Phases in The Coaching Process
- Understanding the problem situation
- listening to the story
- summarising sections as appropriate.
- clarifying the problem
- considering organisational factors
- Considering underlying problem themes
- suggesting connections/ themes
- highlighting mismatches
- pointing out irrational beliefs
- sharing wild guesses
- self-disclosing as appropriate
- Exploring selected theme(s)
- selecting one/two dimensions for
discussion.
- Creating an action menu
- obtaining action possibilities from
coachee.
- offering additional possibilities.
- Planning action - discussing plan of action
- carrying out cost-benefit of plan
- considering possible pitfalls of plan
- role playing/rehearsing/scripting
- Evaluating outcomes and processes at future coaching session - what went well
- what I have learned
- Carrying out a meta-evaluation.
- identifying assets of coaching sessions
- reviewing coaching contract
- identifying areas for improvement to
coaching session.
Accessible Dialogue - General Guidelines
Say what you think(versus hide what you think; believe in the absolute correctness of your view) / e.g., I want you to take some responsibility for helping me out of this mess . . .
Say why you think it
(versus believe in the absolute correctness of your view, no reasons given, overconfidence of the worth of reason) / e.g., because I thought that you had agreed to help me meet the tough deadline . . .
Check out understanding with other(s)
(versus don’t check, expect them to know what you think as you were clearly correct all the time) / e.g., do you remember the arrangement this way?
An Elaboration of Model II Rules
How to hold and communicate your views
- State your views in such a way that it encourages other to do the same
- Illustrate and test your inferences (attributions and evaluations).
- Make the reasoning in your views explicit (say how you get from the data to your conclusions).
- Combine advocacy with inquiry (make your logic explicit and invite others to critique or inquire into it).
- Infer meanings as close to the data as possible and build one step at a time, testing as you go.
- When someone’s meaning is different from yours, do not engage in a disagreement at abstract levels. Instead, return to the data about what occurred. For instance, you might ask the following kinds of questions:
- Can you say what leads you to infer (or to think)...... ?
- What is it about (X) that leads you to think ...... ?
- What did (X) say or do that leads you to think .....?
- Regard assertions (your own and others) as hypotheses-to-be-tested and design ways to test competing views
- Inquire into others’ views: seek disconfirming data and views that differ from your own. Ask others to do the same.
1
EP3\C:\Ed\MSC\HANDBOOK\2005-06\SECTIONS\Critdia.doc