Team coaching model

27/11/2014

I wrote a blog back in March called, ‘Goal, content, process and relationship’, based on coaching I was doing at the time with leadership teams. I’ve used and adapted this model since with various teams and have noticed some interesting results.

Firstly, some people found the word ‘process’ confusing because, in their cultural framework, it suggested formal business processes rather than creative methods (e.g. within a team meeting) that could work best for the people in the room. I now use the word ‘method’ instead.

Secondly, some teams found it helpful to substitute ‘why’ for goal, ‘what’ for content, ‘how’ for process and ‘who’ for relationship. This enabled them to include e.g. ‘vision’ under why, ‘activities’ under what, ‘processes’ under how and ‘behaviours’ under who.

Thirdly, some teams have found it useful to highlight warning signs against each of the model’s 4 dimensions, indicating what to look out for as red flags. Against ‘goal’ I write ‘dulled’, against content, ‘distracted’, against method, ‘disengaged’ and against people, ‘dismissed’.

The most striking observation for me has been how the model seems to easy in principle and yet so difficult to apply and sustain. This is because teams, like individuals, can struggle to break away from embedded preoccupations, patterns of behaviour and ways of working.

In light of this, I’ve found it useful to encourage teams to pause and notice their own behaviour, reflect honestly on what is influencing their choices, challenge themselves when they are drifting off track and be willing to face and address underlying dynamics.

If you have tried using this, contrasting or similar models in team development and coaching, I would be very interested to hear from you, e.g. what you have done, how you have applied it, what kind of response you got and what happened as a result.

120 Comments

Dan Pegler

28/11/2014 07:48:14 am

Thanks Nick - substituting ‘why’ for goal, ‘what’ for content, ‘how’ for process and ‘who’ for relationship definitely helps me!

Nick Wright

29/11/2014 08:35:18 am

Hi Dan. Thank you...that's helpful feedback! With best wishes. Nick

Alain Cardon MCC

29/11/2014 08:30:56 am

Not really a model. More of a systemic frame of reference with a number of accompanying processes. Many of these processes are described in my book on team and organizational coaching: http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&page=1&rh=n%3A133140011%2Cp_27%3AAlain%20CARDON%20MCC

Nick Wright

29/11/2014 08:34:33 am

Hi Alain. Thanks for the note and the link to the book. Would you be willing to share some of the processes that you have included in the book? With best wishes. Nick

Alain Cardon MCC

29/11/2014 01:32:58 pm

One of them is to work with how the team's seating order in the meeting room expresses its underlying relational architecture, such as coalitions, oppositions, clans, symetrry, etc. All this by the use of coaching questions. Just an example.

Nick Wright

29/11/2014 01:33:54 pm

Sounds intriguing, Alain. I look forward to having a look at your book! With best wishes. Nick

Bob Larcher

29/11/2014 01:25:24 pm

I tend to use my own model (still in a somewhat "embryonic" state) based on 3 roles:

Campaigning Leader - creating the desire to act by working AT others
Facilitating Leader - helping to act collectively by working WITH others
Empowering Leader - helping to act individually by working THROUGH others

Nick Wright

29/11/2014 01:31:17 pm

Hi Bob and thanks for sharing your embryonic model. I think I can understand what working 'with' and 'through' could look like. Could you say a little more about what working 'at' means? With best wishes. Nick

Bob Larcher

30/11/2014 03:23:08 am

This is how I describe it:

Good communicator: knows how to listen, is able to express ideas in a clear and concise manner

Has impact when speaking (convincing / motivating / influencing), integrates “emotion” in the message

More than a “messenger”, is the message

"Role model": (is demanding yet understanding with self and others)

Is congruent: coherency between what is said and what is done

Shows exemplarity: takes initiatives and risks; shows the example with own behaviour

Working at is about creating the desire to act; its Martin Luther King’s "I have a dream" speech and Nelson Mandela's inaugural speech (in 1994). Working at is inspiring people to want to act, the working with and through are more about helping people to actually act.

I chose the word "campaigning" from the idea of being on the "campaign trail", hammering home the same vision time & time again to create a ground swell of "desire to act".

Nachum Katz

30/11/2014 03:25:25 am

Nick, thanks for this discussion. I am looking forward to read more. Alain, thank you too. I watched several of your videos and heard a lot about you from Ciprian Trandafirescu. Cheers!

Nick Wright

30/11/2014 03:27:14 am

Thanks Nachum. Me too! I'd be interested to hear any insights you may have from your own experience of working with teams. With best wishes. Nick

Nachum Katz

1/12/2014 01:48:11 am

I am not sure if it is a model, but I found that focusing in a way to thank people based on KEAS (specific appreciation for Knowledge, Emotion, Attitude and Skills, insted of cheerleading or grumbling about the past) brings extremely unexpected positive results when coahing a team, for example.

Errol Benvie

30/11/2014 03:30:04 am

Nick, take a look at the work of David Clutterbuck. He says team and group work is NOT an extrapolation of individual coaching with good facilitation. Group coaching is a different and complex emergent practice drawing further on social psychology than OD does. Coaches do well with an appreciation of areas such as social constructivism to work with meaning making and sense making in teams and groups.

Nick Wright

30/11/2014 03:34:06 am

Hi Errol and thanks for the note. Yes, I agree that insights from social psychology and, in my case, social constructionism help when working with teams in this way. Did you have any particular work by David Clutterbuck in mind? Interestingly, I've just been looking at a course David Clutterbuck will be running in the new year with PB Coaching in Leeds, England (http://www.pbcoaching.com/coach-education/team-coaching/?gclid=CN_w892dosICFWf3wgodeikAmw). With best wishes. Nick

Paul O Olson

30/11/2014 03:37:46 am

Yes Nick, I'm not surprised that you find this works and the direction you're going is sound enough. I showed a similar model at the EMCC 21st Annual Conference in Venice, on a circumplex based upon the Five-factor Model and Holland's RIASEC Interest codes. However, this is just a platform because structure isn't nearly enough to predict behaviours. I then showed glimpses of social psychology and modern group psychology. I therefore totally agree with Clutterbuck and others (like Errol) that group coaching (and also executive coaching) is different from coaching individuals.

