Wendy-Ann Smith

Ilona Boniwell
Suzy Green Editors

Positive
Psychology
Coaching in
the Workplace
Wendy-Ann Smith • Ilona Boniwell • Suzy Green
Editors

Positive Psychology
Coaching in the Workplace
Editors
Wendy-Ann Smith Ilona Boniwell
Eclorev Positran Ltd
Paris, France Epone, France
École de Psychologues Praticiens University of East London
Paris, France London, UK
University of East London Anglia Ruskin University
London, UK Cambridge, UK
Anglia Ruskin University
Cambridge, UK

Suzy Green
The Positivity Institute
Sydney, NSW, Australia
University of East London
London, UK

ISBN 978-3-030-79951-9 ISBN 978-3-030-79952-6 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79952-6

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland
AG 2021
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of
illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by
similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Chapter 21
Towards a Neuroscience-Informed
Coaching Practice: Opportunities
and Limitations

Sarah M. McKay and Sarah Smith

Neuroscience: The Study of the Mind and Brain

It is human nature to be curious about how we sense, think, feel and behave, how we
learn and forget, how we develop language, how we experience happiness, love and
anger. Neuroscience explores these concepts by systematically studying the nervous
systems of humans and other animals, how they are organised, how they develop,
and how they generate thoughts, emotions, and behaviours. Neuroscientists seek
answers to questions about the mind, brain and behaviour using an array of methods
including genetics, molecular and cellular biology, anatomy, systems physiology,
clinical and behavioural observation, and functional brain imaging (Purves et al.,
2018). Different neuroscience disciplines may offer insights for coaches. For exam-
ple, affective neuroscience explores the brain biology of emotions, cognitive neu-
roscience is devoted to the biology of attention, goal-seeking and memory, whereas
social neuroscience studies the brain biology of human relationships.
In the years since the 1990s were declared the “decade of the brain”, there has
been an extraordinary increase in the visibility of neuroscience. In part this is due to
innovations from neuroscience that have progressed our understanding of a host of
neurological and psychiatric conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, epilepsy,
schizophrenia and depression. The progress is timely as the United Nations states
that neurological disorders are the leading cause of disability and the second leading
cause of death worldwide. One in four people living on our planet will suffer from a
neurological or psychiatric condition at some point in their lifetime (GBD 2016
Neurology Collaborators, 2019).

S. M. McKay (*)
Think Brain Pty Ltd, Allambie Heights, NSW, Australia
S. Smith
University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK
e-mail: [email protected]

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 399
W.-A. Smith et al. (eds.), Positive Psychology Coaching in the Workplace,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-79952-6_21
400 S. M. McKay and S. Smith

Notable examples of neuroscience translating from ‘the bench to the bedside’

(i.e. whereby laboratory ‘bench’ research directly leads to the development of novel
treatments or technologies in the clinic ‘bedside’) include deep brain stimulation for
Parkinson’s disease (Schuepbach et al., 2013), neuro-imaging studies showing how
brain activity alters following cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for depression
(Franklin et al., 2016) and the importance of early testing and interventions for
children born deaf (Busa et al., 2007).
In addition to clinical translation, neuroscience research strives to offer insights
into how we understand the mental states of others, how executive functions such as
attention and social cognition develop during adolescence, and how early childhood
experiences shape mental health outcomes in adulthood (SFN, 2018). Beyond these
findings, the public is deeply enthusiastic about what neuroscience and, in particular,
functional brain imaging may reveal about philosophical questions such as con-
sciousness, empathy, self-awareness and free will.

The Seductive Allure of Neuroscience

As neuroscience research has boomed, so too has neuroscience developed as a

cultural trope (Brosnan & Michael, 2014; O’Connor et al., 2012). Increased visibility
has resulted in a curious phenomenon whereby contemporary neuroscience carries
with it a “seductive allure”—when explanations of human behaviour, however
rational or irrational, are accompanied by neuroscientific explanations or brain
images people are more likely to find the explanations believable and/or persuasive
(McCabe & Castel, 2008; Weisberg et al., 2008). This seductive effect is enhanced
when the neuroscience presented confirms prior beliefs (Scurich & Shniderman,
2014). We have become so enthralled by the potential of neuroscience to offer
insights into human behaviour that science is now being ‘translated’ into such
disciplines as neurophilosophy, neurolaw, neuroeconomics, neuromarketing,
neuroleadership, and neuroeducation (Brosnan & Michael, 2014).
Why does neuroscience appeal as a scientific, objective solution to the study of
human behaviour, versus the related (and arguably more germane) discipline of
psychology? One popular explanation is that the reductionist descriptions of brain
structures or electrical activity are somehow ‘more real’ and easier to grasp than
vaguer psychological concepts such as working memory or empathy which infer
‘hidden’ mechanisms (Anderson & Della Sala, 2012). Certainly, the brain is becom-
ing “an acutely significant organ” informing how people see themselves within
society (O’Connor et al., 2012).
21 Towards a Neuroscience-Informed Coaching Practice: Opportunities and. . . 401

