Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

Response to Dias et al.

Coaching the brain: Neuro-science or


neuro-nonsense?
Anthony M. Grant

This paper discusses some myths and misconceptions that have emerged in relation to neuroscience and
coaching, and explores the notion that neuroscience provides a foundational evidence-base for coaching,
and that neurocoaching is a unique or original coaching methodology. It is found that much of the insights
into coaching purported to be delivered by neuroscience are long-established within the behavioural sciences.
Furthermore, the empirical and conceptual links between neuroscientific findings and actual coaching
practice are tenuous at best. Although at present there is no convincing empirical support for a neuroscientific
foundation to coaching, there are important ways in which coaching and neuroscience can interact. There
is good evidence that solution-focused cognitive-behavioural (SF-CB) coaching can reliably induce specific
behavioural and cognitive changes. SF-CB coaching could thus be used as a methodology to experimentally
induce specific changes including greater self-insight and better relations with others. Subsequent changes in
brain structure or brain activity could then be observed. This has potential to be of great value to the
neuroscience enterprise by providing more hard evidence for concepts such as neuroplasticity and brain-region
function-specificity. It may well be that coaching can be of greater use to the field of neuroscience than the
field of neuroscience can be to coaching. In this way we can address many neuromyths and misconceptions
about brain-based coaching, and begin to author a more accurate and productive narrative about the
relationship between coaching and neuroscience.
Keywords: neuroscience; coaching; neuromyths; brain-based coaching.

Introduction

T
HERE HAS BEEN a significant growth that I am no expert in neuroscience.
over the past 10 years in articles, prod- My expertise (if any) lies in solution-focused
ucts and services in the coaching cognitive-behavioural approaches to coach-
industry that purport to draw on neuroscien- ing, conducting coaching research, prac-
tific research. There is an immediacy and ticing evidence-based coaching with
attractiveness in neuroscience that appeals organisations and coaching clients, and
to many people. For some, neuroscience teaching and training others in evidence-
offers the ultimate explanatory framework based coaching. In addition, my undergrad-
from which to understand coaching. For uate and postgraduate training in psychology
others neuroscience-based coaching is taught me some skills in critical thinking,
a classic example of pop-science band- reasoning and research. It is from this
wagoning with coaches, workplace trainers perspective that I write.
and business consultants using neuroscien- This paper, in response to the target
tific jargon and brain images as pseudo- paper, discusses the narrative that has
explanatory frameworks for atheoretical emerged in relation to the use of neuro-
proprietary coaching systems (for discussion science in coaching, some neuromyths and
see Grant & Cavanagh, 2007). misconceptions and explores the notions
The target paper in this issue provides an that neuroscience provides an evidence-base
opportunity to reflect on some aspects of for coaching and that neurocoaching is a
neuroscience-based coaching. I should state unique or original coaching methodology.