Two things that make group coaching different: the coach is no longer the centre of attention (how hard is that for some of us...) and it takes a lot of experience to interpret what's going on.

Nick Wright

30/11/2014 03:55:14 am

Hi Paul and thanks for your thoughtful response. In my experience, coaching teams is both similar to and different to coaching individuals.

I would be interested to see a copy of your EMCC presentation if you would be happy to share it. I would also be interested to hear what specific insights you shared from social psychology and modern group psychology.

One of the things that I'm curious about is how team coaching differs from, say, group facilitation in a more general sense. The approach I use with teams is in many ways similar to what Schein calls process consultation.

With best wishes. Nick

Paul O Olson

30/11/2014 06:30:20 am

domains

@Nick - I agree with individuals vs teams. Maybe we could say that we coach the individuals within the team contxt and then we'd rather facilitate than coach the process. Any way we hope our interventions will have the desired effect; knowing your social psychology is very useful. The whole area is work in progress but the EMCC package (ppt, 2 x pdf, video) should be ready by tomorrow. Send a mail to paul.olson@nordicheads.com and I'll send the link.

Felicity O'Hanlon

30/11/2014 03:48:44 am

Hi Nick, an interesting discussion you started here, the feedback from Errol and Paul is valuable. I haven't coached teams but from a social psychological viewpoint in my MSc course we recently looked at research on the effects of a variety of bias on assessment centre group discussions which often are the deciding factor in candidates' employment. So it would seem as the others say, that group dynamics need different skills and insights. From a psychodynamic point of view, the dynamics of a group or team can present a transference situation for some individual to either negative or positive family experiences. Not necessarily relevant in a business setting but perhaps another dimension to be aware of as in reality transference as a powerful subconscious force does not always respect the boundaries between the public and private spheres of life. This might seem slightly off topic but is an interest of mine, the intersection between coaching and counselling.

Nick Wright

30/11/2014 04:01:13 am

Hi Felicity and thanks for sharing such stimulating insights (as usual!). I find the psychodynamic frame useful when working with teams and I agree with you that team environments and experiences can evoke transference from previous 'team' or 'group' environments and experiences such as family. In one team, I poured a bag of toy figures I'd collected on the table and invited team members to choose and configure figures that represented their own family as a child. I then invited people to share what they had created and to notice any resonances with positions, roles and dynamics in this team. It takes a high degree of openness and trust between team members to engage in this kind of activity but its effects can be both revealing and transformational. With best wishes. Nick

Felicity O'Hanlon

30/11/2014 06:32:17 am

Hi Nick, you are kind, I always enjoy reading your blogs, they are informative and start productive discussions. Thanks for sharing the coaching exercise you did, how interesting. And sounds like you managed the boundaries of what was discussed really well, so containing the degree of disclosure with relevance to work role. And and you say would probably work better in an established cohesive team.

Paul O Olson

30/11/2014 04:02:43 am

Hi Felicity - good insights and thank you for using the term 'subconscious'. For me the concept of transference is real and useful - emotional intelligence is mostly subconscious associations that our consciousness (thinking) then plays with. All intuition works this way so there is neuro evidence behind transference, counter-transference and by extension also the concept of parallel processes when you interpret it as schemata. Unfortunately the psychodynamic heritage is not really intersubjective as it works instead with introjected social objects. It was designed for psychopathology, in fact it is far more psycho-analytic than psycho-dynamic...so yes we need to take social psychology into account.

Felicity O'Hanlon

30/11/2014 04:03:38 am

Hi Paul, you are right to make that clarification with reference to introjection, transference and counter transference need to be worked with on an individual basis and so realistically could not be part of a team process. I like to consider both the individual and social psychological context together but the implications for practice and working models in a team coaching setting are not realistic.

Antonia Russo Comer

30/11/2014 02:17:04 pm

I really like your model. Thanks for sharing!

Nick Wright

30/11/2014 02:18:14 pm

Thanks for such encouraging feedback, Antonia. Let me know what happens if you try using it? With best wishes. Nick

Chris Crosby

1/12/2014 01:42:44 am

The book "Walking the Empowerment Tightrope" is about improving a team using action research. It was written by Robert Crosby who had a twenty year mentorship with Ronald Lippett, Kurt Lewin's top graduate student. It is based on a survey that was developed and given to over 500 companies. And was developed through learning while working inside of business, so its focus is on how to reach business goals while developing an organization. Finally, it is put together with an eye on systems thinking rather than individual thinking so it helps improve all aspects of the workplace. It is foundational to any practice that includes working with intact work teams.

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 05:20:16 am

Hi Chris and thanks for the reference to Robert Crosby's book. Peter Hawkins' book 'Leadership Team Coaching' (2014) and Christine Thornton's 'Group and Team Coaching' (2010) are also worth a glance for a systems approach. With best wishes. Nick

Celeste Tramonte

1/12/2014 01:44:51 am

Hi Nick, if you are interested in reading Clutterbuck on team coaching then his book Coaching the Team at Work might be a starting point. If you want something more succinct he has a chapter on this in The Complete Handbook of Coaching (Bachkirova, Cox & Clutterbuck, eds.). I also think family therapy can be useful in team coaching...happy reading!

