(Coaching Psychology Series) Jelena Pavlovic - Coaching Psychology - Constructivist Approaches-Routledge (2021)

“What a great and useful addition to the coaching literature – a book that
brings together constructivist, relational, systemic and narrative approaches

to coaching and shows how they fit together. A book that is both practical
and well-grounded in the theory.”
— Professor Peter Hawkins, global thought leader and
author of many books on leadership and coaching
“Constructivist approaches offer substantial advantages to coaches work-

ing in complex contexts and this book provides a succinct but robust appli-
cation of constructivist psychology to coaching. The book not only offers an
accessible introduction to a range of constructivist approaches, but provides
a useful integration of these approaches. This is an invaluable resource for
coaches and coach educators seeking to build a coherent approach which is
able to span individual, group and team coaching. The book is packed with
tools and case studies to support application in practice. This is definitely on
the top of my recommended reading list for coaching students.”
— Roger Maitland, PhD, University of Stellenbosch
Business School, South Africa; Director, LifeLab
“FINALLY! At last a book on coaching that is firmly grounded in constructivist /

constructionist philosophy! Anyone who is interested in a well-founded, easy
to understand description and explanation should pick up this book. You will
never think about coaching the same way afterward. This book will be on my
list of recommended readings to my coaching students the second it comes out.
Congratulations Jelena!”
— Kirsten Dierolf, MA, MCC, MASFP, founder and
owner of SolutionsAcademy
“This book summarizes rich practical experience rooted in a constructiv-

ist approach to individual, group and team coaching. It is a successful at-
tempt to provide a blend of hands on tools and leading academic theories.
Recommended!”
— Benjamin Croft, founder and chairman of WBECS
Group and EthicalCoach
“Coaching discipline is only at the early stage of developing a solid theoreti-

cal platform for practice. Jelena Pavlović takes a very productive step in this
direction by introducing an elaborate spectrum of constructivist approaches
to coaching practice. I am particularly glad to see Personal Construct Psy-
chology being first in her selection of theories – a place it truly deserves.”
— Tatiana Bachkirova, Professor of Coaching
Psychology and Director of the International Centre
for Coaching and Mentoring Studies, Oxford Brookes
University, UK
Coaching Psychology
Coaching Psychology: Constructivist Approaches presents a comprehensive

overview of constructivist approaches to individual, group and team coach-
ing. Jelena Pavlović introduces key ideas and explores a variety of models,
tools and techniques, setting out a landscape of constructivist psychology
as applied to coaching.
Beginning with an overview of constructivism in contemporary psy-
chology, the book elaborates on key processes of discursive and narrative
construction of self. A variety of constructivist approaches to coaching, in-
cluding personal and relational construct, narrative, appreciative, systemic
and solution focused, are offered with basic principles, operating models
and coaching techniques. Pavlović also introduces a constructivist model
for coaching teams, illustrated with case studies, and sets out a framework
and guidelines for training coaches in this approach.
Coaching Psychology: Constructivist Approaches offers an innovative re-
source for coaches in practice and in training, particularly those seeking to
understand how constructivist approaches can be used to develop individu-
als, groups and teams.
Jelena Pavlović, PhD, is founder and Managing Director of Koučing cen-

tar and Assistant Professor of Organizational Development and Change,
Department of Psychology, University of Belgrade, Serbia.
Coaching Psychology
Series Editor: Stephen Palmer
Coaching psychology is a distinct branch of academic and applied psychology

that focuses on enhancement of performance, development and well-being in the
broader population. Written by leading experts, the Coaching Psychology series
will highlight innovations in the field, linking theory, research and practice.
These books will interest professionals from psychology, coaching, mentoring,
business, health, human resources and management as well as those interested
in the psychology underpinning their coaching and mentoring practice.
Titles in the series:
Very Brief Cognitive Behavioural Coaching (VBCBC)

Windy Dryden
Coaching Psychology for Learning

Facilitating Growth in Education
Qing Wang
Positive Psychology Coaching in Practice

Suzy Green and Stephen Palmer
The Art of Dialogue in Coaching

Towards Transformative Change
Reinhard Stelter
Constructivist Coaching
A Practical Guide to Unlocking Potential Alternative Futures
Kim Bradley-Cole and Pam Denicolo
Coaching Psychology
Constructivist Approaches
Jelena Pavlović
https://www.routledge.com/Coaching-Psychology/book-series/COACHPSYCH
Coaching Psychology
Constructivist Approaches
Jelena Pavlović
First published 2021
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2021 Jelena Pavlović
The right of Jelena Pavlović to be identified as author of this work
has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of
the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or
reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical,
or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including
photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks
or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Pavlović, Jelena (Psychologist), author.
Title: Coaching psychology: constructivist approaches / Jelena Pavlović.
Description: Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge, 2021. |
Series: Coaching psychology |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2020047700 | ISBN 9780367860981 (paperback) |
ISBN 9780367860967 (hardback) | ISBN 9781003016878 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Personal coaching. | Constructivism (Psychology) |
Counseling psychology.
Classification: LCC BF637.P36 P39 2021 | DDC 158.3—dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020047700
ISBN: 978-0-367-86096-7 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-0-367-86098-1 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-01687-8 (ebk)
Typeset in Times New Roman
by codeMantra
To Jugoslav, Janko and Jakša
Contents
Acknowledgements xi
Introduction: constructivist coaching psychologies 1
PART 1
Coaching the self as a construction 5
1 Constructivist views of self and identity 7
PART 2
Constructivist coaching psychologies: principles, models
and techniques 21
2 Personal and relational construct coaching 23

3 Appreciative coaching 41
4 Solution-focused coaching 49
5 Narrative coaching 57
6 Systemic coaching 67
7 Towards integration 74
PART 3
Constructivist group and team coaching 81
8 Constructivist group coaching 83

9 Constructivist team coaching 94
x Contents
PART 4
Training constructivist coaches 107
10 Designing and delivering constructivist coach training

programs 109
Conclusion: anticipating the future of constructivist
coaching psychologies 116
Index 121
Acknowledgements
This book is a product of over a decade of experience in individual and

team coaching from the constructivist perspective. I would like to thank
my teachers, supervisors and colleagues: Dušan Stojnov, Harry Procter,
Slavica Maksić, Mirosava Đurišić Bojanović, Kirsten Dierolf and Peter
Hawkins. To the editor of the Coaching Psychology book series, Stephen
Palmer, I am very grateful for his kind support and encouragement to start
writing this book. Big thanks also goes to all the people, teams and organi-
zations who have trusted me to coach them over the years. I have learned a
lot (and still do) from the conversations with my students at the University of
Belgrade, Serbia, who always bring a fresh perspective and another interest-
ing question. My colleagues, Marijana Račić, Milena Nikolić and Adrijana
Milosavljević, have patiently read this book throughout the process of
writing it, and even more importantly, dialogues with them have been an
invaluable source of inspiration and professional development. Finally, a
big thanks goes to Jugoslav for his unselfish support, contagious optimism
and faith.
Introduction
Constructivist coaching psychologies
What is specific about constructivist coaching psychology? What value does

this approach bring to practitioners, clients and wider ecosystems? What
counts as constructivist coaching? What are the constructivist coaching
tools and techniques? How do we integrate them? How to coach groups with
constructivist lenses? What value is created for teams when using construc-
tivist team coaching? How do you train as a constructivist coach? These
are some of the questions that are explored in this book. The rationale for
writing (and reading) the book could be briefly summarized as an attempt to
picture a “landscape” of constructivist psychology as applied to coaching.
My hope is that this “landscape” will provide inspiration to a wide reader-
ship regardless of the approach to coaching or level of expertise. This book
was written to inspire.
Let us take a look at the basic assumptions underlying the book and the ap-
proaches it introduces. A central assumption underlying various approaches
that can be labelled constructivists is that human beings create systems for
meaningfully understanding their worlds and experiences. The metaphor of
construction implies that we always impose meaning upon the world and by
doing so we give shape to it. What this means is that the meaning we attach
to experience actually becomes our experience. This central assumption may
be developed into four metatheoretical principles of constructivist psycholo-
gies. According to Stojnov (2001), these four principles include the following:
(1) relativism, which points to multiple perspectives of different psychological
phenomena without a reference to an ultimate reality; (2) relationism, which
points to the relational and social construction of experience; (3) participativ-
ism, which assumes that we interact with the psychological phenomena as we
investigate them and learn about them and (4) potentialism, which refers to
the developmental rather than fixed view of psychological phenomena.
Many psychological approaches have been labelled constructivist recently,
including Piaget’s genetic epistemology and Vygotsky’s cultural-historical
theory (Pass, 2007). Attempts to delineate constructivist psychologies on
the basis of more strict commonalities include personal construct psychol-
ogy, radical constructivism and social constructionism (Raskin, 2002).
One important point of difference has been made between constructivism
2 Constructivist coaching psychologies
and constructionism in psychology (Burr, 1995; Pavlović, 2011). Construc-
tionism usually refers to social constructionism, as a cluster of approaches
that stress the social and discursive forces that shape our sense of ourselves
(Gergen, 1997). Some authors tend to unify constructivist approaches into
a single paradigm (Mascolo & Pollack, 1997; Raskin, 2002; Stojnov, 2003),
while there have also been efforts to stress points of divergence between
different “constructivisms” (Chiari & Nuzzo, 1996).
In this book an umbrella term of constructivist psychologies will be used
to include both constructivist and constructionist approaches, in line with
Raskin’s (2002) definition. Constructivism in a narrow sense would refer to
personal and relational construct psychology (Kelly, 1955; Procter, 2014,
2016), while constructionist approaches would include narrative psychol-
ogy (White & Epston, 1990), appreciative inquiry (Cooperrider et al., 1995)
and solution-focused psychology (de Shazer, 1985). Systemic approach to
psychology will be treated as a variant of radical constructivism (Bateson,
1979). This selection includes a bias towards those constructivist psycholo-
gies that have already contributed to the field of coaching.
Part 1 offers a view of self and identity from a constructivist psychology
approach. Idea of self as a story and the narrative view of self are outlined.
Positioning theory is introduced as a useful framework for conceptualiz-
ing current constructivist thinking about identity. Relational, fragmented
and performative views of self are explored. “Plasticity” hypothesis is in-
troduced as opposed to the “plaster” view of self in personality psychology.
Part 2 introduces several approaches gathered under the “umbrella”
term of constructivist coaching psychology. Personal and relational con-
struct, narrative, appreciative inquiry, systemic-constructivist and solution-
focused approaches are introduced. Key principles, operating models and
techniques are outlined for every approach. The chapter features a compre-
hensive repertoire of constructivist tools for coaching.
Group and team coaching are recognized as the fastest growing types
of coaching, yet they still underdeveloped in comparison with individual
coaching. Part 3 introduces an integrative constructivist model of group and
team coaching. Examples of tools for coaching teams from a constructivist
perspective are offered.
Part 4 introduces key values of a constructivist coach. Principles of coach
training from a constructivist approach are introduced. Examples of con-
structivist coach training programmes are elaborated.
The concluding chapter offers reflections on the future of constructivist
coaching psychology.
References
Bateson, G. (1979). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. New York: E. P. Dutton.
Burr, V. (1995). An introduction to social constructionism. Taylor & Francis/
Routledge.
Constructivist coaching psychologies 3
Chiari, G., & Nuzzo, M. L. (1996). Psychological constructivisms: A metatheoreti-
cal differentiation. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 9(3), 163–184.
Cooperrider, D. L., Barrett, F. J., & Srivastva, S. (1995). Social construction and
appreciative inquiry: A journey in organizational theory. In Hosking, D. M.,
Dachler, H. P. & Gergen, K. J. (Eds.), Management and organization: Relational
alternatives to individualism. Aldershot: Avebury.
Gergen, K. J. (1997). Social psychology as social construction: The emerging vi-
sion. In McGarty, C. & Haslam, S. A. (Eds.), The message of social psychology:
Perspectives on mind in society (113–128). Blackwell Publishing.
Kelly, G. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.
Mascolo, M. & Pollack, R. (1997). Frontiers of constructivism: Problems and pros-
pects, Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 10(1), 1–5.
Pass, S. (2007). When constructivists Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky were pedagog-
ical collaborators: A viewpoint from a study of their communications. Journal of
Constructivist Psychology, 20(3), 277–282.
Pavlović, J. (2011). Reframing the relationship between personal construct psychol-
ogy and social constructionism: Exploring some implications. Theory & Psychol-
ogy, 20(6), 396–411.
Procter, H. (2014). Qualitative grids, the relationality corollary and the levels of in-
terpersonal construing. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 27, 243–262.
Procter, H. (2016). Personal construct psychology, society and culture: A Review. In
Winter, D. & Reed, N. (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of personal construct psychol-
ogy (139–153). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Raskin, J. D. (2002). Constructivism in psychology: Personal construct psychology,
radical constructivism, and social constructionism. In Raskin, J. D. & Bridges,
S. K. (Eds.), Studies in meaning: Exploring constructivist psychology (1–25). New
York: Pace University Press.
de Shazer, S. (1985). Keys to solution in brief therapy. W. W. Norton & Company.
Stojnov, D. (2001): Konstruktivistički pogled na svet: Predstavljanje jedne para-
digme. Psihologija, 1–2, 9–48.
White, M. & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York:
Norton.
Part 1
Coaching the self as a

construction
1 Constructivist views of self
and identity
Introduction: discourse, narrative and construction

Discourse is usually defined as a system of interpretation, a process of mean-
ing creation or a set of images and stories that create a certain version of real-
ity (Burr, 2002; Pavlović et al., 2006). What we have learned from Foucaldian
theory is that sometimes discourses produce subjectivity or a version of us as
people (Foucault, 1982; Parker, 1992). For example, whether we are seen as a
perfectionist or not, may be a matter of perspective, rooted in certain time,
space and cultural coordinates. The discourse of perfectionism has created a
habit of labelling certain behaviors as overly obsessed with details and the best
possible outcomes, while labelling some other behaviors as normal hard work.
Narrative psychologists similarly take narrative or story as a central the-
oretical concept, pointing to a constructed and sequential nature of our
sense of who we are (Brockmeier & Harré, 2001; Bruner, 1990; Denzin, 1989;
Polkinghorne, 1988). While discourses are usually described as social mean-
ing making processes, which deny us agency in changing them, the concept
of narrative was designed to point to a more individual and agentic view of
self. We may create a narrative of our self being a perfectionist and keep
repeating a similar story in which we have the same positioning. While we
cannot change the social meaning production process, we can choose to
shift our understanding of our self within the available linguistic resources.
We can argue that concepts of discourse and narrative cover a continuum
of meaning making processes around personhood, which go from public or
social contructions to more private and individual constructions that shape
our understanding of self and others.
Both concepts of discourse and narrative produce certain ways of think-
ing and behaving (Parker, 1992). They direct our attention not to what a cer-
tain person really is but to how a certain version of that person has become
constructed and how we can help in a positive reconstruction. Discursive
and narrative views include a set of theoretical assumptions and research
strategies that focus on the meaning making processes in creating our un-
derstanding of personhood (Bruner, 1990; Davies & Harre, 1990; Parker,
1992; Potter & Wetherell, 1987). Discursive and narrative approaches treat
8 Coaching the self as a construction
language not as a neutral and transparent vehicle for expressing thoughts
but as a form of practice that has immediate interactional effect. Language
helps us present ourselves as a certain kind of persons or position ourselves
into the network of social relations in a certain way. Discourse and narrative
analysis start with learning about how those interactional effects are created
in the way we use language.
Self as a construction
Although self and identity seem to be intuitively obvious or even self-explanatory
concepts, it has been pointed to evasiveness and a state of anarchy when it
comes to defining them (Bruner, 2001). There has been an overlapping use of
concepts such as personality, identity, self and person (Harre, 2001; Leary,
2004). The lack of conceptual clarity can be associated with co-existence of
multiple perspectives in the domain of personality psychology.
As Harre (2001) points out, there is M-grammar or essentialist view of
self as a substance, and P-grammar referring to the relational view of self
as a construction. View of self as an entity or a substance assumes that
self is no different from other physical objects, so it is possible to define
it clearly and precisely (Harre, 2001; Potter & Wetherell, 1987). This view
also assumes there is one true essence of personality that can be discov-
ered and described. The two perspectives are positioned as antagonist in the
personality psychology discourse (Potter & Wetherell, 1987; Stojnov, 2005).
In other words, conceptual chaos in the definitions come from the evident
co-existence of essentialist and relational approaches. According to Harre
(2001:73), we need both perspectives to understand the complexity of human
nature. In the text that follows, an overview will be offered of the differences
in the language use of different perspectives on self and identity.
Personality and the view of self as an entity

In contemporary usage, the concept of personality is related to psychological
formulation of the person and is often associated with trait theories and the
individual differences approach in personality (Burr, 2002; Stojnov, 2005).
According to Stojnov (2005:219), personality as a concept is used to describe
individuality that is expressed by observable characteristics that differ one
person from another. Potter and Wetherell (1987:97) argued that trait the-
ories are based on the idea of person as consisting of measurable traits,
abilities and characteristics. How one behaves is determined by the combi-
nation of underlying traits, which can be measured to identify their distri-
bution in the population. Some of the critics of trait theories (Stojnov, 2005)
pointed to the failure to acknowledge inconsistencies in human behaviour
and the formative role of social context. That is why social constuctionists
(Burr, 2002) use the concept of self and identity to avoid the fixed and essen-
tialist connotations in the contemporary usage of the concept of personality.
Constructivist views of self and identity 9
Erikson’s view of identity as achieved self
It is often said that the concept of personal identity represents an answer
to the question who one is (Sarbin, 2000; Stojnov, 2005). Erik Erikson
(2008:118), an author who is perhaps best known for his psychological con-
tributions to the concept of identity, anticipated the definitional difficul-
ties, but also unclarities and evasiveness of this term. For Erikson (1970),
the question of identity was a strategic question of an epoch, closely tied
to a specific social context. As Erikson explains, the question of identity
was raised in a social context of achieving American identity in the im-
migrant population. This biographical note sheds some light on why the
issues of personal continuity and sameness were so central in Erikson’s the-
ory of identity (Berzonsky, 2005). In the context of construing new Amer-
ican identities, stability and continuity represented desirable paths of
individual development. Challenges of adjustment to a new cultural and
economic order were the starting point of Erikson’s conceptualization of
stages of identity development. Depending on whether the person adjusts
to a social context or not, identity may be achieved, diffused or rejected
(Kacerguis & Adams, 1979). Identity achievement, characterized by a sense
of sameness and continuity, is considered the basis of healthy personality.
In other words, identity was considered as a mechanism of equilibrium crea-
tion, holding a person in a state of stability and order (Sampson, 1985). This
orderly concept of identity implied adjustment to a social order (Erikson,
1970). According to Erikson (1966:160–161), the crisis of identity was least
marked in the segment of youth which was “able to invest its fidelity in an
ideological trend associted with a new technical and economic expansion
(such as mercantilism, colonialism, industrialization)”. Moreover, identity
development in Erikson’s theory is conceived as linear, consisting of a num-
ber of developmental stages. This idea of achieved, linear and orderly iden-
tity probably represented desirable constructions of immigrant identity in
American society of the time.
However, some of the critics argue that Erikson’s view of identity in con-
temporary societies is not as relevant as it used to be (Berzonsky, 2005;
Phoenix & Rattansi, 2005; Schachter, 2005). There are a number of ques-
tions that can be raised regarding its relevance in changed social circum-
stances. For example, critics argue that in contemporary societies stabile
and coherent identity may no longer be equally achievable, but also useful
(Schachter, 2005). If contemporary societies value ability to disrupt oneself
and radically innovate one’s way of thinking and being, then sameness and
continuity may no longer be the preconditions of psychological health. In
changed social circumstances, Erikson’s theory is mainly critiqued for not
fully acknowledging the complex ways of constituting identities (Phoenix &
Rattansi, 2005). It is interesting that Erikson himself anticipated that the
time would come when his theory would be challenged in more complex
systems of economic and political organization (Erikson, 2008:118). In the
meanwhile, identity remained a strategic question of this time too, but new
ways of theorizing identity at some points started to diverge from Erikson’s
classic view of identity.
Self 1, 2, 3
Another view is to treat the concepts of person, self and identity as narra-
tives or constructions we use in different contexts and for various purposes.
According to Harre (2001:59), more is comprehended under the polysemic
concept of self than under the concept of personal identity. Harre (2001)
explored the rules by which the cluster of concepts around personhood and
“the self” were managed. These rules were reflected in a mini-formula. Harre
(2001:60) proposed P {S1, S2, S3}. In this formula, Self 1 refers to an embodied
view of a person as singular in space and time. Usage of Self 1 expresses the
qualities of continuity and singularity underlying Erikson’s concept of per-
sonal identity. To use Self 1 in talk is to assume a position of identity. Self 2
is used in the context of self-reflection to include various images, feelings
and private dialogues. This version of self corresponds to the psychological
term of self-concept or definitions of self as a reflective domain of the person
(Stojnov, 2005). Finally, Self 3 is used in the context of social interaction to
denote ways in which certain aspects of Self 2 are manifested to others in
different life episodes. This aspect of self assumes multiplicity and is similar
to Gofman’s (2000) view of person as the way people present themselves to
others. Person, or P in this model, includes various S’s, which emerge in the
flow of P’s activities related to perception, reflection and social interaction.
By introducing Self 1, 2 and 3, Harre (2001) seems to connect Erikson’s
classic view of identity, view of self as a reflective domain and Gofman’s
(2000) theory of self-presenting in one framework for explaining person-
hood. What is achieved is a comprehensive view of personhood as created
of various self-domains.
Subjectification: “Hey, you!”

Critical social theory (Foucault, 1982; Rose, 1996) has brought attention to
the relations between self, identity and power. Being a certain kind of per-
son is seen as being located in a certain discourse position. In other words,
critical social theory draws our attention to the way personhood is shaped
in social interactions and mediated by power relations.
Two important concepts for describing personhood in critical social the-
ory are subject and subjectification. The term subject implies being dependent
on one’s identity and attached to it by forms of self-knowledge. According
to Foucault (1982:15), the term subject should be understood as “not the
speaking consciousness, not the author of the formulation, but a position
that may be filled in a certain conditions by various individuals”. Using this
somewhat unusual term for describing persons sheds new light on the issue
of personal agency. The subject position, or a sense of self, is not changed
only by new ideas, a different mentality or creativity but also by transforma-
tions in social practices.
Critical social theorists therefore turn to exploring the subtle mechanisms
by which personhood and subjectivity are shaped by social practices. Sub-
jectification refers to ways of conceptualizing persons in discourses, as well
as to the accompanying social practices (Rose, 1999). Analysis of subjecti-
fication practices focuses on the means which people treat themselves and
others as persons (Pavlović, 2011). That is how powerful images of self in a
society are made visible.
The ideas about subject and subjectification correspond to a view that
ideologies shout to us “Hey, you!” as certain kinds of persons (Potter &
Wetherell, 1987). Ideologies “recruit” subjects and by responding to these
calls, we become categorized as persons. To be a person is to fill an empty
space ideologies have prepared for us (Parker, 1992). The web of subject
positions that are provided by different discourses becomes the content of
our “personality” (Pavlović, 2008). The task of coach is therefore not only
to register and measure different traits in personality but also to explore
images of self that define persons and ways to redefine them. As Miller Mair
(2000:344–345) points out, psychology as a discipline needs to engage with
discourse and become more sensitive to the ways by which individuals be-
come persons in contemporary societies. Goal of this kind of psychology is
not to help people discover who they are but to reject the restricting aspects
of what they have become (Foucault, 1982:216).
Positioning and personal agency

Continuing the line of thought of critical social theory, discursive psychol-
ogy (Burr, 2002; Davies & Harre, 1990) pointed to the importance of personal
agency in the processes of subjectification. The language of agency assumes
that the person as agent is free to act or not to act in line with his or her own
will (Pavlović, 2008). Opposite to event causation, agent causation does not
imply that every causal event always leads to the same effect. Agency there-
fore implies that persons have alternative possible futures available to them.
A person as a user of discourse may choose among different discursive re-
sources and position oneself differently in different contexts.
Davis and Harre (1990) redefine the subject position to include personal
responsibility for one’s own “text” in a wide repertoire of available “texts”
and ways of performing them. The concept of positioning implies that per-
sons are at the same time “producers”, “authors” and “actors”, with their
partners in conversations being “co-authors” and “co-producers”. While
the traditional concept of role has ready-made “text” for a person holding a
certain role, positioning as a concept enables analysing discursive practices
that shape persons in conversations and ways of negotiating those positions.
Foucault’s ideas of subject made a radical shift towards understanding the
discursive production of subjectivity with limited opportunities for personal
agency. The concept of positioning in discursive psychology refocuses not
only on how persons become “used by discourses” but also on how they
“use discourses”.
Storytellers become the stories they tell