Translating Neuroscience into Coaching Practice: Risks

and Benefits

Benefits of Using Neuroscience in Coaching

Despite the recognition that neuroscience and coaching have “. . .not yet established
consistent dialogues underpinned by experimental research. . .” (Pereira Dias et al.,
2015), coaching is not immune to the enthusiasm for all things brain. This enthusi-
asm is evidenced by books, training programs and magazine articles on the topic of
“neuro-coaching” or “brain-based coaching” and application of neuroscience in the
workplace (e.g. Rock & Page, 2009; Swart et al., 2015). Even the Harvard Business
Review devoted its 2019 special issue to “The Brain Science Behind Business” and
included pieces on ‘Engaging and Persuading Others’, ‘The Brain Science Behind
Trust’ and how to ‘Stimulate Your Customer’s Lizard Brain To Make A Sale’
(Bernstein & Hock, 2019). The assumption is if you are a coach, manager or leader
working with the minds of clients or employees, it makes sense to understand how
the brain works.
Proponents argue that by understanding the brain, the coach can “tailor their
coaching practice to be in alignment with a client’s way of thinking and behaving”
(Bossons et al., 2015). Boyatzis and Jack claim that by using functional brain
imaging, “neuroscience can shed light on the underlying mechanisms of coaching”,
i.e. show how coaching changes the brain (Boyatzis & Jack, 2018). Rock and
colleagues also propose that a “brain-based approach” should underpin and explain
every good coaching model (Rock & Page, 2009).
The benefits of integrating a discussion of brain anatomy or physiology into a
coaching conversation are understandably appealing, not least because a client is
more likely to be persuaded by the seductive allure of the neuroscience content!
Helping a coachee understand how their brain changes in response to experience
(neuroplasticity), and giving information about brain structures and functions is said
to build trust, instil hope, and influence thought patterns (Ardern, 2015; Duenyas &
Luke, 2019). Brain-based descriptions of psychological challenges, Ardern says,
externalise and demystify the patient experience.
PPC with its focus on fostering strengths, positive emotions and wellbeing, is
ideally placed to include neuroscience. Research is slowing emerging from the
newly established field of positive neuroscience, and The Positive Neuroscience
Project, an initiative established in 2008 by Martin Seligman, focuses on the
neurobiology of human flourishing and well-being (for an overview: Allen, 2019).
Among other findings, researchers have started mapping the brain’s prosocial
compassionate networks, how different people’s brains process threats versus chal-
lenges, the effect mindful meditation has on brain structure, and how cognitive
appraisal develops.
A coaching conversation on emotional regulation may include the explanatory
statement, “Your brain constructs emotional experiences based on data it receives
from your body, the outside world and your past experience. If you move your body
402 S. M. McKay and S. Smith

by taking a walk, you’ll change the data your brain is receiving and change your
emotional state.” A discussion of tolerance to uncertainty could include a statement
such as, “Some people who are intolerant of uncertainty might avoid situations that
they can’t predict. But if you start acting more and more ‘as if’ you are comfortable
with uncertainty, it will get easier. Think of your brain like a muscle, the more you
practice, the stronger it becomes.” Another useful conversation might involve the
neurobiology of habits. For example, the coach could explain that a habit is an
automated behaviour that is triggered by a specific cue or situation, performed with
little or no thought, but is learned by repetition. From a neuroscience perspective,
habits are stored in the striatum freeing up capacity in cognitive brain networks for
more complex thoughts or actions. A coach could encourage their coachee to
identify the cue or situation that triggers the unwanted habit, and support the learning
of a new desirable behaviour instead (McKay & Kemp, 2019).

Risks of Using Neuroscience in Coaching

Unfortunately, enthusiasm for “using neuroscience” in a coaching conversation

often outpaces the coach’s knowledge. As Brann (2017) notes, coaches often expect
neuroscience to provide nicely pre-packed coaching tools and techniques, and this is
rarely the case. Instead, the challenge for the coach is to keep up to date with the
relevant neuroscience literature and make meaning of it. To put the task into
perspective, a search of the biomedical literature database PubMed using the terms
‘brain’ and ‘anxiety’ generated 3589 papers published in 2020 alone. To complicate
matters, even within a narrow discipline there are scientific disputes. For example,
among neuroscientists studying fear and anxiety, there is considerable disagreement
about how to define fear, if fear is innate or learned, and which neural networks are
involved (Mobbs et al., 2019). For the non-expert, it is easy to be confused, and the
risk is for haphazard integration of out-dated or misunderstood neuroscience con-
cepts. It is well-documented that poor neuroscience literacy leads to the belief and
sharing of neuromyths—defined as the misunderstanding, misreading, or a
misquoting of brain science facts (Im et al., 2018; OECD, 2008).
To date, there is no coaching framework or method in the academic literature that
tests the use of neuroscience-informed explanations of human behaviour or any
practice of ‘neuro-coaching’. As pointed out in Grant’s, 2015 paper Coaching the
brain: Neuro-science or neuro-nonsense?, there is “. . .little empirical data that
directly links neuroscience research to coaching-specific outcomes” (Grant, 2015).
In the same issue of The Coaching Psychologist, O’Broin acknowledges that a
‘brain-based’ approach to coaching is inherently appealing but cautions against
“overstating the current ability” of neuroscience to explain how and why coaching
works (O’Brion, 2015).
Despite the absence of a neuroscienceframework for coaching, opportunities exist
for the development of a neuroscience-informed evidence-based approach to
coaching and PPC in particular. As the saying goes, “absence of evidence is not
21 Towards a Neuroscience-Informed Coaching Practice: Opportunities and. . . 403

evidence of absence” and enthusiasm for using neuroscience in coaching is certainly

present. Other professional disciplines have grappled with the same opportunities,
pitfalls and seductive allure of translating neuroscience into evidence-based practice,
including law (Meynen, 2016), counselling (Wilkinson, 2018) and education
(Anderson & Della Sala, 2012). This chapter will now consider the successes and
failures of translating neuroscience into the classroom (EN) and into mental health
therapy (PE). These two professions were chosen because there is a pool of academic
literature to consider and practical lessons for sharing knowledge about the brain as a
way implementation for the coaching profession.

