Klaus

 1  

Kaley  Klaus  
 
LDRS  600  VA  
 
K.  Klein  
 
18  April  2014  
 
Case  Study  11  –  1  
 
1. What  type  of  coaching  function  was  reflected  in  Rowe’s  meeting  with  Busche?  
 
Rowe  appears  to  be  providing  the  coaching  function  of  counseling  when  talking  with  Busche  in  
this  meeting.  According  to  the  text,  counseling  is  “helping  an  individual  recognize,  talk  about,  
and  solve  either  real  or  perceived  problems  that  affect  performance”  (p.  334).  During  the  
conversation,  Rowe  stated  that  she  was  disappointed  with  Busche’s  outcome  of  a  recent  and  
important  project,  but  did  not  focus  solely  on  that.  Rowe  had  perceived  that  there  was  external  
factor  that  contributed  to  Busche’s  poor  performance,  because  a  poor  project  was  not  normal  
behavior  for  Busche.  When  Rowe  asked  if  there  was  something  that  affected  the  project’s  
success  Busche  was  able  to  be  honest  with  Rowe  about  his  demanding  work-­‐load.  Because  of  
this,  Rowe  has  asked  Busche  to  be  honest  with  her  about  his  workload  for  the  next  month  and  
not  to  feel  pressured  to  say  “yes”  to  all  projects  if  he  does  not  have  adequate  to  complete  them  
with  good  quality.  
 
 
2. In  terms  of  effectiveness  on  a  1  –  10  scale,  with  1  being  “poor”  and  10  being  “excellent,”  what  
score  would  you  assign  to  Rowe’s  handling  of  the  session?  Why?  
 
I  would  assign  Rowe  a  score  of  seven  (7)  in  regard  to  her  level  of  effectiveness  during  this  
meeting.  At  the  beginning  of  the  meeting,  I  feel  that  Rowe  was  somewhat  aggressive  toward  
Busche  when  stating  that  she  was  embarrassed  about  Busche’s  work.  While  she  did  use  an  “I”  
message  in  her  first  sentence,  she  was  very  “frank”  about  the  issue  (which  was  obviously  stated  
in  the  discussion).  Being  first  to  speak,  she  pinpointed  (p.337)  all  that  was  wrong  with  the  
project  at  hand.  This  was  not  necessarily  wrong.  Being  specific  about  the  problems  with  the  
report  will  be  helpful  when  it  comes  to  improving  it;  however,  beginning  with  this  put  Busche  in  
a  defensive  state.  In  response  to  Busche’s  defensive  reaction,  Rowe  needed  to  take  a  step  back  
and  express  her  concern  with  more  “I”  messages  than  her  first  approach.  With  that,  Busche  was  
able  to  be  more  honest  and  open  with  Rowe  about  his  feelings  on  the  project  and  why  it  was  
not  up  to  par.    
 
Throughout  the  conversation  Rowe  then  used  probing  and  reflecting  (p.  337)  to  gain  more  
information  about  why  Busche’s  project  was  not  of  high  quality,  and  that  she  understood  it.  She  
was  able  to  discover  the  Busche  was  stretched  thin  with  responsibilities.  While  doing  this,  she  
also  affirmed  (p.  337)  Busche  a  few  times  stating  his  work  is  always  excellent  and  his  skills  are  
valued  at  the  company,  which  I  feel  put  Busche  at  ease  throughout  the  conversation.  In  the  end,  
Rowe  used  confirming  (p.  337)  to  make  sure  that  she  and  Busche  were  on  the  same  page  with  
their  plan  of  action.  This  plan  was  to  ensure  that  the  two  communicated  in  a  better  way  about  
work-­‐load  and  expectations  so  as  to  avoid  a  situation  like  this  one  in  the  future.    

 
 Klaus  2  

 
Overall,  Rowe  did  an  effective  job  during  this  conversation;  however,  in  the  future,  I  feel  she  
should  begin  the  conversation  in  a  more  gentle  way.  Perhaps  starting  with  a  probing  technique  
rather  than  pinpointing  would  keep  a  calmer  atmosphere  throughout  the  duration  of  the  
discussion.  
 
