From Intrapsychic Healing to Collective Effectiveness: Restructuring Mental Models Through the 3S–FORM Architecture

From Intrapsychic Healing to Collective Effectiveness:

Restructuring Mental Models Through the 3S–FORM Architecture

 

Sukjae Lee, Ph.D.  
Creator of the Effectiveness Coaching Methodology  
Feburary 3, 2026

 

Abstract

While Internal Family Systems (IFS) has significantly contributed to understanding intrapsychic multiplicity and emotional healing (Schwartz, 1995, 2019), its primary focus remains at the individual therapeutic level. This paper introduces the Effectiveness Coaching Methodology (ECM), developed by Dr. Lee Suk-Jae, as a structured extension that translates intrapsychic insights into sustainable behavioral and leadership effectiveness. Central to ECM is the 3S–FORM architecture, which enables systematic mental model restructuring at individual and collective levels. By shifting the unit of intervention from emotional states to meaning-generating mental architectures (Argyris & Schön, 1978; Johnson-Laird, 1983), ECM offers a scalable framework for individual, team, and organizational effectiveness. A case vignette illustrates how shared mental model restructuring leads to observable changes in team execution patterns.

 

Keywords: Mental models; Effectiveness coaching; Internal Family Systems; Shared mental models; Leadership coaching

 

1. Introduction

A growing body of coaching and adult development literature suggests that sustainable behavioral change depends less on skill acquisition and more on how individuals and collectives construct meaning from experience (Kegan & Lahey, 2009; Mezirow, 1991). Coaches frequently observe that insight alone does not reliably translate into changed patterns of action, particularly in leadership and organizational contexts.

Therapeutic approaches such as Internal Family Systems (IFS) have made substantial contributions to understanding intrapsychic dynamics by reframing symptoms as protective strategies rather than dysfunctions (Schwartz, 1995). However, a persistent gap remains between intrapsychic understanding and sustained execution. This paper argues that this gap reflects the absence of a structured mechanism that explicitly links internal meaning systems to observable behavior. The Effectiveness Coaching Methodology (ECM) addresses this gap by focusing on mental model restructuring as the central lever of effectiveness.

 

2. Internal Family Systems and Intrapsychic Meaning

IFS conceptualizes the psyche as a system of interacting “parts”—Managers, Firefighters, and Exiles—organized around a core Self characterized by curiosity, calmness, and compassion (Schwartz, 1995, 2019). This framework has been widely recognized for its effectiveness in trauma-informed and integrative therapeutic work (Anderson et al., 2017).

From a meaning-making perspective, IFS reveals how different parts hold distinct interpretations of reality, often shaped by earlier experiences. In this sense, parts can be understood as carriers of localized meaning structures. However, IFS primarily emphasizes emotional healing and internal harmony, rather than the redesign of meaning systems that govern action in complex social environments.

 

3. Mental Models as the Unit of Effectiveness

The concept of mental models refers to the internal representations through which individuals interpret situations and select actions (Johnson-Laird, 1983). In organizational research, mental models have been shown to shape decision-making, coordination, and performance (Senge, 1990; Walsh, 1995).

Argyris and Schön (1978) further demonstrated that unexamined governing variables underpin persistent patterns of ineffective action, a phenomenon later described as single- and double-loop learning. From this perspective, sustainable change requires not merely behavioral adjustment but restructuring the underlying assumptions that generate behavior.

ECM explicitly adopts mental models as its primary unit of intervention, positioning effectiveness as an emergent property of meaning architecture rather than individual traits or skills.

 

4. The Effectiveness Coaching Methodology (ECM) and the 3S–FORM Architecture

The Effectiveness Coaching Methodology, developed by Dr. Lee Suk-Jae, integrates insights from cognitive science, adult development, and organizational learning into a coherent coaching architecture. At its core is the 3S–FORM system, consisting of an internal meaning-processing engine (3S) and an external execution scaffold (FORM).

 

 

4.1 3S: The Inner Growth Engine

• Self-Awareness: The capacity to observe internal reactions and interpretations without immediate identification (Brown, 2012).
• Self-Talk: The articulation of implicit assumptions and narratives that guide behavior (Beck, 1976).
• Self-Reflection: Meta-cognitive examination of recurring patterns and their consequences (Mezirow, 1991).

