Research Paper: Catherine A. Oleksiw Using an Evaluation Tool to Assess the Coaching Process

Oleksiw, C.A.

© Copyright 2006 International Coach Academy Pty. Ltd. Use is governed by the Terms and Conditions at http://www.icoachacademy.com

Last updated Feb 2006

Research Paper Assessment Name: Catherine A. Oleksiw Date: October 11, 2012 Student ID: Email: [email protected]

Complete your 2000-word research paper and insert it in the space below. Then email this document as an attachment to [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Oleksiw, C.A. © Copyright 2006 International Coach Academy Pty. Ltd.

Use is governed by the Terms and Conditions at http://www.icoachacademy.com


2

Using an Evaluation Tool to Assess the Coaching Process

Introduction

Coaching is goal-oriented and action-based. Taking action, being accountable for

those actions and sustaining that change over time are principal outcomes. Throughout

the coaching process, the client determines the direction while the coach lends

encouragement to the client in discovering new ways of thinking and feeling for the

purpose of exploring new approaches and frameworks, that, in turn, lead to committing to

action steps and, therein, positive change. Of interest and concern to a coach is the

commitment of the client to the action and the underlying goals.

How can a coach assess the progress of their clients and the overall effectiveness

of the coaching? What evaluation model or tools are available to track and measure

client success and coaching efficacy? Information (or data) on the coaching process can

support the continuous improvement of coaching and inform the modification of

coaching methodologies so they better address client need. For a one-person coaching

practice, any evaluative process needs to be simple and not time-consuming. A more

detailed sophisticated approach for measuring the efficacy of the coaching practice,

especially in the corporate setting and requiring a more in-depth analysis of return on

investment can be found in Philips, Phillips, & Edwards (2012) or Kirkpatrick (2006).

The objective of this research paper is to present a straightforward simple method for

monitoring progress of the individual client through the coaching process. The evaluative

tool discussed is the logic model which is widely used in the program evaluation field.

The G.R.O.W. Coaching Model is presented as the primary illustration.




3

Coaching Models

A coaching model is a framework for guiding the coach in the coaching process;

however, it is not a formula for how to coach. The coach uses the model strategically in

order to best respond to the coaching situation. There are innumerous coaching models

that are used in the field such as the G.R.O.W. model (Whitmore, 2009) and the Achieve

Coaching model (Dembkowski & Eldridge, 2006). Using a coaching model establishes a

purpose for the coaching, in general, and for each session, in particular. Most coaching

models or approaches share common elements: 1) the establishment of a relationship

based in trust, communication, and confidentiality; 2) the formulation of client-based

goals and expectations; and 3) a powerful questioning and learning dynamic in relation to

those goals (Cortes, Jean Paul, 2012). All coaches do not adhere to any one coaching

model; however, raising client awareness of their self-beliefs in order to deepen

understanding and to increase the capacity to assume responsibility for personal change is

an essential requisite in the coaching space. With deepened awareness, the client can

better formulate and set goals for personal growth.

The Logic Model as a Framework to Organize and Monitor Outcomes

Used by evaluators worldwide to provide a framework for assessing programs and

projects, the logic model is a planning and monitoring tool that focuses on key objectives

and desired program outcomes. In the coaching context, the logic model can be applied at

the coaching practice level across clients or at the client level to assess client progress and

growth. A logic model maps the sequence of related activities believed to bring about

change and links these activities to results or outcomes; it is a “picture of how… [the]

program will work” (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004, p. 1) or how program activities




4

will ultimately lead to change. Logic models typically use table and flow chart formats to

graphically organize program components, activities, and results providing “a series of

connections that link problems and/or needs [being addressed] with the actions [to be

taken] to obtain …outcomes” (Chinman, Imm, & Wandersman, 2004, p. 5). A logic

model “shows the logical relationships among the resources that are invested, the

activities that take place, and the benefits or changes that result” (University of

Wisconsin-Ext., 2003).

