115C H A P T E R F I V EExploring and understanding .docx

115
C H A P T E R F I V E
Exploring and understanding
coaching models
Listening and observation are key skills for the business
coach. Developing the skill of observation is partly to develop
the ability to be ‘inside’ the coaching conversation, and to be
‘observing’ the conversation. It is to take up a meta-position,
while never leaving the micro level of being present for the
client (Stout-Rostron, 2006c:152).
CHAPTER OUTLINE
• Models
• Coaching tools and techniques
• How many models to use?
– Purpose, Perspectives, Process model
• The coaching conversation and the coaching journey
– Nested-levels model

– The expert approach
– “You have all the answers” approach
– Learning level
– Ontological levels—being and becoming
– Learning
116 B U S I N E S S C O A C H I N G I N T E R N AT I O N
A L
• Learning conversations
– Three levels of intervention—behaviour, underlying drivers,
root causes
• Four-quadrant models (Hippocrates)
– Insights four-colour model
– Domains of Competence model (Habermas)
– Ken Wilber’s four-quadrant Integral Model
– Questions in the four quadrants
– GROW and CLEAR models
– EQ model

– Kolb’s Experiential Learning Model
– Using Kolb’s four modes of learning
– Hudson’s Renewal Cycle model
• Other circular models
– I-T-O (Input, Throughput, Output)
• The U-process
– Scharmer’s U-process
• In conclusion
• Coach’s library
Models
Today, coaches are trained in an eclectic range of coaching
mod-
els. This chapter explores a cross-section of models that
influence
the work of business and executive coaches worldwide. I
highlight
the work of Daniel Goleman, John Whitmore, David Lane, New
Ventures West, David Kolb, Frederick Hudson, Thomas
Cummings
and Christopher Worley, and Ken Wilber.
Coaching models help us to understand the coaching interven-

tion from a systems perspective, and to understand the need for
“structure” in the interaction between coach and client. Models
help
us to develop flexibility as coach practitioners. They offer
structure
and an outline for both the coaching conversation and the
overall
coaching journey—whether it is for 20 hours, six months, a year
or more. However, although models create a system within
which
coach and client work, it is imperative that models are not
experi-
enced as either prescriptive or rigid.
The coaching conversation is about the client, not the coach. If
the
model is too prescriptive, it means the coach has their own
agenda to
E X P L O R I N G A N D U N D E R S TA N D I N G C O A
C H I N G M O D E L S 117
fulfil, rather than attempting to understand the client’s issues.
In this

chapter, I discuss four-quadrant models, circular and U-process
models. I explore the flexibility you have to combine models
and to
construct your own if you so wish.
A model represents a system with an implied process. It is a
metaphor or analogy used to help visualize and describe the
jour-
ney. Models systemically visualize or represent a process that
can-
not be directly observed. In other words, a model represents
more
than what you are looking at. If you can develop a model that
encompasses the coaching conversation and the entire coaching
inter-
vention, you will begin to work with considerably greater ease
within
your practice. This is how we will look at models in this
chapter.
A coaching model is representative of what happens, or will
happen, in the coaching conversation (micro) and in the overall
coaching intervention or journey (macro). I recommend here
sim-

ple models that can represent both the micro and macro
coaching
interventions.
Coaching tools and techniques
What is a coaching tool and what is a coaching technique? A
tool is
an instrument used to produce certain results; the tool is what
you
engage with as a coach inside the coaching conversation. For
exam-
ple, a hammer and nails are tools used to build a house; the
tools
you work with in the coaching conversation are profiles, assess-
ments, questions, reframing statements, listening, question
frame-
works and models. A technique, on the other hand, is the
technical
skill, ability or competence you have developed to use that tool.
For
example listening is a tool, and active listening is a technique.
This
is where your experience, expertise and hours spent coaching
come
into effect. Often your tools and techniques fall into a specific
part of

your model’s process.
The model is the process you use to work with your client. It
embodies all of your tools and techniques, including the
question
frameworks I discussed in the previous chapter. Although you
might be dying to explain your model to your client, they might
not be particularly interested! They might be more interested in
the
tools and techniques that they will directly observe and
experience
with you. Often, if you are coaching other coaches, they will
want to
A L
be debriefed on which tools, techniques and models you have
used
when working with them.
So, a model is a simple representation of the journey which can
encompass the skills, experience and expertise coach and client
bring to the coaching conversation. Part of the model may

include
the actions the client takes as a result of your coaching
conversations
when they go back into the workplace, and their own inner work
throughout the entire coaching journey as they develop greater
self-
awareness and adaptability.
How many models to use?
There are varying degrees of thought when training coaches.
Some
schools train their coach practitioners to use only one coaching
model. Other coach training schools teach a variety of models
and
advocate choosing one of them, or learning how to flexibly
integrate
a few models to develop your own.
The key purpose of this chapter is to introduce you to a variety
of models (not all) for your own learning and development. If
you
prefer one particular model that is taught in the marketplace, it
is essential to go through the training to ensure you have a
depth

of understanding in its use. Eventually, you may want to choose
whether to work with one model, an integration of several
models
or to develop your own. That is not for us to prescribe. There
are
many valuable and useful models available to you.
Whatever you decide, I believe that knowledge is power, and
the more understanding of available models you have, the more
intelligent your choice will be. When I teach coach practitioners
in
models and question frameworks, I look at how to integrate
differ-
ent models to construct your own. However, my purpose in this
chapter is simply to explore a variety of coaching models and to
give examples of how to facilitate a coaching conversation with
each one.
Purpose, Perspectives, Process model
The key principle I want to convey is that it is essential to adopt
a structured approach to your coaching conversation. This does
not mean that you cannot let the conversation grow and be

explorative—I mean structure in a big-picture way. That is the
beauty
of any model: having the freedom to explore within each part of
the model. The Purpose, Perspectives, Process model (see
Figure 1)
was developed by David Lane of the Professional Development
Foundation (PDF) and the Work-Based Learning Unit at
London’s
Middlesex University (Lane and Corrie, 2006).
Purpose (where are we going and why?)
What is the purpose in working with the client? Where are you
going with this client? What does the client want to achieve?
Where
do they want to go in their overall journey with you as their
coach?
For example, one client working in the telecoms industry said in
our first session together, “I need your help because everybody
in the

organization distrusts me and I’m in a pretty senior position.
What
can I do about it? I’m highly respected by those subordinate to
me in
position and disliked and mistrusted by those superior or equal
to me
in position.” As coach, your questions will relate to client
purpose,
i.e. “Where are we going, and what’s the reason for going
there?” It is
usually better to ask a “what” question rather than a “why”
question.
For example, “Why are we going there?” sounds intrusive and
can
create a defensive posture on the part of the client. “What”
questions
help to create a bigger picture of the journey; “what” creates
perspec-
tive. This client’s purpose was to “build alliances and trust with
peers,
colleagues and superiors throughout the organization”.
Part of the client’s purpose will be aligned with the questions
they
bring to the coaching process. Their questions are often related

to
“why” they want to go where they want to go, and they are
testing
Figure 1. Purpose, Perspectives, Process.
Source: Lane and Corrie (2006).
A L
you to see if you can help them to arrive at their final
destination. Your
job is to understand what is motivating them, what is driving
them.
For example, I worked with a group of people whose underlying
purpose was to build a business partnership together in the field
of leadership development. They peppered me with questions as
to
how they could achieve what they had set out to achieve as their
overarching strategic purpose. My job was to understand their
vision
and the driving interests underlying their vision. With the
telecoms
client for example, his purpose was to develop better

relationships
with his peers and colleagues, and building alliances became his
overarching theme in the work we did together.
Perspectives (what will inform our journey?)
What perspectives inform the journey for both coach and client?
What informs our journey, i.e. what informs the client and what
informs the coach? Both coach and client come in with their
individ-
ual backgrounds, experience, expertise, culture, values,
motivations
and assumptions that drive behaviour.
Not so long ago, I had a call from a potential client within the
energy industry. He was a general manager and asked if we
could
just chat. We chatted about his perspective on his background,
expe-
rience, career and his current job. We discussed his perspective
in
terms of his position within the organization, his style of
leading
and managing his team of people, the impact and influence of
his age

on his career prospects, and finally he said, “I have got as far as
I can
get with what I know now—and I need to know more,
somehow”.
We then discussed my perspective, i.e. what informs the way
I work with clients, what informs my experience and expertise
and,
based on our mutual perspectives, he asked, “Would we have
some
kind of synchronicity or a match in order to work together?” He
wanted to understand what models, tools and techniques I used
as
he wanted to create his own leadership development toolbox for
his senior managers. He also wanted to understand how to
handle
mistakes: did I make them and what would my education,
training
and work experience bring to our conversation?
One of the things I am very careful of with clients is never to
“over-talk” my perspective; and it’s also important for clients to
understand that you are constantly learning from your mistakes.

The coaching intervention is about them, not you. Perspectives
are informed by both the client and the coach’s cultural and
struc-
tural interpretation of the world—defined by their family, edu-
cation, learning, qualifications, faith, spirituality, experiences,
expertise, personality traits, values, feelings, motivations,
assump-
tions and behaviour. In this first contracting conversation, we
worked through the model beginning with perspectives:
Perspectives—how we might bring our two worlds together;
Purpose—what he ultimately wanted from the coaching experi-
ence; and
Process—how we would work together to achieve his outcomes.
The process (how will we get there?)
Using this model helped me to begin to understand the above
cli-
ent’s needs, to develop rapport, and to identify not just his
overall
outcomes but a way to begin working together. At this stage of
the

model we contracted, set boundaries, agreed confidentiality
mat-
ters, outlining the fee paying process and the development of a
lead-
ership development plan. We also agreed on timing (how often
we
would see each other and the individual client’s line manager).
What
assessments would be useful for the individual client to
complete?
How would we debrief those profiles? We also discussed
potential
coaching assignments and timing for the overall contract
(including
termination and exit possibilities if either party was unhappy)
and
explored how to obtain line manager approval. Finally, we set
up a
separate meeting to agree the process with the line manager and
the
Group HR Director.
A model is a metaphor for the journey and embodies a
structured

process. This model can help you in three ways: to contract with
the
client, to structure the entire coaching journey, and to guide
your
coaching conversation. Out of the specific conversation about
proc-
ess emerged the client’s purpose, the way our perspectives fit
together
to help him to achieve his purpose, and the process within
which we
would work to achieve the outcomes desired.
This model can be used for the regular coaching conversations
you have with your client. The client arrives and brings into the
conversation a possible “menu” of topics to be discussed, or
even
A L
just one particular topic. One of my clients in the media came to
me
one day saying, “My purpose today is to understand why I am
sabo-
taging my best efforts to delegate to my senior managers”

