The document introduces two existing coaching models: the peer coaching model and cognitive coaching model. The peer coaching model involves coaches, clients, and stakeholders providing feedback in a network. The cognitive coaching model focuses on a coach developing a client's problem-solving skills through questioning rather than providing direct answers. Both models emphasize regular client reviews and goal-setting to promote continuous self-improvement.

1. Introduction
about
my
Coaching
Model
Essay
BY
HONG
YANG
Before
I
introduce
my
coaching
model,
I
would
like
to
introduce
and
compare
two
existing
model
as
below:
DESCRIPTION
OF
PEER
COACHING
MODEL
Peer
coaching
model
involves
three
basic
roles:
coach,
client
and
stakeholders.
Similar
to
what
happens
in
other
models,
coach
helps
his
client
to
overcome
the
problem
he
encountered.
However,
one
most
prominent
difference
between
peer
coaching
and
other
model
is
that
in
peer
coaching
model,
each
participant
acts
as
both
coach
and
client
for
somebody
else.
This
means,
rather
than
an
one-­‐to-­‐one
relationship,
in
peer
coaching
model
everyone
is
a
node
in
a
big
network.
The
participants
communicate
with
and
help
each
other.
As
a
coach,
the
person
should
work
with
his
client
to
review
the
client’s
condition
objectively
and
provide
solutions
and
suggestions,
as
well
as
follow
up
the
progress.
To
measure
the
success,
peer
coaching
model
introduce
the
role
of
stakeholders.
A
person
who
works
as
a
coordinator
or
“Executive
Coach”
would
choose
stakeholders
and
ask
them
for
surveys
of
the
performance
of
each
client.
Stakeholders
are
persons
who
have
relationship
with
the
client
and
can
give
fair,
honest
and
responsible
opinions
about
his/her
behavior.
With
all
the
survey
results
from
stakeholders,
either
the
Executive
Coach
do
individual
review
with
each
participants,
or
the
coach-­‐client
pair
do
this
review.
No
matter
which
form
is
taken,
the
goal
of
such
reviews
should
always
be
doing
analysis
objectively,
calmly
and
revising
the
action
plan
accordingly.
One
important
thing
to
notice
is
that
in
the
review
process,
instead
of
“Feedback”,
which
summarizes
the
past
wrongdoings,
“Feedforward”,
which
focuses
on
how
to
improve
in
the
future
is
proven
to
be
more
acceptable
by
the
target
and
efficient
in
promoting
the
improvement.
To
make
continuous
improvement,
a
regular
review
session
is
necessary.
In
peer
coaching
model
this
is
called
“Daily
Questions”.
Coaching
peers
should
prepare
some
questions
they
want
to
ask
each
other
everyday
and
keep
exchanging
the
answer
to
these
questions
in
a
daily
manner.
This
force
each
person
to
frequently
review
the
progress
they
have
made
as
well
as
the
goal
they
need
to
achieve,
helping
them
making
the
maximal
progress.

