Influencing policy (training slides from Fast Track Impact)
Executive Coaching.docx
1. (Mt) – AP/HRM4485 – Executive Coaching
13 Emotion and team performance Team coaching mindsets and practices for team
interventions Geetu Bharwaney, Steven B. Wolff and Vanessa Urch Druskat Team coaching
requires a “State of Being,” which we refer to as team coaching mindset, as well as practices
for delivering team interventions, the “Doing.” In this chapter, we begin with a list of
mindset shifts that team coaches must make to be effective. We then present examples of
each mindset in practice showing how the mindset leads to decisions on how to structure,
design and execute a productive team coaching engagement. Our suggested mindsets and
practices will inform practitioners, in a variety of contexts, who are eager to help teams
reach their potential. Our intention is to shorten the learning curve for new team coaches
and provide new insights for experienced team coaches. The problems faced by teams today
often do not stand up to the “rational” models of team effectiveness that many of us used in
the past – for example, teams where there is tension with key stakeholders or teams not
delivering on their stated objectives. These problems are far more complex and have never
before been satisfactorily solved (Adkins, 2010, pp. 4–5). This challenging context provides
a backdrop for understanding why a team coach’s mindset is as important as a team coach’s
skillset. Our ideas and interventions grow out of Team Emotional Intelligence Theory
(Druskat & Wolff, 2001), which integrates emotional intelligence theory (Boyatzis, Stubbs, &
Taylor, 2002; Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008) and Hackman’s team effectiveness theory
that emphasizes the role of structures and norms on team effectiveness (Hackman, 1987,
2011). The interventions were developed by a global consulting firm, Ei World, that
supports team development across multiple sectors (Ei World Team Effectiveness Projects,
2018). All interventions involved the deployment of the Team Emotional Intelligence
Survey (Wolff, 2018), a research-based survey that assesses team’s norms and culture as a
means for building dialogue and supporting a team’s development towards increased
collaboration and effectiveness. Typically, team leaders are charged with leading efficient
and effective meetings and building the collaboration and esprit de corps that enables a
team to elevate individual knowledge and skills and boost organizational innovation and
performance. However, the twenty--first century has brought Emotion and team
performance 193 significant change to the organizational landscape. Increasing global
competition, the need for faster decision--making, and the necessity for continuous
improvement make effective team collaboration a necessity (Vielmetter & Sell, 2014).
Toward that end, over 80% of Fortune 1000 companies now count on teamwork as a
competitive advantage (Hollenbeck, Beersma, & Schouten, 2012). In this landscape, building
2. and leading collaborative teams are more important than ever. It is also more complex as
teams are more often composed of highly diverse or cross--functional members who work
in dispersed locations. While their goals are moving targets, they are increasingly difficult to
achieve and the stakes feel higher than ever before. In our experience, few team leaders
have the skills and knowledge to build and coach these multi- faceted teams. Many teams do
not achieve their goals or missions (Heckscher, 2015). It is within this context that, over the
last decade, team leaders increasingly have been turning to coaches and consultants for
help. For consultants and team coaches, like ourselves, the rapid emergence of the team
coaching industry has been both exciting and nerve--wracking. The latest books are helpful.
