INTRODUCTION:

Coaching is a fast-growing trend and has gained much significance in the recent years. Research (Griffiths, 2008) suggests that forward-thinking organizations are looking at team coaching, which is the coaching of a team towards the achievement of collective goals (Thornton, 2010), as a vehicle for delivering additional value through the creation of high-performing teams. The rationale for the focus on team performance is linked to frustration with the concept of the leader as hero who will single-handedly deliver organizational objectives (Hawkins, 2014), together with the growth of organizational complexity necessitating the need for leaders to build effective teams if they are to ‘thrive or even survive’ (Kets de Vries, 2011, p.xvii). Leadership team coaching in particular, which focuses on the senior management teams within an organization (Hawkins, 2014), is seen as a potential solution to the ‘organizational silo formation and thinking’ constraining many businesses (Kets de Vries, 2011, p.xvii). It is also seen to bridge the gap between ‘individual and organizational learning’ (Clutterbuck, 2013, p.19).

What is coaching?

Marcia Wieder, Global Visionary Leader defines coaching is an ongoing professional relationship that helps people produce extraordinary results in their lives, careers, businesses or organizations (Ortner, 2013). Through the process of coaching, clients deepen their learning, improve their performance, and enhance their quality of life. In each meeting or call, the Coach listens and contributes observations and questions. This interaction creates clarity and moves the client into effective action.

A professional partnership between a qualified coach and an individual or team that support the achievement of extra-ordinary results, based on goals set by the individual or team (ICF, 2005)

According to Martin (2006), coaching is defined as a mutual conversation that follows a predictable process and leads to superior performance, commitment to sustained improvement and positive relationships. It is a performance improvement strategy that improves the performance of individuals, teams and ultimately the organization.

Coaching in teams:

Teams are a key structural component in most businesses today, as evidenced by 82% of companies that have at least 100 employees reporting that they rely on teams (Gordon, Gordon, J. (1992). Additionally, teams are necessary for organizations to respond to the changing global, economic and workplace demands (Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006). This confluence of factors has made teamwork one of the most common skills required in workplaces today (Cappelli and Rogovsky, 1994). Although teams are a common structure for getting work done in organizations, many leaders are unaware of how to best lead their teams to high performance, which is the team's ability to create a high-quality output that consistently meets or exceeds the team's goals (Wageman, Nunes, Burruss, and Hackman, 2008).

History of team coaching:

Team coaching is distinct from individual coaching because in team coaching, the team is the client and collective performance is the goal, versus the individual focus of one-on-one coaching. Team coaching involves direct interaction with a team to help members effectively coordinate and make task appropriate uses of their collective resources to accomplish the team's work (Hackman and Wageman, 2005). The goal of team coaching is to foster team effectiveness and performance by coaching the team to enhance their effort, review or generate strategies, and consider how knowledgeable and skilled members are utilized to carry out their team tasks (Hackman and Wageman, 2005). The team coach provides an objective view of the team and facilitates conversations that enable the team to adjust their ways of working together in service of their goals.

Organizational team coaching grew out of several fields: group development (Tuckman, 1965), group process (Lewin, 1948), process facilitation (Schein, 1969), systems thinking (Argyris, 1990; Senge, Kleiner, et’al 1994), and developmental coaching (Kozlowski, Gully, Salas, and Cannon-Bowers, 1996). Katzenbach and Smith (1993) were early influential thought leaders who posited that teams need to rally around a common and compelling team purpose and have goals that link to performance results.

Several French coaches have published works on team coaching, including Devillard (2005) who wrote about team dynamics and whose work was the basis for Team-Scan, a team assessment tool. Cardon (2003) developed a systemic team coaching approach. Moral (Giffard and Moral, 2007; Moral, 2009) has developed a systemic and developmental approach to team coaching, in addition to an assessment framework for team coaching.

OBJECTIVE OF THE PAPER:

The main objective of the paper was to study the effect of coaching on MBA teams. This was put to study by analyzing the Goizueta Business School’s model of leadership coaching program. As a researcher in leadership coaching space I was keen to understand the effect of coaching on team performance in terms of both team’s dynamics, dysfunctions and academic performance. Two main aims were:

1. To understand the effect of coaching on team performance

2. To understand the relationship between team dynamics and academic grades

METHODOLOGY:

Research Participants:

The sample of the present study comprised of 170 first year Full Time MBA (FTMBA) students in 31 teams and 46 selected second year FTMBA Leadership Coaching Fellows (LCFs) who serve as coaches to the first year FTMBA student teams.