Practice: Methods, Techniques & Application

Translating Neuroscience into Coaching Practice: Lessons
from Psychoeducation

The translation of neuroscience into clinical practice has a long history including
guiding diagnosis, treatment, and patient education. Of relevance to coaching is
psychoeducation (PE)—an evidence-based therapeutic intervention that provides
education about a person’s mental health disorder and treatment (Xia et al., 2011).
Trials of PE in people with schizophrenia show it improves treatment compliance,
reduces symptom burden, likelihood of relapse, and improves coping skills. PE is
now often included as part of treatment regimens for depression, multiple sclerosis,
anxiety and addiction (Lukens & McFarlane, 2004). The use of PE has expanded
beyond psychiatric therapy to encompass any information-giving or skill-building
intervention that educates a patient or coachee about their current experiences. For
example, health and wellness coaching includes education as core component of the
process (Moore & Jackson, 2018).
We have not found any published study that uses neuroscience and PE within
coaching. However, one useful review offered a framework for bringing
neuroscience-informed structure and content to conventional PE (Ekhtiari et al.,
2018).
Ekhtiari and colleagues propose that neuroscience research can inform PE in two
ways:
1. Neuroscience-informed content or knowledge (the ‘what’)
2. Neuroscience-informed structure or methods or tools of delivery (the ‘how’).
This simple and useful ‘what’ and ‘how’ framework could be applied by to
coaches keen to integrate neuroscience into their own practice. For example, a
coach could share neuroscience content such as recent research on the neurobiology
of common coaching issues such as goal-setting, habit formation, motivation, or
emotional regulation. The coach could also consider using neuroscience-informed
404 S. M. McKay and S. Smith

structures of delivery designed to engage the coachee’s self-awareness, attention, or

learning and memory—concepts with a strong cognitive neuroscience basis.

Examples of Using Neuroscience-Informed Content (the ‘What’)

One randomised controlled trial in which participants received a lecture containing

neuroscience content (the neurobiology of depression), found PE successfully
reduced social stigma and blame towards people with depression (Han & Chen,
2014). In another study, primary-care nurse practitioners provided a 30-minute PE
session using the motivational interviewing technique OARS (open-ended question,
affirmation, reflection, summary) (Johnson et al., 2020). The patients were diag-
nosed with somatic symptom disorder, a mental health condition in which people
become excessively distressed by physical sensations in their body even when there
is no medical cause. The neuroscience-informed content included discussion of:
• the release of the stress hormone cortisol by the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal
(HPA) axis, and how it affects long-term physical health,
• the similarities between symptom pathways for physical pain and emotional
symptoms which helped patients understand the relationship between physical
and emotional symptoms,
• research showing the benefit of sleep, eating healthy food, exercising, and using
social connections to buffer stress.
One short session of neuroscience-informed PE improved patients’ perceptions of
pain, reduced anxiety, fear and worry, and decreased feelings of loneliness. In the
absence of an empirically-tested neuroscience coaching tools, the most sensible
option is for coaches to use validated tools such as OARS to give a framework to
their content.

Examples of Using Neuroscience-Informed Tools (the ‘how’)

Public health educators are interested in changing or reinforcing health-related

behaviours using information, education and communication interventions. In
neuroscience-informed PE, the main focus is on simplifying neuroscience insights
about the disease or treatment and communicating it in a way the patient can
understand and use. Animated visual information (cartoons) is an established tool
to communicate complex ideas to people with low health literacy (Meppelink et al.,
2015). An online CBT intervention for adolescents with obsessive compulsive
disorder using a neuroscience-informed structure designed to engage learning—
interactive cartoon animations—significantly improved clinical outcomes (Lenhard
et al., 2014). The Swiss Cheese Metaphor for accident prevention (Reason, 2000) is
a recent example of using cartoons to explain how stacking multiple layers of
protection against COVID-19 can prevent the spread of the virus. The model has
been adopted by Ian MacKay of the University of Queensland and shared via social
21 Towards a Neuroscience-Informed Coaching Practice: Opportunities and. . . 405

media to explain how each layer of protection—masks, washing hands, social

distancing, etc.—has imperfections (like holes in slices of swiss cheese) but stacked
together reduce risk (MacKay, 2020).
Ekhtiari et al. (2018) describe successfully using cartoons as a neuroscience-
informed PE strategy in their work with addiction. A coach could use simple hand-
drawn diagrams of the brain, neural networks or physiological processes to grab
attention, enable cognitive re-framing of emotions, and act as a heuristic tool to
speed up decision making.
Another neuroscience-informed tool that coaches could readily use to provide
structure to a coaching conversation is storytelling, whereby people are encouraged
to creatively share their experiences and listen to others’ stories. Alternatively, the
coach could discuss a fictionalised case study to clarify a concept. Storytelling is an
established technique for enhancing self-awareness and memory retention for people
with chronic disease (Gucciardi et al., 2016). When presenting neuroscience this
may be an optimal way of communicating research to a non-expert because story-
telling engages not just the intellect, but also people’s emotions, “. . .a bald recitation
of facts invariably lacks the impact (and the enduring power) of a coherent narrative
that awakens one’s emotions.”(Martinez-Conde et al., 2019).

Translating Neuroscience into Practice: Lessons from

Classroom Education

Educational neuroscience (EN) seeks to translate research findings on learning to

educational practice and policy and to understand the effects of education on the
brain. Similarly to coaching, there is enormous enthusiasm for application of
neuroscience to learning and behaviour change, but as seen in other ‘neuro’ disci-
plines there is considerable debate whether understanding brain science helps
teachers do their job more effectively at all (For review: Thomas et al., 2019).
Critics claim there are “. . .no current examples of neuroscience motivating new
and effective teaching methods. . .” (Bowers, 2016), instead, EN simply repackages
those tools already used from psychology or behavioural sciences—the ‘old wine in
new bottles’ argument. Other critics of EN claim that neuroscience is simply too
reductionist, that is, classroom learning is largely driven by social interactions and
this process can’t be reduced to discussion about neural mechanisms or brain
networks. Others propose that cognitive psychology is far more useful to teaching
and should stand as the bridge or translator between the two disciplines with
thoughtful, well-informed translators and practitioners needed at each level of
translation (Bruer, 2016; Horvath & Donoghue, 2016). Note that the same con-
cerns—repackaging psychological tools, reductionism, and the need for stepping
stones or translators between disciplines—have been around for neuroscience and
coaching by Grant (2015) and such concerns are shared by these authors.
406 S. M. McKay and S. Smith