But clear, practical information about “tried-- and-true” team coaching interventions are
difficult to find. Information about these complicated twenty--first-century teams is sparse,
and there can be no doubt that the teams we coach today differ from the more stable,
homogeneous, co--located teams that researchers have studied for the past five decades
(Tannenbaum, Mathieu, Salas, & Cohen, 2012). For example, Tuckman developed his well-
known “forming, storming, norming, performing” theory using homogeneous teams sitting
together in a learning environment (Tuckman, 1965). Our aim in this chapter is to help fill
this void by sharing examples from our experiences with the design and delivery of
different team coaching interventions used to improve collaboration and team performance
in cross-- functional senior leadership and executive teams. We share ideas and practices
that can help team coaches learn from our experiences coaching highly complex teams. The
end result is a set of practices useful for designing team coaching interventions. We hope to
empower both new and seasoned coaches and promote the delivery of high impact,
sustainable team development. In the Appendix at the end of this chapter, we have shared
an example outline of a high impact team intervention – the scope of this chapter is focused
on how to bring such a structure to life. The devil is in the detail of how the intervention is
experienced by the team. Theoretical perspective The content in our team coaching
interventions comes from team emotional intelligence (“Team EI”) theory, which grows out
of the little--known or little--understood challenge that today, the most common trigger of
emotions 194 Geetu Bharwaney et al. is social situations, small groups in particular
(Fiske, 2014). In fact, team researchers refer to teams as “emotional incubators” (De Dreu,
West, Fischer, & MacCurtain, 2001) and “hot-beds of emotion” (Barsade & Gibson, 1998).
Emotion influences all actions and interactions in teams – the more complex and stressful
the work, the more emotion is generated (Barsade & Gibson, 1998). Team EI theory
proposes that emotionally intelligent team norms turn this emotion into interactions and
energy that are constructive (i.e., engaged, productive) rather than destructive (i.e.,
disengaged, conflictual). Team EI is defined as a group culture created by a set of nine
norms (Figure 13.1) that help build team psychological safety, team identity, and team
efficacy, which motivate effective team collaboration and high levels of team performance
(Druskat & Wolff, 2001, 2008). Team coaching mindset The transition from coaching
individuals to coaching teams requires a shift in mindset. Heron (2001) provided empirical
support for the concept of push and pull in coaching individuals. This was recently validated
in a study by de Haan and Nilsson (2017). A further example of paying attention to the way
in which coaching is conducted has been the advancement of the concept of individual
4. information proactively Use information from emotion 4 Enhancing individual sense-
making Individual knowledge and skills Enhancing shared sensemaking Emergent collective
knowing Access collective wisdom 5 Creating a secure/safe relationship Listening to
individuals Creating a safe container Hold team space for the team Listening to what the
team as a system is “saying” Emotion and team performance 197 Team coaching mindset
#1: think whole not parts Shifting from interpersonal dynamics to system dynamics Team
dynamics transcend individuals. There are patterns of behaviour that typically emerge in
teams; coaches need to understand them. For example, team needs are often first expressed
by one team member who verbally or non--verbally displays displeasure about how the
group is operating. Ironically, groups commonly then scapegoat this person, or
inappropriately blame them for team problems, frequently displaying aggression toward
them (Gemmill, 1989). There are numerous other psychodynamic issues that a team coach
needs to understand to effectively work with teams, but are beyond the scope of this
chapter (for a review, see McLeod & Kettner--Polley, 2004; Smith & Berg, 1987). A team
coach needs to understand an individual’s characteristics including his or her skills, tastes,
and personality, however, in a collective it is important not to make the fundamental
attribution error, i.e., attributing a person’s behavior to internal causes, while ignoring the
influence of context (external causes). In teams, norms and culture have a strong influence
on individual behavior (see Johns, 2006; Lewin 1951). Members interact according to
perceived norms about what is acceptable and “how things work around here.” Research
shows team culture and process can be more important for team functioning than
individual expertise and skill (Chatman & Cha, 2003). The way the culture guides
interaction is largely responsible for the patterns of behavior that characterize the team and
individual behavior within the team. When trying to understand an individual’s behavior,
ask: “How is the team influencing the behavior I observe?” For example, disruptive behavior
may be the result of a team member’s concerns not being heard. The emotional energy
associated with the concern does not disappear, if the concern can’t be heard, the energy
often manifests as counteractive behavior. In practice We recently included individual
assessments alongside the Team EI Survey to increase self--awareness. Instead of treating
the assessment as a solo exercise for each team member’s personal benefit, as we had done
in the past, we built in a team dialogue to create collective meaning of the individual scores.
