old wine in new bottles: exploring pragmatism as a ... · pragmatism. although pragmatism as a...

r Academy of Management Learning & Education2019, Vol. 18, No. 3, 337–360.https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2017.0268

OLD WINE IN NEW BOTTLES:EXPLORING PRAGMATISM AS A PHILOSOPHICALFRAMEWORK FOR THE DISCIPLINE OF COACHING

TATIANA BACHKIROVASIMON BORRINGTON

Oxford Brookes University, UK

The practice and industry of organizational coaching are now well-established, but howit is understood theoretically continues to lag behind. Here, we analyze possible reasonsfor this state of affairs and argue that the development of coaching as an academicdiscipline will benefit from adopting philosophical pragmatism as an overarching the-oretical framework. This move will enable coaching academics to utilize the contribu-tions to knowledge that different paradigms generate. Positioning pragmatism as atheory of action, we argue that organizational coaching is by default a pragmatic en-terprise and provide three examples of the considerable benefits to be gained by con-ceptualizing it this way: (1) Drawing from the pragmatists’ ideas, particularly those ofJohn Dewey, we demonstrate how the theoretical understanding of organizationalcoaching can be enhanced by considering its nature as a joint inquiry; (2) Pragmatismsuggests development as an ultimate purpose for organizational coaching, which alsohelps to resolve fundamental conceptual debates; and (3) In light of the complexity anddiversity involved in the way that organizational coaching is practiced, pragmatismoffers coaches a useful framework for developing the flexibility required for navigatingthe multiplicity of influences on their practice.

There is no doubt that coaching practice in anorganizational context is now well-established (CIPD,2015; ICF, 2016;Grant, Passmore, Cavanagh, &Parker,2010; de Haan & Duckworth, 2013; Theeboom,Beersma, & van Vianen, 2013; Athanasopoulou &Dopson, 2015; Ellinger, Hamlin &Beattie, 2017), andcan be recognized as “a mainstream activity in orga-nizations worldwide” (Grant, 2013: 15). It is an oc-cupation for a substantial number of professionalcoaches (ICF, 2016); it has become an additional fullyrecognized role for internal coaches (Ridler Report,2013); and it is a strongly encouraged activityfor managers in supporting employees (Ellinger,Beattie, & Hamlin, 2014). Both the numbers of post-graduate courses in coaching in the UK and thenumber of institutions offering continuing educationin coaching in the US have reached triple figures(Fillery-Travis & Collins, 2017) to meet this demand.

However, we argue that currently it is an industrywithout a discipline, where a “discipline” is a branchof knowledge that is sufficiently developed to berecognized as such by learned societies (Serenko &Bontis, 2013).

To grow into a recognized discipline, which in thecase of organizational coaching would be a “soft-applied” discipline, for example, along with man-agement or education (Becher, 1994; Serenko &Bontis, 2013), coaching scholars should aim todemonstrate the fulfillment of at least two functions:The first concerns theoretical developments thatadvance conceptual understanding of the phenom-ena of organizational coaching and the body ofknowledge that acts as its epistemic foundation,which can be utilized to inform other disciplines.The second function is about contributions made toimprovements in the state of practice and, by ex-tension, quality of life (Serenko & Bontis, 2013:137–138).

Several established coaching scholars argue thatthere is some evidence of progress being made inrelation to both of these functions in the forming ofcoaching as a discipline (Fillery-Travis & Collins,2017; Grant, 2011; Stern & Stout Rostron, 2013; deHaan, Bertie, Day, & Sills, 2010). However, others

We are grateful to our colleagues, Dr. Elaine Cox, Dr.Peter Jackson, Dr. Judie Gannon, Dr. Ioanna Iordanow, andDr. Adrian Myers for their comments on the early draft ofthis paper and for useful discussions as it was developing.We also owe our gratitude to the editor and anonymousreviewers for constructive criticism that helped to takeour ideas to the next level.

337

Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyright holder’s expresswritten permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2017.0268

show concern that the theoretical understandingof coaching practice, particularly essential for thefulfillment of the first function, is thus far lessthan satisfactory (Boyatzis, Smith, & Van Oosten,2015; Ellinger, Hamlin, & Beattie, 2008; Western,2012; Cox, Bachkirova, & Clutterbuck, 2014a;Athanasopoulou & Dopson, 2015; Myers, 2017). Al-though the literature on coaching practice keepsgrowing and offers many models and definitions ofcoaching, several of those models are opinion-basedmarketing devices primarily developed by practi-tioners to promote their specific approaches tocoaching, which are rarely supported by empiricalresearch or justified by conceptual analysis (Jackson,2004).

We suggest that what seems to be lacking for thedevelopment of organizational coaching as a disci-pline is serious conceptual work that problematizescoaching practice in organizations, builds on rele-vant ideas and concepts from other fields, and offerstheoretical propositions that are uniquely relevant toorganizational coaching (Western, 2012; Cavanagh&Lane, 2012; Bachkirova, 2017). We believe that thisconceptual work is needed to provide new mean-ingful propositions and questions to test and explorebeyond themere asking of “whether coaching worksor not” in research projects. This is important be-cause this new type of research, in turn,will enhanceour understanding of coaching practice and producenew theories unique to this discipline. We furtherargue that a strong theoretical understanding ofcoaching practice in organizations is essential forestablishing the reputation of coaching as a disci-pline and increasing its potential contribution towider knowledge. This could lead to coaching be-coming a “reference discipline”which, as describedby Serenko and Bontis (2013), is a discipline thatprovides theoretical, conceptual, and methodologi-cal contributions to other scientific disciplines.

That said, theoretical development of a new dis-cipline alongside research projects and evidence-building requires at least two further conditions:good use of knowledge developed in other referencedisciplines and effective dialogue between diversecontributors to knowledge. We argue here that phil-osophical pragmatism offers a unique contributionfor the organizational coaching discipline in both ofthese regards.

The first condition implies informed engagementwith the elements of practice, identified as defini-tions, domains, relationships, and predictive claims(Wacker, 1998), as well as consideration of these inthe context of wider theoretical knowledge provided

by other relevant disciplines. Theory-building incoaching should, therefore, benefit from the de-liberation of insights gained into essential conceptsthat are concerned with human nature, learning,change, and development that have been the focus ofattention in such “reference disciplines” as philos-ophy, psychology, psychotherapy, anthropology,sociology, and so forth (Cox, et al., 2014a). We be-lieve that philosophical pragmatism can provide asound framework for establishing essential elementsof organizational coaching and inform on-going,unresolved issues and debates found in coachingliterature. We include examples of how pragmatismcan inform our theoretical understanding of coach-ing later below.

Theory building also inevitably implies an in-tention to engage with the question of what is con-sidered credible knowledge (Bem & de Jong, 2013);however, scholars working on the development ofcoaching as a discipline come from multiple theo-retical backgrounds and fields of knowledge. As aconsequence, it could be argued that the scholarshipof organizational coaching “speaks different lan-guages,” depending on the intellectual origins of thecommentators, and subsequently, uses different cri-teria of quality when judging research, publications,and coaching programs (Western, 2012; Cox et al.,2014a; Athanasopoulou & Dopson, 2015). This vari-ation in frameworks for assessment and analysis canalso have a significant bearing on how professionalpractice should be conceptualized (Fishman, 1999;Peterson, 1991). For example, from what could beidentified as a typical modernist worldview, theprocess of professional practice looks like a step-by-step approach that starts from laws discovered incore science, which are then modified in appliedresearch, translated into a method, and finally de-livered by professionals as an intervention to clients(Peterson, 1991). However, for thosewho take amoresystemic view, actual practice has very little re-semblance to thismodel (Stacey, 2003, 2012; Jones &Corner, 2012; Cavanagh & Lane, 2012; Cox et al.,2014a). According to this perspective, the inter-action between clients and practitioners is based onsubjective experience, as well as constant feedbackand adjustments being made in line with these ex-periences: Beliefs, expectations, and mutual sense-making are interactive, and local contexts and thewider environment become entangled, resulting inunderstanding the process as a much more complexdynamic (Alvesson, 2001).

A dialogue on the evaluation and application ofknowledge fromsuchdifferent positionsproves to be

338 SeptemberAcademy of Management Learning & Education

difficult (Western, 2012; Garvey, 2017; Bachkirova,2017). We argue that this epistemic division has leftthe two sides talking past each other, resulting inbarriers to the constructive dialogue necessary forthe practical and theoretical needs of coaching beingerected. We argue that pragmatism can be seen as aphilosophical framework that enables and encour-ages such dialogue to take place in the developmentof coaching asadiscipline (Fishman, 1999;Pihlstrom,2015; Rumens & Kelemen, 2016).

Moreover, it is our strongly held belief that prag-matism already underpins coaching as a practice,and recognition of this will benefit scholars andpractitioners of organizational coaching. For exam-ple, reflexive recognition of the pragmatic attitudeinherent in organizational coaching could help prac-titioners and students develop a more coherent ra-tionale for their roles and models of practice, whilebeing aware of the complexity involved in this taskand the significant diversity of coaching approachesand styles available. Pragmatism can also furthersupport coaching pedagogy in the design of coherentteaching programs with well-aligned theory andpractice and provide an overarching framework forstudents to engage in debates about controversialconcepts and ideas of organizational coaching in aprogressively integrative way. The challenges tocoaching educators regarding different philosophiesof practice have been recently discussed, and call fordeeper understanding of what philosophical prag-matism can offer (e.g., Bachkirova, Jackson, Gannon,Iordanou, & Myers, 2017b; Lane, 2017).

We aim here at the academic coaching commu-nity, students and practitioners of organizationalcoaching.We are using “organizational coaching” inthe same way as “workplace coaching” to specifycoaching that involves a third-party sponsor (Bozer&Jones, 2018). The intention to explore the concernsofthe educators and students of coaching is one of thereasons for our focus on organizational coachingrather than, for example, themore elite and lucrativepractice of executive coaching. It would be coun-terproductive for the educators of coaching to notpay attention to the many levels and variations incoaching assignments that their students are likely toexperience early in their practice and throughouttheir coaching careers. Although we recognize therelevance of our argument to different modalities ofcoaching in organizations such as team coaching,wewill restrict ourselves to the original one-to-onemodality.

To be clear about our scope here, we also need toclarify our intention concerning our application of

pragmatism. Although pragmatism as a philosophyof science (Bem & de Jong, 2013; Martela, 2015a)would be a position of our choice for coaching re-search, here we focus on its role in the conceptuali-zation of coaching practice in organizations and therecognition of knowledge in establishing organiza-tional coaching as a discipline. The case for prag-matism in organizational research in comparison toalternative positions has recently been persuasivelymade by Martela (2015a), which we believe is alsohighly relevant to coaching research.

THEORETICAL ISSUES IN THE LITERATUREON ORGANIZATIONAL COACHING

The insufficient progress so far in terms of a theo-retical understanding of coaching practice has beenidentified by many authors (Boyatzis, Smith, & VanOosten, 2015; Garvey, Stokes, & Megginson, 2014;Western, 2012; Cox et al., 2014a; Athanasopoulou &Dopson, 2015; Bachkirova, 2017; Myers, 2017).According to Western (2012), for example, this lackstems from underestimating the importance of the-ories in a practitioner-driven field; the challenge ofintegrating diverse bodies of knowledge influencingthis discipline; and the prevalence of a “scientific”attitude that equates development of theory with asearch for simple causal links between measurableaspects of practice. This does not mean that organi-zational coaches work in “a theoretical vacuum”

(Western, 2012: 224). It is inevitable that they holdtheories that are explicitly or implicitly applied, butthese theories could be self-created or uncriticallyassimilated from various sources, and thus, poten-tially problematic and not fit for the purpose(Jackson, 2004; Western, 2012). Coaching researchalone, although on the rise (Grant, 2011), cannotsolve this problem. Gathering knowledge needs afurther step, which connects these findings together,explains relationships between underlying pro-cesses, and offers new hypotheses for testing. How-ever, this conceptualwork and theorizing to produceexplanatory knowledge of coaching in organizationsis still at a rudimentary stage.

Theoretical understanding of organizational coach-ing inevitably involves attempts todefine this practice.The attempts made in the literature of both academicsandpractitioners show that coaching canbedefined inmany different ways (see, e.g., Bachkirova, Spence, &Drake, 2017a). This is not surprising considering thesignificant diversity of coaching styles, applica-tions, and the outcomes intended (Western, 2012;Myers, 2017). The plethora of terms (such as

2019 339Bachkirova and Borrington

leadership coaching, executive coaching, businesscoaching), that are used without sufficient differ-entiation of one from another, does not help in set-ting out what coaching can offer for organizations(e.g., Korotov, 2017).

