ABCDE Model Worksheet

A VP of Operations has been with the company eight years and recently took on a broader portfolio. She describes a recurring pattern: after difficult conversations with the CEO or board members, she replays them for days, extracting every moment where she stumbled or was contradicted. She believes her problem is preparation — she thinks if she had better data going into those meetings, the conversations would go differently.

Frame this as a diagnostic tool rather than a therapy exercise. 'We're going to trace one specific conversation from what happened to what you concluded from it — not to feel better about it, but to see where the interpretation is doing work that the facts can't support.' The resistance here is usually in the D step: clients who are high-performers often treat their own harsh self-assessment as a form of rigor. Name it: 'You may find yourself defending your original conclusion. That's useful information — watch for it.'

Pay attention to what the client writes in B (Belief). High performers often write factual-looking statements that are actually interpretations: 'I was unprepared' reads as fact but is a judgment. If B and A are nearly identical — same language, same events — the client hasn't yet separated the activating event from their story about it. The D step is where avoidance appears most visibly: vague disputes ('maybe it wasn't that bad') vs. specific evidence-based challenges ('I prepared the appendix they referenced, so preparation wasn't the variable').

Start by reading A and B aloud side by side. Ask: 'What's the difference between these two?' If the client struggles to name one, that's the work. Then move to E — not as a feel-good reframe but as a test: 'What would you actually do differently this week if you held the new belief instead of the original?' A vague E means the D step isn't complete.

A senior manager on a technology product team has a pattern his director has named: he generates solutions in private but rarely brings them forward. When asked why, he says the ideas need more development. In coaching, he describes an immediate sequence after generating any idea: a rapid mental simulation of everything that could go wrong, followed by the conclusion that the risks outweigh the opportunity. He thinks his problem is a lack of creative confidence.

Position this as a process-mapping tool rather than a self-assessment. 'We're going to slow down what happens between the moment you have an idea and the moment you decide not to bring it forward. You already know the endpoint — we're looking at what happens in between.' The resistance in this scenario is typically in the C step: the client experiences the emotional consequence (anxiety, deflation) as a reasonable response to the actual risk, not as a product of the belief. Help him see C as output, not input: 'Your feeling that the idea is too risky may be the consequence, not the evidence.'

Watch whether the client can name a specific B (Belief) or whether he describes C (Consequence) as if it were B. 'I felt like it would fail' is a consequence; 'Ideas that aren't fully developed will be rejected and that reflects on my judgment' is a belief. If B and C blur together throughout the exercise, the client is working from an automated sequence he has rarely examined. The D step will likely feel unfamiliar — he may resist challenging beliefs that have functioned as protective.

Start with C. 'Walk me through what you felt and did the last time you didn't bring something forward.' Then trace backward to B. The question that opens this: 'What did you tell yourself about the idea in the moment before you set it aside?' From there, move to D — not 'was the belief wrong' but 'what would you need to believe about your idea to bring it to your director?'

A director of customer success was the sponsor of a platform migration that went significantly over timeline and damaged a major client relationship. Six months later, he is still describing the event in nearly identical terms every time it comes up — the same sequence, the same moments of failure, the same conclusion about what it revealed about his leadership. His manager has told him the team has moved on; he has not.

This is a good fit when the client is stuck in the C step — the emotional consequence has become the story rather than a response to it. Frame accordingly: 'I want to look at this situation with a specific structure. Not to relitigate it, but because when the same story comes up consistently in the same form, it usually means one of the beliefs underneath it hasn't been examined yet.' The resistance is often named as loyalty to the people who were affected: 'I owe it to them to acknowledge what happened.' Name that: 'We can hold accountability and examine the belief at the same time — one doesn't require abandoning the other.'

Notice whether the B step the client writes reflects beliefs about capability ('I made a poor judgment call on the resourcing') or beliefs about character ('I'm the kind of leader who lets people down'). The distinction matters for D: a capability belief can be disputed with evidence; a character belief requires a different kind of examination. Also watch E: if the client's new effect is 'I would feel less guilty' rather than 'I would do something differently,' the work hasn't produced a behavioral change — it has produced emotional relief, which is not the tool's purpose in a coaching context.

Start with B, not A. 'Before we look at the event itself, what have you concluded about yourself as a result of it?' Let the client write without editing. Then examine each belief in B with a single question per belief: 'What's the strongest case against this?' Avoid moving to D until B is fully named — clients often jump to disputation before they've articulated the belief clearly.