510032
research-article2013
JABXXX10.1177/0021886313510032The Journal of Applied Behavioral ScienceWitherspoon
Article
Double-Loop Coaching for
Leadership Development
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
XX(X) 1­–23
© 2013 NTL Institute
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0021886313510032
jabs.sagepub.com
Robert Witherspoon1
Abstract
This article explores a distinctive coaching approach designed to help leaders
learn about how they think in action, and then apply that learning to improve their
performance and leadership. The particular focus of this approach is on the way
that leaders think about, or frame key situations—and specifically how this thinking
can powerfully shape their acting and results. I call this double-loop coaching (DLC),
drawing on the distinction coined by Chris Argyris between single- and double-loop
learning. The essence of DLC is the idea that the way leaders act and the results
they create begin with the way they think. With actual coaching cases that apply this
approach, this article suggests ways leaders can better connect their thinking and
their action to increase their chances of success, especially when important matters
are at stake among parties with different perspectives.
Keywords
action science, coaching, double-loop learning, executive coaching, 360° feedback,
framing, leadership coaching, leadership development, leadership transition, learning
strategies, management derailment, mental models, mindsets, organizational learning,
productive conversation, reflection
To succeed in today’s turbulent world, leaders must seek feedback for growth and change,
draw insights from daily experience, and apply that learning to improve their individual
performance and leadership of others. Leaders need to reflect and learn from their actions
to develop; yet most leaders lack actionable feedback (Cannon & Witherspoon, 2005) and
do not know how to learn at this deeper level (Roglio & Light, 2009).
The ability to think and act effectively depends on leaders’ capacity for double-loop
learning, the distinctive deep learning competency described by Chris Argyris (2004).
1Performance
& Leadership Development Ltd, Washington, DC, USA
Corresponding Author:
Robert Witherspoon, President, Performance & Leadership Development Ltd, 2101 Connecticut Ave
NW Ste 5, Washington, DC 20008, USA.
Email: rw@topcoaches.net
Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
2
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science XX(X)
To learn deeply about themselves, leaders must obtain valid data, critically reflect on
their behavior, and think about their thought process in action. So also, to learn deeply
about organization issues, leaders must be able to discover and implement new ideas,
detect and correct errors, and capture and transfer critical knowledge across the enterprise. Such personal and professional deep learning requires double-loop learning
skills.
This article explains a fresh coaching approach called double-loop coaching (DLC)
designed to foster deep learning, starting with helping leaders reflect critically on their
own behavior—especially the way they think about or frame key situations. DLC
draws on a crucial distinction between single- and double-loop learning. Single- and
double-loop learning refer to how people respond to error and changes in their environment. In this view, learning is seen as the detection and correction of error (Argyris
& Schön, 1974). Single-loop learning is typically straightforward and acquired at an
early age. Double-loop learning typically requires an examination and change in
underlying assumptions, values, and beliefs to discover and correct errors.
Most learning in everyday life is single-loop, as is most coaching that is offered in
organizations, when coaching aims to improve a leader’s results. This coaching to
improve performance typically concentrates on actions that produce a leader’s results
rather than the leader’s thinking which leads to the actions. It takes for granted the
goals, values, and assumptions the leader brings into the coaching process. This single-loop coaching is important work, but inherently limited by any initial assumptions
that are taken for granted at the outset and remain unchallenged. In contrast, doubleloop coaching requires leaders to reflect critically on their thinking, assess their reactions and their frame of reference (which may inadvertently contribute to problems),
and then consider change. To illustrate these two points, consider Figure 1.
Coaching along a single-loop learning pathway helps leaders improve their results by
behaving differently from the same frame of reference. Learning occurs as leaders
change their actions and can lead to incremental improvement. This pathway leaves
intact the way leaders frame a particular situation. In comparison, coaching along a double-loop learning pathway helps leaders alter their spontaneous understanding of a particular situation. Learning occurs as leaders shift their framing and can lead to more
change.
The Practice of Double-Loop Coaching
DLC is a learning process to help leaders learn about how they think in action, and
then to apply that learning to improve their performance and leadership.
The process is designed to coach on the actions and thinking of leaders (not just
their overt behavior) through three practices: reflect, reframe, and redesign (the “3
Rs”). DLC entails some of the most essential work in coaching, since it delves into
deep learning and the “inner game of leadership” (Kaplan & Kaiser, 2006). The purpose of DLC is consistent with the aim of executive coaching as an action-learning
process to enhance effective action and learning agility (Witherspoon, 2000;
Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
3
Witherspoon
Figure 1. Coaching for single- and double-loop learning.
Note. Single-loop learning results from reflecting on actions and results and then acting again with the
intention of changing the results. Double-loop learning results from reflecting on action and results, and
then reframing as a means to change the actions that led to those results.
Source. The term learning pathways and the above framework and feedback loops are adapted from
Action Design (www.actiondesign.com), were developed from the work of Argyris and Schön (1974),
and have been applied in Action Design professional development programs to help participants explore
the causal links among their framing, acting and results, as well as any mismatches between intention and
impact.
Witherspoon & White, 1997). Desired DLC outcomes for leaders range from immediate (e.g., more informed choice for better decisions) to short-term improvements (e.g.,
deeper insight about their behavior and impact on others) to long-term change (e.g., a
broader repertoire of effective action). Over time, DLC aims to help leaders improve
their performance and leadership, and thus, their consequent ability to serve their
stakeholders, especially when important matters are at stake and the people involved
have different perspectives.
The “3 Rs” of Double-Loop Coaching
DLC entails a family of foundational coaching practices that assist leaders in reflecting on how they think and act in key situations.
•• Practice 1: Reflect—DLC reflecting helps leaders assess their reactions to key
situations (particularly their frame of reference), so they can increase their
insight, ask better questions, and discover more options for action.
•• Practice 2: Reframe—DLC reframing helps leaders shift how they think about
key situations, so they can consider alternative interpretations of the events,
invent new frames, and reframe future situations for better results.
•• Practice 3: Redesign—DLC redesigning helps leaders decide whether and how
to change their leadership behavior and design experiments to test and revise
their thinking, acting and results.
Taken together, these three DLC practices help leaders to alter their spontaneous reactions, deepen their awareness, and broaden their repertoire of effective action. Each
Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
4
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science XX(X)
practice encompasses a set of coaching attitudes, skills, and activities that are designed
to engage leaders in deeper learning about their leadership behavior, explained below.
