Restructuring Executive Mental Models as a Lever for Collective Effectiveness

Restructuring Executive Mental Models as a Lever for Collective Effectiveness

A Practice-Based Case Study Integrating Mental Modeling and 3S–FORM

Sukjae Lee, Ph.D.
Creator of the Effectiveness Coaching Methodology
January 28, 2026

 

Abstract

Despite substantial investment in leadership development, many organisations continue to experience persistent performance plateaus and limited behavioural change. Prior research suggests that such limitations cannot be fully explained by deficits in skills or motivation alone, but are closely linked to leaders’ underlying mental models that shape sensemaking and intervention patterns (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Weick, 1995).
This practice-based case study examines a 30-day executive intervention grounded in Mental Modeling Coaching and operationalised through the 3S–FORM framework. Drawing on reflective journals, facilitator observations, and pre- and post-intervention assessments, the study explores how restructuring executives’ mental models—conceptualised as meaning-generating systems—enabled shifts in leadership behaviour, team autonomy, and collective effectiveness. The findings suggest that sustainable organisational change emerges not from reframing isolated beliefs, but from restructuring the systems through which meaning and action are generated.

 

1. Introduction

Leadership development initiatives have traditionally focused on enhancing competencies, behaviours, and mindsets. While such approaches often produce short-term insight, their impact on sustained organisational effectiveness remains inconsistent (Day et al., 2014). Increasingly, scholars have argued that leadership behaviour is governed less by conscious choice than by implicit mental models that shape how leaders interpret situations and decide when and how to intervene (Argyris, 1991; Schön, 1983).

From this perspective, leadership effectiveness cannot be fully understood without examining the mental models through which leaders make sense of organisational reality. Sensemaking research highlights that leaders play a critical role in shaping what becomes visible, discussable, and actionable within organisations (Weick et al., 2005). When these meaning structures remain unexamined, organisations tend to reproduce familiar patterns even in the face of new challenges.

This paper argues that executive mental models function as a leverage point for collective effectiveness. Through a practice-based case study, it examines how restructuring these models—rather than refining surface behaviours—can enable sustained change across individual, team, and organisational levels.

 

2. Mental Models and Collective Sensemaking

Mental models have been variously described as beliefs, assumptions, or cognitive representations guiding action. However, such definitions risk underestimating their systemic function. From a sensemaking perspective, mental models operate as meaning-generating systems through which individuals interpret experience and regulate action (Weick, 1995).

In organisational contexts, these systems often remain implicit, shaping professional practice without conscious awareness (Schön, 1983). Leaders, in particular, rely on deeply embedded assumptions about control, risk, responsibility, and performance. Over time, these assumptions stabilise into habitual patterns of intervention that define organisational norms.

Research on organisational learning suggests that without explicit examination of governing assumptions, individuals and organisations remain trapped in single-loop learning, adjusting actions while leaving underlying structures intact (Argyris & Schön, 1978). As a result, attempts at change frequently reproduce existing patterns under new labels.

 

3. From Reframing to Restructuring

Many leadership and coaching interventions emphasise reframing—inviting leaders to adopt alternative perspectives on familiar situations. While reframing can expand awareness, it often operates within unchanged governing assumptions and therefore has limited impact on sustained behaviour (Argyris, 1991).

This study distinguishes restructuring from reframing. Restructuring involves altering the underlying system through which meaning is generated, rather than adjusting interpretations within an existing system. In practical terms, restructuring requires leaders to:

1. Surface implicit assumptions guiding interpretation,
2. Examine the historical utility and current limitations of those assumptions,
3. Reorganise the meaning system through which situations are understood, and
4. Test new structures through action and reflection.

This process aligns with double- and triple-loop learning, in which change occurs at the level of governing variables rather than behavioural responses alone (Argyris & Schön, 1978).

 

4. Mental Modeling and the 3S–FORM Framework

To operationalise restructuring in leadership practice, this study employs the 3S–FORM framework. The framework integrates internal regulation processes with external action loops, enabling leaders to internalise change as an ongoing capability rather than a one-time intervention.

The 3S components—Self-Awareness, Self-Talk, and Self-Reflection—support leaders in recognising emotional and cognitive patterns, regulating internal dialogue, and examining the assumptions underlying their decisions. These processes are consistent with self-regulation theory, which emphasises individuals’ capacity to monitor and adjust their own cognitive and emotional processes (Bandura, 1991).

