See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303293892

Holistic Mentoring and Coaching to Sustain Organizational Change and

Innovation

Article · May 2016

DOI: 10.17062/cjil.v2i1.34

CITATIONS READS

2 267

4 authors, including:

Kathryn G. Hollywood Donna Blaess

Concordia University- Chicago Concordia University- Chicago
6 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS    6 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Claudia Santin
Concordia University- Chicago
4 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Mentoring View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kathryn G. Hollywood on 02 August 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Creighton Journal of Interdisciplinary Leadership
Vol. 2, No. 1, May 2016, pp. 32 – 46

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Holistic mentoring and coaching to sustain organizational change

and innovation

Kathryn G. Hollywood, Ph.D.1, Donna A. Blaess, Ph.D.2, Claudia Santin, Ed.D.3, & Lisa
Bloom, D.C., FIACN4
1
Concordia University Chicago, Professor of Leadership, Department of Professional
Studies, [email protected]
2
Concordia University Chicago, Professor of Leadership, Department of Professional
Studies, [email protected]
3
Concordia University Chicago, Dean, College of Business, Professor of Leadership,
[email protected]
4
New York Chiropractic College, Assistance Dean of Chiropractic Education, Professor,
Department of Clinical Sciences, [email protected]

Abstract. Collaborative problem solving, creativity, innovation, and continuously improved performance
outcomes are the normative expectations for organizations in the early 21st century. At the same time, workers
seek not only equitable compensation for their efforts, but also opportunities for professional growth and
development as well as acknowledgement and valuing of their contributions. As a result, more than ever, leaders
face the challenge of creating learning organizations, communities of practice, and systems that promote the full
potential of each worker, while attaining or exceeding organizational expectations and goals. An integrated,
holistic model of mentoring and coaching consisting of four well researched theoretical frames is described:
strengths based leadership, Emotional Intelligence, courageous conversations, and Appreciative Inquiry. The
rarely acknowledged, imperceptible, but significant and indelible, neurological and biochemical links that connect
the theoretical frames as well as the impact of self-efficacy beliefs and the thoughts and emotions of both
mentor/coach and mentee/coachees are discussed. Recommendations for practice and implementation are
presented.

Keywords: Holistic mentoring and coaching, strengths based leadership, organizational change and innovation,
emotional intelligence, neurochemical and biochemical connections

Introduction and framework

N o contemporary organization, large or small, local or global, is immune to change.

Change is the new norm. To effectively manage the technological, competitive, and
economic forces of the early 21st century, leaders in every sector have attempted to alter the
way that their organizations conduct business.
Kotter (1996) and Drucker (1996) offered significant insights on the implementation and
management of organizational change. Fundamentally, the organizational mission and clearly
defined outcomes must drive change and innovation. In addition, implementation of the
organizational change plan must be aggressively assessed. Despite its apparent simplicity, this
basic template for effective change continues to elude leaders.
The concept of disruptive innovation, introduced by Christensen (2011), adds an element
of complexity to the change phenomena. The concepts of innovation and disruption now
serve as essential elements of the change process. Mowrey and Rosenberg (1999) discussed
the technological “paths of innovation.” They examined the consequences of the

© 2016 K. G. Hollywood, D. A. Blaess, C. Santin, & L. Bloom

Creighton Journal of Interdisciplinary Leadership
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17062/CJIL.v2i1.34
 Holistic mentoring and coaching 33

technological changes that would impact the US workforce. Innovation and disruptive change
charges organizational leaders to continually seek growth strategies and processes that are
beyond the scope and sequence of business as usual. Creating and innovating new models,
designs, processes, or products, however, continues to be challenges for organizations seeking
to maintain a competitive edge in the marketplace. Seeking out of the box solutions to
workplace problems and innovative pathways to workplace challenges requires a workforce
that is poised and ready to accept the roles and responsibilities required to achieve ever
changing goals. Organizational leaders must develop an organization’s capacity and
capability to engage in continuous innovation through workers who are prepared to fulfill the
tasks required by constant change.
According to Tushman and O’Reilly (2002), successful, innovative organizations
circumvent the murky waters of short-term gains that often result in long-term failures.
Typically, short-term gains are achieved by adopting strategies that are aligned with existing
organizational structures, systems, and cultures (p. viii). This short-term gain agenda has
yielded unexpected performance challenges for leaders in their efforts to implement
disruptive innovative strategies. Skarzynski and Gibson (2008) maintain that the capacity and
responsibility for innovation needs to be a pervasive and corporate-wide capability that is
spread throughout an organization’s business and functions (p. 237). According to Anthony,
Johnson, Sinfield, and Altman (2008), disruptive innovation challenges organizational leaders
to craft a team charter that spells out the team’s objectives, degrees of freedom, assumptions,
and milestones (p. 221). The selection of workers for this type of team must be supported by
leaders’ expanding innovative awareness and commitment to building workers’ skillsets.
From a worker’s perspective, knowing what to do is not the same as knowing how to do
it. Skarzynski and Gibson (2008) suggest that workers want to be engaged in work that is
challenging and fulfilling and to be integral members of innovative teams. Mentoring and
coaching aligns to Fullan’s (2008) perspectives on organizational learning. Fullan asserts that
organizations need to aggressively pursue their goals and objectives while learning how to get
better at what they are doing. Ultimately, he admonishes that learning is the work and the
leader’s task is one of ensuring [workers’] consistent integration and utilization of what is
known and to identify the new learning that may be required for innovation and improvement
(p. 76).
Both mentoring and coaching are a means to support workers’ knowledge acquisition and
organizational learning. Traditionally and theoretically, role and task distinctions have been
drawn between mentoring and coaching (Starcevich, 2009; Webster, n.d.). In the workplace,
however, distinctions between the roles and tasks of mentor and coach frequently overlap and
are often blurred. Both mentoring and coaching can promote changes in thinking about and
doing one’s job and developing an innovative mindset. Aldeman (2011) underscores the
importance of coaching as the facilitation of learning wherein there is engagement that
promotes people to think for themselves and generate solutions to issues and challenges in the
workplace. Coaching supports new thinking which can lead to a continuous improvement
change processes (Prydale, 2011).
It is well documented that personal beliefs, manifesting as self-efficacy, play a significant
role in learning and achievement (van Dinther, Dochy, & Segers, 2011; Zimmerman, 2000).
Self-efficacy appears to predict performance with better outcomes associated with higher self-
efficacy and poorer outcomes associated with poor self-efficacy (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia,
2001; Gore, 2006; Zajacova, Lynch, & Espenshade, 2005). A mentoring relationship can
increase the self-efficacy of not only the mentee, but also the mentor (Saffold, 2005), thus
elevating an entire organization.
Recent developments in organizational behavior and leadership have brought mentoring
and coaching to a more prominent position in organizational agendas. Increasingly,
organizational leaders are realizing that mentoring and coaching not only improve
performance, but also can facilitate personal and professional development as well as the

© 2016 K. G. Hollywood, D. A. Blaess, C. Santin, & L. Bloom

Creighton Journal of Interdisciplinary Leadership
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17062/CJIL.v2i1.34
34 K. G. Hollywood, D. A. Blaess, C. Santin, & L. Bloom

commitment and motivation to excel. Coaches are now shifting their traditional focus from
task and function engagement to people empowerment, i.e., mentoring. Cameron (2008)
considers the coaching process as an attribute of positive leadership. The focus is on
supporting individuals to think for themselves and identify their own solutions to work place
challenges, tasks, and dilemmas. Rather than tsunamic in nature, this coaching shift is more
subtle and individualized allowing the coach and the worker to form a relationship that is
more personal and developmental in nature. The shift is intended to unlock each individual’s
potential in order to maximize their development and performance.