DLC Foundational Practice 1: Reflect
Reflect refers to facilitating the ability of leaders to learn from experience by exploring
what they do in specific situations, particularly the thinking and feeling that leads them
to act as they do. DLC reflection includes identifying actual or desired results (positive
and negative), analyzing actions (particularly the ones that determine the results), and
examining the frames that inform and shape a leader’s acting and results. Reflection in
this sense does not mean musing or armchair reflecting that is divorced from action
(Edmondson & McLain Smith, 2006), which is not useful in most coaching conversations. Instead, the practice entails reflecting rigorously on leadership behavior in specific situations, including reflecting-in-action as Schön (1983) defines the term. When
they reflect in action, leaders are coached to notice their spontaneous reaction to key
situations, and then turn these reactions into objects of reflection (Kegan, 1982, 1998),
so as to better understand their thinking and consider alternatives.
When coaching to facilitate reflection, coaches can ask pointed questions outlined
in the chart below:
Results
Actions
Framing
Coaching
“What were the
“What did you say
“What were your
Questions to
actual results,
or do that was
underlying assumptions
Ask
compared to those
particularly important in this situation, such as
you desire?”
in determining the
how you saw yourself,
“How much progress
results?”
how you saw others, and
on the business
“What worked, and
what you were trying to
matter or issue did
what worked less
accomplish?”
you make?”
well?”
“On what beliefs,
information and reasoning
were your assumptions
based?”
“What did you or
“What could you
“How did your framing
others learn from
have said or done
cause you to say or do
the situation (e.g.,
differently to have led (or not say or do) the
about each other’s
to a better result?”
things that led to your
perspectives and
results?”
challenges, their
impact on others or
the issue itself)?”
“How did the
“How did you
interaction affect
balance advocacy
your relationship
and inquiry for a
with others in the
more productive
situation?”
conversation?”
Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
5
Witherspoon
Reflection is the first and most important of the “3 Rs” foundational practices for
several reasons. First, reflection is essential because the practices of reframing and
redesigning depend on rigorous reflection to provide new insights. Second, such
reflection is rare in practice. Leaders (like many of us) are prone to ready-fire-aim.
Many jump to action with inadequate analysis and before taking perspective in the
midst of action. As a result, they are less skilled in rigorous reflection than the other
practices. Third, deep reflection can sometimes lead to spontaneous reframes and
redesigns, as shown in Fred’s case later.
DLC Foundational Practice 2: Reframe
Reframe refers to facilitating the ability of leaders to see and alter their spontaneous
reaction to key situations, particularly the thinking and feeling that lead them to act.
Frames refer to the way people see, think, and feel about a particular situation.
“Reframe” in DLC means altering frames and inventing new reframes to test. (For the
seminal research on reframing for learning, see Argyris & Schön, 1974. For later
research, see Argyris, Putnam, & Smith, 1985, and Edmondson, 2003.)
Leaders reason and act from their frames when solving difficult human and technical problems; they shape their leadership behavior. For example, if leaders believe
people are trustworthy, they talk to others more freely than if they believe most people
cannot be trusted. For the most part, frames act outside the conscious awareness of
leaders, much like a computer’s operating system, guiding its application programs.
Frames tend to be untested and can block learning and effective action, much like a
computer system with hidden bugs. Consequently, leaders can think and act in ways
that can undermine their effective action and learning agility.
To reframe a situation, coaches can use DLC to help leaders consider three key
aspects of their framing, outlined in the chart below:
Self
Coaching
Questions to Ask
Others
Task
“How do you see
“How do you see
“How do you see
yourself in this
others—their
the task at hand—
situation—your roles
relationship,
your goals, needs,
and responsibilities,
their roles and
aspirations, and
your intentions and
responsibilities,
expectations in
actions to date, the
their intentions and
the situation you
impact others have
actions to date, their
face—simply, what
on your skills, what
skills, what they are
are you trying to
you are up against,
up against, etc.?”
accomplish?”
etc.?”
When coaching to facilitate reframing, coaches ask questions such as the above, as
well as others such as, “What information or perspective might you be missing?” They
may also assist by designing fieldwork to try out new perspectives and amend automatic
Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
6
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science XX(X)
frames and their underlying assumptions. The coach may also model a different perspective to assist leaders in imagining new framing and acting for better results, for example,
“My reaction is that I think that your colleague may be caught in a bind . . . (describe
dilemma). So here’s what I might say in that situation . . . (model move). What do you
think?” Repeated reflection and reframing over time may also open a window on a leader’s basic beliefs, core values, and underlying assumptions and the option for more fundamental change.
DLC Foundational Practice 3: Redesign
Redesign refers to facilitating the ability of leaders to decide whether and how to
change their leadership behavior and to deliberately practice and produce that behavior over time. The coaching practice includes suggesting options that could be more
effective and helping the leader produce new behavior—notably new ways of thinking—so as to improve leadership effectiveness. Redesigns in this sense can range from
recrafting a conversation (how a leader thinks and acts in a particular situation), to
revising underlying assumptions, core values and basic beliefs (how a leader thinks
and acts across many situations). When coaching to facilitate redesign the coach may
also model new behavior and practice rehearsals and role-plays with leaders prior to
fieldwork and experiments. Following up, the coach may use DLC to debrief fieldwork and experiments so as to learn from experience (a return to DLC Practice 1:
Reflect) (see Table 1).
The “3 Rs” in Action
When designing DLC interventions, coaches can draw on one or more “3 R” practices
to help leaders learn. Sometimes reframes and redesigns arise spontaneously as part of
brief reflection after a key event. Other times more time and effort are required, along
with deliberate practice, in a continuous cycle of action, reflection, reframing, and
redesign, followed by further fieldwork to reinforce and refine new acting and framing. Although this sequence does not always follow in strict order, and the steps may
overlap in time, it is a rational progression. The following DLC actual coaching cases
illustrate the “3Rs.” (To protect their privacy, all client names and their organizations
are pseudonyms in this article.)
DLC Example: Preparing Amy for a Difficult Performance Review
An active learner, Amy was among the first to request coaching in her federal agency.
Like many leaders, she intuitively knew the importance of looking back on difficult
conversations to learn what she did well and could do differently. Yet Amy often skipped
this step in favor of making progress on her considerable daily duties. Furthermore, she
did not use structured and detailed questions to help deepen her learning from experience, much less the assistance of a skilled third party. In our DLC sessions, however,
Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
7
Witherspoon
Table 1. Overview of DLC Practices: The “3 Rs” of Double-Loop Coaching.