(purpose).
As the coach, I wanted to understand all of the perspectives
under-
lying the client’s aim for this conversation (perspectives), as
well as
identifying the various tools or techniques that could be used in
the
process.
In this instance, I suggested that we use the Nancy Kline six-
stage
Thinking Environment® question framework to explore his goal
(process). After an hour of exploratory thinking, my client
identi-
fied a “further” goal for the session. The questions in this
process
led him to articulate assumptions never actually voiced before.
We
moved eventually from a disempowering assumption to a
liberat-
ing assumption that allowed him to identify action steps to
delegate
skilfully and artfully in a format that he would adhere to.
The coaching conversation and the coaching journey

This model can represent the process for just one coaching
conversa-
tion, but it can also represent the overall journey. For example,
the
client comes in with their purpose, “I would like to work with
you;
no one else will work with me as they find me too difficult”.
This
client’s purpose became to find a coach who would work with
him,
to help him to identify how he could not just develop the
interper-
sonal skills to work successfully with others—but to
demonstrate his
new learning through visible behaviour change at work. The
coach’s
and the client’s perspectives will be unique and different. In
working
with the client, you bring not just perspective, but your
observations
as to how this client seems to be working within the
organizational
system.
In terms of process, the coach may ask the client to do a range

of assessment profiles, or you may shadow the client at work to
experience how they facilitate meetings, and interact with
custom-
ers, subordinates, superiors and colleagues. This way you can
make
observations (your perspective), being careful not to interpret as
a
therapist would, and to ask questions that would enable the
client
to develop self-awareness and self-management skills and
compe-
tences that will ultimately lead them to interact more
successfully
with others in the workplace.
Nested-levels model
The next model was developed by New Ventures West (Weiss,
2004).
This model introduces the concept of horizontal and vertical
levels
in coaching models. It is a “nested-levels” model. Although

some-
what different from the U-shape model, which I discuss later in
this
chapter, it is based on a similar idea of depth. The nested model
works first at the horizontal level of “doing”, eventually moving
into deeper “learning” one level down; reflecting about self,
others
and experience at a third “ontological” level where new
knowledge
emerges about oneself and the world (Figure 2).
In her web article, Pam Weiss talks about the two different
camps
of coaches. In jest, I call them the New York versus the L.A.
camp.
The New York camp says, “I’m the expert, let me fix you”. The
L.A.
camp says, “You are perfect and whole and have all of your own
answers”. Joking aside, each of these camps falls short, even
though
coaches often fall into one or the other. The role of coaching is
actu-
ally about developing human beings. It is not really about
“exper-

tise” versus “you already have all your own answers”.
The expert approach
Clients are not broken and do not need fixing as the experts
might
think. Clients may be anxious, stressed, nervous, overworked
and
even narcissistic—but they don’t need fixing. They are mostly
healthy human beings going about their jobs and lives,
experienc-
ing their own human difficulties. Your job as coach is to help
the
clients to “learn” for themselves so that when you are no longer
walking alongside them, they have become “self-directed”
learners
(Harri-Augstein and Thomas, 1991) and do not need you
anymore.
Figure 2. Nested-levels model.
Source: Adapted from Weiss (2004).
A L

The second view about “expertise” also has limitations. The
role of
expertise is that, as coach, you are an expert; but coaching is
not
about the coach giving all the answers; that tends to be the role
of the
consultant, i.e. to find solutions for the client.
“You have all the answers” approach
The “you have all the answers” assumption is partially true; but
there are several limitations according to Weiss. The first one is
that
we all have blind spots, and it is your job as coach to help the
client
to identify their blind spots. Secondly, it’s perhaps a bit of
“mythical”
thinking that the client has all of the answers already; the flip
side
of that argument is that, if it does not work out, the client
assumes
blame and fault. In other words, “If I have all the answers, I
should
be able to do it myself without help”. If that is not the case,
they

could feel, “Oh dear, if I am not able to do it myself, then
perhaps
I’m a failure”.
Both of these approaches are “horizontal”; in other words they
skim the surface of the work you can do with the client. Both
help peo-
ple to maintain the lives they currently have. The expert “New
York”
approach helps the client to do it better, faster, more efficiently,
and
the “L.A.” approach may withhold the coach’s insights and
obser-
vations, which could help to build the client’s awareness of
their
blind spots. What is important, rather than “fixing” the client, is
the
skill of “observation” on the part or the coach. There is no
problem
in helping the client to do it better, faster or more efficiently—
that
is often what the organization hopes for in terms of performance
improvement. However, it is important for the client to gain the
learning they need to address blind spots and to build their own

internal capacity and competence.
Learning level
If you continue to help people to accomplish tasks, achieve
goals
and to keep on “doing”, they risk falling into the trap of being
“busy” and possibly overwhelmed. They may, however, not
neces-
sarily get the “learning” they need to develop self-awareness
and
self-management. I know all too well about this trap of being
exces-
sively busy. If we keep “doing” without reflection we
eventually
burn out. To keep individual executives performing better and
better, they need to work at one level lower—at the level of
learn-
ing. They need to learn how to “do the doing” better. As soon as
an
executive begins to work with a coach, they begin the
possibility of

working at one or two levels deeper.
As coach you will be asking questions to help clients reflect,
review and gain useable knowledge from their experience. In
this
model, the higher levels don’t include the lower ones, but the
lower
levels include the higher ones. So, we need to help clients
address
their purpose one level down, at the level of learning. At this
level
you may ask questions such as, “how are you doing; what are
you doing; what are you feeling; how are your peers/colleagues
experiencing you/this; what is working and what isn’t working;
what is useful learning for you here; what needs to change and
how?”
Ontological levels—being and becoming
The third and fourth levels of coaching intervention are that of
who
the client is and who the client wishes to become in terms of
thinking,
feeling and behaviour (I have added the level of “becoming”).
Your

questions move from “what do they need to do”, and “how do
they need to do it” (doing), to “how does their style of learning
impact on how they do what they do; what do they need to learn
in order to improve thinking/behaviour/feeling/performance/
leadership” (learning); to questions about “what do they need to
understand and acknowledge about themselves, who are they,
how
do they be who they are, and what needs to change (being and
becoming)?”
CASE STUDY: LEVELS OF LEARNING
My client, working in the field of IT technology security,
wanted
to lead and manage his team more effectively, and to build
trust not just with team members but also with colleagues,
superiors and clients (doing). In order to do so, he needed
to identify what the interpersonal skills and competences
were where he already had “unconscious competence”, and
which new skills and competences he needed to learn in order
A L
to build alliances and develop better relationships (learning).

Even more so, he needed to understand who he is, what his
essence is, what do people sense about him, how do others
perceive him, and how does he behave when perceiving others
(being), as well as who he wanted to become (becoming) in
terms of his thinking, feeling and behaviour.
We agreed to do a range of assessment profiles, including
a 360° feedback, for him to gain a sense of how others expe-
rienced him in the workplace. He was surprised to learn that
he was experienced negatively as someone who barked orders,
was impatient to the point of intolerance, and seemingly had
no empathy for real feelings and people’s individual lives. This
helped him begin to identify who he was perceived to be and
who he needed to become in terms of his behaviour if he was to
achieve his goals (doing).
One of the ways we began to identify how to go about changing
(learning) was from my observations of him in the workplace, at
social business occasions, and inside the coaching conversation.
Gradually, this executive client began to take a greater interest
in
others, beginning to articulate his assumptions about his team’s

capabilities and learning to understand how his assumptions
were sabotaging the process of learning for his direct reports.
Although the process took over a year, this executive became
clear about his own style of learning and those of his team. He
slowly began to engage differently with others at all levels in
the workplace. Although trust cannot be easily built, his behav-
iour enforced the perception that he was proactively trying to
change. This encouraged his direct reports, peers and superiors
to be confident that his “being different” was something he was
working on even if it was not perfectly embodied.
CASE STUDY: DOING
Another client, a senior leader in the financial sector, was an
authoritative, but gentle giant, whose size was somewhat alarm-
ing to his subordinates and direct reports. He embodied a sense
of self-assurance and exactitude, which kept people at a dis-
tance. On top of that, he lost his patience with fair regularity.
The
original purpose of our work together was to help him begin to

manage his “short fuse”; in fact, our goal in working together
was to help him develop “a longer fuse” that would impact on
how he behaved (doing). We first identified how his short fuse
impacted on his performance and on that of his team, and we
looked at quite a few specific examples to identify what trig-
gered his short fuse and loss of temper. Once we had identified
the triggers, we could begin to look at how to change them.
So, what assists people in getting things done? Above all, it
is about clarifying goals, creating action steps, taking respon-
sibility and being accountable. In order to perform more effec-
tively, we need to help clients shift down a gear to learn how to
work with competence (a set of skills) rather than just learning
a specific new skill.
Learning
Your job as the coach is to help the client be open to
possibilities
of learning something new, and to help them relate to them-
selves and others at a deeper level. With my financial client, at

the level of “learning”, we identified his need for a greater
sense
of self-confidence. It was important for him to feel that he
could
deal with ineffective behaviour and performance at work. His
effective handling of difficult situations would be visible to the
more senior authorities upon whose recognition he depended
if he was to move upwards in the organization. He needed to
know that he had the skills and competence to get people to
perform at their best. Executives in the corporate world usu-
ally know how to play the game of politics, but they often don’t
know how to win over the people who drive results for them.
This client began to develop a greater set of interpersonal
skills and competences. These helped him to build a bond with
his direct reports and their subordinates. They began to trust
that
he was bringing change to the division and gradually, due to his
hands-on style, they began to trust their new perceptions of him.
He grew in leadership competence, managing team forums and

regional road shows for the staff. As he developed leadership
competence in his direct reports, he also gradually built bridges
with staff. He was willing to understand the challenges faced by
employees in the field.
A L
CASE STUDY: ADDRESSING THE PERSON VERSUS THE
ISSUE
Another client, employed on the technological side within the
energy industry, was working about 60 hours a week, driving
two hours a day, and doing an MBA part-time. On weekends, he
had to find time to study and to be with his family. He and his
wife had a new baby. On Sundays, he refereed a football team
for
disadvantaged adolescent boys. How high were his stress lev-
els? We identified his need to learn how to create balance in his
life, and to find a way to bring exercise, diet and nutrition into
the equation—just thinking about it made him more stressed! He

also needed to learn to let go of control. Eventually he found an
entrepreneurial young man who was willing to drive him back
and forth to work during the week. This freed up two hours a
day
when travelling that he could devote to study, sleep or emails.
On the football field, he took to running with the boys. He
and his wife also bought an exercise bike, which everyone in
the
family began to use. They worked out an economic way to add
fresh vegetables and fruit to their diet. For the client, it was
about
learning how to “do the doing” better; at a deeper level becom-
ing the more balanced person he wanted to be. This shifted the
gears in the coaching relationship. It was a move from simply
addressing the issue to addressing the person.
To use this model, you could ask questions such as:
1. What is it that the client wants to do? What is their aim or
purpose in working with you?
2. What do they need to learn in order to make the change?
What in their thinking, feeling and behaviour needs to change
in order to do the doing better? How can they use their own

experience to learn what is needed?
3. How do, and how will, their thoughts, feelings and behaviour
impact on how they “be who they are” and “who is it that
they want to become”? In this way, we work at horizontal
and vertical levels. At the end of the day, the client’s new
attitudes, behaviours, motivations and assumptions begin
to impact positively on their own performance and their
relationships with others.
What is our aim with this model? Is it to shift any limiting
sense of who they are so that they can interact and engage with
the world in new ways? As the client begins to shift, it has an
impact on others with whom they interact in the workplace. It
also means addressing issues systemically, from a holistic per-
spective, whether it revolves around health, stress, anxiety, per-
formance or relationships with others. Our task as coaches is
to widen the circle, enlarge the perspective of the client, and
help them to learn from their own experience to reach their

potential.
Learning conversations
One of the core areas where coaches work with clients is that of
learning. If you are guiding, directing and giving your clients
all
the information they need, it will be difficult for them to ever
be
free of you. From your first conversation as a coach, you should
be trying to work yourself out of a job—in other words, to help
your clients learn to be without you. Harri-Augstein and
Thomas
(1991:27–29) define learning as follows: “From birth each
person
strives to understand; grows and develops; reaches for greater
awareness; constructs personal worlds; achieves at least some
needs and purposes; invests new patterns of thoughts and feel-
ings; acts to validate these; builds new personal worlds, habita-
tions into stable routines; survives; declines; lives through
personal
and social crises ...”

