The Role and Practice of Team Academy (TA) Team Coaching (TCg)
There is little agreement on a clear definition of coaching or how it differs to the discipline of mentoring (Cox et al., 2018; Clutterbuck, 2013; Garvey et al., 2017). Although a number of coaching disciplines are acknowledged including career coaching (Yates, 2013), life coaching (Neenan & Dryden, 2013), sports coaching (Lyle & Cushion, 2016) and business coaching (Cox et al., 2018).
Team, group and leadership coaching literature (Thornton, 2016; Hawkins, 2017; Cox et al., 2018; Clutterbuck, 2013), specifically in the context of business, is the most applicable literature to the work of a TA TC. In his thesis, Juvonen further suggests (2014, p. 64) that TA Team coaches (TCs) are a cross between the business coach and the life coach as they āhelp the team entrepreneurs to learn and developā.
The practitioners own personal philosophy and inform their approach to coaching within their discipline. Cox et al. (2018) explain that team coaching is primarily linked to coaches who consider their approach to be cognitive behavioural (which emphasizes the importance of identifying realistic goals and facilitates self-awareness) and developmental (learning about developmental trajectories allows coaches to be better equipped to understand the coachee).
Beyond taxonomies and approaches, other authors, such as Brown and Grant (2010), Clutterbuck (2013), Carter and Hawkins (2013), OāConnor and Cavanagh (2017) and Thornton (2016), have integrated theoretical perspectives and empirical findings from practice to create conceptual frameworks for team coaching practice and all of which helps when undertaking TCg.
The coaching styles continuum (CIPD, 2008) describes the balance that the TC needs to achieve in terms of adopting a push style (more directive, where the work is done by the coach) or a pull style (non-directive, where the work is done by the learner). Within that spectrum, the TC may adopt different attitudes that go from instructing, suggesting ideas and tips, to asking questions to support the team find solutions, listening, reflecting and reframing.
International Coaching Federation (ICF, 2019) define a number of core competences to understand the skills and approaches used within the coaching profession, these can be used as a professional bedrock for TCg. These include setting the foundation, co-creating the relationship, communicating effectively and facilitating learning and results.
TA TCg specific sources focus on the teampreneur (Tosey et al., 2015; Fowle & Jussila, 2016) and the TA tools rather than on what the TC does (Partanen, 2012; Heikkinen, 2003; Leinonen et al., 2004; PƶysÓ-Tarhonen et al., 2010). However, the qualities of a TA TC (Partus, 2012) are reflected in the TCās character, which includes elements such as the use of his/her personality, the diversity of the team, keeping oneās word, giving feedback and space, or having social skills.
Through the diverse and divergent literature, although an exact definition of TA TCg cannot be found, what does emerge is that at its heart, the TC supports a learning process that endeavours to improve the collective capability and performance of the team (as a system), focuses on the teamās shared goals, and uses coaching techniques such as interventions, reflection, awareness, motivation for change and trust building. It implies collaborative action, positive organizational behaviour, communication, and cohesion. It also employs common coaching principles, such as contracting, listening, questioning, observing, giving feedback, exploring actions, or motivating.
Research Methodology
This research uses an embedded multiple case study as a research strategy, as it investigates the phenomenon in a real-life context (Yin, 2003; Saunders, 2009) and analyses different practices in different institutions in the UK. The research is cross-sectional in nature, due to the time limitation for this project. Snowballing was used to access participants, which turned into a non-probability purposive sample (Saunders, 2009, p. 233).
The four sites selected were the University of the West of England Bristol (TA programme launched in 2013), Northumbria University in Newcastle (TA programme launched in 2013), Falmouth University in Cornwall (TA programme launched in 2014), and Bishop Grosseteste University in Lincoln (TA programme launched in 2015). These four institutions were the early adopters, therefore the longest practicing locations for this specific type of pedagogy. Three institutions responded and made up the final group to take part in the research.