Practice
Process
Reflect
To increase insight about your
actions, reactions and results
in key situations
To increase insight about your
thinking of self, others and
task
To make your actions and
reactions more amenable to
change
1. Assess key situation
2. Examine your results
3. Consider your actions and
reactions
4. Check your framing
Results
•• More able to discern the
actions and reactions
that lead to your results
(including unintended
impacts)
•• More able to notice
patterns that puzzle or
trouble you
•• More able to ask better
questions, discover more
options for acting and
framing
•• More willing and able to try
new things
5. Design action experiments(s)
Reframe
To increase insight about your
framing of self, others and
task
To alter your framing and test
the effects on your actions
and results
To make your framing more
flexible and amenable to
change in some situations
1. Examine your results,
actions, framing
2. Explore your framing, test
underlying assumptions
3. Invent new frames to try out
4. Design frame experiment(s)
Redesign
To make your actions and
reactions more amenable to
change
To decide whether and how to
change
To reset your acting and/or
framing, so that changes last
To sustain fundamental change
across situations over time
1. Redesign your actions and
framing for desired results
2. Repeat action and/or frame
experiment(s)
3. Practice new actions and
framing as needed
•• More aware of framing
impact on actions,
reactions, results
•• More able to frame
situations differently
(reframe)
•• More able to reframe
situations that puzzle or
trouble you
•• More able to alter your
automatic response in some
situations
•• More able to respond
flexibly and effectively to
challenges
•• More able to change
patterns that puzzle or
trouble you
•• More able to sustain change
across situations
•• More able to shift toward
new values and assumptions
Note. Coaching offers many opportunities for reflection. For purposes here, the focus is on rigorous reflection
and learning from experience as described in this article, notably fieldwork, including exercises, guided practice, and
structured learning, like action experiments and frame experiments between coaching sessions. See “Amy,” “Ben,” and
“Fred” cases for illustrations as well as coaching moves to facilitate DLC reflection, reframing, and redesign. A further
focus in this table is on learning steps that can be managed within a typical DLC coaching session of, say, 2 hours. Other
learning steps, like deliberate practice between sessions (such as in fieldwork) and generalization (where learning is generalized beyond a specific situation), typically occur over a longer period of time. Copyright 2013 by the Performance &
Leadership Development Ltd. (This information may not be copied in whole or in part without the written consent of
Performance & Leadership Development Ltd).
Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
8
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science XX(X)
Amy realized she learned little from her successes and failures, and so committed to a
deliberate preparation for the upcoming difficult performance review with a subordinate, followed by a structured reflection with me using the “3Rs” framework. Drawing
on a sports metaphor, we called this structured reflection practice her “instant replay.”
In DLC reflection on the key features of her challenging interaction, Amy cited the
following in response to my questions:
Coach (Makes eye contact): “What were the results of your performance review?”
Amy (Nods): “We made progress. I was able to raise serious issues and share difficult feedback in my performance review for my direct report and a key program manager for our most important clients. He readily shared his reactions,
and didn’t seem too defensive. He acknowledged some problem behavior,
accepted ways to improve and seemed motivated to get better. We agreed to
monitor his progress and hold another meeting soon on program matters. I felt
understood and respected, and think he did too.”
Coach: So what actions were important in determining these results?
Amy: “I stated my concerns as directly as possible (no sugar coating), while presenting them as ‘my perspective’ (one possible way of seeing his behavior)
rather than ‘the truth.’ I supported my views with some specific examples of his
problem behavior. I heard and acknowledged him. I balanced my advocacy and
inquiry for a better conversation (e.g., ‘What are your reactions to what I’ve
said?’ and ‘What am I missing here?’).”
Coach: Ok, so how did your framing lead to these results?
Amy: “I presented my feedback as ‘data’ and ‘my observations’ versus ‘the truth.’
I adopted the ‘And Stance,’ after reading Difficult Conversations, that great
book you recommended. That is, I acknowledged his views and I shared how I
saw him, using concrete examples of how he’d dealt with certain clients. This
frame led me to focus on his views and my views, rather than worrying about
accepting or rejecting his story. And I learned that the mere act of understanding
his story didn’t mean I had to give up my own.”
As a result, Amy was able to learn more from this challenging conversation and take her
next interaction with her report to a new level, as confirmed in a subsequent “instant
replay.” She was also able to begin applying this approach to other situations.
Amy’s case also illustrates reframing. Instead of delivering feedback and defending her
views as “the truth,” Amy was open to new perspectives. This shift in thinking prompted
Amy to get more curious in the moment about exploring other views. This reframe, plus
further fieldwork between coaching sessions, helped Amy hold more productive conversations with her reports and colleagues, which led to her further leadership effectiveness, as
confirmed by 360° feedback at the conclusion of her coaching engagement.
DLC Example: Preparing Ben to Assume a New Leadership Role
Like many brilliant visionaries, Ben was often abstract in his communication, sure of
his opinions and impatient with others he saw as inferior. A self-described problem
Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
9
Witherspoon
solver, however, Ben readily acknowledged his results and relationships were often
less than he desired—particularly with certain key stakeholders. To address his needs,
Ben and I agreed that our coaching sessions would involve regular reflections on his
key interactions with important people, particularly after challenging situations where
Ben felt he could learn from his successes and failures. Our purpose evolved to help
Ben as follows:
•• Notice and reflect on his thinking and acting in particular key situations, and
how he was affecting others—that is, to increase his awareness, albeit after the
fact.
•• Decide whether to change his leadership behavior and (assuming a change)
how to deliberately produce the desired behavior over time.
•• Redesign his leadership behavior and practice new actions and framing over the
middle 4 to 6 months of his coaching.
Ben’s reflective practice—designed to help him assess his reactions to key situations,
so he could increase his insight, ask better questions, and discover more options for
action— included the following activities:
•• Identify key situations: We focused first on situations where Ben’s results were
less than he desired. Typically, we debriefed such situations at the start of each
coaching session, by jointly exploring his results, actions, and framing.
•• Examine results: Reflecting on his results, Ben was particularly concerned by
problematic outcomes, such as meetings that ended in stalemate with key peers
and subordinates, instead of action on shared concerns. Sometimes, too, these
meetings damaged his relationships.
•• Consider action: Reflecting on his actions, Ben thought back to those moments
from these meetings that were particularly important in determining his results.
Helped by detailed and structured questions, he discovered certain patterns, or
characteristic behaviors, across these situations. For example, Ben would get
anxious or impatient and come across as intimidating. On occasion he was
prone to outbursts, interjecting harsh questions, often with profanity. A strong
extravert and quick thinker, Ben spoke early and often. Sometimes he engaged
in snide remarks or “cheap shots” at another’s expense. As we explored this
behavior, Ben came to see this pattern as clearly counterproductive. People
would be distracted, and often withdraw from any problem solving and later
withhold consent, commitment, and action.