Report
The blending of mentoring and coaching roles represents a more holistic shift based on
building upon individual strengths and self-efficacy (Rath & Conchie, 2008), emotional
intelligence (Neale, Spencer-Arnell, & Wilson, 2011), courageous conversations, and the
appreciative inquiry processes (Orem, Binkert, & Clancy, 2007). The transition involves
mentoring and coaching from an asset rather than deficit model. One byproduct of this
holistic shift is the development of relationships that are purposeful and productive
personally, professionally, and organizationally.
Holistic mentoring and coaching is the process employed to promote the personal growth
of the mentee/coachee, first and foremost. The holistic mentor or coach’s primary goal is to
facilitate the positive development of the mentee/coachees’ leadership strengths, emotional
intelligence, communication skills, and team engagement. The holistic model is supported by
the theoretical frames and research that address strengths based leadership (Clifton & Harter,
2003; Rath & Conchie 2008), emotional intelligence (Neale, Spencer-Arnell, & Wilson,
2011), courageous conversations and communication (Bloom, Castagna, Moir, & Warren,
2005), and Appreciative Inquiry (Cooperrider, Whitney, & Stavros, 2008; Orem, Binkert, &
Clancey, 2007).

The role of strengths based leadership in holistic mentoring and coaching

Organizational performance, productivity, and creativity are contingent on the quality and
capabilities of the organization’s human capital and resources. Human capital and resources
are the leading indicators of an organization’s potential for growth and sustainability.
Strengths based leadership supports leaders in their efforts to establish and execute an agenda
for building capacity for effective change, creativity, innovation, and disruptive innovation.
Setting the innovative agenda begins with a leader’s assessment of organizational strengths
which are a composite of the individual strengths of its members. Strengths assessment starts
with the leader’s recognition that leadership is not something one is born into, but rather
potential and something that is developed and cultivated.
Strengths based leadership capitalizes on the talents of the work force as the basis for the
consistent achievement of excellence (Clifton & Harter, 2003). Strengths based philosophy is
the belief and assertion that an individual is able to gain and grow more, when he or she
primarily expends energy and effort to build upon his or her strongest talents, rather than
when he or she dwells on and expends time and effort to improve and remediate weaknesses.
Building upon and affirming individual strengths also enhances self-efficacy, thereby
increasing effort and capabilities as well as promoting more desirable personal, professional,
and organizational outcomes. Hodges and Clifton (2004) hypothesized that talents are
“naturally recurring patterns of thought, feeling, or behavior that can be productively applied”
(p. 257). Strengths are viewed as the result of maximized talents. Specifically, a strength is
mastery created when one’s most powerful talents are refined with practice and combined
with acquired relevant skills and knowledge.
Strengths based leadership serves as the primary theoretical frame in holistic mentoring
and coaching; the processes focus on the identification and development of individual,
 Holistic mentoring and coaching 35

personal strengths. Buckingham and Clifton (2001) introduced the strengths revolution to
organizational leaders. Their premise was simple:
…great organizations must not only accommodate the fact that each employee is different,
they must capitalize on these differences. It [the organization] must watch for clues to each
employee’s natural talents and then position and develop each employee so that his or her
talents are transformed into bona fide strengths (p. 5).
The strength and sustaining success of an organization and the synergistic culture and
climate within it depend not only on the sum of its parts, but also on how the sum of the parts
are combined and determined.
Extending Buckingham and Clifton's (2001) principles one step further, an adept
organizational leader can hire and position people with specific strengths to potentiate an
organization's sustainability, productivity, and creative power. The goal is to grow the
organization by investing in the development of the strengths of every individual, regardless
of place and position in the organization.
Buckingham and Clifton (2001) speculate that only 20% of employees believe that their
strengths are aligned to their daily work functions; the remaining 80% of employees are in
need of some type of experience to learn about their strengths and how to use them
effectively. Receiving feedback and focusing on one’s strengths serve as acknowledgement
enabling employees to shift perceptions to an asset based strength model and self-efficacy,
rather than a deficit and weakness model of work. Applying the holistic model of mentoring
and coaching may result in a shift from traditional organizational structures to more
functional approaches to meeting organizational needs and productivity.
Far too many organizational leaders continue to rely on positional power, command and
control tactics, and relatively punitive measures that focus on individual weaknesses as means
to promote worker growth, productivity, and motivation, especially in times of organizational
duress. This reactive approach can, and often does, lead to short-terms gains and long-term
failures. Buckingham and Clifton (2001), however, demonstrated that strengths maximization
offers the opportunity to maneuver and manage around individual weaknesses, while
developing not only the strengths of individuals, but also the organization as a whole.
The value of engaging a workforce in strengths development is heightened during times of
inevitable change and innovation. The organizational disequilibrium, and often apparent
chaos, that emerge during challenging times can serve as an opportunity for organizational
leaders to provide holistic mentoring and coaching services to their staff, although the
implementation of holistic mentoring and coaching is most effective when an organization is
in a state of equilibrium.
Innovation, and especially the call for disruptive innovation, can generate new energy,
ideas, activities, and agendas. Workers, however, need to be prepared and committed to
respond to the challenges. Holistic strengths based mentoring and coaching can serve as a
catalyst for worker preparation. Rath and Conchie (2008) believe that organizations that
maximize strength development are led by individuals who invest in their own strengths
development and surround themselves with people whose strengths differ in order to
maximize the work of the leadership team and ultimately the organization. The responsibility
to develop workers who are grounded in strengths based learning and leading may be
relegated most effectively by the organizational leader to a mentor or coach leader who
understands the parameters of holistic training and development.
Applying the Rath and Conchie (2008) framework, a holistic mentor or coach highlights
that effective strengths based leaders lead and encourage their managers to lead by
• hiring, observing, and assessing workers for their individual talents, skills, and
preferences;

© 2016 K. G. Hollywood, D. A. Blaess, C. Santin, & L. Bloom

Creighton Journal of Interdisciplinary Leadership
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17062/CJIL.v2i1.34
36 K. G. Hollywood, D. A. Blaess, C. Santin, & L. Bloom

• positioning each person according to his or her unique talents, strengths, and
potential;
• challenging and further developing potential talents as bona fide strengths;
• supporting individual and organizational strength development;
• providing frequent, positive, constructive, and evaluative feedback, verbal or
tangible, as well as reinforcements and rewards; and
• creating organizational celebrations, acknowledgements, and rituals.
Assess strengths by
• sharing accountability;
• challenging performance;
• focusing on what works;
• being transparent; and
• affirming and supporting.
Ensure that strengths based mentors and coaches are trained to
• seek to learn what each leader and employee uniquely does well;
• identify personal gifts, talents, uniqueness;
• explore contributions made to the work team;
• develop personal growth plans;
• discuss what generates workplace satisfaction and meaning; and
• monitor and collaboratively assess achievement toward goals.