This is very different from thinking of the tool as a reflection of each individual member and
leave it at that, which is what we would do in the past when incorporating tools for self-
-awareness. For example, we used the individual tool for Manager--Coaches, the Coaching
Mindset Index (AIIR Consulting, 2017), as part of a leadership team intervention. Instead of
using the data for individual self--awareness, the group--level data was 198 Geetu
Bharwaney et al. discussed in relation to the culture that this team creates for direct reports
and what the implications are for how they operate collectively as a force in the
organization. This dialogue goes way beyond the individual self-- awareness that the
deployment of individual assessments was oriented to. It requires the ability of the team
coach to use individual tools for team--level conversation, a subtle shift in the way such
tools are typically used by coaches and consultants. A further application of thinking about
the whole not the parts, is when a team member or team leader brings up any issues about
5. individuals, we highlight the notion of the fundamental attribution error as something to
listen for in teams. We try to move the conversation to focusing on what the team as a whole
is doing that draws out this particular behavior rather than focusing on the assumed bad
behavior on the part of an individual. This often results in a totally different conversation. In
one recent team session, which has lasting memories for us as the team coaches, one
seemingly disgruntled team member scratched his leg and left the room every time a
specific team member spoke. The question to ask there was not one to the individual in a
confrontational way, for example, “Do you realize you are disrupting the team?,” but
instead, a question to the entire group, “What is the group not discussing?” This question
was prompted by the observation in the Team Emotional Intelligence Survey data that team
members enjoyed working together but showed hints of not discussing emotionally charged
issues. We suspected the disruptive behavior might be caused by emotional energy that did
not have an appropriate outlet in the team. In this specific team intervention, by asking a
question of the whole team, and by not alienating the individual, the team was able to have a
productive dialogue. This started with each person reflecting on their point of view on the
undiscussable topics and then sharing what each team member was thinking (in one
sentence, in a round--robin style, without interruption) followed by how they were each
feeling and the impact this was having on their interaction in the team (in one word,
without explanation and without interruption). The team then started to create actions that
they could take as a team to move their dialogue to a next level. The team became aware of
its norm of not discussing concerns and difficult issues, which is not what they actually
aspired to but was how they were operating by default. Once this awareness was gained,
they were able to allow concerns to be heard; the emotional energy now had an outlet and
the disruptive behavior went away. It is very helpful for a team coach to shift awareness
from individuals to the TEAM as a system. Instead of asking: “What’s going on for this
person?” or “Why is the person acting this way?,” the team coach can ask: “What is this
person saying about the needs of the team?” and “How does the behavior of this individual
give me information about the team?” Emotion and team performance 199 Team
coaching mindset #2: remember everyone is responsible Shifting from individual
responsibility for outcomes to mutual responsibility for outcomes When working with a
team it is important to acknowledge that all members are responsible for the norms,
culture, and outcomes. If something is not working, everyone has a role in creating the
issue, either through direct behavior or indirectly by not speaking up to address the issue.
For example, if someone consistently shows up late to meetings and the team has
previously agreed to start on time, this issue is not only the responsibility of the person
showing up late. The responsibility lies with the whole team for noticing this behavior and if
the behavior matters for the team’s overall effectiveness, then helping to bring this to the
awareness of the whole team so that the team can problem--solve together. As a team coach,
you should explore with the team how they contribute to the behavior. Perhaps the person
coming late is very busy and the team is very social; it spends the first 15 minutes
chitchatting, which the late person perceives to be time that could be better spent on
something else. Treating the issue solely as an individual problem will not get to the root
cause of the problem. Within this mindset, the perspective of the team leader is both
6. important and not important. The formal team leader does tend to exert more force on the
team than other members. Because the leader holds a special position and may have
ultimate decision--making power, it is important for him or her to articulate boundaries.
