Coaching the Brain- Neuro-Science Or Neuro-Nonsense?

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 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 Tucts 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

Load more