Presentation on Team Leadership Coaching: Presenters - Dr. Maltbia & Dr. Marsick, Department of Organization and Leadership, Teachers College, Columbia University.

1. Leadership Team Coaching:
Reviewing Literature to Inform Practice & Research
Symposium 6: Coaching
Terrence Maltbia & Victoria Marsick
February 19, 2009

2. Outline
Foundations
– Problem & Drivers
– Purpose & Research Questions
– Method and Focus
Findings
– Selective Integrative Literature Review: Team Role Theory, Whole
Brain Thinking & Team Learning
Insights & Connections to HRD
2
© Maltbia and Marsick 2009

3. Foundations
Problem, Drivers, Purpose, RQs, Method & Focus

4. Framing Problem…
Problem Statement
Drivers…
Lack of Agreement…
Learning Demands on Leaders
Meaning & Role of Coaching
CEO Failure Rates Major investment: 2MM + 2006
Learning & Competitive Advantage
Gap
Customers Requirements Lack of Clear Framework…
Create/Markets Products & Services Call for coach-specific research
Innovative Work Climates Growing research interest (Grant 2008)
Attract/Retain Talent None focused on TLC (Grant 2008)
Diversity & Globalization
4
© Maltbia and Marsick 2009

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 coaching
research adding perspectives from “team roles theory,
whole brain theory, and team learning theory” to inform
practice and future research.
5
© Maltbia and Marsick 2009

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 team
coaching in organizations?
Method: Selective Integrated Literature (Torraco 2005 & see our paper)
6
© Maltbia and Marsick 2009

7. Findings
Summary of Key Discoveries…

8. Insights
Comprehensive approach to leadership team coaching
can build on principles, competencies, and the process
of 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
8
© Maltbia and Marsick 2009

9. The Foundations of Coaching
The Journey…
Our Vehicle
Coaching Coaching
Process Competencies
Our Map
CCCP
Guiding
Principles
Our Compass
9
© Maltbia and Marsick 2009

10. Guiding Principles – Our Compass
Adhere to High Focus on
Standards the Client’s
of Ethical Agenda
Conduct
Effective Coaching
Relationships
And
Engagements
Earn the Right Build
to Advance at Commitment
Each Stage of the Through
Coaching Process Involvement
10
© Maltbia and Marsick 2009

11. Core Competencies – Our Vehicle
Co-creating Meaning Making Helping Others
the Relationship with Others Succeed
Relating Questioning Reframing
Coaching Listening Contributing
Presence
Leveraging Testing Business
Diversity Assumptions Acumen
11
© Maltbia and Marsick 2009

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
12
© Maltbia and Marsick 2009

13. 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.
© Maltbia and Marsick 2009

14. Role Roles and Descriptions
Score
Team-Role Contribution Allowable Weaknesses
Creative, imaginative, unorthodox. Solves Ignores incidentals. Too pre-
Idea
17 difficult problems. occupied with own thoughts to
Generator
communicate effectively.
Extrovert, enthusiastic, communicative. Over-optimistic. Can lose interest
Resource
19 Explores opportunities. Develops contacts. once initial enthusiasm has
Seeker
passed.
Mature, confident. Clarifies goals. Brings Can be seen as manipulative.
1 Conductor other people together to promote team Offloads personal work.
discussions.
Challenging, dynamic, thrives on pressure. Prone to provocation. Liable to
Change
6 Has the drive and courage to overcome offend others.
Advocate
obstacles.
Serious minded, strategic and discerning. Can lack drive and ability to
13 Arbiter Sees all options. Judges accurately. inspire others.
Cooperative, mild, perceptive and Indecisive in crunch situations.
Consensus
12 diplomatic. Listens, builds, averts friction.
Builder
Disciplined, reliable, conservative in habits. Somewhat inflexible. Slow to
1 Implementer A capacity for taking practical steps and respond to new possibilities.
actions.
Painstaking, conscientious, anxious. Inclined to worry unduly. Reluctant
1 Checker Searches out errors and omissions. Delivers to let others into own job.
on time.
14
© Maltbia and Marsick 2009

15. Group Example…
GROUP MEANS AND DISTRIBUTIONS
Resource Seeker Conductor Change Arbiter Consensus Implementer Checker
Idea Generator Advocate Builder
Mean 7.23 7.30 8.55 10.05 6.10 10.50 11.43 8.85
Standard
4.12 3.75 3.79 5.10 3.14 4.73 4.94 3.70
Deviation
Minimum 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 4.00 1.00 1.00
25th Percentile 4.00 4.00 7.00 7.75 4.00 7.00 9.00 6.75
50th Percentile 7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00 6.00 9.50 11.00 9.00
75th Percentile 10.00 10.00 10.00 12.00 8.00 14.00 12.25 11.00
Maximum 17.00 19.00 20.00 25.00 13.00 24.00 26.00 19.00
15
© Maltbia and Marsick 2009

16. Roles and Phases of Teamwork
Team Roles Inventory
Norms & goals Idea generation Evaluation Decision making Implementation
Consensus Builders
Idea
12
Generator
17
Change
Conductor Checker
Implementer
1 Advocate 1
1
6
Resource
Seeker
19 Arbiter
13 16
© Maltbia and Marsick 2009

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.
17
© Maltbia and Marsick 2009

18. Quadrants: Whole Brain Thinking
L1 WHAT? R1 WHY?
REALIST STRATEGIST
ANALYST IMAGINEER
L2 HOW? R2 WHO?
ORGANIZER EMPATHIZER
PRESERVER SOCIALIZER
18
© Maltbia and Marsick 2009

19. Group Thinking Styles Example…
19
© Maltbia and Marsick 2009

20. Team Roles and Thinking Styles
L1 WHAT? R1 WHY?
STRATEGIST/IMAGINEER
REALIST/ANALYST
Idea Generator/Advocate
Conductor/Arbiter
L2 HOW? R2 WHO?
EMPATHIZER/SOCIALIZER
ORGANIZER/PRESERVER
Resource Seeker
Implementer/Checker
/Consensus Builder
20
© Maltbia and Marsick 2009

21. Integration—ORID: Action Learning
Conversation / Coaching Tool
What’s happening?
How am I
feeling/reacting?
CE RO
L1 R2
L2 R1
AC
AE
What does it
What do I
mean?
do/respond?
21
© Maltbia and Marsick 2009

22. Team Learning Process
Team learning… “a process through which a group creates know-
ledge for its members, for itself as a system, and for others.”
“Thinking” processes
Processes for “action”
Framing—Framing is the group’s initial
perception of an issue, situation, person,
Experimenting—Group action is taken
or object based on past understanding
to test hypotheses or moves, or to
and present input.
discover and assess impact.
Reframing—Reframing is the process of
Crossing boundaries—Individuals
transforming that perception into a new
seek or give information, views, and
understanding or frame (of reference).
ideas through interaction with other
Integrating perspectives—Group
individuals or units. Boundaries can be
members synthesize their divergent views
physical, mental, or organizational.
such that apparent conflicts are resolved
through dialectical thinking, not
compromise or majority rule.
Source: Kasl, Marsick & Dechant (2000, p. 256)
22
© Maltbia and Marsick 2009

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
23
© Maltbia and Marsick 2009

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
24
© Maltbia and Marsick 2009

25. Leadership Team Coaching:
Reviewing Literature to Inform Practice & Research
Symposium 6: Coaching
Terrence Maltbia & Victoria Marsick
February 19, 2009

26. Cultural Tools/Assessments
IDI
Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory
CCWM
Cross-Cultural World Mindedness
CSI: Cultural Shock Inventory
26
© Maltbia and Marsick 2009