The value of a logic model is in the “If…Then” logic inherent in the layout of the

components. If Activity A is done with fidelity, then Outcome A will result. Using this

chain of reasoning, planned work can be linked to intended results. If necessary resources

are available and program activities are implemented with fidelity, then outputs and

outcomes will follow. Engaging in developing a logic model can be a learning process,

“a conscious process that creates an explicit understanding of the challenges ahead, the

resources available, and the timetable in which to hit the target” (W.K. Kellogg

Foundation, 2004, p. iii). A logic model can be used a) during planning to identify

appropriate outcome targets and assess the potential effectiveness of an approach; b)

during implementation, to provide an inventory of what is needed to operate the program,

allow for mid-course adjustments to avoid unintended effects, and provide an indication

if the program is working; and c) for evaluation to document accomplishments and how

resources were utilized (The Community Tool Box, n.d.)

Components of the Logic Model

The development of a logic model begins with establishing the overall purpose of

the program and the need that the program addresses for a target population. For




5

coaching, this might refer to the typical client to which the coaching services are

marketed within a particular niche. At the onset, determining purpose and need often

requires conducting a needs assessment to identify and prioritize the factors to be

addressed. These factors are used to direct the development of program goals and

objectives and strategies. Goals are client-focused and describe the desired condition or

intended change of the target population.

The logic model focuses on program planning and program results. Logic model

components reflecting the planning perspective are Resources, Activities and Outputs.

Logic model components reflecting program results are Short-term, Intermediate and

Long-term Outcomes. Resources refer to the funds, staff, in-kind support, and

partnerships in place to facilitate or support the program. Activities are those typically

outlined in a work plan and are aligned with program objectives. Outputs are the direct

results of the activities such as number of participants served. Outcomes are directly

related to Activities, reflect the demonstrable change in the subject audience, and are

aligned with the broader program goals. Outcomes are linked to measurable Indicators

that assess the degree to which the Outcomes have been achieved. See Figure 1 for a

description of the logic model components.

Figure 1. Logic Model Components

Component Description

Resources What is needed in order to support the implementation of the program and its Activities.

Activities Actions needed to implement program. What will occur (with Resources) to achieve program outcomes and, ultimately, the set goal(s).

Outputs Measurable and direct products of the Activities. What was done with or to target population. Lead to desired outcomes or benefits for the target population but do not represent the changes expected in the target population.

Short-term Most direct result of Activities that will occur immediately or in the near




6

Outcomes future. What resulted in target population based on engaging in Activities. Generally achievable in one year. Typically not ends in themselves, but necessary steps toward desired ends (Intermediate or Long-term Outcomes or Goals) for the target population.

Intermediate Outcomes

Connects program Short-term Outcomes to Long-term Outcomes. [Changes in target population that occur later as a result of the short-term outcomes.]

Long-term Outcomes

Result over time from achievement of Short-term and Intermediate Outcomes, and often take a longer time to achieve. [Directly linked to the Goals for the target population.] Generally the outcomes over which the program has a less direct influence. Often will occur beyond the logic model timeframe.

Indicators

Not always included in basic logic model template. Measurable (quantitative) evidence of outcome being achieved. Measure of success. Reflects change in target population.

Outcomes, the benefits for program participants, can include change in awareness,

knowledge, attitudes, motivation, skills, intention to act, and new or modified behavior.

Not always reported within the logic model template per se, Indicators are essential to the

evaluative aspect of the logic model and planning process. Indicators are the specific data

collected to track the outcomes and measure evidence of participant success. How well

participants perform on the indicators is compared to a predetermined standard of

excellence or progress. Effective and meaningful Indicators are SMART; i.e., Specific,

Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Time-bound (Herinckx, n.d.). See Figure 2 for a

general logic model template. Ideally, a logic model is a one-page document.

