Content uploaded by Penny M. Potter
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Penny M. Potter on Jul 17, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
Becoming a Coach: The Transformative Learning and
Hierarchical Development of Coaching Students
Penny M. Potter
Fielding Graduate University
!
Abstract: Some scholars have drawn links between transformative learning
outcomes and hierarchical development. One place to explore this link is
executive coach training. In coach training, personal development is as important
as theory and skills training. Many coaches report their coach training as
transformational, but whether these reports equate to transformative learning
outcomes and lead to hierarchical development has not been explored. This study
included ten students in the Georgetown University’s six-month Leadership
Coaching program. It combined two relatively new methods to gather three sets of
data. Observation Oriented Modeling (OOM) was used in the data analysis to
determine patterns often missed in quantitative research. Results indicate that all
participants experienced transformative learning outcomes and demonstrated
changes in hierarchical development levels. Preliminary findings indicate a
surprising inverse pattern between three of four transformative learning outcomes
and changes in developmental levels.
Introduction
In a single coaching session, a coach artfully coordinates a complex set of skills that
come together in an improvisational conversational dance with the client. While listening
closely, a coach must also simultaneously observe multiple data points beyond the
conversational content. She observes subtle shifts in energy and affect in both her client and
herself. She must also hold the client’s agenda while staying open to what unfolds, make
decisions about the next response that will have the most impact for the client, and connect
multiple themes and ideas. She nonjudgmentally seeks her client’s perspectives while observing
her own. All this is done while being in the moment and fully present to her client. How does
one embody this complex choreography?
Campone (2014) observes that coaching is more than accumulating knowledge and skills.
It requires full presence, empathy, boundary awareness, somatic awareness, and ability to
supportively challenge one’s client (McLean, 2012). Choosing and coordinating these actions
requires simultaneous reflexivity, informed judgment, critical thinking, and decision-making
(Campone, 2014).
Many coaches report their coach training as transformational, but whether these reports
equate to transformative learning outcomes has not been explored. Transformative learning is a
process by which one actively confronts a limiting or problematic structure for understanding,
and struggles to simultaneously disassemble and construct a new structure (Mezirow, 2012). The
result is not simply knowing more, it is a new way of understanding (Dix, 2016). According to
Mezirow (2003), this new structure is more “inclusive, discriminating, open, reflective, and
emotionally able to change” (p. 53).
In addition, Mezirow (1991) has contended that hierarchical development is at the heart
of transformative learning theory. Hierarchical development occurs in a series of integrations of
cognitive structures (Fischer & Bidell, 2006). Each structure builds upon the previous, resulting
in increased levels of abstraction and more complex understanding. Similarities between
transformative learning and hierarchical development theories include a more complex and
nuanced understanding that emerges as a result of a limiting or problematic experience. Over
time, the individual actively struggles with the dissonance – either consciously or subconsciously
– and reconciles it by constructing a new way of understanding. What is the relationship between
these two theories?
While many have drawn conceptual links between transformative learning outcomes and
hierarchical development (Garvey-Berger, 2002, 2004; Kasl & Elias, 2000; Kegan, 2009;
Merriam, 2004; Stevens-Long, Schapiro, & McClintock, 2012; Taylor, 2000a, 2000b), the nature
of the link remains unclear. Are they different aspects of the same phenomonen? Is
transformative learning a precursor to hierarchical development? Does it facilitate hierarchical
development? Coach training and new research methods provide new opportunities to explore
this question.
Background
Numerous authors have documented the increased complexity in our lives (Bartunek,
Gordon, & Weathersby, 1983; Kegan, 1994; Torbert & Associates, 2004; Weick, 1979). Some
suggest a developmental divide, i.e. the majority of the population does not operate at levels
necessary to manage such complexity (Garvey-Berger, 2012; Hooijberg, Hunt, & Dodge, 1997;
Kegan, 1994). Dawson-Tunik and Stein (2004) empirically demonstrated this divide in a study of
500 managers in a federal government agency. As managers advanced, the gap widened between
their development levels and the complexity required in their positions.