•• Check framing: Reflecting on his framing, Ben discovered he acted as if he
thought “I understand this situation,” and framed his role with difficult peers
and direct reports as something like, “I know best, and I need to get them to do
what I know is right.” Asked to describe this mindset, Ben called it his “skeptical critic” mode (from years as a successful research scientist, when he exercised a very directive command-and-control style in his lab). In contrast, Ben
also had a “caring counselor” mode and resultant supportive style (after years
as a leader in a counseling clinic).
Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
10
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science XX(X)
After more reflection, Ben came to see that both mindsets entailed distinctly different
behaviors and results, and had been reinforced by positive but differing experiences.
By most measures, Ben’s results as a scientist and as a counselor had been outstanding
over the years; his mindsets and associated behaviors had served him well. Today,
however, Ben was discovering that his skeptical critic mode did not serve him well in
his new leadership roles.
To address his concerns, Ben decided to experiment with new frames, a reframing
process that included several activities. First, we designed fieldwork so Ben could practice new ways of acting (action experiments) and thinking (frame experiments) between
coaching sessions and consider redesigning his leadership behavior accordingly. As one
action experiment, Ben shifted to more MBWA (management by walking around), or
what he called “circulating among the troops” after Lincoln’s Civil War practice. To
shift his thinking in action, we designed a subsequent frame experiment so Ben could
start approaching situations first as a caring counselor rather than reacting as a skeptical
critic with peers and direct reports. For example, as a caring counselor, Ben would tell
himself, “I need to listen to their concerns” and “I may be missing something” versus
“I know best.” We then conducted fieldwork, including collecting valid data. Once Ben
adjusted his frames, he found his actions followed naturally—since certain behaviors
had been honed by years of successful professional practice. Ironically, Ben had failed
to recognize their potential application in this other context until this fieldwork.
In further reflection, Ben realized that when others resisted, he typically would
repeat his points, often raising his voice, rather than asking questions and listening.
More, he would discount or dismiss the rationale of others. In describing his learnings
from the fieldwork, for example, Ben observed that: “Everyone wants me to listen . . .”
and “I really do need to understand their stories—and I often hold mistaken assumptions about their views.” Significantly, Ben also came to conclude that not everyone
needed to be as smart as he to still be useful.
As part of his coaching, Ben asked me to provide feedback from key person interviews with his peers, subordinates, superiors, and other key stakeholders in his leadership transition. This 360° feedback served to further motivate Ben to shift his leadership
behavior. Through deeper reflection, Ben discovered that the ways he thought determined the action options that were open to him in any given situation. DLC helped him
reflect on the reasons that led him to act as he did—his beliefs about the other person,
how he defined his objective, what he assumed could or could not be said. Ben came
to believe that conscious attention to how he was thinking in action created opportunities to reframe the situation and see new options. Over time, Ben was able to alter his
spontaneous reactions to some key situations, deepen his awareness, and broaden his
repertoire of effective action. As a result of this DLC intervention and a “3 R” continuous cycle of action-reflection-learning, Ben became a more effective leader.
Comparing DLC and Behavioral Coaching
A central feature of most executive coaching in organizations today is a focus on external, overt behaviors—a behavioral approach (Passmore, 2010). For example, Marshall
Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
11
Witherspoon
Goldsmith “tells his clients that he doesn’t care about their past, doesn’t care how they
feel, doesn’t care about their inner psyche—all he cares about is their future behavior”
(MacFarquhar, 2002). Behavioral coaching in this sense is conceptualized as coaching
on what leaders say and do, not on how they think and feel.
This advice makes sense under certain conditions. Suppose, for example, leaders
ask for coaching to sharply focus on a specific, straightforward skills issue (e.g., delegating effectively to their direct reports) rather than considering their thinking and
how it may drive behavior. However, even seemingly straightforward coaching
requests may raise framing issues, such as habitual thought patterns and hidden but
competing commitments. (For a case in point, see “Daniel Doesn’t Delegate” in Kegan
& Lahey, 2009.) Furthermore, a purely behavioral approach, by itself, may not be
enough to change entrenched patterns.
DLC differs by design, compared with what might be called “conventional” behavioral coaching. DLC goes beyond overt behavior (what leaders say and do) to consider
the cognitions leading to their behavior (how leaders think, and how they think about
their thinking). DLC helps leaders reflect on what leads them to act as they do—for
example, their beliefs about the other person, how they define their objective, what
they assume can or cannot be said. Deliberate attention as to how leaders are thinking
and feeling as they do creates opportunities to reframe the situation, see new options,
and redesign their behavior.
DLC Example: Assisting Fred to Avert Derailment
To further explore double-loop coaching, consider the case of “Fred,” a senior line
executive at risk of derailing as a major business leader for a Fortune 50 financial
services firm. It illustrates all DLC practices (the “3 Rs” of reflect, reframe, redesign),
activities, and several moves from a representative executive coaching intervention in
an organizational setting.
Fred was in trouble when referred to executive coaching by his boss. An articulate
senior executive, Fred felt comfortable with a highly verbal, analytical approach to
business conversations. A big man, he also intimidated people, both physically and
psychologically—thanks to his large size and forceful intellect. His boss complained
that Fred: did not listen attentively; cut people off and finished their sentences; interrupted to interject his pronouncement or make a decision; and did not learn much from
his interactions with others, notably peers and subordinates.
This last point was particularly problematic. According to Fred’s boss, Fred needed
to practice attentive and active listening so as to learn from his direct reports about business conditions and challenges in far-flung regions around the world. Absent insights
from his regional people, Fred was “flying blind in his business,” said his boss, and
“could not succeed in leading our firm’s global asset management business.” Until Fred
addressed this problem behavior, his present job and future career at the firm were at
risk; thus, derailment risk became the business reason for Fred’s coaching.
Fred’s coaching engagement began with contracting for his coaching agenda to
address his felt needs and presenting issues. By mutual agreement, Fred focused on
Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
12
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science XX(X)
sharpening his attentive listening skills, particularly when interacting with his direct
reports. Coaching would provide Fred with a structured, confidential setting to explore
the issues raised by his boss as well as Fred’s concerns (e.g., that most listening at
work was a “waste of time”), to assess his leadership behavior, and (if warranted) to
develop new behavior to improve his leadership effectiveness. As Fred’s coaching
evolved, it included the following activities:
•• Data collection and feedback. As part of the early stage of his coaching, Fred
and I obtained actionable data on Fred’s leadership behavior and effectiveness
from multiple sources, including 360° or multirater feedback (from his senior
managers, peers, and direct reports) and assessments such as the MBTI (MyersBriggs Type Indicator®). Then, I helped Fred interpret his data in a marathon
feedback session over a full day. Convinced that his listening skills were “just
fine,” Fred was stunned by contrary feedback.