Success and Failures of Implementing Neuroscience in the Classroom

Considerable EN research investment has been made into ensuring children’s brains
are in optimal states to learn and into ways to enhance cognitive, social and
emotional abilities, that is, neuroscience-informed structures of delivery. For exam-
ple, a trial moving school start times to mid-morning when times are better aligned
with adolescent sleep patterns, reduced absence rates and improved academic
performance (Kelley et al., 2017). Another study applying the concept of ‘spaced
learning’ drawn from physiological studies of long-term memory formation at the
synapse, found children’s test scores improved (Kelley & Whatson, 2013).
However, other well-hyped neuroscience to classroom translations have failed
miserably, including a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial investigating the effects
of omega-3 supplementation (fish oil) on cognition and thus children’s grades. No
effect was observed (Kirby et al., 2010). Perhaps the most widespread EN interven-
tion of all is Carol Dweck’s fixed and growth mindset theory whereby children are
taught their ‘brain is like a muscle’. Teaching a growth mindset is said elevate
cognitive performance, improve grades and even help students persist in the face of
challenging problems. Findings failed to be replicated in subsequent trials (Li &
Bates, 2019) and two meta-analyses report “weak effect sizes” compared to Dweck’s
original claim (Sisk et al., 2018). Dweck herself admits there are issues with how the
concept was implemented and warns against teaching “a false growth mindset”
(Dweck, 2015).
These successes and expensive failures of translating neuroscience to educational
practice highlight the basic requirement for translational research beyond the devel-
opment content and tools—that is, testing if the interventions actually work. The
same scrutiny should be applied to exploring the translation of neuroscience into
coaching practice.

Teaching the Teachers and Coaching the Coaches: Improving

Neuroscience Literacy

Beyond neuroscience methods for improving teaching practice and student perfor-
mance, attempts have been made to improve neuroscience literacy per se among
teachers. The rationale for this is that many teachers are seduced by neuroscience, as
evidenced by their belief in neuromyths. Popular neuromyths include the existence
of learning styles, that physical exercises can integrate left and right hemispheres,
that we only use 10% of our brain, or that females are better at multitasking than
males because of a thicker corpus callosum (Dekker et al., 2012).
The authors note that within coaching, therapy and leadership training, outdated
or inaccurate ‘brain-based explanations’ for human behaviour abound. Sports
coaches, for example, are keen to integrate brain-based information, however a rel-
atively large percentage of coaches base aspects of their coaching practice on
neuromyths and other pseudoscientific ideas that ‘sound’ like neuroscience
21 Towards a Neuroscience-Informed Coaching Practice: Opportunities and. . . 407

(e.g. neurolinguistic programming and BrainGym) yet lack empirical rigour (Bailey
et al., 2018).
Perhaps the most inescapable concept in coaching is the ‘triune brain’ or ‘lizard
brain’ which is used for explaining brain development, structure and the primitive
roots of emotion, irrational thinking or unconscious behaviour. Despite persisting in
some psychology textbooks, the concept has been unsupported by neuroscientists
and evolutionary biologists as far back as the 1960s (For review: Cesario et al.,
2020), and is recently described as “. . .one of the most successful and widespread
errors in science. . .” (Barrett, 2020). Another persistent neuromyth within coaching
is the notion that mirror neurons drive oxytocin release and thus empathy, rapport
and social engagement (Hickok, 2009), and the erroneous claim the brainstem’s
Reticular Activating System provides a biological basis for the ‘law of attraction’
(it doesn’t and there is no academic literature to support the claim).
The emergence and persistence of neuromyths is attributed to a number of factors
(Macdonald et al., 2017) including:
• inaccessibility of academic literature behind paywalls;
• breadth and depth of neuroscience literature;
• poor neuroscience literacy;
• lack of professionals trained to bridge the disciplinary gap between neuroscience
and practice;
• appeal of neuroscience explanations (i.e. the seductive allure).
Interestingly, attempts at improving neuroscience literacy in teachers have mixed
results. Studies have found that a greater degree of neuroscience literacy reduces but
doesn’t eliminate belief in neuromyths (Grospietsch & Mayer, 2019; Macdonald
et al., 2017). Others found education is related to an increased belief in neuromyths
(Dekker et al., 2012). A potential explanation for these findings, one that is deeply
significant to coach education, is that the teachers who are interested in learning
more about the brain may seek out unreliable sources and be exposed to
misinformation. The persistence of the lizard brain trope within coaching is a case
in point. These authors would go so far as to say that the use of the ‘triune brain’ or
‘lizard brain’ is a cardinal marker of poor neuroscience literacy (but as evidenced
above - false), one that could easily be addressed by neuroscience education.
The experiences of EN highlight the importance of educating the educators and
should be heeded by the coaching profession. Coach education is a prerequisite for
coaching practice (Laske, 2006) and keeping up to date with research is key to
developing a professional evidence-based practice. To date, “brain-based coaching”
or “neuro-coaching” enjoys little oversight. As such, a commercially driven coach-
training industry has emerged that “. . .mimics many of the superficial aspects of
genuine neuroscience. . . but fails to adhere to the basic tenets of scientific practice,
including fair testing, peer review, and accommodating existing findings,” (Bailey
et al., 2018). As readers will be aware, there is ample evidence to support the practice
of coaching per se (e.g. (Grover & Furnham, 2016) but this depends on the
professionalism of the individual coach and their intelligent and thoughtful engage-
ment with contemporary research.
408 S. M. McKay and S. Smith

Which Coachees Benefit Most: Best Use and or

Considerations

Miller (2016) and Butterworth (2010) suggest client readiness and openness to
neuroscience education is the most important aspect of the counselling process.
Before offering an explanation about the brain, it is recommended coaches check
with their coachee that they are willing to receive education. One useful tool to use to
delivery education is the motivational interviewing technique Elicit-Provide-Elicit
(EPE) (Butterworth, 2010; Miller, 2016).
1. Elicit: Find out what the coachee already knows by asking them directly
2. Provide: Fill in the gaps and/or correct any misconceptions the patient may have
3. Elicit: Find out what this information means to the patient’s life
An example of delivery neuroscience content or using the EPE framework.
1. Elicit: “Angela I’m curious about what you already know about how your brain
recognises danger?”
2. Provide (after response): “You’re correct that the so-called flight or fight response
is involved. But I’d like to add that the stress-response networks in your brain
respond in the same way to threats and challenges and opportunities. Something
scary or something exciting increases your heart rate, breathing and muscle
tension. Your brain’s perception of those sensations doesn’t always mean danger
is close at hand, sometimes they signal excitement or anticipation.”
3. Elicit (after patient response): “Of everything we just discussed, what is the
biggest challenge for you now to manage your response to your upcoming
presentation?”
Miller points out that sharing the appropriate material at the right time is impor-
tant so coachees can connect data and facts with their context, rather than haphazard,
preselected materials that may leave clients bored, confused or disconnected.