Nevertheless, all members are responsible for the functioning of the team, not just the
leader. Team members can help the leader be a better leader and vice versa. In practice In
the design of a recent team intervention, we had included a series of four team
accountability calls of one--hour each to follow up monthly on team actions, with the team
leader plus one nominated additional person (the HR leader in the team). When we
announced this at the end of a team session, the team felt strongly that all team members
should be part of the follow--up calls. After our initial amazement that the engagement
levels were so high from across the team, it was actually a perfect solution and paved the
way for similar opportunities to create whole team accountability beyond a facilitated team
session. In this team project, all nine team members ended up joining a monthly call for four
months after the team dialogue session. Another way we have modeled this particular team
coaching mindset is to have a team action plan that includes the names of all team members.
This can be achieved by having 200 Geetu Bharwaney et al. a Lead and a Support team
member on all agreed actions. It is also possible to divide up the entire team action plan into
chunks that are owned by a named small group within the team. In a large senior team
intervention with 33 leaders recently, there were eight key actions at the conclusion of a
one--day team session; the team worked in sub--teams of approximately three people each
to take forward each key commitment. In a different leadership team, we built into the
intervention a series of buddy conversations where each team member received feedback
on their team collaboration from a buddy and they provided a different buddy with their
own feedback. This was another way to show that everyone is responsible. This shift has
been very prominent in our structuring of interventions so that everyone has an
opportunity for mutual accountability. The team coach steps back and allows the team
members to come forward to co--own the outcomes for the team. Team coaching mindset
#3: use information from emotion Moving from development of emotional intelligence
reactively to using emotion as information proactively As individual coaches, we work on
developing individual emotional intelligence to help people react to emotion in productive
ways. Although it is important that team members exhibit emotional intelligence, team
member emotion is important for understanding the needs of the team and should be dealt
with in a way that is somewhat different from individual emotional intelligence. The team
needs to create a space for the emotion to surface and be explored. Emotion in a team is
often triggered by something happening within the team; thus, emotion provides
intelligence about the state of the team. A team coach needs to help the team walk a fine line
that balances the need for individuals to express their emotion in an emotionally intelligent
way and the need for the team to understand the information contained in the emotion.
Because emotion contains important information about the social situation (Van Kleef,
2009), the coach can help the team extract the information found in its emotion and use it
as information. This requires examining the relationships and interactions that give rise to
emotion, not by seeking to rid the team of the emotion that can signal team needs. An
important task of the team coach is helping the team surface emotions and make collective
7. sense of them. A team member who is bringing up a difficult topic can feel like a thorn in the
side of the team; however, the truth-teller or ‘canary in the coal mine’ is, often times,
representing a need of the team. To help the team use emotion as information, the team
coach must first raise the team’s awareness of the role of emotion as information that can
help the team. The coach then needs to help create a Emotion and team performance 201
safe space for the emotion to be surfaced and help the team process the emotion and
develop a collective sense of what it says about the needs of the team. In practice We use the
discussion of the Team Emotional Intelligence survey report as a means to raise awareness
about the importance of emotion in a team. We kick start this awareness by introducing the
two systems of the brain explained by Kahneman (2011), Nobel Prize winner and
behavioral economist, to lend credence to the idea that there are two different systems at
work in our decision--making: a fast, emotional system and a slower, rational, cognitive
system with the distinction that the emotional system is likely in charge when emotions
arise in team situations. As the team discusses the survey results, they develop intentions
about how they are going to process emotion in the team. We have found that these
intentions are difficult for the team to carry through on. The social pressures involved in
speaking up and old norms tend to work against the team’s ability to carry through on their
intention to do a better job processing the emotion. To minimize the social pressures, we
use a set of tools. There are “proactive” tools (i.e., those already created and brought into a
situation) to help team members carry through on intentions. These can be useful. However,
we find that tools created at the time the issue is discussed and the desired change
articulated, which we refer to as “reactive” tools, often work better because they are
specifically designed to support a desired change in how the team operates. Since each team
is different and has a different culture, the tool created must be designed to work for the
team. Although there are times when bringing in a specific tool to address an issue is
appropriate, the coach needs to be able to discern when this is the case and when the team
needs to create its own tool. In our work with teams we can often anticipate that they will
want to speak up when something is bothering them. We then ask them to develop a tool
that will help them. This can be difficult for the team, so we often provide an example that
was developed by one team we worked with. Since raising emotion is often like “addressing
the elephant in the room,” we bring an elephant (e.g., a hand--sized wooden carving). The
way the elephant is used serves many purposes. First, the team simply puts the elephant on
the table, where it serves as a reminder of their intent. Second, if a team member feels the
need to raise something they are feeling, they can pick up the elephant and hold it. This
serves as a visual indicator of the desire to raise some issue. It is easier to simply pick up the
elephant than to interrupt the team. Third, the team does not have to acknowledge the
person who picks up the elephant (although teams that adopt this tool almost always do).
