The scientific and theoretical foundations of my coaching
This page is for those who want to understand, in depth, what my coaching is built on. It isn't necessary reading in order to work with me. It exists for transparency, and for the curious.
Why this page exists
Coaching is a lightly regulated profession. Anyone can call themselves a coach, build a method, and give it a name. That freedom has a downside: it also leaves room for practices that rest on nothing verifiable.
My way of responding to that isn't to claim a unique, proprietary method. It's to work within an Evidence-Based Coaching approach: bringing together the best available and relevant research evidence, the practitioner's professional expertise, and each client's own goals, preferences, characteristics and context.
Concretely, this means three things.
I favor frameworks that have been the subject of published research, and whose claims, proposed mechanisms, or effects have been open to empirical scrutiny. Their strength of evidence varies considerably from one reference to another: "published" is not synonymous with "well-supported." I try to make these differences in the level and nature of evidence explicit, rather than presenting everything I cite as equivalent.
My architecture of practice
I structure my sessions around four general processes — relationship, awareness, choice, and action — which I've settled on because they let me bring together a range of results and frameworks from different bodies of research on human change. These four categories are mine: they are neither a consensus taxonomy from the research literature, nor an empirically established causal sequence. Alliance is a variable studied in its own right; awareness covers a far more heterogeneous category; choice is not a single variable; action and commitment together aggregate several different constructs.
RELATIONSHIP
Rogers • Bordin
↓
AWARENESS
Prochaska & DiClemente • Argyris • Miller & Rollnick
↓
CHOICE
Deci & Ryan • Miller & Rollnick • de Shazer
↓
ACTION / COMMITMENT
Gollwitzer • ACT
This sequence is a practical heuristic, not a general law of change. No body of research demonstrates empirically that these four processes unfold in this precise order. In the reality of a session or an engagement, these processes overlap, repeat, and often occur in a different order: a new moment of awareness can reactivate the relationship; an action can bring forth a choice that no prior reflection had anticipated.
A separate, cross-cutting layer sits alongside this: the leader's stage of adult development (Kegan), which isn't a step within a session but a rhythm that plays out over months or years.
Each section below sets out the foundations, what they actually show, and how this translates concretely into my sessions. A good part of this literature comes from psychotherapy or health psychology, not directly from executive coaching: I flag this section by section, and return to it below in the section on limitations.
1. Relationship, before any technique
What the research says
In psychotherapy, the quality of the working alliance is one of the most robust predictors of outcomes, across all therapeutic orientations. The reference meta-analysis on the subject, covering 295 independent studies and more than 30,000 patients, reports an overall association of r = .278 between alliance and outcome. This is a robust association across the body of evidence, but not proof that alliance alone causes the improvement observed. This literature doesn't transfer automatically to executive coaching, a different context from psychotherapy. It nonetheless provides an important empirical basis for taking the quality of the working relationship seriously in coaching practice, without on its own demonstrating the size of its specific effect in executive coaching.
Flückiger, C., Del Re, A. C., Wampold, B. E., & Horvath, A. O. (2018). The alliance in adult psychotherapy: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 316–340.
Two references anchor this pillar:
Carl Rogers proposed that empathy, congruence, and unconditional positive regard are central conditions for change in the person being helped. His original formulation went as far as presenting these as necessary and sufficient, a strong theoretical claim describing his own proposal rather than a fact now definitively established by empirical research. I draw on them more modestly, as structuring relational principles.
Edward Bordin (1979) proposed the concept of the working alliance, which he defined through three components: agreement on goals, agreement on tasks or methods, and the quality of the bond between the two people. This formulation was later widely adopted as a pan-theoretical conception of alliance, beyond any single therapeutic school. It's essentially this construct that the meta-analysis cited above measures.
Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 16(3), 252–260.
What this means in session
Before any question, before any technique, the person I'm working with needs a space where they can think freely. I begin every new engagement with an explicit clarification of goals and working methods, a practice consistent with the goal- and task-agreement dimensions Bordin proposed.
2. Fostering awareness
What the research says
Three references, complementary rather than redundant, inform this pillar.
Prochaska & DiClemente (1983) popularized, from research on smoking cessation, the idea that change involves different states of readiness and several processes, among them raising awareness (consciousness raising). This model remains highly influential, but the existence of genuinely discrete stages, and the superior effectiveness of interventions strictly matched to a person's stage, have been the subject of debate and mixed empirical findings in the literature that followed. I therefore don't use it as a rigid, prescriptive sequence, but as one way among others of naming what awareness involves.
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390–395.