 
3. Identify  specific  transcript  comments  by  Rowe  that  reflect  the  following  coaching  skills:  (a)  
reflecting,  (b)  pinpointing,  (c)  probing,  (d)  affirming,  and  (e)  confirming.  
 
(a) Reflecting  
• Rowe  6:    “So  you  didn’t  get  to  put  in  the  time  on  the  report….”  
• Rowe  7:    “It  sounds  as  if  the  quality  report  is  only  part  of  the  problem.”  
(b) Pinpointing  
• Rowe3:    “For  one  thing,  it  seemed  superficial  in  that  it  described  only  a  few  of  the  
programs  we’d  benchmarked,  rather  than  all  seven.  Since  this  will  be  the  major  
document  the  committee  will  be  using  as  a  reference,  we  needed  coverage  of  all  the  
visits  we’ve  made.  Also,  some  of  the  most  important  processes  were  not  included—
like  J&J’s  360-­‐degree  feedback  system  and  Motorola’s  team  incentives.”  
(c) Probing  
• Rowe  5:    “You  weren’t  please  with  it  yourself?”  
• Rowe  9:    “Is  additional  help  the  answer?”  
(d) Affirming  
• Rowe  4:    “You’ve  always  done  exceptional  work  in  putting  together  material  like  this  
for  me.”  
• Rowe  10:    “I  think  it’s  terrific  that  Bushman  values  your  abilities.  Politically,  it’s  in  
both  of  our  interest  for  you  to  ask  as  Bushman’s  facilitator.”  
(e) Confirming  
• Rowe  12:    “Okay,  let’s  give  this  a  try.  You’ll  give  me  a  brief  typed  report  on  projects  
other  than  normal  training  and  safety  activities.  If  you’re  skeptical  about  a  
commitment  request  from  outside  the  department,  you’ll  discuss  it  with  me  before  
taking  it  on.  You’re  also  agreeing  to  level  with  me  about  whether  you  have  time  to  
commit  to  special  projects  that  I  throw  your  way.  We’ll  try  this  process  for  a  month  
and  see  what  happens.  Is  that  acceptable?”  
 
 
4. To  what  extent  did  the  meeting  reflect  the  seven  suggestions  for  confronting  poor  performance  
(Exhibit  11-­‐4)?    
 
Of  the  seven  suggestions  in  Exhibit  11-­‐4  (p.  339),  it  is  my  opinion  that  all  seven  were  used  in  the  
conversation  between  Rowe  and  Busche.  First,  Rowe  described  the  performance  situation  in  
detail  at  the  beginning  of  the  conversation  and  used  pinpointing  to  be  specific  about  the  issues  
with  the  report  at  hand1.  Rowe  asked  for  Busche’s  perspective  on  the  problem2,  which  she  
received—that  he  had  too  much  to  do,  which  caused  the  report  to  suffer.  After  a  brief  
discussion  on  why  the  report  was  not  up  to  standard,  both  came  to  the  agreement  that  Busche  
did  not  have  sufficient  time  to  complete  the  project  with  the  highest  quality  possible3.    
 

 
 Klaus  3  

When  determining  a  solution  to  prevent  this  type  of  situation  in  the  future,  Rowe  sought  
Busche’s  opinion  on  what  would  be  an  effective  approach4.  With  that,  they  both  agreed  on  a  
plan  to  communicate  better5.  Rowe  ended  the  conversation  summarizing  the  plan  they  would  
work  with6;  this  would  start  with  Busche  submitting  a  report  with  a  list  of  all  extra  projects  he  
was  working  on.  A  follow-­‐up  was  also  scheduled  for  a  month  later  to  see  if  this  new  process  had  
been  effective,  and  Busche  agreed  to  the  plan  of  action7.    
 
  1.    Describe  the  performance  situation  in  specific  detail.  
  2.    Seek  and  listen  to  the  team  member’s  point  of  view.  
  3.    Get  agreement  on  the  problem.  
  4.    Ty  to  get  the  employee’s  involvement  in  determining  a  solution.  
  5.    Agree  on  a  plan  of  action  to  improve  performance.  
  6.    Summarize  the  agreement  and  reinforce  the  changed  behavior.  
  7.    Plan  for  follow-­‐up,  if  needed.