A second assumption is that people are complex and multifaceted. Therefore, behavioral approaches that reduce complex human behavior to mechanistic stimulus-and-response chains will not succeed. Human behavior flows from a combination of affective, cognitive, behavioral, and even spiritual elements. So while the focus of this approach is on behavior, the whole person must be addressed in the process. Behavior is about far more than just the observable behavior; it’s the result of a whole person with a rich, multifaceted life—past, present, and future—interacting with the people and the world around the individual. Failure to address the whole person in coaching will yield inadequate or temporary results.

A third assumption is that the world is messy. Although certain elements are simple and predictable, our lives and our interactions with others contain complicated, ambiguous, and unpredictable variables that may change over time. This assumption has significant implications for coaching, especially in how we help people sustain changes in their lives. If the same behavior might produce radically different results in different settings, then coaches must help the people they coach become effective learners, capable of translating their lessons into new settings, even after the coaching has ended. Therefore, in addition to changing behavior, a second purpose of coaching is to enable people to be better learners. Enhancing self-guided learning is so important it is embedded in the following definition of coaching: “Coaching is the process of equipping people with the tools, knowledge, and opportunities they need to develop themselves and become more effective” (Peterson & Hicks, 1996, p. 14).

A fourth assumption is that what happens in the coaching session matters less than what happens on the job, at home, or in whatever settings are important to the person. The more people I coach, the less I rely on breakthroughs in insight that generate excitement in our conversations. Instead, I focus on facilitating the steady progress that leads to long-term sustainable changes in behavior outside the coaching conversation.

In their analysis of the learning techniques that actually improve performance, Druckman and Bjork (1991) reinforce this assumption: “The crux of the problem is that learning and performance are not the same. . . . Procedures that enhance performance during training may or may not enhance long-term retention and transfer to altered contexts; conversely, procedures that introduce difficulties for the learner and impair performance during training may foster durable and flexible post-training skills” (pp. 24-25). To translate this to coaching, what contributes to better learning within the coaching session may in fact interfere with effective use of the learning outside of the session. Conversely, the types of experiences that lead to tangible long-term changes in behavior may feel like slogging through mud in the coaching session. A familiar example is that massed practice (e.g., cramming the night before a test) produces better immediate learning, whereas spaced practice (e.g., studying the same topic regularly over an entire semester) produces better retention and better long-term performance. Effective coaches use the principle of spaced practice by helping their clients practice new behaviors across multiple sessions; the participant may learn more slowly, but the results last longer. Other examples are included later in this chapter, but due to space limitations readers are encouraged to read Druckman and Bjork’s (1991) third chapter, “Optimizing Long-Term Retention and Transfer.”

A fifth assumption is that caring about the people we coach is a vital part of the process. Coaches need to demonstrate (behaviorally!) that they are interested in their clients and are committed to helping them accomplish meaningful goals. The techniques that follow are inevitably hollow if they are not used in the context of a positive, caring, warm, and respectful relationship.

This section includes brief overviews of classic behavioral techniques, including modeling (Rosenthal & Steffek, 1991); feedback (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996); shaping and successive approximation (Baldwin & Baldwin, 2001); self-management (Kanfer & Gaelick-Buys, 1991); rewards and reinforcers (Peltier, 2001); and behavioral practice (Druckman & Bjork, 1991). These topics are embedded in a discussion of four frameworks that are intended to expand the traditional picture of a behavioral methodology. Even though the frameworks are holistic in nature, including cognitive and affective components as well as behavioral, the focus of their use in coaching is still behavioral. For example, when discussing motivation, the coach’s purpose is not to change a person’s motivations or to increase the person’s insight into their origin, but to see how the person being coached can most effectively use these motivations to guide, shape, and reinforce desired behavior. Thus the coach is far more likely to ask “What would you like to do about it?” than such insight-oriented questions as “Why do you think that is?” or “Where do you think that came from?,” or an affect-oriented question such as “How do you feel about that?” The latter types of questions may be useful in building an effective working relationship, but they are not, strictly speaking, a necessary aspect of coaching.