At the end of each coaching session with my clients, we
complete a
learning contract to fully integrate the learning with goals set
and
commitment to action:
1. Vision—Refine their vision: where is the client going?
2. Strategy—Outline the strategy: how is the client going to
achieve
their vision?
3. Outcomes—What are the specific outcomes that need to be
accomplished in the next few weeks in order to work towards
achieving the vision and putting the strategy into action?
4. Learning—Help the client summarize what was gained from
the
session in order to help underline self-reflection, continuing to
A L
help the client understand that they are responsible for their
own
thinking, their own doing, and their own being.
The learning contract is adapted from Learning Conversations,
which

are based on research into learning conversations and self-
organized
learning developed by S. Harri-Augstein and L. F. Thomas
(1991:24).
If learning “is the conversational construction, reconstruction
and
exchange of personally significant, relevant and viable
meanings with
awareness” (Harri-Augstein and Thomas, 1991:23), then
meaning and
experience inform our learning. Individuals learn something,
take
two steps forward, three back, and a few more forward.
Although
learning is an uncomfortable space until competence is
developed,
it is critical that learning is significant and relevant to the
journey. It
is helpful if the client embodies new learning personally and
physi-
ologically. It is about helping them to reconstruct their own
thinking
and feeling to gain perspective and become self-directed
learners.
The conversation with your client centres on what is meaning-
ful to them. If significance and relevance are to emerge from

your
coaching conversation with them, your conversation is going to
be
around what they need. It has nothing to do with what you need
or
think they need. What do they need to learn; what is significant
and
relevant to them? It doesn’t matter what is relevant to you; it
matters
what is relevant to them. So, it is important to be aware of your
own
assumptions in the coaching conversation.
Three levels of intervention—behaviour, underlying drivers,
root causes
This concept is introduced in the CCL Handbook of Coaching
by Ting
and Scisco (2006:19–21). The coaching framework of nested
levels
with which we worked above identified doing, learning and
being.
This framework can be adapted in another way for the coaching
conversation. Instead of looking at doing, learning and being/
becoming, we can look at behaviour, underlying drivers and
root
causes. It is important to be careful here due to the mistaken
impres-
sion that coaching is therapy. Coaching is not therapy, although

it
can be therapeutic. Often when things go wrong it is due to poor
practice on the part of the coach, perhaps from not setting
proper
boundaries (Ting and Scisco, 2006:19). The coaching waters
deepen
gradually, moving from the behavioural to the underlying
drivers
and root causes (Figure 3).
Behaviour
If we work at the level of behaviour, we look at observable
actions:
what the client says and does, what they don’t say and do and
their
verbal and non-verbal language. Typically, the questions to ask
are
“what’s working, what’s not working, and what could you do or
say
differently?”

Sometimes behaviour is connected to difficult life experiences.
Or, perhaps there is a family history of psychological disorders,
such
as addiction or chemical abuse. We need to differentiate
between
these behaviours and those associated with intrinsic drivers.
This
will be apparent through the ease and degree of consciousness
with
which these behaviours can be discussed.
Underlying drivers
If we work at the level of underlying drivers, we are looking at
the
client’s personal style, orientation (introvert or extravert),
culture,
worldview, assumptions, values, beliefs, core needs and life
experi-
ences. Remember the two-stage exercise we did in Chapter 2?
The
question was “What is important to you about your professional
and personal life?” You may spend the entire coaching journey
help-
ing clients to be aware of their underlying drivers and

assumptions
which impact on behaviour. It is at this level where it is useful
to
look at any assessment profiles your client has completed,
which
may identify conscious and unconscious thinking, feeling and
behaviour.
Figure 3. Levels of coaching intervention.
Source: Adapted from Ting and Scisco (2006:20).
A L
Root causes
If we look at root causes, we begin to work with the client’s life
experiences, most often their experiences in the workplace.
However,
they may bring into the conversation traumas they have
experienced.
There may even be the presence of a psychological disorder,
and it is
therefore critical for a coach to know when to refer a client to a
thera-

pist. Ting and Scisco (2006:23) suggest a few guidelines: (a)
when
the client needs to delve into past life experiences, and (b) when
the
client needs to relive and heal past wounds. It is at the level of
root
causes that coach and client may start to identify repetitive
patterns
of behaviour that need to change for the client to be successful.
For
example, a history of losing one’s temper, taking things
personally,
or creating conflict in the workplace.
A great way to start any coaching intervention is to ask the cli-
ent to tell their life story. The coach begins to understand some
of
the client’s current issues and presenting challenges, and begins
to observe the client’s patterns of thinking, feeling and
behaviour.
Because we work with Kolb’s theory of “understanding
experience
in order to transform it into useable knowledge”, this model
helps

us to determine the context in which the person is operating,
where
the individual and systemic problems may be occurring, and
how
the organizational values and culture impact on individuals and
teams. It is at this level that the coach’s ability to observe,
challenge
and ask appropriate questions can be most transformational.
Four-quadrant models (Hippocrates)
It is thought that the first quadrant model was Hippocrates’
Model
of the Four Humours. Although today medical science has
moved
on from the diagnostic aspect of Hippocrates’ theory, his
behavioural
observations remain so relevant that many modern personality
stud-
ies are based on Hippocrates’ theory of the four humours:
sanguines,
cholerics, melancholics and phlegmatics (Stout-Rostron,
2006c:A40–
A41). The model equates the liquids in the body with the four
seasons

and four elements: black bile, earth and autumn represent
melan-
cholics; phlegm, water and winter represent phlegmatics; blood,
air
and spring represent sanguines; yellow bile, fire and summer
repre-
sent cholerics. Before exploring other four-quadrant models, it
is use-
ful to understand the model of the four humours (Figure 4).
In terms of temperament:
Cholerics: appear to be tough-minded natural leaders
(choleric refers to the bile, which Hippocrates thought
controlled
anger). Cholerics are known to have a short fuse and are
referred
to as A-types.
Sanguines: are outgoing, optimistic, high energy and fun-
loving (sanguine means blood and is related to optimism and
high energy).

Phlegmatics: observe from the sidelines and tend to
comply with other ’s demands (the term originates from bodily
phlegm, which was thought to make a person steady, peaceful
and passive). This profile is seen as the cool dude, very laid
back.
Melancholics: like orderly lives and are prone to mood changes
(melancholy represents black bile and melancholics therefore
have a tendency to depression). Melancholics are considered to
have depth of intelligence; this profile is sometimes noted as
that
of a typical artist.
Insights four-colour model
The Insights model is based on the four colour quadrants of the
Insights profile (blue, red, yellow and green). The four colours
are
used to represent “energies” that interact with the personality,
and
Figure 4. Hippocrates’ four humours.
Source: Stout-Rostron (2006c:A40–A41).

A L
the subsequent archetypes (observer, reformer, director,
motivator,
inspirer, helper, supporter, coordinator) are an aid to
understanding
oneself (see Figure 5). The Insights profile is the result of
extensive
psychological research, particularly Jung’s work on the
personality.
In 1921, Carl G. Jung published Psychological Types, and the
Insights
Discovery profile (with some similarities to MBTI®) is based
on this
aspect of Jung’s work (Insights, 2008).
The colour energies on a good and a “not so good” day are:
UR Fiery red: Positive, affirmative, bold, assertive (Upper
Right quadrant): (bossy, aggressive on a bad day).
LR Sunshine yellow: Cheerful, uplifting, spirited, buoyant
(Lower Right quadrant): (idealistic, feet not on the ground,
over-
enthusiastic on a bad day).
LL Earth green: Still, tranquil, calming, soothing (Lower Left
quadrant): (sickly sweet, needy on a bad day, over-sentimental,
over-sensitive).

UL Cool blue: Showing no bias, objective, detached (Upper Left
quadrant): (Lacking empathy and compassion on a bad day).
We can also represent Hippocrates’ model using the colours of
the Insights framework (Figure 6).
Our system of knowledge and beliefs can be seen as a set of
para-
digms. In the coaching conversation, we are often looking to
identify
and shift disempowering paradigms. This profile looks at
conscious
Figure 5. Insights Jungian model (circularity and quadernity).
Source: Stout-Rostron (2006c: A40–A41).
and less conscious personas; introversion and extraversion:
Jung’s
attitudes/orientations; thinking and feeling: Jung’s rational
functions;
sensing and intuition: Jung’s irrational functions. This profile
identi-
fies eight archetypes within the circle, and four energy colours
in the
over-laying quadrants (Figure 7). These archetypes and the
profile

itself is only one of many useful assessment tools, which can be
used
as an assessment tool at the beginning of a coaching
intervention.
Figure 6. Hippocrates’ quadrants with Insights colours.
Source: Adapted from Insights (2008) and Stout-Rostron
(2006c).
Figure 7. Insights Jungian model (circularity and quadernity)
showing
the eight primary Insights types.
Source: Adapted from Insights (2008) and Stout-Rostron
(2006c).
A L
In this chapter, we explore coaching with models structured in a
specific way. The four quadrants in each model are positioned
as in
the Jungian Insights model, with “interior” on the left, i.e. what
is
not visible individually and collectively; and on the right, what
is
made visible through behaviour, i.e. what is external
individually

and collectively. In the Insights model in Figure 5, the
“thinking”
function is in the top two quadrants (blue and red), the “feeling”
function in the bottom two quadrants (green and yellow); the
left-
hand quadrants represent the interior, and the right-hand side
the
exterior of the individual and the collective.
Domains of Competence model (Habermas)
Part of a coach’s discipline is to be able to use and understand
models to structure the coaching intervention, helping the client
to develop self-awareness and to change behaviour. Habermas’s
Domains of Competence model (Figure 8) is a precursor to
under-
standing Wilber’s four-quadrant model. Habermas’ model
defines
the “general structures of communication” that enable clients to
engage in successful interaction (Wilber, 2000b:82–83).
Habermas
defined three domains of reality in the world that exist
concurrently:

I, We, It (see Flaherty, 2008 for an excellent detailing of
Habermas’
domains of competency). The right-hand drawing in Figure 8 is
the
original example in James Flaherty’s Coaching: Evoking
Excellence in
Figure 8. Habermas’ Domains of Competence.
Source: Adapted from Weiss (2004) and Flaherty (1999).
Others (Flaherty, 1999:83). I have adapted it to a holistic model
for
our use on the left.
I: The domain of the individual
This domain relates to the subjective world of the individual
who
sees the world through their own eyes. Access to this domain is
through self-observation and the development of self-
knowledge.
The skills required are those of self-observation, self-
knowledge,
self-management, self-remembering, self-consistency and

daring.
The competences are purpose, self-knowledge, self-correction
and
persistence. The basis of this domain is subjective and the
qualities
are those of vision, passion, integrity, trust and curiosity.
We: The domain of the collective or the community
This is the collective view of how we see the world. This view
is
embodied in social practices, roles, rituals, meaning, narratives
and values that determine what is possible. Access to this
domain
is through dialogue, conversation and relationships. The skills
required to access this domain are listening, speaking, setting
stand-
ards, learning and innovating (Braaten, 1991). The competences
are
relationship, communication, leadership and inspiration. The
basis
of this domain’s reality is “subjective”. The qualities of this
reality
are empathy, reliability, openness, and faith.

It: The domain of the external or objective world (Wilber, 1996)
This domain is that of science and technology, objective nature,
empirical forms and processes. It deals with objects, and access
to
this domain is by becoming observant, analyzing, predicting and
building models. The competences of this objective domain are
processes, technology, measurement and statistics, and the
quali-
ties of this domain are rigour, objectivity, persistence,
creativity and
focus.
Ken Wilber’s four-quadrant Integral Model
Ken Wilber has written prodigiously about the evolution of his
model, and various adaptations of his Integral Model are taught
in
A L
South African coach training institutions. Wilber’s Integral
Model
is an elegant way to map the essentials of human growth and

development—socially, psychologically and spiritually. Wilber
inte-
grates five factors essential to facilitating human growth which
he
calls quadrants, levels, lines, states and types. However, in this
book,
we are going to work only with his four quadrants, which refer
to
the subjective and objective realities within each of us (Figure
9).
PRACTICAL EXERCISE
Our clients operate in all three of these domains, and we can
devise questions in each to further client development. As an
exercise, devise questions that you could ask, relevant to each
domain. These questions are to help your clients understand the
lens through which they see the world, and to help them begin
to
think about, experience and see the world through others’ eyes.
James Flaherty says this model represents the essential domains
of life in which a “leader must be competent” (Weiss, 2004).
Examples of possible questions:
I Domain: How can you continue your own self-development?

What are your short-term and long-term goals? How can you
balance both work and personal life? What are your blind spots
and how can you work with them?
We Domain: How can you use your skills of communication
and persuasion to inspire people to action? What is your value
to
the team? How can you build competence in the team having
lost
a valued member? What are the values and goals of your team?
It Domain: What are the processes that are working in the
organization? What technical processes need to be written up
for your training, learning and development manuals? What
processes are not being strictly adhered to and how can you best
apply them?
Wilber’s (2006:17) philosophy is that “every level of interior
consciousness is accompanied by a level of exterior physical
complexity”. In other words, the more consciousness we have in
the interior, the greater our corresponding understanding of the

complexities of the exterior world. If as coaches we are helping
clients to learn from experience, then it is important that we
under-
stand the I (inside the individual), the we (inside the collective),
the it (outside the individual), and the its (outside the
collective)
(Wilber, 2006:20–21).
My purpose is to help you design coaching questions that
emerge
within each of the quadrants, to develop your client’s growing
con-
sciousness in their interaction with “self” and the “world”. All
four
quadrants can show growth and development. Wilber explains
that
the unfolding four quadrants can “include expanding spheres of
consciousness ... Self and culture and nature can all develop and
evolve” (Wilber, 2006:25). All four quadrants need to be taken
into
account if we want to work as integrally as possible with our
clients,
helping them to integrate perspectives and awareness.
Initially, to use this as a coaching process, we can look at the

types
of question you might ask clients within each quadrant to build
per-
spective on themselves and their own issues. This is a very
complex
model and we are working with it in its formative stages. We
can
devise questions from a macro and a micro perspective, whether
for contracting, for the overall coaching journey, or the
individual
coaching conversation. Try to devise your own questions before
Figure 9. Ken Wilber’s model.
Source: Wilber (2006:36–39).
A L
looking at the examples listed after the following descriptions
for
each quadrant (Figure 10).
Upper Left (UL)
I (UL) is inside the individual, i.e. self and consciousness; the
indi-

vidual’s values, vision, their purpose, their culture, their norm.
In
this model, the upper left (UL) is interior, individual and inten-
tional. The internal you is represented by your values, your
beliefs,
your morals, your feelings, your emotions, your self-confidence
and
self-assurance. The UL represents what goes on inside of you
and is
not visible to the external world.
Upper Right (UR)
It, the UR quadrant is described as exterior, individual and
behav-
ioural. The UR shows how your values, beliefs, feelings and
emo-
tions show up through your behaviour and interaction with
others
in the external world. It is outside the individual, i.e. to do with
the
body, brain and behaviour. This is how the individual shows up
in
their behaviour with another individual out in the world; it is
their
Figure 10. Ken Wilber’s Integral Model.
Source: Adapted from Pampallis Paisley (2006).

interpersonal skills, competences, what they say and do; what
they
don’t say and do. Once this behaviour is visible, i.e. what you
say
and do, and what you don’t say and do, this behaviour is repre-
sented in the upper right quadrant (UR).
Lower Left (LL)
We, the lower left, is interior, collective and cultural. We is
inside
the collective, i.e. culture and worldview of the organization or
the
society; the values, culture and beliefs of the team,
organization,
society, nation of which the individual is a part. This is
represented
by an awareness of your relationships with others, with the
values
and beliefs of the collectives in which you operate.
For example, your organization (superiors, subordinates, peers)
or family, or within the communities of your spiritual life—

these col-
lectives all share similar values. Your organization may, for
instance,
be underpinned by family values or health or may be
capitalising on
consumer needs with which you are in alignment.
Lower Right (LR)
Its (LR) is outside the collective, i.e. the social system and its
environment. This is represented by the systems, rules,
regulations
and procedures within the corporate environment and society
within
which the client works. The lower right quadrant (LR) is
represented
by the exterior collective and the systems within which you live
and work, i.e. the rules, regulations, processes and procedures
that
operate within your family, society, workplace, region, nation
and
the world. The shared values and the shared relationships meet
each
other in harmony or conflict in this quadrant.
Teams or companies within the system are, for example, able to

work collaboratively. Or on the other hand, due to gender
inequali-
ties, an organization may only pay lip service to the
development of
women in leadership, pulling candidates from training and
devel-
opment programmes without understanding the negative impact
it might have on women wishing to move into management roles
within that organization.
According to Wilber (1997), these four quadrants enable us to
map
every phenomenon, every interest, every area and every process
in
life according to internal and external processes. As coaches,
we can
A L
use this model to help clients to understand themselves,
developing
self-awareness and a conscious awareness of their interior life.
Coaches can also use this model to help clients understand the

impact of their interactions with others in the external world,
and
the way they manage themselves and their relationships within
the
cultures and systems (family, community, organization, society
and
nation) within which they live and work.
CASE STUDY: HOW THE QUADRANTS ARE
REPRESENTED
—IN THE WORKPLACE
Recently, I have been working with an executive, Ben, in a
retail manufacturing industry that has a history of success.
Ben’s divisional performance (LR) and his individual per-
formance (UR) have always been rated as excellent. However,
in the last two years, Ben has suffered an extreme loss of self-
confidence and worrying health problems. This was due to
working with a destructive line manager whose behaviour was
extremely negative over a two-year period. This line manager
undermined Ben constantly, shouting and humiliating Ben in
meetings (LR), as well as displaying constant aggressive behav-

iour one-on-one (UR).
Eventually, the constant undermining of Ben began to impact
negatively on his performance (UR). The work between coach
and
client (UR) has been to rebuild the confidence and self-esteem
of
this individual by increasing his levels of self-awareness (UL).
The coach instituted a 360° feedback (LL) and discovered that
Ben was highly thought of throughout the organization (LL).
However, the organization was very concerned about Ben’s
mental and physical health (UL). Gradually, through a combi-
nation of one-on-one coaching conversations between coach
and client with Ben and various senior executives to whom he
reports (UR), and coaching conversations in the collective team
(LR), Ben has begun the process of working on his confidence
and his health by learning new interpersonal skills and compe-
tences (UR), developing greater self-awareness of his own and
others’ assumptions (UL).

Questions in the four quadrants
What are the questions we can ask in each of the four quadrants
to
use Wilber’s model in the coaching process? Devise your own
ques-
tions before looking at the examples below (Figure 11).
Upper Left (UL): What is going on for you; how are you
thinking and feeling?
Upper Right (UR): Where are you in relation to the other?
Figure 11. Questions in Wilber’s quadrants.
Source: Questions devised by author to fit Wilber’s four
quadrants.
A L
Lower Left (LL): How would you describe the culture, values
and relationships in your organization?
Lower Right (LR): Where are you in relation to the system/
world in which you live and work?