Narrative view of self builds on the view of person as a user of discourse,
adding a slight shift in the context of narrative positioning. As McAdams
(2005:121) points out, if we could see identity, it would look like a story,
having a beginning, a middle part and an end, and organizing our life into a
reconstruction of the past, an experience of the presence and an anticipation
of the future. A story explains how the protagonist moves through time,
plays various roles, changes and still remains the same protagonist.
Narrative positioning is based on the idea of positioning oneself as a
storyteller in a moment-to-moment interaction (Bamberg, 2011:8). Again,
more traditional research into identity has lacked interest into how self and
identity are shaped in sequential interaction. Increased agency underlying
the narrative approach and the idea of sequentiality of narrative form are
some of the lines of divergencies between the view of self in discursive and
narrative psychology. To further emphasize these differences in the ap-
proach, narrative psychologists (Bamberg & Georgakopoulou, 2008) refer
to construction of self in “small stories” or discourse with “small d”, while
Foucault’s view of self can be understood as constructed in “grand stories”
or discourse with “capital D”. In small stories a person is being constructed
as an agent and uses the discourse in interaction with others. These small
stories are usually relatively short and occur spontaneously in interaction.
Narrative approach to self assumes that with time, the content of our
selfhood becomes filled with the stories we tell (Bruner, 1990). The stories
we tell organize our sense of who we are, who others are and how we relate
to each other (Brockmeier & Carbaugh, 2001). View of self as a narrative has
directed narrative psychologists to study life stories, autobiographies and
other types of personal narratives.
Relational self
One of the first psychologists to develop the idea of relational self was Mead
(1934:64), who considered self to be a social structure that emerges from so-
cial experience. Thesis about social and relational self continued throughout
the history of psychology, while it became central to social constructionism
(Gergen, 2009). According to this view, there is no isolated self with its pri-
vate existence; it is always co-created in relations. As Sarbin (2000) puts it,
every encounter with another person invokes a question who am I, while the
answer largely depends on the perceived identity of the other. Identity be-
comes constituted in the process of recognizing a dialogical partner.
Relational view of self shifts the focus from the self as an individual unit
to the relational process. Using the dancing metaphor, Gergen (2001:176)
notes that the focus shifts from the dancer to the dance as a relation. This
shift in focus is seen by the social constructionists not only as an ontolog-
ical and epistemological but also ethical stance. Relational responsibility
becomes a new ethical imperative.
Fragmented self
Continuing the idea of relational self, we can say that as we establish differ-
ent relations with different people, we actually “divide” identity into differ-
ent relational selves. Fragmentation or multiplicity of self implies that self is
not a coherent and univocal but a polyphony of different and often contra-
dicting voices. Everyday experience of ambivalence between different parts
of our selves is seen as a manifestation of the fragmented self (Sarbin, 2005).
In personality psychology we find different labels for this phenomenon of
normal or even functional fragmentation of self: sub-selves (Mead, 1934),
subsystems (Kelly, 1955), community of self (Mair, 1977) and I-positions
(Hermans, 2002). For the purpose of exploring this type of everyday frag-
mentation of self, Mair (1977:130–131) proposed the metaphor of self as a
community. Metaphor of “community of self” provides a theoretical frame-
work for making sense of complex relations towards self and others that
are evasive to the unitary view of self. This view enables us to look at self
through the lens of social psychology concepts, such as control, group pres-
sure, organization, diplomacy or debate. As a result of using concepts which
were usually reserved for social relations, we may facilitate improvement in
communication between different selves in the “community” and coordi-
nation of the fragmented sub-selves. In contrast to Erikson’s view of inte-
grated identity which represents a developmental achievement of adult age,
integrity is seen as one of the possible outcomes of production of subjectiv-
ity. Instead of posing integration as an ideal, this view normalizes fragmen-
tation and multiplicity of self. Better “communication” and “cooperation”
of sub-selves replace the ideal of integrated and unitary self.
Self as a theory
Another way to conceive selfhood is to look at self as a personal theory
(Kelly, 1955). According to Kelly (1955), every person can be seen as a sci-
entist who develops certain hypotheses and theories about self and others.
These theories are built of dimensions or bipolar constructs. For example,
strong versus weak may be an important dimension or construct in one’s
theory of self. One may develop a hypothesis that only strong persons can
survive in the world and the persons will behave in line with this theory: she
will not ask for help; she will not talk about his emotions; she will be tough
on other people, etc. Some of these dimensions and hypotheses are more
important than others as a person relies on them to a greater extent when
making sense of experience. Kelly (1955) used the term core constructs to
point to these kinds of constructs, which are more resistant to change and
are the basis of a more traditional view of identity (Stojnov, 2005).
Performed self
Another perspective on self comes from Gofman’s (2000) theory of self-
presentation and impression management in everyday life. The kind of im-
pression we think we create and the way we want others to see us, in the
course of time, become what we “are”. According to Gofman (2000), being a
certain kind of person is not about having certain characteristics but about
having a certain kind of performance and “facade”. In other words, the way
we arrange our performance of self becomes the constituent of the very struc-
ture of our self. A relatively regular part of the performance of self which
is frequently used to define the situation for observers is called “facade”
(Gofman, 2000).
Dramaturgical theory of self points to the significant role of performance
in constituting self. Perhaps a habit of mind may be to look at these kinds
of performances as “fake” and not authentic. View of self as performance
stresses the mechanisms by which certain performances are trusted or dis-
credited. In other words, the self is seen not as a story only but as a per-
formed story that requires a scene, an audience and complex mechanisms of
arranging performances.
Innovative self
Perhaps a crucial implication of theoretical elaborations of self and identity
is the possibility of change. The idea of a fixed self is one of the central as-
sumptions of traditional trait theories (Costa et al., 1999). This view of fixed
self is often referred to as the plaster hypothesis, while the opposite view is
labelled as plasticity hypothesis (Roberts, 1997). Constructivist view of self
stresses the dynamic and processual view of the person. This view points
out that self and identity are ever-emerging constructions, rather than a
fixed point of arrival or departure. Innovative self, as dynamic, processual
and malleable, becomes a self of multiple possibilities. Ibarra (1999) used
an interesting concept of provisional selves to refer to the “test” versions
of identity we experiment with in professional adaptation. According to
Hermans (2003:110–111), three types of innovations of self are possible:
(1) introducing a new I-position into the organization of self, (2) reorganiz-
ing the current I-positions (e.g. some of them becoming more central) and
(3) reorganizing relations between I-positions (e.g. making I-positions more
integrated or aligned). Preserving the ideals of sameness and continuity
underlying the traditional view of identity may be no longer an indicator
of person’s maturity but may also be disadvantageous. As Stephenson and
Papadopoulos (2003:5) point out, the price of adopting an identity may be
the inability to conceive of another way of being and actually becoming a
cliché of ourselves. These words echo Foucault’s (1996:166) reflections that
identity may be a useful concept to some, but must not be taken as a univer-
sal ethical norm.
Professional is personal?
The term professional identity is usually used to refer to an aspect of collec-
tive identity and an answer to the question of who one is as a representative
of a certain profession (Stojnov, 1999). Professional identity may be impor-
tant as a pathway to how a person relates to his or her work, colleagues,
employer or future professional development (Brown et al., 2007).
There are three common ways of shaping professional identity: (1) as a re-
sult of professional socialization, (2) as a result of career transitions and (3) as
a result of life and work experiences (Slay & Smith, 2011). Constructivist ap-
proach to professional identity assumes a continuous process of construction
and meaning making around who a person is and wants to become in a pro-
fessional context (Beijaard et al., 2004). As Scanlon (2011:14) points out, pro-
fessional identity is multidimensional, individual and collective, situated in
certain professional practices, and also provisional and continuously changing.
Ibarra (1999) explains the process of construction of professional identity via
observation of role models, shaping potential identities and experimenting with
provisional selves. These provisional professional selves serves as temporary
solutions, devised to bridge the gap between current capacities and desirable
images of self. According to Ibarra (1999), provisional selves remain provisional
until they become refined and tested through experience.
There is a tendency in recent studies to minimize the difference between
personal and professional identity (Akkerman & Meijer, 2010; Ibarra et al.,
2010). This view is based on the argument that everything a person considers
important for the profession and tries to achieve in the professional context
is already a part of the “personal” identity. It seems a clear boundary be-
tween personal and professional identity is always an abstraction, since con-
structions that refer to personal life also shape one’s professional identity.
A note on using terms

To summarize the different ideas underlying the constructivist view of self,
we may say that self is usually used to denote the reflexive domain of the per-
son, whereas identity constitutes its core part (Stojnov, 2005). Identity may
also be seen as Self 1 in Harre’s (2001) polyvocal view of self.
The term personality seems to lose its relevance in the constructivist ap-
proach because of its connotations of a fixed biological substance of a per-
son (Burr, 2002). Self and identity may also be used interchangeably (Gofman,
2000) as the previous differences in using these terms have started to fade.
Finally, based on the overview of the constructivist view of self and iden-
tity, we may outline a couple of key dilemmas in psychology of selfhood. At
one pole we may position views of self and identity as individual, unitary
and fixed entities that are denied personal agency. At the other end, we can
group a number of conceptualizations of self and identity as constructions –
stories, narratives, personal theories and performances. This constructivist
view assumes a relational, fragmented, agentic and innovative self.
Finally, it is worth noting that different perspectives of self and identity
are taken as different ways of making meaning, neither of which being more
“true” than others and each of the choices having its inherent implications
and limitations.
How is all this relevant? Implications for coaches

Implicit theories of personality are almost always present in our work as
coaches. These theories include how we think of our clients, the concepts
we use to make sense of their identity, the type of interventions we choose
and our own belief in the size and range of change in coaching. Impli-
cations of these hypotheses for the coaching practice are multiple. If we
think our clients personalities are best described as traits, we will proba-
bly use personality assessments to identify and measure these traits. The
scores we may get would then point to an underlying biological substance
that is dominantly fixed. We may even declare our client uncoachable as a
result of our own implicit theories of personality. In other words, coaches
may rely on a pattern of implicit personality theories that form a fixed
mindset (Dweck, 2008) in their own coaching practice, leading them to
important choices in practice.
Our implicit personality theories always shape our coaching practice.
They are probably the fundamental decision-making base from which we
pull certain tools and techniques or adopt a relational stance towards a
client. It may be argued that the growth mindset of a coach, or implicit
theories about personality as evolving through relations and personal
agency, facilitates the coaching process and equips the coach with much
greater flexibility for working with diversity. As Heslin et al. (2006) point
out, implicit personality theories of managers predict employee evalua-
tions of their coaching: growth mindset of managers is positively related
to the extent to which managers coach their employees. Moreover, the
same study found that training managers in growth mindset increases
their “willingness to coach a poor performing employee, as well as the
quantity and quality of their performance improvement suggestions”
(Heslin et al., 2008:889).
Whatever type of implicit personality theories we adopt as coaches, it is
important to be aware of our choices and their implications. For coaches,
it would be recommended to articulate their personality theories from the
implicit to personal explicit domain explicit (Maksić & Pavlović, 2011).
Discussion points
1 What views of self do you recognize to shape your own coaching prac-
tice? How have these implicit theories of self and identity shaped your
coaching practice sofar?
2 How could constructivist perspectives on self and identity be beneficial
to (a) your role as a coach, (b) your clients and (c) a wider network of
stakeholders included in the coaching process (e.g. professional associ-
ations, accrediting bodies, organizational stakeholders)?
3 When might constructivist view of self be not relevant and why?
4 Locate your own implicit theories of self and identity on the five core
dimensions. How do these positions shape your coaching practice?
Suggested reading
Burr, V. (2002). The person in social psychology. London: Taylor & Francis.
Davies, B. & Harre, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves.
Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63.
Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in pro-
fessional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 764–791.
Mair, J. M. (2000). Psychology as a discipline of discourse. European Journal of
Psychotherpay and Counselling, 3(3), 335–347.
References
Akkerman, S. & Meijer, P. (2010). A dialogical approach for conceptualizing teacher
identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2), 308–319.
Bamberg, M. (2011). Who am I? Narration and its contribution to self and identity.
Theory and Psychology, 21(1), 3–24.
Bamberg, M., & Georgakopoulou, A. (2008). Small stories as a new perspective in
narrative and identity analysis. Text & Talk, 28(3), 377–396.
Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teacher’s
professional identity. Teaching & Teacher Education, 20, 107–128.
Berzonsky, M. (2005). Ego identity: A personal standpoint in a postmodern world.
Identity, 5(2), 125–136.
Brockmeier, J. & Carbaugh, D. (2001). Introduction. In Brockmeier, J. & Carbaugh,
D. (Eds.), Narrative and identity: Studies in autobiography, self and culture (1–25).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Brockmeier, J. & Harre, R. (2001). Narrative: Problems and promises of an alterna-
tive paradigm. In Brockmeier, J. & Carbaugh, D. (Eds.), Narrative and identity:
Studies in autobiography, self and culture (39–59). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA:
John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Brown, A., Kirpal, S. & Rauner, F. (Eds.). (2007). Identities at work (339–360). Dor-
drecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. London: Harvard University Press. Amsterdam/
Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Bruner, J. (2001). Self-making and world-making. In Brockmeier, J. & Carbaugh,
D. (Eds.), Narrative and identity: Studies in autobiography, self and culture (25–39).
Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Burr, V. (2002). The person in social psychology. London: Taylor & Francis.
Costa, P., McCrae, R. & Siegler, I. (1999). Continuity and change over the adult
life cycle: Personality and personality disorders. In Cloninger, C. R. (Ed.) Per-
sonality and psychopathology (129–154). Washington, DC: American Psychiat-
ric Press.
Davies, B. & Harre, R. (1990). Positioning: The discursive production of selves.
Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20(1), 43–63.
Denzin, N. K. (1989). Interpretive interactionism. London: Sage Publications.
Dweck, C. (2008). Can personality be changed: The role of beliefs in personality and
change. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(6), 391–394.
Erikson, E. (1966). The concept of identity in race relations: Notes and queries.
Daedalus, 95(1), 145–171.
Erikson, E. (1970). Autobiographic notes on identity crisis. Daedalus, 99(4), 730–759.
Erikson, E. (2008). Identitet i životni ciklus. Beograd: Zavod za udžbenike.
Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. In Dreyfus, H. & Rabinow, P. (Eds.),
Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (208–226). Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Foucault, M. (1996). Sex, power, and the politics of identity. In Rabinow, P. (Ed.)
Ethics: Subjectivity and truth (163–175). New York: The New Press.
Gergen, K. (2001). Social construction in context. London: Sage Publication.
Gergen, K. (2009). Relational being: Beyond self and community. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Gofman, E. (2000). Kako se predstavljamo u svakodnevnom životu. Beograd:
Geopoetika.
Harre, R. (2001). Metaphysics and narrative: Singularities and multiplicities of self.
In Brockmeier, J. & Carbaugh, D. (Eds.), Narrative and identity: Studies in autobi-
ography, self and culture (59–75). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins
Publishing Company.
Hermans, H. (2002). Dialogical self as a society of mind: Introduction. Theory &
Psychology, 12(2), 147–160.
Hermans, H. (2003). The construction and reconstruction of a dialogical self. Jour-
nal of Constructivist Psychology, 16, 89–130.
Heslin, P. A., Latham, G. P. & VandeWalle, D. (2005). The effect of implicit person
theory on performance appraisals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 842–856.
Ibarra, H. (1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in pro-
fessional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(4), 764–791.
Ibarra, H., Snoek, S. & Ramo, L. (2010). Identity-based leader development. In
Nohria, N. & Khurana, R. (Eds.), Handbook of leadership theory and practice:
A Harvard Business School centennial (657–679). Boston, MA: Harvard Business
School Press.
Kacerguis, M. & Adams, G. (1979). Erickson stage resolution: The relationship be-
tween identity and intimacy. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 9(2), 117–126.
Kelly, G. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: Norton.Leary, M.
R. (2004). What is the self?: A plea for clarity. Self and Identity, 3, 1–3.
Mair, J. M. (1977). The community of self. In Bannister, D. (Ed.) New perspectives in
personal construct theory (125–149). London: Academic Press.
Mair, J. M. (2000). Psychology as a discipline of discourse. European Journal of
Psychotherpay and Counselling, 3(3), 335–347.
Maksić, S. & Pavlović, J. (2011). Educational researchers’ personal explicit theories
on creativity and its development: A qualitative study. High Ability Studies, 22(2),
219–231.
McAdams, D. (2005). A psychologist without a country or living two lives in the
same story. In Yancy, G. & Hadley, S. (Eds.), Narrative identities: Psychologists
engaged in self-constructions (114–131). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society: From the standpoint of a social behavio-
rist. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Parker, I. (1992). Discourse dynamics. London: Routledge.
Pavlović, J. (2008). Istraživač kao sagovornik: uvažavanjem priča ka transfor-
maciji praksi. U Stojnov, D. (ur.), Metateorijske postavke kvalitativnih istraživanja
(219–237). Beograd: Zepter Book World.
ogy, 20(6), 396–411.
Pavlović, J., Džinović, V. & Milošević, N. (2006). Teorijske pretpostavke diskur-
zivnih I narativnih pristupa u psihologiji. Psihologija, 39(4), 365–381.
Phoenix, A. & Rattansi, A. (2005). Proliferating theories: Self and identity in
post-Eriksonian context. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Re-
search, 5(2), 205–225.
Polkinghorne, D. (1988). Narrative knowing and the human sciences. Albany, NY:
SUNU Press.
Potter, J. & Wetherell, M. (1987). Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes
and behavior. London: Sage Publications.
Roberts, B. (1997). Plaster or plasticity: Are adult work experiences associated with
personality change in women? Journal of Personality, 65(2), 205–232.
Rose, N. (1996). Inventing our selves: Psychology, power and personhood. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Rose, N. (1999). Governing the soul: The shaping of the private self. London: Free
Association Books.
Sampson, E. (1985). The decentralization of identity. American Psychologist, 40(11),
1203–1211.
Sarbin, T. (2000). Worldmaking, self and identity. Culture & Psychology, 6, 253–258.
Scanlon, L. (2011). Becoming” a professional: An interdisciplinary analysis of profes-
sional learning. Dordrecht: Springer.
Schachter, E. (2005). Context and identity formation: A theoretical analysis and a
case study. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20(3), 375–395.
Slay, H. & Smith, D. (2011). Professional identity construction: Using narrative to
understand the negotiation of professional and stigmatized cultural identities.
Human Relations, 64(1), 85–107.
Stephenson, N. & Papadopoulos, G. (2003). Analysing everyday experience: Social
research and political change. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Stojnov, D. (2005). Od psihologije ličnosti do psihologije osoba: konstruktivizam kao
platforma u obrazovanju i vaspitanju. Beograd: Institut za pedagoška istraživanja.
Part 2
Constructivist coaching
psychologies
Principles, models and techniques
2 Personal and relational
construct coaching
Introduction
Have you ever thought of other persons (including coachees) as scientists?
What could we learn if we thought of behaviour as some sort of an experi-
ment for testing hypotheses and theories? If the coachee is the expert in his
or her own experience, how do we best partner as a coach? This chapter
offers a personal and relational construct approach to coaching, which is
grounded in the metaphor of person as a scientist. It explores key principles,
operating models and techniques in the personal and relational construct
coaching. Personal and relational construct coaching techniques are elabo-
rated, including Salmon line, ABC, perceiver element grid (PEG), commu-
nity of self and fixed role techniques.
Key principles
Metaphor of person as scientist

Personal construct psychology (Kelly, 1955) emerged in the middle of the
20th century as a forerunner of constructivist psychologies. It offered a psy-
chological framework for understanding personality and the process of fa-
cilitating change in the way people make meaning of their experience. In his
book Psychology of Personal Constructs, Kelly (1955) introduced a metaphor
of person as scientist. The metaphor assumed that all persons could be seen
as scientists who formulate certain hypotheses and test them through every-
day behavioural experiments. Behaviour is seen as an “independent varia-
ble” in relation to which people observe different experimental outcomes
and learn about themselves and the other people. For example, managers
could behave in such a way to test a hypothesis that their team members
respect them more if they become more controlling. The independent vari-
able, managers’ behaviour through which they control and command, can
lead to different experimental outcomes. A manager could conclude on the
basis of this kind of experiments that the commanding style really helps
to get the job done or that this leadership style has become detrimental to
the relationship with the team members. In any case, the example illustrates
the logic of the person as scientist metaphor as one of the cornerstones of the
personal construct psychology.
What is a construct?
Personal theories and hypotheses of persons as scientists consist of the
building blocks, which are referred to as constructs (Fransella, 2016). A per-
sonal theory, as Kelly notes (1955), consists of a body of dichotomous con-
structs. Prediction underlying the metaphor of person as scientist demands
a clear distinction between what will occur and what will not occur. The bi-
polar and predictive nature of constructs implies an if-then-but-not logic. In
our previous example, a manager may devise a construct having authority as
opposed to being soft as part of a personal theory of leadership. This bipolar
nature of constructs invites us to think of them as pathways of movement.
The construct can be thought of as a two-way street. To leave the street, a
new conceptual route needs to be built first. The network of pathways or
system of constructs eventually represents one’s personality.
Our experiments are always social

Sociality is the central principle for understanding relationships in per-
sonal construct psychology (Kelly, 1955). It refers to the idea of continu-
ally anticipating another person’s construing and position. While sociality
applies to relating to one person, the relationality principle (Procter, 2014,
2016) refers to construing relations. Recent developments of personal con-
struct psychology have offered additional conceptual resources for under-
standing people and facilitating change. Relational construct psychology
thus elaborates on interpersonal construing in groups or teams. As Procter
(2016) points out, the original Kellyan metaphor of person as scientist (Kelly,
1955) can be expanded into a view of groups or teams as communities of
inquirers. In line with the expanded metaphor, a group or a team formulates
and tests personal and relational constructs (Procter, 2014, 2016). In other
words, relational aspects of personal construct psychology focus on testing
and revising hypotheses in a social laboratory, while the person becomes
a product of these social experiments and their findings. In line with these
recent advances, throughout the book it will be referred to the personal and
relational construct psychology.
A coaching psychology before coaching?

Personal construct psychology has already been referred to as a robust the-
oretical framework for coaching psychologists (Duignan, 2019; Pavlović &
Stojnov, 2016; Stojnov & Pavlović, 2010). It can be argued that personal
construct psychology stood for a coaching psychology long before the term
Personal and relational construct coaching 25
coaching became widely acknowledged (Pavlović, 2012; Stojnov & Pavlović,
2010). Personal and relational construct psychology is future oriented in con-
trast to the many psychological theories and approaches. Its future orien-
tation reflected in the fact that hypotheses people develop are always about
future behaviour. Future events are the main concern for personal and rela-
tional construct coaches, as anticipating these events may co-create the events
themselves. Personal and relational construct psychology was also inherently
based on a developmental principle, since persons as scientists are seen as con-
tinuously improving their personal theories. In line with the growth mindset
theory (Dweck, 2008), personal and relational construct psychology assumes
that our implicit theories about the human nature shape our behaviour. Em-
pirical evidence also supports the idea that implicit person theories (IPTs)
about the malleability of personal attributes affect managers’ willingness
to coach employees as well as their evaluations (Heslin et al., 2006). More-
over, managers’ degree of growth mindset was found to predict recognition
of decline in employee performance, making managers more data driven
in response to performance change (Heslin, 2009). Coaching with personal
and relational construct psychology is thus actually coaching with a growth
mindset. This does not imply over optimism in human potential, but rather
a belief or a hypothesis that everyone can develop to some extent. We can
imagine also other coaching approaches relying implicitly or explicitly on a
fixed mindset to some extent, which can be recognized by attributions made
by the coaches that their clients are just not “coachable”. Finally, the spirit of
experimentation in personal and relational construct psychology implies an
action orientation. It is through behavioural experiments that coachee’s per-
sonal theories get tested, (in)validated and revised. This positive bias towards
action put personal and relational construct psychology as a natural candi-
date for a coaching psychology.
Role of the coach: co-researcher in behavioural experiments

Metaphor of person as scientist also implies that we see coachees as co-
researchers, with whom we collaborate to design better behavioural exper-
iments and get more valid and creative theories for working and living. An
effort to learn the coachee’s internal frame of reference is a prerequisite within
the personal and relational construct psychology. It enables that we genuinely
listen, take part in dialogue and understand our coachees. The position a
coach takes in personal and relational construct coaching may be described
as a credulous approach (Kelly, 1955; Stojnov, 2003). In other words, what the
coachee is sharing about his or her behaviour is considered as “intrinsic truth”
which should not be ignored or rejected. Opposite to psychological theories
that treat some types of coachee’s beliefs as inadequate constructions, per-
sonal and relational construct coaching treats all constructions as legitimate
perspectives that need to be understood and acknowledged before an attempt
towards their revision is made through new behavioural experiments.
Change is about revision of personal theories
The concept of change in personal and relational constructivism is based
on the idea that we are our constructs and by changing our constructs, we
change ourselves (Kelly, 1955). Two types of change are possible from the
personal and relational constructivist approach to coaching. In one case,
reconstruction occurs by reversing the same hypothesis, which is seen as a
most basic movement. This type of change would imply shifting to the other
side of the construct. For example, if a person shifts from being controlling
as a leader to being more soft, we could label this as an incremental change.
Reconstruction as a more ambitious type of change is about formulating
new hypotheses about personal functioning, which would correspond to
building a new conceptual route in the construct system. As an example,
a person would build a new personal theory of leadership which would in-
clude a more long-term orientation towards performance management, rather
than being stuck in the dilemma of control versus softness. This more dis-
ruptive type of change is harder to achieve, but may also bring more value
to the coachee.
Preconditions of change
Personal and relational construct psychology offers a comprehensive theory
of preconditions of change before revision of theories can take place (Kelly,
1955; Stojnov, 2003). Five preconditions of change include the following:
1 Verbalizing hypotheses or theories. For various reasons people may not

have their personal beliefs that drive them into action fully articulated.
It may be because they lack the skill or habit of doing so, or they may
just not have the time to reflect. Coaching helps people articulate what
and why they are doing, and only when these implicit beliefs are verbal-
ized and articulate enough, drafts of new behavioural experiments can
start.
2 Dispersion of dependencies. Refers to mapping the relational matrix and
matching one’s relational needs to the available resources. For example,
a manager may hold a theory that being successful means doing it all
by yourself. Dispersion of dependencies in this example would involve
mapping the tasks the manager carries out and reflecting on ways some
of these could be distributed to other people so that there are various re-
sources available. Undispersed dependencies would involve lack of clar-
ity on whom to depend for what or too much reliance on just few people
(Kelly, 1969). Dependency dispersion is not about delegating, but it has
a more fundamental role of diversifying and optimizing the network of
people we engage with for various reasons. The myth of independence
is here transformed into a story of mature and responsible dependency.
Training programs aimed at improving delegation skills may actually
fail when they neglect the personal theories around being dependent
and dispersing one’s dependencies effectively.
3 Tightening one’s core constructs. Refers to having a clear definition of
personal mission and vision, instead of a loose idea about who we are
and what we want to achieve. This change precondition implies hav-
ing clear lines of priorities in a person’s web of personal theories and
hypotheses.
4 Increasing permeability of constructs. Refers to allowing for various
events life may bring to be included in our theories. For example, per-
sons may hold a theory that only if all the colleagues show admiration
towards them, they would be successful at work. Impermeable con-
structs are about numerous “only if” hypotheses. When one’s theories
are not inclusive enough, a person may become enslaved by the rigidity
of own system of beliefs.
5 Promoting propositional construing. If a person construes a change of
strategy as an example of chaos only, he or she would act accordingly
(and not very supportively of change). If a change of strategy can be
accessed from multiple perspectives, e.g. as a learning process, as a
means of survival or as a natural event in organizational life, then one’s
change readiness would apparently be increased. To the extent we are
capable of looking at events from various perspectives, our system
of constructs would be less burdened by the “nothing but” types of
construing.
The five preconditions of change may be considered as formal goals of any

coaching process. In other words, no matter what the content of coach-
ing is, there are some universal formal criteria of progress in coaching –
improvement in verbalizing, articulating one’s network dependence and
personal vision, as well as being inclusive about the life events and seeing
them from multiple perspectives. This is the tenet of personal and relational
construct coaching when it comes to definitions of psychologically optimal
functioning.
Operating models
General model of change: experimentation

If we see behaviour as an experiment, then facilitating change actually be-
comes a project in which we explore personal hypotheses and theories that
people create and assist in their continuous improvement. From the per-
spective of personal and relational construct psychology, being successful
is about being able to continuously revise personal theories. However, for
various reasons, this process of revising personal theories may turn out to
be difficult. For example, a person may worry about the behavioural impli-
cations of his or her own hypotheses and may be stuck in the very first phase
of putting behaviour to test. Our managers who are up to the project of
revising their personal theories of leadership may come to a new hypothesis
that becoming more supportive may actually improve their own leadership
capability, but putting this hypothesis to test may be a difficult task. Manag-
ers could worry about how others would see them if they tested the new hy-
pothesis or they may perceive it as a highly risk experiment. Other reasons
why people may hesitate to test new hypotheses lie in the failure to learn
from experiments or to integrate the learning into a wider image of them-
selves. Sometimes it may seem difficult to formulate what the behavioural
outcome really was or how it relates to our sense of ourselves. Psychology of
personal and relational constructs aims at increasing the mobility through
the following triangle: formulating hypothesis – testing hypothesis – revising
hypothesis. Figure 2.1 represents a simplified version of the experience cycle
(Oades & Patterson, 2016).
Underlying the scientific metaphor is the principle which assumes that an-
ticipation is a key psychological function (Kelly, 1955). Psychological func-
tioning of persons is channelized by the way in which they anticipate events.
Person’s predictive efforts may prove to be compatible with the observed
outcomes, in which case we can speak of validation. Invalidation happens
when a gap is subjectively construed by the person between his or her pre-
dictions and the observed outcomes.
Metaphor of person as scientist resonates with Dewey’s (1997) early 20th
century ideas about learning through reflection and experimentation, but
also with the later ideas of reflective practice (Schön, 1982), Kolb’s cycle
of experiential learning (Kolb et al., 2000) and more recent agile change
management approaches (Gibbons, 2015). Common to all these diverse ap-
proaches is an understanding that people learn and change by formulating
and testing their hypothesis and theories about the world. In other words,
personal and relational construct psychology can be considered at the same
time a theory of learning and a theory of change: change becomes a matter
of experiential and experimental learning.
Testing
hypothesis
Formulating Revising
hypothesis hypothesis
Figure 2.1 Model of change in personal construct psychology.