•• Assessment and planning. An extensive planning session followed to set priorities, assess the cause of Fred’s problem behavior, and plan next steps. As part of
the planning, Fred and I analyzed what he could do differently in specific, particularly challenging situations. I also identified options that might be more
effective and proposed some fieldwork for Fred, starting with guided skill practice that Fred agreed to try with key people at work over the next 30 days.
•• Action and fieldwork. We then practiced these options in a role-play, designed
to simulate his new actions, so that Fred gained more confidence and skill with
the new behavior before trying it out in some structured fieldwork at work.
Fred’s fieldwork was an action experiment to practice a single listening skill—
attending to others for at least 30 seconds without interrupting—and to see whether so
doing made a significant difference in his results from these conversations—including
his learning and his relationships—particularly with his direct reports. This behavior
was important since attentive listening was Fred’s top-rated leadership competency in
importance, but was lowest rated in effectiveness on his 360° survey, and this item
(listens to others without interrupting) was in turn the lowest-rated skill in the listening
skill set.
Fred’s fieldwork to foster attentive listening was designed to help Fred practice
specific listening skills and observe the effect on his learning, the quality of his communication, and working relationships with others. We worked collaboratively to
design his fieldwork. Fred conducted his fieldwork over 2 hours, typically in 10 to 15
minute time blocks in/after key staff meetings. (Fred saw this fieldwork with his direct
reports as a safe, low-risk initial experiment that would also allow him to collect accurate, relevant data, and later expand to other colleagues.) He recorded his observations
in writing after each one-on-one weekly meeting. Finally, we debriefed his fieldwork
(see DLC Dialogue below).
As context, the desired outcomes for Fred’s actions and fieldwork included the
following:
Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
13
Witherspoon
•• From designing fieldwork, Fred would commit to change in private; confirm
that his initial fieldwork would address important needs; and understand what
kind of attentive, active listening opportunity is present in many work
situations.
•• From conducting fieldwork, Fred would commit publicly to change, understand
his own actions, their impact on others, and possible impediments to change;
and colleagues (starting with Fred’s direct reports) began to see Fred differently
and commit to support Fred’s continuing improvement.
•• From debriefing fieldwork, Fred would reflect deeply, thus understanding his
results and how his acting and framing led to outcomes that mattered for him;
and to take increasingly effective action in future situations.
•• From jointly designing next steps, Fred would reframe by inventing action and/
or frame experiments so as to test other approaches to similar situations; develop
the ability to proactively use future fieldwork and experiments to support his
continued learning; and, after further fieldwork, to redesign, shift his acting and
framing over time, so as to respond more flexibly to key situations and obtain
better results.
Example From Fred’s Case: Double-Loop Coaching Dialogue
The double-loop coaching dialogue below came at a turning point after Fred’s fieldwork, as we debriefed his initial action experiment in a coaching session. It is excerpted
from a longer coaching conversation.
Coach: Fred, I’m curious about your experience since last time. So please tell me
about your practice with more attentive listening back on the job, in particular
listening to others without interrupting. How did it go, and what did you learn?
Fred: Well, I did as we practiced in the role-play at our last meeting and it went
well.
Coach: Mhmm . . . How so? What were your results from practicing to listen to
others without interrupting?
Fred: Well, two-thirds of the people told me things I already knew. (Illustrates)
Coach: So that was a waste of your time? I ask because I remember your earlier
concerns on that score.
Fred: Not exactly, because they came away thinking I was listening to them.
Coach (Smiles): “Thinking you were listening to them . . .” Well, were you?
Fred (Shrugs): Yeah, I guess I was. And that was good for building better working
relationships, because they are more likely to seek me out on such matters the
next time.
Consider this dialogue through the lens of DLC. First, Fred remarks on his fieldwork
and evaluates it positively (“. . . it went well”). Second, Fred describes his results from
two-thirds of his direct reports to include a range of outcomes—from his experiencing
Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
14
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science XX(X)
a new skill, to the effects of this action experiment on his working relationships with
others, to his new learning. It seems so far that Fred sees his first fieldwork as a success, and his reflections on these results (“. . . that was good for building better working relationships because they are more likely to come back the next time”) suggest he
should be able to experiment again and notice how he behaves and affects others,
probably with increased confidence and skill. Then consider the debrief continuation
below.
Coach: I see . . . And your results with other direct reports?
Fred (leans forward, raises voice for emphasis): They were the most interesting!
Coach: How so?
Fred: They told me about things I didn’t already know, things I probably couldn’t
have learned if I hadn’t been listening carefully. (Gives examples.) And holding
my thoughts, like you said last time, until after I’d heard the complete message.
Plus, I couldn’t have been listening carefully unless I had the patience to hear
them out. Looking back, this information from better listening was invaluable
for our business. Looking ahead, I want to become a world-class listener!
Fred’s aha (“they were the most interesting!”) seems highly salient to him. He seems
surprised, describes how he discovers new data from these direct reports and attributes
the new learning to his “listening carefully” plus “the patience to hear them out.”
Looking back, he evaluates this new information as “invaluable.” Looking ahead, he
declares, “I want to become a world class listener!” It seems at this point in the dialogue that Fred’s remarks in response to reflective questions provide him with a new
perspective that could lead to a significant shift in his listening and leadership
behavior.
The new perspective Fred gained was that attentive listening with his direct reports
could provide both valuable business information from the field, as well as better
working relationships with his people. Before, Fred framed his listening to direct
reports as situations where he knew best and had little if anything to learn, with perhaps his role being to tolerate people briefly before cutting them off, finishing their
sentences, and interjecting his own views. Hence, Fred spontaneously understood
these brief listening episodes as essentially a waste of time (single-loop learning since
he did not question this basic assumption).
In his reflective remarks, however, Fred articulates a new perspective—premised on
the value of discovering new data. It is as if Fred reframes his listening differently after
his fieldwork—from a certain time sink to a potential learning opportunity (doubleloop learning), where he might be missing something and therefore had much to learn,
with perhaps his role being to practice attentive and active listening. Hence, he may
understand these new and presumably longer listening episodes as more productive.
Last and not least, Fred declares his intent to become a world-class listener. This
assertion, plus data 18 months later (not reported here), suggest Fred also redesigns his
listening behavior to practice attentive and active listening, hear people out, and accurately restate their opinions even when he disagrees.
Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
15
Witherspoon
Generalizing from this DLC episode, Fred’s case may illustrate all three doubleloop coaching foundation practices to differing degrees.
•• Reflect. Fred’s coaching dialogue shows clearly that he did reflect deeply on his
new ways of action (attentive listening) and his results from the fieldwork
(notably his surprise discovery). This is reflection, the first “3 R” and most
important of the DLC foundation practices.