CASE STUDY: HOW THE QUADRANTS ARE
REPRESENTED
—IN SOCIETY
In May 2008 South Africa experienced a flood of violent,
xenophobic behaviour. It had been brewing on the individual
interior level (UL) for many years among individuals who felt
discriminated against in society. As Jonathan Faull wrote in the
Cape Times: “Many poor, urban citizens of South Africa’s cit-
ies feel under- or unrepresented, buffeted by the tides of pov-
erty, subsistence, criminality and the desperate competition for
resources and opportunity …” (Faull, 2008). In poorer areas,
foreign nationals have grouped together by nationality to pro-
tect themselves and to continue to live within a semblance of a
culture that they understand (LL). Locals, nationals and foreign
nationals have managed to co-exist with each other with the
odd external flare-up or demonstration of conflict at an indi-
vidual level (UR) and between cultures (LR). The xenophobic
attacks have been at a systemic level (LR): mobs and criminal
gangs have instituted an array of violent attacks against poorer,

isolated foreign nationals. The attackers’ sense of frustration
and discrimination shows up in the attacks on individuals (UR)
and on groups of foreign nationals (LR). The sense of despair is
due to a lack of jobs, housing and the continuing poverty within
which many continue to live (LR).
EQ model
We can relate this model to the four quadrants of the EQ model.
In
the upper left is a developing self-awareness, which people do
not
see. That self-awareness shows up in your behaviour. In the
upper
right are your interactions with other individuals (self-
management).
In the lower left is your developing awareness of values,
beliefs,
feelings and culture (relationship awareness), and in the lower
right, managing relationships at a systemic level (relationship

management), i.e. how teams or companies interact within an
organ-
ization, and how families work together in a family system.
The EQ (Emotional Intelligence) model developed by Daniel
Goleman (1996) provides fuel for investigation inside the
coaching
conversation, usually starting with questions about self-
awareness
and self-management, moving at a later stage to develop
relationship
awareness and relationship skills (such as interpersonal
communi-
cation, managing people, and handling conflict). I have overlaid
the
EQ model with the Insights and Ken Wilber’s (2006) four
quadrants
(left side for intrinsic, right side for extrinsic; individual in the
north,
collective in the south) (Figure 12). This EQ model can
represent the
journey you and the client engage in together. The coach uses
the EQ
model to help the client learn how to manage themselves and

rela-
tionships. The coaching journey begins with developing the
self.
As clients develop self-awareness, they become more aware
of what they say and do, and how they engage with others
(self-management). As they begin to engage differently with
others
they gain an understanding and awareness of the culture, values
and beliefs that exist within that organization, and the diverse
rela-
tionships operating concurrently in teams (relationship
awareness).
Figure 12. EQ model, a four-quadrant adaptation.
Source: Adapted from Goleman (1996), Wilber (2006) and
Insights (2008).
A L
As their awareness grows, they also become more aware of how
the
system operates, how teams cooperate with each other or not,
and
how units, divisions, staff, customers and stakeholders interact
with

each other (relationship management) (Table 1).
GROW and CLEAR models
John Whitmore (2002) developed the GROW model, which we
explored in the previous chapter, as an excellent goal-setting
proc-
ess. GROW is confusing as it has been described as both a
model
and a question framework. It actually is a model which is useful
to structure the coaching conversation, i.e. it is a metaphor for
the
growth which you hope your clients will experience in the
overall
coaching journey. It is a model representative of the process of
that
growth using a goal-setting framework of questions that
hopefully
leads to awareness, responsibility and change. GROW can be
used
as a goal-setting process: identifying a goal, discussing the
client’s
current reality, exploring the client’s options, and summarizing
out-

comes and what the client will actually do differently.
CLEAR as a model implies a contracting process, identifying
the
rigour of listening, exploring the client’s issue at depth, asking
ques-
tions throughout the coaching process, and finally reviewing
where the
client is at the end of the coaching conversation. In the previous
chapter
we explored the sequence of questions that can be thought about
prior
to the coaching conversation using CLEAR. However, the
general rule
Table 1. Emotional intelligence: competences and associated
skill.
Self-
awareness
Self-
management
Relationship
awareness
(Team awareness)
Relationship
management
(Team management)

Knowing self Interpersonal
behaviour
Organizational
culture (values,
beliefs, feelings)
Team behaviour;
Client management
Resistances Communication
skills
Environment Conflict
management
Purpose Management
skills
Politics Systems integration
Source: Stout-Rostron (2006c).

with models is that questions emerge during the conversation
itself as
they relate to the context, complexity and situation of the client.
Kolb’s Experiential Learning Model
The coaching conversation is essentially reflecting on
experience.
Coach and client reflect the client’s experience and behaviours,
devising new thinking, feeling, behaviours and actions. Kolb
says
that learning is not just an active, self-directed process, but also
a
process where knowledge is created through the transformation
of experience (Kolb, 1984:42). Sometimes you just cannot get
the
learning on your own, which is where the role of a coach or
mentor
comes in. The coaching conversation helps to transform their
experi-
ence into workable knowledge; learning then becomes an
“emergent
experience” within a cycle of continuous learning.
Below is my adaptation from the original Kolb model, showing

the learning modes and integrated learning styles. However, for
the
four-quadrant models we are practically working with in this
book,
I have positioned “thinking” in the top right and left quadrants;
“feeling” in the bottom two quadrants; “interior/intrinsic” on
the
left, and “exterior/extrinsic” on the right. Thus, following
Kolb’s
original model (Figure 13), is the version of Kolb’s model to be
used
in the coaching process (Figure 14).
Figure 13. Kolb’s original Experiential Learning Model.
Source: Adapted from Figure 3.1 in Kolb (1984:42).
A L
Using Kolb’s four modes of learning
This is a very useful coaching model, as all clients come into
the
coaching conversation with their concrete experiences. Coach
and

client reflect and observe, think and theorize based on the
client’s
observations, and agree what new thinking, feeling and
behaviour
need to take place back in the working environment (Figure 15).
If
the client stays in doing, action and concrete experiencing (e.g.
if we
coach continuously without reflection, observation and
evaluation)
it would not be possible to gain new learning (for both coach
and cli-
ent). Many businesses get stuck because they create business
plans,
put them into action and complete them but do not take enough
time out to review and evaluate. The integration of the
quadrants
into learning styles is explored in depth in Chapter 6 on
diversity,
culture and gender.
The basis of this learning process in coaching is to integrate the
four
adaptive modes of Kolb’s learning model (concrete, abstract,
reflective

and conceptual). Kolb (1984:41) insists that knowledge is the
result of
“grasping of experience and transforming it into divergent,
assimila-
tive, convergent and accommodative knowledge”. A further
defini-
tion of the coaching conversation could be “an integration of
reflection
and thinking on action and experience”. Kolb’s definition of
each of
his experiential learning quadrants is particularly helpful:
Figure 14. Kolb’s adapted Experiential Learning Model.
Figure 15. Coaching with Kolb’s Experiential Learning Model.
CE (concrete experience) is about feeling and experiencing;
RO (reflective observation) is about observing and watching;
AC (abstract conceptualization) is about thinking and

conceptu-
alizing; and
AE (active experimentation) is about doing and being in action.
Kolb’s model can be used to structure the coaching conversation
and
the coaching journey overall. We gain knowledge through our
own
experience; each individual filters their worldview through their
own
experience. In reflecting on our concrete experiences, we can
trans-
form experience into some kind of useable knowledge. Some
people
prefer to step into the experience itself; others prefer to watch,
reflect
and review; some like to conceptualize, hypothesize and
theorize; oth-
ers like to experiment with doing something new. All four work
in
conjunction with each other. Essentially, each one of us
integrates all
four learning modes, but we tend to have a preference for one or
two.

What Kolb’s four learning modes indicate
Concrete experiencers: adopt a receptive, experience-based
approach to learning that relies heavily on feeling-based
judgments.
A L
CE individuals tend to be empathetic and “people-oriented”.
They generally find theoretical approaches to be unhelpful and
prefer
to treat each situation as a unique case. They learn best from
specific
examples in which they can become involved. Individuals who
emphasize concrete experience tend to be oriented more toward
peers
and less toward authority in their approach to learning. They
benefit
most from feedback and discussion with their coach and peers.
Reflective observers: adopt a tentative, impartial and reflective
approach to learning. RO individuals rely heavily on careful
obser-
vation in making judgments and prefer learning situations such
as lectures that allow them to take the role of impartial

objective
observers. These individuals tend to be introverts and require a
typi-
cally greater reflective approach to the coaching session.
Coaching
needs to be very reflective for them to access the learning
needed to
move forward.
Abstract conceptualizers: adopt an analytical, conceptual appr-
oach to learning that relies heavily on logical thinking and
rational
evaluation. AC individuals tend to be oriented more toward
things
and symbols and less toward other people. They learn in imper-
sonal, authority-directed learning situations that emphasize
theory
and systematic analysis. They are often frustrated by, and
benefit
little from, unstructured “discovery” learning approaches, such
as
activities and role-plays. The coach needs to be able to provide
a
structured thinking approach to the session, and could use the
Kolb

model to help the client to access the other learning modes.
Active experimenters: adopt an active, “doing” orientation to
learning that relies heavily on experimentation. AE individuals
learn
best when they can engage in such things as projects,
homework,
developing new techniques inside the coaching conversation
that
they can take back out to the workplace, and in group
discussions.
They dislike passive learning situations such as lectures, and
tend
to be extraverts. AE clients can be active and noisy and may
require
focused energy in the coaching environment.
Case study—Using Kolb’s learning modes as a coaching process
In the case study below, the coach’s comments are in italics; the
cli-
ents are in standard type. The coach determined during a
previous
coaching session that it would be useful with this client (who
was a

coach) to work with a specific concrete “coaching” experience,
as the
client had had trouble using the Kolb process as a coaching
model
with his client.
The aim of the coaching conversation below was to help the
coachee to understand how to use the four modes of the Kolb
expe-
riential learning process in a coaching session with his own
clients.
Having read the definitions of each learning mode and the
following
case study, think about how you can use this model in certain
coach-
ing situations.
What is your goal? To build my confidence in the coaching
process
and to pay attention to structure; and to do so I want to try to
under-
stand how to use the Kolb model as a coaching process.
OK, so would you like me to use the Kolb model for this

conversa-
tion, and then we can reflect back at the end to understand how
we moved
through the four modes, from concrete experience, to reflective
observation,
abstract conceptualization and active experimentation? Yes, and
would
we always start with concrete experience?
Figure 16. Kolb’s adult learning cycle.
Source: Adapted from Kolb (1984:42).
A L
Not always; it depends on what the client needs. You said that
you have a
specific experience that you wish to start with, so I am
suggesting we begin
with your specific concrete experience. Okay, let’s go.
Concrete experience (CE)
Can you tell me a little more about this goal, sharing your
experience so
that I can understand the issue? I want to explore the triggers
that
prompt me to be too hasty when I am coaching. Usually, as I
end
the coaching conversation, I find that I have been very
judgemental
of the client, and I always rush to close. In other words, I make

way
too many assumptions. I want to understand what I can do to
guard
against rushing.
So tell me a little more about what happens that makes you rush
in this
coaching session. If you like, tell me a little about both your
thoughts and
feelings, as well as what you feel physically in your body as
you coach.
I feel helpless, frustrated, with a huge sense of urgency and
anxiety
that sits in my gut, yet I still feel that I need to get it done at a
high
level. And I start to concentrate more on what I am feeling and
tend
to stop focusing on my client. In other words, I am more aware
of a
sense of myself than I am of my client.
Anything else? It’s useful to look at what you are thinking and
feeling,
whether it’s anxiety or a sense of urgency. Looking at this one
specific
instance may be a really useful way for us to look at what
happens, not just
in this instance, but also when this has happened to you in
previous coaching
sessions. Yes, it’s a similar experience in all of my coaching

sessions.
And one of my assumptions is that it’s both a sense of urgency
underpinned by some kind of anxiety about getting it done.
This is the second time you have spoken about your
“assumptions”. Yes.
I think I’m making too many assumptions.
Can you remember any of the things you are assuming as you
begin to
feel that anxiety? Can you visualize or feel yourself back in that
situation
and describe how you are experiencing it? Yes, some of the
assumptions
are that I might not be able to help; that I should already know
the
answers; that this is too difficult already.
Ok, and what was your goal during the coaching session for
yourself?
I want to complete the Kolb coaching process and give value to
the
client.
Reflective observation (RO)
So we’ve explored your experience a bit and identified some of
the
assumptions that may take your focus off of the client. Rather

than sitting
inside the experience as if it’s happening now, let’s look back at
this
experience as something you’ve experienced in the past. When
you were in
the coaching session, what triggered your assumptions? I cannot
recall;
only that time seemed to be one of the triggers.
So when time became a trigger, what kinds of things were you
assum-
ing? That I should jump in with answers for the client; that I
should
make suggestions about what they should do; and that perhaps
I’m
not the right person to do this; and also I sort of feel like they
“need
fixing”. When you got to the end of the session what did you
assume?
That I hadn’t completed stuff and that I hadn’t really
acknowledged
them, or something about them.
So, as we reflect on this, it seems that you actually had some
clarity on
your own thinking and feeling which can be useful for us to
learn from.
Is there anything else about your assumptions that got in your
way? Just
that I spend so much time thinking about my own thoughts that
I am not listening effectively to the client.