Giving the team the option to acknowledge the issue, rather than the person, increases the
team’s sense of safety and control. If the team decides when it is 202 Geetu Bharwaney et
al. able to hear the issue, the team is more likely to listen and process it productively. We
use the elephant as an example but do not force it on the team. They can and should come
up with a reactive tool that works for them. In another team intervention, a team came up
with a reactive tool that they invented in the moment. If the team was going off topic,
8. someone would shout “lobster,” a word the team used to indicate that someone in the
moment might be going off track and not noticing because of their “hard shell.” This was a
very specific example for one specific team, not transferable to all teams; it helped that team
to lower the hurdle to bring up emotion rather than switch off from the topic because of an
underlying frustration about going off on a tangent. Team coaching mindset #4: access
collective wisdom Moving from enhancing individual sense--making and individual
knowledge and skills to enhancing shared sense--making and emergent collective knowing
Knowing in a collective is different from knowing for individuals. The power of a collective
is that different perspectives, knowledge, and skills can be brought together to access a
wisdom that is greater than the sum of the individuals (Hill, Brandeau, Truelove & Lineback,
2014). When problems are complex, they require the perspectives of multiple individuals to
form a rich picture of the issue. Solutions do not exist to be uncovered but rather are
collectively created and discovered. Often team members will have a feeling about the issue
but are initially unable to articulate what is essentially tacit knowledge. This feeling is a
“weak” signal and it needs a space to grow and emerge into an articulable idea. The difficult
work for the team coach is helping the team create a space where weak signals can be
nurtured and the team can access its collective wisdom. Our fast--paced culture prefers
definitive and clear knowing; however, in a collective it often takes time to access collective
wisdom as understanding emerges through an iterative process of interaction. Although
accessing the team’s collective wisdom sounds good, in practice, the team coach needs to
keep in mind that many teams just need to get work done and do not need to fully access
individual team members to solve complex problems. The coach first needs to help a team
discern when it needs to come out of its task focus and increase its awareness of the
complexity of the environment it is facing. Some examples of when a shift out of task mode
is needed are: when habitual routines are not appropriate for the current context or simply
are not working; when the problem is complex, i.e., there are no known solutions; when
team members are repeatedly sensing something is not right. Knowing when to shift into a
mindful mode depends on “weak signals,” i.e., an intuition that something is not right. The
coach needs to help a team pay attention to these signals and be willing to work with them.
