From Insight to Durable Growth

Every voice in this episode is AI-generated. The narrator’s segments follow the script; the Deep Dive is a clean-verbatim transcript, with filler words and false starts removed and the hosts’ claims left as spoken.

Cold open

Narrator: This is The Board Certified Coach Exam Podcast, from BCC Exam Prep. Episode seven: From Insight to Durable Growth.

Every voice in this episode, mine included, is AI-generated, and BCC Exam Prep is independent of the Center for Credentialing and Education.

Insight is not the same as change. This conversation follows what happens between them: intentions and commitments, monitoring and evaluation, accountability that doesn’t turn into policing… and the moment a coach hands the whole process back to the client. Listen for what the hosts do with a client’s “seven out of ten.”

Then, the exam corner.

The Deep Dive: From Insight to Durable Growth

Host 1: So picture this: you’re sitting across from your client, right?

Host 2: Oh, yeah, I can picture it.

Host 1: And the energy in the room is just absolutely electric. They have just had one of those massive, earth-shattering breakthroughs.

Host 2: The kind where the whiteboard is just completely covered in notes.

Host 1: Exactly. You’ve mapped out this brilliant plan. They are visibly energized, maybe even a little teary-eyed.

Host 2: Yeah, that happens a lot.

Host 1: Right? And so they walk out the door, and as a coach, you’re just sitting there feeling pretty triumphant. You feel like an absolute wizard.

Host 2: You fixed their life.

Host 1: You fixed it. But then two weeks roll by. They come back for their next session. They sit down, and you realize that absolutely nothing has changed in their actual life. Not one single step was taken.

Host 2: It is honestly the great humbling experience of every coaching career.

Host 1: It really is.

Host 2: Because there’s this massive, invisible chasm between knowing what to do and actually doing it, and navigating that gap is where most coaching engagements either prove their worth or they completely fall apart.

Host 1: Which makes it just the perfect terrain for us today. So, welcome to this deep dive into the BCC exam prep materials. Specifically, we’re looking at Module 5, which is Facilitating Client Growth and Accountability.

Host 2: And we’re also pulling some selected insights from the Handbook of Integrative Coaching Foundations, right?

Host 1: Yes, exactly. And our mission for this deep dive is to really get into the actual mechanics of human behavior change, because we want to figure out how to turn those fleeting moments of client insight into durable, lasting change.

Host 2: Right. But I think we should probably set some quick ground rules for how we’re approaching this material.

Host 1: Good call.

Host 2: Just so everyone knows, we are independent guides exploring this material. We are not BCC faculty. We aren’t endorsed by the CCE, and we are definitely not here to invent official exam rules or feed you fake test questions.

Host 1: No, definitely not.

Host 2: We’re really just here to unpack the psychological structures of behavior change, so you can ace your exam and, more importantly, serve your clients better.

Host 1: And let’s just acknowledge reality for a second. If you are listening to this right now, you are probably not sitting at a mahogany desk with a highlighter.

Host 2: You’re probably doing the dishes.

Host 1: Right? You’re walking the dog, you’re commuting, whatever. You are trying to absorb some pretty dense concepts for the Board Certified Coach Examination, the BCCE, while you’re on the go.

Host 2: Which is how most of us study, honestly.

Host 1: Exactly. So, instead of rattling off these dry, bulleted lists of theory, we are going to try to ground everything today in reality. We’re going to follow one concrete, fictional client through an entire engagement to see how these concepts live and breathe, and sometimes struggle, in a real session.

Host 2: I love that approach. I think it’s a much better way to learn. So to set the stage for this fictional client, we need to introduce the engine that really makes change possible. It’s called the self-regulation cycle.

Host 1: The self-regulation cycle.

Host 2: Right. It’s this continuous six-part loop. So it goes: goal, plan, act, monitor, evaluate, adjust.

Host 1: Okay. Wait. Goal, plan, act, monitor, evaluate, adjust. Let me think about that for a second, because if I think about probably the most famous framework in our industry, the GROW model.

Host 2: Oh, yeah, Sir John Whitmore’s framework.

Host 1: Right, Sir John Whitmore’s legendary model: goal, reality, options, will. The GROW model really only covers the first two steps of that self-regulation cycle, doesn’t it? It gets you a goal and a plan, and then the session basically ends.

Host 2: It does. The GROW model is a phenomenal tool for generating clarity in the room, but it essentially has no memory.