2. 2014/04/22
2
The
core
process
of
peer
coaching
is
an
iteration
of
● Peer
review
● Set
up
goals
and
daily
questions
● Daily
followup
● Periodic
stakeholder
survey
DESCRIPTION
OF
COGNITIVE
COACHING
MODEL
Cognitive
coaching
model
consists
of
only
coach
and
client.
In
cognitive
model,
a
coach's
job
is
not
to
teach
his
client
the
method
of
solving
concrete
problems.
Instead,
his
job
is
to
help
the
client
to
develop
skills
of
planning,
problem-­‐solving
and
decision-­‐making.
A
cognitive
coach
is
like
a
Socrates.
He
never
tells
his
client
the
answer
to
the
problem
they
are
facing,
but
uses
questions
and
discussions
to
reveal
to
people
the
correct
methods
to
solve
them.
To
achieve
this,
a
good
cognitive
coach
should
be
able
to
work
efficiently
with
persons
of
different
personalities,
learning
styles
or
philosophies.
Comparing
to
other
models,
cognitive
coaching
model
emphasizes
most
on
the
coach’s
talking
skill.
The
coach
should
always
be
the
one
who
lead
the
talk,
but
never
be
the
one
who
decide
the
topic.
This
is
not
a
self-­‐contradiction.
A
coach
should
make
sure
what
is
happening
is
always
professional
talks
rather
than
social
dialogues.
But
it
should
be
the
client
who
decide
what
the
most
important
problems
he
is
facing
and
the
proper
approaches
to
solve
them.
The
coach’s
job
is
to
induce
his
client
to
talk
and
summarize
the
content,
rather
than
decide
its
topic.
To
achieve
this,
a
commonly
used
trick
is
to
use
“Open-­‐Ended
Question”
followed
by
“Narrowing
Question”.
An
Open-­‐Ended
Question
often
has
a
wide
collection
of
possible
answers,
such
as
“What
where
some
of
the
things
that
you
felt
went
well?”
Based
on
the
client’s
answer,
the
coach
should
be
able
to
determine
the
problems
his
client
is
now
facing
and
throw
out
narrowing
questions
such
as
“What
did
you
do
to
reinforce
students’
knowledge?”
By
repeatedly
using
these
questioning
skills,
a
coach
can
lead
his
client
to
discover
the
root
cause
of
the
problems
they
are
facing
and
find
the
key
to
them.
SIMILARITY
OF
PEER
COACHING
AND
COGNITIVE
COACHING:
We
can
find
many
similarities
between
peer
coaching
method
and
cognitive
coaching
method.

3. 2014/04/22
3
The
first
thing
we
can
notice
is
that
both
methods
encourage
reflective
talk
practice.
Instead
of
directly
asking
client
what
kind
of
help
they
want,
coaches
that
adopt
these
models
will
ask
the
clients
questions
that
objectively
reflect
their
situation,
such
as
the
problem
they
are
facing,
their
goals
or
get
feedback
about
the
clients
from
peripheral
environment(e.g,
coworkers).
They
will
then
derive
from
the
response
they
get
the
profile
of
the
client,
the
hidden
problem
they
have
and
give
their
suggestions
to
the
client.
This
indirect
questioning
technique
is
important
and
extremely
useful
especially
when
we
consider
the
situation
that
most
clients,
who
are
not
professional
in
the
coaching
field,
may
not
be
able
to
clearly
summarize
their
problems
and
describe
the
trouble
they
have.
With
expertise,
coaches
can
better
understand
the
situation
their
clients
face
and
give
professional
suggestions
based
on
their
objective
description
to
the
situation.
Another
similarity
is
that
they
are
both
professional
talks
rather
than
social
dialogues.
Though
both
can
be
done
in
some
informal
environments,
and
we
actually
encourage
coaches
to
do
so
to
make
their
clients
relax,
the
direction
of
their
talk
should
always
be
clear
and
aim
to
the
final
goal.
For
example,
in
peer
coaching
model,
we
mention
about
FeedForward
method,
which
focus
on
the
client’s
future
plan
and
the
goal
they
want
to
achieve.
A
coach
should
always
lead
the
talk
and
guide
clients
to
describe
what
they
want
to
improve.
Any
other
unrelated
topics
and
information
will
be
misleading
to
both
coaches
and
their
clients.
Similarly,
in
a
cognitive
coaching
talk,
a
coach
will
need
to
learn
from
the
answers
what
the
most
important
problem
his/her
clients
have
and
keep
the
subsequent
questions
focusing
on
the
description
to
that
problem.
Any
practice
that
introduce
too
many
topics
at
one
time
is
distracting
and
should
be
avoided.
In
both
models,
to
ensure
their
clients
focus
on
the
talk,
coaches
should
keep
each
question
short
and
simple,
with
exact
information.
Short
and
accurate
question
is
more
likely
to
get
realistic
answers.
For
example,
if
a
client
is
asked
“How
is
your
relationship
with
coworkers?”,
he
or
she
would
probably
answer
“Not
bad.”
and
the
coach
cannot
get
much
useful
information
from
this.
But
if
we
change
the
question
to
be
“when
did
you
last
time
look
for
suggestions
from
your
coworkers?”,
we
may
get
a
more
concrete
answer
like
“10
minutes
before”
or
“Last
week”,
which
more
clearly
reflect
the
situation
the
client
faces.
One
last
similarity
I
want
to
mention
in
both
methods
is
that
they
all
have
an
evaluation
step,
in
which
the
feedbacks
are
collected
and
further
adjustments
are
conducted.
Feedback
and
evaluation
is
always
important,
in
which
a
coach
not
only
need
to
do
adjustment
to
the
target
he
set
for
his
client,
but
also
to
review
the
communication
skill
and
efficiency
with
specific
clients.
Coaching
is
a
skill
of
communication.
To
make
sure
they
communicate
well,
it
is
the

