There are many kinds of coaching in modern life. Just a few of these are:
Personal Coaching
Skill-based coaching (sports/music etc)
Career coaching
Life coaching
Performance coaching
Business coaching
Leadership coaching
Executive coaching
Although all of these kinds of coaching share the common feature of one individual offering support and guidance to another, at the detailed level they are quite different. For example, at a general level, the types of coaching on the left side of the table above focuses mainly on the individual’s personal or career needs, while those on the right side are more concerned with the individual’s outputs in terms of the wider organisation, or in terms of their impact on workplace people or processes.
When engaging in coaching of any kind, (on both sides of the table) an extremely common approach is to use a model or framework that can be followed by both the coach and the recipient of the coaching. Perhaps the most popular of these is the “GROW” model, with the” G” standing for the Goal, the “R” for Reality, the “O” for Options and the “W” for Will.
The G.R.O.W. model was developed by Alexander and Whitmore in the late 1980’s to help managers to take the time to pause and reflect at each of the four stages. However, experience in using the approach suggests that there are 2 key problems with the model in practice. These are:
At an overall level, the “GROW” process can get “stymied” at the first 3 stages
Managers and coaches can tend to "skate over” each stage with not enough depth of discussion and without orientation towards the critical final action.
This can result in a number of problems including:
Goals or Objectives are chosen too personally with not enough thought being given to the wider context or without reference to the broader team or organisation of which the individual being coached is a part.
There is often a limited appreciation of the real performance gap between the present situation and the desired outcome (which means that current reality is not challenged sufficiently).
A lack of in-depth debate can occur in the options phase which means that too few forward paths are explored and the more traditional "tried and tested" options are often too quickly selected.
There is often not enough time spent making time and resources available to allow the individual being coached to move forward strongly (and to be supported when they do).
So, although the G.R.O.W model provides a reasonable structure to follow, if used properly, it can lack a results-orientation and a different or better approach, building on GROW’s strengths, would help to overcome this.
The “RESULTS Coaching™” Model
The “RESULTS Coaching™” model , used by the Warner Results Coaching organisation on an international basis for almost 10 years now, was evolved to enable managers and executives at all levels to be coached on a more structured basis, with the key advantage being that the model is deliberately designed to overcome the shortfalls that can occur when using “GROW”.
The "RESULTS Coaching™" model consists of seven sequential and iterative steps, which are as follows:
(R) Reflect -Take time to think, ask questions and re-frame
Because today’s senior managers are almost inevitably under a great deal of pressure to perform and to deal with a multitude of issues all at once, the chance to reflect and think about issues at a deeper level is often minimised and in some cases eliminated altogether. This first step is therefore used to encourage executives to reflect for longer and at a deeper level so as to commence a forward change journey with high levels of both personal and organisational awareness (and appreciating the wider context in which successful change always occurs).
For the coach, this step involves asking the person being coached as many “insightful” questions as necessary on what might have gone before, perceptions about the current reality, and identification of the highest priorities for future action. At this point, current thinking paradigms may be discarded and entirely new perspectives evolved.
(E) Evaluate -Carefully assess all the forward options
Just as most managers often have too little time to reflect, they also don’t always have the time to assess the many possible forward options which may exist (some of which are almost thrust upon them). This step therefore seeks to help an executive to both generate more options and to evaluate each one systematically.
For the coach, this step is one in which the general challenge is to encourage greater innovation in forward thinking and to “open-up” more diverse possible future options, without judging these, in terms of their validity, too quickly. For the most part, individuals can surprise themselves in realising that there are frequently many more options available than the one or two that they were thinking about, some of which may have much better pay-offs or returns.
(S) Strategise -Select the plan(s) with the best chance of succeeding
Executives are often forced into pursuing the most apparently suitable strategy, well before it has been properly considered or assessed. In this step, the coach works with the executive to develop a rigorous criteria against which several strategies can be assessed, allowing the plan(s) with the best chance of success to be selected, and pursued.
For the coach, this step is one in which considerable “confronting and challenging” of the executive can and should take place. This is not designed to undermine the individual’s confidence, but to help ensure that the thinking that underpins the most apparently attractive forward option is robust and possible to communicate compellingly to others.
