Team Coaching: What is going on when I am coaching a team?

AuthorJoanne James, Director of CPD and Collaborative Programmes

Supervisor Dr Jane Turner Associate Dean Business and Engagement

Northumbria UniversityNewcastle Business School, City Campus East

Newcastle Upon TyneNE18ST

joanne.james@northumbria.ac.uk

Stream 8. Scholarly Practitioner

Working paper

Word count: 4408 without references

1

Purpose

The purpose of this research is to further our understanding of team coaching as a distinct form of

team intervention. By asking the question, “what is going on when I am coaching the team?” I hope

to provide conceptual clarity for those who may want to commission or design developmental

interventions with teams. By having clarity about what is going on between coach and team

members we can become more sophisticated about why we might select a specific intervention in a

particular team context.

Approach

I adopt an autoethnographic approach; bringing tacit knowledge into conscious awareness;

exploring how my practice may be explained through underpinning theory and, co-constructing my

understanding with my operational teams and with other professionals engaged in team coaching.

Implications for Practice

There is significant evidence that whilst teams are prevalent in the majority of organisations, they

often significantly underperform (Coutu & Kauffman, 2009) and I have noticed in my work with

internal coaches they increasingly describe being called upon to work with teams at all levels.

However, the team coaching literature is sparse (Peters and Carr, 2013) and there is disagreement

about what constitutes the purpose, philosophy or outcomes of team coaching assignments.

Originality/ Value of this work

It is my intention, through this research; to offer a new framework of team coaching that enables

coaches to develop their practice and HRD professionals to make informed choices about how they

can support organisational teams. It is original in that perspectives from team coaching practice are

integrated with theories from small group research, team effectiveness, and action modalities

(Raelin, 2009) such as action learning and action science.

2

Key words

Team coaching, autoethnography, team effectiveness, coaching practice

Introduction

In this article I outline the research project that aims to contribute to the completion of my

professional doctorate. At the time of writing I have completed 14 months of a three-year process

and seek to share my research objectives and approach with HRD professionals who can provide

useful feedback on the relevance of my work from their own professional contexts. First I describe

the drivers that brought me to my research question and explore the literature on team coaching

highlighting where it resonates with my practice and where it leaves questions still unanswered. I

also draw from wider research perspectives to bring a greater theoretical context.

The investigation of the literature in relation to my own practice derives from my research approach

of autoethnography; writing (graphy) about the self (auto) whilst embedded in a particular culture

(ethno), in my case the culture of team coaching with a view to creating insights of relevance to this

cultural or social phenomenon that has relevance to a wider audience. (Adams, Holman-Jones &

Ellis, 2015).

I explain how I plan to explore the research question and analyse the empirical data to answer the

questions:

1. What is the purpose of team coaching; what outcomes are we seeking?

2. What is going on in a team coaching intervention?

3. Is team coaching distinctive from other team-based interventions?

4. How does the experience of 1:1 coaching inform my team-coaching practice?

Why research team coaching?

I lead Executive Education Programmes at the Newcastle Business School, Northumbria

University, providing a range of interventions to professional managers seeking to develop

themselves, their teams and the overall performance of their organisations. As an academic I bring

3

theory and practice together to help my clients solve real-world problems through their personal and

professional development. Coaching plays a key role. I coach leaders as they take on the

challenges of more strategic senior roles and I lead a coach development programme for those

wanting to integrate coaching in to their own practice in a range of sectors and contexts.

With dyadic coaching I have confidence, skills and underpinning theory to explain my approach.

However, when I am asked to deliver team coaching or provide support to managers who want to

work in a team context I notice a feeling of vulnerability often creeps in. I am intrigued by my

reaction as teams have played a significant role in my 20-year professional career within a large

American multi-national corporation. From my initial role as a team manager through to an OD

role enabling the creation of cross-functional customer teams within a pan European high

performance organisation, I have built a significant library of theory, experience and know-how

about teams.

