavior of organisms: An experimental analysis.NewYork:D.Appleton-CenturyCompany.

Stapp,H.P.(2007). Mindfuluniverse:Quantummechanicsandtheparticipatingobserver.InA.C.Elitzur,M.P.Silverman,J.Tuszynski,R.Vaas,&H.D.Zeh(Eds.),The frontiers collection.Berlin:Springer-Verlag.

IJCO Issue 1 2009 | 13�

Starr,L.,Maltbia,T., Orenstein,R.,Page,L.,&Brock,S.(2009,August).Curriculumforanacademiccoachingprogram.PresentationatAcademyof ManagementAnnualConference,Chicago,Illinois.

Stein, I. F. (2004). Introduction: Beginning a promisingconversation. In I. F. Stein & L. A. Belsten (Eds.),Proceedings of the first ICF coaching research symposium(pp.viii-xii).Mooresville,NC:PawPrintPress.

Stein,I.F.&Belsten,L.A.(Eds.).(2004).First ICF Coaching Research Symposium.Mooresville,NC:PawPrintPress.

Stober, D., & Grant, A. (Eds.). (2006). Evidence-based coaching handbook.Hoboken,NJ:JohnWiley&Sons.

Stoltz,P.(1997).Adversity quotient: Turning obstacles into oppor-tunities.NewYork:JohnWiley&Sons.

Tang,Y.-Y.,&Posner,M.I.(2008).Theneuroscienceof mindfulness.NeuroLeadership Journal, 1,33–37.

Taylor, F. W. (1964). Scientific management, comprising shop management. The principles of scientific management and testimony before the Special House Committee. New York:Harper&Row.

Watson,J.B.(1913).Psychologyasthebehavioristviewsit.Psychological Review, 20,158-177.

Weick,K.E.,&Sutcliffe,K.(2001).Managing the unexpected: Assuring high performance in an age of complexity. SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.

Weinberg,G.(1975).An introduction to general systems thinking. NewYork:CorsetWiley.

Weber-Rabehl,G.(2006).Theanthropologyof belonging.http://anthropology.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_anthropology_of_belongingRetrieved23May2009

Wheatley,M.(1992).Leadership and the new science: Learning about organization from an orderly universe.SanFrancisco:Berrett-KoehlerPublishers.

White,M.&Epston,D.(1990).Narrative means to therapeutic ends.NewYork:W.W.Norton.

Williams,P.,&Davis,D.C.(2002).Therapist as life coach: Transforming your practice.NewYork:Norton.

aBout tHE autHor

Linda J. Page, Ph.D.

Phone: +1 416 400 5871Email: ljpage@adlearn.netWebsite: www.adlerlearning.com

Linda J. Page i s Pres ident of Adler International Learning andCo-Director of the Adler-OISEUniversityof TorontoGraduateCertificateinOrganizationalDynamicsand Executive Coaching (CODEC).With David Rock, she co-authoredCoaching with the Brain in Mind: Foundations for Practice published inAugust, 2009, by John Wiley andSons. She serves on the Board of Directors of the Graduate SchoolAllianceforExecutiveCoachingandisamemberof theResearchAdvisoryBoard of the Coaching Institute atHarvard University Medical SchoolandMcLeanHospital.

The International Journal of Coaching in Organizations (IJCO) is the signature publication of

Professional Coaching Publications, Inc. (PCPI). In addition to this internationally acclaimed

journal, PCPI publishes books on topics of interest to those in the coaching community, whether

practitioner, decision maker, or end user. You can count on PCPI, Inc. to provide content that

pushes the envelope — bringing theory, research and application together in ways that inform,

engage and provoke. Visit the PCPI website, www.pcpionline.com, to view and purchase our

growing line of products.

If you have administrative questions, please refer them to our IJCO Office Manager, at

officemanager@ijco.info. For advertising, marketing and operations inquiries, please refer

them to John Lazar, IJCO Co-Executive Editor, at john@ijco.info. Please submit unsolicited

manuscripts for peer review consideration to the IJCO office manager at officemanager@ijco.info.

Visit Both Our Sites at Your Convenience

Journal information:www.ijco.info

Purchases:www.pcpionline.com

Resource Center for Professional Coaching in Organizations