Data collection was done in accordance with British Educational Research Association (BERA, 2018) and UWE ethical guidelines, and is based on document analysis, face-to-face interviews and observations. Six interviews were conducted of programme leaders (PLs) and/or team coaches (TCs) from different institutions in the UK, and three observations were conducted in TS of different level teampreneurs (years 1, 2, and 3) one year in each institution.
Findings and Discussion
Main Differences between Programmes
In terms of the modular structure of the programmes analysed at this time, two of the institutions have adopted the TA 3-strand structure (venture, team, and individual strands) for modules. Some of the modules have variations in duration or number of credits but they all cover very similar topics and are all tested and adapted in accordance with staff and TE feedback.
Although all institutions adopt similar assessments (ranging from formal academic essays and business reports to live projects undertaken with real businesses), there are several differences in the forms of assessment used. Most notably, at TAH2 all assessment is undertaken by the TC, whereas at TAH3, this work is shared by the TC and respective module leaders. One more noticeable difference is the volume of assignments, which is higher on TAH3 modules compared to TAH2 handbooks. However, this may be influenced by the shared workload with the module leaders and TCs at TAH3 versus the TAH2 coaches undertaking all marking.
In terms of the size and functioning of the team companies, all TEs work in team companies and have regular TS. However, the size of the teams varies tremendously, from a minimum of 3 to 20, the most common range being between 8 and 14 members. The structure (internal leadership adopted) and subject also vary according to the year of the team company and the interests of the members as does the importance of contracting and TS plans. These factors appear to influence the productivity of the teams and also their ability to deal with issues that arise and ability to clarify how to proceed. Both TCs and team companies use a variety of communication channels, official (Blackboard, Pebble Pad, university email) and alternative (Facebook, Slack, WhatsApp).
Other observations can be made, for example, the introduction of furniture becoming part of the circle during TS (replicating todayās common practice in any office environment) and a similar shift towards to more conventional business language terminology.
The use of learning diaries among TCs is common, but some of the hubs rotate TCs and therefore share their coaching diaries:
As coaches we have coaching diaries. We have shared diaries, so effectively we both know a bit more about what is going on. We share the coaching across both teams and thatās actually worked really well.
(TAH1B)
TAH2 and TAH3 had handbooks or sections of the handbooks dedicated to the TA terminology and tools (see the Appendix). In those, TAH2 seems to be using terms closely linked to the Finnish heritage of the programme, i.e. the client presentations are called Birth Givings the names of the first, secondand third-year students, are given as penguins, seals, and polar bears (Lehtonen, 2013). It remains to be seen how the detail variations will affect the separate hubs and the wider UK TA community as this methodology evolves in the future.
A key difference from the roots of TA common to all institutions is a greater focus on the individual goals, rather than the team goals:
One of the most difficult concepts to get my head around, which is something I am still working at and will be for a long, long time, itās the notion of Coaching the Team as a unit.
(TAH2B)
In the original Finnish model, the team goal of producing profits from team company ventures to fund an around-the-world trip was central. However, when looking at the TA hubs in the UK, there may be as many individual goals as there are TEs and the concept of learning journeys is a different one.
Team Coaching Practices
The role of the TC was articulated in their own unique way by each TC interviewed, however common practices emerged. This section seeks to collate the different practices that the TA UK TC adopt and use.
ā¢ Contracting
Some form of agreement regarding how and when the TC worked with their teams existed in all institutions, however not all TCs had an explicit contract or contracting process with their team.
We do not have a contracting process between the coach and the team company but that would be good.
(TAH1B)
ā¢ Active listening and questioning
During the training sessions observations, other essential behaviours of the TC are the use of active listening and questioning, this was the case at all the TA Hubs and was employed constantly.
ā¢ Intervening
Many of the TCs talk about being inside or outside the circle referring to how directive their coaching is/is not, and how that evolved during the years.
While shadowing the senior coaches, they showed me the model of 1st year, you are within the circle, bringing people together and acting like a bit of a parent figure, 2nd year you take a step back, you want to see more autonomy, giving the team the fishing rod as opposed to the fish, enabling them to do it for themselves.
(TAH1B)
What is quite clear from the interviews is that TCs find intervening and being able not to intervene one of the key functions of the...