Here, we are using the generic term, organiza-tional coaching, rather than trying to reduce thecomplexityof this situationbyaligningwithone typeof coaching asoutlined above to address the situationas it presents itself. The reality of the use of coachingin organizations, in both the public and private sec-tors, suggests that coaching is provided not only forexecutives or leaders (however these are identified),but also for various employees to develop new skills,and improve performance and overall capacity invarious ways that organizations can benefit from(CIPD, 2015; Ridler Report, 2013). We certainly sup-port this wider use of coaching in organizations, as itmoves further away from the notions of coaching

as an “elite perk” only available to a high-level eche-lon (Wasylyshyn, 2004).Webelieve that it is preciselythe multiplicity of coaching approaches and appli-cations covered by the term organizational coachingthat helps this practice grow as it becomes better ableto respond to the diverse needs of organizations.

We also argue that educators and students of coach-ing in organizations benefit from embracing the com-plexityof coachingpractices,models, andapplications.To demonstrate the variety of coaching in organiza-tions, we describe several dimensions of diversity incoaching approaches that have been recognized in re-cent coaching literature (Table 1).

Our remit here isnot to expandoneachapproach inthis table, but todemonstrate that the field of coachingin organizations is in a state of expansion rather thanconsolidation. For example, thenumberof theoreticalorientations (Dimension 1) applicable to organiza-tional coaching has grown from the earlier to the later

TABLE 1Dimensions of Diversity of Approaches in Organizational Coaching

No. Dimensions of Diversity in Organizational Coaching Approaches and Types of Coaching in Organizations

1 Theoretical orientations of the coach, based ondifferent philosophies of individual change andmanifested in different ways of working with goals,processes, relationships, and instruments ofcoaching in organizations

Solution-focused coaching (Cavanagh & Grant, 2014);Gestalt coaching (Bluckert, 2014); Existentialcoaching (Spinelli, 2014), and many more, e.g., see13 theoretical traditions in theCompleteHandbookof Coaching (Cox, Bachkirova, & Clutterbuck,2014b).

2 Thedepthof capacity- building requestedby the clientand/orpresentedas anarea of expertise by the coach

From skills coaching (Tschannen-Moran, 2014)to performance coaching (Rogers, 2012; Wilson,2007) to developmental coaching (Berger, 2012;Bachkirova, 2011) to transformational coaching(Hawkins & Smith, 2013).

3 Thedegreeof focuson the individualor organizationalneeds

From strongly client-centered (Joseph, 2014) toorganization-centered or wider system-centered,e.g., systemic coaching (Whittington, 2016).

4 The depth of reflexivity involved in the process From closely goal-focused following simplealgorithms, such as GROW (van Nieuwerburgh,2014), to deeply reflexive dialog, e.g., in line withco-constructed coaching advocated by Kempster &Iszatt-White (2012) or conversation with a “critical-friend” (Fillery-Travis & Lane, 2006).

5 Response to the needs of particular client groups inorganizations

Talent management coaching (Bond & Naughton,2011); coaching for expatriates (Salomaa, 2015);coaching for employeeswithdisabilities (Kavanagh,2015);maternity coaching (Filsinger-Mohun, 2011),etc.

6 Emphasis on a specific element of coachingengagement considered most important by thecoach

Resilience coaching (Lawton-Smith, 2017); narrativecoaching (Drake, 2017); strength coaching (Francis& Zarecky, 2017); cross-cultural coaching (Abbott &Salomaa, 2017), somatic coaching (Strozzi-Heckler,2014), etc.

7 Discourse-based role variations of the coach inorganizations

From the “soul guide” to “Psy expert” to “managerial”to “network coach” (Western, 2012).


handbooks (e.g., Palmer &Whybrow, 2007; Cox et al.,2014b). Types of coaching in the dimensions con-cerned with responses to particular needs of organi-zations (Dimension 5) and emphases on specificelements of coaching (Dimension 6) are also con-stantly increasing (ICF, 2016; Bachkirova et al.,2017a). In addition to their growing number, organi-zational coaching is used in an expanding range oforganizational contexts, such as business, govern-ment, education,health, charities, and so forth (RidlerReport, 2013;CIPD, 2015; ICF, 2016;Bachkirova et al.,2017a).

Within the context of growing differentiation inorganizational coaching, such attempts to establishan identity for this practice also show a tendency tofocus on differentiation from other practiceswithoutsufficient recognition of the relevant knowledge ofother disciplines (Bachkirova & Kauffman, 2009;Bachkirova et al., 2017a). This is noticeable, for ex-ample, in the strong desire of some coaching com-mentators to make coaching in organizations overtlydistinct from other practices, such as consulting(e.g., Rogers, 2012); mentoring (e.g., Garvey, 2011),and counseling (e.g., Peltier, 2001). This often leadsto a reactive tendency to swing to an unreasonabledegree in the opposite direction. For example, inorder not to be like consulting, coaching “should be”completely nondirective (Cox et al., 2014a; Joseph,2014; Wilson, 2007) with “no knowledge” or advicebeing offered to the client (Rogers, 2012; Wilson,2007). Similarly, in order not to be like therapy,coaching “should not touch on” anything associatedwith the client’s past (Peltier, 2001), not work withemotions and personality issues (Berglas, 2002;Peltier, 2001), and avoid “reliance on the coach”(Peltier, 2001: xxx). Definitions of this nature createan illusion of simplicity and clear boundaries ofpractice, particularly to newcomers to this field: atypicalmisconception about coaching that educatorshave to deal with (Baker, 2015).

At the same time, there are some lonely voices inthe literature who argue against restricting theidentity of coaching in organizations at this stage ofdevelopment. For example, Cavanagh (2009), arguesthat the lack of clarity in the identity of coaching“gives us ability to talk across silos” (Cavanagh,2009: 112) at a timewhen appreciation of complexityof issues and the need for connectivity are required.Bachkirova and Kauffman (2009) and Bachkirovaet al. (2017a) in their analysis of issues with defini-tions of coaching have also concluded that all defi-nitions suffer from limitations, even when usefulfor practical reasons, and there are advantages in

recognizing this state of affairs. Among these ad-vantages is the opportunity for building on the ex-tensive knowledge available as a resource fromdisciplines that are concernedwith similar questionsthat coaches may be called upon to deal with (deHaan et al., 2010; Garvey, 2011).

What we advocate, therefore, is a two-fold ap-proach to conceptualizing organizational coaching.First, as a starting strategy, this approach should aimat identifying in the most generic terms the core ofcoaching activity that would not be contested in thevariety of the coaching approaches and would makeuse of knowledge developed in other disciplines.This core, for example, could be formulated notingthe expansion of coaching in organizations as theresult of amajor shift inmanagement learning from aprescribed, theoretical, supplier-led provision to acustomized, contextualized, participative and ex-periential journey (Day, 2001) and to what Kempsterand Iszatt-White (2012: 321) call naturalistic learning.This suggests a broad-based definition of organiza-tional coaching as being “professional developmentthrough one-to-one conversation” (de Haan et al.,2010: 607) or as “individually facilitated learning”(Bachkirova, 2011: 7) in an organizational context. Asa potential definition, this signals the importance of“not re-inventing the wheel” in principle and beingable to build on knowledge accumulated by referencedisciplines on the nature of learning, change, and de-velopment. An example of this would be the prag-maticnotionof inquiry asdevelopedbyDewey (1916),which we discuss later.

Second, we suggest that precision and high levelsof detail in defining organizational coaching arecurrently unreasonable expectations in view of thecomplexity and diversity of organizational needs(Cavanagh & Lane, 2012). The details of the coachingprovision that we identify in Table 1 are variabledepending on the context, models, purposes, andneeds of the client and sponsor, with further varia-tion provided by the orientation and background ofthe coach. Deeper understanding of all these ele-ments is welcomed and hopefully forthcoming, butonly possiblewith recognition of the complexity anddiversity involved in the nature of this practice. Weanticipate that new concepts, and even new lan-guage,will bedeveloped in the future thatmight helpin the holistic description of this practice, but atthese early stages in the development of coaching asa discipline it is of utmost importance to keep theconversation open.

Therefore, what we see as the main problem is notthe lack of common definition, but the potential


danger of prematurely closing this conversationdown by restricting the parameters for under-standing organizational coaching. Such closureemerges from claims for exclusivity of any specificperspective on organizational coaching such asmight be imposed by the adoption of differentworldviews, “world hypotheses,” and epistemo-logical positions (Fishman, 1999; Pepper, 1942;Peterson, 1991). For example, a positivist approach,primarily concerned with achieving quantifiablescience-based expectations, may lead to a viewof coaching that is unnecessarily restrictive, suchas Grant’s description: “collaborative, individual-ized, solution-focused, results oriented, systematic,stretching, fosters self-directed learning, and shouldbe evidence-based, and incorporate ethical pro-fessional practice” (Grant, 2006: 13). These types ofdefinitions can be taken as evidence that organiza-tional coaching is empirically underdeveloped andlacking the strength of more evidence-based modelsof practice (Fillery-Travis & Lane, 2006), provokingan equally strong countercritique that evidence-based models are irrelevant to coaching practice dueto their oversimplification and reductionist tendency(Garvey et al., 2014).

In contrast to these arguments around positivist-reductionist approaches, social constructionists aredeveloping descriptions of coaching as “a herme-neutic process” (Drake, 2017: 304) or even as “sto-rytelling” (Reissner & Du Toit, 2011: 248). These“postmodernist” preferences, although not unrea-sonably highlighting important processes of jointmeaning-making that underpin many types of ef-fective coaching practice in organizational settings,seem to reduce coaching tomere linguistic exercises:a position that is equally unsatisfactory given thattheir reliance on subjectivity can open the gates toself-deception (Bachkirova, 2015, 2016b). Otherpostmodern attitudes utilizing critical theory ap-proaches highlight important issues of power andintercultural social contexts in coaching (Garvey,2011; Shoukry, 2017; Western, 2012). These authorsadvocate a strong critical stance to coaching forlacking the depth of contextual understanding andfollowing a blind adherence to undisclosed agendas.For example, Arnaud (2003: 1138) generalizes allcoaching interventions as “bound by the cult ofperformance,” only seeing that “the coachmust helphis or her clients constantly exceed their limits [in acontext of] performance dictatorship:” a view thatwould be strongly denied by other practitioners andeducators of coaching who see all types of coachingas learning and developmental (Cox & Jackson,

2014; Bennett, & Campone, 2017). Whichever sideof this theoretical divide one’s epistemologicalcommitment falls on, the value of one’s perspectiveis useful, but only partial, and needs to be con-sidered valid among others with equal claims tovalidity. There seems to us to be a need for anoverarching framework that embraces this multi-plicity of perspectives and encourages interactivedialogue toward “integrative pluralism” (Mitchell,2009).

In summary, we believe that arriving at a commondefinition of organizational coaching is a work inprogress that requires the continuation of the in-terdisciplinary conversation. Many attempts to ex-clusively position coaching tend to be influenced byepistemological attitudes that separate rather thanintegrate the discipline, and thus, limit the cross-fertilization of ideas (Cavanagh & Lane, 2012;Bachkirova, 2017). Our view is that this situation isparticularly challenging for educators of coaching.Although it is possible to acknowledge and evenappreciate the interdisciplinary richness of coach-ing, this inevitably creates significant diversity interms of the learning expectations for coaching andleads to challenges for educators and trainers to de-velop inclusive, coherent, and integrated programsthat satisfy such expectations (e.g., Lane, 2017; Gray,Garvey, & Lane, 2016; Bachkirova & Lawton Smith,2015; Athanasopoulou & Dopson, 2015; Bachkirovaet al., 2017b).

To address these challenges, we explore the po-tential of philosophical pragmatism to provide acoherent epistemological platform for keeping thisdialogue open for the benefit of coaching as anapplied discipline (Fishman, 1999; Pihlstrom, 2015;Rumens & Kelemen, 2016). There are very goodreasons for taking a fresh look at what pragmatismhas to offer in terms of a deeper understanding of thenature of coaching. The focus on action advocated bypragmatism promises to be an important addition fordescribing a core feature of coaching. The value ofthis idea can be demonstrated through a deeper un-derstanding of the nature of the coaching process, indetermining a pivotal purpose of organizationalcoaching and in the flexible attitude of the practi-tioner in any coaching relationship. We discussthese themes in the section, Coaching PracticeThrough the Lens of Pragmatism, to show howpragmatist ideas can enhance both the theory andpractice of organizational coaching, but first we de-velop our integrated position on philosophicalpragmatism as a theoretical framework for organi-zational coaching.