Reflecting on practice, I became aware that I was bolting together a background in team building or

team facilitation with the philosophies and principles of dyadic coaching. This creates cognitive

dissonance and whilst I get by applying instinct, experience and a range of tools and techniques I

lack a clear process, conceptual clarity and at times, confidence. My motivation for this project is

to develop mastery as a team coach underpinned by a robust theoretical framework that I can

articulate for others and myself.

Team coaching: the research base

When I explore the literature to resolve my curiosities I find that team coaching is not well

understood, research is sparse (Peters and Carr, 2013) and there is ‘conceptual confusion’ (Brown

and Grant, 2010, p. 36) as to how team coaching is distinctive from other team-based interventions,

such as team consultation, team building and team facilitation. Team coaching research is some way

4

behind the general body of 1:1 coaching research and understanding team coaching is reminiscent

of the debate about the differences in coaching, counselling and mentoring prevalent in the early

coaching literature. (Hawkins, 2011)

In the academic literature, “A Theory of Team Coaching” (Hackman & Wageman, 2005) is highly

influential (cited 512 times in Google Scholar, March 2015). It is based on empirical findings

(Gersick, 1998) of natural team performance cycles leading Hackman and Wageman to introduce

the concept of ‘readiness for coaching’ (p275) and recommend that any coaching offered is a fit

with the performance stage: i.e. motivational type coaching aimed at achieving maximum collective

effort towards shared goals at the beginning of the process; consultative type coaching aimed at

providing feedback on action strategies around mid-process and educational type coaching aimed at

extracting learning from experience at the end of a performance cycle.

Whilst I relate to the idea of coaching readiness in relation to what’s going on for the team, the

article failed to connect with my experience of working with real teams with its specific emphasis

on ‘task performance processes” (2005, p.273) and a rejection of coaches who place too great a

focus on interpersonal relationships. I am not convinced by the positivist assumptions of the

research that aims to create laboratory conditions with undergraduate students in an attempt to

prove or disprove the role of relationships. In one experiment cited, (Wooley, 1998) a generalised

discussion about the importance of relationships on team work was tested as an intervention with

teams of students working together for one hour, building a Lego house and compared to a tactical

discussion about the effectiveness of the building approaches. Not surprisingly the students,

seeking a prize for the best house within a one-hour time frame, favoured the task-focussed

discussion.

5

Putting my epistemological preferences aside for one moment, the equally positivist team

effectiveness literature suggests there is significant empirical evidence that interpersonal

relationships are critical to a number of mediating states shown to have an impact on team

performance (Mathieu, Maynard, Rapp and Gilson, 2008). For example, cohesion, (Beal, Cohen,

Burke and McLendon, 2003); cooperation (Lubatkin, Simsek, Ling and Viega, 2006) and learning

(Edmondson, 1999) all have empirical evidence linking them to team performance outcomes.

Cacioppe and Stace (2009) argue for an integrated approach to team development that considers

individual wellbeing, relationships and team culture along with task accomplishment and efficient

team processes. This data supports the idea that a coach may need to explore the inter-relational.

The second area of disconnect in the Hackman &Wageman (2005) paper is the limited use of

coaching literature (Komaki, 1986 and Schein, 1988) that is almost 30 years old, excluding more

contemporary theory. The fundamental assertion is that coaching is aligned primarily to training and

skill acquisition (Hackman and Wageman, 2005 p. 289) and assumes the functions of coaching are

focussed on task-based behaviours such as process consultation, Schein (1988) and behavioural

feedback type approaches (Komaki, 1986). In both cases the coach plays the role of expert, which

contravenes the identity and role of the coach.