The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 11, No. 1, June 2015 31


© The British Psychological Society – ISSN: 1748–1104
Anthony M. Grant

I then argue that, by providing a well- many fMRI research studies (Button et al.,
validated methodology for creating human 2013), and this situation has fuelled a
change, coaching per se may well be of passionate debate amongst noted experts in
greater use to the field of neuroscience as an the field (e.g. Diener, 2010).
experimental methodology than neuro- The point here is that there is much
science per se can be to coaching. ambiguity and controversy in neuroscience
about research methodologies and the relia-
Neuromyths and misconceptions bility of findings – even amongst experts.
Neuromyths are misconceptions about the This ambiguity should act as an important
brain that propagate when cultural or social caution for the coaching industry and the
conditions (e.g. lack of critical thinking or purchasers of coaching services, the vast
expert knowledge, unconscious biases, etc.) majority of who do not have the appropriate
inhibit rigours scrutiny (Crockard, 1996), specialised postgraduate training in neuro-
and can be viewed as surface markers of an science needed to thoroughly and critically
underlying social narrative. understand and utilise the data from neuro-
Neuromyths arise, in part, because the scientific findings. This is not a simple area
mind-brain-behaviour relationship cannot be to understand and it is very easy to over-
reduced to, or acutely represented in a generalise the findings from neuroscience
colourful computer-generated image of the research to real-life coaching practice.
brain – however impressive such images
might be. Oversimplification of these Pseudo-insights from neuroscience
complex relationships creates misunderstand- Indeed, the neurocoaching field is awash
ings (Howard-Jones, 2014), and such misun- with broad motherhood statements that are
derstandings are frequently propagated by purported to be ‘insights’ derived from
the popular press and those who wish to use neuroscience. Some often-cited examples
neuroscientific language to sell their goods or (e.g. Rock & Schwartz, 2006; Williams, 2010)
services (Beck, 2010). As Beck (2010) notes, it include:
is very easy to manipulate the general public’s l The connections in our brains form
perception of neuroscientific findings. ‘mental maps’ of reality.
Indeed, there is good research suggesting that l Focusing our attention on solutions or
people find statements made with reference new thinking is a better strategy for
to brain images and neuroscience language reaching goals than focusing on analysing
more convincing than the same statements problems from the past.
that make no reference to the brain (McCabe l If leaders want to become more effective
& Castel, 2008; Rhodes, Rodriguez & Shah, coaches themselves they need to learn to
2014; Weisberg et al., 2008). In short, it is diffi- stop giving unsolicited advice to people, or
cult for those not appropriately trained in if it is given, to be unattached to their ideas
neuroscience to fully grasp the true relevance and present them as options to people.
or veracity of research in this area. l Change is hard and people resist change.
To add further confusion, there are However, all of these supposed neuro-
significant controversies about the real insights have been common knowledge
meaning of functional magnetic resonance within the behavioural sciences for many
imaging (fMRI) – a primary tool in the years. The notion that we hold mental
neuroscientific research. The way that fMRI models or maps of the world in our minds
data itself is statistically analysed and dates back though the cognitive traditions of
reported has come under considerable criti- Beck (1987) to Korzybski (1948) and to the
cism (Vul et al., 2009), and the lack of statis- ancient Greek philosophers. The idea that
tical power and the use of incorrect statistical change is better attained through focusing
analyses has cast doubt on the validity of on solutions and desired outcomes or goals

32 The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 11, No. 1, June 2015


Neuro-science or neuro-nonsense?

than analysing problems from the past has a groupthink, a result of an organisational
long history in psychology, and encompasses neuroscience bandwagon. They also argue
the work of Latham and Locke (1991) and that the basic science behind organisational
Fishbein (1979) amongst many others. The neuroscience is far less rigorous than
notion that leaders should genuinely consult currently advocated (due to the low statis-
and engage in dialogue with their employees tical power of some studies coupled with an
rather than merely ordering or giving advice inability to locate mental phenomena accu-
has a longstanding history well before the rately in the brain), concluding that that the
emergence of neuroscience (e.g. Blanchard, practical implications of organisational
1994; Locke, Schweiger & Latham, 1986); neuroscience research are currently over-
and the idea that people find it hard to enact stated. If organisational neuroscience is to
change has been extensively explored in the develop, they argue, it is vital that
behavioural sciences for over 90 years (e.g. researchers move away from broad, general
Bandura, 1977; DiClemente & Prochaska, statements and become more far specific
1998; Schwarz, 1933). about the phenomena under investigation.
Thus we need to ask, what new or unique Clearly, caution is required in extrapolating
insights about coaching does neuroscience from general and basic neuroscientific
give us that are not already evidenced research to applied coaching methodologies
through behavioural science. One has to (Frankfurt, 2005).
conclude, that as yet, not many.
Four common coaching neuromyths and
The negative impact of neuromyths in misconceptions
education and management There are four common neuromyths and
There has also been concern that the propa- misconceptions that sit at the core of the
gation of neuromyths and the inappropriate neurocoaching narrative. Interestingly,
use of neuroscientific findings have had a although these are often-cited arguments in
negative impact on a number of areas of support of neurocoaching, one does not
practice. For example, Howard-Jones (2014) need an in-depth understanding of neuro-
discusses the negative impact on neuromyths science to refute them – just logic, critical
in education, ranging from the erroneous thinking and an understanding of coaching
belief that we mostly only use 10 per cent of as discipline.
our brain to the (similarly erroneous) belief
that individuals learn better when they 1. The myth that neuroscience gives us scientific
receive information in their preferred proof that coaching ‘works’
learning style (e.g. visual, auditory or kinaes- This myth is erroneous because there are
thetic). Howard-Jones (2014) argues that large amounts of data in the behavioural
such neuromyths have had negative effect on sciences from the 1990s onwards indicating
education by propagating less effective that coaching can help facilitate behavioural
teaching methods and inhibiting evidence- change and enhance goal attainment and
based approaches to teaching. well-being in a wide range of domains
Lindebaum and Jordan (2014) similarly including life coaching, leadership coaching
mount an extensive critique on neuroscien- and in response to stress (e.g. Grant, 2003;
tific methodologies in organisational behav- MacKie, 2014; Peterson, 1993; Wissbrun,
iour and management studies (which 1984). Such work is peer-reviewed, conforms
includes neuroscience-based workplace to accepted scientific procedures and does
coaching and neuroscience-based leadership not utilise any aspect of neuroscience. In
coaching). They point out that there are very short, there is already longstanding scientific
few substantive critiques of organisational proof that coaching works irrespective of
neuroscience – suggesting a degree of what neuroscience proponents may say.

