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.

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

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

Is there any other opinion about coaching models?

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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