Practitioners such as Brown and Grant, (2010); Clutterbuck, (2007, 2014); Hawkins, (2014) and

Thornton, (2010) write about team coaching from the perspective of real world team experience that

resonates with my own. However, this literature typically includes limited empirical evidence or

explicit theoretical underpinning. Practitioners agree that team coaching is about reflective dialogue

and learning with a focus on building long term sustainable development which has resonance with

the products of 1:1 coaching described by Flaherty (2005, p.3). That is; ‘long term excellent

performance’, ‘self correction’ and ‘self generation’. Thornton (2010) emphasizes the coach’s role

in enabling individuals in the team to feel safe and to be able to challenge their thinking to take on

6

new perspectives through collaboration, dialogue, reflection, and constructive disagreement as well

as focus on the goals themselves, and the skills required to carry out key tasks.

This emphasis moves the discussion beyond task to the coach’s role in enabling the team ‘to learn

how to learn’ as O’Neil and Marsick, (2014 p. 206) have identified in coaching action-learning

teams.

Clutterbuck, (2007) and Brown and Grant (2010) respond to the question of whether team coaching

is merely a new name for facilitating. Both argue against this interpretation: Clutterbuck (2007)

claiming that a facilitator merely manages the dialogue whereas a coach ‘empowers the team to

manage the dialogue for themselves’ (2007, p.101). Brown and Grant (2010) emphasize that goal

attainment focus assumed in coaching is more than simply facilitating a process and propose a team

based version of Whitmore’s (2005) familiar GROW model: GROUP which incorporates Goals,

Reality, Ways forward, Understanding others and Perform. This practical approach aims to

combine a goal focussed questioning with a dialogue that considers all team members perspectives.

Developing the theoretical basis of team coaching

To address the limitations of the team coaching literature I have explored the research base relating

to groups and teams. Team effectiveness literature can be traced back to its origins in the

Hawthorne studies of the 1930s and group dynamics and ‘T groups’ explored by Kurt Lewin in the

1950’s (Adelman, 1993; Levi, 2011). Lewin’s action research approaches led to a number of

similar parallel streams of research that Raelin (2009) describes as the ‘action modalities’ including:

action learning (Revans, 2011, Brook, Pedlar & Burgoyne, 2013) action science (Argyris and

Schön, 1989) and cooperative inquiry (Heron, 1996). This material is often presented in the

context of research methods or adult learning and as such would not be the obvious choice of

reading for the practical team coach. However, I was struck by the similarities to my own practice

7

and the literature pertaining to team coaching. The emphasis on enabling active dialogue; making

tacit knowledge explicit, exploring theories in use and challenging participants to become aware of

cultural influences and assumptions has resonance with the dialogical approaches described by team

coaches.

There is a significant body of work describing groups and teams that is both multi-disciplinary and

multi-contextual and results in numerous definitions depending upon the theoretical perspective

(Wheelan, 2005). Whilst not always explicitly stated, these perspectives often inform team research

and it is useful to have an overview of the relevant research streams: the functional (managerialist)

perspective (Cummings and Ancona, 2005) which focuses on the inputs and processes that predict

performance; the developmental perspective (Wheelan, 2005) that emphasises the predictable stages

of team development over time; the social identity perspective (Hogg, 2005) that considers how

personal identity and social identity may influence factors such as group cohesion and group think;

and finally the systems perspective (Agazarian and Gantt, 2005) which characterises teams as open

systems within larger systems whose primary goals are around survival, development and

transformation.

Often the terms group and team are used interchangeably but it is important for the purpose of

clarity to distinguish between them. All teams are groups, but not all groups are teams. A group,

identifies as a social entity that comes together for some purpose and exists as a complex, dynamic

open system that changes over time (Berdahl and Henry, 2006), teams are a specific type of group

that have interdependent tasks and shared responsibility for outcomes. Teams often sit within a

wider organisation (Cohen & Bailey, 1997).

I have drawn upon key reviews of the team literature (Burke et al, 2006; Cohen and Bailey, 1997;

2008 Kozlowski & Ilgen, 2006; Mathieu et al, 2008) to conceptualise my understanding of the

8

dynamic, multi-level nature of teams, by which I mean the ever-changing complexity of three

interrelating systems: the individuals who make up the team, the social entity of the team itself and

the wider organisational context in which the team is placed. (Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006)

Team effectiveness is typically described from the functional perspective as a conceptual

framework that incorporates key factors from an individual and team level that are integral to the

functioning of a team (Cacioppe and Stace, 2008). Figure 1.0 describes my understanding of this

conceptual framework including individual team member characteristics such as personality or

competency and team level characteristics such as team design; team processes; and emergent

mediating states that are typically designated as cognitive, motivational or affective in nature

(Mathieu et al., 2008).