Host 1: Huh. No memory. I like that.

Host 2: Yeah, it treats a session as this self-contained unit, but the client’s life keeps running the moment they leave your office. The actual durable change, the part that solidifies new neural pathways and shifts behavior, that all happens in the rest of the cycle.

Host 1: The act, monitor, evaluate, and adjust phases.

Host 2: Exactly.

Host 1: So let’s bring in our client and see how we actually get them into that cycle. Let’s call him Alex. Let’s say Alex is a mid-level director at some logistics firm.

Host 2: Sounds good.

Host 1: And he is just incredibly overwhelmed. He’s working these 60-hour weeks, so his goal is clear. He needs to delegate routine tasks to his junior team members so he can actually focus on high-level strategy.

Host 2: A very common scenario.

Host 1: Right. So he comes into the session. We use the GROW model and we get a plan. Alex says to me, “I am going to try to let my team handle more of the weekly reporting.” And as a coach, I might hear that and think, “Great, we have an intention.”

Host 2: Yeah, but the literature suggests an intention really isn’t enough to trigger the self-regulation cycle.

Host 1: It’s not?

Host 2: Far from it. An intention is just naming a direction. “I will try to delegate.” “I will think about my schedule.” “I want to be more present.”

Host 1: Right.

Host 2: The defining characteristic of an intention is that it is entirely impossible to fail at it.

Host 1: Wow. Okay.

Host 2: And because you can’t fail at it, it carries basically no psychological weight. To cross the threshold into actual consequential action, you need a commitment.

Host 1: Okay, let me see if I can map that out for a second. So, an intention is kind of like sitting in your driveway, pointing at a map, just saying, “I want to head west today.”

Host 2: Yes.

Host 1: It feels good, but you aren’t moving. A commitment is actually putting the car in drive, turning the steering wheel, and merging onto the westbound highway at 8 a.m. It requires what? A specific act, a specific time, and a specific context.

Host 2: That’s a great way to visualize it. Exactly, act, time, and context.

Host 1: So for Alex, a commitment isn’t “I will try to delegate.”

Host 2: No.

Host 1: A commitment sounds more like, “I will hand over the Q3 synthesis report to my junior analyst on Tuesday morning at 9 a.m. before I check my email.”

Host 2: Yes, that is a commitment. It has edges.

Host 1: Okay, so we’ve got Alex to make this firm commitment, but let’s say I’m looking at Alex across the table and he’s just said the words “Tuesday at 9 a.m.,” but his body language is a little stiff.

Host 2: He’s hesitating.

Host 1: Right. He has his hands on the steering wheel, but he looks hesitant to actually turn it. How do I gauge if he’s actually going to do this?

Host 2: Well, you bring in a tool pioneered by Sir John Whitmore, who you mentioned earlier. It’s called the Will to Act Scale.

Host 1: Oh, the 1-to-10 thing.

Host 2: Exactly. You simply ask the client, “On a scale of 1 to 10, how likely are you to actually complete this specific action?” It sounds incredibly basic, I know, but it is routinely misunderstood by practitioners.

Host 1: I can tell you my immediate instinct here, honestly. If I ask Alex for a number and he says, “I’m a 7,” my inner cheerleader immediately wakes up.

Host 2: Oh, 100%.

Host 1: Right. I want to say, “A 7. Okay, buddy. What do we have to do to pump you up to a 10 by Tuesday?” I treat it like this motivational deficit.

Host 2: Which is the most common pitfall by far. If you put on your motivational speaker hat and cheerlead Alex up to a 9, that number is no longer measuring Alex’s internal reality.

Host 1: Oh, right.

Host 2: It’s just measuring your insistence as a coach. A score under an 8 is not a failure of motivation. It is incredibly valuable data. Honestly, a 7 is arguably the most instructive number in all of coaching.

Host 1: Wait, why a 7 specifically?

Host 2: Because a 7 means the client genuinely wants to do the task. They aren’t a 3, right? They’re on board, but their brain has already subconsciously identified a real-world obstacle that is going to get in their way.

Host 1: So if I shouldn’t just hype him up, how do I actually extract that obstacle?

Host 2: You use neutral inquiry. You just ask, “What would have to change for that 7 to become a 9?”

Host 1: Oh, that shifts the whole dynamic.

Host 2: It really does.