(U)- Understand -Appreciate what resources will be needed to succeed
Every strategy needs a robust tactical implementation plan, which includes an estimate concerning the resources that are likely to be needed (such as people, assets, finances etc). In this step therefore, the coach works with an executive to better understand what is needed in practical implementation terms and in determining how to go about organising the resources needed to succeed.
For the coach, this step is one in which wider personal experience is often brought to bear in terms of helping the executive to appreciate which obstacles or resource limitations tend to be potentially the most problematic, in relation to particular goals and plans. These can be then be properly considered or assessed ahead of time and strategies developed to ensure that the resources that are needed are part of the overall forward plan.
(L) - Listen - Pay attention to the input of employees and colleagues
Once a strategy has been chosen and a resource plan is developed, human factors are often the most significant issue to have to manage well. In this step, the coach aims to help an executive to collect and listen carefully to internal feedback, and adjust plans according to the input.
For the coach, this step is one in which the executive is encouraged to actively engage in soliciting input from those internal colleagues and team members who will be actively engaged in making change happen successfully (or possibly hindering it, if they do not feel listened to or appropriately involved).
(T) Take Action - Implement plans and follow-though persistently
Strategies and plans can only truly pay-off if they are implemented or executed strongly. However, successful execution also needs a step-by-step approach, as well as the ability and persistence to deal with obstacles as these arise. The coach therefore needs to lend his or her full support and experience to an executive at this stage, as he or she may be dealing with a range of obstacles or difficulties which may threaten to slow or stop the change.
For the coach, this step is one in which the executive should be encouraged to “check-in” whenever his or her motivation or enthusiasm for the change diminishes, or some further idea generative input might help forward impetus.
(S) Systematise - Ensure that processes are permanently changed
Once a strategy or plan has been executed, and a change for the better has been brought about, things can often slip backwards if processes and systems are not permanently changed. At this point, the coach therefore aims to help an executive to identify the key processes that have undergone change and, where necessary, directly assists in ensuring that these are designed to be strong or as stable as possible.
For the coach, this step is one in which the executive should be encouraged to tie up all the project or change related “loose-ends” that can be left, if strong follow-though does not occur.
Summary
Unlike many other progressive coaching processes, the RESULTS coaching™ system is designed to be highly action-focused at every step. It also allows both the coach and the person being coached to build and implement a strong forward plan, which is change-oriented and has the maximum chance of really sticking. As a result, this approach has enjoyed widespread success at many leadership levels, from middle managers to CEOs, and in organisations of all sizes and types.
Dr. Jon Warner,
www.WarnerResultsCoaching.com
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Using Coaching Models
Coaching has come a long way in the last 10 years or so. In the early to mid 1990’s only a handful of executives in only the largest of companies had any kind of formal coaching from an external source and even in these cases perhaps only as a “special” project of limited duration, not as an on-going relationship. Even in more recent times, as coaching has penetrated organisations of all types and sizes much further, there has not always been much in the way of a common methodology or approach, with many coaches being happy to act as a general sounding board, and “float” in the direction that the senior executive pointed. However, this “loose” approach is rapidly changing and we are now seeing much more in the way of outline models being used to help guide the coaching process. This article therefore reviews some of the more common approaches now being used and attempts to assess how useful they seem to be.
Before we look at some of the coaching process models that are often used, it is important to establish just what a typical coaching assignment will seek to do over a given time period. Most typically, the flow will go something like this:
·The coach and person being coached will discuss the current situation and reflect on personal, as well as team or organisational goals for the future.
· Feedback on current behaviour and issues is gathered in formal and informal ways (often including 360-degree feedback)
·The coach collates feedback data and offers a collated summary to the person being coached (adding his or her own perspective (to a minor or major extent)
·The person being coaching sets personal and team/organisation goals for change or adjustment
·The coach and the person being coached work together towards clearly identified targets
·The process continues until the targets have been substantially achieved. At this point, the relationship may end or it may be decided that the cycle is worthy of repeating with new reflection and goal setting.