PRAGMATISM AS A UNIFIED PHILOSOPHICALPOSITION

Often leveled against pragmatism is that it fails topresent a coherent philosophical position and thatthe differences between its classical proponents,most notably Peirce, James, and Dewey, but also in-cluding Schiller and Mead, are greater than thosebeliefs and attitudes that they hold in common(James, 1907, 1982; Hildebrand, 2003; Haack, 2006).Quite why this focus on differences as being in-dicative of incoherence is so strongly made againstthe pragmatists, and not against the empiricists, ra-tionalists, existentialists, and logical positivists, is apoint worth exploring, but does not fall within ourremit here. Philosophy does not proceed througharriving at consensus, but by progressing throughargument and counterargument, and this is as muchthe case within “philosophical schools” as it is be-tween schools. There is as much difference in detail,we argue, between Descartes and Spinoza as “ratio-nalists,” and as much similarity as there is betweenthe pragmatic views of C. S. Peirce and those of JohnDewey. In both cases the difference is found in thedetail, not in the general philosophical dispositions:There is enough of a common thread between Des-cartes and Spinoza to confidently identify a ratio-nalist as there is to identify a pragmatist whenconsidering the distinctions drawn between Peirceand Dewey.

Also likely is that thecase for the strength of feelingconcerning the discontinuities between pragmatistsis generated from twomain sources: First, one mightrecognize the professional desire of some laterpragmatically inclined philosophers to identifywiththe hard-headed logic and scientific endeavor ofPeirce (Haack, 2006). The aim here is perhaps beingto provide philosophical “credibility” in the face ofanalytic disapproval and to avoid the accusations ofrelativism and irrationalism that have been regularlydirected mostly against James, sometimes againstDewey, and frequently against vociferous neo-pragmatists, critical of the Anglo-American ana-lytic tradition, such as Richard Rorty (Pihlstrom,2015). Second,wehavePeirce’s ownclear objectionsmade to James concerning what Peirce saw as a clearmisrepresentation of his ideas made by James in re-lation to developing certain pragmatic themes, inparticular those to do with James’ notion of “truth”and his interpretation and application of Peirce’s“pragmatic maxim” (Haack, 2006). However, it hasnever been the case that initiating a methodologicalapproach gives any one individual unchallengeable

rights in determining how those ideas should befurther developed by others who share similar in-terests. Furthermore, as Menand (2001) shows, theorigins of philosophical pragmatism are difficult totrace to one clearly identifiable source, and the ideathat pragmatism originates solely with Peirce ishighly questionable.

Nevertheless, it would be unreasonable to denythat there are clearly discernible differences betweenthe three main figures in the development of prag-matist thinking (Pihlstrom, 2015; Haack, 2006;Rorty, 1980b) and some commentators (e.g., Tallisse& Aikin, 2008; Pihlstrom, 2015), supportive of apragmatist approach to philosophical inquiry, havebeen happy to acknowledge the breadth of discoursethat these differences bring with them, identifyingthis as a strength rather than a sign of weakness. Forexample, Tallisse and Aikin hold that “the conflictamong pragmatists over central philosophicalquestions—and indeed, over the character of prag-matism itself—is a sign of intellectual health ratherthan crisis” (Tallisse & Aikin, 2008: 25). Pihlstromargues that pragmatism “indeed, lives from its gen-uine philosophical problems. Its depth lies preciselyin its not having provided any final, ultimate theoryabout anything” (Pihlstrom, 2015: 5).

To the extent that there are differences, we cancrudely summarize these as Peirce’s primary con-cern with establishing a logic of scientific inquiry;James’ chief interest relating to the variations thatoccur in subjective experience; andDewey asmostlyinterested in the relational aspects of democraticcommunity and pedagogic processes. That thesedifferences are upheld and frequently accentuatedby those who follow in their footsteps (Pihlstrom,2015) is,we suggest, nothingmore than an indicationthat each of the leading pragmatists valued certainaspects of humanactivity asmore salient thanothers.We also argue this indicates that from the principleideas that define a pragmatic approach to arriving ataphilosophical understandingof any topicworthyofphilosophical investigation are widely applicableand bear useful fruit in many ways. It is, neverthe-less, important to emphasize that none of these spe-cific preferences that can be detected in the work ofthe thought-leaders of pragmatism are mutually ex-clusive, and that by drawing the threads togetherwith due care and attention to argument and impli-cation, we can clearly see how pragmatism providesus with a rich and integrative method for approach-ingmany of the fundamental issues concerningwhatit is to be human (Pihlstrom, 2015; Fishman, 1999).The common threads that emerge from integrating


the classical pragmatists in this way identify whatmight best be described as an “attitude” (Martela2015b; Burke, 2013).

The pragmatist attitude that we see as our in-tegrated position on pragmatism, and believe to bemost useful for the development of a theoretical basefor organizational coaching, acknowledges that:

• Our experience of the world and our ability tonavigate it are real, but our access to that reality isonly ever, at best, partial.

• Our knowledge of this reality is arrived at throughour interacting with the external world in a bi-directional process, where theworld acts upon us,and we act upon the world; therefore, we onlyknow the world through experience, and “expe-rience” is best understood at an ontological levelin terms of relationships.

• Because of this processual relationship, fixed on-tologies and epistemological attitudes such as posi-tivism, constructivism, truth as correspondence/coherence, etc. fail to capture the reality of experi-ence and set limits to the dialogic processes throughwhich knowledge is generated.

• Knowledge generated in this pragmatic way isverified by being tested against experiencethrough action while being recognized as funda-mentally fallible and open to abandonment ifbetter strategies for making sense of experiencebecome available.

• Experience, while rooted in subjectivity, onlygains meaning intersubjectively; thereby, knowl-edge building becomes a communal enterprisedemanding cooperation and dialogue to beeffective.

In light of this interpretation ofwhatwe identify asthe common thread that runs through all of theclassical proponents of pragmatism (Peirce, James, &Dewey), we argue that philosophical pragmatism isbest positioned as a “theory of action” (Kilpinen,2009) and as an epistemological attitude that facili-tates inquiry, rather than seeking to shut it down(Martela, 2015a).

Pragmatism and the Facilitation of Dialogue forTheory Development

Recognizing the importance of the dialogue for fur-ther development of the theoretical knowledge of or-ganizational coaching, we believe that pragmatismcanbe seenas aphilosophical framework that enablesand encourages suchdialogue to takeplace (Fishman,1999; Pihlstrom, 2015; Rumens & Kelemen, 2016).

This is important in light of the situation when dom-inantworldviews and corresponding epistemologicalpositions in academia are apparently caught in mul-tiple dichotomies and claim exclusivity of theircompeting views on knowledge and practice, therebypreventing the continuation of multidimensional di-alogues (Fishman, 1999). Similarly, we believe thatpragmatism has the capacity to transcend the dis-junctions that limit our understanding of organiza-tional coaching, how it is conceptualized, practiced,and can be developed.

We argue that two features of pragmatism suggestits potential for being a core philosophical frame-work that is able to facilitate a theoretical dialogueimportant for organizational coaching. The first is“integrative pluralism,”which argues for expandingepistemic perspectives in a way that “embraces bothtraditional reductive and new, multilevel, contextdependent approaches” (Mitchell, 2009: 2). Thisfeature of a pragmatic position provides support for aclaim that pragmatism can be successfully inter-preted as ameta-perspective, framing a discourse inwhich theoretical paradigms that are normallyviewed as being in competition with each otherbenefit by being understood as complementaryvoices that make up the community of inquirylooking to make sense of what it is to be human-beings-acting-in-the-world (Fishman, 1999; Pihlstrom,2015). Pihlstrom argues that pragmatism is not a sin-glewayofknowing, or a single categorical framework,“but a meta-framework for explicating and assessingthe different systems we employ for categorizingreality” that utilizes a methodology that involves“knowing reality pluralistically and non-reductively,considering all the perspectives and standpoints thatmight be significant for the matter at issue—lettingdifferent voices be heard” (Pihlstrom, 2015: 3). Thisalso encapsulates an inherent ethical tendency inpragmatism toward democratic process: an impor-tant feature in of John Dewey’s thought (Putnam,2017).

The second feature that describes pragmatism is a“spirit of open-endedness” (Pihlstrom, 2015: 5), im-plying that any further theoretical and philosophicaldevelopments will be welcome. By understandingreality as a relational flux with which we have toproactively engage so as to impose some sort ofmanageable order enabling us to cope and survive(James, 1904, 2000; Dewey, 1925), pragmatists gen-erally understand knowledge not as something fixedand absolute, but as “consisting of contextually lim-ited guidelines” (Fishman, 1999: 108). This meansthat for the pragmatist, knowledge (the sense that we


collectively make of reality) is tentative, fallible, andincomplete (Martela, 2015a), and it can be en-hanced by new contributions from any party par-ticipating in the dialogue. Thus, according toPutnam (2002: 7) pragmatism is an on-going in-quiry into the “interactions between a human or-ganism and its environment with the aim of “explor[ing] and interrogat[ing] the interrelationship be-tween rationality, knowledgeandeverydaypractices/experiences.”Weargue that it becomes inevitable thatthe use of knowledge in practice, when seen in thislight, implies that all stakeholders in the coachingfield would benefit from adopting an attitude ofholding theories lightly, being ready to be surprised,and admit mistakes. It implies the importance of re-search anddevelopment of theories, but also a need todoubt and to nurture our hunches as a sense of “whatmay be.”

Perhaps the most important dichotomy that prag-matism seeks to abolish is that which is drawn be-tween theoriaandpraxis.Pihlstrom (2015) argues thatthe common thread that runs through the thinking ofthe classical pragmatists is that they are all intent onovercoming the false dichotomy that had been used,from Plato onward, to place a substantial barrier be-tween theoretical knowledge and practical action.For the pragmatist, there is no distinction: Knowl-edge is action and theory is practice (Kilpinen2009). This is important to highlight because of thetypical confusions that continue to exist in coachingbetween philosophical pragmatism and the ordi-nary language use of the term (Cox & Jackson, 2014;Jenkins, 2016). Generally, it is held that “to bepragmatic” is to adopt an attitude of “making do”simply to arrive at useful solutions for dealing withproblems in a sensible way that suits the reality ofthe situation, which can be identified as “crudepragmatism” (Jenkins, 2016). As a philosophicalposition, pragmatism constitutes a conceptual per-spective that successfully informs important episte-mological and ontological issues (Pihlstrom, 2015).Unfortunately, the former interpretation has beendominant in coaching, particularly at the early stagesof establishing its academic credentials. Jackson, forexample, explicitly addresses a “can do” culture ofpragmatism prevalent at the early stages of coachingas amarket-led activity.He also critiques this positionas it “obscures issues of practice, professional devel-opment and the maturation of the profession”(Jackson, 2004: 75). Such confusions tend to overlookpragmatism’s applicability as a philosophical posi-tion in that they miss the pragmatist’s clear identifi-cation of the intrinsic relationship between theory

and practice: its most clearly identifiable feature(Fishman, 1999).

Pragmatism As a Theory of Action

From the very first statements of pragmatic intent(Peirce, 1878, 1955a), it was apparent that the mean-ing of concepts, thoughts, and beliefs are to be foundin the practical effects that such propositional atti-tudes bring to bear, and any such practical effects canonly be revealed by being enacted in the world. AsPeirce argues, “thought is an action, and. . . it consistsin a relation. . . .[W]e shall be perfectly safe so long aswe reflect that the whole function of thought is toproduce habits of action. . . .To develop [a thought’s]meaning,we have, simply to determinewhat habits itproduces, for what a thing means is simply whathabits it involves” (Peirce, 1878, 1955a: 28–31). Thisis known as the pragmatic maxim and, we believe itdemonstrates something of the fundamental impor-tance of the relationship between conceptualization(forming ideas about how the world is) and action(acting upon those ideas and verifying their veracity,or utility, throughconsequence, or“sensible effect” asPeirce might put it).

Peirce’s maxim provides the groundwork for thepragmatic insistence, common also to James andDewey, that knowledge emerges from actual lifeitself, from the struggle to adjust to the problem ofliving which is constituted by acting-in-the-world(Hogan, 2009;Martela, 2015a). Peirce’s initialmotivefor developing his version of the pragmatic methodwas primarily to arrive at a non-Cartesian episte-mology (Rockmore, 2002), whereby knowledge isliberated to simply concern itself with being thatwhichwe need to know to alleviate doubt sufficientlyenough to act. James and Dewey further enhance thisby developing an approach to philosophical inquirythat is essentially anti-reductionist, pluralistic, andcontextualist (Pihlstrom, 2015).

The move that Peirce makes is a response to whatBernstein later identifies as “Cartesian anxiety”(Bernstein, 1983), referring to Descartes’ move todefine knowledge only in terms of certainty. Thisprovides pragmatism with a level of epistemic flex-ibility that was then unavailable to other modes ofthe Western philosophical tradition. Philosophicalconcern is no longer aimed at the establishment ofTruth and Certainty as the fixed foundations of ra-tionality, but more to do with the therapeutic andcommunal enterprise of making sense of experi-ence (Rorty, 1980a). Dewey describes this as thepragmatist’s attempt to avoid engaging in the


“spectator theory of knowledge,” a position com-mon to both anti-realist and realist-reductionistapproaches to philosophical inquiry (Dewey, 1929,1980: 245). For the pragmatist, epistemology in-volves not taking a privileged, disengaged per-spective (Rorty, 1980a), but understanding that wedevelop knowledge through embedded interactionwith our environments.