Host 1: It completely removes the pressure. I’m not asking him to change his attitude. I’m asking him to change the parameters of the commitment itself.

Host 2: Exactly.

Host 1: And if I get a 10 from him, I assume a 10 is great.

Host 2: Actually, no. A 10 can sometimes be a warning sign.

Host 1: Wait, really?

Host 2: Yeah, a 10 often means the task is either just way too easy to provoke any real growth, or the client is just giving you a perfect score so they can end the session and get out of the room.

Host 1: Ah, they’re just placating you.

Host 2: Exactly. A strong 8 or a 9 is really the sweet spot for durable change.

Host 1: Okay, so Alex thinks about it and says, “Well, it would be an 8 if I only handed over half the report so I can review it first.” We adjust the commitment. He’s an 8. He leaves the office. Now he has officially entered the middle of the self-regulation cycle.

Host 2: He has.

Host 1: And this brings us to a massive distinction in the text. Right, two terms that coaches and, frankly, most humans constantly confuse: monitoring and evaluation.

Host 2: Oh, they get collapsed into the same bucket all the time, and it is a fatal error for behavioral change. Monitoring asks one purely objective question: “Did I do the planned behavior?”

Host 1: Just a yes or no.

Host 2: Right. “Did I go to the gym?” “Did I track my meals?” “Did I hand over the report at 9 a.m.?” It is strictly about execution.

Host 1: And the sources point out something fascinating about monitoring: the act of monitoring is actually a behavioral intervention all on its own.

Host 2: It really is.

Host 1: Just observing behavior changes it. If I start keeping a log of how many hours I spend scrolling on my phone, I will naturally start scrolling less, even before I make a conscious plan to reduce my screen time. The attention itself disrupts the habit.

Host 2: It brings the subconscious right into the conscious realm, but the danger is that monitoring is also the very first step clients abandon.

Host 1: Because it’s annoying.

Host 2: Basically, tracking feels like administrative homework; it produces no immediate dopamine hit.

Host 1: So, monitoring is just the data gathering. “Did I do the thing?” Evaluation, on the other hand, asks a much deeper, more philosophical question, right?

Host 2: Yes, exactly.

Host 1: It asks, “Did the behavior actually help, and does the broader goal still matter?” Let me go back to our driving analogy from earlier.

Host 2: Let’s hear it.

Host 1: Monitoring is like staring at the dashboard, checking the speedometer to ensure you are doing exactly 60 miles an hour, just like you planned.

Host 2: Right.

Host 1: But evaluation is pulling your eyes up from the dashboard, looking out the windshield, and asking, “Wait a second, am I even on the right highway to get to my destination?”

Host 2: That perfectly captures it. You can score 100% on monitoring. You can execute the plan flawlessly, but if your evaluation reveals that the action isn’t moving you toward your ultimate objective, you’re just driving very efficiently in the wrong direction.

Host 1: I see this all the time. People will commit to waking up at 5 a.m. to meditate because they read it in some leadership book, right?

Host 2: All the time.

Host 1: And they monitor it perfectly. They hit the alarm every single day for a month, but they are so exhausted that their work performance absolutely plummets. But culturally, we applaud that. We have this massive bias where we mistake stubborn persistence for character.

Host 2: Exactly. Culturally, the rewarded response to a failing strategy is “try harder, just grit your teeth.” But in coaching, evaluation requires the discipline, really the courage, to look at the data and say, “This goal no longer serves me.”

Host 1: Right.

Host 2: A successful coach helps the client recognize when it’s time to revise a goal rather than just blindly persisting.

Host 1: Okay, let’s test this with Alex. Let’s say Alex isn’t stubbornly persisting. Let’s say the monitoring reveals he just isn’t taking action at all.

So next week he sits down. He didn’t hand over the report on Tuesday. He did it himself on Thursday night at midnight. He flat out missed the commitment.

Host 2: Now we are firmly in the territory of accountability, and this is where well-meaning practitioners often stumble into a major trap. Clients will frequently come to you and say, “I need you to hold me accountable.”

Host 1: They use those exact words, “Hold my feet to the fire.” And honestly, I have to push back here. If a client comes to me, they’re paying my hourly rate, and they explicitly ask me to provide structure and hold them accountable, aren’t I just providing good customer service by doing what they ask? If they want me to act like a boss, why shouldn’t I?