Model of the coaching process
Besides this general model of change in personal and relational construct
coaching, a model of the coaching process has also been proposed (Pavlović,
2010; Pavlović & Stojnov, 2011; Stojnov & Pavlović, 2010). The five-phase
model with the description of goals and suggested techniques for each phase
is displayed in Box 2.1. The phases of the coaching process need not unfold
linearly but may overlap.
Box 2.1 Phases of personal and relational construct coaching (Pavlović, 2010;
Pavlović & Stojnov, 2011; Stojnov & Pavlović, 2010)
Phase Goals
Negotiating goals In personal and relational construct, coaching goals are

negotiated through exploring desirable and undesirable
selves. The focus is not only on what one wants to achieve
but also what needs to be left behind. Coachee’s frame of
reference is key to setting goals of the coaching process,
and negotiating goals is recommended to allow flexible and
creative ways for coachees to formulate what they want from
coaching. In contrast to psychometric tools, this approach
enables coaches to define in their own words who they are
and what they want to achieve.
Exploring After preliminary negotiating, goals are put into a wider
personal context. In this phase, it is important for the coach to
theories and understand the personal theories and hypotheses that
hypotheses actually frame the coaching goals.
Elaboration In this phase, it is required to explicate the hypotheses and
theories that will be tested in the next phase. Implications of
change are explored – a cost-benefit analysis of change. The
coach’s attention needs a focus on the risks of change from
the coachee’s perspective. This phase is based on an idea
that change always has positive and negative implications.
Experimentation After formulating new hypotheses to test comes the
experimentation phase. Initial experimentation should
be restricted to test-tube proportions, with a subsequent
increase in the range of experimentation. Resistance to
change is seen as an indicator that experiment carries too
much risk for the person. Adequate preparation of the
experiment is crucial not only in terms of its success but
also in terms of a future readiness of a person to act as an
experimenter in his or her life. Experimentation does not
prescribe concrete actions, but always draws on a dialogue
on what could be done to innovate one’s behavioural
repertoire.
Evaluation At the end of the coaching process, evaluation is performed
to learn about the main effects, positive and negative
aspects of change, etc. Dialogue about the coaching process
should shed light on how the transformation of personal
hypotheses and theories actually took place.
In conclusion, we may say that personal and relational construct coach-
ing invites for a process of exploring personal and relational theories and
hypotheses to build more predictive ones. Perhaps the strongest asset of this
approach to coaching is its elaborated theory of personality, a robust meth-
odology of change and numerous techniques.
Techniques
Personal and relational construct psychology has provided numerous tools
for various forms of inquiry into meaning (Burr et al., 2014). Several illustra-
tive techniques that will be presented in this chapter include the following:
Salmon line, ABC, PEG, community of self and fixed role technique.
Salmon line technique

Salmon line technique was devised by Phillida Salmon as a tool for explor-
ing future educational progress in students’ own terms (Salmon, 2003). The
function of the tool in coaching is to represent progression in the form of
a single line, including current and desired positions on the line. The tech-
nique encourages incremental changes in terms of small steps towards the
desired position on a particular topic.
Instructions
Ask the coachee about a desired area for development. Draw a straight line
and put the coachee’s answer on one end (e.g. being proactive). Ask the client
about what is the opposite of that and then place the answer on the other end
of the line (e.g. passive). Then ask the coachee to position the current self on
this dimension. The position is marked on a line and a scale (from 1 to 7).
Questions for elaboration

• Have you always been at this position on this dimension?
• How do you explain your positioning?
• What would happen if you moved further towards the less desired pole
of the dimension?
• What would happen if you moved further towards the more desired pole
of the dimension?
• What needs to be done to get there?
• What is the first step on that journey?
Possible applications
• Defining coaching goals within the coachee’s frame of reference and
facilitating incremental change
• Evaluating progress during the coaching process
Salmon line technique is mainly used in the phase of negotiating goals and
evaluation, although it may be of use in different phases of the coaching
process to visually map the movement of the coachee towards preferred
positioning.
ABC technique
Another particularly useful technique is called the ABC method, devised to
map positive and negative implications of desired and undesired positioning
(Tschudi, 1977; Tschudi & Winter, 2012). The ABC model allows reframing
the goal in terms of a dilemma and elaborating ways in which previously in-
compatible options may be integrated. The ABC model is seen as a powerful
tool for facilitating reconstructive types of change.
Instructions
At level A ask the coachee about the preferred and non-preferred posi-
tioning in the context of the negotiated goals (“What do you want to move
towards and what do you want to leave behind?”). Then explore the advan-
tages of preferred positioning and the disadvantages of non-preferred posi-
tioning (level B). In other words, explore why the coachee wants to change.
In the next step, ask something less intuitive: what are the disadvantages of
preferred positioning and the disadvantages of non-preferred positioning
(level C). Exploring level C of the ABC technique enables understanding
why the coachee wants to remain the same (Figure 2.2).
NON-PREFERRED PREFERRED
A POSITIONING POSITIONING
Advantages
B
Disadvantages
C Advantages Disadvantages
Figure 2.2 How to use the ABC technique.

• Is there a way to integrate the advantages of preferred and non-preferred
positioning?
• How would you call that kind of positioning that unites the advantages?
• What would it mean on the level of concrete behaviour?
Use of the ABC model invites the coachee to reflect on the underlying di-
lemmas around change, which are otherwise often labelled as resistance to
change. In other words, ABC technique is about overcoming the barriers to
change by inviting reframing and innovative solutions. It is usually used in
the elaboration phase of the coaching process and can follow the Salmon
line technique.
Perceiver element grid

This tool was devised to capture interpersonal construing by inviting a con-
sideration of how each part of a group sees other members (Procter, 2008,
2014). The method enhances seeing other people’s perspectives and allows
discussion of commonalities and disagreements. Procter (2014) also intro-
duced a modified version, the goal-perceiver element grid (G-PEG), which is
used to ask group or team members how they would like to be able to see
themselves and each other after a certain period of successful coaching.
Instructions
The coachee is invited to explore interpersonal construing relevant to
coaching goals. In the rows of the table are persons in the role of “perceiv-
ers”, while in the column are persons as perceived “elements”. Diagonally
we obtain individual self-perceptions of each person (Table 2.1).
Table 2.1 PEG form
Person 1 Person 2 Person 3
Person 1 How person 1 How person 1 How person 1

perceives self percieves person 2 perceives person 3
• Has anything surprised you? What are you learning from this experience?
• What changes on the level of interpersonal construing would you like
to happen?
• What would be the first steps towards those changes?
• Facilitating interpersonal construing relevant for coaching goals
• Evaluating coaching outcomes by registering change in interpersonal
construing
Community of self
Underlying the idea of community of self was an interest for exploring our
personal experience in the world in the same sorts of terms which were nor-
mally reserved for social events, such as policy, control and power (Mair,
1977). Instead of viewing any particular person as an individual unit, Mair
invites us to take the “mistaken” view of any person as if he or she were a
“community of selves”. (Mair, 1977:129). In other words, Mair was inviting
us to think of persons through the lens of “government and administration,
diplomacy and negotiation, production and destruction of experience” (143).
Mair’s invitation to a “communal” view of self also implies the multiplicity
of selves. We may be interested in worldviews of different “members”, their
relationships as well as the social context within which our “communities of
selves” emerge.
Instructions
Starting with a coaching goal, the coach invites the coachee to think of self
through a metaphor. The metaphor implies looking at self as composed of
different characters.

• What metaphorical characters come to your mind?
• What is important to different characters?
• In what kind of a relationship are they?
• What characters are dominant?
• What changes would you like to see in the internal dynamics of the
characters?
• How would those changes look like?
The community of self technique is well suited to the context of coachee’s
ambivalences or co-existence of different “voices” on a specific coaching
topic. The technique facilitates understanding those ambivalences and the
polyvocal nature of self in coaching. It is typically used in the elaboration
phase of the coaching process. It may be combined with the PEG technique,
by inviting interpersonal construing of selves (Pavlović, 2011).
Fixed role technique

This technique was inspired by early psychodrama work and intends to
shift the coachee’s focus from talking to action (Kelly, 1955; Neimeyer
et al., 2003). What was new with the fixed role technique was that it actually
moved the enactment into the real-world context. The person in the fixed
role technique is invited to enact a provisional self in the everyday life for a
limited period of time. The basic idea underlying this approach is that this
experience would serve as an experiment with different assumptions about
the self and the world. In other words, the fixed role technique becomes a
sort of an experimental design to enable testing new and fresh hypotheses
and theories. Working with this technique was one of the first forms of brief
therapy, which foreshadowed the development of cognitive-behavioural
therapy and coaching.
Instructions
Starting with a coaching goal, the coach invites the coachee to write a
self-characterization. This involves writing about the self in a specific con-
text from the third person’s point of view. After that the coach and the coa-
chee collaboratively write the enactment sketch. The sketch should not be
the ideal version of the self-characterization, nor the mere opposite of it.
The enactment sketch serves as the provisional self for experimentation
in the real-world context. It can be role-played during the coaching sessions
first as a preparation for the enactment in everyday context.

• Writing the self-characterization. Please write a sketch of yourself in this
specific context (referring to the negotiated coaching goals) as if it were
a character in a play. Please write it in the third person.
• Elaborating the self-characterisation. What was your experience of writ-
ing the self-characterization? What are you learning from this exercise?
• Guidelines for writing the enactment sketch (Neimeyer et al., 2003).
– Partner with the coachee around engaging in a further exercise with
different versions of the self-characterization.
– Avoid portraying an ideal person or the mere opposite to the
self-characterization.
– Entice the coachee into an orthogonal or novel way of thinking
about self, which neither replicates nor contradicts the coachee’s
current perspective.
– The character should not be ideal but should be interesting to the
coachee!
– The enactment sketch should mirror the topics and style of the
self-characterization, but in a way which is novel.
– Make sure to invite the coachee to elaborate not only abstract char-
acteristics but also how these could be performed in a social sphere.
– Partner with the coachee around creating a final version of the fixed
role sketch.
• Elaborating the enactment sketch. What was your experience of writing
the sketch? What are you learning from this exercise? What would you
like to test first from the sketch? How could you do that? If you could
enact this sketch for a couple of days, what would you be learning?
The technique bridges three stages in the coaching process: elaboration, exper-
imentation and evaluation. It is aimed at facilitating the reconstructive type
of change in coaching. Fixed role technique is one of the most comprehensive
experiments co-designed by the coach and the coachee since it expands beyond
the coaching session into a sample of time in the real-world environment.
These qualitative techniques rooted in personal and relational construct
psychology enable support for the coachee throughout the whole coaching
process as they allow mapping and exploring goals, elaborating key dilemmas
underlying change, creating innovative solutions and performing change.
Case study
Mary, a HR manager in a boutique consultancy, defined her coaching
goal as becoming more proactive at work. The coach used the Salmon
line technique to map Mary’s current and desired positioning. Mary
noted that currently she saw herself as being at the point 3 (on a scale
1 to 7), while she wanted to see herself somewhere near 5 or 6.
The coach was asking herself: what hypothesis is Mary testing by
being less proactive than she wanted? How does this hypothesis fit in
a wider context of Mary’s personal theories? In line with Kelly’s credo
that if you do not know what is going on with the persons, “ask them,
they may tell you”, the coach asked Mary a couple of questions.
(Continued)
COACH: It’s interesting that you see yourself as being somewhere

around 3 on this scale and you wanted to move towards 5 or 6.
Can you please tell me what does 3 look like?
MARY: Well, I feel I could be doing so much more at work. I am having
this feeling of just not using my potential.
COACH: And moving towards 5 or 6… how would that look like?
MARY: It would mean being more proactive, more passionate about my
work. I would really love that.
The coach then partnered with Mary to explore current and desired
positioning using the ABC technique.
COACH: Would you perhaps like us to explore the benefits of proactivity?
MARY: Yes, sure.
COACH: What would be the benefits of this proactivity?
MARY: Well, I guess I would be feeling as doing something important
at work. In a way, I would be feeling more useful.
COACH: And what would be the disadvantages of being passive?
MARY: Oh, it’s about being bored and not really living to my own po-
tential as I said.
COACH: Aha, so I am hearing that proactivity has clear benefits for
you, and it seems that being passive is actually about being bored
and not using your potential as you said.
MARY: Yes, exactly.
COACH: Can I ask you a somewhat less obvious question?
MARY: Yes, sure (smiling).
COACH: Are there any disadvantages of being proactive?
MARY: Well, let me think (a pause). Perhaps I could be overinvesting
myself in my work. And not really being sure if it is worth it.
COACH: That’s really interesting. Can you tell me a bit more?
MARY: Well, sometimes I tend to get absorbed by a project and then
realize it is just not worth it. It may not add any value and others
also may not appreciate it. And I end up feeling a bit disappointed
and questioning myself.
COACH: So, you are saying that you have a theory that being proactive
sometimes may feel like being overinvesting?
MARY: Yes.
COACH: Would you like us to explore if there are any benefits of being
passive? This also may sound a bit unusual as a question (smiling).
MARY: Sure (smiling).
COACH: So, is there anything good about being passive?
MARY: Oh, let me think. I have never thought of it that way (a pause).
Well, actually, there is something. I guess I don’t get tired too
much. And I may have plenty of time for my family and personal
interests.
COACH: Now, that is really interesting. May I summarize what I think

I am learning from you?
MARY: Sure!
COACH: It sounds like a kind of a dilemma. How to be proactive and
feel useful and using your potential, while not overinvesting your-
self into something you are not sure it is worth it?
MARY: I have never thought of it that way (looks at the ABC table
collaboratively sketched). Well, this is very true. Do you have any
advice on how to resolve this dilemma?
COACH: Well, I may not have any specific advice, but we may further
explore some options together if you agree.
MARY: Yes, of course.
COACH: Do you have any idea how it would look like for you to feel
useful and use your potential without overinvesting yourself?
MARY: Well, I guess I would be more careful in choosing what is worth
investing. And perhaps I would be taking small steps first, without
overcommitting before it even started.
COACH: How would you call that kind of Mary?
MARY: Well, maybe just realistic Mary (smiles).
COACH: Great! Let me just briefly summarize what I have heard. So,
there is an option of not being neither passive nor proactive, but
more realistic in your approach to work. And this realistic Mary
would actually become more proactive, but she would also pre-
serve what’s working for her already. Does this make any sense?
MARY: Absolutely! This is really new to me. May I see the table (refers
to ABC table) again?
A Passive Proactive
B I am bored at work. I do something important
I do not see my full potential. and feel useful at work.
C I do not get too tired at work I overinvest myself.
and have more energy for the Sometimes I am not even
private life domain. sure if it is worth it.
COACH: Sure.
MARY: This is very powerful.
COACH: Would you like us to explore a bit further how we could launch
this realistic Mary at work?
MARY: Yes, looking forward to it.
Using the ABC technique allowed both the coach and the coachee
to understand implications of change towards being more proactive.
(Continued)
A reframing style question that followed (“Do you have any idea how
it would look like for you to feel useful and use your potential without
overinvesting yourself?”) was an effort towards integrating advan-
tages of being passive and proactive. In the next session, the coach and
Mary could partner around exploring further realistic Mary in her
community of self, or they could explore how to put this provisional
self into action in the real-world environment.
Discussion points
1 How do the principles of the personal and relational construct coaching
resonate with you own coaching practice? What do you find most useful
about this approach?
2 What is your view of the two types of change elaborated in this ap-
proach? What type of change is more often in your own coaching
practice?
3 How could you experiment with the personal and relational construct
approach in your own coaching practice? What would be possible gains
for you as a coach or for your clients?
Suggested reading
Fransella, F. (2016). What is a personal construct. In Winter, D. & Reed, N. (Eds.),
The Wiley handbook of personal construct psychology (1–8). Chichester: John
Wiley & Sons.
Pavlović, J. & Stojnov, D. (2016). Personal construct coaching. In Winter, D. &
Reed, N. (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of personal construct psychology (320–330).
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
References
Burr, V., King, N. & Butt, T. (2014). Personal construct psychology methods for quali-
tative research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 17(4), 341–355.
Dewey, J. (1997). How we think. New York: Dover Publications.
Duignan, K. (2019). Coaching with personal construct psychology. In Palmer,
S. & Whybrow, A. (Eds.), Handbook of coaching psychology (243–255). London:
Routledge.
Dweck, C. (2008). Can personality be changed: The role of beliefs in personality and
change. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 17(6), 391–394.
Fransella, F. (2016). What is a personal construct. In Winter, D. & Reed, N. (Eds.),
The Wiley handbook of personal construct psychology (1–8). Chichester: John
Wiley & Sons.
Gibbons, P. (2015). The science of successful organizational change: How leaders set
strategy, change behavior, and create an agile culture. London: Pearson.
Heslin, P. (2009). “Potential” in the eye of the beholder: The role of managers who
spot rising stars. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2(4), 420–424.
Heslin, P., Vandewalle, D. & Latham, G. (2006). Keen to help? Managers’ implicit
person theories and their subsequent employee coaching. Personnel Psychology,
59(4), 871–902.
Kelly, G. A. (1969). In whom confide: On whom depend for what? In Maher, B. (Ed.)
Clinical psychology and personality: The selected papers of George Kelly (189–206).
New York: Krieger.
Kolb, D., Boyatzis, R. & Mainemelis, C. (2000). Experiential learning theory: Previous
research and new directions. In Sternberg, R. J. & Zhang, L. F. (Eds.), Perspectives
on cognitive, learning, and thinking styles (227–249). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Mair, J. M. (1977). The community of self. In Bannister, D. (Ed.) New perspectives in
Neimeyer, R., Ray, L., Hardison, H., Raina, K., Kelley, R. & Krantz, J. (2003).
Fixed role in a fishbowl: Consultation-based fixed role therapy as a pedagogical
technique. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 16(3), 249–271.
Oades, L. & Patterson, F. (2016). Experience cycle methodology: A qualitative
method to understand the process of revising personal constructs. In Winter, D. &
Pavlović, J. (2010). Koučing kao tačka susreta ličnog i profesionalnog razvoja. U
Polovina, N. i Pavlović, J. (ur.), Teorija i praksa profesionalnog razvoja nastavnika.
Beograd: Institut za pedagoška istraživanja.
ogy, 20(6), 396–411.
Pavlović, J. (2012). Identity construction in continuous professional education dis-
course. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Belgrade, Belgrade.
Pavlović, J. & Stojnov, D. (2011). Personal construct coaching: “New/old” tool for
personal and professional development. In Stojnov, D., Džinović, V., Pavlović,
J. & Frances, M. (Eds.), Personal construct psychology in an accelerating world
(137–147). Belgrade: EPCA Publishing.
Procter, H. (2016). Personal construct psychology, society and culture: A Review. In
Winter, D. & Reed, N. (Eds.), The Wiley Handbook of Personal Construct Psychol-
ogy (139–153). Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Procter, H. & Procter, J. (2008). The use of qualitative grids to examine the develop-
ment of the construct of good and evil in Byron’s play ‘Cain: A mystery’. Journal
of Constructivist Psychology, 21(4), 343–354.
Salmon, P. (2003). A psychology for teachers. In Fransella, F. (Ed.) International
handbook of personal construct psychology (311–318). Chichester: John Wiley &
Sons.
Schön, D. (1982). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New
York: Basic Books.
Stojnov, D. (2003). Psihologija ličnih konstrukata: teorija i terapija. Beograd: Zepter
Book World.
Stojnov, D. & Pavlović, J. (2010). Invitation to personal construct coaching.
International Coaching Psychology Review, 5(2), 129–139.
Tschudi, F. (1977). Loaded and honest questions: A construct theory view of symp-
toms and therapy. In Bannister, D. (Ed.) New perspectives in personal construct
theory (321–350). London: Academic Press.
Tschudi, F., & Winter, D. (2012). The ABC model revisited. In Caputi, P., Viney,
L., Walker, B. & Crittenden, N. (Eds.), Personal construct methodology (89–108).
Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
3 Appreciative coaching
Introduction
Is all coaching deeply appreciative? What would happen if we focused on
strengths of the coachee? What would a turn to appreciating the existing
resources of the coachee bring to the coaching relationship? What are the
benefits of using appreciative language in the coaching process? What are
the steps in the appreciative coaching approach? This chapter introduces
key principles, operating models and techniques of appreciative coaching.
Positive constructivist psychology is introduced as a theoretical background
of the appreciative coaching approach. The 4D model and reflected best self
techniques are elaborated as useful resources that can be put to coaching
practice.
Key principles
Appreciative inquiry emerged during the 1980s as a form of action research
and an organizational development and change methodology (Cooperrider,
1986). The approach was developed in response to the problem-solving ap-
proaches of the time (Bushe, 1995; Orem et al., 2007). Instead of solving
problems and intervening, appreciative inquiry offered discovering what
inspires people, teams and organizations at their best versions (Gordon,
2008). In line with constructivist theory, appreciative inquiry abandoned the
principles of stability, replicability and generalizations in action research in
favour of models of reality as open for continuous reconstructions (Bushe,
1995:2). Meaning and images thus became the main research topics instead
of measurable behaviours (Bushe & Kasam, 2005). Appreciative inquiry
grew into a wide framework for leading positive change in various contexts,
such as strategic planning, team development, leadership development, cul-
ture transformations, organizational learning and coaching (Cooperrider &
Whitney, 2005). Appreciative coaching was introduced as a form of a more
general appreciative inquiry movement (Orem et al., 2007).
A positive constructivist psychology?
Appreciative inquiry is clearly positioned as a form of constructivist psy-
chology. The constructionist principle and the principle of simultaneity
imply the interconnectedness between knowledge, action and reality as un-
derlying principles of appreciative inquiry. Similarly to the personal con-
struct psychology, the principle of anticipation is also one of the building
blocks of this approach. However, while personal construct psychology
tends to improve general human capacity for anticipating events through
hypothesis testing model, appreciative inquiry focuses on redesigning our
anticipations into positive ones.
The positive principle underlying appreciative inquiry was one of its foun-
dational principles, even before positive psychology was officially introduced
by Martin Seligman in his famous inaugural American Psychological Asso-
ciation (APA) speech (Seligman, 1998). Positive psychology was introduced
as an approach that focuses on optimal human functioning (Seligman &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). This new approach in psychology made a shift in
focus from pathology towards optimism, courage, work ethic, future orien-
tation and social responsibility. Overview of the key principles points to ap-
preciative inquiry as a form of constructivist positive psychology. It can be
argued that it builds on the ideas of flourishing, strengths-based approach,
optimism and positive emotions, while adding the relational co-creation in
the centre of its theory (Panchal et al., 2019). The usual critique of positive
psychology as being too individualistic is therefore avoided in appreciative
inquiry. In this approach, individual is seen not as solely responsible for her
own happiness but as one of the change agents in a wider relational network.
Change is about constructing a positive identity. In appreciative coaching,
change is seen as constructing a positive identity. According to Dutton et al.
(2010), there are four perspectives on constructing a positive identity in the
professional context. In terms of content, positive identity may imply a set
of virtues, strengths and positive characteristics. The evaluative perspec-
tive defines positive identity in relation to a person’s self-evaluation. Within
the developmental perspective, positive identity is seen as a movement to-
wards the desired identity. Finally, the structural perspective takes a look
at positive identity as equilibrium between collective and personal identity
(structural equilibrium) or as complementarity between multiple identities
(structural complementarity). All types of positive identity construction are
seen as possible change efforts in appreciative coaching.
Operating models
The basic model of appreciative coaching is known as 4D cycle (Cooper-
rider & Whitney, 2005). This cyclical model starts with the discovery or ap-
preciative perception of the coaching topic. For example, we may explore
situations in which the person performed best or had a peak experience in
Appreciative coaching 43
the specific context. Instead of focusing on deficiencies or problems, appre-
ciative coaching starts from what is already working. Somewhat opposite to
the usual coaching jargon of professional associations, appreciative coach-
ing uses the term theme instead of the term coaching goal. The rationale
for this language choice lies in the neutral framing around themes. For ex-
ample, instead of a goal being improving the current leadership approach,
a more appreciative theme would be framed as a question: “What can I do
even better as a leader?”. Slight shifts in language shift the coachee’s focus
from a problem-solving approach to a positive inquiry approach.
The discovery is followed by the dream phase or articulating the potential
(Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005). In this phase, the coach explores meaningful
images of future related to the defined coaching topic. Elaborating the dream
implies creating positive anticipatory images. This process is often facili-
tated by the use of metaphor, as a tool for semantic reconstruction (Barret &
Cooperrider, 1990; Tay, 2017). Generative metaphors enable reorganizing
meaning structures and creating non-defensive learning. According to Orem
et al. (2007), images of future in the dream phase are supposed to be poetic,
rather than prophetic or normative. Poetic images point to possible and alter-
native futures, reminding us of many choices and interpretations available.
In the design phase, the coachee prepares for making the first steps towards
the vision articulated in the previous phase. Similarly to the idea of experi-
mentation in personal and relational construct psychology, the idea in the de-
sign phase is not to plan the implementation, but rather to try out new ways of
being and reviewing what has worked. This idea of learning through experi-
mentation somewhat differs from the idea of action plans and assignments in,
for example, cognitive behavioural coaching (Palmer & Szymanska, 2019). As
Orem et al. (2007) point out, action plans may reproduce the current ways of
perceiving as they usually imply only the immediate opportunities. The spirit
of experimentation invites for more flexibility and an inquiring stance to-
wards different opportunities that may become available during the process.
While the previous phases of appreciative coaching focused on exploring
personal strengths, creating a vision and the first steps in experimenting
with the vision, the last phase is focused on making the vision and the ac-
tions sustainable. In the destiny phase, reflection is invited about the journey
of the coaching process. Coachee’s talk about the dream in the present tense
(rather than the future tense) may serve as an indicator of a transition to-
wards this final phase of appreciative coaching. Appreciating changes that
happened on this journey has the potential to strengthen the sense of per-
sonal agency. As a reminder of the achievements in the coaching process,
the coach may support the coachee to select a physical representation of
their dream or a memento (Orem et al., 2007). As an example, the coach may
create a personalized cup with an image or text that reminds the coachee
of the achievements. In case of team coaching, the coach may create small
canvas images with a personalized message for each team member as a re-
minder of the coaching experience (Table 3.1).
Table 3.1 4D model of appreciative coaching (Laszlo & Cooperrider 2010; Orem
et al. 2007)
Phase Possible coaching topics and questions
Discovery • Defining the coaching theme

• Describing the positive experience around the theme and
exploring similarities in various positive experiences regarding
the coaching topic
Dream • Elaborating the positive images of future related to the defined
coaching theme. Examples: If you imagined future, what would
you see; If you could communicate to yourself from future, what
question would you ask.
Design • Engaging in positive dialogue to encourage experimentation.
Possible questions: What are the small steps of your dream
that you would like to test first? If you experimented with one
aspect of your vision, what would it be? How risky would these
experiments be? How can you mitigate these risks? How would
you feel if your dream became a reality?
Destiny • Facilitating reflection on the coaching journey and supporting
the sense of personal agency. Possible questions: What was
the most important thing you learnt about yourself? What is left
to be done regarding the initial coaching theme? How will you
continue to put effort in the desired direction?
Techniques
Reflected best self portrait

An intervention designed to support positive identity construction in
appreciative coaching is reflected best self (RBS) portrait (Dutton et al.,
2010; Orem et al., 2007; Roberts et al., 2005). RBS is defined as a changing
self-knowledge structure about who one is at one’s best, which serves as a
guide of who we are and who we can become (Roberts et al., 2005). The
term reflected is used to stress the social and relational aspects of identity
construction. RBS portrait is not an image of ideal or hoped-for possible
self, but rather an appreciation of who the coachee currently is in their
best version. Revisions of the RBS portrait happen in response to jolts or
trigger events that act as change catalysts in self-perception (Orem et al.,
2007). In a typology of jolts, Roberts et al. (2005) point to formal and in-
formal, as well as appreciative and challenging jolts. For example, a formal
appreciative jolt may be a strengths-focused performance conversation
with a manager, while more informal appreciative jolts could involve spon-
taneous compliments by colleagues on the work done. Formal challenging
jolts could involve a stretch assignment or a corrective performance feed-
back. Examples of informal challenging jolts could include spontaneous
personal experience of failure. We may connect the concept of jolts with a
broader idea of invalidation in personal and relational construct psychol-
ogy. Both ideas point out that some experiences may facilitate reconstruc-
tion in the coaching process.
Instructions
Ask the coachee to write a brief sketch of self in the best possible version
related to the coaching theme. The sketch should be based on something the
coachee has already experienced, rather than an idealized wish list. There
are no strict rules regarding the RBS portrait length – it may vary from a
paragraph to a more rounded story. After the RBS is composed, the coach
and coachee start the elaborative dialogue.