The role of emotional intelligence in holistic mentoring and coaching

Emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995) is the second theoretical frame of the holistic
mentoring and coaching model. Emotional intelligence (EI) is the disciplined practice of
• attending to emotional information from oneself and other people;
• integrating this information with one’s thinking; and
• using these sources of personal information to respond and make decisions to help us
get what we want from the immediate situation and from life in general (Neale,
Spencer-Arnell, & Wilson, 2011, p. 189-190).
EI is a process of developing personal and interpersonal awareness. It involves the often
immediate reflective process of awareness and discernment of one’s feelings and
accompanying thoughts to guide and inform responses and behavior to the feelings and
thoughts expressed by another. Awareness and reflection are the basis for empathy and
empathic responses; both promote behavioral changes and adjustments that support the
growth of the mentor or coach as well as the mentee or coachee, and the organization as a
whole.
Neale et al., (2011) suggest that developing EI can lead to sustainable behavior changes
that serve to improve and enhance the way one manages oneself and how one interacts with
others. For example, some of the known advantages of developing EI are as follows:
• more effective communication skills;
• greater empathy for others;
• more confidently managing change;
• reduction of stress levels; and
• greater personal confidence and spirit of positivity (p. 7-8).
The EI mentor and coach realizes that personal attitudes and behaviors can be developed
over time and these changes will potentially impact all areas and aspects of one’s life.
 Holistic mentoring and coaching 37

Therefore, the holistic mentor or coach extends attention, diligence, and care to the mentee
and coachee in hopes of growing knowledge, examining attitudes, developing skills, and often
altering long standing habits of mind and heart.
It is important to mention that an effective EI mentor or coach is one who manages
oneself and his or her relationships effectively. According to Neale et al., (2011),
… to be a truly effective coach, an individual needs to have a high level of EI combined
with the right knowledge, skills and experience of coaching others. This combination will
produce an EI coach, an authentic coach who helps coachees to change and develop their
performance (p. 52).
Organizational leaders need to know that EI predicts performance and is developmental.
Leaders need to acknowledge that a primary organizational goal is to maximize performance
and productivity, while minimizing personal and organizational stress for workers.

The contribution of self-efficacy beliefs

Strengths based and EI holistic, developmental mentoring and coaching are fundamentally
rooted in and impact the subsequent development of self-efficacy beliefs and their
neurochemical and biochemical impact on individuals. Positivity and genuine, performance-
based beliefs engender positive outcomes, whereas negativity tends to yield sub-standard
performance and less productive outcomes (Chemers, Hu, & Garcia, 2001; Gore, 2006;
Zajacova, Lynch, & Espenshade, 2005).
A sense of urgency, as proposed by Kotter (1996) undoubtedly plays a significant role in
implementing and sustaining organizational change and innovation. Nonetheless, an
overabundance of urgency may create undue stress, undermine self-efficacy beliefs, deter
organizational effectiveness, contribute to worker push-back, and lead to organizational short-
term gains and organizational toxicity in the form of negative cultural and interpersonal
expectations.
In order to maximize overall performance and productivity, leaders must clearly,
repeatedly, and strategically communicate the organization’s core values, intended direction,
and the goals of innovative initiatives. Additionally, leaders must provide strength-based
support in order to avoid the negative effects of worker stress caused by unchecked urgency
or impulsiveness, perhaps intended to achieve short term gains, but without the long term in
mind (Skarzynski & Gibson, 2008). Leaders also must invest in their own and workers’ EI
development to achieve their intended goals. Effective mentors and coaches can develop the
EI capacity of individuals, teams, and an organization as a whole. The process is ongoing and
long term, one worker, one team, at a time.
In terms of change, innovation, and disruptive innovation, leaders and workers with
highly developed EI have the capacity and potential to implement sustaining changes that
impact performance and productivity. The changes are grounded in the personal development
of EI as well as the collective development of team members and the organization as a whole.
Among highly developed EI organizational members, innovative initiatives may be perceived
as opportunities to demonstrate their knowledge, attitudes, and skills gained from holistic
mentoring or coaching as well as opportunities for further growth and development.
Focusing on the development of EI, a mentor or coach invites a mentee or coachee to
reflect on a specific event to help understand and manage associated feelings, attitudes, and
behaviors.
The coach
• asks powerful questions that challenge cognitive comfort zones;
• encourages openness to new ways of seeing and experiencing feelings;
• probes effectively for greater insight on the event;
• assesses the perspectives offered by the mentee/coachee;

© 2016 K. G. Hollywood, D. A. Blaess, C. Santin, & L. Bloom

Creighton Journal of Interdisciplinary Leadership
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17062/CJIL.v2i1.34
38 K. G. Hollywood, D. A. Blaess, C. Santin, & L. Bloom

• reframes the event in positive/constructive manner with the mentee/coachee with an

