Download - ericreeves.weebly.comericreeves.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/7/4/18746708/coachi… · Web viewThe Real-World Problem or Concern. ... Consulting Psychology Journal: ... Journal of Social

Running Head: COACH SELF EFFICACY 1

Dissertation Study: The Impact of Brain Function Knowledge

On Developmental Coach Self Efficacy

Eric N. Reeves

George Mason University

COACH SELF EFFICACY 2

Introduction

The connection between neuroscience and coaching is a relatively recent association. Yet

there is much between the two that makes this connection, and a better understanding of it, of

great value to field of developmental coaching. Whereas coaching has drawn heavily from the

disciplines of education, psychology, and psychotherapy, advances in brain imaging adds another

field from which coaching can draw valuable lessons and techniques for improving practice. The

brain is a dynamic system of nerves and connections that extends through the body and is

involved in our conscious experience and sense of self (Bowman, Ayers, King, & Page, 2013).

Coaches who neglect to tap into this expanding body of research about brain-body-mind

relationships are doing a disservice to themselves and their clients. This research has the

potential to validate widely used coaching practices, and help modify those theoretical

approaches that are being put into question by brain research. Because coaches are concerned

with engaging clients to produce results, it is incumbent on the coaching community to examine

how neuroscience might impact current and future strategies with the coaching profession.

The Real-World Problem or Concern

Coaching is growing rapidly as a way to help individuals improve their professional

and/or personal success. As coaching has evolved, is has drawn its theoretical underpinnings

from numerous professions, and practitioners are often faced with having to clearly distinguish

the role and expectations of coaching from those intended outcomes of training, mentoring,

supervising, and therapy (Bloom, Castanga, Moir, & Warren, 2005). Kempster& Iszatt –White

(2013) identified six major sources of theoretical basis that most inform coaching interventions:

psychodynamic; behaviorist; person-centered; cognitive; systems-oriented; and solution-focused

coaching. More experienced coaches tend to drawn from those disciplines that have a longer and


more extensive tradition of research such as psychotherapy and management development

(deHaan, Culpin, & Curd, 2011).

Technological advances have contributed to the development of numerous brain imaging

techniques, including functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), computed tomography

(CT), positron emission tomography (PET), electroencephalography (EEG),

magnetoencephalography (MEG), diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), and near infrared

spectroscopy (NIRS). Just as coaching has drawn for other related disciplines to inform practice,

so has it begun tapping into the new advances in neuroscience. This developing interest and

discovery of new applications has resulted in the publication of a plethora of coaching-related

neuroscience books (Rock & Schwartz,: 2006; Rock & Page, 2009; Brown & Brown, 2012;

Azmatullah, 2013; Brann, 2014; Carson & Tiers, 2014; Benz & Kimsey-House, 2015; Bossons,

Riddell, & Sartain, 2015). In spite of this new interest and developing body of work, there exist

no studies that described whether or not knowledge of the neuroscience of coaching actually has

any positive impact on the coach, the client, or the coaching outcomes.

Baron & Morin (2009) identified four significant correlates to the coach–coachee

relationship: the coach’s self-efficacy with regard to facilitating learning and results, the

coachee’s motivation to transfer, his or her perception of support, and the number of coaching

sessions received. Self-efficacy is defined as “belief in one’s capabilities to organize and execute

the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (Bandura, 1997, p.3). Research into

self-efficacy strongly supports a connection between measures of self-efficacy and performance.

This concept is relevant to both the coach and the coachee. If the coach can support the coachee

in increasing their perceived self-efficacy, then the performance of both the coach and coachee


will improve. This study will look into how a developmental coach’s knowledge of the

neuroscience of coaching impacts his or her coaching self-efficacy.

Potential Research Questions

There are several research questions that will be used as the foundation for addressing the

problems identified for this study and informing the methods described in subsequent sections.

The first two questions specifically address the coach’s response to the intervention. Questions 3-

5 are specific to the coachee’s response to an increase in coach self-efficacy and would best be

answered by a survey of the coachee; however, the semi-structured interview questions will elicit

the coach’s perspective in relation to these questions.

(1) How does a coach’s understanding of coaching-related brain functions impact the

self-efficacy of the coach?


approach of the coach in the coaching relationship?


confidence of the coaching client in the coach?