This emphasis upon action is important, we argue,because it identifies pragmatism as providing aphilosophical framework that is fully grounded inactive participation in the world and in the humancondition as it arises from our actively being-in-the-world. Although it may not always be easy to estab-lish a single coherent positive doctrine by whichpragmatism can be clearly defined, a close reading ofthe classical pragmatists points to a strong sense inwhich all forms of inquiry are aimed at humanitymaking sense of the process of experiencing throughactive engagement, not by sitting on the sidelines inthe role of detached observer. Martela (2015b: 202)puts this nicely when he says:

. . .the human condition inherent in pragmatism ac-knowledges that our way of experiencing involvessense of activity, purposefulness and resistance.Taken together, these threedimensions of our relationto experience amount to an understanding that thehuman condition means an active interest in de-veloping the stream of experience in certain di-rections. Our primary interest as regards the world isabout attempting to navigate our way within its con-straints as best as we can.

Our identification of pragmatismas a theoryof actionis particularly relevant for providing a suitable the-oretical framework for organizational coaching. Ithighlights what is, in our view, a fundamental aspectof coaching in an organizational context as learn-ing associated with action. The engagement withknowledge in coaching is not concerned with onetrue understanding of the situation and the best so-lution for a problem, but aims at overcoming doubtwhere it prevents the client from acting. There is noguarantee that the understanding generated in thecoaching process is sufficient or that the course ofaction is the right one; further adjustments to thesemay well need to take place. However, action, as anessential element of being human, is necessary tofunction in the world and coaching, and we argue,aims to facilitate just that by assisting the client inbecoming ready to act.

This pragmatic understanding of the inextricablelink between learning and action further identifies

a key element differentiating coaching from theclosely related and more established disciplines ofpsychotherapy and counseling (Cox et al., 2014a).Organizational coaching (and perhaps coaching inall its different modalities) aims not at healing anemotional disturbance or directly increasing theclients’ sense ofwell-being (Grant, 2013; Kenworthy,Passarelli, & Van Oosten, 2014), but has as its focusenabling clients to develop their capability to act ontheir environment (Cocivera & Cronshaw, 2004;Bachkirova, 2011; Spence & Deci, 2013; Clutterbuck& Spence, 2017). In this regard, we could say that thepurpose of organizational coaching is not so muchconcernedwith well-being, but fundamentally, withwell-acting. In coaching, as in pragmatism, humanpurposive action is central to the understanding ofwhat it is to be human (Clutterbuck & Spence, 2017).Pihlstrom remarks of Dewey, in this regard, “just asin Peirce and James, human purposive action is acornerstone of his pragmatic naturalism” (Pihlstrom,2015: 15).Weargue that it is equally a cornerstone fororganizational coaching practice and theory, andtherefore, needs to be more prominent than it hasbeen so far.

We discuss specific features of coaching in thelight of philosophical pragmatism and their impli-cations for coaching as a discipline in the next sec-tion. Here, however, we finish with a more generalsuggestion for educators of coaching whose task is todesign and teach training, and particularly, post-graduate programs. As we have argued, an over-arching framework of philosophical pragmatism thatfully appreciates the interdependence of theory andpractice, accommodates multiple traditions and ap-proaches, and places action at the center of thecoaching enterprise can serve as a solid foundationthat would hold their programs together. While em-phasizing a focus on action as a distinctive element,it would also provide a spacious “container” for de-bate and promote scientific attitude and the growthof new ideas in organizational coaching.

COACHING PRACTICE THROUGH THE LENSOF PRAGMATISM

So far, we have argued that organizational coachingneeds more attention paid to theoretical under-standing for further development as a discipline. Inthis section,we extend our argument into practice byshowing how three differentways of seeing coachingas a pragmatic enterprise with an explicit elementof action furthers theoretical understanding of thispractice. First, we explore the nature of the coaching


process in its most generic features and show howpragmatism helps to explain why coaching works,and why it sometimes does not. We then discusswhat is a significant contribution that pragmatismmakes to one of the fundamental issues of coachingpractice in its quest for conceptualization of coreidentity: its purpose and aim. We conclude withconsidering how coaches can apply a pragmaticepistemological attitude to the inevitable diversity ofcoaching traditions without losing the coherence oftheir own approaches and style.

Coaching As Learning Through Experience andJoint Inquiry

In this section, we show an important correspon-dence between the pragmatist account of the wayhumans learn and function in the world and theprocess of organizational coaching. From the litera-ture currently available concerning the theoryand practice of coaching, it is possible to discernthree generic features: learning through experience(e.g., Cox, 2013; Bennett & Campone, 2017; Rogers,2012;Athanasopoulou&Dopson, 2015); reflecting asa form of learning (e.g., Shoukry, 2014; Cox, 2013;Wilson, 2007; Bachkirova et al., 2017b); and thecoaching relationship as the essential condition forcoaching (e.g., Baron & Morin, 2009; de Haan &Duckworth, 2013; de Haan & Gannon, 2017; Myers,2017). We argue that inquiry, a core concept ofpragmatism (Dewey, 1916, 1938; Buchler, 1955), notonly allows an integration of these essential charac-teristics of coaching into a meaningful whole, butalso provides a persuasive explanation as to thevalue that they bring to coaching outcomes.

Learning through experience. The conceptuali-zation of coaching as individually facilitated learn-ing is widely represented in the coaching literature(Lane, 2017; Bennett & Campone, 2017; Bachkirova,2011; Cox, 2013; Rogers, 2012; Athanasopoulou &Dopson, 2015). Theories of experiential learning,such as those offered by Kolb (1984, 2014), Knowles(1978), (Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2015), andMezirow (1990), are promoted by educators ofcoaching (e.g., Cox et al., 2014b) as fundamental forthe theoretical understanding of this practice. At thesame time, as Thayer-Bacon (2015) points out, thistheme of learning (i.e., “making sense of experi-ence”) through engaged action with the world asboth experiencing and enacting agent is commonthroughout classical pragmatism, occurring not onlyin Dewey’s philosophy of education, but also in thework of Peirce, James, andMead, and continues to be

taken up by its neo-pragmatist proponents (Thayer-Bacon, 2015). It is apposite that Dewey’s identifica-tion of a fundamental principle of learning that hedefined as his “technical definition of education”also describes the core of coaching verywell (Dewey,1916: 89):

[Learning] is that reconstruction or reorganization ofexperience which adds to the meaning of experience,and which increases ability to direct the course ofsubsequent experience.

This alignment between the idea of learning inpragmatism and coaching can be also extended byinclusion of another concept that features in prag-matist thinking: inquiry (Dewey, 1938), which notonly makes learningmore specific and practical, butalso adds significantly to the understanding of howand when coaching works (Fendler, 2003; Rodgers,2002; Jenkins, 2016). It illuminates both the nature ofthe coaching process and what has to be in place foran effective coaching engagement to occur, as thefollowing clarifies.

Dewey describes inquiry as “a controlled and di-rected transformation” of a puzzling indeterminatesituation, which becomes transformed into a situa-tion that enables the “best solution for now” (Dewey,1938: 72). By “situation” Dewey means “not a singleobject or event” but the “contextual whole” of ex-perience (Dewey, 1938: 72). A situation is conduciveto change when it is “uncertain, unsettled, dis-turbed” (Dewey, 1938: 109) and requires equilibriumto be restored. People engage in inquiry when theirbeliefs about reality and corresponding habits fail toguide them successfully to what they hope toachieve. They have a sense of doubt that needs to beovercome, and through inquiry, they attempt to re-store their system of beliefs in such a way as to pro-vide warranted guidance for future action (Peirce,1878, 1955b; Dewey, 1938).

In considering the concept of inquiry in relation toorganizational coaching, it is important that inquiryis understood asnot just problem-solving: “Problemsdo not pre-exist inquiry” (Hildebrand, 2013: 68);they are formulated in the process of inquiry. In thesame way the impetus for participating in coachingdoes not necessarily have to come from a problem: Itmay have various origins, such as a need or desire tomake a positive change. What is more important isthat full engagement with the coaching process im-plies a particular state of mind that is conducive togenerating a change. This state of mind is fittinglyindicated by the process of inquiry described byDewey as a first phase in the pattern of inquiry. We


summarize this pattern byDewey (quoted in Tallisse& Aikin 2008: 120) as follows:

(1) Perplexity, doubt due to being in a situationwhose full character is undetermined.

(2) A tentative interpretation of the given elementswith their tendency to effect certain consequences,forming a hypothesis.

(3) A careful exploration of all attainable consider-ations to clarify the problem.

(4) An elaboration of the tentative hypothesis tomake theproblemmoreprecise in light of awiderrange of facts and considerations.

(5) Taking one stand upon the projected hypothesisas aplanof action, applyinganddoing somethingto bring out the anticipated result, and thereby,testing the hypothesis.

The first phase indicates the state of mind importantfor the engagement in the inquiry: a sense of dis-equilibrium. The second phase normally occursthrough individual reflection that coaching clientsmay undertake as part of their normal reflectivepractice prior to coaching (Schon, 1987; Gray, 2007),resulting in the realization that additional perspec-tives are needed to make progress. We see Phases 3and 4 taking place during the coaching sessions,where the client explores the situation in order “tomake sense,” but doing so “in the light of what otherpeople have concluded in similar circumstances”(Pring, 2014: 65). The5thphase is action: The clients’application of ideas generated in the coaching ses-sion to actual situations. Results arising are furtherexplored in the following sessions to assess theconsequences of the action or to create material forcontinuation of the inquiry.

Understanding the coaching process as an inquiryaccording to Dewey’s analysis (1938) has importantimplications for both theory and practice. First, itsuggests a potential explanation for those situationswhen coaching is unsuccessful (Rogers, 2012;Athanasopoulou & Dopson, 2015). The first item ofthe inquiry that we call “disequilibrium” addressesthe issues with incentives for coaching. Apartfrom the skills of the coach and quality of coachingrelationship, various studies show that the client’sso-called “readiness to change,” which strongly in-fluences the quality of their engagement and com-mitment, is one of the most important factors in thesuccessful outcome of coaching (MacKie, 2015;Rogers, 2012; Myers, 2017). However, what consti-tutes such readiness, and how it is associated withthe immediate situation, is far from clear and is stillsubject to debate (Brug, Conner, Harre, Kremers,

McKellar, & Whitelaw, 2005; Baron & Morin, 2009;MacKie, 2015; Athanasopoulou & Dopson, 2015).

The progress made in understanding “readiness”is slow because the attempts to explain it are stuckwithin the old psychological paradigm of seeing thisphenomenon as located within the individual(Avolio & Hannah, 2008). In contrast, conceptualiz-ing the coaching process as a form of Deweyan in-quiry implies that the client’s readiness is embeddedin the situation. It suggests that any successfulcoaching engagement requires a state of mind in theclient generated by their confrontation with an in-determinate complex situation and accompanied bythe doubt that current beliefs and habits are suffi-cient for future actions. Without such a state of mindin the client, coaching falls short of the drive andenergy required for productive work. For example,when coaching is offered as part of the “executivepackage” or leadership program, and clients do notexperience the situation as described above, theprocess struggles to stay meaningful, and this is asubject of regular concern for coaches (Rogers, 2012;Athanasopoulou&Dopson, 2015;Myers, 2017). Thisway of conceptualizing coaching readiness suggeststhat coaching “starts before it starts,” and the qualityof contracting for it has to be discussed in this lightboth in coaching practice and in coaching education.This repositioning of the coaching process also sug-gests different research questions and potentiallynew propositions about the conditions for effectivecoaching.

Another explanation for issues affecting the qual-ity of coaching can be explained by identifyingmissing phases in the inquiry process. Hildebrand(2013: 69) reminds us that by describing the patternof inquiry Dewey did not mean “to describe howpeople always think but rather how theywould thinkif they followed more exemplary kinds of inquiry,like those found in the empirical sciences.” It ispossible to postulate then that coaching may not beas effective as it could be if not all the phases of in-quiry were present in the coaching process. For ex-ample, if the initial goal of coaching presented by theclient is taken for granted, and the process movesswiftly to generating options (hypotheses for how thegoal can be reached) but misses the phase of identi-fying and clarifying the problem, the process maybecome superficial and focused on marginal issuesthat may not need to be the object of inquiry in thefirst place (Clutterbuck & Spence, 2017). This way ofconceptualizing organizational coaching has imme-diate implications for practitioners and educatorsof coaching.


Reflecting as a form of learning.The next area ofapplication of the pragmatist notion of inquiry tocoaching is the process of reflecting, which is con-sidered to be a cornerstone activity of coaching(Gray, 2007; Cox, 2013; Athanasopoulou & Dopson,2015). Although the essential role of reflecting isrecognized in coaching literature, how it operatesin practice has had less attention (Cox, 2013). InDewey’s work, however, we find a description of notonly the way reflection/inquiry operates in terms ofphases, as outlined in the previous section, but alsoin terms of principles that provide a broad psycho-logical framework of attitudes and conditions im-portant for the quality of this process.