Host 2: Because it only works as an illusion, and a very temporary one at that. If you accept that invitation to become their policing authority, you are stepping out of the role of coach and into the role of manager.

You’re correct that it often produces short-term results. Clients will absolutely complete tasks for a coach that they won’t do for themselves. But to understand why this fails long-term, we have to look at self-determination theory.

Host 1: Okay, self-determination theory. Let’s break that down for the listener.

Host 2: So, self-determination theory posits that for human motivation to be high quality and sustainable, it needs to satisfy three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

Host 1: Autonomy, competence, relatedness. Got it.

Host 2: Autonomy means the client feels they are the author of their own actions. Competence means they feel capable of achieving the outcome, and relatedness means they feel a sense of connection and belonging.

Host 1: Okay, so if I agree to hold Alex’s feet to the fire, which of those pillars am I knocking down?

Host 2: You are utterly destroying autonomy by taking ownership of the accountability. The motivation is no longer internal. It relies entirely on external pressure, specifically your approval. Alex is now doing the behavior to please you, or just to avoid looking bad in your next session.

Host 1: Maybe goes a performer.

Host 2: Yes.

Host 1: He creates this performing version of himself for the session. And let me guess: the moment our six-month coaching contract ends and that external pressure disappears, the new habits evaporate overnight because the audience left the theater.

Host 2: Precisely. The alternative to this policing model is what the literature calls autonomy-supportive accountability. This means the client must own the commitments, and critically, they must own the measures. They decide how they’re going to track their progress.

Host 1: Okay, so how do I react then?

Host 2: If Alex misses the deadline, the coach views that missed action purely as information. It is not a moral failing. It is not a character flaw. It is just data.

Host 1: I understand that conceptually, but let me push back on how that actually works in the room. You say it’s just data. The textbook says the coach’s response should be pure curiosity, never disappointment. But I am human.

Host 2: We all are.

Host 1: Right? So if Alex misses his commitment, how do I actually keep disappointment out of my voice? Doesn’t the client immediately sense fake neutrality? If I just smile and say, “Oh, what happened?” they know I’m secretly judging them.

Host 2: That is a very real challenge, and you’re right. If your neutrality is fake, they will absolutely sense it. The moment a client detects disappointment, you trigger shame.

Host 1: Oof, yeah.

Host 2: And shame is the ultimate destroyer of follow-through. When a client feels shame, they either get defensive or they start faking their progress just to placate you.

Host 1: So, what’s the fix?

Host 2: To achieve genuine neutrality, you have to fundamentally shift your own mindset about what failure means in the self-regulation cycle. You have to truly believe that a missed goal is a puzzle to solve, not a rebellion to crush.

Host 1: That’s a great way to frame it. So I have to train my own brain to find the failure intellectually fascinating rather than personally frustrating. I have to genuinely wonder, “Wow, I wonder what powerful internal mechanism overrode his stated desire to delegate.”

Host 2: Yes, that genuine curiosity allows you to ask, “So what happened with the report on Tuesday?” without even a hint of judgment, and Alex might say, “My analyst was out sick,” or he might say, “I opened the email to send it and my chest tightened up and I just panicked.”

Host 1: Which are both incredibly useful pieces of data.

Host 2: Exactly.

Host 1: Okay, so it’s relatively easy to summon that intellectual curiosity on week one, but let’s escalate the scenario.

Host 2: Let’s do it.

Host 1: Let’s say week one turns into month four. We have met four times. Four times Alex has committed to handing off a piece of the reporting. Four times he comes back having done it himself.

Now he is visibly frustrated. He sits down and says, “Look, clearly this time-of-day thing isn’t working. I think I just need a better task management app. Maybe I should download Asana or Trello.”

Host 2: What Alex is experiencing here is a classic presentation of what researchers call goal neglect.

Host 1: Goal neglect.

Host 2: Yeah, the goal is nominally still alive. He’s still talking about it, but it has completely ceased to influence his actual behavior.

Host 1: I will confess my instinct here. If Alex tells me we need a new app, or we need to change the day to Wednesday, my instinct is to roll up my sleeves and apply more structure.

Host 2: Right, get into the weeds.

Host 1: Exactly. I want to say, “Okay, let’s break the report down into three microtasks. Let’s set a calendar alert. Let’s make the runway smaller.”

Host 2: And that instinct is exactly what the Handbook of Integrative Coaching Foundations warns against: applying more structure, redesigning the action, or tightening the schedule. That is the standard error coaches make here.