4. 2014/04/22
4
coach’s
responsibility
to
review
their
talks
and
do
regularly
adjustment
to
maximize
the
efficiency.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO MODELS
However,
the
differences
between
these
two
methods
are
also
obvious.
The
first
difference
we
should
notice
is
the
participants.
While
in
cognitive
coaching
the
only
participants
are
the
coach
and
the
client,
in
peer
coaching
model
the
role
of
stakeholder
is
introduced.
As
observers,
stakeholders
will
give
their
opinions
about
the
client,
as
well
as
providing
feedback
to
the
effect
of
the
model.
Introducing
of
stakeholders
allows
coaches
that
use
peer
coaching
model
to
collect
more
objective
observation
result
from
peripheral
of
the
client,
which
can
be
most
of
the
time
more
accurate
and
objective
than
the
feedback
directly
from
the
client.
I
think
the
introduction
of
stakeholder
role
is
essential
to
the
success
of
peer
coaching
model.
The
importance
of
the
roles
of
coach
in
two
models
is
also
different.
In
peer
coaching,
the
peering
person
is
a
supportive
role
while
in
cognitive
coaching;
the
coach
plays
a
more
important
role
as
a
leader
of
the
talk.
This
is
possible
also
because
the
existence
of
the
role
of
stakeholder
in
peer
coaching
model,
which
provide
essential
information
to
the
background
of
the
client.
In
this
case,
coach
no
longer
needs
too
many
questions
to
retrieve
information
from
the
client.
However,
in
the
cognitive
coaching
model,
with
the
absence
of
the
stakeholder
role,
a
coach
has
to
primarily
rely
on
his
own
questions
to
fetch
related
info.
Another
thing
to
notice
is
that
peer
coaching
focus
on
a
persisting
relationship
(feedforward
or
daily
task)
while
cognitive
coaching
doesn’t
have
such
requirement.
To
keep
tracking
the
progress
and
make
necessary
adjustment
to
the
strategies
in
time,
a
regular
update
is
necessary
to
both
the
coach
and
the
client.
In
this
sense,
the
method
used
by
peer
coaching,
especially
the
daily
task
update
can
better
trace
the
progress
and
drive
the
coaching
behaviors
to
the
right
direction.
This
is
one
non-­‐neglectable
advantage
of
peer
coaching
method.
However,
cognitive
coaching
also
has
its
advantages.
The
success
of
peer
coaching
highly
relies
on
the
credibility
and
honesty
of
stakeholders,who
are
most
of
time
lack
of
expertise
to
provide
accurate
and
unbiased
information.
On
the
contrast,
in
cognitive
model,
with
their
professional
knowledge
and
training,
coaches
are
often
more
likely
to
achieve
success
by
properly
arrange
their
questions
based
on
their
understanding
to
the
clients
and
the
problem
they
are
facing.