Conclusion

What Can Coaching Learn from the Experiences of EN and PE

The development of neuroscience-informed content, tools and methods for assess-

ment is the most obvious tool to take from PE. This includes:
1. The development and assessment of neuroscience-informed content for coaching
conversations (the ‘what’).
2. The development and assessment of neuroscience-informed structures or tools
for the delivery of coaching (the ‘how’).
21 Towards a Neuroscience-Informed Coaching Practice: Opportunities and. . . 409

Fig. 21.1 Relevance to Coaching Practice (reproduced with permission, Grant, 2016)

3. Validation of coaching efficacy using neuroscience tools and techniques (testing

if the neuroscience-informed intervention works).
The challenges for the development of neuroscience-informed coaching include,
1. How to identify aspects of the neuroscience literature that would be most helpful
for coaching.
2. How to translate the complex and massive neuroscience literature into language
that is simple and usable.
3. How to determine that the addition of neuroscience-based information can
improve coaching.
Fortunately, a ready model exists for coaches to assess and categorise neurosci-
ence research as helpful and relevant to practice: Research Relevance-to-Coaching
Practice Model (Grant, 2016). The four-quadrant framework categorises research as
either coaching-specific or coaching-relevant (horizontal axis) and strong versus
weak research (vertical axis) (Fig. 21.1).
• Quadrant One includes rigorous coaching-specific research
• Quadrant Two includes weaker coaching-specific research
• Quadrant Three includes rigorous research that is not specific to coaching
• Quadrant Four includes weaker research not specific to coaching
Much of the neuroscience research utilised in coaching conversations (content
and structure) falls within Quadrants Three and Four. Rather than dismissing the
literature outright, Grant and O’Conner suggest an ‘approach with caution’ mindset
(Grant & O’Connor, 2019).
The following are useful questions for the coach to consider for Quadrants Three
and Four:
410 S. M. McKay and S. Smith

• Is this information actually useful to my coaching practice?

• In what tangible way can I apply this information and what difference will
it make?
• Is this interesting, but not really useful?
The translation of research from one discipline to another offers exciting oppor-
tunities, but also challenges. Professions including EN and PE have recognised the
urgent need to bring together neuroscientists with practitioners who are knowledge-
able about the practical considerations of practice and delivery (Ekhtiari et al., 2018;
Horvath & Donoghue, 2016; Miller, 2016). Anderson and Dalla Sala comment that
with growing interest in applying the knowledge of human brain function there has
been “some good, some bad and some just crazy”. More and better could be done if
neuroscientists and practitioners “acknowledge the limits of their disciplines and
start listening to each other (Anderson & Della Sala, 2012). Positive psychology
coaching (PPC) has been defined as “evidence-based coaching practice informed by
the theories and research of positive psychology for the enhancement of resilience,
achievement and wellbeing” (Green & Palmer, 2019). PPC is thriving because of the
bringing together of the best of scientists and practitioners. The integration of
neuroscience into coaching could benefit from a similarly thoughtful, cooperative
and systematic approach.

Case Study
The Coachee

Angela was the Global Marketing Director for a large media company, BWG Media.
She led a team of six direct reports and 50 indirect reports based in offices across
Europe, the US, India and China. She was appointed externally into the role and had
been in position for 2 years. She had previously been working in a similar position
but for a technology company. Her early life and career had all been spent in the
US. Her first major career move, 6 years ago, required relocating herself and her
family to France. When she joined BWG Media she relocated again to London.
Angela came to coaching looking for support in managing the demands of her
role, and the impact work pressures were having on her family life and wellbeing.
She described how she was still struggling with moving from France then to the
UK. On reflection, she commented how culturally disoriented she still felt, even
though it had been several years since leaving her home and wider family in the
US. Angela shared that she was very driven and ambitious and became easily
frustrated with others and what she perceived as ‘ineptitude’.
She described that she was struggling to sleep and exercise, and was feeling ‘out
of control’ emotionally. As she talked, she mentioned that she had recently received
some feedback from her manager that her communication style was ‘abrupt’ and that
some colleagues found her ‘hard to work with’. “At this level I shouldn’t be having
21 Towards a Neuroscience-Informed Coaching Practice: Opportunities and. . . 411

to cover for other people or do their work for them because it is substandard. I’m not
abrupt, I’m simply direct. I can’t pretend that everything is OK when it isn’t.” She
confided that she knew what she was doing wasn’t working, her observation was
that, if anything she seemed to be making others around her shut down. Angela was
keen to address all of these areas through the coaching.

The Coaching

There were various positive psychology coaching options for Angela including
working with meaning and purpose, self-compassion, strengths and empathy-related
interventions, and acceptance and commitment training (ACT). In conversation with
her coach, Angela realised she had a high drive, but her self-worth was tied up with
achievement of goals and career progression. This had led to Angela becoming more
distant from her family who were also now struggling. She had reached an impasse
where work was now not going well. She realised just how far this pattern had taken
her away from her family and that now she was not recharging or rebalancing at all in
her life and had lost sight of what really mattered.
The specific area of coaching that neuroscience-content was identified as relevant
for was stress, including how to manage stress responses. Before offering PE, the
coach first assessed Angela’s knowledge about the neurobiology of stress and how
that was impacting her general wellbeing and emotion regulation. Using the E-P-E
technique the coach found that Angela knew very little about how the brain and body
responds to stressful events. Angela was motivated to learn more.
The coach provided Angela with a short PE session describing neurobiology of
stress responses. Information included the following:
• emotions are not hard-wired primitive responses but fleeting neural network
states predicted from the data the brain is receiving from the body, the outside
world and memories of past experiences,
• how the brain regulates release of the stress hormones adrenaline and later
cortisol, how they facilitate the very important physiological responses to threats,
challenges and opportunities,
• research showing that stress-response can be mollified by adequate sleep, healthy
food, exercise and social connections, and how each practice changes the data the
brain receives, thus changing the emotion constructed.
Angela was encouraged to recount the story of her dual international moves using
her newfound understanding of how the brain and body respond when extremely
stressed. In particular. Through storytelling, Angela came to realise that the cultural
disorientation and disconnection with her American family was a source of extreme
stress that she had never acknowledged or learned to manage. This resulted in her
perception that benign workplace challenges (e.g. frustration with substandard work)
were extremely threatening and thus stress-inducing, causing her lack of emotional
regulation and a combative communication style.
412 S. M. McKay and S. Smith

