What needs to change in the field? The changes needed in field relate directly to the observations I have made in the previous two sections. We are in a field that has close ties (at least potentially) to several rapidly expanding fields of research in the biological and behavioral sciences. We need to devote greater attention to the implications inherent in the findings coming out of these fields – and this attention requires collaborative efforts on the part of practitioners in the field of professional coaching. As my colleague, Francine Campone (one of the architects of the Development of Coaches survey) has noted, we need to build a culture of research and evidence that is interwoven with what I have called the culture of collaboration. This cultural transformation is required if the field and profession of coaching is to further evolve and remain relevant to a world of complexity, unpredictability and turbulence.
In the midst of this emphasis on research and collaboration, we also must refine our research tools. The ROI measures have been further refined since 2003, and we now see a more qualitative emphasis on both opportunities and expectations, as related to the perspectives of both coaches and the consumers of coaching services. As is now the case in other human service professions (including medicine and mental health) the push toward evidence-based practices is becoming prevalent in the field of professional coaching. The “evidence”, however, must be nuanced and (as Mary Beth noted in 2003), related to the system-based analysis of multiple-causations and interdependencies.
What do you anticipate the world of coaching will look like 13 years from now? In 13 years, I anticipate the use of much more powerful tools of analysis, coming out of such areas as agent-based modeling and system-dynamics. We will not only see more refined ways of exploring the impact of our work as coaches in complex organizational settings, but will also be deploying computer-based tools of analysis with our clients that enable us (with our clients) to do highly-refined contingency based planning and (even more importantly) provide venues for testing out assumptions about how the client’s organization actually works and responds to various interventions. If we are to encourage our clients to “think slowly” on occasion and reflect on their own attributions, then we need tools to make this reflective process powerful and productive.
Download Article 1K Club
