| Course | GM585 Mentoring and Coaching |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Coaching skills self-assessment |
| Length | About 1,140 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Management |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for GM585 Unit 2
Four Out of Five, Then Fifty-Eight Percent: A Unit 2 Coaching Skills Self-Assessment
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GM585: Mentoring and Coaching
Unit 2 Coaching Skills Self-Assessment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The writer, the colleague and every figure are composite and illustrative; the frameworks and sources cited are real.
Result
Before the practice session I rated myself on three of the International Coaching Federation's core competencies, using a five-point scale where five means the behavior is consistent and visible to others (International Coaching Federation, 2019). I gave myself a four on Maintains Presence, a four on Listens Actively and a three on Evokes Awareness. I thought of myself as a good listener, and most staff reviews I have received say so.
I then recorded a twenty-five minute practice coaching session with a second-year associate, Maya, who agreed to talk through a real concern: falling behind on revenue testing for a software client. Afterward I transcribed the session and coded it. I counted the words each of us spoke, every question I asked, and whether each question was open or carried a suggestion inside it, such as "Have you thought about asking the client for the contract summary first?"
The figures were not what I expected. I spoke 58 percent of the words. I asked 27 questions, but only 11 were open questions; 16 carried a suggestion. In the second half of the session, after Maya mentioned a revenue recognition issue, I spoke about 71 percent of the words.
Evidence
Four exchanges from the transcript show where my attention moved.
Minute four. Maya said, "I keep getting stuck on the contracts." I asked, "What happens when you get stuck?" She described rereading the same contract three times. This was the best stretch of the session: an open question, and an answer that gave her a picture of her own habit.
Minute nine. Maya said the client's contracts bundle software licenses with two years of support and training. I asked, "Have you separated the performance obligations yet?" This was a suggestion in the form of a question. She said no, and I could see she felt behind.
Minute eleven. Maya said, "I'm not sure the license is distinct from the updates." I then spent almost three minutes explaining how ASC 606 treats the question of whether a promised good is distinct, with an example from another client. The transcript shows 412 words from me and 19 from her in that stretch.
Minute twenty-one. Near the end, Maya said, "I think the real problem is I don't want to ask the senior for help again." I said, "That's normal," and moved to next steps. I had heard the most important thing she said in the session and moved past it in four words.
The recording showed that my listening held until the conversation reached something I knew, and then I began teaching.
Interpretation
Henry Kimsey-House and colleagues describe three levels of listening in Co-Active coaching (Kimsey-House et al., 2018). At Level I, internal listening, attention is on oneself: one's own thoughts, opinions and what to say next. At Level II, focused listening, attention is fully on the other person, their words, tone and meaning. At Level III, global listening, the coach also takes in the energy and mood of the exchange and what is not being said.
Reading the transcript with those levels in mind, I was at Level II for most of the first eight minutes. My open question at minute four came from paying attention to Maya's words. At minute nine, I slipped to Level I: I was thinking about what she should do and asked a question that carried my answer. At minute eleven I was fully at Level I, focused on the standard and on my own example. At minute twenty-one, Maya said something a Level III listener would have caught, the reluctance under her words, and I missed it because I was already thinking about next steps.
My self-rating was not wrong about the start. I listen well when I do not know the subject. It was wrong about what happens when the topic is technical and I know more than the coachee. John Whitmore argues that a coach who supplies answers reduces the coachee's ownership of the solution and their awareness of their own situation (Whitmore, 2017). The 16 suggestion questions are the clearest sign of this. Each one asked Maya to agree with an answer I had already chosen.
The ICF describes Evokes Awareness as asking questions that help the client explore beyond current thinking (International Coaching Federation, 2019). I rated myself lowest there, and the transcript supports that rating. It also shows that Listens Actively, which I rated highly, depends on staying at Level II when I have expertise to share.
Why the Gap Matters in My Job
This pattern matters more for an audit manager than for an outside coach. Most of the people I coach are associates and seniors whose questions are often technical, and I am usually the person who knows the answer. If I teach whenever a technical question appears, I will teach in almost every conversation, and the coaching will become a review session. Associates will learn that bringing me a problem means receiving a lecture and an answer, which is efficient in busy season and costly over a career, because they stop working out their own approach first.
There is also a cost I did not expect. At minute twenty-one, Maya told me she was reluctant to ask her senior for help. That reluctance is probably slowing her more than any revenue recognition question, and it is the kind of thing an associate rarely says to a manager. I heard it and moved on. If my teaching habit keeps me at Level I, I will miss the moments when the real issue appears, because those moments come after the technical part of the conversation, when I am still thinking about the standard.
The Habit to Change
The habit I will change is answering technical questions during a coaching conversation. When the topic moves into accounting I know well, I will ask one more open question before saying anything about the standard. If Maya or another coachee needs technical guidance, I will offer it at the end of the session and label it as advice, separate from the coaching.
The next recording will test this in three ways. My share of words should fall below 40 percent. At least two thirds of my questions should be open, without a suggestion inside them. And I will mark in the transcript every point where the coachee names a feeling or concern, and check whether I asked about it or moved on. I will record the next session in three weeks and compare the figures with these.
References
International Coaching Federation. (2019). ICF core competencies. https://coachingfederation.org/credentials-and-standards/core-competencies
Kimsey-House, H., Kimsey-House, K., Sandahl, P., & Whitworth, L. (2018). Co-active coaching: The proven framework for transformative conversations at work and in life (4th ed.). Nicholas Brealey.