Test and Tools:

Goizueta Peer Assessment Tool: The “Goizueta MBA Peer Assessment Instrument” is constructed on the Qualtrics-360 platform to collect data from each MBA candidate on themselves and from their peers on their contributions to the effectiveness of their core study teams. The assessment is based upon a set of 10 important leadership behavioral competencies tied to teamwork. Therefore, each MBA candidate will have data providing insight into how their self-assessment on these leadership competencies is aligned with the perceptions of their teammates. Team members’ assessments were only reported in the aggregate, thus preserving the anonymity of each individual member’s feedback.

MBA Core Team Evaluation and Assessment Tool: Each core team is assessed by the LCFs under three broad categories: as a High Performing Team (HPT), meaning they demonstrated effective team work, completed feedback processes and identified areas to sustain and improve; a Fully Performing Team (FPT), which means they completed the feedback process, demonstrated some dysfunctions and may/may not have an action plan; or a Low Performing Team (LPT), which demonstrated resistance, team dysfunctions were evident with no action plan.

RESULTS AND FINDINGS:

To understand the effect of coaching on team performance the first year FTMBA teams completed a peer assessment constructed on the Qualtrics 360 platform. The students were asked to fill the assessment twice, the first time was in September 2016 which was prior to coaching and the second time was in November 2016 after the teams were coached by the Leadership Coaching Fellows. The data was collected based on the ten competencies in the assessment and using descriptive statistics, mean was calculated for the two sets. The data showed some noticeable differences in the means of self and peers in September 2016 in comparison to the means of self and peers in November 2016.

RESULTS:

Peer Assessment Qualtrics Comparative Analysis Report of MBA’18: September and November 2016

Table 1 Graph showing the comparison of behavior competencies between Self Assessments in September and November 2016 of MBA'18

(n=170)

S. No.	Variables	Mean (September)	Mean (November)
1	Contributes positively	4.29	4.26
2	Constructive contribution to equal work distribution	4.17	4.11
3	Works on assignments	4.08	4.34
4	Engages Fully in team	4.25	4.22
5	Treats everyone with Respect	4.45	4.54
6	Effectively manages conflict	4.01	4.01
7	Demonstrates the ability to adapt to change	4.14	4.16
8	Full Participation in After action review	4.02	4.15
9	Provides Open, Honest Feedback	3.84	4.03
10	Demonstrates Integrity	4.33	4.46

Table 2-Table showing the comparison of behavior competencies between Peer Assessments in September and November 2016 of MBA'18

(n=170)

S. No.	Variables	Mean (September)	Mean (November)
1	Contributes positively	4.37	4.38
2	Constructive contribution to equal work distribution	4.30	4.30
3	Works on assignments	4.34	4.34
4	Engages Fully in team	4.25	4.22
5	Treats everyone with Respect	4.45	4.54
6	Effectively manages conflict	4.01	4.12
7	Demonstrates the ability to adapt to change	4.16	4.24
8	Full Participation in After action review	4.15	4.26
9	Provides Open, Honest Feedback	4.03	4.15
10	Demonstrates Integrity	4.06	4.46

More findings:

The survey reports showed some noticeable changes in the average mean of a few behavior competencies. These competencies were 8, 9 and 10. The one on one conversations with the teams and the LCFs was seen probably because post coaching the teams felt equipped with providing and receiving an open and honest feedback. One such reason specified by multiple teams was that through the process of being coached by the LCF, conversations and communication became easier, open, candid and some of the issues that were swapped under the rug and were avoided those issues with the help of the LCF were back on the table and open for discussion.

To understand the effect of team dynamics and academic grades, the Leadership Coaching Fellows were asked to fill out a performance and evaluation questionnaire describing what their thoughts were regarding the teams they coached for the entire semester. The questionnaire comprised of five questions revolving around trust, conflict, team dynamics and feedback. The data collected from each of the 46 LCFs on the 31 teams respectively was then compared to the team grades the teams had acquired in their class assignments.

The grades were distributed in three categories, Distinction (DS) being the highest grade, High Pass (HP) and Pass (PS) which was the lowest grade in class assignments. The team evaluations by the LCFs were also categorized in three; High Performing Teams (HPT), Fully Functional Teams (FPT), Low Performing Teams (LPT). The data from the grades and team performances was plotted on the graph and it relieved some attention-grabbing comparisons.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS:

Team coaching is about group processes. It involves direct interaction with a team that is intended to help members use their collective resources well in accomplishing work. Coaching is about building teamwork, not about doing the team’s work.

