| Course | GM585 Mentoring and Coaching |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Coaching conversation transcript |
| Length | About 1,360 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 3
Redoing the Workpapers at Eleven at Night: A Unit 3 OSKAR Coaching Conversation Transcript
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GM585: Mentoring and Coaching
Unit 3 Coaching Conversation Transcript
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The accounting firm, the senior and the conversation are composite and illustrative; the model and sources cited are real.
Context Note
Dana was promoted to audit senior at Tanner Pryce in the summer and now supervises three associates on two engagements. Her reviewer told me she was sending back clean workpapers that were mostly her own rewrites, often timestamped after eleven at night. I am the audit manager on one of her engagements, and Dana agreed to a coaching session. At the start we agreed on confidentiality, with two limits: anything involving a breach of professional standards, and anything suggesting a risk to her health or safety.
I chose OSKAR, the solution-focused sequence of Outcome, Scaling, Know-how, Affirm and Action, and Review, developed by Paul Jackson and Mark McKergow (Jackson & McKergow, 2007). A problem-focused model would have spent the session on why Dana rewrites workpapers. OSKAR asks what she wants instead and what she already does that works, which suited a capable senior who already felt she was failing. Anthony Grant and colleagues found in a randomized study that solution-focused coaching raised goal attainment and resilience among managers, which gave me some confidence in the approach for a short session (Grant et al., 2009).
Transcript
Coach: Thanks for making time. What would you like to be different by the end of this engagement?
Dana: I want to stop being the last person in the office. Three nights last week I was still here after eleven, and every time it was the same thing: I open an associate's workpaper to review it, I see two or three problems, and it feels faster to just fix them myself than to explain.
Coach: If that changed, what would you be doing instead at eleven o'clock?
Dana: Sleeping. And honestly, I'd want the associates to be doing their own workpapers properly, so I'm reviewing, not redoing.
Coach: So the outcome is that you review their work and they fix it themselves. Is that right?
Dana: Yes. That's what a senior is supposed to do, and it's what my reviewer keeps telling me. I know it. I just don't do it when it's late and the file is due.
Coach: On a scale of one to ten, where ten is that you review and they fix every time, where are you now?
Dana: Maybe a three.
Coach: What makes it a three and not a one?
Dana: Well, with Marcus I do send notes back. He's been here a year longer than the others, and he fixes things fast.
Coach: What's different about how you work with Marcus?
Dana: I guess I trust him. And I write the notes as questions, like "Is this sample size based on the updated risk assessment?" He goes and checks, and usually he finds the problem himself and fixes a couple of other things I didn't even flag. With the other two I don't write notes at all. I just open the file and start typing.
Coach: What would it take to send notes like that to the other two?
Dana: Time. Writing good notes takes longer than just fixing the cell myself.
Coach: How long does it take you to fix one workpaper, compared with writing notes for it?
Dana: Fixing one is maybe twenty minutes. Notes are ten, but then I have to check it again when it comes back, and if it's still wrong that's another ten.
Coach: So notes plus the second review is about the same time.
Dana: About the same. More, the first few times.
Coach: What else do you already know about getting associates to fix their own work?
Dana: When I was an associate, the senior I learned the most from was Rachel. She would sit with me for five minutes, show me one thing on the first workpaper, and then make me do the rest myself. She never rewrote anything. I hated it at the time, because it was slower, but by my second busy season I didn't need her.
Coach: What did that do for you?
Dana: I stopped making the same mistake. With my associates, I'm not teaching them anything. I'm just making the mistake disappear, and then they make it again on the next file.
Coach: You already know how to teach this way. It's working with Marcus.
Dana: I suppose so.
Coach: If you moved from a three to a four this week, what would be the first sign?
Dana: That I'd sent notes back to Priya on the inventory workpaper, not rewritten it.
Coach: You might also set a cutoff time, say eight o'clock, when you stop reviewing for the day.
Dana: That would be nice, but the deadline is the deadline. If the partner review is Thursday, I can't stop at eight on Wednesday.
Coach: What would make sending notes to Priya possible this week, given the deadline?
Dana: If I did the review Monday instead of Wednesday night, she'd have three days to fix it before the partner review on Thursday. That's the real problem. I review late, so there's no time for anyone but me to fix it.
Coach: What will you do, and by when?
Dana: Monday morning, notes to Priya on inventory, written as questions. And I'll sit with her for five minutes on the first one.
Coach: How confident are you, from one to ten?
Dana: Seven. I'm worried she'll get it wrong again and I'll end up fixing it anyway, and then I've lost the time twice.
Coach: Maybe start with the easiest one.
Dana: Inventory is the easiest one, actually. That's why I picked it.
Coach: Let's meet again in two weeks. When we do, what would you want to tell me?
Dana: That Priya fixed two workpapers herself and I was home by nine at least twice.
Coach: I look forward to hearing it.
Dana: Me too. Thanks.
Who Did the Talking
Counting the transcript, there are 40 turns, 20 for each speaker. Dana spoke about 66 percent of the words and I spoke about 34 percent. Of my twenty turns, fifteen were questions, one reflected her words back, one affirmed a strength and one closed the session; the remaining two were advice, flagged above.
The scaling question did most of the work in this session, because asking what made it a three led Dana straight to the exception she already knew how to repeat.
Reflection
The scaling question opened the session. Asking "What makes it a three and not a one?" led Dana to Marcus, and from Marcus to the way she writes notes as questions and to the senior who taught her. Jackson and McKergow argue that clients usually already have part of the solution, and that a coach's job is to find the times the problem does not happen (Jackson & McKergow, 2007). Marcus was that exception.