The pipeline metaphor highlights that this is a constraint model (Goldratt & Cox, 1992): The amount of change a person can make is constrained by where the pipeline is most narrow. That is, a limitation in any one of the five conditions serves as a bottleneck that sets the upper limit on how much change can actually occur. For example, one person might want to be more strategic (high Insight, Motivation) but might lack the basic skills (low Capabilities) and not even have an opportunity to use them in their current job (low Real-World Practice, Accountability). Attending the best-designed workshop on strategic thinking might increase their capabilities, but still not produce meaningful behavior change. Only when the additional constraints of Real-World Practice and Accountability are addressed in tandem with Capabilities will change ensue for this person.

It is not necessary to get a precise measure of the various conditions; a coach only has to have a working hypothesis as to what is most constrained. In the case study of Bonita, for example, her insight about her interpersonal relationships and leadership style seems to be reasonable. Her motivation to address conflict, however, appears to be relatively low, and it appears that her capabilities are constrained in this area as well. Given some of the difficult relationships around her, opportunities for real-world practice appear to be sufficient. The level of accountability is not clear from the case study. A working hypothesis of her Development Pipeline for addressing conflict is presented in Figure 2.2. This picture suggests, for example, that giving her additional feedback would have little impact on her behavior, because Insight is not constrained.

High Insight and low Motivation is a relatively common profile: “I know I should get better at addressing conflict, but I don’t want to come across as pushy or aggressive”; “I know I should spend more time net-working, but I just never find the time”; “My boss keeps telling me to take more risks, but it’s just not worth it.” A combination of high Insight and low Capabilities is also common: “I want to be more strategic but I just don’t know what exactly I’m supposed to do.”

Using the Development Pipeline as a diagnostic is a way to ensure that coaching uses the person’s time effectively and efficiently. If Insight is high, a thorough assessment with detailed feedback doesn’t add as much value as it does when Insight is low. If the Capabilities condition is the most constrained, coaching will probably have the greatest immediate impact by proceeding directly to skills training and practice. Then, as capabilities increase, the coach can shift the focus to whatever condition is then most constrained. Coaching is a cyclical process, shifting as needed from one area to the next and back again, always addressing the source of the major constraint.

Working with each person where the Development Pipeline is most constrained is one of the keys to truly customizing coaching (Peterson, 2002). Coaching programs that prescribe the same process for everyone (e.g., beginning with obligatory 360-degree or multirater feedback) end up wasting time for at least some of the participants. Although few actually take the opportunity, coaches have the luxury of being able to continue gathering assessment data throughout the entire process, rather than having to do it all up front. Similarly, coaches can think strategically about when insight needs to be increased and by how much, and then find the most effective way to do that.

Goals and Values refers to what matters to the person and what motivates his or her behavior. This includes values such as power, wealth, altruism, learning, security, status, affiliation, variety, and achievement. Changes in behavior will last only if they are reinforced at some level by the person’s existing motivations.

Abilities refers to the person’s view of their own skills, abilities, and style.

Perceptions refers to how others (e.g., boss, colleagues, direct reports, coach, family) see the person. Separating Abilities and Perceptions makes it explicit that the purpose of exploring GAPS information is not to get agreement on feedback, but to understand it from multiple perspectives. It is assumed that the person’s view of their abilities will differ in important ways from other people’s perceptions. In addition, other people are likely to have different, even conflicting, perceptions of the person. These discrepancies are not contradictions to be resolved, but information to be understood.

Success Factors refers to the expectations of others regarding what it takes to be successful in various roles, such as the person’s current or desired job, or social role as team member, leader, or even family member. Success Factors on the job may be found in job descriptions, annual goal setting and objectives, competency models, organizational and cultural values, and informal analysis of who is and is not successful, as well as in the implicit assumptions and unspoken social norms for behavior. Research by the Gallup Organization finds that clear expectations are one of the essential conditions for high performance (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001; Buckingham & Coffman, 1999).

Because the Success Factors serve as criteria for evaluating how well a person fits, or might potentially fit, a given role, they shape people’s perceptions of others. In the case study of Bonita, for example, her boss apparently views a take-charge, assertive style as one of the Success Factors. Because he did not see Bonita in that way, he did not see her as a great fit for her new role.