eye toward developing new knowledge, attitudes, skills, and habits (KASH model);
and
• appreciates the mentee or coachee and his/her process (Neale et al., 2011, p. 20).
The emphasis placed on EI development in the holistic mentoring/coaching model serves
to develop and raise individual as well as collective awareness and responsiveness throughout
an organization. Moreover, EI integration serves as a catalyst for positive change within
individuals and the organization as a whole to be their best selves. A best-self mind set (see
Quinn, Dutton, Spreitzer, & Roberts, 2011) may then reverberate through the entire
organization leading to doing the best of what an organization does well.
The role of courageous conversations and communication in holistic coaching
Courageous conversations and communication serves as the third theoretical frame that
informs the holistic mentoring and coaching model. In recent years, the directive, top down
communicative approach to leadership and management has come under increasing scrutiny
as less effective as organizations become more globalized and technologically driven.
Groysberg and Slind (2012) maintain that five long term trends are shifting the focus from
corporate communication to organizational conversations: (a) economic changes from
manufacturing to service industries, (b) organizational changes involving flatter structures and
more bottom-up communication, (c) diversity and the increasing need to navigate across
cultural and geographic lines, (d) generational changes and expectations in the workforce, and
(e) technological advances making instant connectivity the norm (pp. 6-7).
Fullan (1993) aptly reminds us, “Problems are our friends” (p. 21) in that they are
opportunities for learning. Traditional, top-down, often fragmented, and reactive
communications between leaders and workers rarely, if ever, achieve the organizational
objective of creating strategic alignment toward the attainment of intended outcomes. Leader
aggressiveness, broadcasting, and print media designed to control messages are rarely
received as genuine or trustworthy by workers in the early 21st century. Such messages, rather
than encouraging worker learning or productivity and creativity, often promote passivity,
negativity, low morale, push-back, and costly turnover.
Those individuals who lead organizations in the 21st century may now best serve both
themselves and their organizations by intentionally establishing and communicating a clear,
informative, and carefully explained organizational agenda as well as engaging in genuine
cross-organizational conversations through which all employees are engaged (Groysberg &
Slind, 2012). The conversations may take place face-to-face or through electronic means, but
as Schwartzman (2010) so convincingly asserted, the best communicators are not the best
talkers; often the best communicators are the best listeners.
Berson and Stieglitz (2013) assert that the conversations in which leaders engage must
focus on people. Conversations that include genuine listening and questioning, can and often
do, include practical guidance and opportunities for personal and organizational growth.
Berson and Stieglitz recommend that leaders engage in conversations that (a) build
relationships, (b) make decisions, (c) take action, and (d) develop others.
Personal, interpersonal, and organizational learning is led by leaders who facilitate
positive energy through modeling, diagnosing, and building positive-energy networks among
workers (Cameron, 2008). Positive organizational cultures foster the demonstration of
altruism, compassion, forgiveness, and kindness (p. 41) which impact performance,
productivity, and organizational health and well-being. Leaders who promote such cultures,
according to Cameron (2008), significantly and positively impact an organization’s profits,
productivity, quality, innovation, customer satisfaction, and employee retention(p. 23).
Positive-energy networks are created by organizational leaders with whom workers are
willing to share their ideas and innovative ways of doing the work without fear of
 Holistic mentoring and coaching 39

repercussions. Creating a climate of trust and respect enables workers to engage in

courageous conversations that include constructive and candid feedback. Courageous
conversations and positive communication are guided to move workers from focusing solely
on problems to the identification of solutions, innovations, and new collective meaning. The
conversations offer the psychic and physical space and strategies to support workers’
collective sharing, listening, exploring, and examining personal and shared assumptions.
Often this process results in new ideas, new ways of thinking, and new meaning within the
organization as a whole.
The knowledge, skills, mindset, and self-awareness to engage in courageous
conversations and positive communication can be learned and developed through working
with a holistic mentor or coach. The mentor or coach’s job is to help the mentee or coachee
become aware of his or her assumptions and interpretations that construct his or her perceived
reality and to search for alternative approaches and actions. The exploration of assumptions is
guided by effective questioning. Bloom, Castagna, Moir, & Warren (2005, as cited in the
Ontario Ministry of Education) propose five types of effective questions for coaching. The
questions are designed to (a) establish focus, (b) discover possibilities, (c) plan for action, (d)
remove barriers, and (e) review and recap. Within the protected and safe holistic
mentoring/coaching space, the mentee or coachee can explore and rehearse new ways of
being that support personal and organizational growth and development.
Mentors and coaches are instrumental to organizational learning through conversations
and communication. Genuine listening, probing, and responding encourages the development
of a worker’s recognition of strengths, the development of personal and organizational goals,
self-efficacy, EI, and communication abilities. Holistic mentors and coaches model and
encourage the development of their mentees/coaches through
• using positive language and avoiding defensiveness;
• checking assumptions and interpretations using effective questioning;
• supporting taking responsibility;
• developing clear attainable goals and expectations;
• offering constructive, candid feedback frequently on observed actions and behaviors;
• exploring new directions and collective meaning; and
• redirecting energy in the workplace.

The role of appreciative inquiry in holistic coaching

Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is the fourth theoretical frame of the holistic mentoring and
coaching model. Cooperrider initially introduced the concept of AI as an organizational
change strategy (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2005; Copperrider, Whitney, & Stavros, 2008). The
application of AI has since been expanded to include strategic planning, leadership, coaching,
teaching, and team building (Stavros & Hinrichs, 2009; Whitney, Trosten-Bloom, & Rader,
2010; Orem, Binkert, & Clancy, 2007; Bloom, Hutson, Ye He, & Robinson, 2011;Whitney,
Trosten-Bloom, Cherney, & Fry, 2004). The essential focus of AI is on what an organization
or individual does well, what works, and what is “life giving.” Although weaknesses and
problems are not denied, ignored, or avoided, the acknowledgement and amplification of the
positive potential of an organization or individual transforms thinking about change and
innovation. Orem et al. (2007) state,
What Appreciative Inquiry has offered to organizations and individuals over the last 20
years is an alternative to focusing on problems to solve and to problem solving. An
overdependence on a problem perspective can result in cases of solving the wrong
problem or of solving only one problem only to find that a more serious problem has
arisen out of the solution to the original one. (p. viii)

© 2016 K. G. Hollywood, D. A. Blaess, C. Santin, & L. Bloom

Creighton Journal of Interdisciplinary Leadership
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17062/CJIL.v2i1.34
40 K. G. Hollywood, D. A. Blaess, C. Santin, & L. Bloom

The shift in focus from problems, problem solving, and weaknesses is aligned to the
strengths based leadership approach of moving from a deficit model to an asset model of
engagement. The appreciative approach provides a strengths-based foundation from which
creativity and innovation can flourish. Research demonstrates that organizations and people
are energized by owning strengths, imagining the future, what they do well, and what brings
them satisfaction (Whitney, Trosten-Bloom, & Rader, 2010).
From a holistic mentoring and coaching perspective, the inclusion of AI is a natural
progression aligned to the other three theoretical frames. The basic AI process includes four
stages: discover, dream, design, and destiny (Orem et al., 2007, p. 84-85). Through mentor or
coach questioning, the discovery stage affords the mentee opportunities to reflect on
accomplishments and strengths by responding to core questions that explore specific events or
experiences, past successes, and personal values. It also is an opportunity for the mentee to
acknowledge his or her strengths based on self-assessment and the informal analysis of
feedback requested and collected from relevant others. The dream stage encourages the
mentee to envision past peak moments and strengths in order to articulate future possibilities
and goals. Design involves prioritizing and establishing specific goals and strategies to build
on one’s strengths. Finally, destiny involves execution, formative assessment, review, and
affirmation. Through what ideally will be a repetitive cycle over time between mentor or
coach and mentee or coachee, tools for new learning and personal change will be acquired
(Orem et al., 2007).
From an organizational leadership perspective, the inclusion of AI into the holistic
mentoring and coaching process is a win-win situation. Individuals are encouraged to
discover, dream, design, and create their destiny in the form of strengths and contributions.
The process results in individuals as well as a workforce that focus their efforts on the four
stages of the AI process and the strengths that they bring to the organization for which they
work, ensuring greater potential for organizational innovation, profitability, performance, and
productivity.

