IX Coach

Coaching approaches

Positive disintegration coaching

Positive disintegration coaching treats intense feeling, sensitivity and inner conflict as possible signs of development rather than as problems to remove. It draws on Kazimierz Dąbrowski's theory of positive disintegration, which he published in 1964 (Krauss, 1965). No outcome study of coaching built on the theory turned up in the sources checked for this page. Peer-reviewed work on the theory's overexcitability constructs studies them in gifted samples, and does not test whether positive disintegration produces development.

What it is

The approach asks what your intensity is pointing toward. Strong feeling, sensitivity and questioning of your own values are treated as material that may point to growth, not only as symptoms to be reduced. The coach listens for what the upheaval seems to be asking of you, and for the values it points toward.

The name refers to the theory's idea that an existing way of being can break down and be replaced by a more integrated one. Mendaglio and Tillier (2006) present overexcitability research findings for the theory. Coaching built on it has no published outcome study that the sources checked for this page found, so its claims about development remain untested.

Where it comes from

Kazimierz Dąbrowski's Positive Disintegration was published in 1964 and reviewed in the British Journal of Psychiatry the following year (Krauss, 1965).

The theory's overexcitabilities were taken up in research on gifted students from the mid-2000s (Bouchard, 2004; Tieso, 2007).

The principles underneath

Disintegration can be part of development

A period of inner upheaval is read as possibly part of growth, and not only as breakdown.

Intensity is information

Strong feeling and sensitivity are treated as signals about what matters to you, and are worked with rather than muted.

Direction is yours to find

The coach follows the direction the person sees as their own, and does not place them on a developmental level.

The gap between values and action is material

A widening gap between what you believe and what you do is treated as a place to work, not a failure to hide.

How a session runs

  1. Describe the intensity you are living with: what you feel strongly about, and how strongly.
  2. Notice the moments when you feel out of step with yourself, or with what is expected of you.
  3. Name, in your own words, what those moments seem to be asking of you, without assigning a level or a label.
  4. Look at one value the discomfort points toward, and what acting on it would involve.
  5. Choose one small change that follows from that value, and agree how you will notice whether it fits.

When it tends to fit

  • You feel things strongly and keep being told you are too sensitive, and you want to understand what the intensity points to.
  • You are questioning your values, and the answers you used before no longer fit.
  • You notice a widening gap between what you believe and what you do, and you want to work through it rather than settle it quickly.

What the research shows

Evidence: Practitioner tradition — little or no outcome research

No outcome study of coaching or therapy built on positive disintegration turned up in the sources checked for this page. Peer-reviewed work on the theory's overexcitability constructs is about measurement and patterns. Tieso (2007) examined the overexcitability construct and individual and family-level factors that may explain patterns of overexcitabilities, in a convenience sample of 143 identified gifted students and 161 of their parents. Bouchard (2004) describes an instrument for measuring Dabrowskian overexcitabilities in gifted elementary students. Mendaglio and Tillier (2006) present overexcitability research findings in giftedness. Krauss (1965) is a review of the 1964 book.

Where the evidence is thin: These studies test whether overexcitabilities can be measured and how they vary. They do not test whether positive disintegration produces development, and none tests a coaching approach. The theory's developmental levels are not tested by the sources cited here.

Sources

  1. Krauss, S. (1965). Positive Disintegration. By Kazimierz Dabrowski. London: J. & A. Churchill Ltd. 1964. Pp. xxviii + 132. Price $5.50. British Journal of Psychiatry, 111(479), 1021.
  2. Mendaglio, S., & Tillier, W. (2006). Dabrowski's Theory of Positive Disintegration and Giftedness: Overexcitability Research Findings. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(1), 68–87.
  3. Tieso, C. (2007). Patterns of Overexcitabilities in Identified Gifted Students and Their Parents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(1), 11–22.
  4. Bouchard, L. (2004). An Instrument for the Measure of Dabrowskian Overexcitabilities to Identify Gifted Elementary Students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(4), 339–350.

Where it stops

Inner upheaval can be a sign of depression, anxiety or trauma, and the growth framing should not replace clinical care. If distress does not ease, or you have thoughts of harming yourself, contact a qualified clinician or a crisis line now.

The theory's developmental levels are not tested by the research cited here. Treat the framing as one way to make sense of an experience, not as an established account of your development.

Overexcitability constructs come from research on gifted students and are not clinical diagnoses. A coach should not use them to label you.

Practices for this approach

Practice this with IX Coach

Try this practice