5. 2014/04/22
5
COACHING
MODEL
THAT
I
WILL
USE
IN
MY
WORK
My
work
is
related
with
e-­‐commerce.
Within
our
team,
there
are
five
members,
from
time
to
time,
I
need
to
do
some
coaching
to
improve
the
team’s
working
skills.
In
my
work,
I
would
like
to
use
a
special
coaching
model.
My
coaching
model
could
be
divided
into
two
Phase.
See
figure
1.
Figure
1
In
this
coaching
model,
during
phase
one,
there
will
be
a
coach
and
two
(or
three)
Clients.
The
coach
will
use
the
Cognitive Coaching methods.
After
the
coach
help
the
clients
devise
a
basic
solution
to
reach
his
own
goal,
the
phase
one
will
end
and
the
coaching
procedure
will
move
to
phase
two.
During
phase
two,
Client
One
and
Client
two
will
do
peer
coaching.
The
team
leader
will
act
as
stakeholder
to
observe
the
clients
performance
and
give
necessary
feedback
of
the
peer
coaching.
Then
the
peer
review
pair
will
set
up
a
daily
followup
to
review
their
progress
or
improvement.
The
reason
why
I
design
this
model
is
because
I
want
to
utilize
the
advantage
of
the
two
coaching
model
as
well
as
avoiding
their
weakness.

6. 2014/04/22
6
The
Cognitive
Coaching
is
an
effective
way
to
help
the
team
member
set
up
a
specific
goal
and
then
reach
the
goals
fast
and
steady.
Before
I
began
to
coach
my
team
member,
I
will
do
lots
of
preparation
and
research
in
specific
field.
Then
I
will
help
my
team
member
set
up
a
goal,
then
I
will
teach
them
how
to
find
and
use
different
resource
and
study
tools
to
reach
this
specific
goal.
After
they
have
the
basic
concept
and
skills
for
pursuing
their
new
goal,
I
will
let
them
do
peer
coaching
on
a
daily
base.
The
peer
coaching
has
two
advantages.
First,
the
participants
in
a
peer
review
pair
could
communicate
and
help
with
each
other.
In
this
relationship,
they
will
have
multiple
roles
to
play,
for
example,
advisor,
teacher,
learner,
etc.,
not
only
just
acting
in
the
learner’s
role.
This
will
give
them
more
motives
to
improve
their
skills,
apply
what
they
learned
into
real
working
practice
and
achieve
their
target
that
specified
in
the
first
phase
of
coaching.
Second,
the
review
process
in
peer
coaching
is
more
efficient
and
easier
to
tracking.
As
I
mentioned
in
previous
paragraph,
feedback
information
retrieved
by
peer
coaching
model
is
more
reliable
and
has
a
better
coverage
than
the
information
provided
by
only
the
team
member
himself.
In
the
meantime,
peer
review,
daily
questions,
daily
follow-­‐up,
periodic
surveys
will
force
each
team
member
to
frequently
review
the
progress
they
have
made
as
well
as
the
goal
they
need
to
achieve,
helping
them
making
the
as
much
progress
as
they
can
in
their
daily
practical
work.
This
will
maximize
the
overall
work
output
within
the
whole
team.
Those
are
three
main
reasons
that
I
want
to
combine
the
two
existing
coaching
model
into
my
own
coaching
model.
By
deviding
the
coaching
procedure
into
two
phases,
my
new
coaching
module
could
save
the
executive
coach's
energy
and
time,
and
trigger
the
inner
motive
of
each
team
member
to
purse
the
biggest
progress
in
their
daily
work
by
doing
effective
peer
coaching
and
review.
WHY
I
USE
THIS
CUSTOMIZED
MODEL?
The
reasons
I
design
this
coaching
model
is
that
the
model
fits
my
temperament,
personality
type,
leadership
style,
and
generations
in
the
best.
This
model
fits
my
temperament
in
the
job
setting.

