How Effective is the GROW Model?

Leonardo, thanks for posing your questions about the GROW model.

While the GROW model may be the most widely known, there are other three, four, and five step models which may be equally as effective.

Over the years, I found that an easy-to-follow process works well for newer coaches because of the structure provided. More recently, I also discovered managers and leaders learning to incorporate coaching skills into their communication repertoire benefit equally as well by having a model to follow.

And while obvious, if the acronym for the phases/stages/steps creates a visual, then it’s even more powerful. Why? Because it’s memorable.

You asked if there are any limits to the GROW model (or other step-wise models)? The biggest limitation I’ve observed in mentor coaching is when newer coaches or managers/leaders adhere to each stage so closely they do not truly listen to the person being coached. Then it becomes a lock-step recipe: all the ingredients are added in the correct order, but the result is bland, boring or worse.

And, after experiencing how people would often jump into a coaching session trying to establish goals as quickly as possible without laying any foundation or relationship, I developed my own coaching process. It’s also a four step step model called CUES: Connect, Understand, Explore, Summarize. For me, the first step in any coaching conversation is more than just setting goals, it’s to establish a relationship. Hence “Connect”.

What about your experiences, Leonardo, do you use the GROW model? And, is the model still used as widely in Europe?

Cheers,

Sylva Leduc, MEd, MPEC
Executive & Leadership Coach
Director, The Gift of Coaching

Sylva, thank you for your comment.

You said: “The biggest limitation I’ve observed in mentor coaching is when newer coaches or managers / leaders adhere to each stage so closely they do not truly listen to the person being coached”

I think this is not a limit of the model itself, but a problem of learning or adaptation by the coach to the model (as long as we bear in mind that the “map can never be the territory”, and the GROW model is only an orientation guide for the process of coaching).

Your model “CUES” (Connect, Understand, Explore, Summary) is interesting and represents a model aimed at the relationship rather than objective. In other words, the GROW model is a guide to move from vision or ideas to action and not dive into the specific aspects of skills and abilities necessary to strengthen the relationship (that it gets with your model).

You asked me: “What about your experiences, Leonardo, do you use the GROW model? And, is the model still used as widely in Europe?”

Yes, I use and teach the GROW model. Well treated, it allows the coach direct and clear guidance on the process of coaching. I also teach the OUTCOMES and ACHIEVE Model.

OUTCOMES MODEL: http://www.performance-am.com/PDF/Grow%20v%20Outcomes.pdf

ACHIEVE MODEL: http://www.wabccoaches.com/bcw/2006_v2_i1/feature.html

I also designed, three models of coaching (Personal, Executive and Group Coaching)because I understand that the principles of GROW model becomes more complex in this type of relations.

I explained the basic ideas in this article (in Spanish):
http://leoravier.wordpress.com/2007/06/10/modelos-de-coaching-segun-tipologia-de-clientes/

Hi Leonardo
I have enjoyed your discussion around the GROW model. We have found that the model itself is more helpful than the name or words of a model. I am quite creative and come up with wonderful ideas almost every other night.

However, as a emerging coach and a business leader I am learning that all my fancy new ideas are not as helpfull as the simple tools that provide a workable handle.

So we are learning to stick with what works. And here in Africa, sometimes the simpler the better. Now I do not mean simple as in inferior thought or poorly research method and worldview. I mean, whatever helps me connect with an individual, and more importantly, what ever will help that individual take the ‘model into the muddle of his or her life space’. That is more often achieved through clear and precise concepts, and a really good story.

We also use theatre in the marketplace in another arena of our work. It is interesting to see concepts merge, such as the thought behind GROW and power of metaphor and story telling, across multiple disciplines and around boardrooms throughout the world.

So before we spend too much time reinventing wheels, we yearn for more opportunity to particpate in seeing a better tomorrow, helping people start today!

Thanks
Ciao
Robin

Thanks Robin. The effectiveness of a model, lies in the ease of assimilation, even unconscious level, in our working relationship in coaching. If practice and repetition of use does not reach this level, it is because the model is not sufficiently intuitive to facilitate learning.

Hi Leo. Look, in the paper, GROW model looked nice to me, but, once into practice, well, was not very helpful, really. I´ll explain why.

I have found that people go in iterative stages, from defining goals, checking reality, and come back to goals. For example, this guy who loses his job, he said, “I want to be an independent accountant” … and then: “Well, I don¬¨¬•t have my accountant¬¨¬•s licence, so I need to get it first”… Do you notice how he went from Goal to check Reality and then came back to goals?

So, for me, the GROW model is an abstraction.

Again, look back at the oldies, Kurt Lewin for instance, with his Action Research model, back in 1948. “His approach involves a spiral of steps, ‘each of which is composed of a circle of planning, action and fact-finding about the result of the action”. Go to the link and read about ACTION RESEARCH.

BTW, Kurt Lewin is worthy of being in The Coaching Hall of Fame.

http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et-lewin.htm

Dear Abiel Guerra,

Thank you for the references of Kurt Lewin, really interesting.

Regarding your appreciation “So, for me, the GROW model is an abstraction,” I believe that not only the GROW model is an abstraction, but that any model, by definition, is.

Therefore, all models have their own limitations. You’ve given us one that lies in the literalness of the unidirectional sequence from the “goals” to the “action plan.”