And what would you prefer to do? I want to focus on the client.
I want
to let go of my thoughts.
Okay, so what can we learn from this that will help you learn
next time?
I think that I need to find a way to centre and focus before I
start
the coaching conversation, so that I am entirely focused on them
throughout.
You spoke earlier about having your attention in several areas
at once,
identified as the three streams of attention described in Nancy
Kline’s
Thinking Environment® [Kline, 1999/2004].
I would like to do that; be focused on them, know what my
responses are and still create an environment conducive to
coaching.
If you are able to do that, will you experience the coaching
conversation
differently from your current experience? Yes, I will feel that I
can add
value to the client, which is what I want. And I feel that this
process
may be perfect for me to use.
What do you mean by perfect? I think it is structured yet has
flex-

ibility, and I think I can trust the process.
A L
And so if you were to have faith in this process, how would that
help
you? I would calm down, and let go of my anxiety and that
sense
of urgency. Anything else, now that we are reflecting? What
else do you
think you need to learn from this specific experience? I think
it’s about
self-balance.
Can I just check that I understand what you mean by “self-
balance”?
For me, self-balance forges self-respect and respect for others.
So self-balance in the coaching relationship is self-balance for
the coach
as well as self-balance for the client? What I’m going to suggest
is that
we move from reflection on this specific conversation to think
about and
conceptualize what the conversation may look and feel like if
there is self-
balance for both coach and client? Great, I’m happy with that. I
think
that if I have dealt with some of the assumptions that we have
dis-
covered then that will help, but also I need to feel centred and
bal-

anced before entering into the conversation.
Okay, shall we explore and perhaps transform or overturn some
of
these disempowering assumptions before moving on? Yes,
please ...
[Coach and client identify the key limiting assumptions, and the
coach helps the client to identify if they are true or false,
identify-
ing several more empowering assumptions and constructive
ways
of thinking. They then move into the next phase, continuing to
use
the Kolb experiential learning process.]
Abstract conceptualization (AC)
Do you mean, noticing and observing what you think and feel,
and
letting go of assumptions that might disempower both you and
the cli-
ent? Yes, I need to focus on the client, knowing that if I just
listen
that in itself is empowering and gives some space for thinking
together.
So, you want to refocus and give attention back to the client.
What else?
I need to find some way to … create a sense of groundedness,
like

being rooted but still flexible.
Some of the language you use is sometimes reflective of NLP
[neu-
rolinguistic programming—see Chapter 2 for a discussion of
this
approach]. So I wonder if it is “anchoring” you are thinking of?
Yes,
I need some sort of physical anchor to move me out of my head
to
be able to create a focus on listening and being present for the
client
at all times. That will help me shift some of these assumptions.
Can
you help me with that?
Sure, tell me what would work best as an anchor for you? A
question,
a thought, something you do physically with your hands? That
would be
the simplest and not distract the client.
In other words, you need to use something physical and tangible
to take
the focus off your own disempowering thinking? Yes, that
would be per-

fect. I don’t want to get up and pace up and down as that would
be
distracting. I want to do something that calms both my mind and
my body.
Okay, so that would help you to refocus; sounds useful. [Coach
and
client agree on the anchor, and the coach helps the client to
create an
anchor that will work in every coaching conversation to create
focus.
“The process of anchoring involves linking a specific sight,
sound or
touch with an experience that is present. For example, a
situation in
which you are associated. This process enables you to use the
anchor
to re-access the same experience” (McLoughlin and Stout-
Rostron,
2002:48).] Anything else that would help you to refocus on the
client? No,
that is perfect.
Do you think that this one gesture will be enough to help you
anchor and
refocus on the client? Yes.
OK, so in the coaching conversation, this will help to manage

self-
balance; what else would be useful to think about in terms of
self-balance
for the client? Well, actually it was an assumption to think the
client
needs self-balance. It’s actually me who needs it, so I think this
is a
start!
What else might be valuable—to think about how you use your
self-
balance and refocus back on the client? I don’t know.
It’s a tough one. My observation is that if this has happened
once it
may happen again. So in what way could you work going
forward? It’s
something about being present for the client in the way I frame
questions and reflect back what they are saying. If I am
“anchored”
I will easily be able to do it because I know that I have done it
before.
Great, so essentially to refocus and give attention you would
need to fire
your anchor. In the same way, if self-balance continues to come
up, will the
other reflective practices that you have prepared help you?
Definitely, and
this is how I will use them ...
Anything else that when you conceptualize the coaching

conversation
would be helpful to you? Yes, I will ...
Anything else that would be helpful for you to focus on the
client?
A L
Active experimentation (AE)
Ok, so we’ve been working on conceptualizing and moving
away from your
disempowering thinking. Shall we think about how you actually
could do it
differently, and think differently, when coaching? Yes, let’s try
it.
So now we will actively think about how you would do it. Let’s
start by
thinking about how you would have done the old conversation
differently
... I would be so focused on the client that I am hearing what
she has
to say, and I am actually thinking about where we are in the
process,
in terms of structure, in the coaching conversation.
Can you think of something coming up to think about how you
would
do it differently? Yes, in fact I am going to practise this at
home first,
focusing on the kids as they tell me about their school day. I’m

going
to fire my anchor and listen to my wife. Usually I just interrupt
and
don’t let any of them finish what they have to say. I guess I’m
fixing
them too! I think it’s a practice that I have to begin at home in
order
to make it something that begins to come naturally.
That sounds great—it’s always hardest to do any kind of new
thinking
and behaviour at home. Also, I think I need to use my anchor to
put
on the “pause button”. In other words, I need to pause before I
say
anything. This is something I need to experiment with.
Pushing the pause button sounds like a great anchor. How will
you reflect
how effectively you are in pressing the pause button? Perhaps I
should
make a few notes ...
Would you like to write down some of these new active
practices, and in
our next session, we can reflect on what has worked for you?
These are use-
ful new practices. [Client makes notes.] Is there anything else
you would
like to accomplish to actively experiment with doing something
differently?

No, I think this will do and I am already developing some
awareness
of myself that will help with self-balance. I think actually that I
may
keep a small journal at the end of the day that will help me to
adopt
these practices. I have several coaching sessions with new
clients
before I see you again, and I will reflect on what’s worked and
what
hasn’t when I see you next.
Fine, anything else that comes to mind that would be useful
going out
into the world and doing it differently? No, I like this process
and just
want to reflect a few minutes on how we went through the four
modes of the Kolb process, and how I might use it and my
anchors
in my next coaching session. If we could do that, then I think
I’m all
set. Thanks.

Great, let’s finish with that. Okay, let me think it through with
you. We seem to have stepped into the “concrete experience”
itself
when you asked me to think about how I felt, what I was think-
ing, and what I was assuming in that one specific coaching con-
versation with my client. We then moved into a reflective space,
as I reflected on those thoughts, feelings and assumptions and
we
thought about what I had learned from that session in reflection.
We then talked about the coaching conversation in a kind of
think-
ing manner, i.e. we conceptualized a different way forward, and
in fact we moved into active experimentation as we developed
anchors. So, in fact, we already have begun to experiment. Then
we worked with anchors and talked about how pause buttons can
best be put to use at home and in my next coaching session. I
have
an action plan and will report back on how I do in our next
session.
I think it’s about more self-awareness, focusing on the client,
and
thinking about new behaviours as I am beginning to think and

feel
differently.
Is there anything else you need from this conversation? No
thanks.
Can I ask what you gained from working with this process? I
think that
I understand the Kolb model better, particularly the
conceptualiza-
tion stage, and I feel quite comfortable to try it in a coaching
session
for myself.
Reflecting on the case study
In the above coaching conversation, the coach first helped the
cli-
ent determine his goals for the session, and structured the con-
versation using the Kolb model. The coach made sure that she
constantly clarified the way forward with the client, not moving
before he was ready. Furthermore, she tried to mostly use the
cli-
ent’s words. Once or twice she reframed what the client had
said
to check whether she had understanding. The coach referred to
thinking, feeling and assumptions right through the

conversation,
having picked that up from the client. And, to end the conversa-
tion, the client reviewed the cycle, reiterating the experience,
what
was reflected, what the new concept was to work differently in
the
coaching conversation, and how they experimented with a way
forward. Using this model, the coach was able to help the client
articulate how he experiences the world, and where his levels of
discomfort were in the coaching process. The coach also
confirmed
A L
that NLP was part of his experience before they worked to
develop
new anchors; previously, disempowering assumptions were his
anchors. In all of these ways, the coach was able to safely
create
an environment to use the Kolb model, which the client wished
to
learn as a coaching structure. Finally, the coach moved from the
specific situation to create anchors and an understanding of how

to use the Kolb model in a coaching situation, i.e. she moved
from
the specific to the general.
Hudson’s Renewal Cycle model
Frederick Hudson’s (1998:79) model is useful in order to
understand
an adult’s experience of life and change. Hudson’s renewal
cycle
can be used to structure the coaching conversation and the
overall
journey. I have placed Hudson’s four quadrants where they are
most
aligned with the Insights four colours (Figure 17). The
quadrants
integrate relatively well with the Insights four colours: yellow
for
“getting ready” to go back into the world, red for actively
“going
for it”, blue for the “doldrums” and green for “cocooning”.
Often
when you overlay one model over another, it is not always a
perfect
match.