Team performance is generally described as the ‘quantity or quality’ (Mathieu et al., 2008, p412) of

team results, and as such is a measure of team effectiveness. Outcomes include tangible products

and services as required by stakeholders as well as internal measures defined by the team. (Pina,

Martinez and Martinez, 2008; Kozlowski and Ilgen, 2006).

The team is shown embedded in the wider system of the organisation, interacting with external

stakeholders and changing over time reflecting the systems and developmental perspectives

articulated above.

9

Figure 1.0.

The conceptual framework of the team allows me to place the team coaching literature within a

theoretical context. Hawkins, (2011) could be said primarily to take a systems perspective,

(Agazarian and Gantt, 2005) where he highlights the need to focus on external stakeholder

expectations and relationships to ensure clarity over team purpose and goals. Brown and Grant,

(2010) reinforce the significance of the systems perspective by highlighting the lack of systemic

awareness within dyadic coaching and its potentially limited effectiveness as an OD intervention.

Thornton (2010) also subscribes to a systemic awareness when working with groups which she

combines with a focus on the awareness of group dynamics or ‘ the relationship between the

individual in the group and the group as a whole (p.17). By holding the group in a sense of

psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999) the coach enables members to challenge each other, or

exchange new information or perspectives in a process that enables learning. Along with

10

Clutterbuck’s descriptions of enabling team dialogue this coaching activity appears to reside in the

interpersonal activities of team working highlighted in the conceptual model in Figure 1.0 and

appears to contribute to creating the supportive mediating states of trust, safety, cohesion and shared

understanding.

Research Approach

At the commencement of this research project, I agreed to work with two operational teams over the

forthcoming twelve months.

Team one is a university programme team working together to develop new learning strategies for

their students through team coaching. This team meet weekly to discuss programme issues and

resolve operational challenges relating to the learning, teaching, assessment and administration of

the new programme. The team decided to assign four of these meetings to working with me, in

order to focus on their own development as coaches. The team comprised five team members at the

start of the study (four men and one woman), but later reorganised, with two members leaving and

two new members joining so that the team comprised two men and three women.

Team two, is a group of managers in a local authority organisation responsible for providing adult

learning. The managers are interested in using coaching as a developmental approach with their

adult learning tutors. Similar to the university case above, the objective of coming together as a

team was to work on their own development and identify ways to further the understanding and

usage of coaching within their department. After a number of months of discussions with all of the

departmental managers involved, it was agreed that six volunteers would form this developmental

team. The team comprised five women and one man.

As a scholarly practitioner my aim is to find a research approach that could learn from the rich

experiences of working with these client teams. I relate to scholars who argue for an epistemology

of practice Raelin (2007); Sandberg and Tsoukas, 2011; Rennstam and Ashcraft, 2013) where, by

11

bridging the gap between theory and practice we create knowledge in specific contexts that, when

shared, can have relevance for others. This approach embraces social constructionism and

recognises that as practitioners we are ‘entwined with others and things’ (Sandberg and Tsoukas,

2011, p343) and that knowledge is created and understood in this context. Practitioners utilise both

tacit and explicit forms of knowledge and continue to develop and refine their understandings of

knowledge over time through social interaction (Nonaka, 1994).

In this research, I am attempting to unlock my understanding of what goes on and what I do in

practice whilst responding to my clients needs spontaneously, in the moment. Autoethnography

allows me to “externalise my inner dialogue” (Duncan 2004, p. 29) through reflective journaling in

order to reveal what is going on and understand the principles and values that underpin my practice

with a view to surfacing “theories of action “(Schon, 1987, p.25). By “exposing my vulnerabilities,

conflicts, choices and values” (Ellis and Bochner, 2006) I draw the reader into the conversation

inviting them to consider how my experience may resonate with their own. (Ellis and Bochner,

2000, Sparkes 2000).