Figure 2. Template for Logic Model

INPUTS OUTCOMES

Resources Activities Outputs Short-term Outcomes


Long-term Outcomes

Theory of Change

At a basic level, the logic model is a tool for organizing and monitoring actions

and results. At a more sophisticated level, the logic model is grounded in a theory of




7

change. A theory of change is a “strategic picture of the multiple interventions required

to produce the early and intermediate outcomes that are preconditions of reaching an

ultimate goal” (Anderson, 2005, p. 3). A theory of change depicts a progression of

results at the strategic level while a logic model outlines the program level “map” of the

change process. The logic model is a way to illustrate the program's theory. The early

and intermediate steps need to be assessed in order to insure a logical sequential

progression of steps to the intended long-term changes. As an example of the sequential

flow of the logic model, Short-term Outcomes might focus on Deepened Awareness,

Attitude Change and Knowledge Gains. Intermediate outcomes begin to phase in Skill

Gains, Intention to Change Behavior, Increased Motivation, and, ideally, the onset of

behavioral change. Long-term Outcomes are a result of the program as well as other

external influences. Figure 3 shows a progression of steps of incremental behavioral

change, a model applied in the health field but pertaining to personal growth in general.

Figure 3. Incremental Change for Personal Growth

Awareness of the need to change

Change in Attitude about the benefits or need to change behavior

Gain in new Knowledge that will effect behavioral change

Gain in new Skills based on the new Knowledge

Intention to Change Behavior as a result of new Knowledge and Skills

Demonstrating Behavioral Change as a result of Awareness, Change in

Attitude and new Knowledge and Skills




8

Transforming the G.R.O.W. Coaching Model into a Logic Model

The G.R.O.W. Coaching Model1 is one of the most recognized coaching models.

The acronym G.R.O.W. stands for the four key components central to any meaningful

decision-making process. All major iterations of the G.R.O.W. model share the same

meaning for the first three letters: “G” for the Goal the individual hopes to achieve; “R”

for the contextual Realities the individual must consider or face; and “O” for the Options

available to the individual. The fourth letter, “W,” as originally defined by Alan Fine

means “Way Forward” or a specific action plan that maximizes the proactive

intentionality of the G.R.O.W. Model. As described by Fine, "The Way Forward makes

the decision process something tangible and actionable, where it becomes very clear to

the person making the decision what should happen next…In the absence of motivating

clarity,…people simply don't take action" (InsideOut Development, 2010). Other

commonly accepted interpretations for the “W” are Will” and “Wrap Up” which both

reflect taking definitive steps towards reaching a goal.

Based on a sequential structure, the G.R.O.W. Model lends itself to the logic

model framework. Although not similar in graphical representation, the G.R.O.W. Model

and the logic model framework have common elements or underlying concepts: goals,

1 The G.R.O.W. Model was co-created by Alan Fine, Sir John Whitmore and Graham Alexander. Through

his experiences as a tennis coach, Alan Fine realized that performance breakthroughs were a result of people actually

doing what they already knew they needed to do. In other words, it wasn’t so much a result of not having the necessary

knowledge. Using this insight, Fine worked together with Graham Alexander and Sir John Whitmore for several years

in the early 1980’s before collaborating in the development of G.R.O.W. Model, easily one of the world's most

recognized coaching models for athletic and corporate coaching. Graham Alexander, often described as a ‘super

coach’, is largely attributed with bringing executive coaching to the United Kingdom. Sir John Whitmore, also initially

a high performance sports coach, further popularized the G.R.O.W. model in his book, Coaching for Performance:

GROW.ing Human Potential and Purpose - The Principles and Practice of Coaching and Leadership, now in its fourth

edition (2009). Shortly after Fine and his collaborators developed the GROW Model, the partners went their separate ways, each utilizing his own approach to the model.

http://www.insideoutdev.com/site/coaching_definition/




9

resources, options (or outcomes), actions (or activities) and a plan that reflects continued

action. Both models suggest progress in reaching goals and realizing results based on

specific action steps. Figure 4 shows a simple conversion of the G.R.O.W. model

components to a modified logic model framework.