Some propose coaching may facilitate hierarchical development in those who are
coached (Fitzgerald & Garvey-Berger, 2002; Garvey-Berger, 2006; Laske, 2004). Recent
research demonstrates that to be effective, successful coaches function at the same or later level
development levels as their clients (Laske, 1999a, 1999b; K. A. Perry, 2014). Yet, there is little
research on the impact of learning coaching skills. This is interesting, given that personal
development is a critical competency for coaches (Bluckert, 2005; Lee, 2003).
Three coach training studies found positive outcomes for training participants that align
with transformative learning outcomes. Two studies found greater self-awareness, new
perspectives, better interpersonal skills, and improved relationships (Beets & Goodman, 2012;
Mukherjee, 2012). Campone (2014) found increased reflective learning and decision-making
capacity in situational complexity. While Campone hints at a link between transformative
learning and hierarchical development in coach training, she does not explicate the nature of the
link.
One challenge to researching this link has been a primary focus among transformative
learning scholars on constructive development theory (Kegan, 1982, 1994). Kegan synthesized
the works of Baldwin (1906), Piaget (1975), (Kohlberg, 1969), and Perry (1970) and applied
Baldwin’s (1906) concept of subject-object relations to define five stages of differentiation and
integration.!His popular book, In Over Our Heads, made the!concept of hierarchical
development accessible to wider audiences, and is the most frequently cited reference on
hierarchical development in peer-reviewed scholar-practitioner articles.
While Kegan’s work has contributed greatly to general understanding of hierarchical
development across disciplines, there are several issues with an exclusive focus on constructive
development theory. The research Kegan (1994) cites is not published in peer-reviewed literature
and is often second-order analysis. In addition, constructive development theory does not
accommodate the dynamic and recursive structural organization that occurs at micro-levels
among actively engaged learners. This does not invalidate Kegan’s contributions, but should give
us pause about building future scholarly work upon this one foundation.
An alternative theory is Kurt Fischer’s dynamic skill theory and dynamic structuralism
model of development (Fischer, 1980). A dynamic skill is the capacity to dynamically organize
and integrate a system of interrelated biological, psychological, and social processes within a
specific context.!Dynamic structuralism takes into account "continual interactions between
person, context, and culture” (Fischer & Bidell, 2006, p. 417). Fischer demonstrated that change
in any part[s] of the integrated system results in a shift in dynamic skill level. This accounts for
dips and spurts in performance levels as learners disassemble and reconstruct dynamic structures,
and may explain the disorienting dilemma described in transformative learning theory (Mezirow,
1994). In addition, Fischer’s universal scale has been found to measure the same developmental
sequences as other empirically tested hierarchical models of development (Dawson, 2002).
Another challenge to researching the link between transformative learning and
hierarchical development has been research measures. Up until recently, transformative learning
research has been time-consuming, not scalable, and has used different measurment criteria.
Measuring hierarchical development has been challenging because scoring systems are difficult
to learn and scoring is labor intensive. In addition, determining the developmental impact of a
specific program of less than one year has been problematic because movement described in
many models requires one-to-three years of concerted effort.
Two relatively recent developments have created opportunity for researchers. Stuckey,
Taylor, and Cranton (2014) developed the transformative learning survey that assesses
transformative learning outcomes and processes. The instrument is relatively new, yet
demonstrates acceptable reliability and validity (Stuckey et al., 2014). The second development
is the Lectica Assessment System (LAS). The LAS is a based upon Fischer’s skill theory and
detects dynamic skill development within .05 of a level across relatively short, three- to six-
month time spans (Dawson, 2015). The LAS is the first to use computer-assisted analyses of
narrative performances with .95 reliability with trained human scorers. It shows promise for
scalable, cost-effective measurement of programs aimed at development, including coaching
programs.
Research Study
This study explored the transformative learning and hierarchical development of ten
volunteers from the Georgetown University Leadership Coaching program. The research
questions asked in this study were:
1) Does participating in a coach-training program result in transformative learning
outcomes?
2) Do participants’ hierarchical development levels change over the course of the program?
3) Can a discernable link be made between transformative learning outcomes and
hierarchical development level data?