(4) How does a coaching client’s understanding of coaching-related brain functions

impact the confidence of the client in the coaching process?

(5) How does a coaching client’s understanding of coaching-related brain functions

impact the generation of the client’s insight into goals and objectives?

Dissertation Study

Theories & Concepts

This study touches upon numerous theories and concepts that will influence the design of

this research.


Social Cognitive Theory. Social cognitive theory (SCT), posits that portions of an

individual's knowledge acquisition can be directly related to observing others within the context

of social interactions, experiences, and outside media influences. Bandura (1986) advanced the

concept of individuals as self-organizing, proactive, self-reflecting, and self-regulating.

Social Cognitive Learning Theory. Although developed in the context of a child’s

cognitive development, Vygotsky’s (1978) concepts of Zone of Proximal Development and

Scaffolding contribute to the framework in which training in coaching-related brain functions is

provided to the coach participants of this study.

Adult Transformational Learning. Transformative learning theory declares that the

process of ‘perspective transformation’ has three dimensions: psychological (changes in

understanding of the self), convictional (revision of belief systems), and behavioral (changes in

lifestyle). This transformation usually results from a ‘disorienting dilemma’ which is triggered by

a life crisis or major life transition - although it may also result from an accumulation of

transformations in meaning schemes over a period of time (Mezirow, 1997).

Developmental Coaching. Grant (2013) defines developmental coaching as "a

collaborative, cognitive-behavioral, and solution focused systematic process, provided to a

nonclinical population, in which the coach facilitates self-learning, personal growth and goal

achievement of the client" (p.73). The aim of the coaching process is to sustain cognitive,

emotional and behavioral changes that facilitate goal achievements' either in one's career or in

one's personal life. Cox (2006) recognized developmental coaching to be a natural progression

from skills and performance coaching to a focus on the growth of a person to be all that he or she

can be. The complexity of the topic lends itself to the leveraging of multiple types of adult


development theories that inform coaching including, physical development, intellectual or

cognitive development, and lifespan development theories (Palmer & Panchal, 2011).

Self-Efficacy. Self-efficacy beliefs influence the way people feel, think, behave, and are

motivated. Such beliefs are produced from four major sources: past success that create the

mastery sense, modeling and exposure to behaviors and possibilities of others, persuasion by

significant figures, and psycho-physiological regulation. They include cognitive, motivational,

affective, and regulation processes (Bandura, 1977).

Cognitive Neuroscience. Cognitive neuroscience emphasizes the biological factors

underlying cognition, with a specific focus on the neural factors that relate to cognition. It

addresses the questions of how psychological/cognitive functions are produced by neural circuits

in the brain (Bear, Connors & Paradiso, 2007). Cognitive neuroscience is a branch of both

psychology and neuroscience, overlapping with disciplines such as physiological psychology,

cognitive psychology and neuropsychology. Cognitive neuroscience relies upon theories in

cognitive science coupled with evidence from neuropsychology and computational modeling

(Churchland & Sejnowski, 1992).

Affective Neuroscience. Affective neuroscience is a hybrid discipline that involves the

“study of the brain mechanisms that underlie our emotions and the search for ways to enhance

people’s sense of well-being and promote positive qualities of mind” (Davidson & Begley, 2013,

p. xi.). This interdisciplinary field combines neuroscience with the psychological study of

personality, emotion and mood (Panskeep, 1992).

Research Literature

The role of the coach in a coaching relationship is to assist the client in seeing the

fundamental relationship between their life choices and resultant consequences, the alignment of


these choices and outcomes with their personal values and ethics, and the changes that could

occur with greater clarity about how different choices would bring about outcomes more in line

with the client’s self-defined life purpose (Kets de Vries, 1989). Coaching participants identified

the coaches’ top contributions to be those factors that are available in every coaching

relationship: quality of the relationship, personal characteristics, their expectations for their

clients, and their ability to motivate (deHaan, 2008a;deHaan, 2008b; deHaan, Culpin, & Curd,

2011). Campone & Awal (2012) found that coaching clients also identified formal education in

skills and theory as having an impact on their coaching experience. This formal preparation

formed a basis for coaches to deepen their professional reasoning and make informed decisions.