Whitmore, J. (2017). Coaching for performance: The principles and practice of coaching and leadership (5th ed.). Nicholas Brealey.
The Purdue Global GM585 Unit 2 instructions
In GM585 Unit 2 you assess your own coaching skills against evidence. Rate yourself first, using an instrument the course supplies or the ICF core competencies, before you look at any evidence. Then record or closely observe a practice coaching conversation, with the other person's consent, and code it: who spoke how much, how many questions you asked and whether each was open or carried a suggestion. Report both sets of figures. Quote several exchanges that show where your attention held and where it moved. Interpret the gap between self-rating and evidence with a framework from the reading, such as the Co-Active levels of listening. Say why the gap matters in your own job. Close by naming one habit to change and how the next recording will test it. Plan on four to five first-person pages, citing the competencies and any listening framework in APA 7.
How this GM585 Unit 2 example is built
The result section reports self-ratings of four on Maintains Presence and Listens Actively and three on Evokes Awareness, then the coded session: 58 percent talk share, rising to 71 percent in the second half, and 16 of 27 questions carrying a suggestion. Four exchanges follow: an open question at minute four, a suggestion disguised as a question at minute nine, almost three minutes of teaching on whether a license is distinct at minute eleven, and a missed disclosure at minute twenty-one. The highlighted sentence states the pattern. Co-Active Levels I, II and III place each moment, and Whitmore explains the cost of supplying answers. A section on the writer's job notes that most coachees bring technical questions. The plan targets talk share below 40 percent, two thirds open questions and a check on every named concern.
GM585 Unit 2 rubric: what earns full points
GM585 rubric credit for this self-assessment depends on evidence that can test the self-rating. Instructors look for self-ratings made before the evidence and for coded figures such as talk share and question types. Quoted exchanges carry real weight because they show exactly where attention moved. The interpretation should apply a listening framework to specific moments, not define it in general. An honest finding, including where a high self-rating did not hold, earns more than one that confirms every rating. Connecting the pattern to the writer's own role shows why it matters. The closing plan should name one habit and measurable targets for the next recording. The ICF core competencies, Kimsey-House and colleagues' Co-Active Coaching and Whitmore's Coaching for Performance form the reference list in APA 7.
Common GM585 Unit 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many GM585 Unit 2 self-assessments report a questionnaire score and reflect on it without any observed evidence. Others record a session but never code it, so the gap between rating and behavior stays vague. A common gap is questions that carry advice, which look like coaching but steer the coachee toward the coach's answer. Some writers apply a listening framework to the session as a whole instead of to particular moments. Rate yourself first, record a real practice conversation with consent, count words and question types, quote the exchanges where your attention shifted, explain each shift with the reading and set targets the next recording can check.
Get a GM585 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Share your self-assessment result, or identify the tool assigned in your section, and if possible add a note on one practice conversation: how long it ran, who talked more, where it drifted. Attach the Unit 2 prompt and rubric too; the free first draft, back in 24-48h, interprets the result rather than repeating it and leaves your own specifics in brackets. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More GM585 papers and MS in Management samples
- GM585 Unit 1: Mentoring Functions Discussion Post
- GM585 Unit 3: Coaching Conversation Transcript
- GM585 Unit 4: Feedback Scenario Response
- GM585 Unit 5: Development Plan
- GM585 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- GM585 Unit 7: Mentoring Program Design
- GM585 Unit 8: Boundaries and Ethics Case
- GM585 Unit 9: Progress Review Memo
- GM585 Unit 10: Coaching Philosophy Paper
- GM543 Unit 2: Star Model Organization Profile
- GM541 Unit 2: Uptime Contract Change Classification
- GM506 Unit 2: Truss Manufacturer Ratio Analysis
- GM505 Unit 2: Action Research Methodology Comparison
GM585 Unit 2 questions, answered
Which instrument does this unit use?
Sections vary. Some supply a listening or coaching skills questionnaire, some ask for a self-rating against the ICF core competencies, and some want a reflection on a practice session with no instrument at all. The approach in the sample works with any of them: report the result, set it against observed behavior, and explain the difference through a framework from the reading.
Is recording a practice conversation required?
Rarely required, often useful. A recording, or detailed notes a colleague takes during a practice session, gives the self-assessment something to check the self-rating against. If recording is not possible, a colleague's written observations of who talked more and what kinds of questions were asked serve the same purpose. Consent from the other person comes first in any case.
What are the levels of listening?
A distinction from the Co-Active coaching model. Level I is internal listening, attention on one's own thoughts and reactions; Level II is focused on the other person; Level III is global, taking in tone, energy and what goes unsaid. Many coaching courses use it because it locates where attention goes during a conversation, which a single listening score cannot show.
Where can I find a free GM585 Unit 2 sample paper?
This page carries a full GM585 Unit 2 coaching skills self-assessment comparing self-ratings on ICF competencies with a coded practice session, using Co-Active listening levels, with APA 7 references.
What is a question that carries a suggestion?
A question with the coach's answer inside it, such as asking whether the coachee has thought about requesting a contract summary first. It looks like coaching but asks the coachee to agree with a solution already chosen, which reduces their ownership of the answer.