Models are invaluable tools for developing understanding and professional competence. They offer a structured guide to ensure essential stages of the coaching process are addressed and can provide clarity on intervention goals and process flow (Holland et al., 1998). From a systems perspective, coaching models help frame the coach–client interaction in a purposeful and strategic manner, allowing for alignment with organisational needs and performance outcomes (Clutterbuck, 2020).
Evidence suggests that novice coaches often rely heavily on structured models. For them, models offer a dependable framework that ensures recognised stages are covered and agreed outcomes are pursued (Holland et al., 1998). However, experienced practitioners tend to use models more fluidly. Rather than adhering strictly to a script, they shift dynamically in response to the coachee’s cues, balancing challenge with support. This flexibility helps maintain the coachee’s engagement without losing focus on the coaching objectives (Blakey & Day, 2012; Wall, 2017).
Whilst models provide structure and security, if coaching is a conscious, intelligent use of both support and challenging skills where the coach can shift dynamically depending on the circumstances and the environment (Blakey and Day, 2012). Then it could be said that following a structure rigidly limits a coaches ability to adapt the needs of the coachee and indeed the client if they are not one in the same.
Indeed, rigid adherence to a model may limit a coach’s ability to respond to emerging issues or explore deeper underlying concerns. Effective coaching requires the ability to remain present and adaptive - what Passmore and Fillery-Travis (2011) refer to as the “pragmatic flexibility” that distinguishes expert practitioners. Coaching becomes less about following a checklist and more about maintaining direction while honouring the organic nature of the conversation.
If models help us to develop flexibility as coach practitioners, and they offer structure and an outline for both the coaching conversation and the overall coaching journey, then they serve us well. However, although models create a system within which the coach and client work, it is important that models are not experienced as either “prescriptive or rigid” (Wall, 2017).
As coaches progress from conscious to unconscious competence, their reliance on overt structure may diminish. Models remain present, but as handrails rather than barriers, supporting a flexible, co-created journey. This transition reflects a maturing of professional judgement and responsiveness to coachee needs.
Ultimately, responsibility lies with the coach. While models offer a system within which to operate, they must never overshadow the coachee’s needs. If the session becomes meandering or loses its potency, the model can be revisited to provide clarity and refocus (Wall, 2017). The goal is not to choose between structure and spontaneity but to integrate both to serve the coachee’s goals.
Action Point
Complete the checklist table as you learn new coaching models. This will help to build up a repository of useful coaching tools.