There is a debate as to whether autoethnography is sufficiently analytical or scholarly (Anderson,

2006; Atkinson, 2006) when we are focussing on a subjective personal case. Others seek to clarify

how we might evaluate self-narratives as effective research (Sparkes, 2000). In response, I will

attempt to create texts, which are evocative (Ellis and Bochner, 2006); utilising the conventions of

good practice in story telling such as character, plot and dramatic tension (Ellis, 2000); and creating

texts that are real, credible, believable and informative in order to move the reader to action

(Richardson, 2000). I am inspired by Muncey, (2008, 2010) who utilises a variety of artefacts,

metaphor, diary entries and poetry interwoven with reference to multiple theoretical perspectives

and her own reflexive narrative to create a compelling text.

12

As with all qualitative research, reflexivity is vital (Cunliffe, 2003) in order that I am aware of my

own insights or feelings and socially aware of the relational, inter-subjective dynamics between

others and myself. I am aware that issues of gender, race, class and hierarchy may create power

imbalances and professional ideologies may blind or constrain me. (Alvesson and Skoldberg, 2000;

Finlay, 2002; Holland, 1999)

In line with the reflexive approach Denzin (2014) challenges us to construct our text in ways that

we, as the author, do not present an all-knowing narrative of experience but rather, that we allow

uncertainties and multiple voices to be heard. This approach fits with my desire to explore the

messiness and realities of practice and is liberating and valid within a postmodernist tradition.

As an autoethnographer I am interested in seeking responses from others and am inspired by Co-

operative inquiry approaches elucidated by Heron, (1996) and Reason (1999), which provide a

mechanism to bring third person perspectives in to my research design (Reason and Bradbury,

2008) by involving like minded peers to explore their own practice in order to co-construct ideas

about what it means to coach a team. By involving my peer group I seek to ensure my work has

credibility through the resonance and relevance to others, in particular practicing coaches.

(Greenwood and Levin, 2000). Cooperative Inquiry sits within the “family of practices” called

action research (Reason and Bradbury (2008, p1) with common characteristics concerning practical

knowledge, action and participation. This dovetails well with the autoethnography which as been

described as first person action research. (Ellis and Bochner, 2000).

Research design and data collection methods

As described above, at the commencement of the research process I agreed to work with two

operational teams and contracted with them that during the coaching they would provide some

13

forms of data that enabled me to investigate our experiences. I audio recorded each session, kept

field notes and reflections of my experiences and observations of what was going on in the team

coaching sessions and requested reflective feedback from the team members after each session by

sending them a follow up e mail asking questions such as, “What was significant for you in todays

session?” The activities with the operational teams are summarised in Table 1.0 below.

To create the cooperative inquiry group I invited 34 coaches, who regularly attend a regional

coaching network, to join me in the research process. I stipulated I was seeking participants who

described themselves professionally as coaches; had experience of working developmentally with

teams and were interested in developing a greater understanding of their own team based coaching

practice. I received 17 positive responses to the invitation and as a result created two groups with a

smaller membership of eight and nine respectively in order to create trusting, collaborative

environments.

With each cooperative inquiry group I work with participants to identify areas of curiosity relating

to team coaching, we reflect on practice, identify actions to take within our own teams and identify

reading and reflection we might do outside the group to further develop our understanding. We

then return to the group to share reflections, insights and further areas of inquiry. I share my

research project approach, my tentative interpretations and findings encouraging the group to

feedback and challenge me on my thinking, my approach or the focus of my work. The activities

and data collection approaches with all four sets of participants are summarised in Table 1.0

Table 1.0 The research involves the following design of action, data collection and reflection.