•• Reframe. Second, data from the same dialogue also suggest that Fred did
reframe his listening to direct reports (the second “3 R”) to construct a new way
of seeing such situations and his role.
•• Redesign. Third, the coaching dialogue, and data not reported here, suggest that
Fred also started to redesign his listening behavior significantly (the third “3
R”) in pursuit of his new goal to become a world-class listener.
This episode also illustrates how leaders may become able to do on their own what
earlier they had seen only on reflection or with the help of a coach. As in this case,
where breakthrough seems to have come, after I probed further about his results from
attentive listening, and whether these results were worth Fred’s time. I asked these
questions from a stance of genuine curiosity and made a point of posing his questions
in a nonjudgmental, open-ended manner. In coaching Fred, I modeled attentive, active
listening in the reflection period, and Fred actively assimilated that behavior modeling. Once Fred realized the advantages of attentive listening to his direct reports—and
the unwanted impact of his prior actions—it took only a short time before he became
more curious about their views. To this end, Fred started to ask many genuine questions during his interactions with direct reports and to help them solve problems and
address issues that previously resulted in an impasse or stalemate. Over time, Fred’s
performance improved and his career got back on track.
DLC Discussion
Why is rigorous reflection so highly recommended and yet so rare in practice, particularly among leaders who need to stop, think, and reflect deeply on their situations and
experiences? Having worked with hundreds of managers, Gosling and Mintzberg
(2003) note, “What managers desperately need is to stop and think—to step back and
reflect thoughtfully on their experience” (p. 57). One reason is that many leaders face
intense job demands. Another is that they are typically focused on action, and so are
less apt to step back to reflect deeply. Gosling and Mintzberg (2006) also argue that
MBA and executive development programs typically fail students by creating a fastpaced environment that is not conducive to reflection. In “Management Education as
if Both Matter,” they conclude, “The key to learning is thoughtful reflection” (p. 422).
Also, self-reflection does not come to some naturally. Furthermore, putting rigorous
reflection into practice demands sustained attention and mental capacity and so is a
strain for anyone. It is not easy—particularly when the action becomes intense and
personal—and leaders need most to pause. Finally, rigorous reflection is typically a
Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
16
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science XX(X)
team sport, at least initially, and sometimes requires skilled coaching particularly
behavior patterns and deep-seated frames. Hence, rigorous reflection often requires
skilled professional help to facilitate the deep learning. By engaging a DLC talking
partner, leaders can better inquire into diverse perspectives, recognize and question
their assumptions, and thus learn better and more effectively.
Reflection is so essential because it is required to enable leaders to draw insights
from their daily experience, whether success or failure. DLC can facilitate deeper
learning through rigorous reflection in several ways:
•• First, DLC reflection offers questions designed to help people draw insights
from their daily experiences (in Fred’s case, from his fieldwork).
•• Second, DLC reflection draws attention to important factors (such as Fred’s
acting, framing, and results) and turns them into objects of reflection, so as to
better understand their meaning and causal links.
•• Third, DLC reflection offers in-depth listening and dialogue, to draw out the
specific issues and constraints that challenge leaders in key situations, and thus
to define a leader’s learning edge.
Fred’s case illustrates how a coach facilitated Fred’s deeper learning through more
rigorous reflection in these ways. As Fred practiced more attentive listening, the cycle
of action, reflection, reframing, and redesign seems to have helped him learn a new
skill.
All three foundational practices focus on framing issues—the particular way that
leaders think about or “frame” key situations, when important matters are at stake and
the people involved have different perspectives. The idea of framing already exists in
business parlance, to refer to a shift in perspective (e.g., “Let’s reframe this marketing
problem to a product development issue”). However, this parlance overlooks the distinction between technical or business issues and human behavior—the focus here—
where framing is often subtle and far less subject to change than a simple shift in
perspective. This more specific meaning of framing refers to the way people define a
particular situation, how they construct their role, and their view of other people in the
situation.
A key feature of DLC is its focus on frames to foster deeper learning. The term
frame has acquired a specialized meaning in recent years as “a set of assumptions and
beliefs about a particular object or situation.” The process of framing involves creating
meaning. Frames may be created passively and unconsciously or actively and consciously, explains Edmondson (2003), whose thoughtful review informs the
following.
The idea of cognitive frames has much in common with other terms such as mental
models (Cannon & Edmondson, 2001; Senge, 1990) and taken-for-granted assumptions. However, the framing terminology applies well to executive coaching and is
particularly apt for conveying the meaning intended in this article. First, it captures the
idea of looking through something like a lens, that is, a frame directs attention to features of the object of interest in a subtle way (Edmondson, 2003). Second, the terms
Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
17
Witherspoon
frame and framing accord with common sense yet are simple enough to use in the
midst of action. For instance, the ideas are easy to introduce in coaching without
explaining more complex concepts like theories of action. Third, frames are a manageable unit of analysis for coaching that can be inferred from actual behavior and tested
with clients over time. Fourth, some relevant research suggests the powerful effects of
cognitive frames on human behavior.
Psychologists study the effects of framing, for example, children framing new tasks
as a learning situation tend to persist longer in novel, challenging matters and hence
learn more and do better than other children (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Several psychologically oriented researchers explore the effects of framing. For example, Schön
(1983) shows how practitioners (ranging from physicians to architects) framed their
roles, and the power that a learning-oriented frame had on their skill and development.
Behavioral therapists, in turn, describe ways to help individuals reframe to improve
their emotional and psychological health (Maultsby, 1990).
Managerial research also attests to the power of reframing. For example, Arygris
et al. (1985) show that, by becoming aware of and altering their frames, organization
members can learn more and achieve better results. Edmondson shows the powerful
effects of “framing for learning” in successful technology implementation, and the
reasons why leaders play such an important role in framing projects for success
(Edmondson, 2003, 2011). Likewise, Edmondson and Smith (2006) describe their
work on framing issues with top teams at work, and Smith details her work with executive teams, where framing issues are key (Smith, 2008). So also, Putnam describes
his work to help Paul, an OD consultant, to address framing issues and redesign his
actions with clients accordingly, to enhance his effectiveness (see Putnam, 1991).
Furthermore, Schwarz distinguishes between basic and developmental facilitation.
This latter aims to help people reflect on and change their actions and thinking in
action, and seems closely related to DLC redesign in this article (Schwarz, 2002;
Schwarz, Davison, Carlson, McKinney, & Contributors, 2005).
In sum, this disparate research suggests ways that people can frame and reframe to
increase the chances of successful outcomes, and thus seems consistent with this
article.
DLC Implications
Double-loop coaching is a work in progress and relatively new in the executive suite.
This article is an early progress report about an evolving practice theory from the perspective of a practicing executive coach whose DLC experiments date from the 1990s.