If a person’s Insight or Motivation is constrained (in terms of the Development Pipeline), then a GAPS conversation is useful. Although it is common to begin with feedback (e.g., multirater surveys, assessments, or organizational interviews), it is more productive to begin with the right-hand column of the GAPS Grid, where the deepest and most useful insights arise. The first step is to get a clear picture of the person’s own Goals and Values. Surprisingly, relatively few people take the time to reflect deeply on what is most important to them. Through strategic questioning a coach can help the person articulate what is most meaningful to them. Second, build a clear picture of what is expected by others—the Success Factors. What does the person’s manager expect? The boss’s boss? Other important players in the organization?

Feedback (i.e., Perceptions data) will be taken seriously only when it is seen as relevant to what matters. If the connection is not clear, the coach might as well be telling people their calculus skills or their ability to speak ancient Greek are weak. It may be true, but it will not inspire much change. Indeed, once the Success Factors are clear to people, they may see the need to change even without feedback from others. For example, if someone understands that the criteria for getting a sought-after promotion include demonstrating strategic thinking and team leadership skills, they may search for opportunities to acquire and/or demonstrate those skills.

Coaches can facilitate exploration of Goals and Values and Success Factors, and may even share their own perspective on what matters. Greater value comes, however, when the coach teaches the person how to reflect on what matters to them and gather information about what is important to others. Another skill critical for long-term development is the ability to get feedback from others. Therefore, rather than seeing the coach’s role as primarily to help increase the person’s motivation and insight, a more powerful role for the coach is to facilitate an understanding of what kinds of information are necessary and how to obtain them. This may come about through modeling the behaviors, teaching and practicing feedback-seeking skills, and shaping feedback-seeking behavior through success approximation and reinforcement. Although feedback from the coach can be an important tool, it generally represents the kind of dilemma portrayed by Druckman and Bjork’s principle of learning versus transfer. The more the coach provides clear, explicit feedback in the session, the faster the person gains new insights. However, the person’s ability to take those insights and apply them in future settings can be minimal. In contrast, when the coach teaches the person how to generate one’s own feedback (Druckman & Bjork, 1991), initial learning may be slower, but the impact is more lasting and the person acquires a skill to be used in future settings, independent of the coach’s presence.

Part of the complexity inherent in the human condition is that there are always multiple goals in play. In one situation, for example, a person may be motivated by a desire to get results, get things done reasonably quickly, have fun, and feel valued. Sometimes the motivations are easier to see by looking at what people want to avoid: I don’t want to waste time, offend others unnecessarily, look foolish, or damage my career.

In a more insight-oriented approach, the coach might explore Bonita’s doubts about what is realistic. In this behavior-based approach, the goals will be explored through testing them behaviorally to see what works and what doesn’t.

Note how the coach gently persists to help Bonita think through what she really wanted to accomplish. Sometimes a person might say, “I just want to tell you what I think” or “I just want to hear your side of the story,” when in fact she wants to solve a problem. The discrepancy can actually escalate the conflict because the other person might think he has met the person’s goals: “Okay, I hear what you’re saying. Thank you.” Then, when the person in Bonita’s position persists—because what she really wants is not what she put on the table—tensions flare.

Undoubtedly, Bonita has other goals in this conversation, but the chief goal is now clear enough to proceed. This is a cyclical process and it does not all have to come out at once.

Here the coach shifts into behavioral practice that is based not on an artificial role-play, but on actually rehearsing what Bonita needs to say. Although such practice conversations tend to proceed in small segments, they are otherwise as realistic as the coach can make them. The more realistic the practice, the greater the likelihood of skill transfer and long-term retention of learning (Druckman & Bjork, 1991).

Through a continuous process of clarifying her goals, making a conscious choice, practicing the action, and then cycling through again, Bonita learns how to handle this conversation more effectively. The insights come from trying a behavior and reflecting on how well it accomplished the desired goal. In the role play, when her initial comment to Ken did not work well, it helped Bonita clarify that she had an additional goal that she had not mentioned—to treat Ken with respect. So in a very behavioral example, she began to learn both new behaviors and new insights. As Bonita and her coach continue to work through the conversation, Bonita will continue to learn new ways to handle surprises. One of the chief benefits is the increase in self-confidence she will feel when she sees that she is able to handle a variety of challenges.