• What was your experience of writing the RBS portrait? Did anything
surprise you?
• What enabled you to be in your best self version in these situations?
What were the appreciative or challenging jolts?
• What can we learn from your RBS portrait about the coaching theme
we agreed?
• Exploring the content of coachee’s positive identity: strengths and qual-
ities related to the coaching theme
• Facilitating reconstruction or revision of the current self by creating
inspiration and a positive image of change
The very process of composing RBS portrait engages the coachee in the
phase of discovery, dream and even design to some extent. Although the
theory of the RBS implies that its construction and revision is a continuous
process throughout the life, we can use the RBS portrait as a tool in appre-
ciative coaching to map and support its revision as part of the coaching
process. We can even argue that from the appreciative coaching perspective,
success of the coaching process could be seen as a result of the appreciative
jolts we co-create with the coachee.
A possible application of the RBS portrait includes innovative practices in
formal performance conversations. While performance conversations tend
to be evaluating employees on a number of prespecified dimensions, more
developmental focus could be created by inviting employees to explore their
RBS portraits and build on strengths (Roberts et al., 2005). This sort of per-
formance conversations would actually develop into managerial performance
coaching, expanding far beyond the traditional performance appraisal.
Case study
theme as becoming more proactive at work. The coach invited Mary
to explore her RBS portrait regarding the proactivity. This is what
Mary wrote:
When I am at my best self, I feel enthusiastic about what I do.
Things seem to motivate me, I feel immersed in my work and it
gives my work a sense of meaning. I think it also translates into the
private sphere of my life. It seems I have more energy and display
more tolerance and positivity with my family. Trying to figure out
when I felt like that in past, what comes to my mind are situations
in which I was given a new and challenging task, that inspired me
enough, without over-stretching me. Working with some colleagues
who I perceive as inspiring and perhaps role models for proactivity
also created a similar experience for me. It seems it has been quite
a while since I felt like this. Routine work, being surrounded by
people who complain or create negativity around them pushes me
back from being proactive.
The coach and Mary then elaborated the RBS portrait in the coaching
session.
COACH: This is a very illustrative picture of how it feels when you are in
your best self version regarding proactivity. Thank you for shar-
ing this with me. What was your experience of writing the RBS
portrait?
MARY: Well, it felt a bit unusual to focus on what’s good. I tend to
focus on what I dislike about myself. I even struggled in the be-
ginning to start writing.
COACH: That is interesting. Can you tell me if something surprised you
in the process of creating the RBS?
MARY: After the initial hesitation, it actually felt easy to connect with
some previous experiences when I felt very proactive and alive at
work.
COACH: Reading through your RBS, it seems we can identify a couple
of change catalysts or jolts as we call them. For example, it seems
that novelty of tasks and inspiring surrounding help, while rou-
tine tasks and negative people are a challenge to preserve your
proactivity. Does this make any sense?
MARY: Yes, definitely! I actually know who are the people I am enjoy-
ing with and who really lift me, too. Unfortunately, some of them
are not working with me any longer.
COACH: What are we learning from this RBS portrait?

MARY: I guess part of my proactivity is finding inspiration, either in
tasks or in people, which is really helpful because it is something
doable. When I think back on how passive I have become, I tend
to think about myself as just stuck as if it were how I am now.
This helped me focus on what I can do to create inspiration for
myself.
COACH: That sounds great! Perhaps we can explore in greater de-
tail how to design some actions as the first steps in getting more
proactive.
Using RBS portrait enabled a shift in focus from a feeling of stuck-

ness in passivity, towards positive experiences and sources of inspi-
ration. Rather than focusing on what is not working, or what are the
gaps in the current performance, the appreciative coaching facili-
tated an experience of personal agency and positive mindset around
change. In the next session, coach and Mary could partner around
exploring some of the first steps that would inspire Mary to move
forward.
Discussion points
1 How do the principles of the appreciative coaching resonate with
your own coaching practice? What do you find most useful about this
approach?
2 What are your current strengths in being an appreciative coach?
3 If you constructed an RBS portrait of yourself as a coach, what would
it include?
4 What do you see as similarities and differences between personal and
relational construct coaching and appreciative coaching?
Suggested reading
Cooperrider, D. & Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in
change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Gordon, S. (2007). Appreciative inquiry coaching. International Coaching Psychol-
ogy Review, 3(1), 19–31.
Orem, S., Blinkert, J. & Clancy, A. L. (2007). Appreciative coaching: A positive pro-
cess for change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Roberts, L., Dutton, J., Spreitzer, G., Heaphy, E. & Quinn, R. (2005). Composing
the reflected best-self portrait: Building pathways for becoming extraordinary in
work organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30, 712–736.
References
Barret, F. & Cooperrider, D. (1990). Generative metaphor intervention: A new ap-
proach for working with systems divided by conflict and caught in defensive per-
ception. The Journal of Applied Behavior Science, 26(2), 219–239.
Bushe, G. (1995). Advances in appreciative inquiry as an organizational develop-
ment intervention. Organization Development Journal, 13(3), 14–22.
Bushe, G. & Kasam, A. (2005). When is appreciative inquiry transformational? A
meta-case analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Science, 41(2), 161–181.
Cooperrider, D. (1986). Appreciative inquiry: Toward a methodology for understand-
ing and enhancing organizational innovation. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Cooperrider, D. & Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in
change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Dutton, J., Roberts, L. & Bednar, J. (2010). Pathways for positive identity construc-
tion at work: Four types of positive identity and the building of social resources.
Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 265–293.
Gordon, S. (2008). Appreciative inquiry coaching. International Coaching Psychol-
ogy Review, 3(1), 19–31.
Laszlo, C. & Cooperrider, D. (2010). Creating sustainable value: A strength-based
whole system approach. In Thatchenkery, T., Cooperrider, D. & Avital. M. (Eds.),
Advances in appreciative inquiry (17–36). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.
Orem, S., Blinkert, J. & Clancy, A. L. (2007). Appreciative coaching: A positive pro-
cess for change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Palmer, S. & Szymanska, K. (2019). Cognitive behavioural coaching: An integrative
approach. In Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (Eds.), Handbook of coaching psychology
(108–128). London: Routledge.
Panchal, S., Palmer, S. & Green, S. (2019). From positive psychology to the devel-
opment of positive coaching. In Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (Eds.), Handbook of
coaching psychology (51–67). London: Routledge.
Roberts, L., Dutton, J., Spreitzer, G., Heaphy, E. & Quinn, R. (2005). Composing
the reflected best-self portrait: Building pathways for becoming extraordinary in
work organizations. Academy of Management Review, 30, 712–736.
Seligman, M. (1998). President’s Address from The APA 1998 Annual Report, ap-
pearing in the August, 1999 American Psychologist. Retrieved on November 5th
2011 from http://www.ppc.sas.upenn.edu/aparep98.htm
Seligman, M. & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction.
American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14.
Tay, D. (2017). The nuances of metaphor theory for constructivist psychotherapy.
Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 30(2), 165–181.
4 Solution-focused coaching
Introduction
Imagine you have a problem saturated coaching conversation with the
person or a team. You decide to shift the focus of the coaching conversation
to the solution talk. How to use the solution-focused approach to coach-
ing in reflective ways? Why would a coach do that anyway? What are the
benefits of a solution-focused approach to coaching? What are the tools to
support the solution-focused coaching practice? How do we ask the miracle
questions? In this chapter the key principles, operating models and illustra-
tive techniques of the solution-focused coaching are explored. Similarities
and differences to other constructivist approaches to coaching are drawn.
Key principles
Both appreciative coaching and solution-focused coaching can be labelled as
constructivist positive psychology approaches to coaching. While appreciative
inquiry emerged from team and large-scale interventions, solution-focused
approaches came from the psychotherapeutic setting (McKergow & Clarke,
2005). The solution-focused psychotherapy emerged in the early 1980s as a form
of future-oriented brief psychotherapy (de Shazer et al., 2007). As opposed to
the personal and relational construct theory (Kelly, 1955), which is one of the
more theoretically developed approaches in psychology, the solution-focused
approach tends to be light on theory (O’Connell & Palmer, 2019).
As Cavanagh and Grant (2010:54) put it, “SF is situated squarely in a
constructivist epistemology - maintaining that events and their meanings
are actively constructed in dialogue rather than simply given to us in expe-
rience”. According to the solution-focused approach, persons have many
resources and are already carrying out constructive and helpful actions be-
fore meeting with the coach (O’Connell & Palmer, 2019). Because people are
resourceful, they are treated as experts in their own functioning and their
“insider knowledge” is privileged over the coach’s professional expertise
(O’Connell & Palmer, 2019). This view closely resonates with Kelly’s (1955)
view of client as an expert and his metaphor of the “person as scientist”. Re-
sourcefulness as a principle invites a respectful, egalitarian and collabora-
tive relationship between the coach and the coachee (de Shazer et al., 2007).
“When the solution is the problem”
The view of the problem–solution relation in solution-focused approach
comes from radical constructivism. According to Watzlawick et al. (1974),
knowing why as a precondition for change is a myth, so the search for causes
can lead to more of the same. When we approach persons with the lens of
linear causality and try to find solutions to the problem causes, what hap-
pens is that the solutions become the problems. In other words, our attempt
to oversimplify the nature of causality entraps us in our ability to see the
different kinds of solutions. As an example, we may take a client with inter-
personal conflicts. If we engage in linear causality thinking, we may ask why
the problems occurred. In other words, what are the root causes of the issue?
But what may happen is that the search for causes may end up in perpetu-
ating the status quo in the client. Our solution became (another) problem.
And what is the solution?

One of the central principles of solution-focused approaches to coaching
is that solutions are not necessarily directly related to problems. According
to Dierolf (2014), the solution-focused coach tries to convert problems into
goals. The rationale behind this intentional abandonment of relying on causal
thinking is that it is often not possible to identify the root cause of problems
in complex environments. Moreover, problem analysis may lead to a vicious
cycle of defending one’s position and engaging in blame games without in-
viting individual agency for creating change (Dierolf, 2014). Rather than ra-
tional problem analysis, use of imagination is encouraged to build visions
of a preferred future and to bypass the problem talk (O’Connell & Palmer,
2019). Although “ignoring” root causes in human interaction may seem su-
perficial, what is invited is actually a second-order change (Watzlawick et al.,
1974). Inviting the search for the solutions without knowing the causes brings
the second-order change thinking which changes the system itself.
The language game of solutions

Similarly to appreciative inquiry, solution-focused coaching emphasizes
strengths. Building on Wittgenstein’s view of language games, solution-
focused coaching tends to transform the problem language into solution
language (Dierolf, 2014; de Shazer et al., 2007). The language of solutions
invites a game which is future focused, more positive, hopeful and agentic.
For example, we may be coaching a person who seems stuck in the problem
talk. Introducing the language of solutions by asking for previous positive
experiences or desired future may shift the coachee’s perspective and open
avenues for change. On the other hand, unreflective use of the language of
solutions may also become a solution that creates the problem.
Solution-focused coaching 51
Incremental or second-order change?
Solution-focused approaches facilitate incremental change and create a pos-
itive commitment to change (Dierolf, 2014; de Shazer et al., 2007). Solution-
focused coaches encourage persons to consider small steps that move them
towards goals. This minimalist view of change is consistent with contrast
reconstruction and controlled elaboration techniques used in the personal
and relational constructivist approach (Kelly, 1955). However, we may also
argue that these incremental changes are made possible and meaningful
only after a more disruptive second-order change took place. The very in-
tervention of focusing on solution (regardless of problem causes) is a type of
a paradoxical second-order change.
Operating models
The solution-focused team coaching process is reflected in a four-step model
referred to as the solution-focused gallery (Dierolf, 2014; McKergow, 2016).
The model uses art gallery metaphor for a coaching process. The “gallery”
has four different rooms to explore, including the following:
1 Ticket office. Starts with the negotiation of a coaching goals which

clarifies questions about what needs to be different after the coaching
process.
2 Preferred future gallery. The next phases in the process are about explor-
ing the desired future related to the coaching goal.
3 Successful past gallery. Explores instances of the past or present that
connect to the preferred future.
4 Gift shop. Determines small steps that bring the coachee closer to the
goals of the coaching process.
Techniques
Some of the illustrative techniques in a solution-focused approach to coach-
ing include scaling, miracle questions and exceptions.
Scaling
Scaling as a tool refers to questions about helping the team identify relevant
differences, which can point to options for improving a situation (Dierolf,
2014; O’Connell & Palmer, 2019). It asks the coachee to rate the current and
desired positioning related to the coaching goal. Before asking the next pos-
sible action steps, the coachee is invited to explore current resources and
what is already working well. The technique shares the basic logic and for-
mat with the Salmon line technique.
Instructions
After negotiating the coaching goals, the coach may ask the coachee to
assess the current situation on a scale. The scale usually starts from 1 (de-
fined as the problem description) to 10 (defined as the goal being achieved).
In the next step, the coach asks for the next possible step in the direction
of 10.

• What is the next step in the direction of 10?
• How would you notice this step?
• What will tell you that you are already there?
• Who else would notice it?
• What would they be noticing?
• Developing and describing the change trajectory
• Facilitating incremental changes
It is worth noting some of the differences between the Salmon line and
scaling techniques. The Salmon line technique tends to map a particular
change construct, serving the verbalizing function for the coachee, while the
scaling technique focuses more on the meaning making around the current
positioning.
Miracle questions
This is a flagship tool in the solution-focused approach (de Shazer, 1988).
The logic of the intervention is to bypass problem talk by encouraging the
coachee to use his or her imagination and describe what his or her function-
ing would look like if the problem did not define him or her. The miracle
question often includes asking about an outside perspective to identify ob-
servable differences (e.g. “What would your manager notice that indicates
you have undergone this miracle?”). Asking for the other’s perspective re-
sembles the principles of the systemic approach, but its logic here is only to
point to observable differences (Dierolf, 2014).
Instructions
The coach may announce the miracle question as somewhat unusual (e.g.
Is it ok if I ask you a strange question?). The original wording of the inter-
vention introduces that a miracle happens and the problem is solved. The
coachee is then invited to elaborate on the difference that would make.
• How would you know the miracle happened?
• What would it be different?
• How would others know?
• Exploring the preferred future
• Facilitating change in the coachee’s way of thinking about problems
and solutions
The miracle questions are often combined with the scaling technique into
the miracle scale (de Shazer et al., 2007). In this scenario, the scaling takes
place after the miracle question, with an instruction to describe the current
positioning on a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 denotes the initial coaching session
and 10 denotes the day after the miracle. The usual topic about the first
small steps is also explored.
Exceptions
Exceptions refer to episodes in which the problem could occur but did not or
episodes when a coachee constructively used strategies that effectively helped
address a problem (de Shazer et al., 2007; O’Connell & Palmer, 2019). Explor-
ing exceptions allows the coachee to identify and expand upon strategies that
have been previously successful, but not necessarily verbalized or identified.
Instructions
The coach asks the client if there are any examples of situations when the
current coaching topic was positively dealt with.

• Are there any past situations which are positive examples of your rela-
tion to this topic?
• What did you do to make that happen?
• What did the exception enable you to do differently?
• Exploring the successful past
• Facilitating small changes by acknowledging previous positive experi-
ences or achievements or gentle nudging to do more of what is working
(de Shazer et al., 2007).
Case study
goal as becoming more proactive at work. The coach invited Mary to
go through the solution-focused gallery process.
COACH: Would you like us now to explore perhaps the instances when
you felt proactive previously at your work?
MARY: Yes, sure.
COACH: What were some of these situations?
MARY: Well, the first thing that comes to my mind was when I worked
with a colleague and an old friend, who was very creative and
enthusiastic about her work. It felt somehow contagious to feel
inspired. And always when there was something new and creative
to be started.
COACH: Oh, it seems there are a couple of exceptions from feeling pas-
sive at work. Can you please tell me if there was something that
you were doing to make it happen?
MARY: Well, it was basically something that came from the outside. It
didn’t have much to do with my actions I think.
COACH: What did these exceptions allow you to do differently?
MARY: They made me feel energetic, inspired, somewhat playful and
creative Mary. I liked that very much.
COACH: I will now ask you something that may sound a bit unusual,
do you mind?
MARY: Of course not!
COACH: Imagine one morning you woke up and that playful and crea-
tive Mary was there. What would you be noticing?
MARY: (laughs) Let me just think a little bit (pause). Well, I would be
feeling somehow light and not too much concerned with all the
details and what others think. I would be having this passion for
what I do and I would be trying to preserve it no matter what,
even in seemingly impossible situations. I think I would be much
more flexible in combining my private and professional life. With
some sense of easiness and playfulness.
COACH: Oh, that sounds great! Can you please tell me what would oth-
ers notice?
MARY: I think my husband would be relieved because I would finally
stop complaining about how bored I am at work. And probably
the kids would also enjoy the energy I bring at home. At work…
(pause) others would probably see me as less naggy and strict. I
guess they would think I am more easy to work with.
COACH: Great! Could we do some scaling at this point?
MARY: Yes.
COACH: If we used a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is this day after the mira-
cle and 1 is perhaps the situations when you feel passive and inert,
where would you be now?
MARY: Let me think… (pause). Probably somewhere near 5.
COACH: Oh, great! It seems you have done so much already. What
makes it a 5 for you?
MARY: Well, I am aware of the problem and perhaps even over-analyse
the situation. I also actively engage in making a change. Some-
times I even feel proactive with no particular reason I think.
COACH: And what would make you get somewhere near 6 on this scale?
MARY: (pause) I guess I would be more patient. Giving myself more
time to build that creative Mary. Probably I would not be forcing
her so much like I am doing now.
COACH: That sounds very interesting. Can you please elaborate a bit
more.
MARY: Well, I think I would be doing some small things throughout
the day that inspire me. For the start…
COACH: Do you perhaps have an idea of those kinds of small things?
MARY: Really small things like putting my favourite music on while
I am working. Or taking initiative even when it is not something
super exciting at work. But having this attitude: “Let’s see what
can be done here to add some fun and still do the job”.
COACH: That is so much interesting! Do you think you could be play-
ing with those small things until our next session?
MARY: I can try.
COACH: A try sounds great! Let’s see where it takes us next.
Using the Miracle question enabled a shift in focus from the prob-
lem saturated talk to more solution-oriented language. Scaling after
the miracle question further facilitated action and act like nudging
towards small signs of everyday creativity and proactivity. Original
miracle scaling was slightly modified to define the start of the scale
not in terms of the first coaching session, but rather in terms of the
problem description. What was achieved was a more positive outlook
for the coachee and creating personal agency towards the desired po-
sitioning. In the next session, Mary and the coach could be exploring
how those ideas were put into action.
Discussion points
1 On a scale of 1 to 10, how close are you as a coach to successfully in-
tegrating solution-focused principles in your own coaching practice?
What would be the next small step?
2 Some authors (McKergow & Clarke, 2005) see appreciative and solution-
focused coaching as basically the same approach. What do you see as
similarities and differences?
3 What would be your view of the type of change created in solution-
focused coaching: incremental or disruptive change?
4 Do you have any example in your life or coaching practice of the princi-
ple that “the solutions is the problem” (Watzlawick et al., 1974)?
Recommended reading
Cavanagh, M. & Grant, A. (2010). The solution-focused approach to coaching.
In Cox, E., Bachkirova, T. & Clutterbuck, D. (Eds.), The complete handbook of
coaching (54–67). London: Sage.
Dierolf, K. (2014). Solution-focused team coaching. SolutionsAcademy Verlag.
McKergow, M. (2016). SFBT 2.0: The next generation of solution focused brief ther-
apy has already arrived. Journal of Solution Focused Brief Therapy, 2(2), 1–17.
O’Connell, B. & Palmer, S. (2019). Solution-focused coaching. In Palmer, S. &
Whybrow, A. (Eds.), Handbook of coaching psychology (270–281). London:
Routledge.
References
Cavanagh, M. & Grant, A. (2010). The solution-focused approach to coaching. In
Cox, E., Bachkirova, T. & Clutterbuck, D. (Eds.), The Complete Handbook of
Coaching (54–67). London: Sage.
Dierolf, K. (2014). Solution-focused Team Coaching. Bad Homburg: SolutionsAcad-
emy Verlag.
McKergow, M. (2016). SFBT 2.0: The next generation of solution focused brief ther-
apy has already arrived. Journal of Solution Focused Brief Therapy, 2(2), 1–17.
McKergow, M. & Clarke, J. (2005). Positive approaches to change: Applications of
solutions focus and appreciative inquiry at work. Cheltenham: SolutionBooks.
O’Connell, B. & Palmer, S. (2019). Solution-focused coaching. In Palmer, S. &
Whybrow, A. (Eds.), Handbook of coaching psychology (270–281). London:
Routledge.
de Shazer, S. (1988). Clues: Investigating solutions in brief therapy. New York: Norton.
de Shazer, S., Dolan, Y. & Korman, H. (2007). More than miracles: The state of the
art of solution-focused brief therapy. New York: Haworth Press.
Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of problem for-
mation and problem resolution. New York: Norton.
5 Narrative coaching
Introduction
What is a narrative and how is it relevant for coaching? How do we expand
on the narrative view of self to a narrative coaching approach? How do
storytellers become the stories they tell in a coaching conversation? In this
chapter, key principles of the narrative coaching approach are introduced.
The concept of unique outcomes and their importance for the emerging self
narrative are elaborated. Narrative view of change is explored through the
lens of innovative moments in the coaching process. Building on a typology
of innovative moments, a model of the change process in narrative coaching
is explored. Key narrative coaching techniques are introduced: externaliza-
tion, witnessing and letter writing.
Key principles
We may argue that narrative coaching emerged from two broad sources:
(1) narrative psychology as a general perspective in psychology of personality,
education and qualitative psychological research (Bamberg, 1997; Bruner,
1990; Denzin & Lincoln, 2000; Gergen & Gergen, 1986); and (2) narrative
approaches to psychotherapy White & Epston (1990). Narrative psychol-
ogy was announced in Sarbin’s (1986) call for narrative as a new root met-
aphor in psychology and an organizing principle of human action. In the
subsequent decades, it had a profound effect on psychological theory and
practice, becoming perhaps the most dominant approach within the con-
structivist approaches. Narrative psychology had a particularly strong in-
fluence on research methodology in the social sciences as it provided new
ways of thinking about research topics (Pavlović et al., 2006). As a result,
narrative analysis and discourse analysis emerged as new research tools for
various fields of inquiry.
Narrative psychotherapy (White & Epston, 1990) emerged as an approach
of re-storying human experience. Strongly grounded in Foucaldian ideas
about knowledge and power, narrative therapy shifted the focus towards
the way subjectivity is produced and negotiated. It was thus one of the first
approaches to focus on the ideas of power and dominance in the psychother-
apeutic conversation (Pavlović, 2011). However, it can be argued that within
personal construct psychology the idea of community of self developed in
the late 1970s actually was an invitation to engage with issues of “government
and administration, diplomacy and negotiation, production and destruction
of experience” (Mair, 1977:143). In Mair’s reading of personal construct psy-
chology, it already was a discipline of discourse and a storytelling approach.
Adaptation of the principles of narrative psychology and narrative psy-
chotherapy was introduced as narrative coaching (Drake, 2017; Law, 2019;
Stelter, 2013). As Stelter (2013) points out, narrative coaching could be
somewhat termed as third-generation coaching. What the third-generation
coaching has in common is a shift from coaching in a problem and goal
perspective, which is perhaps typically exemplified in various versions of the
Goals-Reality-Options-Will (GROW) model (Whitmore, 1996). According
to Stelter (2013), solution- and future-oriented approaches would belong to
the second-generation coaching. Narrative coaching as an example of the
third-generation coaching is a further development of second-generation
coaching towards co-creation and role of the coach and coachee as philo-
shophers with a meta-perspective on the coaching goal (Stelter, 2013). We
may argue that constructivist coaching would include both second- and
third-generation coaching in this typology. Moreover, differences between
the second- and third-generation coaching may not be so clear and strict
as many second-generation coaching approaches also rely on the ideas of
coaching as a generative dialogue and coachee as an expert in their own
experience (Dierolf, 2014; Hawkins, 2014; de Shazer et al., 2007).
What is a narrative?
Narrative is usually defined as a story with a sequence of events with a plot
and an internal logic which are meaningful for the storyteller (Bruner, 1990;
Polkinghorne, 1995; Sarbin, 1986). It can be compared to the term construct
in personal and relational construct coaching. Broadly speaking, both the
terms point to the meaning structures by which we co-create our experience
and reality. The term construct implies bipolar and hierarchically organized
units of meaning whose pragmatic value is determined in behavioural ex-
periments we undertake. The term narrative is also based on the metaphor
of construction as a socially available resource for making sense of experi-
ence, while some narratives may be more dominant than others and repro-
duce power relations (Pavlović, 2011). Moreover, the term narrative would
imply not testing hypotheses to determine its value but exploring ways of
interactive and reflexive positioning, the worldviews produced by various
narratives as well as the types of relationships provided. In other words,
instead of monitoring our predictive efficacy, from the narrative standpoint,
we would be invited to improve understanding of our narrative positioning
and explore ways to negotiate new positioning.
Narrative coaching 59
What is unique about unique outcomes?
One of the central concepts that were translated from narrative therapy to
narrative coaching is the concept of the unique outcomes (Gonçalves et al.,
2008; Stelter, 2013; White & Epston, 1990). The term originally comes from
Goffman’s (1961) observations that in any dominant story there are some out-
comes which are unique to the person, but often neglected in favour of more
common elements of the story. Unique outcomes are thus defined as aspects
of lived experience that fall outside the dominant narrative (White & Epston,
1990). According to the temporal dimension, unique outcomes may be histor-
ical, current or future ones. Historical outcomes can be identified through a
historical review, by recalling experience that contradicts the dominant story.
Unique outcomes that occur between the coaching sessions may also be treated
as historical outcomes, while current unique outcomes present themselves in
the course of the coaching session. Finally, future unique outcomes can be
identified in a review of coachee’s intentions or plans (White & Epston, 1990).
It is worth noting that the idea of unique outcomes was a precedent to a
similar concept of exceptions in the solution-focused approach. Moreover,
similarities may also be noted between the concepts of invalidation in per-
sonal and relational construct psychology and the notion of jolts in appre-
ciative inquiry. All four terms point out to specific triggers of change in the
coaching process. The ideas of unique outcomes and exceptions focus on the
existing resources of the person that act as change catalysts, while the con-
cepts of invalidation and jolts imply that change is triggered in interaction
with the environment.
As Gonçalves et al. (2008) point out, the term was criticized as the idea of
“unique” suggests that it happens only once. Moreover, the term outcome
may suggest an output, instead of process of change. In an attempt to over-
come this critique of the choice of terms, another language choice was made
more recently: innovative moments (IMs) (Gonçalves et al., 2008).
Typology of IMs
The idea of unique outcomes or IMs embodies the notion of change in nar-
rative coaching. Gonçalves et al. (2008) developed a typology of IMs, which
was empirically derived from the studies of the change process. This ty-
pology allows paying close attention to the emergence of novelties in the
coachee’s narrative:
• Action IMs. Involve specific actions against the problematic story. For
example, they may refer to actions a person undertook to strike a better
balance between personal and professional life.
• Reflection IMs. All the moments in which the coachee thinks differ-
ently than could be expected from the problem narrative, or when
the coachee understands something new that contradicts the problem
narrative. To continue with the previous example, it may refer to the
coachee’s reflection that there is more agency over some aspects of work
and life than the usual problem story would imply.
• Protest IMs. Include actions or thoughts reflecting a protest against a
problematic narrative or its effects, allowing the person to separate the
problem from himself or herself. As an example, the coachee may start
expressing a “protest” against a view of self in which there is no possi-
bility for any personal time (e.g. exercise, relaxing).
• Reconceptualization IMs. Involve two components: (1) the contrast be-
tween the past self (problematic narrative) and the present self, and
(2) the description of the process that allowed the self’s transforma-
tion from the past to the present. This implies a meta-level, from which
the coachee can see the difference between the old plot and the antic-
ipated new one. For example, the coachee may start talking about re-
discovering the old version of self which was neglected in the last couple
of years. The process of coming to this transformation included elabo-
rating the desired view of self, planning for the small steps and making
a commitment in the coaching session.
• Performing change IMs. This category of IMs reveals new experiences,
projects or activities at personal, professional and relational levels, which
were impossible before, given the constraints of the dominant narrative.
As an example, the coachee may introduce a routine of 20 minutes a day
exercising or weekly relaxation activities, which were not possible at the
start of the coaching process.
Operating models
An operating model of narrative coaching can be created based on the pro-
gression of different types of IMs in the change process (Gonçalves et al.,
2008; Santos et al., 2011). The model was empirically developed (Matos et al.,
2009) in comparison with good and poor outcomes of the change process.
What differentiated good outcomes of the change process was the overall
duration of IMs, but also the presence of two specific types of IMs: recon-
ceptualizing and performing change (Box 5.1). In cases of absence of the
reconceptualization, what occurred was oscillation between the former nar-
rative and the counter-narrative. This oscillatory process may lead to an un-
resolvable dilemma and the coachee being stuck between the two narratives.
Box 5.1 Model of change process in the narrative coaching (adapted from
Gonçalves et al., 2008; Santos et al., 2011)
Reconceptualization IM
Action IM Emergent
Former self New action IM Performing
Reflection IM self
narrative New reflection IM change IM
Protest IM narrative
New protest IM
Reconceptualizing IMs allowed integrating the former self narrative and
the emergent self narrative through a virtuous cycle of innovation (Santos
et al., 2011). Moreover, it is the reconceptualization of IMs that coachees
actually position themselves as agents of change.
If we compare the model of narrative coaching with the ideas of change in
personal and relational construct coaching, we may see similarities between
the notions of reconstruction and reconceptualization. Both notions imply
novelty in meaning structures, which goes beyond mere opposite poles of the
same construct or just a counter-narrative. Although sometimes more super-
fluous changes may suffice in coaching, it seems that more sustainable changes
at the level of self and identity require an act of creativity and innovation.
Techniques
Externalization
As Law (2019) points out, any narrative technique can be seen as some form
of externalizing conversation. Externalization refers to a technique in which
the problem narrative is objectified, so the problem becomes a separate entity,
external to the person (White & Epston, 1990). This technique enables sepa-
ration of the coachee from the dominant narrative and identification of pre-
viously neglected, but vital aspects of experiences: unique outcomes or IMs.
By creating alternative stories, re-authoring occurs in the coaching process.
Instruction
The externalization technique usually involves several steps:
• The coach asks the client to tell a story about a specific challenge.
• While listening to the story, the coach attempts to identify internalized
problems.
• The coach then encourages the coachee to externalize the problem by
naming it and talking to it in the third person.
• A set of questions is then introduced regarding the influence of (a) the
problem in the life of the coachee and (b) the coachee in the “life” of the
problem. For example, how does a problem influence you and the coach-
ing goals? How did you manage to be effective against the problem so far?
• Re-authoring or identification of unique outcomes and existing re-
sources. For example, what were the specific exceptions or unique
events that are parts of your experience? What personal and relation-
ship attributes were you relying on? What does your success in resisting
the problem say about you as a person?
• Identification of further actions in the “life” of the problem. For exam-
ple, did this success give you any ideas about further steps you might
take against the problem?
• Deconstructing the problematic self-narrative
• Reconstructing the emergent narrative
• Creating a sense of personal agency in the coachee
Witnessing
New self-narratives that emerge in the coaching process can be consolidated
by means of inviting external audience to share their reflections on this pro-
cess. This technique is usually referred to as witnessing or recruiting an au-
dience (Stelter, 2013; White & Epston, 1990). The audience may contribute
to the writing of new meanings or engage in revisions and extensions of
the new story. The technique may be particularly useful in group or team
coaching, where the audience is readily available. Through rounds of reflec-
tions on the individual story, the witnessing participants may witness what
was said and how that impacted the members of the audience group.
Instructions for group coaching