Coaching can address any aspect of team interaction that is impeding members’ ability to work well together that shows promise of strengthening team functioning. In practice, however, a more focused approach brings better results. Research has identified three aspects of group interaction that have special leverage in shaping team effectiveness: the amount of effort members applies to their collective work, the appropriateness to the task and situation of the performance strategies they employ in carrying out the work, and the level of knowledge and skill they apply to the work. (Hackman, 2000)

Team members who work effectively with one another have the capacity for increased productivity. Successful teams comprise members who understand their own roles in the group as well as their teammates' roles and responsibilities. Working in a collaborative fashion, effective teams can agree on goals and strategic plans, divide work equitably and work together to develop new ideas and concepts. In this way, each team contributes to organizational productivity and effectiveness. (McQuerrey, 2018)

The results of the paper shed some light on how coaching has an effect on team performance as seen in the FTMBA teams but also has a positive effect on the academic grades achieved by the teams in group assignments.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:

The primary aim of the paper was to do an evidence-based coaching research and its effect on MBA teams’ performance that is based on the coaching model developed by the leadership development program at the Goizueta Business School.

As a researcher, the objective was to identify certain factors that are responsible in effecting team performance and the impact of coaching on team performance with respect to academic grades. The study was carried out following a mixed approach both qualitative and quantitative and it did reveal some exploratory results. The results do reveal that coaching has a positive impact on team performance which not only improved the academic grades but relationships amongst team members.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH:

The field of team coaching is still new and exploratory. As a researcher I think this was a good start to explore MBA teams as these teams are a good example of how teams work at real world work setting environment. I do propose an area where the present research could have been more extensive and reliable.

This was an exploratory quantitative and qualitative study. For future purposes, the use of more sophisticated tests and instruments can be used which would increase the validity and reliability of the research.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

LTG (Ret.) Ken Keen, Associate Dean of the Leadership Development Program, Goizueta Business School. I would like to take this opportunity to thank and acknowledge Ken Keen (also my manager) for his continuous support through out the process and giving me the freedom and platform to conduct this research in the most effective manner.

REFERNCES:

1. Argyris, C. (1990). The dilemma of implementing controls: the case of managerial accounting. In Readings in accounting for management control (pp. 669-680). Springer, Boston, MA.

2. Cappelli, P., and Rogovsky, N. (1994). New work systems and skill requirements. Int'l Lab. Rev., 133, 205.

3. Cardon, A. (2003). Le coaching d’equipes [Team coaching]. Paris, France: Ed. organization.

4. Clutterbuck, D. (2010). Coaching reflection: The liberated coach. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 3(1), 73-81.

5. Devillard, O. (2005). La dynamique d’équipes [Team Dynamics] (3rd éd.). Paris, France: Editions organization.

6. Gordon, J. (1992). Work teams: How far have they come? Training, 29: 59-65

7. Griffiths, K., and Campbell, M. (2008). Semantics or substance? Preliminary evidence in the debate between life coaching and counselling. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 1(2), 164-175. doi:10.1080/17521880802328095

8. Hackman, J. R., and Wageman, R. (2005). A theory of team coaching. Academy of management review, 30(2), 269-287.

9. Hawkins, P. (2008). The coaching profession: Some of the key challenges. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice, 1(1), 28-38. doi:10.1080/17521880701878174

10. J.R. Hackman, R. Wageman, T.M. Ruddy, C.R. Ray, C. Cooper, E.A. Locke, "Team effectiveness in theory and practice" in Industrial and organizational psychology: Theory and practice, Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 2000.

11. Kets de Vries, M. F. (2011). Reflections on leadership and career development: On the couch with Manfred Kets de Vries. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, 2011. - 285 p.

12. Kim, D. H., and Senge, P. M. (1994). Putting systems thinking into practice. System Dynamics Review, 10(2‐3), 277-290.

13. Kozlowski, S. W., and Ilgen, D. R. (2006). Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychological science in the public interest, 7(3), 77-124.

14. Kozlowski, S. W., Gully, S. M., Salas, E., and Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1996). Team leadership and development: Theory, principles, and guidelines for training leaders and teams.

15. Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts; selected papers on group dynamics.

16. Martin, G. (2006). Coaching and mentoring. Published as.

17. McQuerrey, L. (2018), Why Is Teamwork Important in the Classroom? Retrieved 11/10/18 from https://work.chron.com/teamwork-important-classroom-18281.html [10].

18. Moral, M. (2009). Executive team coaching in multinational companies. In M. Moral and G. Abbott (Eds.), The Routledge companion to international coaching (pp. 256268). London: Routledge.

19. Ortner, N. (2013). The tapping solution: A revolutionary system for stress-free living. Hay House, Inc.

20. Schein, E. H. (1969). Process consultation: Its role in organization development.

21. Thornton, H. J. (2010). Excellent teachers leading the way: How to cultivate teacher leadership. Middle School Journal, 41(4), 36-43.

22. Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological bulletin, 63(6), 384.

23. Wageman, R., Nunes, D. A., Burruss, J. A., and Hackman, J. R. (2008). Senior leadership teams: What it takes to make them great. Harvard Business Review Press.

Received on 06.12.2019 Modified on 05.02.2020

Res. J. Humanities and Social Sciences. 2020; 11(1):57-61.

DOI: 10.5958/2321-5828.2020.00009.1