Host 1: Why is it an error, though? If he’s failing to act, doesn’t he logically need a better plan?

Host 2: Because tightening the structure sends an implicit message to the client. It basically says, “The problem here is your weak discipline, so I am going to put you in a tighter straitjacket.”

Host 1: Oh, wow, yeah, that makes them feel worse.

Host 2: By month four, after repeated failures, the pattern of missing the goal is the new material. The failure is the curriculum now. Repeated failure is rarely a lack of willpower. It usually signals one of three underlying realities.

Host 1: Okay, what are they?

Host 2: First, there might be a structural environmental obstacle we just haven’t identified. Second, the goal itself might have secretly changed, but neither of you have formally acknowledged it. Or third, and this is the most common in leadership coaching, it is a values conflict.

Host 1: A values conflict, meaning two deeply held, genuine commitments are actively colliding with each other in his brain.

Host 2: Exactly. Think about Alex. Alex genuinely wants to empower his team. He genuinely wants to free up his time for strategy.

That commitment is real, but Alex also deeply, intrinsically values flawless client deliverables. He has built his entire career on being the guy who never makes a mistake.

Host 1: Ah, he believes his professional worth is directly tied to perfect reports.

Host 2: You’ve got it. So every time Tuesday at 9 a.m. rolls around, he puts his hands on the steering wheel, but his brain flashes a huge red warning light. Says, “If you delegate this, the junior analyst might make a typo, and our reputation will be destroyed.”

Host 1: Wow. So he literally cannot honor his commitment to delegate without violating his deeper commitment to perfection.

Host 2: Exactly, and coaching that as a scheduling problem or an app problem is entirely useless. You could buy him the most expensive software in the world, and his internal values conflict will still override the plan.

Host 1: This is a huge paradigm shift for me. It means that when a client is stuck in goal neglect, instead of redesigning the action, the coach needs to revisit the agreement and the ownership of the goal itself.

Host 2: That’s the work.

Host 1: But here is the tricky part. We are sitting in month four. I know he has a values conflict. How do I bring this up without making Alex feel cornered or like I am putting him on trial for failing four times?

Host 2: This is where you deploy the neutral observation again. You widen the lens. You step out of the weeds of the schedule, and you look at the entirety of the engagement, and crucially, you don’t interpret the psychology for him. You simply state the facts without any attachment or judgment.

Host 1: Okay, how does that sound in practice?

Host 2: You say, “Alex, I notice we have planned for you to hand off a report four times now, and four times, despite your best intentions, it hasn’t happened. What do you make of that?”

Host 1: “What do you make of that?” Man, it is such a simple phrase, but it does so much heavy lifting. It invites him to sit side by side with me, looking at the data together, rather than me sitting across from him pointing a finger.

Host 2: Precisely. You are putting the data on the table between you, and by asking what he makes of it, you preserve his autonomy. You invite him to discover the values conflict himself.

Host 1: Right.

Host 2: He might pause, reflect, and finally say out loud, “I think I’m terrified they’re going to make a mistake.” And suddenly, the whole engagement shifts. You are no longer acting as a time management police officer. You are finally coaching the real issue: his need for control and his fear of imperfection.

Host 1: That is the magic trick we were talking about at the beginning, but real this time.

Host 2: Exactly.

Host 1: So, let’s say we do that. Alex works through the values conflict. He starts accepting minor imperfections. He successfully starts delegating. The self-regulation cycle is spinning beautifully.

Host 2: A great outcome.

Host 1: But eventually this coaching engagement has to come to a close, which brings us to the final component of Module 5: Planned Endings. How do we ensure that Alex’s newfound ability to navigate these cycles survives the end of our relationship?

Host 2: Well, you do that by actively assessing and facilitating capability transfer.

Host 1: Capability transfer.

Host 2: Right. The ultimate goal of the entire self-regulation cycle and of autonomy-supportive accountability is that the client eventually assumes the role of the coach in their own life. They have to take over the review process.

Host 1: So we are actively working to make ourselves obsolete.

Host 2: Ideally, yes.

Host 1: How do I actually test for capability transfer in a session? What is the mechanism for that?

Host 2: You test it through deliberate silence and transferring the power of inquiry. Early in the engagement, you’re the one asking, “What happened with the goal? What did the monitoring show? Did the goal still matter?”