7. 2014/04/22
7
According
to
the
book
“What
Makes
You
Tick
&
What
Ticks
you
off”,
my
dominant
temperament
is
water,
which
could
be
described
in
the
following
keywords:
An
Advocate;
Agreeable;
Friendly;
Caring;
Personal;
Harmonious;
Compassionate;
Concerned;
Benevolent;
Sensitive.
Because
of
these
characteristics
in
my
temperament,
my
coaching
model
could
give
me
the
biggest
chance
to
train
the
team
member
in
person,
to
caring
them
and
to
support
them.
The
phase
two
of
my
coaching
model
are
very
friendly
to
the
team
member,
I
will
sit
side
to
help
them
discover
the
potential
of
themselves
and
marching
to
their
target.
I
didn’t
have
a
code
and
ruthless
temperament,
so
I
don’t
want
to
dominant
everything
just
by
myself
in
my
coaching
model.
This
model
fits
my
Personality
Type
in
the
job
setting.
According
to
the
DISC
test
result,
I
have
a
blend
of
both
Cautious
and
Supportive
traits
in
my
personality.
My
personality
tends
to
have
these
merits:
critical
thinking,
careful,
committed
to
quality
and
helpful.
Also,
I
am
reserved.
I
prefer
individual
or
small
group
interaction
to
large
social
settings.
I
like
to
work
with
one
or
two
other
people
on
projects
and
tasks
using
proven
practices
and
focused
on
quality.
So
in
my
coaching
model,
during
phase
one,
I
chose
to
only
work
with
2-­‐3
clients
at
one
time,
by
this
way,
I
could
commit
to
quality
and
try
my
best
help
the
team
member.
This
model
fits
my
leadership
style
in
the
job
setting
My
test
result
on
the
website
http://psychology.about.com/library/quiz/bl-­‐leadershipquizb.htm
indicate
that
my
predominate
leadership
style
is
PARTICIPATIVE.
From
the
explanation
of
this
kind
leadership
style,
you
could
easily
understand
why
I
introduce
the
peer
coaching
in
my
coaching
model
in
phase
two.
Because
I
want
all
the
team
member
to
really
participate
in
to
the
whole
coaching
process
and
try
to
find
and
solve
problem
by
themselves.
By
this
way,
they
will
be
encouraged
and
motivated
to
be
creative
and
spontaneous
in
their
routing work.
Participative
leaders
accept
input
from
one
or
more
group
members
when
making
decisions
and
solving
problems,
but
the
leader
retains
the
final
say
when
choices
are
made.
Group
members
tend
to
be
encouraged
and
motivated
by
this
style
of
leadership.
This
style
of
leadership
often
leads
to
more
effective

8. 2014/04/22
8
and
accurate
decisions,
since
no
leader
can
be
an
expert
in
all
areas.
Input
from
group
members
with
specialized
knowledge
and
expertise
creates
a
more
complete
basis
for
decision-­‐making.
-­‐-­‐-­‐
from
http://psychology.about.com/library/quiz/bl-­‐leadershipquizb.htm
This
model
fits
my
Generations
in
the
job
setting
All
my
team
members
are
born
between1982
to
2000.
People
who
were
born
in
this
period
often
are
labeled
as
“Millennial
Generation”
or
Generation
Y.
Most
of
the
media
agree
that
this
generation
could
be
described
by
these
positive
adjectives:
confident,
self-­‐expressive,
liberal,
upbeat
and
open
to
change.
And
they
also
have
unrealistic
expectations
of
working
life.
So
the
peer
coaching
in
my
coaching
model
will
give
my
team
member
freedom
to
speak
and
space
to
discover.
Since
they
have
much
confident
in
themselves,
they
will
always
have
chance
to
express
themselves
in
the
peer
review
and
make
adjustment
based
on
the
review.
The
daily
questions
in
the
peer
coaching
will
break
the
unrealistic
parts
of
their
thought
and
force
them
to
focus
on
the
real
working
practice
and
skills.

9. 2014/04/22
9
REFERENCE:
http://discpersonalitytesting.com/free-­‐disc-­‐test/
http://keirsey.com/4temps/overview_temperaments.asp
http://www.whatmakesyoutickandwhatticksyouoff.com/DomAndShad.html
http://psychology.about.com/od/leadership/a/leadstyles.htm
http://psychology.about.com/library/quiz/bl-­‐leadershipquizb.htm
http://themillenniallegacy.com/the-­‐millennial-­‐generation/
http://www.generationsatwork.com/articles.php
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/trainingindustry/tiq_2013winter/#/12
http://www1.cpcc.edu/millennial
http://www.livescience.com/38061-­‐millennials-­‐generation-­‐y.html
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/02/24/millennials-­‐confident-­‐connected-­‐open-­‐to-­‐change/