The sample included eight females and two males. Ages ranged from 24 to 64 with 80%
in the 35 to 54 age range. Eight participants are White, one Black, and one Latino. Nine
participants have graduate degrees and one has a bachelor degree. These demographics align
with demographics of coaches in the United States (International Coach Federation &
PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2012).
A mixed method approach was used to collect three sets of data. Two sets of
Developmental Levels (DL) were collected using the Lectica Leadership Decision Making
Assessment (LDMA) prior to the first coaching class and again after the final class. Data on four
transformative learning outcomes -- awareness, openness, action, and worldview – were
collected from the Transformative Learning Survey. Qualitative data were collected from two
open-ended prompts at the beginning of the survey.
Data analysis is currently underway. The qualitative data has been thematically coded
and provide insight into the nature of transformations that participants experienced. The
quantitative data are currently being analyzed using Observation Oriented Modeling (Grice,
2015), which keeps the individual at the center of the research.
Preliminary Results
This study asked three questions pertaining to coaching students’ transformative learning
and hierarchical development. The first research question was: Does participating in a coach-
training program result in transformative learning outcomes? Results from the transformative
learning survey affirm that participating in the Georgetown coaching program resulted in
transformative learning outcomes.
The qualitative narratives provide rich descriptions of the types of transformations
students experienced, including becoming more self-aware, integrated and open, acting
differently, and experiencing a deeper connection with self and others. Most comments indicated
increased metacognition, i.e. conscious awareness, monitoring, regulation, and agency of one’s
cognitive, affective, and somatic processes (Fischer & Bidell, 2006; Tarricone, 2011). Sample
comments from the open-ended questions are:
I am both more fluid and more integrated in my being. I am attending holistically to
others humanity integrating thinking, emotions, sensations (body), and spirit while being
a freer, more alive person…
I am more easily able to recognize and hold multiple perspectives, as well as observe
myself in action and notice what's going on for me in different domains.
I am more aware of the stories and assessments that I have and others have and can
more readily challenge assumptions and make choices about how to respond.
…the greatest change in my way of thinking is that I am a more integrative thinker and I
lead with greater awareness and curiosity.
My experience at Georgetown transformed my entire being… I have become more
comfortable with skillfully moving through difficult moments in my life – self-doubt, a
difficult conversation, being brave. My relationships have also changed. I feel like my
closest relationships are far more deep and connected…
The narrative data describe deeper, more profound qualitative shifts than the survey
scores indicate. The survey scale for each outcome is comprised of five items. The highest
possible score per scale is 20 and the lowest is five. Each question offers four possible
responses1: mostly disagree (5), slightly disagree (6-10), slightly agree (11-15), and mostly agree
(16-20). While all participants reported transformative learning as a result of the coaching
program, the mean (13.83) and median (14) indicate “slight agreement” with transformative
learning outcomes.
Three interesting patterns emerge from the survey data. The first is that despite the
experiential, action-oriented nature of coaching, action scored lower in all age groups, except for
the one participant in the 55-64 age range. The second is that mean outcome scores increased
progressively in each ten-year age range by approximately a full point. The exception to this was
awareness, which had similar means across all age ranges. The third is that the mean scores
across all outcomes for non-white participants were approximately two points greater than the
mean for white participants in their age ranges.
The second research question was: Do participants’ hierarchical development levels
change over the course of the program? The data affirm that all participants’ developmental
levels (DL) changed. For context, the average change in DL during one year of college is .05
(Dawson, 2016). In this study, eight of the 10 participants in this six-month coach program
demonstrated increased DL, with a mean change of .07. Two participants demonstrated DL
decreases, with a mean change of -.03.
The third research question was: Can a discernable link be made between transformative
learning outcome and hierarchical development level data? While the data analysis is still
1 Score ranges for each category are indicated in parentheses.
underway, preliminary findings show an interesting pattern. Participants with higher
transformative learning (TL) outcome scores demonstrated smaller changes in DL (Hi-TL/Low-
DL); those with lower TL scores, demonstrated greater changes in DL (Low-TL/High-DL). The
exception to this was action, which showed no discernable pattern. Of the two participants who
experienced negative changes in LDMA scores, one appeared in the Hi-TL/Low-DL group; the
other in the Low-TL/High-DL group. Further analysis is being conducted to determine patterns
across different demographics, as well as to triangulate all three sets of data for each participant.