As you approach the planned ending, you change your behavior. When Alex sits down, you don’t ask the review questions. You just sit in silence and wait for him to initiate.

Host 1: Oh, wow, I just wait.

Host 2: Yes, you observe if Alex can self-evaluate. Does he bring his own monitoring data? Does he say, “I delegated twice this week. It felt uncomfortable, but I managed it, and I think I need to adjust my plan for next week”?

Host 1: And if he does that?

Host 2: If he is running the self-regulation cycle out loud, unprompted, capability transfer has occurred. He doesn’t need you to be his witness anymore.

Host 1: That is a phenomenal benchmark to aim for. Okay, we have covered a tremendous amount of psychological ground today. Let me step in and explicitly recap the key distinctions for you, the listener, especially if you are currently navigating a crowded sidewalk or pulling into your driveway.

Host 2: Good idea.

Host 1: Here are the core takeaways to cement in your mind for your practice and your exam prep.

Number one, intention versus commitment. An intention is a pleasant direction with no consequences. A commitment requires a specific act, time, and context. If you want action, you need to help the client turn intentions into commitments.

Host 2: Spot on.

Host 1: Number two, monitoring versus evaluation. Monitoring simply asks, “Did I do the thing?” Evaluation takes courage and asks, “Did the thing actually work, and does this goal still serve me?” Do not mistake stubborn persistence for effective evaluation.

Host 2: Crucial distinction.

Host 1: Number three, accountability without policing. Relying on external pressure violates self-determination theory and creates temporary performing clients. The client must own the measure. You are a curious witness, not a disappointed boss.

Host 2: Yep.

Host 1: And finally, when a client misses a goal repeatedly, it is not a character flaw. It is goal neglect. Do not blindly apply more structure or tighter schedules. Widen the lens. Put the pattern on the table, and look for the hidden values conflict.

Host 2: That is a highly practical summary. Knowledge is really only valuable when it’s applied, and internalizing these mechanics fundamentally shifts how you sit in the room with a human being who is struggling to change.

Host 1: It really takes the burden off the practitioner too. You don’t have to be the enforcer anymore. You can put the power back in the hands of the client, where it belongs.

Host 2: Exactly.

Host 1: All right. As we wrap up this deep dive, we want to leave you with one final, slightly provocative thought to mull over as you finish your walk or your commute. Think about your current caseload, or maybe a past client you worked with.

If you have a client who consistently achieves every single goal you’ve set together perfectly, but their narrative of the week sounds smoother, easier, and more flawless than any real human week could possibly be, are they actually growing, or have they just become highly skilled at performing for their coach?

Host 2: It’s a great question to ask yourself.

Host 1: Thank you for taking this deep dive with us today. We hope this exploration helps you turn fleeting insight into durable change, and we wish you the absolute best of luck as you continue your preparation for the BCCE.

Exam corner

Narrator: Welcome back. This is the exam corner. Last episode’s decision first.

Sofia: part of her wants to leave law, and part of her thinks she’d be crazy to give up the salary.

The best answer is A: reflect both sides back, and ask which part feels louder today.

The second-best answer is C, the readiness scale. Scaling is a good tool, but it asks her to settle on a number before her ambivalence has been heard. Reflect first. Scale later. B is the righting reflex from last episode… the coach taking the side of change, which usually makes the client defend the salary. And D jumps to action while she’s still divided.

Now, today’s conversation. The hosts are strong on the full self-regulation cycle, on the difference between monitoring and evaluation, and on accountability the client owns.

Two of their claims are useful rules of thumb, not research findings. They say a ten out of ten is a warning sign. It can be: a ten may mean the action is too small to ask anything new of the client. But it can also simply be accurate. Get curious, not suspicious. And they call a values conflict the most common cause of stalled action. It’s a common cause. Whether it’s the most common… nobody has shown.

Your decision.

For the third week in a row, Kwame has missed the same weekly action. Each time, he says work got crazy.

What is the coach’s best next move?

A. Remind him of his commitment, and ask for a firmer one.

B. Cut the action in half, so it fits his week.

C. Let it go, since his workload is outside his control.

D. Treat the repeated miss as information, and ask what keeps pushing the action aside.

Keep your answer. Next episode, we’ll take it apart.

The free sample module at BCCExamPrep.com is a good place to start practicing decisions like this. Thanks for listening.