Where I slipped, I slipped toward advice. Both suggestions, a cutoff time and starting with the easiest workpaper, were reasonable, but they were mine. Dana rejected the first, and she had already chosen inventory before I suggested the second, so it added nothing. John Whitmore argues that awareness and responsibility both come from the coachee generating options, and that a manager's urge to supply them is the strongest habit coaching must overcome (Whitmore, 2017). My talk share was lower than in my Unit 2 recording, 34 percent instead of 58, but the two advice turns came at the same point as before: when Dana named a difficulty I could solve.
The other gap was Dana's confidence of seven. Her worry, that Priya would get it wrong and she would fix it anyway, was the old habit speaking. I treated it as a planning problem when it was the heart of the session. Next time I would ask, "What would you do if Priya's first fix wasn't right?" so that Dana plans her response before the moment comes.
References
Grant, A. M., Curtayne, L., & Burton, G. (2009). Executive coaching enhances goal attainment, resilience and workplace well-being: A randomised controlled study. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4(5), 396-407. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760902992456
Jackson, P. Z., & McKergow, M. (2007). The solutions focus: Making coaching and change SIMPLE (2nd 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 3 instructions
GM585 Unit 3 asks you to hold a coaching conversation and present it as a transcript with analysis. Begin with a short context note: the setting, the agreement on confidentiality and its limits, and why you chose your model over another. Present the conversation turn by turn, labeled by speaker, with notes that name the model stage and the purpose of each important coach turn. Mark your own mistakes honestly, such as advice given where a question would have served. After the transcript, count words or turns for each speaker and report the coach's share. Then reflect on which move opened the conversation, where you slipped and what you would ask differently next time. Expect about seven pages, with real conversations written up with consent and details altered, citing the model's source and coaching research in APA 7.
Inside the GM585 Unit 3 example
The context note explains that Dana, promoted to senior in the summer, rewrites her associates' work late at night, records the confidentiality agreement and its two limits, and explains why OSKAR suited a capable senior, citing Jackson and McKergow and Grant and colleagues' randomized study. The transcript opens on Dana's outcome of reviewing rather than redoing. Scaling places her at three, and asking what makes it a three reveals Marcus, the associate she sends question-style notes to. Know-how brings out Rachel, the senior who taught her by showing one thing and making her do the rest. Two advice turns, a cutoff time and starting with the easiest workpaper, are flagged. Dana commits to Monday notes for Priya. The count shows the coach at 34 percent, and the reflection credits the scaling question and names the confidence question it should have asked.
Reading the GM585 Unit 3 grading rubric
GM585 instructors grade this transcript on whether the model is used deliberately and whether the writer judges their own coaching honestly. A context note that states the agreement and explains the model choice earns early credit. Notes on coach turns should name the stage and its purpose, showing the writer understands why each move was made. Flagging mistakes, such as advice, shows more judgment than a flawless script. The talk count should be reported accurately, with the coachee doing most of the talking. The reflection carries significant weight: it should credit the move that worked, explain where the coach slipped and propose a better question. Jackson and McKergow's The Solutions Focus, Grant, Curtayne and Burton's randomized study and Whitmore's Coaching for Performance supply the references in APA 7.
Common GM585 Unit 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many GM585 Unit 3 transcripts read as scripts in which every coach question lands perfectly, which tells the grader nothing about judgment. Others follow the model's stages in name but never show why each question was asked. A common gap is the talk count: writers who do not count often discover they did most of the talking. Some reflections praise the session without naming any mistake. Choose a real concern, agree confidentiality first, follow the model's stages, note the purpose of each coach turn, flag where you gave advice, count the words, and say which question opened the conversation and which question you should have asked instead.
Get a GM585 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
If Unit 3 in your section asks for a scripted conversation, say which coaching model it assigns and describe the person and the issue; if you held a real session, share notes or a summary. Include the prompt and rubric. A free first transcript arrives in 24-48h, annotated turn by turn, talk share counted and the weak moments owned. 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 2: Coaching Skills Self-Assessment
- 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 3: Functional vs Divisional Comparison
- GM541 Unit 3: Central Dispatch Failure Case
- GM506 Unit 3: Truss Maker Statement Interpretation
- GM505 Unit 3: Internal Consultant Contract
GM585 Unit 3 questions, answered
Should the transcript be real or scripted?
Whichever the prompt allows. Real conversations, written up with the other person's consent and details altered, give the reflection authentic material. Scripted ones let the writer demonstrate the model clearly but tend to read as too smooth. The sample is composite and deliberately includes two coach mistakes, since a flawless script tells a grader nothing about the writer's judgment.
What is OSKAR, and how does it differ from GROW?
OSKAR comes from Jackson and McKergow's solutions-focused approach: Outcome, Scaling, Know-how, Affirm and action, Review. Where GROW spends time on the current reality, OSKAR moves quickly toward what already works and builds from it. Either model suits this unit; the choice should fit the coachee, and a sentence explaining it usually earns credit.
How should talk time be counted?
Count words per speaker, or turns if words are impractical, and report both where possible. Many coaching courses expect the coachee to do most of the talking, so a coach share well under half is the usual aim, though what matters more is where the coach's share rose and why. The sample reports the overall figure and then points to the two moments where it climbed.
Where can I find a free GM585 Unit 3 sample paper?
This page carries a full GM585 Unit 3 OSKAR coaching transcript with an audit senior who rewrites her associates' work, with stage notes, a talk count, a reflection and APA 7 references.
Why did the scaling question matter so much?
Asking what made the situation a three rather than a one led Dana to an exception: the associate she already returns notes to. Solutions-focused coaching builds from times the problem does not happen, and that exception gave her a method she could repeat.