Although some assignments may have many more stages than this, these tend to be sub-steps of the above. As a result, these six stages are usefully descriptive for our purposes, although they are far from equivalent in time and effort (as we will see).
Input versus output based coaching models.
In broad terms, the above 6-stage process can be split into 2 halves. The first 3 stages involve what we can call “input-based coaching”, while the last 3 stages involve what we can call “output-based coaching”. Not only are these two types of approach very different, but the models that are often used in each of them are quite distinct.
Input-based coaching, as the name suggests, is primarily concerned with soliciting and processing feedback. Apart from the coach, this will come from the individual being coached, the boss, colleagues within the organisation, and, in some cases, from the people reporting to the person being coached. The simple goal here is to gather a considerable amount of data or opinion about the person who is receiving the coaching so as to ensure that there is as rich an understanding as possible about strengths, development needs, positive and negative behaviours and other factors which may affect job (or overall) performance.
Because input-based coaching is essentially focused on reflection, the tools and models for helping individuals here are either mechanisms which help to structure or make sense of the feedback (such as psychometric profiling tools or pre-designed 360°feedback assessments), or well-established models which help to give a coach and the person being coached “permission” to talk about what might otherwise be a difficult or sensitive issues. As often as not, these latter models are 4 quadrant grids, which intersect two scales to help cluster behaviour in general ways. This thereby allows for further discussion about behaviour in particular quadrants in the grid.
Output-based coaching, once again as the name suggests, is primarily concerned with what the individual being coached actually does or achieves in tangible terms. This may be to effect some level of personal change (which may be known only to the individual and his or her coach). However, if it is to be classified as truly output-based, the change should be visible to others and/or be observable in measurable ways in the workplace.
Because output-based coaching is concerned with what changes in the individual or in the workplace in visible terms, it is essentially an action-centred approach more concerned with the attainment of real solutions and what are deemed to be valuable results or solutions. The tools and models which are therefore most often applied here are process type approaches. This includes progressive process step type models and formula-based models (some of which we will be looking at shortly).
The reason for splitting the coaching intervention process into these two categories of input and output-based is not just to create a convenient cluster heading for all that might be done in each, but to make the point that modern coaching tends to be extremely biased towards the former. In other words, the amount of effort and time invested in input-based coaching is often 2-3 times greater than outcome-based coaching and we are therefore wise to question whether or not this is appropriate.
Input-based coaching models
Although we can readily invite feedback from a number of sources by a common set of questions that we invent each time we are looking to offer coaching, this is likely to yield less useful results than using a variety of well-researched tools or methods which have usually been honed over many years. Such tools tend to fall into 3 categories. These are:
Self awareness based tools. This includes psychometric instruments such as Type or Temperament profiles (such as Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®, the PTI or the Kersey’s Temperament Sorter). Other popular tools in this category are the Human Element FIRO® assessment, Cattell’s 16PF and Neuro-Linguistic Programming or NLP.
3rd-party feedback tools. This includes frameworks which seek to assess individual skills and competencies . Popular tools in this category include are the Leadership and Management Effectiveness profiles, Harrison Innerview assessment, Strength-finder assessment and Schein’s Career Anchors profile.
“New Insight” tools. This typically includes behavioural grid type frameworks which aim to allow individuals to look for both strengths and development t needs according to the particular model. Examples of popular tools in this category include Johari’s window, Berne’s “OK Corral” model, and Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership® Grid.
An effective coach will typically use one tool from each of the above categories (often based on his or her personal preferences, prior training or general familiarity with the approach). The implication therefore is that a given individual undergoing coaching may be exposed to at least 3 significant feedback processes, and sometimes these may involve three to four meetings each-making the input data very deep but potentially quite time consuming.
“Bridge” Models
Of course, it is by no means inevitable that we use tools such as the above when coaching an individual, with many coaches preferring to use more progressive models at an early stage, so as to move more quickly from input to output-based coaching (and not to become “mired” in the use of any one feedback type tool).
