Conducting Research in a “Messy” and Rugged Environment

The world in which professional coaches work is quite “messy.” Another term that is sometimes used to describe this world is “wicked.”  What does it mean for an environment to be messy or wicked? It means that this world is filled with the nested problems I identified earlier in this essay. It also means that everything in this world is interconnected with everything else in this world. John Miller and Scott Page (2007) describe this world as a complex system and they contrast it with a complicated system. A complicated system is one which has many parts—but the parts all work in isolation from one another. A complex system is one in which all o rmost of the parts are interrelated and inter-dependent. Scott Page (2011) also uses the metaphor of landscape when describing complex system. He would suggest that complex systems closely resemble rugged landscapes (such as those found in the Appalachian Mountains) where there are many peaks and valleys.

Coaches work in a rugged landscape: it is not clear when one is at the highest peak or whether one is moving in the correct direction toward some goal (given the many hills and valleys that must be traversed). In this type of environment, there are no simple solutions and it is not even clear when one has been successful, given that there are multiple goals (peaks) and many ways to get from the current position to one of the desired goals (peaks). Those who work in messy and wicked world suggest that it is very hard to assess progress in such a world. I think Scott Page would agree.

Not only are the clients with whom most coaches work likely to be operating in this type of messy, wicked and rugged environment, they are likely during their coaching sessions to ask their coaches to focus in particular on the challenges of complexity inherent in this type of environment. Coaches aren’t brought in to help a client solve simple puzzles that have clear goals achieved through the application of existing skills (though both the client and coach might hope this is the case). Rather coaches are brought in to help clients prioritize multiple (and often conflicting) goals, navigate through rugged terrains and acquire new skills needed to meet the often shifting challenges (Page refers to landscapes that are not only rugged but also dancing!).

Given the prevalence of these messy environments, how does one assess the extent to which a specific coaching intervention has been successful? If everything is linked with everything else in a complex environment, how does one determine whether or not a specific coaching intervention has made a difference? Many other factors may have contributed to the success (or failure) either independently or (more often) in connection with the coaching. What constitutes “evidence” in a messy environment? How does one sort out relevant data from the “noise” of a rugged and dancing landscape?