ahrd presentation 2009 maltbia and marsick

Leadership Team Coaching:Leadership Team Coaching:Reviewing Literature to Inform Practice & Research

Symposium 6: CoachingTerrence Maltbia & Victoria MarsickFebruary 19, 2009

2

© Maltbia and Marsick 2009

Outline

FoundationsFoundations–– Problem & Drivers Problem & Drivers –– Purpose & Research QuestionsPurpose & Research Questions–– Method and FocusMethod and Focus

FindingsFindings–– Selective Integrative Literature Review: Team Role Theory, WholeSelective Integrative Literature Review: Team Role Theory, Whole

Brain Thinking & Team Learning Brain Thinking & Team Learning

Insights & Connections to HRDInsights & Connections to HRD

FoundationsFoundationsProblem, Drivers, Purpose, RQs, Method & Focus

4


Framing Problem…

DriversDrivers……

Learning Demands on Leaders CEO Failure RatesLearning & Competitive AdvantageCustomers RequirementsCreate/Markets Products & ServicesInnovative Work Climates Attract/Retain Talent Diversity & Globalization

Problem StatementProblem Statement

Lack of Agreement…Meaning & Role of CoachingMajor investment: 2MM + 2006

Lack of Clear Framework…Call for coach-specific research Growing research interest (Grant 2008)None focused on TLC (Grant 2008)

Gap

5


Problem & Purpose Statements

The problem this paper seeks to address relates to the lack of team coaching theory and empirical research.

Our aim in to build on the emerging executive coachingresearch adding perspectives from “team roles theory, whole brain theory, and team learning theory” to inform practice and future research.

6


Research Questions…

In what ways are executive and organization coaching, team roles, team learning, and thinking styles defined in selected literature, including prior studies?– What are the key components of each? What connections are present

across the four areas of literature?)

In what ways does the available literature: – (a) align with results from team learning research (Kasl, Marsick, &

Dechant, 2000) and our preliminary work with team roles and thinking styles and

– (b) provide insights that inform the practice of leadership teamcoaching in organizations?

Method: Selective Integrated Literature (Torraco 2005 & see our paper)

FindingsFindingsSummary of Key Discoveries…

8


Insights

Comprehensive approach to leadership team coaching can build on principles, competencies, and the processof executive coaching (informed by the “science of human performance”& the “action research cycle”)

Linkages between the “8 team roles” and 4 quadrant brain theory (including the 8 dimensions)

Team Roles and Brain Theory has clear connections to the “learning from experience” cycle (Kolb)

Team Learning framework can serve as an organizing platform for pulling these ideas together

9


The Foundations of Coaching

CCCP

CoachingProcess

CoachingCompetencies

GuidingPrinciples

Our Compass

Our Vehicle

Our Map

The JourneyThe Journey……

10


Guiding Principles – Our Compass

Effective CoachingRelationships

AndEngagements

Adhere to High Standardsof Ethical Conduct

Focus on the Client’s

Agenda

BuildCommitment

ThroughInvolvement

Earn the Right to Advance at Each Stage of theCoaching Process

11


Core Competencies – Our Vehicle

Relating

CoachingPresence

LeveragingDiversity

Questioning

Listening

TestingAssumptions

Reframing

Contributing

BusinessAcumen

Co-creating the Relationship

Meaning Making with Others

Helping OthersSucceed

12


The Process – Our Map

Theoretical / Empirical Basis…– Science of Human Performance– Action Research

Structure– Phases – Components– Coaching Tasks

Learning & Results-focused– Focus: Learning for Perspective – Alignment: Learning for Knowledge– Performance: Learning from Experience


Team Roles

Extensive studies by Belbin (1992) found that the team performance does not reflect any one personality trait or skill. Rather it reflects having a balance of different roles; faculty at the Columbia Business School research highlights 8 roles from Belbin’s framework.

14


Inclined to worry unduly. Reluctant to let others into own job.

Painstaking, conscientious, anxious. Searches out errors and omissions. Delivers on time.

Checker1

Somewhat inflexible. Slow to respond to new possibilities.

Disciplined, reliable, conservative in habits. A capacity for taking practical steps and actions.

Implementer1

Indecisive in crunch situations.Cooperative, mild, perceptive and diplomatic. Listens, builds, averts friction.

Consensus Builder12

Can lack drive and ability to inspire others.

Serious minded, strategic and discerning. Sees all options. Judges accurately.Arbiter13

Prone to provocation. Liable to offend others.

Challenging, dynamic, thrives on pressure. Has the drive and courage to overcome obstacles.

Change Advocate6

Can be seen as manipulative. Offloads personal work.

Mature, confident. Clarifies goals. Brings other people together to promote team discussions.

Conductor1

Over-optimistic. Can lose interest once initial enthusiasm has passed.

Extrovert, enthusiastic, communicative. Explores opportunities. Develops contacts.Resource

Seeker19

Ignores incidentals. Too pre-occupied with own thoughts to communicate effectively.