Particular coaches may invent their own coaching process model or use methodologies developed by management consultants or academics who are experienced in the coaching sphere. The “Action-learning” model, expressed as L=P+Q (or Learning=Programmed Knowledge plus Insightful Questions) proposed by Professor Revans is one such model often used. Others are the “GAPS” model, developed by Hicks and Peterson (Goals, Abilities, Perceptions and Standards) and the “GROW” model, developed by Alexander and Whitmore (standing for Goal, Reality, Obstacles and Will).
In fact, the GROW model has also been adapted by some coaches, who often augment the model. One example is the “GROWTH” model developed by O’Bree and Campbell (which adds the categories of Tactics and Habits).
What is common to all the models mentioned here is that they attempt to create a progression or “bridge” for the individual being coached. If successful, this takes them from the reflective phase of the coaching intervention to the point at which tangible change at least starts to happen. Unfortunately, while the intention may be laudable, the reality is often that individuals often “stay on the bridge” and do not get to the other side. This is frequently because all of these models still put significant stress on the personal input side of the equation and therefore may cause a person being coached to become overly consumed by the feedback they are getting (and either want to spend time dealing with it or squeezing up the time they have for action). In some cases (the “GROW” model being a good example) even the steps proposed are mainly input side oriented. The GROW model suggests mainly personal or inner challenges at the “G”, “R” and “O” stages and even with “will” it is essentially a thought process about how to become motivated to act. It therefore seems that we need to go further, if we really want substantive change to occur.
Output-based coaching models
While there are a plethora of input-based coaching models, there are relatively few output-based coaching models. This is partly because the input-based approaches have been popular in the last decade or so. However, it is also because such output-based models are still evolving in the executive coaching field.
There are 4 models that attempt to describe a more action-oriented coaching process. These are “aMAP2™”, “CIGAR”, “OUTCOMES™” and the “RESULTS™” model. Let’s look briefly at each of these.
The “aMAP2™” model, developed by Devers and Kulesa, attempts to be a transformational process to use when coaching an individual. It stands for Action by Motivating, Awareness and Possibilities using Powerful questions (and therefore has similarities to Revans Action-learning methodology). The “aMAP2™” approach is clearly implementation focused in asking both the coach and the person being coached to consider change issues. However, in its application individuals may still be led towards greater reflection than doing something differently (unless led strongly by the individual coach).
The “CIGAR” approach was evolved by several consultants using the GROW model. This acronym stands for C-Current situation, I -for Ideal outcome, G-for the gap between C and I, A –for action plan and finally R –for Review. On the surface, the CIGAR model is well-balanced in its steps. However, in practice, too much stress is often placed on current problems and ideal solutions, rather than practical options which can help the individual to move positively forward.
The “OUTCOMES™” model, developed by management consultant and executive coach Allan Mackintosh, has similarities to the “GROW” model in some of its aspects. However, it particularly attempts to stretch into the “action sphere” by adding 3 steps at the end, all of which are focused on creating much more general impetus for change.
The steps of the OUTCOMES™ model are: O = Objectives. U = Understand the Reasons. T = Take Stock of the Present Situation. C = Clarify the Gap. O = Options Generation. M = Motivate to Action. E = Enthusiasm & Encouragement. S= Support.
Like the “GROW” coaching model, the “OUTCOMES™” process still provides no real stages for implementation, actual adjustment or review of post-change success. This perhaps is where the “RESULTS™” model, developed by Warner Results Coaching, is the only model to have multiple steps in this area.
The “RESULTS™” model incorporates similar stages to both “GROW”, “CIGAR” and “OUTCOMES™” in the first 3 steps of the process. However, the last 4 steps are very much change-implementation focused, with the “T” and “S” stages in particular being seen to be the most critical. The full “RESULTS™” model is as follows:
R=Reflect -Take time to think, ask questions and re-frame, E=Evaluate -Carefully assess all the forward options , S=Strategise -Select the plan(s) with the best chance of succeeding, U=Understand -Appreciate what resources will be needed to succeed, L=Listen -Pay attention to the input of employees and colleagues, T=Take Action -Implement plans and follow-though persistently, S= Systematise -Ensure that processes are permanently changed.