Research approach Participants Activities Data collection

Auto ethnography

during team coaching

practice. Reflecting on

Operational team 1 8 meetings over 12

months

Jan 2014 – Dec 2014

Audio recording of

meetings, participant

reflective diaries.

14

practice, observing self

and others

Field notes and

personal reflective log.

Auto ethnography

during team coaching

practice. Reflecting on

practice, observing self

and others

Operational team 2 4 meetings over 6

months

Feb 2014 – July

2014

Audio recording of

meetings, participant

reflective diaries.

Field notes and

personal reflective log.

Cooperative inquiry

Exploring questions of

common concern.

Sharing our learning.

Engaging in reflective

dialogue.

Peer Coaches

Group A

4 meetings over 6

months

July 2014 – Jan 2015

Audio recordings of

meetings. Papers,

correspondence

generated by the

participants. My own

field notes and personal

reflective log

Cooperative Inquiry

Exploring questions of

common concern.

Sharing our learning.

Engaging in reflective

dialogue.

Peer Coaches

Group B

4 meetings over 9

months

July 2014 – March

2015

Audio recordings of

meetings. Papers,

correspondence

generated by the

participants. My own

field notes and personal

reflective log

Looking ahead to analysis and interpretation

In the next stage of my project I shall be taking my focus to the analysis of the 12 months of data

collected in the field. By listening back to the team coaching sessions I intend to transcribe the

voices and note down reflections as I go. By revisiting the sessions moment by moment I can

15

interpret what might be happening by asking questions such as what was I feeling or thinking?

Where was my attention? What was going on there? What assumptions was I making? (Denzin,

2014)

This process is inspired by Whybrow (2013), who interpreted the content of his reflective journal

whilst occupied as a mental health nurse in a combat zone. The emphasis on doing, feeling and

experiencing emphasises both the emotional recall (Muncey, 2010) and the embodied nature of the

experience (Sparkes 2000). I expect this process to raise as many questions as it answers in a

‘deconstructive’ process (Denzin, 2014, p.38) where, as the author, I am not attempting to create an

all-knowing presence in the text but to demonstrate how there may be multiple voices. For example

as I deliberate about what to do I may share my spoken voice, my uncertain voice, what I could do,

what others might do. This enables me to bring the peer coach voices into the text and to engage

the reader in the co-construction of what it means to be a team coach.

From my reflective and interpretive process I aim to pull out themes that will inform the creation of

a team-coaching framework that will allow me to respond to the question of what is going on when

I am coaching a team.

Summary

In this article I have outlined my approach to my doctoral research project and the personal drivers

that led me to the topic of team coaching. I have explored the insights and limitations of the team

coaching literature and further informed the theoretical context by drawing from wider research

sources, namely team effectiveness, small group research and action learning/ action research

approaches. I have explained and justified my choice of autoethnography as my primary research

method integrated with cooperative inquiry and outlined my practical research journey with four

participant groups. Finally I have indicated where I go from here in beginning to shape the process

of data analysis and interpretation. As a live project this working paper is intended to generate

16

discussion and feedback from HRD professionals who have an interest in designing and

commissioning effective team based interventions. I value your input in line with my desire to

create research that has credibility and relevance for others.

17

References

Adams, T. E., Jones, S. H., & Ellis, C. (2014). Autoethnography. Oxford University Press.

Adelman, C. (1993) Kurt Lewin and the Origins of Action Research. Educational Action Research,

1, (1) 7-24

Agazaian, Y. and Gantt, S. (2005) The Systems Perspective. In Wheelan, S. (2005). Ed. The

Handbook of Group Research and Practice, 187-200.

Alvesson, M., & Sköldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research.

Sage.

Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of contemporary ethnography, 35(4), 373-

395.

Argyris, C and Schon, D. (1974) Theory in Practice: Increasing Professional Effectiveness. San

Francisco: Jossey Bass

Atkinson, P. (2006). Rescuing autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 400-404.

Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in

groups: a meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of applied psychology, 88(6),

989.

Berdahl, J. L., & Henry, K. B. (2005). Contemporary issues in group research. The handbook of

group research and practice, 19-37.