Discussion.
The preliminary findings from this study support the idea that the process of becoming a
coach is transformative and developmental. All research participants experienced deep personal
shifts, transformative learning outcomes, and changes in developmental levels. The narratives
both align with three of the four transformative learning outcomes – awareness, openness, action
– and indicate an increase in metacognition. Metacognition has been linked to both
transformative learning and hierarchical development (Dix, 2016; Fischer, 1980; Mezirow, 2012;
Tarricone, 2011).
While all participant developmental levels changed, two demonstrated negative changes.
This may be accounted for by any number of personal and environmental factors that affect
performance. However, they may also be indicative of the typical spurts and dips that occur in
the systemic integration of dynamic skills (Fischer, 1980; Fischer & Bidell, 2006). This
possibility, combined with the above-average, positive DL changes of the other eight
participants, supports use of Fischer’s structural developmental model in future research.
Despite a common-sense, intuitive link between transformative learning and hierarchical
development, results from this study indicate an inverse pattern between transformative learning
outcome scores and changes in DL for these ten participants. Therefore, rather than providing
more clarity about the link between transformative learning and hierarchical development, this
finding creates questions for future studies.
Suggestions for Future Research
Suggestions for future studies include replicating the study across different coaching
programs, and using larger sample sizes. Longitudinal studies that follow participants
throughout their subsequent coaching careers may also provide insight into the changing
perspectives and development of coaches over time. The study design might also be replicated
with students other than coaching students to see if similar patterns emerge. Finally, further
research is indicated on teaching coaching skills to non-coaches to determine whether the impact
is generalizable to populations that do not intend to become professional coaches.
References
Baldwin, J. M. (1906). Mental development in the child and the race: Methods and processes (3d
ed.). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Bartunek, J. M., Gordon, J. R., & Weathersby, R. P. (1983). Developing ''complicated''
understanding in administrators. The Academy of Management Review, 8(2), 273.
Beets, K., & Goodman, S. (2012). Evaluating a training programme for executive coaches. SA
Journal of Human Resource Management, 10(3), 1-10.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm.v10i3.425
Bluckert, P. (2005). The foundations of a psychological approach to executive coaching.
Industrial and Commercial Training, 37(4/5), 171-178.
Campone, F. (2014). Thinking like a professional: The impact of graduate coach education.
Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture, 5(2), 16-30.
doi:10.1002/jpoc.21142
Dawson, T. L. (2002). A comparison of three developmental stage scoring systems. Journal of
applied measurement, 3(2), 146-189.
Dawson, T. L. (2015). Detecting change over short periods and in small samples. The validity,
reliability, & sensitivity of Lectical® assessments. Retrieved from
https://dts.lectica.org/_about/las_reliability_validity.php
Dawson, T. L. (2016, May 23). [Personal communication].
Dawson-Tunik, T. L., & Stein, Z. (2004). National leadership study results. Retrieved from
https://dts.lectica.org/PDF/NLSReport.pdf
Dix, M. (2016). The cognitive spectrum of transformative learning. Journal of Transformative
Education, 14(2), 139-162. doi:10.1177/1541344615621951
Fischer, K. W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control and construction of
hierarchies of skills. Psychological review, 87(6), 477-531.
Fischer, K. W., & Bidell, T. R. (2006). Dynamic development of action and thought. In R. M.
Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (6 ed., Vol. 1). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Fitzgerald, C., & Garvey-Berger, J. (2002). Executive coaching. In C. Fitzgerald & J. G. Berger
(Eds.), Executive Coaching: Practices and Perspectives (pp. 27−58). Palo Alta, CA:
Davis-Black Publishing.
