The Psychology of Mental Models in Coaching: A Systems-Based Framework for Change and Transformation
The Psychology of Mental Models in Coaching:
A Systems-Based Framework for Change and Transformation
Sukjae Lee, Ph.D.
Creator of the Effectiveness Coaching Methodology
January 5, 2026
Abstract
Despite increasing sophistication in coaching methodologies, sustained behavioral change remains difficult to achieve. This article argues that the core limitation lies not in insufficient motivation or skill, but in unexamined mental models that govern meaning-making, emotional regulation, and identity. Drawing on theories of transformative learning, adult development, and systems thinking, mental models are conceptualized as dynamic psychological systems rather than static beliefs.
To address this challenge, the article introduces the 3S–FORM framework, integrating Self-awareness, Self-talk, and Self-reflection (3S) as an internal meaning-regulation system with FORM as an external action structure. Through conceptual analysis, the paper demonstrates how coaching can move beyond surface-level change toward mental model transformation. The framework positions coaching as a stable container that enables clients to become authors of their own answers, offering theoretical contributions to coaching psychology and applied psychology.
Keywords
Mental Models; Coaching Psychology; Systems Thinking; Meaning-Making; Transformative Learning; Self-awareness; Self-talk; Self-reflection
1. Introduction
Coaching has increasingly emphasized goal attainment, behavioral accountability, and measurable outcomes. While these approaches often produce short-term improvements, many clients report recurring patterns of difficulty despite insight and effort. This paradox raises a central question: Why does change fail to sustain even when individuals know what to do?
This article proposes that the answer lies in mental models—deeply held structures of meaning that shape perception, interpretation, and action. Unlike skills or habits, mental models operate largely outside awareness and function as self-stabilizing systems (Senge, 1990). As a result, attempts at change that bypass mental models often trigger resistance or regression.
The purpose of this article is threefold:
- to clarify the psychology of mental models in coaching contexts,
- to distinguish between change and transformation, and
- to present the 3S–FORM framework as a systems-based approach to sustainable development.
2. Mental Models as Meaning-Making Systems
Mental models have been variously described as assumptions, beliefs, or cognitive maps. However, such definitions underestimate their psychological function. From a meaning-making perspective, mental models organize experience by linking perception, emotion, language, and identity into a coherent system (Weick, 1995).
Mezirow (1991) conceptualized these structures as frames of reference—systems of assumptions through which experience is interpreted. Importantly, individuals do not merely hold mental models; they live within them. This explains why mental models feel self-evident and resistant to questioning.
In coaching contexts, mental models determine:
- what clients notice or ignore,
- how they explain success and failure,
- which actions feel possible or impossible.
Thus, mental models function less like opinions and more like operating systems.
3. When Mental Models Become Visible
Mental models typically remain invisible until they fail. According to Mezirow (1991), transformation is often triggered by a disorienting dilemma—an experience that cannot be assimilated into existing meaning structures.
Common triggers include:
- repeated failure despite competence,
- chronic interpersonal conflict,
- leadership transitions,
- identity-threatening feedback.
These moments generate cognitive–emotional tension rather than immediate insight. Individuals sense that existing explanations no longer suffice, yet lack an alternative framework. Coaching becomes particularly valuable at this juncture, as it provides a structured space to examine meaning rather than merely solve problems.
4. Why Mental Models Resist Change
Resistance to mental model change is frequently misinterpreted as defensiveness or lack of motivation. In reality, resistance reflects the protective function of mental models.
Argyris and Schön (1978) demonstrated that individuals routinely engage in defensive reasoning to preserve governing variables underlying action. Changing behavior without questioning these variables produces only single-loop learning, leaving the mental model intact (Argyris, 1991).
From a developmental perspective, Kegan (1982) explains this resistance through subject–object theory. When individuals are subject to a mental model, they cannot examine it without threatening their sense of self. Transformation requires making the mental model object—a process that is psychologically demanding and emotionally risky.
5. Systemic Barriers to Transformation
Mental model resistance is not caused by a single factor but by an interconnected system of constraints. These include:
- Perceptual fusion: inability to distinguish facts from interpretations
- Linguistic rigidity: habitual self-talk that reinforces certainty (Weick, 1995)
- Emotional regulation patterns: anxiety or shame that discourages inquiry
- Identity protection: fear of losing coherence or competence (Kegan, 1982)
Systems thinking highlights that intervening at only one level often leads to compensation elsewhere (Senge, 1990). Sustainable transformation therefore requires a framework capable of engaging multiple levels simultaneously.
6. The 3S Architecture: Internal Meaning Regulation
The 3S component of the framework addresses this need by focusing on internal meaning regulation (Lee, 2014).
6.1 Self-awareness
Self-awareness creates distance between experience and interpretation. Rather than correcting behavior, it renders internal processes observable, enabling the shift from subject to object (Kegan, 1982).
6.2 Self-talk
Self-talk is the linguistic mechanism through which meaning is stabilized. As Weick (1995) argues, reality is enacted through language. Without altering self-talk, insight remains cognitively interesting but behaviorally inert.
6.3 Self-reflection
Self-reflection extends beyond evaluating outcomes to questioning premises. This aligns with Mezirow’s (1991) concept of premise reflection and marks the threshold between change and transformation.
7. FORM: The External Action System
FORM provides a structured pathway for translating meaning into action (Lee, 2014). Crucially, it does not prescribe content, allowing clients to remain authors of their own solutions (Grant, 2017).
Without 3S, FORM risks becoming a compliance mechanism. Embedded within 3S, however, action becomes an expression of reorganized meaning rather than forced behavior.
8. Integrating 3S and FORM as a System
The integration of 3S and FORM resolves a central tension in coaching practice: reflection versus action. From a systems perspective, 3S alters the parameters governing action selection, while FORM tests and stabilizes new meanings through lived experience (Senge, 1990).
This dual-system architecture enables both movement and stability—conditions necessary for transformation.
9. The Role of the Coach
Within this framework, the coach’s role shifts from expert problem-solver to designer of a stable psychological container. The coach supports inquiry without imposing meaning, enabling clients to develop self-authorship (Kegan & Lahey, 2009; Grant, 2017).
10. Discussion
This article positions mental model transformation as a systems-level phenomenon rather than a cognitive event. By integrating adult development theory, sensemaking, and systems thinking, the 3S–FORM framework contributes a coherent structure for understanding why change so often fails—and how it can succeed.
11. Limitations
This article is conceptual in nature and does not present empirical validation. Cultural and contextual factors influencing mental model transformation were not fully explored, and practitioner competence may moderate outcomes.
12. Future Research
Future studies could empirically test the framework, examine micro-processes of self-talk change, and explore applications across developmental stages and cultural contexts.
13. Conclusion
Sustainable change requires more than better strategies; it requires new ways of making meaning. By conceptualizing mental models as systems and providing a practical architecture for transformation, the 3S–FORM framework offers both theoretical and practical contributions to coaching psychology.
References
Argyris, C. (1991). Teaching smart people how to learn. Harvard Business Review.
Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning. Addison-Wesley.
Grant, A. M. (2017). The third ‘generation’ of coaching psychology. Coaching Psychology Review.
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self. Harvard University Press.
Kegan, R., & Lahey, L. (2009). Immunity to change. Harvard Business Press.
Lee, Sukjae (2014). Management Psychologist's Effectiveness Coaching. Seoul: Kim & Kim Books.
Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. Jossey-Bass.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. Doubleday.
Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Sage.