Chris Argyris (1977) introduced the distinction between single-loop and double-loop learning. The former corrects an action without questioning the assumptions that produced it. The latter goes after the underlying values and assumptions, the person's "theory-in-use," often different from their "espoused theory." This is an influential conceptual framework in organizational learning, published in the Harvard Business Review, and not a mechanism established experimentally at the same level as the work presented further below on self-determination or implementation intentions. It remains particularly relevant for leaders whose thinking patterns are rarely questioned by those around them professionally.
Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55(5), 115–125.
Miller & Rollnick, in Motivational Interviewing, notably described the principle of developing discrepancy: surfacing the gap between a person's current behavior and their deeper values or goals. Contemporary formulations of the method place more emphasis on evoking change talk, partnership, and autonomy support than on this earlier, isolated principle. I remain cautious, then, about the idea that "developing discrepancy" alone would suffice as a mechanism: Motivational Interviewing is above all about surfacing, in the person's own words, their own reasons, desires, needs, and capacity to change, rather than arguing for change on their behalf.
In my practice, these frameworks converge toward a single underlying vigilance, without describing one single mechanism: helping the leader make visible what had, until then, been shaping their perception or behavior without ever being clearly named.
What this means in session
I'm less concerned with solving a problem than with helping someone see it differently. Concretely: naming the gap between what matters and what's being done; looking for the underlying assumption behind a stuck situation ("what are you taking as true here, and what if it weren't?"); noticing and naming moments of energy in what someone says, without interpreting them on their behalf.
3. Bringing choice into focus
What the research says
This pillar draws notably on two frameworks with substantial empirical literatures, which show explicit convergence around autonomy: self-determination theory and Motivational Interviewing.
Deci & Ryan (2000) formalized self-determination theory (SDT), one of the major frameworks in the psychology of motivation. The theory posits three fundamental psychological needs — autonomy, competence, and relatedness — whose satisfaction fosters more self-determined motivation and better psychological functioning. Across several domains of behavior change, more autonomous forms of motivation are associated with greater persistence over time.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Miller & Rollnick, in Motivational Interviewing, describe a phase of evocation: drawing out change talk from the person themselves rather than suggesting it to them. A specific body of literature has examined the convergence and complementarity between Motivational Interviewing and self-determination theory, notably around autonomy support, in an article co-authored by Stephen Rollnick himself.
Markland, D., Ryan, R. M., Tobin, V. J., & Rollnick, S. (2005). Motivational interviewing and self-determination theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(6), 811–831.
Steve de Shazer, who founded Solution-Focused Brief Therapy together with Insoo Kim Berg, developed tools oriented toward building a preferred future rather than analyzing the problem: the miracle question, scaling questions. The approach now has a genuine evidence base, with a recent meta-analysis reporting beneficial effects across a range of psychosocial outcomes. These results support the approach's effectiveness in several contexts; on their own, they don't establish that the absence of causal analysis is itself the active mechanism behind its effectiveness. In my own practice, I take from this the more modest lesson that an exhaustive exploration of causes isn't always a necessary precondition for change work.
Vermeulen-Oskam, E., Franklin, C., van 't Hof, L. P. M., Stams, G. J. J. M., van Vugt, E. S., Assink, M., Veltman, E. J., Froerer, A. S., Staaks, J. P. C., & Zhang, A. (2024). The current evidence of solution-focused brief therapy: A meta-analysis of psychosocial outcomes and moderating factors. Clinical Psychology Review, 114, 102512.
What this means in session
The scaling question ("on a scale of 0 to 10, where are you? What makes it not two points lower?") to surface resources already present. A simplified version of the miracle question ("if this were resolved tomorrow morning, what would be different, and what would you be doing?"). And a general stance, consistent with SDT, of offering a choice rather than an instruction: "what do you want to do with that?" rather than "you should."
4. Turning choice into action
What the research says
Peter Gollwitzer (1999) studied the effect of implementation intentions: plans of the form "if [situation], then I will [action]," formulated in advance and with precision. Implementation intentions are among the best-documented self-regulation strategies for closing the gap between intention and action, with effect-size estimates that vary across bodies of research and study designs.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119.
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) conceptualizes psychological flexibility as the capacity to stay in contact with present experience and adjust one's behavior in the service of chosen values, rather than acting out of automatic habit. This process is the subject of a substantial empirical literature, even though precisely identifying the active mechanisms remains an active area of research, as a recent systematic and meta-analytic review makes clear. I don't claim to apply ACT's clinical protocols; I draw on this underlying principle.
Macri, J. A., & Rogge, R. D. (2024). Examining domains of psychological flexibility and inflexibility as treatment mechanisms in acceptance and commitment therapy: A comprehensive systematic and meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 110, 102432.