Strategies 2 to 4 explicitly address the necessary conditions in the Development Pipeline:

The strategies highlight two other important responsibilities that the coach has. First, in order to even have the opportunity to help the person change, the coach must establish an effective working relationship of trust and understanding. One of the most consistent findings in the therapy literature is that the relationship itself is often a significant factor in helping people grow (Hill, 2001; Lambert, 2004; Mahoney, 1991). In coaching, whether or not the relationship itself can facilitate change, an effective working relationship is still a prerequisite for the conversations and the work that needs to be done together.

The term partnership was chosen deliberately to capture a sense of two equals co-designing the process. It contrasts vividly with the common term coachee, which reflects, intentionally or otherwise, a passive state of receiving what the coach offers. Coaching requires a commitment from the coach to care about engaging the person as a partner in figuring out what they will do together.

Second, the coach has an opportunity to look beyond the one-to-one conversations with the person and help shape the environment. At a minimum, this involves coaching the person on what can be done to enlist the support of others, anticipate and manage how other people might react, find appropriate sources of feedback and encouragement, and anticipate other obstacles and challenges. It might also involve coaching the person’s boss or sponsor on how they can support the coaching process, or even consulting to the organization on how the culture (e.g., norms, values, role models) and various systems (e.g., goal setting, compensation, performance management) might better support coaching and development.

At this point, the coach explains the two techniques and demonstrates simple examples of what Bonita might say. Then, rather than having her practice the new skills in isolation, which would facilitate rapid learning, the coach asks her to try out the new skills as part of the conversation. That way, Bonita has to learn to use the skill in the context of a real-life conversation, where there are no cues and no pauses to think.

Here the coach is demonstrating two other learning principles from Druckman and Bjork (1991), providing contextual interference and increasing variability and variety in practice. These techniques help replicate the messy world that people live in, where other agendas and emotions interfere with the person’s goals and where unpredictable things happen. If time allows in this session, the coach will practice at least one more conflict conversation with Bonita, giving her exposure to even greater variability and variety. Throughout the conversation, the coach is also using the techniques of shaping and successive approximation to gradually guide Bonita to more effective conflict management skills.

After additional practice, moving through several conversations step-by-step so that Bonita has the opportunity to practice all elements of her new techniques, the coach shifts gears to debrief.

Note how persistent the coach is in asking for the lessons Bonita has learned. This requires that she actively process the experience, including the subtle lessons as well as the obvious ones, which facilitates retention (Druckman & Bjork, 1991). A useful guideline is to make sure the person feels like they are working at it. The coach asks “What else?” with an open mind, not searching for any particular answer, merely assuming that there is more if the person reflects on it. Then, the coach poses the ultimate question: What are you going to do differently? This marks the transition from thinking about the session to thinking about what happens next, which is the heart of coaching. In addition to Druckman and Bjork’s principles, which combine learning and transfer, the technique known as bullet-proof action steps (Peterson & Millier, 2005; Peterson & Sutherland, 2003) is also useful in promoting persistence.

The coach continues with a series of practical, behavioral questions designed to help Bonita come up with a workable plan: How long do you think it will take? How can you make sure you don’t get interrupted? What else might make it difficult to finish writing it this weekend? What will you do with the piece of paper you’ve written your goals on? How will you make sure you have it with you to review right before the meeting with Ken? And so on.

These questions may seem extremely basic, or even micromanaging, but part of the purpose of such painstaking detail is to help people visualize exactly what will happen, anticipate obstacles, and develop contingency plans. It also teaches them a process they can use to begin to make conscious choices to change their own habits.

There are two more aspects to the fourth strategy, promoting persistence (i.e., addressing Real-World Practice and Accountability). First is the assumption that positive reinforcement is necessary in order for Bonita to persist with her new skills. Although reinforcement is not explicitly applied, it is integral to the approach described here. That is one reason so much time is spent clarifying the person’s goals—to make sure that they are important and clearly articulated. That helps to ensure that effective action directed toward achieving those goals will produce a positive outcome. Even if, for example, Bonita is not totally successful in her conversation with Ken, if she feels that she accomplished some of her goals or made tangible progress toward those goals, or even just learned something useful, she should feel positively reinforced. For that reason, the coach needs to make sure that early attempts to use the skill are likely to be reasonably rewarding. In this case, Bonita demonstrated quick learning and was adept at handling the various challenges offered by her coach. If she had not been so skillful, the coach would have focused on helping her find simpler places to engage in Real-World Practice before attempting the conversation with Ken, such as a minor disagreement with a colleague with whom she has a good working relationship.