Figure 4. G.R.O.W. Model components in Logic Model Framework

INPUTS OUTCOMES

Resources Activities Outputs Short-term Outcomes


Long-term Outcomes

Resources “G” Sets Goals Final Goal

“R” Explores Reality

“O” Explores Options

“W” Manifests Will

In the G.R.O.W. Model, Reality with its exploration of the real nature of the issue

or problem including often negative, sabotaging self-beliefs precedes Options with its

exploration of possible behavioral alternatives that lead to the best solution. This

linearity is mirrored in the logic model with its implicit theory of change and the

advancement from short-term to intermediate to long-term outcomes. The four stages of

the G.R.O.W. model correspond to the Activities of the logic model. Resources are those

identified for the coaching sessions and others identified in the Will or Way Forward

Stage. Attachment A presents a more developed version of the G.R.O.W. logic model

using a timeframe of 20 sessions. This set timeframe is only for illustration purposes.

Key components of the logic model not articulated in the G.R.O.W. model are the

Outputs and the Indicators, which are also called measures of success. These distinguish

the logic model and add value to its use for the coaching practice. Outputs might include




10

Number of Sessions, average Length of Time for Sessions, and products of the coaching

process such as lists that the client generates or the journal that the client maintains.

Outputs do not include the results for the client such as any changes in awareness,

knowledge or behavior; these are represented as Outcomes in the model. Participant data

sources such as journal entries and distal assessments on motivation, self-empowerment,

and resiliency provide the basis for developing Indicators. To start, the purest Indicator

in a qualitative form may be the self-reported progress documented by the client.

Conclusion and Next Steps

Learning and using tools like the logic model can serve the coach in mapping the

potential journey of the client. Furthermore, the logic model can illustrate the big picture

as well as the component parts (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004). Sharing the logic

model with the client may help the client to see the potential for action once client

awareness has deepened and knowledge and skills related to personal development have

further developed. In this sense, the logic model can serve as both a management tool for

the coach and a coaching tool for the client. At its quintessential foundation, the logic

model is a powerful communication tool providing at a glance the components of the

coaching model and the underlying theory of change. Connecting the dots between

resources, activities, and outcomes, the logic model shows where the client starts, what

they must address and where they hope to end up. Reasonable next steps in further

developing the G.R.O.W. logic model include identifying specific outcome measures for

the Indicators and expanding the use of the model to document not just a sole client but

an aggregate of all clients in the coach’s practice.




11

References

Anderson, A. (2005). An Introduction to Theory of Change – Interview with Andrea

Anderson of the Aspen Institute Roundtable on Community Change. The Evaluation

Exchange, XI (2). Harvard, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. Retrieved from

http://www.hfrp.org/evaluation/the-evaluation-exchange/issue-archive/evaluation-

methodology/an-introduction-to-theory-of-change#

Chinman, M., Imm, P., & Wandersman, A. (2004). Getting to Outcomes 2004:

Promoting Accountability through Methods and Tools for Planning, Implementation,

and Evaluation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Retrieved from

http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR101/

Cortes, Jean Paul (2012). How Many Coaching Models Can You Find? What-IS-

Coaching. © 2008 - 2012 www.personal-coaching-information.com All rights

reserved. Retrieved from http://www.what-is-coaching.com/coaching-models.html

Dembkowski, S., & Eldridge, F. (2006). The Achieve Coaching Model – A Systematic

Approach to Greater Effectiveness in Executive Coaching. Business Coaching

Worldwide, 2 (1). Also available at http://www.wabccoaches.com/blog/the-achieve-

coaching-model%C2%AE-a-systematic-approach-to-greater-effectiveness-in-

executive-coaching-by-dr-sabine-dembkowski-and-fiona-eldridge/

Herinckx, H. (n.d.). Logic Model Design. Portland, OR: Regional Research Institute,

Portland State University. Retrieved from

http://www.oregoneval.org/OPEN%20Conference%202009_%20Logic%20Model_2.

pdf

InsideOut Development (2010). Alan Fine and the History of the G.R.O.W. Model.

Retrieved from http://www.insideoutdev.com/site/history_G.R.O.W._model/

Kirkpatrick, D. & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs – The Four

Levels (3rd

. ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.

