1. Establishment of the purpose of coaching, or at least identification of the dimensions along which the question of purpose may be pursued. This discussion has been implicit since the beginning of coaching but is only recently being consciously discussed (see Global Convention on Coaching http:/ /www. coachingcommons.org/guest-contributors/reporting­ from-dublin-global-convention-on-coaching/and2006 Evolving the Conversation: http:/ /www. coachfederation.org /articles/index.cfm?action =vie w&articleID=l90&sectionID=l8). How might this question relate to Scharmer’s (2009) challenge to “learn from the future as it emerges”?
2. Recognition of systemic assumptions as the core of coaching: complexity, dynamic stability, subjectivity, potentiating, collaboration, and the  importance of purpose. This core has been established by the emergence of coaching as an expression of the systemic paradigm.
3. Identification of a set of questions or categories of questions that represent the issues dealt with by coaches. These questions provide a guide for selecting theories and research from other fields that respond to these questions, as long as they are consistent with systemic assumptions. This element awaits empirical research that determines the issues typical of coaching, but an example of using questions in this way is illustrated above.
4. Devising an academic name for the new discipline that avoids confusion with athletic coaching. I propose the name Neurosocial Dynamics. Neuro for the reasons outline in the section below on the future of coaching. Social because of the importance of social systems to coaching and, indeed, human life. And dynamics because coaching is about change and the necessity to understand it.

These considerations are presented as a contribution to the potentiation of the profession and discipline of organizational coaching.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE FUTURE OF ORGANIZATIONAL COACHING

A major implication of meeting the challenges associated with developing a discipline of coaching is that organizational coaching would have a future.

Stepping outside a coaching-centric view, a new discipline could help to integrate theory and research from existing disciplines. Often, different research “silos” study the same phenomena but because they have different terminology and publish in different journals, they do not share their findings. Acoaching discipline may help to cross-fertilize heretofore separate research communities.

Organizational coaching can also support a dialectic between theory and practice that has been so fruitful in psychotherapy research. We can shift our focus ” … to the ontological and epistemological grounding of the situation we are operating in (our sources for both action and thought” (Scharmer, 2009, p. l 12).

The question of whether to continue calling coaching by that name is one that deserves further discussion. The advantage of such a common name is that it is common and avoids the stigma of more academic or specialized titles. On the other hand, its very commonness continues to cause confusion with sports coaching.

Rock and Page (2009) emphasize the usefulness of neuroscience to coaching theory and research, as indicated by my suggestion of “Neurosocial Dynamics” as the name for a discipline of coaching. This suggestion is made with the recognition that the usefulness of neuroscience or any other potential contribution to the proposed discipline will be determined by the field of coaching itsel£ The richness of dialogue within that field will help to determine its viability. It is out of this dialogue that the foundation for a discipline of Neurosocial Dynamics (or whatever it ends up being called) will emerge to provide a theoretical foundation and evidence for the value of coaching.