Creative, imaginative, unorthodox. Solves difficult problems.Idea

Generator17

Allowable WeaknessesTeam-Role Contribution

Roles and DescriptionsRole Score

15


Group Example…

GROUP MEANS AND DISTRIBUTIONS

19.0026.0024.0013.0025.0020.0019.0017.00Maximum

11.0012.2514.008.0012.0010.0010.0010.0075th Percentile

9.0011.009.506.009.008.508.007.5050th Percentile

6.759.007.004.007.757.004.004.0025th Percentile

1.001.004.000.001.000.000.001.00Minimum

3.704.944.733.145.103.793.754.12Standard Deviation

8.8511.4310.506.1010.058.557.307.23Mean

CheckerImplementerConsensus Builder

ArbiterChange Advocate

ConductorResource SeekerIdea Generator

16


Team Roles Inventory

ArbiterArbiter1313

Consensus BuildersConsensus Builders1212Idea Idea

GeneratorGenerator1717

Resource Resource SeekerSeeker

1919

CheckerChecker1

Change Change AdvocateAdvocate

66

Roles and Phases of Teamwork

ConductorConductor11

ImplementerImplementer11

Norms & goals Idea generation Evaluation Decision making Implementation

17


A Balanced Team Has…

Leadership at different phases from a conductor and a change advocate to implementation

Ideas sparked internally by an idea generator and brought from outside by a resource seeker

Critical evaluation of proposals from an arbiter; and importantly

One or more consensus builder, implementer, and checker to make things happen.

18


L1L1 WHAT?WHAT?

REALISTREALIST

ANALYSTANALYST

L2L2 HOW?HOW?

ORGANIZERORGANIZER

PRESERVERPRESERVER

R1R1 WHY?WHY?

STRATEGISTSTRATEGIST

IMAGINEERIMAGINEER

R2R2 WHO?WHO?

EMPATHIZEREMPATHIZER

SOCIALIZERSOCIALIZER

Quadrants: Whole Brain Thinking

19


Group Thinking Styles Example…

20


L1L1 WHAT?WHAT?

REALIST/ANALYSTREALIST/ANALYST

Conductor/ArbiterConductor/Arbiter

L2L2 HOW?HOW?

ORGANIZER/PRESERVERORGANIZER/PRESERVER

Implementer/CheckerImplementer/Checker

R1R1 WHY?WHY?

STRATEGIST/IMAGINEERSTRATEGIST/IMAGINEER

Idea Generator/AdvocateIdea Generator/Advocate

R2R2 WHO?WHO?

EMPATHIZER/SOCIALIZEREMPATHIZER/SOCIALIZER

Resource Seeker Resource Seeker /Consensus Builder/Consensus Builder

Team Roles and Thinking Styles

21


Integration—ORID: Action Learning Conversation / Coaching Tool

What’s happening?

What does it mean?

How am I feeling/reacting?

What do I do/respond?

CE RO

AE AC

L1 R2

R1L2

22


Framing—Framing is the group’s initial perception of an issue, situation, person, or object based on past understanding and present input.

Reframing—Reframing is the process of transforming that perception into a new understanding or frame (of reference).

Integrating perspectives—Group members synthesize their divergent views such that apparent conflicts are resolved through dialectical thinking, not compromise or majority rule.

Experimenting—Group action is taken to test hypotheses or moves, or to discover and assess impact.

Crossing boundaries—Individuals seek or give information, views, and ideas through interaction with other individuals or units. Boundaries can be physical, mental, or organizational.

Team learning… “a process through which a group creates know-ledge for its members, for itself as a system, and for others.”

Source: Kasl, Marsick & Dechant (2000, p. 256)

“Thinking” processes

Processes for “action”

Team Learning Process

23


Implications for Research

Apply coaching process framework (components and tasks) to guide a more uniform understanding of practices across context

Use C-TRI to assess team roles in combination with the NBI to explore empirical support for our predicted, theoretical relationships (i.e., thinking, roles, learning)

Include TLS as the third data source to explore differences in team capabilities in relation to Team Roles and Thinking Styles

24


Implications for Practice

Encourage partnerships between scholars and practitioners

Implement group and team coaching practices processes for greater scalability

Expand scope of executive coaching to leadership teams with a focus on group and organizational learning

Leadership Team Coaching:Leadership Team Coaching:Reviewing Literature to Inform Practice & Research

Symposium 6: CoachingTerrence Maltbia & Victoria MarsickFebruary 19, 2009

26


Cultural Tools/Assessments

IDI

Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory

CCWM

Cross-Cultural World Mindedness

CSI: Cultural Shock Inventory

ahrd presentation 2009 maltbia and marsick

Documents

team roles theory

team performance

team role theory

dimensions team roles

team roles extensive

empirical research

hrd2 maltbia

experience12 maltbia