| Course | GM585 Mentoring and Coaching |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Progress review memo |
| Length | About 840 words, 6 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 9
One Exceeded, One Met, One Short: A Unit 9 Coaching Progress Review Memo Using Goal Attainment Scaling
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
GM585: Mentoring and Coaching
Unit 9 Progress Review Memo
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The accounting firm, the senior and every figure are composite and illustrative; the methods and sources cited are real.
Memo
To: Dana, Audit Senior From: Audit Manager and Coach Date: March 28 Subject: Review of our coaching, October to March
Result
Of your three goals, one is above the expected level, one is at it and one is below it. Returning workpapers with notes reached plus one. Staff drafting planning memo sections reached zero, the expected level. Leaving by seven reached minus one through busy season. In your words at our last session: "I'm not the one fixing everything anymore, and Priya asked to stay on my jobs next year."
How the Goals Were Scaled
We used goal attainment scaling, a method first developed by Thomas Kiresuk and Robert Sherman to evaluate mental health programs against goals set for each client (Kiresuk & Sherman, 1968). Each goal has five levels: minus two, much less than expected; minus one, less than expected; zero, the expected outcome; plus one, more than expected; and plus two, much more than expected. Gordon Spence argues that the method suits coaching because the coachee helps define each level before coaching begins, so the rating measures progress against her own goals rather than a general standard (Spence, 2007). We set the levels together in our second session, in October.
The Three Goals
Goal one: return workpapers with notes instead of rewriting them. Rating: plus one. At the start, about 20 percent of the workpapers you reviewed went back to associates with notes; the rest you rewrote. The expected level was 50 percent by the end of February. The engagement software shows 70 percent for February, which falls in the plus one range of 60 to 79 percent. Your associates' second submissions needed fewer notes over time, and Priya's inventory workpapers needed none by January.
Goal two: have staff draft planning memo sections. Rating: zero. At the start, you wrote every planning memo yourself. The expected level was two sections drafted by staff across your two engagements. Marcus drafted the inventory section and Priya the revenue section on the manufacturing client's interim work, and the partner accepted both with minor edits. That is the expected level.
Goal three: leave by seven most nights. Rating: minus one. At the start, you left by seven on about one evening a week. The expected level was three evenings a week averaged over January to March. The badge record and your own log show an average of about 1.6 evenings a week, which falls in the minus one range of 1.2 to 2.4. In January and February, the busiest weeks, the average was about one evening. In March it rose to 2.8.
The goal that fell short measured something busy season decides as much as Dana does, and the March figure suggests the new habits will show once the season ends.
What the Scales Miss
The scales record what changed in numbers. They do not record what you said changed for you. At our fifth session you said, "I used to think a senior who sent work back was being lazy. Now I think a senior who rewrites it is being selfish, because nobody learns." That shift in how you see the role is probably the most important result of the coaching, and no scale measures it. Richard Boyatzis's account of intentional change, which your development plan followed, holds that change lasts when it is tied to the person's picture of who she wants to be (Boyatzis, 2006). Your remark suggests the new habit is now part of that picture rather than a rule you follow for me.
The scales also miss the effect on your associates. Priya's request to stay on your engagements next year and Marcus's comment in his own review, that he learned more this season than last, suggest the change matters to them too.
What Continues and What Stops
Goal one continues without coaching. You have the habit, and the engagement software lets you watch the figure yourself. Goal two continues, with a new target of four staff-drafted sections next season. Goal three continues with one more coaching session in May, after busy season, to see whether the March figure holds.
Our regular coaching sessions stop here. The arrangement we agreed in October was for six sessions, and we have had them. If you want to continue after May, we can agree on a new arrangement with new goals.
Summary for the Partner
You approved this summary for the engagement partner on March 26:
"Dana completed six coaching sessions on reviewing and developing her associates. She now returns most workpapers with notes, which has improved the associates' work, and two staff drafted planning memo sections for the first time. She is continuing to work on her own hours after busy season."
References
Boyatzis, R. E. (2006). An overview of intentional change from a complexity perspective. Journal of Management Development, 25(7), 607-623. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710610678445
Kiresuk, T. J., & Sherman, R. E. (1968). Goal attainment scaling: A general method for evaluating comprehensive community mental health programs. Community Mental Health Journal, 4(6), 443-453. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01530764
Spence, G. B. (2007). GAS powered coaching: Goal attainment scaling and its use in coaching research and practice. International Coaching Psychology Review, 2(2), 155-167.