Rodgers (2002: 845) describes Dewey’s four crite-ria of reflection in this way:

(1) Reflection isameaning-makingprocess thatmovesa learner from one experience into the next withdeeper understanding of its relationshipswith andconnections tootherexperiencesandideas. It is thethread that makes continuity of learning possible,and ensures the progress of the individual and ul-timately, society. It is a means to essentially moralends.

(2) Reflection is a systematic, rigorous, disciplinedwayof thinking,with its roots in scientific inquiry.

(3) Reflection needs to happen in community, ininteraction with others.

(4) Reflection requires attitudes that value the per-sonal and intellectual growth of other.

It could be argued that all these principles are es-sential for any genre of coaching and are often rec-ognized as such (Cox & Jackson, 2014; Berger, 2012;Hunt & Weintraub, 2004). However, some of the el-ements in these principles can be observed in dif-ferent types of coaching more than in others. Forexample, the elements that emphasize personal andintellectual growth and the progress of the individ-ual, andultimately society, aremore explicitly statedin developmental coaching in comparison to per-formance or skills coaching (Cox & Jackson, 2014;Bachkirova, 2011; Berger, 2012). When coaches de-velop a rationale for their approach to practice,these differentiators can be used for making theoffering more explicit. More importantly, theseprinciples can be useful for coaching educators inthe design of programs that are consistent, not onlyin terms of structured knowledge and honing ofpractical skills, but also grounded in wider humanvalues.

Coaching relationship as the essential conditionfor coaching. A final feature of the coaching

engagement that is touched on by the idea of coach-ing being an inquiry follows directly from Rodgers’third criterion above (2002: 845). It speaks directly tothe nearly universal acceptance of the importance ofthe coaching relationship for a successful coachingoutcome (Hunt & Weintraub, 2004; de Haan &Gannon, 2017; Myers, 2017). Such a prominent rolefor the coaching relationship might be about thevalue of considering the situation that is the focus ofthe coaching engagement from as many angles aspossible. As suchWeick (2008), following ideas fromWilliam James, argues, “we must actively and con-tinually solicit the input of others, and be willing torevise our own viewpoints accordingly” (2008: 91).This, however, is only one kind of benefit that thecoaching relationship can provide. It cannot, byitself, explain the scale of support for this factor thatis evident in both the conceptual literature andempirical studies of coaching (e.g., Wilson, 2007;Rogers, 2012), also considering that the relation-ship is often described in terms, such as rapport,bonds, trust, transparency, commitment, etc., that,in themselves, require further explanation as tohow they are manifested or achieved (de Haan &Gannon, 2017).

We propose that the effect of the coaching rela-tionship is due to the client and coach essentiallybecoming a small but, therefore finely tuned, com-munity of inquiry: an idea that consistently featuresthroughout the writings of Peirce, James, and Dewey(Buchler, 1955; Campbell, 1995). This idea empha-sizes that understanding and knowledge can onlyemerge from communal enterprise and cannot be theproduct of individuals removed from social engage-ment. We believe that trust and rapport are by-products of closely working together on a topic ofinquiry that is important for the client. Some supportfor this position can be found in recent research onthe coaching relationship (Grant, 2014; Gessnitzer &Kauffeld, 2015). The features of the relationship thatwere most associated with the outcome of coachingwere not so much about esoteric “bonding,” butconcerned with goal- and work-focused coachingrelationships.

We argue that for practitioners and educators,conceptualizing the coaching relationship as jointinquiry, in line with the pragmatist concept of com-munity of inquiry, highlights a dimension and focusfor improvement that is potentially far more usefulthan currently emphasized alternatives. For exam-ple, de Haan and Gannon (2017: 198) note in theiranalysis of various studies on coaching relation-ships, that each client requires “unique tailoring of


the bond in the coaching relationship,” somethingthat seems to remain “esoteric” and vague. In con-trast, according to a pragmatic attitude, the focusof the coaching relationship shifts to more con-crete activities that are recognizable as inherently“coaching,” such as listening, questioning, reason-ing, deliberating, challenging, developing the cli-ent’s problem-solving capacity and (importantly),considering the effects of these on their interaction.“[O]pening up the situation to increasingly com-plex and nuanced observations, thoughts, feelings,and so forth” (Rosenbaum, 2015: 328) enhancesunderstanding not only of the situation, but also ofhow both client and coach make meaning. Thismutual understanding and consideration of the ef-fects of their actions on the quality of their re-lationship are tangible factors that consequentlyfacilitate the development of relationships. This issomething concrete that coaching educators canfocus on when they engage their students in learn-ing about the coaching relationship.

As mentioned before, we do not see joint inquiryas a description of what the coaching relationshipmust necessarily be, but how it would become if theengagement between the coach and client is fullyeffective. Naturally, it should be acknowledged thatthere are many complex factors that could un-dermine coaching as a joint inquiry, such as con-flict of interests (Iordanou, Hawley, & Iordanou,2017); power relations (Garvey, 2011; Welman &Bachkirova, 2010); organizational politics in thethree-way contracts (Korotov, Florent-Treacy, Ketsde Vries & Bernhardt, 2012), and so forth. In fact,organizational issues are nearly always not only thecontext of coaching, but essential elements of thesituation that the client perceives as a disequilibriumwhich leads to the readiness for coaching and be-comes the theme of coaching conversations (Garveyet al., 2014). Organizational sponsors for coachingare not part of the joint inquiry unit, but the re-lationshipwith them is an integral factor in creating asuccessful joint inquiry prior to the coach startingone-to-one work with the client.

The Ultimate Aim of Organizational Coaching

The second example of how pragmatist thought canadvance the theoretical understanding of organiza-tional coaching is related to an issue rarely addressedin any explicit way in the literature of organizationalcoaching: the question of what coaching is for. Apossible explanation for the lack of attention to thistopic is that it inevitably takes the debate into the

realm of human values and moral and ethical ques-tions: a domain of philosophical concerns fromwhich easy answers are rarely forthcoming. Any at-tempts to address this topic tend to acknowledgeseveral aims rather than an overarching purpose. Forexample, Cox et al. (2014a) drawing on the threeparadigms of practice in HRD by Bates and Chen(2004)—to encourage learning, to increase perfor-mance, and to enhancemeaning inwork—argue thatvarious types of coaching are used to serve thesegeneral aims. Such multiple aims do not present aproblem, providing they maintain compatibility.However, the need for overarching purpose becomessignificant when any of these aims start to contradictanother.

For instance, it is possible to identify a number ofintrinsic and persisting debates in the coaching fieldthat could already benefit from taking a broaderphilosophical perspective on the value and purposeof organizational coaching. In this regard, the in-sights that philosophical pragmatism provides intothe way humans learn and act facilitates an oppor-tunity for educators to offer more specific guidanceto students. Such debates include “non-directivityof coaches” versus “coach as an expert” (e.g., Joseph,2014;Wilson, 2007;Rogers, 2012);“individual agenda”versus “organization agenda” for coaching assignments(e.g., Segers, Vloeberghs, Henderickx, & Inceoblu,2011; Hawkins & Smith, 2013; Athanasopoulou &Dopson, 2015); and the choice of criteria for ef-fectiveness of coaching (e.g., Grant, 2013). Theissues represented by these debates are inter-connected because they require identifying crite-ria that determine which actions of the coachcan be considered as desirable and “working” in agiven context.

For example, a well-established discourse of coach-ing concerns the importance of the self-determinationof the client, which is associated with person-centered approaches (Joseph & Bryant-Jefferies,2007; Joseph, 2014). The coach refrains from ex-plicitly influencing how clients perceive and dealwith their issues and life tasks, believing that clientsalready possess the resources needed to act(e.g., Rogers, 2012; Wilson, 2007). Only the clientshould determine the content of the coaching con-versation, and the coach facilitates the process ofmeaning-making and planning of actions (Cox &Jackson, 2014). There are other conceptualizations oforganizational coaching, for example, those inheri-ted from consulting or psychotherapeutic practices,in which the expertise of the coach plays a moreprominent role. For example, in psychoanalytic


coaching, Arnaud (2003) argues a coach has knowl-edge that is above that of the client, which should beutilized to guide the client to develop their thinking“in the direction judged pertinent.” In this expert-based position, the coach is expected not only toexplain the origin of the clients’ problems (Arnaud,2003: 1143), but to also indicate preferable coursesof action. This latter discourse is less popular, ascoaches recognize the importance of the need forautonomy in the motivation of action (Deci & Ryan,2000; Spence & Deci, 2013) and make the assump-tion that the client is more likely to perseverewith a course of action that has been self-initiated(Athanasopoulou & Dopson, 2015).

However, from thepositionof theultimate aims ofcoaching, this idea of the client being themain judgeof what is needed and what works might still bequestionable. It explicitly privileges the individualcontext in terms of determining and evaluating po-tential outcomes, which may lead to coaching beingin service of too narrow utilitarian needs and perhapsjustifies accusations aimed at the coaching industryconcerning disastrous decisions leaders sometimesmake while being coached. In a theoretical value-oriented argument set by Bachkirova et al. (2017b),this can be seen as an expression of value-neutral in-strumentalism, a philosophical position that createsmany problems in the education and assessment ofcoaches, but also in relation to the evaluation of ethi-cal decisions in complex situations. According tothe value-neutral instrumentalist, coaching is seenas “a professional service provided to clients in orderfor them to achieve their goals, whatever thesegoals might be” (p. 36, emphasis added).

In contrast, there are well-known figures in thefieldwho advocate the role of coaches in expandingthe client’s responsibility for wider organizationaland societal needs (Hawkins & Smith, 2013), orinfluencing leaders in becoming, for example,morespiritually oriented (Whitmore, 2008). These the-oretically consistent, but ideologically driven po-sitions clash with the cherished principles ofautonomy and self-determination of the client.They might also present a problem when organi-zational needs are strongly prioritized in three-waycontracts by shaping individuals according to theorganization’s short-term needs, thereby stiflingthose who might otherwise be able to challenge thestatus quo and bring new ideas with wider andlong-term consequences (Garvey, 2011; Shoukry,2017).

To overcome the disjunctive nature of these de-bates, benefit could be gained from a higher order of

conceptualization and adopting wider perspectives,such as a holistic view on the relationship betweenends and means and the potential direction of thelearning process humanbeings undergo: a key aspectof John Dewey’s formulation of philosophical prag-matism. Dewey argues against the separation of“means” from “ends,” seeing them as “intrinsicallycontinuous” (1916). According to him, to definethese relationships as being in some way antagonis-tic does not do justice to the continual adjustment tocircumstances that typifies most action. For exam-ple, Pring (2014), in developing Dewey’s position,notes that “the more observant one is of the presentcircumstances the more alternatives one sees aspossible outcomes—the more connection one willsee the ‘end-in-view’ to have with other events”(2014: 43). At no stage can it be said “mission ac-complished” because what previously had been an“end-in-view” may become a stage in some furtheractivity. In line with this argument, coaching couldbe seen as both ameans and an end: as a processwithgoals emerging, being pursued, and transforminginto new ones as part of the process (Clutterbuck &Spence, 2017).

This view on means and ends then has to becombined with another of Dewey’s central ideasconcerning the natural human disposition to inquireand to learn as being a key feature of the organism’ssurvival strategies evolved to adapt to changing cir-cumstances (Dewey, 1916). This needs to be furthercontextualized by understanding the human organ-ism as not only biological, but also an intensely so-cial being that, through interaction with others,accumulates the “wisdom of the race” that enables itto grow as a living, experiencing, and problem-solving entity (Pring, 2014: 45). Dewey (1916) arguedthat the act of living requires the interaction of thisreceived wisdom and acknowledgment of learningfrom others with a continuous engagement and ac-tive experimentation with life tasks. Without thisinteractive dynamic process, our experiences would“remain hermeneutically sealed off from each other”(Pring, 2014: 48), an outcome thatwould lead to their,and our, impoverishment. In this light, coachingprovides an additional opportunity for such in-teractions, thereby facilitating the means for thesharing of current concerns and encouraging experi-mentation with the world by means of new actions(Cox, 2013; Bachkirova, 2011; Bennett & Campone,2017). This allows us to frame coaching as one of themany interactional and experimentation opportuni-ties in the natural process of learning in a social con-text: a joint and active inquiry.