The last tactic for promoting persistence is demonstrated by the following questions from Bonita’s coach, designed to help her reflect after she engages in Real-World Practice.

When working with new coaching clients, I typically begin by asking three sets of questions that parallel the GAPS categories of Goals and Values, Success Factors, and Perceptions:

Depending on the range of issues they are interested in working on, I may briefly explore a topic in more detail to form a preliminary hypothesis on the Development Pipeline constraints. With Bonita, for example, I see her primary constraints on conflict management as Motivation and Capabilities. The preceding sections outlined the methods I would use to work with her on these two areas. Motivation would be addressed through clarifying her goals as well as by building her capabilities and providing a gradually escalating series of challenges to increase her sense of confidence and self-efficacy. In subsequent meetings, we would continue to practice different conflict situations and I would most likely teach her additional skills as well. She would leave each meeting with specific action steps, based on what she learned in that meeting. When she returns for the next meeting, I would ask what worked, what didn’t, and what she learned from her experiences. Then we would identify new situations to practice, until she is comfortable that she can handle conflict as well as she needs to.

I typically work with my clients in four half-day sessions, about four to six weeks apart, although the specific arrangements are always individualized. Holding longer sessions allows us time to practice a range of situations in depth when we meet. The spacing in between provides sufficient time for clients to experiment with the new skills and behaviors. I am also available by phone and e-mail at any time clients would like to talk.

Bonita also indicates an interest in exploring work-life balance. I often find that people view work-life balance in terms of the hours available to do the things that are important, and there are never enough available hours to satisfy them. So I focus the coaching on helping them clarify their goals and values to get at what matters most to them. I’d ask Bonita, “What would you hope to accomplish if you had more time? With what aspects of work and family are you not satisfied, and what would you like to change?” Our work on clear goals would continue with prioritizing which goals are most important. Then we would shift to conscious choice, with questions like, “When you have time at home (and at work), what are the highest priorities you want to focus on?” “What do you want to do with the time that you have at home (and at work)?” Being conscious about what she does will help her use the available time on the highest priorities. Finally, effective action means that we might talk about how efficient she is at handling certain tasks (e.g., e-mail, voice-mail, meetings) and search for useful time management techniques. I imagine we would get into conflict management in this area as well, working on how to set clear boundaries with people at work, including negotiating expectations and agreements on what she takes on. We would discuss the advantages and disadvantages of her inclusive, collaborative style and search for ways to balance multiple goals: How can she be participative and efficient at the same time? How can she treat people with respect and still meet her own needs?

As we proceed with our coaching, we might also discover additional topics to work on. In addition, when I work with people who are new in their role, I help them explore five different topics, which might also lead to other areas for us to address.

Clearly, we are already addressing some of these topics, although each of the agendas has a more detailed set of questions that we would explore. For example, on the relationship agenda I might ask Bonita to list the key stakeholders, what her relationship is like with each one, their major motivators (i.e., Goals and Values), and her best sense of what they want from her (i.e., Success Factors).

Finally, I would want to make sure Bonita is enlisting the help of others at work. We would talk about whom she can go to for feedback and advice, and we might even practice how she could ask people for constructive feedback to make sure that she gets thoughtful and honest input.

So far I have not mentioned my communication with the organization. Organizational desire for input and knowledge of the coaching relationship ranges from situations where the person is the sole owner of the coaching to situations where the organization expects to know everything that transpires. My position is that, first and foremost, the expectations need to be clear and agreed to by all parties. Second, even if the program is confidential to Bonita, I will encourage her to keep open communication channels to her sponsors, telling them what we’re working on, what she’s learned, and what feedback and support she would like from them. My role as coach is temporary, and it is important to leave Bonita with the skills and relationships in place for ongoing development.

