An SBI opening, GROW questions, likely pushback and dated follow-ups make up the LI410 Unit 9 feedback and coaching plan, built around one avoided conversation at a permits office. Searches like "li 410 unit 9 assignment example", "li410 unit 9 sample" and "li410 unit 9 example" land here.
What a finished LI410 Unit 9 feedback and coaching plan looks like
Three to four pages plus a one-page conversation guide as an appendix. The opening section is candid about the delay: the technician trained the writer, has [nineteen] years in the office, and is well liked by contractors, and the writer names each of those as a reason the conversation kept slipping. The evidence section shows why it cannot slip further: plan-review comments that send applications back for a second or third round, [X] percent of this technician's reviews against [Y] for the office. The guide follows the Situation-Behavior-Impact model for the opening, written out word for word, then shifts to GROW questions so the technician proposes the fix. A table lists likely responses, from defensiveness to a workload disclosure, with a planned reply to each. Follow-up dates close the plan.
How a LI410 Unit 9 example is structured
The plan runs in the order the conversation will, with one exception: the reasons for avoiding it come first, because a plan that skips them tends to be abandoned at the door. A short theory section explains why feedback and coaching are kept distinct here, citing the Center for Creative Leadership's SBI model and Whitmore's GROW, and why this conversation needs both. The script section presents the SBI opening as it would be said, one specific review, the behavior observed and its effect on an applicant, then the pivot into coaching questions. The contingency table is the most practical part of the plan. A measures section names what would count as progress: the resubmission rate over [two] months, and whether the technician starts bringing problems to the writer first. The conclusion sets the meeting date and the first follow-up.
Why it kept slipping
Three reasons stated without self-pity: the technician trained the writer, contractors ask for him by name, and the writer feared looking ungrateful. Naming them lets the plan build around each one rather than hope none of them will matter.
The resubmission record
The evidence behind the conversation, drawn from the office's own tracking: resubmission rates by reviewer, in brackets, and [three] specific applications that went back more than twice. The plan uses one of them in the opening.
An opening in SBI form
Situation, behavior and impact written out as the writer would say them, naming one review, what the comments left out, and the applicant who drove back twice. No judgment of character appears anywhere in the script.
Coaching questions that follow
The GROW sequence moves the conversation from the problem to the technician's own proposal: what a complete review would look like, what gets in the way, which options he sees, and what he will try first.
Reactions planned for
A table of likely responses, from 'nobody complained before' to a disclosure about workload or a new software process, each with the writer's planned reply. The workload row includes an offer to reassign complex commercial plans for [one] month.
Two dates and a measure
A check-in [two] weeks after the conversation and a review after [two] months, when resubmission rates are compared. The plan also watches for a softer sign: whether the technician brings problems to the writer unprompted.
Where marks go in LI410 Unit 9
Coaching plans lose most when the conversation is described in general terms, a supportive discussion about quality, instead of scripted closely enough to be held. The feedback portion is the next weak point: openings that judge the person, careless or resistant, where the model calls for one observed behavior and its effect. Many sections expect the writer to distinguish feedback from coaching and use both, and plans that deliver a verdict and stop earn only partial credit. Ignoring why the conversation was avoided leaves out the leadership problem the unit is really about. A plan with no anticipated reactions reads as though the other person will simply agree. Missing follow-up dates, and success defined only as the employee changing, cost the measurement criterion.
Get a LI410 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Outline the conversation you keep postponing: who it is with, what they do and its effect, and why it has not happened yet. Add the Unit 9 prompt and rubric. A plan built on whichever feedback and coaching models your section assigned reaches you in 24-48h, the first one free, with the other person identified only by position.
LI410 Unit 9 questions, answered
Do I have to hold the conversation before submitting?
Usually not. Many Unit 9 prompts ask for the plan, and some add an optional reflection if the conversation happens during the term. Planning without holding it is honest as long as the paper says so. If you do hold it, a short note on what went as scripted and what did not can strengthen a later unit or the final plan.
What is the difference between feedback and coaching here?
Feedback tells the person what was observed and what it caused; coaching helps them work out what to do about it. The first is mostly the leader speaking, the second mostly the leader asking. Plans that use SBI for the opening and GROW for what follows show both, and many rubrics in leadership courses look for exactly that pairing.
What if the person is senior to me in age or tenure?
That is common and worth naming in the plan, since it often explains the avoidance. Keeping the opening strictly to observed behavior and its effect helps, because it keeps the conversation away from rank. Asking for the person's own view early, and meaning it, usually matters more with a senior colleague than with a new one.