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 05:23:06 am

Hi Celeste and thanks for the note. Yes, I have copies of both the books you mentioned and would support your recommendation of them to others too. :) I like your comment on family therapy as I've noticed that team environments can sometimes evoke transference from family environments. Did you have a particular book in mind on that front? With best wishes. Nick

Celeste Tramonte

20/12/2014 03:15:41 am

Hi Nick,
You could start with Family Ties That Bind: A Self-Help Guide to Change Through Family of Origin Therapy by Ronald W. Richardson. Also, I am fond of adapting a little bit of systems theory and solution focused brief therapy, using a solution focused coaching framework with teams. Anything by Insoo Kim Berg and Steve de Shazer covers the brief family therapy side. Brief Coaching for Lasting Solutions is good from a coaching perspective.
You may have also come across this Linkedin article about leadership, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141204182934-23702-leadership-and-followership,
which has applications to team dynamics, particularly around the issue of trust and organisationally imposed groups rather than self-selecting ones.
I hope this is helpful in your quest.
Kind regards,
Celeste

Nick Wright

20/12/2014 03:20:06 am

Hi Celeste and thank you for such helpful pointers. I have some good material on brief therapy/solutions-focused coaching and you have inspired me to revisit them! The Family Ties That Bind book sounds familiar too - I will check it out. I will also have a look at the LinkedIn article you mention. With many thanks and best wishes. Nick

Errol Benvie

1/12/2014 01:46:04 am

Paul noted earlier that the coach is not the centre of attention and that greater experience is needed to interpret what is going on. I feel this is rich ground for thought.
What or who is a centre of attention. What are the ethics then of less experienced group coaching?
Organisational groups are power laden, framed with intentionality and mostly employees invest an silly amount of self-esteem in their 'job'.
All groups and teams meet without the coach and so how does the coach moderate the ethical frame of their intervention?
Groups are emergent with and without the coach...
These questions don't have clear parallels with either individual or group clinical practice and should challenge us as Nick suggests..

Paul O Olson

1/12/2014 02:18:45 am

Right on, Errol: "These questions don't have clear parallels with either individual or group clinical practice". As coaches we will be drawn into some kind of leadership and we need to be good at withdrawing from this position. In a coaching session we don't really withdraw and let the coachee alone, what we do is shut up but we are still very obviously there.

I don't think there are any firm answers as we plan our role depending on situation, goals, urgency, maturity... But how harmful is it that the coach becomes part of the group dynamics e.g. in a senior management team? Consultants do it all the time and they love it? A consultant using coaching techniques probably don't see this as a problem either so why should an executive coach bother? In clinical practice these boundaries are crystal clear - we do not invite ourselves to family dinners and parties with friends; while in coaching we smear the customer logo on our homepage and use client stories to show how great we are. Good of you to bring it up, Nick.

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 05:29:56 am

Hi Paul and thanks for your interesting comments. I was struck by your observation that, 'As coaches we will be drawn into some kind of leadership'. I've noticed in my own coaching practice with leadership teams that sometimes the formal leader of the team fades back as participant and leaves me to lead the process. In light of this, I'm learning to contract around roles and dynamics more explicitly with the leader and team beforehand and use the experience of what I and others in the team experience as we work together as material to reflect back and work on. Would be interested to hear more about your own experiences in this respect and how you have learned to handle them. With best wishes. Nick

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 05:26:11 am

Hi Errol and thanks for the note. You raise some interesting questions about the role and ethics of the coach in relation to the team. Did you have any thoughts on how best to address them, perhaps drawing on your own experience and practice? I would be interested to hear more. With best wishes. Nick

Errol Benvie

21/12/2014 05:48:52 am

Hi Nick, take read of this article by Monisha Pasupathi.
http://academic.udayton.edu/JackBauer/Readings%20595/Pasupathi%2001%20soc%20const%20pers%20past%20copy.pdf

Here's an ethical consideration. We arrive as a coach into an existing "intact" team who has literally co-constructed a reality of the team before we got there. Each member has contributed in both conscious and unconscious ways to the stories and narratives that is this reality and every person has brought 'realties' from previous team experiences with them. The performance of this team is in many ways an emergent consequence of this reality.

Coaches who show up with externally located Models ready to "apply" them to a team and these coaches might be either uninformed of the existence of any constructions and/or uninformed about the cultural terrain in which the social constructions have taken place, could be asked a few searching questions.

Organisational teams are mostly robust - because - hardly anyone knows what goes on it them. This robustness is a powerful defence mechanism which results in suboptimal performance.

The BBC's flagship annual lecture series is called The Reith Lecture. The 2014 lecture is by Dr Atul Gawande. The Future of Medicine
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/6F2X8TpsxrJpnsq82hggHW/dr-atul-gawande-2014-reith-lectures . Here's an extract from the transcript.
.... what they wondered was why do human beings fail at anything that we set out to do? ..... They said there are two primary reasons why we might fail. Number one is ignorance: we have only a limited understanding of all of the relevant physical laws and conditions that apply to any given problem or circumstance. The second reason, however, they called “ineptitude”, meaning that the knowledge exists but an individual or a group of individuals fail to apply that knowledge correctly.

Massive ineptitude surrounds group coaching. Pasupathi's article is just one example
Errol

Nick Wright

21/12/2014 06:01:18 am

Hi Errol,

Thanks for sharing such stimulating insights and ideas. I love the challenge you pose to superimposing standard models onto existing teams. I once did some culture change research drawing on psychodynamics and social constructionism and the same issues as those you outlined here surfaced as paramount.

I've also just finished writing an article for the British Association for Counselling & Psychotherapy that touches on the idea of the team coach holding up a mirror that enables a team to grow in awareness of its own beliefs, values, constructs etc. and, thereby, increasing opportunity for the team to make conscious choices for the future.

I will certainly have a look at the resources you've highlighted. With thanks again and best wishes.

Nick

Helen Caton-Hughes MA PCC

1/12/2014 01:49:14 am

Not sure what you mean by a 'model' Nick but our team-coach training looks at the overall assignment - what the team is there to do and how well they understand their mission, vision and shared values. Plus the role of the leadership and the wider system in which they operate - their stakeholders and how they communicate well with those people - and with each other. If their mission is a train journey, it's getting everyone on board. If it's a relay race, help everyone understand the key points in the race, and how they contribute. If it's a rowing race it's about the rhythm of dipping the oars into the water at the same time.... Now this may sound very behavioural 'model' but that's within a wider coaching framework of self-awareness agreements and value co-creation...

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 05:38:02 am

Hi Helen and thank you for your note. I liked the different analogies that you presented as different ways of thinking about 'team'. Shifting analogies in this way can help to stimulate, surface and challenge a team to notice what assumptions it is making about itself as a team and what options it could consider for the way forward.

