GM585 Unit 6 Coaching Spectrum Seminar Reflection Example

Reviewed by Chester Goodwin, MBA Mentoring and Coaching Purdue University Global Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

This GM585 Unit 6 seminar reflection explains why coaching that helped and coaching that grated sounded so alike. Purdue Global GM 585, Mentoring and Coaching, asks MS in Management students to write about a live seminar, or the written option, in the first person. Classmates described a nurse manager's external coach who asked question after question when she needed a staffing plan by Monday, a sales director whose scripted questions had obvious right answers, and an instructional coach who watched a class for forty minutes and asked one precise question. The writer arrived believing that annoying coaching is directive coaching. Placing each coach on Myles Downey's spectrum from telling to listening showed that the grating coaches were either stuck at one point or pretending to be at another.

CourseGM585 Mentoring and Coaching
UnitUnit 6
Paper typeSeminar reflection
LengthAbout 820 words, 5 pages double-spaced
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolPurdue University Global
ProgramMS in Management
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for GM585 Unit 6

1

Questions With Right Answers: A Unit 6 Seminar Reflection on Coaching That Grates

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

GM585: Mentoring and Coaching

Unit 6 Seminar Reflection

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The classmates' accounts and the writer's accounting firm are composite; the sources cited are real.

What this part is doingStating the belief the writer brought in makes the change the reflection records easy to follow.
2

Three Accounts

Three classmates' stories carried the session.

Keisha, a nurse manager, described an external coach her hospital provided after she took over a medical-surgical unit. In her third session she explained that two nurses had resigned and she needed a staffing plan by Monday. The coach asked what a good outcome would look like, what she had tried and what her values told her. She left with no plan and, in her words, "the feeling I had been interviewed."

Ryan, who works in software sales, described weekly coaching calls run by his sales director from a script. Every question had an obvious right answer: "What do you think the next step with this account should be?" when the director plainly wanted to hear "book a demo." Ryan said the calls felt like a quiz.

Sofia, a high school teacher, described an instructional coach who sat at the back of her class for forty minutes, said almost nothing, and then asked one question afterward: "What were the four students by the window doing while you worked with the front table?" Sofia said it changed how she arranged her room for the rest of the year.

The View I Brought In

I came to the session believing that coaching annoys people when the coach is too directive. My firm trains managers to ask rather than tell, and I had seen associates bristle when a senior told them what to do in a coaching meeting. I expected the session to confirm that the annoying coaches had been the ones giving instructions.

Where the View Gave Way

The instructor asked us to place each coach on Myles Downey's spectrum, which runs from directive, or push, behaviors such as telling, instructing and giving advice, through offering guidance and making suggestions, to non-directive, or pull, behaviors such as asking questions that raise awareness, reflecting, summarizing and listening to understand (Downey, 2014).

Keisha's coach sat at the far pull end, and that was the problem. Keisha needed a staffing answer, or at least guidance, and the coach would not move along the spectrum to give it. Ryan's director looked like he sat at the pull end, since he asked questions, but his questions carried his answers. He was telling while pretending to ask. Sofia's coach sat at the pull end too, but she had watched for forty minutes, and her one question raised Sofia's awareness of something Sofia had not seen.

The coaching that grated was not too directive; it was either stuck at one point on the spectrum or pretending to be at a point it was not.

What this part is doingThe highlighted sentence marks the point where the writer's view changed.
3

So my starting view was wrong in both directions. Keisha's coach was not directive at all and still frustrated her. Ryan's director was directive in disguise, and the disguise was what made it grate. Downey argues that skilled coaches move along the spectrum as the situation requires, and that the choice should follow what the person needs at that moment (Downey, 2014). John Whitmore makes a similar point when he says that telling has its place, especially in a crisis, but that a manager should know when they are telling and why (Whitmore, 2017).

Where My First View Survives

The pull end should still be a coach's default, in my judgment. Sofia's account showed how much a single precise question can do when it comes from close attention. But the default is not a rule, and honesty about where I am on the spectrum matters more than where I am.

Turning It on My Own Coaching

In busy season I coach associates in short conversations at their desks. Looking back, I suspect I often do what Ryan's director did: I ask "What do you think you should do about this variance?" when I already know the answer and want them to say it. Associates probably hear it as a test. James Hunt and Joseph Weintraub describe the coaching manager as someone who coaches in brief, frequent conversations during ordinary work, and they stress that this only works when employees trust that the manager is trying to help them develop rather than checking up on them (Hunt & Weintraub, 2017). A quiz disguised as a question undermines exactly that trust. If I know the answer and time is short, it would be more honest to say, "Here's what I'd do, and here's why," and save real questions for moments when I do not know the answer or when finding it themselves is worth the time. When I do ask, I want it to be a question like Sofia's coach asked, one that comes from watching closely and shows the associate something they had not seen.