The Effects of Thought and Emotion in Holistic Mentoring and Coaching

A significant, but rarely acknowledged aspect of the interpersonal process of mentoring and
coaching is neurological and biochemical in nature. Although the influence of thoughts,
words, and beliefs on the body and in performance outcomes have been well documented
(Chopra, 2015; Lipton, 2007; Glance & Huberman, 2013; Radin, Hayssen, Emoto, & Kizu,
2006; Spagnolo, Colloca, & Heilig, 2015), these effects remain unexplored in the coaching
and mentoring process. Positive and negative thoughts and emotions reach the cellular,
genetic, and sub-atomic levels of the human body and may result in a mentor unintentionally
negatively influencing the mentor-mentee relationship. In response, the holistic mentoring
and coaching model acknowledges and embraces the physical as well as the cognitive and
emotional impact of interpersonal interaction. Additionally, the holistic model includes
strategies that capitalize on current scientific evidence to optimally navigate mentoring and
coaching relationships designed to achieve successful personal, professional, and
organizational outcomes.

Thoughts and emotions

Thoughts and emotions are energetic entities that have demonstrable and repeatable physical
indicators. The presence of thoughts and emotions can be measured as electrical activity in
the brain by electroencephalography (EEG) and by glucose and oxygen uptake in functional
magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI, Yoo et al., 2004). The presence and nature of thoughts
and emotions can also be detected in the blood as neuropeptides and hormones.
Neuropeptides and hormones are chemicals produced in immediate response to thoughts,
emotions, physical activity, perceived threat, and food ingested (Lipton, 2007). For example,
 Holistic mentoring and coaching 41

cortisol and epinephrine are detectable hormones that are released into the blood during a
fight-or-flight response. Their presence can be indicative of co-existing emotions.
Neuropeptides and hormones travel in the bloodstream and bind to cell membranes that
produce a matching receptor (Lipton, 2007; Ulrich, 2010). Once a neuropeptide binds with
the cell membrane a reaction occurs that impacts the cell's nucleus and genome (Lipton,
2007). Research findings over the last four decades suggest that genetic activity is chemically
regulated by neuropeptides that trigger changes in the genome, and not regulated exclusively
by changes within the DNA sequence. Neuropeptides associated with positive thoughts and
emotions will create different cellular and genetic responses than neuropeptides associated
with negative thoughts and emotions. This process, known as epigenetics, provides a direct
link between thought and emotion and changes in the body (Curcio, 2012; Lipton, 2007).
Emotions provide a chemical bath for the billions of cells in the human body, and although
physical appearance may appear unchanged, the functional activity of the body may have
changed dramatically (Curcio, 2012; Lipton, 2007).

Beliefs, self-efficacy, and expectations

Belief has been demonstrated to affect outcomes in healthcare. Physician expectations have
been demonstrated to have a direct impact on patient outcomes.Spagnolo, Colloca, and Heilig
(2015) noted that physicians' attitudes "may contribute to produce placebo and nocebo effects
that in turn affect the course of the disease and the response to the therapy" (p. 1). A
physician's expectations of treatment outcomes have also been demonstrated to affect clinical
decision making and subsequent strategies that alter the course and outcome of treatment
(Glance & Huberman, 2013). A similar effect occurs with patient expectations and beliefs
about their treatment and their prognosis (Razdan et al., 2015).
The placebo effect occurs when the simple act of receiving any treatment results in a
positive effect "because of expectation of benefit" (De la Fuente-Fernández et al., 2001, p.
1164). The power of patient belief in the placebo effect has been demonstrated in the
pharmaceutical care of patients with depression and Parkinson's disease (De la Fuente-
Fernández et al., 2001; Mayberg et al., 2014). The current research on the placebo effect
reveals activation in varying areas of the brain demonstrating the connection between belief
and physical effects in the brain (Benedetti et al., 2004; De la Fuente-Fernández et al., 2001;
Mayberg et al., 2014). The fundamental principle behind the placebo effect is that belief can
influence measurable physical changes, or the perception of those changes. Additionally, the
belief or expectation that a positive or negative result will occur following intervention has
been observed to change thoughts and behaviors that create the expected outcome (Benedetti
et al., 2004). This effect has been demonstrated by physicians and by patients in healthcare
(Glance & Huberman, 2013; Razdan et al., 2015; Spagnolo, Colloca, & Heilig, 2015).
Personal beliefs, expectations, and self-efficacy have been demonstrated to play a
significant role in learning and achievement (van Dinther, Dochy, & Segers, 2011;
Zimmerman, 2000). High self-efficacy has been demonstrated to result in higher test scores
and better academic performance than students with poor expectations and beliefs (Chemers,
Hu, & Garcia, 2001; Gore, 2006; Zajacova, Lynch, & Espenshade, 2005).
Subtle verbal cues and communication also influence beliefs and physical responses. A
study involving hotel maids demonstrated statistically significant physical effects resulting
from the addition of a single statement regarding their work (Bower, 2007). A cohort of 84
hotel maids was spilt in half. One half of the group heard the typical morning instructions
involving delegation of work and expectations conveyed by the hotel manager. The other 42
maids heard the same instructions plus a short statement that noted their work was also
exercise and would improve their health. After 30 days, the group that heard their work was
exercise indicated that they felt that they were getting more exercise, lost an average of two
pounds, lowered their blood pressure by almost 10%, and exhibited positive changes in body
fat, body mass index (BMI), and waist-to-hip ratios (Bower, 2007). The group that heard the

