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
4

way 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 and the literature pertaining to team coaching. The emphasis on enabling active dialogue; making
7

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 dynamic, multi-level nature of teams, by which I mean the ever-changing complexity of three
8

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 Cooperative 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 forms of data that enabled me to investigate our experiences. I audio recorded each session, kept
13

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
Auto ethnography Operational team 1
Activities
8 meetings over 12 during team coaching practice. Reflecting on
Data collection
Audio recording of months meetings, participant
Jan 2014 – Dec 2014 reflective diaries.
14

practice, observing self and others
Auto ethnography Operational team 2 4 meetings over 6 during team coaching practice. Reflecting on practice, observing self and others
Cooperative inquiry Peer Coaches
Exploring questions of Group A common concern.
Sharing our learning.
Engaging in reflective dialogue. months
Feb 2014 – July
2014
4 meetings over 6 months
Field notes and personal reflective log.
Audio recording of meetings, participant reflective diaries.
Field notes and personal reflective log.
Audio recordings of meetings. Papers,
July 2014 – Jan 2015 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) 2 nd
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.
(2 nd
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