What this means in session
I close every engagement with two questions: "What are you choosing now?" and "How will you know you've done it?" These two questions are meant to make the choice explicit and observable, which is useful in itself, but this isn't yet an implementation intention in Gollwitzer's sense, which requires a precise if-then conditional plan. When the challenge is closing the gap between intention and behavior, I go further and have the person formulate an explicit if-then plan, in line with the research on implementation intentions.
A separate lens: adult development
Robert Kegan proposes a developmental framework for how meaning is constructed across adulthood. Among the forms he describes, those often translated as "self-authoring" and "self-transforming" can be particularly worth exploring in work with certain experienced leaders. This isn't a step within a session: it's a process that unfolds over months, sometimes years. I use it as an interpretive lens, not as a psychometric diagnosis or a universally demonstrated sequence. Its empirical status isn't equivalent to that of self-determination theory or implementation intentions, cited above: it's an influential conceptual framework, not a mechanism validated to the same standard of evidence. I keep it in mind as a cross-cutting lens, to calibrate the complexity of my questioning, without ever locking a leader into a fixed typology.
What I don't use, and why
I don't use personality typing tools (DISC, Process Communication, MBTI, and the like) as a primary basis for my coaching.
Their psychometric standing and empirical grounding vary considerably from one instrument to another: lumping DISC, MBTI, and Process Communication together, as if they all shared the same strengths or weaknesses, wouldn't be rigorous. I'd rather not attribute a blanket level of validity to them that would, in reality, need to be examined instrument by instrument and use by use. Some can be useful as shared language or conversation starters in a team context. I don't use them as a causal explanation of behavior, nor as sufficient predictors of performance or change. My work isn't about placing someone in a category. It's about helping them better understand their own singularity.
What the evidence doesn't allow me to conclude
In the interest of rigor, I think it's worth stating clearly what this page doesn't demonstrate.
The various references drawn on above have each been studied separately, in different research contexts (psychotherapy, health psychology, behavioral science, organizational studies). Their combination, as I practice it in a coaching session, hasn't been tested and evaluated as a single protocol. A large share of this literature comes from psychotherapy, a context with its own particular features (length of treatment, nature of the difficulties addressed, clinical setting): it doesn't transfer automatically, as is, to executive coaching in a business setting. Finally, the effects observed also depend on context, on the characteristics of the person being coached, and on the quality of implementation.
A note on method, in full honesty
This architecture is an eclectic integration, and I want to be upfront about that rather than disguise it. The traditions cited here didn't emerge from a single school of thought, and some are even historically in tension with one another: Rogers's person-centered approach, de Shazer's solution-focused approach, and Kegan's developmental approach don't all share the same underlying assumptions.
What I'm offering, then, isn't a pre-existing scientific consensus that I've simply transcribed. It's a construction, mine, that brings together empirical results, theoretical models, and practice frameworks whose scientific standing isn't equivalent: Bordin's alliance is an empirically measured model; Argyris and Kegan are conceptual frameworks; SFBT and ACT are therapeutic approaches with their own literatures on effectiveness; implementation intentions are a self-regulation strategy tested experimentally. I bring them together because, to my eye, they form a coherent architecture for my practice; that clinical and conceptual coherence doesn't in itself constitute empirical validation of the whole. I'd rather say this plainly than let anyone assume there's some single study out there that validates the whole approach as such.
Full references
Argyris, C. (1977). Double loop learning in organizations. Harvard Business Review, 55(5), 115–125.
Bordin, E. S. (1979). The generalizability of the psychoanalytic concept of the working alliance. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 16(3), 252–260.
de Shazer, S., & Dolan, Y. (2007). More than miracles: The state of the art of solution-focused brief therapy. Routledge.
Flückiger, C., Del Re, A. C., Wampold, B. E., & Horvath, A. O. (2018). The alliance in adult psychotherapy: A meta-analytic synthesis. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 316–340.
Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54(7), 493–503.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119.
Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2012). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: The process and practice of mindful change (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Kegan, R. (1994). In Over Our Heads: The Mental Demands of Modern Life. Harvard University Press.
Macri, J. A., & Rogge, R. D. (2024). Examining domains of psychological flexibility and inflexibility as treatment mechanisms in acceptance and commitment therapy: A comprehensive systematic and meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 110, 102432.
Markland, D., Ryan, R. M., Tobin, V. J., & Rollnick, S. (2005). Motivational interviewing and self-determination theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24(6), 811–831.
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2023). Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change and Grow (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.
Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390–395.
Rogers, C. R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95–103.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Vermeulen-Oskam, E., Franklin, C., van 't Hof, L. P. M., Stams, G. J. J. M., van Vugt, E. S., Assink, M., Veltman, E. J., Froerer, A. S., Staaks, J. P. C., & Zhang, A. (2024). The current evidence of solution-focused brief therapy: A meta-analysis of psychosocial outcomes and moderating factors. Clinical Psychology Review, 114, 102512.