GM585 Unit 9 instructions, in plain terms
In GM585 Unit 9 you write a memo reviewing the progress of a coaching engagement. Use memo form and address it to the person you coached unless your agreement says otherwise. Lead with the result in one paragraph. Explain the method you used to rate progress, such as goal attainment scaling, and when the levels were set. Then report each goal with its starting point, its expected level, the evidence and the rating, citing records rather than impressions. Interpret a goal that fell short fairly, separating what the person controls from circumstances. Add a section on what the scales miss, using the person's own words. Close with what continues, what stops and any summary to be shared beyond the coaching, approved by the coachee. Expect about four pages with APA 7 citations for the method and any research used.
How the GM 585 Unit 9 example is put together
The memo, dated March 28, leads with one goal at plus one, one at zero and one at minus one, and quotes Dana. Kiresuk and Sherman's goal attainment scaling and Spence's coaching adaptation explain the five levels set in October. Goal one moved from 20 to 70 percent of workpapers returned with notes, within the plus one range. Goal two met its expected level with Marcus and Priya each drafting a planning memo section. Goal three averaged about 1.6 evenings a week against an expected three, with March at 2.8, and the highlighted sentence separates the calendar from the senior. What the scales miss includes her shift in how she sees the role, linked to Boyatzis, and her associates' responses. Goals continue, sessions stop and the partner summary she approved on March 26 closes the memo.
GM585 Unit 9 rubric: what earns full points
GM585 instructors look for a review that leads with its result and grounds every rating in a record. A memo addressed to the coachee, with a summary for others approved by them, shows the writer respected the agreement. The rating method should be explained, including when the levels were set, because that is what keeps the review honest. Each goal earns credit with a starting point, an expected level, evidence and a rating. A short goal interpreted fairly, without excuses or blame, carries weight. A section on what the numbers miss shows the writer values the coachee's own account. Clear decisions on what continues and stops close the engagement properly. Kiresuk and Sherman in Community Mental Health Journal, Spence in International Coaching Psychology Review and Boyatzis on intentional change supply the citations in APA 7.
Common GM585 Unit 9 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Many GM585 Unit 9 reviews describe progress in general terms without any rating method, so the reader cannot tell whether goals were met. Others set the levels after the coaching, which makes every goal look achieved. A frequent gap is the short goal: writers soften or skip it, which weakens the credibility of the rest. Some memos share details with a sponsor that the coachee never approved. Lead with the result, explain how and when the levels were set, give each goal its evidence and rating, interpret any shortfall fairly, quote the coachee on what changed and include only the summary they have approved.
Get a GM585 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Share the goals from the coaching or development work your Unit 9 review covers, whatever evidence exists of progress on each, and who the memo is for. Attach the prompt and rubric. Results lead in the first memo, which is free and ready in 24-48h, each rating tied to a record and the reader's access set out plainly. 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 3: OSKAR Coaching Transcript
- GM585 Unit 4: Feedback Scenario Response
- GM585 Unit 5: Intentional Change Development Plan
- GM585 Unit 6: Coaching Spectrum Seminar Reflection
- GM585 Unit 7: Mentoring Program Design
- GM585 Unit 8: Coaching Boundaries Ethics Case
- GM585 Unit 10: Coaching Philosophy Paper
- GM543 Unit 9: Nine Tests Fit Assessment Memo
- GM541 Unit 9: Zone Rollout Sequencing Plan
- GM506 Unit 9: Second Plant Executive Recommendation
- GM505 Unit 9: Dean Feedback Report on Live Answers
GM585 Unit 9 questions, answered
What is goal attainment scaling?
A method first developed for evaluating mental health programs and now common in coaching research, used to rate progress on individual goals. Each goal gets five defined levels, from much less than expected to much more, with the expected outcome in the middle. Because the levels are written before the work begins, the review cannot quietly lower the target afterward.
Who should receive a coaching progress review?
That depends on what was agreed at the start, and the memo should follow the agreement exactly. Often the coachee receives the full review and a sponsor or manager receives a shorter summary the coachee has approved. Where no agreement exists, ask the coachee before sharing anything. The sample addresses the senior and attaches the partner summary she signed off on.
How should a goal that fell short be reported?
Plainly, with the evidence and a likely reason. A review that softens or omits a missed goal loses credibility for the ones it reports as met. Distinguish reasons within the coachee's control from circumstances such as staffing or workload, and say what changes for the next period. The goal can be rewritten with the person rather than dropped.
Where can I find a free GM585 Unit 9 sample paper?
This page carries a full GM585 Unit 9 progress review memo rating an audit senior's three coaching goals with goal attainment scaling, with a partner summary and APA 7 references.
Why was the third goal rated minus one?
The senior left by seven on about 1.6 evenings a week against an expected three, falling in the minus one range. The memo notes that busy season drove much of the shortfall and that March reached 2.8, so the goal continues with one more session.