LEAD 6133 Module 2 Comparison of Coaching Models Example

Goal, Reality, Options, Will or What Is Already Working: Comparing GROW, Solution-Focused and Cognitive-Behavioral Coaching for Health Center Team Leads

Student Name

American College of Education

LEAD6133: Models of Leadership and Coaching

Module 2 Assignment

Instructor Name

October 19, 2026

Introduction

Module 1 compared leadership models for the five team leads I supervise at a composite federally qualified health center in the Mississippi Delta and concluded that each team needs a different emphasis: structure for new staff, obstacles cleared, leadership shared with experts. This paper turns to the method of helping the leads get there. It compares three coaching models on how they structure a conversation, what evidence supports them and how well they fit leads who were promoted from within without training, and it closes with the questions I would open each model with.

The GROW Model

The GROW model, popularized by Whitmore (2017), structures a coaching conversation in four stages: the goal the person wants, the current reality, the options available and the will or way forward, meaning the specific actions the person commits to. Its strength is simplicity. A new coach can follow it, and the person being coached leaves with actions. Its weakness is that it can become a checklist, moving to options before the coachee has really understood the reality. GROW has little research testing it as a distinct model; it is better understood as a widely used structure than as an evidence-based intervention in its own right.

Solution-Focused Coaching

Solution-focused coaching asks people to describe the future they want and to notice what is already working, rather than analyzing the causes of a problem. Its questions are distinctive: when is the problem less bad, what were you doing then and what would be the first sign of improvement. Grant (2012) randomly assigned participants to answer either problem-focused or solution-focused coaching questions about a real problem. Both groups moved closer to their goals, but the solution-focused group showed greater gains in goal approach, more positive affect, greater self-efficacy and more action steps. The study involved single sessions with questions rather than ongoing coaching relationships, so it shows the questions' immediate effect, not long-term change.

Cognitive-Behavioral Coaching

Cognitive-behavioral coaching borrows from cognitive-behavioral therapy for non-clinical populations: it helps people notice the thoughts that block action, such as "if I delegate, it will be done badly," test them against evidence and practice new behaviors. Grant (2003) evaluated a coaching program combining cognitive-behavioral and solution-focused techniques with 20 adults in a within-subjects design and found that participation was associated with better mental health, quality of life and goal attainment, along with increased insight. With twenty participants and nobody serving as a comparison, the evidence is thin, but the program's focus on thinking patterns suits leads whose obstacles are partly beliefs about themselves.

What the Wider Evidence Says

Meta-analyses support coaching in general without settling which model is best. Theeboom et al. (2014) pooled organizational coaching studies and reported reliable benefits across five kinds of outcome: how well people perform, how they feel, how they cope, their attitudes toward work and how steadily they steer themselves toward goals. Jones et al. (2016), examining 17 studies of workplace coaching by internal or external coaches, found positive effects overall, with especially large effects on individual-level results, and found that effects were stronger when coaches were internal to the organization. That last finding matters for a small health center: I would be an internal coach, and the evidence suggests that need not be a disadvantage. Neither meta-analysis compared models directly, which leaves the choice to fit.

Fit for Five Leads

Fit depends on each lead's problem. The front desk lead, overwhelmed by constant training, would benefit from GROW's structure: a clear goal, such as a training checklist that new hires can use without her, and concrete actions by Friday. The medical assistant lead, who does intake herself rather than delegate, holds a belief that blocks action; cognitive-behavioral coaching would help her test it. The behavioral health lead, unsure of her role among expert therapists, may need solution-focused questions about moments when the team worked well with her, since her problem is less a skill gap than a missing picture of success. The care coordination and mobile clinic leads could use any of the three, and I would start with GROW for its simplicity.

Opening Questions

The models become real in their questions. For GROW with the front desk lead: "What would you like to be true about training new staff three months from now?" For cognitive-behavioral coaching with the medical assistant lead: "What do you expect would happen if one of your assistants did intake on a busy morning, and what has actually happened the times they did?" For solution-focused coaching with the behavioral health lead: "Think of a week when the integrated care team worked well with you. What were you doing differently that week?" Writing the questions forced me to see that the models differ less in their stages than in where they direct the coachee's attention: toward a goal, toward a belief or toward what already works.

Learning to Coach Myself

Choosing models is easier than using them well, and I have no coaching training. Two steps will close part of that gap. First, I will practice each model's opening sequence with a peer from my doctoral cohort, a nurse manager in Memphis, recording two practice conversations a month and reviewing them together against the model's stages. Second, I will keep a short log after each real coaching conversation noting which model I used, where I drifted back into giving advice and what the lead committed to do. Supervisors who coach tend to slip into telling, because telling is faster and feels helpful; the log is meant to catch that habit early. If after three months the logs show mostly advice-giving, the honest conclusion will be that I need formal coach training before continuing, and the health center's professional development budget can cover a certificate program.

Limits

Two limits shape this plan. I am the leads' supervisor, and a coaching conversation with one's boss is never fully free; a lead may hesitate to admit a belief like "I do not trust my team." And none of the evidence above comes from rural health centers or from leads in their first leadership roles. I will treat the model choices as trials to be checked with each lead after a month. To reduce the first problem, I will tell each lead at the start that coaching conversations are separate from performance reviews, that nothing said in them will appear in an evaluation and that they can ask for a different coach, such as the center's medical director, if they would rather not be coached by their supervisor. Offering that choice costs little and makes candor more likely.

Conclusion

The three coaching models share a purpose and differ in focus. GROW offers structure, solution-focused coaching offers attention to what works and cognitive-behavioral coaching offers a way through self-limiting beliefs. Matching each to a lead's actual problem, and checking the match after a month, is a more defensible approach than adopting one model for everyone.

References

Grant, A. M. (2003). The impact of life coaching on goal attainment, metacognition and mental health. Social Behavior and Personality, 31(3), 253-263. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2003.31.3.253

Grant, A. M. (2012). Making positive change: A randomized study comparing solution-focused vs. problem-focused coaching questions. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 31(2), 21-35. https://doi.org/10.1521/jsyt.2012.31.2.21

Jones, R. J., Woods, S. A., & Guillaume, Y. R. F. (2016). The effectiveness of workplace coaching: A meta-analysis of learning and performance outcomes from coaching. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(2), 249-277. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12119

Theeboom, T., Beersma, B., & van Vianen, A. E. M. (2014). Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.837499

Whitmore, J. (2017). Coaching for performance: The principles and practice of coaching and leadership (5th ed.). Nicholas Brealey.