After the coachee has shared a problematic, counter-narrative or emergent
narrative, the coach invites witnessing participants to share their apprecia-
tive feedback and reflections.

• Let’s make a round of feedback.
• What are your reflections as witnesses to this story?
• What expressions, phrases or metaphors reflect your experience as a
witness?
• Deconstructing the problematic self-narrative
• Reconstructing the emergent narrative
• Consolidating the emergent narrative
Letter writing
Letters naturally have a narrative form and are often used as a tool in nar-
rative change processes (Stelter, 2013; White & Epston, 1990). In narrative
coaching, letters may facilitate co-construction of meaning. Using letters
in narrative coaching may also serve the purpose of sharing coache’s reflec-
tions in a transparent and dialogical way, rather opposite to the coaching
notes that often serve as a professional monologue. With the use of digital
tools, the letter writing process becomes even more feasible and may trans-
form the usual coaching notes into a collaborative notes or mini-letter for-
mat between the coaching sessions. Format of the letter writing as a tool in
narrative coaching may vary and is limited only by the coach’s creativity
and the potential of the technique to add value to the coachee. Some letters
may be in the form of letters to the self created by the coachee, other may
be letters written by the coach to share the reflections between the coaching
sessions and some may have a form of certificate letters that celebrate what
has been accomplished in the coaching process (White & Epston, 1990).
Instructions
The coach asks the client if he or she would like to engage in a process of
writing a letter from the future self in the context of a particular coaching
goal. After the letter has been written, questions for elaboration may follow.

• What key message would your future self send you?
• Did anything surprise you? What are you learning from your future self?
• How could that learning be put into practice? What are the first steps?
Possible application
• Creating the emergent narrative
Different techniques support the general goals of the narrative coaching

process: (1) deconstruction of the problem-saturated self-narrative (ex-
ternalization), (2) reconstruction of the emergent narrative (expansion of
unique outcomes, witnessing, letters to the self) and (3) consolidation of
the emergent narrative (witnessing, celebration letters). In the course of this
process, the coachee starts the project of re-authoring his or her story.
Case study
goal as becoming more proactive at work. The coach invited Mary tell
a story that exemplified her experience of being passive at work. After
listening to Mary’s story, the coach asked Mary a couple of external-
izing questions.
COACH: What I heard from your story is that you find it somewhat
frustrating to have this feeling of being passive. You mentioned
(Continued )
lacking energy and motivation, not having a clear purpose and an

experience of not using your full potential.
MARY: Exactly.
COACH: Can we explore a bit further what this passiveness means to
you and how you can overcome that experience?
MARY: Yes, sure.
COACH: What would this passiveness tell you if it could talk to you?
MARY: Oh, I have never thought of it that way. Let me think for a bit
(pause).Well, perhaps it would tell me that I need to take care of
my energy.
COACH: Oh, that is interesting. Your problem, being passive, is actu-
ally taking care of you (smiles). Am I taking this right?
MARY: (Laughs) It seems so. But I need to stand up against that voice
and say that I can take care of myself. And that I really need more
proactivity at work to feel meaningful.
COACH: Have you ever been able to stand up like that so far?
MARY: Well, there was once this meeting and not everything was go-
ing in the direction that made sense to me. I felt it was best to
withdraw into this passiveness, to keep my energy for the impor-
tant battles. But somehow I just didn’t. I surprised myself with
this amount of energy invested in changing the direction of some
decisions.
COACH: That sounds very important. How did you manage to do that?
MARY: I don’t know, I just knew it would be even worse if I did nothing.
COACH: So, does this mean that when being passive actually brings
more passivity, you manage to be proactive?
MARY: (laughs) It seems so.
COACH: What would you now say back to the passivity?
MARY: Well, perhaps that I really need to be more proactive and that it
sometimes actually is a way of taking care of myself.
COACH: Wow, that sounds exciting. What are some new situations in
which you would choose proactivity as a way of taking care?
In the next session, the coach and Mary continued the dialogue on
expanding the unique outcomes and co-creating the emergent self-
narrative of proactivity as taking care of self.
Discussion points
1 Externalizing conversations engage in mapping the problem-saturated
stories in the beginning. How would this relate to the solutions lan-
guage in solution-focused coaching? How these seemingly contradict-
ing coaching practices resonate with your own experience as a coach?
2 Can you give a couple of examples of different types of IMs from your
own coaching practice?
3 What is the view of change in narrative coaching? Can you draw some
similarities and differences with the view of change in the previous
chapters?
4 Have you spontaneously used some of the principles of narrative coach-
ing so far?
Recommended reading
Gonçalves, M., Matos, M. & Santos, A. (2008). Narrative therapy and the nature
of “innovative moments” in the construction of change. Journal of Constructivist
Psychology, 22(1), 1–23.
Law, H. (2019). Narrative coaching for all. In Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (Eds.),
Handbook of coaching psychology (256–270). London: Routledge.
Mair, J. M. (1977). The community of self. In D. Bannister (Ed.) New perspectives in
Stelter, R. (2013). A guide to third generation coaching. London: Springer.
References
Bamberg, M. (1997). Positioning between structure and performance. Journal of
Narrative and Life History, 7, 335–342.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. London: Harvard University Press.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Dierolf, K. (2014). Solution-focused team coaching. Bad Homburg: SolutionsAcad-
emy Verlag.
Drake, D. (2017). Working with narratives in coaching. In Bachkirova, T.,
Drake, D. & Spence, G. (Eds.), SAGE handbook of coaching (291–309). London:
SAGE.
Gergen, K. & Gergen, M. (1986). Narrative form and the construction of psycholog-
ical science. In Sarbin, T. (Ed.) Narrative psychology: The storied nature of human
conduct (22–45). New York: Praeger.
Goffman, E. (1961). Encounters: Two studies in the sociology of interaction. Indian-
apolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.
Hawkins, P. (2014). Leadership team coaching: Developing collective transformational
leadership. London: Kogan Page.
Law, H. (2019). Narrative coaching for all. In Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A. (Eds.),
Handbook of coaching psychology (256–270). London: Routledge.
Mair, J. M. (1977). The community of self. In D. Bannister (Ed.) New perspectives in
Matos, M., Santos, A. & Gonçalves, M. (2009). Innovative moments and change in
narrative therapy. Psychotherapy Research, 19(1), 68–80.
ogy, 20(6), 396–411.
Pavlović, J., Džinović, V. & Milošević, N. (2006). Teorijske pretpostavke diskur-
zivnih i narativnih pristupa u psihologiji. Psihologija, 39(4), 365–381.
Polkinghorne, D. (1995). Narrative configuration in qualitative analysis. U Hatch, J.
A. & Wisniewski, R. (Eds.), Life history and narrative. London: The Falmer Press.
Santos, A., Gonçalves, M. & Matos, M. (2011). Innovative moments and poor
outcome in narrative therapy. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 11(2),
129–139.
Sarbin, T. (1986). The narrative as a root metaphor for psychology. In Sarbin, T.
(Ed.) Narrative psychology: The storied nature of human conduct (3–22). New York:
Praeger Publishers.
de Shazer, S., Dolan, Y. & Korman, H. (2007). More than miracles: The state of the
art of solution-focused brief therapy. New York: Haworth Press.
Stelter, R. (2013). A guide to third generation coaching. London: Springer.
White, M. & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York:
Norton.
Whitmore, J. (1996). Coaching for performance. London: Nicholas Brealey
Publishing.
6 Systemic coaching
Introduction
What would happen if we looked at coaching beyond the individual? Could
we be doing individual coaching with a mindset that takes the individual
and its environment as the unit of flourishing? What are the benefits of
mapping the stakeholders and how do we coach individuals for their con-
nection with the key stakeholders? Why does the systemic approach go be-
yond incremental changes to a notion of embodied and disruptive change
in coaching? This chapter introduces key principles, operating models and
techniques of systemic coaching. Multi-stakeholder contracting, outside-in
and future-back principles as well as the idea of triangulation are intro-
duced. Stakeholder mapping and fast-forward rehearsal are explored as
tools for systemic coaching.
Key principles
Integration of systemic and constructivist meta-theory has already been
proposed as a framework for family therapy. The proponents of systemic
coaching point to some of the core constructivist principles in their elab-
oration of the idea of a system: the dialogical and relational nature of our
world, the meaning-creating view of the person and the idea of a dynamic
co-evolution with the environmental ecosystem (Hawkins, 2017; Hawkins &
Smith, 2006).
The general idea of systemic psychology can be associated with Bateson’s
(1972) call for overcoming the individualism implicit in taking the individ-
ual as a unit of analyses. Underlying majority of systemic approaches is the
idea of a broader unit of analyses: individual and environment (Hawkins,
2017). Instead of the implicit individualism, systemic approaches to coach-
ing adopt the notion of interdependence between the individual and the en-
vironment, which creates a system as a new unit of analyses (Pavlović &
Maksić, 2019; Pavlović et al., 2013). The notion of environment may include
the individual, the team individual belongs to, other teams which are in the
relationship to individual’s team, wider organizational context, local com-
munity and a wider ecosystem of stakeholder relations.
Coaching in service of the many: stakeholders and the 13th fairy
According to Hawkins and Turner (2020:28), systemic coaching can be de-
fined as a collaborative and dialogical inquiry focused on how the clients
can “learn and develop in relation to the worlds they are embedded within,
in a way that creates positive benefits for them and all the nested systems
of which they are part”. From this definition, we may formulate one of the
main principles of systemic coaching: its stakeholder centricity and sys-
temic value creation. Even when working with individual clients, a systemic
coach would be interested in exploring how the coaching process serves the
wider ecosystem of the client. Systemic approach brings out attention to
how an individual coaching conversation serves the wider systemic world
of a client.
As a reminder of the importance of focusing on the multiple stakeholder
relations in individual coaching, Hawkins and Turner (2020) point to the
metaphor of the “13th fairy”. As in a popular fairy tale, the “13th fairy”
denotes the stakeholders we ignore in the coaching process. The ignored
stakeholders may have an impact on the wider coaching effort by under-
mining it or just making it less relevant. Systemic coaching brings us to
the central question of who are all the different stakeholders that we need
to take into account in individual coaching and if there is anyone who we
are systemically ignoring from the map. To be able to successfully take
part in this process of co-creating the value for the many, the systemic
coach would need to be able to adopt the position of “wide-angled em-
pathy”, which denotes a willingness and capacity to develop a relation
with every individual, group and system in the client’s story (Hawkins &
Turner, 2020).
Multi-stakeholder contracting and outside-in principle

From the idea of serving multiple stakeholders naturally comes the prin-
ciple of multi-stakeholder contracting. In individual coaching, multi-
stakeholder contracting would involve exploring not only the individual
purpose of coaching but also how success would look like from the per-
spectives of different stakeholders. This idea goes beyond the usual concept
of contracting with the client and the sponsor(s). It may also include asking
both the client and the sponsor(s) to map who will the individual coaching
process serve, what would different groups of stakeholders be perceiving
as measures of success, or even role-playing the stakeholders’ perspectives
to enable multi-partial contracting (Hawkins, 2017). Systemic approach to
coaching further implies an “outside-in” perspective, which refers to the
need for shifting the focus of the individual and its internal functioning to
starting with what is the wider systemic purpose of the coaching process
(Hawkins, 2017).
Systemic coaching 69
Future-back principle
As other constructivist approaches are also rooted in the process of future
thinking, so is the case with the systemic coaching. The notion of antici-
pating the future in systemic coaching is called the “future-back” princi-
ple. This principle invites the client to explore what is needed for in future
and then reflect on its current developmental needs (Hawkins, 2017). The
“future-back” principle is contrasted with the “past-forward” logic, which
invites reflecting on the past to determine what is needed for in the present.
As Hawkins and Turner (2020) point out, the “future-back” principle may
involve asking what the client would regret not addressing in the coaching
process now from the future perspective or bringing the metaphorical voice
of collective grandchildren to contract from the future. Systemic coaching
not only focuses on the outcomes in the immediate future but may focus on
any of the three time horizons: (1) the immediate future, (2) innovating for
tomorrow and (3) future foresight which brings a radical disruption to the
present moment (Hawkins & Turner, 2020).
Triangulated thinking, disruption and emergence

Hawkins (2014) points to a need for triangulated thinking in systemic coach-
ing. He makes a reference to Kelly’s (1955) notion of reconstruction of the sys-
tem of constructs when further exploring the idea of triangulation. Basically,
triangulation denotes the same process of overcoming the “either-or” think-
ing in the coaching process. The “both-and” logic here also does not serve
the purpose as it only combines the existing possibilities for the client. What
triangulation (or reconstruction) actually brings is an innovative perspective
that goes beyond the polarities and provides a way forward for the client.
Triangulation further implies a disruptive type of change, rather than in-
cremental move towards the obvious options. This would require openness for
emergence in the coaching process: tolerating ambiguity and a not-knowing
stance. The transitional space that opens with the attempt for triangulation
may not offer high levels of structure or direction, but is a necessary condition
for enabling innovation in client’s ways of thinking, feeling and being.
Operating models
Systemic CLEAR model

The CLEAR model is one of the models proposed to delineate the process
aspects of systemic coaching. It includes phases of contracting, listening,
exploring, action and review (Hawkins, 2017; Hawkins & Smith, 2006). As
previously mentioned, the contracting would involve multi-stakeholder con-
tracting, listening with “wide-angled” empathy, exploring the issues from
Table 6.1 CLEAR Model (Hawkins & Turner, 2020)
Phase Possible coaching topics and questions
Contracting • Multi-stakeholder contracting

• Possible questions: What do we need to address in this session
to create value to you, your team and the wider stakeholder
perspective?
Listening • Listening with “wide-angled empathy”
• Listening not only for the client’s story but also for the
perspectives of different stakeholders and systems within the
client’s story
Exploring • Exploring the coaching goal from multiple perspectives
• Possible questions: What is it that you can uniquely do that
the world of tomorrow needs? How would you respond to the
perspectives of multiple stakeholders?
Action • Starting the change in the coaching room
• Embodying the change beyond insight
Review • Reviewing the process from the stakeholders’ perspectives
• Possible questions: What value would your stakeholders
perceive if they were listening to this coaching session?
multiple perspectives, starting the change in the coaching room and review-
ing the process again from the stakeholders’ perspectives. By assuming re-
peated cycles of exploration and action, the model echoes personal construct
psychology’s experience cycle (Kelly, 1955), enriched with the wider systemic
context of stakeholders’ expectations and value creation (Table 6.1).
Techniques
Stakeholder mapping
Stakeholder mapping is a technique that incorporates the basic principle
of stakeholder centricity. This technique builds on the “outside-in” prin-
ciple by engaging the client to map the key stakeholders in order to tackle
the wider systemic purpose. The technique may involve creating a visual
representation of the client’s relations with the key stakeholders, where
these relations may be represented in terms of their proximity or distance,
types of connecting lines or any other visual symbols that make sense to
the client to explore these relations. Stakeholder mapping may serve for
exploring the current status of stakeholder relations but also the desired
positioning. After the initial map is co-created with the client, we may
explore what needs to be changed in the stakeholder map and how the
client thinks this can be carried out. This technique enables exploring the
current and desired positioning of the client in the wider ecosystem, as
well as exploring the stakeholders’ perspectives on the anticipated change
in the system.
Fast-forward rehearsal
As a way to support systemic action, the fast-forward rehearsal technique
was designed. It invites enactment of the future first steps for the client dur-
ing the coaching session (Hawkins, 2014, 2017). The technique is built on
the notion of embodied change, which implies that disruptive change needs
to take place immediately and beyond the shift in client’s thinking. Fast-
forward rehearsal invites for rehearsing a new way of behaving and relat-
ing to key stakeholders live in the coaching session. This technique reflects
the “experimentation” logic of systemic coaching, which invites trying out
new ways of working together and reviewing what has worked, rather than
planning the implementation. Again, similarities with Kelly’s (1955) idea of
experimentation of the person as scientist can be noted.
Case study
John was a senior director in a multinational manufacturing company.
At the time the coaching with John took place, company was at the
point of post-merger with a major competitor and the local company
level was to take over the place of a global operational centre of the
company. John was one of the couple of leaders who were identified by
the company as high potential that needs to step up in the transition
that was starting to take place. A somewhat general topic of leader-
ship was contracted with John, HR director and Plant manager with
information about the context of organizational change. After further
specifying what would improvement in leadership mean for John, we
used the stakeholder mapping technique to get a sense of the change
that needs to take place in the wider systemic context.
COACH: John, if we could map your relation to your key business

stakeholders, who would they be? Would you like us to engage in
this activity?
JOHN: Sure, why not.
COACH: Can we use this whiteboard perhaps to create a stakeholder map?
JOHN: Yes, of course. I will bring the pens.
COACH: Oh, great, even better if you have pens in different colors.
JOHN: Sure I do.
COACH: Ok, let’s see who would you select as your key stakeholders.
JOHN: Well, I guess we would have here VP for customer success, global
HR department and my current peer who is making a transition
to a new role because of the merger of our teams. I am actually
taking his place now.
COACH: Ok. Anyone else?
(Continued )
JOHN: Let me see… Perhaps also my team and three team leaders that
I supervise.
COACH: Great! Is there anyone we have missed? (the “13th Fairy”
question).
JOHN: Well, perhaps the team that I am about to take over soon.
COACH: Perfect. Could we engage in making some sort of a map of the
interrelations of all these stakeholders with you in the map too?
JOHN: Yes, sure. Should I draw something or…?
COACH: Whatever makes sense to you to represent the systemic con-
text in which we are talking about you as a leader.
John takes the pen and starts the process.

After approximately 20 minutes, the coach starts another round of
exploration.
COACH: This is very interesting. (looking at the stakeholder map on the

whiteboard) What needs to be changed in this map to serve the
purpose of the whole system?
JOHN: Well, I definitely need to get closer to the team I am soon taking
over. We seem too distant, they actually still don’t know what to
expect. It’s all now half-official, half-unofficial.
COACH: What are you learning now while reflecting on the relation to
that team?
JOHN: I think I took it a bit for granted that they will just follow me
because I am becoming their team lead. But that’s obviously not
going to happen.
COACH: That’s interesting.
JOHN: I guess I just didn’t get the time to think about all these things
because of all the operational daily work.
COACH: What would improvement in your relation to the team mean
to others on this stakeholder map?
JOHN: I think everyone would be relieved. I think there is a great deal of
anxiety in the whole system about how this team merge will work.
COACH: What do you need to do first?
JOHN: Get to talk to my peer whose team I am now taking over. Try to
engage him more in the merger. Then meet online with his team and
him. And perhaps begin integrating the team with my current team.
COACH: Great! Would perhaps rehearsing bits of that communication
now be of some help?
JOHN: Well, perhaps some difficult parts. Perhaps, what if I get to the
passive resistance from my peer and his team. But perhaps we
could discuss next time. I think we have done a great deal of work
today. Can I take a photo of this? (shows at the whiteboard)
COACH: Please do.
Discussion points
1 What does the value systemic approach bring to individual coaching
from your perspective?
2 Can you think of a coaching situation that would particularly benefit
from improved stakeholder centricity? What would have been different
in that case for various stakeholders?
3 What would be your personal limits in practicing “wide-angled
empathy”?
4 How would you phrase your own coach development having in mind the
“future-back” principle?
5 Have you spontaneously used some of the principles of systemic coach-
ing so far?
Recommended reading
Hawkins, P. (2014). Leadership team coaching in practice: Developing high-performing
teams. London: Kogan Page.
Hawkins, P. & Smith, N. (2006). Coaching, mentoring and organizational consul-
tancy: supervision and development. Open University Press.
Hawkins, P. & Turner, E. (2020). Systemic coaching. London: Routledge.
References
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps into an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.
Hawkins, P. & Smith, N. (2006). Coaching, mentoring and organizational consul-
tancy: Supervision and development. London: Open University Press.
Pavlović, J. & Maksić, S. (2019). Implicit theories of creativity in higher education: A
constructivist study. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 32(3), 254–273.
Pavlović, J., Maksić, S. & Bodroža, B. (2013). Implicit individualism in teachers’
theories of creativity: Through the 4Ps looking glass. International Journal of Cre-
ativity and Problem Solving, 23(1), 39–57.
7 Towards integration
Introduction
In this chapter, we reflect on how different constructivist approaches to
coaching fit together. What counts as integration of coaching approaches?
On what grounds can we propose an integrative constructivist approach to
coaching? What are the key dilemmas in different constructivist approaches
to coaching? Can we reframe these dilemmas – and what would be the ben-
efits? What are some of the directions for future development of an inte-
grative constructivist coaching approach? Anticipatory principle, relational
principle and reconstruction of meaning are introduced as shared grounds
for a (meta)theoretical integration in constructivist coaching. A five-phase
model of the constructivist coaching process is offered as a platform for
integrating tools and techniques in different approaches.
What is integration?
(Meta)theoretical integration
A constructivist integrative approach to coaching is based on the assump-
tion that meaning processes structure individual thinking and action, as
well as that individuals actively develop these meaning processes. Construc-
tivist coaching as a practice engages individuals in the exercise of episte-
mological construing – construing their own construing. Moving from the
metatheoretical to the theoretical level, we can formulate some of the shared
principles of a constructivist integrative approach to coaching:
• Anticipatory principle in elaborating the preferred future. This princi-

ple stresses inviting future-back construing and anticipating outcomes
of experimentation. The solution-focused approach adds an empha-
sis on those meaning processes that have already been validated and
are perceived as strengths. Use of imagination to bypass the problem-
saturated language in descriptions of a preferred future is also a legacy
of solution-focused approaches.
Towards integration 75
• Relational principle within a wider system of stakeholders. This principle
emphasizes facilitating interpersonal construing with a variety of cli-
ent’s stakeholders.
• Reconstruction of meaning processes. This shared principle includes dif-
ferent levels of reconstruction that correspond to incremental and more
disruptive changes.
Technical integration
When it comes to technical integration, a five-phase process of personal
construct coaching (Pavlović & Stojnov, 2016) is offered as a platform for
constructivist coaching. In the negotiating goals phase, Salmon line or
scaling technique may be used. Mapping the implications of change on key
stakeholders or exploring exceptions to problem language may follow as the
next stage in the process. Facilitating elaborative conversations prepares
the client for the experimentation phase, which can be done in a number
of ways—including exploring implicative dilemmas through the ABC tech-
nique, identifying actions in terms of interpersonal re-positioning through
Goal Perceiver Element Grid (GPEG) or using “as if” conversations to de-
sign first action steps by asking the miracle question. In the experimentation
phase that occurs outside the coaching session, the client may test any of
the hypotheses that were generated in the previous phases. Sometimes this
process starts in the very sessions in the form of fast-forward rehearsals.
Finally, reflection on coaching process and outcomes in relation to the goals
that were negotiated at the beginning of the process may be invited by using
the Salmon line or scaling (Table 7.1).
A note on differences
It is interesting to note some of the dimensions for differentiating between
the approaches that have been proposed as an integrative constructivist ap-
proach to coaching.
Directive and non-directive