I like your emphasis on a wider systemic view too, taking into account wider stakeholders. I often invite teams to consider what their wider stakeholders (e.g. departments, organisation, customers, beneficiaries) want and need from them with a 'now' and 'future' frame. This enables the team to consider what a high performing team could look like from that outside-in perspective.

Interestingly, when I've used this approach with some teams including those that are explicitly service-orientated, I've been struck by how few really know what their stakeholders want, need, value, appreciate etc. or how those stakeholder view their performance - what is going well, what needs to change etc.

Do you have any experiences of working with teams in the way that you describe that you would be willing to share? What the issues where, how you approached them, what happened as a result etc? I would be interested to hear more. With best wishes. Nick

Margherita Larné-Jones

1/12/2014 02:21:13 am

Hello Nick,

The Brown and Grant (2010) article "From GROW to GROUP: theoretical issues and a practical model for group coaching in organisations" provides a good overview around team coaching and offers a perspective on how team coaching differs from group facilitation. Like you i tend to take a more process consultation approach and agree that the psychodynamic frame does require alot of trust and for people to feel 'psychologically safe.' Also Hawkins (2011) proposes a model called system team coaching.

Errol Benvie

1/12/2014 02:42:55 am

Yes, Hawkins' systemic models are great.

Paul O Olson

1/12/2014 07:41:17 am

Hawkins & Smith got a new edition of their book last year. If you're interested this is what I wrote on Amazon.co.uk: http://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R8ERI1IUSP44X/ref=cm_cr_dp_title?ie=UTF8&ASIN=0335247148&channel=detail-glance&nodeID=266239&store=books

Errol Benvie

19/12/2014 08:01:19 am

Nice note, Paul! I have the 2007 edition but this one looks worth adding.

There is an aspect of organisations that remains in the background yet it is pervasive. That is Power. In our hard wired human past our leaders failed together with us and there were aspects of choice and democracy.
Western organisations that have a legal persona are a unique environment unparalleled in human history. They create emergent areas of toxicity largely invisible to people who have not worked in them and made meaning of them and the social constructivism in organisations is not apparent to, for example, academic scholars using reductionist empirical methodologies of analysis.
I am always cautious of a team or group who 'loves' what we do and gives high smiley face scores. I wonder if they are not just so delighted to have some attention paid to them and be validated because this is relatively rare. Ed Schein says real learning is a coercive process.
If you are working with a team make sure you understand the differences in Jean Piaget's two ideas of "assimilation" and "accommodation". If you are colluding in their assimilation, reflect a little more how valuable this is to your client organisation.

Paul O Olson

19/12/2014 08:02:10 am

Interesting thoughts there Errol (& thks for feedback, too). It reminds me of Jack Welch and his TPOV - GE was not only a learning organisation but actually a teaching organisation from the top down, too. TPOV = Teachable Point Of View. TPOVs were communicated relentlessly (e.g. customer value, workout, boundarylessness) - lots of psychology + formed a foundation for our freedom to fail, too.

Errol Benvie

19/12/2014 08:03:07 am

Yes, Jack is rich source of ideas. There was a dark side and a bright side of Jack. My own values cause me to be occupied more with the dark side. The word "relentlessly" doing anything in an organisation distracts me too much from what is being done. I like elegance, emergent and mindful. Jack was many things but none of these.
Anyone who knows me reading this is laughing out loud at my restraint... :)

What even our positions in just these two posts shows is the complexity.

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 05:39:42 am

Hi Margherita and thanks for the note. I've struggled to find a good paper on 'Grow to Group' online. Do you have any links you could point me towards? With thanks and best wishes. Nick

Margherita Larné-Jones

20/12/2014 03:30:24 am

Hello Nick,

I'm happy to send you a copy of the article. It's in "Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, Vol. 3, No. 1, March 2010, 30-45". If you'd like to give me your email address I can send it through to you?

Nick Wright

20/12/2014 03:31:41 am

Hi Margherita and thanks for the note and kind offer to send a copy of the article. I would love to see it. My email address is info@nick-wright.com. With thanks - and much appreciated! Nick

Sue Beyer

1/12/2014 11:23:00 am

Hi Nick,

I use The Five Behaviors of a Cohesive Team™ model, based on the best-selling book, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team. Teams must trust one another, engage in conflict around ideas, commit to decisions, hold one another accountable and focus on achieving collective results.

Please visit my website at www.SueBeyer.com or contact me directly at Sue@SueBeyer.com if you are interested in further information.

Bests, Sue

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 05:42:05 am

Hi Sue and thanks for the helpful reference. Yes, I know of a number of coaches and leaders who have found the 'Five Dysfunctions' model and approach very helpful. I'd be very interested to hear about any experiences you have had of using this model with teams - how you approached it and what happened as a result. With best wishes. Nick

Anita Schamber

2/12/2014 02:27:07 am

If you send me an e-mail at anitaschamber@gmail. com, I will send you the model I have.

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 05:43:13 am

Many thanks, Anita. I remember meeting you at a change leadership event in Vancouver some years ago! I will be in touch. With best wishes. Nick

Mike Hawkins

2/12/2014 02:28:09 am

I do a lot of team coaching and use the same approach I use for executive 1-on-1 coaching with the exceptions of being more careful with sensitive/confidential information and following best meeting practices such as ensuring everyone participates.

My approach in its simplest form follows two fundamental principles. 1) Develop the why, then the what, and then the how. 2) Develop the mindset before the ability. If you want more detailed information, you might refer to the six books I've written in the SCOPE of Leadership book series on coaching leaders to lead as coaches. The entire series is about leading as a coach with my coaching model described in detail in book 4 - "Others: Developing People".

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 05:48:07 am

Hi Mike and thanks for sharing the approach you use.

I tend to follow the two fundamental principles you have outlined in my own team coaching practice too. The fourth dimension I added in my model to the first three you listed in your first principle focuses on people and relationships - psychodynamics, trust, diversity, participation etc.

I'd be very interested to hear any case examples from your experience that help illustrate the principles in practice.