A question of balance
There is no doubt that both “input-based”, “bridge” and “output-based” coaching all play a valuable role in helping managers at all levels to gain helpful insights and to increase their overall contribution or performance. However, in this article we have been advocating that the balance of effort (in time and resources) has been too much skewed to the “input” side of things and in fact may be wise to establish a more balanced approach.
If we seek to simply illustrate some of the models that we have been talking about above, we can perhaps do this best by using a sort of funnel.
This funnel thinking suggests that an individual being coached is effectively “processed” from top to bottom, with input-based coaching models being used initially or at the beginning of the coaching journey and output-based models used at later stages in the particular intervention, or more towards the end. Bridge coaching processes can stretch themselves along the path on occasions but in the main tend to occur towards the beginning and in the middle of an intervention.
Input-based coaching dominates both coach and the recipient executive time and effort, leaving output-based interventions highly squeezed. This simply means that the early feedback processes need to be not only shortened somewhat but should be more future focused in terms of changed behaviour or processes that would be beneficial down the track.
Summary
In this article, it has been suggested that many of the currently used coaching models play a useful role in the modern executive coaching realm, bringing useful thinking structures to individuals and in helping to more readily develop well-thought through forward plans. However, there are many more input-based models than output based ones and this heavily consumes the energy of both a given coach and recipient of the coaching, leaving too little time and energy for later substantive change. It may therefore be time to re-think where most of the current executive coaching effort is invested. This may well mean creating much more time to support individual change action and to help an individual to consolidate the gains made, than allowing him or her to become overly focused or even consumed by feedback (as interesting as it may be) if it doesn’t take the individual positively forward.
Dr Jon Warner
jon@warnerresultscoaching.com
www.WarnerResultsCoaching.com
Before we look at some of the coaching process models that are often used, it is important to establish just what a typical coaching assignment will seek to do over a given time period. Most typically, the flow will go something like this:
·The coach and person being coached will discuss the current situation and reflect on personal, as well as team or organisational goals for the future.
· Feedback on current behaviour and issues is gathered in formal and informal ways (often including 360-degree feedback)
·The coach collates feedback data and offers a collated summary to the person being coached (adding his or her own perspective (to a minor or major extent)
·The person being coaching sets personal and team/organisation goals for change or adjustment
·The coach and the person being coached work together towards clearly identified targets
·The process continues until the targets have been substantially achieved. At this point, the relationship may end or it may be decided that the cycle is worthy of repeating with new reflection and goal setting.
Although some assignments may have many more stages than this, these tend to be sub-steps of the above. As a result, these six stages are usefully descriptive for our purposes, although they are far from equivalent in time and effort (as we will see).
Input versus output based coaching models.
In broad terms, the above 6-stage process can be split into 2 halves. The first 3 stages involve what we can call “input-based coaching”, while the last 3 stages involve what we can call “output-based coaching”. Not only are these two types of approach very different, but the models that are often used in each of them are quite distinct.
Input-based coaching, as the name suggests, is primarily concerned with soliciting and processing feedback. Apart from the coach, this will come from the individual being coached, the boss, colleagues within the organisation, and, in some cases, from the people reporting to the person being coached. The simple goal here is to gather a considerable amount of data or opinion about the person who is receiving the coaching so as to ensure that there is as rich an understanding as possible about strengths, development needs, positive and negative behaviours and other factors which may affect job (or overall) performance.
Because input-based coaching is essentially focused on reflection, the tools and models for helping individuals here are either mechanisms which help to structure or make sense of the feedback (such as psychometric profiling tools or pre-designed 360°feedback assessments), or well-established models which help to give a coach and the person being coached “permission” to talk about what might otherwise be a difficult or sensitive issues. As often as not, these latter models are 4 quadrant grids, which intersect two scales to help cluster behaviour in general ways. This thereby allows for further discussion about behaviour in particular quadrants in the grid.
Output-based coaching, once again as the name suggests, is primarily concerned with what the individual being coached actually does or achieves in tangible terms. This may be to effect some level of personal change (which may be known only to the individual and his or her coach). However, if it is to be classified as truly output-based, the change should be visible to others and/or be observable in measurable ways in the workplace.
