What coaching models are most effective for behavior change?

Our research has shown that models can be helpful for coaches early in their practice. As coaches become more proficient and skilled, they tend to move away from models and have embodied the art and skill. This leads to a more dynamic and fluid conversation with the client.

When I first started coaching clients, I found the GROW model to be easy to apply and well-received. It works seamlessly with additional activities I weave into my sessions including values identification, strengths assessment and developing agency. I also find it helpful to encourage clients to test actions out as behavioral experiments - some will work well and others may not, emphasizing that flexibility and adaptability are key.

Behavioral change is not about the model that coaches use. Coaching models are a framework or process that coaches use to support coachees in making changes. The GROW model is a first generation coaching model. It is useful for transactional vs. transformational coaching. I teach this model in my leadership training modules for managers who require coaching skills. It is easy to understand and apply.

I have been training on the GROW model as a coaching tool for years and have found that focusing on the W – Way Forward, is most important to create sustainable behavior change. When teaching the GROW model, use deliberate practice exercises that emphasize gaining commitment to behavior change during the Way Forward portion. I find that for many, getting through the G-R-O is hard enough so they do a cursory run through the Way Forward. This means you, as a coach, have helped correct a situation, but have not encouraged lasting behavior change.

Before choosing any model, it is helpful to ask the client what models they know, what models they have tried, and what models have - and have not - worked. While they may not have a specific name for the way they have approached things in the past, focusing on processes that have led to success can help design a model that uniquely suits the client. Their own model co-created with the coach is going to be more powerful than something out of the box - our job is to know different models so we can ask informed questions that help the client identify THEIR model. Each model can be further broken down. Take Grow - the G is GOALS, what model do we use for them? SMART? Follow the client's clues to create a model WITH them that is FOR them!

As there is no perfect model and a coach needs to go with the flow and bring different aspects, I would like to put across the pros and cons of the ACHIEVE Model here - Pros: Comprehensive: ACHIEVE covers Aspirations, Current Reality, Hindrances, Ideals, Enablers, Vision, and Execution. Holistic Focus: Emphasizes both internal and external factors affecting change. Cons: Complexity: The multitude of elements may be overwhelming for some coachees. Time-Consuming: Due to its depth, sessions may require more time.

How to make a coaching session stick? I've experienced that without feeling a sense of urgency the "coachee" will not follow up. So bringing the "achieve" model extension in, is very valuable. Asking "where do you see yourself, after implementing these changes/improvements/learnings within one week/month?". This will bring in momentum to be more committed. "what will be your first milestone?" and "when will you review this?" and "what do you need from me?". This has lead to several successful coaching outcomes.

El seguimiento es importante, así como la asignación de tareas aprovechando las capacidades de nuestro equipo de trabajo, y coincido con @Amitabh Kumar, no hay modelo perfecto por lo que el liderazgo personal será importante para mantener y lograr resultados, el Modelo de ACHIVE te dará la pauta para evaluar si ha sido correcta la estructura para lograr tu cambio

As there is no perfect model and a coach needs to go with the flow and bring different aspects, I would like to put across the pros and cons of the COM-B Model here - Pros: Behavioral Focus: Centers on Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, and Behavior. Psychological Insight: Incorporates psychological aspects for a nuanced understanding. Cons: Specialized Use: Primarily designed for health behavior change, limiting applicability. Overemphasis on Analysis: May lean too heavily on dissecting factors without sufficient action-oriented elements.

The COM-B model takes a more systemic approach to include 'opportunities' that are external to the coachee along with 'capability' and 'motivation' that are internal to the coachee. The COM-B model, coupled with motivational interviewing could help the coachee strongly visualize a desired future self which could offset the necessary identity and mindset shift required for behavior change, with actions being a natural consequence of that.

