Ahrd Presentation 2009 Maltbia And Marsick

964 views

Published on

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

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
964
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
23
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
44
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ahrd Presentation 2009 Maltbia And Marsick

  1. 1. Leadership Team Coaching: Reviewing Literature to Inform Practice & Research Symposium 6: Coaching Terrence Maltbia & Victoria Marsick February 19, 2009
  2. 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. 3. Foundations Problem, Drivers, Purpose, RQs, Method & Focus
  4. 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. 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. 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. 7. Findings Summary of Key Discoveries…
  8. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 19. Group Thinking Styles Example… 19 © Maltbia and Marsick 2009
  20. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 25. Leadership Team Coaching: Reviewing Literature to Inform Practice & Research Symposium 6: Coaching Terrence Maltbia & Victoria Marsick February 19, 2009
  26. 26. Cultural Tools/Assessments IDI Cross-Cultural Adaptability Inventory CCWM Cross-Cultural World Mindedness CSI: Cultural Shock Inventory 26 © Maltbia and Marsick 2009

×