The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 11, No. 1, June 2015 33


Anthony M. Grant

2. The myth that neuroscience allows us to ‘coach not an already existing scientific foundation
the brain’ for coaching prior to 2009 or the popular-
In order for this claim to be true, propo- ising of neuroscientific language in relation
nents of neurocoaching need to show how to coaching, would have come as a great
other approaches to coaching do not involve surprise to the many behavioural scientists
the coachee’s brain. Stated like this it is (e.g. Grant, 2003; Kilburg, 2001; Miller,
obvious that all coaching involves the brain. 1990; Olivero, Bane & Kopelman, 1997;
All coaches, irrespective of theoretical orien- Peterson, 1993) who had been using theory
tation ‘coach the brain’! to generate coaching-specific hypothesis,
and then testing those hypotheses through
3. The misconception of reductionism systemic data collection and analysis – facets
At its core this misconception involves the commonly understood as comprising the
notion that we can understand complex ‘scientific method’ (Wilson, 1990), a vital
human behaviour by examining fMRI part of a scientific foundation.
images, and that human experience can be A foundation is commonly understood as
understood by reduction to the cellular the base on which all else is built (Hanks,
level. This simplicity is attractive to many; in 1986). Thus if neuroscience is to provide a
essence it states that if you can understand scientific foundation for coaching it will
fMRI images, you can understand people. need to be able to generate unique coach-
Reinforcing this misconception is that fact specific theories and methodologies that can
that fMRI images tend to give an illusion of then inform the development of unique
explanatory depth, with people believing coaching interventions. Until this point is
that they have a better understanding of the reached, the best we can say is that neuro-
mechanism underlying a behavioural science can inform and augment existing
phenomenon – even when such understand- approaches to coaching.
ings are incorrect (Rhodes et al., 2014).
Thus it is easy to fall into the reductionist A word of caution: Let’s get real
trap (Cahill, 2001). A word of caution is warranted at this point.
However, we cannot explain human It is clear that there is little empirical data
behaviour (or develop coaching methodolo- that directly links neuroscience research to
gies) just by looking at, or extrapolating coaching-specific outcomes, and it is clear
from, computer-generated images that that there are large conceptual holes in the
present idealised images of brain func- arguments and conceptual frameworks
tioning. It must be remembered that fMRI underpinning neurocoaching and in the
images are only surface markers of under- attempted links between neuroscience and
lying complex brain processes that them- coaching. Thus, coaches, trainers and
selves are a response to a broad range of consultants that use neuroscientific jargon as
external stimuli and internal psychological a means of gaining credibility and devel-
and biological processes. To understand the oping an aura of scientific respectability in
complexities of human behaviour (and order to sell their products and services run
coaching) we need a more holistic bio- the very real risk of having their own profes-
psychosocial approach. sional standing diminished, as well as doing
their clients and broader coaching industry a
4. The myth that neuroscience provides the scien- disservice. Good, evidence-based coaching
tific foundation for coaching that is solidly grounded in the behavioural
It has been argued that contemporary sciences does not need pseudo-neuro
neuroscience provides the scientific founda- psychobabble or pseudoscience to find a
tion for coaching practice (see, for example, market. Let’s get real and cut the hyperbole
Rock & Page, 2009). The idea that there was (Frankfurt, 2005).

34 The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 11, No. 1, June 2015


Neuro-science or neuro-nonsense?

