Systemically Integrated Approaches to Coaching: An Introduction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Coaching approaches attempting to support leadership development often occur in isolation and lack integration into more wholistic approaches to change and development. Systemic coaching approaches promise much of what could be possible, however these systemic approaches are still largely undefined. The concept of systemically integrated approaches to coaching is introduced and explored here to provide utility to coaches working with leaders in organisations. Complex Adaptive Systems theory and Complex Responsive Processes are presented briefly as theoretical frameworks in which to apply Network methodologies and Network Thinking for the benefit of individuals, groups, teams and organisations. In this paper, systemic approaches to coaching include coaching through a systemic lens, coaching to enhance systemic thinking and systemic competency, coaching for systemic change and, finally, an integrated approach to systemic coaching. It is hoped that, as an industry, we might begin to think more carefully about what it could really mean to coach systemically and the potential benefits for leaders and organisations of a truly systemically integrated approach.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it