I may be missing something... where does the PEA come from? Hope, vision, mindfulness, playfulness, compassion... could not be positive openers for a conversation sandwich?
There's no avoiding the NEA altogether. Self-reflection (as typically triggered by evaluation), critical thinking . . . those things activate the NEA. The important thing is to keep the focus on the PEA, and let hope and vision be the driver of the change process.
If you approach the conversation with a “I want to fix you” mindset, you are already headed towards the NEA. Instead of that, focus on such questions like what are their core values and ideals, who would they want to be 10 years from now if everything was ideal, what would their ideal relationships be like, who are the important people in their life and why do they treasure them . . . Remain playful and let those things drive the conversation. Be ready to answer questions like that yourself.
Once the “coachee” has established a strong vision for themselves that way, you can look at where they stand now in relation to who they want to be (focusing a bit more on the strength), and then discuss a learning agenda—a plan to safely learn how to get from who they are now to who they want to be.
A learning agenda does not only entail change necessarily. Often parts of the vision are things the person is already doing, so then the plan would be “keep doing that thing I am already doing” or “make sure I still have enough time for X” and so on.
The driver of intentional change is indeed vision and hope. So, as a leader, you want to focus on inspiring vision and hope, and then give guidance and support along the way.
It has been my understanding that the sandwich method of presenting constructive criticism came from anecdotes, observation, and lived experience, not from scientific research studies, therefore would not have measures such as "validity" and "reliability" attached to it.
I mean that I am in doubt that it is a valid and/or reliable method for giving effective criticism. It may be no more effective than giving no criticism at all, or worse, or as effective as only giving the negative criticism (in which case that would be more efficient), et cetera. I am against applying practices that have not been properly tested, as there is no telling if they cause more harm than good. I apologize for not being clear.