The ideas for this article come from several successful executive coaching engagements with leaders in large organizations and are offered as initial evidence about
useful applications. It is written in the action science tradition of reflecting on practice
with the aim of developing and testing strategies for action. (For more about action
science and creating knowledge people can use to improve practice, see Putnam, 1999,
2008.) So also, there is a small but important body of supporting action research on the
promise of these ideas. Thus, far DLC appears promising, but more research is needed.
Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
18
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science XX(X)
Drawing on this experience, some emerging lessons and possible implications for
leaders and those who would help them are highlighted below.
Lessons and Implications for Leaders
DLC helps leaders learn how they think in the heat of action and offers specific practices that are expressly designed for deeper learning (the “3 Rs,” plus the companion
practice of productive conversation), a particular fieldwork (action and frame experiments), and powerful questions (to facilitate each practice). (Productive conversation
and the related idea of dialogue have acquired a specialized meaning in recent years to
refer to discourse that is designed to foster inquiry, choice, and action about challenging issues. Productive conversation is also consistent with DLC practice to use actual
behavior, such as conversation, as data. For another coaching application, see
Witherspoon & Cannon, 2009.) Fieldwork in coaching includes exercises, guided
practice, and structured learning experiences (e.g., action experiments and frame
experiments), typically between coaching sessions, so leaders have an opportunity
practice new ways of thinking and acting, gather data about themselves, and notice
human behaviors. Through these practices DLC helps leaders turn their insights into
tangible objects of reflection. By writing and analyzing data about their framing, acting, and results, leaders use their reflections as a springboard for reframing how they
think and act in key situations.
Second, DLC helps leaders apply their learning in several ways:
•• Facilitating effective action in the moment (e.g., reflective questions of Fred
and his deeper reflection on fieldwork)
•• Engaging the root causes of behavior over time (e.g., Fred’s spontaneous
reframe and shift to a learning perspective)
•• Furthering deep learning and leadership development over a lifetime (e.g.,
Fred’s commitment to become a world class listener)
In comparison, a purely behavioral approach, by itself, may not be enough to engage
certain root causes (e.g., entrenched patterns of behavior) and foster long-term leadership development.
Through DLC, leaders learn to rigorously reflect on their own behavior—both the
“inner game” of frames and mindsets and the “outer game” of actions and skills. With
DLC, leaders may also learn to reframe their reactions to such situations and consider
whether and how to change their behavior. Leaders may apply their learning not only
to improve their strategies for achieving existing goals (single-loop learning) but also
to choose among competing norms, goals, and values (double-loop learning).
For Practitioners
For practicing professionals like executive coaches who seek to engage leaders in
significant learning experiences, DLC may present an opportunity to move beyond a
Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
19
Witherspoon
purely behavioral approach to coaching. First, DLC helps diagnose and intervene on
frames. DLC explicitly accounts for framing and other key causal factors in adult
learning and leadership development. Indeed, DLC is concerned more broadly with
other causal factors—such as the context and action models of leaders—that help or
hinder them to act effectively and offers an expanded view of adult learning and leadership development. The thinking of leaders, not just their behavior, becomes the basis
for analysis and action. Given this expanded view, skillful coaches can better discover
frames as causal factors which are otherwise hidden from view and decide whether
and how to intervene. Furthermore, DLC explicitly focuses on framing and distinguishes among frames, as distinct from acting and results.
As such DLC helps target coaching interventions. However, DLC also raises important coaching issues, such as how far to push framing issues and the proper balance
between raising awareness and raising defenses. For this reason, DLC often calls for
advanced coaching skills and complex, repeated contracting and revisiting of the
coaching contract, and client agenda to account for DLC being deeper and more timeconsuming compared with basic coaching.
Second, DLC helps to intervene. To this end, DLC offers a place to start frame
interventions—by describing the results leaders get and the acting and framing that
lead to these results. DLC also offers many coaching moves to engage framing, such
as reflective questions to discover assumptions leaders make in their framing. Such
reflective questions offer a simple and powerful way to engage leaders in deep learning about their thinking in a safe environment—but without necessarily involving
them in the theory of double-loop learning.
Third, DLC provides synergy with productive conversation and certain other practices (such as system thinking, beyond the scope of this article). DLC both depends on
and enhances productive conversation, for example, to raise awareness without triggering defenses unduly. So also, DLC enhances productive conversation by drawing attention to framing as a key causal factor, as well as key aspects of framing that leaders need
to attend to, if they are to broaden their repertoire of effective actions. As a result, the
consequent learning experience for leaders can be more than the sum of its parts.
Fourth, DLC provides a way to name certain persistent behavior problems and
framing issues, as well as a possible way of “learning our way out . . .” (Finger &
Asún, 2000). To this end, DLC offers ways to engage these more persistent problems,
such as ingrained, habitual behavior. However, it also requires advanced coaching
skills and an expanded repertoire, and therefore presents some of the same learning
dilemmas for practitioners as for leaders.
For Scholars
The seminal idea of double-loop learning for individuals and organizations has significantly influenced scholarship, but has also fallen short of its potential contribution to
practice, as Easterby-Smith and Lyles (2003) observe. Looking back, Argyris laments
the lack of research on double-loop learning since the publication of Organizational
Learning in 1978: “The largest amount of work that has been done is on single-loop or
Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
20
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science XX(X)
routine issues. I think that limits social science as a discipline and as contributor to a
better world” (quoted in Crossan, 2003, p. 46). Looking ahead, DLC seems promising
in practice, provides concrete methods for facilitating double-loop learning and has
the potential to be tested empirically. As such, centers, universities, and research think
tanks should seriously undertake systematic evaluations of DLC.
This article is a first exploration of DLC but more research is needed. In social science, confidence in results comes from replication. To this end, researchers might
arrange multiple replications and further testing. For example, researchers might
examine the impact of DLC on leadership and coaching effectiveness, how DLC
affects leaders over time, and the extent to which DLC is able to help leaders bring
about their own double-loop learning by shaping their core values. Further research
might also include some randomized controlled trials, including comparative studies
where some subjects had access to DLC and others did not, perhaps after a common
leadership development program.
DLC might add value to scholars and educators by shedding light on other explorations of how leaders learn. For example, Gosling and Mintzberg (2006) assert that
reflection tends to be missing in management education but is essential for learning
managerial effectiveness. This raises questions as to what kind of reflection, how to
bring it about, and how reflection might or should fit in with other practices. DLC
offers not only a distinctive kind of reflection that produces deeper learning but also
connects reflection to altering both frames and action. Thus, this evolving practice
theory may have implications for management education and for the skills that management educators should cultivate.