Emotion and team performance 203 In addition to being cues to solutions to complex
problems, weak signals (and often not--so-weak signals) can indicate that something about
the team process is not working as well as it could. This feeling also needs a space to be
explored; the team needs to use these signals as a trigger for self--reflection. The coach can
help the team create a space that allows member’s sense that something is wrong to surface
and trigger collective self--evaluation. In addition to helping the team use weak signals,
shifting to a mindful mode can be facilitated by a tool, e.g., a buzzer that goes off and triggers
the team to ask key questions, e.g., “Are we on the right track?” or “Does anyone have any
gnawing concerns?” The buzzer strategy is also useful to help the team mindfully carry
through on its intentions. For example, the team might want to make sure it is listening to
everyone; when the buzzer sounds, it could ask a question related to this intention, e.g.,
“Does everyone feel heard?” or “Does anyone have something they have not been able to
contribute?” Once the team determines it needs to shift to a more mindful mode, so it can
become more aware of its environment and better access the collective wisdom, the coach
9. needs to help the team access its collective wisdom. The state of the team that best allows it
to synthesize the wisdom of its members is akin to a Team Flow state (van den Hout, Davis,
& Walrave, 2016), i.e., a state where “team flow creates a group--level state in which all
participating team members are completely involved in their common activity, and are
working together intuitively and synergistically towards the common purpose” (p. 235).
Van den Hout et al. identify six prerequisite conditions to creating this state: (1) a common
goal; (2) aligned personal goals; (3) high skill integration; (4) open communication; (5)
safety; and (6) mutual commitment. A coach can help a team access collective wisdom by
working to create the above conditions. In practice In designing interventions, we have used
the terminology ‘Team Dialogue Session’ rather than team event, team development or any
other type of team session label. This use of the word dialogue, inspired by Bohm (2004)
emphasizes that “a dialogue is something more of a common participation, in which we are
not playing a game against each other, but with each other.” In a dialogue, a team is able to
question its own fundamental assumptions. This is very different from discussion, which is
focused on analysis, explaining and defending different points of view, conviction, and
persuasion, where a team will often not progress beyond the original points of view that
were present at the start of the meeting. We have found that these simple shifts of language
can have a profound impact on the outcomes achieved through team conversations.
Dialogue, when skillfully facilitated, represents a fundamental shift in the way a team
normally exchanges, and requires the intentional deployment of tools to enable a shift of
interaction to occur. For example, when helping a 204 Geetu Bharwaney et al. team to
engage in problem--solving, we will typically ask one person to speak for a few minutes
about the problem, then ask the team to reflect for a few minutes with eyes closed or open,
and then to turn to the entire team and ask each person to share the images or metaphors
that came to mind when thinking about the problem. This leads to a collective level of
dialogue and creates shared meaning. This is more powerful than having everyone state
their view of the topic, a strategy that typically creates separation. Team coaching mindset
#5: hold team space Moving from creating a secure/safe relationship to creating a safe
container for the team The effective coaching of individuals requires creating a secure and
trusting relationship in which the person coached feels safe to openly share their thoughts
and feelings. The focus for team coaches must be on creating a secure and safe environment
for the team that allows an open discussion of thoughts and feelings among all team
members. This necessitates finding a balance between creating enough structure that team
members feel safe, but not so much structure that the discussion feels prescribed or
controlled. Often this requires managing a team leader’s desire to step in too often as the
“authority” in the room. It also requires managing one’s own need to control the process
and serve as the “expert in the room.” Instead, the coach must allow the team’s dialogue to
explore previously undiscussed issues while he or she uses interventions that are best
described as sensing, steering, and question--focused. Every team is made up of a unique
combination of people operating within a specific context. In other words, while we can see
patterns when comparing different teams, each team is unique. Thus, the appropriate way
to move a team forward should emerge primarily from the team itself – not the coach. When
the path forward comes from the team, we believe: (1) it makes interventions and change
11. for a team. To be optimally effective, team coaches need a mindset that shifts the way they
“see” and experience the team and the way they view their role as a coach. By adopting the
five team coaching mindsets discussed in this chapter and putting them in practice, team
coaches will set themselves up for success and will set up the teams they coach for effective,
sustainable development and change. The team coaching mindsets we present represent
the way an effective team coach “sees” the team and his or her role as a coach. The power of
these mindsets is best summarized in an original quote by Jack Welch, “The team that sees
reality the best, wins.” For us, the coach that sees reality the best is one who sees the team
as a system, understands that all members contribute to the team’s dynamics, and
recognizes emotion contains information to be mined. Rather than emotion being treated as
something to be repressed in a team, the role of emotion can be championed as both weak
and strong signals of team working – a new set of skills and abilities for busy teams to
master, that is very important for the health and success of our organizations today. The
coach also recognizes the importance of holding a space for the team where, when
appropriate, it can access the collective wisdom of its members. In this way we are more
likely to achieve the goals of Team Coaching as advocated by Peter Hawkins in the subtitle
of his seminal 2017 book, Leadership Team Coaching: Developing Collective
Transformational Leadership. The business world needs this more than ever before.