One of the fundamental construct dimensions that can be used to under-
stand the relational and process aspects of coaching is “directiveness ver-
sus non-directiveness”. The solution-focused approach and appreciative
inquiry are examples of non-directiveness in terms of both process and
content of coaching. According to Kelly (1955), the personal construct ap-
proach is neither directive nor non-directive. This idea is somewhat similar
to the systemic approach, which is directive in terms of the process, but not
the content of coaching (Hawkins, 2017). In other words, a coach would
not provide solutions or advice, but would design activities and interven-
tions that are not necessarily coming from the client’s frame of reference.
76
Table 7.1 Comparison of different constructivist approaches to coaching
Personal and relational Appreciative Solution-focused Narrative coaching Systemic coaching

construct coaching coaching coaching
View of Person as scientist Visionary of Resourceful agent Storyteller Individual +

the client positive change focused on environment
solutions
View of Revision of personal Constructing a Transforming the Re-storying Collaborative
coaching theories positive identity language of experience inquiry that
problems into creates benefits for
solution language the client and all
the nested systems
Role of coach Co-researcher in Appreciative Partner in the Narrative analyst Disruptor of the
behavioural co-designer of solution-focused and facilitator limiting mindsets
Constructivist coaching psychologies
experiments positive change conversations of narrative in the system

re-authoring
Operating • Experimentation • 4D model: • Solution focused • Innovative • Contracting,
models discovery, (SF) gallery moments and listening,
dream, design, narrative change exploring, action,
destiny review (CLEAR)
model
Illustrative • Salmon line • Reflected best • Scaling • Externalization • Stakeholder
techniques • ABC self portrait • Miracle questions • Witnessing mapping
• Perceiver element grid • Exceptions • Letter writing • Fast-forward
(PEG) rehearsal
• Community of self
• Fixed role
Although partnering remains at the heart of the coaching process, differ-
ent accreditation bodies may have different stances of whether partnering
around the coaching process is a defining element of coaching, or the coach
may be more directive in terms of coaching process design.
Internal frame of reference and the outside perspective

A personal and relational constructivist approach, appreciative inquiry,
solution-focused approach and narrative coaching share a strong com-
mitment to the internal frame of reference of the coach in all steps of the
coaching process. Systemic approach, on the other hand, may combine the
client’s internal reference with a wider stakeholder perspective and purpose.
Combining the internal and external frames of reference may be proposed
as one of the directions for future developments of constructivist coaching.
Neither of these would imply relying on expert authority of a coach as an
objective external frame of reference. In other words, it may be useful to
explore how the relevant stakeholders contribute to the coaching purpose,
but the coaching purpose or content should not be defined by the coach and
his or her external expert frame of reference.
Gaps and strengths

Systemic and personal and relational approaches to team coaching share
a pursuit of closing the gaps in perceived performance (e.g., preferred and
non-preferred positions of a client). Appreciative inquiry, solution-focused
approach and narrative coaching are more inclined towards building on cli-
ent’s strengths through identifying exceptions to problem talk.
Incremental and disruptive changes

The approaches obviously differ in the type of change expected to result from
the coaching process. The systemic approach is biased towards more disrup-
tive changes, while the solution-focused approach and appreciative inquiry
advocate incremental changes. In the personal and relational constructivist
approach, the whole spectrum of changes from incremental to disruptive is
made possible. A useful direction for future developments in constructivist
coaching would be analysing coaching process in terms of the conditions and
limitations to both incremental and disruptive types of change in coaching.
An important part of the coach’s reflection and professional development
could be understanding the differences and opportunities for these two types
of change. Finally, a systemic approach is more oriented towards embodied
commitment to change – as opposed to positive commitment in the solution-
focused approach, which does not necessarily invoke immediate embodiment.
A personal and relational constructivist approach is located in the middle,
with many proponents of embodied change (Cipolletta, 2013; Hermans, 2003).
Future: adapting and visioning
All constructivist coaching approaches share a future orientation, but they
differ in the approach and purpose of anticipating it. In the systemic ap-
proach, client is invited into a scenario planning for increased adaptivity.
Appreciative inquiry and solution-focused approach invite the client into
imagining the rich picture of desired future. Again, personal and relational
constructivist psychology can be seen as including both of these polarities.
Conclusion
Movement towards constructivist integration of the five approaches in various
fields of practice has already been noted. When it comes to coaching, the five
approaches described in this book provide a comprehensive platform for un-
derstanding clients and facilitating change. Personal and relational construc-
tivist psychology brings its robust theory of change, which translates very well
into the project of coaching. Narrative coaching contributes with its emphasis
on perceiving all coaching topics as narratives to be re-authored. A systemic
approach to coaching stresses the importance of disrupting clients so they learn
how to adapt to wider systemic changes. The solution-focused approach and
appreciative inquiry contribute with their simple methodology of facilitating
incremental changes in appreciative ways. The proposed integration contrib-
utes to the theoretical elaboration of constructivist approaches to coaching, as
well as to innovating the practice of coaches who may find the constructivist
integrative approach an inspiring resource for developing people.
Discussion points
1 What is the value of integration in coaching, in general, from your
perspective?
2 Can you think of a coaching situation that would particularly benefit
from an integrative constructivist approach?
3 What are your implicit beliefs regarding the key dilemmas underlying
the constructivist coaching approaches?
4 How do you see the future of integrative approaches to coaching?
5 How do you see the future of integrative constructivist approach to
coaching?
Recommended reading
References
Cipolletta, S. (2013). Construing in action: Experiencing embodiment. Journal of
Constructivist Psychology, 26(4), 293–305.
Hermans, H. (2003). The construction and reconstruction of a dialogical self. Jour-
nal of Constructivist Psychology, 16(2), 89–130.
Part 3
Constructivist group
and team coaching
8 Constructivist group coaching
Introduction
Why is group coaching still underdeveloped in comparison with individual
or team coaching? How do we define group coaching? What are its main
characteristics in terms of coaching design and delivery? How may a model
of constructivist group coaching look like? How do we support formulating
hypotheses in a group coaching program? What are the ways to support
experimentation in group coaching? How does an integrative constructivist
toolbox for group coaching look like? In what ways can we combine con-
structivist techniques in a group coaching program? This chapter intro-
duces integrative constructivist thinking in group coaching program design
and delivery.
What is group coaching?

Group coaching can be defined as coaching that takes place in a group
setting, but is basically focused on individual coaching goals. The focus of
learning and development in group coaching is often through exchange and
interaction (Thornton, 2010). It can be argued that group dynamics is the
main “tool” in the group coaching process. The group context often pro-
vides additional creativity, spontaneity and resources for individual learn-
ing and development.
One important characteristic of group coaching is its rhythmic organiza-
tion. In group coaching, we would need to take care that all individuals go
through each phase of the process in more or less regular cycles. For exam-
ple, the process of group coaching would include the contracting phase for
each individual in the group. Only after all individuals have set their goals
for the coaching process can reflection or experimentation take place, again
in cycles that enable that each individual is at the same stage of the process
at an approximately same time.
Enabling this rhythmical nature of group coaching involves facil-
itation skills. Group facilitation can be seen as a necessary ingredient of
the group coaching process, and it may include enabling participation of all
84 Constructivist group and team coaching
group members, managing conflicts, summarizing diverse perspectives in a
group and other activities that enable the group context to be developmen-
tal. Particularly important is the process of handling group feedback, which
is a rich source of learning, but sometimes needs to be modelled so that it
becomes appreciative and developmental. In a way, facilitating a group in
group coaching may become the process of modelling skills of a coach for
the whole group to enable constructive climate for all individuals.
Finally, a group coach often needs to process a lot of individual infor-
mation in line with the cyclical nature of group coaching. The group coach
would need to be alert on aspects of group dynamics while taking care that
each individual goal is attended to and addressed in a series of group coach-
ing sessions.
As Brown and Grant (2010) argue, few models of group coaching have
been developed so far. As an example, an empirical model of group coach-
ing was developed using the grounded theory approach for analysis of a
leadership group coaching program (Fusco et al., 2015).
A model of constructivist group coaching

In line with the metaphor of person the scientist (Kelly, 1955), group coach-
ing can be seen as a process of enabling experiments for all the individuals
gathered in the group. Constructivist group coaching envisions the group
coaching process as cycle formulating hypotheses, testing and revising hy-
potheses in a group setting. Table 8.1 presents key stages of a constructivist
group coaching model (Pavlović, 2012).
Formulating hypotheses in group coaching

The first group coaching session is usually designed to establish the group
context and enable initial individual contracting of the group members. To
support time-efficient contracting, a modification of the technique reper-
tory grid can be used (Đerić et al., 2011; Kelly, 1955; Stojnov, 2003). This
dialogical technique explores personal and relational constructs persons
rely on to make sense of themselves and their world. The technique implies
exploring personal and relational constructs or dimensions, which depict
Table 8.1 Example of group coaching design
Stage of the group coaching process Format
Formulating hypotheses: • One session (2 h)

“My personal research question”
“Designing my experiments” • One session (2 h)
“Doing my experiments” • Two sessions (2 h)
Revising hypotheses: • Two sessions (2 h)
“Outcomes of my experiments”
Constructivist group coaching 85
the elements chosen for assessment on a seven-point scale. It is used as a
tool for carrying out interviews in a highly structured manner to gain un-
derstanding of the personal theories of the client. As a result of applying the
technique, a grid form is obtained, consisting of elements and constructs.
In contrast to many other assessment techniques, repertory grid allows the
client to express themselves in their own words, without imposing any a
priori labels.
The participants can be provided a pre-templated grid form with set el-
ements to facilitate contracting in the group coaching process (Table 8.2).
For example, we may choose the following elements: (1) current professional
self, (2) preferred professional self, (3) professional self at the beginning of the
career and (4) professional self for a couple of years. While the elements for
self-assessment may be set in a group coaching context, constructs that are
used to make sense of the elements are provided by clients. Each client in
the group coaching process can be provided the repertory grid form, with
the instruction to think of a couple of dimensions that describe themselves
in the current and preferred professional role, as well as how they used to
perceive their professional self at the beginning of the career and what they
expect to achieve in a couple of years.
It is important to emphasize that the choice of elements may vary. This
particular choice may provide insight into individual gaps between the cur-
rent and preferred perceptions of self as a professional (Gap 1), gaps between
the current professional self and self at the beginning of the career (Gap 2)
and gaps between the preferred professional self and the expectations of a
near future (Gap 3). These gaps further allow the group coach to understand
the goal of each individual client and the implicit theories of change. For ex-
ample, Gap 1 points to the possible goal of the group coaching session and
may serve as a basis for individual contracting. Gaps 2 and 3 provide insight
into clients’ implicit theories of change, by pointing to the perceived changes
in the past as well as expected changes in the future.
After the participants in group coaching enlist the constructs or dimen-
sions for describing the set elements, further instruction can be provided
Table 8.2 Example of a repertory grid template for contracting in group coaching
Construct Current Preferred Professional self Professional Construct

(one-pole) professional professional at the beginning self in a couple (seven-
self self of the career of years pole)
Example: 5 2 6 5 Example:
relaxed tense
to assess each of the elements on these dimensions. As an example, one di-
mension may be provided to help the participants understand the task at
hand. The participants may even be provided a guide through the example
to explain how each element is assessed. The example provided in Table 8.2
points to a client who is currently perceiving himself or herself as tense as
opposed to relaxed, which he or she perceives as a preferred pole (Gap 1).
He or she notices some shifts from the beginning of the career, but does not
expect this change to happen spontaneously (Gaps 2 and 3). One example is
usually quite enough for the group coaching participants to start filling the
grid form by entering their own constructs and assigning numbers to each
of the provided elements.
After the grid is completed by each participant, a round of reflection is
invited in the group coaching process. Participants may be provided an
instruction to select one or two constructs or dimensions that were marked
by the highest gap between current and preferred professional self. In a
round of reflection, participants share the key insights within the group,
while the coach may ask facilitative questions to check for understand-
ing, articulate implicit meaning or confirm the coaching agenda for each
participant.
The repertory grid technique provides the participants a certain level of
structure, balanced by the freedom to express themselves via personally
relevant dimensions. As such, grids are very useful for facilitating initial
reflection and contracting in the group coaching process. This technique is
particularly useful because it enables for each participant to formulate the
personal hypotheses or a research question for the group coaching process,
which is usually referred to as contracting.
As an alternative to repertory grid, qualitative versions of 360-degree
feedback can also be used. In this constructivist form of 360-degree feed-
back, two questions may be asked in the open-ended form: (1) a person’s
strengths in the context of specific group coaching process and (2) a person’s
areas for improvement in the context of specific group coaching process.
For example, in case the group coaching process was thematic and aimed at
improving leadership, 360-degree feedback could provide insights into each
participant’s strengths as a leader and areas for improvement in the area
of leadership. Each participant in the group coaching process would then
articulate one or two questions from the feedback he or she obtained and
share them in the group.
While 360-degree feedback forms may be more usual in an organizational
setting, repertory grids may provide an even more creative process in the
contracting stage. However, if “outside” perspective is important for the
group coaching process, preference may be given to the 360-degree feed-
back. It is important to stress that their constructivist version would imply
open-ended and strengths-focused questions, qualitative data and trans-
parent process of providing the feedback. These principles may be seen as
somewhat different from the traditional usage of 360-degree feedback with
closed questions, rating scales and anonymous raters.
Designing experiments in group coaching
After the individual contracting is accomplished, the next phase for the
group coaching process would involve designing experiments. This wording
may also invite the participants to think of the group coaching process as a
sort of personal research project. The round of designing experiments may
include some of the following questions:
• What would you prefer to be doing differently having in mind the goal(s)
set in the previous phase?
• What would need to be changed in the way you relate to yourself or others?
• What are the obstacles to change?
• How can the benefits of change and the benefits of status quo be integrated?
• What would you say to the “problem” if it were a person?
• What would you be doing differently if you looked at the present issue from
a distant perspective in future?
• What has previously worked regarding the coaching topic?
Some of the tools and techniques for supporting design of individual exper-
iments in a group context are displayed in Table 8.3.
Table 8.3 Tools and techniques for facilitating design of individual experiments in a group
coaching process
Tools and Rationale Example of Possible

techniques a topic questions
Fixed role Construing aspects of Being either a How would you behave
sketch a provisional self “machine” if you were neither a
or “too “machine” nor “too
emotional” in emotional”? What would
communication communication with your
with supervisors supervisors look like?
PEG combined Understanding Procrastination How do “Lazy Mark” and
with fragmentation and self-criticism “Critical Mark” perceive
community and improving each other? What would
of self coherence in self they say to each other?
construal
ABC technique Understanding Being passive What are the benefits of
ambivalence at work after being passive? What are
towards change maternal leave the downsides of being
proactive?
Externalization Exploring a problem Exploring a What would apathy say to
narrative as external sense of feeling you? What do you think
to the person apathetic at work you would reply?
Letter writing Construing aspects of Exploring a sense Imagine you received a letter
a provisional self of being an titled “Permission to make
“outsider” at mistakes”. What would be
work because of written in this letter?
the fear of failure
Again, the nature of group coaching would require careful attention of
the coach to address each individual in cycles of reflection on how to design
experiments. In other words, it is important to use the time at hand (e.g. a
two-hour session) so that each individual has approximately the same time
to explore the experiment design at this phase.
It may also be useful to focus participants in this phase to particular sit-
uations in which they would like to see a change happening. By connecting
a relatively abstract personal research question with concrete situations in
real life, we may facilitate experimentation. On the one hand, the research
questions in constructivist group coaching often imply the “whole person”
or identity level, while the situational frame of the design phase reconnects
these goals to the concrete actions. As a result, the next phase of perform-
ing experiments would also enable identity-level interventions. Experiments
may be designed for each participant in the group coaching process to ena-
ble the required level of individualization.
Performing experiments in group coaching

In the third phase of the constructivist group coaching process, participants
are invited to take part in the first experiments. The experiments may take
the form of in-session or between-session activities. This is sometimes the
most challenging part of the group coaching process, as it requires a shift
from an experimental design to a particular activity that takes the client
into a novel way of thinking, acting or being. Initial experiments are usually
small-scale, based on situational test samples and with attention to min-
imizing possible risks. Examples of experiments in constructivist group
coaching are provided in Table 8.3. Performing experiments cannot be
pre-templated or prepared in advance. Instead, in rounds of questions and
feedback between the coach, the individual and the group, particular exper-
iments evolve in a fluid group coaching process.
Types of experiments that may be of special use are simulations or enact-
ments. Enactments are particularly easily carried out when coaching goals
implied situations which are easy to visualize or dramatize (e.g. communi-
cation with colleagues, giving speech, interview situations, etc.). As a way
to facilitate change, two versions of enactments may be invited: (1) current
self version: participants are invited to enact the situation in the usual way;
(2) provisional self version: participants are invited to enact the situation in
an alternative way in line with the elaborations in the previous phases of the
group coaching process.
To harvest the important learning from these experiments, group feed-
back is invited and moderated by the coach. The coach also may provide
feedback to promote learning and awareness in a participative and collabo-
rative manner. Simulations of the samples of situations may be a context for
creating innovative moments of reconceptualization and enacting change
(Gonçalves et al., 2008).
Revising hypotheses: experimental outcomes
During this phase, participants may reflect on the outcomes of their personal
experiments. Group may again be used as a rich resource for providing feed-
back and deepening reflection from multiple perspectives. In this phase, open-
ness for all kinds of experimental outcomes is useful as a stance of a group
coach. Supportive context for each participant is needed regardless of whether
they have made the first steps towards new professional selves or they have
encountered restrictions or obstacles to change. Open stance of the coach is
further enabled by an even more open format of this phase of group coaching.
Typically, outcomes in a group coaching process may vary from inno-
vative moments of reconceptualization to innovative moments of enacting
change. For example, individuals may understand some of the disadvan-
tages of a desired behaviour, which previously created ambivalence towards
change. Another participant may point to an increased sense of personal
agency or initiative towards change. In a best-case scenario, participants
may enact a desired provisional self with a relatively high level of confidence
that change will be easily revoked in future situations.
A bridge from the current to the preferred self may be made with the ac-
tivity of verbalizing new dimensions of meaning. New semantic resources
that become available to the clients become new tools for supporting in-
novative ways of thinking, acting and being. Moreover, enactments often
involve shifts in propositional construing (ability to see events from multiple
perspectives) or more permeable construing (ability to see events differently
from the “only if” pattern).
Outcomes of experiments in group coaching may also involve a degree of
anxiety in clients. The transitional space that is opened as a gap between the
current and the provisional self-positioning may leave an individual with an
experience of not having the usual way of making sense of events. Anxiety
in the transitional space would need to be normalized as almost a necessary
companion of change (de Vries & Korotkov, 2007). As Edmondson (2008)
points out, psychological safety is a necessary condition of change. For a
constructivist coach, it may be useful to strike a delicate balance between
normalizing anxiety as a companion of change and having a positive focus
in line with the appreciative inquiry and solution-focused approaches.
Finally, some of the issues to consider when looking at outcomes refer to
sustainability of change, especially having in mind the relatively brief nature
of the group coaching process in practice. Sustainability issues may involve
the question of control over enacting new professional selves outside the
group coaching sessions. For example, impulsivity may prevent individuals
from acting in newly learned ways. Moreover, beliefs that change require
conscious effort in order to become sustainable may also be perceived as
an obstacle from the participants’ perspective. Some participants in group
coaching may expect change to be triggered “automatically” in the real-life
context, while the idea of conscious effort may involve questions regarding
the “price” of change. The process of gaining control over new professional
selves can be compared with the transition between conscious competence
and unconscious competence in Tung’s (1995) model. Participants’ implicit
theories of change (e.g. that transition to the real-world context needs to
take place without effort or “automatically”) may also become a part of the
group coaching process (Pavlović, 2012).
A tool for supporting new professional selves and the overall sustainabil-
ity in group coaching may involve perceiver element grid (PEG) technique
(Procter & Procter, 2008). This technique may facilitate a dialogue between
versions of self that were set for change and the provisional views of self that
emerged from group experimentation. After completing the PEG technique,
participants are invited to formulate a personal learning from the process.
This tool may provide insights into how compatible are the different ver-
sions of self-positioning as well as whether additional support may be re-
quired to enable sustainability of change.
Sustainability may also be supported by creating a “reminder” of newly
created aspects of self (Orem et al., 2005). This memento may be in the form
of a visual representation (e.g. a photo), motivational quote or anything else
that may be invoked as a reminder of the initiated change processes. The
process of creating memento also may be individualized.
Aspects of group coaching that are perceived as positive include individu-
alization of activities, value-free approach from the coach, freedom to shape
the form of participation and absence of theory and non-expert approach
during the group coaching process (Pavlović, 2012). Apart from these facilita-
tion aspects, participants may also appreciate the experience of developing in
a group context, the increasing degree of group cohesion, group feedback and
diversity of perspectives of different group members (Pavlović, 2012).
Case study
Five executive leaders from a global consumer goods manufacturer
were selected by the HR department to attend a one-day leader-
ship group coaching program. The leaders came from different de-
partments and formally did not constitute a team. Since 360-degree
feedback was not a part of the employee development practices, HR
department advised that it would be more beneficial to perform it at
the beginning of the program, rather than prior to program online.
After the introductions from the participants, coaches and the
general group coaching framework explained, the idea of 360-degree
feedback was introduced. Five leaders were invited to choose two col-
leagues to whom they would like to give feedback. The instruction for
the 360-degree feedback was to provide an appreciative feedback about
the colleagues’ strengths in the leadership role, as well as areas for im-
provement. Qualitative, open-ended feedback form was provided.
Participants were at first a bit surprised by the invitation as no such

activities were carried out at the company level, but were curious to
see what would come out as a result. The live 360-degree feedback
in process took around 15 minutes, after which each participant was
invited to share a couple of insights from the process.
During this round of sharing in a group coaching context, it became
obvious that the process itself was quite beneficial to the participants,
as they did not have the opportunity to point to compliment or point
to the colleagues’ areas of improvement previously. One of the partici-
pants commented, “It’s great that we have this opportunity to hear each
other here. We actually rarely provide each other feedback. I am really
grateful to the colleagues for what they have written in their comments”.
Each round of sharing was used as an opportunity for individual
contracting around coaching goals. For example, a leader was sharing
a feedback he received about being too emotional in specific situations
and the coaches checked if that was internally something that made
sense as a group coaching topic at the individual level, which was con-
firmed. In general, the participants had control over the content they
wanted to share and over the coaching goals they wanted to set in the
group. The live 360-degree feedback provided an interesting context
for stakeholder-centred contracting.
In order to elaborate each individual goal and move towards the ex-
perimental design phase, participants were offered visual cards, with
an instruction to pick one card that describes them well as a leader
they are now and one card that describes them as a leader they would
like to become. Participants were also invited to exemplify the differ-
ence in photos in terms of real life work situations. Another round
of group reflection proceeded, leading to deepening of participants’
and coaches’ understanding of the type of change that needed to take
place during the program. The 360-degree feedback, exploration of
photos and concrete situations – all made the material for designing
experiments in the group.
In line with the previous example, the leader who was perceived as
sometimes too emotional picked two images to denote the shift he felt
was needed in himself. One particular situation came to his mind as
an example of this shift. He pointed to the need to “cool down” in
communication with the clients. His perception of this kind of situa-
tions was that he would quite quickly get annoyed by people who are
inattentive, do not show respect to other people or are generally un-
polite. An enactment was invited to illustrate what kind of emotions
and professional selves were in place in these situations. Other group
participants were asked if someone would take the part of the “annoy-
ing client”, which was quickly arranged. After the brief enactment,
(Continued )
group feedback was elicited as a form of “witnessing” in the narrative

approach to coaching. Colleagues were instructed to give appreciative
and developmental feedback on the enactment. Some of the partici-
pants commented on the tense nonverbal behavior, while others com-
mented on the feeling as if the protagonist of the enactment was feeling
obliged to find a constructive solution, which led him to take the situa-
tion too emotionally. His colleagues were commenting on how it felt to
them as if he was taking over-responsibility in the situation. After the
group feedback, the protagonist was invited to share his learning and
pick one thing he would like to try out in another round of enactment.
He verbalized the following: “It seems I just cannot be successful with
everyone. I guess I should take it as that. It would move a huge burden
I think”.
One of two coaches asked him if he would like to put that insight
into action straight away, which he accepted. Feedback on the other
round of enactment was that his nonverbal behaviour improved,
he was much more in control over the situation and paradoxically
he seemed to be having more success in his “more relaxed” mode.
Coaches shared their feedback and asked if any further support felt
needed to expand this learning outside the group coaching room.
In the same manner, the rest of the four leaders made their own
pathways towards improved leadership.
Discussion points
1 When and how is group coaching beneficial?
2 What do you perceive as the main challenge in designing group coach-
ing programs?
3 What do you perceive as the main challenge in facilitating group coach-
ing programs?
4 What is specific in constructivist approach to group coaching?
Recommended reading
Brown, S. & Grant, A. (2010). From GROW to GROUP: Theoretical issues and a
practical model for group coaching in organisations. Coaching: An International
Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 3(1), 30–45.
Fusco, T., O’Riordan, S. & Palmer, S. (2015). Authentic leaders are… Conscious,
competent, confident, and congruent: A grounded theory of group coaching au-
thentic leadership development. International Coaching Psychology Review, 10(2),
131–148.
Pavlović, J. (2012). Konstrukcija identiteta u diskursu kontinuiranog profesionalnog
obrazovanja. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Belgrade, Belgrade.
Thornton, C. (2010). Group and team coaching: Essential guide. London: Routledge.
References
Brown, S. & Grant, A. (2010). From GROW to GROUP: Theoretical issues and a
practical model for group coaching in organisations. Coaching: An International
Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 3(1), 30–45.
Đerić, I., Lalić-Vučetić, N. i Pavlović, J. (2011). Edukator kao refleksivni praktičar:
autoetnografska studija. U Vonta, T. & Ševkušić, S. (prir.) Izazovi i usmerenja
profesionalnog razvoja vaspitača i učitelja (112–126). Ljubljana: Pedagoški inštitut.
Edmondson, A. (2008). The competitive imperative of learning. Harvard Business
Review, 86(7–8), 60–67.
Fusco, T., O’Riordan, S. & Palmer, S. (2015). Authentic leaders are… Conscious,
competent, confident, and congruent: A grounded theory of group coaching au-
thentic leadership development. International Coaching Psychology Review, 10(2),
131–148.
Pavlović, J. (2012). Konstrukcija identiteta u diskursu kontinuiranog profesional-
nog obrazovanja. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Belgrade,
Belgrade.
Procter, H. & Procter, J. (2008). The use of qualitative grids to examine the develop-
ment of the construct of good and evil in Byron’s play ‘Cain: A mystery’. Journal
of Constructivist Psychology, 21(4), 343–354.
Stojnov, D. (2003). Psihologija ličnih konstrukata: teorija i terapija. Beograd: Zepter
Book World.
Thornton, C. (2010). Group and team coaching: Essential guide. London: Routledge.
Tung, R. (1995). Guest editor’s introduction. Strategies human resource challenge:
Managing diversity. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
6(3), 482–493.
de Vries, M. & Korotkov, K. (2007). Creating transformational executive education
programs. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 6(3), 375–397.
9 Constructivist team coaching
Introduction
Constructivist team coaching is based on the idea of a team as an inquiring
community in its systemic context. How do we design constructivist team
coaching programmes? What are the constructivist principles for designing
key phases in a team coaching process? What are the ways of formulating,
testing and revising team hypotheses? Constructivist tools for supporting
team experiments are elaborated and compared. A variety of possible team
experiments is introduced: in-session experiments, between-session ex-
periments and “live coaching” experiments with the team. A platform for
integrating different constructivist team coaching approaches is offered.
Differences in views of the team, team coach and team coaching process
are explored.
What is team coaching?

