When an executive-coach colleague asked me about the benefits of learning how to do team coaching, I couldn’t give her a simple answer. She saw it as a tool for improving intrateam relationships, boosting team performance, and potentially strengthening a team’s capacity for innovation. But my experience is that team coaching doesn’t necessarily do all that.
If you ask teams what they want from team coaching, they’ll often mention things like reducing conflict, making more progress toward goals, doing a better job of project management or interdepartmental coordination, or finding ways to work together to overcome leadership problems. Many teams don’t even think they need coaching—they just want one or two of their members to behave better or for their boss to remove the structural or environmental roadblocks they face.
So, does team coaching actually work? And should you want some? Let’s look at the parameters that set the context for the team and its performance.
How Team Problems Start
All too often, problems begin when a team’s assignment and objectives aren’t clear enough. The big picture, conceptual goals, or purpose may be well known, but the individual team members’ responsibilities might not match well, some members may not have the necessary skills or appropriate competencies, or the team could be sorely under-resourced or lack access to the influence or authority they need to implement their goals and plans.
It makes sense to have all these things in place before making a big investment in trying to change behavior or attitudes. Without a clear, shared understanding of priorities and methods, improved communication and dialog or project management and documentation won’t help very much; instead, the team gets more proficient at identifying what’s not working and at best, tries not to blame the problems on each other. Same goes for having the necessary tools or authority to get the job done and making sure the right people with the right knowledge and skills are on the team.
Why Structure Matters
When there’s unplanned behavior change in the workplace, it’s usually because structural change underpins it. After all, people accommodate organizational shifts by modifying their behavior. For example, if assignments, measurement, or rewards change, many people will adjust themselves to the new regimen.
But changeability is not distributed evenly among team members. Even when you plan a change and use professional management techniques to implement it, only some people will easily understand and accept the new way. Many people find it difficult to be consistent about demonstrating new behaviors.
Let’s say you have a team of eight people and a coach works with them on behavior or procedural change. Perhaps two of them will accept the change immediately. Two others may resist until forced to comply—which, unfortunately, usually means creating performance improvement plans or threatening the loss of their role. Occasionally, someone may resist until you fire them.
Interestingly, the other four people will probably change out of practicality if four criterion are met: the structure changes enough to make it obvious what behavioral modification is required, it’s not painful to change, the change is rewarded, and non-change is punished. But if modifying behavior feels unsafe and there’s no external monitoring of accountability, those four versatile people often revert to type, leaving only the two enthusiastic individuals to carry on the change. And that’s simply not enough traction.
Where Effective Coaching Begins
If I had to pick a single focal point for improving team dynamics or performance, I would first assess how skillful and prepared the team’s manager is to direct and support the work. If the manager doesn’t understand the assignment, lacks the experience to lead, or isn’t learning quickly on the job, it’s difficult for the team to coalesce—except, perhaps, regarding their dissatisfaction with their boss.
What makes the most significant difference in team performance is the manager’s ability to galvanize everyone around a shared set of principles and goals and provide coaching as necessary, always keeping the team’s aims in mind. The manager’s understanding of each individual is key, as is their ability to help them find the motivation to do what’s necessary and behave in helpful, collaborative ways.
When Coaching Really Works
Oddly, bringing someone in to do team coaching is like outsourcing one of the leader’s most critical roles. It takes the manager off the hook and makes it look to the team like there’s no pressure for their leader to improve. This can suppress a team’s drive and cohesiveness, because competent team members usually recognize when their manager is lacking. Even worse, if the team has any “stars,” they may stick around for the coaching to gain new skills or add to their credentials or portfolio, but then seek other opportunities because they know their team is never going to improve drastically.
So can team coaching be worth it? Absolutely, so long as the incumbent manager is a significant part of the process and goes first—that is, shows that they are changing to help the team change. Assuming that structural parameters are in place, what truly makes a difference is coaching the manager to make measured decisions, communicate consistently, listen deeply, and hold difficult conversations with both the team and its individual members. And then a coach who is present enough to support the improvement cycle and understand each person’s role in it can add a significant benefit.
Onward and upward—
LK