© 2016 K. G. Hollywood, D. A. Blaess, C. Santin, & L. Bloom

Creighton Journal of Interdisciplinary Leadership
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17062/CJIL.v2i1.34
42 K. G. Hollywood, D. A. Blaess, C. Santin, & L. Bloom

basic instructions without the positive health directive experienced no significant changes
(Bower, 2007).
Thoughts have been demonstrated to transcend space and can measurably impact others.
The effects of thought and belief on intentionally targeted recipients have been demonstrated
in studies on compassionate intention (Radin et al., 2008). Paired subjects were designated as
the “sender” or the “receiver.” The senders were instructed to start and stop sending healing
thoughts to their remotely located receiver at random intervals. The findings demonstrated
that the healing thoughts created measurable synchronous autonomic nervous system changes
in the recipients of the healing thoughts (Radin et al., 2008).
Similar studies performed on water molecules demonstrated the differing effects of
positive and negative thoughts on the crystallization patterns of water molecules (Emoto,
2004; Radin, Hayssen, Emoto, & Kizu, 2006). These experiments were initiated by a study
involving 2000 people in Tokyo sending “Hado,” (healing prayers), to a specific beaker of
water in California. Other beakers of water were distributed locally as controls. The esthetic
measure of the crystals formed by the water receiving the prayers and healing thoughts was
considerably higher than the water that did not receive prayers and healing thoughts (Radin,
Hayssen, Emoto, & Kizu, 2006). A possible relevant consideration is that the human body is
more than 50% water (Watson, Watson, & Batt, 1980).
Subatomic particles are also subject to the effects of thought. Matter is composed of
molecules, molecules are composed of atoms, and atoms are composed of subatomic
particles. Given the variables such as friction coefficient, temperature, velocity, and time it is
possible to predict the results of experiments and to repeat those results in the physical world.
In contrast, the subatomic realm is unpredictable. The components of the atom react to
thought and the results of subatomic experiments appear to change with the expectations of
the observer (Andrews & Salka, 2014). Experiments documenting these effects have been
completed using photons, subatomic particles, electrons, and even molecules as large as
Carbon 60 (C60) (Akoury et al., 2007). Inescapably, all physical matter is composed of
subatomic particles leading to the possibility that thought affects matter.
Thoughts, emotions, beliefs, self-efficacy, and expectations appear to have a direct effect
on outcomes. It is reasonable to extrapolate the research and principles described to
mentoring and coaching relationships. A mentor or coach’s beliefs, feelings, and attitudes
may affect expectations, decisions, and ultimately the effectiveness, and quality of the
mentor-mentee relationship. The holistic mentoring and coaching model assists the mentor or
coach in creating an environment that embraces and supports the mentee's sense of value,
self-efficacy, and development.

Practices to address thoughts, emotions, and beliefs

Like marriage or partnership, the nature of a mentor-mentee or coach-coachee relationship is
complex and rarely is reduced to a simple one-on-one interaction. It is known that “effective
mentoring necessitates a certain chemistry for an appropriate interpersonal match" (Jackson et
al., 2003, p. 328). Unrecognized or unacknowledged negative emotions may augment and
complicate interpersonal difficulties in the pairing of mentor and mentee by predisposing both
participants in the relationship to negative expectations and outcomes. Techniques to support
the implementation of strengths based, emotionally intelligent, and courageous conversations
as well as ongoing appreciative inquiry are likely to be beneficial to mentee and mentor
outcomes.
Bracketing and journaling are essential components of a qualitative study, primarily
because it is understood that the researcher is, in fact, part of the research (Merriam, 2009).
The intent of bracketing and journaling is to allow the researcher to expose potential biases
and "to mitigate the potentially deleterious effects of preconceptions that may taint the
research process" (Tufford & Newman, 2012, p. 80). Bracketing is a process in which the
researcher reflects on his or her experiences and beliefs, and how those experiences and
 Holistic mentoring and coaching 43

beliefs create the lens though which they view the world. The overarching purpose of
bracketing is to allow the researcher to become immersed in the research while reducing the
potential for personal interference in the data gathering process or in the interpretation of the
data. Journaling is a process used to sustain an inquiring lens free of preconceptions and
social constructs. Once formally disclosed, a regular discipline of self-reflection through
journaling can assist a researcher in identifying any complicating beliefs or biases (Creswell
& Miller, 2000).
Thoughts, beliefs, and expectations are powerful influences, whether they are
acknowledged consciously or remain subconscious. Trends in scientific knowledge support
the possibility that a mentor's intentions, thoughts, and emotions toward a mentee may have a
direct effect on the mentee and his or her self-efficacy and performance. A mentor must be
mindful of avoiding negative thoughts, emotions, or language toward a mentee at all times as
research supports the fact that the effects of intentional thought may be synchronous and not
limited to face-to-face experiences (Radin et al., 2008, pp. 240-241). This effect may also
hold true for mentees regarding their mentors. Therefore, the potential benefits of the ongoing
processes of bracketing and journaling equally apply to mentors and mentees.
Challenges in a mentoring or coaching relationship may result from unconscious or
unacknowledged interfering factors generated by the mentor's past experiences, expectations,
generational issues, gender, or any other affiliations or experiential events. Nonetheless, it is
the mentor or coach’s responsibility to refrain from reacting or projecting their personal
realities, when responding to a mentee or coachee. Conscious efforts and disciplined practices
on the part of mentors and coaches to become aware of their own personal biases and
perceptions in their relationships with their mentees and coachees serve to reduce interference
and elevate the process.
Although the concepts of mental and emotional discipline appear simple, they may not be
easily implemented and require deliberate effort and practice. Conscious suppression of
thought and emotion has been demonstrated to have a paradoxical effect on the frequency of
unwanted thoughts (Abramowitz, Tolin, & Street, 2001; Erskine et al., 2012). The stronger
the urge to suppress a thought, the more frequently the thought occurs. Therefore, proper
training in mindfulness and mental discipline may be beneficial as part of mentor and coach
training (Hooper, Stewart, Duffy, Freegard, & McHugh, 2012; Wegner, 2011). Techniques to
train the mind and to recondition mentor or coach attitudes and perceptions that support
mental and emotional discipline are likely to be invaluable tools to achieve a more complete
understanding of the potential cognitive and physical impact of mentor-mentee and coach-
coachee interactions.
In addition to bracketing and journaling, a mentor may find it extremely beneficial to
develop a disciplined mind and emotionally non-reactive mental state prior to and during
mentor-mentee meetings. Positive outcomes in mentoring are linked to paying positive
attention to the mentoring relationship (Tillema, Van Der Westhuizen, & Smith, 2015).
Therefore, acknowledging the role that the thoughts and emotions of the mentor play in
creating successful developmental relationships may overcome difficulties and maximize
relationship outcomes. Although it may be intuitive that negativity and reactivity are
undesirable, a scientific basis for the reason and range of effects in mentoring and coaching
may alert mentors and coaches to be especially vigilant in this significant developmental
process.
Holistic mentoring targets this body of research on thought and emotion by emphasizing
the principles of strengths-based leadership, emotional intelligence, courageous
conversations, and Appreciative Inquiry to focus on individual strengths and develop
mentoring relationships that are primarily positive, purposeful, and productive. The emphasis
on a positive thinking and emotional foundation translates into creativity and productivity in
the workplace.