Team coaching is sometimes confused with group coaching. In contrast to
a working group, a team is “a small number of people with complemen-
tary skills who are committed to a common purpose, set of performance
goals, and approach for which they hold themselves mutually accounta-
ble” (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993:112). As opposed to group coaching, team
coaching has the focus on collective, rather than individual resources and
capabilities. It may also be useful to differentiate between team coaching
and other team development activities. For example, team building is con-
trasted to team coaching as a concept that focuses on cooperation and good
relationships between team members (Clutterbuck, 2013), while team facil-
itation has primarily the process focus, rather than task and performance
focus.
A model of constructivist team coaching

Constructivist team coaching is based on the idea of a team as an inquir-
ing community in its systemic context (Pavlović, 2020). Basically, the same
Constructivist team coaching 95
structure of the coaching process that applies to individual and group
coaching may be translated into team coaching: formulating hypotheses,
testing hypotheses and revising hypotheses. However, coaching individuals
and groups may be much more similar as opposed to coaching teams. The
main specifics of team coaching come from the collective purpose and ac-
countability that need to be addressed. Team coaching is not about coach-
ing individuals in a group or team but about coaching a team as a whole
(Table 9.1).
Table 9.1 Example of a team coaching design (Pavlović, 2020)
Phase Purpose Tools and techniques Format
Formulating team Exploring team HPTQ/ team One session

hypotheses anticipations of 360-degree feedback (3 h)
preferred outcomes Team salmon line
of the team coaching Team scaling
process and of each Reflected best team
particular session portrait
Designing team Understanding Stakeholder mapping One to two
experiments implications of team Exceptions sessions
change in a wider Team ABC (3 h)
system of stakeholder GPEG
expectations Miracle questions
Team Elaborating team Fast-forward rehearsal Two to three
experimentation implicative dilemmas Between-session sessions
and barriers to change experiments (3 h)
Elaborating preferred
interpersonal
construing in a team
Inviting “as if”
conversations of
preferred team
performance
Inviting elaboration
of successful team
experiments in past.
Revising team Co-designing team Team Salmon line One session
hypotheses: experiments in Team scaling (3 h)
outcomes of team which aspects of the
experiments preferred vision of
team functioning are
tested
Experimenting with the
first steps towards
change through live
team coaching
Inviting reflection on the
team coaching process
and outcomes
Formulating team hypotheses
It is widely acknowledged that contracting in team coaching is a com-
plex process because of the collective purpose that needs to be addressed
(Dierolf, 2012; Gordon & MacKie, 2019; Hawkins, 2014, 2017; Hawkins &
Turner, 2020). The key question a team coach needs to address before engag-
ing with hypotheses about team functioning is who are all the team stake-
holders that need to be involved in the contracting phase. We may have a
stakeholder focus even when contracting individual or group coaching, but
when we move to coaching teams, the systemic context becomes much more
obvious. The team delivers value to a larger network of stakeholders than it
is the case in individual contracting, so the impact of team coaching on at
least some portions of this network needs to be explored before the start of
the team coaching process.
As Hawkins and Turner (2020) point out, there are multiple ways of in-
volving stakeholders in creating the team coaching contract. Perhaps the
most widely used option is bringing in data gathered from multiple stake-
holders. This process may be facilitated by the use of team 360-degree
feedback tools. Team 360-degree feedback is somewhat different from its
individual version as the feedback is directed towards the functioning of
a team, rather than its individual members. General constructivist prin-
ciple of using qualitative, open-ended and transparent feedback applies
when gathering team 360-degree feedback. We may ask various stakehold-
ers about what are team strengths as well as what are some of the areas
for team improvement. A more structured version of team 360-degree
feedback may involve using various models of team functioning as a basis
for the team feedback. Other ways of involving stakeholders in the team
coaching process may bring in the voices of stakeholders by team members
role-playing them to the rest of the team (Hawkins, 2017). Finally, bringing
in the live relationship between the team and the stakeholders may also be
an option. For example, organizing a large meeting between the multiple
stakeholders and the team and obtaining the feedback live may also work
in some instances.
Although stakeholders’ perspectives are invaluable for contracting with
teams, in a subsequent phase another round of contracting needs to take
place with the team itself. At this point team can be involved in various
team assessments to provide the basis for the team coaching contract. One
of these tools is the High Performing Team Questionnaire (HPTQ), an 18-
item scale that invites the team to reflect on its current and desired perfor-
mance, as well as design actions that could close the gap between perception
of current performance and aspiration (Hawkins, 2017).
HPTQ is based on a comprehensive framework which emphasizes five key
content domains of team coaching that translates into five disciplines of
team performance: (1) commissioning (the purpose of the team externally
defined by those who put it into being); (2) clarifying (the way the team
internally clarifies its mission); (3) co-creating (how purpose, vision and mis-
sion are embodied through team culture); (4) connecting (the way the team
engages with all its critical stakeholders and adapts to changes in the busi-
ness environment) and (5) core learning (which refers to the superordinate
discipline of reflecting on team performance and processes, supporting and
developing collective learning through continuous cycles of engagement).
The central role of the fifth discipline is further elaborated by referring to
the concept of double-loop learning or learning that goes beyond mere be-
haviour to create a shift in the mindsets, which also reflects underlying con-
structivist principles (Pavlović, 2020).
Some of the advantages of using HPTQ as a basis for team reflection are
that this instrument is theoretically grounded, comprehensive and time-
efficient. One way of using the HPTQ is to invite all team members to take
part in it, followed by small group reflection on the key gaps between the
current and desired team functioning. It is important to stress that HPTQ
can be used as a developmental tool, rather than a tool for team assess-
ment. It is in a dialogue between the team and the coach that certain topics
start to emerge as areas for team improvement. This questionnaire has a
built-in action orientation which makes it particularly suitable for the team
coaching purpose. Apart from identifying the gaps in the team function-
ing, HPTQ invites the team to reflect on individual and team actions that
may be a way to close those gaps. Typically, using HPTQ generates large
amount of actionable data for the team – or team hypotheses in other words.
For example, the team may find out that its collective development could be
directed towards improvements in the meeting structure. In this case, the
team research question could be developed as follows: How do we as a team
improve the current form of our meetings to minimize the blaming game and
optimize the use of data in the meeting? In combination with the previous
stakeholder contracting, this team research question may become part of
the team coaching contract.
There are also other ways to contract with the team regarding the pur-
pose of team coaching. One of the disadvantages of HPTQ is that it, to
some extent, imposes the topic for team reflection (commissioning, clarify-
ing, co-creating, connecting, core learning). Although these topics are rel-
atively comprehensive, there are instances when the team needs to work on
a very specific topic, so using HPTQ would actually shift the focus from the
team’s developmental priorities. In this case, more context sensitive tools
for team contracting could be used instead. When translated into work-
ing with teams, we can speak of a team Salmon line, representing the team
developmental trajectory from the team perspective (Pavlović, 2020). The
same logic applies as in its individual applications – to facilitate movement
towards desired team positions as defined by the team. It is worth noting
that when applied with teams, the tool creates a dialogical space for explor-
ing commonalities and differences in the team, as well as building a shared
version of team goals and the first steps towards it. Similarly, team scaling
asks team members to rate the current and desired positioning of the team
on important indices (Dierolf, 2014). Before asking for next possible steps
for improving performance on these indices, the team is invited to explore
its current resources and what is already working well. For example, we may
be contracting with a team who has been referred to team coach for conflict
coaching. In this case, we may use team Salmon line or team scaling to
address the conflict issue in terms of the team’s current and desired posi-
tioning. We may come to the point that the research question for the team in
this case becomes: How do we listen to each other better and prevent further
misunderstandings in the team?
Basically, contracting in constructivist team coaching may involve the
stakeholder perspective and the team perspective facilitated by more or
less structured qualitative developmental tools. From this point we may
move to the next phase in the team coaching process – designing team
experiments.
Designing experiments in team coaching

After the team contracting has initially been set in forms of testable hypoth-
eses, team coach may invite the team to design the actions for hypotheses
validation. In general, in this phase we bridge the team coaching goals with
the subsequent team actions. Examples of the tools and techniques for sup-
porting design of experiments in a team coaching are displayed in Table 9.2.
Preparing the experimentation phase may include some of the following:
• Mapping the team vision of change. One of the first steps in designing
team experiments may involve exploring the team vision of change.
This process may include building a collective narrative of what the
team statement would look like after a successful team coaching pro-
cess. Other tools may be used as well, including a modified version
of the reflected best self portrait. When working with teams, we can
adapt this tool into a reflected best team portrait, which would invite
the team to map its optimal functioning related to the team coaching
goal. To help the team visualize the change, miracle questions may be
used in their team version. For example, team coach may invite the
team to reflect on what would be different regarding the coaching topic
in case miracle happened and change was already there in the team.
In general, mapping the team vision of change may be seen as an ex-
tension of the team coaching contract in order to further explore how
the preferred team future looks like. When the team vision of change
is articulated, it may be possible to test parts of that vision in various
team experiments.
• Mapping the implications of team change on key stakeholders. Another
way to prepare for the experimentation phase is to explore the impli-
cations of team change on various stakeholders. Stakeholder mapping
Table 9.2 Tools and techniques for facilitating design of individual experiments in a
group coaching process
Tools and Rationale Example of a topic Possible questions

techniques
Team Exploring the impact Resolving conflicts Who would notice if

stakeholder of team change on in a logistics the team improved
mapping wider stakeholder team the way of handling
relations. Visualizing conflict? What
change “outside-in” would be different
to prepare team for the relevant
experimentation stakeholders?
Team ABC Understanding the Understanding What are the benefits
dilemmas in team underreporting of not reporting
regarding change of mistakes on an error? What
Creating innovative the shop floor are the benefits of
solutions for the team of a global reporting an error?
that combine the manufacturer What can be done
benefits of the desired at the team level to
change and of the create a solution
status quo that addresses both
Triangulation of these benefits?
may open new
directions for team
experimentation.
Team Exploring previous Exploring the Can you think of a
exceptions team functioning problems with similar situation in
that is not saturated incompatible which you managed
with the “problem” communication to resolve this kind
discourse platforms in of issues? What
Identified exceptions an IT company enabled you to do
may lead to team after a merger so as a team?
experimentation
Team GPEG Exploring preferred Improving How would back
interpersonal relations office like to be
positioning in a team, between the able to perceive
which may inform front office front office/itself?
team experimentation and the back How would front
office in a office like to be
large financial able to perceive
institution back office/itself?
Team miracle Understanding and Exploring Imagine things
questions visualizing a vision of team upward were different
change in a team communication all of a sudden
regarding in your team
the pace of communication to
change in the global directors.
manufacturing What would be
different for your
team? What do you
need to do to get
there?
may be used as a tool for exploring the impact of change “outside-in”.
For example, team coach may invite the team to think of what would
various stakeholders notice if the team created a positive change or
what value would a change in the team bring to the stakeholders.
• Exploring team implicative dilemmas. As individuals may have dilem-
mas regarding change, teams also may encounter this sort of ambiv-
alence. A team version of ABC technique may be used to identify
the positive and negative aspects of both change and the status quo
in the team. Triangulation at team level may be used to bring the
novel ways of thinking, acting and being in the next phase of team
experimentation.
• Exploring exceptions to team problem language. Teams may be stuck
with the “problem” discourse. In this case, exceptions to the problem
language may be explored in the team. For example, team coach may
invite the team to reflect on the situations when the coaching issue was
tackled in a way which is different from the “problem” discourse. Ex-
amples of successful solution in the past may bring the team closer to
the experimentation in the future.
• Exploring interpersonal re-positioning in the team. Sometimes team con-
tracting may further open the dialogue on how to improve team rela-
tions. A team version of Goal Perceiver Element Grid (GPEG) may be
used to explore the desired interpersonal relations in the team.
Team experimentation
In this phase, a team may start testing any of the hypotheses that were
generated in the previous phases. As in individual and group coaching,
team experiments may occur as in-session or between-session activities.
In contrast to individual and group experiments, team experimentation
involves a collective effort to make a difference to the team and its wider
ecosystem.
In general, team experiments that take the form of in-session experiments
may involve team enactments but also “live” coaching interventions with
the team (Hawkins, 2017). As opposed to individual or even group coaching,
when working with teams, we already have a living laboratory for experi-
menting with the way team members relate to each other, solve problems,
hold meetings or take care of team learning and development. In many do-
mains of the team coaching contract, we may have a chance to invite a team
into experimentation which is not an enactment but a real test of new ways
of thinking, acting or being in a team. For example, we may have an oppor-
tunity to coach a leadership team during a shop floor problem-solving ac-
tivity. This may imply being there with the team, observing team processes,
being able to provide feedback and inviting for a shift in the way of team
working – all in real time and real context. Other examples of live coaching
may include interventions on giving and receiving feedback in a team. When
working with individuals or groups rarely do we have this accessibility of
client’s real-world contexts.
In-session team, experiments may also involve enactments, similar to
group enactment experiments. With teams we may also have enactments
of, for example, important client or other stakeholder communication. As
a general principle, team experimentation would include a form of enact-
ments in cases when “live” experiments are not possible because of the ab-
sence of relevant parties. For example, a team may be invited to enact how
they would prefer to be communicating with the client teams or how they
would prefer to be asking for more clear inputs from the top management.
Enactment experiments with teams are aimed at facilitating team learning,
rather than individual learning as is the case with enactments in individual
or group coaching.
Finally, team experiments may occur between team coaching sessions.
In this case, teams are engaged in some sort of experiment planning during
the coaching session and then invited to carry it out between the sessions.
For example, a team may be invited to experiment with ways of providing
employee recognition in a regular work week or to provide more frequent
real-time feedback on the job. It is important to stress that these experi-
ments should not take the form of action planning or project management
activities in the team to preserve the learning and development context. The
team may be invited to experimentation between the sessions, but team
coach needs to be open to all types of experimental outcomes.
It may be noted that between-session experiments often require more
attention to managing team accountability for change. With “live” team
experiments, innovative moments of performing change often take place
immediately during the intervention. Between-session experiments, on the
other hand, often require a focus on how to increase the confidence level in
a team that experimentation actually will take place.
In conclusion, with teams we often have a living laboratory for collective
“live” experiments. It is in this type of team experimentation that the most
transformational moments for teams happen. When “live” team experimen-
tation is not possible, team enactments in the form of fast-forward rehearsal
or between-session experiments may be invited.
Revising team hypotheses

In this phase, team is invited to reflect on the learning that took place during
the team coaching process. Outcomes of team experiments may be elabo-
rated, and implications of these outcomes on team identity may be explored.
As in group coaching, team coach needs an open stance towards all kinds
of experimental outcomes. Best-case scenarios for teams occur when impor-
tant team hypotheses are revised in “live” team experiments.
Team coach may be inviting a team to reflect on its learning by using
the team Salmon line or team scaling technique. The purpose of this final
scaling may be to monitor movement in a team and verbalize the shift in
team mindsets. Typical challenges in revising team hypotheses may oc-
cur when between-session experiments are not carried out. For example,
a team may point out to the lack of time or having other priorities in the
time between two team sessions. Confidence questions (Dierolf, 2014) may
facilitate team movement (e.g. How confident are you as a team that you are
regarding the activities that are agreed? What would be needed to increase
that confidence level?).
Towards integration in team coaching

An integrative team coaching model based on the principles of con-
structivist psychologies would involve a general idea of team learning
and development through the process of team experimentation. Differ-
ent models, tools and techniques may be used contextually to reflect the
needs of a team in context. Integration may bring additional flexibility
than relying on single model approaches. For example, sometimes a dis-
ruptive type of team change may be more appropriate than the incremen-
tal one. The need to focus on strengths and solutions may be stronger in
some teams than in other teams or other contexts. An overview of the
conceptual resources that are available for constructivist team coaching
is provided in Table 9.3.
Case study
Team coaching for a leadership team was contracted as part of a com-
prehensive structural and cultural transformation in a multinational
manufacturing company. In the contracting phase, a global opera-
tions director explicated her expectation of team coaching to im-
prove the capacity for dealing with a fast pace change in a leadership
team. Initial information about the company, the team and the cur-
rent challenges was also exchanged with the plant manager and HR
director.
The team coaching journey started with a HPTQ, which was used
to map out what the team perceived as key areas for improvement. Of
the five disciplines that are assessed in the questionnaire (commission-
ing, clarifying, connecting, co-creating, core learning), largest gaps
between the current and desired team performance were obtained
on the core learning discipline. In dialogue with the team, this topic
was confirmed as important to the team and included issues like im-
proving team meetings, removing the blaming games in the root cause
analysis and developing a better feedback culture in the team.
During the initial sessions that were focused on exploring the cur-
rent team learning practices, team coaches learned about the early
morning leadership team daily meetings, followed by a Gemba Walk
around the shop floor, as well as about the importance of the root cause
analysis as a way of solving problems in the shop floor. The leadership
team was very focused on its activities in the shop floor and invited the
team coaches to come to a Gemba Walk and observe the team in this
process. The team coaches agreed with a bit of excitement – it was an
experiment for the team coaches as well.
The next team coaching session started on the shop floor. The team
coaches were present at a leadership team daily morning meeting and
then accompanied the team in a Gemba Walk. During the Gemba
Walk, one specific issue became a focus of attention of the whole team.
An important quality assurance technical component was out of func-
tion and needed a quick decision-making. Leadership team needed
to decide what to do as the component could not be repaired in an
acceptable time frame, nor could it be replaced quickly.
The leadership team gathered around the technical component.
One or two persons started looking at it, and others started generating
hypotheses on whose fault was the breakdown. After a couple of min-
utes of observing, team coaches called for a “timeout”. In this break
from the real work of the leadership team, team coaches shared their
feedback about the observed team processes. Particularly, both team
coaches stressed the blaming game that was evolving in the team.
Leadership team listened to the feedback and confirmed their agree-
ment with the observations. Team coaches asked the team what they
would like to be doing differently after the “timeout”. There was a
team consensus on the need for more collaboration, a more construc-
tive team dialogue and quicker team decision-making processes. As
the team articulated these hypotheses, team coaches invited the team
to try it out and watch what happens.
Leadership team experimentation went on after the “timeout”.
What coaches could observe was a shift in team dynamics. Team was
more focused as a collective, the blaming language disappeared and a
decision on what to do next was made in a matter of minutes.
Team coaches called for another round of “timeout”. This time team
coaches asked the team what they were learning during the group
problem solving activity. Team members pointed to how great work
they are able to make when they abandon the blaming mindset. One
important learning they articulated was a need for shifting from the
blaming mindset in crisis situations into a more cohesive team iden-
tity. And from that “live” team coaching session, they became fully
aware that they were able to do so – when reminded.
Table 9.3 Comparison of constructivist approaches to team coaching
Personal and Appreciative Solution-focused Narrative coaching Systemic coaching

relational construct coaching coaching
coaching
View of the Team as an Team as resourceful on its own Team as creator of the Team as a collective in their
team inquiring narratives it lives by systemic context
community
View of team Supporting Supporting the Turning team Supporting a team Supporting the team in
coaching the team in team in an problems into to re-author its developing their collective
formulating appreciative team goals by “problematic” leadership to more
and testing new process of asking solution- narratives effectively engage with all
hypotheses about continuous focused questions their key stakeholders
team functioning improvement
Role of team Consultant on An appreciative resource for Facilitator of a shift in Multi-partial agent of
coach designing better development of new team solutions team narratives systemic team change
team experiments
Key principles Anticipatory Team strengths Solutions are not Innovative moments Outside-in principle
principle focus directly related to in team coaching Future-back principle
Sociality and Incremental the problems happen through Disruptive change
relationality change in Strengths focus. narrative shifts

principle team Incremental change
Reconstruction in
team
Operating Experience cycles in 4D model Solution-focused Model of team change Five disciplines of
models teams team “gallery” process based on team performance
the typology of (commissioning,
innovative moments clarifying, co-creating,
connecting, core learning)
Illustrative Team Salmon line Reflected best Team scaling Team vision narrative Team 360-degree feedback
techniques Team ABC team portrait Miracle questions Witnessing HPTQ
Team GPEG Team exceptions Stakeholder mapping
Stakeholder role-playing
Fast-forward rehearsal
Discussion points
1 Think of some of the situations in which a suitable intervention would
include (a) team building, (b) team facilitation and (c) team coaching.
2 What do you perceive as key challenges in multi-stakeholder contract-
ing in team coaching?
3 How would you compare the impact of “live” coaching, enactments and
between-session experiments in teams?
4 Think of situations which would require for (a) incremental change in a
team and (b) disruptive change in a team.
Recommended reading
Dierolf, K. (2014). Solution-focused team coaching. SolutionsAcademy Verlag.
Pavlović, J. (2020). Team coaching psychology: Towards constructivist integration.
Journal of Constructivist Psychology.
References
Clutterbuck, D. (2013). Time to focus coaching on the team. Industrial and Commer-
cial Training, 45(1), 18–22.
Dierolf, K. (2014). Solution-focused Team Coaching. Bad Homburg: Solutions Acad-
emy Verlag.
Gordon, S. & MacKie, D. (2019). Team coaching. In Palmer, S. & Whybrow, A.
(Eds.), Handbook of Coaching Psychology (453–466). London: Routledge.
Katzenbach, J., & Smith, D. (1993). The discipline of teams. Planning Review, 71(2),
111–120.
Pavlović, J. (2020). Team coaching psychology: Towards constructivist integration.
Journal of Constructivist Psychology.
Part 4
Training constructivist coaches

10 Designing and delivering constructivist
coach training programs
Introduction
Principles of constructivist psychology have been perhaps most widely in-
corporated in the context of education (Beijaard et al., 2004; Darby, 2008;
Freese, 2005; Kompf & Simmons, 2016; Pope & Denicolo, 2016). In general,
constructivist education is based on the idea of designing experiments which
assist persons in “finding out how he or she wants to be and live” (Fromm,
2016:359). From this general statement of educational philosophy, there are
many other qualifications associated with constructivist education, among
which are problem-based, experiential, social, democratic and inclusive.
Designing and developing educational programs for constructivist coaches
includes all of these qualifications. In this chapter, principles of design and
delivery of constructivist coach training programs are explored.
Designing constructivist coach training programs

Coach training based on the principles of constructivist psychology would
aim at being an intervention in the domain of identity construction (Sultana,
2003:44). One general way of making education transformational is to start
with the learner’s implicit theories. As most formal education focuses on
formal, explicit or scientific theories, constructivist education shifts the fo-
cus to the interrelation between formal and implicit theories. These implicit
theories need not be fully verbalized and articulated, public, systematic or
grounded in data. However, they still may serve as guides for action (Dweck
et al., 1995; Kelly, 1955; Polovina & Pavlović, 2010). We may even say that
implicit theories are a form of knowledge in action.
As Usher et al. (1997) point out, professional practice in general would
not be possible without some kind of implicit theories. Sometimes, relation
between the implicit theories and coaching practice is much closer than it is
the case with the formal theories. When we point to a “gap” between theory
and practice, we actually fail to address the implicit theories and their role
in shaping professional practice. These views of education and professional
practice call for a change of metaphor of a professional: from a “technician”
110 Training constructivist coaches
who applies formal theories to a “scientist” who develops his or her implicit
theories and acts upon them (Pope & Denicolo, 2001).
Implicit theories may not always be appropriate guides for professional
practice. Only when the professionals are ready to articulate and reflect on
their implicit theories, they become channels for improving practice. Refin-
ing implicit theories does not necessarily come from doing formal scientific
experiments – it may come from everyday experimentation in practice. Re-
flection enables professionals to revise their implicit theories that become
invalidated in everyday experimentation. As a result of reflection, profes-
sionals often improve their practice.
Coaches also may develop and improve their professional practice by re-
flecting on their implicit theories. That is why the main goal of constructivist
coach training programs is to facilitate professional reflection. Reflexivity
demands openness of coaches towards self-questioning, courage, curiosity,
tolerating ambiguity and taking certain levels of risk to try out new patterns
of thinking, acting and being. Sometimes, coaches may be “closed” in their
implicit theories in spite of the results these produce in the coaching prac-
tice. Acknowledging implicit theories of coaches would require a balance
in coach training design of theories with big “T” and theories with small
“t” – or implicit theories. In other words, improving coach practice may be
seen not only as a result of disciplined application of formal theories but as
a result of openness and readiness for reflection on own implicit theories.
Implicit theories in coaching may open many questions: what is good coach-
ing, what makes a coach a good coach, what is the role of the client, what type
of the coach-client relation works best, how to establish professional bound-
aries in the most constructive way, what is the role of many stakeholders in a
coaching relationship and many more. The best guide for improving coaching
practice is to listen to the lessons that come from invalidation. Each time a
coach’s implicit theory is invalidated in practice, there is a learning opportu-
nity for a coach. Reflection would call for facing the challenges in the coach-
ing practice, rather than closing in any kind of professional routines.
Training coaches to become reflective practitioners requires a turn to
experiential forms of learning. That is why coach trainers need to be fa-
cilitators of the process of uncovering and revising implicit theories. For-
mal coaching theories, from a constructivist coach education viewpoint,
provide a resource for examining implicit theories or learning about their
limitations. Constructivist coach training programs would be highly sen-
sitive to balancing formal and implicit theories in order to overcome the
dichotomy of theory versus practice. Coach reflection is a rigorous and rele-
vant personal and relational research project. Constructivist coach training
programs may become a laboratory for examining and experimenting with
both formal and implicit theories of coaching. This laboratory helps the
coaches become researchers of their own coaching practice. In this labora-
tory coaches construct their own theories that integrate formal and implicit
theories that would work for individual coaching situations.
Constructivist coach training programs 111
Delivering constructivist coach training programs: jazz
improvization or a bricolage
One important aspect in delivering constructivist coach training programs
is to enable group processes that support reflection on implicit theories. In
practice, constructivist coach training programs may enable transferring
the leadership function from the trainer to the group level. Responsibility
for learning and development would also be on the side of the learners.
In line with the ideas of triangulation, constructivist coach training
programs would need to address the following polarities: creativity ver-
sus rigour, imagination versus systematic guidance and innovation ver-
sus stability (Pavlović, 2012). Delivery of programs would imply that any
program structure or design is open to contextual modification, as well
as that the program participants may actually shape the program in its fi-
nal delivery. For example, “outside-in” and “future-back” principles may
be applied in negotiating the program agenda at the beginning, which
allows for sometimes high level of improvisation from the trainers. At
this point, we may draw similarities with these principles of constructiv-
ist coach training and the metaphor of reflective practice as jazz perfor-
mance (Schön, 1987).
Constructivist coach trainer may model improvisation, flexibility, ad-
aptability and creative integration of polarities in their own role. The term
bricolage is used to address the same need of integrating rigour and com-
plexity in qualitative research (Lévi-Strauss, 1962). Bricoleur uses multiple
methodologies and interpretative frames to overcome the limitations of a
single discipline or approach (Kincheloe, 2005). Similarly, coach trainer
models how to deal with complexity, how to use multi-perspectivism in ana-
lysing coaching models and cases and how to focus on webs of relationships
instead of single entities. As a bricoleur, coach trainer chases complexity
and avoids monological knowledge that is produced in a quest for order and
certainty and is content with quick resolutions of complex issues (Kincheloe,
2005). Instead of a monological expert knowledge, constructivist coach
training programs need to embrace polysemy, multiple epistemologies and
contexts in which to view coaching phenomena. What is gained by adopting
the bricolage metaphor in coach training is avoiding or at least reducing the
“blind spots” of single approaches to coaching and enabling a living process
of contextual knowledge production.
An example of constructivist coach training program