Together, the 3S function as an inner growth engine that enables individuals to surface and examine the mental models that structure their experience.

 

4.2 FORM: From Insight to Execution

The FORM cycle operationalizes insight into action:

• Feedback: Recognition of recurring effectiveness breakdowns as informational signals (Ashford & DeRue, 2012).
• Opportunity: Identification of alternative interpretations and possibilities for action.
• Restructure: Deliberate redesign of mental models rather than surface-level reframing.
• Move Forward: Experimentation with new action patterns aligned with the restructured model.

This emphasis on Restructure distinguishes ECM from approaches that focus primarily on perspective shifting without addressing deeper meaning architecture.

 

5. From Intrapsychic Parts to Mental Model Architecture

While IFS identifies which part is activated, ECM focuses on which mental model enables that activation to persist across contexts. In this sense, ECM does not replace IFS but extends its logic from intrapsychic awareness to architectural redesign.

IFS offers a powerful explanatory lens for emotional dynamics; ECM provides a design framework for effectiveness. This distinction allows coaching to move beyond insight toward reliable execution in leadership and organizational settings.

 

6. Case Vignette: Shared Mental Model Restructuring in a Leadership Team

A leadership team of six mid-level managers reported recurring silence and defensiveness during meetings, particularly in response to senior leaders’ questions. Initial observations revealed no lack of competence or commitment. Instead, the pattern suggested a shared interpretive structure.

Through facilitated dialogue, the team articulated an implicit shared mental model:
“Questions signal evaluation and potential blame.”

Research on shared mental models indicates that such collectively held assumptions strongly influence coordination and performance (Cannon-Bowers et al., 1993; Mathieu et al., 2000). Using the FORM process, the team deliberately restructured this assumption into a new shared model:
“Questions are tools for collective sensemaking and design.”

Following this restructuring, participation increased, response latency decreased, and decision cycles shortened—without additional skills training. The intervention targeted meaning architecture rather than behavior, resulting in sustainable change.

 

7. Discussion: Implications for Coaching and OD

This case highlights the limitations of behavior-centric team coaching approaches that overlook shared meaning systems. While psychological safety remains important (Edmondson, 1999), ECM suggests that effectiveness breakdowns often stem from misaligned shared mental models rather than emotional deficits.

By shifting the unit of intervention from individual behavior to collective meaning architecture, ECM aligns coaching practice with contemporary theories of organizational learning and sensemaking (Weick, 1995).

 

8. Conclusion

Internal Family Systems has profoundly shaped contemporary understanding of intrapsychic dynamics. The Effectiveness Coaching Methodology honors this contribution while extending its logic into the domain of effectiveness and execution. Through the 3S–FORM architecture, ECM provides a structured pathway for restructuring mental models at individual and collective levels, enabling sustainable leadership and organizational effectiveness.

 

References

Anderson, F. G., Sweezy, M., & Schwartz, R. C. (2017). Internal family systems skills training manual. The Guilford Press.

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

Ashford, S. J., & DeRue, D. S. (2012). Developing as a leader: The power of mindful engagement. Organizational Dynamics, 41(2), 146–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2012.01.008

Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. International Universities Press.

Brown, B. (2012). Daring greatly. Gotham Books.

Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. A. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. Castellan (Ed.), Individual and group decision making (pp. 221–246). Lawrence Erlbaum.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Harvard University Press.

Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. L. (2009). Immunity to change. Harvard Business Press.

Mathieu, J. E., Heffner, T. S., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2000). The influence of shared mental models on team process and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(2), 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.2.273

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

Schwartz, R. C. (1995). Internal family systems therapy. Guilford Press.

Schwartz, R. C. (2019). No bad parts: Healing trauma and restoring wholeness with the Internal Family Systems model. Sounds True.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. Doubleday.

Walsh, J. P. (1995). Managerial and organizational cognition: Notes from a trip down memory lane. Organization Science, 6(3), 280–321. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.6.3.280

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