If Bonita is like most of my clients, at some point I will ask for the hundredth time, “What else would you like to work on?” and she will say, “Actually, things are going pretty well right now.” If she has been implementing her action steps, reflecting on what she’s tried, getting feedback from others, and then cycling through the process again and again (Peterson & Hicks, 1995), she will likely have made the progress she was seeking and it is the appropriate time to explore bringing a close to the coaching relationship.

Our coaching would probably proceed down two paths. One path is exactly what Bob is asking for. Using the method of clear goals, conscious choice, and effective action, we would practice how he negotiates deals, handles challenging leadership situations, and works more strategically. The most likely Development Pipeline for Bob in these areas is high Insight, Motivation, and Real-World Practice, moderate Accountability, and moderately low Capabilities. So the best approach is just to help him acquire the necessary skills.

The second path is to explore other potential development needs. For this second set of issues, Bob’s pipeline is actually quite different compared to the first set. Feedback from others indicates that in areas such as credibility, relationship-building, coaching and mentoring, his Development Pipeline shows significant constraints on Insight, Motivation, and Accountability. To zero in on the Insight and Motivation conditions, I would strongly encourage Bob to do a systematic GAPS Grid analysis. Given that several of his Goals and Values hinge on others, not the least being his desire to leave things running perfectly, it seems imperative that he have all the information to understand what that means to others as well as what that means to him.

One possible outcome is that he simply refuses to solicit input from others. However, I suspect that several of his own motivations could be used to persuade him of the necessity of doing so. Table 2.2 presents a hypothetical GAPS analysis for Bob. Knowing what he values, I would simply ask him, “If status, reputation, and legacy are so important to you, don’t you think it’s worth finding out how people see you? You don’t even have to do anything about it, but wouldn’t you at least want to know?” Another type of question to hook his interest would be “Given that you want to leave a perfectly running organization behind you, you’ll need a strong team of people in place. How will you make sure that you have the right people with the right intentions, so that you can hand it over with confidence?” Both of these types of questions lead to an exploration of what is important to other people and how they see Bob (i.e., Success Factors and Perceptions). Other points based on simple logic also help build the case. For example, I might ask Bob to describe the ideal candidate to take over the CEO role when he leaves. There is a good chance he would describe someone with capabilities and style similar to his own. So I would then ask how he would feel if he had to work for someone like himself. How will Bob convince someone else, as talented and motivated as he is, to work for him for 10 more years? Bob might see the need to treat at least some of his more talented leaders differently.

There is a good chance that the result of a coach-facilitated GAPS exploration for Bob is that he would begin to see other areas he needs to change, simply to ensure that his own goals are met. For example, if people do not trust him, they will be less likely to follow his visionary ideas. If people think he is superficial and insensitive, they will say things that tarnish his reputation and personal legacy. If people think a perfectly running organization requires a leader who coaches and develops others, builds strong teams, and motivates and inspires the organization—even if Bob doesn’t believe such things—no one else will be impressed with the organization that Bob leaves behind. Showing him that his own personal success hinges on other people’s expectations and perceptions is the method for increasing his Insight and Motivation. That information can then be gathered directly by Bob holding conversations with a variety of people (of course, only after we’ve practiced skills for listening, building trust, expressing interest in others, etc.). I might also interview people about Bob’s leadership strengths and weaknesses as a way to help Bob get a better perspective of how others view him. Bob might not fully understand how intimidating it can be for certain employees to talk openly with an authoritative CEO. Once the Insight and Motivation are there, Bob and I would discuss what other behaviors he might want to change, if any. Bob, like anyone else, will be motivated to change only when he sees how it is in his own self-interest. For someone like Bob, other people’s perceptions may not have much value in themselves, but if he sees how other people’s perceptions of him impede him getting what he wants, he will probably decide to try another approach.

A behavior-based approach can be just as warm, nurturing, and supportive as any other method, even though stereotypes of the cold, detached style of old-school behaviorism persist. The behavioral approach presented here demonstrates a deep desire to help people find ways to get more meaning and a greater sense of fulfillment out of their work and their lives. It starts with finding clarity around what really matters to people, and then helps them get there. Because of the emphasis on learning how to learn, this approach can have an impact that persists long after the coaching is finished.