Phillips, P., Phillips, J., & Edwards, L. (2012). Measuring the Success of Coaching.

Alexandria, VA: American Society for Training & Development.

The Community Tool Box (n.d.). Developing A Logic Model. Retrieved from

http://ctb.ku.edu/en/tablecontents/sub_section_main_1877.htm

University of Wisconsin (2003). Enhancing Program Performance with Logic Models.

University of Wisconsin-Extension. Retrieved from

http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/pdf/lmcourseall.pdf

http://www.hfrp.org/evaluation/the-evaluation-exchange/issue-archive/evaluation-methodology/an-introduction-to-theory-of-change

http://www.hfrp.org/evaluation/the-evaluation-exchange/issue-archive/evaluation-methodology/an-introduction-to-theory-of-change

http://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR101/

http://localbiz.sitesell.com/win-in-business.html

http://localbiz.sitesell.com/win-in-business.html

http://www.what-is-coaching.com/coaching-models.html

http://www.wabccoaches.com/blog/the-achieve-coaching-model%C2%AE-a-systematic-approach-to-greater-effectiveness-in-executive-coaching-by-dr-sabine-dembkowski-and-fiona-eldridge/



http://www.oregoneval.org/OPEN%20Conference%202009_%20Logic%20Model_2.pdf

http://www.oregoneval.org/OPEN%20Conference%202009_%20Logic%20Model_2.pdf

http://www.insideoutdev.com/site/about/

http://www.insideoutdev.com/site/history_grow_model/

http://ctb.ku.edu/en/tablecontents/sub_section_main_1877.htm

http://www.uwex.edu/ces/pdande/evaluation/pdf/lmcourseall.pdf




12

W.K. Kellogg Foundation (2004). W.K. Kellogg Foundation Logic Model Development

Guide. Battle Creek, Michigan:

Whitmore, J. (2009). Coaching for Performance: G.R.O.W.ing Human Potential and

Purpose - The Principles and Practice of Coaching and Leadership (4th

ed.). Boston,

MA: Nicholas Brealey.

Oleksiw, C.A.

© Copyright 2006 International Coach Academy Pty. Ltd. Use is governed by the Terms and Conditions at http://www.icoachacademy.com


Attachment A. Example of Logic Model of G.R.O.W. Coaching Model

Client in concert with Coach Client Outcomes as a Result of G.R.O.W. Coaching Process

Resources

Activities

Outputs ST Outcomes 1

st 6 sessions

Inter Outcomes Sessions 7-12

LT Outcomes Sessions 16-20

Identified for each session

Client attends sessions

N of sessions

N of hours/session

Meets Goal(s) based on Change in Behavior

Identified for Action Steps in “W” Will Stage

Client sets Goals (G) List of Short-term and Long-term Goals with timeline and end date for Long-term Goals

Client explores Reality (R)

Client journal Increase in Self-Awareness

Increase in Knowledge of strategies (positive/negative) used in addressing key issue(s)

Initial Perspective Shift resulting in developing new Skill of healthy questioning of self-beliefs

Initial increase in Motivation due to feeling self-empowered @ challenging self-beliefs

Sustained Perspective Shift resulting in new Skill of resiliency in questioning self-beliefs

Continued Motivation due to new Skills in releasing old habits or practicing new habits

Client explores Options (O)

Client journal on list of decisions and new prospective behaviors

Intention to Behave as reflected in formulation of decisions @ behavior

Client manifests Will (W)

Client list with action steps and obstacles, and resources and support needed

With deepened Self-Awareness and New Skills, takes Action based on Plan of Action developed

Client re-explores Reality based on Action Step not working

Client journal on successes and shortcomings of taking Action Steps

Revisits Obstacles, Generates 2nd

solution, Tries new Action

Research Paper: Catherine A. Oleksiw Using an Evaluation Tool to Assess the Coaching Process

Documents

coaching efficacy

coaching space

coaching context

coaching situation

coaching practice level

innumerous coaching

oneperson coaching practice

evaluation model