As a coaching model, the coach can start wherever is most
useful
for the client, and in whatever sequence is needed (Stout-
Rostron,
2006c):
1. Go for it (summer)—In phase one, the individual is purpose-
ful, active, busy, committed, optimistic, and energized as a team
player.
2. Doldrums (autumn)—In phase two, the individual is bored,
restless or feeling stuck, reactive, in denial, angry, sad,
pessimistic,
low in energy, a loner, and resistant to change.
3. Cocooning (winter)—In phase three, the individual is turned
inward, meditative, experimenting, exploring, disoriented,
healing,
quiet, deconstructing and reconstructing the self, tapping into
core values, tapping resilient emotions, spiritual, and doing
inner
work.
4. Getting ready (spring)—In phase four, the individual senses
a new purpose, searching, networking; this phase is creative,
free and uncommitted, naively optimistic, recovering perhaps
forgotten childlike and spontaneous abilities.

We can create an analogy for each of these phases with the
seasons
of the year. As in autumn, the client is in the doldrums, in the
dark
and resistant to change. Cocooning is like winter, where the
client is
deconstructing, reconstructing, doing some inner work,
meditative.
Getting ready is like spring, and the client is seeking new
purpose,
searching, maybe looking for that new job, the inner child is at
work.
The going for it phase is like summer, where the client is busy
with
a new sense of purpose, committed and optimistic and
energized.
Figure 17. Hudson’s four stages.
Source: Adapted from Hudson (1999:106) and Insights (2008).
CASE STUDY: USING HUDSON’S MODEL FOR COACHING
The doldrums
A young woman who wanted to change careers, Shannon, came
to me for coaching. Shannon wanted to work with someone

who could understand the passion she had for her AIDS NGO
work, and she wanted someone to help her think through the
next steps to develop her career. Although qualified as a law-
yer, Shannon was working in marketing and promotions rather
than on the legal side. She was in the doldrums, working about
12 hours a day, exhausted, not feeling that she was working at
a senior enough position to make a difference. She was highly
committed to the work she was doing. In some ways, I was also
a mentor for her. One aspect of a mentor’s
A L
job is to introduce the client to their own network to help
the client to build alliances and relationships. This moves them
the next step in their career. In our first session, we talked
about the doldrums, which is how she described her current
thinking and feeling, and what was different to when she first
began her work in this NGO.

Cocooning
In our next few sessions, we talked about her need to do a bit of
cocooning, to sit back and reflect, using the coaching sessions
as
a space to do so. We agreed she would cocoon as long as it
took.
We thought about the following questions:
• What do I really want to do?
• Shall I stay or leave my job?
• Do I want to leave South Africa to pursue my studies?
• Would that be the right thing to do?
• Can I grow my skills and education by staying in South
Africa?
Eventually Shannon realized she thought she was ready to
begin to think about making a move from her current job, but
she was not yet willing to leave the projects in which she was
immersed.
Getting ready
We met a few times, and gradually she began to articulate a
pos-
sible way forward. As we moved into the getting ready phase,
she looked at her options and decided that she would first begin

to build her network, and create relationships that could open
doors for her. She attended a few courses, including a master
class in the Thinking Environment® with Nancy Kline, and par-
ticipated in several business breakfasts on Leadership Skills
for Women. She made contact with the two NGOs with whom
I had contact, searching for opportunities to continue her edu-
cation by studying and working abroad. She was clear that her
ultimate aim was to return to South Africa with new skills that
could be applied to the AIDS organizations. I knew two people
in the NGO world who were potential employers. Shannon met
with these two international NGOs who had offices in South
Africa although their head offices were in the States.
After a period of about six months, Shannon thought she was
ready to move into action. This would normally be the go for it
phase. However, was she ready to go for it? She applied for a
schol-
arship to study further at Georgetown University in Washington

DC. When she was accepted, her words were, “I don’t under-
stand why I am not jumping for joy. It is an incredible opportu-
nity, I am going to get a visa for four years. I am going to study
in the States. I am going to have a research job. What is wrong
with me? It’s right there.” The question always worth asking
is, “What does the client need now?” Here she was ready for a
change but, although a marvellous opportunity was within her
grasp she could not understand why she didn’t just “go for it”.
Going for it
We talked about what she needed in order to get back into
action. She decided to stick with her current NGO job. There
were projects still to complete before she could move out of the
country and take up the scholarship. She felt she could not let
her
colleagues down by not implementing her current programmes.
In this way, she revitalized her passion for her current job. We
discussed ways to create boundaries to manage her working
hours. In speaking to her several months later, I learned that she
was on track to take up the scholarship the following year. Her

intention was to return to South Africa when she was qualified,
looking then to accept a new and more empowering role.
Other circular models
I-T-O (Input, Throughput, Output)
Models in coaching are very useful to us as a way to structure
the
entire coaching intervention, and the individual coaching
conver-
sation. However, all models must provide flexibility, not rigid-
ity. The following model is an open systems model developed
for
change management by Thomas G. Cummings and Christopher
G.
Worley (2004). It is used by i-Coach Academy, London and is
taught
in their Masters in Coaching degree in the UK, USA and South
Africa.
This model can easily be used to structure the coaching
conversa-
tion, or to structure the overall coaching intervention (Figure
18).

A L
Input (Why)
As a coach (and for the client), where do you come from and
what
are you informed by? This is the input part of the coach’s
frame-
work, the why (i.e. why you’re working together as coach and
client). It assumes the “input” or beginning stage of the
coaching
conversation between coach and client. Input is what informs
you as
a coach, the underlying theories you are working with, your
experi-
ence and expertise, your philosophy and values, and the
constructs
that underpin your worldview. Questions you might ask the
client
in the input stage are:
• What is on the menu for our conversation today?
• What do you want to think about?
• What are your key issues or challenges?
• What are your priorities?

Throughput (How/What)
The process the coach uses in the coaching conversation is the
throughput of the coaching framework. It is the how, in other
words, what the coach actually does in the coaching conversa-
tion. This second stage, throughput, is represented by the tools,
techniques, models, processes, mechanics and systems the coach
brings into the coaching conversation. Typical questions you
could
ask may be:
• What are your observations about your thinking?
• What are your questions about your thinking?
Figure 18. Input, Throughput, Output.
Source: Cummings and Worley (2004).
• What can you learn from your thinking?
• What are you assuming that is stopping you/limiting you/
holding you back?
• What makes that stop you?

Output (What for/purpose)
The third stage is the purpose (what for) in the coaching process
and
relates to the client’s outcomes. Output represents the actions,
goals,
results and measurements expected from the coaching
conversation,
including an outline of what the client has learned, will do
differ-
ently and goals set.
Output is represented by the results, objectives and outputs
which the client gains from the coaching conversation. It is rep-
resented by the client arriving at their desired outcome. Output
relates to where the client is going, how results can be measured
and what has changed as a result of the coaching. Typical
questions
might be:
• What action are you now going to take?
• What has changed in your overall vision, strategy and goals?
• What is the overall learning this session?
• What will you do differently as a result of today?

Contracting with I-T-O
To contract the overall journey, coach and client discuss what
each
brings to the relationship, and the overall aim of coaching for
the
client (input). Coach and client then discuss how the coaching
will
take place: timing, boundaries, fees and the tools and techniques
to
be used by the coach, and the way the client would prefer to
work
(throughput). They also discuss the overall results and outcomes
the client hopes to achieve from the coaching intervention,
results
that need to be visible to the organization, and thinking, feeling
and
behaviour that the client would like to change (output).
As a rule, when using this model, I start the coaching
conversation
with input: “Where are you now?” “Where do you want to get to
by
the end of this conversation?” “What do you want to talk
about?”
“What’s on the menu for today?” Once we have identified what

A L
needs to be worked on, I move into throughput: using whichever
question frameworks, tools or techniques are relevant to the
process.
For output, we summarize actions, learning and outcomes from
the
conversation.
CASE STUDY: I-T-O
Input
With one of my current executive clients, Rosalyn, coach and
cli-
ent chatted for an hour about where Rosalyn was in her personal
and professional life. She felt that she was somewhat chaotic in
her approach to her new position as Director of Transformation
for her organization. After an hour’s thinking, she identified her
goal for the coaching session: “I’d like to create a
transformation
workshop that can be facilitated throughout the entire organiza-
tion. So, I need to do some thinking around how I can do it and
who can do it for me, and whether I should subcontract you,
another external consultant, or facilitate myself. I’m thinking

about creating a series of national transformation workshops.
What do you think?” Coach and client agreed to work on an
outline for the workshop as a start.
Throughput
The coach asked the questions that would help Rosalyn to think
through a framework for the one-day programme. Coach and cli-
ent identified the assumptions that were stopping Rosalyn from
thinking she was the person to facilitate the transformational
workshops. We discussed who might be the facilitator, and it
emerged that she was the right person: she had the relevant
skills, organizational knowledge, experience and an under-
standing of diversity and empowerment in South Africa. She
also had a better understanding of organizational culture than
an external consultant might have. We agreed that, as her coach,
it was more constructive for her if I simply helped her to design
the programme.
Output
To conclude, we reflected on what she had gained from the ses-
sion. She concluded that she felt empowered to be both designer

and facilitator for the pilot session with the board. She decided
to think during our next session about how to develop other
facilitators for the process. She wanted to be the trainer of the
facilitators. She also decided to put forward a proposal for a
deputy who would help her with administration and policy-
making. She came to the conclusion that transformation needed
to start at the top, otherwise the complexity of transformation
would not be fully embraced. We summarized her action steps,
finished the outline for the programme, and explored how she
could present her ideas to the board.
The U-process
The U-process is sometimes known as the process of transition,
while
many have also experienced it as similar to Kübler-Ross’s cycle
of
grieving, or as a mid-range change theory. Kübler-Ross’s stages
of

death and dying are denial and isolation, anger, bargaining,
depres-
sion and acceptance. This stage theory has been controversial,
prima-
rily because the theory denies the individuality of human beings
and
other needs of the dying, such as having some control in their
own
treatment and destiny, the role of culture, religion, personality,
family
dynamics and so on (Gorle, 2002). Although the staging theory
has
experienced limitations in its interpretation, in the coaching
field this
U-process is more typically represented in Scharmer’s U-
process.
Scharmer’s U-process
In the process of transition, the client can move from anxiety,
through
happiness, fear, threat, guilt, denial, disillusionment,
depression,
gradual acceptance and hostility to moving forward.
The change process

