As research shows, the world’s leading corporations are actively deploying coaching as a means of developing leaders and increasing corporate productivity (Verlander, 2011). Although coaching is an effective means of employee motivation and problem-solving on the way to bring up corporate leaders and refine the talented executives, there is the issue of quality of coaching sessions. In his article “Coaching With Poise,” E. G. Verlander discusses the various models of coaching and outlines a mode that he deems the most optimal for improving coaching quality.
We will write a custom Critical Writing on Models in “Coaching with Poise” by E. Verlander specifically for you
301 certified writers online
There is a multitude of coaching styles and models that vary from one coach to another. In his article, Verlander provides a detailed review of existing coaching models, sparing a special place for the coaching matrix. In his other works, the author speaks in favor of professional consulting as a synthesis of coaching and consulting skills to adequately assess the corporate goals, gather data, and work with employees to enhance their competencies (Verlander, 2012).
However, to achieve the maximum results within the coaching sessions – or consulting sessions for that matter – balance is needed. The idea of balance can be traced throughout the author’s works. At that, the name of the model proposed by him and consisting of such elements as Purpose, Observations, Impact, Solution Search, and Expectations folds up into an acronym, which also implies balance. To summarize the model, we have thoroughly studied the narrative and the addendum provided by the author and produced a detailed chart as follows:
|POISE Coaching: Model Summary|
|Stage||What Happens and Why|
|Purpose||The purpose of the session is outlined and discussed. This includes, but is not limited to: |
A clear understanding of purpose helps the employees focus and is an effective start of the session.
|Observations||The employees’ developmental objectives are identified. The identification can be conducted via: |
The employees understand their weak points and what precisely they should carry out of the session. They regard change as their personal goal.
|Impact||The employees’ conduct is analyzed in retrospective to estimate the association between what they had done and what the results were. The impact analysis is conducted through: |
Such tactics help lead the employees through the barrier of denial and resistance. Those who deem themselves incapable of change are assured they, too, make a difference.
|Solution Search||The coach discusses the possible ways of transformation. For that purpose, the following strategies are used: |
This step is the whole purpose of coaching since it helps establish the steps necessary for the employees’ development.
|Expectations and Encouragement||The coach closes the session by: |
This is done in order to draw a logical conclusion to the session and empower the employees to start taking immediate steps.
Apparently, as the author sees it, coaching sessions should primarily result in transformation. In his preceding works, he has expanded upon the dense interconnection that exists between business and transformation (Verlander, 1999). The key concept here is that training executives, the coach should keep the balance of steps. The McKinsey model of engagement suggests that problems are most effectively resolved in a team (Friga, 2008).
Verlander goes further and regards eliciting as a powerful instrument wherein an employee allocates what they suspected to be their problems but never voiced their concerns. As per Verander’s model, the employees should never be pressed to change; a qualified coach does quite the opposite, encouraging them to recognize their weak points and develop solutions with the help of the coach, not on their bidding. The main tool that a qualified coach deploys is an active dialog in which the ideas are generated, brainstormed, and evaluated. The coach should act as a balancer, hinting at possible solutions but not dictating them openly and motivating but not oppressing.
The POISE model offered by Verlander appears to be indeed perfectly balanced. Considering the sequence of steps, the author proposes a logical way of problem-solving, which is result-oriented and yet quite simple. The implementation of such a model would require a coach that is capable of empathy and possesses emotional intelligence to carefully guide the employees on their way to problem recognition and, subsequently, resolution. Given that the corporate well-being rests on the employees’ performance, transforming and educating employees is a worthy investment, and the POISE model would add the necessary balance.
Friga, P. D. N. (2008). The McKinsey Engagement: A Powerful Toolkit For More Efficient and Effective Team Problem Solving. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Professional.
Verlander, E. G. (2011). Coaching With Poise. Web.
Verlander, E. G. (1999). Executive Coaching. In F. C. Ashby, (Ed.), Effective Leadership Programs (pp. 59-80). Alexandria, VA: ASTD.
Verlander, E. G. (2012). The Practice of Professional Consulting. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.