|
|
|
1. The “sticky” factor
The kind of team coaching I do not only works, it keeps working. It sticks. Why? Because the coaching happens throughout actual meetings in the client’s business. My questions are asked as discussions are happening, and resolutions are reached, or issues addressed, in real time. It’s not only practical learning, it’s learning that is directly applicable to what you are already doing. My clients start to see results quickly, and I know the acquired skills will continue to make a difference—even years later. I’m coaching while they are working, and it’s exciting to work on problems as they happen.
2. It marries individual coaching, with organizational consulting
There is a gap between my services in executive coaching and managing organizational change. Certainly many executive coaches know it takes a strong leader to guide an organization through major changes, but they are not really experts in organizational change. Meanwhile change consultants often advise forming an executive team to accomplish the change, but are not able to help that team function. Team coaching addresses the need for a strong leader and a high functioning executive team during organizational change. I have been an executive coach and a change consultant, and getting to bring them together is very rewarding. These are my two of my passions, together at last. Being on the forefront of a new way of coaching is an exciting position to be in.
3. I get to keep learning
With team coaching, I can leverage my years of experience in a way that benefits everyone at the table. I get to learn and grow with every team I work with. This is the kind of job that is always challenging—it’s never routine because no team, and no organization is the same. It’s always interesting, and always rewarding.
|
 David Swain, BSc Mgmt., MSOD, CEC, PCC with over 30 years’ experience in both coaching the leaders of large organizations and leading them himself.
LinkedIn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A recent client called on us for help with some of the major issues that had arisen, as an externality of making the transition from start-up to steady-state. As is the case with many groups in such flux, this client was in need of organization. It was still in that infancy phase where everyone does everything in an almost complete lack of structure, and several challenges had reared their ugly heads, some as fundamental as decision-making.
Who Gets to Decide?
There are times when a team leader brings a decision before a group, and he or she does indeed want a consensus. Those are times when everyone has to work collaboratively to make the right choice, but within that collaborative dynamic, the team can easily fall into a trap where, even though consensus is not required, everyone might feel that he or she has a part to play in, and a right to be involved in the decision-making process. They may, but to what extent? There are times when the team leader simply has to make a decision alone. He or she may indeed want input from the team’s members—their ideas and their suggestions—but not their vote. The leader wants the team to help him/her think through the process by which he alone will make the decision.
How do you differentiate between the two modes without ruffling feathers?
The Importance of Clarity
The client had reached the point in its evolution where everything needed to be made clear to all members of the team. We needed to show the team leader, or whoever was in the position of having to make a decision, how to clarify what they wanted or needed from the team.
- Do you want help in making the decision, or is it yours to make alone?
- Do you need the team to come to a consensus? Or do you just want their input?
- If it’s just their input that you want, what sorts of ideas and suggestions do you want?
Whether you seek consensus, or just want to engage in a brainstorming session to help you think through your choices, you need to make sure it’s being done in an environment where everyone is clear on the expectations and everyone can have their say, without being judged. Everyone has to work together, to be aligned, so that while not everyone agrees, once a decision is made, everyone can live with it.
|
David Swain, BSc Mgmt., MSOD, CEC, PCC with over 30 years’ experience in both coaching the leaders of large organizations and leading them himself.
LinkedIn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are times when our approach to team coaching may seem counterintuitive; our prescription might seem contraindicative to your particular issue. The problem your team is encountering just might be a symptom of something deeper. Such was the case with a recent client whose productivity was stunted. But after doing some initial digging, we found that the problem lay elsewhere.
Productivity vs. Positivity
At the beginning of an engagement, we often get the team to complete a Team Diagnostic Instrument, a survey for each team member to assess themselves in 14 functional areas across two dimensions: their Productivity, or what we call efficiency, and their Positivity, or their effectiveness.
Productivity refers to your goals, all of the tasks you set for yourself and your team: decision-making, organizational ability, time management, and so on. Positivity refers to how you work together as a team. We look at your relationships, levels of trust, and other interpersonal factors. If your team is not working effectively, your efficiency will suffer, but that’s not always clear to everyone. Some team members might not see the real problem; all that they know is that things are not working as they should.
Quick Tip: In this case, relationship issues were preventing team members from working together effectively. So, while initially we focused on their productivity, we ended up pointing out improvements they needed to make in areas of positivity. We immediately went to work on two key areas:
- The way they ran meetings.
- How they made decisions.
We showed them that they needed to organize their discussions in ways that would make them more effective and efficient., This was accomplished by identifying for each agenda:
- Why the item was brought to the group for discussion,
- how much time they were going to spend on each item,
- who was accountable for the item,
- what outcome they wanted from each discussion.
Like Covey said, “Begin with the end in mind.”
The same kind of thinking went into decision-making. Sometimes a team leader with a decision to make might want to engage the team in making the decision. Sometimes it’s the leader’s final decision, but he or she still might want input, ideas, or suggestions that he or she can then take away and apply to the decision-making process. That has to be made clear to the team at the start.
In both cases, managing team discussions and decision making, we want to give the team some structure that would refocus the discussion to the items and away from the interpersonal friction..
We want people to start to hear each other, so we give structure to the discussion. By putting that structure in place we get them to work together more effectively, so that they can be more productive or efficient. That doesn’t mean we ignored the interpersonal issues, but allowing the team to make some positive progress we minimized the impact. Of course, we need to make sure that all team members are all focused on a common goal or set of goals, and have come to understand what they need to fix along the way so that they can work toward those goals including resolving the interpersonal issues.
In Counter-conclusion…
What does it mean to say that our approach is counterintuitive? If your team was wrestling with issues, and can’t seem to get a grip on them, we simply shift your focus to something else, away from personality issues, and help you to tackle the problem from the other end. Improved efficiency leads to improved effectiveness, and vice-versa. As you become more efficient you become aware of where you need to be more effective, and you can begin to adjust. If your team is struggling with effectiveness, then you focus them on efficiency. If they’re stuck in efficiency, then you focus them on effectiveness. At first it may seem as though you are not working on what you should be working, but in the end, the results will be exactly what you want, and what your team really needs.
|
David Swain, BSc Mgmt., MSOD, CEC, PCC with over 30 years’ experience in both coaching the leaders of large organizations and leading them himself.
LinkedIn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A leadership team must be aligned in their vision.
Why you ask? To be capable of pulling in the same direction.
Checks that this alignment is in place can be determined by asking the following four questions:
- Does the team have a clear charter?
- Can the team clearly articulate what their purpose is?
- Is the team clear about their goals and do they understand that by working together, they can meet their objectives more effectively?
- Are the roles clearly differentiated? Are team members clear about the decision-making authority of the team leader and of individual members of the team?
Once these questions have been addressed, there should be a significant reduction in inefficiencies and redundancies.
How Does A Team Coach Fit In?
The hiring of a team coach may help redress any misalignment. The coach may also look at the following areas:
- Does the team communicate effectively?
- Is there collaboration?
- Is there a clear decision making model in place?
- Do team members understand that not all decisions have to be made by consensus? Often the most capable person can be assigned the decision-making responsibility.
Sometimes the decision may lie ultimately with the leader. Team members know when to be involved and when to give support, even though they might not take part in every decision.
If any of the four alignment checks are out of balance, team coaching is right for your organization.
Want To Learn More?
Contact David to learn if your team is truly ready for organizational change.
Contact David
|
David Swain, BSc Mgmt., MSOD, CEC, PCC with over 30 years’ experience in both coaching the leaders of large organizations and leading them himself.
LinkedIn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