Because output-based coaching is concerned with what changes in the individual or in the workplace in visible terms, it is essentially an action-centred approach more concerned with the attainment of real solutions and what are deemed to be valuable results or solutions. The tools and models which are therefore most often applied here are process type approaches. This includes progressive process step type models and formula-based models (some of which we will be looking at shortly).
The reason for splitting the coaching intervention process into these two categories of input and output-based is not just to create a convenient cluster heading for all that might be done in each, but to make the point that modern coaching tends to be extremely biased towards the former. In other words, the amount of effort and time invested in input-based coaching is often 2-3 times greater than outcome-based coaching and we are therefore wise to question whether or not this is appropriate.
Input-based coaching models
Although we can readily invite feedback from a number of sources by a common set of questions that we invent each time we are looking to offer coaching, this is likely to yield less useful results than using a variety of well-researched tools or methods which have usually been honed over many years. Such tools tend to fall into 3 categories. These are:
Self awareness based tools. This includes psychometric instruments such as Type or Temperament profiles (such as Myers-Briggs Type Indicator®, the PTI or the Kersey’s Temperament Sorter). Other popular tools in this category are the Human Element FIRO® assessment, Cattell’s 16PF and Neuro-Linguistic Programming or NLP.
3rd-party feedback tools. This includes frameworks which seek to assess individual skills and competencies . Popular tools in this category include are the Leadership and Management Effectiveness profiles, Harrison Innerview assessment, Strength-finder assessment and Schein’s Career Anchors profile.
“New Insight” tools. This typically includes behavioural grid type frameworks which aim to allow individuals to look for both strengths and development t needs according to the particular model. Examples of popular tools in this category include Johari’s window, Berne’s “OK Corral” model, and Hersey and Blanchard’s Situational Leadership® Grid.
An effective coach will typically use one tool from each of the above categories (often based on his or her personal preferences, prior training or general familiarity with the approach). The implication therefore is that a given individual undergoing coaching may be exposed to at least 3 significant feedback processes, and sometimes these may involve three to four meetings each-making the input data very deep but potentially quite time consuming.
“Bridge” Models
Of course, it is by no means inevitable that we use tools such as the above when coaching an individual, with many coaches preferring to use more progressive models at an early stage, so as to move more quickly from input to output-based coaching (and not to become “mired” in the use of any one feedback type tool).
Particular coaches may invent their own coaching process model or use methodologies developed by management consultants or academics who are experienced in the coaching sphere. The “Action-learning” model, expressed as L=P+Q (or Learning=Programmed Knowledge plus Insightful Questions) proposed by Professor Revans is one such model often used. Others are the “GAPS” model, developed by Hicks and Peterson (Goals, Abilities, Perceptions and Standards) and the “GROW” model, developed by Alexander and Whitmore (standing for Goal, Reality, Obstacles and Will).
In fact, the GROW model has also been adapted by some coaches, who often augment the model. One example is the “GROWTH” model developed by O’Bree and Campbell (which adds the categories of Tactics and Habits).
What is common to all the models mentioned here is that they attempt to create a progression or “bridge” for the individual being coached. If successful, this takes them from the reflective phase of the coaching intervention to the point at which tangible change at least starts to happen. Unfortunately, while the intention may be laudable, the reality is often that individuals often “stay on the bridge” and do not get to the other side. This is frequently because all of these models still put significant stress on the personal input side of the equation and therefore may cause a person being coached to become overly consumed by the feedback they are getting (and either want to spend time dealing with it or squeezing up the time they have for action). In some cases (the “GROW” model being a good example) even the steps proposed are mainly input side oriented. The GROW model suggests mainly personal or inner challenges at the “G”, “R” and “O” stages and even with “will” it is essentially a thought process about how to become motivated to act. It therefore seems that we need to go further, if we really want substantive change to occur.
Output-based coaching models
While there are a plethora of input-based coaching models, there are relatively few output-based coaching models. This is partly because the input-based approaches have been popular in the last decade or so. However, it is also because such output-based models are still evolving in the executive coaching field.
There are 4 models that attempt to describe a more action-oriented coaching process. These are “aMAP2™”, “CIGAR”, “OUTCOMES™” and the “RESULTS™” model. Let’s look briefly at each of these.