Los factores a analizar son muy importantes, tienes que ser muy objetivo, en la evaluación una vez ya estructurado e integradas las acciones dirigidas al cambio, en tu equipo de trabajo,

Por las experiencias que he tenido, todas las reacciones y factores, que interactuarán en el proceso, deben ser considerados por el jefe o coach, los escenarios creados en base a los elementos analizados, le dará una mejor visón de como actuara para lograr su objetivo

Si tengo que pensar en el aquí y ahora que somos, éste es el modelo que más se aproxima a una idea previa de conversación de coaching. Lo valioso es cuándo ocurre ésta. Ahí, todos los modelos tambalean, hola! Seres humanos interactuando para un mejor destino y en.perjuicio de nadie Ahí, el milagro del coaching.

as a coach it is best to always go with the flow. based on what presents in front of you before deciding on tool. The STEPPPA model, rooted in existential coaching and positive psychology, offers a transformative approach to behavior change. It transcends superficial alterations, instead fostering deep alignment with one's core values and vision. This holistic framework delves into strengths, triggers, emotions, perceptions, and patterns, ensuring changes are not only sustainable but also resonate deeply with one's identity and aspirations. As a master execution coach, I see STEPPPA as an invaluable tool for crafting meaningful, self-aware life strategies, enabling individuals and clients to navigate their journey with clarity and purpose.

As there is no perfect model and a coach needs to go with the flow and bring different aspects, I would like to put across the pros and cons of the STAR Model here - Pros: Positive Framing: Emphasizes Situation, Task, Action, and Result with a positive outlook. Clarity: Straightforward structure aids in goal setting. Cons: Oversimplification: May not address intricate behavioral nuances. Limited Depth: Relies on a concise framework, possibly missing underlying issues.

In the wake of 2020, many find themselves in a languishing state, grappling with the emotional aftermath. Here, integrative coaching shines as a vital lifeline. Combining NLP, EFT, and CBT within coaching offers a multifaceted approach to healing. It not only acknowledges the depths of languishing but provides practical, empowering tools for recovery and growth. As a master life coach, I see this holistic method as essential. It transforms languishing into flourishing, guiding individuals towards resilience, emotional equilibrium, and a rejuvenated sense of purpose in our ever-evolving world.

I like the STAR model because it's simple as the GROW model, but these both can introduce friction and complexity upfront. That's why I developed a more natural framework called: PRDW. P is for Pain. R is for Reality sourounding the pain. D is for Dream, and W is for Way forward. PRDW is meant to nudge the client in the right direction with a natural flow of the conversation, moving his attention away from the pain, towards a dream he has, thus making him opened and willing to discuss a way forward. PRDW also applies the self-determination theory, which suggest that behavior change is more effective and satisfying when it is based on rational thinking, positive emotions, and intrinsic motivation.

I recommend minimizing the use of complex models and focusing instead on the classic components that deliver consistent change. 1. Define an aspirational goal for coaching. What is the North Star or direction the leader wants to move toward? 2. Create 1-3 behavioral goals that will lead them in that direction and are simply measured. Spend the majority of time here. Goal definition is ~60% of the challenge. 3. Explore known barriers to change and potential methods to overcome them. 4. Build a plan and work it diligently. When in doubt, I encourage leaders to revisit goal definition. Because most goals are not felt deeply, but instead just a laundry list of stuff. Without conviction, the change is undercut before it starts.

In my training as a Clean Language coach, what works well is repeating back the exact words of my clients (i.e. not paraphrasing because that means changing their words), and then asking them a clean (i.e. content-free) question about their words. This: a. acknowledges the client's experience exactly as they describe it, b. orientates their attention to an aspect of their perception, and c. sends them on a quest for self knowledge (Lawley & Tompkins, Metaphors in Mind: Transformation Through Symbolic Modelling) Doing all of that consistently results in the client having more rapport with their stuff (as opposed to building coach-client rapport). And the more rapport they have with their stuff, the more likely change happens organically.

What coaching models are most effective for behavior change? It depends on what drives the clients. If a client is goal-driven, setting goals would be practical. If a client's non-working behaviors are based on emotional intelligence, focus on raising self-awareness, self-management, other-awareness, social awareness, and empathy. If behaviors are based on beliefs, we must discover limited beliefs and extend their capacity to see beyond those beliefs. Not a single model serves everyone.

Whilst coaching models are used by coaches to support individuals in making changes, the effectiveness of any coaching model depends on the specific needs and circumstances of the individual or organization. I also agree with my friend Joel DiGirolamo that despite the fact that such models provide a structured framework, they tend to be less top of mind/explicitly applied by experienced coaches. Last but not least, David Clutterbuck has identified 4 levels of coaching maturity, and the models-based coaching approach is the least mature: Coaching Approach Style 1. Models-based Control 2. Process-based Contain 3. Philosophy-based Facilitate 4. Systemic-electric Enable

The most effective piece for behaviour change starts with knowing what to change , willingness to change and taking actions. The coach’s ability to ask valuable questions paves the way for behaviour change.