There are no universal standards for the identification of competent coaches, and there is

great disagreement as to the necessary professional qualifications for coaches (Bono, Purvanova,

Towler, & Peterson, 2009). With no real barriers to entering the profession, the number of

coaches has risen rapidly and coaches come from all levels of education and occupational

backgrounds. One of the most frequently cited reason that individuals enter into the field of

professional coaching is life experiences, such as accidents, illnesses and divorce. It is not the

experience itself that leads a person into coaching, it is the reflection, processing of the

information, and integrating it into life going forward the makes him or her more aware of

strengths and limitations and helps stimulate the desire to help others along the path (Campone &

Awal, 2012). Coaching is a profession where the majority of its practitioners are passionate and

committed to the process of facilitating change in their clients’ lives (Newnham-Kanas, 2012).

Drake (2011) emphasized the need for technical coach training and preparation focused

on aspects of the field such as skills, processes, coach behaviors; ethical standards and business

practices, in order to cultivate skills grounded in science-based and experience-based evidence.


However, other researchers in the field support the idea that the value of coaching can be

attributed less to the technique or approach used by the coach and more by the common factors

that apply to all coaching experiences: the relationship, empathic understanding, and positive

expectations (deHaan, 2008a;deHaan, 2008b; deHaan, Culpin, & Curd, 2011; Campone & Awal,

2012). Coaches tend to be eclectic in their application of coaching techniques; however, Barner

& Higgins (2007) recognized that coaches tended to center on one of four principle coaching

models: the clinical model, the behavioral model, the systems model, and (as a more recent

development) the social constructionist model. To this should be added a brain-based model that

addresses the goals of recognizing the role brain synaptic pathways affect emotions, and change

being defined as consciously using the mind to ‘rewire’ the brain (Davidson & Begley, 2013;

Schwartz & Begley, 2002).

By maintaining focus on the prioritized issues, the coach assists the client in reshaping

the patterns of his or her brain. Zull (2002) proposed an approach that links the experiential

learning theory of Kolb (1983) with findings in neuroscience research. Each step of Kolb’s

experiential learning cycle - gathering information, reflection, creating, active testing – is

associated with different regions of the brain aligned with sensory, associative, and motor

functions (Hendel-Giller, Hollenbach, David, Oughton, Pickthorn, Schilling, & Versiglia, 2011).

By working through each stage of the cycle, a ‘multiplier effect’ occurs in the brain, with the

increased transition of positive behavior from working memory to the habit-storing area of the

basil ganglia (Rock, 2006).

Habermacher, Ghandiri, & Peters (2014) suggest that neuroscience and brain research

present five human basic needs – Self-esteem, Control, Orientation, Attachment, and Pleasure

(SCOAP). Leveraging the work of Klaus Grawe in neuropsychotherapy, Habermacher et al.


(2014) propose the SCOAP Coach Theory as “a model of basic human needs as an integrated

coaching framework” (p. 7). Each of these needs is impacted by approach and avoidance

motivations. While the approach-avoidance distinction has “a long and rich history in intellectual

thought” (Elliot & Covington, 2001, p. 74), findings in neuroscience illustrate that these schemas

can be activated as the same time since they rely on different neuronal circuits. By assisting the

client stay focused on their goals, and holding them accountable for their actions, the coach

further guides the client toward a reconfiguring of the brain to remain focused on positive results

(Habermacher et al., 2014).

Schwartz & Begley (2002) applied a similar process in cognitive-behavioral therapy for

patients who were clinically diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). By

explaining the neurological process to patients, they gained insight into the true nature and

origins of their OCD thoughts and urges. They were subsequently guided to relabel their

obsessions and compulsions as false signals (symptoms of a disease), reattribute those thoughts

and urges to pathological brain circuitry, refocus their attention away from the pathological

thought and urges into a constrictive behavior, and revalue the OCD obsessions and

compulsions, realizing that they have no intrinsic value, and no inherent power (Schwartz &

Begley, 2002).

