Following two decades as a both an educator and practitioner of executive coaching and leadership development, I found myself at place of deeper self-examination and professional maturity, questioning how to best leverage my wisdom and experience into the next coaching evolution. As a metaphorical frame for this blog post, I modify a familiarly sounding proverb: When the executive coach is ready, the team development bridge appears. In acknowledgment, the structural support that has both expertly and securely guided me to cross this bridge has been the 6 Team Conditions framework.
My purpose in writing this piece is to share with you a few reflections on what I have been learning from the 6 Team Conditions that continues to inform, deepen and elevate my work as a team development practitioner who honors the science and art of great collaboration.
Coaching Context Matters
In a team meeting last week with a graduate level coach educator-practitioner, we engaged in a strategic discussion as to next generation’s needs from coach education and training as influenced by marketplace conditions, intensified by the globally existential context of Covid19. Increasingly evident seemed to be the notion that organizational leadership is seeking an expanded coaching role and scope of practice beyond the one-on-one models that heretofore have been useful yet no longer sufficient to meet the gravity of the collective challenges we face into the next decade. Organizations are increasingly interested in scaling coaching to broaden collaborative capabilities while reaching greater numbers of stakeholders for increased impact in faster time frames. This has been evidenced in the marketplace by the growth and expansion of programs for internal coaching, managerial coaching, team coaching, peer consultation and coaching cultures. Given that context, how does the 1:1 coach grow mindset to expand their coaching capability for greater impact?
In crossing the bridge from Executive Coach to Team Development Professional, I owe much of my current thinking to the science and research behind the 6 Team Conditions framework. It has given me cause for pause in rethinking my team leader and team engagement designs for smarter preparation, intention and strategy. I share with you a few key highlights along this reflective journey.
- Not for Naught
When I entered the team coaching field, my initial thinking was that I was going to have to start anew by re-careering from years of 1:1 executive coaching work to team coaching and facilitation. What I discovered was that much of my executive and organizational coach experience was directly transferable, valued and instantly relevant in this new space. Engaging with a team also requires the ability to work in partnership alongside the team’s leader, with a coach’s skilled and trained capability for content and person empathic listening, understanding and questioning. I realized that a team engagement may not always be best delivered with me leading from the front as team coach, facilitating and directing the team’s process, though instead, in some cases, that my talents may be better leveraged in the behind-the-scenes coaching that I can do with the team leader in helping them to become a better coach, facilitator and expansive leader of their own team.
- Team Diagnostic Survey (TDS)
In almost all my executive coaching engagements, I’m asked to conduct an initial multi-rater and/or psychometric leadership tool to establish a datapoint baseline for assessment of key competencies, leadership style and personality profile. Using a formal instrument provides an objective and contextual starting point to build rapport, establish initial coaching goals and anchor our work in organizational and leadership relevance. With the 6 Team Conditions, having a scientifically grounded and academically researched diagnostic assessment of the team’s strengths and development areas provides me with a team-level quantitative and qualitative unit of analysis while establishing early and quick credibility with the team. Another gem in this assessment is that it informs the design aspects of my work with teams, bridging the science with the art of team coaching.
- Conditions for Work
Embedded within the 6 Conditions framework is a treasure trove of coaching questions and exercise avenues for exploration with both the team leader and their team. The 6 Conditions framework prompts deeper design and structural reflection for a variety of essential work we can do to help ground team purpose in a compelling, clear and consequential direction. In utilizing the 6 Team Conditions toolkit, I can help the team appreciate and expand its perspective diversity through creation of a representative metaphor or clarification of teamwork preferences. If the team is sufficiently grounded in its Essentials, we can look to Enabling Conditions for performance acceleration and lift through building a more supportive organizational context using stakeholder mapping and inviting representative voices external to the team through stakeholder chairing. Establishing a team charter harnesses the team in a one-page Sound Structure that summarizes the team’s six conditions as a compass to guide behavior, direction and decision making.
- Structure Drives Behavior
Over the years, much of the executive coaching work I have been asked to do has been in the realm of behavioral coaching. Not uncommon is the call that comes to me from the HR Business Partner who characterizes ‘the problem’ as the team leader having an abrasive management style or personality profile that needed reshaping, refitting and in some cases, transformation. What I never considered before within a team was the possibility for an authority attribution error. Could the problem be structural in the way the team was set up, perhaps with an unclear purpose that was causing the team leader to micromanage, or without the team not knowing what type of team it was designed to be (leader-led, self-managing, self-designing, self-governing), thereby throwing confusion and tension into its understanding of authority level and decision making scope? The 6 Conditions framework has furnished me with added insight into a functional model of leadership, allowing me to understand and appreciate that leadership can be designed to be shared and realized by whomever is best suited (be that party internal or external to the team) to fulfill that function, which may not always be the team leader.
- A Role Repertoire
One of appealing aspects in becoming a Team Development Professional is that is has given me permission to be more explicit and expansive in the portfolio of services that I can offer to the client beyond the one-to-one executive coach role. The scientific rigor of the 6 Conditions framework stimulates my intellectual curiosity and challenge by stepping into the analyst and consultant role when debriefing the Team Diagnostic Survey. Partnering with the team leader to explore the arch of a potential team intervention taps into my creative designer. When convening a team retreat, meeting or sprint, I can alternate roles of facilitator, coach and coach supervisor to bring the highest add value within a dynamic and emergent process.
- Leadership by Design
One of my earlier careers was as an instructor of theatrical improvisation for eight years to professional actors in New York. Seemingly paradoxical, I would often spend considerable time to prepare and design the lesson plan for the most optimal improvisation to occur. What I discovered was that my thoughtful pre-design and structural considerations gave rise to some of the richest theatrical, improvisational scene work. I was host to a dynamic classroom where psychological safety promoted increased risk taking and defined structure provided an ensemble’s freedom of expression. It was an environment inspired by prepared spontaneity. Similarly, team effectiveness and leadership are hardly accidental occurrences. Whether applying a punctuated equilibrium within a team’s life cycle or balancing coaching between structural support and emergent process, the importance of thoughtful design and its potential for intentional, positive impact cannot be underestimated.
It is not only what we do,
but also what we do not do,
for which we are accountable.