Thanks for the helpful reference to the books you've written too. I'll have a glance. With best wishes. Nick

Kofi Hagan

2/12/2014 04:23:15 am

In addition to ensuring that everybody has an opportunity to make their contribution I ensure time is not planned for enough time. Defining terms carefully and at length is important to get all on the sam page. Finally participant selection must be done with care to be done with care to ensure coachees are on the same wavelength.

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 05:50:30 am

Hi Kofi and thanks for your note. Yes, I agree that defining terms etc. in order to ensure that everyone is (as least as far as we can tell) on the same page can be very useful as a coaching intervention. The same applies for surfacing implicit assumptions etc. that are held within the team but rarely acknowledged or spoken about. With best wishes. Nick

Carter McNamara MBA PhD

3/12/2014 02:37:41 am

I suggest you need:
1. why’ for overall goal
2. ‘how’ for process
3. ‘what’ for content
4. 'where' for the scope of the team's work
5. ‘who’ for relationships among team members
6. "when" for timing and scheduling
7. "for whom" because each team usually reports to somebody

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 05:52:11 am

Thanks for the note, Carter, and for sharing your 7 elements. It sounds like the models/frameworks we use are along similar lines. Do you have any examples of using these 7 elements with a team in practice that you would be willing to share? I would be very interested to hear more. With best wishes. Nick

Dr Wafi Al-Baghdadi

3/12/2014 09:11:08 am

My strategy of working with executives is to find out their values and to proceed accordingly. I have many instruments which I have derived from the classical and modern psychology and NLP. In working with my clients I act and react very flexible and employ the appropriate method using appropriate techniques.

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 05:53:28 am

Hi Wafi and thank you for your comments. I would be very interested to hear more about the specific instruments you use. Would you be willing to share some examples? With best wishes. Nick

Dr Wafi Al-Baghdadi

10/1/2015 02:40:24 pm

Hi Nick. Thanks for your comments; that is exactly what I'm doing in my coaching work espicially in difficult situations.
Kind regards

Gordon Curphy PhD

5/12/2014 03:10:33 am

I have used the Rocket Model (Curphy & Hogan, 2012) and related materials with hundreds of teams over the past ten years.

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 05:54:46 am

Hi Gordon. Thanks for the note. Would you be willing to say a bit more about the 'Rocket Model'? With best wishes. Nick

David Marriott

8/12/2014 01:55:23 am

I have used the Belbin Team Role model since 1988, both in computer form and psychometrically, to prepare individual profiles, team profiles and working relationship reports. A day workshop on the model followed by individual confidential de-briefings the second day. Belbin has three excellent DVD's, which greatly enhance teamwork training.

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 05:55:42 am

Hi David. Thanks for the note. Yes, I know a number of teams that have found Belbin useful for team profiling and development. With best wishes. Nick

Marc D Shapiro PMP LION

8/12/2014 01:57:12 am

I still rely on the venerable Tuckman Model ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuckman's_stages_of_group_development ). While there is more depth to it than "Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing", I found most current models are derivations of the original. I have also used it with thousands of teams over the past 25 years ... It starts the conversation about team development, and can lead to great insights as the team embraces it and works to understand it.

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 05:57:35 am

Hi Marc. Yes, I have also found the Tuckman model helpful, particularly at times to help a team normalise its experience when it is going through Tuckman's 'storming' phase and on the edge of feeling panic! Would you be willing to share any experiences from your own practice? With best wishes. Nick

Linda J. Ferguson

8/12/2014 01:58:23 am

I was trained by DJ Mitch in the Team Advantage program. It's pretty good.

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 05:58:13 am

Hi Linda and thanks for the note. Would you be willing to to share some insights from the Team Advantage programme? With best wishes. Nick

Sarah A. Scala MEd &OD

8/12/2014 09:01:50 am

Hello Nick. I am an organization development consultant and recently provided a team intervention to a group of 20 people. I used some parts of the Cape Cod Model (from GISC) by having the clients share the team's well developed first in partners then in a large group. This data was used later that day as we worked to define the group's agreed-upon norms.

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 05:59:30 am

Hi Sarah and thanks for your note. I would be very interested to hear more about the team intervention you made and how you used aspects of the Cape Cod Model (which I haven't heard of before). With best wishes. Nick

Philip Merry

10/12/2014 01:35:47 am

GOOD TEAM COACHING SHOULD BE ECLECTIC AND USE MANY MODELS - thoughts from 35 years of team building in 57 countries.

Models i use are:
1. Belbin 360 team profiling. Have used Belbin profiling for 25 years - it gets people in right mood prior to session in that they know its for real and they will get back some important info on how their colleagues view them. Still best team profiling model around (Belbin)
2. What do you do well and what needs to be improved? (Merry)
3. Draw the graphic of hi's and lo's of recent history (Merry)
4. Construct and visual (no words) of what the team is (Merry)
5. 7 factors of team psychological safety (Edmonson) - many ways replaces Tuckman - tho i still use Tuckman
6. Five team Disfunctions model (Lencioni)
5. "allowable and non - allowable behaviours" model (Merry)
6. Hot seat feedback - each person gets feedback from all other members (Merry)
7. Marshall Goldsmith Team Stakeholder Coaching
8. Answers from nature and the universe exercise (Merry)
9. Cultural issues - (THT 7 D model and Livermore CQ model)
10. Integral TOE model (Wilbur)

Probably many others but thats all for now.

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 06:01:40 am

Hi Philip and thanks for sharing such an array of examples. Could you say a bit more about what numbers 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 look like in practice? I'd be very interested to hear more. With best wishes. Nick

Stephanie Burgetz

10/12/2014 01:36:47 am

Depends on the team, their needs, and the objectives - but my typical 'go to's' are still Tuckman's; Six Habits of Highly Effective Teams (Kohn and O'Connell), and Lencioni's Five Dysfunctions. I most typically start with Tuckman's and then integrate discussions, activities, and reflections and may introduce other models depending on where the team is at and where they need to go.