© 2016 K. G. Hollywood, D. A. Blaess, C. Santin, & L. Bloom

Creighton Journal of Interdisciplinary Leadership
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17062/CJIL.v2i1.34
44 K. G. Hollywood, D. A. Blaess, C. Santin, & L. Bloom

Conclusion
Clearly the landscape of leadership development as well as the mentoring and coaching of
aspiring leaders and innovators is changing. The new norm and current demand placed on
organizations for innovation, sustainable performance, and productivity requires strategic and
constant engagement in the process of change. Organizations and their leaders cannot stand
still and rely entirely on prior performance or existing support structures to ensure
productivity, creativity, innovation, or job satisfaction. Although a match of skills and values
remains important hiring criteria, workers today seek not only equitable monetary benefits,
but also stable career and financial pathways as well as growth opportunities. Workers are
likely to actively seek better employment and growth opportunities in five or less years after
initial employment in search of even greater stability as well as compensation, benefits, and
respect (Casserly, 2013). The rapid attrition of employees places even greater hiring, training,
and financial demands on organizations.
Traditionally, managers have assumed coaching roles and responsibilities as a command
and control approach (Starr, 2011). A shift to more focused, deliberate, positive, and holistic
mentoring and coaching approach that encourages and allows workers to discover their
strengths and potential contributions, think and engage with others collaboratively, and
generate their own approaches and potential solutions to workplace challenges and dilemmas
requires a different mindset. The paradigm shift offers an opportunity for managerial training
and growth as well as employee growth and commitment. Greater organizational leadership
attention and investment are required for a more holistic mentoring and coaching process to
take root, contribute to leadership succession plans, and provide a return on investments.
Ultimately, strengths-based leadership is an investment in an organization’s culture, climate,
and overall worker capacity. A model of holistic mentoring and coaching is described to
increase organizational performance and productivity as well as support and sustain change
and innovation. The model is based on four well researched and fundamental leadership
frames: strengths-based leadership, Emotional Intelligence, courageous conversations, and
Appreciative Inquiry. The frames are integrated to address the 21st century mandate to ensure
organizational performance, creativity, innovation, and sustainability. Evidence drawn from
neurological and interpersonal chemistry research provides additional, substantiating support
for holistic mentoring and coaching.
Holistic mentoring and coaching may offer leadership and management an alternative
opportunity to realize innovative organizational goals and objectives as well as enhance
professional growth and development among workers and in organizations as a whole.
Maximizing performance and productivity to support and sustain change and innovation as
well as the retention and growth of workers needs to become a major learning objective of
organizational leaders and organizations. Holistic mentoring and coaching is a potential
means to achieve these organizational outcomes.

References
Abramowitz, J. S., Tolin, D. F., & Street, G. P. (2001). Paradoxical effects of thought suppression: Meta-analysis
of controlled studies. Clinical Psychology Review, 21(5), 683-703.
Akoury, D., Kreidi, K., Jahnke, T., Weber, T., Staudte, A., Schöffler, M., & Dörner, R. (2007). The simplest
double slit: Interference and entanglement in double photoionization of H2. Science, 318(5852), 949-952.
Aldeman, W. (2011, March). Coaching in the workplace. Retrieved from the Online Self Improvement
Encyclopedia. http://www.selfgrowth.com/print/1622831
Amabile, T. M., & Khaire, M. (2008). Creativity and the role of the leader. (Reprint number RO81OG). Retrieved
from http://harvardbusiness.org/archive
Andrews, S., & Salka, S. (2014). Mapping the whole in everyone, an essay on: Non-existence as the engine and
axis of existence. Cosmos and History: The Journal of Natural and Social Philosophy, 10(1), 15-33.
Anthony, S. D., Johnson, M.W., Sinfield, J.E., & Altman, E.J. (2008). The innovators’ guide to growth: Putting
disruptive innovation to work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Benedetti, F., Colloca, L., Torre, E., Lanotte, M., Melcarne, A., Pesare, M., & Lopiano, L. (2004). Placebo-
 Holistic mentoring and coaching 45

responsive Parkinson patients show decreased activity in single neurons of subthalamic nucleus. Nature
Neuroscience, 7(6), 587-588.
Bennis, W., & Biederman, P. W. (1997). Organizing genius: The secrets of creative collaboration. Reading, MA:
Addison Wesley.
Berson, A., & Stieglitz, R. (2013). Leadership conversations: Challenging high potential managers to become
great leaders. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bloom, G., Castagna, C.L., Moir, E.R., & Warren, B. (2005). Blended coaching: Skills and strategies to support
principal development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Bloom, J., Hutson, B L., Ye He, & Robinson, C. E. (2011). Appreciative college instruction. Champaign, IL:
Stipes Publishing.
Bower, B. (2007). Mind over muscle: Placebo boosts health benefits of exercise. Science News, 171(4), 52-52.
Buckingham, M., & Clifton, D. (2001) Now, discover your strengths. New York: Free Press.
Cameron, K. (2008) Positive leadership: Strategies for extraordinary performance. San Francisco, CA: Berret-
Koehler Publishers.
Casserly, M. (2013, January). The top five reasons employees will quit in 2013. Forbes. Retrieved from
http://forbes.com/sites/meghancasserly/2013/01/02/the-top-five-reasons-employees
Chemers, M. M., Hu, L. T., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first year college student
performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 55.
Chopra, D. (2015). Quantum healing. New York, NY: Random House.
Christensen, C. M. (2011). The innovator’s dilemma: The revolutionary book that will change the way you do
business. New York, NY: Harper.
Clifton, D. O., & Harter, J. K. (2003). Strengths investment. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E., Quinn (Eds.).
Positive organizational scholarship. (pp. 111-121). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.
Cooperrider, D. L., Whitney, D., & Stavros, J. M. (2008). The appreciative inquiry handbook: For leaders of
change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Copperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in change. San Francisco,
CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Covey, S. (2004). The 7 habits of highly effective people. New York, NY: Free Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory into Practice, 39(3),
124-130.
Curcio, S. (2012). The influence of epigenetics, the environment and antioxidants on alpha-1 antitrypsin (AAT)
deficiency [online]. Journal of the Australasian College of Nutritional and Environmental Medicine, 31(2),
11-14.
De la Fuente-Fernández, R., Ruth, T. J., Sossi, V., Schulzer, M., Calne, D. B., & Stoessl, A. J. (2001). Expectation
and dopamine release: Mechanism of the placebo effect in Parkinson's disease. Science, 293(5532), 1164-1166.
Drucker, P. (1996). The Executive in action: Managing for results, innovation and entrepreneurship, the effective
executive. New York, NY: Harper.
Emoto, M. (2004). Healing with water. The Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine, 10(1), 19-21.
Erskine, J. A., Ussher, M., Cropley, M., Elgindi, A., Zaman, M., & Corlett, B. (2012). Effect of thought
suppression on desire to smoke and tobacco withdrawal symptoms. Psychopharmacology, 219(1), 205-211.
Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Bristol, PA: Falmer.
Glance, N. S., & Huberman, B. A. (2013). 5 expectations and social outcomes. In McGlade, J., & Van der Leeuw,
S. E. (Eds.). Time, process and structured transformation in archaeology (pp. 118-141). London and New
York, NY: Routledge.
Goleman, D. (1995). Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ. New York, NY: Bantam Books.
Gore, P. A. (2006). Academic self-efficacy as a predictor of college outcomes: Two incremental validity
studies. Journal of Career Assessment, 14(1), 92-115.
Groysberg, B., & Slind, N. (2012, June). Leadership is a conversation. Harvard Business Review Reprint R1026D
Hodges, T. D., & Clifton, D. O. (2004). Strengths-based development in practice. In A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.).
Handbook of positive psychology in practice. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Hooper, N., Stewart, I., Duffy, C., Freegard, G., & McHugh, L. (2012). Modeling the direct and indirect effects of
thought suppression on personal choice. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 1(1), 73-82.
Jackson, V. A., Palepu, A., Szalacha, L., Caswell, C., Carr, P. L., & Inui, T. (2003). “Having the right chemistry”:
A qualitative study of mentoring in academic medicine. Academic Medicine, 78(3), 328-334.
Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Lipton, B. (2007). The biology of belief. Calsbad, CA: Hay House, Inc.
Mayberg, H. S., Silva, J. A., Brannan, S. K., Tekell, J. L., Mahurin, R. K., McGinnis, S., & Jerabek, P. A. (2014).
The functional neuroanatomy of the placebo effect. American Journal of Psychiatry. Retrieved from
https://www.myptsd.com/c/gallery/-pdf/1-45.pdf
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Mowrey, D. C., & Rosenberg, N. (1999). Paths of innovation: Technological change in 20th century America.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Neale, S., Spencer-Arnell, L., & Wilson, L. (2011). Emotional intelligence coaching. London, UK: Kogan Press.

