WMBA 6633 Week 5 Coaching Goal Peer Replies Example

Course	WMBA 6633 Personal Leadership: Mentoring and Coaching
Week	Week 5
Paper type	Discussion replies
Length	About 390 words, 3 pages
Format	Discussion reply, APA 7 citations
School	Walden University
Program	Master of Business Administration (MBA)
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for WMBA 6633 Week 5

Week 5 Discussion: Responding to Classmates' Coaching Agreements

Reading Two Classmates' Coaching Goals as the Person Being Coached Would: "Become a More Confident Presenter" and "Delegate More Effectively," and What Each Mentee Might Object To

Response to Lauren

Lauren, your agreement states the goal as: "Jordan will become a more confident presenter by the end of the quarter."

I tried reading that sentence as Jordan would. I think he might object to the word confident, because it describes how he feels rather than what he does, and it implies that the problem is his nerves. If he reads it on a day when a presentation went well but he still felt anxious, has he met the goal or not? He also might not recognize the issue at all: your post says the client complained that his updates ran long and buried the main point, which is about structure, not confidence.

A version he could check himself might read: "In each client update this quarter, Jordan will state the main point and the decision needed in the first two minutes." Whitmore (2017) argues that goals the coachee owns, and can measure, sustain motivation better than goals about how they should feel. Would Jordan describe the problem the same way the client did?

What this page is doingThe reply quotes the sentence where the goal is stated, then imagines the mentee reading it.

Response to Omar

Omar, your agreement says: "Priya will delegate more effectively to her two new analysts."

Reading it as Priya, I wonder whether she would recognize herself in it. Your post mentions that she stays late finishing the analysts' reports. She might say she is not failing to delegate; she is delegating and then catching errors because the analysts are new. If that is her view, the goal names your diagnosis rather than hers, and she may agree to it without believing it. Coaching outcomes depend heavily on the working relationship (de Haan et al., 2013), and a goal imposed in the first session can strain that relationship before it forms.

You might start the next session by asking her what happens after she hands work off, and let her name the problem. Theeboom et al. (2014) found that coaching improved goal-directed self-regulation, which depends on the person setting goals they actually hold. A goal might then become something like "analysts return reports with no more than two corrections by June," which addresses what she sees. What did Priya say when you proposed the original goal?

What this page is doingAsking what the mentee would not recognize tests whether the goal came from the mentee or from the coach.

References

de Haan, E., Duckworth, A., Birch, D., & Jones, C. (2013). Executive coaching outcome research: The contribution of common factors such as relationship, personality match, and self-efficacy. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 65(1), 40-57. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031635

Theeboom, T., Beersma, B., & van Vianen, A. E. M. (2014). Does coaching work? A meta-analysis on the effects of coaching on individual level outcomes in an organizational context. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 9(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2013.837499

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

Reading the WMBA 6633 Week 5 instructions

The fifth week moves the work into the discussion board. After classmates post their coaching agreements, you respond to two of them by testing the stated goal against the person it was written for. The core move is to quote the goal sentence and ask how the person being coached would react on reading it, whether they would recognize the problem it names and whether they could tell when it had been reached. A strong reply offers a revised goal in the same specific form the course has been practicing, and supports the point with a source from the readings. End each reply by asking the classmate something only their knowledge of the mentee could settle. Write as a colleague helping the agreement work, not as a marker grading it.

How this WMBA 6633 Week 5 example is built

The first reply quotes Lauren's goal for Jordan and reads it from his side. It suggests he might object to the word confident because it describes a feeling, and points out that the client's complaint was about structure. It proposes a goal Jordan could check himself, stating the main point and the decision needed in the first two minutes of every client update, and cites Whitmore on goals the coachee owns. The second reply quotes Omar's goal for Priya and suggests she might see the problem as catching new analysts' errors rather than failing to delegate. It cites de Haan and colleagues on the working relationship and Theeboom and colleagues on goal-directed self-regulation, proposes a goal about reports returned with few corrections and asks what Priya said when the goal was first proposed. Margin notes explain the move.

Where the marks sit in the WMBA 6633 Week 5 rubric

Replies are judged on whether they change how the classmate sees their own agreement. Quoting the goal exactly matters, because it fixes the target and avoids arguing with a paraphrase. The central skill is perspective: reading the goal as the mentee would and naming what they might object to or fail to recognize. Proposing a revised goal shows constructive engagement and earns more than critique alone. A citation earns its place when it backs one claim, for instance that people work harder toward goals they set themselves, instead of trailing the reply. A reply that asks a genuine question, one only the classmate could answer, keeps the discussion going and often scores best. Replies that only summarize the classmate's post, or praise it, earn little.

WMBA 6633 Week 5 help from the desk

Read both agreements before choosing which to answer, and pick goals where you can see a gap between the goal and the problem described in the post. Copy the goal sentence exactly. Then imagine the mentee reading it on a bad day and ask what they would argue with. Propose one revision, specific and checkable. Replies often lose credit by focusing on formatting, by suggesting several unrelated improvements at once or by recommending a goal the classmate cannot measure either. Sounding superior is another risk; framing the point as a question softens it. Keep each reply to a short paragraph or two. For model replies to the agreements your own classmates posted, share the goal sentences you want to respond to.

Get a WMBA 6633 Week 5 example written to your instructions

A request including the discussion prompt, the reply rubric and the classmate posts being answered gets a matched set back within 24 to 48 hours, the first at no cost. Replies are drafted against the actual posts rather than invented ones, so pasting that text in full changes what comes back.

More WMBA 6633 papers and MBA samples

WMBA 6633 Week 5 questions, answered

Where can I find a free WMBA 6633 Week 5 sample paper?

Each of the two replies, built on one classmate's stated coaching goal, is open to read below without any sign-up.

What goals do the Week 5 replies respond to?

"Jordan will become a more confident presenter by the end of the quarter" and "Priya will delegate more effectively to her two new analysts."

What does reading a goal as the mentee involve?

Asking whether the person would recognize the problem the goal names and whether they could tell, on their own, when it had been reached.

What revised goal does the first reply suggest?

That Jordan state the main point and the decision needed in the first two minutes of every client update this quarter.

Which sources do the replies cite?

Whitmore on goals the coachee owns, de Haan and colleagues on the working relationship and Theeboom and colleagues on goal-directed self-regulation.