Summary In this chapter we presented a framework for team coaches that covers five Team
Coaching Mindsets that a team coach can adopt to effectively help a team, and ways in
which these mindsets might be reflected in coaching practice. A team coach needs to think
differently than an individual coach. Teams are a system and have properties as a system
that the coach needs to understand, especially concerning the behavior observed. If a coach
does not understand the root drivers of behavior in a team, it will be next to impossible to
effect lasting change. Once a team coach adopts the five team coaching mindsets, he or she is
then ready to create practical interventions to work effectively with teams. What is constant
are the team coaching mindsets adopted – these provide access to the most effective way to
operate as a team coach. Emotion and team performance 207 Appendix 1: Design of a
high impact team intervention Title of Intervention: HR Leadership Team – Team
Development Phase 1: Team foundations • • • • Team leader – Confidential Input on the
team’s current context, the team’s development needs and aspirations for the project. Team
member – Confidential Input – Strengths, Challenges and Aspirations of the Team. Observed
Team meeting (three hours). Kick Off Team Session 1 (half--day) – to share back what was
heard and to engage the team in the development journey. Phase 2: Individual and team
development Individual • • • Confidential 1:1 Debrief of Hogan Surveys. Shaping of
Individual Development Plans. Individual shares plan with direct boss. Team • • • • Team
survey report analysed and focused meeting design created. Team Dialogue Session 2 (one
day). Team action plan. Follow--up Team Accountability Session (90 mins, one month apart,
team leader + 1) to support the team’s new behaviors and to problem--solve any challenges
along the way. Phase 3: Sustainable change • • • • Team’s normal work. Implementing
agreed team actions from Team Dialogue Session 2. Further review of actions implemented
since Session 2 though Team Accountability Sessions (90 mins, three more after Team
Dialogue Session 2). Self--directed action to implement new individual behaviors. Phase 4:
12. Impact review • Review of individual development plans/gather qualitative feedback from
team members to comment on how each team member is functioning. 208 Geetu
Bharwaney et al. • • Repeat online Team Emotional Intelligence Survey. Debrief the 2nd
Team Emotional Intelligence Survey with the team and celebrate successes. This cycle of
activities was later repeated when the team leader retired, and a new team leader assumed
the role. The only difference being that fewer team accountability sessions were agreed
(two instead of the original four). Source: Ei World References Adkins, L. (2010). Coaching
agile teams: A companion for ScrumMasters, agile coaches, and project managers in
transition. Boston, MA: Pearson. AIIR Consulting, LLC. (2017). Practitioner’s guide: Your
guide to developing coaching excellence. Based on Coaching Mindset Index Tool, a tool for
measuring individual coach mindset. Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (1998). Group emotion: A
view from top and bottom. In D. Gruenfeld (Ed.), Research on managing groups and teams
(vol. 1, pp. 81–102). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Baumeister, R. F., Ainsworth, S. E., & Vohs, K. D.
(2016). Are groups more or less than the sum of their members?: The moderating role of
individual identification. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 39, e137. Bohm, D. (2004). On
dialogue. London, England: Routledge Classics. Boyatzis, R. E., Stubbs, E. C., & Taylor, S. N.
(2002). Learning cognitive and emotional intelligence competencies through graduate
management education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 1(2), 150–162.