Conclusions
The essence of DLC is the idea that the way leaders act and the consequences they create
begin with the way they think. Few these days would dispute this idea. Yet how leaders
think, and how they think about their thinking, seem largely overlooked in today’s
coaching focus on overt behavior. As a result, many leaders face a basic dilemma: To
become better leaders they need to draw insights from their daily experience—starting
with the way they make sense of or “frame” key situations; so they depend on doubleloop learning to develop, but do not know how to learn at this deeper level.
DLC is designed to address this dilemma. By drawing attention to frames, DLC
helps leaders learn how they think in the heat of action, invent alternatives, and then
apply their learning toward significant, lasting improvements in their performance and
leadership. By building skills to support each of the “3 Rs,” leaders can begin to
resolve the basic dilemma in leadership development articulated at the start of this
article, thereby increasing their capacity for deep learning potentially over a life time.
Ultimately, their learning may be interpreted in line with Lewin’s three-stage model of
unfreezing, change, and freezing or (re)freezing (Lewin, 1947, 1951; Schein, 1969).
For instance, as leaders open themselves to rigorous reflection, they “unfreeze” the
assumptions underlying their leadership behavior, entertain alternate perspectives, and
adapt to increasing complexity.
Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
21
Witherspoon
Leaders—through coaching, deliberate practice, and commitment—can learn these
practices. DLC, however, is not for everyone, and some leaders may find the “3 Rs”
are challenging to put into practice. The reasons are various, starting with those stated
throughout this article. In addition, learning these practices typically takes time, sometimes lots of time. Adjusting loosely held frames can be as easy as exploring fresh
perspectives on a situation. Changing deeply held frames can be far more challenging.
Depending on the issues, DLC can extend months and even years, beyond, say, the
6-month coaching engagements offered in many organizations today.
Though leaders may find the “3 Rs” challenging to put into practice, some learn
them anyway, recognizing the longer-term benefits for lifelong learning and continuing development. Although coaches may not find DLC easy, some will intervene this
way anyway, recognizing an opportunity to make a real and lasting difference with
their clients and the organizations they serve.
Acknowledgments
The author thanks Warner Burke, Mark Cannon, Mary Kralj, Donna Morris, Robert Putnam,
and Liz Witherspoon, as well as several anonymous JABS reviewers, for their valuable comments, questions, and suggestions that improved the quality of the article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
References
Argyris, C. (2004). Reasons and rationalizations: The limits to organizational knowledge.
Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Argyris, C., Putnam, R., & Smith, D. (1985). Action science: Concepts, methods, and skills for
research and intervention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Cannon, M. D., & Edmondson, A. (2001). Confronting failure: Antecedents and consequences
of shared beliefs about failure in organizational work groups. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 22, 161-177.
Cannon, M. D., & Witherspoon, R. (2005). Actionable feedback: Unlocking the power of learning and performance improvement. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 120-134.
Crossan, M. (2003). Altering theories of learning and action: An interview with Chris Argyris.
Academy of Management Executive, 17(2), 40-46.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.
Easterby-Smith, M., & Lyles, M. A. (2003). Re-reading organizational learning: Selective
memory, forgetting, and adaptation. Academy of Management Executive, 17(2), 51-55.
Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
22
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science XX(X)
Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Framing for learning: Lessons in successful technology implementation.
California Management Review, 45(2), 34-54.
Edmondson, A. C. (2011, April). Strategies for learning from failure. Harvard Business Review,
89(4). Retrieved from http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=40142
Edmondson, A. C., & McLain Smith, D. (2006). Too hot to handle: How to manage relationship conflict. California Management Review, 49(1), 6-31.
Finger, M., & Asún, J. M. (2001). Adult education at the crossroads: Learning our way out.
London, England: Zed Books.
Gosling, J., & Mintzberg, H. (2003). The five minds of a manager. Harvard Business Review,
81(11), 54-63.
Gosling, J., & Mintzberg, H. (2006). Management education as if both matter. Management
Learning, 37, 419-428.
Kaplan, R. E., & Kaiser, R. B. (2006). The versatile leader: Make the most of your strengths
without overdoing it. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Kegan, R. (1998). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. (2009). Immunity to change. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School
Press.
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers of group dynamics. Human Relations, 1, 5-41.
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
MacFarquhar, L. (2002). The Buddha of the boardroom: An interview with Larissa MacFarquhar.
The New Yorker, 78, 120.
Maultsby, M. C. (1990). Rational behavior therapy. Appleton, WI: Rational Self-Help Aids/
I’ACT.
Passmore, J. (2010). Excellence in coaching: The industry guide. London, England: Kogan
Page.
Putnam, R. (1991). Recipes and reflective learning: “What would prevent you from saying it
that way?” In D. Schön (Ed.), The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice (pp. 145-163). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Putnam, R. (1999). Transforming social practice: An action science perspective. Management
Learning, 30, 177-187.
Putnam, R. (2008). Action science In T. Richard & R. Holt (Eds.), The Sage dictionary of qualitative management research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Roglio, K. D. D., & Light, G. (2009). Executive MBA programs: The development of the reflective executive. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 8, 156-173.
Schein, E. (1969). The mechanisms of change. In W. G. Bennis, K. D. Benne, & R. Chin (Eds.),
The planning of change (pp. 98-107). New York, NY: Hold, Rinehart, & Winston.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London,
England: Temple Smith.
Schwarz, R. (2002). The skilled facilitator. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Schwarz, R., Davison, A., Carlson, P., McKinney, S., & Contributors. (2005). The skilled facilitator fieldbook. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
York, NY: Doubleday.
Smith, D. M. (2008). Divide or conquer: How great teams turn conflict into strength. New
York, NY: Penguin.
Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016
23
Witherspoon
Witherspoon, R. (2000). Starting smart: Clarifying coaching roles and goals. In M. Goldsmith,
L. Lyons, & A. Freas (Eds.), Coaching for leadership: How the world’s greatest coaches
help leaders learn (pp. 165-185). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
Witherspoon, R., & Cannon, M. (2009). Coaching leaders in transition: Lessons from the field.
In W. W. Burke, D. G. Lake, & J. W. Paine (Eds.), Organization change: A comprehensive
reader (pp. 599-625). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Witherspoon, R., & White, R. (1997). Four essential ways that coaching can help executives.
Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Author Biography
Robert Witherspoon is a seasoned executive coach and OD consultant with a lifelong interest
in learning and leadership. A widely respected top coach and thought leader, he is also a published author and recognized authority on executive coaching, leadership development, and
organizational learning. After successful careers in business and consulting, he founded
Performance & Leadership Development Ltd, in 1990, to focus on executive coaching and
organization change.
Downloaded from jab.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 16, 2016