Once Angela grew in self-awareness and knowledge, she was very receptive to
learn more and implement evidence-based wellbeing practices e.g. good nutrition,
time with family, mindfulness practices, self-compassion, gratitude, time in nature,
and so on. She reported a greater interoceptive awareness of her heightened phys-
iological responses to benign challenges, and a readiness to use simple relaxation
techniques such as deep breathing to regulate her behaviour. Importantly, Angela
commented that learning about the neurobiology of stress “made sense” and
externalised her emotional experiences, meaning she felt less guilty and more
empowered to implement the tools she’d been taught. Supported by the coaching
she spent time reflecting on what mattered most to her in life, she learned to
recognise personal strengths and resources, and identified possibilities for future
action and growth.

Discussion Points

1. What neuroscience-informed content, tools or techniques to you already use in

your coaching practice?
2. Where or who do you source your neuroscience information from? Do you filter
your neuroscience information using the Research Relevance-to-Coaching Prac-
tice Model?
3. Do emerging insights from neuroscience provide new practical and actionable
approaches to coaching. Do they add explanatory power, or are they merely
‘interesting’ or ‘seductive’?
4. In the absence of an empirical basis for coaching with neuroscience what are your
thoughts on borrowing experiences from a related field such as PE or EN?

References

Allen, S. (2019). Positive neuroscience. A white paper prepared for the John Templeton Foundation
by the Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley. February. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
pubmed/31464486.
Anderson, M., & Della Sala, M. (2012). Neuroscience in education: An (opinionated) introduction.
In S. Della Sala & M. Anderson (Eds.), Neuroscience in Education. The good, the bad and the
ugly (pp. 3–12). Oxford University Press.
Ardern, J. B. (2015). Brain2Brain: Enacting client change through the persuasive power of
neuroscience. Wiley.
Bailey, R. P., Madigan, D. J., Cope, E., & Nicholls, A. R. (2018). The prevalence of pseudoscien-
tific ideas and neuromyths among sports coaches. Frontiers in Psychology, 9(May), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00641.
Barrett, L. F. (2020). 7 1/2 lessons about the brain. Houghton Mifflin.
Bernstein, A., & Hock, M. (2019, April). The brain science behind business. Harvard Business
Review Special Issue.
Bossons, P., Riddell, P., & Sartain, D. (2015). The neuroscience of leadership coaching: Why the
tools and techniques of leadership coaching work. Bloomsbury Publishing.
21 Towards a Neuroscience-Informed Coaching Practice: Opportunities and. . . 413

Bowers, J. S. (2016). The practical and principled problems with educational neuroscience.
Psychological Review, 123(5), 600–612.
Boyatzis, R. E., & Jack, A. I. (2018). The neuroscience of coaching. Consulting Psychology
Journal, 70(1), 11–27.
Brann, A. (2017). Neuroscience for coaches how to use the latest insights for the benefit of your
clients (2nd ed.). Kogan Page.
Brosnan, C., & Michael, M. (2014). Enacting the ‘neuro’ in practice: Translational research,
adhesion and the promise of porosity. Social Studies of Science, 44(5), 680–700.
Bruer, J. T. (2016). Where is educational neuroscience? Educational Neuroscience, 1,
237761611561803. https://doi.org/10.1177/2377616115618036.
Busa, J., Harrison, J., Chappell, J., Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Grimes, A., Brookhouser, P. E., Epstein,
S., Mehl, A., Vohr, B., Gravel, J., Roush, J., Widen, J., Benedict, B. S., Scoggins, B., King, M.,
Pippins, L., Savage, D. H., Ackermann, J., Gibson, A., . . . Mason, P. (2007). Year 2007 position
statement: Principles and guidelines for early hearing detection and intervention programs.
Pediatrics, 120(4), 898–921.
Butterworth, S. (2010). Health-coaching strategies to improve patient-centered outcomes. JAOA•
Supplement 5 (The Whole Patient), 110(4), 12–14.
Cesario, J., Johnson, D. J., & Eisthen, H. L. (2020). Your brain is not an onion with a tiny reptile
inside. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(3), 255–260.
Im, S.-h., Cho, J. Y., Dubinsky, J. M., & Varma, S. (2018). Taking an educational psychology
course improves neuroscience literacy but does not reduce belief in neuromyths. PLoS One, 13
(2), 1–19.
Dekker, S., Lee, N. C., Howard-Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012). Neuromyths in education: Prevalence
and predictors of misconceptions among teachers. Frontiers in Psychology, 3(Oct), 1–8.
Duenyas, D. L., & Luke, C. (2019). Neuroscience for counselors: Recommendations for developing
and teaching a graduate course. The Professional Counselor, 9(4), 369–380.
Dweck, C. (2015). Carol dweck revisits the ‘growth mindset.’ Education weekly.
Ekhtiari, H., Rezapour, T., Aupperle, R. L., Paulus, M. P., States, U., Program, N., & States,
U. (2018). Neuroscience-informed psychoeducation for addiction medicine: A neurocognitive
perspective Hamed. Progress Brain Research, 239–264.
Franklin, G., Carson, A. J., & Welch, K. A. (2016). Cognitive behavioural therapy for depression:
Systematic review of imaging studies. Acta Neuropsychiatrica, 28(2), 61–74.
GBD 2016 Neurology Collaborators. (2019). Global, regional, and national burden of neurological
disorders, 1990–2016: A systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study 2016. The
Lancet Neurology, 18(5), 459–480.
Grant, A. (2015). Coaching the brain: Neuro-science or neuro-nonsense? The Coaching Psychol-
ogist, 11(1), 31–37.
Grant, A. (2016). What constitutes evidence-based coaching? A two-by-two framework for
distinguishing strong from weak evidence for coaching. International Journal of Evidence
Based Coaching & Mentoring, 14(1), 74–85.
Grant, A., & O’Connor, S. (2019). A brief primer for those new to coaching research and evidence-
based practice. The Coaching Psychologist, 15(June).
Green, S., & Palmer, S. (2019). Positive psychology coaching. Science into practice. In S. Green &
S. Palmer (Eds.), Postive psychology coaching in practice. (pp. 1–20). Routledge.
Grospietsch, F., & Mayer, J. (2019). Pre-service science teachers’ neuroscience literacy:
Neuromyths and a professional understanding of learning and memory. Frontiers in Human
Neuroscience, 13(February).
Grover, S., & Furnham, A. (2016). Coaching as a developmental intervention in organisations: A
systematic review of its effectiveness and the mechanisms underlying it. PLoS One, 11(7), 1–41.
Gucciardi, E., Jean-Pierre, N., Karam, G., & Sidani, S. (2016). Designing and delivering facilitated
storytelling interventions for chronic disease self-management: A scoping review. BMC Health
Services Research, 16(1).
414 S. M. McKay and S. Smith