Chatman, J. A., & Cha, S. E. (2003). Leading by leveraging culture. California Management
Review, 45(4), 20–34. De Dreu, C. K., West, M. A., Fischer, A. H., & MacCurtain, S. (2001).
Origins and consequences of emotions in organizational teams. In R. L. Payne & C. L. Cooper
(Eds.), Emotions at work: Theory, research and applications in management (pp. 199–217).
Chichester, England: Wiley. de Haan, E., & Nilsson, V. O. (2017). Evaluating coaching
behavior in managers, consultants, and coaches: A model, questionnaire, and initial findings.
Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 69(4), 315–333. Druskat, V. U., &
Wolff, S. B. (2001). Building the emotional intelligence of groups. Harvard Business Review,
79(3), 80–91. Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (2008). Group--level emotional intelligence. In N.
M. Ashkanasy & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Research companion to emotion in organizations (pp.
441–454). London, England: Edward Elgar. Ei World Team Effectiveness Projects. (2018).
Unpublished manuscript. Fiske, S. T. (2014). Social beings: A core motives approach to
social psychology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Gemmill, G. R. (1989). Dynamics of
scapegoating in small groups. Small Group Research, 20, 406–418. Hackman, J. R. (1987).
The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (pp. 315–
342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice--Hall. Emotion and team performance 209 Hackman,
J. R. (1998). Why teams don’t work. In R. S. Tindale, J. Edwards, & E. J. Posavac (Eds.),
Theory and research on small groups (pp. 245–267). New York, NY: Plenum. Hackman, J. R.
(2011). Collaborative intelligence: Using teams to solve hard problems. San Francisco, CA:
Berrett--Koehler. Hawkins, P. (2017). Leadership team coaching in practice: Developing
collective transformational leadership. London, England: Kogan Page. Heckscher, C. (2015).
Trust in a complex world: Enriching community. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Heron, J. (2001). Helping the client: A creative practical guide. London, England: Sage. Hill, L.
A., Brandeau, G., Truelove, E., & Lineback, K. (2014). Collective genius. Harvard Business
Review, 92(6), 94–102. Hollenbeck, J. R., Beersma, B., & Schouten, M. E. (2012). Beyond
13. team types and taxonomies: A dimensional scaling conceptualization for team description.
Academy of Management Review, 37, 82–106. Johns, G. (2006). The essential impact of
context on organizational behavior. Academy of Management Review, 31(2), 386–408.
Kahn, W. A. (2001). Holding environments at work. The Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 37(3), 260–279. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY:
Macmillan. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers. D.
Cartwright (Ed.). New York, NY: Harper. Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D. & Barsade, S. G. (2008).
Human abilities: emotional intelligence. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 507–536.
McLeod, P. L., & Kettner--Polley, R. B. (2004). Contributions of psychodynamic theories to
understanding small groups. Small Group Research, 35(3), 333–361. Smith, K. K., & Berg, D.
N. (1987). Paradoxes of group life: Understanding conflict, paralysis, and movement in
group dynamics. San Francisco, CA: Jossey--Bass. Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E.,
& Cohen, D. (2012). Teams are changing: Are research and practice evolving fast enough?
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 5, 2–24. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental
sequence in small teams. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384–399. van den Hout, J. J., Davis, O. C.,
& Walrave, B. (2016). The application of team flow theory. In L. Harmat, F. Ørsted Andersen,
F. Ullén, J. Wright, & G. Sadlo (Eds.), Flow experience (pp. 233–247). Cham, Switzerland:
Springer. Van Kleef, G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life: The emotions as social
information (EASI) model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(3), 184–188.
Vielmetter, G., & Sell, Y. (2014). Leadership 2030: The six megatrends you need to
understand to lead your company into the future. New York, NY: American Management
Association. Wolff, S. B. (2018). TEI Survey Technical Manual. Retrieved from test.profwolff.
org/resourcest
