What do the experiences of team coaches tell us about the essential elements of team coaching? : a heuristic inquiry

There has been a surge of interest in team coaching in the last fifteen years with dyadic coaches adapting their approaches to meet this demand and an ever-increasing array of team coaching courses and accreditations on offer. A review of the salient literature highlights that understanding of the process of team coaching, based on the first-person perspective of team coaches, is lacking and is needed to provide this perspective on this emerging practice. A qualitative study was conducted with ten highly experienced and qualified coaches using heuristic inquiry methodology, featuring in-depth interviews and reflective logs. Heuristic inquiry methodology was enhanced by the inclusion of three focus groups, spaced over an eleven-month period, enabling shared learning, expanded thinking and knowledge development amongst the co-researchers. Team coaching emerges as a process that comprises three distinct stages: preparation, intervention and evaluation, with particular importance placed on giving time and attention to the preparation phase. There is some universality of experience relating to the structural elements of team coaching that are present in all types, genres and approaches to team coaching. However, there is also significant divergence resulting in different approaches in how team coaching is delivered. The role of a team coach is a complex one. It necessitates effective use of coaching skills but also the ability to effectively perform and move in, and out, of other roles. In addition, there are also a number of roles that the team coach may be inadvertently drawn into. Coaches experience team coaching as more challenging than dyadic coaching and undergo more extreme emotions, the highs are higher and the lows lower. These demands highlight important considerations regarding self-care, reflective practice and supervision. The study's findings shed light on the emergent practice of team coaching and, in particular, provide the missing voice of the team coach. From a knowledge perspective a number of the findings challenge concepts in the existing literature, including perspectives on the timing of interventions, readiness on the part of team members and the role of team coach. Other findings add to existing knowledge by contributing empirical insight as well as opening up new areas for debate. In addition, the findings have considerable potential to inform practice, and the coaching profession, by providing insight and a practical resource in the form of the PiE Team Coaching Framework which details universal elements, as well as typical variations, for team coaches to consider in their practice.