Davidson and Begley (2013) provide an additional perspective on brain research, positing

that the brain is composed of six basic emotional styles that are comprised of attention,

resilience, outlook, self-awareness, social intuition, and context sensitivity. These six dimensions

reflect properties and patterns in the brain, the essential components of any model of human

behavior and emotion. These 6 brain circuits are the underpinnings of Emotional Style which

govern the context and duration of emotions for different people, and which ultimately give rise


to moods and personality. Similarly, Azmullah (2014) combined neuroscience, psychology and

mindfulness research to provide a framework to help coaches and leadership development

specialists improve their awareness of the mind, enhancing their coaching practice. By focusing

on the mind as the target for coaching interventions, Azmatullah (2014) established a

comprehensive framework for achieving transformational change.

Rock ’ s ( 2008 ) SCARF model, based upon assessing amygdala response to threats of

Status, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness, and Fairness, is an example of an attempt to develop a

framework to help coaches promote healthy relationships. Recent studies suggest that using this

framework facilitates organizational cohesion (e.g., Martin-Kniep, 2010 ; Street, 2010 ). Chavez

& Heatherton (2014), found that self-esteem lies in the frontostriatal pathway, which connects

the medial prefrontal cortex, which deals with self-knowledge, to the ventral striatum, which

deals with feelings of motivation and reward. These types of findings need to be adapted to

coaching-centered models to facilitate coach/client dynamics and to client-centered outcomes

(Bowman, 2013).

Self-efficacy has been found to be one of the most important factors contributing to

successful performances in almost every area of life, including leadership (Anderson, Krajewski,

Goffon, & Jackson, 2008) musical performance (Craske & Craig, 1984), and sports (Wurtele,

1986). Results support that leadership self-efficacy is a valuable means to predict, understand,

and develop effective leadership (Anderson, Krajewski, Goffon, & Jackson, 2008). Thus, self-

efficacy has proved to be an important variable predicting performance (Moen & Allgood, 2009).

Bandura (1986) found self-efficacy beliefs to be a greater predictor of success in many areas, that

the relevant skills and knowledge of the topic. Schunk (1991) found that a high sense of self-

efficacy regarding a task enhances the person's chance of selecting that task (regardless of


difficulty), increases the significance of the task as important and enjoyable, and enhances the

person's ability to persevere despite the setbacks.

Methodological Approach

Purpose. The purpose of this project is to determine how a coach’s knowledge of

coaching-related brain functions (e.g. memory, insight, identity, self-esteem) contributes to the

self-efficacy of the coach in the coaching relationship and, by extension, what is the impact on

the coachee and the coaching outcomes.

Research Setting. Questionnaires and surveys will be disseminated to coaches

electronically; interviews of coaches will be conducted telephonically.

Research Population. From 10 - 15 coaches will be selected through purposeful

sampling (concept sampling) from a population of coaches certified as Associate Certified Coach

(ACC) by the International Coach Federation (ICF). Coaches will be identified through

coordination with the ICF and the Institute of Coaching.

Intervention. This project includes three major components, (a) an assessment of

coaching self-efficacy, (b) instruction in coaching-related brain functions, (c) interviews of study

participants.

Primary Research Methods. This study will use a quasi-experimental design consisting

of pre- and post-test self-efficacy assessments, as well as semi-structured interviews with

primary open-ended interview questions and secondary open-ended prompts.

Measures and Key Outcomes. Potential assessments used to evaluate the malleable

factors of the study will include the New General Self-Efficacy assessment (Chen, Gully, &

Eden, 2004) or a self-constructed self-efficacy scale (Bandura, 2006). The self-efficacy

assessment will determine the impact that brain-based coaching training has on coach self-


efficacy. Additional measures may include the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons,

Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) as a measure of well-being, if continued review of the research

literature correlates self-efficacy with well-being.

Data analysis. Self-efficacy assessments will be analyzed using within-subjects Analysis

of Variance (ANOVA). Participant interviews will be analyzed through a multi-phase process

intended to transform the data from multiple pages of collected text to the 5-7 themes that

represent the findings of the research process. The phases of this methodology include: initially

reading through the text data, dividing the text into segments of information, labeling the

segments of information with codes, reducing overlap and redundancy of the codes, and

collapsing the codes into themes (Cresswell, 2012).

Ethics. This research will be coordinated with the GMU Office of Research Integrity &

Assurance as required. All participants will be asked to sign a consent form, and anonymity and

discretion will be guaranteed. The research will adhere to all mandatory human subject policies,

procedures and guidelines.