Brook, C., Pedler, M., & Burgoyne, J. (2013). A protean practice? Perspectives on the practice of

action learning. European Journal of Training and Development, 37(8), 728-743.

Brown, S. W., & Grant, A. M. (2010). From GROW to GROUP: theoretical issues and a practical

model for group coaching in organisations. Coaching: An International Journal of Theory,

Research and Practice, 3(1), 30-45.

18

Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, S. M. (2006). What type

of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(3),

288-307.

Cacioppe, R., & Stace, R. (2009). Integral team effectiveness: validity analysis of a theory-based

team measure. Team Performance Management, 15(5/6), 220-234.

Clutterbuck, D. (2007). Coaching the team at work. Nicholas Brealey International.

Clutterbuck, D. ( 2014). Team Coaching in Cox, E., Bachkirova, T., & Clutterbuck, D. A. (Eds.).

(2014). The complete handbook of coaching. Sage.

Cohen, S.G. & Bailey. D.E.(1997). What makes Teams Work: Group Effectiveness Research from

the Shop Floor to the Executive Suite. Journal of Management, 23 (3) 239-290

Cox, E. (2013). Coaching Understood: A Pragmatic Inquiry into the Coaching Process.

London:Sage

Coutu, D., & Kauffman, C. (2009). What can coaches do for you? Harvard Business Review, 87(1),

91-97.

Cummings, J. N., & Ancona, D. G. (2005). The functional perspective. In Wheelan, S. (2005) Ed.

The Handbook of Group Research and Practice, 107-118.

Cunliffe, A. L. (2003). Reflexive Inquiry in Organisational research: Questions and Possibilities.

Human Relations, 56, (8) 983-1003

Duncan, M, (2004) Autoethnography: Critical appreciation of an emerging art. International

Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(1), 28-39.

Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative

science quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.

Ellis, C. S. and Bochner, A. (2000). Autoethnography, personal narrative, reflexivity: Researcher

as subject. In Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. Eds, (2000) 2nd edn. Handbook of Qualitative

Research. London: Sage

19

Ellis,C.S. and Bochner, A.(2006) Analyzing Analytic Auto-ethnography: An Autopsy. Journal of

Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4) 429-449

Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., & Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: an overview. Historical Social

Research/Historische Sozialforschung, 273-290.

Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: the opportunity and challenge of reflexivity in research

practice. Qualitative research, 2(2), 209-230.

Flaherty, J. (2005). Coaching; Evoking Excellence in Others. UK: Elsevier Butterworth Heinemann

Gersick, C. J. (1988). Time and transition in work teams: Toward a new model of group

development. Academy of Management journal, 31(1), 9-41.

Greenwood, D. J., & Levin, M. (2000). Reconstructing the relationships between universities and

society through action research. Handbook of qualitative research, 2, 85-106.

Hackman, J., and Wageman, R. (2005). A Theory Of Team Coaching. Academy Of Management

Review, 30(2), 269-287.

Hawkins, P. (2011). Leadership Team Coaching: developing collective transformational

leadership. London: Kogan Page

Hamlin, R. G., Ellinger, A. D., & Beattie, R. S. (2009). Toward a profession of coaching? A

definitional examination of ‘coaching,’‘organization development,’and ‘human resource

development’. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring, 7(1), 13-38.

Heron, J. (1996). Co-operative Inquiry: research into the Human Condition. London:Sage

Holland, R. (1999). Reflexivity. Human relations, 52(4), 463-484.

Hogg, M. A. ( 2005). The Social identity perspective. In In Wheelan, S. (2005) Ed. The Handbook

of Group Research and Practice, 133-157.

20

Johnson, P., & Duberley, J. (2003). Reflexivity in Management Research. Journal of management

studies, 40(5), 1279-1303.

Komaki, J. L. (1986). Toward effective supervision: An operant analysis and comparison of

managers at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 270.