What this part is doingApplying the finding to busy-season coaching shows how the reflection will change the writer's practice.
4

References

Downey, M. (2014). Effective modern coaching: The principles and art of successful business coaching. LID Publishing.

Hunt, J. M., & Weintraub, J. R. (2017). The coaching manager: Developing top talent in business (3rd ed.). Sage.

Whitmore, J. (2017). Coaching for performance: The principles and practice of coaching and leadership (5th ed.). Nicholas Brealey.

GM585 Unit 6 instructions, in plain terms

In the GM585 Unit 6 reflection you write, in the first person, about what a seminar on coaching changed in your thinking. Summarize the accounts classmates gave, each reduced to what the coach did and how the person felt. State the view you brought into the session plainly, before saying how it changed. Then apply a framework from the reading, such as Downey's spectrum from directive push to non-directive pull, to each account, and explain where your view gave way and where it held. Use the framework on what each coach actually did rather than on the coach's style in general. Close by turning the finding on your own coaching, naming a habit you will change and what you will do instead. Expect about two and a half pages with APA 7 citations for the reading and any research you add.

How the GM 585 Unit 6 example is put together

The reflection summarizes three accounts: Keisha's external coach, Ryan's sales director and Sofia's instructional coach. The writer's first view, that annoying coaching is directive, comes next. Downey's spectrum places Keisha's coach at the far pull end when she needed guidance, Ryan's director at the pull end in form but telling in substance, and Sofia's coach at the pull end after forty minutes of close observation. The highlighted sentence states the new view. Downey on moving along the spectrum and Whitmore on knowing when one is telling support it. A section explains why the pull end remains the default. The writer then admits asking associates questions they already know the answer to, cites Hunt and Weintraub on the trust a coaching manager depends on, and plans to give advice openly when time is short.

Where the points sit in the GM585 Unit 6 rubric

GM585 rubric credit for this reflection rests on stating the view the writer arrived with and showing honestly how the reading moved it. Instructors look for classmates' accounts summarized by what the coach did, not by personality. Applying the spectrum to each account specifically, and seeing that the same behavior can help or grate depending on the need, shows real understanding. A writer who states where the first view was wrong, and where it survives, earns more than one who claims to have agreed all along. The application to the writer's own coaching should name a habit and a replacement. Downey's Effective Modern Coaching, Whitmore's Coaching for Performance and Hunt and Weintraub's The Coaching Manager supply the citations in APA 7.

Common GM585 Unit 6 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Many GM585 Unit 6 reflections retell classmates' stories without placing them in any framework. Others treat directive coaching as always bad, which the reading does not support. A common gap is disguised telling: questions with an obvious right answer look non-directive but work as instructions, and they often explain why coaching grates. Some reflections finish on a broad moral and never name a change in the writer's own practice. Summarize each account by behavior, state your starting view, place each coach on the spectrum, explain what changed your mind and what did not, and name one habit you will change in your own coaching.

Get a GM585 Unit 6 example written to your instructions

Coaching stories from the session are what this reflection is built from: who was coached, what the coach did, how it landed. Note those and where you stood beforehand, from the live hour or the written option, and add the prompt and rubric for Unit 6. Turnaround on the free first reflection is 24-48h, and every classmate stays a role, never a name. 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 6 questions, answered

What is Downey's spectrum?

A way of placing coaching behaviors between push and pull, from Myles Downey's work on effective coaching. At one end sit telling, instructing and giving advice; at the other, listening to understand, reflecting and asking questions that raise awareness. It suits a reflection comparing coaches because it describes behavior rather than personality, which keeps the analysis on what each coach did.

Can the reflection include coaching the writer received?

Usually, and it often strengthens the piece. A writer's own experience as a coachee supplies detail no classmate's account can, including what was felt in the moment. Keep it proportionate to the session, since the seminar discussion should remain the main evidence, and apply the same framework to it that is applied to classmates' cases.

Is the reflection graded on the seminar or on the writer's coaching?

On both, in most sections, though the weighting varies. The seminar supplies the evidence and the reading supplies the lens, but the reflection is expected to end on the writer's own practice. A reflection that analyzes classmates' cases well and never returns to the writer tends to lose the application marks. The sample gives its final paragraph to one busy-season habit.

Where can I find a free GM585 Unit 6 sample paper?

This page carries a full GM585 Unit 6 seminar reflection on coaching that grated, using Downey's spectrum and three classmates' accounts, with APA 7 references.

Why did the sales director's coaching feel like a quiz?

His questions had obvious right answers, so he was telling while appearing to ask. The reflection argues that this disguise, more than directiveness itself, is what made the calls grate.