Introduction
The origins of professional coaching go back to the industrial revolution in the form of apprenticeship and mentorship initiatives. The earliest research on coaching intrigued a surge of interest for both companies and employees who came to value the process for its ability to influence behavior performance and productivity (Edmondson, Bohmer and Pisano 2001). The research however has focused on the learning aspects and therefore most documented assessment models focus on learning capacity and ability.
Argument
The Experimental and Learning Model describes the process as a here and now experience that is facilitated by the collection of data and observation centered on the experiences acquired (Hackman 2003). This is then followed by an analysis of the data which results into the feedback in the form of modified behavior conjured towards the data collected and analyzed. The model suggests that the couching is a series of events and processes that lead to an experience of a choice for new experiences (Ellis, Mendel, Nir and Davidi 2002). Therefore, for learning to occur the participants must repetitively go through this process simultaneously from one stage of life to the other and gradually during their lifetime. (Hackman 2002).
Some researchers consider the process to be analogous in the sense that the results of coaching are not immediate and cannot be quantified over a short period. They however form the long-term transformation of the individual’s character, preferences and reactions to other life experiences (Carter 2001).
The Deans Process Model on the other hand emphasizes a multiphase process that has seven main stages including planning, involvement, internalization, reflection, generalization, application and follow-up (Dean 1993). At the planning stage the learner accepts the necessity to learn and prepares to learn. This stage is followed by the involvement stage where the learner starts the learning process by participating, observing and showing interest. At the internalization phase, the learner engages in performing some learning activities and therefore learns by taking part in the creation of the knowledge (Flaherty 2010). At the reflection phase, the learner internalizes the knowledge created and digests it to create meaning from it. During this phase, the learner gets a justification or moral basis of the knowledge acquired and ensures that the knowledge is relevant. At the generalization phase, the learner makes connections between various bits of knowledge and develops a pattern through which the knowledge is to be interpreted.
The pattern here is used as a reference point for the future use. At the application stage, they translate the acquired knowledge into new experiences and to other learners making reference to the earlier stages and the knowledge acquired during these stages. At the follow-up stage, the learner assesses and plans the best ways to use the knowledge in recurring situations and during other new experiences.
According to Flaherty, the best way to create a compromise between the changes, adaptations and self-interpreting characteristics of human beings lives is through a learning model (Flaherty 2010, p76). He suggests that one of the first models that should be considered is the Five Elements Model, which focuses on five main elements. The first is the immediate concerns followed by commitments, then future possibilities, then personal and cultural history, and finally the mood of the learner. The second model suggests that for an individual to accomplish anything he/she must be, at least, competent in three main domains which are self-management, relationship with others and facts and events. His final model lists the competencies that must be met by the individuals to be satisfied and effective. These include intellect, emotion, will, context and soul. The learner must be satisfied at each of these levels to be fully content and effective.
The above models make an emphasis on the reflective and observational aspects of the learner which form a critical and essential element of good coaching. Reflection and observation account for the learners’ need to attach meaning to the experiences and thereafter transfer it to other areas of their lives. Coaching models have mostly focused on motivation of the learners to achieve their objectives and goals. They are therefore purposefully geared towards learners or students as opposed to the coach. There is however a clear and distinct difference between teaching and coaching.
From the above reflections, Flaherty’s Five Elements Model stands out as the one among a few theories that defines coaching from the coach’s perspective therefore making reference to a linear flow formed from creating relationships, openings for coaching, individual assessment, participation and engagement, as well as interactions between the coach and the student (Flaherty 2010, p77).
The model looks into the practical perspective and addresses the problem of a distinction between teaching and coaching (Peltier 2009). It also contrasts activity-based reflection against life content reflection. The immediate concerns are on the top of the observation process since each client has an order or a level of seriousness to which they attach particular activities and problems. They rank these problems based on their anticipated effects, no matter current or future. At the commitments stage the client establishes the relationships that are associated with resolution of the problem. The coach’s relationship with the client should therefore be defined by the parameters of competence and suitability.
The client should consider the coach to be competent enough to resolve their problem. Future possibilities of the client are driven by their expectation from the relationship with the coach and should therefore be defined in the relationship between the coach and the client. The role of the coach for the client should also include reminding the client what they intend to achieve and the objective of the coaching process. The couch should also take into consideration personal and cultural history of the client. Consideration of the students’ past experiences will influence their response to current events and will therefore help in the coaching process.
Finally, the mood of the client greatly affects the meaning and interpretation of the present circumstances. It greatly affects the nature of attachment to them and therefore influences the capacity and willingness to learn. The semi- permanent emotional tone that a person associates to a circumstance can either be superior or inferior. If the mood is superior the client will be skeptical, cynical and resigned. These aspects will influence their judgment and behavior towards the specific circumstances heavily. However, if the client has inferior moods they will express this through frustration, resentment or guilt. Their level of self esteem and attitude will be expressed through action or inaction due to lack of interest.
Conclusion
This is a suitable model for implementation and use by coaches since it acts as a manual on the manner in which they are supposed to conduct themselves to achieve a certain result. It also defines the parameters of the relationship between the coach and the student and explains what needs to be done to make the relationship beneficial.
The conflict between activity based reflection and life content reflection is often expressed in disagreement of methods between a coach and the learner. Flaherty’s model solves this problem by defining the parameters of the relationships and the requirements that must be met for a purpose driven process. What I am implying is that among the many experimental facets proposed by various coaching models, this model stands out as a practical solution to a smooth and learning relationship between the client and the coach. The more successful the relationship is, the less are the leadership problems.
References
Carter, A. (2001). Executive coaching: Inspiring performance at work. Brighton: Institute of Employment Studies.
Dean, G. (1993). Developing experimental learning activities for adult learners. American association for adult and continuing education national conference. Dallas TX
Edmondson, A. E., Bohmer, R. M., and Pisano, G. P. (2001). Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 685–716.
Ellis, S., Mendel, R., Nir, M., and Davidi, I. (2002). After-event reviews: Drawing lessons from successful vs. failed experience.Recanati Graduate School of Business Administration: Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv.
Flaherty, J. (2010). Coaching: Evoking Excellence in Others. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Science.
Hackman, J. R. (2003). Learning more from crossing levels: Evidence from airplanes, orchestras, and hospitals. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24: 1–18.
Hackman, J. R. (2002). Leading teams: Creating conditions for great performances. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Peltier, B. (2009). The Psychology of Executive Coaching: Theory And Application. New York: Taylor and Francis.