In addition to seeing learning as a natural adap-tation, Dewey postulates that living and learningtransform our experiences leading to a continu-ously increasing maturity of the individual that is alife-long process (Dewey, 1916). Most importantly,according to Dewey, this growth has no end otherthan further growth: “Our net conclusion is that lifeis development, and that developing, growing, islife” (Dewey, 1916: 50). Although his argument wasrelated to education as growth, the same couldbe argued in relation to coaching as a particulartype of individually facilitated type of learning(e.g., Bachkirova, 2011). By providing a tailor-madeopportunity for processing, reformulation, andtransformation of experience, coaching facilitatesthe development of the client’s capability to dealwith further experiences and to adapt to new situ-ations. Following Dewey’s statement about educa-tion, we re-state that the aim of coaching at everystage is “an added capacity for growth” (Dewey,1916: 54). Therefore, in affirming this as one of themain intentions of coaching, pragmatism suggests alegitimate moral end that could be owned bycoaches (Dewey, 1920, 2004: 102):

The end is . . .. the active process [our emphasis] oftransforming the existent situation. Not perfection asa final goal, but the ever-enduring process of perfect-ing, maturing, refining is the aim in living. Honesty,industry, temperance, justice, like health, wealth andlearning, are not goods to be possessed as they wouldbe if they expressed fixed ends to be attained. . . .Growth itself is the only moral ‘end’.

As an expression of the principle of devel-opmentalism (Bachkirova et al., 2017b), it helps toacknowledge the ultimate value of coaching asgrowth through “gradualmaturing of our capacitiesas species for adaptation” (Pring, 2014: 137). Thisdoes not undermine the self-determination of cli-ents or the importance of their agenda. The clientstill determines the focus of inquiry by bringing to ex-plore her indeterminate situation that created theinitial disequilibrium. The coach, however, looks atthis situation as an opportunity not just to solve aparticular problem, but also to extend the client’soverall capacity to make meaning and address anyother situations: “the development of an ever morecomprehensive and accommodating organization ofexperience” (Pring, 2014: 142).

Affirmation of growth as both the means and theend of coaching is not only compatible with variousapproaches to coaching, but can also be utilizedto unite and integrate them (Kegan, 1982; Cook-

Greuter, 1999; Bachkirova, 2011). The goals of theseapproaches can thenbe seenasmilestones that clientscan reach in the process of growth and development,with each variation adding an important capability tobe built upon for the next stage of the process.

This captures the influence of evolutionary theoryupon pragmatism. Organizational coaches alreadyact as if there is a gradual maturing of capacities asspecies for adaptation, including the increase ofsensory and reflective capacities (Cox et al., 2014b;Athanasopoulou & Dopson, 2015; Western, 2012). Itwould be more consistent if they then own devel-opment as an ultimate purpose of coaching, whichwould align them, by default, with a Deweyanpragmatist perspective. This does not need to beexpressed in any controversial teleological sensewith a predetermined end state, but as a sociobio-logical drive to learn, which does not stop in adult-hood. Psychological development is open-endedwith infinite unfolding potential in the same way asany learning process (Dewey, 1916). It happens inresponse to living in and acting in and on this world.It is influenced by many internal and external fac-tors, and thus, happens at a different pace for dif-ferent people. As development is a natural process,the amplifiers of this process, such as people andevents, are also natural.

Practicing in Diverse Ways:A Pragmatic Epistemological Attitude

In the previous section, we described two examplesof using pragmatist concepts for conceptualizingcoaching in organizations in the most generic way,suggesting concepts that we believe can serve asbuilding blocks toward the eventual formulation ofthe identity of this practice. At the same time, earlierin the article, we acknowledged that coaching prac-titioners come from different backgrounds and workin many different ways (see Table 1), and the di-versity of influences on coaching approaches is stillgrowing. Arguing for the importance of the dialoguebetween diverse traditions in the development oftheoretical knowledge, we suggested that philo-sophical pragmatism provides a theoretical frame-work to do just this. However, we also believe thatpragmatism has already something useful to offer tocoaches and students when they engage in reflexiveactivities, develop the rationale for their approachesto practice, and construct their role as practitioners.In this section, we provide an example of how apragmatic epistemological attitude can be usedwhen dealing with specific conceptual clashes of


values that various perspectives advocate, as well asfor coping with the inconsistent messages they gen-erate (Western, 2012). We focus only on one di-mension of differences that we believe is intersectingin relation to all others: that which differentiates the“modernist” and the “postmodernist.” This attitudecan also be useful for dealing with other dimensionsof differences and enabling learning from a widerrange of other influences on organizational coaching.

That practitioners will be influenced, as anybodywill be, by a whole range of historical, cultural, po-litical, psychological, and professional factors whendeveloping their models of practice, is inevitable(Garvey et al., 2014;Western, 2012). Such influencesare manifested in conflicting worldviews, or “worldhypotheses,” as Stephen Pepper called them (1942),such as the ongoing confrontation between “mod-ernism” and “postmodernism,” or “positivism” and“constructivism,” that are currently present in theprofessional world and academic discourse. As aconsequence of this, practitioners’ values and epis-temological attitudes, whether acknowledged or not,may become attuned to these worldviews in variousproportions and manifested simultaneously. A fo-cused awareness of this phenomenon can reveal thatthese sets of values are often in conflict when practi-tioners construct their identity as coaches (Western,2012; Bachkirova, 2016a).

In Bachkirova’s (2016a) analysis of literature anddocuments created by professional bodies, thesecontradictory values and corresponding behaviors of

coaches are shown in the first two columns ofTable 2. Bachkirova suggested seeing the expressionof these concurrent influences on the organizationalcoach as the coexistence of twodifferent subselves inthe practitioner’s role. Each takes the lead in differ-ent periods and situations of the coaching relation-ship. Bachkirova called these a competent self and adialogic self (Bachkirova, 2016a), whereby competentself is an expression of modernist values, and dialogicself indicates a tendency toward postmodernist views.

In extending this view and following Fishman’s(1999) suggestions that pragmatism is a “third way”in comparison to modernism and postmodernism,we postulate the existence of a pragmatic self in thecoach that reflects an appreciation of the main fea-tures of pragmatism. As with the other “subselves,”the pragmatic self becomes present at those situa-tions where this subself of the coach is called upon.Therefore, the third column (Table 2) describes theway this pragmatic self may be different from thecompetent and dialogic selves, and how it providesan additional choice for making sense of the role ofthe coach by integrating the idea of action moreexplicitly.

For example, the pragmatic self suggests embracingthe need for experimentation and action as a di-versification in the coach repertoire of roles with asubtle shift from the coach taking responsibility foradded value to the coaching process by using herexpertise (competent self). It also indicates a shiftfrom rejecting the idea of expertise, and with this,

TABLE 2Comparison Between Competent, Dialogic, and Pragmatic Selves. (Adapted and extended from Bachkirova, 2016a)

Aspects Competent Self Dialogic Self Pragmatic Self

Role of the coach Expert at least in the process ofcoaching

Partner in a dialogue Co-experimenter

Skills and tools Are the main assets of the coach Are secondary in comparison to ameaningful conversation

Are means for experimenting

Concerned with Good practice, effectiveness, impact Joined meaning-making in the session New ideas for responding to client’ssituation

Coachingrelationship

Is a means for successful work(development of trust)

Is a purpose in itself: A model ofmeaningful dialogue

A product of working collaboratively

Communicationis

Dialectic (dealing with explicitmeaning of statements)

Dialogic (attending to implicitintentions behind words)

Enacted (use of meaning is exploredin relation to action)

Aiming for Resolutions and action points Often does not lead to closure and/orappreciate the value of issuesremaining unresolved

Extended ability to cope with issuesand to act

Evaluation Is important as a proof of good work Is seen as a disruption from learning Can be useful if designed forimprovement of action

Potentialproblems

Excessive structures and frameworksmay stultify the process and reducecreativity

Coaching process without structurescould become circular withoutbenchmarks for progress

The criteria for success might not beexplicit


only focusing on the development of the conversa-tion (dialogic self). The differences would also benoticeable in the focus of attention by coachesshifting from good practice and impact on the onehand (competent self) and from only meaning-making in a conversation on another hand (dialogicself) to the generation of new ideas for the client’sactions (pragmatic self).

In addition, we believe that pragmatism can offereven more than an alternative to the competent anddialogic self within this intersecting dimension ofdifferences. The pragmatic epistemological attitudealso suggests how the divergent suggestions thatfollow from each self can be integrated and usedwhen appropriate in different situations. Being plu-ralistic and inclusive, pragmatism allows “a spacefor maneuver” and flexibility in beliefs while alsoproviding a coherent approach based on the impor-tance of action. For example, “skills and tools” of thecoach that are very important for a competent self,but not important or even distracting for a dialogicself, become a means for experimentation for apragmatic self. This does not preclude the use oftechniques as an important element of practicewhena competent self is called upon, but subordinatestechniques to a more important purpose. When adialogic self is engaged, pragmatism offers the use oftechniques only when it is justified by the need tobring the conversation to active experimentation.This suggests that there are multiple ways of engag-ingwith the client that are available to the coach, andtheir value for coaching outcomes is determined bythe opportunity for the client to generate new waysto act: an essential aim of the pragmatic self.

In the same way we believe that the adoption ofan overarching pragmatic attitude by the coachingpractitioner would facilitate sensitivity toward anyalternative values and attitudes in addition to thedistinctions discussed above. Allowing for the di-versity of different traditions and modalities ofcoaching as a variation of their own subselves mayencourage awareness of multiple influences andhelp coaches recognize the complexity of theirpractice and to critically evaluate various discoursesand traditions without dismissing their benefits.This attitude would also be useful in evaluating thequality and relevance of knowledge presented inacademic journals. Coaches and students may beable to recognize howcertain values andworldviewsshape this knowledge and learn to “recalibratethe message” by recognizing the particular lensof the author. This should encourage appreciation ofthe strengths of an argument while also engendering

caution toward “questionable practices” associatedwith different traditions in publications (Butler,Delaney, & Spoelstra, 2017). Similarly, a pragmaticattitude would be very welcome in relation tothe controversies and debates concerning the pro-fessionalization of coaching and the various activi-ties of the relevant professional bodies (Garvey,2011; Gray, 2007; Bachkirova & Lawton Smith, 2015;Athanasopoulou & Dopson, 2015).

CONCLUSIONS

We argued that the philosophy of pragmatism (in its“classical formulation”) offers a broad and deepconceptual framework that complements contem-porary efforts of coaching scholars in furthering thetheoretical understanding of coaching in organiza-tions. Our personal preference for pragmatism in thedevelopment of coaching as a discipline is alsofueled by an awareness of the increasing need ingeneral for constructive dialogue in all areas of life,given the current state of the world. The pragmaticstance seems to be particularly germane in situationswhere there is a lack of communication and un-derstanding between different groups of people, andwhere clashes of perspectives occur. With its ac-knowledgment of the fallibility of knowledge andthe partiality of different perspectives, the prag-matic stance encourages keeping dialogue openand greater “interaction with ‘otherness’” (Kelemen& Rumens, 2008: 49).

For establishing the identity of organizationalcoaching in particular, we have argued that at thisstage of the process, recognizing the complexity ofpractice and acknowledging the multiplicity ofcoaching approaches is more productive than try-ing to arrive at definitional clarity or any defini-tive integration of diverse views. As theoreticalunderstanding of organizational coaching is still a“work in progress,” we advocate a pragmatic epis-temological attitude that accommodates the use ofdifferent methodologies, pragmatic case studies,new ideas to encourage the continuation of dialogueand the keeping of minds open; always the beststrategy for developing a new discipline, and not abad strategy for intellectual inquiry, full stop.

For further theorizing of organizational coaching,we introduced a pragmatist understanding of therole of action as an essential element of the coach-ing process. Our interpretative analysis served todemonstrate the value of seeing the coaching pro-cess as a joint and active inquiry for both educa-tors and coaches. We believe that conceptualizing


organizational coaching as an end and means forindividual development is also a substantial contri-bution, as it legitimizes coaching as a practice inservice of psychological growth on a large scale in-stead of the misleading simplicity of value-neutralintervention. If followed through, this shouldestablish an ambitious premise for the direction andcriteria of progress in organizational coaching as-signments, and it needs to be incorporated by edu-cators, practitioners, and policy makers. We hopethat coaches who work on their models of practicewould see that the pragmatic epistemological attitudeoffers a unique opportunity for flexibility while alsoproviding a coherent standpoint for understandingtheir roles.

Finally, we recognize that in trying to paint a pic-ture of such magnitude, it is inevitable that someideas have only being sketched rather than fully de-veloped. In terms of research, we would love to seerich empirical data supporting or questioning thetheoretical position set here. For examples, qualita-tive investigations could focus on the experience ofjoint inquiry and what makes it really “joint.” Thephenomenon of the multiple self of the coach needsto be explored through both self-reflection and con-sideration of the observers’ perspective. However,our main intention here was to stimulate and en-courage further conceptual work on organizationalcoaching. It is our hope, therefore, that the proposedideas will be picked up by others and taken further,sideways or even in the opposite direction; betterstill if this is done in the spirit of philosophicalpragmatism.