© 2016 K. G. Hollywood, D. A. Blaess, C. Santin, & L. Bloom

Creighton Journal of Interdisciplinary Leadership
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17062/CJIL.v2i1.34
 46 K. G. Hollywood, D. A. Blaess, C. Santin, & L. Bloom

Ontario Ministry of Education (n.d.). Tip sheet, principal/vice-principal performance appraisal, courageous
conversations. (Ideas into Action Bulletin 2). Retrieved from www.edu.gov..on.ca/eng/policyfunding/leadership
Orem, S., Binkert, J., & Clancy, A.L. (2007). Appreciative coaching: A positive process for change. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Prydale Partners. Effective coaching in the workplace. (2011). Retrieved from
http:www.//prydale.com/corporate/effectivecoaching-in-the-workplace/t: 01388 517 846
Quinn, R. E., Dutton, J. R., Spreitzer, G. M. & Roberts, L. M. (2011). Reflected best-self exercise (2nd ed.).
Retrieved from http://positiveorgs.bus.umich.edu
Radin, D., Hayssen, G., Emoto, M., & Kizu, T. (2006). Double-blind test of the effects of distant intention on
water crystal formation. The Journal of Science and Healing, 2(5), 408-411. Retrieved December 5, 2015
from http://www.explorejournal.com/article/S1550-8307(06)00327-2/pdf
Radin, D., Stone, J., Levine, E., Eskandarnejad, S., Schlitz, M., Kozak, L., & Hayssen, G. (2008). Compassionate
intention as a therapeutic intervention by partners of cancer patients: Effects of distant intention on the
patients' autonomic nervous system. Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing, 4(4), 235-243.
Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2008). Strengths based leadership: Great leaders, teams, and why people follow. New
York, NY: Gallup Press.
Razdan, S. N., Scott, A. M., Cano, S., Cordeiro, P. G., Pusic, A. L., & McCarthy, C. M. (2015). Does the mind get
what the mind expects? Patient expectations and satisfaction in breast reconstructive surgery: A pilot study.
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 135(4), 1181.
Saffold, G. (2005). Strategic planning: Leadership through vision. Nairobi: Evangel Publishing House.
Schwartzman, R. (2010). Fundamentals of oral communication (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt Publishing.
Spagnolo, P. A., Colloca, L., & Heilig, M. (2015, May). The role of expectation in the therapeutic outcomes of
alcohol and drug addiction treatments. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 50 (3) 282-285.
Skarzynski, P., & Gibson, R. (2008). Innovation to the core: A blueprint for transforming the way your company
innovates. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Starcevich, M. (2009). Coach, mentor: Is there a difference? Retrieved from
http://coachingandmentoring.com/Articles/mentoring.html
Starr, J. (2011). The coaching manual: The definitive guide to the process, principles and skills of personal
coaching. Upper Saddle River, NJ: FT Press.
Stravros, J., & Hinrichs, G. (2009). The thin book of SOAR: Building strengths-based strategy. Bend, OR: The
Thin Book Publishing Co.
Tillema, H., Van Der Westhuizen, G. J., & Smith, K. (2015). Mentoring for learning: Climbing the mountain.
Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-6300-058-1_17#page-1
Tufford, L., & Newman, P. (2012). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 11(1), 80-96.
Tushman, M., & O’Reilly, C. (2002). Winning through innovation: A practical guide to leading organizational
change and renewal. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
Ulrich, H. (Ed.). (2010). Perspectives of stem cells: From tools for studying mechanisms of neuronal
differentiation towards therapy. Dorderecht, Heildberg, London: Springer Science & Business Media.
Van Dinther, M., Dochy, F., & Segers, M. (2011). Factors affecting students’ self-efficacy in higher
education. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 95-108.
Watson, P. E., Watson, I. D., & Batt, R. D. (1980). Total body water volumes for adult males and females
estimated from simple anthropometric measurements. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 33(1), 27-39.
Webster, M. (n.d.). The difference between coaching and mentoring. Retrieved from
http://leadershipthoughts.com/difference-between-coaching-and-mentoring/
Wegner, D. M. (2011). Setting free the bears: Escape from thought suppression. American Psychologist, 66(8), 671.
Whitney, D., Trosten-Bloom, A., Cherney, J., & Fry, R. (2004). Appreciative team building: Positive questions to
bring out the best of your team. New York, NY: iUniverse.
Whitney, D.,Trosten-Bloom, A., & Rader, K. (2010). Appreciative leadership: Focus on what works to drive
winning performance and build a thriving organization. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, G. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Towards a theory of organizational creativity. Academy
of Management Review, 18(2), 293-321.
Yoo, S. S., Fairneny, T., Chen, N. K., Choo, S. E., Panych, L. P., Park, H., & Jolesz, F. A. (2004). Brain–computer
interface using fMRI: Spatial navigation by thoughts. Neuroreport, 15(10), 1591-1595.
Zajacova, A., Lynch, S. M., & Espenshade, T. J. (2005). Self-efficacy, stress, and academic success in
college. Research in Higher Education, 46(6), 677-706.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25(1), 82-91.

View publication stats