Paul W.B. Atkins

There are many ways in which I agree with the target article: The world is complex, approaches to coaching based on simplistic ideas of cause and effect are inadequate and we need to learn to be comfortable with uncertainty in the face of complexity, and be open to the unpredictability of unfolding dialogue and multiple perspectives. Complexity science and its associated metaphors such as feedback loops have contributed to changing the way we view both natural and human systems. For example, the idea that small changes can have big, reinforcing effects and big changes can have small, dampening effects has prompted useful questioning of assumptions in areas as diverse as business (Pascale, 1999), climate change (Sterman, 2008), family dynamics (Pincus, 2001) and social policy (Tenner, 1996).

But while I am in broad agreement with the thrust of the article, I was left wondering whether applying metaphors from complexity science to coaching psychology will ever actually change what coaches do. My aim in this commentary is to try to clarify assumptions that might be impeding the application of complexity science to psychological research and practice. I begin by distinguishing between rationality and linearity, before exploring the implicit epistemology of the target article and pointing to a stance that I think might be rational, non-linear, and helpful for improving coaching practice.

Full article: Volume 7, Issue 1 pages 101 - 105