Self-rated against ICF's Listens Actively and Evokes Awareness, then checked against a coded recording, a writer's listening is read level by level in this GM585 coaching skills self-assessment for Unit 2. Searches like "gm 585 unit 2 assignment example", "gm585 unit 2 sample" and "gm585 unit 2 example" land here.
What a finished GM585 Unit 2 coaching skills self-assessment looks like
Four to five pages in the first person, organized as result, evidence and interpretation. The result section reports two sets of numbers: the writer's self-ratings against three ICF core competencies, Maintains Presence, Listens Actively and Evokes Awareness, and figures from a coded [twenty-five]-minute practice session with a colleague, namely talk share, number of questions, and the split between open questions and questions that carried a suggestion. The evidence section quotes four exchanges from the transcript, including the moment the colleague mentioned a revenue recognition problem and the writer began explaining the standard. Interpretation uses the Co-Active distinction between Level I, Level II and Level III listening to locate where attention shifted. A final page names one habit to change and how the next recording will test it.
How a GM585 Unit 2 example is structured
The self-assessment is built so the numbers begin the argument rather than end it. The self-rating is reported first and honestly, because the gap between it and the recording is the finding. Coding rules come next, since a talk-share figure means something only if a reader knows how turns and questions were counted. Interpretation then asks when the listening broke down rather than how often. The recording shows Level II listening, attention on the colleague, for most of the session and a sharp drop to Level I at the one technical topic where the writer holds expertise. That pattern explains the talk share better than a general weakness would: the writer listens well until the conversation reaches familiar ground, then starts supplying answers. The closing commitment is narrow and testable, a pause rule for technical topics, checked in a second recording.
Two numbers that disagree
A self-rating of [four] on Listens Actively, and a talk share of [58] percent in the recording. Both are reported without excuse before anything interprets them, and the paper names the gap as its finding.
How the recording was coded
Turns counted by speaker change, words per turn totaled, and each question sorted as open, closed or carrying a suggestion. The colleague's consent is noted, and the recording itself stays out of the paper.
Where the attention moved
Level II listening holds for most of the session. At minute [eleven], a revenue recognition question pulls the writer to Level I, and the next six turns are explanations. The quoted exchange shows the shift in the writer's own words.
Expertise as the trigger
The pattern is not general inattention. It is a reflex to be useful on familiar ground, common among technical managers, and the self-rating missed it because most practice topics had been unfamiliar.
One rule and a retest
Before answering any technical point, the writer asks one question about what the colleague already thinks. A second recording in [three] weeks will count turns after technical topics specifically.
Where marks go in GM585 Unit 2
Self-assessments in GM585 are graded on interpretation, and a paper reporting an inventory score with a paragraph of agreement or surprise usually lands in the lowest band of analysis credit. Stronger papers set the self-report against something observed, a recording, a colleague's notes or a transcript, since coaching skill is visible only in conversation. Vague findings cost marks: calling oneself a good listener who sometimes interrupts names nothing a reader could check. The interpretation should use a framework the course supplies, such as ICF competencies or levels of listening, to explain the pattern rather than to label it. A development commitment scores best when it is narrow and testable. Papers that treat a disappointing number as a failure of character tend to score below papers that treat it as information.
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.
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.