The needs of organizations to support teams to become more effective, more harmonious, develop more trusting relationships and find better ways to debate and make decisions together are ever greater. Sometimes teams have habits and routines of interaction that are very well anchored in their practice and they feel that what they need is just an improvement in their relationships, especially in conflict situations, when someone leaves or when someone from the team comes or when the difficulties in the business reality alter the harmony by the pressure it creates. Most of the time, it is much more than that, which is why team development methods such as team building or a facilitated dialogue for a few hours or a day are not enough.
The Team Coaching competencies developed by the ICF explain the boundaries that we might notice and that we must take into account in our practice when we are engaged with a team in a team coaching process. Over time, as you develop your practice and have a structured reflection process about what is happening in the room where you work with that team, these boundaries become clearer and your ability and artistry with which you can merge without confusing or disserving the process in a way that benefits the team and serves the discovery and learning process.
It is much clearer the distinction between training, mentoring or consulting processes that we can give to a team, if we choose to offer these services. The ICF Code of Ethics gives us very good guidance on how to inform and educate our clients about these distinctions without assuming that they already know. But there are also areas that intertwine with team coaching and that coexist more closely without being identical or serving the same purpose. I am referring to the facilitation of team dialogue or teambuilding interventions that could be inserted within a team coaching process. And our clients don't see these distinctions falling back on our role to clarify.
In practice, we ask ourselves how we can support clients to understand as best as possible the benefit of a longer, deeper process of reflection and learning about their own routines, habits, interaction mechanisms, existing or non-existent ways of delegative leadership or participatory decision-making, the way power is distributed and used within the team, the way the team as a whole relates to different stakeholders or uses the relationship with them... We may encounter the reluctance or skepticism of the "sponsors" to develop such a long-term commitment. It is understandable because many organizations are faced with a lack of financial resources and it may seem expensive or, the time investment may seem high considering the daily pressures they face.
Here are three situations where team coaching is more suitable for an organization and the areas we can highlight where there is no previous experience with team coaching processes:
- You are asked to help them resolve an interpersonal problem between members of a team. There are quite a lot of tensions, they communicate strictly on the basis of utility and their meetings are for information rather than collaboration. Most of the time, someone from human resources or one of the managers of the company requests you. And, very often, you are asked to do a workshop for a day or two or to go with your colleagues to a teambuilding event where they can get to know each other better and relax their relationships. How can we present the option to engage the team in a team coaching process that can go much deeper to a restoration and harmonization of relationships, through awareness and sustainable change of interaction habits?
One of the most important perspectives is that the team will be viewed by the team coach as a whole, as a unique element, and it takes time for the team to be able to observe itself, to discover what a safe space for reflection and sharing means, to learn new mechanisms for consultation and drawing collective conclusions. Just as in individual coaching we look at a client at his way of thinking and relating to situations, at the emotions he expresses, at the goals he proposes and at the difficulties he observes. It's just that, unlike an individual, in a team, our role is to create the chance for a space where people can be equal in their contribution and feel equal in their value as team members.
Rarely in the organizational environment do people feel equal in their interventions, contributions or value they create. The distinction from the other two ways of intervention (facilitation or teambuilding) comes from here. If we want to generate a thinking space in which to make awareness and sustainable change possible then it becomes obvious that facilitation which is a short process, an intervention that can be isolated, is not enough. In that time frame of one or two days, all the existing power mechanisms in the team will manifest in their fullness as they are now. When you step into the shoes of a facilitator, you are the one who gives the floor to each participant or part of the participants depending on how their contributions serve the question raised. So the facilitator enters a position of power and not one of partnership, momentarily replacing the formal leader of the group. You will be surprised by the fact that people are constantly trying to explain to you what is happening in their team and justify the current reality. "Finally someone listens to us!" it can float in the air. The facilitation process is very useful for bringing to the surface things that may not normally be discussed and for creating a later basis for a process of team coaching, of deeper collective reflection, but it will not solve or change anything in sustainably if there is a 2 day event left. Facilitation is often an introductory process of team coaching and it is our duty to explain to the organization the benefits of facilitation but also the risk of leaving the team in the same status after such an event.
In teambuilding the distinction is even easier to make because most of the time the exercises stimulate collaboration or competitiveness. Most of the time competitiveness. It can be a very good opportunity to highlight dysfunctions through experiential exercises. Sometimes a cause of sharpening competitive or tense relationships that will manifest themselves in team building even if the activities are different from those in everyday life, at the workplace. The debrief that follows may reveal many of their thinking and interaction, decision-making, or responsibility-taking mechanisms. That is why a longer process like team coaching can include such episodes. But these only highlight the dynamics and do not solve the cause of these dynamics, a deeper process of understanding and awareness that cannot happen in a team building. This is about Competency 1, Demonstrating Ethics in Coaching Practice.
- The company is changing its strategy and goals, and the team seems confused about how to approach future actions and communicate them across the organization. They need a facilitator to help them focus on the process.
These situations are quite common and all you can do is be a good facilitator by helping them through the process. You can use your observational skills during the facilitation process on relationships, dynamics, debating and decision-making processes and at the end of the facilitation with the agreement and permission of the team you can share these observations inviting them to reflect on what they have learned about themselves as team during this facilitation, what they themselves noticed works or what works less, and what they consciously intend to change in order to succeed in the future with confidence and autonomy. The team coaching process takes place in real time, but this time, the coach can have the opportunity to explain the differences between the approaches leaving the decision entirely to the team about the next steps they want to take. It's about Competency 2, Manifesting a Coaching Mindset, recognizing that the team (client) is responsible for their own choices.
- At the request of the team leader or someone from human resources, the decision is made to be invited in the role of team coach. You are asked to send them an agenda, at least of the first steps and the first team meeting, with details related to the topics you want to address and the results you expect, for further validation.
This situation may be one in which the distinction between different ways of supporting a team to develop can be best highlighted in front of the organizational client because if in facilitation or in a training process you can propose an agenda, in the case of a team coaching process, the agenda, the important themes, the results that the team wants to achieve are set together with it, by it. And since you can't tell a client "let's meet there and we'll see on the spot..." no matter how much experience and credibility you have, Competency 3, Establishing and Maintaining Coaching Agreements guides us on how we can structure the early part of process. Early involvement of team members to understand what is important to them to be addressed or clarified, involvement of different stakeholders to see what kind of progress they will be able to see and what needs they have in relation to this team, discussion of how which will be addressed the position or the relationship with the team leader within the process make the difference between how the work agenda is built in the different ways of team development versus a team coaching process. Including the way the relationship is contracted with and the expectations of the team from the coach.