In practice, there are probably many ways to design and deliver a construc-
tivist coach training program. Also, it may be possible that coach training
based on other perspectives integrates some aspects of constructivist peda-
gogy. A program Integrative Constructivist Coaching Diploma is presented
as an example of a constructivist coach training program (Table 10.1).
Table 10.1 Program structure of a constructivist coach training program
Module Session Purpose
Module 1 Introduction to Construing a shared understanding of coaching

constructivist and specifics of constructivist coaching.
coaching Eliciting participants’ implicit theories of
growth mindset and experimentation as a model
of learning and change.
Skills of a Reflection on core skills of a constructivist coach:
constructivist
– Working within the client’s frame of
coach
reference
– Reflexivity
– Creativity
– Appreciative attitude
– Balancing the relationship and the task
focus
– Art of dialogue
In-group mini 360-degree feedback and
self-assessment on core skills. Reflecting on
personal strengths and areas for development
in the role of the coach.
Constructing a shared understanding of the
ethical principles in coaching. Experiential
group activity: participants think of situations
from coaching practice that are neither in the
zone of ethical, nor in the zone of unethical
behaviour. Solutions to these critical situations
are collaboratively developed.
Constructivist – Constructing a collaborative map of the
coaching process coaching process based on participants’
and tools implicit theories.
Introduction of constructivist tools and
techniques (scaling, ABC, Perceiver Element
Grid (PEG)).
Simulations of coaching situations: participants
take the role of a coach, client and observer.
Prepared scenarios for simulations offered
together with an open invitation to participants
to bring in their own scenarios. Trainers’ and
participants’ developmental feedback offered
after the simulations. Collaborative reflection
on key learnings invited.
Module 2 Introduction to Construing a shared understanding of group
constructivist coaching and specifics of constructivist
group and team group coaching. Reflection on a case study of
coaching constructivist group coaching with transcript of
the session. Analysing innovative moments in a
group coaching session.
Constructing a shared understanding of team
coaching and specifics of constructivist team
coaching.
Module Session Purpose
Tools for Introducing multiple perspectives on

constructivist constructivist team coaching: personal and
team coaching relational construct psychology, systemic
coaching, solution-focused coaching and
appreciative inquiry.
Simulations of team coaching situations:
participants take the role of a team coach, team
members and an observer. Prepared scenarios
for simulations offered together with an open
invitation to participants to bring in their
own scenarios. Trainers’ and participants’
developmental feedback offered after the
simulations. Collaborative reflection on key
learnings invited.
Group and team Group and team coaching session design:
coaching: participants collaboratively in small groups
practice sessions design group and team coaching sessions in line
with their own interests and contexts. Trainers’
and participants’ developmental feedback
offered after the simulations. Collaborative
reflection on key learnings invited.
Simulations of team coaching situations:
participants take the role of a team coach, team
members and an observer. Prepared scenarios
for simulations offered together with an open
invitation to participants to bring in their
own scenarios. Trainers’ and participants’
developmental feedback offered after the
simulations. Collaborative reflection on key
learnings invited.
Module 3 Simulations of Open structure of a session: participants bring in
coaching sessions any cases or types of exercises that would serve
and session their needs best.
design
Case study Presentation of participants’ own coaching cases
presentation 1 with a real client (homework assignment).
Case study Trainers’ and participants’ developmental
presentation 2 feedback offered after the simulations.
Collaborative reflection on key learnings
invited.
Some challenges
As with any approach, there are limitations to designing and delivering
constructivist coach training programs. These programs may work best
with participants who favour improvisation and dealing with complexity
and ambiguity. For this group of participants, constructivist coach train-
ing programs may provide a rich and comprehensive learning environment.
However, constructivist coach training programs may be a challenge in case
participants prefer tight structure, clear procedures or single expert author-
ity. The challenge may rise from the open structure, collaborative knowl-
edge construction and polyvocality implicit in constructivist training. On
the other hand, we may say that constructivist training programs also con-
tribute to the personal epistemological development of training participant.
As the program advances, so do the participants’ personal epistemologies
(Baxter-Magolda, 2004; Pavlović, 2009).
Discussion points
1 What is the role of implicit theories in coach training programs from
your own experience?
2 What would be some of the risk of absence of reflection in coach train-
ing programs?
3 What would be your metaphor for constructivist coach training? What
would be your metaphor for an ideal coach training program?
4 What is your standpoint regarding personal epistemologies and coach
training programs? Should a coach training program aim at developing
participants’ personal epistemologies?
Recommended reading
Kompf, M. & Simmons, N. (2016). Reconstructing lifelong learning. In Winter, D. &
London: Routledge.
Pope, M. & Denicolo, P. (2001). Transformative education. Whurr publishers.
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teach-
ing and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Usher, R., Bryant, I. & Johnston, R. (1997). Adult education and the postmodern
challenge: Learning beyond the limits. London: Routledge.
References
Baxter-Magolda, M. (2004). Evolution of a Constructivist Conceptualization of
Epistemological Reflection. Educational Psychologist, 39(1), 31–42.
Beijaard, D., Meijer, P. & Verloop, N. (2004). Reconsidering research on teacher’s
professional identity. Teaching & Teacher education 20, 107–128.
Darby, A. (2008). Teacher’s emotions in the reconstruction of professional self un-
derstanding. Teaching & Teacher Education, 24(5), 1160–1172.
Dweck, C., Chiu, C. & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judge-
ments and reactions. A word from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry: An
International Journal for the Advancement of Psychological Theory, 6(4), 267–285.
Freese, A. (2005). Reframing one’s teaching: Discovering our teacher selves through
reflection and inquiry. Teaching & Teacher Education, 22(1), 100–119.
Fromm, M. (2016). Learning and education. In Winter, D. & Reed, N. (Eds.), The
Wiley handbook of personal construct psychology (352–360). London: Routledge.
Kincheloe, J. (2005). On to the next level: Continuing the conceptualization of the
bricolage. Qualitative Inquiry, 11(3), 323–350.
Kompf, M. & Simmons, N. (2016). Reconstructing lifelong learning. In Winter, D. &
London: Routledge.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1962). The savage mind. Paris: Plon.
Pavlović, J. (2009). Pregled istraživanja ličnih epistemologija: analiza istraživačkih
metafora. Zbornik Instituta za pedagoška istraživanja, 41(1), 61–75.
Pavlović, J. (2012). Konstrukcija identiteta u diskursu kontinuiranog profesionalnog
obrazovanja. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Belgrade, Belgrade.
Polovina, N. i Pavlović, J. (2010). Teorija i praksa profesionalnog razvoja nastavnika.
Beograd: Institut za pedagoška istraživanja.
Pope, M. & Denicolo, P. (2001). Transformative education. London: Whurr
publishers.
Pope, M. & Denicolo, P. (2016). From periphery to core: Personal construct psy-
chology’s permeation of education. In Winter, D. & Reed, N. (Eds.), The Wiley
handbook of personal construct psychology (333–351). London: Routledge.
Schön, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teach-
ing and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Sultana, R. (2003). Guidance policies in the knowledge society: Trends, challenges and
responses across Europe. Thessaloniki: CEDEFOP.
Usher, R., Bryant, I. & Johnston, R. (1997). Adult education and the postmodern
challenge: Learning beyond the limits. London: Routledge.
Conclusion
Anticipating the future of
constructivist coaching psychologies
Introduction
The aim of this concluding chapter is to experiment with possible answers
to a demanding question: What is the future for of constructivist coaching
psychologies? Anticipating the future of an approach or a discipline is not
an easy task. Relatively loose boundaries of constructivist psychology make
this task even more challenging. In the first part of the chapter, the basic idea
of future thinking and scenario methodology is briefly sketched. In line with
the ideas of future thinking, several possible trends for coaching psychol-
ogy are identified: (a) democratization, (b) digitalization and (c) integration
versus differentiation. Based on these trends, implications for constructivist
coaching psychology are discussed as a starting point for strategic conversa-
tions about the future of constructivist coaching psychology.
Future thinking for coaching psychologies

Quick and frequent changes have become some of the defining features of
contemporary societies. The pace of human ability to transform the self and
the environment has been rapidly increasing, which Kelly (1966) referred to
as “ontological acceleration” half a century ago. Quick anticipatory actions
are therefore becoming more and more important. As a response to this
increasing pace of change, future thinking has been developed in the social
sciences (Pavlović, 2015. Future studies refer to a relatively new cluster of
disciplines gathered around the shared goal of exploring alternative visions
for the future (Peters, 2003). While other approaches aim at prediction, fu-
ture studies are based on the assumption that the future cannot be predicted
because it is dependent on the choices we make in the present. The aim of
future studies is to consider a number of possible futures (Miller, 2006). In
other words, the discipline of future studies expands our understanding of
the future and facilitates strategic conversations.
Many trends have influenced coaching psychology and many more are
still waiting to influence it in the future. Although there are different possi-
ble trajectories, several important future trends for psychology will be elab-
orated in this chapter.
Democratization of coaching
A trend in democratization of coaching has been noticed as a shift from
the image of coaching as an exclusive intervention reserved for high-level
managers. The trend we are witnessing is a more inclusive orientation in
coaching, which is more often perceived as a useful intervention regardless
of their hierarchical positioning. The more inclusive view of coaching needs
to be accompanied with, on average, lower financial costs of the coach-
ing services. Easiness of access to coaching may also be facilitated by the
emerging coaching platforms.
Digitalization of coaching psychology

Using artificial intelligence in coaching is probably the first thing that comes
to our mind when we think of digital coaching. Coach-bots that supplement
face-to-face coaching may already be on their way (Hawkins & Turner,
2020). Another digital trend in coaching that is becoming even more dom-
inant is the use of platforms for online coaching with a human coach. The
platforms increase accessibility of coaching close to the level of on-demand
coaching. They also may bring a disruption in the pricing of coaching ser-
vices, contributing to the global trend of making coaching more widely
available.
Unification or differentiation of coaching approaches

Another trend that is more generally tied to psychology as a discipline is
unification of its theories and approaches (Pavlović, 2015). Apart from the
policy documents, the idea of unification has been strongly advocated in
a number of theoretical papers (Calhoun, 2004; Henriques & Cobb, 2004;
Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2001; Valsiner, 2007). For example, Sternberg &
Grigorenko (2001) argue that unified psychology can and should supple-
ment traditional approaches to psychology. They point to some of the com-
monplace “bad habits” of psychology, such as exclusive reliance on a single
methodology and adherence to single underlying paradigms (e.g. behavio-
rism, cognitivism, constructivism). For coaching psychology, we may ask
the same question of whether a unification trend is possible or even unfold-
ing already.
Another way to ask the same question concerns the unification or dif-
ferentiation of coaching and other developmental interventions. History of
coaching has been a history of its growth from process consultation type of
interventions (Hawkins, 2017). After a couple of decades, a question may be
raised whether in future we will be seeing a trend of unifying coaching with
mentoring or even more classical consulting. Whether this type of unifica-
tion will jeopardize the identity of coaching as form of practice is naturally
a question to ask.
Future thinking for constructivist coaching psychology
Anticipated developments in coaching and coaching psychology have their
reflection to the field of constructivist coaching psychology. Democratiza-
tion as defined by values of multi-perspectivism and inclusivity has been a
longstanding characteristic of constructivist psychology. Seeing a democ-
ratization trend in coaching would probably be welcomed if we looked
at coaching from the constructivist lenses. Improving accessibility and
de-mystifying coaching would naturally follow from the general construc-
tivist ethics.
Digitalization can be seen as expanding the tools that are available to
humans in line with a Vygotskian view of cognitive tools (Bull & Keengwe,
2019). From a constructivist point of view, any tool that enhances or am-
plifies complex cognitive processes may be considered useful. For example,
using digital tools for shared note taking in online sessions with the client
may be a small step towards digitalization that symbolizes some of the core
values of the constructivist approach.
When it comes to a position regarding unification or differentiation,
whether constructivist psychology will ever join the unification camp
probably depends on what grounds psychology is to be united. Dismiss-
ing pluralism of approaches in favour of orientation to phenomena may
be seen as undermining the very foundations of constructivist psychology
as it is phenomena that are created by specific ways of seeing, rather than
independent of them (Pavlović, 2015). As a smaller step, unification within
larger perspectives could be more fruitful. For example, unifying differ-
ent perspectives under a larger constructivist coaching psychology. In this
book, unification of the personal and relational construct psychology, ap-
preciative inquiry, solution-focused approach, narrative coaching and sys-
temic coaching has been proposed. It seems like a delicate balance to be
struck between differentiation that allows for diversity and unification that
provides common ground in coaching practice. Finally, constructivist po-
sition regarding unifying coaching and similar practices depends on what
will be the outcomes of these experiments in future. In case it turns out
that coaching proves its value in a cluster of interventions (including con-
sulting or psychotherapy), that could probably be seen as an experimental
outcome to learn from.
Concluding or anticipating?
In this book, we have travelled through a “landscape” of constructivist
coaching psychology: its constituents, models, tools, applications to group
and team coaching, as well as pedagogies for training coaches. It seems chal-
lenging to ask a question of how this “landscape” will look in near or not so
near future. One of the things that may be anticipated is boundary defini-
tion in constructivist psychology in general and in its coaching applications.
Perhaps in future we may delineate this field more precisely and with a wider
consensus of the relevant audiences or stakeholders. Better integration of
the toolboxes of various constructivist approaches can also be anticipated,
preferably without restricting the flexibility and improvisation as core char-
acteristics of the approach. More experiments with the digital formats could
further be anticipated with all coaching approaches, including constructiv-
ist coaching. Perhaps constructivist coaches would echo Vygotsky more of-
ten to stay open to various opportunities of improving human development
by mediated (digital) tools. Another chapter on digital coaching and coach
training based on constructivist psychology sounds like a viable hypothesis
in relatively near future. Democratizing coaching seems to sit well with the
metaphor of person as scientist. With the expansion of reach, accessibility
and inclusivity of coaching, perhaps a view of person could also be democ-
ratized to fully appreciate the wide range of human’s frames of reference.
Instead of concluding, in the end a look into the future will inspire us to
create that future together.
Recommended reading
Pavlović, J. (2015). Imagining possible futures: Scenarios for constructivist psychol-
ogy. In Raskin, J., Bridges, S. & Kahn, J. (Eds.), Studies in meaning 5: Perturbing
the status quo in constuctivist psychology (221–245). New York: Pace University.
Valsiner, J. (2007). Becoming integrative in science: Rebuilding contemporary psy-
chology through interdisciplinary and international collaboration. Integrative
Psychological & Behavioural Science, 43, 1–21.
References
Bull, P. H., & Keengwe, J. (Eds.). (2019). Advances in educational technologies and
instructional design (AETID). Handbook of research on innovative digital practices
to engage learners. Hershey: Information Science Reference/IGI Global.
Calhoun, L. (2004). The unification in psychology: A noble quest. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 60(12), 1283–1289.
Henriques, G. & Cobb, H. (2004). Introduction to the special issue on the unified
theory. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60(12), 1203–1205.
Kelly, G. A. (1969). In whom confide: On whom depend for what? In Maher, B. (Ed.)
Clinical psychology and personality: The selected papers of George Kelly (189–206).
New York: Krieger.
Miller, R. (2006). Future studies, scenarios and the “possibility space” approach. In
OECD, Think scenarios, rethink education. Schooling for tomorrow series (93–105).
Paris: OECD.
Pavlović, J. (2015). Imagining possible futures: Scenarios for constructivist psychol-
ogy. In Raskin, J., Bridges, S. & Kahn, J. (Eds.), Studies in meaning 5: Perturbing
the status quo in constuctivist psychology (221–245). New York: Pace University.
Peters, M. (2003). Education policy futures. Journal of Future Studies, 8(1), 39–52.
Sternberg, R. & Grigorenko, E. (2001). Unified psychology. American Psychologist,
56(12), 1069–1079.
Valsiner, J. (2007). Becoming integrative in science: Rebuilding contemporary psy-
chology through interdisciplinary and international collaboration. Integrative
Psychological & Behavioural Science, 43, 1–21.
Index
Note: Bold page numbers refer to tables and italic page numbers refer to figures.
ABC technique 31, 31–32, 100 construct 24, 58; increasing permeability
achieved identity 9 of 27; tightening one’s core 27
action IMs 59 construction 7–8; self as 8–16
action orientation 25, 97 constructionism 2
American Psychological Association constructionist principle 42
(APA) 42 constructivisms 1, 2
anticipation 28, 42 constructivist coaching psychology 1–2,
anxiety 89 118–119
appreciative coaching: case study constructivist coach training programs:
46–47; operating models 42–43, 44; challenges 113–114; designing
positive constructivist psychology 42; 109–110; jazz improvization/bricolage
principles 41; techniques 44–45 111; program structure of 111, 112–113
appreciative inquiry 41, 42, 78 constructivist education 109
constructivist group coaching 83; model
behaviour 8, 23, 25 of 84–90; see also group coaching
behavioural experiments 58; constructivist integrative approach 74
co-researcher in 25 constructivist team coaching 94; model
between-session experiments 101, 102 of 94–102; see also team coaching
Brown, S. 84 content 42, 45, 75, 96
core constructs 14, 27
Cavanagh, M. 49 co-researcher, in behavioural
central assumption 1, 14 experiments 25
change: constructing positive identity credulous approach 25
42; experimentation, model of 27–28, critical social theory 10, 11
28; mapping team vision of 98; current self version 88
preconditions of 26–27; revision of
personal theories 26 Davies, B. 11
CLEAR model 69–70, 70 democratization, of coaching
coach-bots 117 psychology 117, 118
coaching process, model of 29, 29, 30 dependency dispersion 26
coaching psychology 24–25, 116; designing experiments: in group
democratization of 117; digitalization coaching 87, 87–88; in team coaching
of 117; unification/differentiation of 98, 99, 100
approaches 117 design phase, appreciative coaching 43
coach reflection 110 destiny phase, appreciative coaching 43
coach, role of 25 developmental perspective, positive
community of self 13, 33–34 identity 42
122 Index
developmental principle 25 Goals-Reality-Options-Will (GROW)
Dierolf, K. 50 model 58
digitalization, of coaching psychology Gofman, E. 14
117, 118 Gonçalves, M. 59
directive integration 75, 77 Grant, A. 49, 84
discourse 7–8 group coaching 2; case study 90–92;
discovery, appreciative coaching 42–43 characteristic of 83; defined as 83;
discursive psychology 11, 12 design 84, 84; designing experiments
dispersion of dependencies 26 in 87, 87–88; formulating hypotheses
disruption 69, 117 in 84–86, 85; performing experiments
disruptive changes, integration 77 in 88; revising hypotheses,
double-loop learning 97 experimental outcomes 89–90;
dramaturgical theory of self 14 rhythmical nature of 83–84
dream phase, appreciative coaching 43 group facilitation 83–84
Dutton, J. 42
Dweck, C. 28 Harre, R. 8, 10, 11
Hawkins, P. 68–69, 96
Edmondson, A. 89 Hermans, H. 14
educational philosophy 109 Heslin, P. A. 16
emergence 59, 69 High Performing Team Questionnaire
enactments 88, 101 (HPTQ) 96–97
enactment sketch 34–35
environment 67, 116 Ibarra, H. 14, 15
equilibrium creation 9 identity 9–10; achieved 9; linear 9;
Erikson, Erik: view of identity as orderly 9; personal 10, 15; positive 42;
achieved 9–10; view of integrated professional 15; self and 14–16
identity 13 implicit individualism 67
evaluative perspective, positive identity 42 implicit person theories (IPTs) 16, 25
exceptions 53 implicit theories 109, 110
experiential learning, cycle of 28 incremental changes, integration 77
experiments: group coaching 87, 87–88; incremental/second-order change 50, 51
team coaching 100–101 independent variable 23
externalization 61–62 informal challenging jolts 44
innovative moments (IMs), typology of
“facade” 14 59–60
fast-forward rehearsal technique 71 innovative self 14–15
fixed role technique 34–35 in-session experiments 100–101
fixed self 14 integration: adapting and visioning 78;
formal challenging jolts 44 directive and non-directive 75, 77;
formal performance conversations 45 gaps and strengths 77; incremental
formulating hypotheses: in group and disruptive changes 77; internal
coaching 84–86, 85; team frame of reference and outside
coaching 96–98 perspective 77; metatheoretical
Foucaldian theory 7 integration 74–75; in team coaching
Foucault, M. 10, 15; ideas of subject 102; technical integration 75, 76
11–12 integrative team coaching model 102
4D cycle model 42–43, 44 internal frame of reference 77
fragmented self 13 I-position 14
future-back principle 69, 111
future-oriented brief psychotherapy 49 Kelly, G. A. 13, 14, 24, 49, 69, 70,
75, 116; Psychology of Personal
Gergen, K. 13 Constructs 23
Goal Perceiver Element Grid (GPEG) Kolb, D.: cycle of experiential
32, 75, 100 learning 28
Index 123
language game, of solution 50 preconditions of 26–27; coaching
Law, H. 61 process, model of 29, 29, 30; model
letter writing 62–63 of change, experimentation, 27–28,
linear identity 9 28; sociality 24; techniques 30–35;
“live” team experimentation 101 theoretical framework for coaching
psychologists 24–25
Mair, J. M. 13, 33, 58 personal continuity 9
Mair, Miller 11 personal identity 10, 15
McAdams, D. 12 personality 11, 15; implicit theories of
Mead, G. H. 12 16; and process of facilitating change
memento 43 23; self 8
metaphor of person as scientist personality psychology discourse 8
23–24, 28 personal responsibility 11
metatheoretical integration 74–75 personal theory 24; change, revision of
M-grammar/essentialist view of self 8 26; of leadership 26
miracle questions 52–53 personhood 10, 11
multi-stakeholder contracting 68 P-grammar 8
Phillida, Salmon 30
narrative 7–8, 58 Piaget, Jean: genetic epistemology 1
narrative coaching 78; case study 63–64; positioning 11–12
operating models 60–61; principles positive identity 42
57–58; techniques 61–63; typology of positive psychology 42
IMs 59–60; unique outcomes 59 Potter, J. 8
narrative positioning 12 principle of anticipation 42
narrative psychologists 7 principle of simultaneity 42
narrative psychology 12, 57, 58 problem–solution relation 50
narrative psychotherapy 57–58 Procter, H. 24, 32
non-directive integration 75, 77 professional identity 15
professional practice 109, 110
operating models: appreciative propositional construing, promoting 27
coaching 42–43, 44; model of change, protest IMs 60
experimentation 27–28, 28; model of provisional self version 88
coaching process 29, 29, 30; narrative psychological approaches 1
coaching 60–61; solution-focused psychological phenomena 1
coaching 51; systemic coaching psychological safety 89
69–70, 70 Psychology of Personal Constructs
orderly identity 9 (Kelly) 23
Orem, S. 42
outcomes: in group coaching process radical constructivism 2, 50
89–90; narrative coaching 59; of team Raskin, J. D. 2
experiments 101; unique 59 reconceptualization IMs 60
outside-in principle 68, 111 reconstruction 26
reflected best self (RBS) portrait 44–45
Papadopoulos, G. 14–15 reflection IMs 59–60
perceiver element grid (PEG) technique relational construct coaching 58
32, 32–33, 90 relational construct psychology 2,
perfectionism, discourse of 7 24; case study 35–38; change,
performance conversations 45 preconditions of 26–27; coaching
performed self 14 process, model of 29, 29, 30;
performing change IMs 60 techniques 30–35; theoretical
personal agency 11–12 framework for coaching psychologists
personal construct coaching 58, 75 24–25
personal construct psychology 2, 23, relationality principle 24
42, 58; case study 35–38; change, relational self 12–13
124 Index
repertory grid technique 86 contracting and outside-in principle
revising personal theories 28 68; operating models 69–70, 70;
Roberts, L. 44 principles 67; techniques 70–71;
triangulated thinking, disruption and
Salmon line technique 30–31, 101 emergence 69
sameness 9 systemic psychology 67
Sarbin, T. 12, 57
scaling 51–52 team coaching 2; case study 102–103;
Scanlon, L. 15 defined as 94; designing experiments
second-generation coaching 58 in 98, 99, 100; design of 95, 95;
self 8; Erikson’s view of identity as formulating team hypotheses 96–98;
achieved 9–10; fragmented self 13; revising team hypotheses 101–102;
innovative self 14–15; performed team experimentation 100–101;
self 14; personality and view as towards integration in 102, 104
entity 8; positioning and personal team experimentation 100–101
agency 11–12; professional identity team performance, disciplines of 96–97
15; relational self 12–13; Self 1, 2, 3 team problem language 100
10; subjectification 10–11; as theory team scaling 97–98, 101
13–14; using terms note 15–16 technical integration 75, 76
Self 1, 2, 3 10 techniques 30; ABC technique 31,
self-characterization 34 31–32; community of self 33–34;
self-evaluation 42 exceptions 53; externalization 61–62;
self-perception 44 fast-forward rehearsal technique 71;
Seligman, Martin 42 fixed role technique 34–35; letter
social constructionism 2, 12 writing 62–63; miracle questions
social constuctionists 8 52–53; perceiver element grid 32,
sociality 24 32–33; reflected best self portrait
social meaning making processes 7 44–45; Salmon line technique 30–31;
social psychology 13 scaling 51–52; stakeholder mapping
solution-focused approach 78 70; witnessing 62
solution-focused coaching: case study third-generation coaching 58
54–55; incremental/second-order “13th fairy” 68
change 51; language game of 50; 360-degree feedback 86, 96
operating models 51; principles transitional space 69, 89
49; problem–solution relation 50; triangulated thinking 69
techniques 51–53 triangulation 69, 100, 111
solution-focused gallery 51 Tung, R. 90
solution-focused psychotherapy 49 Turner, E. 68, 69, 96
stakeholder 68, 96, 110, 119; team
change implications on 98, 100 undispersed dependencies 26
stakeholder mapping 70 unification/differentiation, coaching
Stelter, R. 58 psychology 117
Stephenson, N. 14–15 unique outcomes 59
Stojnov, D. 1, 8 Usher, R. 109
structural perspective, positive identity 42
subject 10, 11 verbalizing hypotheses/theories 26
subjectification 10–11 Vygotsky, Lev: cultural-historical theory 1
sustainability, group coaching 89, 90
systemic coaching: case study 71–72; Watzlawick, P. 50
coaching in service 68; future-back Wetherell, M. 8
principle 69; multi-stakeholder witnessing 62

(Coaching Psychology Series) Jelena Pavlovic - Coaching Psychology - Constructivist Approaches-Routledge (2021)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

(Coaching Psychology Series) Jelena Pavlovic - Coaching Psychology - Constructivist Approaches-Routledge (2021)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

“What a great and useful addition to the coaching literature – a book that

brings together constructivist, relational, systemic and narrative approaches

“Constructivist approaches offer substantial advantages to coaches work-

“FINALLY! At last a book on coaching that is firmly grounded in constructivist /

“This book summarizes rich practical experience rooted in a constructiv-

“Coaching discipline is only at the early stage of developing a solid theoreti-

Coaching Psychology: Constructivist Approaches presents a comprehensive

Jelena Pavlović, PhD, is founder and Managing Director of Koučing cen-

Coaching psychology is a distinct branch of academic and applied psychology

Titles in the series:

Very Brief Cognitive Behavioural Coaching (VBCBC)

Coaching Psychology for Learning

Positive Psychology Coaching in Practice

The Art of Dialogue in Coaching

ISBN: 978-0-367-86096-7 (hbk)

Introduction: constructivist coaching psychologies 1

1 Constructivist views of self and identity 7

2 Personal and relational construct coaching 23

8 Constructivist group coaching 83

10 Designing and delivering constructivist coach training

This book is a product of over a decade of experience in individual and

What is specific about constructivist coaching psychology? What value does

Coaching the self as a

Introduction: discourse, narrative and construction

Personality and the view of self as an entity

Subjectification: “Hey, you!”

Positioning and personal agency

Storytellers become the stories they tell

A note on using terms

How is all this relevant? Implications for coaches

Metaphor of person as scientist

Our experiments are always social

A coaching psychology before coaching?

Role of the coach: co-researcher in behavioural experiments

1 Verbalizing hypotheses or theories. For various reasons people may not

The five preconditions of change may be considered as formal goals of any

General model of change: experimentation

Figure 2.1 Model of change in personal construct psychology.

Negotiating goals In personal and relational construct, coaching goals are

Salmon line technique

Questions for elaboration

Figure 2.2 How to use the ABC technique.

Perceiver element grid

Table 2.1 PEG form

Person 1 Person 2 Person 3

Person 1 How person 1 How person 1 How person 1

Questions for elaboration

Fixed role technique

Questions for elaboration

COACH: It’s interesting that you see yourself as being somewhere

COACH: Now, that is really interesting. May I summarize what I think

Phase Possible coaching topics and questions

Discovery • Defining the coaching theme

Reflected best self portrait

Questions for elaboration

COACH: What are we learning from this RBS portrait?

Using RBS portrait enabled a shift in focus from a feeling of stuck-

And what is the solution?

The language game of solutions

1 Ticket office. Starts with the negotiation of a coaching goals which

Questions for elaboration

Questions for elaboration

Instructions for group coaching

Table 2.1 PEG form