Han, D. Y., & Chen, S. H. (2014). Reducing the stigma of depression through neurobiology-based
psychoeducation: A randomized controlled trial. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 68(9),
666–673.
Hickok, G. (2009). Eight problems for the Mirror neuron theory of action understanding in
monkeys and humans. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(7), 1229–1243.
Horvath, J. C., & Donoghue, G. M. (2016). A bridge too far–revisited: Reframing Bruer’s
Neuroeducation argument for modern science of learning practitioners. Frontiers in Psychology,
7(Mar), 1–12.
Johnson, K. K., Bennett, C., & Rochani, H. (2020). Significant improvement of somatic symptom
disorder with brief psychoeducational intervention by PMHNP in primary care. Journal of the
American Psychiatric Nurses Association.
Kelley, P., Lockley, S. W., Kelley, J., & Evans, M. D. R. (2017). Is 8:30 a.m. still too early to start
school? A 10:00 a.m. school start time improves health and performance of students aged
13–16. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 11(Dec).
Kelley, P., & Whatson, T. (2013). Making long-term memories in minutes: A spaced learning
pattern from memory research in education. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7(Sep), 1–9.
Kirby, A., Woodward, A., Jackson, S., Wang, Y., & Crawford, M. A. (2010). A double-blind,
placebo-controlled study investigating the effects of omega-3 supplementation in children aged
8-10 years from a mainstream school population. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31
(3), 718–730.
Laske, O. E. (2006). From coach training to coach education : Teaching coaching within a
comprehensively evidence based framework. Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and
Mentoring, 4(1), 45–57.
Lenhard, F., Vigerland, S., Andersson, E., Rück, C., Mataix-Cols, D., Thulin, U., Ljótsson, B., &
Serlachius, E. (2014). Internet-delivered cognitive behavior therapy for adolescents with
obsessive-compulsive disorder: An open trial. PLoS One, 9(6).
Li, Y., & Bates, T. C. (2019). You can’t change your basic ability, but you work at things, and that’s
how we get hard things done: Testing the role of growth mindset on response to setbacks,
educational attainment, and cognitive ability. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General,
148(9), 1640–1655.
Lukens, E. P., & McFarlane, W. R. (2004). Psychoeducation as evidence-based practice: Consid-
erations for practice, research, and policy. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 4(3),
205–225.
Macdonald, K., Germine, L., Anderson, A., Christodoulou, J., & McGrath, L. M. (2017). Dispelling
the myth: Training in education or neuroscience decreases but does not eliminate beliefs in
neuromyths. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(Aug), 1–16.
MacKay, I. (2020). The swiss cheese respiratory virus pandemic defence. Twitter. https://twitter.
com/MackayIM/status/1319901144836026368
Martinez-Conde, S., Alexander, R. G., Blum, D., Britton, N., Lipska, B. K., Quirk, G. J., Swiss,
J. I., Willems, R. M., & Macknik, S. L. (2019). The storytelling brain: How neuroscience stories
help bridge the gap between research and society. The Journal of neuroscience : the official
journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 39(42), 8285–8290.
McCabe, D., & Castel, A. (2008). Seeing is believing: The effect of brain images on judgments of
scientific reasoning. Cognition, 107, 343–352.
McKay, S. M., & Kemp, T. (2019). Neuroscience and coaching. A practical application. In S. Green
& S. Palmer (Eds.), Positive Psychology Coaching in Practice. (pp. 57–70). Routledge.
Meppelink, C. S., Van Weert, J. C. M., Haven, C. J., & Smit, E. G. (2015). The effectiveness of
health animations in audiences with different health literacy levels: An experimental study.
Journal of Medical Internet Research, 17(1), e11.
Meynen, G. (2016). Neurolaw: Recognizing opportunities and challenges for psychiatry. Journal of
Psychiatry and Neuroscience, 41(1), 3–5.
Miller, R. (2016). Neuroeducation: Integrating brain-based psychoeducation into clinical practice.
Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 38(2), 103–115.
21 Towards a Neuroscience-Informed Coaching Practice: Opportunities and. . . 415