Final reflections and towards the future brain structure or brain activity. This line of
This is not to be dismissive of neuroscience research (which should be hypothesis-
as valid science, or dismissive of the contri- driven, rather than speculative), has the
bution that neuroscience can potentially potential to be of great value to the neuro-
make to the evidence-based coaching enter- science enterprise by providing more hard
prise. The recent and ongoing advances in evidence for concepts such as neuroplasticity
neuroscience technology and methodolo- and brain-region function-specificity
gies are exciting. Neuroscience has the In addition it would be extremely fruitful
potential to offer great insights. to explore the links between the self-report
But let’s be frank about it, there’s a lot of outcome measures typically used in
nonsense talked about neuroscience and coaching, actual behaviour change and any
coaching. There is lots of marketing hype; changes in brain states as recorded by neuro-
lots of sweeping statements; lots of erro- scientific methodologies such as fMRI. This
neous reasoning, and almost quasi-religious kind of holistic research has far greater
fervour in some quarters. This is not good potential to make a meaningful practical
for the coaching industry or its clients, and contribution to the evidence-based coaching
may well impede to the movement towards a enterprise than much of the somewhat spec-
genuine evidence-based coaching paradigm. ulative and reductionist links that have been
drawn between fMRI images and coaching
The way forward? practice to date.
Although at present there is no truly It may well be that coaching can be of
convincing support for a neuroscientific greater use to the field of neuroscience than
foundation to coaching, there are some the field of neuroscience can be to coaching.
interesting ways in which coaching and In this way we can begin to address many
neuroscience can interact. neuromyths and misconceptions about so-
We now have good evidence that solu- called brain-based coaching, and begin to
tion-focused cognitive-behavioural (SF-CB) author a more accurate and productive
coaching can reliably enhance goal attain- narrative about the relationship between
ment and induce behavioural change as well coaching and neuroscience.
as positively impacting on a range of psycho-
logical variables including capacity for self- Correspondence
regulation, self-insight and solution-focused Anthony M. Grant PhD
thinking (Theeboom, Beersma & van Coaching Psychology Unit,
Vianen, 2013). Thus it would be valuable to School of Psychology,
use SF-CB coaching as a methodology to University of Sydney,
experimentally induce specific changes (e.g. Sydney, NSW 2006,
increased self-regulation; greater self-aware- Australia.
ness and self-insight; better relations with Email: anthony.grant@sydney.edu.au
others) and to observe (any) changes in