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 06:03:02 am

Hi Stephanie. I agree that flexibilty according to team needs etc. is very important. I would be very interested to hear more about some of the activities you have used and what happened as a result. With best wishes. Nick

Susan Morris

11/12/2014 01:59:56 am

Here's another approach. When I am coaching a new team leader, I use both Tuckman's model as well as Situational Leadership. Combining both models. helps the team leader to identify what stage of development as well as what leadership skills relate to that team development stage. I have found that using both models expands the team leader's repertoire of leadership skills. She can also easily teach these models to her team and get their input as to identify what development stage they see themselves and what leadership behaviors the team would find effective. I have also found that team leaders are not always in sync with how the team sees its development stage, creating an opportunity for a facilitated team conversation.

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 06:05:17 am

Hi Susan and thanks for posting such helpful insights. I like Situational Leadership too and find it can open interesting conversations within a team, especially how the leaders and others might place themselves and one-another on the graph. I would be very interested to hear more about any examples of how you have applied this or other models in your own practice. With best wishes. Nick

Henry Tarbi SPHR

11/12/2014 02:04:03 am

While I don't like the negatively worded "Five Disfunctions of a Team" by Lencioni, I find it has a universality to it and generally it gets the client group's attention.

Gordon Curphy PhD

11/12/2014 02:05:17 am

People forget the subtitle to Lencioni's book: A Leadership Fable. I don't like the Five Dysfunctions because there is zero research to back it up and takes far to long to talk about results, which is why we have teams in the first place.

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 06:06:09 am

Hi Henry. Yes, it is definitely a popular model with a number of leaders and coaches I have worked with. With best wishes. Nick

Chris Smith

11/12/2014 02:06:22 am

I always hold Peter Hawkins 5 Cs Team model in mind because it focuses on what the team is there to do and who it serves rather than simply the internal dynamics. What happens in the team is often strongly influenced by what happens for those around the team. The 5 elements are Commissioning (what do stakeholders want from the team); Clarifying (what the team sets as goals and targets); Co-creating (the internal dynamics of how the team works together); Collaborating (how they work with their key stakeholders) and finally Core Learning (how they continue to reflect and raise their performance).

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 06:08:40 am

Hi Chris and thanks for sharing Peter Hawkins' 5C model. He has an interesting write up of it in his book 'Leadership Team Coaching' (2014). I would be very interested to hear of any examples you would be willing to share of how you have applied this model with teams and what happened as a result. With best wishes. Nick

Mark Hollern

13/12/2014 08:42:24 am

Hi, Nick, I'd like to articulate what I consider a difference between coaching and group work. I think of coaching as an individual level of system intervention, while working with a team as a unit (could be as small as a dyad that is interacting, but not just any pair of people in a larger group) as a group level intervention. Most of the models mentioned--and you did ask for models--are macro level, meta- models whose creators don't really give users the tools or help them develop skills to observe phenomenology (real time behavior) to intervene in real time to create awareness of habitual patterns in individuals/the group and to help them experiment with alternatives as a means of achieving different results. I discovered a lens through which all of the team models and all of the large group intervention models could be viewed and interpreted for their efficacy, and that is the Gestalt approach, based on that branch of behavioral science and adapted for organizations/human systems. A good primer on the coaching side I'd recommend is Jennifer Mackewn's, Developing Gestalt Counseling (think coaching client not therapy client when reading) and Edwin Nevis' Organizational Consulting, in which he uses case studies to link the theory to his interventions.

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 06:16:24 am

Hi Mark and thanks for sharing such thoughtful reflections. I've been thinking too about distinctions between, say, team coaching and group facilitation.

Whilst there are similarities in terms of skills and approach, I tend to think of team coaching as concerned with building the team's performance whereas group facilitation could be concerned with, say, enabling a specific group to achieve a specific task.

I too find insights and approaches from Gestalt particularly stimulating and illuminating. I like Nevis' book that you mention and also love Zinker's 'Creative Process in Gestalt Therapy'. I would be very interested to hear more about the work you have done with teams if you would be happy to share some examples of how you have applied Gestalt theory to practice.

You may also be interested in this short article I wrote to illustrate Gestalt practice from my own experience of working with an individual leader/coachee: http://www.nick-wright.com/just-do-it.html. With best wishes. Nick

Curt Swenson PHR

13/12/2014 08:43:52 am

Nick,
I agree with Mark's comments and have had success blending previously mentioned traditional coaching "models" to give coaches (or teams) a framework. I've found that while models look and sound appealing, what many leaders, managers, coaches crave (and really need) are practical techniques that assist in the behavior change process. To that end, Gestalt psychology, Social Learning Theory, and Bandura's work in Behavioral Psychology are filled with excellent tactics that your clients will be able to actually apply in their daily transactions. Some examples include Motivational Interviewing (Miller & Rollnick), Transtheoretical Model or Stages of Change (Prochaska & DiClemente), The Coaching at Work Took Kit and Behavioral Coaching (Zeus & Skiffington).

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 06:18:13 am

Hi Curt and thanks for sharing such a great list of reference materials. Would you be willing to draw out one or two examples of techniques that you have found to be particularly effective and to share how you used them in practice? I would be very interested to hear more. With best wishes. Nick

Bart Allen Berry

13/12/2014 08:45:00 am

We have our own 50 question Teamwork Survey For Work Groups - What I love about it i that when it is administered anonymously we really get the issues and problems identified and then it creates expectations that these issues will be addressed - and takes the discomfort out of bringing up these topics for team members. Then we can be the objective facilitators but really advocates for the work group to get what they are really saying they want and need.

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 06:20:04 am

Hi Bart and thanks for the note. I would be very interested to see a copy of your Teamwork Survey for Work Groups! With best wishes. Nick

Gerry Gibson

13/12/2014 08:45:51 am

Price Pritchett has some great, practical (easy for the "man on the street" to comprehend) Team Development ideas and principles in his "Handbooks for Managers."

Worth checking out.

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 06:21:18 am

Hi Gerry and thanks for the helpful reference to Pritchett's book. Would you be willing to share any examples of ideas or principles you have used from the book, how you applied them and what happened? With best wishes. Nick

Gene Tange

13/12/2014 08:46:41 am

One of the challenges I have found with many of the models mentioned is they seek to improve "teamness" but do nothing to predict the outcomes of teams. Why is this important? If you have a mission critical initiative knowing you have a team that can achieve the goal 12 months down the road today is the starting point and not a model of team building.
Certainly, many of the approaches will improve a capable team but few will enable a team that has no chance of winning.