Garvey-Berger, J. (2002). Exploring the connection between teacher education practice and
adult development theory. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations
& Theses Global (3055838)
Garvey-Berger, J. (2004). Dancing on the threshold of meaning: Recognizing and understanding
the growing edge. Journal of Transformative Education, 2(4), 336-351.
doi:10.1177/1541344604267697
Garvey-Berger, J. (2006). Adult development theory and executive coaching practice. In A. M.
Grant & D. R. Stober (Eds.), Evidence based coaching handbook: Putting best practices
to work for your clients (pp. 77-102). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Garvey-Berger, J. (2012). Changing on the job: Developing leaders for a complex world.
Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books.
Grice, J. W. (2015). From means and variances to persons and patterns. Frontiers in psychology,
6, 1-12. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01007
Hooijberg, R., Hunt, J. G., & Dodge, G. E. (1997). Leadership complexity and development of
the leaderplex model. Journal of Management, 23(3), 375-408. doi:10.1016/S0149-
2063(97)90036-2
International Coach Federation, & PricewaterhouseCoopers. (2012). 2012 ICF Global Coaching
Study: Executive Summary. Retrieved from http://icf.files.cms-
plus.com/includes/media/docs/2012ICFGlobalCoachingStudy-ExecutiveSummary.pdf
Kasl, E., & Elias, D. (2000). Creating new habits of mind in small groups. In J. Mezirow (Ed.),
Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 229-252).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Kegan, R. (2009). What” form” transforms. In T. K. Illeris (Ed.), A constructive-developmental
approach to transformative learning. (pp. 35-54). New York: Routledge.
Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental approach to
socialization. In D. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research (pp.
347-480). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Laske, O. (1999a). An integrated model of developmental coaching. Consulting Psychology
Journal: Practice and Research, 51(3), 139-159. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1061-
4087.51.3.139
Laske, O. (1999b). Transformative effects of coaching on executives' professional agenda. (PsyD
Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global
(9930438)
Laske, O. (2004). Can evidence-based coaching increase ROI. International Journal of Evidence
Based Coaching and Mentoring, 2(2), 41-53.
Lee, G. (2003). Leadership coaching: From personal insight to organisational performance.
London: Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.
McLean, P. (2012). The completely revised handbook of coaching: A developmental approach
(2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. B. (2004). The role of cognitive development in mezirow's transformational learning
theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 55(1), 60-68. doi:10.1177/0741713604268891
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Mezirow, J. (1994). Understanding transformation theory. Adult Education Quarterly, 44(4),
222-244.
Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative learning as discourse. Journal of Transformative Education,
1(1), 58-63. doi:10.1177/1541344603252172
Mezirow, J. (2012). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In E.
W. Taylor & P. Cranton (Eds.), The Handbook of Transformative Learning: Theory,
Research, and Practice (pp. 73-96). Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass.
Mukherjee, S. (2012). Does coaching transform coaches? A case study of internal coaching.
International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching & Mentoring, 10(2), 76-87.
Perry, K. A. (2014). Coach, know thyself: The developmental consciousness of professional
coaches (Order No.: 3631514). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ Fielding
Graduate University (1566193675)
Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development during the college years.
Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Piaget, J. (1975). The origins of intelligence in children (M. Cook, Trans.). New York, NY:
International Universities Press.
Stevens-Long, J., Schapiro, S. A., & McClintock, C. (2012). Passionate scholars: Transformative
learning in doctoral education. Adult Education Quarterly, 62(2), 180-198.
Stuckey, H. L., Taylor, E. W., & Cranton, P. (2014). Developing a survey of transformative
learning outcomes and processes based on theoretical principles. Journal of
Transformative Education, 11(4), 211-228. doi:10.1177/1541344614540335
Tarricone, P. (2011). The taxonomy of metacognition. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Taylor, K. (2000a). Linking learning with development. In K. Taylor, C. Marienau, & M. Fiddler
(Eds.), Developing Adult Learners: Strategies for Teachers and Trainers. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Taylor, K. (2000b). Teaching with developmental intention. In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as
transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (Kindle ed., pp. 1762-
2047). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Torbert & Associates. (2004). Action inquiry: The secret of timely and transforming leadership.
San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Pub.
Co.