The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 11, No. 1, June 2015 35


Anthony M. Grant

References
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying Latham, G.P. & Locke, E.A. (1991). Self-regulation
theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, through goal setting. Organizational Behavior &
84(2), 191–215. Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 212–247.
Beck, A.T. (1987). Cognitive models of depression. Lindebaum, D. & Jordan, P.J. (2014). A critique on
Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 1, 5–37. neuroscientific methodologies in organisational
Beck, D.M. (2010). The appeal of the brain in the behavior and management studies. Journal of
popular press. Perspectives on Psychological Science, Organizational Behavior, 35(7), 898–908.
5(6), 762–766. Locke, E.A., Schweiger, D.M. & Latham, G.P. (1986).
Blanchard, K. (1994). Leadership and the one minute Participation in decision making: When should it
manager. London: HarperCollins. be used? Organizational Dynamics, 14(3), 65–79.
Button, K.S., Ioannidis, J.P.A., Mokrysz, C., Nosek, MacKie, D. (2014). The effectiveness of strength-
B.A., Flint, J., Robinson, E.S.J. et al. (2013). based executive coaching in enhancing full
Power failure: Why small sample size undermines range leadership development: A controlled
the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci, study. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
14(5), 365–376. Research, 66(2), 118–137.
Cahill, L., McGaugh, J.L. & Weinberger, N.M. (2001). McCabe, D.P. & Castel, A.D. (2008). Seeing is
The neurobiology of learning and memory: believing: The effect of brain images on
Some reminders to remember. Trends in Neuro- judgments of scientific reasoning. Cognition,
sciences, 24(10), 578–581. 107(1), 343–352.
Crockard, A. (1996). Confessions of a brain surgeon. Miller, D.J. (1990). The effect of managerial
New Scientist, 2061, 68. coaching on transfer of training. Dissertation
DiClemente, C.C. & Prochaska, J.O. (1998). Toward Abstracts International, 50(8-A), 2435.
a comprehensive, transtheoretical model Olivero, G., Bane, K. & Kopelman, R.E. (1997). Exec-
of change: Stages of change and addictive utive coaching as a transfer of training tool:
behaviors. In W.R. Miller (Ed.), Treating addictive Effects on productivity in a public agency.
behaviors (pp.3–24). New York: Plenum Press. Public Personnel Management, 26(4), 461–469.
Diener, E. (2010). Neuroimaging: Voodoo, new Peterson, D.B. (1993). Skill learning and behavior
phrenology, or scientific breakthrough? Intro- change in an individually tailored management
duction to Special Section on fMRI. Perspectives on coaching and training program. DAI-B 54/03,
Psychological Science, 5(6), 714–715. 1707. September, Emprical, PhD, WS.
Fishbein, M. (1979). A theory of reasoned action: Rhodes, R.E., Rodriguez, F. & Shah, P. (2014).
Some applications and implications. Nebraska Explaining the alluring influence of neuro-
Symposium on Motivation, 27, 65–116. science information on scientific reasoning.
Frankfurt, H.G. (2005). On bullshit. Princeton, NJ: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn, 40(5), 1432–1440.
Princeton University Press. Rock, D. & Page, L.J. (2009). Coaching with the brain in
Grant, A.M. (2003). The impact of life coaching on mind: Foundations for practice. New York: John
goal attainment, metacognition and mental Wiley & Sons.
health. Social Behavior and Personality: An Interna- Rock, D. & Schwartz, J.M. (2006). A brain-based
tional Journal, 31(3), 253–263. approach to coaching. International Journal of
Grant, A.M. & Cavanagh, M. (2007). Evidence-based Coaching in Organizations, 4(2), 32–44.
coaching: Flourishing or languishing? Australian Schwarz, G. (1933). On relapse in the changing of
Psychologist, 42(4), 239–254. habits. Psychologische Forschung, 18, 143–190.
Hanks, P. (1986). Collins Dictionary of the English Theeboom, T., Beersma, B. & van Vianen, A.E.M.
Language. London: Collins. (2013). Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on
Howard-Jones, P.A. (2014). Neuroscience and educa- the effects of coaching on individual level
tion: Myths and messages. Nat Rev Neurosci, outcomes in an organisational context. The
15(12), 817–824. Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 1–18.
Kilburg, R.R. (2001). Facilitating intervention adher- Vul, E., Harris, C., Winkielman, P. & Pashler, H.
ence in executive coaching: A model and (2009). Puzzlingly high correlations in fMRI
methods. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & studies of emotion, personality, and social cogni-
Research, 53(4), 251–267. tion. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(3),
Korzybski, A. (1948). Selections from science and sanity: 274–290.
An introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and Weisberg, D.S., Keil, F.C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E. &
general semantics. New York: International Non- Gray, J.R. (2008). The seductive allure of neuro-
Aristotelian Library Publishing Company. science explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuro-
science, 20(3), 470–477.

36 The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 11, No. 1, June 2015


Neuro-science or neuro-nonsense?

Williams, R. (2010). How brain science can change Wilson, E.B. (1990). An introduction to scientific
coaching: Brain science research has significant research. New York: Courier Corporation.
implications for coaching. Psychology Today. Wissbrun, D.L. (1984). The reduction of managerial
Retrieved from: stress through skill development in performance
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired- counseling and performance coaching. Disserta-
success/201002/how-brain-science-can-change- tion Abstracts International, 44(12-A), 3571–3572.
coaching

Calling out for


new voices
When someone is making waves in psychology in years to come, we want to be able to say they
published their first piece in The Psychologist. Our ’new voices’ section will give space to new talent
and original perspectives.
We are looking for sole-authored pieces by those who have not had a full article published in
The Psychologist before. The only other criteria will be that the articles should engage and inform
our large and diverse audience, be written exclusively for The Psychologist, and be no more than
1800 words. The emphasis is on unearthing new writing talent, within and about psychology.
The successful authors will reach an audience of 48,000 psychologists in print, and many more
online.
So get writing! Discuss ideas or submit your work to jon.sutton@bps.org.uk. And if you are one
of our more senior readers, perhaps you know of someone who would be ideal for ‘new voices’:
do let us know.

The Coaching Psychologist, Vol. 11, No. 1, June 2015 37

Вам также может понравиться