Gordon Curphy PhD

16/12/2014 03:07:02 am

Gene Tange makes a critical point that has been overlooked by just about everyone responding to this discussion: The purpose of a team or group is to get better results. Many assume that just getting people to know each other better will improve team performance, but this is simply not true. There are plenty of teams made up of happy campers who get little accomplished.

How can one talk about optimal team member types, traits, conflict modes, EQ, roles, and the like if he or she does not know: (a) the situation facing the team; and (b) team goals? This seems to be putting the cart way before the horse. What may be appropriate or optimal in one team will be a disaster in another. A related point--many of the most well known models, like Tuckman and Lencioni, don't even take the situation into consideration, yet this factor may ultimately determine the extent to which teams succeed or fail.

Carter McNamara MBA PhD

16/12/2014 03:08:54 am

Gordy wrote,,
“Gene Tange makes a critical point that has been overlooked by just about everyone responding to this discussion: The purpose of a team or group is to get better results.”

Actually, I wrote a previous post, in this discussion, that was very similar. I wrote:
I suggest you need:
1. why’ for overall goal (overall desired results)
2. ‘how’ for process
3. ‘what’ for content
4. 'where' for the scope of the team's work
5. ‘who’ for relationships among team members
6. "when" for timing and scheduling
7. "for whom" because each team usually reports to somebody

Relationships are only one component of a strong team.

I thought we had learned that lesson years ago, when we'd get people offsite in a safe environment where they'd form strong relationships -- relationships that very soon dissipated back in the realities of the workplace.

Gordon Curphy PhD

16/12/2014 03:10:08 am

My bad Carter--you were the first one to respond to this discussion and got it right.

Given your framework (which addresses many of the same components as the Rocket Model), why do so many team coaches emphasize relationships over the other components in your (and my) model? And is it due to efficacy, familiarity, or something else?

Carter McNamara MBA PhD

16/12/2014 03:12:54 am

Gordy,
You ask a question that has haunted -- and, I confess, irritated -- me for a long while.

My field of Organization Development is supposed to be focused on the development of an overall organization. But it seems that the vast majority of practitioners focus on one aspect of the organization: the human development aspect. They focus on relationships, feelings, beliefs, etc. -- much as many team-builders do. That is necessary, but it's not sufficient.

The structural and strategy aspects rarely get mention, just like they rarely get mention in team building, too. So to your question about why relationships gets emphasized over other aspects, my guess is that:
1. We're all human, so we naturally focus primarily on human development in teams and organizations.
2. Frankly, human development is harder to quantify -- and thus, measure -- than the "business" side, so, frankly, many of us are weary of the business side and its measurements and accountabilities for our work :-)
3. "Business", structure and strategies don't give the warm feelings that matters of human development do, and those "dry" topics seem to attract people who already have extensive experience and comfort with those matters.
4. Organization development (and team development?) schools seem to be reducing their focus on the structural and strategy sides of organizations and teams, which is very unfortunate.

Good question!

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 06:35:28 am

Hi Gordon (and others!). You raise an important point concerning results. It's the same reason why I placed 'vision' or 'goal' at the heart of the model I've outlined in this blog. I agree with Carter that relationships are necessary but not sufficient.

I also agree with you that different patterns of relating (and sometimes different team compositons too) are different in different circumstances. For example, a team leading innovation may seek to create high degrees of diversity and constructive conflict. A team leading through a process of change may seek to create a high degree of unity and mutual support.

I believe this is one of the reasons that approaching team development with a wider systemic, future-present, outside-in perspective is so important. Thanks for posing the challenge and for raising such interesting responses! With best wishes. Nick

Richard Marks

13/12/2014 08:47:20 am

Organization Relationship Systems Coaching (ORSC) from CRR Global is an integrative (systems) approach to increase team positivity and performance.

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 06:36:54 am

Hi Richard and thanks for the note. Could you say a bit more about ORSC and what it looks like in practice? I'm intrigued! With best wishes. Nick

Janera Soerel

13/12/2014 08:48:28 am

the GROW model, developed by Sir John Whitmore. It works every time! His company, Performance Consultants International, has developed the program Coaching for Performance around the model. For those of you who are interested, the Level 1 course is being offered in NY on Feb 2 & 3, 2015 http://performanceconsultants.com/coach-training-certification-individuals

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 06:39:28 am

Hi Janera and thanks for your comments. The GROW model is certainly very popular in some managerial coaching circles I've worked in, especially when working with individuals with a specific task in mind. Have you seen GROW applied to team coaching too? I would be interested to hear more about any experiences you have had in this area. With best wishes. Nick

Anne Rarich

13/12/2014 08:49:33 am

I like all the ideas that have been put forward and just want to add that there is now a great assessment that can be used with the Lencioni model that combines the self and other perceptions in one tool. If anyone is interested in a sample report to see what your clients would receive from their responses, let me know and I will send you a .pdf sample report.

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 06:40:38 am

Hi Anne and thanks for your note. I would be interested to see a sample report based on the Lencioni model. My email address is info@nick-wright.com. With best wishes. Nick

Michael R. Perrault

13/12/2014 08:50:48 am

We use the Facet5 personality assessment. Its TeamScape component plots the team's problem solving work cycle, decision making, conflict management (based upon the Thomas Kilman model), and its emotionality factor. The graphic nature of TeamScape seems to make it easier for team's to discuss their effectiveness and challenges. We then have the team prepare a document that maps its strengths, challenges and a way for people to help each be more effective and productive. We build-in a 60 day follow-up that helps with accountability for change.