Mobbs, D., Adolphs, R., Fanselow, M. S., Barrett, L. F., Ledoux, J. E., & Tye, K. M. (2019).
Embracing our fear. Scientific American Mind, 36(6), 24–40.
Moore, M., & Jackson, E. (2018). Health and wellness coaching. In E. Cox, T. Bachkirova, &
D. Clutterbuck (Eds.), The complete handbook of coaching (pp. 345–362).
O’Brion, A. (2015). Coaching psychology and neuroscience: Cross-disciplinary opportunities and
challenges. The Coaching Psychologist, 11(1), 30–31.
O’Connor, C., Rees, G., & Joffe, H. (2012). Neuroscience in the public sphere. Neuron, 74(2),
220–226.
OECD. (2008). Understanding the brain : The birth of a learning science. New insights on learning
through cognitive and brain science. OECD/CERI International Conference “Learning in the
21st Century: Research, Innovation and Policy,” 15.
Pereira Dias, G., Palmer, S., O’Riordan, S., de Freitas, S., Habib, L., Bevilaqua, M., & Nardi,
A. (2015). Perspectives and challenges for the study of brain responses to coaching: Enhancing
the dialogue between the fields of neuroscience and coaching psychology. The Coaching
Psychologist, 11(1), 21–29.
Purves, D., Augustine, G. J., Fitzpatrick, D., Hall, W. C., LaMantia, A.-S., Mooney, R. D., Platt,
M. L., & White, L. E. (2018). Neuroscience (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Reason, J. (2000). Human error: Models and management. British Medical Journal, 320(7237),
768–770.
Rock, D., & Page, L. (2009). Coaching with the brain in mind: Foundations for practice. John
Wiley & Sons.
Schuepbach, W. M. M., Rau, J., Knudsen, K., Volkmann, J., Krack, P., Timmermann, L., Hälbig,
T. D., Hesekamp, H., Navarro, S. M., Meier, N., Falk, D., Mehdorn, M., Paschen, S., Maarouf,
M., Barbe, M. T., Fink, G. R., Kupsch, A., Gruber, D., Schneider, G.-H., . . . EARLYSTIM
Study Group. (2013). Neurostimulation for Parkinson’s disease with early motor complications.
The New England Journal of Medicine, 368(7), 610–622.
Scurich, N., & Shniderman, A. (2014). The selective allure of neuroscientific explanations. PLoS
One, 9(9), 1–6.
SFN. (2018). A companion publication to BrainFacts. org and a primer on the brain and nervous
system. In Society for Neuroscience (Vol. 8).
Sisk, V. F., Burgoyne, A. P., Sun, J., Butler, J. L., & Macnamara, B. N. (2018). To what extent and
under which circumstances are growth mind-sets important to academic achievement? Two
meta-analyses. Psychological Science, 29(4), 549–571.
Swart, T., Chisholm, K., & Brown, P. (2015). Neuroscience for leadership. Harnessing the brain
gain advantage: Palgrave Macmillan.
Thomas, M. S. C., Ansari, D., & Knowland, V. C. P. (2019). Annual research review: Educational
neuroscience: Progress and prospects. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied
Disciplines, 60(4), 477–492.
Weisberg, D. S., Keil, F. C., Goodstein, J., Rawson, E., & Gray, J. R. (2008). The seductive allure of
neuroscience explanations. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 20(3), 470–477.
Wilkinson, B. D. (2018). The limits of neuroscience in counseling: A humanistic perspective and
proposed model. Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 57(1), 70–78.
Xia, J., Merinder, L. B., & Belgamwar, M. R. (2011). Psychoeducation for schizophrenia. Schizo-
phrenia Bulletin, 37(1), 21–22.
416 S. M. McKay and S. Smith

Further Reading

Brann, A. (2017). Neuroscience for coaches how to use the latest insights for the benefit of your
clients (2nd ed.). Kogan Page.
Grant, A. (2015). Coaching the brain: Neuro-science or neuro-nonsense? The Coaching Psychol-
ogist, 11(1), 31–37.
Grant, A., & O’Connor, S. (2019). A brief primer for those new to coaching research and evidence-
based practice. The Coaching Psychologist, 15(June).
McKay, S. M., & Kemp, T. (2019). Neuroscience and coaching. A practical application. In S. Green
& S. Palmer (Eds.), Positive psychology coaching in practice. (pp. 57–70). Routledge.

Dr Sarah McKay is a neuroscientist and science communicator who specialises in translating

brain science research into simple, actionable strategies for professional application. Sarah grew up
in Christchurch, New Zealand. She completed BSc (Hons) 1st class in neuroscience at Otago
University before winning a Wellcome Trust scholarship to Oxford University for Masters and
PhD training in neuroscience. After moving to Sydney, Australia, she completed five years of
postdoctoral research in brain plasticity and spinal cord injury, then hung up her lab coat to pursue a
career in science and medical communications. Sarah is the founder of Think Brain, which offers
professional development programs in applied neuroscience and brain health. Sarah is the author of
The Women’s Brain Book: The neuroscience of health, hormones and happiness, which explores
the female lifespan through the lens of neurobiology. In 2019, Sarah hosted an episode of ABC's
Catalyst exploring brain health, bio-hacking and longevity. Sarah lives on Sydney’s Northern
Beaches with her Irish husband, and together they are raising two boys and can be found surfing,
sailing, ocean swimming. They dream of the day they can visit NZ for more mountain biking and
skiing.

Sarah Smith is an internationally experienced leadership coach, facilitator and researcher. With
over 20 years’ experience in developing individuals and teams, Sarah works with a wide variety of
organisations in a range of sectors. Prior to establishing her own consultancy business Sarah was
Deputy Head of Professional Development at Cranfield University where she held responsibility for
management and leadership development across the university. Sarah continues to work with
Cranfield as a course coach and visiting lecturer in areas such as leadership development, Positive
Psychology and Emotional Intelligence. Sarah also lectures at the University of Roehampton,
sharing her experience in applying psychological concepts in a business environment. Sarah has
a MSc in Applied Positive Psychology from Buckinghamshire New University and her particular
area of expertise is in wisdom. She is engaged in doctoral research into this area at The University of
Lincoln. This informs her approach; she brings a philosophical and deeply relational way of
understanding the challenges of being human into her work with her clients.