The “aMAP2™” model, developed by Devers and Kulesa, attempts to be a transformational process to use when coaching an individual. It stands for Action by Motivating, Awareness and Possibilities using Powerful questions (and therefore has similarities to Revans Action-learning methodology). The “aMAP2™” approach is clearly implementation focused in asking both the coach and the person being coached to consider change issues. However, in its application individuals may still be led towards greater reflection than doing something differently (unless led strongly by the individual coach).
The “CIGAR” approach was evolved by several consultants using the GROW model. This acronym stands for C-Current situation, I -for Ideal outcome, G-for the gap between C and I, A –for action plan and finally R –for Review. On the surface, the CIGAR model is well-balanced in its steps. However, in practice, too much stress is often placed on current problems and ideal solutions, rather than practical options which can help the individual to move positively forward.
The “OUTCOMES™” model, developed by management consultant and executive coach Allan Mackintosh, has similarities to the “GROW” model in some of its aspects. However, it particularly attempts to stretch into the “action sphere” by adding 3 steps at the end, all of which are focused on creating much more general impetus for change.
The steps of the OUTCOMES™ model are: O = Objectives. U = Understand the Reasons. T = Take Stock of the Present Situation. C = Clarify the Gap. O = Options Generation. M = Motivate to Action. E = Enthusiasm & Encouragement. S= Support.
Like the “GROW” coaching model, the “OUTCOMES™” process still provides no real stages for implementation, actual adjustment or review of post-change success. This perhaps is where the “RESULTS™” model, developed by Warner Results Coaching, is the only model to have multiple steps in this area.
The “RESULTS™” model incorporates similar stages to both “GROW”, “CIGAR” and “OUTCOMES™” in the first 3 steps of the process. However, the last 4 steps are very much change-implementation focused, with the “T” and “S” stages in particular being seen to be the most critical. The full “RESULTS™” model is as follows:
R=Reflect -Take time to think, ask questions and re-frame, E=Evaluate -Carefully assess all the forward options , S=Strategise -Select the plan(s) with the best chance of succeeding, U=Understand -Appreciate what resources will be needed to succeed, L=Listen -Pay attention to the input of employees and colleagues, T=Take Action -Implement plans and follow-though persistently, S= Systematise -Ensure that processes are permanently changed.
A question of balance
There is no doubt that both “input-based”, “bridge” and “output-based” coaching all play a valuable role in helping managers at all levels to gain helpful insights and to increase their overall contribution or performance. However, in this article we have been advocating that the balance of effort (in time and resources) has been too much skewed to the “input” side of things and in fact may be wise to establish a more balanced approach.
If we seek to simply illustrate some of the models that we have been talking about above, we can perhaps do this best by using a sort of funnel.
This funnel thinking suggests that an individual being coached is effectively “processed” from top to bottom, with input-based coaching models being used initially or at the beginning of the coaching journey and output-based models used at later stages in the particular intervention, or more towards the end. Bridge coaching processes can stretch themselves along the path on occasions but in the main tend to occur towards the beginning and in the middle of an intervention.
Input-based coaching dominates both coach and the recipient executive time and effort, leaving output-based interventions highly squeezed. This simply means that the early feedback processes need to be not only shortened somewhat but should be more future focused in terms of changed behaviour or processes that would be beneficial down the track.
Summary
In this article, it has been suggested that many of the currently used coaching models play a useful role in the modern executive coaching realm, bringing useful thinking structures to individuals and in helping to more readily develop well-thought through forward plans. However, there are many more input-based models than output based ones and this heavily consumes the energy of both a given coach and recipient of the coaching, leaving too little time and energy for later substantive change. It may therefore be time to re-think where most of the current executive coaching effort is invested. This may well mean creating much more time to support individual change action and to help an individual to consolidate the gains made, than allowing him or her to become overly focused or even consumed by feedback (as interesting as it may be) if it doesn’t take the individual positively forward.
Dr Jon Warner
jon@warnerresultscoaching.com
www.WarnerResultsCoaching.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