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 07:16:03 am

Hi Michael and thanks for posting such helpful comments. I'm familiar with Kilman's model but haven't heard of the Face5 personality assessment or TeamScape component before. Could you say a bit more about it and, perhaps, how you have used it in practice? I'm very interested. With best wishes. Nick

Gill Kirkman

13/12/2014 08:52:16 am

In coaching sessions (but not a team) I have used John Whitmore's GROW model and also Alan Mackintoshes's extension on the GROW model OUTCOMES (Objectives, Understand reasons, Take stock of situation, Clarify the gap, Options, Motivate into action, Enthusiasm and encouragement, Support) which i really liked. I also intend to have a look at using OSCAR - i suppose it is all relevant to who you are coaching and as you talk of team coaching that can work in different ways. Thanks for sharing your blog and the responses Nick!

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 07:17:44 am

Hi Gill and thanks for your affirming feedback! I'm familiar with GROW but haven't heard of OSCAR before. Can you say a bit more about it? I'd be very interested to hear if you have any examples of applying it to team coaching. With best wishes. Nick

Jean-Luc Dupont

16/12/2014 03:06:01 am

I use the MTRI a model based on Jungian oriented functions (extraverted Sensing,…). It helps describe the roles which are "under-played" or "over-played" in a team.

I also use a graphical representation of the MBTI type in the team which I developed : the complexity and richness index of the team.

I don't define a MBTI profile for the team which, in my view makes no any sense.

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 07:20:50 am

Hi Jean-Luc. Thanks for the note. I have found MBTI to be an excellent tool for developing team understanding and relationships. I also focus on team values because, for instance, it is possible for team members to understand each other and to use that insight to undermine each other. I haven't heard of MTRI before - can you say more about it? I'd also be interested to hear more abou the graphical representation that you have developed. With thanks and best wishes.

Terrence H Seamon

16/12/2014 03:07:38 am

Nick, Great discussion you have started. Clearly this topic strikes an important nerve for us ODers,

I've always relied on the lessons learned from team coaching I experienced firsthand as a player on many teams, some successful and some not, over the years.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20140908145637-3716899-six-things-leaders-must-know-about-coaching

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 07:24:07 am

Hi Terrence and thanks for your affirming feedback. I like the COACH model that you outline in your blog based on some interesting experiences! Thank you for sharing the link. With best wishes. Nick

Gene Tange

17/12/2014 01:31:38 am

I have read the recent string and I think I can ask some further questions.

1. How do you know a team that has been assembled today has the "capability" to achieve a business outcome up to 12 months out?

2. If this team did not have the capability what intervention would you know to deploy (tool or process) that would change the business outcome versus measures of teams?

3. How long would it take since time is a variable that seems to be in short supply? Could this be achieved in hours, days, weeks? Beyond this time frame it doesn't matter because after you pass a QBR date the bus may have crashed?

4. How do we not abandon the pure OD discussion but move it more to the outcomes (business outcomes) side of the balance sheet? I believe this is what many of the CEO's I have discussions with are sharing.

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 07:25:23 am

Hi Gene. Great questions! What would you propose as the answers to those questions based on your own insights and experience? With best wishes. Nick

Curt Swenson PHR

17/12/2014 01:32:34 am

Nick- Great conversation you've started - Thank you! The knowledge being shared is certainly valuable. So, is there a "model" that supports both the strategic aspects of driving results AND the human side of changing behavior? Oh, and one more element that hasn't been discussed...Personal Accountability, which in my experience is the one trait that can truly make a difference between success and failure in a team situation. But, maybe that's another discussion...

Gordon Curphy PhD

17/12/2014 01:33:28 am

Curt, every team needs a sheriff, and accountability is a critical team norm.

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 07:28:54 am

Hi Curt and thank you for your contributions that have helped enrich the conversation! I agree with your comment about personal accountability. I often describe is as a key element of 'personal leadership' - an intention, attitude, mindset, commitment and approach that makes all the difference to any team development intervention. With best wishes. Nick

Eda Jedlickova

19/12/2014 07:49:28 am

I work with teams using combination of systemic and gestalt approach - more methodology than model. To name some of them - appreciative inquiry, working with polarities, sculpture of team and other metaphors... I support the idea that it is useful to assist team members in finding connections between each other.

Nick Wright

19/12/2014 07:51:45 am

Hi Eda and thanks for your comments. I liked the examples of methods that you use and would love to hear more. Do you have any examples of working with teams using these models that you would be happy to share? I always feel excited when I hear about fresh ideas and experiences from the Gestalt field! With best wishes. Nick

Dr Wafi Al-Baghdadi

2/1/2015 05:28:34 am

Hi Nick. In my opinion, it is very important to listen to the specific words of my client: what is important for her? What are her believes, believe system and convincement (observe the words she uses, like: I believe/I’m convinced that, etc.)? What is her attitude concerning Persons/matters/situations? What are her principles? Waht is right for her? I often write down those important sentences and repeat them with my own words/sentences; these contain her paradigm.

Nick Wright

2/1/2015 05:34:35 am

Hi Wafi. Thanks for the note and helpful insights. I like your emphasis on listening to the client's language. This fits well with insights from personal construct psychology and social constructionism. It can help reveal how the client sees their world, what they value etc. In order to avoid superimposing my own interpretations onto the client's language, I may invite the client to say more about the meaning behind the words they are using, or if they are willing, to invite them to act out the meaning. This can be very useful in team environments where it helps to reveal differences as well as similarities in assumptions, beliefs, values etc. With best wishes. Nick

Laurie Fitzpatrick ACC

15/6/2015 10:14:55 am

Hi Nick. The Cape Cod Model was developed by Sonia Nevis and others at the Gestalt International Study Center (GISC) on Cape Cod - thus the name. It is taught in several of the programs we offer here in Wellfleet and can be used in both one-on-one coaching and coaching or consulting teams. It's a powerful model that helps individuals and groups expand their range of choices by first focusing on what is "well developed" in the system before moving to work with the "less developed" polarity. More information can be found here: http://www.gisc.org/practitioners/programs/CapeCodTrainingProgram-Practitioners-GestaltInternationalStudyCenter.php

Nick Wright

15/6/2015 10:17:29 am

Many thanks, Laurie - and for the helpful link. I like the emphasis on focusing first on what is 'well developed' before moving onto what is 'less developed'. It reminds me of a similar ethos in appreciative inquiry, strengths-focused and solutions-focused approaches. With best wishes. Nick