Professional practice improvement is often supported by encouraging individual practitioners, professional associations or government agencies to formulate proposals based on the best reason and evidence available. Review bodies, whether based in governance or professional certification bodies, then judge these proposals and the underlying evidence and decide for or against ostensibly on the basis of rational considerations. Although we (and the behavioral economists) know all too well that good reason and sound evidence are not the only grounds on which decisions are made, the formal system, the one that serves as a foundation for the professionalization of a specific field, stresses the rational model. We formally act as if we all approach improvement of professional practice rationally. This is particularly the case in newly emerging professional practices—that embrace a culture of what Parsons calls “cognitive rationality.” The leaders of these professional fields find it hard to admit other approaches.

Certainly, there should be participation by those whose attitudes and behaviors are aligned with the rational model, but this should not be the sole source of building a case for specific professional practices in coaching or any other field. Research conducted over many years has found the rational model inadequate in several respects as a way to go about the introduction of change in human attitudes and behaviors. In the main, criticism has focused on the isolation of R&D from its audience—the stakeholders, the people who supposedly are going to use these new fangled ideas or behaviors as providers or clients. Rational systems may be good ways to research and develop new ideas regarding professional practices, but they do not explain all the motivations and activities by which specific professional practices get used by either the providers or recipients.

The dynamics of local implementation are especially critical to the actual use of evidence. Individuals and institutions do not operate simply as rational systems thoughtfully accepting orthodox practices–let alone buying the latest innovations. If evidence and the recommendations based on evidence threaten individual or institutional security and status, it is in trouble no matter how elegant its reason. Informal systems of communications and social status may be far more potent than formal communications in persuading providers and recipients of professional practices whether or not to embrace a specific practice. Certainly reason and evidence are part of the improvement equation. You will not get very far off lousy evidence and flimsy reason. But an adequate strategy for ensuring that evidence in a field such as professional coaching must include much more than clear and compelling reason.