The U-process is considered a mid-range change theory with a
sense of an emerging future. Scharmer’s process moves the
client
through different levels of perception and change, with differing
levels of action which follow. The three main elements are
sensing,
presencing and realizing. These represent the three basic aspects
of
the U (Figure 19). This process helps the client to work at
different
A L
levels of perception and change, and allows different levels of
actions
to follow. All three are extensions of the learning process. As
the coach
and client move into the U, sensing is about observing and
becom-
ing one with the world; presencing, moving to the bottom of the
U,
is about retreating and reflecting and allowing an inner knowing
to
emerge, and realizing as you move out of the “U”, is about

acting
swiftly and with a natural flow from the knowledge and
understand-
ing that has emerged.
The U-theory suggests co-creation between the individual and
the collective—i.e. the larger world. It is about the
interconnection
or integration of the self with the world. At the bottom of the U,
as described by Scharmer, is the “inner gate” where we drop the
baggage of our journey, going through a threshold. The
metaphor
used here is that of “death of the old self”, and “rebirth of the
new
self”, the client emerges with a different sense of self. On the
Web
is a lovely dialogue between Wilber and Scharmer where they
dis-
cuss the seven states and the three movements in this one
process
(Scharmer, 2003).
Superficial learning and change processes are shorter versions
of the U-movement. In using this as a coaching process, the
client

moves downwards into the base of the U, moving from acting,
to
thinking, to feeling, to will. This is to help the client to
download
with the coach, to let go and discover who they really are, to see
from the deepest part of themselves, developing an awareness
that
is expanded with a shift in intention.
Otto Scharmer, in an executive summary of his book, Theory U:
Leading From the Future as it Emerges, describes the U-process
as
Figure 19. Scharmer’s U-process Model.
Source: Adapted from Senge, Scharmer, Jaworski and Flowers
(2005:88).
five movements: co-initiating, co-sensing, presencing, co-
creating
and co-evolving (Scharmer, 2007:5–8). Scharmer describes this
as moving “first into intimate connection with the world and to
a

place of inner knowing that can emerge from within, followed
by
bringing forth the new, which entails discovering the future by
doing” (Scharmer, 2007:6). The following case study
demonstrates
the five-step process.
Case study: The Global Convention on Coaching (GCC)
From July 2007 until July 2008, Marti and I took part in the
Global
Convention on Coaching. I was chairperson of the GCC’s
Working
Group on a Research Agenda for Development of the Field, and
Marti
participated in the Working Group dialogue process. The GCC
was
originally established to create a collaborative dialogue for all
stake-
holders in coaching worldwide, with the ultimate aim of
profession-
alizing the industry. Nine initial working groups were formed
by
the GCC’s Steering Committee to discuss critical issues related
to the

professionalization of coaching, producing “white papers” on
the
current realities and possible future scenarios of these issues.
These
white papers were presented at the GCC’s Dublin convention in
July
2008. This case study summarizes the working group process of
the
research agenda, which comprised a 12-month online dialogue
proc-
ess, with the addition of monthly telephone conversations,
during
2007–2008.
Figure 20. U-process case study.
Source: Scharmer (2007:6).
A L
1. Co-initiation
Co-initiating is about building common intent, stopping and lis-
tening to others and to what life calls you to do. In the Working
Group for the Research Agenda, the group built common intent
by
first setting up the group, defining their purpose and beginning

to discuss the process that they wanted to use for their dialogue.
It was agreed that the chairperson and facilitator would invite
spe-
cific individuals to join the Working Group, and those members
would suggest other individuals who might have a key interest
in
the research agenda for the field (i.e. the emerging coaching
profes-
sion). The group began their online dialogue, once all had
accepted
the invitation and received instructions on how to use the online
GCC web forum. It was agreed that there would be three
commu-
nities working together: the Working Group and the
Consultative
Body for the Research Agenda, and the Steering Committee who
were responsible for the leadership and management of the
other
groups.
2. Co-sensing
Observe, Observe, Observe. Go to the places of most potential
and listen with your mind and heart wide open. The chairperson
and the facilitator of the Working Group had to learn to co-

facilitate,
observing each other’s skill and competence. They had to be
willing
to listen to each other, observing each other’s style in
facilitating an
online dialogue. They needed to create the group, and to
facilitate
the way forward with the group, learning to take constructive
criti-
cism and appreciation from each other, guiding the group
forward
without being prescriptive. Both chairperson and facilitator
agreed
to co-chair the process, remaining mentally and emotionally
open to
each other’s divergent opinions, ways of being and styles of
inter-
personal communication, whether working with the group online
or by phone.
3. Presencing
Connect to the source of inspiration, and will. Go to the place
of
silence and allow the inner knowing to emerge. Each individual
in the process read, reflected and regularly added their thoughts

and feelings to the online forum. Debate, conflict and agreement
emerged—with chair and facilitator taking responsibility to
keep the
group on track without being prescriptive. The chair and
facilitator
had to connect, each one to their own individual source of
inspira-
tion and to bring that together as one voice to guide the group.
4. Co-creating
Prototype the new. In living examples to explore the future by
doing. This entailed harnessing the energy of the Working
Group to
draft a current reality document of their online and tele-
conference
dialogue; this document was revised four times. They brought in
a facilitator for the Consultative Body who entered the
Consulta-
tive Body dialogue at stage 1 (co-initiating), but entered the
Work-
ing Group dialogue at stage 3 (presencing). Trying to move
forward

with their own Working Group process, yet move the
Consultative
Body from stage 1 to stage 2 (co-initiation to co-sensing) was a
com-
plex, parallel process. The chairperson and facilitator enlisted
the
help of a copywriter and editor to manage the writing process of
the
white paper during the Working Group’s co-creation (or stage
4).
5. Co-evolving
Embody the new in ecosystems that facilitate seeing and act-
ing from the whole. The final stage of the process was the
physi-
cal gathering at the Dublin convention. This took place in three
stages: pre-convention, during the convention and post-
convention
(post-convention work has just begun). Several months prior to
the
convention, all nine working groups began to work together
online
and by telephone to share their own varied stages in the U-
process;
in this way they learned from each other as they gathered
momen-

tum moving towards Dublin which was to be the culmination of
their year-long project. Some groups had lost participants
during
the 12 months through disagreement; others managed to harness
the energy to move through each of the stages together. The
three
processes were:
• Pre-convention: Preparation for the presentation of a white
paper
by nine committees; this was for their committee’s current
global
reality and future possible scenarios for their topic, with the
addi-
tion of a tenth committee four months prior to Dublin.
• Convention: Physical presence, dialogue and debate in Dublin
with each of the working groups. This was paralleled with
virtual
A L
online feedback on a daily basis from those not able to attend
the
convention (however, there were difficulties with this process

which frustrated some who could not access the virtual dialogue
during that week).
• Post-convention: Continuation of the process with a new
format.
The work to take place in diverse groups regionally and nation-
wide, to proceed to the next step building the emerging profes-
sion of coaching. Post-convention, a Transitional Steering
Group
(TSG) began work to harness the energy of those wishing to
con-
tinue. The new GCC saw its role as an organic one, continuing
to
facilitate a global dialogue, rather than forming another coach-
ing organization. The GCC Transitional Steering Group (TSG),
with representatives from the USA, UK, Australia, Argentina,
Singapore and South Africa, designed a web-based networking
platform for the 17 000 GCC members who had signed up to the
Dublin Declaration on Coaching (GCC, 2008g).
This U-process is applicable to large innovation projects where
the
unfolding takes place over a long time; a year in this instance.
The

team composition in such projects as this will change and adapt
to
some degree after each movement: in the GCC process the
working
group for the Research Agenda had lost and added new
members,
whereas the consultative body was a looser entity with only
certain
members playing a strong role. This was a process of discovery,
exploring the future by doing, thinking and reflecting. As
Scharmer
explains, it facilitates an opening. Facilitating an opening
process
involves “the tuning of three instruments: the open mind, the
open
heart, and the open will” (Scharmer, 2007:8–9).
At any one time there were three U-process journeys taking
place
for the Research Agenda: within the working group, the working
group interacting with the consultative body, and the working
group
interacting with the steering committee.

In conclusion
Coach practitioners have a great deal of flexibility when work-
ing with coaching models. In this book, we work from an expe-
riential learning premise because the client always brings their
experience into the coaching conversation. The client’s
experience is
underpinned by a range of factors, including culture, education,
life
experience and personality.
This chapter has explored a few models that hang on a frame-
work of circularity, quadernity and the U-shape. As it is not
possible
to work with every coaching model available in the
marketplace, we
have not delved into Maslow’s triangular model, Beck and
Cowen’s
spiral dynamics model, Ned Herrmann’s four-quadrant, whole-
brain business model, or Will McWhinney’s Paths of Change
model.

I leave those for you to explore, and hope that you have gained
a
sense of the flexibility models can offer the coach practitioner,
as
well as the elasticity in overlaying one over another. Simplicity
is the
prerequisite.
I hope that this chapter has introduced some new learning and
the curiosity to experiment with new structures within your
coach-
ing conversations. It may be that you add one or two of these
models
into your coach’s toolkit; or that you register for a coach
training
programme to learn to work with a new model for your own
con-
tinuing professional development.
Coach’s library
Cummings, T. G., and Worley, C. G. (2004). Organization
Development and
Change. Mason, OH: South-Western College Publishing.
Flaherty, J. (2008). Detail of: Habermas’ Domains of
Competency. Webpage:

coaching.gc.ca/documents/coaching_essential_competences_for
_
leaders_e.asp.
Goleman, D. (1996). Emotional Intelligence. London:
Bloomsbury.
Harri-Augstein, S., and Thomas, L. F. (1991). Learning
Conversations, Self-
Organised Learning: The Way to Personal and Organizational
Growth.
London: Routledge.
Hudson, F. M. (1999). The Handbook of Coaching: A
Comprehensive Resource
Guide for Managers, Executives, Consultants, and Human
Resource Pro-
fessionals. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Insights (2008). Insights Model. Webpage: www.insights.co.uk.
Kline, N. (1999/2004). Time to Think: Listening with the
Human Mind.
London: Ward Lock.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential Learning: Experience as the
Source of Learn-
ing and Development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lane, D. A., and Corrie, S. (2006). The Modern Scientist-
Practitioner:
A Guide to Practice in Psychology. Hove: Routledge.

A L
Scharmer, C. O. (2007). Addressing the Blind Spot of Our
Time: An Executive
Summary of the New Book by Otto Scharmer: Theory U:
Leading from the
Future as it Emerges. Theoryu.com. Webpage:
www.theoryu.com/
execsummary.html.
Senge, P., Scharmer, C. O., Jaworski, J., and Flowers, B. S.
(2005). Presence:
Exploring Profound Change in People, Organizations and
Society. London:
Nicholas Brealey.
Ting, S., and Scisco, P. (2006). The CCL Handbook of
Coaching: A Guide for
the Leader Coach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Weiss, P. (2004). The Three Levels of Coaching. San Francisco,
CA: An
Appropriate Response. Webpage: www.newventureswest.com/
three_levels.pdf.
Wilber, K. (2000a). A Theory of Everything: An Integral Vision
for Business,
Politics, Science and Spirituality. Dublin: Gateway.

115C H A P T E R F I V EExploring and understanding .docx

115C H A P T E R F I V EExploring and understanding .docx

More Related Content

Similar to 115C H A P T E R F I V EExploring and understanding .docx (20)

More from aulasnilda (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

115C H A P T E R F I V EExploring and understanding .docx