The FORM loop—Feedback, Opportunity, Restructure, and Move Forward—translates internal restructuring into observable action. By repeatedly engaging this loop, leaders learn to treat outcomes as informational signals rather than success or failure, enabling continuous adaptation.

Together, 3S–FORM functions as a self-regulating change system that reduces reliance on external guidance and supports sustained sensemaking regulation (Lee, 2026)..

5. Methdology

5.1 Research Design

This study adopts a qualitative-dominant, practice-based case study design. Practice-based research prioritises the exploration of mechanisms over statistical generalisation, making it well suited to complex leadership and coaching contexts (Cox et al., 2014).

5.2 Participants and Context

Participants included eight senior executives and their direct-report teams within a single organisation operating in a high-uncertainty environment. The organisation faced recurring challenges related to decision speed, cross-functional coordination, and leadership dependency.

5.3 Intervention Process

The intervention spanned 30 days and included four weekly executive reflection sessions, supported by daily micro-practices. The role of the facilitator was deliberately constrained to supporting awareness of meaning structures and encouraging experimentation, rather than providing interpretive guidance (Clutterbuck et al., 2019).

5.4 Data Collection

Data sources included executive reflective journals, facilitator observation notes, team-level anonymous feedback, and pre- and post-intervention self-assessments.

 

6. Findings

Analysis revealed three primary patterns. First, executives demonstrated increased differentiation between facts and interpretations, indicating greater awareness of how assumptions shaped decision-making (Weick, 1995). Second, leaders increasingly engaged in self-directed reflection and restructuring, reducing dependence on external facilitation. Third, teams reported greater autonomy and faster decision cycles, suggesting that changes in executive sensemaking propagated systemically (Weick et al., 2005).

 

7. Discussion

The findings support the proposition that restructuring executive mental models constitutes a leverage point for collective effectiveness. Rather than focusing on behavioural compliance or skill acquisition, the intervention altered how leaders interpreted uncertainty, responsibility, and control.

This aligns with research suggesting that leadership functions as sensemaking infrastructure within organisations (Weick et al., 2005). By restructuring their mental models, executives reshaped the conditions under which teams interpreted and acted on organisational challenges, enabling more distributed and adaptive forms of leadership.

 

8. Implications for Leadership and Coaching Practice

For practitioners, the study suggests that leadership development and coaching initiatives should prioritise restructuring meaning systems rather than refining surface behaviours. Coaches and facilitators play a critical role not by providing insight, but by enabling leaders to develop self-regulating sensemaking capacities (Bandura, 1991; Grant, 2017).

 

9. Limitations and Future Research

The study is limited by its single-case design and short intervention period. Future research may explore longitudinal effects of mental model restructuring, cross-cultural applications, and integration with transformative learning perspectives (Mezirow, 1991; Illeris, 2007).

 

10. Conclusion

This practice-based case study demonstrates that executive mental models function as a powerful leverage point for collective effectiveness. By restructuring the systems through which leaders generate meaning and act, organisations can enable sustainable change that extends beyond individual insight to collective performance.

 

 

References

Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review, 69(3), 99–109.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Addison-Wesley.

Bandura, A. (1991). Social cognitive theory of self-regulation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 248–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-L

Boyatzis, R. E., Smith, M. L., & Van Oosten, E. (2019). Helping people change: Coaching with compassion for lifelong learning and growth. Harvard Business Publishing.

Clutterbuck, D., Cox, E., & Bachkirova, T. (2019). The SAGE handbook of coaching. SAGE.

Cox, E., Bachkirova, T., & Clutterbuck, D. (2014). The complete handbook of coaching (2nd ed.). SAGE.

Cunliffe, A. L. (2009). A very short, fairly interesting and reasonably cheap book about management. SAGE.

Day, D. V., Fleenor, J. W., Atwater, L. E., Sturm, R. E., & McKee, R. A. (2014). Advances in leader and leadership development: A review of 25 years of research and theory. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2013.11.004

Grant, A. M. (2017). The third ‘generation’ of workplace coaching: Creating a culture of quality conversations. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 10(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/17521882.2016.1266005

Illeris, K. (2007). How we learn: Learning and non-learning in school and beyond. Routledge.

Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2009). Immunity to change: How to overcome it and unlock potential in yourself and your organization. Harvard Business Press.

Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (Rev. ed.). Doubleday.

Stelter, R. (2014). Third generation coaching: Reconstructing dialogue, narrative and ethics. Springer.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. SAGE.

Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstfeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133