Coaching Assessment
The coaching style that best fits my personality is that of clarifying. At this juncture, it is of great importance to mention that I being to INTJ personality of which I consider to be consistent with clarifying style of coaching. In this particular assessment, I will proceed to analyze the constituents of clarifying style and then show ways in which each and every principle is associated with INTJ (Berens, 2001).
Clarifying style of coaching is characterized by objectivity, accuracy, doing things in a systematic manner and being thorough in everything they decide to do (Berens, 2001).On the other hand, INTJ is characterized by a situation whereby one portrays introvert functionality. This means that my emotional focus lies more on introvert characteristics including being considerably motivated internally such that the mind gets very active but does not get to show full expression outwardly.
This also means that I take time to reflect over an issue before commencing to take any action. This is where the aspect of accuracy comes in with regard to coaching style applied. This is contradictory to a situation whereby an extravert would first act and then try to think of his/her action much later (Miscisco, 1980). When I take time to think and plan of an issue of idea before engaging in it, I also tend to derive connections of things, hence the second characteristic factor of my personality.
The situation whereby I possess intuitive characteristics whereby I engage my brain in seeking to comprehend details of an issue and the interpreting it accordingly in such a manner that patterns can be derived. This way I find it easy to get connections and then predict what is likely to occur in future (Miscisco, 1980).
In coaching, this personality comes out as being systematic as the present is organized in such a manner that it leads to prediction of the situation in future (Berens, 2001).Thinking which constitutes the other component of my personality type is shows objectivity whereby I tend to get factual principles from which I deduce conclusions. My thinking characteristic also cultivate being systematic as well as thorough during coaching.
The last but not least personality descriptive factor is that of judger whereby I ensure that I have a plan in mind before commencing to undertake any task. This way, I am in a position to organize my surroundings hence making informed decisions before coming to a conclusion as well as closure of an event.
Strengths as well as weaknesses of the coaching style of clarifying
There are a number of strengths as well as weaknesses that characterize my coaching style. With regard to the strengths, they are the factors that I mostly identify with when choosing my INTJ personality (Berens, 1999). These include being systematic, thorough, accurate as well as objective. On the other hand, this clarifying coaching style I tend to identify has its weaknesses including perfectionist, risk averse, tedious as well as being data bound.
Although these are considered as weakness they are still descriptive of my INTJ personality and when being applied in coaching it leads to well founded issues or events. This means that by not willing to take any risk on an issue that is not considerably built in factual data will eventually to an event that is perfect in nature (Berens, 1999).
This kind of perfectionism does not come without a price to pay which in this particular case is with regard to the amount of time spent as well as effort to collect the necessary data and then integrate it in the coaching practice (Berens, 1999).
At the end of it all, one tends to be very tired since he/she has to ensure that any conclusion that is reached has firm founded data and is also well organized in a considerably structured plan (Berens, 1999). Upon weighing the weaknesses as well as strengths associated with clarifying coaching style, it becomes evident that the weaknesses are worth being endured in order to come up with a firmly founded result.
Comparing and contrasting how I exemplify my coaching type
The manner in which I tend to typify or demonstrate clarifying style of coaching is by being very specific in my personality type. That is I ensure that I gather information required during coaching exercise in a rather intuitive manner. This allows coming up with well structured patterns or formats to the event that coaching is being undertaken (Miscisco, 1980).
A closer analysis of this situation shows that however much INTJ may involve tedious efforts of engaging in data collection and then using the data to come up with a systematic plan or application, the situation whereby predictions are made also makes future coaching exercise easier (Knight, 2008).
It is also of importance to note that this process only gets easy for those occasions that are continues but in those requiring on to engage on data collection from the start, it there is no shortcut (Kise, 2006). The thinking process and being intuitive also tend to result in some form of conflict whereby imagination during making predictions does not go in line with being data bound.
The fact that my coaching encounter is supposed to be directed by concrete data should eliminate any imagination practice. However, the instance whereby it is one of my personality descriptive characteristic makes it inclusive but managed to levels that allow systematic approach even in future (Kise, 2006).
References
Berens, L. (1999). The sixteen personality types: descriptions for self-discovery, New York, Telos Publications, pp 33
Berens, L. (2001). Quick guide to the 16 personality types in organizations: understanding personality differences in the workplace, New York, Telos Publications pp 25
Kise, J. (2006). Differentiated coaching: a framework for helping teachers change, UK, Corwin Press, pp 247
Knight, J. (2008). Coaching: Approaches and Perspectives, UK, Corwin Press, pp 154
Miscisco, D. (1980). The influence of distinct coaching styles on personality and sportsmanship attitudes of elementary age girls playing competitive basketball, Oregon, University of Oregon, pp 269