REFERENCES

Abbott, G., & Salomaa, R. 2017. Cross-cultural coaching:An emerging practice. In T. Bachkirova & G. Spence &D. Drake (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of coaching:453–469. London: Sage.

Alvesson, M. 2001. Knowledge work: Ambiguity, imageand identity. Human Relations, 54(7): 863–886.

Arnaud, G. 2003. A coach or a couch? A Lacanian per-spective on executive coaching and consulting. Hu-man Relations, 56(9): 1131–1154.

Athanasopoulou, A., & Dopson, S. 2015. Developingleaders by executive coaching: Practice and evi-dence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Avolio, B., & Hannah, S. 2008. Developmental readiness:Accelerating leader development. Consulting Psy-chology Journal, 60: 331–347.

Bachkirova, T. 2011. Developmental coaching: Workingwith the self. Maidenhead, UK: OpenUniversity Press.

Bachkirova,T. 2015.Self-deception in coaches:An issue inprinciple and a challenge for supervision. Coaching:An International Journal of Theory, Research andPractice, 8(1): 4–19.

Bachkirova, T. 2016a. The self of the coach: Conceptuali-zation, issues, and opportunities for practitioner de-velopment. Consulting Psychology Journal, 68(2):143–156.

Bachkirova, T. 2016b.Anewperspective on self-deceptionfor applied purposes. New Ideas in Psychology, 43:1–9.

Bachkirova, T. 2017. Developing a knowledge base ofcoaching: Questions to explore. In T. Bachkirova,G. Spence, & D. Drake (Eds.), The SAGE handbook ofcoaching: 23–41. London: Sage.

Bachkirova, T., &Kauffman,C. 2009. Theblindmen and theelephant: Using criteria of universality and uniquenessin evaluating our attempts to define coaching. Coach-ing: An International Journal of Theory, Researchand Practice, 2(2): 95–105.

Bachkirova, T., & Lawton Smith, C. 2015. From compe-tencies to capabilities in the assessment and accredi-tation of coaches. International Journal of EvidenceBased Coaching and Mentoring, 13(2): 123–140.

Bachkirova, T., Spence, G., & Drake, D. 2017a. Introduction.In T. Bachkirova & G. Spence & D. Drake (Eds.), TheSAGE handbook of coaching: 1–22. London: Sage.

Bachkirova, T., Jackson, P., Gannon, J., Iordanou, I., &Myers, A. 2017b. Re-conceptualizing coach educationfrom the perspectives of pragmatism and construc-tivism. Philosophy of Coaching: An InternationalJournal, 2(2): 29–50.

Baker, S. 2015. Practitioners’ perceptions of the bound-aries betweencoaching andcounselling.UnpublishedPhD Thesis. University of Bedfordshire.

Baron, L., & Morin, L. 2009. The coach–coachee relation-ship in executive coaching: A field study. HumanResource Development Quarterly, 20: 85–106.

Bates, R., & Chen, H. 2004. Human resource developmentvalue orientations. Human Resource DevelopmentInternational, 7(3): 351–371.

Becher, T. 1994. The significance of disciplinary differ-ences. Studies in Higher Education, 19(2): 151–161.

Bem, S., & de Jong, H. 2013. Theoretical issues in psy-chology: An introduction, (3rd ed.). London: Sage.

Bennett, J., & Campone, F. 2017. Coaching and theories oflearning. In T. Bachkirova & G. Spence & D. Drake(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of coaching: 102–138.London: Sage.

Berger, J. 2012. Learning on the job: Developing leadersfor a complex world. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univer-sity Press.


Berglas, S. 2002. The dangers of executive coaching. Har-vard Business Review, 80(6): 86–92.

Bernstein, R. 1983. Beyond objectivism and relativism.Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Bluckert, P. 2014. The Gestalt pproach to coaching. InE. Cox, T. Bachkirova, & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), TheComplete handbook of coaching (2nd ed.): 77–90.London: Sage.

Bond, A., & Naughton, N. 2011. The role of coaching inmanaging leadership transitions. International Coach-ing Psychology Review, 6(2): 165–180.

Boyatzis, R., Smith, M., & Van Oosten, E. 2015. Illuminat-ing the scholarship of coaching. The Journal of Ap-plied Behavioral Science, 51(2): 149–151.

Bozer, G., & Jones, R. 2018. Understanding the factors that de-termine workplace coaching effectiveness: A systematicliterature review. European Journal of Work and Orga-nizationalPsychology,10.1080/1359432X.2018.1446946.

Brug, J., Conner, M., Harre, N., Kremers, S., McKellar, S., &Whitelaw, S. 2005. The Transtheoretical Model andstages of change: A critique: Observations by fivecommentators on the paper by Adams, J. and White,M. (2004). Why don’t stage-based activity promotionintervention work? Health Education Research, 20(2):244–258.

Buchler, J. 1955. Introduction. Philosophical writings ofPeirce: vii–xvi. New York: Dover.

Burke, F. T. 2013. What pragmatism was. Bloomington:Indiana University Press.

Butler, N., Delaney,H., & Spoelstra, S. 2017. The grey zone:Questionable research practices in the businessschool. Academy of Management Learning & Edu-cation, 16(1): 94–109.

Campbell, J. 1995. Understanding John Dewey: Natureand cooperative intelligence. Chicago and LaSalle.IL: Open Court.

Cavanagh,M. 2009. Coaching as amethod for joining up thedots: An interview by T. Bachkirova and C. Kauffman.Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Re-search and Practice, 2(2): 106–116.

Cavanagh, M., & Lane, D. 2012. Coaching psychologycoming of age: The challenges we face in the messyworld of complexity. International Coaching Psy-chology Review, 7(1): 75–90.

Cavanagh, M., & Grant, A. 2014. The solution-focusedapproach to coaching. In E. Cox, T. Bachkirova, &D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The complete handbook ofcoaching (2nd ed.): 51–64. London: Sage.

Clutterbuck, D., & Spence, G. 2017. Working with goals incoaching. In T. Bachkirova, G. Spence, & D. Drake(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of coaching: 218–237.London: Sage.

CIPD (The Chartered Institute of Personnel Development)2015. Learning and Development Report 2015. Re-trieved from: https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/strategy/development/surveys.

Cocivera, S., &Cronshaw, S. 2004. Action frame theory as apractical framework for executive coaching process.Consulting Psychology Journal, 56(4): 234–245.

Cook-Greuter, S. 1999. Postautonomous ego development:Its nature and measurement. Unpublished doctoralthesis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School ofEducation.

Cox, E. 2013.Coaching understood: A pragmatic inquiryinto the coaching process. London: Sage.

Cox, E., Bachkirova, T., & Clutterbuck, D. 2014a. Theoret-ical traditions and coaching genres: Mapping the ter-ritory. Advances in Developing Human Resources,16(2): 127–138.

Cox, E., Bachkirova, T., & Clutterbuck, D. 2014b. Thecomplete handbook of coaching. London: Sage.

Cox, E., & Jackson, P. 2014. Developmental coaching. InE. Cox, T. Bachkirova, & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), Thecomplete handbook of coaching (2nd ed.): 215–227.London: Sage.

Day, D. 2001. Leadership development: A review in con-text. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(4): 581–613.

Deci, E., & Ryan, R. 2000. The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goalpursuits: Human needs and the self-determination ofbehavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4): 227–268.

de Haan, E., Bertie, C., Day, A., & Sills, C. 2010. Clients’critical moments of coaching: Toward a “clientmodel” of executive coaching. Academy of Man-agement Learning & Education, 9(4): 607–621.

deHaan, E., &Duckworth, A. 2013. Signaling a new trend inexecutive coaching outcome research. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 8(1): 6–19.

de Haan, E., & Gannon, J. 2017. The coaching relationship.In T. Bachkirova, G. Spence, & D. Drake (Eds.), TheSAGE handbook of coaching: 195–217. London:Sage.

Dewey, J. 1916. Democracy and education: An in-troduction to the philosophy of education. London:Macmillan.

Dewey, J. 1920, 2004. Reconstruction in philosophy. NewYork: Dover.

Dewey, J. 1925. Experience and nature. London: GeorgeAllen and Unwin.

Dewy, J. 1929, 1980. The quest for certainty. New York:Perigee.

Dewey, J. 1938. Logic: The theory of inquiry. New York:Henry Holt & Company.


https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/strategy/development/surveys

https://www.cipd.co.uk/knowledge/strategy/development/surveys

Drake, D. 2017. Working with narrative in coaching. In T.Bachkirova, G. Spence, & D. Drake (Eds.), The SAGEhandbook of coaching: 291–309. London: Sage.

Ellinger, A. D., Hamlin, R. G., & Beattie, R. S.2008. Behavioural indicators of ineffective mana-gerial coaching: A cross national study. Journalof European Industrial Training, 32(4): 240–302.

Ellinger, A., Beattie, R., &Hamlin, R. 2014. Themanager asa coach. In E. Cox, T. Bachkirova, & D. Clutterbuck(Eds.),Thecompletehandbookof coaching (2nded.):256–270. London: Sage.

Ellinger, A., Hamlin, R., & Beattie, R. 2017. Coaching in theHRD context. In T. Bachkirova, G. Spence, & D. Drake(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of coaching: 470–485.London: Sage.

Fendler, L. 2003. Teacher reflection in a hall of mirrors:Historical influences and political reverberations.Educational Researcher, 32(3): 16–25.

Fillery-Travis, A., & Lane, D. 2006. Does coaching work orare we asking the wrong question? InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 1(1): 23–36.

Fillery-Travis, A., & Collins, R. 2017. Discipline, pro-fession and industry: How our choices shape our fu-ture. In T. Bachkirova, G. Spence, & D. Drake (Eds.),The SAGE handbook of coaching: 729–744. London:Sage.

Fishman, D. 1999. The case for pragmatic psychology.New York: New York University Press.

Filsinger-Mohun, C. 2011. How can maternity coachinginfluence women’s re-engagement with their careerdevelopment: A case study of private law firms? Un-published dissertation. Oxford, UK: Oxford BrookesUniversity.

Francis, S., & Zarecky, A. 2017. Working with strengths incoaching. In T. Bachkirova, G. Spence, & D. Drake(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of coaching: 363–380.London: Sage.

Garvey, B. 2011. A very short, fairly interesting andreasonably cheap book about coaching and men-toring. London: Sage.

Garvey, B. 2017. Issues of assessment and accreditation ofcoaching. In T. Bachkirova, G. Spence, & D. Drake(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of coaching: 680–695.London: Sage.

Garvey, B., Stokes, P., & Megginson, D. 2014. Coachingand mentoring: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Lon-don: Sage.

Gessnitzer, S., & Kauffeld, S. 2015. Theworking alliancein coaching:Why behavior is the key to success.TheJournal of Applied Behavioral Science, 51(2): 177–197.

Grant, A. 2006. A personal perspective on professionalcoaching and development of coaching psychology.International Coaching Psychology Review, 1(1):12–22.

Grant,A.2011.Workplace,executiveandlifecoaching:Anannotated bibliography from the behavioural scienceand business literature. Sydney, AUS: Coaching Psy-chology Unit, University of Sydney. Retrieved from:http://www.instituteofcoaching.org/images/pdfs/CoachingResearchStudiesList.pdf.

Grant, A. 2013. The efficacy of coaching. In J. Passmore, D.Peterson, & T. Freire (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwellhandbook of the psychology of coaching and men-toring: 15–39. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.

Grant, A. 2014. Autonomy support, relationship satisfac-tion and goal focus in the coach-coachee relationship:Which best predict coaching success? Coaching: AnInternational Journal of Theory, Research andPractice, 7(1): 18–38.

Grant, A., Passmore, J., Cavanagh, M., & Parker, H. 2010.The state of play in coaching today: A comprehensivereview of the field. In G. Hodgkinson & K. Ford (Eds.),International review of industrial and organiza-tional psychology 2010: 125–167. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.

Gray,D. 2007. Facilitatingmanagement learning: Developingcritical reflection through reflective tools.ManagementLearning, 38: 495–517.

Gray, D., Garvey, B., & Lane, D. 2016. A critical in-troduction to coaching and mentoring: Debates, di-alogues and discourses. London: Sage.

Haack, S. 2006. Introduction. In S. Haack & R. Lane (Eds.),Pragmatism, old and new: 15–67. New York: Pro-metheus Books.

Hawkins, P., & Smith, N. 2013. Coaching, mentoring andorganizational consultancy: Supervision, skills anddevelopment (2nd ed.), Maidenhead, UK: Open Uni-versity Press.

Hildebrand, D. 2003. Beyond realism and anti-realism.Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.

Hildebrand,D.2013.Dewey’spragmatism: Instrumentalismand meliorism. In A. Malachowski (Ed.), The Cam-bridge companion to pragmatism: 55–82. Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hogan, B. 2009. Towards a truly pragmatic philosophy ofsocial science. Human Studies, 32: 383–389.