Kozlowski, S.W.J. and Ilgen, D.R. (2006). Enhancing the Effectiveness of Work Groups and

Teams. Psychological Science in the Public Interest. 7(3) 77-124

Levi, D. (2011). Group dynamics for teams 3rd edn.

Linstead, S. (1994). Objectivity, reflexivity, and fiction: Humanity, inhumanity, and the science of

the social. Human Relations, 47(11), 1321-1346.

Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in

small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration.

Journal of management, 32(5), 646-672.

Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and

taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356-376.

Mathieu, J., Maynard, M.T., Rapp,T. and Gilson, L. (2008). Team Effectiveness 1997-2007: A

Review of Recent Advancements and a Glimpse into the Future. Journal of Management, 34 (3)

410-476.

Muncey, T. (2010). Creating autoethnographies. London: Sage Publications.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization science,

5(1), 14-37.

O’Neil, J., & Marsick, V. J. (2014). Action Learning Coaching. Advances in Developing Human

Resources, 16(2), 202-221.

Pedler, M., Burgoyne, J., & Brook, C. (2005). What has action learning learned to become?. Action

Learning, 2(1), 49-68.

Pedler, M., & Burgoyne, J. G. (2008). Action learning.

21

Peters, J. & Carr, C. (2013). Team Effectiveness and team coaching literature review. Coaching: An

International Journal of Theory, Research and Practice. 6 (2) 116-136

Piña, M. I. D., Martínez, A. M. R., & Martínez, L. G. (2008). Teams in organizations: a review on

team effectiveness. Team Performance Management, 14(1/2), 7-21.

Raelin, J. A. (2007). Toward an epistemology of practice. Academy of Management Learning &

Education, 6(4), 495-519.

Raelin, J. (2009). Seeking conceptual clarity in the action modalities. Action Learning: Research

and Practice, 6(1), 17-24.

Rennstam, J., & Ashcraft, K. L. (2013). Knowing work: Cultivating a practice-based epistemology

of knowledge in organization studies. Human Relations, 0018726713484182.

Reason, P. (1999). Integrating action and reflection through co-operative inquiry. Management

Learning, 30(2), 207-225.

Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2008) Introduction In Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (Eds.) The SAGE

Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. (2nd Edn) London: Sage

Revans, R.W. (2011). ABC of Action Learning. Farnham: Gower

Richardson, L. (2000). Evaluating Ethnography. Qualitative Inquiry, (6) 253-255

Sandberg, J., & Tsoukas, H. (2011). Grasping the logic of practice: Theorizing through practical

rationality. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 338-360.

Schein, E. H. (1998). Process consultation, vol.1 Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Schon, D.A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner: CA :John Wiley and Sons,

Spry, T. (2011). Performative autoethnography: Critical embodiments and possibilities. In Denzin,

N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. Eds, (2011) 4th edn. Handbook of Qualitative Research. London: Sage

Sparkes, A. (2000). Autoethnography and narratives of self: Reflections on criteria in action.

Sociology of Sport Journal, 17, 21-43.

22

Thornton, C. (2010). Group and team coaching. Taylor & Francis.

Tuckman, B. W., & Jensen, M. A. C. (1977). Stages of small-group development revisited. Group

& Organization Management, 2(4), 419-427.

Wheelan, S. A. (1994). Group processes: A developmental perspective. Allyn & Bacon.

Wheelan, S. (2005). The Developmental Perspective in Wheelan, S. Ed. (2005). The Handbook of

Group Research and Practice, 119-132.

Whitmore, J. (2005). Coaching for performance: GROWing people, performance and purpose.

London: Nicholas Brearley

Whybrow, D. (2013). Psychiatric nursing liaison in a combat zone: an autoethnography. Journal of

psychiatric and mental health nursing, 20(10), 896-901.

Woodman, R. W., & Sherwood, J. J. (1980). The role of team development in organizational

effectiveness: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 88(1), 166.

Woolley, A. W. (1998). Effects of intervention content and timing on group task performance. The

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34(1), 30-46.

23