Innovation diffusion researchers find that the best route into an organization or community is through Opinion Leaders, those persons (or institutions) to whom others turn for advice. Hovland and Weiss noted many years ago that the most persuasive communicators are those whose expertise, experience, or social role establish them as credible sources of the information presented. Harvard has been an institutional opinion-leader on almost anything—as are Yale, Stanford, the University of California and many other major universities. Today, with the dominance of the Internet as a source of information, there is much less a centralization of opinion-leadership. If Freedman (2007, 2008) is right about the world becoming “flat” then opinion-leadership becomes diffuse and constantly changing (and often isolated and reinforced in small opinion enclaves). Smick’s (2008) curved world also seems viable (and quite dangerous) with regard to opinion-leadership.

Social interaction researchers also find that certain attributes of innovations besides impressive reason and evidence influence their adoption. Does the innovation have clear relative advantages for our particular situation, whether those advantages are better ability to meet institutional objectives, reduced costs, higher status or greater enjoyment? Is the innovation compatible with our values, our structure, our skills and styles? Is the innovation divisible so that we can adopt only the parts we like, or adopt in some easy sequence, rather than buying the whole change at once? Is the new thing simple to understand and do? Does it involve low risk and low uncertainty? Can we observe it and try it out so we know better what we are getting into? Whether it’s a consultant’s recommendation or an internally-generated proposal to modify a production process, these ingredients will be important. Yet it is difficult to assess the relative advantages of specific innovations. They often clash with traditional organization-wide values and structures. Often, a whole, complex proposal is laid on the leadership team at once, with little promise that it will reap positive rewards. And such proposals are usually paper descriptions, not visible experiences which members of the organization can see and try before accepting. It is small wonder that significant, planned change is such a rare occurrence in many organizations.

For the past three decades, this model of innovation diffusion has guided the thinking and perspectives of many people who are involved in change initiatives of all kinds (ranging from water purification systems to the distribution and use of contraceptive devices to the introduction of new digital technologies in a “flat world”). While popular with certain people, the diffusion of innovation model and research, ironically, has not itself diffused very successfully—until Malcolm Gladwell’s Tipping Point (Gladwell, 2000) was published (offering a somewhat condensed and some would say distorted version of Rogers’ diffusion model). I propose to do some diffusion of Rogers’ model (hopefully without major distortion) by applying it in a preliminary way to the challenge of making evidence more influential with regard to professional coaching. I will borrow extensively from Sally Kuhlenschmidt’s (2010) alternative terminology in offering my preliminary analysis.

The Innovators/Explorers

I would suggest that there are several kinds of innovators/explorers who either preceded or entered at critical moments in the early history of professional coaching (see Brock, 2014). Some of the preceding innovators were major thought-leaders of their era. Such visionaries as Thomas Leonard, Laura Whitworth and John Whitmore exemplify this explorer category in the field of professional coaching. A second cluster of innovators is composed of those who are the practice-leaders. They innovate not primarily with new ideas, but rather with new programs and new strategies. These are the people who establishing the first corporate coaching programs and those who built the first, thriving coaching practices.  These innovators/explorers (whether thought leaders or practice leaders in any professional field) typically have made very little use of available evidence in forging into the wilderness. As the explorers they are making the maps rather than following the maps. Even if they have maps, they probably won’t use them because they don’t trust what is being provided and because (if they are candid) they would using prefer to strike out on their own as renegades and seekers of individual distinction and autonomy.

Early Adopters/Pioneers

As Kuhlenschmidt’s term suggests, these people are the ones who are willing to “venture West” after the explorers map out the territory. The Early Adopters are willing to embrace or at least try out a new idea – often because in other areas they have themselves been innovators. As a result of their own past experiences, these pioneers do not need much convincing. They will try out a new idea or procedure, find its faults, assist in its improvement, and tell the world that it has great potential. I think of my colleagues, Agnes Mura and John Lazar who both played a major role in founding the International Journal of Coaching in Organization (Lazar being the co-owner and publisher) and the International Consortium for Coaching in Organizations.

In many instances, the early adopters are the “make or break” folks. If they don’t support or try out the new idea, then no one else is likely to get on board the covered wagon (or train) as it “heads West.” There seem to be several different types of early adopters. First there are the funders. They pay for the wagon or train (and often the wagon master/facilitator). In coaching, they are often the corporate leaders who first make personal use of a coach or support pilot coaching programs in their own organization. While funding sources were very important during the early stages of any innovation, there was a second cluster of men and women who are invaluable in moving this innovation to early adoption. These are the sponsors. In coaching, we can look to organizations such as the Conference Board and the American Society for Training and Development (now called the Association for Talent Development).