However, since all models are abstractions, we must not stick to them literally. The GROW model, in this sense, does not prevent that one can move from one phase to another alternately, but literalism mental who works with this model. Indeed, one can only have a whole session to define the correct “Goal” phase and return to it at any time if necessary in subsequent sessions (or in the same session. And this applies to all stages and sessions).

Thats why the best complement to the GROW model, and any model in coaching, is to follow the “agenda of the client”, rather than forcing our mental schemes or preconceived models.

I think the depth of your assessment is correct and important to take into account.

I would like to hear more opinions, criticisms or comments. All of them will be welcome.

I don’t know if this takes this discussion off-track, but I second your appreciation for Kurt Lewin. His ideas of field theory and homeostasis have been key influences, in my opinion in methods like Kegan and Lahey’s “How the Way We Talk Can Change the Way We Work” as well as in “motivational interviewing”.

Overall, and I’m not sure to what degree, if any, this is addressed in the GROW model, both of these broad methods involve exploring the parts of us that don’t want to change or that resist change before moving to fast into change. There are 2 sides to the equation, the part that wants to change and the part that resists. It can be tempting to work on the former, trying to increase motivation; it is at least equally important (I would guess we are probably in violent agreement about this) to explore the parts of us that have often resisted for quite some time. I think Lewin was quite instrumental in this way of thinking.

Hi Leonardo,

I think you know my thoughts on the GROW model, especially as you teach my OUTCOMES model, but I’ll reiterate my views.

GROW is a useful starter model to get people into the way of the coaching process. The challenge (and this applies to any structured model) is that it can be used too ‘inflexibly’ and I have found that many managers who coach simply think that by rushing through the ’steps’ they are coaching.

A coaching model that has more ’steps’ goes some of the way to ensure that the coaching session isn’t rushed through and that that the ‘coach’ becomes more disciplined in engaging and exploring with the coachee all the options that are open to them.

In my teachings with managers new to coaching I always work with the GROW model until they get used to coaching in a structured fashion. I then build up to the OUTCOMES model to enable them to get more depth to their coaching.

Hi Allan,

I apologize for my delay in responding.
Thank you for your comment. Indeed, I believe that your model clarifies the “steps” needed to develop in the coaching sessions or processes.

In my book, published in early 2005, I presented a comparison of the three best-known coaching models (GROW, OUTCOMES and ACHIEVE), where you can see, visually, what you mention.

However, I believe that there is still a long way to go, both in the field of theoretical models of coaching, in their practical applications, and the skills developing necessary for its proper implementation.

For example, the “steps subdivision” is helpful to securing the proper process; on the other hand, while we make it “more complex” what is lost, perhaps, is naturalness and fluency. Look at the comparative models (from left to right), and you’ll see what I mean.

Comparing Coaching Models:
http://leoravier.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/mopdels.jpg

Leonardo,

Fully agree with your sentiments in that the various models offer a ’step approach’. This can help people get used to coaching but these steps must be used in an order that flows with the client.

If naturalness and fleuncy is lost then so too is the potential impact of the coaching. A good coach always has the steps at the back of their mind but their focus has to be on the client and only using the process (or even parts of it) to support the client to their goals.

Yes. I´m fully agree with you.
Thanks for your feedback.

Is there any other opinion about coaching models?

Leonardo,

I have really enjoyed reading this discussion thread; it mirrors many similar conversations I have witnessed in the past few years as coaching has developed in both popularity and academic scrutiny. I’d like to tilt the conversation a little towards the original use of the model and how its limitations have traveled across languages.

What seems to be a commonly agreed drawback of GROW is the rigidity of the process-flow and how this may hamper the coaching relationship (particularly so when used by newer coaches who may ‘rush through’ the process believing that to be ‘coaching’).

Going back to Graham Alexander’s initial work, he never intended it to be used in this way, rather to simply model discrete phases in his effective coaching conversations – and quoting his own words, “Within this framework [GROW], the coaching is fluid, natural and artistic. The coachee is not subjected to a mechanistic and linear approach.”

I have used GROW since I became a coach in the late 80’s (and more recently) its adaptations within my coaching practice. However, I find I am using a model blended from NLP’s ‘Neurological levels’ and also ‘Appreciative Enquiry’ far more these days.

Kind regards to all
Vincent

Thanks for your comment.

Alexander’s own words are revealing. I see that the quote you mention appears in Chapter 4 of the Second Part of “Excellence in Coaching: The Industry Guide” book (Published in 2006).

It is also interesting how Alexander presented his model under a cyclical scheme, and not staged.

For more information, see chart and explanation in Alexander words:
http://books.google.es/books?id=fH1IZrI9HzQC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPA61,M1

Greetings,

Leonardo Ravier

Yes, that is where I got the quote and yes, the cyclical nature of the model is an important one.

I think GROW has at least two levels, there is the flow through each session but it also applies to the whole coaching relationship and that might be three or more individual sessions of course. Without the cyclical and non-linear approach, progress would probably be stilted and manufactured.

David Megginson commented at a conference last year that he was of the mind nowadays that initial goals are probably the weakest and it is only once into the meat of the session can the real potential of the coaching intervention be seen and therefore a better time to formulate the most compelling objectives.