Hunt, J., & Weintraub, J. 2004. Learning developmentalcoaching. Journal of Management Education, 28(1):39–61.

ICF (International CoachFederation) 2016.Annual Report.Retrieved from: https://www.coachfederation.org/newsdetail.cfm?ItemNumber54463.


http://www.instituteofcoaching.org/images/pdfs/CoachingResearchStudiesList.pdf

http://www.instituteofcoaching.org/images/pdfs/CoachingResearchStudiesList.pdf

https://www.coachfederation.org/newsdetail.cfm?ItemNumber=4463



Iordanou, I., Hawley, R., & Iordanou, C. 2017. Values andethics in coaching. London: Sage.

Jackson, P. 2004. Does it matter what the coach thinks? Anew foundation for professional development. In D.Drake, & D. Brennan & K. Kortz (Eds.), The philoso-phy and practice of coaching: Insights and issuesfor a new era: 73–90. Chichester, UK: John Wileyand Sons.

James,W. 1907, 1982. An interview: Pragmatism –What isit? In H. S. Thayer, (Ed.), Pragmatism: The classicwritings: 130–134. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.

James, W. 1904, 2000. A world of pure experience.In G. Gunn (Ed.), William James: Pragmatism andother writings: 314–326. London: Penguin.

Jenkins, S. 2016. Beyond ‘crude pragmatism’ in sportscoaching: Insights from C.S. Peirce, William James,and John Dewey. International Journal of SportsScience & Coaching, 12(1): 8–19.

Jones, R., & Corner, J. 2012. Seeing the forest and the trees:A complex adaptive systems lens for mentoring. Hu-man Relations, 65(3): 391–411.

Joseph, S. 2014. The person-centered approach to coach-ing. In E. Cox, T. Bachkirova, D. Clutterbuck (Eds.),The complete handbook of coaching (2nd ed.):65–76. London: Sage.

Joseph, S., & Bryant-Jefferies, R. 2007. Person-centeredcoaching psychology. In S. Palmer & A. Whybrow(Eds.), Handbook of coaching psychology: 211–228.London, UK: Routledge.

Kavanagh, F. 2015. Models for job support and coachingfor people with disabilities in the European Union.FinalReport.Retrievedfrom:https://www.slideshare.net/undpukraine/job-support-and-coaching-for-people-with-disabilities-in-the-eu.

Kegan,R. 1982.Theevolving self: Problemandprocess inhuman development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni-versity Press.

Kelemen, M., & Rumens, N. 2008. An introduction tocritical management research. London: Sage.

Kempster, S., & Iszatt-White, M. 2012. Towards co-constructed coaching: Exploring the integration ofcoaching and co-constructed autoethnography inleadership development. Management Learning,44(4): 319–336.

Kenworthy, A. L., Passarelli, A., & Van Oosten, E. 2014.Introduction: Coaching and positive emotions: Ex-ploring a collection of resources in the health andwellness domain. Academy of Management Learn-ing & Education, 13(2): 290–292.

Kilpinen, E. 2009. Pragmatism as a philosophy of action. InS. Pihlstrom & H. Rydenfelt (Eds.), Pragmatist per-spectives: 163–179. Helsinki: Philosophical Societyof Finland.

Knowles, M. 1978. The adult learner: A neglected spe-cies. Houston, TX: Gulf.

Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. 2015. Theadult learner. New York: Routledge.

Kolb,D. 1984, 2014.Experiential learning:Experienceasthe source of learning and development. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Korotov, K. 2017. Coaching for leadership development. InT. Bachkirova, G. Spence, & D. Drake (Eds.), TheSAGE handbook of coaching: 139–158. London:Sage.

K. Korotov, E. Florent-Treacy, M. Kets de Vries, & A.Bernhardt (Eds.) 2012. Tricky coaching: Difficultcases in leadership coaching. Basingstoke, UK: Pal-grave Macmillan.

Lane, D. 2017. Trends in development of coaches (educa-tion and training): Is it valid, is it rigorous and is itrelevant? In T. Bachkirova, G. Spence, & D. Drake(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of coaching: 647–661.London: Sage.

Lawton-Smith, C. 2017. Coaching for resilience and well-being. In T. Bachkirova, G. Spence, & D. Drake (Eds.),The SAGE handbook of coaching: 346–380. London:Sage.

MacKie, D. 2015. The effects of coachee readiness andcore self-evaluations on leadership coaching out-comes: A controlled trial. Coaching: An Interna-tional Journal of Theory, Research and Practice,8(2): 120–136.

Martela, F. 2015a. Fallible inquirywith ethical end-in-view:A pragmatist philosophy of science for organizationalresearch.Organization Studies, 36(4): 537–563.

Martela, F. 2015b. Pragmatism as an attitude. InU. Zackariasson (Ed.), Action, belief and inquiry –

Pragmatist perspectives on science, society and re-ligion: 187–207. Nordic Studies in Pragmatism 3.Helsinki: Nordic Pragmatism Network.

Menand, L. 2001. The metaphysical club. London:Flamingo.

Mezirow, J. 1990. Fostering critical reflection in adult-hood: A guide to transformative and emancipatorylearning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Mitchell, S. 2009.Unsimple truths. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Myers, A. 2017. Researching the coaching process. In T.Bachkirova, G. Spence, & D. Drake (Eds.), The SAGEhandbook of coaching: 589–609. London: Sage.

Palmer, S., & Whybrow, A. (Eds.) 2007. Handbook ofcoaching psychology. London: Routledge.

Peirce, C. S. 1878, 1955a. How to make our ideas clear.In J. Buchler (Ed.), Philosophical writings of Peirce:23–42. New York: Dover.


https://www.slideshare.net/undpukraine/job-support-and-coaching-for-people-with-disabilities-in-the-eu



Peirce, C. S. 1878, 1955b. Fixation of belief. In J. Buchler(Ed.), Philosophical writings of Peirce: 5–22. NewYork: Dover.

Peltier, B. 2001. The psychology of executive coaching.Hove: Brunner-Routledge.

Pepper, S. 1942.World hypotheses: A study in evidence.Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Peterson, D. 1991. Connection and disconnection of researchand practice in the education of professional psycholo-gists. The American Psychologist, 46: 422–429.

Pihlstrom, S. 2015. Introduction. In S. Pihlstrom (Ed.),TheBloomsbury companion to pragmatism: 3–36. Lon-don: Sage.

Pring, R. 2014. John Dewey. London: Bloomsbury.

Putnam, R. 2002. Taking pragmatism seriously. In J.Conant & U. Zeglen (Eds.), Hilary Putnam: Pragma-tism & realism: 7–11. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Putnam, R. 2017. Democracy as a way of life. In D.Macarthur (Ed.), Pragmatism as a way of Life: Thelasting legacy of William James and John Dewey:439–452. Cambridge: Belknap Harvard.

Reissner, S., & Du Toit, A. 2011. Power and the tale:Coaching as storytelling. Journal of ManagementDevelopment, 30(3): 247–259.

Report, Ridler. 2013. Trends in the use of executivecoaching. London: Ridler & Co.

Rockmore, T. 2002. The epistemological promise of prag-matism. In M. Aboulafia, & M. Brookman, & C. Kemp(Eds.), Habermas and pragmatism: 47–64. London:Routledge.

Rodgers, C. 2002. Defining reflection: Another look at JohnDewey and reflective thinking. Teachers CollegeRecord, 104(4): 842–866.

Rogers, J. 2012. Coaching skills: A handbook (3rd ed.),Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Rorty, R. 1980a. Philosophy and the mirror of nature.Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Rorty, R. 1980b. Pragmatism, relativism, and irrationalism.Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philo-sophical Association, 56(6): 717–738.

Rosenbaum, P. 2015. Making our ideas clear: Pragma-tism in psychoanalysis. Charlotte, NC: IAP, Inc.

Rumens, N., & Kelemen, M. 2016. American pragmatismand organization studies: Concepts, themes and pos-sibilities. In M. Kelemen & N. Rumens (Eds.), Ameri-can pragmatismand organizations: 3–24. NewYork:Gower Publishing.

Salomaa, R. 2015. Expatriate coaching: Factors impactingcoaching success. Journal of Global Mobility, 3(3):216–243.

Segers, J., Vloeberghs, D., Henderickx, E., & Inceoblu, I.2011. Structuring and understanding the coachingindustry: The coaching cube. Academy of Manage-ment Learning & Education, 10(2): 204–221.

Serenko, A., & Bontis, N. 2013. The intellectual core andimpact of the knowledge management academic dis-cipline. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17(1):137–155.

Schon, D. 1987. Educating the reflective practitioner:Toward a new design for teaching and learning inthe professions. New York: Basic Books.

Shoukry,H. 2014.Coaching for emancipation:A frameworkfor coaching in oppressive environments. UnpublishedPhD thesis, Oxford: Oxford Brookes University.

Shoukry, H. 2017. Coaching for social change. In T.Bachkirova, G. Spence, & D. Drake (Eds.), The SAGEhandbook of coaching: 176–194. London: Sage.

Spence, G., & Deci, E. 2013. Self-determination withcoaching contexts: Supporting motives and goalsthat promote optimal functioning and well-being.In S. David, D. Clutterbuck, & D. Megginson (Eds.),Beyond goals: Effective strategies for coachingand mentoring: 85–108. Padstow: Gower.

Spinelli, E. 2014. Existential coaching. In E. Cox, T.Bachkirova, & D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The completehandbook of coaching (2nd ed.): 91–103. London:Sage.

Stacey, R. D. 2003. Strategic management and organi-zational dynamics: The challenge of complexity.Harlow: Prentice-Hall.

Stacey, R. D. 2012. Comment on debate article: CoachingPsychology Coming of Age: The challenges we facein the messy world of complexity. InternationalCoaching Psychology Review, 7(1): 91–95.

Stern, L., & Stout-Rostron, S. 2013.What progress has beenmade in coaching research in relation to 16 ICRF focusareas from 2008 to 2012?Coaching: An InternationalJournal of Theory, Research and Practice, 6(1): 72–96.

Strozzi-Heckler, R. 2014. The art of somatic coaching.Berkley, CA: North Atlantic Books.

Talisse, R., & Aikin, S. 2008. Pragmatism: A guide for theperplexed. London: Continuum.

Thayer-Bacon, B. J. 2015. Education. In S. Pihlstrom (Ed.),The Bloomsbury companion to pragmatism: 188–202. London: Bloomsbury.

Theeboom, T., Beersma, B., & van Vianen, A. 2013. Doescoaching work? A meta-analysis on the effects ofcoaching on individual level outcomes in an organi-zational context. The Journal of Positive Psychology,9(1): 1–18.


Tschannen-Moran, B. 2014. Skills and performancecoaching. In E. Cox, T. Bachkirova, & D. Clutterbuck(Eds.),Thecompletehandbookof coaching (2nded.):201–214. London: Sage.

van Nieuwerburgh, C. 2014. An introduction to coachingskills: A practical guide. London: Sage.

Wacker, J. 1998. A definition of theory: Research guide-lines for different theory building researchmethods inoperations managements. Journal of Operations Man-agement, 16: 361–385.

Wasylyshyn, K. 2004. Coaching the superkeepers. In L.Berger & D. Berger (Eds.), The talent managementhandbook: 320–336. London: McGraw-Hill.

Weick, C. W. 2008. Issues of consequences: Lessons for ed-ucating tomorrow’s business leaders from philosopherWilliam James.Academy ofManagement Learning&Education, 7(1): 88–98.

Welman, P., & Bachkirova, T. 2010. Issues of power incoaching relationship. In S. Palmer & A. McDowell(Eds.), The coaching relationship: 139–158. London:Routledge.

Western, S. 2012. Coaching and mentoring: A criticaltext. London: Sage.

Whitmore, J. 2008. The evolution of coaching: An in-terview by C. Kauffman & T. Bachkirova. Coaching:

An International Journal of Theory, Research andPractice, 1(1): 11–15.

Whittington, J. 2016. Systemic coaching and constella-tions, (2nd ed.). London: Kogan Page.

Wilson, C. 2007. Best practice in performance coaching:A handbook for leaders, coaches, HR professionalsand organizations. London: Kogan Page.

Tatiana Bachkirova is a professor of coaching psychologyand Director of the International Centre for Coaching andMentoring Studies at Oxford Brookes University, UK. Shereceived her PhD in organizational psychology from St.Petersburg University in Russia. Her research interestsare in developmental coaching, coaching supervision, andphilosophy of coaching.

Simon Borrington is an honorary research associate withthe International Centre for Coaching and MentoringStudies at Oxford Brookes University, UK. His researchinterests are in the philosophy of psychology, the role ofpragmatism in understanding human experience, and theinterface between emotion and cognition.


Copyright of Academy of Management Learning & Education is the property of Academy ofManagement and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to alistserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,download, or email articles for individual use.

old wine in new bottles: exploring pragmatism as a ... · pragmatism. although pragmatism as a...

Documents