Areas of Expertise

This research will addressed multiple areas of content knowledge and research methodologies.

Areas of expertise and knowledge that should be represented on my panel include:

Developmental coaching

Affective and cognitive neuroscience

Self-efficacy

Qualitative and quantitative research methodologies


My current portfolio committee is familiar with my interest in coaching and neuroscience, and

has the knowledge of the areas of expertise required to successfully guide me through the

dissertation process.


References

Anderson, D. W., Krajewski, H. T., Goffon, R. D., & Jackson, D. N. (2008). A leadership self-

efficacy taxonomy and its relation to effective leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 19(5),

505-608.

Azmatullah, S. (2013). The coach's mind manual: Enhancing coaching practice with

neuroscience, psychology and mindfulness. New York, NY: Routledge.

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: Freeman.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. New

York, NY: Prentice Hall.

Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.).

Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, (Vol. 5., pp. 307-337). Greenwich, CT: Information

Age Publishing.

Barner, R. & Higgins, J. (2007). Understanding implicit models that guide the coaching process.

Journal of Management Development, 26(2), 148-158. doi:

10.1108/02621710710726053.

Baron, L. & Morin, L. (2009). The coach-coachee relationship in executive coaching: A field

study. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 20(1), 85-106. doi: 10.1002/hrdq.20009.

Bear, M. F., Connors, B. W. & Paradiso M. A. (2007). Neuroscience: Exploring the brain.

Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Benz, A. & Kimsey-House, K. (2015). Integration: The power of being co-active in work and

life. Boston, MA: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Bloom, G., Castanga, C., Moir, E., & Warren, B. (2005). Blended coaching: Skills and strategies

to support principal development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.


Bono, J., Purvanova, R., Towler, A., & Peterson, D. (2009). A survey of executive coaching

practices. Personnel Psychology, 62(2), 361–404. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-

6570.2009.01142.x.

Bossons, P., Riddell, P., & Sartain, D. (2015). The neuroscience of leadership coaching: Why the

tools and techniques of leadership coaching work. New York, NY: Bloomsbury

Academic.

Bowman, M., Ayers, K. M., King, J. C., & Page, L. J. (2013). The neuroscience of coaching. In J.

Passmore, D. B. Peterson, & T. Freire (Eds.). The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of the

Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring (pp. 89-111). New York, NY: John Wiley &

Sons, Ltd.

Brann, A. (2014). Neuroscience for coaches: How to use the latest insights for the benefit of your

clients. Philadelphia, PA: Kogan Page.

Brown, P. & Brown, V. (2012). Neuropsychology for coaches: Understanding the basics. New

York, NY: Open University Press.

Campone, F. & Awal, D. (2012). Life’s thumbprint: the impact of significant life events on

coaches and their coaching. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and

Practice, 5(1), 22-36. doi: 10.1080/17521882.2011.648334

Carson, S. & Tiers, M. (2014). Keeping the brain in mind: Practical neuroscience for coaches,

therapists, and hypnosis practitioners. New York, NY: Changing Mind Publishing.

Chavez, R. & Heatherton, T. F. (2014). Multimodal frontostriatal connectivity underlies

individual differences in self-esteem. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10,

364-370. Doi: 10.1093/scan/nsu063.


Chen, G., Gully, S. M. & Eden, D. (2004). General self-efficacy and self-esteem: Toward

theoretical and empirical distinction between correlated evaluations. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 25(3), 375-395.

Churchland, P.S. & Sejnowski, T.J. (1992). The computational brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT

Press.

Cox, E. (2006). An adult learning approach to coaching. In D. R. Stober & A. M. Grent (Eds.).

Evidence based coaching handbook: Putting best practices to work for your clients (pp.

193-218). New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Craske, M. G. &Craig, K. D. (1984). Musical performance anxiety: The three-system model and

self-efficacy theory. Behavior Research & Therapy, 22(3), 267-280.

Cresswell, J. W. (2012). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating

quantitative and qualitative research. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Davidson, R. J. & Begley, S. (2013) The emotional life of your brain. New York, NY: Plume.

DeHaan, E. (2008a). I doubt therefore I coach: Critical moments in coaching practice.

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(1), 91–105.

