LEAD 6133 Module 5 Personal Coaching Model Example

Trust First, the Team's View Always, the Coachee's Goal Throughout: A Personal Coaching Model Tested Against a Health Center, a Nursing School and a Small Manufacturer

Student Name

American College of Education

LEAD6133: Models of Leadership and Coaching

Module 5 Assignment

Instructor Name

November 9, 2026

Introduction

This course has taken me from choosing leadership aims for my team leads, through choosing coaching methods and weighing the evidence, to a twelve-week plan for one of them. This paper gathers that work into a personal coaching model and then asks a question the course poses directly: how appropriate is it for settings unlike my own? I test the model against a nursing school's faculty and a small manufacturer's supervisors and revise it where it fails to travel.

The Model in Five Parts

The model has five parts. First, trust before technique: the opening sessions build the relationship and a written agreement before any method is applied. Second, the coachee owns the goal, refined into measurable terms but never imposed. Third, match the method to the cause: structure where the problem is unclear expectations, cognitive-behavioral work where a belief blocks action and solution-focused questions where the coachee lacks a picture of success. Fourth, the team's view always: progress is measured partly through the people the coachee leads, not only through the coachee's own account. Fifth, leadership as the destination: coaching aims at whatever kind of leadership the team in question needs, whether firmer guidance for newcomers, a path cleared of barriers or authority spread among experts, as Module 1 concluded.

The Evidence Behind Each Part

Each part rests on research reviewed earlier. The priority on trust comes from the study of 1,895 coaching pairs in which the working relationship was the strongest predictor of clients' judgments of coaching effectiveness (de Haan et al., 2016). Ownership of the goal and attention to the coachee's motivation and self-efficacy reflect factors that a systematic review of workplace coaching identified as shaping effectiveness, along with trust and supervisory support (Bozer & Jones, 2018). Matching method to cause follows from the different mechanisms of the coaching models compared in Module 2. The team's view answers the weakness of self-reported outcomes noted in the coaching meta-analysis by Theeboom et al. (2014) and the studies that followed it. The model is therefore an assembly of evidence, not a new theory.

Setting 1: The Health Center Itself

The model was built for my health center, but it deserves a test there too. Its strongest fit is with the front desk and medical assistant leads, whose problems, constant new hires and reluctance to delegate, respond to structure and to belief-testing. Its weakest fit is with the mobile clinic lead, who spends most days on the road and whom I see in person twice a month. Trust first is harder to build at a distance, and the team's view is harder to gather from staff scattered across four counties. For him the model needs a practical change rather than a principled one: sessions by video on the days he is in the office for supplies, and a crew survey sent by text message rather than handed out at a staff meeting.

Setting 2: A Nursing School's Faculty

Consider a dean coaching a newly appointed course coordinator in a baccalaureate nursing program. Trust first applies without change, and so does the coachee owning the goal. Matching method to cause also travels well: a coordinator who avoids confronting a colleague's late grading may hold a belief worth testing. The team's view needs adjustment. Faculty in a course team are peers, not subordinates, and academic culture prizes autonomy, so anonymous ratings of a coordinator by colleagues could feel like surveillance. In this setting the team's view is better gathered through a structured conversation the coordinator leads, such as a mid-semester course team review, than through ratings. The leadership destination also shifts: shared leadership among expert peers matters far more here than structure for new staff.

Setting 3: A Small Manufacturer's Supervisors

Consider the owner of a 60-person metal fabrication shop coaching a supervisor promoted from the welding floor, a situation much like my own leads'. Most of the model travels well, but trust first faces a different obstacle. In a small company owned by the coach, the coachee's job and income depend directly on the coach, and an agreement that coaching is separate from evaluation may not be believed. Here the model's first part may require an outside coach, because no written agreement can fully separate a coaching conversation from the person who signs the paycheck. The team's view, by contrast, is easier to gather on a shop floor than in a faculty: production records and short crew surveys are familiar tools.

Revising the Model

The tests suggest two revisions. The fourth part becomes "the team's view, gathered in the way the setting trusts": anonymous ratings where hierarchy is clear and ratings are normal, structured peer conversation where colleagues are equals. The first part gains a condition: where the coach holds direct power over the coachee's livelihood and trust is uncertain, the coach should offer, or arrange, a coach outside the line of authority. The other three parts held up in every setting, which suggests they are the model's core. The mobile clinic case adds a third, smaller revision: the model's methods must allow for distance, with sessions and feedback adapted to staff who rarely gather in one place, as in rural public health work generally.

What Would Change My Mind

A model should state what evidence would lead its author to abandon or rewrite it. Three findings would change mine. If, after six months, the leads' teams report no change in how their leads work, while the leads themselves report large gains, the fourth principle would have done its job by exposing that the coaching changed self-perception rather than behavior, and the methods would need rethinking. If leads consistently decline to set their own goals and ask me to set them, the second principle may reflect my preference more than their needs, at least early in their leadership. And if the turnover the coaching was partly meant to reduce does not fall on any team within a year, I would have to ask whether coaching was the right investment of my limited hours or whether structural fixes such as pay and scheduling matter more.

Using the Model at My Health Center

For my own five leads, the revisions change two practices. I will offer each lead the medical director as an alternative coach, not only mention it in the agreement, and I will ask the behavioral health lead, whose team members are licensed experts, whether she would prefer a facilitated team conversation to anonymous ratings. The rest of the model stands as applied in Module 4.

Conclusion

A personal coaching model is worth having only if it can be stated plainly, traced to evidence and tested against situations other than the one that produced it. Mine has five parts drawn from the course's research. Testing it against a nursing school and a small manufacturer showed that three parts travel intact and two need adjustment for how trust and feedback work in each setting. The revised model is more modest and more useful than the first version, which is the usual result of testing anything honestly.

References

Bozer, G., & Jones, R. J. (2018). Understanding the factors that determine workplace coaching effectiveness: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27(3), 342-361. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1446946

de Haan, E., Grant, A. M., Burger, Y., & Eriksson, P.-O. (2016). A large-scale study of executive and workplace coaching: The relative contributions of relationship, personality match, and self-efficacy. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 68(3), 189-207. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000058

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