DeHaan, E. (2008b). I struggle and emerge: Critical moments of experienced coaches.

Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 60(1), 106-131.

De Haan, E., Culpin, & Curd, J. (2011). Executive coaching in practice: What determines

helpfulness for clients of coaching? Personnel Review, 40(1), 24-44. doi:

10.1180/00483481111095500.

Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1).


Drake, D.B. (2011). What do coaches need to know? Using the Mastery Window to assess and

develop expertise. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice,

4(2), 138-155. doi: 10.1080/17521882.2011.596486

Elliot, A. J. & Covington, M. V. (2001). Approach and avoidance motivation. Educational

Psychology Review 13(2), 73-92.

Grant, A.M. (2003). The impact of life coaching on goal-attainment, metacognition and mental

health. Social Behavior and Personality, 31(3), 253-264.

Grant, A. M., & Cavanagh, M. J. (2004). Toward a profession of coaching: Sixty-five years of

progress and challenges for the future. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching

and Mentoring, 2(1), 1-16.

Grant, A.M. (2013). The efficacy of coaching. In J. Passmore, D. Peterson, & T. Friere (eds.).

Handbook of the Psychology of Coaching and Mentoring (pp. 15-39). West Sussex:

Wiley-Blackwell.

Habermacher, A., Ghandiri, A., & Peters, T. (2014). The case for basic human needs in

coaching: A neuroscientific perspective – The SCOAP Coach Theory. Coaching

Psychologist, (10)1, 7-16.

Hendel-Giller, R., Hollenbach, C., David, M., Oughton, K., Pickthorn, T., Schilling, M., &

Versiglia, G. (2011). The Neuroscience of Learning: A New Paradigm for Corporate

Education. The Marantz Institute.

Kempster, S. & Iszatt-White, M. (2013). Towards co-constructed coaching: Exploring the

integration of coaching and co-constructed autoethnography in leadership development.

Management Learning, 44(4), 319-336. doi: 10.1177/1350507612449959.


Kets de Vries M.F.R. (1989) Leaders who self-destruct: The causes and cures. Organizational

Dynamics, 17(4), 5–17. doi: 10.1016/S0090-2616(89)80023-3.

Kolb, D. A. (1983). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development.

New York, NY: Prentice Hall.

Martin-Kniep, G. O. ( 2010 ) Neuroscience of engagement and SCARF: Why they matter in

schools. NeuroLeadership Journal, 3, 87-96.

Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult and

Continuing Education, 74, 5–12.

Moen, F. & Allgood, E. (2009). Coachign and the effect on self-efficacy. Organization

Development Journal. (27(4). 69-82.

Newnham-Kanas, C., Morrow, D., & Irwin, J.D. (2012). Certified professional co-active

coaches: why they enjoy coaching. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching

and Mentoring, 10(1), 48-56.

Palmer, S. & Panchal, S. (2011). Life transitions and generational perspectives. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Panksepp, J. (1992). A role for "affective neuroscience" in understanding stress: The case of

separation distress circuitry. In S. Puglisi-Allegra & A. Oliverio (Eds.). Psychobiology of

stress (pp. 41-58). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Rock, D. & Schwartz, J. (2006). The neuroscience of leadership. Strategy & Business, 43.

Retrieved from: http://www.strategy-business.com/article/06207?gko=6da0a.

Rock, D. (2008). SCARF: a brain-based model for collaborating with and influencing others.

NeuroLeadership Journal, 1, 1-9


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

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26,

207-231.

Schwartz, J. M. & Begley, S. (2002). The mind & the brain: Neuroplasticity and the power of

mental force. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.

Street, C. (2010). Application of neuroscience in executive team coaching: The WSR case.

Neuroleadership Journal, 3, 64–77.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. M.

Cole, V. John-Steiner, & S. Scribner (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Wurtele, S. K. (1986). Self-efficacy and athletic performance. A review. Journal of Social &

Clinical Psychology, 4, 290-301.

Zull, J. (2002). The art of changing the brain. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

Download - ericreeves.weebly.comericreeves.weebly.com/uploads/1/8/7/4/18746708/coachi… · Web viewThe Real-World Problem or Concern. ... Consulting Psychology Journal: ... Journal of Social

Top Related